against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 30 April 2002,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 111/1998, submitted
to the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Having take into account all information made available to it by the author
of the communication, his counsel and the State party,
Adopts its Decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention.
1.1 The complainant is Mr. R.S., an Austrian citizen, at the time of the
first submission imprisoned in Vienna, Austria, on a conviction for
housebreaking, procuring of prostitution and drug trafficking. He claims to
be the victim of violations by Austria of article 13 of the International
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment. He is represented by counsel.
1.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3 of the Convention, the
Committee transmitted the petition to the State party on 11 January 1999.
Facts as Submitted by the Complainant
2.1 On 30 July 1996, the complainant was questioned by police officers at
the Leopoldstadt District Police station of the Vienna Federal Police
Directorate. While the complainant was questioned by officers of one
investigation team, three officers entered the room and brought the
complainant into the office of one of them. The officers of the
investigation team protested against the complainant's transfer, because
they had not yet finished their interrogation. Shortly after the complainant
had been brought into the other office, he was found outside the office with
three bleeding injuries on his right lower leg. The complainant was examined
by a medical officer of the police and photos of the injuries were taken. On
1 August 1996, the complainant was transferred by his private doctor to
hospital for further examinations that were undertaken on 2 August 1996. The
complainant was released immediately. The report of the hospital, submitted
by the complainant, documented injuries of the right lower leg and a
slightly swollen nose.
2.2 On 9 August 1996, the Vienna Federal Police Directorate sent a report on
the facts of the case and the allegations of the complainant that he had
been ill-treated to the Public Prosecutor's Office. On 20 August 1996, the
Public Prosecutor instituted court proceedings against the three police
officers charging them with mistreatment of a prisoner and attempted
2.3 The first court hearing took place on 7 October 1996. On 6 November
1996, the complainant's trial attorney proposed to the court and to the
prosecutor that an examining judge be assigned, in accordance with a decree
by the Federal Ministry of Justice, to complete the preliminary
investigation carried out by the Federal Police Directorate. This proposal
was rejected by the court and the prosecutor. On 25 November 1996, the three
police officers were acquitted. On 10 March 1997, the prosecutor withdrew
his appeal. It is submitted that, therefore, the decision of the court is
3.1 The complainant claims that on 30 July 1996 he was subjected to
ill-treatment by three police officers while being questioned at the
Leopoldstadt District Police station of the Vienna Federal Police
Directorate. Allegedly, one police officer made him fall to the ground and
then kicked him. The complainant alleges further that this police officer
intentionally kicked him and stepped on his rights shin, which was already
injured [FN1]. As a result the wound started to bleed. When the complainant
stood up his face was slapped by another police officer. He was then told to
make a confession. The complainant states that a fourth police officer was
present in the room, but that he did not participate in the ill-treatment.
[FN1] This injury was a burn that Mr. R.S. had inflicted on himself when he
had been in prison approximately four years before the incident at issue.
The burn did not completely heal and still tended to open.
3.2 The complainant claims that at the first court hearing on 7 October 1996
before the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, serious deficiencies in the
preliminary inquiry appeared. In particular, the investigations did not
attempt to identify the fourth person in the interrogation room, despite the
fact that the testimony of that person would have been essential to
determining the facts.
3.3 The complainant contends that the preliminary inquiries lacked the
necessary impartiality, because they were carried out by the police and,
therefore, constituted a breach of article 13 of the Convention. Impartial
investigations would have identified the "fourth person".
3.4 The complainant further submits that there is no legal basis in Austrian
law for preliminary police inquiries such as the one carried out in the
present case, although such inquiries are frequently conducted in Austria.
Neither a magistrate's preliminary investigation nor a legal preliminary
inquiry, both provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, was carried
3.5 Finally the complainant submits that the only domestic remedy still
available is a civil action (Amtshaftungsklage). Such an action, however,
would not be practicable, because in the absence of a thorough criminal
investigation a civil action would fail.
State Party's Observations on Admissibility
4.1 On 20 May 1999, the State party submits that the case should be declared
inadmissible. The State party states that the interrogation of the
complainant by the first investigation team was interrupted when the officer
assigned to the case at the police station had him brought into his office
to be examined by the medical officer of the Vienna Federal Police
Directorate in order to determine whether his health and state of mind were
impaired as a result of drug consumption.
4.2 After being examined by the medical officer, the complainant told
another official of the station (Colonel P.) that he had been ill-treated by
the officer who had questioned him, the medical office and other police
officer. Colonel P. immediately informed the head of the police station of
the complainant's allegations. The latter phoned, without delay, the
President of the Vienna Federal Police Directorate and the Director of the
Criminal Investigations Office (Sicherheitsbüro) and requested them to take
action. The Criminal Investigations office immediately opened an
investigation. On the same day, only about one and a half hours after the
complainant had made the allegations, he was taken to the Criminal
Investigations Office and questioned at length.
4.3 The accused police officers and Colonel P. were interrogated extensively
on 31 July and 1 August 1996. Five other police officers were also
questioned thoroughly by officers of the Criminal Investigations Office on
2, 5 and 6 August 1996. The Criminal Investigations Office also tried,
unsuccessfully, to find out whether a fourth person had been present during
the alleged ill-treatment.
4.4 The Criminal Investigations Office submitted a Statement of Facts to the
Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office on 9 August 1996 reporting on the results
of its investigations. The public prosecutor filed charges against the
accused police officers with the Vienna Regional Criminal Court on 20 August
1996 for having inflicted suffering on and trying to coerce a prisoner. This
information arrived at the Vienna Regional Criminal Court on 28 August 1996.
4.5 The Criminal Investigations Office continued its inquiries and found
that a fourth person (G.W.) had come into the office where the complainant
was being questioned. That person was an official from the Vienna city
administration who testified that he had stayed in the office for no more
than one or two minutes and that during this time there had been no signs of
any ill-treatment of the complainant. This information was submitted to the
Public Prosecutor's Office on 26 August 1996.
4.6 On 7 October 1996 the trial against the three police officers began at
the Vienna Regional Criminal Court. The complainant and the accused police
officers were questioned at length by the court in the presence of the
public prosecutor, counsel for the defence and the complainant's
representative. A number of witnesses were also questioned, including G.W.
who repeated that he had stayed in the office, where the complainant
allegedly had been ill-treated, for a short period and had not witnessed any
4.7 In view of the complainant's denial that G.W. was the fourth person, the
Criminal Investigations Office continued its inquiries parallel to the court
proceedings. In this regard the complainant was requested, on 30 August
1996, to assist the officers in their efforts, but he replied that he would
not answer any summons and did not make any statements when a photograph of
G.W. was shown to him.
4.8 The three accused officers were acquitted for lack of evidence by
judgement entered on 25 November 1996. The court relied in particular on the
medical expert opinion, according to which the ill-treatment alleged by the
complainant would have had further consequences which would have been
noticed by the medical officer who examined the complainant immediately
after the alleged incident. The expert also took the view that the
complainant might have inflicted the injury upon himself. An appeal
announced by the prosecutor's office was withdrawn on 6 March 1997 and
therefore the judgement became final. Subsequent to that, the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against one of the three officers were discontinued,
whereas another one was acquitted in such proceedings; no disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the third officer.
4.9 The State party claims that the complainant's right under article 13 of
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment to have his case promptly and impartially examined
by the competent authorities was fully secured. On the same day the
complainant made his allegations, the President of the Vienna Federal Police
Directorate was informed and the Criminal Investigations Office started its
investigations. The State party notes in this respect that the Criminal
Investigations Office and the district police stations belong to different
departments of the police and that these departments are independent of each
4.10 The fact that the investigation was carried out by the Criminal
Investigations Office, which deals with only the more serious crimes, shows
that the case was given prompt attention by the competent authorities. The
delay between the beginning of investigations and the passing on of
information to the Public Prosecutor's Office was the shortest possible and
the inquiries carried out afterwards were extensive. Comprehensive
investigations were carried out following the complainant's statement that a
fourth person had been present during the alleged ill-treatment. This is
said to show that the investigating authorities were unbiased and conducted
the necessary investigations impartially.
4.11 The results of the investigations would have been the same even if
preliminary examinations had been conducted by a court of law or the file
had been sent back to the investigating judge. The witnesses and the accused
persons questioned by police officers during the preliminary investigations
were again questioned at length by the judge at the trial. Hence, any
possible faults of the preliminary investigation would have been corrected
at that time. Acceding to the request made on 6 November 1996 by the
representative of the complainant to return the file to the investigating
judge would have been counterproductive, as it would not have produced any
new results and would have created a considerable delay in the criminal
4.12 The State party finally contends that the prerequisites enshrined in
the Convention have not been fulfilled in the case at issue and considers
that the Committee should declare the complaint inadmissible.
Comments by the Complainant
5. In a letter, dated 28 July 1999, the complainant stated that he had
submitted all relevant information.
Decision on Admissibility
6. At its twenty-third session, in November 1999, the Committee considered
the admissibility of the complaint under article 22 of the Convention. In
the case under consideration the Committee noted that the communication was
not anonymous and that the same matter was not being nor had been examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It
also noted that complainant's statement that all domestic remedies had been
exhausted. The State party did not contest that statement. Moreover, the
Committee considered that the complaint did not constitute an abuse of the
right of submission of such communications nor was it incompatible with the
provisions of the Convention. It held that the observations submitted by the
State party concerned the merits rather than the admissibility issue. The
Committee, therefore, found that no obstacles to the admissibility of the
complaint existed. Accordingly, the Committee declared the complaint
admissible on 18 November 1999.
State Party's Observations on the Merits
7.1 In it submission dated 9 June 2000, the State party refers to its
previous presentation of the facts of the case.
7.2 In response to a request by the Committee, the State party submits
information on the procedure set forth in its domestic legislation to deal
with complaints of torture. The State party contends that remedies are
available, which in their entirety ensure a prompt and impartial examination
of cases of alleged torture that meet the requirements of article 13 of the
Complainant's Comments on the Merits
8.1 In his submission of 8 January 2002, the complainant makes additional
submission confirming his previous claims.
8.2 He submits that notwithstanding the State party's claim that adequate
investigations were undertaken into the allegations of torture, in fact, the
Criminal Investigations Office did not take any adequate or effective
measure to identify the fourth person who was present during the
ill-treatment. The only inquiry mentioned by the State party was the summons
of the complainant to appear at the Criminal Investigation Office to
identify a photograph, on 30 August 1996. The complainant argues that he
refused to cooperate because, at that time, only police investigations were
carried out, without participation of judicial authorities, and the
complainant did not trust the independence of these investigations.
8.3 The complainant further submits that the Public Prosecutor's Office is
not an impartial and independent authority for the investigation of
allegations against members of the security organs, as it is subject to
orders by the Federal Minister of Justice. The complainant argues that only
the investigative judge, whose independence is guaranteed by article 87 of
the Federal Constitution of Austria, would be adequate to carry out such
investigations. In the present case, the Regional Criminal Court refused to
take action through the investigative judge.
Consideration of the Merits
9.1 The Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all
information made available by the parties, as provided for in article 22,
paragraph 4, of the Convention.
9.2 The Committee notes the complainant's claim that the State party was in
breach of article 13 of the Convention, because the Regional Criminal Court
failed to open a judicial investigation into his allegations of torture. He
contends that only a judicial investigation could be considered impartial.
In this connection the Committee observes that the decision of the Regional
Criminal Court of 25 November 1996 reveals that the court took into account
all evidence presented by the complainant and the prosecutor when deciding
to acquit the three policemen. The Committee finds that the complainant has
failed to substantiate in what way the investigations conducted by the State
party were not impartial within the meaning of article 13 of the Convention.
10. The Committee against Torture concludes that the State party did not
violate the rule laid down in article 13 of the Convention and that, in the
light of the information submitted to it, no finding of any violation of any
other provisions of the Convention can be made.