H.P. v. CROATIA
Inadmissible
Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicant is a Croatian national, who was born in 1981. The President decided that the applicant’s identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr I. Farčić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. 2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant worked as a police inspector in one of the local branches of the Z. Police Department. 5. During 2012 and 2013 the Split Police Department (Policijska uprava Splitsko-dalmatinska) investigated an organised chain of prostitution in the Split area. The investigation disclosed that the applicant had several contacts with the principal suspect in the investigation, M.H., and that he was one of the clients of the services organised by M.H. 6. In this connection two police inspectors of the Split Police Department, D.Z. and S.K., were ordered to interview the applicant and to obtain from him the available evidence. 7. On 26 March 2013 D.Z. and S.K. came to the premises of the Z. Police Department in order to interview the applicant. 8. In the morning of the same day the Chief of Crime Police of the Z. Police Department invited the applicant to his office. When the applicant arrived at around 9.30 a.m., the secretary of the Chief of Crime Police called M.A., a police inspector at the Z. Police Department, to escort the applicant to a meeting room for an interview with D.Z. and S.K. 9. According to the applicant, while escorting him to the meeting room the inspector M.A. without any reason started pulling his arm saying that he was a “dirty policeman” and that he knew those of his kind very well. The applicant protested against the use of force which made M.A. to press him even harder. The applicant also alleged that during the interview M.A. and the inspectors of the Split Police Department exerted pressure on him forcing him to confess. In particular, S.K. threatened to beat him if he would not confess. 10. According to the Government, the applicant was escorted to a meeting room without any use of force by M.A. or any of the other police officers. There was also no use of force or any other form of ill-treatment or coercion against the applicant during the interview. 11. A note of the applicant’s interview dated 26 March 2013 available to the Court shows that the applicant confessed to having one sexual intercourse with a prostitute in Split. The applicant also gave his mobile phone card to the police officers and duly signed a seizure record indicating that he had no objections. 12. After the interview the applicant returned to his work where he resumed with his duties until the end of the working day. 13. On 29 March 2013, at around 7.30 p.m., the applicant saw a doctor in a hospital in Z. concerning the injuries he had allegedly sustained in the premises of the Z. Police Department on 26 March 2013. The relevant part of the medical record reads: “According to the statement of the injured person ...: During the performance of his duties a crime inspector at [the Z. Police Department] injured him on his left arm. Diagnosis: Contusion on the left side of chest. Contusion and large haematoma on the left upper arm.” 14. The relevant part of another medical record of the same day reads: “Time of the injury: 26.03.2013 9.30 a.m. Reason for [the examination]: During the performance of his duties a crime inspector at [the Z. Police Department] injured him on the left shoulder. Main diagnosis: S20 – superficial injuries of chest (torso).” 15. The applicant underwent further medical examinations on 8 and 17 April 2013, which indicated recession of the injuries on his upper arm and chest. 16. Following the applicant’s medical examination on 29 March 2013 (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above), the hospital forwarded a copy of his medical record to the Z. Police Department. 17. On 16 April 2013 the applicant was interviewed in the Z. Police Department concerning his alleged ill-treatment of 26 March 2013. The applicant stated that he had been forcefully grabbed by the hand by one of the Z. Police Department inspectors who escorted him to a meeting room. Inside the meeting room the inspector threatened him with ill-treatment saying that he should know very well why he had been summoned to an interview. At one point two inspectors of the Split Police Department had joined them and then he was questioned concerning his alleged contacts with prostitutes. The applicant also explained that following his interview he had said to an on-duty officer at the police station, Z.T., what had happened to him. He also stated that only later he had gone to see his lawyer and then decided that he should lodge an official complaint concerning his alleged ill-treatment. 18. On 18 April 2013 the inspector M.A. was interviewed and he denied any use of force against the applicant. On 23 and 24 April 2013 the inspectors of the Split Police Department D.Z. and S.K. submitted their reports denying any threats or use of force against the applicant. 19. On 25 April 2013 the applicant’s colleague Z.T. was interviewed. Z.T. stated that upon the applicant’s return from his meeting at the Z. Police Department on 26 March 2013, he had explained to Z.T. that he had been interviewed by the police inspectors concerning his alleged contacts with prostitutes. The applicant had also said to Z.T. that while escorting him to the meeting room one of the police inspectors took him by the hand. However, Z.T. explained that although the applicant had said that the inspectors were rude he did not say that he was ill-treated or injured nor did he explain in what manner were the inspectors rude. The following day Z.T. went together with the applicant to the internal control department and on their way there the applicant had not mentioned to Z.T. any injuries nor did he complain of any pain. 20. On 17 May 2013 the Z. Police Department forwarded the material obtained during its inquiry to the Z. Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Z.). 21. On 17 April 2013 the applicant sent an email to the Internal Control Unit of the Ministry of the Interior (Služba za unutarnju kontrolu Ministarstva unutarnjih poslova; hereinafter: the “Internal Control Unit”) complaining about his alleged ill-treatment by a police inspector during his interview in the Z. Police Department on 26 March 2013. He in particular alleged that he had been grabbed by the hand and pulled by a police inspector who escorted him to a meeting room where the same inspector then continued with the threats forcing him to confess to the alleged involvement in prostitution. The applicant also contended that the police inspector had forcefully taken his mobile phone and searched it. There were allegedly some other police officers who laughed at him. 22. Further, on 15 May 2013 the applicant forwarded a photograph to the Internal Control Unit depicting the alleged injuries he had sustained as a result of his ill-treatment of 26 March 2013. 23. During its inquiry the Internal Control Unit obtained a report from the Z. Police Department as well as the applicant’s medical records and reports form the inspectors D.Z. and S.K., and it interviewed the applicant, the inspector M.A. and the applicant’s colleague Z.T., as well as the Chief of Crime Police of the Z. Police Department. 24. On 18 July 2013 the Internal Control Unit informed the applicant that it considered his allegations unfounded and unsubstantiated. 25. The applicant challenged these findings and the Internal Control Unit informed him on 26 July 2013 that his complaints were forwarded to the Commission for Complaints of the Ministry of the Interior (Povjerentsvo za rad po pritužbama Ministarstva unutarnjih poslova; hereinafter: the “Commission”). 26. The proceedings before the Commission are still pending. 27. On 26 June 2013 the applicant sent a letter to the Z. Municipal State Attorney’s Office complaining about his alleged ill-treatment during his interview in the Z. Police Department on 26 March 2013. 28. On 2 July 2013 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the Chief of the Z. Police Department, the Chief for Crime Police of the Z. Police Department and his deputy, the inspectors M.A. and S.K. and the Head of the Internal Control Unit, alleging his ill-treatment during the interview of 26 March 2013 and their abuse of powers by lodging criminal complaints against him in connection with his alleged involvement in the prostitution (see paragraph 36 below). In connection with the alleged ill-treatment, the applicant submitted in general terms that the inspector M.A. had unlawfully used force against him and that the inspector S.K. had threatened him, forcing him to confess to his alleged involvement in prostitution. 29. During the investigation, the Z. Municipal State Attorney’s Office interviewed the Chief for Crime Police of the Z. Police Department and the inspector M.A., who denied any unlawfulness or the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. 30. In the further course of the investigation the Z. Municipal State Attorney’s Office summoned the applicant’s colleague Z.T. for an interview. 31. The investigation before the Z. Municipal State Attorney’s Office is still pending. 32. Meanwhile, on an unspecified date the applicant also lodged a criminal complaint against the Chief for Crime Police of the Z. Police Department and his deputy as well as the inspectors M.A. and S.K. before the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office”) alleging his ill-treatment during the interview of 26 March 2013 and irregularities in processing the case against him concerning his alleged involvement in prostitution. 33. On 31 October 2013 the State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint as ill-founded on the grounds that there was no evidence that on 26 March 2013 he had left the premises of the Z. Police Department with any injuries and that the fact that he had sought medical help only three days after the alleged ill-treatment remained fully unexplained. This led to a conclusion that his injuries had not been caused in the course of his police interview. The State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office also indicated that it did not find any irregularities in processing of the applicant’s case by any of the persons involved. 34. On 27 March 2013 the applicant was provisionally suspended from the police service. 35. The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in connection with his alleged involvement in prostitution, and concerning another event of alleged breach of the confidentiality of information, are still pending. 36. On 5 April 2013 the Split Police Department lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant before the State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office in connection with a suspicion of his involvement in a prostitution scheme. 37. On an unspecified date the State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office rejected the criminal complaint as ill-founded. 38. The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Ustav Republike Hrvatske, Official Gazette nos. 56/1990, 135/1997, 8/1998, 113/2000, 124/2000, 28/2001, 41/2001, 55/2001, 76/2010 and 85/2010) read as follows: Article 23 “No one shall be subjected to any form of ill-treatment ...”