Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 149February 2012Savin v. Ukraine - 34725/08Judgment 16.2.2012 [Section V]Article 3TortureDisability caused by police ill-treatment: violation Facts – In October 1999 the applicant was summoned as a witness in a fraud case. He was held at the police station until the following morning where he was so badly beaten about the head that he is now disabled, suffering from sensory and motor impairment and a convulsive disorder. Following his release, the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the prosecution authorities alleging unlawful detention and torture by the police, but it was not until nine years later, in 2008, that the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of abuse of power, associated with violence and degrading treatment, against the police officer accused by the applicant of ill-treatment. The investigation established that the officer had detained the applicant on the basis of a false report, tied the applicant’s hands behind his back and subjected him to extensive beating to the head and body with the aim of forcing him into a confession. The officer was found guilty as charged but released from criminal liability and punishment as the charges were time-barred. The court also decided to leave a civil claim by the applicant without examination. During the criminal proceedings, the officer was temporarily suspended from his duties but later restored to his post.Law – Article 3(a)  Torture – It was undisputed that the applicant had been ill-treated by the police officer. In assessing the treatment to which he had been subjected during two days in police custody, the Court referred to the findings of the domestic investigation and the medical experts. Those findings alone were sufficient for the Court to conclude that the applicant had been subjected to torture. The key considerations were the severity of the ill-treatment, which had impaired the applicant’s health to such an extent that he had become disabled, and its intentional nature as the aim had been to extract a confession.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).(b)  Investigation – The investigation into the applicant’s allegation of torture had lasted for more than ten years, during which period the investigators had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officer six times; all these decisions had later been quashed by higher-level prosecution authorities. As the Court had found in previous cases, the need for repeated remittals as a result of the investigators’ disregard for the instructions of higher-level prosecutors was indicative of a structural problem. Having been found guilty, the police officer had faced no criminal liability or sanctions and had been suspended from duty only temporarily. The investigation had not in any way impeded his career: on the contrary, he had been promoted at least twice and appeared still to be employed by the police. This situation showed that no meaningful effort had been made to prevent future similar violations and that the law-enforcement agencies enjoyed virtually total impunity for torture or ill-treatment. The State had thus fallen short of its obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegation of torture by the police.Conclusion: violation (unanimously).The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.Article 41: EUR 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 1,800 in respect of pecuniary damage. © Council of Europe/European Court of Human RightsThis summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes