Den 23. februar 2006 afgjorde Den
Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol i sagen
Ognyanova og Choban mod Bulgarien (Application no.
46317/99) et spørgsmål, om hvorvidt der var sket en
krænkelse af Den Europæiske
Menneskerettighedskonventions artikel 2 i anledning af,
at en person var afgået ved døden, medens denne var i
politiets varetægt.
Sagens omstændigheder er gengivet
umiddelbart nedenfor:
Den 6. juni 1993 døde her Stefanov, efter at han var
faldet ud af vinduet fra 3. sal på en politistation,
hvor han sad i et værelse og blev afhørt i en
straffesag, hvor han var sigtet for tyveri sammen med en
anden. Den anden sigtede befandt sig i det omhandlede
værelse sammen med to polititjenestemænd, da hændelsen
skete (§ 10).
Den ene af politifolkene forklarede under den
efterfølgende efterforskning om årsagen til dødsfaldet,
at han sammen med en kollega var i færd med at afhøre
den senere afdøde, og at man, da hans forklaringer ikke
stemte overens med medgerningsmandens, hentede
medgerningsmanden op fra arresten og bad ham stå i
gangen lige uden for kontoret, således at der ikke var
øjenkontakt mellem ham og nu afdøde. De blev foreholdt
hinandens forklaringer og blev uenige. Politibetjenten
gik på et tidspunkt hen i døråbningen, da
medgerningsmanden ville betro ham noget. Nu afdøde var
derpå alene på kontoret og benyttede lejligheden til at
hoppe ud af vinduet, hvilket ingen af betjentene kunne
nå at forhindre. Han havde håndjern på, da han gjorde
dette. (§§ 15 og 16).
Medgerningsmanden støttede stort set politiassistentens
forklaring.
EMD hæfter sig i § 98 ved det usandsynlige i, at de
mange skader, der var fundet på afdøde, alene kunne
stamme blot fra et fald ud af et vindue, også selv om
der var tale om et fald, hvor han først ramte taget på
et motorcykelskur, og derpå faldt videre ned og ramte
jorden.
I § 99 bemærker EMD blandt andet, at de eneste
udtalelser om, hvad der skete i værelse 36 om morgenen
den 5. juni 1993, kommer fra de to polititjenestemænd og
medgerningsmanden. EMD udtaler videre, at deres udsagn
kan drages i tvivl af adskillige grunde. For det første
finder EMD, at de to polititjenestemænd har en åbenbar
fordel ved at hævde, at Hr. Stefanovs fald og skader
stammede fra et uheld eller selvmord. For det andet
finder domstolen, at den ene politimand flere gange har
ændret forklaring, således at denne igen kunne bringes i
overensstemmelse med undersøgelsesresultater,
efterhånden som disse kom frem. EMD bemærker også, at
medgerningsmanden senere fik en "favorabel" behandling i
sin sag hos politiet. EMD hæfter sig ved, at han kort
før episoden havde forsøgt at kaste skylden for de
påsigtede forhold over på nu afdøde.
I § 100 bemærker EMD, at det er uvist, om Hr. Stefanov
hoppede ud ad vinduet med vilje, eller om nogen havde
skubbet eller smidt ham ud eller bragt ham i en
situation, så han ikke havde anden udvej end at hoppe
ud. EMD finder det højest usandsynligt, at han bevidst
ville undvige, når henses til vinduets placering højt
over jorden, og når henses til, at jorden foran
bygningen var af beton og metalstænger. Dertil kommer,
at han var belagt med håndjern. Der var ikke
oplysninger, der gav formodning for, at han havde
selvmordstanker, eller at han var påvirket af stoffer
eller alkohol. Intet tydede på, at han var sindssyg.
I § 101 finder EMD, at der er sket en krænkelse af
artikel 2, idet myndighederne efter EMDs opfattelse ikke
har kunnet give en tilfredsstillende redegørelse for
årsagen til Hr. Stefanovs død. Der er lagt vægt på, at
myndighedernes version af det passerede ikke var
sammenhængende.
I § 110 kritiserer EMD, at man ikke under den
efterfølgende undersøgelse havde afhørt
medgerningsmanden mere end en gang, idet han er "det
eneste vidne, som ikke er ansat i politiet".
I § 112 påpeger EMD det underlige i, at myndighederne
ikke har undersøgt nærmere, hvorfor Hr. Stefanov ville
begå selvmord, eller hvorfor han ville vælge en
tilsyneladende dødsensfarlig rute til et flugtforsøg.
Der var ikke indhentet udtalelser om hans mentale
tilstand for at få afklaret, om det kunne skyldes
forhold hos ham og ikke, at han på grund af
politifolkenes handlinger havde reageret som tilfældet
var.
I § 115 kritiserer EMD, at de nære slægtninge ikke blev
holdt tilstrækkeligt informeret om sagens udvikling på
trods af rykkere fra disses advokater.
I § 116 finder EMD, at efterforskningen i sig selv også
udgør en krænkelse af EMRK. artikel 2.
I § 137 og § 138 finder EMD, at der er sket en krænkelse
af EMRK. artikel 13, idet der skulle have været stillet
effektive og praktisk anvendelige retsmidler til
rådighed for de pårørende til at få identificeret og
straffet dem, som var ansvarlig for dødsfaldet, og der
skulle have været adgang til erstatning. Som en
konsekvens af, at straffesagen ikke blev gennemført på
en tilstrækkelig objektiv og grundig måde, blev de
udelukket fra at bruge eventuelle tilgængelige
retsmidler.
Artikel:
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF OGNYANOVA AND CHOBAN v. BULGARIA
(Application no. 46317/99)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 February 2006
FINAL
23/05/2006
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set
out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be
subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section),
sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 February 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on
that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 46317/99)
against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by Ms Zoya Kirilova Ognyanova and Ms Giulfere Yusein
Choban, Bulgarian nationals of Roma ethnic origin who
live in the village of Dabovo, Bulgaria (“the applicants”),
on 17 November 1998.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Dimitrov and
Mr Y. Grozev, lawyers practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Ms M. Kotzeva, of the Ministry of Justice.
3. The applicants alleged that Mr Zahari Alexandrov
Stefanov, a person of Roma ethnic origin, de facto
spouse of the first applicant and son of the second
applicant, had died as a result of his ill-treatment by
the police while in custody, and that the authorities
had failed to conduct an effective investigation into
the circumstances surrounding his death. They further
alleged that Mr Stefanov’s detention had been unlawful.
Finally, they complained that they had not had effective
remedies against the alleged violations of the
Convention, and that the impugned events had been the
result of discriminatory attitudes towards persons of
Roma ethnic origin such as Mr Stefanov.
4. The application was allocated to the First Section of
the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within
that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article
27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in
Rule 26 § 1.
5. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition
of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to
the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1).
6. By a decision of 6 January 2005 the Court (First
Section) declared the application admissible.
7. The Government, but not the applicants, filed
observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. At approximately 2 a.m. on 6 June 1993 Mr Stefanov
died after having fallen the previous day from the
window of room 36 on the third floor of the police
station in the town of Kazanluk. Numerous injuries were
found on his body. The ensuing investigation concluded
that he had voluntarily jumped out of the window of the
room where he had been brought for questioning, and that
all his injuries had been the result of his fall. The
applicants contested these conclusions.
A. The events of 4 and 5 June 1993
9. At an unknown time on 4 June 1993 Mr Stefanov, then
aged twenty-three, was arrested by the police in the
town of Muglizh. Another person, Mr D.O., also of Roma
ethnic origin, was likewise taken into custody.
According to a subsequent statement of Mr D.O., he had
turned himself in, whereas according to a statement of
lieutenant I.C., a police officer involved in these
events (see paragraph 10 below), he had been arrested.
Apparently Mr Stefanov and Mr D.O. were suspected of
numerous thefts and burglaries committed in complicity.
The two were brought to the Kazanluk police station
either later that evening or the next morning. The
applicants submitted that Mr Stefanov had been in good
health at the time of his arrest. The Government did not
contest this assertion.
10. The events of the next morning, as described
hereafter, are only known from the statements of
lieutenant I.C. and chief sergeant H.B., the two police
officers who participated in the events, of Mr D.O., and
partly from the statement of chief sergeant B.B., an
officer guarding the cell block of the police station.
Apparently the only eyewitnesses to what happened in
room 36, from whose window Mr Stefanov fell to the
ground, were lieutenant I.C., chief sergeant H.B. and Mr
D.O.
11. Lieutenant I.C. arrived at the Kazanluk police
station at approximately 10 a.m. on 5 June 1993 and
first proceeded to question Mr D.O. about the thefts and
burglaries allegedly committed by him and Mr Stefanov.
12. The questioning took place in lieutenant I.C.’s
office – room 36 on the third floor of the police
station – an east-facing room measuring 5 by 2.8 m.. It
had two two-wing windows, overlooking the backyard, with
sills 96 cm above the floor. It seems that the south
window was opened. In the middle of the room there were
two desks, adjacent to each other.
13. In the back yard, beneath the room’s windows, 70 cm
south of the one which was open, there was a shed for
motorcycles, with a 1.95 meter high ceiling, covered
with an iron sheet roof. Beside the shed there was an
inspection tunnel for automobiles, leading to an
underground garage. The inspection tunnel had a concrete
edge. The room’s windows stood at 9.6 m above the ground,
the distance between the windows and the concrete edge
was 7.9 m, and that between the windows and the iron
sheet roof – 5.9 m.
14. After questioning Mr D.O., lieutenant I.C. sent him
back to the cell block on the first floor, and brought
Mr Stefanov up for questioning. During the questioning
Mr Stefanov was seated in a chair behind the south desk
in room 36. Lieutenant I.C. was sitting opposite him,
behind the north desk. Throughout the questioning Mr
Stefanov was handcuffed. It is not clear whether his
hands were secured behind his back or in front of him.
15. According to the statements made later by lieutenant
I.C., sergeant H.B. and Mr D.O., during the questioning
the lieutenant established discrepancies between the
versions of Mr Stefanov and Mr D.O about their
participation in the alleged thefts. At that point, at
approximately 11 a.m., the lieutenant called sergeant
H.B. and ordered him to bring Mr D.O. up from the cell
block in order to be able to confront the two. Sergeant
H.B. took Mr D.O. and brought him in front of room 36.
Sergeant H.B. and Mr D.O. stood a little south of the
room’s door, so that Mr D.O. and Mr Stefanov could not
establish eye contact. Lieutenant I.C. started
questioning Mr Stefanov and Mr D.O., to compare their
answers. Apparently their versions differed and an
argument erupted between the two, as they were accusing
each other of being the mastermind of the alleged thefts.
16. Then Mr D.O. indicated with his head to lieutenant
I.C. that he wanted to tell him something without Mr
Stefanov hearing it. The lieutenant stood up from his
chair, approached the half-open door and stood at the
doorsill. At that moment Mr Stefanov, still handcuffed,
bolted from his chair, made towards the open window and
climbed on the window sill by stepping on a chair placed
under the window. Chief sergeant H.B. shouted: “This one
is going to run”. Lieutenant I.C. turned around and saw
Mr Stefanov in the window frame, one leg out in the air
and the other leg inside the room. The lieutenant
shouted: “Don’t jump!”, but Mr Stefanov threw his other
leg out of the window and jumped. The lieutenant rushed
towards the window.
17. There are inconsistencies in the lieutenant’s
statements as to whether he saw Mr Stefanov falling, or
only saw him after he had already hit the ground. In his
report dated 11 June 1993 the lieutenant stated that he
had only seen Mr Stefanov’s body supine on the ground.
However, when questioned about the incident on 20 June
1994, the lieutenant maintained that when he had rushed
to the window, he had been able to see Mr Stefanov’s
fall, and had seen his body hit the iron sheet roof of
the shed beneath the window before rolling off and onto
the ground. When questioned for a second time on 21 July
1997, the lieutenant stated that he could not recall
exactly the phases of Mr Stefanov’s fall and could not
tell whether Mr Stefanov had first hit the roof of the
motorcycle shed, as he did not remember whether he had
gone to the window immediately. He explained that his
memories had faded because the events had taken place a
long time before and had unfolded very quickly (see
paragraphs 34, 36 and 56 below).
18. There are also inconsistencies in Mr D.O.’s
statements as to whether he saw Mr Stefanov’s fall at
all. When first questioned about the incident on 8 June
1993, he stated that he had not directly seen Mr
Stefanov jump. During his second questioning on 13
December 1993 Mr D.O. maintained that he had seen Mr
Stefanov standing up with his handcuffs on, moving
towards the window and jumping. However, he did not
state that he had seen Mr Stefanov’s fall, but had only
seen him supine on the ground.
19. Chief sergeant H.B. rushed down the stairs to the
back yard, where he found Mr Stefanov lying unconscious,
half on his back, half on his right side, on an iron
grill in front of the garage. His handcuffs had broken,
he was bleeding and breathing heavily. Chief sergeant
H.B. poured water on him to try to revive him. An
ambulance was called shortly afterwards and Mr Stefanov
was taken to the regional hospital in Kazanluk, where he
died at approximately 2 a.m. the following morning (see
paragraph 26 below).
B. The investigation into the events of 4 and 5 June
1993
20. Having been notified about the incident at 12.10 p.m.,
investigator G.S. of the District Investigation Service
in Kazanluk inspected the scene of the incident.
Starting at 1.15 p.m., he first inspected the back yard
of the police station, where Mr Stefanov had fallen to
the ground, and then room 36. The minutes of the
inspection state that the site of the incident had “not
been preserved – the injured person having been removed”.
The minutes describe the ground beneath the windows of
room 36 as covered partly with an iron grill, the
remainder being a concrete surface. Two bloodstains are
noted: one on the iron grill, and one under it. The
bloodstain under the grill measured 5 to 6 cm. During
the inspection of room 36 a chair was found just beside
the window and a piece of plaster 5 cm long was found
under the window frame.
21. The same day, while Mr Stefanov was still alive but
in a coma, colonel P., prosecutor at the Plovdiv
Military Regional Prosecutor’s Office, ordered that he
be examined by Dr E.B., medical doctor at the forensic
medicine ward of the Stara Zagora regional hospital.
22. At 7 p.m. on 5 June 1993 Dr E.B. examined Mr
Stefanov in the presence of Dr K., a neurosurgeon from
the Kazanluk regional hospital. He found that Mr
Stefanov was in a coma and could not communicate. He
recorded that the “on-duty police officer” had told him
that Mr Stefanov had jumped from the window of a room on
the third floor of the police station, that he had
fallen on an iron sheet roof, and then on the ground in
front of the underground garage of the station, on an
iron grill.
23. He noted the following injuries on Mr Stefanov’s
body:
“The lids of the right eye are suffused and are
bluish-violet in colour. An abrasion with underlying
surface, measuring 6 by 6 cm, was found in the area of
the right cheekbone. An arch-shaped wound with uneven
and suffused edges 2 cm long, was found on the outer
edge of the right eye. Two slit-shaped parallel violet
suffusions, 1 cm wide and 8 cm long, are visible on the
back of the right shoulder. The distance between them is
3.5 cm. At the middle of the thorax one can observe a
slanted elongated violet suffusion, measuring 4 by 1 cm.
A similar suffusion, measuring 3 to 2 cm, was found on
the left buttock. The right upper limb is immobilised
with a plaster dressing. Three oval abrasions with
underlying surface, the biggest measuring 1 by 1 cm,
were found on the lateral side of the right knee. The
skin on the lateral side of the right sole is suffused
and bluish-violet in colour. A spotted suffusion,
measuring 8 by 3 cm, was found on the inner side of the
left sole. An underlying abrasion, measuring 6 to 4 cm,
is visible on the lateral side of the right calf. A
superficial slit-shaped wound with uneven edges and
length 3 cm was found on the left parietal-temporal area.”
24. Dr E.B. concluded that the injuries described could
have been sustained in a two-stage fall.
25. The laboratory tests detected no traces of alcohol
in Mr Stefanov’s blood or urine.
26. Mr Stefanov died at approximately 2 a.m. the
following morning.
27. On the following day, 6 June 1993, Dr E.B. performed
an autopsy on Mr Stefanov’s dead body. The doctor
described his findings in detail in his report. He noted
the following:
“EXTERNAL INSPECTION[:]
... The eyelids are closed. The lids of the right eye
are suffused and bluish-violet in colour. An arch-shaped
wound with uneven and suffused edges, 2 cm long, is
visible in the outer eye angle of the right eye, on the
orbital edge. An abraded spot at the level of the skin,
covered with reddish scab, 6 by 6 cm, is visible in the
area of the right cheekbone. ... A slit-shaped wound
with uneven and suffused edges, 3 cm long, is visible in
the parietal-occipital-temporal area. Small tissue
bridges are visible at the bottom of the wound. ... An
oblique bluish suffusion, measuring 4 by 2 cm, is
visible on the frontal part [of the thorax], in the
middle part, in the projection of the sternum. Two
strip-shaped bluish-violet blood suffusions, parallel to
one another, measuring 8 by 2 cm, at a distance of 3.5
cm between them, are visible on the back surface of the
right shoulder. ... A bluish-violet suffusion, measuring
4 by 3 cm, was found on the left buttock. ... The right
armpit bone is broken in the middle third with
suffusions in the musculature. A wound with an irregular
shape and even edges, measuring 3 by 2 cm, is visible in
this area, on the lateral surface. The bone fragments
are at its bottom. Two strip-shaped grazed areas covered
with whitish scab at the level of the skin, each
measuring 40 by 3 mm, and a distance between them of 5
mm, were found in the area of the right wrist. Three
abraded areas covered with reddish scab at the level of
the skin, the biggest one measuring 1 cm in diameter,
were found on the lateral side of the right knee. A
similar grazed area, measuring 4 by 6 cm, was found on
the lateral surface of the right calf. The skin on the
lateral part of the right sole is suffused and bluish. A
similar suffusion, measuring 8 by 3 cm, was found on the
internal surface of the left sole.
Deep skin incisions were made on the back of the corpse,
and thereupon suffusions of the soft tissues and the
musculature of the right part of the back, in the area
of the right shoulder-blade, measuring 18 by 8 cm,
vertically oriented, were found. ... A suffusion of the
tissues was found in the musculature and the
sub-cutaneous layer of the left buttock, in the
projection of the above-described suffusion.
INTERNAL INSPECTION[:] Head. The soft cranial membranes
have suffusions on the right frontal-temporal area, on
the left parietal-occipital-temporal area, below the
above described lacerated-contusion wound. ... A linear
fracture was found at the base of the skull, beginning
from the right frontal-temporal area, passing on the
roof of the right orbit, and ending in the area of the
sella turcica. ... The soft meninges are suffused in the
temporal parts. ... Rounded violet suffusions, with
diameter of not more than 2 mm, were found at the base
of the brain, in the area of the right frontal parts.
... The first, seventh, and eighth ribs on the right
side are broken on the posterior sub-arm line with a
suffusion in the intercostal musculature. The fractures
are wide open inward.”
28. In the concluding part of the report Dr E.B.
summarised the injuries on Mr Stefanov’s body as follows:
“Combined cranial-cerebral and thoracic trauma following
a fall from a substantial height. Fracture of the base
of the skull. Cerebral contusion, cerebral oedema, with
wedging of the cerebellar tonsils. Suffusion of the
meninges. Fracture of ribs on the right side.
Lacerated-contusion wounds on the head and the face.
Suffusions of the cranial membranes, the face, the
thorax, and the limbs. Abrasions on the face and the
limbs. Open fracture of the right armpit bone. Suffusion
of the buttocks. Lack of alcohol in the blood and the
urine.”
29. Dr E.B. concluded that the death had been caused by
a cranial-cerebral trauma, consisting of a fracture of
the skull, a contusion and a brain oedema.
30. Addressing the question of the manner in which the
injuries had been caused, Dr E.B. stated:
“The described traumatic injuries were caused by the
impact of the body against solid blunt objects and could
be sustained in a two-stage fall from a substantial
height. The inspection and the autopsy revealed head and
body traumatic injuries: head – on the right
frontal-temporal area [and] on the left
parietal-occipital-temporal area; body – front and back,
more pronounced on the right side; limbs – right upper
limb, lateral surface of the right leg and internal
surface of the left sole. The fall on the roof of the
shed produced the injuries on the right side of the
forehead and the face and the front of the body. The
second stage of the fall – from the roof of the shed to
the ground in front of the underground garage – resulted
in the injuries on the back of the body, the left
parietal-occipital-temporal area of the head and lower
limbs. The two chafings of the right wrist suggest
sustained contact with handcuffs. The right armpit bone
was broken during the first stage of the fall if the
hands were handcuffed in front, and during the second
stage if the hands were handcuffed on the back.”
31. Dr E.B. finished his autopsy report with the
following findings:
“All traumatic injuries were sustained while [Mr
Stefanov was alive], is indicated by from the suffusions
in the areas of the broken bones. These injuries were
sustained at the same time and it is possible that they
occurred at the time stated in the preliminary data.
The inspection of the body and the autopsy did not
reveal traumatic injuries which cannot be explained by a
fall from a substantial height.
At the time of his death [Mr] Stefanov was not under the
influence of alcohol, but the expertise cannot confirm
the same for the moment of the fall, because the alcohol
test sample was taken more than twelve hours after the
incident.”
32. On 8 June 1993 Mr D.O. was questioned about the
incident. He stated, inter alia, that he had not
directly seen Mr Stefanov jump.
33. An investigation was opened on 17 June 1993 by the
Plovdiv Military Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
34. The military investigator in charge of the case, Mr
S.S., collected the written reports of lieutenant I.C.,
chief sergeant H.B. and sergeant B.B., but did not
question the officers. He started working on the case on
13 December 1993, when he questioned Mr D.O. The latter
stated, inter alia, that he had not been mistreated and
that Mr Stefanov body did not indicate any bodily
assault at the time of his questioning in the morning of
5 June 1993. He also maintained that he had seen Mr
Stefanov standing up with his handcuffs on, moving
towards the window and jumping. However, he did not
state that he had seen Mr Stefanov’s fall, but had only
seen him lying on the ground.
35. On 8 February 1994 the Plovdiv Military Regional
Prosecutor’s Office transferred the case to the
competent district prosecutor’s office, in view of the
amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”)
of December 1993 whereby offences allegedly committed by
police officers came under the jurisdiction of the
general courts (see paragraph 71 below). However, on 5
April 1994 the case was sent back to the Plovdiv
Military Regional Prosecutor’s Office pursuant to
special instructions by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of
16 February 1994. On 20 April 1994 the Plovdiv Military
Regional Prosecutor’s Office remitted the case file to
captain I.N., a military investigator in Stara Zagora,
for further action.
36. Lieutenant I.C. was questioned on 20 June 1994 by
the military investigator, captain I.N. He stated, inter
alia, that when he had rushed to the window, he had been
able to see Mr Stefanov’s fall and had seen his body hit
the iron sheet roof of the shed situated beneath the
window before hitting the ground (see paragraph 17 above).
37. On 30 June 1994 investigator I.N. recommended that
the investigation be discontinued, citing the lack of
evidence for a criminal offence. He found that the
medical expert report had established that all of Mr
Stefanov’s injuries had been sustained during his
two-stage fall from the window. This finding coincided
with lieutenant I.C.’s statement that he had seen Mr
Stefanov’s body first hit the roof of the shed beneath
the window and then fall on the ground in front of the
underground garage. The investigator concluded that Mr
Stefanov had jumped out of the window of his own will,
and that this had not been provoked by the conduct of
lieutenant I.C. or another police officer.
38. On 29 July 1994 colonel Y.T., prosecutor at the
Plovdiv Military Regional Prosecutor’s Office,
discontinued the proceedings and sent the case file to
the Kazanluk District Prosecutor’s Office for further
action. He reasoned that Mr Stefanov had suddenly jumped
from the window of room 36 during questioning, in the
presence of lieutenant I.C. and Mr D.O. He had fallen on
the ground and had immediately been taken to a hospital,
where he had died despite the efforts to revive him. As
could been seen from the medical expert report, the Mr
Stefanov’s death had been caused by a combined
cranial-cerebral and thoracic trauma, a fracture of the
base of the skull, a cerebral contusion, a suffusion of
the meninges, lacerated-contusion wounds on the head and
the face, and suffusions of the limbs. There was no
indication that lieutenant I.C. had contributed in any
way to Mr Stefanov’s death.
39. On 4 August 1994 the Kazanluk District Prosecutor’s
Office sent the case back to the Plovdiv Military
Regional Prosecutor’s Office, stating that there was
nothing for them to do since the proceedings were
discontinued.
40. During the following year the case file was shuttled
between various prosecutor’s offices. On 4 October 1994
the first applicant, who was apparently unaware of the
latest developments, complained to the Chief
Prosecutor’s Office about the delay in the investigation
and stated that she had not been informed of the
investigation findings.
41. In view of the amendments to the CCP of June 1995
whereby the military courts, investigators and
prosecutors were restored jurisdiction over offences
allegedly committed by police officers (see paragraph 71
below), on 3 August 1995 the Military Prosecutor’s
Office in Sofia sent the case for review by the Plovdiv
Military Regional Prosecutor’s Office with instructions
to communicate its ruling to Mr Stefanov’s heirs.
42. In a decision of 27 December 1995 colonel Y.T.,
prosecutor at the Plovdiv Military Regional Prosecutor’s
Office, once again discontinued the investigation for
lack of evidence of a criminal offence. He reasoned,
without much detail, that Mr Stefanov had jumped from
the open window. He had been immediately transported to
a hospital, where he had died because of a
cranial-cerebral trauma. It had not been established
that lieutenant I.C. or another police officer had
abused his office, had brought about Mr Stefanov’s
suicide, or had failed to discharge his or her duties.
It appears that a copy of the decision was sent to Mr
Stefanov’s father.
43. Apparently the applicants were not informed about
these developments, although they had requested to be
kept abreast of the progress of the investigation on
several occasions.
44. A copy of the prosecutor’s decision was obtained by
the applicants’ lawyer on 12 November 1996. On 9
December 1996 he filed an appeal against it with the
Military Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia, arguing that the
investigation was not comprehensive, that a number of
investigative steps had not been undertaken and that
various facts had not been clarified.
45. In a decision of 9 January 1997 prosecutor V.P. of
the investigative department of the Military
Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia found that the
investigation had not been full and comprehensive. It
had not been established at what time on 4 June 1993 Mr
Stefanov had been arrested, who had ordered that he
remain in detention after the end of the workday, or
whether there had been an order for his police detention
for a period of twenty-four hours. If such an order
existed, it was not clear who had issued it and on what
legal grounds. The legality of the police officers’
actions had to be assessed also from the point of view
of Article 127 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) (see
paragraph 66 below). Another fact which had not been
clarified were the circumstances of Mr Stefanov’s
detention leading up to the incident on 5 June 1993.
Also, it was unclear how many objects Mr Stefanov’s body
had hit during the fall and what was the number of
impacts. No inspection had been carried out of the roof
of the motorcycle shed. It was apparent from the
photographs that it was not deformed although the
doctor’s report had stated that on his way down Mr
Stefanov had first hit the roof and only then the iron
grill on the ground. The doctor’s report had also stated
that the body had sustained two blows during the fall
and that all injuries could have been caused by two
consecutive blows. Finally, not all persons who could
have clarified the facts had been questioned, including
chief sergeant H.B., chief sergeant B.B., and others who
had been in the back yard and the garage of the police
station and might have witnessed the fall.
46. Accordingly, the prosecutor quashed the decision to
discontinue the investigation and ordered to:
(i) gather all documents in the Kazanluk police station
relating to Mr Stefanov’s arrest and detention on 4 June
1993;
(ii) inspect the site of the incident with a view to
establishing the exact material of which the metal sheet
roof was made and whether there were any deformations on
it; also, establish what the distance between the window
and the ground was and whether the bloodstain found on
the iron grill was situated directly beneath the window;
(iii) perform a dummy test to determine the exact spot
where Mr Stefanov’s body had hit the ground;
(iv) question other possible witnesses; also, take new
statements from Mr D.O. about the circumstances of his
and Mr Stefanov’s detention and stay in the police
station, the possible use of physical violence against
them, as well as all other circumstances possibly
relevant to the case;
(v) prepare a three-expert forensic report to establish
the cause of death and whether there were injuries on Mr
Stefanov’s body which had not been caused by the fall
form the window.
47. Following the remittal of the case, on 8 March 1997
an investigator inspected the iron sheet roof of the
motorcycle penthouse situated beneath room 36, and
performed a dummy test.
48. During the inspection it was found that the iron
sheet roof had no marks of bending or deformation.
49. A human-size leather dummy was thrown twice out of
the window of room 36. The first time the dummy was
dropped perpendicularly and fell directly on the ground
in front of the garage, without touching the iron sheet
roof of the penthouse. The second time it was thrown at
an angle south of the window and hit the iron sheet roof,
then the concrete edge beneath the roof, and then fell
on the ground. When the dummy hit the iron sheet roof
during the second throwing, the roof gave.
50. On 25 March 1997 investigator S.S. questioned chief
sergeant H.B. who stated, inter alia, that he had not
seen Mr Stefanov’s fall in its entirety, and had no
recollection of how many hits he had heard during the
fall.
51. On 26 March 1997 investigator S.S. questioned chief
sergeant B.B.
52. Following the dummy test, three medical experts were
appointed to re-examine the conclusions about the
circumstances in which Mr Stefanov’s injuries had been
sustained. More specifically, they were requested to
establish what was the cause of Mr Stefanov’s death and
whether some of the injuries found on his body could
have been the result of factors other than the fall from
the window of room 36. Dr E.B., the medical doctor who
had examined Mr Stefanov on 5 June 1993 and had
performed an autopsy on his dead body, was one of the
experts. The others were Dr H.E. and Dr T.T., medical
doctors from the forensic medicine and ethics faculty of
the university of Stara Zagora.
53. On 18 April 1997 the three experts delivered their
report based solely on documents contained in the
investigation case file.
54. The experts confirmed the previous findings about
the cause of death, namely that it was the result of a
cranial and brain trauma, consisting of a fracture of
the base of the skull, contusion and oedema of the brain,
with a wedging of the cerebellum and paralysis of the
vital brain centres. Although insubstantial, the amount
of blood that had entered the respiratory system, also
contributed to the fatal outcome, the experts opined.
55. As to the cause of the injuries, the experts
concluded that:
“such injuries may be sustained in a fall that involves
multiple blunt impacts. Such a fall [occurs] the body
hits several hard surfaces at different heights, as
indicated by the dummy test. Such information was
gathered during the dummy test. When thrown at a right
angle, the dummy hit the iron sheet roof situated under
the window adjacent to the one from which [Mr] Stefanov
fell. ...It is possible that [Mr] Stefanov ran
tangentially against the edge of the iron sheet roof and
that his body rolled off leaving no indentations on the
roof. It [was] also possible that [Mr] Stefanov,
regardless of whether his body came in contact with the
iron sheet roof, hit the concrete edge on which the roof
was built. This edge is visible on the photographs and
is situated at approximately 23 cm from the wall of the
shed. The final stage of the fall was hitting the ground
in front of the garage, where the grill is located. It [was]
possible that the suffusions on the back surface of the
right shoulder could have resulted from an impact
against the grill. The lacerated-contusion wound on the
head, in case it was turned left, as well as the
fracture of the right armpit and the suffusion on the
buttocks, occurred during this final stage of the fall.
The other injuries were caused earlier during the fall.
The two abrasions on the right wrist are consistent with
handcuff marks.
The hit which caused the cranial fracture and the brain
contusion [was] sustained in the right frontal part of
the head, where the lacerated-contusion wound, the
abrasion and the suffusion [were] detected. This was a
heavy impact that occurred during an earlier stage of
the fall, most probably against the above-mentioned
concrete edge.
All injuries were sustained at the same time. No
injuries were found which cannot be explained with a
fall from a substantial height and one that involved
multiple hard impacts. [There were no injuries] from
sharp weapons, firearms, or electricity. No defensive
injuries were found on the body or the limbs.
56. On 21 June 1997 lieutenant I.C. was questioned by
captain S.S., the military investigator who was
initially in charge of the investigation. The applicants’
lawyer was also present. The lieutenant stated that he
could not recall exactly the mechanism of Mr Stefanov’s
fall and could not tell whether Mr Stefanov had first
hit the roof of the motorcycle shed, as he did not
remember whether he had gone to the window immediately.
He explained that his memory of the events had faded
because they had taken place a long time before and had
unfolded very quickly.
57. Mr D.O. was not re-questioned. The Kazanluk police
tried to locate him but found that his whereabouts after
1993 – when he was released and apparently not
prosecuted any further for the alleged thefts – were
unknown. There were some indications that he was living
on the territory of the Troyan municipality, in one of
the mountain villages there, but his exact address was
unknown, as he had not communicated it to the address
register of his previous domicile, the municipality of
Muglizh. His mother’s whereabouts were also unknown, his
grandfather and uncle had died, and there were no other
relatives in Muglizh who could provide information about
him. The applicants’ lawyer requested that the
investigation remain pending until Mr D.O. was located
and questioned.
58. Also, no documents were gathered about Mr Stefanov’s
arrest and detention on 4 and 5 June 1993. In a letter
of 20 July 1997 the head of the Kazanluk police station
informed the investigation authorities that up until
August 1993 the persons detained for less than
twenty-four hours had simply been registered and no
orders for their arrest had been issued, and that the
registers for 1993 had not been preserved.
59. On 29 July 1997 investigator S.S. recommended that
the investigation be discontinued. He stated that the
instructions of the Military Prosecutor’s Office had
been complied with in the course of the additional
investigation. The register of the detained persons in
the Kazanluk police station was no longer available, nor
were the police fill-in forms for detention. It was
therefore impossible to establish who had brought Mr
Stefanov to the police station. Also, an additional
inspection of the death scene had been carried out,
revealing that Mr Stefanov’s body had not hit the iron
sheet roof, which was not deformed, but the edge beneath
it, and then the ground. This was apparent from the
medical expert report. Certain witnesses had been
re-questioned. The re-questioning of Mr D.O. had been
impossible, as he could not be tracked down. As
indicated by the medical expert report, Mr Stefanov’s
death had been caused by a cranial-cerebral trauma,
consisting of a fracture of the skull base, contusion
and oedema of the brain with a wedging of the cerebellum
and a paralysis of the vital brain centres. Such
injuries could be the result of a two-stage fall, when
the body had encountered obstacles at various heights
before hitting the ground. No injuries which could not
be explained with such a fall had been found, nor
injuries resulting from sharp weapons, firearms, or
electricity. There was thus no evidence of a criminal
offence by a member of the Kazanluk police.
60. In a decision of 13 August 1997 captain I.N.,
prosecutor at the Plovdiv Military Regional Prosecutor’s
Office, discontinued the investigation. He reasoned that
all instructions contained in the decision of 9 January
1997 of the Military Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia had
been complied with. The dummy test, the additional
medical expert report and the newly questioned witnesses
had all confirmed the circumstances underlying the first
discontinuation of the investigation. There were no
injuries on Mr Stefanov’s body which could not be
explained by a two-stage fall from a substantial height.
The dummy test had determined that Mr Stefanov had first
hit the concrete edge under the iron sheet roof and had
then fallen on the ground. A copy of the decision was
sent to the first applicant with instructions that she
could appeal against it.
61. On 3 and 12 February 1998 the applicants’ lawyer
requested information about the progress of the
investigation. He was informed that it had been
discontinued, but was not given a copy of the decision
of 13 August 1997. He managed to obtain a copy only on 4
March 1998, and immediately appealed it before the
Military Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia. He argued that Mr
D.O. had not been questioned and that the conclusions
about the details of Mr Stefanov’s fall from the window
were inconsistent.
62. On 31 March 1998 colonel T.Y., prosecutor at the
Military Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia, dismissed the
appeal, reasoning, inter alia, that Mr Stefanov had
jumped in an attempt to leave the premises of the
police, that no officers were responsible for this act,
and that the investigation had been objective and
comprehensive.
63. The applicants’ lawyer then filed an appeal with the
Chief Prosecutor.
64. On 18 May 1998 prosecutor V.P., head of the
investigative department of the Military Prosecutor’s
Office in Sofia, to whom the appeal was apparently
referred, upheld the decision to discontinue the
investigation. He reasoned that there were no
indications that Mr Stefanov’s “attempt to flee” had
been prompted by maltreatment by the police officers who
had questioned him. According to the medical expert
report, all his injuries had been caused by the fall.
There was no indication that any offence had been
committed by a police officer, that could be connected
with Mr Stefanov’s death. A copy of his decision was
sent to the applicants’ lawyer on 9 June 1998.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
A. Duty to investigate death and ill-treatment
65. By Article 115 of the CC, murder is punishable by
ten to twenty years’ imprisonment. Article 116 § 1 (2)
of the CC provides that if a murder is committed by a
police officer in the course of, or in connection with
the performance of his or her duties, it is punishable
by fifteen to twenty years’ imprisonment, or life, with
or without parole.
66. Article 127 § 1 of the CC makes it an offence to aid
or incite suicide, if the person concerned does
subsequently commit suicide or makes an attempt to do
so. By paragraph 3 of that Article, it is an offence to
drive another to suicide or attempted suicide through
cruel treatment or systematic humiliation, if this other
person is financially or otherwise dependent on the
offender, on condition that the offender contemplated
that eventuality. Paragraph 4 of that Article makes it
an offence to act contrary to the previous paragraph
even if the offender does so out of negligence.
67. Articles 128, 129 and 130 of the CC make it an
offence to inflict a light, intermediate or severe
bodily injury on another. Article 131 § 1 (2) of the CC
provides that if the injury is inflicted by a police
officer in the course of or in connection with the
performance of his or her duties, the offence is
aggravated.
68. By Article 287 of the CC, as in force at the
material time, it was an offence for an official, when
acting in the course of, or in connection with the
performance of his or her duties, to illegally coerce an
accused, a witness or an expert with a view to obtaining
a confession, a statement or an opinion.
69. All of the above offences are publicly prosecutable
(Article 161 of the CC and Article 21 § 3 of the CCP, as
in force at the material time).
70. Article 192 §§ 1 and 2 of the CCP, as in force at
the material time, provided that proceedings concerning
publicly prosecutable offences could only be initiated
by a prosecutor or an investigator. The prosecutor or
the investigator had to open an investigation whenever
he or she received information, supported by sufficient
evidence, that an offence might have been committed (Articles
187 and 190 of the CCP). If the information given to the
prosecuting authorities was not supported by evidence,
the prosecutor had to order a preliminary inquiry in
order to determine whether the opening of a criminal
investigation was warranted (Article 191 of the CCP, as
in force at the material time). A prosecutor could
discontinue an investigation when, inter alia, there was
no evidence of an offence, or the alleged act did not
constitute an offence (Articles 21 § 1 (1) and 237 § 1
(1) and (2) of the CCP). At the material time his or her
decision was subject to appeal to a higher prosecutor (Article
181 of the CCP, as in force at the relevant time). In
2001 the CCP was amended to provide for judicial review
of a prosecutor’s decision to discontinue an
investigation.
71. At the material time the offences allegedly
committed by police officers were tried by military
courts (Article 388 § 1 (2) of the CCP, as in force at
the relevant time). In December 1993 this text was
amended to provide that the military courts no longer
had jurisdiction over such offences (Article 388 § 1 (2)
of the CCP, as amended in December 1993). A new
amendment in June 1995 reverted to the old regime (Article
388 § 1 (2) of the CCP, as amended in June 1995 and in
force until 1 January 2000). Where a case would fall
within the jurisdiction of the military courts, the
preliminary investigation is handled by military
investigators and prosecutors.
B. Arrest and detention
72. A person may be arrested and placed in detention in
the context of pending criminal proceedings, if charges
have been brought against him or her (Article 146 § 1
taken in conjunction with Article 207 of the CCP).
73. A person could also be arrested by order of an
investigator and detained for up to three days if he or
she was suspected of having committed an offence
punishable by imprisonment, but there was not enough
evidence to bring charges. The circumstances in which
this could occur were limited and included the cases
where (i) he or she had been caught during or
immediately after the commission of the alleged offence,
(ii) he or she had been named by an eyewitness, (iii)
overt traces of the alleged offence were found on the
person’s body or clothes or in his or her place of abode,
or (iv) the person tried to flee or his or her identity
could not be established and there was enough
information that he or she might have committed an
offence (Article 202 § 1 of the CCP, as in force at the
material time).
74. Section 20(1) of the National Police Act of 1976, in
force at the relevant time, provided that the police
could also arrest a person if (i) his or her identity
could not be ascertained, (ii) he or she behaved
violently or in breach of public order, (iii) he or she
refused, without just cause, to appear after having been
duly summoned, (iv) he or she knowingly impeded the
police from carrying out its duties, (v) he or she
carried or used unlicensed firearms, cold weapons, or
other dangerous devices. In all these cases the police
had to immediately carry out the necessary checks. After
that, but in no case later than three hours after the
person’s arrest, he or she had to be released, if no
order for his or her detention was made. Only when the
person’s identity could not be ascertained that deadline
was extended to twenty-four hours (section 20(2) of the
Act).
C. The United Nations Model Autopsy Protocol
75. The “Manual on the Effective Prevention and
Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary
Executions” (U.N. Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991)), published
by the United Nations in 1991, includes a Model Autopsy
Protocol aimed at providing authoritative guidelines for
the conduct of autopsies by public prosecutors and
medical personnel. In its introduction, it is noted that
a systematic and comprehensive examination and report
were required to prevent the omission or loss of
important details:
“It is of the utmost importance that an autopsy
performed following a controversial death be thorough in
scope. The documentation and recording of those findings
should be equally thorough so as to permit meaningful
use of the autopsy results... It is important to have as
few omissions or discrepancies as possible, as
proponents of different interpretations of a case may
take advantage of any perceived shortcomings in the
investigation. An autopsy performed in a controversial
death should meet certain minimum criteria if the
autopsy report is to be proffered as meaningful or
conclusive by the prosector, the autopsy’s sponsoring
agency or governmental unit, or anyone else attempting
to make use of such an autopsy’s findings or conclusions.”
D. Reports of international organisations on alleged
discrimination against Roma
76. In a number of reports the European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance at the Council of Europe
has expressed concern about racially motivated police
violence, particularly against Roma. Certain other
bodies and non-governmental organisations have also
reported in the last several years numerous incidents of
alleged racial violence against Roma in Bulgaria,
including by law enforcement agents. A detailed account
of these reports may be found in the Court’s judgment in
the case of Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos.
43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 55-59, ECHR 2005-...).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
77. The applicants alleged that Mr Stefanov had been
ill-treated and had died as a result of the actions of
the police officers. They also complained that no
effective investigation had been conducted into the
circumstances surrounding his death. They argued that
there had been a breach of Article 2 of the Convention,
which provides:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.
No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save
in the execution of a sentence of a court following his
conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided
by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as
inflicted in contravention of this article when it
results from the use of force which is no more than
absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the
escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling
a riot or insurrection.”
78. The Government disputed those allegations.
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The applicants
79. The applicants submitted that Mr Stefanov’s fall
from the window of room 36 had been either a suicide
attempt provoked by severe torture, or an attempt by the
police to cover up his prior ill-treatment. There was no
evidence that the fall had been an attempt to escape,
since the window was situated at 9.6 meters above ground
level. No one could be expected to jump from such a
height and subsequently be able to run away. There were
no structures which could cushion the blow resulting
from the fall; in particular, it was obvious that Mr
Stefanov’s body had not touched the iron sheet roof
before hitting the ground. The assertion that Mr
Stefanov had made an attempt to flee was even more
improbable in view of the facts that he had been
handcuffed and that all of his injuries were inflicted
on his upper body, which indicated that he had fallen
head down. There was likewise no indication that the
fall had been the result of a suicide attempt. Mr
Stefanov had no history of mental illness and had been
facing only a trivial burglary charge. Moreover, such an
explanation had not been proffered during the
investigation.
80. The only plausible explanations of Mr Stefanov’s
fall were either a suicide attempt provoked by torture,
or an intentional push by the police officers in an
effort to conceal his prior torture. These hypotheses
were supported by the number and extent of Mr Stefanov’s
injuries, most of which he had probably suffered before
his fall, during questioning. There was no indication
that these injuries had been self-inflicted or sustained
at the time of his arrest, or before that.
81. The applicants submitted that they could not prove
beyond doubt the exact cause of Mr Stefanov’s fall, but
maintained that it was for the authorities to provide a
plausible explanation, which they had failed to do.
82. In deciding that the fall had been the result of an
attempt to flee, the prosecution authorities had heavily
relied on the statements of lieutenant I.C., chief
sergeant H.B. and Mr D.O.. However, those were extremely
unreliable. First, the two police officers had an
obvious interest in exonerating themselves, whereas Mr
D.O. was favourably treated by the police. Second, they
had been inconsistent and had changed over time and had
obviously been geared towards exonerating the police
officers from any responsibility for Mr Stefanov’s death.
Moreover, the tenor of Mr D.O.’s statements had
remarkably followed the contours of lieutenant I.C’s
statements.
83. In concluding that all of Mr Stefanov’s injuries had
been sustained during a two-stage fall, the authorities
had also relied on the results of the autopsy and the
conclusions of the subsequent medical expert reports.
However, the autopsy report was deficient in a number of
respects and did not meet the standards laid down in the
United Nations Model Autopsy Protocol (see paragraph 75
above). For instance, the conclusion that all injuries
on Mr Stefanov’s body had been sustained during the fall
was based on the completely uncorroborated assumption
that the fall had been a two-stage one. Moreover, the
autopsy report and the subsequent medical expert report
did not contain a detailed description of the manner in
which each injury had been sustained, instead averring
in a general manner that all injuries had been the
result of a two-stage fall.
84. As regards the effectiveness of the investigation,
the applicants argued that it had been slow, biased and
aimed at exonerating the police officers of all
responsibility for Mr Stefanov’s death. They pointed to
a number of deficiencies in its conducting. In
particular, the position of where Mr. Stefanov’s body
lay on the ground after the fall had not been marked.
The investigation had not started immediately. Before
the remitting by the Military Prosecutor’s Office, the
investigation had been very superficial. The dummy test
had been carried out four years after the events and the
medical experts had not received proper instructions.
Moreover, the applicants had not been regularly informed
about the unfolding of the investigation and had been
hindered in their efforts to intensify it. The
applicants also referred to their arguments in respect
of the deficiencies in the autopsy and the medical
expert reports.
2. The Government
85. The Government submitted that Mr Stefanov’s injuries
had been sustained during his fall. The dummy test
carried out during the investigation had shown that if
he had jumped slightly rightwards, he could have hit
either the iron sheet roof or the concrete edge beneath
it, and only then fallen on the ground. All medical
expert reports had concluded that he had no injuries
which could not be explained by such a sequence of
events. It followed that the applicants’ allegations of
ill-treatment were groundless. The absence of abuse was
further demonstrated by the statements of all the
witnesses. There was no indication of collusion between
them. All of them had stated that Mr Stefanov had jumped
of his own will. There was no indication that he had
been in a physical contact with any police officer at
that time, or that force had been used against him. No
traces of alcohol had been found in his blood. However,
the forensic doctor had caveated the above finding with
the statement that had Mr Stefanov had consumed any
alcohol prior to his arrest, it would have decomposed
beyond detection during the night before the incident.
Mr D.O. had stated that neither he, nor Mr Stefanov had
been subjected to ill-treatment either at the time of
their arrest or later. The discrepancy between the
statements of lieutenant I.C. and Mr D.O. as to whether
the latter had turned himself in or had been arrested
indicated that there was no collusion between them and
that Mr D.O. had not been pressured to corroborate the
police officers’ version of the events.
86. The Government concluded that Mr Stefanov’s death
had not been caused by the actions of the police
officers.
87. The Government further submitted that the
investigation had fully complied with the principles set
out in the Court’s case-law. That was apparent from the
numerous acts of the prosecution authorities and the
medical expert reports. The obligation of the
authorities to gather evidence had been fulfilled in
good faith. Mr Stefanov’s relatives had been notified of
the discontinuations of the investigation and the
reasons therefor.
88. The investigation had been opened exactly with a
view to establishing the circumstances of Mr Stefanov’s
death. The conclusion of the military investigator of 30
June 1994 that there was no indication of an offence
having been committed was based on the medical expert
reports, the authors of which were under a duty to state
the truth. Their findings were fully coherent with the
statements of lieutenant I.C.
89. The alleged discrepancies between the various
statements of lieutenant I.C. and Mr D.O. were not that
material, regard being had that the lieutenant’s first
statement had been made shortly after the incident,
whereas his second statement had been made after a
considerable time and had thus been more considered. It
would be excessive to conclude that the differences
between these statements were due to an intention to
hide the truth or evade criminal liability. Moreover,
this issue had not been raised by the applicants in
their appeals against the discontinuation of the
investigation.
90. The investigation had undergone several stages and
the case had been remitted several times for further
action. The issue whether the injuries on Mr Stefanov’s
body indicated assault had been examined on several
occasions. All eyewitnesses had been questioned more
than once, except for Mr D.O., whose whereabouts could
not be established. The case had been examined by
several levels of prosecution. It could not be argued
that an investigation should always result in finding a
person guilty of an offence, especially bearing in mind
the criminal-law standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
91. In sum, the Government were of the view that the
investigation had been complete, objective and
comprehensive.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Mr Stefanov’s death
(a) General principles
92. Article 2 of the Convention, which safeguards the
right to life, ranks as one of the most fundamental
provisions in the Convention. Together with Article 3,
it enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic
societies making up the Council of Europe. The object
and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the
protection of individual human beings also requires that
Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its
safeguards practical and effective.
93. In the light of the importance of the protection
afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject complaints
about deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny,
taking into consideration all relevant circumstances.
94. Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and
the authorities are under an obligation to account for
their treatment. Consequently, where an individual is
taken into police custody in good health but later dies,
it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible
explanation of the events leading to his death.
95. In assessing evidence, the Court adopts the standard
of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. However, such proof
may follow from the co-existence of sufficiently strong,
clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted
presumptions of fact. Where the events in issue lie
wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge
of the authorities, as in the case of persons within
their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact
will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring
during that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may
be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a
satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many
other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97,
§§ 109-11, ECHR 2002-IV).
(b) Application of those principles to the present case
96. The Court observes that there is no indication that
Mr Stefanov was injured upon being taken into custody on
4 June 1993. It remains to be examined whether the
Government’s assertion that his fall – which was
apparently the source of the fatal injuries to his head
– was unprovoked is plausible, and whether their
averment that all of his numerous injuries were
sustained exclusively during his fall is satisfactory
and convincing.
97. In this connection, the Court notes that the
domestic authorities based their conclusion that all of
Mr Stefanov’s injuries had been sustained exclusively
during his fall on the hypothesis that his body had hit
an object – the metal sheet roof or a concrete edge –
before impacting against the ground (see paragraphs 22,
23, 30, 37, 38, 42, 45, 55, 59 and 60 above), the
apparent reason being that the injuries, that were
spread about Mr Stefanov’s body, could not have been the
result of a single blow. The Court further observes that
this version was initially based on the note by the
forensic doctor in his report that the “on-duty police
officer” had informed him that Mr Stefanov’s body had
hit the iron sheet roof and only then the ground (see
paragraph 22 above). This seemed to be corroborated by
lieutenant I.C.’s statement, made, significantly, after
the report had been drawn up, that he had seen Mr
Stefanov hit the roof before hitting the ground (see
paragraphs 17 and 36 above). That statement differed
from the lieutenant’s first statement, made immediately
after the events, that he had not seen Mr Stefanov’s
fall, as he had managed to reach and look out of the
window of room 36 only when Mr Stefanov’s body was
already lying on the ground (see paragraphs 17 and 34
above). It also differed from the lieutenant’s third
statement that he did not exactly remember the detailed
sequence of the fall and had no recollection of whether
he had been able to see Mr Stefanov falling at all (see
paragraphs 17 and 56 above), which was made after the
second on-site inspection and the dummy test had made it
clear that his body had not touched the roof (see
paragraph 49 above). Contrary to what the Government
argued, the Court finds these differences material, in
particular as they were to a large degree determinative
of the conclusion that Mr Stefanov had not sustained any
injuries prior to his fall. The Court furthermore notes
that when the dummy test established that Mr Stefanov
could not have hit the iron roof before hitting the
ground, thus making this theory implausible, the medical
experts readily advanced the theory that he had struck
the concrete edge before hitting the ground (see
paragraph 55 above). On the basis of this theory the
authorities again eagerly concluded that all of Mr
Stefanov’s injuries were exclusively caused by his fall,
without exploring other hypotheses as to their possible
source (see paragraphs 59 and 60 above). Their
determination on this point seems very questionable.
98. It furthermore seems unlikely that all of Mr
Stefanov’s numerous injuries, spread about his trunk,
limbs and head (see paragraphs 23 and 27 above), could
be solely the product of a fall, even a two-stage one.
In this connection, the Court notes the insufficient
description of the physical ways through which Mr
Stefanov’s injuries had been sustained. The forensic
doctor who performed the autopsy and the medical doctors
who drew up the expert report ordered following the
remitting of the case by the Military Prosecutor’s
Office gave a general account of the probable cause of
most of the injuries. However, they did not go into
detail as to the manner in which each of the different
and, indeed, plentiful, injuries could have been
inflicted (see paragraphs 30 and 55 above).
99. The only account of the events that took place in
room 36 on the morning of 5 June 1993 is that contained
in the statements of the two police officers who were
present there, and of Mr D.O., the person detained at
the same time as Mr Stefanov. However, their credibility
is undermined by several facts. First, the officers had
an obvious gain from presenting Mr Stefanov’s fall and
injuries as an accident or a suicide. Second, it is
important to observe that lieutenant I.C.’s version of
what he had seen changed over time to match the findings
of the other investigative actions: the autopsy and the
dummy test (see paragraphs 17, 34, 36 and 56 above).
Finally, it should also be noted that Mr D.O. was later
treated favourably by the police: although suspected of
numerous thefts and burglaries, he was released and
apparently not prosecuted any further (see paragraph 57
above). It should also be observed that immediately
prior to the events he was trying to shift the
responsibility for the alleged thefts and burglaries to
Mr Stefanov and an argument erupted between the two (see
paragraph 15 above).
100. It is unclear whether Mr Stefanov jumped off the
window of his own will, or, on the contrary, was
intentionally pushed or thrown, or forced in a situation
where he had no other option but to jump. It is however
highly improbable that he consciously tried to escape,
given that the window of room 36 was at 9.6 m. above
ground level, that the ground was covered with concrete
and iron grills, and that he was handcuffed. There is
furthermore no indication of him having any reasons to
commit an unprovoked suicide, or that he was in any way
intoxicated. While testing confirmed the absence of
alcohol in the blood and urine at the time of Mr
Stefanov’s death and not earlier (see paragraphs 25 and
31 in fine above), it seems highly unlikely, and it has
not been claimed by the Government, that he could have
consumed alcohol or other intoxicating substances during
the night or the morning before his fall, seeing that he
was in custody and appeared lucid during questioning.
There is furthermore no indication that Mr Stefanov
suffered from a mental illness which could lead him to
commit suicide or act with disregard for his life or
bodily integrity.
101. In view of the foregoing considerations and in
particular the inconsistencies in the authorities’
version of the events leading up to Mr Stefanov’s death,
the Court finds that the Government have not accounted
comprehensively for this death and Mr Stefanov’s
injuries during his detention in the Kazanluk police
station, and that the respondent State’s responsibility
for his death is engaged. There has therefore been a
violation of Article 2 of the Convention in this respect.
2. Alleged inadequacy of the investigation
(a) General principles
102. The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect
the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention,
read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under
Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone
within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms
defined in [the] Convention”, requires by implication
that there should be some form of effective official
investigation when individuals have been killed as a
result of the use of force. The investigation must be,
inter alia, thorough, impartial and careful.
103. The essential purpose of such an investigation is
to secure the effective implementation of the domestic
laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases
involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their
accountability for deaths occurring under their
responsibility.
104. For an investigation into alleged unlawful killing
by State agents to be effective, it may generally be
regarded as necessary for the persons responsible for
and carrying out the investigation to be independent
from those implicated in the events. This means not only
a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but
also a practical independence.
105. The investigation must also be effective in the
sense that it is capable of leading to the
identification and punishment of those responsible. This
is not an obligation of result, but of means. The
authorities must have taken the reasonable steps
available to them to secure the evidence concerning the
incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony,
forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy
which provides a complete and accurate record of injury
and an objective analysis of clinical findings,
including the cause of death. Any deficiency in the
investigation which undermines its ability to establish
the cause of death or the person responsible will risk
falling foul of this standard (see Anguelova, cited
above, §§ 136-39, with further references).
106. A requirement of promptness and reasonable
expedition is implicit in this context. It must be
accepted that there may be obstacles or difficulties
which prevent progress in an investigation in a
particular situation. However, a prompt response by the
authorities in investigating a use of lethal force may
generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public
confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in
preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance
of unlawful acts (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no.
28883/95, § 114, ECHR 2001-III, with further
references).
107. For the same reason, there must be a sufficient
element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its
results to secure accountability in practice as well as
in theory, maintain public confidence in the authorities’
adherence to the rule of law and prevent any appearance
of collusion in, or tolerance of, unlawful acts. The
degree of public scrutiny required may well vary from
case to case. In all cases, however, the next of kin of
the victim must be involved in the procedure to the
extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate
interests (ibid., § 115; and Anguelova, cited above, §
140, with further references).
(b) Application of those principles to the present case
108. The Court notes that a number of acts of
investigation were undertaken in the present case. An
autopsy and an on-site inspection were carried out
shortly after the events. A number of other acts were
also undertaken later, in particular when the case was
remitted by the Military Prosecutor’s Office (see
paragraphs 20, 27-31, 34 and 47-56 above).
109. The Court observes, however, that the authorities
questioned only lieutenant I.C., chief sergeants H.B.
and B.B., with the first two having an apparent gain
from denying any alleged wrongdoing, and Mr D.O., who
might have been under pressure to corroborate the
police’s version of the events. What is of utmost
significance, furthermore, are the inconsistencies
between lieutenant I.C.’s versions of the events – the
one put forward immediately after the incident, and the
ones proffered after the autopsy and the dummy test
results had been announced (see paragraphs 17, 34, 36
and 56 above). He was never asked to clarify those
inconsistencies, which, as already noted (see paragraph
97 above), appear material, given that the conclusions
that all of Mr Stefanov’s injuries had been sustained
solely during his fall, and that the fall had been
unprovoked, were to a great extent based on the supposed
sequence of the fall.
110. It is also noteworthy that even after the Military
Prosecutor’s Office ordered the re-questioning of Mr D.O.
– the only witness who was not a member of the police
force – the latter was not located and re-questioned,
and no other information was gathered about the events
between Mr Stefanov’s arrest on 4 June 1998 and his
death in the morning of the next day, 5 June 1993 (see
paragraphs 57 and 58 above).
111. Two other notable omissions were the fact that the
site of the incident was not preserved in its original
state prior to its inspection (see paragraph 20 above)
and, as noted above (see paragraph 98 above), the
insufficient description of the physical ways through
which Mr Stefanov’s injuries had been sustained. It is
furthermore noteworthy that the authorities eagerly
adhered to the theory – made implausible by the dummy
test and for this reason reformulated – that all of Mr
Stefanov’s numerous injuries were sustained exclusively
during his fall (see paragraphs 37, 38, 59 and 60 above),
and made no effort to explore other hypotheses as to
their possible source.
112. It is also striking that, despite their finding
that Mr Stefanov had jumped out of the window of his own
will (see paragraphs 61 and 64 above), the authorities
never investigated why he would commit suicide or choose
an apparently deadly escape route. No evidence was
collected on his mental state before and during his
detention (e.g. psychological reports, questioning Mr
D.O. on how Mr Stefanov had felt on 4 and 5 June 1993,
etc.) and on any possible reasons for him to commit such
an act, if not prompted by the immediate actions of the
police officers present in room 36.
113. In sum, the Court finds that the investigation
lacked the requisite objectivity and thoroughness, a
fact which undermined its ability to establish the cause
of Mr Stefanov’s death and injuries. Its effectiveness
cannot, therefore, be gauged on the basis of the number
of reports made, witnesses questioned or other
investigative measures taken.
114. As to the investigation’s promptness, the Court
observes that while the authorities carried out a
certain number of immediate actions, such as an on-site
inspection, an autopsy, and blood and urine tests, and
took the statement of Mr D.O. shortly after the events,
the military investigator started working on the case
more than six months later (see paragraph 34 above). It
is also noteworthy that lieutenant I.C. was questioned
for the first time a year after the events (see
paragraph 36 above), and chief sergeants H.B. and B.B.
more than three and half years after the events (see
paragraphs 50 and 51 above). Finally, it should be noted
that the overall length of the investigation was almost
five years. During that time the authorities only
questioned five or six witnesses, commissioned two
medical reports and one autopsy report, and carried out
two inspections and a dummy test, with very lengthy
periods of inactivity between the various investigative
actions.
115. Finally, as regards involvement of the next of kin
in the investigation, it is noteworthy that the
applicants were not consistently kept abreast of its
progress, despite their lawyer’s requests for
information (see paragraphs 43 and 61 above).
116. On the basis of the above considerations, the Court
finds that the investigation in the present case fell
foul of the standards set out in the Court’s case-law.
It follows that there has been a violation of the
respondent State’s obligation under Article 2 of the
Convention to conduct an effective investigation into Mr
Stefanov’s death.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
117. The applicants complained that prior to his fall
from the window of room 36 Mr Stefanov had been
ill-treated and that the authorities had not carried out
an effective investigation into this allegation. They
relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which provides as
follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
118. The applicants submitted that a number of injuries
found on Mr Stefanov’s body could not be the result of
his impact against the ground and were indicative of
torture. However, these injuries had never been properly
analysed, since the autopsy report and the ensuing
medical expert report had merely stated that all
injuries had been sustained during the allegedly
two-stage fall. The applicants submitted that in view of
the lack of a plausible explanation as to the origin of
these injuries, the authorities could be considered
responsible for their infliction during the Mr
Stefanov’s detention.
119. Referring to their arguments in respect of the
investigation under Article 2, the applicants also
argued that there had also been a breach of the
obligation of the authorities to conduct an effective
investigation into the allegations that Mr Stefanov had
been ill-treated.
120. The Government referred to their arguments
concerning the alleged violations of Article 2.
121. The Court found above that the Government had not
provided a plausible explanation for a number of
injuries found on Mr Stefanov’s body (see paragraphs 97,
98 and 101 above).
122. Those injuries were indicative of inhuman treatment
beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the
Convention.
123. There has therefore been a violation of that
provision.
124. The Court does not deem it necessary to make a
separate finding under Article 3 in respect of the
deficiencies in the investigation, having already dealt
with that question under Article 2 (see paragraphs
108-16 above; and Anguelova, cited above, § 149, with
further references).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
125. The applicants complained that Mr Stefanov’s arrest
had been unlawful and that the authorities had not
investigated this. They relied on Article 5 § 1 (c) of
the Convention, which provides:
“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of
person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in
the following cases and in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected
for the purpose of bringing him before the competent
legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having
committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered
necessary to prevent his committing an offence or
fleeing after having done so[.]”
126. The applicants submitted that Mr Stefanov had been
arrested and detained without an order to that effect,
in breach of domestic law. They further complained that
this aspect of the case had not been properly
investigated by the authorities.
127. The Government did not comment.
128. The Court notes that, since the investigation did
not establish the facts relating to Mr Stefanov’s
detention and did not gather any documents in this
respect (see paragraph 58 above), it is not clear on the
basis of which provisions of domestic law (see
paragraphs 72-74 above), if any, he was taken into
custody. Nor have the Government provided any
explanations in that regard.
129. The Court’s case-law is clear on the point that the
absence of data on such matters as the date, time and
location of detention, the name of the detainee, as well
as the reasons for the detention and the name of the
person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with
the very purpose of Article 5 (see Anguelova, cited
above, § 154, with further references). Since such
information is in most cases by its very nature
exclusively within the knowledge of the authorities, it
is incumbent on them to point to the factual and legal
grounds for the detention of an individual. In the case
at hand they did not comment on this issue at any point
during the proceedings; nor was any information about Mr
Stefanov’s detention gathered during the investigation,
as the relevant records in the Kazanluk police station
had not been preserved (see paragraph 58 above).
130. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that Mr
Stefanov’s deprivation of liberty was not “lawful”
within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the
Convention. There has therefore been a violation of that
provision.
131. Having taken into account the authorities’
inability to establish the circumstances in which Mr
Stefanov’s was deprived of his liberty and the legal
grounds therefor, the Court does not deem it necessary
to make a separate finding under Article 5 § 1 in
respect of the alleged deficiencies in the
investigation.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
132. The applicants complained that they did not have
effective remedies in respect of the alleged violations
of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. They relied on
Article 13 thereof, which provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in
[the] Convention are violated shall have an effective
remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that
the violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity.”
133. The applicants repeated their arguments in respect
of the complaints under the procedural limbs of Articles
2 and 3.
134. The Government submitted that the decisions of the
investigators and the prosecutors in charge of the case
could be appealed against before the Military
Prosecutor’s Office and the Chief Prosecutor’s Office.
The applicants had availed themselves of this
opportunity. One of their appeals had resulted in the
remitting of the case for further investigation.
135. Article 13 guarantees the availability at national
level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the
Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they
might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order.
Its effect is thus to require the provision of a
domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an
arguable complaint under the Convention and to grant
appropriate relief, although Contracting States are
afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they
conform to their Convention obligations under this
provision. The scope of the obligation under Article 13
varies depending on the nature of the applicants’
complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy
required by Article 13 must be effective in practice as
well as in law.
136. In cases of suspicious deaths, given the
fundamental importance of the right to the protection of
life, Article 13 requires, in addition to the payment of
compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective
investigation capable of leading to the identification
and punishment of those responsible, including effective
access for the complainant to the investigation
procedure (see Anguelova, cited above, § 161, with
further references).
137. The Court finds that the applicants had an arguable
claim under Articles 2 and 3 in respect of Mr Stefanov’s
death and ill-treatment and that, for the purposes of
Article 13, they should accordingly have been able to
avail themselves of effective and practical remedies
capable of leading to the identification and punishment
of those responsible and to an award of compensation.
138. However, in the case at hand, the criminal
investigation into the suspicious death was ineffective
as it lacked sufficient objectivity and thoroughness
(see paragraphs 108-16 above). The effectiveness of any
other remedy that may have existed was consequently
undermined. The Court accordingly finds that the State
has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the
Convention. There has therefore been a violation of that
Article.
V. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION
139. The applicants complained that the alleged breaches
of Articles 2, 3, 5 § 1 and 13 of the Convention had
been incited by Mr Stefanov’s Roma ethnic origin. They
relied on Article 14 of the Convention, which provides:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in
[the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination
on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a national minority, property,
birth or other status.”
A. The parties’ submissions
140. The applicants submitted that Mr Stefanov’s
ill-treatment and death and the ensuing refusal of the
prosecution authorities to bring charges against those
responsible had been due to his Roma ethnic origin. In
their view, this allegation had to be seen against the
backdrop of a pattern of police abuse and ill-treatment
of Roma in Bulgaria and of the failure of the
prosecution authorities to investigate and prosecute
racially motivated police violence. In this respect the
applicants relied on a number of reports by governmental
and non-governmental organisations (see paragraph 76
above). They also referred to the Chamber’s judgment in
the case of Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos.
43577/98 and 43579/98, 26 February 2004) and submitted
that in view of the high incidence of police violence
against Roma in Bulgaria, the prosecution authorities
should have also investigated that aspect of the case,
which they had completely neglected.
141. The Government submitted that the ethnicity of Mr
Stefanov had had no incidence on the facts of the case.
It was noteworthy in this respect that the other person
who had been arrested at the same time, Mr D.O., had
made no allegations of ill-treatment; on the contrary,
he had corroborated the police officers’ version of the
events. Moreover, there were no direct or indirect
indications of racial hatred or bias behind the alleged
assault of Mr Stefanov.
142. The investigation into Mr Stefanov’s death had been
thorough and comprehensive. The authorities’ findings of
fact had been based on the statements of the witnesses,
the medical expert reports and the dummy test. Even if
the applicants contested the veracity of the statements,
the other pieces of evidence remained unrebutted. The
military investigation authorities were not obliged to
investigate the theoretical aspects of a case where
there were no apparent leads to a possible hate crime.
The authorities had performed the investigation
according to principles they would have applied
irrespective of the victim’s ethnicity. To hold that
they should, in addition, have specifically investigated
any racial motives would mean to impose a duty on them
to do so every time the alleged victim belonged to a
minority group. In the case at hand such a line of
inquiry would have been completely unwarranted and would
run counter to the principles underlying the Convention
and the general public international law. The Government
stressed in this connection that the general reports of
non-governmental organisations on the discriminatory
attitudes against Roma suspected of criminal offences in
Bulgaria were irrelevant, as there were no specific
facts in the case which could cast doubts in that
respect. These reports alone could not provide a
sufficient basis for the Court to find the investigation
problematic under Article 14, as it had to confine its
examination to the specific facts of the case before it.
B. The Court’s assessment
143. In its recent judgment in the case of Nachova and
Others v. Bulgaria the Grand Chamber of the Court
examined an almost identical complaint and set out the
relevant principles for assessing whether racial
prejudice had played a role in a killing by State agents
and whether the authorities subsequently discharged
their positive obligation to investigate the allegations
of racially-motivated violence.
144. In assessing whether respondent State was liable
for deprivation of life on the basis of the victims’
race or ethnic origin, the Court adopted an approach
based on the specific circumstances of the case and the
overall context. It looked into several factual elements
pointed by the applicants (excessive use of firearms and
uttering a racial slur by one of the law enforcement
officers), and also at the reports of a number of
organisations, including intergovernmental bodies, which
had expressed concern about the occurrence of violent
incidents against Roma in Bulgaria. In the circumstances
it found those insufficient to conclude that racist
attitudes had played a role in the events leading to the
death (see Nachova and Others, cited above, §§ 144-59).
145. As regards the authorities’ obligation to
investigate the deaths of persons belonging to an ethnic
minority, the Court held that when investigating deaths
at the hands of State agents, they have the duty to take
all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to
establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice
could have played a role in the events. The authorities
must do what is reasonable in the circumstances to
collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical
means of discovering the truth and deliver fully
reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without
omitting suspicious facts that may be indicative of a
racially induced violence (ibid., §§ 160 and 161). In
its later analysis of the specific circumstances of the
case, the Court placed particular reliance on the racist
slur uttered by one of the State agents involved in the
events and on the fact that he had used grossly
excessive force against two unarmed and non-violent men.
It found that these, seen against the background of the
many published accounts of the existence in Bulgaria of
prejudice and hostility against Roma, called for
verification, and concluded that the authorities had
before them plausible information which was sufficient
to alert them to the need to carry out an initial
verification and, depending on the outcome, an
investigation into possible racist overtones in the
events at issue (ibid., §§ 163-66).
146. In the case at hand, unlike the situation obtaining
in Nachova and Others, the materials in the case file
contain no concrete indication that racist attitudes had
played a role in the events of 4 and 5 June 1993. Nor
have the applicants pointed to any such facts.
147. It is true that, as noted above, a number of
organisations, including intergovernmental bodies, have
expressed concern about the occurrence of incidents
involving the use of force against Roma by Bulgarian law
enforcement officers that had not resulted in the
conviction of those responsible (see paragraph 76
above). However, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact
that its sole concern is to ascertain whether in the
case at hand the death of Mr Stefanov was the result of
racism (ibid., § 155), and, failing further information
or explanations, must conclude that it has not been
established that racist attitudes played a role in
events leading to his injuries and death.
148. Concerning the authorities’ duty to investigate,
the Court notes that it has already found that the
Bulgarian authorities violated Article 2 in that they
failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into the
death of Mr Stefanov (see paragraph 116 above). It
considers, as in Nachova and Others, that in the present
case it must examine separately the complaint that there
was also a failure to investigate a possible causal link
between alleged racist attitudes and his death. However,
it notes that, unlike the situation obtaining in Nachova
and Others (cited above, § 163), in the case at hand the
authorities did not have before them any concrete
element capable of suggesting that the death of Mr
Stefanov was the result of racial prejudice. While the
Court does not underestimate the fact that there exist
many published accounts of the existence in Bulgaria of
prejudice and hostility against Roma (see paragraph 76
above), it does not consider that in the particular
circumstances the authorities had before them
information which was sufficient to alert them to the
need to investigate possible racist overtones in the
events that led to the death of Mr Stefanov.
149. It follows that there have been no violations of
Article 14 of the Convention taken together with
Articles 2, 3, 5 § 1 and 13 thereof.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
150. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of
the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned
allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court
shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the
injured party.”
A. Damage
151. The first applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) as
compensation for the non-pecuniary damage resulting from
the death of Mr Stefanov, whereas the second applicant
claimed EUR 10,000. They submitted that the compensation
claimed was for pain and suffering, as well as loss of
moral and financial support. They relied on a number of
judgments in similar cases and summarised the relevant
criteria in the Court’s case-law. The applicants argued
that the events leading to Mr Stefanov’s death had
gravely upset them, as had the lengthy and ineffective
investigation. Finally, the applicants invited the Court
to take into account the vulnerability of Mr Stefanov’s
family, which had lost his support.
152. The Government submitted that the claim was
unfounded as there had been no violations of the
Convention. The cases to which the applicants referred
were inapposite, as they concerned suspicious deaths in
custody and inadequate investigations, which was not the
case here. There was no indication that physical force
had been used against Mr Stefanov, as established by the
ensuing investigation, which had been thorough and
objective. The Government were of the view that the
applicants’ claim was in fact for pecuniary damages and
as such speculative and unproven. Insofar as it could be
construed as a claim for non-pecuniary damages, it was
excessive.
153. The Court notes from the outset that it has already
found violations of Articles 2, 3, 5 § 1 and 13 of the
Convention. Therefore, it does not have to re-examine
the merits of the case here, as would seem to be the
implication of the Government’s comments. It further
notes that the applicants have not sought compensation
for the pecuniary damage resulting from Mr Stefanov’s
death, as is apparent from the tenor of their claims. It
is thus unnecessary to consider the Government’s
arguments in this respect.
154. As regards claim for compensation for the
non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the
applicants must have suffered gravely as a result of the
serious violations, found in the present case, of the
most fundamental human rights enshrined in the
Convention. The Court notes that the case concerns the
death of the first applicant’s partner and father of two
of her children, and the second applicant’s son. Having
regard to its judgments in similar cases (see Velikova
v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2000-VI;
Anguelova, cited above, §§ 170-73; and Nachova and
Others, cited above, §§ 171-72), it awards the amounts
claimed in full.
B. Costs and expenses
155. The applicants sought the reimbursement of EUR
6,120 for 70 hours of legal work at the rate of EUR 80,
and 13 hours of travel of their lawyer, at the hourly
rate of EUR 40. They submitted a fees’ agreements with
their lawyer and a time-sheet.
156. The Government were of the view that the amount
claimed was excessive if compared to the usual lawyers’
fees in Bulgaria.
157. The Court considers that the costs and expenses
claimed were actually and necessarily incurred and
relate to the violations found (see Nachova and Others,
cited above § 175). As to the amounts, it considers that
the claim appears excessive. Taking into account all
relevant factors, it awards jointly to the two
applicants EUR 4,000, plus any tax that may be
chargeable, to be paid into their the bank account of
their lawyer, Mr Y. Grozev, in Bulgaria.
C. Default interest
158. The Court considers it appropriate that the default
interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of
the European Central Bank, to which should be added
three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of
the Convention in respect of Mr Stefanov’s death;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of
the Convention in that the authorities failed to conduct
an effective investigation into Mr Stefanov’s death;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of
the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 §
1 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13
of the Convention;
6. Holds that there have been no violations of Article
14 of the Convention;
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants,
within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable on the date of
settlement:
(i) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) to the first
applicant and EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the
second applicant, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) in respect of costs
and expenses, jointly to both applicants;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above
amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable
on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal
lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
8. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for
just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 February
2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
OGNYANOVA AND CHOBAN v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT
OGNYANOVA AND CHOBAN v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT