III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL FINDINGS AND OPINIONS

A. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Report on Serbia , CRI (2008) 25 , adopted on 14 December 2007 and made public on 29 April 2008

73 . The relevant paragraphs of this report read as follows:

“45. ECRI is concerned to note that ... there is a climate of hostility against religious minorities [in Serbia ]. This climate is partly created by certain media outlets and politicians. Members of these groups are also attacked, sometimes by members of neo-Nazi or far-right groups, and their places of worship are vandalised and/or deliberately set on fire. Despite a decrease in the number of these attacks over the past few years, NGOs, some of which have counted between 100 and 150 attacks per year, note that they have become more violent. Religious communities appear reluctant to report these attacks or talk about them publicly. This might be because the police and the judicial apparatus do not always respond appropriately to this problem. Religious communities deplore the fact that few persons are brought to justice for perpetrating these acts and that those found guilty are often only sentenced to a fine.

...

52. There is currently a certain climate of hostility in Serbia against ... religious groups[,] which is fuelled by a number of media outlets and politicians. Far-right groups also help to generate negative feelings towards these communities ... NGOs condemn a certain tendency on the authorities ' part to downplay this climate of intolerance against ... religious minorities and the fact that they have taken few steps to remedy it.”

B. Views expressed by Forum 18

74 . Forum 18 is a Christian , Norwegian-Danish, charitable web and e-mail initiative . It provid es “ original reporting and analysis on violations of the freedom of thought, conscience and belief of all people, whatever their religious affiliation, in an objective, truthful and timely manner”.

1. Serbia : Violence continues against religious communities (article published on 9 October 2007)

“... The number of attacks on Serbia ' s religious communities appears to continue to be declining ... However, the attacks themselves seem to be becoming more violent and, as in previous years, members of religious minorities are especially likely to be attacked. The police continue to be apparently unwilling to protect members of religious minorities or religious sites at risk of attack – even if they have already been attacked. Members of religious minorities have in the past year been beaten and stabbed, and places of worship have been the targets of arson attacks. Places of worship of the Orthodox Church have occasionally been robbed, but the vast majority of attacks have been on ... religious minority individuals and property ...”

2. Serbia : Why won ' t the authorities stop religious violence? (article published on 7 February 2008)

“ Despite continuing attacks on religious communities over a number of years, Forum 18 News Service has found that Serbian authorities appear to be taking few steps to protect their citizens. An extreme illustration of the unwillingness of the authorities to provide justice to religious minority victims is the case of Života Milanović , the only Hare Krishna devotee in Jagodina ...”

3. Serbia : Religious freedom survey, February 2009 (survey published on 26 February 2009)

“...The most serious problem affecting religion or belief in Serbia has been violent attacks, along with the problem of the authorities having shown a lack of willingness to catch and convict the attackers. However, annual surveys by Forum 18 News Service have shown that the numbers of attacks are declining, with fewer attacks in 2007 and 2008 compared to previous years. Serbia ' s desire to join the European Union, along with politicians placing greater weight on Serbia becoming a more open country, appears to be influencing popular attitudes, and hence the possibility of attacks. Many of the attacks and threats against ' non-traditional ' religious communities appear to be by extreme nationalists who think that the communities are in some sense traitors to the nation ... There is a lack of consistency in whether attackers are arrested and court proceedings brought against them. The 2006 Serbian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and bars the fomenting of religious intolerance and hatred. However, members of religious minorities have told Forum 18 that these ideals have yet to become reality in their daily experience.”

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

75 . Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the respondent State ' s failure to prevent the repeated attacks against him, as well as its unwillingness to conduct a proper investigation into these incidents. Article 3 reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

A. Admissibility

76 . The Government maintained that the application could be deemed incompatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione temporis in so far as it concerned events which had taken place prior to the Serbian ratification of the Convention on 3 March 2004. However, they then went on to acknowledge that the events of 2001 might indeed provide for an important context concerning the attacks which had occurred thereafter.

77 . The applicant argued that his complaints were compatible with the provisions of the Convention ratione temporis .

78 . The Court observes that, in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law, a Contracting Party is only bound by the Convention in respect of events occurring after its entry into force. It further notes that Serbia ratified the Convention on 3 March 2004 and that some of the events referred to in the application in the present case had indeed taken place be fore that date. The Court therefore has jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the applicant ' s complaints only in so far as they concern events as of 3 March 2004. It shall nevertheless, for reasons of context and whilst examining the situation complained of as a whole (see, mutatis mutandis, Šobota-Gajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 27966/06, § 45 , 6 November 2007 ) , also take into account any and all relevant events prior to that date ( see, mutatis mutandis , Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia , no. 36500/05 , § 110 , 13 October 2009 ) . Consequently, the Government ' s objection must be dismissed.

79 . The Court notes that the applicant ' s complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties ' submissions

80 . The applicant re-affirmed his complaints. He added that many years after the attacks the perpetrators have yet to be identified, whilst the police themselves would still appear to entertain the idea that his injuries may have been self-inflicted. There was also very poor co-ordination between the public prosecutor and the police, and the applicant was not kept informed of the course of the investigation. Further, the police mostly spent their time looking for and re-interviewing the applicant despite having already questioned him earlier and, in a similarly pointless exercise, canvassed the applicant ' s neighbours, as well as the taxi driver, even though these persons clearly had no useful information to offer. Lastly, the applicant pointed out that the competent domestic authorities had taken no substantive steps since January 2009.

81 . The Government contested the applicant ' s allegations. They maintained at the outset that the abuse to which the applicant had been exposed had not attained the minimum level of severity required for the application of Article 3. In any event, Serbian prosecuting and law-enforcement authorities had done everything in their power to fully investigate the attacks and identify the perpetrators. Numerous potential witnesses had been heard, expert medical assistance had been obtained, all available leads had been explored, and one police officer had even been disciplined. The applicant ' s own position, however, seemed ambivalent and his demeanour less than co-operative. In particular, he had been difficult to contact and had not reported the attacks in a timely manner. The applicant had also failed to request that his telephone line be monitored following the threats received in 2001, which could have been useful for identification purposes and led to a conviction. Further, the applicant ' s descriptions of his attackers had been vague, there had been no eyewitnesses, and the applicant had never remained in Jagodina after the attacks, thus precluding a timely on-site investigation in his presence. Finally, the Government submitted that no material traces of the attacks, apart from the injuries sustained by the applicant, had ever been found and provided the Court with several final domestic judgments, in unrelated incidents, arguing that the Serbian judiciary had been perfectly willing to convict individuals of hate crimes whenever the available evidence had so warranted.

2. Relevant principles

82 . The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention must be regarded as one of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention and as enshrining core values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 49, ECHR 2002-III). In contrast to the other provisions in the Convention, it is cast in absolute terms, without exception or proviso, or the possibility of derogation under Article 15 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Chahal v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V).

83 . In general, actions incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention primarily incur the liability of a Contracting State if they were inflicted by persons holding an official position. However, the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, also requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment administered by other private persons (see A. v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 23 September 1998, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V; E. and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002 ).

84 . Bearing in mind the difficulties in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources, the scope of this positive obligation must, however, be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. Not every claimed risk of ill-treatment, thus, can entail for the authorities a Convention requirement to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising. For a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk of ill-treatment of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk. Another relevant consideration is the need to ensure that the police exercise their powers to control and prevent crime in a manner which fully respects the due process and other guarantees which legitimately place restraints on the scope of their action to investigate crime and bring offenders to justice, including the guarantees contained in Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention (see Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium , no. 13178/03, § 53, 12 October 2006; and Members (97) of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah ' s Witnesses v. Georgia , no. 71156/01, § 96, ECHR 2007 ‑ V; see also, mutatis mutandis , Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII).

85 . The Court further recalls that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Convention, requires by implication that there should also be an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria , 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII ). A positive obligation of this sort cannot, in principle, be considered to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003-XII; Å ečić v. Croatia , no. 40116/02, § 53, ECHR 2007 ‑ VI ).

86 . Lastly, the scope of the above obligation is one of means, not of result; the authorities must have taken all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident (see, mutatis mutandis , Menson v. the United Kingdom ( dec .), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V). A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition of the investigation is implicit in this context (see, mutatis mutandis , Yaşa v. Turkey , judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2439, §§ 102-104) since a prompt response by the authorities may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Batı and Others v. Turkey , nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey , no. 32446/96, § 60, 2 November 2004; and, mutatis mutandis , Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II).

3. The Court ' s assessment

87 . Turning to the present case, the Court considers that the injuries suffered by the applicant, consisting mostly of numerous cuts, combined with his feelings of fear and helplessness, were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Price v. the United Kingdom , no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII).

88 . The Court further notes that to date, many years after the attacks, the last one having occurred in 2007, the perpetrators thereof have yet to be identified and brought to justice. In this context, the applicant would appear not to have been properly kept abreast of the course of the investigation or afforded an opportunity to personally see and possibly identify his attackers from among a number of witnesses and/or suspects questioned by the police (see, for example, paragraphs 60 and 61 above). At the same time, the police considered that the applicant ' s injuries may have been self-inflicted (see paragraph 64 above), even though there was no medical or other meaningful evidence, indeed anything but pure conjecture, to that effect. The co-operation between the police and the public prosecution service also left a lot to be desired (see paragraphs 55 and 56 above), and the entire investigation seems to have been focused on Jagodina despite the fact that the suspected far-right organisations were known for operating throughout the country (see paragraphs 24 and 63 above). Indeed, according to the information contained in the case file, the applicant ' s statement indicating that one of his attackers may have been a member of an organisation called Srpski narodni pokret 1389 (see paragraph 57 above) does not seem to have been followed up at all.

89 . Finally, as of July 2005, at the latest, it should have been obvious to the police that the applicant, who was a member of a vulnerable religious minority (see , mutatis mutandis , Okkali v. Turkey , no. 52067/99, § 70 , ECHR 2006 ‑ XII (extracts) ), was being systematically targeted and that future attacks were very likely to follow, particularly in June or July of each year in advance of or shortly after a major religious holiday (see paragraph 64 above). Yet, nothing was done to prevent such attacks on another two occasions. No video or other surveillance was ever put in place in the vicinity of the flat where the incidents had occurred, no police stakeout seems to have even been contemplated, and the applicant was never offered protection by a special security detail which might have deterred his future assailants.

90 . In view of the foregoing and while the respondent State ' s authorities took many steps and encountered significant objective difficulties, including the applicant ' s somewhat vague descriptions of the attackers as well as the apparent lack of eyewitnesses, the Court considers that they did not take all reasonable measures to conduct an adequate investigation. They have also failed to take any reasonable and effective steps in order to prevent the applicant ' s repeated ill-treatment , notwithstanding the fact that the continuing risk thereof was real, immediate and predictable.

91 . In such circumstances, the Court cannot but find that there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

II . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

92 . Under Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3, the applicant further complained that the respondent State ' s failure to properly investigate th e attacks against him was due to his religious affiliation . Article 14 reads as follows:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

A. Admissibility

93 . The Court notes that this complaint is linked to th at examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties ' submissions

94 . The applicant re-affirmed his complaint, adding that it was clear that the police had considered him “strange”, uncooperative and even anti-social merely because of his religion. Apart from the questioning of a group of skinheads in 2001, the respondent State ' s authorities seemed more interested in discussing the “suspicious” nature of the Hare Krishna community rather than in uncovering the religious aspect of the attacks in question.

95 . The Government maintained that the applicant had offered no evidence to the effect that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention. The official investigation into the attacks against the applicant had been impartial and all allegations of religious motivation behind these incidents had been thoroughly checked by the competent domestic authorities. Further, no attacks against any other member of the Hare Krishna community in Jagodina had ever been reported, and any police interest in this community would have been perfectly reasonable given the alleged motivation of the applicant ' s assailants.

2. The Court ' s assessment

96 . The Court considers that, just like in respect of racially motivated attacks, when investigating violent incidents State authorities have the additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any religious motive and to establish whether or not religious hatred or prejudice may have played a role in the events. Admittedly, proving such motivation may be difficult in practice. The respondent State ' s obligation to investigate possible religious overtones to a violent act is thus an obligation to use best endeavours and is not absolute; the authorities must do what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis , Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160 , ECHR 2005 ‑ VII ; and Members (97) of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah ' s Witnesses v. Georgia , cited above, §§ 138-142).

97 . The Court considers that the foregoing is also necessarily true in cases where the treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention is inflicted by private individ uals. Treating religiously motivat ed violence and brutality on an equal footing with cases that have no such overtones would be turning a blind eye to the specific nature of acts that are particularly destructive of fundamental rights. A failure to make a distinction in the way in which situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (ibid. ; see also, mutatis mutandis , Šečić v. Croatia , cited above, § 67 ).

98 . In the present case it is suspected that the applicant ' s attackers belonged to one or several far-right organisation s which , by their very nature , were governed by an extremist ideology.

99 . The Court further considers it unacceptable that, being aware that the attacks in question had most probably been motivat ed by religious hatred, the respondent State ' s authorities allowed the investigation to last for many years without tak ing adequate action with a view to identifying or prosecuting the perpetrators (see paragraphs 87-91 above).

100 . Finally, though perhaps most importantly, it is noted that the police themselves referred to the applicant ' s well-known religious beliefs, as well as his “strange appearance”, and apparently attached particular significance to “ the fact ” that most of the attacks against him had b een reported before or after a major orthodox religious holiday, which incidents the applicant subsequently publicised through the mass media in the context of his own religious affiliation (see paragraphs 22 and 64 above). The Court considers, once again, that such views alone imply that the police ha d serious doubts, related to the applicant ' s religion, as to whether he was a genuine victim, notwithstanding that there was no evidence to warrant doubts of this sort. It follows that even though the authorities had explored several leads proposed by the applicant concerning the underlying motivation of his attackers these steps amounted to little more than a pro forma investigation.

101 . In view of the above, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

102 . Lastly, u nder Article s 2 and 13 of the Convention , the applicant essentially repeated his complaint s already made under Article 3 thereof (see paragraph 75 above).

103 . H aving regard to its findings under the latter provision ( see paragraphs 87-91 above ) , the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility or the merits of the applicant ' s identical complaints made under Articles 2 and 13 .

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

104 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

105 . The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

106 . The Government contested this claim.

107 . The Court considers that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be sufficiently compensated by its mere finding of a violation of the Convention. Having regard to the character of the violations found in the present case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, th e Court therefore awards the applicant EUR 10 ,000 under this head.

B. Costs and expenses

108 . The applicant also claimed EUR 1,200 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

109 . The Government contested this claim.

110 . According to the Court ' s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were also reasonable as to their quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonabl e to award in full the sum sought by the applicant for the proceedings before it.

C. Default interest

111 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Declares unanimously the complaint s under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention admissible ;

2. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention ;

3 . Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has also been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention;

4 . Holds unanimously that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article s 2 and 13 of the Convention;

5 . Holds unanimously

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:

( i ) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros ) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable,

(ii) EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros ) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

6 . Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant ' s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2010 , pursuant to Rule 77 § 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

S tanley Naismith Fran ç oise Tulkens Registrar President

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge Raimondi is annexed to this judgment.

F.T. S. H.N.