Allegations of police violence by a person injured on the day of a demonstration were unfounded
JUDGMENT
Lazaridou v. Greece 28.6.2018 (no 59142/16)
SUMMARY
The case concerned physical injuries sustained by Ms Lazaridou on the day of a demonstration organised against the austerity measures imposed by the Government.
Ms Lazaridou, who was injured in the arm by shards of glass, blamed her injuries on the police officers of a special unit, saying that she had been behind a glass door that had been broken by the police officers when they had entered her building.
The Court observed in particular that at the end of the criminal proceedings the police officers in question had been acquitted by the Greek courts, which had examined the evidence and had taken all the steps available under criminal procedure to clarify the circumstances of the incident. It also noted that there was nothing in the proceedings to suggest that the domestic courts had not presented the requisite independence and impartiality.
The Court also held that there was insufficient evidence in the present case to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Ms Lazaridou had suffered the alleged treatment at the hands of the police officers in question.
PROVISION
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Myrto Lazaridou, is a Greek national who was born in 1973 and lives in Athens (Greece).
On 5 May 2010 Ms Lazaridou, who had not taken part in the demonstration organised against the austerity measures imposed by the Government, was in a building where two associations had their headquarters2. She was injured in the arm by shards of glass which caused haemorrhaging. She alleged that she had been behind the front door to the first floor when police officers from a special unit for maintaining law and order had entered the building and broken down the door, thus causing her the injuries in question. On the same day Ms Lazaridou went to hospital, where she was found to have injuries requiring stitches and was prescribed antibiotics. Approximately 15 days later she consulted a forensic doctor from Athens University, who considered that her injuries were simple bodily injuries and had healed up satisfactorily.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 3
1. Procedural aspect (investigation) Following the complaint lodged by Ms Lazaridou, the prosecutor had ordered a preliminary investigation, followed by a pre-trial investigation and committal of the police officers for trial. Those measures had been carried out according to the rules of criminal procedure. The accused had been acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence against them, at first instance and on appeal, and there had been nothing in the proceedings to suggest that the domestic courts had not presented the requisite independence and impartiality. Both courts had examined the evidence and had taken all the steps available under the criminal procedure to clarify the circumstances of the incident. As a civil party, Ms Lazaridou had had the right to intervene during the pre-trial investigation and during the hearings. The courts had acquitted the police officers on grounds of insufficient evidence, finding, inter alia, that it had not been proved that the police officers had gone into the building and up to the first floor. They had also observed that the photographs produced had not established that the injuries caused to Ms Lazaridou had been the result of action by the police officers.
Three months after the incident in question a “sworn administrative inquiry” had been ordered. It had been entrusted to a police officer who had no hierarchical link with the police officers involved in the incident and who was totally independent of their department. That police officer had expressed doubts as to the veracity of Ms Lazaridou’s allegations and proposed that the case be discontinued. The police authorities had not therefore failed to take action or lacked diligence.
Moreover, it was during the criminal investigation, which had been carried out at the same time as the disciplinary inquiry, that the responsibilities and acts of the alleged perpetrators of the assault were examined by judges and not by police officers, whose independence from those involved in the incident could not be challenged however.
Lastly, Ms Lazaridou’s complaints appeared to be limited to her expression of dissatisfaction regarding the examination of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the criminal courts. The Court reiterated that it was not the Court’s task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts, and it was for those courts to assess the evidence before them.
The Court did not therefore see any convincing reason that would induce it to depart from the findings reached by the domestic courts. There had therefore been no violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The substantive aspect (ill-treatment)
The Court reiterated that allegations of ill-treatment had to be supported by appropriate evidence. There was no sufficient evidence in the present case on which to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Lazaridou had suffered the alleged treatment at the hands of the police officers in question. Moreover, she had never been detained or held in police custody or under the control of the police.
Her situation had therefore been entirely different from that of an individual finding him or herself at the hands of the police. Consequently, the Court considered that it could not conclude that there had been a substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention regarding the ill-treatment alleged by Ms Lazaridou. There had therefore been no violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention(echrcaselaw.com editing).
