issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 166 (2012)
17.04.2012
Inadequate investigation into prisoner’s allegation of rape and
assault by fellow inmates in reprisal for his co-operation with
the police
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case J. L. v. Latvia (application no. 23893/06),
which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there
had been a:
violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment – lack of
effective investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned a prisoner’s complaint that, while serving a three-year-and-ninemonth prison sentence for misappropriation, the prison authorities refused to investigate
his allegation that he had been assaulted and raped by fellow inmates for having
co-operated with the police in another criminal case.
This is the first time that the Court has underlined that prisoners who have co-operated
with the police by reporting criminal offences are particularly vulnerable and exposed to
violence in prison.
Principal facts
The applicant, Mr J.L., is a Latvian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Jēkabpils
(Latvia).
In November 2005 his wife’s car was stolen and, having reported the theft to the police,
he was involved in the arrest of the culprit, G.. In particular, in co-operation with the
police, he met G. and gave him money for the stolen car whilst recording their
conversation on an audio tape. G. was subsequently charged with theft and extortion
and placed in detention in Rīga Central Prison.
Meanwhile, charges had been brought against J.L. for repeated misappropriation. On
4 January 2006 he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to three years and nine
months’ imprisonment.
He alleges that, immediately taken to Rīga Central Prison following his conviction, he
was assaulted and raped during the night of 5 to 6 January 2006. His nose broken, he
was attended to by the prison doctor. No medical report was, however, drawn up and
the prison guard refused to launch an investigation into the assault.
In January and February 2006 J.L. reported his allegations both to the national courts
during the appeals in his case as well as in a letter to the prosecuting authorities
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
requesting a reduction of his sentence, claiming also that he was continuing to have
problems in prison because of his co-operation with the police. In March 2006 he also
informed the prison administrative authorities that he was being threatened and
requested his transfer to Matīsa Prison where there was a specialised detention facility.
Following a complaint by J.L. to Latvia’s Bureau for the Protection of Human Rights in
August 2006, the prison administrative authorities requested Rīga Central Prison to carry
out an investigation. Three out of J.L.’s 11 fellow inmates were questioned: all denied
that J.L. had been assaulted.
In the meantime, J.L. was transferred to Jēkabpils Prison. Prior to the transfer, the
prison administrative authorities advised the prison to “keep an eye on” him. In a
subsequent report, however, the head of the prison noted that J.L.’s file on his arrival
had not indicated any need to isolate him from other inmates and, indeed, he had not
complained about any subsequent ill-treatment in his establishment.
In order to ensure J.L.’s attendance at G.’s trial, in which he was the victim and main
witness, he was transferred on two occasions to Matīsa Prison. In September 2006 the
prosecuting authorities had specifically requested that he be transferred to this prison
and not Rīga Central Prison where G. had been detained, noting in particular that,
according to his criminal case file, he had intimidated J.L.
J.L. was released from prison in June 2007, following a reduction by one year of his
sentence because he had reported a serious criminal offence.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 3 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), J.L. complained that
the prison authorities had refused to investigate his allegation of rape and assault as well
as his subsequent requests for a transfer to a specialised facility.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 June 2006.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:
Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President,
Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania),
Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands),
Ján Šikuta (Slovakia),
Ineta Ziemele (Latvia),
Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),
Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), Judges,
and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
It was not in dispute that J.L. had cooperated with the police. Despite this, the
authorities did not take any particular precautionary measures to which, as a witness
and collaborator of justice, he had been entitled either before his transfer to prison
(i.e. by the investigators communicating to the prosecutor and prison authorities that
J.L. was cooperating with them) or after his alleged assault and rape. Notably, even
though the prison administrative authorities had warned Jēkabpils prison that J.L. might
encounter problems in detention, no measures had apparently been taken, showing that
protection against further possible abuse had been left to the discretion of the prison
officials.
2
Even though there were no actual medical records to prove that J.L. had been assaulted
and raped, the Court noted that J.L. had repeatedly and consistently reported his
allegations to the authorities. The credibility of his allegations was also corroborated by
the fact that G. had intimidated him, as acknowledged by the authorities in September
2006 in their request to not transfer J.L. to Rīga Central Prison as G. was being held
there.
This information should have been sufficient for the prosecuting authorities to go about
applying the relevant domestic legislation in force, namely section 16 § 1 of the Law of
the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which provides that they should carry out an inquiry if the
rights of detainees have been infringed. However, although the prosecution launched
proceedings to reduce J.L.’s sentence, the allegations of ill-treatment were left
unexamined.
The prison authorities did carry out an investigation, but it had substantial shortcomings.
The allegation that J.L.’s nose had been broken could easily have been substantiated by
an X-ray; no such examination ever took place. Neither J.L. nor the doctor who
examined him after the assault had apparently ever been asked to testify. Nor was it
clear whether J.L. had ever been informed of the results of the investigation.
Furthermore, even though there was meant to be a division of responsibilities between
the prison administration authorities and each prison establishment, in practice the
prison itself carried out investigations of complaints against its officials, which
undermined the independence of any investigation.
The Court concluded that there had been a general lack of coordination between the
investigators, the prosecution and the detention institutions to prevent ill-treatment of
detainees
in
Latvian
prisons,
underlining
that
prisoners
who
had
co-operated with the police by reporting criminal offences were particularly vulnerable
and exposed to violence.
It therefore held that the conduct of the authorities and the manner in which they had
applied domestic law in response to J.L.’s claims had failed to comply with Latvia’s
obligation under the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into any allegation
of ill-treatment, in violation of Article 3.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Latvia was to pay J.L. 10,000
euros (EUR) in respect of non pecuniary damage.
The judgment is available only in English.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s
RSS feeds.
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
3
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European
Convention on Human Rights.
4