4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava Prison. 5.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. 6.  On 13 September 2002 the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) convicted the applicant of aggravated murder, burglary and theft and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 7.  On 3 February 2003 the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta) upheld the conviction for burglary and theft, acquitted the applicant of the charge of aggravated murder, and convicted him of murder instead. The sentence was reduced to twelve years’ imprisonment. 8.  On 17 March 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāts) dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant in a preparatory meeting. 9.  The applicant has since been serving his sentence in various prisons: Central Prison, Brasa Prison, Matīsa Prison, Jelgava Prison, Daugavpils Prison and Daugavgrīva Prison. 10.  On 18 October 2007 the applicant was convicted of attacking a member of prison staff in Daugavpils Prison. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. 11.  On 1 July 2009, at around 10 a.m., the applicant was searched, as he was scheduled to be transferred to Jelgava Prison. The applicant had more than 30 kg of personal effects, which was the maximum, so he was asked to leave some things behind. A dispute ensued between the applicant and prison officers M.B., A.F. and K.D., who had carried out the search. 12.  According to the Government, the applicant tried to obstruct the search, insulted the prison officers, used contemptuous and abusive language, and made threats. In particular, he said he was “a former boxer” and that he could “kill anyone” since he had “nothing left to lose”. The prison officers tried to calm the applicant down and verbally ordered him to stop behaving aggressively. The applicant ignored those requests and, instead, at around 10.20 a.m., grabbed M.B. by the arm and tried to hit him. M.B. avoided the blow. Prison officers A.F. and K.D. used restraint measures (blows with rubber truncheons) to stop the applicant’s aggressive behaviour, for about three minutes. 13.  The applicant did not contest the Government’s version of events, but said that he was brutally beaten by three prison officers until he fell to the ground unconscious. He received more blows when he regained consciousness. 14.  At around 10.50 a.m. the applicant was taken to the prison medical unit. A doctor wrote a note indicating that the applicant had “many bruises on [his] body, arms and legs”. The following remarks were made in the applicant’s medical record: “A dark violet, elongated haematoma 20 x 2 cm in the right shoulder blade area. A dark violet haematoma 25 x 17 cm in the left shoulder blade area. A haematoma 16 x 6 cm on the left (upper) arm. A haematoma 8 x 3 cm on the left forearm. A haematoma 20 x 3 cm on the right (upper) arm. A haematoma 10 x 2 cm on the right forearm. Small abrasions and haematomas on both legs.” 15.  After the incident, on 1 July 2009, prison officers A.F. and K.D. filled in a report form on the use of restraint measures. It was mentioned that the applicant had issued threats against the prison guards, had attempted to hit M.B., and that A.F. and K.D. had intervened to stop the attack. They had used restraint measures (blows with truncheons) for about three minutes, from 10.20 to 10.23 a.m. The doctor made an entry in the report, with the same remarks as he had made in the applicant’s medical record (see paragraph 14 above). In the field for the applicant’s comments, he requested that criminal proceedings be instituted in connection with this incident. He submitted that the conflict had been provoked by the prison officers and that he had been brutally beaten by them with truncheons on the head and body. 16.  On 1 July 2009, at an unspecified time, the applicant was transferred to Central Prison. 17.  On 2 July 2009 he underwent a medical examination in Central Prison. An X-ray was carried out, but no broken bones were detected. 18.  On 3 July 2009 the applicant was transferred to Jelgava Prison to continue serving his sentence there. 19.  On 2 July 2009 the applicant complained to a prosecutor about the incident that had taken place the day before. The complaint was forwarded to the Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde). 20.  On 16 July 2009 the Prisons Administration forwarded the complaint to Daugavgrīva Prison for an internal inquiry (resoriskā pārbaude) together with instructions to conduct detailed questioning of prison officers about their actions in relation to the applicant, and to adduce these statements together with medical records and internal reports. A time-limit of 30 July 2009 was set for the inquiry to be carried out and for its results to be submitted to the Prisons Administration. 21.  On 28 July 2009 prison officers K.D., M.B. and A.F. made statements in writing. These indicated that the applicant had been aggressive and had threatened them, had not complied with their order to calm down, and had attempted to attack M.B. At that point K.D. and A.F. had hit him with truncheons. 22.  On 29 July 2009 a senior inspector (investigator) of Daugavgrīva Prison drew up an internal inquiry report (resoriskās pārbaudes slēdziens), which was approved by the governor of Daugavgrīva Prison. The senior inspector relied on the statements given by the prison officers and on the applicant’s medical record; he noted that no injuries to the applicant’s face had been recorded. The conclusion was drawn that the restraint measures (blows with truncheons) had been used in compliance with domestic law. 23.  On 3 August 2009 a senior inspector of the Investigation Unit of the Prisons Administration refused to institute criminal proceedings. No reasons were given. The applicant was informed about the decision and, on 17 August 2009, he lodged an appeal against it. 24.  On 7 September 2009 a prosecutor quashed that decision, instituted criminal proceedings, and tasked the Prisons Administration with conducting an investigation. On 9 September 2009 the applicant was informed of this, and the case material was sent to the Prisons Administration. 25.  On 15 October 2009 another senior investigator of Daugavgrīva Prison took a statement from a member of prison staff about video surveillance in the prison; that member of staff stated that the room where the applicant had been searched did not come within the field of vision of the security cameras and, in any event, video recordings were kept for only four days. 26.  On 16 October 2009 the investigator took statements from A.F. and M.B., but not from K.D. 27.  A.F. stated that he had inflicted approximately four blows on the applicant’s back with the truncheon, he had not hit him on the head, and he did not know how many blows had been inflicted by K.D. 28.  M.B. stated that his colleagues had inflicted some five to ten blows with truncheons to the applicant’s arms, legs and back. 29.  On 16 and 19 October 2009 the senior investigator of Daugavgrīva Prison took statements from two more prison officers, who were eyewitnesses to the events of 1 July 2009. They both stated that the applicant had attempted to attack M.B. 30.  On 1 November 2010 the applicant submitted a handwritten statement to the prosecutor with a view to having it added to the case material; it was forwarded to the Prisons Administration. According to the applicant, A.F. had delivered blows to his lower jaw and the left side of his chest. Blows to his arms had ensued as he was trying to cover his face. He had then received an order to face the wall; M.B., and an unknown officer had taken their truncheons and all three of them had started hitting him on the body in a cruel manner. He had fallen to the ground unconscious. After he regained consciousness, he sat up with his back against the wall. M.B. had come forward and started beating him on the legs. 31.  On 17 November 2009 the applicant gave evidence to a senior investigator of Jelgava Prison. He did not deny that he had had a verbal altercation or that he had threatened M.B. with physical violence. The applicant stated that A.F. had beaten him with a truncheon in a cruel manner. He had received blows to his jaw, the left side of his chest, both arms and other parts of his body; he could not remember the number of blows. M.B. and a guard whose name he did not know had joined in and they had delivered numerous blows to his body with truncheons. He had eventually lost consciousness and fallen to the ground. After he had regained consciousness M.B. had continued beating him with a truncheon. 32.  On 18 December 2009 the senior investigator of Daugavgrīva Prison, on the instructions of the senior investigator of Jelgava Prison, took a statement from the doctor of the medical unit, who had nothing to say as he did not remember the events. He stated that all matters related to the applicant’s state of health had been entered in his medical record. 33.  On 18 January 2010 the senior investigator of Jelgava Prison took statements from two doctors of the medical unit about the applicant’s medical examination on admission to that prison. The following day the senior investigator ordered a forensic medical examination to determine the severity of the applicant’s injuries. 34.  On 19 January 2010 an expert examined the applicant’s medical documentation and drew up report no. 10. On the basis of the applicant’s medical records the expert established that the applicant had the following injuries: injuries with two ecchymoses on his back in the area of shoulder blades, an injury with an ecchymosis on both the upper and lower left arm, an injury with an ecchymosis on the lower right arm, an injury with an ecchymosis (on the back) on the right thigh, an injury with an ecchymosis on the lower right leg and skin abrasions on both legs. These were classified as minor injuries. The expert considered that these injuries might have been inflicted on 1 July 2009 by a hard, blunt, truncheon-like object. Considering the nature and location of the bruises, the expert concluded that there had been not less than two blows on the back, and not less than one blow to each forearm, (upper) arm, right thigh and right leg and that the applicant could not have inflicted such injuries on himself. 35.  On 28 January 2010 the senior investigator of Jelgava Prison adopted a decision whereby the applicant was declared a victim in connection with the criminal proceedings. He was interviewed and maintained his previous statements. 36.  On 11 February 2010 another senior investigator of Daugavgrīva Prison, upon instructions from the Investigation Unit of the Prisons Administration, took a statement from an inmate who had been in that prison at the time of the incident. He had not seen but had heard restraint measures being used on the applicant. In his submission, prison officers had exceeded their authority, as they had not stopped beating the applicant even when he was [lying] on the ground and had asked them to stop. 37.  On 11 March 2010, upon a complaint by the applicant, the Prisons Administration informed him that certain unspecified investigative measures were being taken by the senior investigator of Jelgava Prison. 38.  On 15 June 2010, upon a complaint by the applicant, the Prisons Administration informed him that a procedural decision would be taken soon and that he would be informed of it as soon as it was adopted. 39.  On 6 July 2010 the chief inspector of the Investigation Unit of the Prisons Administration adopted a decision to terminate the criminal proceedings. The decision contained references to the applicant’s testimony, the statements of the prison officers and the doctors, and the conclusions drawn in forensic report no. 10. The evidence given by the inmate was not taken into account, since he had not been an eyewitness and had been some fifteen metres away from the scene. The conclusion was that on 1 July 2009 the prison officers had not used excessive force on the applicant and that the restraint measures (blows with truncheons) had been applied following a procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, the prison officers had not exceeded their official powers. The criminal proceedings were terminated on the grounds of absence of a crime. 40.  On 3 August 2010 a prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint. She agreed with the chief inspector’s conclusions that the use of physical force and restraint measures on the applicant was justified and complied with domestic law and instructions, that it was proportionate in the circumstances, and that official powers had not been exceeded. 41.  On 30 August 2010 another prosecutor dismissed allegations by the applicant relating to the opportunity to acquaint himself with the case material. 42.  On 1 October 2010 a superior prosecutor concluded that the applicant had acquainted himself with the case material with the assistance of an interpreter. 43.  On 19 October 2010 another superior prosecutor adopted a final decision in respect of the applicant’s complaints. He concluded that the decision to terminate criminal proceedings was justified, that the applicant had received a copy of it, and that he had acquainted himself with the case material with the assistance of an interpreter. 44.  The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “CPT”) has called upon the Latvian authorities on numerous occasions to take immediate steps to ensure that investigations of allegations of ill-treatment by staff in prisons are carried out by an independent and impartial body. The relevant parts of the CPT reports following its visits to Latvia read as follows:
The CPT visit from 27 November to 7 December 2007 (CPT/Inf (2009) 35):
“97. The CPT noted that, following the 2004 visit, the former Security Departments had been split into two separate entities, a security division (which reports directly to the prison governor) and an investigation division (which is subordinated to the deputy governor responsible for internal security). ... [T]wo major deficiencies still persist, despite the specific recommendations made by the Committee after the two previous visits. ... Secondly, prison officers (now members of the establishments’ investigation division) still carried out criminal investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by staff, initially on their own, and, subsequently, under the supervision of the competent prosecutor. The CPT wishes to recall once again that any investigations carried out by prison officers against other members of staff of the same establishment may be compromised as not being independent and impartial.
The Committee calls upon the Latvian authorities to take immediate steps in the entire prison system to ensure that: ...
- officers of investigation divisions no longer carry out criminal investigations into alleged instances of ill-treatment by staff. Such investigations should be conducted by a body which is independent of the establishment concerned, and preferably of the prison system as a whole.”
The CPT visit from 3 to 8 December 2009 (CPT/Inf (2011) 22):
“8. One of the most effective means of preventing ill-treatment by prison officers lies in the diligent examination of complaints of ill-treatment and, when appropriate, the imposition of suitable penalties. In this regard, it is regrettable that the role of the prison investigation divisions has not changed, despite the specific recommendation repeatedly made by the Committee after previous visits; investigations into possible ill-treatment by prison staff are still conducted by officers (of the investigation division) of the same establishment.
This is not acceptable; investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by prison staff should be carried out by a body which is independent of the establishment concerned, and preferably of the prison system as a whole. The CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to take immediate steps to ensure that this requirement is met (if necessary, by amending the relevant legal provisions).”
The CPT visit from 5 to 15 September 2011 (CPT/Inf (2013) 20):
“109. Further, it remained the case that prison officers (members of the establishments’ investigation division) still carried out criminal investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by staff, initially on their own, and, subsequently, under the supervision of the competent prosecutor. This is unacceptable; such investigations should be conducted by a body which is independent of the establishment concerned, and preferably of the prison system as a whole.
In this connection, the delegation was informed by the Ministry of Justice officials that a working group had been set up in order to elaborate the necessary legislative amendments with a view to ensuring that investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by prison staff were carried out by the police.
The Committee calls upon the Latvian authorities to take immediate steps throughout the prison system to ensure that officers of investigation divisions no longer carry out criminal investigations into alleged instances of ill-treatment by staff.” 45.  The Latvian Government provided the following response to the CPT’s reports on visits to Latvia:
Response as regards visits from 27 November to 7 December 2007(CPT/Inf (2009) 36):
“According to requirements of [sections] 28, 386 and 387 of the Criminal Procedure Law (effective from 1 October 2005) investigation institutions in prisons do exist and investigators are authorised as independent persons, who investigate crimes committed by prisoners as well as by prison [staff] ... Ministry will advance revision of this recommendation in working group created for elaboration of the Criminal Procedure Law in the beginning of 2009.”
Response as regards visit from 3 to 8 December 2009 (CPT/Inf (2011) 23):
“8. ... In the central [apparatus] of the [Prisons Administration, the LPA] the investigation division exists with three posts, whereas 17 inspectors execute investigation in prisons. Thereby prisons inspectors execute pre-trial investigations in criminal proceedings on severe criminal offences performed by prisoners, freelance employees in a territory of [a prison], as well as LPA officials....”
Response as regards visit from 5 to 15 September 2011 (CPT/Inf (2013) 21):
“Paragraphs 108-109
Pursuant to the provisions of section 387(5) of the Criminal Procedure Law, officials authorised by the Latvian Prisons Administration shall investigate criminal offences committed by detainees or prisoners, or by prison staff in prisons. Prison investigators perform pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings regarding serious and especially serious criminal offences committed by detainees or prisoners, hired labour staff in the territory of the prison, as well as officials of the Latvian Prisons Administration. ...
In turn, pursuant to the provisions of Section 394(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law, an investigator or public prosecutor may assign the performance of separate procedural actions or tasks to another investigating institution or an official authorised to perform criminal proceedings and the assignment shall be given in writing, indicating the matters that shall be ascertained by performing the relevant investigation activity or other operation.
It is prescribed by Section 22(1)(5) of the Prisons Administration Law that an official, in performing service tasks, has the right to perform pre-trial investigations in conformity with the competence specified in the Criminal Procedure Law. Pursuant to the regulations of the Latvian Prison Administration, the competence of the heads of a prison provides for authorising the officials of the prison, in compliance with the Criminal Procedure Law, to investigate criminal offences committed by prisoners. Investigators of prisons are subjected to the head of the prison only.
Taking into consideration the above mentioned, at present investigatory activities in prisons are performed in accordance with regulatory enactments in force.
As it has already been referred to in the information regarding the implementation of the recommendations specified in Paragraphs 50-55 of the Committee report, the informative report Regarding Proposals for Ensuring an Effective Mechanism for Clarifying Possible Violations of Officials Who Carry out Investigatory Activities and Holding Them Liable was reviewed in the meeting of the [Cabinet of Ministers] on 10 January 2012 (minutes No. 2 §45), and the Ministry of Justice was assigned to prepare within six month period and submit pursuant to the specified procedure for review in the Cabinet [of Ministers] the draft law Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, in order to determine that criminal offences related to violence and committed by the staff of the Latvian Prisons Administration and officials of an Institution of the Ministry of the Interior system when fulfilling their official duties shall be investigated by the Internal Security Office. At present, the Ministry of Justice continues work at the execution of the referred to task.”