CASE OF MILIĆ AND NIKEZIĆ v. MONTENEGRO
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;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano
5. The applicants were born in 1974 and 1981 respectively and live in Podgorica. 6. At the relevant time they were in detention (u pritvoru) at the Institution for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions (Zavod za izvršenje krivičnih sankcija, hereinafter “IECS”), where they shared a cell with five other detainees. 7. On 27 October 2009 the first applicant was to be transferred to a disciplinary unit (disciplinsko odjeljenje) and the cell in which he was detained was to be searched. The submissions of the applicants and the Government as to what exactly happened on that occasion differ. 8. The first applicant submitted that after having entered his cell, several guards had grabbed him and thrown him on to the concrete floor of the corridor outside the cell. They had handcuffed him, beaten him using batons and their fists, and sworn at him. In addition, two rows of guards positioned along the corridor had beaten him as he was being taken away. 9. The second applicant submitted that he had protested against this abuse. In response, four guards had started to kick him and had beaten him with their fists and batons. After that he had been taken into the corridor outside the cell, where eight other guards had continued to beat him. The beating had continued after he had returned to the cell. 10. The Government, for their part, submitted that the applicants had resisted the actions of the prison guards and had tried to prevent them from performing their duties, which had triggered the guards’ intervention. In particular, when they had entered the cell the second applicant had attacked one of the guards without any reason and had injured him. 11. The first applicant had refused to be examined by a prison doctor as he doubted his impartiality. On the same day, however, he had talked to the doctor and, in answer to the doctor’s question whether he was feeling well and whether he had any injuries, he had apparently said “No, doctor, I am healthy and both physically and psychologically stable, and I do not consent to an examination; there is no need for it as I have not been ill-treated either physically or psychologically by the security forces”. 12. The second applicant had been examined by the prison doctor after the Deputy Ombudsman had made a request to that effect. It would appear that the doctor made two reports in this regard. The Ombudsman, who obtained the reports from the IECS, described them as barely legible and apparently referring to the same subject matter in two different ways. 13. On 30 October 2009 the first applicant’s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings reported the incident to the prison governor and requested that the appropriate responsible bodies be informed, that his client be provided with medical assistance, and that no further punitive measures be taken against him. 14. On an unspecified date before 4 November 2009 the State prosecutor (Osnovno državno tužilaštvo) asked the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Danilovgrad to establish the elements of criminal offences of torture and ill-treatment (predlog radi utvrđivanja elemenata bića krivičnog djela mučenje i zlostavljanje). Acting upon this an investigating judge (istražni sudija) from the Court of First Instance requested, inter alia, the medical examination of both applicants by an external forensic doctor, and ordered evidence to be heard from a number of individuals, including the prison guards, and the second applicant. 15. On 4 November 2009 an external forensic doctor examined the second applicant. He confirmed in his report that the second applicant had light body injuries, namely a 10-day old haematoma (krvni podliv) measuring 8 x 15 cm on the back of his left thigh and a haematoma on the lower lid of each eye. The doctor added that there was an undated medical report in the second applicant’s file confirming the presence of bruises around his eyes. He emphasised that the medical documentation provided by the IECS was “largely illegible”. The first applicant refused an examination by the external forensic doctor, as the examination had apparently been ordered when his bruises were already fading. 16. On 5 November 2009, the first applicant’s mother – during a visit – observed bruises on his face and haematomas on visible parts of his body. She reported this immediately to the prison administration (Upravi zavoda). On 9 November 2009 she lodged a criminal complaint (krivična prijava) with the competent State prosecutor against persons unknown, stating that the first applicant had two bruises, one on his left temple – which was already fading – and another on one of his legs, and that he had also complained that he was having difficulty sitting. 17. On an unspecified date the second applicant’s mother – who had been informed by one of the detainees about what had happened – reported the incident to the Ombudsman and visited her son. She observed that his eyes were closed and his face and visible parts of his body were covered in bruises. She reported this to the prison administration and asked that it be investigated. On 6 November 2009 she lodged a criminal complaint with the police (Upravi policije) against persons unknown. 18. On 5 November and 10 November 2009 the State prosecutor asked the Court of First Instance in Danilovgrad to investigate the complaints lodged on behalf of the second and first applicants respectively (predlog za preduzimanje istražnih radnji). Acting upon this the investigating judge requested, inter alia, a video-recording from the prison, the identification of all the guards who had been involved in the cell search, and that the evidence be heard from a number of individuals, including the prison guards, other detainees in the cell, the first applicant, and the first applicant’s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings. 19. The requested questioning (see paragraphs 14 in fine and 18 in fine above) took place between 4 November and 9 December 2009. Two of the detainees stated that they had seen the first applicant being beaten. Some of the guards stated that the first applicant had resisted being handcuffed by “attempting to get out of [their] hands, cursing and swearing” and, when on the floor, by kicking out (“gicao se i mlatio nogama i rukama”). One of the guards admitted “hitting [the first applicant] once with a baton, as he continued to resist and kick”. Another guard, who had seen the first applicant several days after the incident, had observed a cut below his left eye as well as a visible injury to one of his legs. 20. When visiting his client several days after the incident, the first applicant’s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings had observed a bruise under one of his eyes, and a bruise on the calf of his left leg with a diameter of about 20 cm. He described him as frightened and “mentally broken”. 21. One of the guards stated that the second applicant had grabbed the collar of one of his colleagues from behind, following which the guard in question had fallen over a bench. The guard had pushed him away and the second applicant had hit the wall and sunk to the floor (pao je na zid i spustio se dolje na sjedalo). The guard stated that his colleague had not hit the second applicant. Three other guards confirmed this. The prison doctor stated that he had noticed a haematoma under the second applicant’s eye. Three detainees confirmed that the second applicant had been beaten by several guards both in the cell and in the corridor. The applicants, for their part, repeated their allegations. 22. On 12 February 2010 the State prosecutor rejected (odbacio) the criminal complaints against two guards, I.M. and R.T., on the ground that even though they had used force by hitting the first applicant three times and the second applicant once with a baton, they had done so in order to overcome the applicants’ resistance and thus acted within their powers (u granicama službenog ovlašćenja). While the first applicant had not been examined by a doctor, the medical documentation of the second applicant confirmed that he had sustained light injuries. That being so, the prosecutor concluded that the force used had not infringed human dignity and that there were no elements of any criminal offence entailing prosecution ex proprio motu. The prosecutor’s decision also identified other guards who had participated in the cell search. At the same time, the applicants were informed that they could pursue a subsidiary prosecution by lodging an indictment (optužni predlog) with the Court of First Instance. 23. On 23 February 2010 the lawyer retained by the applicants in respect of the complaints of alleged ill-treatment lodged an indictment for torture and ill-treatment which had resulted in severe bodily injuries (teške tjelesne povrede) against 16 prison guards named in the previous decision, including I.M. and R.T. 24. On 16 March 2010 the lawyer was informed by the first applicant that the video-recording obtained from the IECS by the Court of First Instance did not show the entire incident, namely it omitted his being beaten by two rows of guards in the corridor. He claimed, however, that another camera in the corridor must have recorded the beating and that the recording should be obtained from the prison authorities. 25. On 30 March 2010 the lawyer asked the court to obtain a recording from another camera, but apparently without success. 26. On 22 April 2010 the Court of First Instance decided that the applicants’ indictment was to be treated as a criminal complaint and, as such, was to be lodged with the State prosecutor. 27. On 10 May 2010 the applicants appealed against the above decision. At the same time they also lodged a criminal complaint with the State prosecutor. 28. On 13 September 2010 the High Court rejected the applicants’ appeal on the ground that the State prosecutor had delivered a decision only in respect of I.M. and R.T. and not the other guards. 29. On 19 October 2010 the State prosecutor rejected the applicants’ criminal complaint on the ground that there were no elements of any criminal offence entailing prosecution ex proprio motu. At the same time the applicants were notified that they could pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution by lodging a request for an investigation (zahtjev za sprovođenje istrage) with the Court of First Instance. 30. On 12 November 2010 the applicants lodged a request for an investigation with the Court of First Instance. 31. On 10 February 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected (odbacuje se) a constitutional appeal by the applicants against the above decisions of the Court of First Instance and the High Court on procedural grounds. In particular, it considered that the applicants’ complaints were in substance about the criminal prosecution of other individuals and that – pursuant to the Court’s case-law – such complaints were incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention. It was also concluded that the decision of the Court of First Instance did not represent an “individual decision” in respect of which the Constitutional Court would be competent, but rather a procedural decision establishing whether the conditions were met for conducting an investigation in response to a direct indictment lodged by the applicants. In the impugned proceedings the courts had not decided on the merits of the request itself, but rather had ruled that the request should be treated as a criminal complaint. 32. On 18 March 2011 the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ request for an investigation on the grounds of lack of reasonable suspicion (osnovana sumnja) that the guards had tortured and ill-treated the applicants and that the force they had used had been necessary to overcome the applicants’ resistance. On 13 June 2011 the High Court upheld this decision. 33. On 30 October and 12 November 2009 the Deputy Ombudsman visited the applicants. She also spoke with other detainees from the same cell, who confirmed the first applicant’s allegations. She noted that the second applicant, who had “visible injuries on his head, especially around the eyes” as well as on his legs, had asked that he be allowed to lodge a criminal complaint and to be examined by the prison doctor. 34. In its response to an inquiry from the Ombudsman, the IECS stated that the second applicant had unjustifiably resisted and physically attacked guards who, in response, had used force and a baton to the extent necessary to overcome his resistance. The IECS also provided the doctor’s reports in respect of the second applicant, which were described by the Ombudsman as barely legible and from which it could be concluded that they dealt with the same subject matter, but had a different content. 35. In an opinion of 29 March 2010, the Ombudsman found that the applicants’ rights had been violated on 27 October 2009. The opinion stated that they had offered no resistance and that there had been no justification for the use of force (sredstva prinude), especially not to the extent and in the manner alleged. At the same time the Ombudsman recommended that the IECS institute disciplinary proceedings against the guards responsible and report to the Ombudsman within 20 days on the measures taken. 36. On 1 April 2010 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against three prison guards, I.M., I.B. and R.T. On 31 May 2010 they were found responsible and fined 20% of their salaries in October 2009 for abusing their position or exceeding their authority (zloupotreba položaja ili prekoračenje ovlašćenja) as they had used excessive force disproportionate to the resistance offered by the applicants on 27 October 2009. In particular, I.M. had hit both applicants once with a rubber baton, I.B. had kicked the first applicant, and R.T. had hit the second applicant on the lower part of the body with the baton. The applicants’ families and the Ombudsman were informed about the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the applicants’ lawyer attended the hearing before the disciplinary commission. 37. Four other staff members who had participated in the cell search on the stated date, in relation to whom it was not proved that force had been used against the applicants, had apparently been transferred to other posts in other IECS units. 38. On 5 May 2010, during the parliamentary hearing of the prison governor (see paragraph 47 below), the Ombudsman confirmed that the IECS administration had duly acted upon his recommendations within the set time-limit. 39. On 15 March 2011 the applicants lodged a compensation claim against the IECS relying, inter alia, on Article 3 of the Convention, and seeking 15,000 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage caused by torture on 27 October 2009. 40. On 7 November 2013, after a remittal, the Court of First Instance in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicants by awarding EUR 1,050 each for non-pecuniary damage on account of violations of their rights and EUR 397 for the costs of the proceedings. The court based its decision on section 166 of the Obligations Act (see paragraph 62 below). In its reasoning the court took into account the statements of the applicants and the prison guards, medical findings, the video-recording, the fact that the three prison guards had been found responsible in disciplinary proceedings for the disproportionate use of force and had been fined, and the fact that the applicants had offered resistance, thus contributing to the non-pecuniary damage. The court found that the guards had exceeded their powers but also explicitly held that such actions could not be qualified as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. 41. On 29 May 2014 the High Court upheld this judgment. In so doing it did not disagree with the conclusion of the first-instance court as to the qualification of the impugned incident. 42. On 23 October 2014 the Supreme Court partly overturned the previous decisions by awarding the applicants 1,500 EUR each for non-pecuniary damage, together with the statutory interest. In so doing the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the use of force by prison guards could not be justified by the applicants’ resistance and held that such action was in breach of fundamental values of every democratic society and degraded human dignity, but that it did not constitute torture or inhuman treatment. The applicants received this decision on 25 November 2014. 43. The applicants also maintain that they were threatened or abused between 23 December 2009 and 15 January 2010, in which regard their mothers lodged criminal complaints on 18 January 2010. On 22 June 2011 the State prosecutor (Osnovni državni tužilac) rejected the criminal complaint as regards the threat against the first applicant on the ground that no such incident had taken place. The criminal complaint in respect of the abuse alleged by the second applicant would appear to be still pending. 44. Between 27 April and 5 May 2010 the first applicant went on hunger strike, the reason being that disciplinary proceedings, with regard to the events of 27 October 2009, had been instituted against only three guards, who – according to him – were those least responsible for what had happened to him. 45. On an unspecified date in early May 2010 the first applicant had a meeting with the prison governor. On that occasion he apparently suggested to show the prison governor the camera which had recorded the entire incident of 27 October 2009. The governor allegedly suggested that the first applicant draw a sketch instead. 46. On at least two occasions the applicants complained to their lawyer that their ill-treatment had been continuous, and on at least one occasion they threatened to commit suicide if the pressure on them did not ease. The lawyer informed the High Court, the Minister of Justice, and the prison governor, requesting that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against those responsible. 47. On 5 May 2010 and 14 June 2011 the prison governor was questioned by the parliamentary Human Rights Committee. 48. On 25 June 2011 the parliamentary Human Rights Committee submitted its report to Parliament, one of its conclusions being that “there had been no torture or systemic violations of human rights in the IECS and that all the reported cases of the use of force and exceeding of powers had been sanctioned”. 49. The applicants also submitted that they had been deprived of an effective domestic remedy because one of the deputy State prosecutors at the time was the prison governor’s daughter and the Deputy Supreme State Prosecutor was his wife. 50. The first applicant is currently serving four prison sentences. He had been convicted eight times prior to this for various criminal offences. During his detention he had been subject to disciplinary sanctions four times, and twice more while serving his prison sentence.