Search
document

Document text Analytics

RIBITSCH v. AUSTRIADISSENTING OPINION OF MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, A. WEITZEL, F. ERMACORA,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: July 4, 1994

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

RIBITSCH v. AUSTRIADISSENTING OPINION OF MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, A. WEITZEL, F. ERMACORA,

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: July 4, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, A. WEITZEL, F. ERMACORA,

J.-C. GEUS, M.A. NOWICKI AND B. CONFORTI

We find ourselves unable to agree with the opinion of the

majority of the Commission that there has been a violation of Article 3

of the Convention.

The accusations raised by the applicant were investigated in the

course of criminal proceedings against three police officers. At first

instance, one of the police officers concerned was convicted of bodily

assault on the basis of the account of events given by the applicant,

whereas the defence of an accidental cause of the injuries was regarded

as unlikely. There was no proof of guilt as regards the two other

accused police officers. At second instance, Police Officer M. was

also acquitted. The Vienna Regional Court carefully evaluated the

evidence before it, examining in detail the submissions of the

applicant and the other witnesses. Moreover, we attach particular

importance to the fact that the Regional Court took recourse to a

forensic expert opinion with regard to the explanation offered by the

accused Police Officer M., namely the accidental cause of the injuries

concerned, as well as the further symptoms of illness recounted by the

applicant. The findings of the Regional Court that the allegations of

ill-treatment could not be proven appear reasonable in the

circumstances.

We therefore consider that there was a reasonable doubt as to the

applicant's allegations of ill-treatment causing bodily injuries in the

course of his detention at the Vienna Federal Police Department, and

find consequently no violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

_________________________________________________________________

5 August 1991 Introduction of application

3 October 1991 Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

30 March 1992 Commission's decision to communicate the

case to the respondent Government and to

invite the parties to submit observations

on admissibility and merits

15 July 1992 Government's observations

10 December 1993 Commission's grant of legal aid

8 October 1992 Applicant's observations in reply

4 May 1993 Commission's decision to hold a hearing

20 October 1993 Hearing on admissibility and merits

20 October 1993 Commission's decision to declare

application in part admissible and in part

inadmissible

Examination of the merits

5 March 1994 Commission's consideration of the state of

proceedings

27 June 1994 Commission's deliberations on the merits

and final vote

4 July 1994 Adoption of the Report

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant