| |
The Human Rights Committee,
established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights,
Meeting on 24 July 2008,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 1486/2006, submitted
to the Human Rights Committee on behalf of Mr. Andreas Kalamiotis under the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by
the author of the communication, and the State party,
Adopts the following:
VIEWS UNDER ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 4, OF THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
1. The author of the communication is Mr. Andreas Kalamiotis, a Greek
national of Romani ethnic origin, born on 7 January 1980. He claims to be a
victim of a violation by Greece of his rights under articles 2, paragraph 3,
and 7 (separately and read together); 2, paragraph 1; and 26, of the
Covenant. He is represented by counsel. The Covenant and the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant entered into force for Greece on 5 May 1997.
THE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHOR
2.1 In the evening of 14 June 2001, the author was at home with friends
listening to music. At around 1:30 a.m. on 15 June 2001 a police car arrived
and an officer asked the author to turn off the music, as it was disturbing
his neighbours. The author and his friends agreed that they would do so in
five minutes and the police officer left. A few minutes later they switched
off the radio and the author saw his friends out to their cars. They were
about to leave and the author had already re-entered his house when he heard
a noise outside and returned to the doorstep. Several police cars were
parked in the street and police officers were pointing their guns. One of
the police officers had his gun pointed at the author and was threatening to
shoot him. Others came towards him, handcuffed him and dragged him to the
police car, where they slammed him against the hood and started beating and
kicking him repeatedly in front of his children. He did not see what
instruments were used to beat him with but he believed they were truncheons.
While he was being beaten some of the police officers searched the house.
2.2 The author was taken to the police station of Aghia Paraskevi, where he
was kept handcuffed and refers to an exchange of insults with the police
officers. Around 11 a.m. on 15 June 2001, the author was taken to the Athens
Police Headquarters, where pictures of him were taken while he was still
handcuffed. He was then taken to the Athens Misdemeanours Prosecutor with a
lawyer of his choice. He was charged with resisting arrest and insulting and
threatening the police authorities. The trial was set for 18 June 2001. On
that date, before the hearing, the author and his lawyer went to the
Forensic medical services, which refused to examine the author on the
grounds that he had first to press charges or submit a complaint to the
Police station of Aghia Paraskevi. At that point in time, the author
hesitated to submit a complaint for fear of retaliation from the police
officers who had beaten him.
2.3 The court did not have time to examine the case and the trial was
postponed to 25 January 2002. After another postponement the author was
tried in absentia on 5 April 2002 and convicted for resisting arrest,
insults and threats against police officers. He was sentenced to one year
and 80 days imprisonment convertible to a fine, suspended pending appeal.
The appeal was heard on 19 January 2005 by the Appeals Court of Athens,
which upheld the conviction for resisting arrest and insults but acquitted
the author of threats against the police officers. The final sentence was
one year and one month imprisonment convertible to a fine.
2.4 On 2 July 2001, the author filed a criminal complaint before the Athens
Misdemeanours' Prosecutor against police officer Georgios Yannadakis, and
constituted himself as a civil claimant, for the offence of simple bodily
injuries. On the same day, the Prosecutor transmitted the complaint to the
Magistrate of Koropi to conduct a criminal investigation. Following the
author's request, the Prosecutor ordered his examination by the Forensic
Services. That examination took place on 3 July 2001, i.e. 18 days after the
incident. The forensic report indicated that "because of the long time
elapsed since the reported incident and the development of scar tissue it is
not possible to further investigate any possible bodily injuries coinciding
with the time period of the alleged incident".
2.5 On 28 September 2001, the Magistrate returned the complaint to the
Prosecutor informing him that he had declined to investigate for lack of
competence. No other explanation was provided. The Prosecutor then sent the
complaint, on 26 July 2002, to the Halandri police station for
investigation. This station is subordinate to the police directorate where
the police officer concerned served and adjacent to Aghia Paraskevi, where
the author was held. The investigation started on 4 November 2002. According
to the author, a number of procedural irregularities occurred. Thus, he was
never asked to provide the addresses of the witnesses after the police could
not find them at the addresses initially given. There was no attempt to
obtain a statement from his wife, who was also present at the time of his
arrest. The author himself was not summoned to testify for further details.
Other police officers involved in the incident were not summoned either. The
report of the investigation was sent to the Prosecutor on 25 November 2002.
2.6 In May 2003, the case was heard by the Judicial Council of Misdemeanours
of Athens which, upon recommendation by the Prosecutor, decided to drop the
charges against the police officer for lack of evidence. The ruling was
published on 28 August 2003 and it observed that "since no witnesses for the
prosecution give evidence in favour of the plaintiff's account, because both
witnesses named by the plaintiff were not found at the addresses declared as
their residence, the defendant's account and arguments are catalytic, able
to shed light, in our opinion, on the true version of the events". It was
served on the author by pasting it on his house door on 8 September 2003. No
appeal is permitted against such order under Greek law.
2.7 In addition to the filing of a criminal complaint the author sent a
letter to the Greek Ombudsman also on 2 July 2001, complaining about the
ill-treatment he had suffered and asking that a formal inquiry - "Sworn
Administrative Inquiry" - be conducted. As a result, a Brigadier General of
the Northeast Attica Police Headquarters wrote to the author on 28 September
2001 indicating that an informal investigation had been conducted and it was
concluded that the police had followed the procedures properly and that the
author had, inter alia, resisted arrest, used abusive language and
threatened the police officers.
2.8 In two letters subsequently addressed to the Directorate of Hellenic
Police Staff and the Ombudsman the author insisted that a Sworn
Administrative Inquiry be undertaken. On 6 March 2002 a response was
received refusing to initiate such an inquiry since the investigation
conducted did not reveal any disciplinary responsibilities. The findings of
the investigation referred to in the letter showed discrepancies with the
findings set out in the letter of 28 September 2001.
2.9 On 22 January 2004 the Ombudsman wrote to the Hellenic Police
Headquarters indicating, inter alia, that an informal investigation cannot
act as a substitute for the Sworn Administrative Inquiry when it comes to
allegations of bodily harm and cruel behaviour and that such Inquiry
provides procedural guarantees, as opposed to the informal methods of an
informal investigation.
2.10 On 21 March 2002, the NGO Greek Helsinki Monitor submitted a report to
the prosecutor containing several cases, including the author's case, of
procedural and judicial shortcomings which had resulted in no effective
remedies being provided to the victims. Under Greek law, a prosecutor who
receives a report, criminal complaint or any information that a punishable
act has been committed, is required to institute criminal proceedings by
referring the case for investigation. According to the author, the
investigation of the report started only on 12 October 2005 and was
summarily dismissed without any real investigation by the Prosecutor, who
issued a ruling on 25 November 2005 rejecting all claims of wrongdoing on
the part of the police. An appeal was also dismissed by an "Appeals
Prosecutor", without any additional investigation, on 23 September 2006.
THE COMPLAINT
3.1 The author claims that the facts reveal violations of article 2,
paragraph 3, of the Covenant, on its own and in conjunction with article 7,
as the State party failed to provide an effective remedy for the acts of
torture and ill-treatment to which he was subjected. He recalls the
Committee's jurisprudence and General Comment No. 20, to the effect that
complaints of torture and ill-treatment must be investigated promptly and
impartially by competent authorities so as to make the remedy effective.
3.2 According to the author, his complaint was not investigated by an
independent body with the capacity to impartially examine the allegations
against police officers, but by fellow police officers following merely an
Oral Administrative Inquiry.
3.3 The author adds that the disciplinary proceedings offer no guarantees of
impartiality. The Oral Administrative Inquiry is a closed and internal
investigation of the accused police officer conducted by fellow police
officers. The evidence and testimonies gathered during this investigation
remain inaccessible to the complainant, leaving victims of alleged police
misconduct powerless to contest the findings and conclusion. Usually the
investigation is limited to a questioning of the police officers involved
and, as in the case of the author, neither the victim of ill-treatment nor
his witnesses are examined.
3.4 The Sworn Administrative Inquiry is also an internal and confidential
police procedure whose safeguards aim to protect the rights of the officer
under investigation, rather than those of the complainant. Thus, the inquiry
guarantees the right of the "accused" officer to nominate witnesses, to
request the postponement of proceedings or the exclusion of the
investigating officer, as well as the right of access to the evidence and
the right of appeal. By contrast, there are no provisions setting out the
rights of the complainant, who does not have the right of access to the
hearings and cannot appeal against the findings. In common with the Oral
Administrative Inquiry, the complainant only has the right to be informed of
the outcome, which consists of a mere paragraph without any reference as to
the type of disciplinary penalties imposed, if any. The complainant is
usually not entitled to ask for copies of documents gathered in the course
of the inquiry.
3.5 As for the judicial investigation, it was initiated over one year after
the incident and was neither prompt nor effective, as it included merely the
defendant's statement. The author's version and the testimony of his
witnesses were never requested. Further, the medico-legal examination was
futile, as the Forensic Services abstained from making any objective
comments upon the author's injuries.
3.6 Under Greek law, individuals do not have direct access to examination by
forensic services. Such an examination can only be obtained by order of
investigating officials on the basis of a request by a victim who has filed
a complaint of ill-treatment or upon order by the public prosecutor. The
requirement of first filing a complaint restricts access to an effective
forensic medical examination. Normally, a victim of ill-treatment will need
time to consider the repercussions of filing a formal complaint and this may
take weeks and even years, whereas some injuries caused by ill-treatment
heal relatively quickly. Consequently, any failure on the part of the
competent authorities to ensure prompt forensic examination may effectively
result in the complete or partial loss of crucial evidence.
3.7 The treatment of the author amounts to a breach of article 7 of the
Covenant. Apart from the beatings, the fact of having a gun pointed at him
caused him to fear for his life. He also feared for the security of his wife
and children, as they were defenceless against the acts of the police. For
example, his wife was insulted when she tried to give her husband his shoes
before being taken to the police station, and his children were crying at
the sight of their father being beaten. Further, he was subjected to
degrading treatment. For instance, while in police custody, he asked for a
glass of water and the police officer responded that he could drink water
from the toilet. He was also threatened and insulted. These acts are
aggravated by the fact that they were committed with a significant level of
racial motivation.
3.8 Finally, the author invokes violations of articles 2, paragraph 1 and
26, as he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of his ethnic Roma
origin. The police officers used racist language and referred to his ethnic
origin in a pejorative way. This fact should be reviewed in the broader
context of systematic racism and hostility which law enforcement bodies in
Greece display against Roma, as documented by NGOs and intergovernmental
organizations. Despite the information in this regard submitted to the Greek
authorities, there is no evidence that the judicial investigation or the
administrative inquiry carried out by the public prosecutor or the police
ever addressed this question. No information was provided concerning steps
taken to verify that police officers had inflicted racial verbal abuse upon
the author.
STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS
4.1 On 15 September 2006, the State party objected to the admissibility of
the communication. It argues that when two policemen arrived at the house
and asked the author to stop disturbing the peace, he reacted threateningly
and refused to comply. At the same time, shots were fired from an
unidentified source. These events obliged the officers to leave the
settlement in order to return with reinforcements. Subsequently, six patrol
cars arrived and the author came out of his house cursing the officers. In
their efforts to restrict him and take him to the police station he reacted
violently and resisted. As a result, he fell and his hands and face were
scratched. This attitude continued at the police station, where he tried to
attack the officers and refused to comply with their orders. A private
citizen who happened to be at the police station at that time testified in
this regard. Three other individuals who were at the author's house were
also taken to the police station. However, they did not resist and after
identity checking they were released without any charges.
4.2 Following these events, the Police filed charges against the author for
threatening, insulting and resisting authority and he was brought before the
Public Prosecutor, accompanied by a lawyer. He did not complain of any
beating by the police officers. Neither did the Public Prosecutor observe
any injuries so as to initiate a preliminary investigation procedure. After
requesting a three-day postponement he appeared again before the Prosecutor
on 18 June 2001, this time accompanied by his lawyer. Again, he failed to
report his alleged ill-treatment. Instead, he waited until 2 July 2001 to
file a complaint, making claims against only one officer for simple bodily
injury under article 308, para.1 of the Criminal Code. It was only then that
he referred, in a vague manner, to beatings and blows to various parts of
his body and asked for a forensic examination. The Prosecutor immediately
instituted criminal proceedings for bodily injury, forwarded the case file
to the Magistrate of Kropia for a preliminary investigation and asked the
Forensic Services to examine the author.
4.3 The forensic report indicates that, as a long time had elapsed since the
alleged incident, it was impossible to investigate the possible bodily
injuries consistent with the allegations. In view of such findings, the fact
that the witnesses proposed by the author had not been located at their
residence and had therefore not testified and the author's conviction for
resisting the authorities, insulting and threatening police officers, the
Indictment Chamber of the First Instance Criminal Court of Athens dropped
the charges against the police officer concerned.
4.4 The State party argues that, by not reporting the ill-treatment when he
appeared before the Public Prosecution on 15 and 18 June 2001, the author
did not provide the State, at least not in a timely manner, the opportunity
to redress any violation of the Covenant by way of the institution of
criminal proceedings by the Public Prosecutor. The Prosecutor was unable to
initiate ex officio any investigation procedure, as he had no other sources
of information apart from the author and his wife.
4.5 When the author filed a complaint on 2 July 2001 he did so only with
respect to one officer. Instead of accusing him of serious bodily injury,
under articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Code, he accused him of simple
bodily injury (carrying a lighter penalty), under article 308, para. 1, and
he only stated his position in the proceedings as civil claimant. As a
result, the author turned the prosecution authorities' attention towards the
investigation of a minor case and rendered the prosecution of the accused
impossible, since the forensic examination was carried out eighteen days
after the incidents. Thus, the identification of credible findings after
such a long period was impossible, and the Public Prosecutor of the First
Instance Criminal Court had to introduce the case to the Indictment Chamber
with a motion to acquit. The issue of an acquittal decision renders the
criminal judge unable to deal with the civil action.
4.6 The above shows that the author failed to exhaust effective remedies in
a timely and consistent manner, and therefore his communication must be
considered inadmissible.
4.7 The State party also notes that the communication had been submitted
under the 1503 procedure and discontinued. Accordingly, it should be
declared inadmissible under article 5, para. 2 (a), of the Optional
Protocol.
4.8 Finally, the State party argues that the submission of the communication
to the Committee some three years after the acquittal decided by the
Indictment Chamber of the First Instance Criminal Court of Athens should be
considered abusive.
4.9 On 15 February 2007, the State party submitted observations on the
merits of the communication. It argues that the evidence in the case file
dealt with by the domestic judicial and police authorities does not show the
minimum level of cruelty required to establish a violation of article 7 of
the Covenant. The author complained on 2 July 2001 before the Public
Prosecutor of the Misdemeanours' Court of Athens about an assault by police
officer Georgios Yannadakis which, however, resulted in a simple bodily
injury. This offence is provided for by article 308, para. 1 of the Criminal
Code. It is the mildest form of bodily injury provided for and punished by
the criminal legislation, contrary to the offence of dangerous and grave
bodily injury contained in articles 309 and 310 of the Code. He also
notified the Public Prosecutor of the names and addresses of two prosecution
witnesses. However, although they were sought in order to testify during the
preliminary investigation of the case, they could not be located at the
addresses given by the author.
4.10 The author alleges that he stayed in bed at home for 12 days after the
events of 15 June 2001. However, instead of going to the forensic service
immediately after that, he did so only 18 days later, thus making his
examination impossible. According to the report established, no injuries
were observed other than some circular scars in the palm of his hands and
left elbow. The summary investigation of the case was completed without
testimonies by prosecution witnesses. By contrast, the police officers who
had participated in the event and testified in the context of the
administrative inquiry confirmed that the author had repeatedly resisted
their orders so that he was handcuffed and led to the police station. In
none of the five police officers' testimonies was there any evidence of use
of force by the police against the author. The latter was arrested,
committed for trial on charges of resistance, disobedience and insult and
sentenced to 14 months and 15 days imprisonment.
4.11 During the informal administrative inquiry by the Deputy Director of
the North-Eastern Attica Police Directorate, a citizen who was at the Police
Station of Agia Paraskevi on personal business when the author was brought
there testified that the author looked like a person who had consumed
alcohol and caused havoc at the police station, despite which the police
officers were patient with him. The author made no complaint against the
police officers and did not file charges against them while at the police
station.
4.12 According to the evidence in the case file established during the
preliminary investigation at both the judicial and administrative level, any
mild bodily injury the author suffered was the result of his resistance to
his arrest and did not exceed the minimum level of severity required by
article 7 of the Covenant. The judgment of the domestic judicial authorities
could only be reviewed by the Committee for manifest arbitrariness or denial
of justice, neither of which were evident in this case.
4.13 In addition to the author's complaint of 2 July 2001, a second
complaint was filed on 12 October 2005, by the Hellenic Helsinki Monitor
against police officers and judicial personnel for violation of their duties
in relation with this case. The Public Prosecutor of the Piraeus Court of
Appeal dismissed the complaint as she considered that in the author's case
no punishable act had been committed by police officers or members of the
Judiciary. Although a criminal investigation was conducted against the
competent state organs, it was found that they had dealt with the case
without any indication of arbitrariness or denial of justice.
4.14 Regarding the author's allegations of violation of article 2, paragraph
3, of the Covenant, the State party explains that a sworn administrative
inquiry is ordered together with the institution of disciplinary proceedings
against police officers for the verification of offences, such as causing
bodily injuries. By contrast, where the evidence is insufficient to initiate
disciplinary proceedings a preliminary investigation is ordered. The
issuance of an order for a preliminary investigation is not equivalent to
the institution of disciplinary proceedings, and its ultimate object is to
carry out an informal but objective and impartial investigation, by
collecting the necessary evidence. If sufficient evidence is collected,
disciplinary proceedings will be instituted against the responsible officer.
In the context of the preliminary investigation all acts required to
establish the truth are carried out, such as examination of the complainant
and witnesses, on-site inspection or expert investigation, as well as
collection of documentary evidence. Because of the informal nature of the
preliminary investigation, no administrative/investigative reports are
prepared and witnesses are not examined under oath. The informal preliminary
investigation and the formal sworn administrative inquiry by the Police
provide equivalent guarantees of a reliable and effective investigation of a
case. They differ only from a procedural point of view, since the latter is
only ordered following the institution of disciplinary proceedings, while
the former merely determines whether the conditions are fulfilled for the
institution of such proceedings.
4.15 The informal preliminary investigation was carried out by a senior
officer of the Hellenic Police who served at another police directorate
(North-Eastern Attica Police Directorate), to which the police station where
the officers involved serve is hierarchically inferior. His independence
should be therefore taken for granted. If the case had been investigated by
any other administrative authority it would not have gathered any different
evidence.
4.16 In order for an examination under article 2 of the Covenant to be
carried out, there should be a violation of article 7. However, in this case
there has been no such violation, since the author's mistreatment, if any,
did not rise to the minimum level of severity for establishing an offence to
human dignity. Consequently, it is not possible to examine independently the
author's complaint about lack of effective remedies that could lead to the
identification and punishment of those responsible, since no violation of
article 7 can be found. If the Committee were to find a violation of article
7, it should be pointed out that the investigation of the case at both the
administrative and the judicial level was thorough, effective and capable of
leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.
Therefore, the allegation of a violation of article 2 is ill-founded.
4.17 Regarding the author's allegations of discriminatory treatment, they
were first raised before the Committee. He did not make any such complaint
before any of the competent judicial and police authorities. The force used
by the police during the arrest and transport of the author was within legal
limits and proportional to the resistance he offered. The author's treatment
was not based on his racial origin but on the strength and form of his
resistance against the police officers' efforts to arrest him. Accordingly,
this part of the communication should be considered as ill-founded on the
merits as well.
AUTHOR'S COMMENTS
5.1 In comments dated 18 June 2007, counsel rejects the version of events of
the State party. He states that the police officer against whom the author
filed a complaint, in his defence testimony dated 4 November 2002, did not
refer to any threatening behaviour by the author and that the reinforcements
were requested not because of the author's attitude but because of the
gunshot. As to the cause of the author's injuries, police documents indicate
that they were the result not of a fall but of the struggle with police
officers while the author was resisting arrest. Regarding the testimony of
the private citizen who was at the police station when the author was taken
there, the State party fails to provide evidence of that testimony, which is
simply mentioned as having being given orally to the police investigator.
Accordingly, the author expresses doubts about its veracity. Such testimony
is allegedly mentioned in the report of the police officer of the
Directorate of North-Eastern Attica. However, this report was never provided
to the author or the Committee.
5.2 When he appeared before the Prosecutor on 18 June 2001, the author had
no opportunity to refer to the ill-treatment, as the hearing was postponed
ex officio. It was on that same date that he went to the forensic service,
but was refused examination.
5.3 The author recalls that neither he nor any of his friends who were eye
witnesses were asked to give testimony during either the police or the
judicial investigation and maintains his version of the facts as presented
in his initial communication.
5.4 Regarding the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the author
recalls that he did not complain about ill-treatment on 15 June 2001 because
he was in police detention and feared reprisals. Moreover, the State claims
inaccurately that he was taken before the Prosecutor on 18 June 2001. On
that date he was scheduled to be tried, but the hearing was postponed. That
is why he went to a forensic expert, hoping to get an examination that would
strengthen his case.
5.5 The State party claims that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies
because in his complaint he referred only to simple bodily injuries.
However, according to Greek law, the Prosecutor does not need a complaint by
the victim but can investigate ex officio any act of unprovoked bodily
injury, grave bodily injury and dangerous bodily injury. Likewise, the
prosecutor can investigate ex officio violations of the anti-racist Law and
torture and other related offences against human dignity. The author
expected that a proper investigation, once all facts were established, would
include some or all of these ex officio prosecutable offences. He therefore
reaffirms that he exhausted domestic remedies.
5.6 Regarding the State party's argument that the case was dealt with under
the 1503 procedure, the author disagrees that this should be a valid reason
for inadmissibility. He also objects that the communication should be
considered abusive because it was submitted some three years after the final
domestic decision and invokes the Committee's jurisprudence in that regard.
5.7 Regarding his claims of violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the
author recalls that no court ever ruled on his complaint. The Judicial
Council of Misdemeanours that decided not to press charges following a
motion of the prosecutor is not a court that holds public hearings where
both sides can argue their cases. It meets in camera, hears only the
prosecutor and its ruling is not public. It can decide that there will be no
trial when convinced that the complaint is "factually unfounded". In the two
years following the incident neither he nor any of his witnesses were called
to testify by any investigating officer in either the administrative or the
judicial investigation. The whole investigation consisted of a sole defence
statement the defendant gave to fellow police officers. The police ignored
the Ombudsman's insistence that a sworn administrative investigation be
carried out. In the context of such an investigation the complainant and his
witnesses had to be summoned.
5.8 The State party's comments that the author was convicted by the Athens
Misdemeanours Court also for disobedience is defamatory, as he was never
charged with such a crime.
5.9 The State party admits that the investigating police officer belonged to
the regional North- East Attica Police Directorate to which the Aghia
Paraskevi police station is inferior. Yet, it is inaccurate to claim that
this was another police directorate. The Aghia Paraskevi police station is
one of the 35 police stations administratively subordinated to the
North-East Attica Police Directorate; so is the Halandri police station
which conducted the judicial investigation on behalf of the prosecutor.
Actually, the Aghia Paraskevi police station is in the same building as the
North-East Attica Police Directorate. So the "independent" investigating
officer was an immediate superior of the officers involved and had an office
one floor above them in the same building. In fact, police disciplinary law
has since changed and no longer allows a Police Directorate to launch an
investigation into alleged wrong-doings of an officer subordinated to it.
Rather, it has to be assigned to an officer of a separate Police
Directorate.
5.10 According to the author, the State party misleadingly claims that the
author first complained of racial discrimination in his communication before
the Committee. He did complain before the Ombudsman on 2 July 2001 and such
complaint was sent to the Hellenic Police. However, this claim was ignored.
ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION OF ADMISSIBILITY
6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of
procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional
Protocol of the Covenant.
6.2 The Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for the
purposes of article 5, paragraph 2(a), of the Optional Protocol.
6.3 As to the State party's argument that the communication should be
considered inadmissible because the case was submitted under the procedure
established on the basis of ECOSOC Res. 1503 (XLVIII), the Committee recalls
its constant jurisprudence that such procedure does not constitute another
international procedure within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of
the Optional Protocol. This preliminary contention of the State party must
therefore be rejected.
6.4 The State party claims that the author did not exhaust domestic
remedies, as he filed a complaint only on 2 July 2001 rather than
immediately after the incidents, and also did not invoke the proper article
of the Criminal Code. The Committee considers that the delays referred to by
the State party and the manner in which the complaint was formulated are
best dealt with when considering the merits of the case. Furthermore, the
State party does not identify any additional remedies that the author should
have availed himself of. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the
requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have
been met.
6.5 Regarding the State party's contention that the communication should be
considered an abuse of the right of submission because it was submitted some
three years after the acquittal decision, the Committee recalls that there
are no fixed time limits for the submission of communications under the
Optional Protocol, and considers that the delay in this case was not so
unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of the right of submission.
6.6 Regarding the author's claim under articles 2, paragraph 1 and 26 of the
Covenant the Committee considers that it has not been sufficiently
substantiated for purposes of admissibility and concludes that this part of
the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
6.7 There being no other obstacles to the admissibility the Committee
concludes that the communication is admissible as it raises issues under
articles 7 and 2, paragraph 3 of the Covenant and proceeds to its
examination on the merits.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS
7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in
the light of all the information made available to it, as provided under
article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.
7.2 With regard to the alleged violation of article 2, paragraph 3 in
conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the
author filed a criminal complaint before the Athens Misdemeanours'
Prosecutor on 2 July 2001 and that the Prosecutor forwarded the complaint to
the Magistrate of Koropi to conduct a criminal investigation. However, the
Magistrate declined to investigate for lack of competence without providing
any explanation for his decision. The Committee also notes that disciplinary
proceedings were not instituted either and that the only inquiry carried out
was in the form of a preliminary police investigation. As confirmed by the
State party, such investigation was of an informal nature, and neither the
author nor the witnesses cited by him were ever heard. Finally, the case was
disposed of by the Judicial Council of Misdemeanours which, on the basis of
the police investigation, decided not to file charges against the accused.
This decision was taken following a procedure in which the author was not
allowed to participate and the concerned police officer's statement was used
as the principal basis for coming to a decision.
7.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that complaints against
maltreatment must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent
authorities and that expedition and effectiveness are particularly important
in the adjudication of cases involving allegations of torture and other
forms of mistreatment. [FN1] In view of the manner in which the author's
complaint was investigated and decided, as described in the previous
paragraph, the Committee is of the view that the requisite standard was not
met in the present case. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the State
party has violated article 2, paragraph 3 read together with article 7 of
the Covenant. Having come to this conclusion the Committee does not consider
it necessary to determine the issue of a possible violation of article 7
read on its own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] General comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), para. 14. See also
Communication No. 1426/2005, Banda v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 26 October
2007, para. 7.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is of the view that the facts before it reveal violations by the
State party of article 2, paragraph 3 read together with article 7 of the
Covenant.
9. n accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State
party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy
and appropriate reparation. The State party is also under an obligation to
take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the
State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine
whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to
article 2 of the Covenant, that State party has undertaken to ensure all
individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable
remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to
receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the
measures taken to give effect to the Committee's Views. The State party is
also requested to publish the Committee's Views.
[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as
part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]
Made public by decision of the Human Rights Committee.
|
|
