in the case of

VELIMIR PRŽULJ v. THE FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Case No. CH/98/1374)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In January 1997 the applicant, a Republika Srpska policeman, was arrested by the Federation police in the vicinity of the Inter Entity Boundary Line at Vraca, Sarajevo, on charges of genocide and war crimes. In the course of his arrest and on the way to the Novo Sarajevo police station, he was ill-treated by his captors. The following day the investigation was terminated and the applicant released. The applicant complains that he is still suffering from the psychological trauma of the violent arrest, and that he therefore had to abandon his job as a policeman.

The case was introduced by the applicant to the Human Rights Ombudsperson for Bosnia and Herzegovina on 26 March 1997. By a decision of 19 February 1998, the Ombudsperson decided to open an investigation into the applicant’s case in relation to the possible violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security of person) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the course of the investigation, the Ombudsperson had several contacts with the International Police Task Force, which had been involved in the applicant’s release. Two representatives of the Ombudsperson’s Office also visited the Hospital in Kasindo, Republika Srpska, where they inspected the applicant’s medical records.

On 18 December 1998 the Ombudsperson referred the case to the Chamber.

The Chamber gathered additional evidence in written procedure and, on 7 October 1999, held a public hearing on admissibility and merits of the application in the Cantonal Court building in Sarajevo.

FINDINGS OF THE CHAMBER

Admissibility

As to the admissibility of the application, the Chamber rejected the argument made by the Ombudsperson and the respondent Party that the case should be declared inadmissible because the applicant did not pursue any domestic remedies. The Chamber examined the domestic remedies indicated by the Ombudsperson and by the respondent Party and found that they were either insufficient to remedy the alleged violations or did not offer reasonable perspectives of being successful under the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case. In particular, the Chamber found that the right to claim compensation for unlawful detention under the Federation Law on Criminal Procedure did not extend to the damages for fear suffered, to honour and reputation and for health deterioration complained of by the applicant.

Merits

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
With regard to the merits of the applicant’s complaints, the Chamber first examined the case under Article 5 of the Convention. It found that the applicant’s arrest had been unlawful as no arrest warrant or indictment against the applicant had been previously submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, as required by the “Rules of the Road” in case of charges of genocide or war crimes.

Article 3 of the Convention
With regard to the allegations of ill-treatment, the Chamber held that, beyond the use of force possibly necessary for his arrest, the applicant was beaten by the Federation policemen during his transport to the Novo Sarajevo police station. This use of violence on the applicant who was, at that time, already handcuffed, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Chamber accordingly found that the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention were violated.

Discrimination
As to the alleged discrimination, the Chamber found that the evidence before it was not sufficient to sustain a finding of discrimination.

REMEDIES

The Chamber ordered the respondent Party (i) to carry out an investigation into the conduct of the arresting police officers, with a view to initiating criminal proceedings against them and (ii) to pay the applicant KM 3,000 by way of compensation for the fear and pain suffered. The Chamber finally reserved its decision on the applicant’s claim for compensation for the alleged long-term psychological damage.

Decision delivered 13 January 2000

REQUEST FOR REVIEW

The respondent Party requested the Plenary Chamber to review the decision adopted by the Second Panel. On 5 April 2000 the Plenary Chamber rejected the request for review.