Police officers forced two women in a police station to strip-naked. The lenient sentences imposed on them are incompatible with the explicit prohibition of police ill-treatment
JUDGMENT
O.R. and L.R. v. the Republic of Moldova 30.10.2018 (no. 24129/11)
SUMMARY
Arrest of two women after a demonstration. Police officers at the police station forced them to strip naked and do sit-ups. After many years of prosecution, both police officers were convicted of torture by the applicants with the minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment with a three-year suspension. The ECtHR ruled that the research was ineffective and that the sentences imposed were extremely lenient and that the way the police officers who were accused of a very serious crime were treated is incompatible with the objective of preventing future cases of ill-treatment by the police. Moreover, the police officers were not even disciplined. The Court finds a violation of the procedural aspect (investigation) of Article 3 of the ECHR
PROVISION
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Ms O.R. and Ms L.R., are two Moldovan nationals who were born in 1979 and 1987 respectively.
The case concerned the investigation into their allegation that they had been forced to strip naked and do sit-ups by the police when arrested in the context of wide-scale unrest in Moldova in 2009.
The applicants were arrested on 7 April 2009 following protests by hundreds of young people in Moldova against the general elections. They alleged that they had been taken to Chişinău police headquarters and, along with others, had been ordered to face the wall. Those who looked to the side were hit. They heard the sounds of people being beaten in an adjacent room. After signing their arrest record under threat, an officer escorted them to another room. Two officers ordered them to undress and do sit-ups. They were eventually released on 13 April 2009.
Soon after there were reports in the press about the incident, and there was an internal investigation during which the applicants were interviewed. Nine months later the prosecuting authorities launched a criminal investigation into three police officers. In 2013 two of the officers, who had ordered them to undress, were convicted of psychologically ill-treating the applicants and given a five-year suspended sentence. In the meantime, the prosecutor had discontinued the criminal investigation against the escorting officer, finding that his actions could not qualify as torture. Furthermore, the officer had clearly exceeded his powers but this was an administrative offence which was already time-barred.
The applicants’ appeals against these decisions were all unsuccessful.
Throughout the proceedings none of the three officers were suspended from their duties.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants alleged that the investigation into their ill-treatment had been ineffective and that the police officers involved had been able to act with impunity.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court considers that where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in … [the] Convention”, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. As with an investigation under Article 2, such investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000‑IV).
Furthermore, the outcome of the investigations and of the ensuing criminal proceedings, including the sanction imposed as well as disciplinary measures taken, has been considered decisive. It is vital in ensuring that the deterrent effect of the judicial system in place and the significance of the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the prohibition of ill-treatment are not undermined.
The ECtHR notes that despite the specific information indicating that the applicants had been subjected to psychological violence, the prosecutors responded only to the formal complaint lodged by the applicants on 23 July 2009 and did not react immediately during the critical first three months after the information was updated on the alleged offense (23 April-23 July 2009), thus jeopardizing the effectiveness of the investigation. Moreover, the research was superficial and with many shortcomings.
The ECtHR concludes that, in view of the delayed and superficial internal investigation, coupled with the absence of reasonable criminal investigation up to nine months after the authorities were informed of the alleged offense, the investigation was ineffective. According to the European Court of Human Rights, the applicants remained in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceedings for almost four and a half years.
The national courts, despite the fact that they had concluded that the applicants had been ill-treated, finally condemned the two police officers with the minimum of five years’ imprisonment. In addition, they felt it necessary to exempt them from serving any part of these sentences by suspending them for five years. In the view of the ECtHR, this leniency in addressing police officers accused of a very serious crime is incompatible with the objective of preventing future cases of ill-treatment by the police. In addition, the police officers involved have never ceased their duties throughout the procedure.
Finally, the Court considers that the way in which domestic authorities dealt with complaints against all three officers, resulting in their virtual impunity, is incompatible with the prohibition of ill-treatment by the police.
As a result, there has been a violation of the procedural aspect (investigation) of Article 3 of the Convention.
The European Court of Human Rights awarded EUR 7,500 to each of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 jointly for legal costs and expenses (echrcaselaw.com editing).
