CASE OF DINU v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano
5. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Șopârlița. 6. On 30 June 2013 the applicant’s sister called the emergency services and reported that the applicant was causing a disturbance in respect of his family (a făcut scandal ȋn familie). Two police officers from the Bobiceşti police, C.B. and M.D.B., were dispatched to the applicant’s home. 7. Once they arrived at the applicant’s home, the police officers proceeded to handcuff him in order to take him to the police station, because they claimed that he was aggressive towards them. The officers immobilised him and pushed him to the ground with his face down, even though he was not resisting arrest. They handcuffed him with his hands behind his back, dragged him towards a police car, and banged his head against a metal gate owned by a neighbour, M.V. 8. The Government acknowledged that the police officers had put the applicant to the ground and had forcibly handcuffed him. They stated, however, that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and of being thrown against a metal gate by the police officers were contradicted by the available evidence. The evidence proved that his injuries were not caused deliberately by the police officers. 9. On 30 June 2013 one of the police officers who had been dispatched to the applicant’s home produced a contravention report, and fined the applicant 1,000 Romanian lei (RON – approximately 230 euros (EUR)). According to the report, the applicant had offended his father, had been inebriated, and had admitted his actions. The report was signed by the applicant. 10. From 1 to 3 July 2013 the applicant was in BagdasarArseni Emergency Hospital in Bucharest. According to a medical report produced upon his discharge from hospital, he was diagnosed with a cervical spine injury and a minor cranial cerebral trauma. 11. On 3 July 2013 the applicant’s father lodged a criminal complaint against police officers C.B. and M.D.B., on the grounds that they had physically abused his son. On 12 September 2013 the applicant took up (şia ȋnsuşit) the criminal complaint lodged by his father against the police officers. 12. On 14 August 2013 the Olt prosecutor’s office interviewed the applicant’s father with regard toHe stated, inter alia, that his son had not been suffering from a psychological illness. On the day of the incident the applicant had been inebriated and had made a scene, but he had not hurt either of his parents. Neither parent had called the police, and the applicant’s father was unaware of who could have done so. The police officers had produced a contravention report in the applicant’s name and had asked him to sign the report without informing him why. The applicant had complied and had signed the contravention report. Subsequently, he had agreed to accompany the police officers to the hospital, but had informed them that he needed to go inside the house to get dressed. The police officers had stopped him from entering the house, pushed him to the ground with his face down, and handcuffed him. Afterwards, they had dragged him away and banged his head against a metal gate owned by M.V. When they had put the applicant in the ambulance he had had blood on his face, and they had left him in the ambulance face down and wearing handcuffs. The following day, Dr B. from the psychiatric unit of Slatina Emergency Hospital had informed him (the applicant’s father) that his son had been seriously beaten, and that he had been transferred to a different hospital because he had suffered a cervical spine injury. 13. On 12 September 2013 the Olt prosecutor’s office interviewed the applicant. In his statement, inter alia, he asked the investigating authorities to also interview his mother and N.B. with regard to the incident. He also stated that he had signed the contravention report produced by the two police officers, even though he had not been informed by them about its content. One of the police officers had travelled with him in the ambulance. That officer had refused to remove his handcuffs and had punched him in the face. 14. On the same date the Olt prosecutor’s office interviewed both the applicant’s mother and N.B. His mother stated, inter alia, that the police officers had not allowed her son to get dressed, had chased him through the courtyard, and had tripped him. After he had fallen to the ground they had twisted his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. Because the applicant had been agitated after he had been handcuffed, and had refused to accompany the police officers, they had repeatedly banged his head against the gate owned by M.V. One of the police officers had travelled with the applicant in the ambulance and had continued to beat him until he had been asked by the medical staff in the ambulance to stop the violence. 15. N.B. stated, inter alia, that he had been on the street on the day of the incident and had seen two police officers handcuff the applicant. Afterwards, they had grabbed him by his hands and had banged his head repeatedly on the gate owned by M.V. N.B. further stated that he had worked with the applicant, and he had not been suffering from any psychological condition or drinking alcohol. 16. On an unspecified date in 2013 the Olt prosecutor’s office asked the Olt County Forensic Medical Service to examine the available medical documents and produce a forensic expert report in the case. The prosecutor’s office asked the forensic service to determine: the applicant’s injuries and their cause; the number of days of medical care needed for healing; if there was a direct link between the applicant’s injuries and their cause; and if the injuries could also have been caused by something other than intentional force. 17. On 31 October 2013 the Olt County Forensic Medical Service examined the applicant and the available medical documents. 18. On 18 November 2013 the Olt County Forensic Medical Service produced a forensic expert report. It noted that on the day of the incident the applicant had been transferred by ambulance to Slatina Emergency Hospital because he had been extremely agitated and his breath had smelled of alcohol. Subsequently, he had been transferred to the hospital’s psychiatric unit and had been sedated. The following day he had started complaining of pain in his cervical spine area, and of paralysis of his right hand. He had been examined and had been diagnosed with a cervical spine injury. The interdisciplinary medical examination carried out by, inter alia, a neurologist, a surgeon and an orthopaedist had not identified any signs of trauma. Eventually, the applicant had been admitted to a specialist hospital and had been operated on in relation to the cervical spine injury. 19. The forensic report concluded that the applicant’s injury could have been caused on 30 June 2013. Most probably, the injury had been caused by a forced rotation movement of the neck when the applicant had been immobilised and handcuffed. No signs of trauma specific to intentional force had been identified on the applicant’s head, body or limbs during the interdisciplinary examinations carried out after his admissions to Slatina Emergency Hospital and Bagdasar-Arseni Emergency Hospital. The applicant had needed seventy to eighty days of medical care from the moment of his injury. 20. On 10 January 2014 a prosecutor attached to the Olt prosecutor’s office decided not to open a criminal investigation against the two police officers for abusive behaviour, on the grounds that their actions had lacked the elements of an offence. The prosecutor held that a third party had called the emergency services at the applicant’s sister’s request, because the applicant, who had a history of psychological problems and who had been drunk, had been aggressive and had endangered his own life and safety and that of his family. Once police officers C.B. and M.D.B. had arrived at the scene of the incident, they had asked the applicant to calm down and accompany them to the police station. The applicant had refused the police officers’ demand, and had become aggressive and had verbally abused them. 21. The prosecutor further held that the applicant’s father had confirmed the fact that the applicant had been drunk at the time of the incident. However, his statements that his son had not been aggressive and that he had been unaware of the identity of the person who had called the emergency services had not been confirmed by the rest of the evidence adduced in the file. Moreover, in such a case, it would have been highly unlikely that an individual would call the emergency services for no reason. According to the prosecutor, those arguments were also supported by the fact that, in the medical report produced by the psychiatric unit of Slatina Emergency Hospital, where the applicant had been taken after the incident, it was stated that the applicant was suffering from a polymorphic personality disorder, which was aggravated by alcohol consumption. Also, his father had acknowledged that the applicant would generally act normally when he was sober, but transformed into a verbally and physically aggressive person once he drank alcohol. 22. The prosecutor also held that the applicant was known in his village as a violent and aggressive person with psychological problems. He had been investigated in relation to several other criminal files concerning alleged violent acts committed against the members of his family, and for theft, but the investigations had been discontinued after his parents had withdrawn their complaints. 23. The prosecutor noted that, according to the reports describing the police officers’ intervention and the use of force and handcuffs, once the officers had arrived at the applicant’s home they had realised that he was drunk, and they had been forced to immobilise him and take him to Slatina Emergency Hospital. Also, according to the available medical documents, the applicant had been transferred to the hospital by ambulance, he had been extremely agitated, and his breath had smelled of alcohol. Subsequently, he had been transferred to the hospital’s psychiatric unit and had been sedated. The following day he had started complaining of a cervical spine injury, which had eventually required surgical treatment. In addition, according to the information provided by the psychiatric unit of Slatina Emergency Hospital, since 1998 the applicant had repeatedly been admitted to the unit for similar reasons. 24. The prosecutor held that the conclusions of the forensic expert report produced on 18 November 2013 contradicted N.B.’s and the applicant’s parents’ testimonies that the applicant’s head had repeatedly been banged against M.V.’s gate by the police officers. 25. By referring to Article 34 §§ 1 and 2 of Law no. 218/2002, but expressly citing the relevant provisions of Article 33 §§ 1 and 2 of the same aforementioned Law, the prosecutor further held that, given the available evidence, the police officers had not injured the applicant deliberately. His injuries could have been the result of a forced rotation of his neck, which could have happened at the moment when he had been immobilised by the officers. Also, the police officers had stated that they had not hurt the applicant, and had confirmed that he had been drunk, and that he had been transported and admitted to hospital. 26. The applicant challenged the decision of 10 January 2014 before a more senior prosecutor. 27. On 29 January 2014 a more senior prosecutor attached to the Olt prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s challenge as ill-founded, and upheld the decision of 10 January 2014. 28. The applicant appealed against the decision of 29 January 2014 before the Slatina District Court. In his written submissions he argued that the forensic expert report produced in the case was incomplete and superficial. The report had failed to determine if his injury would have been possible considering the physical characteristics of the parties involved in the incident and the standard procedure which had to be followed in cases of handcuffing. Also, the report had not explained how the forced rotation of his neck had happened, as he would not have made such a painful movement instinctively. In addition, the prosecutor’s office had wrongfully dismissed his parents’ and N.B.’s testimonies, as those witnesses had confirmed the police violence, and the forensic report had acknowledged that his injury had most probably been caused as a result of the forced rotation of his neck. Consequently, the applicant argued that the available forensic expert report had to be complemented by another report (completat), and that the second report had to be submitted for the approval of a higher review commission. 29. The applicant further argued that none of the circumstances set out in sections 1 and 2 of Article 34 of Law no. 218/2002 had applied in his case. Also, even assuming that he had resisted immobilisation, as claimed by the authorities, the handcuffing measure could only have been taken against him if there had been a reasonable suspicion that his behaviour could endanger the police officers’ physical integrity or lives. Even assuming that such a situation had existed, the police officers had still had a lawful duty to use their handcuffs without seriously injuring him. 30. Lastly, the applicant contended that the prosecuting authorities’ conclusion that the police officers had not hurt him intentionally had been illfounded, given that the officers had indirectly acted with intent. In particular, they had foreseen the result of their actions, and even if they had not intended that result, they had accepted that it was a possibility. 31. On 12 March 2014 the Slatina District Court referred the case to the Balş District Court for examination. 32. By a final judgment of 9 April 2014 the Balş District Court, sitting in private as a pre-trial chamber judge, and without the parties being present, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the more senior prosecutor’s decision and upheld that decision. It noted that it had notified the parties about the date of the hearing, but they had failed to submit written observations. The court held that the Olt prosecutor’s office had correctly established that officers C.B. and M.D.B. had not committed the offence of abusive behaviour. Also, the available forensic report did not need to be complemented by an additional report or submitted for approval. The forensic report had examined extensively the available medical evidence, and had concluded that no evidence of trauma as a result of deliberate force had been identified on the applicant’s head, body or limbs during the multidisciplinary examinations. 33. The court further held that, according to the available medical evidence, the applicant had been in an extreme state of psychomotor agitation, and the cranial X-ray had not shown any post-traumatic injury of the skull. Consequently, the court considered that the existence of a minor cranial cerebral trauma had not contradicted the conclusions of the forensic medical report, which had taken that trauma’s presence into account. 34. The court also considered that it had been unnecessary for the forensic expert report to explain how the forced rotation of the applicant’s neck had happened, given that the victim would not have made such movements instinctively, because he had been drunk and extremely agitated at the time of the incident, and his behaviour could not have been compared with the normal behaviour of another person. 35. The court further considered that the prosecutor had correctly dismissed the testimonies in the case, given that, according to the forensic expert report, no trauma as a result of deliberate force had been identified, and the forensic pathologist had had the opportunity to consider the possibility of the applicant’s head being banged repeatedly against a metal gate. 36. The court held that it was true that the police officers had had a duty to use their handcuffs without seriously injuring the applicant. However, the applicant’s injuries had not been the direct result of the police officers’ actions. They had occurred in circumstances where he had been drunk, violent and extremely agitated, and therefore the police officers could not have controlled their actions towards him. 37. The court also held that the violent actions towards the applicant had been carried out by the police officers within the framework of their work duties. In addition, the actions had been lawfully justified in order to alleviate the danger the applicant had represented to society and himself, given that he had been drunk, agitated and aggressive, and had been suffering from an organic personality disorder as a result of drinking alcohol. The police officers had not acted with the intent of hitting or hurting the applicant. His injuries had been the result of his immobilisation and handcuffing measures to stop his aggressive actions and transport him to the hospital. Therefore, the police officers’ actions had been justified. 38. On 22 October 2014 the applicant underwent a medical examination at a private medical establishment, the Medical Civil Association for the Brain. According to a medical report produced by that establishment, the applicant had an organic personality disorder with “polymorphic decompensation” (decompensare polimorfă). The report noted that the applicant’s symptoms included a moderate intrapsychological tension, concentration difficulties, mixed insomnia and a low resilience to frustration and annoyances. It further noted, inter alia, that the applicant had repeatedly been admitted to psychiatric hospitals, had poor social and family support, and persistent symptoms for which he was receiving treatment. 39. On 6 January 2015 the applicant underwent a medical examination at Schitu-Greci Psychiatric Hospital, because he was suffering from psychomotor agitation, a conflicted personality disorder, headaches, dizziness and mixed insomnia. According to a medical report produced by the hospital, he was diagnosed with an organic personality disorder and received treatment for his condition. The report also noted that alcohol and coffee consumption, as well as conflict, amounted to risk factors in relation to the applicant’s medical condition. 40. On 26 May 2015 a neurologist attached to BagdasarArseni Emergency Hospital in Bucharest produced a medical report in respect of the applicant’s medical condition, following his operation for his cervical spine injury. According to the report, inter alia, the applicant continued to experience movement difficulties. Consequently, the report considered it appropriate that the applicant’s ability to work be assessed by a local expert commission, with a view to his potential retirement. 41. On 8 June 2015 the Caracal branch of an office specialising in expert medical assessment of a person’s ability to work, which was attached to the Olt Retirement Agency, acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from a serious functional deficiency and had completely lost his ability to work.