Case No.: CH/00/3642
Applicant: Zoran ALEKSIĆ
Respondent Party: Republika Srpska
Date Delivered: 8 November 2002

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS

Factual Background

TThe applicant is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Serb origin. On 20 January 1998 the applicant was arrested and detained at Tunjice prison, Republika Srpska, on the basis of an outstanding warrant of arrest issued by the Court of First Instance in Banja Luka for numerous offences of aggravated theft. On 21 and 22 January and 2 February 1998 the applicant was taken to the Police Security Centre in Banja Luka and interrogated by several members of the Republika Srpska Police Force. The applicant alleged that during these interrogations several officers, with the use of a rubber hose, baseball bat and their closed fists, physically beat him. On 2 February 1998 the applicant complained to the United Nations International Police Task Force, which subsequently examined his injuries and on the following day questioned the officers who had interrogated the applicant. On 26 March 1998 the Banja Luka Public Security Centre Disciplinary Commission held a public hearing into the incident. The Disciplinary Commission established that the applicant was not subject to any violence, ill-treatment or intimidation, but found two of the responsible officers guilty of violations of the Rules of Procedure on Disciplinary Responsibility of Employees of the Republika Srpska Ministry of Internal Affairs. It cleared all officers of charges of assault and battery.

Admissibility

As for the applicant's complaint that he was denied the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal in relation to the proceedings before the Disciplinary Commission proceedings, the Chamber declared this part of the application inadmissible ratione materiae. As for the applicant's claim concerning alleged unlawful detention, the Chamber declared this part of the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

Concerning the issue of exhausting domestic remedies, the Chamber recalled that an action for compensation for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention does not refer to initiating an action against individual police officers, but an action against the government that is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints. Therefore, initiating civil proceedings against the police officers for compensation, as well as commencing criminal proceedings, are not sufficient remedies that the applicant was required to exhaust.

Finding that no effective remedy was available to the applicant which could have provided redress in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the Chamber found that no other ground for declaring the case inadmissible had been established. Accordingly, the Chamber declared the application admissible under Article 3 of the Convention.

Merits

Recalling Pržulj v. Republika Srpska, the Chamber held that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, the respondent Party bears the burden to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of the injuries, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention. On examination of the evidence before it, the Chamber held that the applicant had suffered injury whilst under the care of the responsible police officers and held that the treatment the applicant had endured on 21 and 22 January 1998 and 2 February 1998 amounted to treatment sufficiently serious and cruel enough to amount to torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, thus constituting a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Remedies

The Chamber ordered the Republika Srpksa to carry out a full criminal investigation into the conduct of the police officers involved in the torture of the applicant, and the police officers' superiors for condoning, acquiescing or participating in such activities, with a view to bringing the perpetrators to justice in accordance with the law of the Republika Srpska. Further, the Chamber ordered the respondent Party to pay the applicant the sum of KM 10,000 as compensation for the physical and mental pain and suffering he had suffered.

Partly Dissenting Opinion

In his partly dissenting opinion, Mr. Vitomir Popovic argued that finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention represented sufficient satisfaction to the applicant.

Mr. Popovic noted that in paragraph 2 of the decision it was mentioned that "on 20 January 1998 the applicant was arrested by members of the Republika Srpska Police Force and detained on the basis of a warrant of arrest issued by the Court of First Instance in Banja Luka for numerous offences of aggravated theft ...", which means that the applicant is indirectly responsible for that event.

Mr. Popovic did not raise any other objection to the decision.

Decision adopted 8 October 2002
Decision delivered 8 November 2002