issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 067 (2012)

16.02.2012

Witness tortured by the police in unlawful custody

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Savin v. Ukraine (application no. 34725/08),

which is not final¹, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there

had been:

Two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment;

obligation to conduct an effective investigation) of the European Convention on

Human Rights

A violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security)

The case concerned the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police during unlawful police

custody.

Principal facts

The applicant, Vyacheslav Savin, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in

Kharkiv (Ukraine).

In the evening of 18 October 1999, Mr Savin was summoned as a witness in a fraud

case. At the police station, an officer tied his hands behind his back and punched him all

over his body, in particular in the head, in order to make him confess to the crime. Mr

Savin was kept at the police station until the following morning.

Having been in good health before the investigation, Mr Savin’s head injuries were so

severe that he is now disabled, suffering from sensory and motor impairment and a

convulsive disorder. Two days after his release, he was examined by a doctor who

documented a number of injuries to his head and concluded that they could have dated

from the time Mr Savin was held at the police station. He was immediately admitted to a

neurological hospital, where he underwent treatment for several weeks. Between 2000

and 2003 he was hospitalised again on numerous occasions.

From the day of his release Mr Savin lodged numerous complaints with prosecution

authorities concerning unlawful detention and torture by the police. Between 1999 and

2008, the prosecutors refused on six occasions to institute criminal proceedings against

the police, having discerned no indication of a crime in their actions. All those decisions

were subsequently quashed by higher-level prosecution authorities as premature,

unlawful and based on a perfunctory investigation not aimed at establishing the truth. In

December 1999, the prosecutor opened a criminal investigation in respect of infliction of

grievous bodily injuries on Mr Savin by unknown persons, which was stayed several

times for failure to identify the offenders.

In July 2008, the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of abuse of

power, associated with violence and degrading treatment, against the police officer

1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month

period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the

Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further

examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral

request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for

supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:

www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

accused by Mr Savin to have ill-treated him. The investigation established that the officer

had detained Mr Savin on the basis of a false administrative offence report – alleging

that he had apprehended him for swearing in public. The officer was found guilty as

charged in March 2010. However, the court released him from criminal liability and

punishment as the charges were time-barred. The court also decided to leave a civil

claim by Mr Savin against the officer without examination. During the criminal

proceedings, the officer was temporarily suspended from his duties but later restored to

his post.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 3, Mr Savin complained that his ill-treatment in police custody

amounted to torture and that the ensuing investigation into his allegation was neither

independent nor effective. He also alleged that his detention on 18 and 19 October 1999

was unlawful and that the authorities failed to investigate this allegation, in breach of

Article 5 § 1.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 June 2008.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:

Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President,

Elisabet Fura (Sweden),

Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),

Ann Power-Forde (Ireland),

Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),

Angelika Nußberger (Germany),

André Potocki (France), Judges,

and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 3 (ill-treatment)

It was not in dispute between the parties that Mr Savin had been ill-treated by the police

officer in October 1999. In assessing the treatment to which he had been subjected

during his two-day police custody, the Court referred to the findings of the domestic

investigation culminating in the court decisions finding the officer guilty. It had been

established that he had tied Mr Savin’s hands behind his back and had subjected him to

extensive beating to the head and that the aim of the ill-treatment had been to coerce

him into confessing to a criminal offence. The Court further attached weight to the

medical experts’ findings according to which Mr Savin’s disability was a direct result of

the ill-treatment. Those findings were sufficient for the Court to conclude that he had

been tortured, in violation of Article 3.

Article 3 (investigation)

The Court observed that the investigation into Mr Savin’s allegation of torture had lasted

for more than ten years, during which investigators had repeatedly refused to institute

criminal proceedings against the police six times, all those decisions later being quashed

by higher-level prosecution authorities. Having regard to the investigators’ apparent

disregard for the instructions of the higher-level prosecutors, the Court considered that

such remittals disclosed serious deficiencies in the investigation, which were a structural

problem in Ukraine, as the Court had previously found.

The police officer, having been found guilty, had faced no criminal liability or sanctions

and had been suspended from duty only temporarily. That situation showed the lack of

any meaningful effort to prevent future similar violations. The Court concluded that the

State had fallen short of its obligation to conduct an effective investigation into Mr

Savin’s allegation of torture. Accordingly there had been a violation of Article 3 in that

respect as well.

Article 5 § 1

The Court noted that, as established by the domestic investigation, Mr Savin’s detention

on 18 and 19 October 1999 had been based partly on a knowingly false administrative

offence report, and had partly been unrecorded, which amounted to a complete negation

of the guarantees contained in Article 5. There had accordingly been a violation of that

Article.

Article 41

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Ukraine was to

pay Mr Savin 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 1,800 in

respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 2,550 in respect of costs and expenses.

The judgment is available only in English.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.

Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on

www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s

RSS feeds.

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)

Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of

Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European

Convention on Human Rights.