FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MAĻINOVSKIS v. LATVIA
(Application no. 46084/19)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
6 June 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Maļinovskis v. Latvia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 María Elósegui, President,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 46084/19) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 August 2019 by a Latvian national, Mr Jānis Maļinovskis (“the applicant”), who was born in 1969, is detained in Riga and, having been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms J. Dadukina, a lawyer practising in Riga;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and their investigation to the Latvian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the application by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns allegations of ill-treatment of the applicant by prison guards and the obligation of the State to conduct an effective investigation into such allegations under Article 3 of the Convention. 2. On 30 January 2013 three prison guards of the Riga Central Prison used physical force to subdue the applicant in the prison yard when he attempted to collect a packet thrown to him from a prison cell window by another prisoner. The parties hold different views as to the nature of force used against the applicant. After the incident an assistant of the prison doctor examined the applicant and noted that his forehead, head, left ear and nose were bruised and that he had superficial scratches. On the next day, after being transferred to Daugavgrīva Prison the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted that the applicant had scratches, a bruised face and chest, and a broken nose. 3. On 4 February 2013 criminal proceedings were instituted. There were six rounds of investigation, each ending in an investigator’s decision to terminate the proceedings for a lack of corpus delicti. All these decisions, save for the last one, were quashed by a superior prosecutor. In the first four rounds, the prosecutors found that the investigation had not been thorough. 4. In the first round, a forensic examination was conducted and the applicant and several Riga Central Prison officials were interrogated. On 9 December 2013 a superior prosecutor instructed the investigator to identify potential witnesses among prisoners. 5. In the second round, the investigator interrogated one previous witness and several new witnesses, ordered another forensic examination, and obtained information on the applicant. On 25 March 2015 a superior prosecutor gave instructions to interrogate witnesses more thoroughly, to identify additional witnesses and to take other investigative measures as necessary. 6. In the third round, a prison guard was interrogated. No new witnesses were identified. On 29 June 2015 a superior prosecutor gave instructions to interrogate witnesses more thoroughly and to identify additional witnesses. 7. In the fourth round, a confrontation between the applicant and a witness was held. One new witness – a senior official of the Prisons Administration – and several previous witnesses were interrogated. On 27 November 2017 a superior prosecutor instructed the investigating authorities to identify additional witnesses, to interrogate the applicant more thoroughly and to take other investigative measures as necessary. The prosecutor also found that this round had been excessively lengthy and requested the head of the Prisons Administration to carry out an internal audit in this regard. The Prisons Administration and the investigator admitted the deficiencies noted by the prosecutor. 8. In the fifth round, the investigator obtained information on the applicant and several prison guards, and interrogated the applicant and several previous and new witnesses. The investigator terminated the proceedings both for a lack of corpus delicti and because the offence had become time-barred. On 8 February 2019 a superior prosecutor quashed this decision because the two grounds for the termination of the proceedings contradicted each other. 9. In the sixth round, no investigative measures were taken. By a final decision of 8 May 2019, a superior prosecutor upheld the investigator’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings. 10. Alongside with the criminal proceedings, on 8 March 2013 the applicant complained to the Prisons Administration against the use of force as an “action of a public authority” (amatpersonas faktiskā rīcība). After having his complaint dismissed, he applied to the Administrative District Court. Administrative proceedings were terminated on 16 January 2015 after the applicant withdrew his application. 11. In his application to the Court, the applicant complained that on 30 January 2013 prison guards used excessive force against him. He alleged that he had been forced to the ground, that his face had been smashed into the concrete floor approximately twenty times and that he had received approximately twenty kicks. As a result, his nose had been broken. He also complained that the ensuing investigation had been ineffective and excessively lengthy. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 3
Outcome: violation