ITEMID: 001-68176
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2005
DOCNAME: SULTANOV v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
TEXT: The applicant, Rustem Gumerovich Sultanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Ufa. He was represented before the Court by Mr E.S. Kareyev and Mr. D.E. Kareyev, lawyers practising in Ufa. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P.A. Laptev, the representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and three other members of his family lived in a house with a total area of 91.7 sq. m. and a living space of 60.8 sq. m. and an adjacent plot of land in the centre of the town of Ufa.
In accordance with a zoning plan governing land use and land development in the town of Ufa, a hotel complex was to be built in the town centre which required the expropriation of the necessary land and the demolition of a number of old houses which stood on the site, including the applicant's.
By Resolution 1829 of 30 May 1997, the local authority declared the houses unusable for permanent residence and ordered the district authority to demolish them and re-accommodate the occupants.
The district authority offered the applicant's family two flats in one block of flats with an overall living space of 94.9 sq. m.
By Resolution 2080 of 17 June 1997, the local authority issued a permit for the construction of the hotel complex.
On 27 June 1997 the local authority ordered a commission to evaluate the plants on the applicant's land. On 1 July the commission valued them at 53,203,000 Russian roubles (RUR). On 2 July 1997 the local authority confirmed the commission's assessment and ordered that the above amount be paid to the applicant.
By Resolution 2198 of 3 July 1997, the local authority ordered the seizure of the land occupied by the applicant and its use for the construction of a hotel.
As the applicant had refused to move to the flats offered to him, the district authority documented his refusal on 8 July 1997. In the relevant act, the applicant stated that he preferred to live in his own house rather than in a block of flats.
On 8 July 1997 the applicant refused to allow the contractors to enter his land.
On 17 July 1997 compensation of RUR 53,203,000 was paid to the applicant.
On 7 August 1997 the district authority issued documents entitling the applicant's family to a protected tenancy in two publicly-owned flats in the same block, with an overall living space of 94.9 sq. m. in exchange for the demolition of their house.
From 26 September 1997 to 3 October 1997 the eviction of the applicant's family by the bailiffs took place on the basis of a writ of execution issued by the Kirov District Court of Ufa on 4 September 1997 in pursuance of its judgment of 14 August 1997 (see below). The applicant and his family were settled in their two new flats.
Pursuant to the local authority's decision, on 3 October 1997 a commission valued the applicant's house at RUR 39,334,000. This money was paid to the applicant on 16 October 1997.
Soon afterwards the house was demolished.
The local authorities applied to a court seeking an order to the applicant not to put obstacles to the way of the construction works. The applicant lodged a counter-claim challenging Resolution 2198 of 3 July 1997.
On 14 July 1997 the Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa examined the case. The court found that the applicant was not the proprietor of the land but had only a right of use. The court further noted that the applicant chose not to dispute the valuation of his garden plants though he had been advised of that right by the court. The court granted the action of the district authority and rejected the applicant's claim.
The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan on 29 July 1997.
The applicant brought proceedings against the local authority challenging its refusal in 1993 to issue a certificate of ownership of the land which he occupied. On 13 March 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ufa rejected the application as the applicant had missed the relevant limitation period. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment on 26 April 2001.
On 1 August 1997 the Ufa Kirovskiy District Authority brought proceedings before the Kirov District Court of Ufa requesting the applicant's eviction from his house on the basis of Resolution 1829 dated 30 May 1997 of the Ufa town authority. The applicant submitted his written observations and requested the court to decide the case in his absence.
On 14 August 1997 the court examined the case. It found that the district authority had given the applicant's family, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, two flats in the same block with an overall living space of 94.9 sq. m., exceeding the total area of 91.7 sq. m. in the applicant's house. It noted that the applicant had refused to move to those flats because he preferred to live in his house. The district court ordered the eviction and transfer of the applicant's family to the new flats provided by the district authority. The applicant appealed.
On 21 October 1997 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment.
Upon the applicant's requests for a supervisory review (надзор) of the proceedings, on 7 June 1999 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation lodged a special appeal (протест) against the above decisions with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan. He requested the quashing of the decisions dated 14 August 1997 and 21 October 1997 because, inter alia, of the lack of adversarial proceedings, as the district authority had advanced at the hearing before the first instance court new arguments in support of their request for the applicant's eviction on which the applicant could not comment.
On 30 July 1999 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan allowed the appeal and quashed the decisions on this basis and the fact that the courts had failed to apply the law regulating compensation in respect of property seized for public needs. The court remitted the case to the first instance court for a new examination.
On an unspecified date after 30 July 1999, the applicant lodged a counterclaim for repossession of the house and non-pecuniary damages. On 4 November 1999 the Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa refused to deal with it. On the applicant's appeal, on 20 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan quashed the decision and, on an unspecified date before 14 April 2000, the District Court initiated proceedings on the applicant's action and joined it to the pending proceedings concerning the applicant's eviction.
On 14 April 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa examined the case. The applicant, who had requested the court to decide the case in his absence, did not participate in the hearing. The court noted that, by the final decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated 29 July 1997, the applicant's land had been taken for public needs and that the lawfulness of that deprivation could not be disputed in the present proceedings. The court further noted that, in order to build a hotel complex, which had been completed in December 1998, the demolition of the applicant's house had been necessary. The court also noted that the alternative accommodation given to the applicant had a total living space exceeding that of the demolished house and was worth at least twice as much, according to an expert opinion obtained by the court on 21 March 2000. Account being taken of the money paid to the applicant for the house, the court found that the State had duly compensated the applicant. The court granted the action of the district authority and rejected the applicant's claim. It held that the applicant's right to the house had ceased in August 1997 and that the applicant could be evicted and transferred to the alternative accommodation provided by the district authority. As the applicant had already been evicted from the house, no execution of that decision was required.
The applicant appealed. On 5 June 2000 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan quashed the judgment of 14 April 2000 on the grounds of the unlawful composition of the court, and the court's failure to examine properly the evidence or to apply the relevant law. The case was remitted to the first instance court for a new examination.
On 26 March 2001 the District Court examined the case. The applicant, who had been duly notified of the hearing, did not appear, having requested the court to decide the case in his absence. The applicant amended his claims, now requesting higher compensation for the house and the garden plants, as well as compensation for an alleged loss of profit from the plants. The court observed that, in order to implement the public purpose for which the land had been taken, namely the construction of a hotel complex, the demolition of the applicant's house had been necessary. The court noted that the hotel complex had been built in December 1998 and that it was now used for the reception of representatives of the federal government and governments of foreign States, being managed by a State institution. The court found that the applicant never owned the land de jure. He used it in so far as he owned the house on it. Moreover a part of the land had been taken by him without permission. The court held that, in the absence of the applicant's consent to acquire ownership of the two flats offered to him, the district authority had rightly given him a protected tenancy in the flats. Taking into account the applicant's entitlement to the acquisition of the ownership of the flats free of charge by way of privatisation, the court noted that they were at least twice as expensive as the cost of the applicant's house. The court found that, together with the RUR 39,334,000 paid to the applicant for the house, the State had duly compensated the applicant. As regards the garden plants, the court estimated their value in accordance with statutory requirements, and found that the compensation paid to the applicant exceeded that amount. The court found for the district authority. The applicant's claims for repossession of the house and non-pecuniary damages were made into separate proceedings. The remainder of his claims was rejected. The court declared that the applicant's property rights to the house had ceased in August 1997, and ordered the eviction and transfer of the applicant and his family to the two flats given by the district authority. As the applicant had already been evicted from the house, no execution of that decision was required.
On appeal, on 3 May 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan, having heard the applicant and his counsel and the district authority, quashed the part of judgment concerning the applicant's claim for loss of profits in relation to the plants, and upheld the remainder. The court referred to the fact that the applicant's house had been declared unsuitable for permanent residence.
On 9 July 2003 the District Court examined the applicant's claims against the district authority for repossession of the house and damages, including the alleged loss of profits in relation to the plants. It also examined four other actions brought by the applicant against various authorities of the Republic of Bashkortostan in connection with the demolition of his house. The court rejected the claim concerning loss of profits as being unsubstantiated, taking into account an expert opinion on the point. The remainder of the claims was rejected as ill-founded.
On 14 August 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment on appeal.
Being dissatisfied with the way in which the judicial authorities in the aforementioned proceedings and various local and federal authorities and other persons had dealt with his case, the applicant attempted to bring proceedings against them all. However, his actions were either disallowed as having no basis in domestic law or not examined because of the applicant's failure to meet relevant procedural requirements.


ITEMID: 001-23827
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: TUR
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2004
DOCNAME: CAN v. TURKEY
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Remzi Can, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Çanakkale.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was the owner of a company, Can Ticaret. In 1991 the applicant bought carpets from a company called Kervan Halıcılık Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. (Kervan Carpets Industry and Commercial Company: hereinafter “Kervan Carpets Company”.).
On 24 July 1991, and in furtherance of this transaction, the applicant received for signature eight promissory notes (bono) which were to be paid between 20 September 1991 and 20 April 1992. According to the applicant, the promissory notes had been prepared for the applicant's signature by B.D. who allegedly worked for the Kervan Carpets Company at the material time. Having stamped and signed them, the applicant sent the promissory notes to the Kervan Carpets Company. The promissory notes met the legal requirements of the Commercial Code.
It subsequently transpired that the applicant's cousin, Ş.C., was named as the debtor on the promissory notes. However, the applicant maintains that he only stamped and signed the promissory notes when he received them and did not add any names to them. In the applicant's opinion, his cousin's name must have been added by B.D.
On an unknown date the Kervan Carpets Company applied to the Istanbul Execution Office (icra müdürlüğü) to have the promissory notes enforced against the applicant's cousin, Ş.C.
On 11 January 1995 Ş.C. applied to the public prosecutor's office in the Bayramiç district requesting that criminal proceedings be brought against the applicant. The applicant was subsequently charged with forgery under Article 342 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
On the same day, the Bayramiç public prosecutor issued a decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction (yetkisizlik kararı) and sent the case file to the public prosecutor's office in the Çanakkale province.
On 6 October 1995 the Çanakkale public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Çanakkale Assize Court charging the applicant with forgery under Article 342 of the Criminal Code.
During the criminal proceedings against the applicant the Çanakkale Assize Court issued a summons requiring B.D. to give evidence. In the applicant's submission, B.D had fraudulently added Ş.C.'s signature to the promissory notes.
On 14 March 1996 Ş.C. withdrew his accusation against the applicant. However, the prosecution proceeded with the charges against the applicant.
On 9 May 1996 the Assize Court requested the Kervan Carpets Company to inform it whether B.D. had been employed by the firm at the time of the offence.
On 21 August 1996 the Kervan Carpets Company informed the court that no one of that name had ever worked for the company.
On 12 December 1996 the court abandoned the proposal to hear B.D. referring to the response given by the Kervan Carpets Company and observing that B.D. could not be found. Furthermore, the court did not find it necessary to request the Forensic Medicine Institute to carry out an analysis as to whether the applicant's handwriting matched the manner in which the name of Ş.C. was written on the promissory notes.
On the same day the Çanakkale Assize Court convicted the applicant of forgery under Article 342 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment.
On 23 December 1996 the applicant appealed against the Çanakkale Assize Court's judgment on the ground that B.D. was not heard before the court and that a comparative analysis of his handwriting and the handwriting on the promissory notes had not been carried out.
On 3 November 1997 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of the Çanakkale Assize Court.
On 22 December 1997 the applicant lodged a petition with the Çanakkale Assize Court requesting that his case be re-opened.
On 26 December 1997 this request was dismissed.
On 7 January 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Burhaniye Assize Court against the Çanakkale Assize Court's decision of 26 December 1997.
On 21 January 1998 this very last appeal of the applicant was dismissed by the Burhaniye Assize Court.
On 15 October 1998 the applicant started serving his prison sentence.
On 14 June 1999 he was released from prison on probation.
1. Article 339 of the Criminal Code provides:
“A civil servant who prepares a partially or completely forged document or distorts an authentic document shall be imprisoned for between three to ten years if damage arises out of this forgery...”
2. Article 342 § 1 of the Criminal Code provides:
“A person who is not a civil servant and who forges an official document by way of the methods specified in Article 339 shall be imprisoned for between two to eight years...”
3. Article 238 of the Code on Criminal Procedure provides:
“... Admission of evidence can be rejected under the following circumstances:
...
c) If the fact to which the evidence is relevant does not have any effect on the decision...”


ITEMID: 001-121610
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: LVA
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2013
DOCNAME: CASE OF GRIMAILOVS v. LATVIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Jelgava.
6. It appears that in an unrelated incident on 23 June 2000 the applicant broke his spine. He underwent surgery to have a metal implant inserted into his back for support. It appears that following the operation he could move unaided. He was certified as being Category 2 disabled.
7. On 17 December 2002 a note was made for the first time in the applicant’s medical records that he could not move without a wheelchair.
8. On 23 January 2003 the applicant was certified as being Category 1 disabled (the most severe level of disability). His disability was reassessed on two further occasions, 13 February 2004 and 22 February 2006.
9. On 10 September 2001 at approximately 3 p.m., two traffic police officers, E.Š. and O.Ž., attempted to stop the applicant, who had exceeded the speed limit in Rīga and appeared to be driving under the influence of alcohol. He failed to stop on their instructions and continued driving. The police officers set out to follow him out of the city onto the Rīga-Jelgava motorway. They eventually overtook the applicant’s car and pulled it over to the side of the road until it came to a halt. Both vehicles were by then next to an apartment building on a residential street in Jaunolaine.
10. According to the Government, both police officers then saw a firearm in the applicant’s inner left jacket pocket, and proceeded to push him to the ground using unspecified restraint techniques (speciālie cīņas paņēmieni) and handcuffed him. They then called the local police to the scene to collect evidence. The applicant was breathalysed on the spot and then taken to a police station in Olaine.
11. The applicant did not agree with the Government’s version of events concerning his possession of a firearm. He submitted that the police officers had kicked him in the back several times, hurting him badly, before finding out that he was disabled. He alleged that when he had invited them to verify his documents, which were in his wallet in his car, the officers had planted a firearm on him in an attempt to evade criminal liability for having assaulted a disabled person. The applicant denied having had the firearm. He maintained that if he had been keeping a firearm, he would have disposed of it during the car chase.
12. On 11 September 2001 the applicant was taken to a public hospital in Rīga (Rīgas 1. slimnīca), where an X-ray of his spine was carried out. His state of health was described as being “post-spinal fixation”. The fixing screws that held the metal implant supporting his spine in place had been broken. He also suffered from a spinal contusion and lower back pain. Lastly, it was noted that a consultation with a specialist was necessary.
13. On 11 September 2001 at 5.40 p.m., the applicant was transferred to a specialist traumatology and orthopaedics hospital in Rīga (Traumatoloğijas un ortopēdijas slimnīca). He told a specialist that the day before he had been fleeing from the police. Some officers had stopped him, had pulled him out of the car and had pushed him to the ground, which had led to his back making a hyperextensive movement, in other words, it had bent too far backwards. The applicant complained of lower back pain on his right side and said that he was unable to move his right leg because of the pain. Following an examination by a specialist, the applicant was diagnosed with the following: i) a hyperextension injury and contusion to the lower back; ii) a transverse process fracture (resulting from rotation or extreme lateral bending) to the L3 vertebra, iii) a compression fracture (flexion fracture pattern) to the L1 vertebra, previously fused by transperpendicular fixation surgery, the metal implant having become dislodged and screws in the Th12 and L3 vertebrae having been broken, and iv) intoxication. An Xray revealed that the fracture to the applicant’s L1 vertebra had been fused and fixated with rods and eight screws. Four screws in the applicant’s Th12 and L3 vertebrae had been broken. The metal implant had become dislodged. While at the hospital, the applicant received various types of medication.
14. On 12 September 2001 the applicant was discharged from the hospital for outpatient treatment with recommendations to continue taking medication and to wear a fixating belt.
15. On 12 September 2001 at 7.15 p.m., the applicant was transferred to Rīga Central Prison. Upon admission, he was examined by a doctor, who noted the diagnosis of the specialist hospital and placed the applicant in the surgical ward of the Prison Hospital located within the grounds of the prison. The applicant’s overall state of heath was described as satisfactory.
16. On 14 September 2001 the applicant complained of severe lower back pain and said that he could not lift his right leg or walk. His state of health was described as moderately severe. A procaine blockade (an anaesthetic which affects the peripheral nervous system) was administered to him.
17. On 19 September 2001 a further procaine blockade was administered to the applicant.
18. On 21 September 2001 his pain lessened and he could stand up and walk. On the same day an X-ray was carried out and no injuries other than those noted by the specialist hospital (see paragraph 13 above) were found. An X-ray of his lungs was also carried out, the results of which were clear.
19. On 25 September 2001 the applicant had cold-like symptoms and complained of lower back pain. He also said that he could not feel his right thigh. Treatment was prescribed to him for an acute respiratory illness.
20. On 26 September 2001 an infiltration in the applicant’s right hip was detected. His fever had been caused by the post-injection infiltration. Over the following two days, the applicant was consulted by a neurologist and a psychiatrist.
21. On 28 September 2001 a surgical procedure was carried out to relieve the applicant’s pain, which continued to persist after that date and until 9 October 2001. On the latter date the applicant’s overall state of health was described as satisfactory and he could walk again.
22. On 10 October 2001 the applicant was discharged from the Prison Hospital, but remained in custody.
23. On 10 September 2001, after the applicant was taken to the police station in Olaine, both traffic officers were questioned by an inspector of the Olaine police within the criminal proceedings concerning the firearm charge (see paragraph 33 below).
24. E.Š. was the first to make a statement, on 10 September 2001 between 10 and 10.30 p.m. His version of events was as follows. In a residential area in Jaunolaine, he had taken the applicant by the hand and had made him step out of the car. Both he and his colleague had seen a firearm in the applicant’s inner left jacket pocket. They had both proceeded to push him to the ground and to handcuff him. His colleague, O.Ž., had taken the firearm out of the jacket pocket. They had then called the local Olaine police, who had arrived and had confiscated the firearm. The local police had also found a bullet in the car the applicant had been driving. Lastly, the police officers breathalysed the applicant and found that he had been under the influence of alcohol.
25. In addition, in a report to his superior, which was drafted on the same day, E.Š. noted that restraint techniques had been used on the applicant because a firearm and bullets had been found in his inner left jacket pocket.
26. O.Ž. made his statement on 10 September 2001, between 10.40 and 11.15 p.m. His evidence was very similar to that of his colleague. He also stated that they had both seen the firearm in the applicant’s jacket and had pushed the applicant to the ground and had handcuffed him. O.Ž. had then taken the firearm and the local police had confiscated it. He also noted that the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol. He had found out later that the local police had also found a bullet in the car.
27. In addition, in a report to his superior, which was drafted on the same day, O.Ž. noted that when he had seen the firearm, he had taken it out of the applicant’s jacket. He added that the applicant had been handcuffed for around forty minutes as he had been behaving aggressively. Lastly, he mentioned that the applicant had agreed to be breathalysed on the spot.
28. The applicant was first questioned by the inspector of the Olaine police on 11 September 2001 at 9.50 a.m. He submitted that he had been illtreated upon his arrest and said that he was not in a position to make a statement because he felt severe back pain. He mentioned the fact that he had previously undergone spinal surgery. At 10.15 a.m. the interview was terminated and the applicant was then taken to hospital (see paragraphs 12 et seq.).
29. During his subsequent questioning by prosecutor J.D., on 21 September 2001 (see paragraph 37 below), the applicant maintained his allegation that he had been ill-treated upon arrest.
30. On 9 November 2001 an expert commenced the forensic medical examination, which had been ordered on 10 October 2001 by prosecutor J.D. It appears that it was completed on 15 November 2001, when report no. 46-4528 was issued. The examination was based on the applicant’s medical records from the public and specialist hospitals, as well as his records from the Prison Hospital (see paragraphs 12 to 22 above). It appears that the applicant was not examined in person. The expert concluded that the applicant had not sustained any injuries. In reaching that conclusion, the expert noted that she had not taken into account the first diagnosis made by the specialist hospital that the applicant had “a hyperextension injury and contusion to the lower back” (see paragraph 13 above) because:
“[I]t [was] not confirmed by objective clinical symptoms or by visible bodily injuries, but rather was based on the applicant’s complaints relating to the dislodging of the metal implant following osteosynthesis surgery and [the dislodging] cannot be regarded as bodily injuries on the grounds of instructions concerning the forensic medical examination.”
31. She had also not taken into account the second diagnosis made by the specialist hospital that the applicant had “a fracture to the L3 vertebra” (see paragraph 13 above) as it had been an old fracture and had not been connected to the events of 10 September 2001, a fact confirmed by a specialist’s opinion of 15 November 2001. It appears that the results of the opinion were not made available to the applicant.
32. On 27 November 2001 prosecutor J.D. decided to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings. Her decision was worded as follows:
“The materials regarding [the applicant’s] complaint that officers O.Ž. and E.Š. had assaulted him during his arrest on 10 September 2001 have been separated from the criminal case file.
In their witness statements, O.Ž. and E.Š. categorically denied that they had assaulted the applicant. None of the officers had assaulted him.
Furthermore, according to forensic report no. 4528, dated 9 November 2001, no injuries were found on the applicant’s body. The fracture to the applicant’s L3 vertebra was not taken into account for the purposes of the forensic report, because it was old and was not connected to the injuries of 10 September 2001.
In the circumstances, the actions of E.Š. and O.Ž. do not contain the elements of a criminal offence and there is no basis on which to institute criminal proceedings.
Considering the above, and in accordance with section 5 and section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is decided:
1. to refuse to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of assault on 10 September 2001;
2. to notify the applicant of this decision.”
33. On 10 September 2001 the Olaine police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with the illegal acquisition and storage of a firearm. It appears that while at the police station, the applicant was breathalysed for a second time.
34. On the same date an initial forensic examination of the firearm took place, which had been ordered by the Olaine police. Three further forensic examinations followed in the same month. The examination reports included a note stating that the firearm and a bullet had been confiscated from the car the applicant had been driving. The examinations revealed that there had been no fingerprints on the firearm and that the applicant’s jacket had not contained any traces of firearm oil, which had been found on the firearm.
35. On 12 September 2001 the Rīga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) remanded the applicant in custody. He appealed against the order to no avail.
36. On 18 September 2001 the case file was sent to the relevant prosecutor’s office in Rīga (Rīgas rajona prokuratūra).
37. On 21 September 2001 prosecutor J.D. charged the applicant with the illegal acquisition and storage of a firearm. He denied the charge, saying that the police officers had ill-treated him and had then planted the firearm on him.
38. On 8 October 2001 a confrontation took place in which prosecutor J.D. cross-examined the applicant and both traffic police officers; the applicant’s counsel was present. O.Ž maintained statements he had previously made on 10 September 2001 (see paragraph 26 above). The applicant submitted that during his arrest, O.Ž. had pulled him out of the car by his hand, had pulled his hands behind his back and had pushed him to the ground. When he had tried to turn around, an officer had started kicking him in his shoulders and arms. One of the officers had put his feet on his back. He alleged that he had been kicked some five or six times. He had told the officers about his disability and had invited them to verify his documents, which had been in his car. One of the officers had gone to his car and had found his disability certificate. The other officer, who had remained with his feet on his back, had then kicked him again. Afterwards, he had been ordered to stand up and put on his jacket, which had prior to that been in his car. He had been ordered to empty his pockets and had then felt an object similar to a firearm in his inner left pocket, which he had taken out and immediately dropped on the ground. The officers had then asked him if he had found everything, and he had noticed another object of a rectangular shape in the same pocket, which he had also dropped on the ground, which had turned out to be an ammunition clip (aptvere). He had then been handcuffed, breathalysed and handed over to the Olaine police.
39. On 8 October 2001 prosecutor J.D. cross-examined the applicant and E.Š, who maintained statements he had made on 10 September 2001 (see paragraph 24 above); the applicant’s counsel was present. The applicant submitted that during his arrest, he had been kicked some five or six times in his back and arms, and that one of the officers had been standing or kneeling on his back while the other officer had handcuffed him. While in this position, he had made them aware of his disability and one of the officers had proceeded to verify his documents. After some time, they had made him stand up and put on his jacket, which had prior to that been in his car. The officers had searched him and he had felt an object similar to a firearm in his inner left pocket, which he had taken out and immediately dropped on the ground. The officers had then asked him if he had found everything and he had noticed another object of a rectangular shape in the same pocket, which he had also dropped on the ground.
40. On 10 October 2001 prosecutor J.D. decided to order a forensic medical examination to determine the injuries sustained by the applicant. In her decision, she noted that the applicant’s statements suggested that the police officers had pulled him out of the car, had pushed him to the ground and had kicked him no less than five times in the back, shoulders and arms. In addition, she noted that the applicant had submitted that one of the officers had been standing on the exact spot where he had had his injury. She also noted that the applicant had been Category 2 disabled and at the time of the arrest had been under the influence of alcohol. The decision to order the forensic examination was received by the competent forensic authority on 8 November 2001.
41. On 22 October 2001 the applicant was released pending trial in connection with the firearm charge, but was remanded in custody in relation to other charges (see paragraph 48 below).
42. On 5 November 2001 prosecutor J.D. decided to separate the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment from his criminal case file (see, as concerns the investigation, paragraphs 23 et seq. above). In her decision, she noted that the applicant had been arrested on 10 September 2001 for a traffic offence, and that the police officers had found a firearm in his jacket pocket. She also noted the applicant’s submissions about his alleged illtreatment and the fact that the traffic officers had denied the allegations. Lastly, she noted that although a forensic medical examination had been ordered, it had not yet been carried out. As it was her view that the results of the examination would not affect the qualification of the applicant’s offence, she separated the materials concerning the alleged ill-treatment from the case file and sent them to the Olaine police for additional review.
43. There is no information available as to whether any review was carried out by the Olaine police.
44. On 8 November 2001 prosecutor J.D. sought the advice of an expert to answer the question “Would the driver of a BMW 535 driven on wet tarmac at a speed of 200 to 230 km/h lose control, if a window is opened, either manually or electronically, to throw something out?” The expert concluded that it was possible in both situations, but that it would be more difficult if the window was opened manually, which was less likely to be the case for the model of car mentioned.
45. On 20 November 2001 prosecutor J.D. issued the final bill of indictment concerning the firearm charge against the applicant.
46. On 22 November 2001 and 8 January 2002 prosecutor J.D. examined the applicant’s request for the criminal proceedings against him to be terminated on the grounds that he was innocent, his guilt not having been proven, and because the firearm did not belong to him. She rejected the request on the basis that the applicant’s guilt had been proven by the case materials in their entirety. There were therefore no grounds to terminate the criminal proceedings.
47. Meanwhile, on 17 September 2001, the Jelgava police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with the bodily injury and rape of a minor girl that had taken place on 9 September 2001.
48. It appears that on 22 October 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody in connection with those charges.
49. On an unspecified date the case was sent to the relevant prosecutor’s office in Jelgava (Jelgavas pilsētas prokuratūra).
50. On 28 November 2001 the final bill of indictment was issued concerning the bodily injury and rape charge against the applicant.
51. A trial took place from 24 May to 4 June 2002, and on the latter date the Jelgava Court (Jelgavas tiesa) found the applicant guilty of both (the firearm and the bodily injury and rape) charges and, taking into account his state of his health, sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment, into which a previous suspended prison sentence was also incorporated.
52. As concerns his arrest on 10 September 2001, the applicant told the court that he had been fleeing from the police. He submitted that two police officers had pulled him out of the car in Jaunolaine, had pushed him to the ground and had handcuffed him. While lying down on the ground, he had been kicked hard several times in his back. He then had felt a sharp pain in his back, had told the officers about his disability and had invited them to verify his documents, which they had done. The officers had then made him stand up and put on his jacket, which until then had been lying on the passenger seat. Afterwards, one of the officers had ordered him to empty his pockets. He had felt a gun in his pocket and had immediately dropped it on the ground. The officers had then requested all the contents of his pockets to be emptied. When he had felt another object in his pocket, which had turned out to be an ammunition clip, he had dropped that on the ground as well.
53. As concerns the firearm, the applicant submitted that it had not been his. It had either been planted on him by the police officers in an attempt to evade criminal liability for having assaulted a disabled person, or by someone who had put it in his pocket the day before (during the events surrounding the bodily injury and rape charge).
54. The trial court did not give credence to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police officers on the grounds that the forensic examination had concluded that the applicant had not sustained any bodily injuries (see paragraph 30 above).
55. O.Ž. was the only traffic police officer to give evidence before the trial court and relied on his cross-examination with the applicant (see paragraph 38 above). O.Ž. testified that on pulling the applicant out of the car in Jaunolaine, his jacket had opened and O.Ž. had seen an object similar to a firearm in the applicant’s inner pocket. For that reason he had been pushed to the ground using force and handcuffs had been put on him. O.Ž. had then taken the firearm out of the applicant’s inner pocket and had put it on the bonnet of the car. The local police had then been called.
56. In examining the officer’s evidence, the trial court found it consistent and unvaried throughout the preliminary investigation and the trial. They further relied on evidence given by an officer of the Olaine police during the pre-trial investigation, who stated that when he had arrived at the scene the firearm had been on the bonnet of the car and a bullet had been found inside.
57. On 21 October 2002, following an appeal by the applicant, the Zemgale Regional Court (Zemgales apgabaltiesa) upheld the judgment of the trial court.
58. The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law, but on 2 December 2002 this was dismissed by the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāts) in a preparatory meeting.
59. From 12 September to 10 October 2001 the applicant was held in the Prison Hospital located within the grounds of Rīga Central Prison. His medical care during that period is described above (see paragraphs 15 to 22 above).
60. In addition, he was also held in the Prison Hospital during the following periods:
from 15 November to 3 December 2001;
from 19 to 27 December 2001;
from 17 to 25 January 2002;
from 22 December 2002 to 13 January 2003;
from 17 January to 7 February 2004; and
from 17 to 24 January 2006.
61. It appears that between the periods of hospitalisation prior to his conviction, he was detained in the prison itself.
62. In the meantime, on 10 October 2001 the applicant’s lawyer applied to a prosecutor seeking permission for the applicant to be transported from the prison to the Commission for Health and Working Capacity Examination (Veselības un darbaspēju ekspertīzes komisija). On 13 November 2001 that prosecutor informed the lawyer that under Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no. 358 (1995), transport to the Commission was only permitted for convicted prisoners. Its doctors were not permitted to visit detainees awaiting trial in Rīga Central Prison.
63. On 19 August 2002 the applicant was transferred to Liepāja Prison to serve his sentence, where he remained until 13 December 2002. Upon admission, he requested that he be provided with mobility assistance. He immediately received crutches. By the end of August, with the help of a donation by the local Red Cross, he received a wheelchair.
64. On 13 December 2002 the applicant was transferred to Pārlielupe Prison to continue serving his sentence. He was held in that prison until 27 October 2003, save for a period of twenty-two days when he was in the Prison Hospital (see paragraph 60 above).
65. On 9 April 2003 the local social services in Jelgava (Jelgavas sociālo lietu pārvalde) informed the applicant that a wheelchair had been ordered for him and would be delivered accordingly.
66. On 27 October 2003 the applicant was transferred to Valmiera Prison to continue serving his sentence. He was held in that prison until 21 April 2006, save for two periods of twenty-one and seven days respectively when he was in the Prison Hospital (see paragraph 60 above).
67. In the prison the applicant was placed in “the open living area” (atklātā dzīvojamā zona) in a unit for convicted prisoners with health problems. The applicant shared his cell with another inmate.
68. The facilities in Valmiera Prison were adapted for the applicant’s needs to the following extent:
he was allowed to have his meals delivered to his cell instead of having to go to the canteen;
he was allowed to attend sauna once a week at special times;
every day from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. he could stay in the open area in his unit and have access to fresh air;
a ramp was installed so that he could access the outdoor yard;
toilets were adapted for his needs;
he was exempted from social work and from every day checkups;
the staff of the medical unit visited him in his cell so that he did not need to go to the unit himself.
69. On 29 January 2004 a computerised tomography (CT) scan of the applicant’s spine was carried out at a specialist clinic in Rīga. On two further occasions the applicant was examined at a public hospital in Valmiera.
70. On 2 August 2005 the applicant complained to the National Human Rights Office (Valsts cilvēktiesību birojs) about the conditions of his detention in Valmiera Prison and the adequacy of his medical support. As he had become paraplegic, he could not access the sanitation facilities (including the toilets and shower), library, shop or meeting and telephone rooms. He was also unable to go outside for walks. The applicant complained that he needed two operations, one so that he could walk again and the other to remove the metal implant supporting his spine. On 12 August 2005 his complaint was forwarded to the Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde).
71. On 2 September 2005 the Prisons Administration replied to the applicant and the National Human Rights Office that his complaints concerning the medical unit of Valmiera Prison were unsubstantiated. The Category 1 disability certificate had been granted to the applicant from 13 February 2005 to 28 February 2006. He had correctly noted himself in his complaint that such surgery could not be performed in Latvia. Furthermore, the medication necessary for acute conditions was available in the medical unit of Valmiera Prison.
72. On 7 September 2005 the National Human Rights Office sent the Prisons Administration a repeated request seeking a comprehensive review of the applicant’s complaints as it had not been done. In particular, answers were required concerning the applicant’s medical and social care and social integration in the prison.
73. On 21 September 2005 the Prisons Administration replied, adding to its previous letter that the applicant had failed to approach the medical staff in Valmiera Prison as concerns the surgery he allegedly needed. It stated that only doctors could ascertain if, where and when the applicant needed surgery and under which circumstances. According to the information in its possession, at that time no real possibility had existed for such surgery to be performed in Latvia. At the same time, it had been aware that the operations requested had not been urgent. The applicant had also been advised to actively engage in therapeutic/remedial gymnastics (ārstnieciskā fizkultūra). As concerns his social care, under domestic law there was no such care in prisons for the disabled and, accordingly, the administration of Valmiera Prison could not appoint someone to assist the applicant. The prison staff did not include social workers. Lastly, it was noted that as far as possible the administration of Valmiera Prison had facilitated the applicant’s life in prison, for example, by exempting him from participating in daily checkups.
74. On 12 October and 7 December 2005 the National Human Rights Office requested further information from the Prisons Administration and the Ministry of Justice concerning social care for disabled prisoners.
75. On 27 January 2006 the National Human Rights Office informed the applicant that, according to the information provided by the Ministry of Justice, domestic law did not contain any provisions for social care for prisoners with disabilities. However, new regulations concerning the issue were in the process of being drafted.
76. On 21 April 2006 the Valmiera District Court (Valmieras rajona tiesa) conditionally released the applicant prior to completion of his sentence (atbrīvot nosacīti pirms termiņa) ten months and seventeen days early, on the grounds that he had served three-quarters of his sentence, had not breached the prison regime (his disciplinary punishments had been removed), had a Category 1 disability and had received a satisfactory reference from the administration of the prison.
77. It appears that the applicant’s medical records contain information received from the State Probation Service in Jelgava suggesting that after his release, the applicant had been seen walking around the city of Jelgava on his own legs and drinking.
78. The Convention entered into force on 3 May 2008, was signed by Latvia on 18 July 2009 and ratified on 1 March 2010. The relevant parts provide:
“For the purposes of the present Convention:
...
‘Reasonable accommodation’ means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; ...”
“2. States Parties shall ensure that if persons with disabilities are deprived of their liberty through any process, they are, on an equal basis with others, entitled to guarantees in accordance with international human rights law and shall be treated in compliance with the objectives and principles of this Convention, including by provision of reasonable accommodation.”
79. In Interim Report of 28 July 2008 (A/63/175), the then UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr Manfred Nowak, noted as follows:
“50. ... Persons with disabilities often find themselves in [situations of powerlessness], for instance when they are deprived of their liberty in prisons or other places ... In a given context, the particular disability of an individual may render him or her more likely to be in a dependant situation and make him or her an easier target of abuse ...
...
53. States have the further obligation to ensure that treatment or conditions in detention do not directly or indirectly discriminate against persons with disabilities. If such discriminatory treatment inflicts severe pain or suffering, it may constitute torture or other form of ill-treatment. ...
54. The Special Rapporteur notes that under article 14, paragraph 2, of the CRPD, States have the obligation to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are entitled to ‘provision of reasonable accommodation’. This implies an obligation to make appropriate modifications in the procedures and physical facilities of detention centres ... to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms as others, when such adjustments do not impose disproportionate or undue burden. The denial or lack of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities may create detention ... conditions that amount to ill-treatment and torture.”
80. The relevant extracts from the 3rd General Report (CPT/Inf (93) 12; 4 June 1993) by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) read as follows:
e. Humanitarian assistance
“64. Certain specific categories of particularly vulnerable prisoners can be identified. Prison health care services should pay especial attention to their needs.”
...
iv) prisoners unsuited for continued detention
“70. Typical examples of this kind of prisoner are those who are the subject of a shortterm fatal prognosis, who are suffering from a serious disease which cannot be properly treated in prison conditions, who are severely handicapped or of advanced age. The continued detention of such persons in a prison environment can create an intolerable situation. In cases of this type, it lies with the prison doctor to draw up a report for the responsible authority, with a view to suitable alternative arrangements being made.”
g. Professional competence
“76. To ensure the presence of an adequate number of staff, nurses are frequently assisted by medical orderlies, some of whom are recruited from among the prison officers. At the various levels, the necessary experience should be passed on by the qualified staff and periodically updated.
Sometimes prisoners themselves are allowed to act as medical orderlies. No doubt, such an approach can have the advantage of providing a certain number of prisoners with a useful job. Nevertheless, it should be seen as a last resort. Further, prisoners should never be involved in the distribution of medicines.
77. Finally, the CPT would suggest that the specific features of the provision of health care in a prison environment may justify the introduction of a recognised professional speciality, both for doctors and for nurses, on the basis of postgraduate training and regular in-service training.”
81. Recommendation no. R (98) 7 of the Committee of Ministers of 8 April 1998 concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison, provides, in so far as relevant:
C. Persons unsuited to continued detention: serious physical handicap, advanced age, short term fatal prognosis
“50. Prisoners with serious physical handicaps and those of advanced age should be accommodated in such a way as to allow as normal a life as possible and should not be segregated from the general prison population. Structural alterations should be effected to assist the wheelchair-bound and handicapped on lines similar to those in the outside environment. ...”
82. Recommendation CM/Rec (2012) 5 of the Committee of Ministers of 12 April 2012 on the European Code of Ethics for Prison Staff, provides, in particular:
D. Care and assistance
“19. Prison staff shall be sensitive to the special needs of individuals, such as juveniles, women, minorities, foreign nationals, elderly and disabled prisoners, and any prisoner who might be vulnerable for other reasons, and make every effort to provide for their needs.
20. Prison staff shall ensure the full protection of the health of persons in their custody and, in particular, shall take immediate action to secure medical attention whenever required.
21. Prison staff shall provide for the safety, hygiene and appropriate nourishment of persons in the course of their custody. They shall make every effort to ensure that conditions in prison comply with the requirements of relevant international standards, in particular the European Prison Rules.
22. Prison staff shall work towards facilitating the social reintegration of prisoners through a programme of constructive activities, individual interaction and assistance.”
83. The European Prison Rules, adopted on 11 January 2006, are recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to member States of the Council of Europe as to the minimum standards to be applied in prisons. States are encouraged to be guided in legislation and policies by those rules and to ensure wide dissemination of the Rules to their judicial authorities as well as to prison staff and inmates. The relevant parts read as follows:
Hygiene
“19.1 All parts of every prison shall be properly maintained and kept clean at all times.
19.2 When prisoners are admitted to prison the cells or other accommodation to which they are allocated shall be clean.
19.3 Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy.
19.4 Adequate facilities shall be provided so that every prisoner may have a bath or shower, at a temperature suitable to the climate, if possible daily but at least twice a week (or more frequently if necessary) in the interest of general hygiene.
19.5 Prisoners shall keep their persons, clothing and sleeping accommodation clean and tidy.
19.6 The prison authorities shall provide them with the means for doing so, including toiletries and general cleaning implements and materials.”
84. The relevant provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (Kriminālprocesa kodekss), in force until 1 October 2005, read as follows:
“A court, prosecutor or investigating authority, in so far as it is within its powers, shall institute criminal proceedings whenever signs of a criminal offence (noziedzīga nodarījuma pazīmes) are discovered, using all means laid down in law with a view to discovering any incidence of a criminal offence and the persons responsible for the criminal offence in order to punish them.”
“Criminal proceedings may not be instituted, but instituted proceedings shall be terminated: ...
2) if there are no elements of a criminal offence. ...”
“An investigating authority, prosecutor, judge or court shall accept material, applications and declarations concerning a criminal offence that has been committed or planned, including in cases which do not fall under its jurisdiction.
In response to the material, applications or declarations received, one of the following decisions shall be adopted:
1) to institute criminal proceedings,
2) to refuse to institute criminal proceedings,
3) to forward the application or declaration to the competent authority.
...
Applications and declarations concerning crimes shall be examined immediately, but at the latest within ten days of their receipt. If an expert or audit report or specialist’s consultation is necessary for such examination, applications and declarations shall be examined at the latest within 30 days. ”
“A copy of the decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings ... shall be sent to the applicant and those concerned with an explanation of their right to complain about the decision: a decision adopted by an investigating authority to a corresponding prosecutor, by a prosecutor to a higher-ranking prosecutor, by a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General to the Prosecutor General, and by a judge to a higher-instance court.”
“An individual, the criminal proceedings against whom have been terminated, a victim and his or her representative, as well as an applicant or an institution upon which application the criminal proceedings had been instituted, shall immediately be informed of the termination of the criminal proceedings by a prosecutor or an investigating authority (izziņas izdarītājs), with an explanation of their rights to be acquainted with the decision and with the case materials. ...
Those concerned may lodge an appeal to a higher-ranking prosecutor or, if a decision has been taken by a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General, to the Prosecutor General, within five days of being notified.”
“A suspected or an accused individual and their counsel or legal representatives, witnesses, experts, translators, guarantors, as well as a victim, a civil party, a civil respondent, their representatives and other individuals may lodge complaints with a prosecutor about the actions of an investigating authority. The complaints shall be submitted to a prosecutor directly or through the intermediary of the authority against whom the complaint was brought. Complaints may be made either in writing or verbally. In the latter case, the prosecutor or the investigating authority shall write the complaints down in the minutes to be signed by the complainant. The complaint submitted to the investigating authority shall be forwarded, together with written explanations by the latter to the prosecutor. ...”
“The prosecutor supervising the investigation shall review a complaint within ten days of receipt. A higher-ranking prosecutor shall review a complaint within ten days of receipt, or if further investigation is necessary or additional information has to be requested, within thirty days. The complainant shall be informed of the outcome. If the complaint is rejected as unsubstantiated, the prosecutor shall provide reasons and explain the procedure for appeal. An appeal against the decision made by the prosecutor in reviewing the complaint, may be made by the complainant or the investigating authority to a higher-ranking prosecutor.”
“Complaints about the actions of a prosecutor shall be submitted to a higher-ranking prosecutor and reviewed in accordance with the procedure laid down in sections 220 and 221 of this Code.”
85. Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no. 358 (1999), in force at the material time and effective until 28 March 2007, provided as follows:
“2. Convicted persons shall receive the minimum standard of health care free of charge up to the amount established by the Cabinet of Ministers. In addition, the Prisons Administration, within its budgetary means, shall provide the convicted persons with:
2.1. primary, secondary and tertiary (in part) medical care;
2.2. emergency dental care;
2.3. examination of health conditions;
2.4. preventive and anti-epidemic measures;
2.5. medication and injections prescribed by a doctor of the institution;
2.6. medical accessories.
3. Detained persons shall receive medical care in accordance with Article 2 of these regulations, excluding planned inpatient treatment ... Detained persons shall be sent to receive inpatient treatment only in acute circumstances.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 3


ITEMID: 001-61584
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: SVK
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2004
DOCNAME: CASE OF KONIG v. SLOVAKIA
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: 8. The applicant was born in 1970. He is serving a sentence in the Ilava prison.
9. On 17 October 1995 the applicant was apprehended by the police as he was suspected of having murdered a taxi driver. Criminal proceedings were brought and the applicant was detained on remand in that context.
10. The main hearing before the Košice Regional Court was held on 24 February 1997. In his final speech the applicant requested, inter alia, that he should be released from detention. On the same day the Košice Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and of the unauthorised carrying of a weapon and sentenced him to twelve and a half years’ imprisonment. Neither the judgment nor the minutes mentioned the applicant’s request for release. In terms of domestic law the applicant continued being detained on remand until the final effect of the judgment leading to his conviction.
11. On 25 April and on 14 June 1997 the applicant appealed against the Regional Court’s judgment.
12. In a letter dated 12 May 1997 the applicant informed the presiding judge of the Košice Regional Court that he maintained his request for release from detention on remand of 24 February 1997.
13. On 2 July 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment convicting the applicant became final on the same day.
14. On 29 October 1997 and on 25 March 1998 respectively the president of the Košice Regional Court and the Ministry of Justice admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that no decision had been taken on his application for release lodged at the hearing before the Regional Court on 24 February 1997.
15. Article 72(2) provides that an accused person has the right to file an application for release from detention on remand at any time. Such an application has to be decided upon without delay. Where such an application was dismissed, the accused can renew it fourteen days after the relevant decision has become final unless the application is based on different reasons.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 5
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 5-4


ITEMID: 001-84028
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: ALB
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF DYBEKU v. ALBANIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 3
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: 6. The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Peqin High Security Prison.
7. From 1996 onwards the applicant has been suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. For many years he has received in-patient treatment in various psychiatric hospitals in Albania.
8. On 23 August 2002 three persons died, including two children aged 10 and 13, and others were injured as a result of explosives placed in the applicant’s sister’s family’s flat.
9. On 24 August 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, who, on the same day, was arrested and charged with one count of voluntary homicide, inter alia, of children and one count of illegal possession of explosives. The applicant was placed in the pre-trial detention facility of Durrës Police Commissariat, where he shared a cell with an unspecified number of prisoners.
10. On 27 May 2003, on the basis of a medical report which concluded that at the time of the commission of the offence the applicant’s mental disorder was in a period of remission, the Durrës District Court ruled that the applicant was able to stand trial. Subsequently, the court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
11. On 4 June 2003 the applicant’s counsel lodged an appeal with the Durrës Court of Appeal, claiming that the proceedings had been unfair since the experts’ report had been biased and unsubstantiated. He asked the court to order a new medical report in order to establish his state of health.
12. On 4 September 2003 and 2 March 2004 respectively, the Durrës Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s decision. Moreover, the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s request for a fresh medical examination. They held that the first medical assessment had been performed by impartial professionals and had complied with procedural safeguards.
13. Since December 2003 the applicant has been transferred to three different prisons to serve his sentence, namely Tirana Prison no. 302, Tepelene Prison and Peqin Prison, where he is currently being held. He has shared cells with other inmates who were in good health and has received the same treatment as them, notwithstanding his state of health. He has also regularly visited Tirana Prison’s hospital, where he has been treated as an in-patient.
14. Given the applicant’s increasingly disturbed state of mind, on 7 January 2005 his counsel initiated proceedings before the Tirana District Court seeking his release or transfer to a medical facility on the ground that his detention conditions were inappropriate to his state of health and put his life at risk. The applicant’s counsel requested the court to order that the applicant be examined by psychiatric experts. The request was based on medical reports issued by practitioners who had treated the applicant in the period from March to April 2003.
15. On 11 April 2005 the Tirana District Court dismissed the request as unsubstantiated since the medical reports submitted by the applicant’s counsel failed to prove that the conditions of his detention posed any threat to his life or state of health.
16. On 27 September 2005 and 17 February 2006 the Tirana Court of Appeal and Supreme Court respectively upheld the District Court’s decision. According to the applicant, the Supreme Court’s decision was not served on him until 3 April 2006.
17. On 25 June 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant on the ground that his claims related to the assessment of evidence which fell outside its jurisdiction.
“A person who commits murder against: (a) a minor under sixteen years of age; ... shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or to a term of not less then twenty years of imprisonment.”
“The execution judge may decide that a detainee should be released where the continuation of his detention may have consequences for his life.”
18. The relevant extracts from the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. R (87) 3 on the European Prison Rules (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 February 1987 at the 404th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies), as revised and updated by Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006 at the 952nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies), read as follows:
“Health care
39. Prison authorities shall safeguard the health of all prisoners in their care.
Organisation of prison health care
40.1 Medical services in prison shall be organised in close relation with the general health administration of the community or nation.
40.2 Health policy in prisons shall be integrated into, and compatible with, national health policy.
40.3 Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation.
40.4 Medical services in prison shall seek to detect and treat physical or mental illnesses or defects from which prisoners may suffer.
40.5 All necessary medical, surgical and psychiatric services including those available in the community shall be provided to the prisoner for that purpose.
...
Health care provision
46.1 Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialised institutions or to civil hospitals, when such treatment is not available in prison.
46.2 Where a prison service has its own hospital facilities, they shall be adequately staffed and equipped to provide the prisoners referred to them with appropriate care and treatment.
Mental health
47.1 Specialised prisons or sections under medical control shall be available for the observation and treatment of prisoners suffering from mental disorder or abnormality who do not necessarily fall under the provisions of Rule 12.
47.2 The prison medical service shall provide for the psychiatric treatment of all prisoners who are in need of such treatment and pay special attention to suicide prevention. ...”
19. A delegation of the CPT visited Albania from 28 to 31 March 2006. The relevant parts of the CPT’s report of 6 September 2007 read as follows (emphasis added by the CPT):
“11. In the report on the 2005 visit, the CPT emphasised that, in several of the pre-trial detention facilities visited (in particular, at Durrës), detained persons were being held in conditions of detention which could easily be considered as inhuman or degrading. Indeed, the accumulation of execrable material conditions, the legal prohibition of any activity inside the cell, the almost total absence of activities outside the cell, and the prolonged duration of placements in the facilities concerned was described by Committee as ‘being, in its experience, unique in a European context’.
It is a matter of grave concern that from the observations made at Durrës during the March 2006 visit, the situation has clearly remained virtually unchanged. It must be added that the situation found at Fier Police Directorate was scarcely more favourable.
During the high-level consultations with the Albanian authorities, the delegation’s view was also shared by the Prime Minister who stated that the conditions of detention in pre-trial detention facilities were ‘a shame for Albania’.
Already at this stage, the CPT must also express its serious concern about the absence of care for a severely ill detainee who was found in his cell in the pre-trial detention facilities at Fier Police Directorate. He had been left in a catatonic state on the floor of his cell for several days, without receiving any medical attention.
These issues will be addressed in detail in the following section of the present report, but the seriousness justifies them already being flagged in this section on ill-treatment.
...
23. The 2006 visit demonstrated that not a single of the specific recommendations repeatedly made in this respect by the CPT in previous visit reports had been implemented in practice, despite the explicit assurances given to the contrary by the Albanian authorities in their response to the report on the 2003 visit. In particular, in neither establishment visited were newly-arrived detainees subject to medical screening on admission (except in cases of emergency or upon request). Further, medical examinations/consultations when they did occur were still systematically carried out in the presence of police officers. It should be added that in those few cases when medical files had been opened, they lacked basic medical data and were usually accessible to non-medical staff. Such a state of affairs is totally unacceptable.
24. Further, no improvements had been made as regards the general provision of health care in either establishment visited, notwithstanding various recommendations made by the CPT in the reports on the 2003 and 2005 visits. More specifically, no steps had been taken to ensure the regular presence of qualified nursing staff (on a full-time basis at Durrës). It is particularly worrying that the Albanian authorities, in their response of 27 June 2006 to the report on the 2005 visit, totally failed to address the recommendations made by the Committee on this subject.
25. The health care provided in the pre-trial detention facilities at Fier appeared to be particularly problematic and, in a number of cases, even inexistent. In addition, conditions in the health-care facilities were appalling. The delegation received many complaints from inmates about delays in having access to the doctor and the quality of the health care provided; the delegation observed itself, on the spot, the case of one inmate in need of urgent medical care who had been left in a state of total neglect.
As already mentioned in paragraph 11, a mentally ill detainee was found lying in a catatonic state on the floor of an overcrowded cell, below a leaking sewage pipe, without receiving any medical attention. He had apparently been in this situation for several days. A physical examination by the medical member of the delegation also revealed that his right leg was of intensive red colour and swollen, painful on palpation. According to fellow inmates, he had sustained the latter injury a few days earlier when he had fallen on the floor in the sanitary facilities (to which he had to be carried by other inmates).
Upon consultation with staff and cellmates, it transpired that the detainee had been hospitalised, due to his serious mental disorder, and returned to the establishment two weeks before the visit. His health condition was said to have been stable for the first couple of days on his return, but to have drastically deteriorated subsequently, apparently due to the fact that he had not received the medication prescribed by the hospital.
When confronted with this case, the doctor claimed that he had seen the inmate concerned, but was not able to provide any precise information about his health condition or the treatment provided.
When asked about the whereabouts of the medical file of the above-mentioned detainee as well as of other detainees, the doctor affirmed that such files existed in respect of every inmate, but claimed that he had no key to the cupboard where the files were said to be stored. After a considerable delay, a key was produced by a police officer, and it came to light that there was not a single personal medical file.
The only medical documentation available was a register for doctors’ visits, the last entry dating back to November 2005. The doctor’s explanation for this state of affairs was that ‘he had not recorded anything, because he had not received any medication to prescribe ever since’. ...”
20. A previous visit by a CPT delegation to Albania took place from 23 May to 3 June 2005. The delegation inspected, inter alia, Tirana Prison Hospital. The relevant parts of the CPT’s report of 2 July 2006 read as follows (emphasis added by the CPT):
“61. Material conditions of detention were appalling in all the pre-trial detention facilities visited. Many detainees were being held in very cramped conditions (for example, up to seven persons in a cell of 5 m² at Vlora or up to ten persons in a cell of 8 m² at Durrës). Cells were only equipped with foam mattresses and/or blankets. In addition, access to natural light was very limited and ventilation extremely poor.
The worst conditions were found at Durrës, where inmates were not even provided with mattresses or bed sheets. Further, some inmates were being accommodated in two storage rooms, which were packed with food parcels of the entire inmate population. Some inmates were found to be in a state of torpidity, and the delegation was informed that, on occasion, inmates had even fainted, as a result of extremely high temperatures and a very high level of humidity. Further, hygienic conditions in most of the cells as well as in the sanitary facilities were appalling (infested with cockroaches, etc.). Not surprisingly, many inmates were suffering from skin diseases and/or breathing problems. It must also be stressed that some of the inmates met by the delegation had already been held in this establishment for several years. ...
108. During the follow-up visit to the prison hospital in Tirana, the delegation mainly focused on the situation of psychiatric patients. It also reviewed the measures taken by the Albanian authorities in the light of the recommendations made after the 2000 visit regarding the prison hospital as a whole. ...
110. Material conditions in the prison hospital had significantly improved since the 2000 visit. All cells were of a reasonable size, had good access to natural light and artificial lighting, and were well equipped (bed, bedside table, table, chair, radio). However, the sanitary facilities were found to be in a very poor state of repair and hygiene. The CPT recommends that steps be taken to remedy these deficiencies.
Further, many complaints were received from patients about the poor quality and quantity of the food provided. Steps should be taken to review the arrangements for the provision of food at the prison hospital.
111. The CPT remains very concerned about the almost total lack of out-of-cell activities for patients at the prison hospital.
As regards patients who had been declared criminally irresponsible, no out-of-cell activities were organised for them, and outdoor exercise was only provided on an irregular, less than weekly, basis, and for less than one hour each time. It is all the more worrying that many of the patients concerned had been staying at the prison hospital under such conditions for several years.
Further, no outdoor exercise at all, nor any other out-of-cell activities were offered to any of the other patients. Thus, except for access to sanitary facilities, patients were usually confined to their rooms 24 hours per day, the only occupation being reading and listening to the radio. The hospital also had no library.
Such a state of affairs is totally unacceptable and constitutes a flagrant failure on the part of the Albanian authorities to implement a recommendation which had already been made after the 1997 visit and reiterated after the subsequent visits to the prison hospital.
The CPT calls upon the Albanian authorities to take immediate steps to ensure that all patients whose state of health permits are offered at least one hour of outdoor exercise per day.
Further, the Committee reiterates its recommendation that a wider range of activities be offered to long-term patients in the prison hospital and that special attention be paid to juveniles serving long-term sentences.
112. The CPT welcomes the recent reinforcement of health-care staff (two additional doctors and one psychologist) at the prison hospital. The delegation was informed that plans were afoot to increase the number of nursing staff. The CPT would like to receive updated information on this matter.
113. As regards the treatment provided to patients, the situation remained, on the whole, unchanged. As in 2000, psychiatric treatment was based exclusively on pharmacotherapy. There were no individualised treatment plans or individual psychotherapy, occupational therapy or group therapy. In this respect, the CPT wishes to stress once again that psychiatric treatment should be based on an individualised approach, which implies the drawing up of a treatment plan for each patient indicating the goals of treatment, the therapeutic means used and the staff member responsible. The treatment plan should also contain the outcome of a regular review of the patient’s mental health condition and a review of the patient’s medication. The treatment should involve a wide range of rehabilitative and therapeutic activities, including access to occupational therapy, group therapy, individual psychotherapy, and sports. In addition, patients should have regular access to suitably equipped leisure rooms; it is also desirable for them to be offered education and suitable work (cf. also paragraph 111).
The CPT reiterates its recommendation that the psychiatric treatment offered to patients at the prison hospital be reviewed, in the light of the above remarks.
114. As regards contact with the outside world, it is praiseworthy that patients now have regular access to a telephone (once per week). As regards visits, the entitlements of patients were identical to those of inmates held in prisons. In this connection, reference is made to the remarks and recommendation made in paragraph 136.
115. The CPT noted that, since the beginning of 2005, agitated patients were no longer shackled to their bed with hand- and ankle-cuffs. Further, no excessive recourse to means of restraint (leather straps; sedative medication) or seclusion was observed. However, there was no special register on the use of means of restraint/seclusion. Steps should be taken to remedy this shortcoming.
116. The confidentiality of medical examinations/consultations and data was not respected at all at the prison hospital. In this connection, reference is made to the remarks and recommendations made in paragraph 127.
117. Persons who had been declared criminally irresponsible were subject to an involuntary placement order for an indefinite period. In such cases, [Article 46 of the Criminal Code] provides that the necessity of that placement be reviewed by the court ex officio after one year. However, the delegation was informed that such judicial reviews had never been carried out ex officio, but only upon request by the person concerned or his lawyer.
The CPT calls upon the Albanian authorities to take immediate steps to ensure that the review procedure under [Article 46 of the Criminal Code] is carried out in respect of all persons who have been declared criminally irresponsible.”
21. The Amnesty International Annual Report 2007 stated, with reference to the state of human rights in Albanian prisons:
“Conditions of detention
Despite an EU-supported programme of prison reform and some improvements to detention conditions, these were still generally very poor and characterized by overcrowding, poor hygiene and sanitation, and inadequate diet and health care. Contrary to Albanian law and international standards, minors were still sometimes held together with adult detainees, and remand and convicted prisoners shared cells. Mentally ill prisoners were often held in prisons instead of being sent for medical treatment in specialized institutions in accordance with court decisions. Detainees held in remand cells in police stations suffered particularly harsh conditions, and there were frequent complaints. Conditions were particularly poor, largely due to overcrowding, in Durrës, Elbasan and Korça police stations.”
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 3


ITEMID: 001-24032
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: SWE
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2004
DOCNAME: SALKIC and OTHERS v. SWEDEN
IMPORTANCE: 2
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: The applicants, Mr Senad Salkic, Mrs Nermina Salkic and their two children, Emir and Selma, are nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina and were born in 1964, 1968, 1990 and 1996 respectively. They are currently residing in Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are represented before the Court by Mr P. Berkhuizen, a lawyer practising in Landskrona.
The applicants are a Muslim family who originate from Ugljevik in Republika Srpska. They fled to Germany in 1992, allegedly after the family had been subjected to harassment and discrimination, such as the dismissal of Mr Salkic from his job. They remained in Germany until August 1998 when they were expelled to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where they were given temporary residence in Tuzla by the Refugee Authority of that city. According to the applicants, they were subsequently the victims of harassment and assaults, including rape committed against Mrs Salkic. Due to the difficult situation and marital problems between Mr and Mrs Salkic, the latter travelled with the children to Sweden, where they arrived on 14 August 2000, and applied for asylum on the grounds that they were living as refugees in Tuzla without the means to support themselves.
On 29 November 2000 the Migration Authority (Migrationsverket) rejected the request for asylum on the ground that Mrs Salkic and her children were able to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina without risking persecution due to their ethnicity or other reasons. It further observed that a clear process of “normalisation” was on-going in Tuzla.
The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden -hereinafter “the Board”), claiming that the situation in Tuzla was not such that they could return. On 19 March 2001 the Board upheld the Migration Authority’s decision in full and, on 9 May 2001, it rejected a new application lodged by the applicants as no new circumstances had been presented.
On 21 May 2001 Mrs Salkic was taken into emergency psychiatric care because her mental health had deteriorated after the Board’s rejections and she was found to be suicidal. A new application was lodged with the Board based on Mrs Salkic’s state of health. However, on 12 June 2001, the Board rejected the application as it found that the circumstances were not so grave that the expulsion of the applicants would constitute a violation of humanitarian standards as laid down in the Aliens Act (Utlänningslagen, 1989:529).
Subsequently, Mrs Salkic and her children lodged, one after another, three new applications with the Board in which they submitted medical certificates indicating that the mental health of all three family members was deteriorating gradually. On 11 September and 22 October 2001, respectively, the Board, on the same grounds as above, refused the first two applications. The third application was refused on 25 February 2002 with, inter alia, the following reasoning:
“No circumstances have emerged which give reasons to assume that [Mrs] Salkic and her children are in need of protection. As concerns [Mrs Salkic’s] state of health, it is possible only in exceptional circumstances to grant a residence permit on this ground. It must then concern a life threatening illness for which care cannot be given in the home country or a handicap of a particularly serious kind. The investigation [in the present case] does not show that her state of health is such that it meets these strict requirements. Neither is a generally difficult situation in the home country such a circumstance which can lead to a residence permit [being granted].
Since the case concerns children under the age of 18, special regard must be had to their health and development and to the children’s best interest in general. When it concerns children who remain in Sweden, after a decision to expel them has gained legal force, the requirements for the grant of a residence permit based on a new application are that the risk of self-destructive actions of an extraordinarily serious nature by the child is considered particularly high, or that the children would be seriously harmed in their psycho-social development if they were to be expelled by force to their home country. However, all the circumstances of the particular case must be taken into account and a balance must be struck between the different interests (...). According to the Board’s assessment, nothing has emerged which shows that it would seriously harm the children in their psycho-social development if they return with their mother to their home country.”
On 17 February 2002 Mr Salkic joined his family in Sweden and applied for asylum and a residence permit, claiming that on two occasions he had been severely beaten by unknown persons due to his father’s political activities and that the police had refused to file his complaints because he was a Muslim. He further stated that he could not return to his home town, Ugljevik, since currently only Serbs lived there. Furthermore, in Tuzla he would not be able to find a job to support his family.
On 8 November 2002 the Migration Authority refused his request for asylum and a residence permit as it considered that he did not risk persecution if returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina. It further noted that he suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), for which he received medication, but that it was not so severe as to motivate granting a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. Mr Salkic appealed to the Board which, on 22 May 2003, upheld the Migration Authority’s decision, concurring with its reasoning.
On 23 June 2003 the family was placed by the social authorities, in co-operation with the Migration Authority, in a family home to undergo family- and individual treatment and be under constant surveillance due to their very weak and volatile mental health which, among other things, had rendered the parents incapable of caring for their children. Furthermore, it was considered that there was a risk that Mrs Salkic and Emir would attempt to commit suicide. The aim of the treatment was to support the parents in assuming their parental roles, keep the family united, improve their mental health and help prepare the family mentally for their return to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The treatment appears to have ended on 27 November 2003 because the family went into hiding following yet another rejection by the Board (see below).
During the autumn of 2003, the family as a whole lodged two more applications with the Board, invoking the continued deterioration of the mental health of all members of the family and the fact that they were undergoing treatment at the family home. The requests were rejected on 30 October and 26 November 2003, respectively, on the grounds that the documentary evidence submitted did not show that the state of health of any of the four family members was so serious that it could be described as a life-threatening illness or a particularly serious handicap, which was the requirement according to the Board’s established case-law. Having regard to the fact that the case involved two children, the Board nonetheless considered that there was nothing which, convincingly, showed that the children would be seriously damaged in their psycho-social development if they were returned to their home country together with their parents.
As mentioned above, following the Board’s rejection on 27 November 2003, Mr and Mrs Salkic and Selma went into hiding to avoid expulsion. They left Emir with an uncle who resided in Sweden. The family was, however, apprehended by the police on 23 February 2004 and Mrs Salkic was taken into custody while Mr Salkic and Selma were placed in an apartment where Emir joined them.
Also, on 23 February 2004, the Board refused yet another application by the family, basing its decision on the same grounds as its previous decisions.
On 2 March 2004 the Board refused to suspend the expulsion pending the decision on yet another application lodged by the applicants. On the same date the applicants’ representative requested the Court to indicate to the Swedish Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to suspend the applicants’ expulsion.
On 2 March 2004, the same date that the request was received by the Court, the President of the Section to which the case had been assigned decided to apply Rule 39 until the next Chamber meeting on 9 March 2004. He considered that it was necessary to obtain information from the Government as to whether someone would meet the family in Sarajevo to provide them with the necessary support there. On the same date the Migration Authority accordingly suspended the expulsion of the applicants until further notice.
In reply to the Court’s query, the Government stated that no arrangements had been made for assistance to the applicants upon their arrival in Sarajevo. However, the Migration Authority had scheduled a meeting with them on 12 March 2004 where the issues would be discussed and similar meetings had taken place on earlier occasions. On a general note, the Government informed the Court that Sweden did not have any particular agreement with the Bosnian authorities, aid organisations or other concerning assistance to returning Bosnians.
On 9 March 2004 the Chamber reconsidered the application in the light of the information provided by the Swedish Government and decided not to prolong the interim measure previously indicated under Rule 39.
On 12 March 2003 the applicants informed the Court that the meeting with the Migration Authority had been cancelled, and disputed that any such meetings had been held on earlier occasions.
On 19 March 2004 the Board rejected the family’s new application and lifted the suspension of the expulsion. The Board noted, inter alia, that the family, like many of their countrymen, had been through traumatic experiences and felt stress and despair at having to return to their home country. However, it maintained its reasoning from its earlier decisions.
On 25 March 2004 the applicants were expelled to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The following description of the applicants’ health is based on medical and psychiatric certificates issued, between June 2001 and February 2004, by doctors, psychologists, child psychologists and a specialist in psychiatry, all of whom examined the applicants, once or over a longer period of time, while they were in Sweden.
When Mr Salkic arrived in Sweden in February 2002, he was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD. According to a certificate by a specialist in psychiatry who met him for consultation on five occasions between October 2002 and February 2003, he was in need of continued psychiatric treatment. The specialist further noted that the applicant’s illness prevented him from assuming his parental responsibilities. In a certificate, dated 26 August 2003, another psychologist who had treated the family since June 2003 stated that Mr Salkic was depressed and unable to care for himself or his family. After having been apprehended by the police in February 2004, he was diagnosed at the psychiatric emergency unit at the hospital in Malmö as having a serious crisis reaction and profound anxiety and feelings of illness.
Mrs Salkic was taken into emergency psychiatric care in May 2001 following a rejection by the Board which caused her to become depressed and express suicidal thoughts. After this, her mental status slowly deteriorated over time even though she was treated by various psychologists and doctors. She was given anti-depressant medication which, apparently, was not of much help. Several of the doctors she was in contact with seemed to agree that her very fragile mental health was due to the uncertainty of her and her family’s life situation during the last 10 years and anxiety about the future. In June 2003 a psychologist diagnosed her as suffering from PTSD. After having been apprehended by police in February 2004, she was diagnosed at the emergency psychiatric unit as having neither a clear depression nor suicidal thoughts, but as being very anxious and showing a severe stress reaction to the situation.
On 12 April 2004 Mr and Mrs Salkic were examined at a health care centre, at the unit for mental rehabilitation, in Tuzla. The doctor found that they were both easily irritated, had a lot of headaches, dizziness, difficulties sleeping and that they were depressive. Moreover, Mrs Salkic was very anxious and tense while Mr Salkic was emotionally unstable. However, both were considered to be lucid and communicative and they were told to return for a psychiatric control within three weeks.
Emir is almost 14 years old and, it appears, the one who has been suffering the most. He has traumas from earlier experiences in life and already in early 2001 the doctors noted that he was very quiet, anxious and withdrawn. He showed a deep mistrust of and fear towards both adults and other children. While in Sweden he was in continuous contact with a Child and Youth Psychiatric Clinic and a child psychologist. During 2002 he developed depression, largely it seems due to his parent’s incapacity to provide him with security, attention and care. In June 2003 he was taken into an emergency unit for child psychiatric care as he was in a deep depression and had expressed clear suicidal thoughts, a state which appears to have remained more or less unchanged since. In a medical certificate, dated 24 February 2004, the psychologist who had had the longest contact with Emir stated that he was in need of serious and long term treatment and that, if he were to be expelled to Bosnia and Herzegovina, he would be at grave risk of permanent psychiatric damage “if he survives at all”.
The girl is now eight years old. According to the child psychologist, who was in continuous contact with the family while they were in Sweden, she has developed an aggressive, troublemaking, conduct to attract attention and appears to have used this as a “survival strategy”. She has shown signs of depression, inter alia, by refusing to eat. The same child psychologist stated that Selma was in need of continuous treatment over a long period to deal with her traumas.
On 6 May 2004 a child psychologist in Tuzla examined Emir and Selma and noted that they showed antipathy towards their surroundings. Emir was found to be in a deep depression which could be interpreted as PTSD. Selma was found to be afraid of forming attachments as she did not want to live there. It was noted that this was typical “Bosnian syndrome” among children who had, previously, only lived briefly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The doctor further stated, on a more general note, that there were no possibilities to give the children the treatment and help that they were in need of in Bosnia and Herzegovina and requested that the Swedish authorities assist, or else it might lead to fatal consequences for the children.
Already in August 1996, the World Bank, together with the Project of Rehabilitation of War Victims (PIU), stressed the importance of the need for physical and psychosocial rehabilitation. One of the components of this project was the establishment of 38 Community Mental Health Centres in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to the purchase of equipment and necessary medication, training and technical aid for physical and occupational therapy, one of the objectives of the Centres was to provide clinical services for persons with mental health problems, and psychosocial rehabilitation of war traumatised persons. Most Centres were established either within or as extensions of existing health-care centres, each planned to cover an area with a population of up to 60 000 inhabitants. In Tuzla canton there were two Centres and in Sarajevo canton there were three. Both cities also had day hospitals and university psychiatric hospitals.
Simultaneously with the establishment of the Centres, several other post-war initiatives were started, creating room for global development of community-based mental health-care. Many of these initiatives were supported by the International Community. Given the huge costs caused by the war devastation (e.g. refugees/displaced persons, wounded, handicapped and killed persons) additional support was provided for mental and psychosocial rehabilitation with a special emphasis on trauma. An increasing number of clients visit the Centres which function although there are problems with lack of funding, lack of professionals and the non-existence of an integrated health insurance funding system [See, www.cmhr-bosnia.org The information appearing on the site is from March 2000].
In 2002 a Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe was created which established a mental health project with immediate support of, inter alia, WHO, the Council of Europe and the Government of Sweden. The Ministry of Health of Bosnia and Herzegovina agreed to coordinate the initiative which focused on developing new and reinforcing existing community mental health services. The object was to provide more affordable and efficient paths to mental health care and rehabilitation.
The European Union and the International Red Cross have also been involved in projects to build up and improve the health care system in Bosnia-Herzegovina.