Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria
From DADEL
Case Summary
Case of Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria
European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 46317/99
Judgment of 23 February 2006
Applicants Ognyanova and Choban, the de facto spouse and mother, respectively, of Mr. Stefanov, alleged: that Stefanov died as a result of ill-treatment by police while in custody, that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into his death; that his detention was unlawful; that they had not had effective remedies against the alleged violations; and that the alleged events were a result of discrimination against Stefanov on the basis of his Roma ethnic origin. The allegation claimed that these actions violated Articles 2, 3, 5, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
Contents |
Facts
Mr. Stefanov was taken into police custody, along with another man, Mr. D.O., also of Roma ethnic origin, on 4 June 1993, on suspicion of numerous thefts and burglaries. Stefanov was in good health at the time of his arrest.
The events following Stefanov’s arrest are known only through the testimony of three police officers and D.O. On the day following their arrest, the two men in custody were separately questioned and then brought to be questioned together in a room on the third floor of the police station, 9.6 above ground. The versions of the two men differed, and an argument between them followed. While D.O. was talking privately with one of the two police present, Stefanov, handcuffed at the time, allegedly bolted from his chair, ran to the window and jumped out. Different versions of the police report are inconsistent on these details, but all claim that he fell on the iron roof of a shed, then rolled onto an iron grill on the ground. He was found unconscious on the ground. An ambulance was called and Stefanov was taken to the regional hospital where he died early the following morning.
An investigation was begun after the incident, shortly before Stefanov’s death. The report stated that the site of the fall had not been preserved. While he was in a coma at the hospital, Stefanov was examined by a forensic expert in the presence of a neurosurgeon. The police officer informed the examiner that Stefanov had jumped from a third floor window, fallen on an iron roof and then to the ground onto an iron grill. The examiner noted numerous bruises, abrasions, suffusions and wounds all over the body, which he concluded could have been sustained in a two-stage fall.
Following Stefanov’s death, the same physician performed an autopsy which concluded that the cause of death was a cranial-cerebral trauma as a result of injuries caused “by the impact of the body against solid blunt objects and could be sustained in a two-stage fall from a substantial height.” The physician concluded that there were no injuries which could not be explained by such a fall.
Further investigation began following Stefanov’s death, where D.O. and some, although not all, of the police present were questioned. The case was sent back and forth between various prosecutor’s offices, which all concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a criminal offense and that the case should be discontinued. The applicants were not kept aware of these developments, although they had requested information a number of times. When they learned of the discontinuation of the case, they appealed to the Military Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia, arguing that the investigation was not comprehensive, that a number of investigative steps had not been taken, and that various facts had not been clarified. The prosecutor ordered further investigation, including a dummy test of the fall and a three-expert forensic report. The dummy test showed that it was unlikely Stefanov fell in the alleged manner. The forensic report was based solely on the previous report and concluded that no injuries sustained could not be explained by a fall from a substantial height. Again for lack of evidence, the case was discontinued. Numerous further appeals by the applicants were all rejected citing the same reasons.
Admissibility
The Application was found admissible.
Merits
To the applicants’ claim of the State’s violation of Article 2, the Court recognized that it was required to pay careful scrutiny, considering the importance of the protection of life provided for in this Article. This is particularly true in cases where the alleged deprivation of life takes place while an individual is in police custody and thus is more vulnerable. Where an individual is in good health at the time of arrest, the burden of providing a plausible explanation for his death rests on the State. The standard of proof used by the Court is “beyond reasonable doubt.” This may be satisfied by clear inferences or unrebutted presumption of fact, as it was in the case. Inconsistencies in the authorities’ reports of the events, insufficient explanations in the forensic reports and autopsies, and lack of credible testimony made the State’s explanation of the events highly questionable. That Stefanov jumped in an escape attempt from such a height was improbable, nor was it likely that all the injuries could have been sustained in the fall. The lack of satisfactory evidence submitted by the State to refute these allegations led the Court to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 2 with respect to Stefanov’s death.
The Court also observed that the obligations of Article 2 include the implication of an effective official investigation that is thorough, impartial, and careful. The effectiveness of such an investigation also requires the practical independence of those carrying out the investigation from those implicated in the events. The authorities questioned only police officers, who would gain from denying any wrongdoing and D.O., who may have been pressured to corroborate. There were inconsistencies in different versions of the police testimonies that were never clarified. The site of the incident was not preserved, nor was sufficient description given of the possible ways in which Stefanov’s injuries could have been sustained. The Court concluded from these facts that the investigation was neither objective nor thorough and thus was undermined in its ability to determine the cause of death and injuries. The lack of promptness and public scrutiny into the investigation gave further weight to the Court’s conclusion that Article 2 was violated in this respect also.
The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 3, claiming that the lack of any other plausible explanation provided by the State led to the conclusion that the numerous injuries on Stefanov’s body had been inflicted by the authorities during his detention. The Court agreed with this conclusion and thus found a violation of Article 3.
The Court also found that there had been unlawful detention of Stefanov, in breach of domestic law and in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Case law makes clear that the absence of any data submitted by the Government regarding the details of detention is incompatible with the purpose of Article 5, and thus the deprivation of liberty in this case was unlawful.
Article 13 requires that an effective remedy to enforce the substantive rights of the Convention be guaranteed at the national level. The Court upheld the applicants’ claim that no effective and practical remedy had been provided to guarantee their rights under Articles 2 and 3. The Court thus found a violation of Article 13.
The applicants’ claim of violation of Article 14 was based on the assertion that the alleged breaches of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 were motivated by discrimination against Stefanov on the basis of his Roma ethnic origin. The applicants argued that this allegation must be seen against a backdrop of a pattern of police abuse and ill treatment of Roma people in Bulgaria. The applicants referred to the Court’s decision in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria and submitted that the high incidence of police violence against Roma people should have required an investigation of racial motives behind the alleged ill treatment of Stefanov. The Court distinguished Nachova from the case at hand, stating that there was no material on file in the present case which concretely indicated that racist attitudes toward Stefanov had played a role in the events. The Court did acknowledge the general concern of the use of force against Roma people in Bulgaria, but concluded that, in the case at hand, there was insufficient evidence to establish that this had played a role in Stefanov’s injuries and death. The Court therefore concluded that there had been no violation of Article 14, taken together with Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13.
Decision
The Court unanimously held:
1. that there was a violation of Article 2 with respect to Stefanov’s death and with respect to the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation
2. that there was a violation of Article 3
3. that there was a violation of Article 5 § 1
4. that there was a violation of Article 13
5. that there was no violation of Article 14.
The Court awarded non-pecuniary damages in the amount of EUR 20,000 to the first applicant and EUR 10,000 to the second applicant and EUR 4,000 in costs and expenses.