The applicant had been assaulted by three individuals and coplained of the ineffectiveness of the police investigation.
Held: Though the court acknowledged that no direct responsibility can attach to a member state under ECHR for the acts of private individuals: ‘even in the absence of any direct responsibility for the acts of a private individual under article 3 of the Convention, State responsibility may nevertheless be engaged through the obligation imposed by article 1 of the Convention. In this connection the Court reiterates that the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals . . In order that a state may be held responsible it must . . be shown that the domestic legal system, and in particular the criminal law applicable in the circumstances of the case, fails to provide practical and effective protection of the rights guaranteed by article 3 . .’
‘The court made clear that, as well as examining the ‘impugned regulations and practices, and in particular the domestic authorities’ compliance with the relevant procedural rules’, it would also consider ‘the manner in which the criminal mechanisms were implemented in the instant case’.
The Court set out the ‘minimum standards applicable’ in respect of ‘the duty to investigate’. They included that the investigation be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the authorities act with diligence and promptness. It also reiterated that ‘for an investigation to be considered effective, the authorities must take whatever reasonable steps they can to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, a detailed statement concerning the allegations from the alleged victim, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, additional medical reports’. The failings identified arose at the post-investigative stage and ECtHR confirmed the principle that the requirement for effective criminal law provisions extends to the trial phase of proceeding.
The ECtHR decided that the state authorities did not fulfil their positive obligations under article 3. Violation of that article was found. Compensation was awarded to the applicant. The various elements of an effective investigation identified by the court should be noted. It must be independent. It requires to be prompt. Evidence must be secured. Failure to adhere to these standards renders the state liable to the individual affected by that failure.
Citations:
46423/06, [2009] ECHR 992
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347571