European Court decision on the mass beating of prisoners in Iziaslav Colony No. 58 published

Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (applications no. 17674/02 and 39081/02)
(ill-treatment of prisoners by a special unit during training exercises)
Unanimously:
Four violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment);
Violation of Article 8 § 1 (right to respect for correspondence);
Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy);
Violation of Article 34 (right to individual application);
Failure of the State to comply with its obligations under Article 38 § 1(a) (obligation to provide necessary conditions for the examination of the case).
Key facts
The decision concerns three applicants who, at the time of the events, were serving sentences in the Zamkova Correctional Colony located in Iziaslav, Khmelnytskyi region, Ukraine. The applicants — Serhii Davydov, Vitalii Ilchenko, and Serhii Homeniuk — are natives of Ukraine, born in 1963, 1975, and 1967 respectively.
According to the applicants, twice during their imprisonment — on 30 May 2001 and 28 January 2002 — they were brutally beaten by soldiers of a special unit of the Department during training exercises in the prison. The applicants complained that they were not warned about the ongoing exercises; they were not asked about their desire to participate in them; they were pushed, thrown, beaten, stepped on, forced to undress, and humiliated during the operation; they did not receive medical assistance for the injuries they sustained, and their subsequent complaints were investigated inadequately. Furthermore, they complained that their correspondence to the European Court was screened; that some of them were punished by being placed in solitary confinement for appealing to the Court; they complained that they could not effectively complain about all these events.
Finally, the applicants complained about the poor quality of food and the conditions in which they were held.
Given that the Government of Ukraine disputed the circumstances related to the events and denied that the prisoners had sustained bodily injuries during the training exercises, the Court conducted its own investigation into the facts of the case. In June 2007, the Court conducted an on-site investigation, in which three judges heard witnesses at the premises of the Khmelnytskyi Regional Court of Appeal. Evidence was also collected in the Zamkova prison from the three applicants and 13 witnesses. The Court further reviewed documents submitted by the parties concerning the training manoeuvres, including the training plan and relevant rules on the supervision of prisoners, as well as the premises of the special rapid response unit of the Department for the Execution of Sentences (hereinafter the Department), which specialises in emergency situations.
Complaints, procedures, and composition of the Court
The applicants filed many complaints related to the suffering during and after the special unit’s training exercises. They referred to Articles 3, 8, 13, and 34.
The applications were submitted to the European Court between 27 June 2001 and 24 March 2002.
The decision was taken by a Chamber composed of 7 judges:
Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President,
Renate Jaeger (Germany),
Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic),
Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukraine),
Rait Maruste (Estonia),
Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein),
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.
Court Decision
Failure to comply with obligations under Article 38
Having considered the Government’s conduct in terms of assisting the Court in establishing the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the Ukrainian authorities failed to comply with their obligations under Article 38 § 1(a) of the Convention.
Establishment of facts
Being scrupulous in its subsidiary role regarding the establishment of facts, the Court nonetheless evaluated the evidence received, considering that the complaints contained sufficiently serious allegations of ill-treatment. It concluded that the training manoeuvres were carried out in accordance with rules that were not publicly available. The applicants sustained bodily injuries, and they were insulted during the training exercises. In this regard, medical records were not compiled during the first training exercises, and the medical records compiled after the second training exercises were subsequently lost. The existing system allowed prison staff not to document injuries and not to respond to medical complaints. The applicants, who were threatened by the colony administration and forced to withdraw their complaints to the Court, were not provided with medical assistance. The Department and the prosecutor’s office conducted two investigations into the complaints filed by the applicants’ representative.
Prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3)
The Court concluded that in the context of the training exercises on 30 May 2001 and 28 January 2002, the provisions of the article were violated in four aspects.
First, the applicants were subjected to ill-treatment and experienced fear and humiliation during the training exercises, which were conducted both without the prisoners’ consent and without legal justification. The Court, considering the complexities of control in modern societies, emphasised that the authorities should have conducted the training exercises for special unit staff in such a way as to ensure that no one would be subjected to ill-treatment as a result of these actions. It also noted that, given the absolute prohibition of ill-treatment, training exercises for special unit staff must be conducted in a way that prevents any possibility of a violation of this provision by agents of the state.
Second, no effective investigation was conducted into the applicants’ complaints. The investigations conducted had significant shortcomings; in particular, the Court was not provided with detailed records of the investigation. The Court concluded that the authorities did not attempt to take important steps to conduct a prompt and independent investigation that could lead to substantial results.
Third, it was not established that the applicants were ever examined by medics in connection with their complaints; they were not provided with medical assistance in connection with the bodily injuries sustained during the training exercises; no medical records regarding the applicants’ complaints were kept.
Finally, the cells in which the applicants were held were constantly overcrowded, which was a structural problem and in itself violated the provisions of the Convention.
Effective remedy regarding complaints under Article 3
The Court referred to its case law, in which it recognised that in Ukraine there is no effective remedy for complaints about ill-treatment, the lack of an effective investigation into complaints of ill-treatment, the lack of medical assistance, and conditions of detention. It concluded that Article 13 was violated.
Right to respect for correspondence (Article 8)
The Court concluded that the applicant’s letters were illegally screened and subjected to censorship in violation of Article 8 § 1.
Right to individual application (Article 34)
The Court recognised that the applicant’s right provided for by this article was violated, as pressure was exerted on them to withdraw their complaints to the Court.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court recognised that Ukraine must pay the first and second applicants EUR 20,000 each, and the third applicant EUR 15,000 as compensation for moral damage incurred.
The decision in English is available on the Court’s website
A translation of the decision will be published in the near future