ECtHR, XX v. Spain, No. 74016/12 & ECtHR, XX v. Spain, No. 3344/13, 2014
- 2014
- Spain
Topics
Membership in a terrorist organisation SeparatismLegal bases
European Convention on Human RightsCourts
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)Laws
Torture, degrading and inhuman and treatment Effective official investigation into the allegationsFacts
The applicants, XX and XX, were arrested on 1 March 2011 and 10 November 2008 respectively by the police and placed in incommunicado police custody for five days (Ms XX) and four days (Mr XX) in the course of judicial investigations into the offences of presumed membership of the terrorist organisation ETA and of SEGI, a branch of ETA, respectively. Both applicants alleged that they had been subjected to severe psychological and physical violence and threats of violence during their arrest and the subsequent incommunicado detention. On 15 March 2011 and 6 April 2009 respectively, Ms XX and Mr XX complained to Bilbao investigating judge no. 1 and the Pamplona duty judge respectively. Provisional discontinuance orders were issued by Bilbao investigative judge no. 1 (Ms XX) and Pamplona investigating judge no. 4 (Mr XX). They considered that, in view of the reports prepared by the forensic doctors during their police custody and copies of the statements made by the applicants, it had not been established that the offence of torture imputed to the police officers had been committed. Those orders were upheld by the Biscay and Navarre Audiencias Provinciales, and the applicants’ amparo appeals were declared inadmissible.
Legal grounds
Article 3 of the ECHR
Findings
Article 3 (Investigation) The Court held that the applicants had had arguable complaints under Article 3 of the Convention and that, in consequence, the authorities ought to have carried out in-depth and effective investigations capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. The Court emphasised that the effective investigations that had been required in the light of the position of vulnerability of the applicants, who were being held in incommunicado detention, had not been conducted. In conclusion, having regard to the failure to carry out an in-depth and effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3. Article 3 (Treatment) The Court was aware of the difficulties that a detainee might face in submitting evidence of ill- treatment sustained in the course or his or her incommunicado detention, especially where the allegations concerned acts of ill-treatment which left no visible traces. However, in the absence of sufficient evidence, the Court was unable to find that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the ill-treatment allegedly sustained in this case, as it could not conclude “beyond reasonable doubt” that ill-treatment had indeed occurred. It wished to point out that this inability resulted, to a large extent, from the Spanish authorities’ failure to carry out an in-depth and effective investigation.