PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 21890/03) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Jerzy Lewak (“the applicant”), on 23 May 2003.

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 14 September 2006 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Rejowiec Fabryczny.

A. The alleged ill-treatment of the applicant

It appears that in November 2002 the Chełm District Prosecutor charged the applicant with armed robbery. On an unspecified date in November 2002 the court ordered his detention on remand. He was detained in the Chełm Prison. In connection with the criminal investigation against the applicant, the District Prosecutor ordered the applicant to provide a sample of his body odour.

According to the applicant, on 13 March 2003 he was called to the interrogation room in the Chełm Prison where he was informed that he was to provide the required samples. However, the applicant stated that he would provide them only in the presence of his lawyer. According to the applicant, he was then knocked over and kicked by two police officers and a prison guard. During that time he also lost his gold neck chain. Subsequently, the applicant agreed to provide the samples.

The applicant claimed that as a result of the beating he had bruises on his abdomen, his back and his waist. He also had pain in his spine.

On 24 March 2003 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Chełm District Prosecutor, alleging that he had been beaten on 13 March 2003 by two police officers and a prison guard. He further alleged that his gold chain had been stolen during the incident.

On 24 April 2003 the District Prosecutor opened an investigation. She heard the applicant and the two police officers and prison guard involved in the alleged incident. She also heard two other police officers who had been working in a neighbouring room at the time of the alleged incident.

The District Prosecutor established that the applicant had been told to provide the samples and, if he refused, that they would be taken against his will. After some persuasion, the applicant had agreed to provide the samples. All the officers confirmed that version of events and stated that force had not been used.

The District Prosecutor obtained other relevant evidence which did not corroborate the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. Between 13 March and 1 April 2003 the applicant was seen by a prison doctor on five occasions. He did not report any injuries linked to his alleged ill-treatment and no such injuries were detected. On 27 March 2003 an ambulance was called for the applicant since he had complained about pain in his abdomen. On that occasion, the applicant did not mention any injuries related to his alleged ill-treatment and had received pain killers.

As regards the missing neck chain, the District Prosecutor found that at the time of his admission to the prison the applicant had not declared any valuables. Nor had he reported the loss of his neck chain to the prison administration.

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, on 30 June 2003 the District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation. She held that there was no evidence to support the view that the offences of assault and theft as alleged by the applicant had been committed.

The applicant appealed against that decision to the Lublin Regional Prosecutor. On an unspecified date the Regional Prosecutor upheld the decision of 30 June 2003 and transmitted the applicant's appeal to the Chełm District Court for review.

On 20 October 2003 the Chełm District Court upheld the decision of 30 June 2003.

Meanwhile, on 12 September 2003 the Chełm District Prosecutor had discontinued the investigation against the applicant concerning the charge of armed robbery. She held that the evidence obtained in the course of the investigation, including the samples of his body odour, did not confirm that the applicant had taken part in the armed robbery.

B. The alleged censorship of the applicant's correspondence with the Court

The envelope in which the applicant sent his first letter from the Chełm Prison to the Court dated 21 May 2003 bears the following stamps: “censored” (ocenzurowano) and “the Chełm District Court” (Sąd Rejonowy w Chełmie). It also bears a stamp confirming that the applicant's letter was received for dispatch by the prison administration on 23 May 2003. However, according to the postal stamp the letter was posted only on 3 June 2003. It also appears that the envelope had been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.

The envelope in which the applicant sent his application form from the Chełm Prison to the Court dated 27 October 2003 bears the following stamps: “censored” (ocenzurowano) and “the Chełm District Court” (Sąd Rejonowy w Chełmie). It also bears a stamp confirming that the applicant's letter was received for dispatch by the prison administration on 3 November 2003. However, according to the postal stamp the letter was posted only on 13 November 2003. It also appears that the envelope had been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.