5.  The applicant was born in 1960.
6.  On 11 August 2006 the applicant, who suffered from schizophrenia, was arrested in his parents’ flat following an argument with his relatives.
7.  The Court, in connection with that incident, in its judgment of V.D. v. Croatia (no. 15526/10, 8 November 2011) found that the investigation into the applicant’s arguable claim of ill-treatment by the police during the arrest had not been effective, contrary to the requirements of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention. It also found that the Government had not furnished any convincing or credible arguments which would provide a basis to explain the manner in which the applicant had sustained his injuries during the arrest. The Court thus concluded that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police, in breach of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention.
8.  On 16 August 2012, in the context of the procedure for the execution of the Court’s judgment, the Government submitted an action plan indicating that the applicant had sought the reopening of the case against the police officers implicated in the incident (S.P., V.B., D.K. and T.S.) before the relevant criminal courts. To date, the Committee of Ministers has not concluded its supervision of the execution of the judgment under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention.
9.  On 8 March 2013 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) ordered the reopening of the proceedings against the police officers, S.P. and V.B. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 16 January 2014.
10.  On 4 October 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) ordered that the proceedings against D.K. and T.S., the other two police officers involved in the applicant’s arrest, be reopened. That decision became final on 5 November 2013.
11.  Following the court orders for the reopening of the proceedings against the police officers, the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu; hereinafter: “the State Attorney’s Office”) assumed responsibility for conducting the investigation.
12.  On 13 June 2014 the State Attorney’s Office informed the applicant that it had opened an investigation in respect of the police officers concerning his allegations of ill-treatment during his arrest on 11 August 2006. The applicant was also served with the decision on the opening of the investigation, which indicated that in the further course of the proceedings it would be necessary to question him, his parents and his common-law wife, Ms T.V., as well as the relevant police officers, and that a forensic expert report concerning the injuries which the applicant had sustained in the incident would be ordered. In addition, the applicant was served with a list of his rights as a victim in the proceedings, which included, in particular, the right to be represented by a lawyer, to lodge a civil claim, to propose that certain facts be established and evidence obtained in the proceedings, and to have access to the file.
13.  On the same day, the State Attorney’s Office received a letter from the applicant’s lawyer (dated 12 June 2014) asking whether further proceedings would be conducted and whether the applicant would be able to propose that certain evidence be obtained in the proceedings.
14.  In the meantime, the suspect police officers challenged the decision to reopen the investigation. On 10 July 2014 the Zagreb County Court dismissed their appeals. The decision thereby became final.
15.  On 24 September 2014 the State Attorney’s Office summoned the applicant for questioning. The applicant was again provided with a list of his rights as a victim in the proceedings. A summons was served on the applicant’s father, who informed the State Attorney’s Office that the applicant was living abroad and that he was unable to appear for questioning. The applicant also sent a letter to the State Attorney’s Office providing the same justification for his absence. The applicant was then summoned to appear on 30 October 2014.
16.  During his questioning on 30 October 2014, the applicant stated that on the day of the incident he had been at his parent’s flat in Zagreb together with his common-law wife, Ms T.V., and their son. As they had had a dispute, somebody had called the police, who had intervened at the scene. He had first spoken to the police officers but when they had asked him to accompany them to the police station, he had refused. They had then thrown him to the ground face down and had started beating him. At one point they had also handcuffed him and tied his legs. He had managed to bite one of the police officers and as he had been in agony from the beating, he had also bitten his own tongue. The applicant also stated that there had been two paramedics present at the scene.
17.  On 5 November 2014 the applicant’s lawyer asked the State Attorney’s Office to send her a copy of the record of the applicant’s questioning. On 28 November 2014 a copy of the record was sent to her.
18.  In the further course of the investigation, the State Attorney’s Office questioned the applicant’s parents and two other relatives (D.D. and M.D.) who had witnessed the incident, as well as the relevant police officers.
19.  During the questioning, D.D. stated that she had only seen the applicant being taken out of the flat by the police officers. M.D. stated that he had seen the applicant and the police officers talking in the flat and that at one point the applicant had tried to punch one of the police officers, after which the police officers had engaged in suppressing his resistance. However, at that point M.D. had left the room where that had been happening. The applicant’s mother stated that she had left the room after the police officers had handcuffed the applicant and tied his legs. She had then heard screams, and on re-entering the room she had seen a lot of blood and the police officers standing around the applicant. Oral evidence to the same effect was given by the applicant’s father.
20.  The police officers denied ill-treating the applicant. They all provided evidence to the extent that when they had intervened at the scene they had immediately realised that they were facing an individual with a mental disorder. He had threatened to kill them, although he had said that he would spare one of them because he had blue eyes. When they had approached him, the applicant had started to resist so they had decided to handcuff him. At that point, he had bitten the hand of police officer S.P. A commotion had then ensued, in the course of which the applicant had fallen on the ground. He had also started kicking, so the police officers had tied his legs. The applicant had also bitten his tongue and had hit his head against the floor, so the police officers had decided to hold his head and to put him on his side. Afterwards, a medical team had intervened at the scene and the applicant had been taken to hospital.
21.  On 24 November 2014 the State Attorney’s Office ordered a report from a forensic expert, D.M., concerning the injuries which the applicant had sustained following his arrest.
22.  On 27 November 2014 the State Attorney’s Office asked the Zagreb emergency service to provide the names of the members of the medical team who had intervened at the scene during the applicant’s arrest. The next day, the emergency service replied that they could not find the requested information in their records.
23.  However, on the basis of a statement given by one of the suspects, V.B., the State Attorney’s Office established the identity of one of the paramedics who had intervened at the scene. As that person had in the meantime moved out of Zagreb, on 28 November 2014 he was interviewed by telephone. In his interview with the prosecutor he denied having seen any ill-treatment of the applicant during the arrest. However, he stated that the applicant had been very agitated and that he had seen him attacking and biting a police officer.
24.  Meanwhile, on 27 November 2014 the expert, D.M., issued his report.  The expert report indicated that the injuries which the applicant had sustained to his face had been caused by two blows, probably by a fist. The further injuries on his arms, legs and body had been caused either by several blows or possibly also by a fall, as well as by handcuffing. Some of the injuries appeared to have been caused by the body being scratched with an object or dragged across the floor while lying face down. There was also damage to the applicant’s tongue as a result of a bite, but it had been impossible to establish exactly how that injury had been caused.
25.  The State Attorney’s Office found that the forensic expert, D.M., needed to be questioned concerning his report and that he should be presented with some further evidence obtained during the investigation, namely photographs of the crime scene and the individuals concerned taken immediately after the incident, the statements of the relevant police officers and the statement given by the paramedic.
26.  On 28 November 2014 the State Attorney’s Office questioned D.M. The latter stated that the injuries to the applicant’s face could not have been caused when the police officers had attempted to prevent the applicant from self-harming by holding his face, but that it was possible that he had banged his head against the stretcher while being transported by the paramedics. D.M. stressed that, likewise, the tongue laceration which the applicant had sustained could have been caused by his fall and by him banging his head against the stretcher. D.M. also explained that, having seen the photographs of the applicant taken after the incident, he did not believe that the injuries he had sustained had been caused by beating, but were likely to have been caused by the commotion during the arrest.
27.  On 9 December 2014 the State Attorney’s Office, by a reasoned decision analysing all the evidence obtained and the facts established during the investigation, terminated the investigation on grounds of lack of evidence of any ill-treatment or any other excessive use of force by the police during the applicant’s arrest.
28.  The decision to discontinue the investigation was served on the applicant on 15 December 2014. It was served on his lawyer the next day. The applicant was informed that he could take over the proceedings as a subsidiary prosecutor.
29.  The applicant challenged the decision of the State Attorney’s Office before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). On 19 February 2015 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints inadmissible on the grounds that the impugned decision did not concern any of his civil rights or obligations, or any criminal charge against him.
30.  The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 5 March 2015.
31.  On 6 December 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu), seeking damages for the injuries sustained during his arrest.
32.  In the course of the proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court obtained evidence from several expert witnesses concerning the injuries which the applicant had sustained. One of the experts, V.P., concluded that the injuries on the applicant’s body could have been caused by blows or by the body being dragged across the floor, and that the injuries to his hands and legs could have been caused by impact against a hard surface. The injuries on his face had not been properly documented but such injuries were usually caused by punches delivered with lesser intensity. She also found that there had been an injury to the applicant’s tongue. Another expert, S.D., found that it was impossible to draw any firm conclusion as to how the tongue injury had been caused.
33.  On 31 March 2014 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. On appeal, the Zagreb County Court increased the amount of compensation for damage, awarding the applicant 17,400 Croatian kunas (HRK). On 20 April 2016 the State paid the applicant in total HRK 66,716.88 (approximately 8,850 euros (EUR)) in compensation for damage, costs and expenses incurred for the proceedings, and interest.
34.  Following intervention by the police and the medical service, the applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital, where he died on 16 November 2017. An autopsy report indicated that the cause of death was heart failure. An investigation into the event is pending before the relevant State Attorney’s Office.