Interim Resolution CM/ ResDH (2020)198

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Velikova group against Bulgaria

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 1 October 2020

at the 1383 rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

41488/98

VELIKOVA

18/05/2000

04/10/2000

38361/97

ANGUELOVA

13/06/2002

13/09/2002

77938/11

DIMITROV AND OTHERS

01/07/2014

17/11/2014

43233/98

OSMAN

16/02/2006

16/05/2006

36613/08

MIHAYLOVA AND MALINOVA

24/02/2015

24/05/2015

67258/13

MYUMYUN

03/11/2015

03/02/2016

38152/11

STOYKOV

06/10/2015

01/02/2016

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established concerning deaths, ill-treatment including torture or lack of timely medical assistance during arrest, in police detention or in penitentiary facilities and the lack of an effective investigation into these events between 1993 and 2014 (violations of Articles 2 and 3);

Recalling the continuing obligation under Articles 2 and/or 3 to ex officio carry out an effective investigation which, in practice, requires the authorities speedily and ex officio to re-examine the case files to avoid further action becoming time barred and, where the investigation remains feasible, to reopen or resume it;

Recalling that the authorities have carried out important reforms in response to the violations established by the Court, such as the modification of the legal framework governing the use of force, the introduction of anonymous identification of officers participating in special police operations, the introduction of a procedure for recording and reporting injuries in penitentiary facilities and the removal of the provisions allowing the closure of investigations for reasons related to their length alone;

Recalling nevertheless that the European Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) adopted a public declaration in March 2015 and noted in the 2017 visit report that persons detained by the police still run a considerable risk of ill-treatment; noting moreover that the more recent expert reports and statistics do not indicate a clear improvement in this domain;

Recalling with satisfaction that the CPT has found in its 2017 visit report that ill-treatment by penitentiary staff was very rare; noting in this context that the authorities’ assessment is needed whether the increase of the number of files examined by prosecutors concerning penitentiary facilities could be explained by the automatic reporting of recorded injuries to a prosecutor by penitentiary facilities;

Noting however that the implementation of certain safeguards against ill-treatment in police and penitentiary facilities still does not appear sufficiently efficient in practice and noting, as concerns police detention, that there is no automatic notification to a prosecutor of medical findings of ill-treatment or complaints received by the Ministry of Interior;

Noting that the authorities’ efforts to improve the zero tolerance policy in respect of ill-treatment appear to be partly frustrated by inadequate data-gathering on ill-treatment and limited external monitoring by the Ombudsman or expert NGOs and noting that the above shortcomings are also an obstacle to thorough assessment by the Committee of the progress achieved;

Noting that there has been no progress with introducing the crime of torture in criminal law, that it is uncertain whether legislative or constitutional reform is needed to introduce judicial review of prosecutors’ refusals to open an investigation and that works to ensure the independence, in all situations, of investigations and preliminary inquiries are still at a preliminary stage;

Underlining the obligation of every State, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the final judgments of the European Court in any case to which they are a party, fully, effectively and promptly;

EXPRESSED deep regret that in the Anguelova case the authorities failed to thoroughly investigate the suspicious behaviour of the police officers highlighted in the judgment before the prescription of the facts; INVITED the authorities to carry out a criminal investigation (and not a simple inquiry) into the act of torture found in the Stoykov case, as well as to provide information on the outcome of the proceedings in the Dimitrov and Others case;

INVITED moreover the authorities to indicate whether it is possible to carry out an ex officio assessment of the possibility to reopen criminal investigations in the Mihaylova and Malinova case and whether further disciplinary penalties or measures are possible in respect of the police officers involved in the applicant’s torture in the Myumyun case and to introduce the possibility for reopening of proceedings under the Administrative Offences and Sanctions Act following a judgment of the European Court;

INVITED the authorities to strengthen the free legal assistance and to ensure that a lawyer is available in good time to assist every person in police detention who requests it, including during interrogation s , and to introduce systematic video recording of the interrogations of suspects;

INVITED them to improve the promptness, quality and confidentiality of medical examinations and recording of injuries in police detention and penitentiary facilities and to introduce an automatic notification to the Prosecutor’s Office of complaints of ill-treatment received by the police and ENCOURAGED them again to consider introducing an automatic notification to the Prosecutor’s Office of medical findings of ill-treatment of a person detained by the police;

URGED the authorities to establish a national system for compiling statistics on complaints, prosecutions and disciplinary and criminal penalties related to ill-treatment, as recommended by the CPT, to provide precise information on the disciplinary and criminal sanctions imposed in relation to ill ‑ treatment and to support a more intensive monitoring by the Ombudsman or by expert NGOs and to provide a thorough analysis of the measures adopted to date, results and remaining challenges in the combat of ill-treatment in police and penitentiary facilities;

URGED the authorities to introduce, if necessary through a flexible interpretation of the Constitution or constitutional reform, judicial review of refusals to open investigations, together with arrangements to avoid an excessive additional workload for courts and prosecutors, and to provide an assessment of the possible scope and modalities of these procedures;

URGED them to amend without further delay criminal law in order it to provide expressly for the offense of torture accompanied with adequate, dissuasive penalties and ENCOURAGED them to consider the need to criminalise the extortion of a confession from a person who is not formally charged with a criminal offence, but is nevertheless suspected ;

URGED them again to entrust the preliminary inquiries and investigations of allegations of ill-treatment to prosecutors and investigating magistrates who do not have working relationships with the law enforcement agents whose actions have been challenged;

ENCOURAGED them to amend the law so that it provides for the suspension of police officers officially accused in criminal proceedings of ill-treatment, together with safeguards against abusive suspension;

DECIDED to resume consideration of this group of cases at its DH meeting in December 2021 at the latest.