JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S P OPOVI Ć , KARAKA Ş AND PINTO DE ALBUQUERQUE

We do not share the view of the majority that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb. We adduce five reasons to conclude that there was a violation of the said Article.

Firstly, the applicant was a minor at the time of the events.

Secondly, it is undisputed between the parties that he showed no resistance to the police officers when he was arrested. In this connection the video footage submitted by the parties, which the Court had the benefit of watching, shows that the applicant was scared and crying in the street and that a police officer was holding him by the right arm. The officer then forcefully twisted his arm behind his back, which forced the applicant to bend forward. It is clear that this act caused a lot of pain to the minor, who was not showing any resistance to the police. Moreover, on 31 March 2008 the prison doctor reported a minimal oedema on the applicant ’ s right elbow resulting from a soft t issue injury, and noted the presence of healing wounds on the distal phalanges of his right hand ring and little fingers. The findings of this medical report co nfirm the force used against the applicant during his arrest.

Thirdly, the applicant was alone when he was arrested. In addition, he was much smaller than the police officer who was holding him. B esides the police officer twisting the applicant ’ s right arm, there appeared to be at least four other officers next to him. Hence, the applicant did not represent at any stage a danger to the police officers, who had a clear physical advantage over him.

Fourthly, w hile this was happening , another police officer called the applicant “ dishono u rable ”. This verbal abuse of the applicant was degrading.

Fifthly, a lthough criminal proceedings were subsequently initiated against the applicant for taking part in an illegal demonstration, he was acquitted of all charges on account of a lack of evidence. As a result, there is no information in the case file to indicate that he had participated in the demonstration or had been among the demonstrators who confronted the police.

These facts must be interpreted in the light of the international standards.

The international standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders or suspects are set by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules” ) , 1985 , the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (“The Havana Rules” ) , 1990 , the U nited Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines), 1990 , the Guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System r ecommended by Economic and Social Council resolution 1997/30 of 21 July 1997, and, at the European level, by the C ommittee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Guidelines on child-friendly justice, 2011 . All these texts call for a child-friendly and sensitive approach to offenders or suspects who are minors and, particularly, for careful treatment of the special needs and particular vulnerability of minors by judges, prosecutors, police and other law-enforcement agents. For example, paragraph 27 of the European Guidelines on child-friendly justice states: “ Police should respect the personal rights and dignity of all children and have regard to their vulnerability, that is, take account of their age and maturity and any special needs of those who may be under a physical or mental disability or have communication difficulties. ”

In the light of these standards we conclude that the force used by the police against the applicant, who was a minor , had not participated in any unlawful act, did not resist arrest and did not represent any danger to the police officers , was totally unjustified. The use of force during his arrest was not necessary.

Thus, we are of the view that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of treatment for which the State bears responsibility. Having regard to the nature and degree of the applicant ’ s injuries resulting from the excessive use of force, we consider that the treatment in question reached a sufficient level of severity to be characteri s ed as degrading treatment.

Accordingly, we conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb also .