KOČEGAROVS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
Inadmissible
George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney
1. The applicant in the first case, Mr Rolands Kočegarovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Daugavpils. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Zvejsalnieks, a lawyer practising in Riga. 2. The applicant in the second case, Mr Aldis Bernots, is a Latvian national who was born in 1965 and is currently residing in Riga. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Stumbergs, a lawyer practising in Riga. 3. The applicant in the third case, Mr Raivo Jurševskis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1971 and is currently in detention in Riga. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Rone, a lawyer practising in Riga. 4. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) in the first case were represented by their Agent at the time, Ms I. Reine, and subsequently by Ms K. Līce, who represented the Government also in the second and third cases. 5. The relevant facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6. Between 12 July 2002 and 28 November 2005 the applicant served his prison sentence in Grīva Prison (Grīvas cietums). During that time he was temporarily placed in Daugavpils Prison (Daugavpils cietums), between 20 and 26 June 2003. 7. On 25 May 2004, the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the left lung, for which he received treatment. 8. On 4 December 2007 the applicant lodged a compensation claim against the Grīva Prison with the Administrative District Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa) in relation to his having contracted tuberculosis between July 2002 and June 2004. He also requested exemption from the court fee owing to his financial situation. 9. On 27 December 2007 the Administrative District Court refused to consider the applicant’s claim because he had failed to observe the extrajudicial procedure. Having complied with that requirement, the applicant re-lodged his compensation claim with the District Court. 10. On 7 April 2008 he submitted a request to the District Court to decide on the issue of the court fee on the grounds that he was unable to pay it. On 30 May 2008 the District Court lifted the court fee. 11. On 15 June 2009 the District Court examined the merits of the applicant’s claim. It assessed the applicant’s allegation, including whether he had been imprisoned with persons suffering from tuberculosis. The District Court could not, however, establish that the applicant had contracted tuberculosis because of any action by the prison administration. It dismissed the applicant’s claim. 12. The applicant appealed against the aforementioned decision. On 9 July 2009 the District Court refused to proceed with his appeal. It found that the applicant had not submitted a document on the payment of court fee for lodging an appeal, which totalled 10 Latvian lati (LVL). Nor had he applied for exemption from it. 13. It gave the applicant a deadline of 10 August 2009 to submit a document on the payment of the court fee or a request for full or partial exemption from it. 14. On 3 November 2009 the Administrative Regional Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa), on an appeal from the applicant upheld the aforementioned ruling. It set a new deadline of 21 December 2009 for the submission of a document on the payment of the court fee. No further appeal was available. 15. The applicant did not pay the court fee. On 30 December 2009 the Administrative District Court decided that his appeal should be considered as not having been lodged and be returned to him. An appeal lay against that decision. The applicant did not appeal. 16. On 19 August 2009 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Health Inspectorate (Veselības Inspekcija). He requested information on when and where he had contracted tuberculosis. He considered that he had not received adequate healthcare while in detention. 17. The Health Inspectorate instigated an inquiry. On 26 November 2009 it issued a decision finding no shortcomings in the healthcare provided to the applicant while he was in detention. It refused to commence administrative violation proceedings. That decision was subject to appeal. The applicant apparently did not appeal. 18. On 10 May 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery. 19. On 12 May 2008 he was questioned by police officers. The same day he was brought before the Investigating Judge of the Jūrmala City Court (Jūrmalas pilsētas tiesa), B.H., who authorised his detention on remand. 20. The applicant was held in a short-term detention facility in Jūrmala from 10 to 16 May 2008. According to the applicant, the conditions there were appalling. 21. On 19 December 2009 the applicant complained to the Office of the Prosecutor General (Latvijas Republikas Prokuratūras Ģenerālprokuratūra) regarding a police officer, D.J., in relation to the applicant’s detention in May 2008. In particular, D.J. had allegedly failed to inform the applicant’s relatives of his arrest and had refused to accept the applicant’s written requests concerning his conditions of detention and his medical needs. The applicant claimed that D.J. had been aware of those issues but had not followed them up. 22. This complaint was transmitted to the Internal Security Office of the State Police (Valsts policijas Iekšējās drošības birojs) for examination. On 15 January 2010 the Office received another similar complaint from the applicant. 23. The Internal Security Office of the State Police conducted an inquiry. On 15 February 2010 it refused to open criminal proceedings against D.J., which refusal was subject to appeal. 24. On 15 March 2010 the Office of the Prosecutor General, upon the applicant’s appeal, upheld the aforementioned decision. No further appeal was available. 25. On 30 March 2012 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the State Police in relation to the alleged inadequate conditions of his detention between 10 and 16 May 2008. 26. On 19 April 2012 the State Police considered the applicant’s claim belated and refused to renew the procedural time-limit for its submission. An appeal against that decision lay with the Ministry of the Interior (Iekšlietu ministrija). 27. On 17 May 2012 the applicant wrote to the Ministry that he accepted the State Police’s refusal to renew the procedural time-limit. 28. On 14 April 2009, between 5 and 6 p.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder and taken to the Riga Regional Police Department (Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Rīgas pilsētas Latgales iecirknis). 29. According to the applicant, he was questioned for several hours at the Riga Regional Police Department by three police officers, while seated handcuffed on the chair. They accused him of being involved in the murder. They were aggressive and insulting. The Police Officer, V.J., holding a gun silencer in his hands, suggested taking the applicant to the woods and shooting him. He invited the applicant to write a confession to the murder. Another police officer was holding a stick-type object. 30. At 8 p.m. the report was drawn up on the applicant’s arrest. The applicant said that he had signed the report without having read it. The Government pointed out that according to the report the applicant had been under influence of alcohol. 31. Between 9.20 and 9.30 p.m. the applicant was searched. 32. He was subsequently placed in a holding cell in the Riga Regional Police Department, in order, according to the Government, to sober up. 33. The applicant submitted that the only furniture in the holding cell was a bench. He had no access to a toilet or water or food. He spent the night sitting on the bench. 34. The following morning, on 15 April 2009, V.J. interrogated the applicant, during which time he wrote a confession. 35. According to the applicant, V.J. had locked the office door. The same police officers were present as on the previous day. V.J. told the applicant to confess if he wanted to avoid trouble. The applicant refused, but eventually he wrote a confession under dictation from V.J. 36. Between 3 and 3.35 p.m. the Police Inspector, B.B., questioned the applicant. The record showed that the applicant had agreed to testify without a lawyer. He described the events of the day of the incident, including his attack on the victim. 37. At 6.15 p.m. on the same day, the applicant was transferred to a short-term detention facility in Riga (Rīgas īslaicīgās aizturēšanas vieta), located in another building. 38. On 16 April 2009, between 10 and 10.20 a.m., the applicant testified as a suspect. The minutes showed that the applicant’s lawyer, V.S., was present. The applicant maintained his earlier testimonies given on 15 April 2009. He gave certain other details regarding the attack on the victim, including the fact that he had committed it in anger. 39. On 16 April 2009 the applicant was brought for a detention hearing before the Judge of the Riga City Latgale District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Latgales priekšpilsētas tiesa), I.K. The applicant was represented by his lawyer, V.S. The Judge, I.K., remanded the applicant in pre-trial detention. According to her ruling, the applicant, during the hearing, explained that he had committed the crime and expressed his remorse. 40. On 23 April 2009, a visit was conducted to the crime scene from 1 to 2.20 p.m. The applicant and his lawyer, V.S., participated. The record showed that the applicant had pointed to the place where he had committed the crime and had given its other details. 41. On 19 May 2009 the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination. According to the report, during that examination the applicant’s description of the incriminated conduct had tallied with his earlier testimonies. 42. On 16 June 2009 the applicant was brought for a detention hearing before the Judge, I.K. According to I.K.’s ruling, during the hearing the applicant and his lawyer, A.K., stated that the applicant had confessed to the crime and expressed his remorse. It was decided that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention. 43. On 3 August 2009 the Prosecutor, I.F., questioned the applicant in his capacity as an accused. His lawyer, V.S., was present. The applicant denied his involvement in the alleged crime. He stated as follows: “... [the applicant] confessed to the crime owing to moral pressure by the Police Officer, [V.J.], who informed [the applicant] that [he] had already previously committed a murder, and therefore [he] would be convicted anyway, although an admission of guilt was a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, [the applicant] was compelled to confess...” 44. The applicant lodged with the Riga City Latgale District Court a motion to review his pre-trial detention. On 18 August 2009 he was brought for a hearing before the District Court Judge, S.V. 45. During that hearing the applicant informed S.V. of the pressure exerted on him by the police officers. S.V.’s ruling reflected the applicant’s statement in that regard as follows: “... [the applicant] had admitted his guilt because of psychological pressure exerted by the police officials.” 46. In relation to the two earlier hearings of 16 April and 16 June 2009 before the Judge, I.K. the applicant submitted to the Court that on both occasions the escorting officers and the investigating officer, B.B., who were present at the hearings, had been V.J.’s colleagues. The applicant had therefore been afraid to mention his ill-treatment. 47. The applicant was brought before the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) for the main trial on the charge of aggravated murder. 48. In the course of the trial the applicant maintained that he was innocent and that he had written the confession under psychological pressure, as follows: “During the conversation with [V.J.] on 14 April 2009 [the applicant] was psychologically influenced. [He] was told that [he] had to accept responsibility for the crime and there was no point in denying anything. [V.J.] ... indicated that [the applicant] had been previously convicted of a similar crime, and so [he] had better plead ... guilty ... as [he] would not get away with it in any case. In fact ... the admission of guilt would constitute a mitigating circumstance and ... [V.J.] would himself testify that [the applicant] had cooperated with the investigation... Likewise ... it was ironically said that [the applicant] was not a useful man, that [he] lived off a woman and was not capable of providing [for himself] financially. Also, the subsequent conditions of detention ... amounted to ridicule and psychological pressure. [The applicant] was not given food, or allowed to use a toilet or provided with a bed, since [he] spent the whole night sitting on a bench.” 49. At the hearing of 19 October 2009 the Regional Court granted the applicant’s request that V.J. be summoned to testify. V.J. was examined at the subsequent hearing on 16 November 2009. 50. On 16 November 2009 the trial was concluded. The applicant was found guilty of aggravated murder. The judgment, among other pieces of evidence, referred to the applicant’s impugned confession. The applicant’s allegation of having been pressured to write the confession was dismissed. 51. On 23 August 2011 the Supreme Court Appeal Panel, presided over by the Judge, P.O., examined the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. 52. The applicant maintained that his confession should not have been used in the trial. 53. The Appeal Panel acknowledged that between 8 p.m. on 14 April 2009 and 6.15 p.m. on 15 April 2009, the applicant had not been provided with conditions complying with section 7 of the Law on Arrested Persons Holding Procedures (Aizturēto personu turēšanas kārtības likums). However, it could not establish that the applicant had written the impugned confession as a result of the circumstances adduced. The Appeal Panel upheld the first instance judgment on the applicant’s guilt. 54. The applicant appealed against the aforementioned judgment to the Criminal Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments). 55. Referring to his confession of 14 April 2009 and certain subsequent statements, the applicant submitted that his admission of guilt should have mitigated his sentence. Also, he had not intended to kill but only to injure the victim. The applicant had acted in a state of severe mental distress caused by the victim. 56. On 15 November 2011 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. 57. On 8 February 2010 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor General that he had spent the night between 14 and 15 April 2009 in the Riga Regional Police Department sitting on a bench, and that owing to the layout of these premises, he had been denied access to a toilet. He had not been provided with food or access to drinking water. The next day, moreover, the applicant had been questioned by three police officers who had “threatened and blackmailed him in an attempt to extract a confession”. As a result, the applicant had written a text dictated by one of the police officers. 58. The applicant’s complaint concerning conditions in the Riga Regional Police Department was transmitted for examination to its Internal Investigation Office (Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Iekšējās izmeklēšanas birojs). In the part concerning testimonies given in the Riga Regional Police Department, however, the complaint was transmitted to the Riga Regional Court for consideration during the criminal trial. 59. On 19 March 2010 the Internal Investigation Office of the Riga Regional Police Department replied that the applicant had signed the record of his arrest on 14 April 2009 without indicating any grievances. Further, his allegation regarding conditions of detention contradicted material in the case file. 60. In the applicant’s submission to the Court, the Office’s inquiry had been exclusively formal. 61. On 7 April 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsperson (Tiesībsargs). His complaint was very similar to that lodged with the Office of the Prosecutor General (see paragraph 57 above). 62. On 16 July 2010, having conducted an assessment, the Ombudsperson concluded that the inquiry conducted by the Internal Investigation Office of the Riga Regional Police Department had not been effective, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Ombudsperson advised that if the applicant had suffered damage because of the inquiry, he was entitled to apply for compensation from the Head of the State Police. 63. On 19 September 2010, referring to the aforementioned findings of the Ombudsperson, the applicant applied for damages from the Head of the Riga Regional Police Department. 64. On 22 October 2010 the Head of the Riga Regional Police Department replied that the earlier investigation had shown that the applicant had not been denied access to a toilet or drinking water. The applicant had not specified the damage which he had suffered as a result of the investigation by the Internal Investigation Office of the Riga Regional Police Department. The applicant’s claim was dismissed. 65. On 31 January 2011 the applicant lodged a request with the Office of the Prosecutor General. He requested the commencement of criminal proceedings against the officers of the Riga Regional Police Department who had arrested and questioned him and had “exerted psychological pressure on and threatened the applicant in order to make him testify”. 66. On 7 February 2011 the Prosecutor, A.M., refused to commence criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaint on the ground that there was no suggestion that a crime had been committed. He noted that the applicant had claimed, in a general manner, that certain police officers had exerted psychological pressure on him. 67. That refusal was open to appeal before the Prosecutor General. The applicant did not appeal. 68. The applicant’s complaint was also sent to the Presiding Judge of the Supreme Court Appeal Panel, P.O., who was also involved at the time in the criminal case against the applicant (see paragraph 51 above). 69. The Administrative Procedure Law (Administratīvā procesa likums) came into force on 1 February 2004. It provides, among other things, for the right to challenge administrative acts and actions of public authorities before the administrative courts (see D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 40, 29 October 2013, and Melnītis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 24, 28 February 2012). 70. Section 124(2) of the Administrative Procedure Law provided at the material time a State fee (valsts nodeva) of LVL 10 for lodging appeals in proceedings before administrative courts. Section 128(3) of the Law reads as follows: “(3) A court or a judge, in the light of a natural person’s financial situation, may fully or partly exempt the person from the payment of the State fee at the person’s request.” 71. Under Article 2381(3) of the Code of Administrative Violations (Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss), refusal by a State institution to instigate administrative violation proceedings could be appealed to a higher institution within thirty days. Where there was no higher institution, or where the latter was the Cabinet of Ministers, the refusal could be challenged before the Administrative District Court, whose decision was final. 72. Section 6(3) of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office (Prokuratūras likums), providing for an appeal against action taken by a prosecutor, was cited in Leja v. Latvia (no. 71072/01, § 34, 14 June 2011). 73. Section 7 of the Law on Arrested Persons Holding Procedures (Aizturēto personu turēšanas kārtības likums) provides, inter alia, that an arrested person must be provided with food three times a day and with drinking water at any time. It sets out the surface areas of holding cells. It also requires every arrested person to be provided with a bed, mattress and blanket. It further states that a holding cell must be equipped with a toilet, partitioned off from the cell.