6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Craiova.
a)  The applicant’s account of events 7.  On 7 April 2004 around 4 p.m., following a traffic incident, the applicant and two others accompanying him, T.C.S and G.M.S., were stopped and arrested by a group of police officers, including police officer G.B., and escorted to Balş police station. 8.  During the questioning, G.B. was very agitated and allegedly hit the applicant several times on the head until he lost consciousness. Afterwards, he gave orders for the applicant to be dragged out into the police station courtyard until he regained consciousness. 9.  After he regained consciousness the applicant realised that he could not move his right foot and could not control his right hand. Consequently, he was carried back into the police station because he was unable to move on his own.
b)  The Government’s account of events 10.  On 7 April 2004, the applicant and two others accompanying him, T.C.S. and G.M.S., were asked to go to the Balş police station by police officer G.B. The police officer had seen the applicant trying to hold up a vehicle in traffic armed with a baseball bat. 11.  At the police station and in the presence of other police officers, the applicant, together with T.C.S. and G.M.S., were asked to provide written statements about the traffic incident. 12.  While they were writing their statements the applicant felt ill and started shaking. Consequently, the police officers took him outside for fresh air for a few minutes. Afterwards, because his condition did not improve, he was laid down on a bed inside the police station and the police officers called an ambulance. 13.  According to the ambulance records of 7 April 2004, the ambulance call from Balş police station was placed at 4.12 p.m. The ambulance left Balş Emergency Hospital at 4.15 p.m. and arrived at the police station at 4.20 p.m. The applicant received treatment for spasmophilia. The ambulance left the police station at 4.45 p.m. and arrived back at the depot at 5.03 p.m. 14.  At Balş Emergency Hospital the applicant was diagnosed with spasmophilia, dystonia and a pre-existent right-sided cavernoma which had been operated on in 2002. 15.  The doctors who examined the applicant at Balş Hospital also made other entries in the medical file. Doctor N., a neurologist, wrote the results of her investigation under entry no. 622 as follows:
“Recent craniocerebral trauma. Operated frontal right-sided cavernoma. Neuro-surgical examination is recommended.” 16.  Doctor D.C.G., a general surgeon, wrote the results of her investigation under entry no. 634 as follows:
“Affirmatively recent craniocerebral trauma. Right-sided surgical scar on the head sensitive to touch.” 17.  Doctor D.C.G. also entered in the hospital’s consultation register under entry no. 634 the following:
“Affirmatively recent craniocerebral trauma. Shows signs of violence. Right-sided  surgical scar on the head, sensitive to touch....” 18.  Doctor G.L.J., a specialist in internal medicine at the Emergency Unit, wrote the results of her investigation under entry no. 851 as follows:
“Affirmatively recent craniocerebral trauma. Referral for neurological examination” 19.  Doctor G.L.J. also filled in the hospital’s consultation register and stated that the applicant did not show signs of violence. 20.  On 8 April 2004 the applicant was still feeling unwell and was hospitalised at the neurosurgery unit of Vlad Voiculescu Hospital in Bucharest, the same hospital where he had undergone an operation for a cavernoma in 2002. According to the applicant’s clinical file and the discharge papers drawn up on 9 April 2004 by doctor C.T., a specialist in neurosurgery, the applicant had been diagnosed with a minor cerebral contusion. He had been committed to the hospital for a paralysis of the right side of the body as a result of a craniocerebral trauma caused by an attack, followed by loss of consciousness. The computerised tomography (CT scan) examination did not show any sign of haemorrhagic cerebral lesions, only a right hypo-dense frontal zone as a result of the cavernoma surgery. Consequently, he was recommended to follow the prescribed treatment, which would be re-evaluated after three months. 21.  On 20 May 2004 the Craiova Institute of Forensic Medicine, sitting in a composition of one specialist forensic doctor, in particular C.T., issued a forensic report at the applicant’s request. The forensic report was dated 7 April 2004 and recorded the following:
“The subject submitted that he was hit on 7 April 2004.
Findings
- Does not show external signs of traumatic lesions. States that he is experiencing headaches and dizziness. Paralysis on the right side. Repetitive contraction of the third, fourth and fifth fingers of the right hand.
- Submitted discharge papers from Vlad Voiculescu Hospital, which show that he was hospitalised there between 8 and 9 April 2004 with diagnoses of “minor cerebral contusion. Operated on for a frontal right-sided cavernoma”. The conclusion of the patient’s medical observation sheet states that “the 23-year-old patient was operated on at the clinic in March 2002 for a frontal right-sided cavernoma. He was readmmitted to the clinic for a right-sided walking difficulty resulting from a cranio-cerebral trauma caused by an attack and followed by loss of consciousness. Objectively neurological – show right-sided paralysis. CT scan – negative with no cerebral bleeding, only a hyper-dense right-sided frontal zone following the cavernoma surgery. Under treatment, with almost full recovery of the right-sided paralysis.”
- The neurological examinations of 15 and 16 April and 18 May 2004 diagnosed the applicant with right-sided paralysis. Status post minor cerebral contusion. Operated right sided frontal cavernoma.
Conclusion
As stated by the medical papers the subject showed traumatic lesions which could have been caused on 7 April 2004 by being hit on or with an instrument with a rough surface, as well as pathological history (operated cavernoma in 2002).
He needs fifty to fifty-five days of medical care from the date the lesions were caused.” 22.  On 29 April 2004, the applicant’s father lodged a complaint against G.B. for ill-treatment inflicted upon the applicant on 7 April 2004, citing crimes of bodily harm and abusive behaviour. The complaint, lodged on behalf of the applicant, was addressed to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal. 23.  On 20 May and 3 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal took a statement from G.B. about the incident. He denied hitting the applicant. 24.  On 20 May and 17 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal took two statements from each of the police officers who had knowledge of the incident the applicant was involved in, in particular M.C., M.L.P., S.S., N.V. and I.D. They all stated that G.B. did not hit the applicant and that the applicant started feeling unwell while he was being questioned about the traffic incident he had been involved in that afternoon. In addition, I.D. testified that G.B.’s office door was constantly open during the questioning and that he had heard the applicant and his companions speaking loudly. N.V. stated that he had briefly entered G.B.s office and had seen the three young people talking to the officer. There were no other people in G.B.’s office, only a number of officers in the corridor. S.S. testified that he had been in the office when G.B. was trying to question the applicant and his friends. M.L.P. stated that he had also been present in the same office when G.B. was trying to question the applicant and his friends. M.C. testified that he had heard loud voices coming from the office where G.B. was questioning the three young men, because the door was open. 25.  On 24 and 26 May and 1 and 16 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal took several statements from the applicant, T.C.S., G.M.S., I.C. and G.C. The applicant, T.C.S., and G.M.S. all stated that he was hit over the head twice by police officer G.B. and that he collapsed immediately. They also testified that G.B. apologised to the applicant for the incident prior to their departure for the hospital and that the apology was witnessed by other people as well. G.M.S. also testified that the applicant had informed D.A.D., the ambulance doctor who treated him, that he had been hit over the head by a police officer. At the same time, I.C. and G.C., friends of the applicant’s family, confirmed that they had seen and heard G.B. apologising to the applicant. 26.  On 25 May 2004 Balş Hospital, represented by its manager M.P and by doctor G.L.J., informed the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal that the applicant’s diagnosis established by doctors G.L.J. and D.C.G. on 7 April 2004 was:
“Spasmophilia, dystonia, pre-existing right-sided cavernoma which had been operated on in 2002. Affirmatively craniocerebral trauma (attack). No signs of violence.” 27.  On 26 May and 17 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal took statements from both G.L.J. and D.C.G. on each occasion. G.L.J. stated that the applicant was brought to the hospital by ambulance around 4.45 p.m. and he claimed that a police officer at Balş police station had hit his face. The applicant did not show any traces of violence on his face, but he became nervous when he saw a police officer, who, she later found out, was G.B. The applicant had a post-surgical scar on his head that was sensitive to touch, but the applicant informed the doctor that the sensitiveness of the surgical scar pre-dated the incident. She diagnosed the applicant with spasmophilia, dystonia, pre-existent right‑sided cavernoma which was operated on in 2002, and affirmed that there had been recent craniocerebral trauma. Her professional opinion was that the applicant showed no traces of violence and the applicant’s neurological symptoms could have been caused by the surgery. He was discharged approximately one hour after arrival, with a recommendation that he should go to the Craiova Neurological Hospital for further investigation, because, according to her, she could not determine if the applicant’s symptoms were caused by a recent attack on him or as a result of a pre-existent pathology. D.C.G. stated that doctor G.L.J. had called her at around 5 p.m. to examine the applicant and found him agitated because he had seen a police officer, who, she later found out, was G.B. She was informed by the applicant that he had been hit on the head by a police officer. She examined the applicant, but could not find any signs of violence. She asked G.L.J. about her diagnosis of the applicant and confirmed that the applicant’s post-surgical scar was sensitive to touch and that the applicant had stated that the sensitiveness pre-dated the incident. She did not think the applicant needed to be referred for a neurological examination. She stated that she had recorded in the hospital’s consultation register that the applicant had reported that he had suffered a craniocerebral trauma as a result of an attack, and that she had not found traces of violence. Her professional opinion was that the applicant’s symptoms could have been caused by his surgery or because of intense stress. She also stated that the applicant was discharged around 6 p.m. 28.  On 17 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal heard M.C.C., a medical nurse who assisted doctors G.L.J. and D.C.G. in examining the applicant at Balş Hospital on the day of the incident. He confirmed the statements of the two doctors and stated that he did not notice any signs of violence on the applicant’s body. 29.  On 22 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal heard D.A.D. and A.L.O., the ambulance doctor and medical nurse who first treated the applicant at Balş police station and then transported him to the hospital, respectively. They stated that they had reached the police station around 4.12 p.m. and were informed by T.C.S. that the applicant had begun to feel unwell. T.C.S. also informed them that the applicant had not fallen and had not hit any hard or rough objects. The applicant did not claim that he had been hit by a police officer, either during his examination or while he was being transported to the hospital. No traces of violence were visible on the applicant’s body. T.C.S. also informed them that the applicant had felt unwell before but not “like that”. The applicant was treated for fifteen minutes at the police station and afterwards taken to hospital. 30.  On 21 June 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal requested the Craiova Institute of Forensic Medicine to carry out a forensic report in respect of the applicant on the basis of the documents available in the file. 31.  On 30 June 2004 R.Z., one of the forensic specialists at the Craiova Institute of Forensic Medicine, referred the applicant for a neurological examination in order to determine the applicant’s medical condition and whether there was a connection between his condition and the attack which had taken place on 7 April 2004. 32.  On 1 July 2004 the applicant was examined by C.N., a neurologist. C.N.’s diagnosis was:
“Status post-operative cavernoma in 2002. Status post minor cerebral contusion. Right-sided paralysis.” 33.  On 2 August 2004 the Craiova Institute of Forensic Medicine, sitting in a panel of three specialist doctors, two forensic doctors, including R.Z. and M.S. and a neurologist, C.Z., produced the forensic report requested by the public prosecutor’s office on 21 June 2004, taking into account the finding of the forensic report issued on 20 May 2004, the medical papers from the Vad Voiculescu Hospital in Bucharest, the neurological examination of 1 July 2004, and a neurosurgical examination carried out on 7 July 2004, which diagnosed the applicant’s status as “post-operative frontal right-sided cavernoma and more than three-month-old craniocerebral trauma”. It held that:
“The subject affirmed that on 7 April 2004 he suffered a craniocerebral trauma as a result of an attack. On 8 April 2004 he was committed to the neurosurgery unit of Vlad Voiculescu Hospital where (according to the clinical file) he was diagnosed with a minor cerebral contusion and post-operative frontal right-sided cavernoma. A cerebral contusion is always post-traumatic. The absence of traumatic injuries (mentioned following the admission to Balş Emergency Hospital, in the copy of the clinical file from Vlad Voiculescu Hospital in Bucharest, and in the forensic report of 7 April 2004 issued on 20 May 2004) and the conflicting statements of the witnesses seriously call into question the existence of a craniocerebral trauma caused by an attack. At the neurology unit of the Vlad Voiculescu Hospital the applicant was discharged with a diagnosis of a minor cerebral contusion. If the patient or the accompanying person claims that the patient has suffered a craniocerebral trauma the doctor is under an obligation to record it in the clinical file. The doctors, relying on the applicant’s claims, felt entitled to specify that there was a minor cerebral contusion because the CT scan examination results were normal. In the event of a minor cerebral contusion the individual loses consciousness for a short period of time (under one hour) and the clinical neurological signs are missing or are of a low intensity and the patient makes a full recovery...The persistence of the patient’s difficulty in walking three months after a cerebral contusion rebuts the diagnosis of a minor contusion...” 34.  The report of 2 August 2004 concluded that the applicant had not suffered any injuries on 7 April 2004, that no causal link could be established between the injuries allegedly sustained by the applicant and his subsequent condition, and that his paralysis had other causes, which it failed to mention. 35.  On 5 August 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal decided not to prosecute G.B., on the basis of the available evidence. The prosecutor held that the forensic report produced on 2 August 2004 rebutted the findings of the neurological examination concerning the existence of a minor contusion. Moreover, police officers M.C., M.L.P., S.S., N.V. and I.D. had testified that G.B. had not hit the applicant. Furthermore, M.C.C., G.L.J, D.C.G, D.A.D. and A.L.O., all of them doctors and nurses who had examined the applicant, testified that the applicant did not show any signs of violence and that he was treated only for spasmophilia. In addition, according to D.A.D.’s and A.L.O.’s statements, the young men did not inform them that the applicant had been hit by a police officer when they arrived at the scene and asked the applicant, as well as T.C.S. and G.M.S., what had happened. Furthermore, according to the statement of D.C.G., the applicant’s condition could have also been caused by extreme stress and not as a result of violence. Lastly, the prosecutor held that the applicant’s statements and those of T.C.S. and G.M.S. were subjective and were rebutted by the rest of the evidence available in the file. 36.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 5 August 2004 before the head prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal. 37.  On 30 August 2004 the head prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 5 August 2004. The head prosecutor held that the applicant’s statements and those of the witnesses T.C.S., G.M.S., I.C. and G.C. were rebutted by the forensic evidence available to the file and by the statements of the other witnesses. Moreover, the absence of any craniocerebral trauma was confirmed by the testimony of the doctors and nurses who examined the applicant at Balş Hospital immediately after the incident. The applicant further contested the prosecutor’s non-indictment decision before the Craiova Court of Appeal, requesting the reopening of the criminal investigation. He argued that the authorities failed to confront the witnesses brought in by the defence in order to clarify their contradictory statements and contested the prosecutor office’s decision to rely on the forensic report of 2 August 2004 while earlier medical evidence suggested that the applicant had been hit by G.B. 38.  By interlocutory judgments of 28 October, 18 November and 9 December 2004 the Craiova Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings repeatedly at the parties’ request in order to allow the parties to submit additional documents and on account of the applicant’s lawyer’s inability to attend the hearing of 9 December. 39.  On 20 January 2005 the Craiova Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the order of 30 August 2004. The court based its decision on statements taken during the criminal investigation from police officers, doctors from the ambulance service, the doctors who had examined the applicant at Balş Hospital, and on the results of the forensic report of 2 August 2004. None of the witnesses was called to testify before the court. 40.  On 24 January 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of 20 January 2005, making another request for the reopening of the criminal investigation. 41.  By an interlocutory judgment of 23 March 2005 the Court of Cassation adjourned the proceedings on account of the applicant’s lawyer’s inability to attend the hearing. 42.  By a final judgment of 11 May 2005, the Court of Cassation allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the judgment of the Craiova Court of Appeal, and ordered the reopening of the criminal investigation against G.B. for abusive behaviour. The court ordered that the investigation clarify the contradictions between the medical documents prepared in the case, underlining that all the medical documents produced after the incident mentioned that the applicant had suffered a craniocerebral trauma, while the forensic report of 2 August 2004 held that the applicant’s condition had another cause, the details of which were not mentioned. In this respect, the court considered it necessary that the medical documents be reviewed by the Superior Review Panel of the Bucharest Forensic Institute (Comisia Superioară de Avizare a Institutului de Medicină Legală Bucureşti). In addition, the court ordered the identification and taking of statements from all those involved in transporting the applicant to the hospital by ambulance, in order to clarify everything relating to his state of health, his injuries and any comments made by the applicant, in order to explain his condition. Moreover, the court considered that the investigation needed to clarify the applicant’s statements that he had been admitted to Balş Hospital on 7 April 2004 with two different diagnoses of craniocerebral trauma caused by an attack and spasmophilia under two different entries, nos. 634 and 851 respectively, the truthfulness of the two records and the need to make them. Furthermore, the court referred to the necessity for the investigators to request the medical file drawn up by the ambulance doctors on 7 April 2004 in order to verify the authenticity of the information contained in it, in the light of the applicant’s claim that the content of the said documents had been changed. 43.  On 17 June 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal requested the Superior Review Panel of the Bucharest Forensic Institute to review the contradictory medical documents available in the file. 44.  On 23 September 2005 the Superior Review Panel informed the Prosecutor’s Office that on 7 July 2005 it had reviewed the available forensic medical reports and the documents available in the file and had validated the forensic report of 2 August 2004. No other information was provided by the Review Panel in respect of its reasoning. 45.  On 23 September 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal issued a second decision not to prosecute G.B. The Prosecutor’s Office held that the criminal investigation against G.B. for abusive behaviour had already been opened by the prosecutor’s order of 2 June 2004. Moreover, the individuals who had transported the applicant to Balş Hospital by ambulance had already been identified and their statements taken into account when the Prosecutor’s Office issued the decision of 5 August 2004. In addition, the file contained copies of all the documents concerning the applicant’s transport to the hospital and his admission. Furthermore, police officers M.C., M.L.P., S.S., N.V. and I.D. had testified that G.B. had not hit the applicant. Also, the witnesses M.C.C., G.L.J. D.C.G, D.A.D. and A.L.O., on-call staff members of the Emergency Unit of the Balş Hospital on 7 April 2004, testified that the applicant did not show any traces of violence and was suffering only from spasmophilia. Lastly, the Superior Review Panel of the Bucharest Forensic Institute reviewed the available forensic reports and validated the forensic report of 2 August 2004, which confirmed that the applicant had not suffered any injuries on 7 April 2004 and that his paralysis had other causes. 46.  On 17 October 2005 the head prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 23 September 2005 not to prosecute, and upheld the said decision. The applicant contested this decision before the court, complaining that the investigating prosecutors had failed to follow the instructions of the Court of Cassation and that they had not clarified some of the contradictory statements made by the witnesses for the defence. 47.  By interlocutory judgments of 9 December 2005, 12 January and 7 February 2006 the Craiova Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings at the parties’ request on account of their need either to instruct or to contact their legal representative. 48.  On 28 February 2006 the Craiova Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint, on the ground that the forensic report of 2 August 2004, subsequently confirmed by the Superior Review Panel, held unequivocally that the applicant had not been assaulted or subjected to ill‑treatment on 7 April 2004. The court also held that the statements given by the witnesses immediately after the incident, in particular the police officers present in G.B.’s office, as well as the doctors and nurses of the ambulance unit and those who had first examined the applicant at Balş Hospital, led to the same conclusion. Moreover, the statements of the witnesses were consistent with the findings of the medical reports, while the references to a recent craniocerebral trauma in the forensic report of 20 May 2004 and under the hospital entry no. 634 arose from the applicant’s own statements, which the doctors were obliged to record in his medical file, as confirmed by the forensic report of 2 August 2004 and also by the Superior Review Panel. In addition, the existence of two entries in respect of the applicant’s diagnosis in the medical files was explained by the statements of D.C.G and G.L.J., the two doctors who had examined the applicant. G.L.J. diagnosed the applicant with spasmophilia, dystonia and pre-existent right-sided cavernoma, and also recorded, inter alia, the absence of any traces of violence on the applicant’s body. Her colleague, D.C.G., joined her in examining the applicant. According to D.C.G.’s statement, she agreed with her colleague’s diagnosis. She only recorded, inter alia, the applicant’s statements about a craniocerebral trauma and the absence of signs of violence on the applicant’s body. 49.  On 2 March 2006 the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of 28 February 2006, complaining again that the investigating prosecutors had not followed all the instructions of the Court of Cassation, in particular identification and taking of statements from all those involved in transporting the applicant to the hospital and examining him there in order to clarify all the aspects relating to his state of health and the possible comments made by the applicant, in order to explain his condition. In addition, the applicant complained that the Superior Review Panel, which had examined the two forensic reports prepared in his case, had not included a specialist in neurology. 50.  By an interlocutory judgment of 3 May 2006 the Court of Cassation adjourned the proceedings to allow the applicant to retain the services of a legal representative. 51.  By a final judgment of 14 June 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of 28 February 2006. The court held that during the course of the criminal investigation all relevant witnesses had been heard and all pertinent medical documents examined. The findings of the doctors who examined the applicant that day were consistent with the information recorded in the ambulance transport documents and the statements of the witnesses for the defence. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that the applicant could have been under the influence of strong emotions when he was taken to the police station to be questioned about the traffic incident. In addition, the existence of two entries in respect of the applicant’s diagnosis in the medical files was explained by his examination by two doctors one after the other. Consequently, the first-instance court had assessed correctly that the issues raised by the Court of Cassation had been clarified as instructed by the said court. With regard to the applicant’s complaint that the Superior Review Panel had not included a specialist in neurology, the court noted that the said panel had been established in accordance with the law. 52.  There is no indication in the file as to whether any charges were brought against the applicant and his two companions for the acts of violence allegedly witnessed by police officer G.B.