[неофициальный перевод]
ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЙ СУД ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА
СУДЕБНОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ
ТОМАЗИ (TOMASI) ПРОТИВ ФРАНЦИИ
(Страсбург, 27 августа 1992 года)
(Извлечение)
КРАТКОЕ НЕОФИЦИАЛЬНОЕ ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВ ДЕЛА
A. Основные факты
Гражданин Франции г-н Томази был арестован полицией в Бастии
(Верхняя Корсика) 23 марта 1983 г. по подозрению в соучастии в
убийстве и покушении на убийство, совершенных 11 февраля 1982 г.
бывшим членом ФНОК (Фронт национального освобождения Корсики).
25 марта 1983 г. ему было предъявлено обвинение, и в течение
длительного времени он находился в предварительном заключении. Он
двадцать три раза подавал просьбу об освобождении под залог или
поручительство, но каждый раз его просьба отклонялась. Кроме того,
29 марта 1983 г. он подал жалобу на жестокое обращение с ним во
время его содержания в полицейском участке. Он был обследован
несколькими медицинскими экспертами, которые обнаружили различные
телесные повреждения. Длительное следствие, в ходе которого был
сменен следователь, судебные разбирательства в конечном итоге
завершились тем, что 22 октября 1988 г. Томази был оправдан судом
ассизов Жиронды и по решению судебной Комиссии по возмещению
ущерба получил компенсацию в 300000 франков.
B. Разбирательство в Комиссии по правам человека
В жалобе, поданной в Комиссию 10 марта 1987 г., заявитель
утверждал, что имело место нарушение статей 3, 6 п. 1 и 5 п. 3
Конвенции. 13 марта 1990 г. жалоба была объявлена приемлемой.
После неудачной попытки уладить дело мировым соглашением сторон,
Комиссия 11 декабря 1990 г. подготовила доклад, в котором были
установлены факты и выражено мнение, что имело место нарушение
статьи 3 (двенадцать голосов против двух), статьи 6 п. 1
(тринадцать голосов против одного) и статьи 5 п. 3 (единогласно)
Конвенции.
Комиссия передала дело в Суд 8 марта 1991 г. Правительство
сделало то же самое 13 мая 1991 г.
ИЗВЛЕЧЕНИЕ ИЗ СУДЕБНОГО РЕШЕНИЯ
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
I. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 5 п. 3
75. По утверждению заявителя, длительность его заключения
нарушает статью 5, пункт 3 которой гласит:
"Каждое лицо, подвергнутое аресту или задержанию в
соответствии с положениями подпункта "c" пункта 1 настоящей
статьи... имеет право на судебное разбирательство в течение
разумного срока или на освобождение до суда. Освобождение может
ставиться в зависимость от предоставления гарантий явки в суд".
A. Предварительные возражения Правительства
76. Правительство выдвинуло два предварительных возражения: не
были исчерпаны все средства внутренней защиты и заявитель утратил
статус жертвы.
77. Ссылаясь на свою постоянную судебную практику (см. Решение
по делу Дрозда и Янусека от 26 июня 1992 г. Серия A, т. 240,
с. 31 - 32, п. 100), Суд считает себя компетентным рассматривать
такие возражения, хотя Комиссия и утверждает обратное по первому
из них.
1. Были ли исчерпаны все внутренние правовые средства?
78. Правительство подчеркивает, как оно это уже делало в
Европейской комиссии, что г-н Томази обратился в Комиссию уже
10 марта 1987 г., то есть еще до того, как он обратился в Комиссию
по возмещению ущерба при Кассационном суде (см. п. 1 и 40 выше).
По мнению Правительства, возмещение, предоставленное 8 ноября
1991 г. Комиссией (см. п. 42 выше), делает жалобу по статье 5 п. 3
Конвенции необоснованной.
79. Суд согласен с заявителем и представителем Комиссии в том,
что право добиваться прекращения лишения свободы отличается от
права получить возмещение за такое лишение. Суд отмечает, что
статья 149 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса связывает выплату
возмещения с определенными условиями, которые не требуются по
статье 5 п. 3 Конвенции: принятие "окончательного решения об
отсутствии состава преступления или оправдании" и наличие
"очевидно аномального и особо серьезного ущерба" (см. п. 40 выше).
Наконец, г-н Томази подал свое заявление в Страсбург после
четырехлетнего заключения.
Следовательно, это возражение Правительства подлежит
отклонению.
2. По возражению об утрате статуса жертвы
80. По мнению Правительства, заявитель утратил статус "жертвы"
в смысле статьи 25 п. 1. Своим решением о выплате ему
300000 франков Комиссия по возмещению ущерба признала превышение
"разумного срока" и исправила ситуацию.
Заявитель не согласен с таким утверждением.
81. Суд отмечает, что эта аргументация Правительства впервые
прозвучала на слушании 25 февраля 1992 г., а не в сроки,
установленные статьей 48 п. 1 Регламента Суда. Однако
Правительство представило свои соображения до принятия решения
Комиссией по возмещению ущерба, соответственно, данная
аргументация не может считаться запоздалой.
Вместе с тем она вызывает те же возражения, что и утверждение
о неиспользовании всех средств внутренней защиты. Следовательно,
возражение Правительства лишено основания.
B. Об обоснованности жалобы
82. Г-н Томази считает, что срок его предварительного
заключения был чрезмерным. Это заявление оспаривается
Правительством, но с ним согласна Комиссия.
83. Рассматриваемый период начался 23 марта 1983 г., когда
заявитель был арестован, и завершился 22 октября 1988 г.
оправдательным приговором суда ассизов Жиронды. Следовательно, он
длился пять лет и семь месяцев.
84. Национальные судебные власти призваны в первую очередь
следить за тем, чтобы в каждом конкретном случае длительность
предварительного заключения обвиняемого не превышала разумных
пределов. С этой целью они должны рассматривать все
обстоятельства, позволяющие подтвердить наличие публичного
интереса, который с учетом презумпции невиновности оправдывал бы
исключения из общей нормы уважения свободы личности, и учитывать
их в своих решениях, принимаемых по просьбам об освобождении.
Именно на основании мотивов, содержащихся в вышеназванных
решениях, а также мотивов, указанных заявителем в его обращениях,
Суд и будет определять, имело ли место нарушение статьи 5 п. 3.
Наличие серьезных оснований подозревать арестованного в
совершении правонарушения является условием sine qua non
правомерности содержания под стражей, но по истечении
определенного срока только этого уже недостаточно; Суд должен в
этом случае определить, оправдывают ли лишение свободы другие
принятые во внимание судебными властями аргументы. Если они
окажутся "относящимися к делу" и "достаточными", Суд должен
установить, проявили ли национальные компетентные органы "особую
старательность" в ходе расследования (см. в качестве примера
последнего Решение по делу Клосса от 12 декабря 1991 г. Серия A,
т. 225, с. 14, п. 36).
1. Мотивы продолжения содержания под стражей
85. Для отклонения прошений об освобождении г-на Томази
следственные органы выдвигали - по отдельности или совокупно -
четыре основные причины: тяжесть фактов; предохранение публичного
порядка; необходимость не допустить давления на свидетелей или
сговора с другими обвиняемыми по делу; опасность сокрытия от
правосудия.
a) Тяжесть фактов
86. Следователи и обвинительные Палаты подчеркивали особую или
исключительную тяжесть фактов, вменявшихся в вину заявителю.
87. Заявитель не оспаривает этого, но считает эту причину
недостаточной для оправдания столь длительного предварительного
заключения при отсутствии иных подозрений, кроме принадлежности к
националистическому движению. Такая длительность предварительного
заключения может быть приравнена к реальному сроку отбытия
наказания лицом, приговоренным к десяти годам тюремного
заключения.
88. Что касается Правительства, то оно настаивает на
неизменных показаниях другого обвиняемого по делу - г-на
Мораккини, уверявшего, что г-н Томази участвовал в подготовке и
организации покушения.
89. Наличие, неоднократно подтвержденное, серьезных признаков
виновности, несомненно, является важным фактором, но Суд, как и
Комиссия, считает, что само по себе оно не оправдывает столь
длительного предварительного заключения.
b) Предохранение публичного порядка
90. Большинство судов, занимавшихся этим делом, энергично и в
очень сходных формулировках настаивали на необходимости охранять
публичный порядок от волнений, вызываемых преступлениями и
правонарушениями, которые вменялись в вину заявителю.
Правительство соглашается с этим доводом, в то время как
заявитель и Комиссия подвергают его критике.
91. Суд признает, что некоторые правонарушения в силу их
особой тяжести и реакции на них общественности способны привести к
социальным волнениям, что оправдывает предварительное заключение,
по крайней мере в течение определенного времени.
Следовательно, в особых обстоятельствах и, конечно, при
наличии достаточных доказательств (см. п. 84 выше) этот элемент
может учитываться с точки зрения Конвенции, во всяком случае там,
где внутреннее право юридически закрепляет - как, например,
статья 144 французского Уголовно-процессуального кодекса - понятие
нарушения публичного порядка в результате правонарушения. Однако
его можно считать явным и достаточным только тогда, когда он
основан на фактах, свидетельствующих, что освобождение
заключенного действительно способно нарушить публичный порядок или
если этот порядок находится под реальной угрозой. Предварительное
заключение не должно предвосхищать наказание в виде лишения
свободы (см. Решение по делу Кеммаша от 27 ноября 1991 г. Серия A,
т. 218, с. 25, п. 52).
В данном конкретном случае следователи и обвинительные Палаты
рассматривали необходимость продления срока содержания под стражей
в исключительно абстрактной форме, ограничившись подчеркиванием
тяжести содеянного (см. mutatis mutandis то же Решение, с. 25,
п. 52) или его последствий. В любом случае террористический акт
против центра отдыха Иностранного легиона был преднамеренным
террористическим актом, ответственность за который взяла на себя
подпольная организация, ведущая, по ее заявлению, вооруженную
борьбу. В результате этого акта один человек погиб, другой получил
тяжкие телесные повреждения. Следовательно, вполне закономерно
полагать, что изначально существовало нарушение публичного
порядка, но со временем оно исчезло.
c) Опасность давления на свидетелей и сговора с другими
обвиняемыми по делу
92. Ряд судебных решений по данному делу был обусловлен
существованием опасности давления на свидетелей - Обвинительная
палата г. Пуатье даже заявляла о "кампании запугивания" - и
опасности сговора между всеми обвиняемыми по делу, в то же время
никаких подробностей не приводилось (см. п. 16, 22 и 35 выше).
93. По мнению Правительства, угрозы в адрес г-на Мораккини не
допускали возможность освобождения. Г-н Томази мог бы
способствовать усилению давления на г-на Мораккини, который был
тем лицом, с которого началось уголовное преследование, и который
затем пытался покончить с собой.
94. Заявитель оспаривает это утверждение, в то время как
Комиссия своего мнения не высказывает.
95. По мнению Суда, реальная опасность давления на свидетелей
существовала с самого начала. Со временем она уменьшалась, но
полностью не исчезла.
d) Опасность побега
96. Правительство утверждает, что существовала опасность
побега. Оно ссылается на тяжесть наказания, которое грозило г-ну
Томази. Оно ссылается также на бегство г-на Пьери, который
преследовался за те же нарушения закона, что и г-н Томази, и так
же, как и г-н Томази, все время заявлял о своей невиновности, но
тем не менее в течение трех с половиной лет скрывался от
правосудия. Наконец, оно ссылается на специфику ситуации на
Корсике.
97. Заявитель утверждает, что он представлял достаточные
гарантии своей явки в суд; они основывались на его статусе
коммерсанта, на том, что его судебное досье чисто, и на том, что у
него безупречная репутация.
98. Суд отмечает, что доводы Правительства, приведенные в
Суде, не содержатся в оспариваемых судебных решениях. Конечно, эти
решения основывались в своем большинстве на том, что г-н Томази
должен находиться в распоряжении правосудия (см. п. 16, 22, 31 и
35 выше), но только в одном из них - Решении Обвинительной палаты
г. Пуатье от 22 мая 1987 г. - эта установка конкретизирована
указанием на возможное содействие членов бывшего ФНОК с тем, чтобы
он мог скрыться от правосудия (см. п. 35 выше).
Кроме того, Суд напоминает, что опасность побега нельзя
оценивать только на основании тяжести наказания; она должна
оцениваться на основании совокупности дополнительных данных,
которые могут либо подтвердить ее наличие, либо показать, что она
настолько невелика, что не может оправдывать длительность
предварительного заключения (см., в частности, Решение по делу
Летелье от 26 июня 1991 г. Серия A, т. 207, с. 19, п. 43). В
данном случае в решениях следственных органов не содержится
мотивов, которые могли бы объяснить, почему, невзирая на
аргументы, представляемые заявителем в его прошениях об
освобождении, они сочли определяющим элементом опасность побега и
не пытались сочетать его, например, с использованием таких
средств, как внесение залога и режим судебного контроля.
e) Вывод
99. В целом некоторые мотивы отказа г-ну Томази в его просьбах
были очевидными и достаточными, но со временем они в значительной
степени утратили свою остроту, поэтому следует рассмотреть
движение процедуры разбирательства.
2. Проведение разбирательства
100. По мнению заявителя, дело не представляло особой
сложности, так как следствие по нему закончилось уже 18 октября
1983 г. (см. п. 12 выше). Однако судебные власти продолжали
совершать ошибки и упущения; в частности, прокуратура отказывалась
затребовать материалы, оспаривала проведенные следственные
действия, давала отвод судьям Бастии, передала дело в суд, не
имевший полномочий. Конечно, Закон от 30 декабря 1986 г. усложнил
ситуацию, так как на его основании к текущим делам стал
применяться Закон от 9 сентября 1986 г., но в то время г-н Томази
находился в заключении уже около четырех лет. Он сожалеет о том,
что за пять лет он был допрошен судебным следователем только один
раз - 5 сентября 1985 г. в Бордо.
По поводу собственного поведения он напоминает, что двадцать
одно из своих двадцати трех прошений об освобождении он подал
после повторного допроса (см. п. 14, 21, 31, 33 - 36 выше) и что
кассационную жалобу на Решение Обвинительной палаты г. Бордо он
подал 27 мая 1986 г., что привело к отмене решения из-за нарушения
прав защиты (см. п. 19 выше).
Комиссия в принципе согласна с этим доводом.
101. Правительство со своей стороны не считает неразумной
длительность срока. Прежде всего оно настаивает на сложности
предъявления обвинения заявителю и трем другим обвиняемым по делу,
учитывая принятие Закона от 30 декабря 1986 г. и совпадающую
компетенцию Обвинительных палат г. Пуатье и г. Бордо. Кроме того,
оно опирается на даты процессуальных действий, чтобы показать, что
власти действовали оперативно и оба замедления в разбирательстве
объяснялись отстранением судьи из г. Бастии и применением Закона
от 30 декабря 1986 г. Оно упрекает г-на Томази в подаче нескольких
жалоб, в частности, после первого решения о предъявлении обвинения
от 27 мая 1986 г. в Бордо, что сильно затянуло начало судебного
разбирательства. Наконец, подчеркивая большое число прошений об
освобождении, поданных заявителем, оно считает его частично
ответственным за длительность его заключения.
102. Суд согласен, что особая быстрота, на которую находящийся
в заключении обвиняемый имеет право рассчитывать при рассмотрении
его дела, не должна мешать тщательным усилиям судей по исполнению
их обязанностей с должной тщательностью (см., в частности, mutatis
mutandis Решение по делу Тота от 12 декабря 1991 г. Серия A,
т. 224, с. 20 - 21, п. 77). Из дела тем не менее следует, что
французские суды не проявили в данном деле должной оперативности.
Генеральный прокурор при Кассационном суде признал это в своем
заключении от 5 июня 1991 г., представленном в Комиссию по
возмещению ущерба: следствие "могло бы быть значительно сокращено,
если бы не обнаруженные многочисленные нарушения сроков", особенно
с ноября 1983 г. по январь 1985 г. и с мая 1986 г. по апрель 1988
г. Следовательно, оспариваемая длительность заключения не может
быть отнесена на счет сложности дела, или поведения заявителя.
3. Вывод
103. Следовательно, нарушение статьи 5 п. 3 имело место.
II. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 3
104. Г-н Томази утверждает, что во время его содержания под
стражей в комиссариате полиции г. Бастии он подвергался жестокому
обращению, несовместимому со статьей 3, которая гласит:
"Никто не должен подвергаться пыткам и бесчеловечному или
унижающему достоинство обращению или наказанию."
A. Предварительное возражение Правительства
105. Правительство утверждает, что не были использованы все
внутренние правовые средства: по его мнению, заявитель мог бы
добиться возмещения ущерба в гражданских судах, поскольку
государство отвечает за неправомерные действия его служащих при
исполнении ими своих обязанностей.
106. Единственным доказательством того, что были использованы
не все средства внутренней защиты, которое Правительство
представило Комиссии в контексте статьи 3, была преждевременность
подачи заявления в Страсбург, так как французскими судами не было
принято никакого решения по существу дела. Суд, как и
представитель Комиссии, считает, что право ссылаться на это
обстоятельство отпало в связи с истечением преклюзивного срока.
B. Об обоснованности жалобы
107. В жалобе г-на Томази по данному делу ставятся два
отдельных, хотя и тесно взаимосвязанных вопроса: прежде всего
вопрос о причинной связи между жестоким обращением с ним во время
его содержания под стражей в комиссариате полиции и телесными
повреждениями, зафиксированными после этого следователем и
врачами; затем, в случае установления этой связи, - вопрос о
тяжести инкриминируемого обращения.
1. Причинная связь между заявленным жестоким обращением
и зафиксированными телесными повреждениями
108. По словам заявителя, протокол, составленный 25 марта
1983 г. судебным следователем г. Бастии, доклады врачей,
составленные после его содержания под стражей в комиссариате,
подтверждают его заявления, даже несмотря на тот достойный
сожаления факт, что тюремная администрация не представила
рентгеновских снимков, сделанных 2 апреля 1983 г. в больнице г.
Бастии. На его теле имелись следы, имеющие единственное
происхождение - жестокое обращение с ним в течение примерно сорока
часов некоторых ведущих допрос полицейских: пощечины, удары
ногами, кулаками, длительные "стойки" без опоры со скованными за
спиной руками, плевки, раздевание догола перед открытым окном,
отказ в пище, угрозы оружием и т.д.
109. Правительство признает, что не может дать разъяснений о
происхождении телесных повреждений, но, по его словам, они не
являются результатом жестокого обращения с г-ном Томази. Из
медицинских свидетельств якобы следует, что обнаруженные небольшие
синяки и ссадины никак не связаны с насильственными действиями,
которые описывал заявитель; свидетельство главного врача тюрьмы
г. Бастии от 4 июля 1989 г. было якобы выдано с запозданием и
полностью противоречило предыдущим свидетельствам. Что касается
времени проведения допросов, которое не оспаривается заявителем,
то оно не подтверждает того, что говорит заявитель. Наконец,
остальные пять человек, находившиеся в то время под стражей,
ничего не заметили и ничего не слышали, и если кто-то из них
упоминал, что у г-на Томази оказался выбит зуб, то впервые об этом
факте один из врачей заявил лишь шесть лет спустя. Короче говоря,
по заявлению Правительства, налицо очевидные сомнения, которые не
позволяют презюмировать причинную связь между поведением тех, кто
вел допросы, и телесными повреждениями г-на Томази.
110. Как и Комиссия, Суд основывается на нескольких исходных
положениях.
Прежде всего никто не утверждает, что следы, обнаруженные на
теле заявителя, могли появиться до его ареста или объясняться тем,
что он сам нанес их себе, либо они получены при попытке к бегству.
Более того, уже при первой встрече со следователем он показал
ему следы на груди и под ухом; следователь отметил этот факт и
немедленно назначил экспертизу (см. п. 45, 48 выше).
Кроме того, четыре разных врача - один из них был из тюремной
администрации - осматривали обвиняемого в первые дни после его
содержания под стражей в полиции. Их показания содержат точные и
совпадающие медицинские свидетельства, а также даты появления ран,
которые соответствуют срокам пребывания в полиции (см. п. 47, 48 и
50 выше).
111. Такие выводы освобождают Суд от необходимости вникать в
другие действия, вменяемые в вину служащим полиции.
2. О тяжести жестокого обращения, на которое
жалуется заявитель
112. Основываясь на Судебном решении по делу Ирландия против
Соединенного Королевства от 18 января 1978 г. (Серия A, т. 25),
заявитель утверждает, что наносившиеся ему удары представляли
собой бесчеловечное и унижающее его достоинство обращение: с одной
стороны, они причиняли ему сильные моральные и физические
страдания; с другой стороны, они вызывали у него чувство страха,
тревоги и неполноценности, которые могли унизить его и сломить его
физическое и моральное сопротивление.
Он призывает Суд проявить особую бдительность в этом вопросе,
учитывая особенности французской системы содержания под стражей в
полиции, в частности, отсутствие адвоката и любых контактов с
внешним миром.
113. Со своей стороны, Комиссия подчеркивает уязвимость лица,
находящегося в предварительном заключении, и выражает удивление
выбором времени допросов. Хотя телесные повреждения могут
показаться достаточно легкими, они представляют собой
свидетельство применения физической силы в отношении лишенного
свободы лица, которое, следовательно, находится в неравном
положении; подобное обращение носит характер одновременно
бесчеловечного и унижающего достоинство.
114. Напротив, по мнению Правительства, "минимальная тяжесть",
требуемая на основании судебной практики (см. упоминавшееся выше
Решение по делу Ирландия против Соединенного Королевства и Решение
по делу Тайрера от 25 апреля 1978 г. Серия A, т. 26), не была
достигнута. Необходимо также учитывать не только легкость телесных
повреждений, но и остальные обстоятельства дела: молодость и
хорошее состояние здоровья г-на Томази, умеренную длительность
допросов (четырнадцать часов, три из которых - ночью), "особые
обстоятельства" на Корсике в то время, подозрения в соучастии в
террористическом акте, который привел к гибели одного человека и
тяжелому увечью другого. То толкование статьи 3, которое Комиссия
предлагает в данном деле, по мнению Правительства, противоречит
цели Конвенции.
115. Суд не может присоединиться к этому мнению. Суд не
считает себя обязанным рассматривать систему и конкретные условия
содержания под стражей в полицейском учреждении во Франции, так
же, как в данном случае, длительность и частоту допросов
заявителя. Ему достаточно отметить, что медицинские свидетельства
и доклады, независимо составленные практикующими врачами, говорят
об интенсивности и множественности нанесенных г-ну Томази ударов;
налицо два достаточно серьезных элемента, которые придают этому
обращению с ним бесчеловечный и унижающий достоинство характер.
Потребности следствия и бесспорная сложность борьбы с
преступностью, в частности с терроризмом, не могут вести к
ограничению защиты физического состояния человека.
3. Вывод
116. Исходя из сказанного, имело место нарушение статьи 3.
III. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 6 п. 1
117. Наконец, заявитель жалуется на длительность
разбирательства его жалобы на обращение с ним в полиции с
требованием возмещения ущерба. Он ссылается на статью 6 п. 1,
которая гласит:
"Каждый человек имеет право при определении его гражданских
прав и обязанностей... на справедливое и публичное разбирательство
дела в разумный срок независимым и беспристрастным судом..."
A. Предварительное возражение Правительства
118. Правительство утверждает, как оно делало и в Комиссии,
что заявитель не исчерпал все средства внутренней защиты, не
возбудив против государства иска о возмещении ущерба на основании
норм внутреннего права.
119. Суд ограничивается тем, что отмечает, что речь идет о
запоздалом аргументе, поскольку он впервые был заявлен в Суде на
слушании 25 февраля 1992 г., а не в сроки, установленные в
статье 48 п. 1 Регламента.
B. Об обоснованности жалобы
1. О применимости статьи 6 п. 1
120. По утверждению Правительства, оспариваемая процедура не
подпадает под понятие "определение прав и обязанностей
гражданско-правового характера". Лицо, пострадавшее от уголовного
правонарушения, предъявляет публично-правовой иск либо
присоединяется к иску, уже предъявленному прокуратурой. Это лицо
должно настаивать на вынесении обвинительного приговора тому, на
кого принесена жалоба, и на этом основано требование материальной
компенсации. Иными словами, гражданско-правовой аспект обусловлен
тем, нарушен или нет закон.
121. Суд, как и заявитель, а также Комиссия, не может
согласиться с таким мнением.
Статья 85 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса предусматривает
подачу жалобы с одновременным представлением гражданско-правового
требования. Такова судебная практика Кассационного суда при
применении статьи 2 того же Кодекса, которая гласит:
"Право на предъявление гражданского иска о возмещении ущерба,
причиненного преступлением, деликтом или проступком, принадлежит
всем, кто лично понес ущерб, непосредственно причиненный данным
правонарушением".
Судебный следователь признает такой иск допустимым - в данном
случае он так и поступил, - если только приводимые обстоятельства
позволяют ему предположить наличие ущерба и его прямую связь с
правонарушением.
Право на получение возмещения, которого требует г-н Томази,
зависит, следовательно, от исхода его жалобы, то есть от осуждения
лиц, подвергших его, по его утверждению, жестокому обращению. Это
право имеет гражданский характер, невзирая на подсудность дела
уголовным судам (см. mutatis mutandis Решение по делу Морейра де
Азеведо от 23 октября 1990 г. Серия A, т. 189, с. 17, п. 67).
122. Вывод Суда: налицо основания для применения статьи 6
п. 1.
2. О соблюдении статьи 6 п. 1
123. Остается выяснить, имело ли место превышение "разумного
срока". И заявитель, и Комиссия считают, что оно имело место,
Правительство с этим не согласно.
a) Принимаемый во внимание период
124. Принимаемый во внимание период начался 29 марта 1983 г. -
дата подачи жалобы г-ном Томази; а завершился 6 февраля 1989 г. -
дата объявления Решения Кассационного суда об отклонении
кассационной жалобы на Решение Обвинительной палаты Апелляционного
суда г. Бордо (см. п. 46, 47 выше). Следовательно, этот период
насчитывает пять лет и десять месяцев.
b) Обоснованность сроков разбирательства
125. Обоснованность сроков разбирательства оценивается на
основе критериев, сложившихся в практике Суда, и зависит от
обстоятельств дела, которые в данном случае требуют глобальной
оценки.
Как следует из решений, принимавшихся по данному делу (см.
п. 63, 66 и 67 выше), оно не представляло особой сложности. Кроме
того, заявитель отнюдь не способствовал затягиванию
разбирательства, когда он обжаловал постановление о прекращении
уголовного дела в Обвинительной палате Апелляционного суда
г. Бордо и просил провести дополнительное расследование (см. п. 64
выше). Ответственность за отмеченные задержки ложится главным
образом на судебные власти. В частности, прокурор Республики
г. Бастиа лишь по истечении полутора лет обратился в Кассационный
суд по поводу назначения компетентного следственного органа (см.
п. 57, 58 выше). Со своей стороны, судебный следователь г. Бордо
лишь один раз встретился с г-ном Томази и, судя по всему, не
предпринимал никаких следственных действий с марта по сентябрь
1985 г., а затем с января 1986 г. по январь 1987 года.
Следовательно, нарушение статьи 6 п. 1 имело место.
IV. Применение статьи 50
126. В соответствии со статьей 50,
"Если Суд установит, что решение или мера, принятые судебными
или иными властями Высокой Договаривающейся Стороны, полностью или
частично противоречат обязательствам, вытекающим из настоящей
Конвенции, а также если внутреннее право упомянутой Стороны
допускает лишь частичное возмещение последствий такого решения или
такой меры, то решением Суда, если в этом есть необходимость,
предусматривается справедливое возмещение потерпевшей стороне".
На основании этой статьи заявитель требует возмещения ущерба и
компенсации расходов.
A. Ущерб
127. Г-н Томази выделяет три категории ущерба:
a) материальный ущерб в 900000 франков, возникший вследствие
нарушения статьи 5 п. 3 и соответствующий невыплаченной ему
зарплате (600000 франков) и доходам от торговли (300000 франков);
b) ущерб, оцениваемый в общую сумму 200000 франков и
возникший, также в контексте статьи 5 п. 3, в результате тридцати
двух поездок его семьи на континент, чтобы посетить его в тюрьме;
c) моральный вред в 1500000 франков, включая 1000000 - за
нарушение статьи 5 п. 3 и 500000 - за нарушение статей 3 и 6.
128. По мнению Правительства, Комиссия по возмещению ущерба
уже полностью возместила ущерб, связанный с чрезмерностью срока
предварительного заключения. Если Суд установит факт нарушения
статьи 6 п. 1 и статьи 3, то само это решение уже явится
достаточно справедливым удовлетворением морального вреда.
129. Что касается представителя Комиссии, то он настаивает на
выплате суммы, компенсирующей моральный и материальный вред, но
предоставляет Суду оценку этого ущерба.
130. Суд отмечает, что заявитель понес несомненный моральный и
материальный вред. Принимая во внимание различные относящиеся к
делу обстоятельства, в том числе решение Комиссии по возмещению
ущерба, Суд, действуя в соответствии со статьей 50, присуждает ему
в качестве справедливого возмещения 700000 франков.
B. Судебные издержки и расходы
131. Кроме того, г-н Томази требует возместить ему его расходы
и издержки. За разбирательство во французских судах он требует
276500 франков (мэтры Леклерк и Лашо - 141500 франков; мэтр
Станьара - 100000 франков; мэтр Буланже - 5000 франков; мэтр
Ваке - 30000 франков). В качестве возмещения расходов, понесенных
в органах Конвенции, он требует 237200 франков.
132. Правительство и представитель Комиссии не высказались по
поводу первой суммы. По поводу второй суммы Правительство
ссылается на решения, принимавшиеся по делам, где стороной
являлась Франция, а представитель полагается на мудрость Суда.
133. Вынося решение о справедливом возмещении и на основе
критериев, которые он применяет в данной области, Суд присуждает
заявителю в целом 300000 франков.
ПО ЭТИМ ОСНОВАНИЯМ СУД ЕДИНОГЛАСНО
1. Отклонил предварительные возражения Правительства;
2. Постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 5 п. 3,
статьи 3 и статьи 6 п. 1;
3. Постановил, что государство - ответчик должно выплатить
заявителю в течение трех месяцев 700000 (семьсот тысяч)
французских франков за нанесенный ущерб и 300000 (триста тысяч)
французских франков в возмещение судебных издержек и расходов;
4. Отклонил просьбу о справедливом возмещении в остальном.
Совершено на французском и английском языках и оглашено во
Дворце прав человека в Страсбурге 27 августа 1992 г.
Председатель
Рольф РИССДАЛ
Грефье
Марк-Андре ЭЙССЕН
В соответствии со статьей 51 п. 2 Конвенции и статьей 53 п. 2
Регламента Суда к настоящему Решению прилагается совпадающее
мнение судьи Де Мейера.
СОВПАДАЮЩЕЕ МНЕНИЕ СУДЬИ ДЕ МЕЙЕРА
Было бы достойно сожаления, если бы п. 107 - 115 Решения
оставили впечатление, будто бы нанесение ударов находящемуся под
стражей лицу запрещено только в том случае, когда они превышают
определенный "минимум тяжести" <1>, в частности, из-за их
"интенсивности" и "множественности" <2>.
--------------------------------
<1> Решение по делу Ирландия против Соединенного Королевства
от 18 января 1978 г. Серия A, т. 25, с. 65, п. 62.
<2> См. п. 115 настоящего Решения.
В отношении лишенного свободы лица любое применение физической
силы, если оно не вызвано крайней необходимостью из-за его
собственного поведения <3>, наносит ущерб человеческому
достоинству и должно, следовательно, считаться нарушением права,
гарантируемого статьей 3 Конвенции <4>.
--------------------------------
<3> Например, при "попытке к бегству" или в случае "причинения
вреда самому себе" или другим (см. также п. 110 Решения).
<4> Даже если речь идет лишь о "пощечинах или ударах по голове
и лицу", можно удивляться, что Комиссия как бы свыклась с
жестокостями такого рода. См. в этой связи ее доклад по греческому
делу (Annuaire de le Convention, N 12).
Тяжесть обращения имеет особое значение, когда необходимо
установить, применялись ли пытки <5>.
--------------------------------
<5> Пытки представляют собой особо тяжелую форму
"бесчеловечного или унижающего достоинство обращения". См.
статью 1 п. 1 Резолюции ООН 3254, принятой 9 декабря 1975 г., а
также упомянутое Решение Ирландия против Соединенного Королевства,
п. 167, и особое мнение судей Зекиа, О'Донохью и Эвригениса.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF TOMASI v. FRANCE
JUDGMENT
(Strasbourg, 27.VIII.1992)
In the case of Tomasi v. France <1>,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance
with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") <2> and
the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber
composed of the following judges:
--------------------------------
Notes by the Registrar
<1> The case is numbered 27/1991/279/350. The first number is
the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in
the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate
the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court
since its creation and on the list of the corresponding
originating applications to the Commission.
<2> As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which
came into force on 1 January 1990.
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr R. Bernhardt,
Mr F. {Golcuklu} <*>,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr A. Spielmann,
Mr J. De Meyer,
Mr J.M. Morenilla,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке
набраны латинским шрифтом и выделенены фигурными скобками.
and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold,
Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 February and 25 June 1992,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European
Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), and then by the
Government of the French Republic ("the Government"), on 8 March
and 13 May 1991, within the three-month period laid down by
Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the
Convention. It originated in an application (no. 12850/87) against
the French Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25
(art. 25) by a French national, Mr {Felix} Tomasi, on 10 March
1987.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48
(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby France
recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46)
(art. 46); the Government's application referred to Article 48
(art. 48). The object of the request and of the application was to
obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a
breach by the respondent State of its obligations under
Articles 3, 5 para. 3 and 6 para. 1 (art. 3, art. 5-3, art. 6-1).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33
para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that he
wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers
who would represent him (Rule 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr L.-E.
Pettiti, the elected judge of French nationality (Article 43 of
the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the
Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 22 March 1991, in the presence of
the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other
seven members, namely Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert, Mr F. Matscher,
Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr C. Russo, Mr R.
Bernhardt and Mr J.M. Morenilla (Article 43 in fine of the
Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43). Subsequently, Mr F.
{Golcuklu}, Mr A. Spielmann and Mr N. Valticos, substitute judges,
replaced Mrs Bindschedler-Robert, Mr Pinheiro Farinha and Sir
Vincent Evans, who had resigned and whose successors at the Court
had taken up their duties before the hearing (Rules 2 para. 3 and
22 para. 1).
4. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber
(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent
of the Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the
applicant's lawyers on the organisation of the proceedure (Rules
37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the
Government, the applicant and the Delegate of the Commission
lodged their memorials on 5 November, 22 November and 13 December
1991, respectively.
On 9 July 1991 the Commission produced the documents in the
proceedings before it, as the Registrar had requested it to do on
the instructions of the President.
On 20 February 1992 one of the applicant's lawyers provided
various documents at the request of the Registrar or with the
Court's leave, as the case may be (Rule 37 para. 1 in fine).
5. In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing
took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on
25 February 1992. The Court had held a preparatory meeting
beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr J.-P. Puissochet, Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Agent,
Mr B. Gain, Head of the Human Rights Section, Department of
Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Miss M. Picard, magistrat, on secondment to the Department of
Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr R. Riera, Head of the Litigation and Legal Affairs Section,
Department of Public Freedoms and Legal Affairs, Ministry of the
Interior,
Mr J. Boulard, magistrat, on secondment to the Department of
Criminal Affairs and Pardons, Ministry of Justice, Counsel;
(b) for the Commission
Mr H.G. Schermers, Delegate;
(c) for the applicant
Mr H. Leclerc, avocat,
Mr V. Stagnara, avocat, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Puissochet for the Government,
by Mr Schermers for the Commission and by Mr Leclerc and Mr
Stagnara for the applicant, as well as their answers to its
questions. The applicant also addressed the Court.
On the same day the Government replied in writing to the
questions put by the Court.
On 7 April one of the applicant's lawyers sent to the
Registrar a letter concerning these questions, together with a
document, with the Court's leave (Rule 37 para. 1 in fine).
6. At the deliberations on 25 June 1992 Mr J. De Meyer,
substitute judge, who had attended the hearing, replaced Mr
Valticos, who was prevented from taking part in the further
consideration of the case (Rules 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).
AS TO THE FACTS
7. Mr {Felix} Tomasi, a French national born in 1952, resides
at Bastia (Haute-Corse). He is both a shopkeeper and a salaried
accountant. At the time of his arrest, he was an active member of
a Corsican political organisation, which put up candidates for the
local elections and of which he was the treasurer.
8. On 23 March 1983 the police apprehended him in his shop and
placed him in police custody until 25 March at Bastia central
police station.
They suspected him of having taken part in an attack at
Sorbo-Ocagnano (Haute-Corse) in the evening of 11 February 1982
against the rest centre of the Foreign Legion, which was
unoccupied at that time of the year. Senior Corporal Rossi and
Private Steinte, who, unarmed, were responsible for maintaining
and guarding the centre, had been shot at and wounded, the former
fatally and the latter very severely.
The attack had been carried out by a commando of several
persons wearing balaclava helmets to conceal their features. The
following day the "ex-FLNC" (the Corsican National Liberation
Front), a movement seeking independence which had been dissolved
by decree, had claimed responsibility for the attack and for
twenty-four other bomb attacks which had been perpetrated the same
night.
9. On 12 February 1982 the Bastia tribunal de grande instance
had opened an investigation relating to charges of murder,
attempted murder and the carrying of category 1 and category 4
weapons and ammunition. The same day the investigating judge had
issued instructions for evidence to be taken on commission
(commission rogatoire) to the Regional Criminal Investigation
Department (SRPJ) of Ajaccio.
I. The criminal proceedings instituted
against the applicant
A. The investigation proceedings
(25 March 1983 - 27 May 1986)
1. The proceedings conducted in Bastia
(25 March 1983 - 22 May 1985)
(a) The investigative measures
i. Judge Pancrazi
10. On 25 March 1983 Mr Pancrazi, investigating judge at
Bastia, charged Mr Tomasi and remanded him in custody following
the latter's first appearance before him; he took the same
measures in respect of a certain Mr Pieri. On 8 April he
questioned Mr Tomasi on his alleged involvement in the offences.
11. He took evidence from witnesses on 28, 29 and 31 March, 14
and 29 April, 19 and 30 May and 2 June 1983.
On 19 May he questioned Mr Pieri and on 26 May another
co-accused, Mr Moracchini, who had been held on remand since 24
March 1983. He organised confrontations between them on 30 and 31
May, and then on 1 June.
In addition he issued formal instructions for evidence to be
taken on 26 May and 27 October 1983.
12. The recapitulatory examination of Mr Tomasi and Mr Pieri
was conducted on 18 October 1983, and that of Mr Moracchini on 21
November.
On 26 October 1983 the investigating judge visited the scene
of the crime.
ii. Judge Huber
13. The case was transferred to another investigating judge,
Mr Huber, with effect from 2 January 1984.
Mr Pieri escaped from prison on 22 January 1984; he was
recaptured on 1 July 1987.
Between 4 May 1984 and 10 January 1985, Mr Huber issued
several orders for the inclusion of documents in the file and for
their transmission to the prosecuting authorities.
On 24 January 1985 he rejected a request by the applicant for
documents to be added to the file.
(b) The applications for release
14. Mr Tomasi submitted eleven applications for release.
15. The investigating judge rejected them by orders of 3 May,
14 June and 24 October 1983, 2 January 1984, 24 January, 20 March,
5 April, 18 April, 24 April, 3 May and 7 May 1985. On 6 June 1984
he issued instructions that the applicant be interviewed in
Marseille on the conditions of his detention on remand. That
interview took place on 18 June.
16. The applicant challenged the orders of 14 June 1983, 2
January 1984, 24 January and 20 March 1985, but the indictments
division (chambre d'accusation) of the Bastia Court of Appeal
upheld them on 7 July 1983, 26 June 1984, and 20 February and 17
April 1985.
In its judgment of 20 February 1985 it stated that it was
necessary to continue the detention in order to avoid pressure
being brought to bear on the witnesses, to prevent unlawful
collusion between the accomplices, to protect public order (ordre
public) from the prejudice caused by the offence and to ensure
that Mr Tomasi remained at the disposal of the judicial
authorities.
(c) The request for a transfer of jurisdiction
17. On 10 January 1985 the Bastia public prosecutor applied to
the principal public prosecutor of that town for jurisdiction to
be transferred on the ground of the climate of intimidation which
reigned in the island.
18. On 25 March the principal public prosecutor at the Court
of Cassation referred the matter to the Court of Cassation
(criminal division), which gave its decision on 22 May; it
transferred the case to the Bordeaux investigating judge "in the
interests of the proper administration of justice" (Article 662 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure).
2. The proceedings conducted in Bordeaux
(22 May 1985 - 27 May 1986)
(a) The investigative measures
19. On 5 September 1985 Mr Nicod, investigating judge at
Bordeaux, interviewed Mr Tomasi for the first and last time.
He questioned Mr Moracchini on 1 October 1985 and 13 January
1986, and Mr Satti - another co-accused - on 15 November 1985. In
addition, he organised a confrontation between them on 13 December
1985.
20. On 14 January 1986 the investigating judge made an order
transmitting the documents to the prosecuting authorities.
On 14 February 1986 the Bordeaux public prosecutor decided to
forward the case-file to the principal public prosecutor's office.
From mid-March to mid-April 1986, the investigating judge
added various documents to the file. On 17 April he made a further
order transmitting the case-file to the prosecuting authorities,
endorsed by the Bordeaux public prosecutor's office.
The case-file was forwarded to the principal public
prosecutor's office by a decision dated 22 April 1986.
(b) The applications for release
21. Mr Tomasi submitted seven applications for his release.
The investigating judge dismissed his applications on 31 May,
7 June, 29 June, 13 August, 10 September and 8 October 1985 and 14
January 1986.
22. On appeals against various of the investigating judge's
orders, the indictments division of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal
upheld them by decisions of 3 September and 29 October 1985.
The first such decision referred to the particular gravity of
the offences, the existence of "precise and convincing evidence",
the risk of pressure being brought to bear and of unlawful
collusion and the need to maintain public order and to ensure that
the applicant appeared for trial.
The second decision contained the following reasoning:
"It is plain that the offences of which the appellant is
accused are particularly serious ones and profoundly prejudiced
public order; without disregarding the pertinent observations of
the accused's counsel concerning the length of the proceedings, it
appears nevertheless that, as the investigating judge decided,
Tomasi's continued detention is necessary to protect public order
from the prejudice caused by the offences in question and also to
avoid pressure being brought to bear or unlawful collusion and to
ensure that the accused appears for trial;"
23. The two decisions gave rise to appeals on points of law by
the applicant, which were dismissed by the criminal division of
the Court of Cassation on 3 December 1985 and 22 January 1986.
The latter decision was based on the following reasons:
"In the light of the available evidence the Court of Cassation
is satisfied that the indictments division ordered the
continuation of the applicant's detention by a decision which set
out the reasons on which it was based with reference to the
particular circumstances and which was made under the conditions,
and for cases, specified in Article 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure; it may also be seen from the grounds of the decision
that there is in this case, as is required under Article 5
para. 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c) of the Convention, ... reasonable
suspicion that the accused has committed an offence; it follows
moreover that, having regard to the specific circumstances of the
case and the proceedings, the duration of the detention appears
reasonable;"
B. The trial proceedings
(27 May 1986 - 22 October 1988)
1. Committal for trial
(a) The first committal
24. On 27 May 1986 the indictments division of the Bordeaux
Court of Appeal indicted Mr Tomasi and Mr Pieri for murder with
premeditation, attempted murder with premeditation and carrying
category 1 and category 4 weapons, together with the corresponding
ammunition; it committed them - as well as Mr Moracchini and Mr
Satti - for trial at the Gironde assize court.
25. On 13 September 1986 the criminal division of the Court of
Cassation allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant on 27 June
1986 on the ground that defence counsel had not been allowed to
speak last at the hearing on 27 May.
It remitted the case to the indictments division of the
Poitiers Court of Appeal, instructing that court to commit the
accused for trial at the Gironde assize court if there were
grounds for indicting him (Article 611 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure).
(b) The second committal
26. On 9 December 1986 the Poitiers indictments division
committed Mr Tomasi for trial at the Gironde assize court.
This decision did not give rise to an appeal on points of law.
(c) The third committal
27. On 3 February 1987 the indictments division of the
Bordeaux Court of Appeal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to
commit the applicant - but not his three co-accused - for trial at
the specially constituted Gironde assize court, in other words the
assize court sitting without a jury. The principal public
prosecutor's office had requested it to apply the provisions of
Law no. 86-1020 of 9 September 1986, according to which persons
accused of acts of terrorism must be tried before such a judicial
body.
28. On 7 May 1987 the criminal division of the Court of
Cassation dismissed the appeal on this issue filed by the
principal public prosecutor at the Bordeaux Court of Appeal.
29. On 16 June 1987 the Poitiers indictments division allowed
an application lodged on 20 May 1987 by the prosecuting authority
and committed the applicant for trial at the specially constituted
Gironde assize court. It thereby acknowledged that the offences of
which Mr Tomasi was accused were "related to an individual or
collective undertaking aimed at seriously prejudicing public order
by intimidation or terror" (Article 706-16 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure).
30. On 24 September 1987 the criminal division of the Court of
Cassation dismissed a further appeal by the applicant.
2. The applications for release
(a) The first application
31. By a decision of 27 May 1986 (see paragraph 24 above), the
Bordeaux indictments division dismissed an application for release
which Mr Tomasi had submitted on 6 May. It gave the following
grounds:
"The detention on remand, which started on 25 March 1983, has
certainly lasted a very long time. However, the explanation for
this lies in the systematic attitude adopted by the accused and
the considerable difficulties encountered by the investigating
judge. The period of detention, although long, does not in itself
constitute a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On the contrary, in this particular case continued detention
appears to be essential, given the exceptional gravity of the
offences and the fact that Tomasi would not hesitate to abscond if
he were released."
32. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law, but the
criminal division of the Court of Cassation rejected the
submission based on the violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3)
of the Convention. On this issue its judgment of 13 September 1986
stated as follows:
"In the light of the available evidence the Court of Cassation
is satisfied that the applicant's continued detention was properly
ordered in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article
148-1 of the [Code of Criminal Procedure], by a decision setting
out specific reasons, having regard to the features of the case as
is required under Article 145 of that Code and for cases
exhaustively listed in Article 144;
In addition the indictments division discussed the complexity
and the length of the proceedings, carrying out an unfettered
appraisal of the facts, which was sufficient and free of
contradictions and from which it concluded that the length of the
detention on remand had not exceeded a reasonable time [; it
follows] that the submission must fail ..."
(b) The second application
33. Mr Tomasi submitted a new application for release on 19
January 1987.
By a decision of 3 February 1987 (see paragraph 27 above) the
Bordeaux indictments division found that it lacked jurisdiction as
the committal had been decided by the Poitiers indictments
division.
(c) The third application
34. On 17 April 1987 the applicant lodged a further
application for his release.
On 28 April the Bordeaux indictments division dismissed his
application on the ground that the committal had been based on
precise and detailed reasons, the offences were extremely serious
ones and the detention was necessary to protect public order from
the prejudice to which they had given rise.
(d) The fourth application
35. The applicant lodged a further application for release on
22 May 1987 with the indictments division of the Poitiers Court of
Appeal, which dismissed it on 2 June for the following reasons:
"A campaign of intimidation against the witnesses, policemen
and judges has been waged in the course of the investigation;
A mere recital ... of the offences which led to Tomasi being
charged is sufficient, besides the fact that the said offences
seriously prejudiced public order, to justify the accused's
continued detention; there is a grave danger that if he were to be
released he would enter into contact with members of the FLNC, who
would no doubt be only too pleased to help him evade trial; it
does not appear that his continued detention is, in the
circumstances, such as to infringe the provisions of the
Convention ..."
(e) The fifth application
36. On 6 November 1987 the applicant once again applied to the
Bordeaux indictments division for his release.
On 13 November his application was dismissed on account of the
extreme gravity of the alleged offences and the need to protect
public order from the prejudice created thereby.
37. He then filed an appeal on points of law, which the
criminal division of the Court of Cassation dismissed on 2 March
1988.
3. The trial
38. On 22 January 1988 the President of the Bordeaux Court of
Appeal had directed that the session of the assize court was to
open on 16 May 1988.
On 28 April the President decided to postpone the opening of
the session until 17 October 1988, following an exchange of
correspondence in March and April between the principal public
prosecutor's office and counsel for Mr Tomasi and Mr Pieri.
On 15 July and 23 September he altered the composition of the
trial court.
39. The trial took place from 17 to 22 October 1988. On that
last date, the applicant was acquitted and immediately released.
His three co-accused were given suspended sentences of one year's
imprisonment for carrying or possession - as the case may be - of
a category 1 weapon.
C. The compensation proceedings
(18 April 1989 - 8 November 1991)
1. The application to the Compensation Board
40. On 18 April 1989 Mr Tomasi lodged a claim with the
Compensation Board at the Court of Cassation under Article 149 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to this provision, "...
compensation may be accorded to a person who has been held in
detention on remand during proceedings terminated by a decision
finding that he has no case to answer (non-lieu) or acquitting
him, when that decision has become final, where such detention has
caused him damage of a clearly exceptional and particularly
serious nature".
2. The submissions of the principal public prosecutor
at the Court of Cassation
41. On 5 June 1991 the principal public prosecutor (procureur
{general}) at the Court of Cassation made the following
submissions to the Compensation Board:
"...
IN THE MATTER OF THE DETENTION
During his detention, Tomasi lodged twenty applications for
release, eleven applications to the Bastia investigating judge and
nine to the investigating judge and the indictments division in
Bordeaux.
Six judgments confirming decisions were given, four by the
Bastia indictments division and two by that of Bordeaux.
Finally, two decisions of the criminal division of the Court
of Cassation, of 17 October and 2 March 1988, dismissed Tomasi's
appeals from the two decisions of the Bordeaux indictments
division.
In their decisions rejecting the applications for release the
investigating judges and the indictments division gave their
reasons as being the exceptional gravity of the offences, the
prejudice caused to public order, the need to ensure that the
accused remained at the disposal of the judicial authorities and
the risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses.
DISCUSSION
1. The length of the proceedings
- From 12 February 1982, the date on which the investigation
was opened, to 25 March 1983, Tomasi was not yet implicated.
- From 25 March 1983, the date on which Tomasi was charged, to
18 October 1983, the date of his recapitulatory examination, the
proceedings progressed at a normal pace and there were no delays.
- From November 1983 to May 1984 the proceedings slowed down
and consisted of measures which could have been taken previously
if the commissions rogatoires or the orders relating to them had
been issued earlier.
Thus the result of the commission rogatoire concerning the
victim's spectacles was not communicated until March 1984; it had
not been issued until 27 October 1983 ..., whereas it could have
been right at the beginning of the investigation.
Similarly the commission rogatoire giving instructions inter
alia for an inquiry into the victims and into the Sorbo-Ocagnano
camp and for a study and plans to be made of the premises was not
issued until 26 May 1983 ...
The evidence obtained under that commission rogatoire was
produced only in the course of the months of March and April 1984,
which undeniably prolonged the proceedings.
- The lack of progress in the proceedings between May 1984 and
January 1985 is incomprehensible. Thus nearly three months elapsed
between the order of 4 May 1984 transmitting the papers to the
prosecuting authority and the additional prosecution submissions
of 31 July 1984 calling for a ballistic examination, which had
already taken place. Yet it was not until the following 15
November, three and a half months later, that the investigating
judge gave his order dismissing that request for an expert
examination.
- From January 1985 to May 1985, the time taken for the
transmission of documents to the indictments division and then the
Court of Cassation and the return of the file to Bordeaux seems
normal.
- On the other hand it was not until 5 September 1985, more
than three months after the case had been referred to him, that
the Bordeaux investigating judge carried out his first substantive
investigative measure by interviewing Tomasi, after having
dismissed the latter's applications for release on four occasions.
This lapse of time appears excessive in view of the fact that
an investigating judge must give priority to a case concerning a
person held in detention on remand; he has a duty to familiarise
himself with it and proceed with the investigation as quickly as
possible.
- From September 1985 to 14 January 1986 the interrogations
and confrontations were continued at the rate of one investigative
measure per month. Interviews held at shorter intervals would have
made it possible to reduce the duration of the proceedings
significantly.
- From January 1986 to May 1986 the time taken to complete the
file and transmit it to the assize court appears normal.
- On the other hand, from May 1986 to March/April 1988 there
was a delay in the proceedings which can under no circumstances be
justified by the appeals filed by the accused in pursuance of
their statutory rights.
- Finally, it should be noted that the decision in the course
of March and April 1988 to renounce holding the May session and to
replace it by a session fixed for 17 October 1988 was taken by
mutual agreement between the prosecuting authorities and the
defence.
In conclusion, in view of the significance and the complexity
of the case the investigation was bound to last longer than
average. However, it could have been considerably shortened
without the various delays noted above.
2. The necessity of keeping Tomasi in detention during
the proceedings
Given the nature and the gravity of the offences and the
results of the police investigation, Tomasi's detention was at
first justified, up until his recapitulatory examination of 18
October 1983.
Moreover, until that date, Tomasi had not filed an application
for release. However, by 18 October 1983 the witnesses had already
been interviewed and the confrontations carried out.
The measures taken after that date, in particular the
commissions rogatoires and the expert examinations, did not
concern Tomasi directly, except the expert medical examinations
ordered following his declarations regarding the conditions of his
police custody, which clearly could not justify his continued
detention.
It should moreover be stressed that between 18 October 1983,
the date of the recapitulatory record, and 17 October 1988, the
date on which the assize court session opened, in other words for
five years, Tomasi was questioned only once, on 5 September 1985,
and at his request.
The decisions rejecting his various applications for release
were based on the exceptional gravity of the offences, the
prejudice caused to public order, the necessity of ensuring that
the accused remained at the disposal of the judicial authorities
and the risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses.
The gravity, even of an exceptional nature, of offences may
constitute a ground for detention only if there is sufficient
evidence against the person held.
In this case, charges had been preferred against Tomasi, who
had always protested his innocence and had been on hunger strike
several times, exclusively on the basis of Moracchini's
statements, which were far from being as precise as they were
claimed to be throughout the proceedings.
In fact, according to various documents from the proceedings,
and in particular:
- the report of the public prosecutor to the Bastia principal
public prosecutor of 11 April 1983 ...,
- the memorandum from the SRPJ of Ajaccio of 8 June 1983 ...,
- the application by the Bastia investigating judge for a
transfer of jurisdiction of 10 January 1985 ..., Moracchini stated
that Tomasi had suggested that he take part in the "nuit bleue"
(night of terrorist outrages) of 11 to 12 February 1982, and
specifically carry out an attack against the Foreign Legion camp
of Sorbo-Ocagnano.
Yet if all Moracchini's statements are read carefully it may
be seen that although he did state that Tomasi had suggested that
he participate in the "nuit bleue", at no time did he mention an
attack against the Foreign Legion camp ...
Quite the contrary, Moracchini always claimed that he had
learned of the attack for the first time the day after the events.
Thus, for example, in the course of his interrogation at his
first appearance before the investigating judge ... Moracchini
stated as follows:
"I was aware that Pieri knew {Felix} Tomasi. The latter had
indeed suggested a few days earlier that I should take part in a
"nuit bleue". I had refused, but at no time did he say what attack
I would have been expected to carry out. As for me, I only heard
about the legionaries through the newspapers, on the morning of 12
February."
Furthermore, it should be observed that all the witnesses who
confirmed Moracchini's statements merely reported what he had told
them. None of them was a direct witness to the events.
In addition, it does not seem that the release of Tomasi, who
could provide sound guarantees that he would appear for trial and
who had no previous convictions, could have represented a risk of
pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or on Moracchini, a
co-accused who was free.
In fact, Tomasi, like Pieri and Moracchini, was not remanded
in custody until more than a year after the events and Pieri,
implicated by the same witnesses as Tomasi, had escaped from
prison on 22 January 1984 and remained free for three and a half
years until his arrest on 1 July 1987, apparently without any
pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses.
Finally, it should be noted that on 10 March 1987 {Felix}
Tomasi lodged an application with the European Commission of Human
Rights under Article 25 (art. 25) of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights, making the following complaints:
- excessive duration of his detention on remand (violation of
Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention) (art. 5-3);
- inhuman and degrading treatment during his police custody
(violation of Article 3 of the Convention) (art. 3);
- excessive duration of the investigation proceedings opened
following a complaint accompanied by a civil claim (violation of
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention) (art. 6-1).
This application was the subject of a report by the European
Commission of Human Rights adopted on 11 December 1990, in which
the Commission declared the application admissible and expressed
the opinion by twelve votes to two that there had been, in the
case under review, a violation of Article 3 (art. 3) of the
Convention, by thirteen votes to one, that there had been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention and,
unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 para. 3
(art. 5-3) of the Convention.
IN CONCLUSION
In the light of the various considerations set out above, and
the particularly distressing conditions of his detention, {Felix}
Tomasi, who spent five years and nearly seven months in detention
and in respect of whom the investigation produced only weak and
insufficient evidence, suffered considerable damage on this
account.
For all these reasons I call upon the Board to award
appropriate compensation."
3. The decision of the Compensation Board
42. By a decision of 8 November 1991, which contained no
statement of the reasons on which it was based, the Compensation
Board awarded the applicant 300,000 French francs.
II. The criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant
A. The origin and the filing of the complaint
43. Mr Tomasi was apprehended on 23 March 1983 at 9 a.m. (see
paragraph 8 above). He remained in police custody until 9 a.m. on
25 March, in other words forty-eight hours, Judge Pancrazi having
granted the police an extension of twenty-four hours at 6 a.m. on
24 March.
44. During this period, the applicant:
(a) had been present at a search of his home on 23 March from
9.15 a.m. to 12.50 p.m.;
(b) had undergone several interrogations:
- on 23 March from 1.15 p.m. to 2.30 p.m., from 5.30 p.m. to 8
p.m. and from 8.40 p.m. to 10.15 p.m., a total of five hours and
twenty minutes;
- on 24 March from 1.30 a.m. to 2 a.m., from 4 a.m. to 4.45
a.m., from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., from 3.40 p.m. to 8 p.m. and from
8.30 p.m. to 9.20 p.m., a total of eight hours and twenty-five
minutes;
- on 25 March from 4.30 a.m. to 4.50 a.m., twenty minutes;
(c) had been examined on 24 March at 11 a.m. by a doctor, who
had concluded that his state of health was compatible with the
extension of the police custody.
The applicant signed the recapitulatory record drawn up at the
end of his police custody, but refused to sign that of his last
interrogation.
45. On 25 March 1983, when he first appeared before the
investigating judge (see paragraph 10 above), he made the
following statement:
"I note the charges of which you have informed me. I am a
declared member of the CCN [Cunsulta di i cumitati naziunalisti].
I am not a member of the FLNC. I will make a statement later in
the presence of my lawyer, Mr Stagnara.
I should like to add, however, that I was struck during my
police custody by police-officers; I do not wish to give their
names. I was not allowed any rest. I had to ask the doctor who
visited me for something to eat because I was left without food
and all I had to eat was one sandwich. This morning, I was left
naked in front of an open window for two or three hours. I was
then dressed and beaten up. This went on continuously throughout
the police custody. I can show you bruises on my chest and a red
patch under my left ear."
The judge had the words "seen, correct" entered at the end of
this statement.
46. On 29 March 1983 Mr Tomasi laid a complaint against
persons unknown together with an application to join the
proceedings as a civil party (constitution de partie civile), "for
assault committed by officials in the performance of their duties
and abuse of an official position".
The following day the senior investigating judge ordered that
the applicant lodge a deposit set at 1,200 francs and communicated
the file to the public prosecutor's office.
B. The investigation proceedings
(29 March 1983 - 6 February 1989)
1. The proceedings conducted at Bastia
(29 March 1983 - 20 March 1985)
(a) The investigative measures
i. Judge Pancrazi
47. On 29 March Mr Pancrazi, the investigating judge,
interviewed as a witness Dr Bereni, Senior Medical Officer at
Bastia Prison. He stated as follows:
"I am a medical officer in the Prison Service and I examined
Charles Pieri on his arrival at the prison and {Felix} Tomasi, as
I do with all the inmates.
...
In {Felix} Tomasi's case, I observed behind the left ear a
haematoma which had spread slightly towards the cheek. I noted
slight superficial scratches on the chest. In addition, Tomasi
reported pain in his head and neck, as well as in his legs, arms
and back, but, as I have already stated, I was unable to find
objective evidence to support these claims.
In both cases the injuries were very slight with no serious
features and could not lead to incapacity for work."
48. On 25 March 1983 the same judge had instructed a Dr
Rovere, an expert attached to the Bastia Court of Appeal, to carry
out the following tasks:
"1. Effect an examination of the victim's injuries, illnesses
or disabilities, describe them, specify their likely sequelae and
give an opinion as to their causes;
2. Describe the extent of the incapacity and assess its
probable duration."
The doctor, who had examined Mr Tomasi on 26 March 1983 at 12
noon in the prison, in the presence of the investigating judge,
lodged his report on 30 March. The report stated as follows:
"III. CURRENT CONDITION
(1) Symptoms complained of Mr {Felix} Tomasi complained of
- acute otalgia in the left ear
- acute parietal and bilateral cephalalgia
- slight back pain
- pains in the upper abdomen
No other symptom was complained of.
(2) Clinical examination
...
(a) General examination:
- Weight: 60kg; height: 1m65 (estimation)
- Blood pressure: 11,5/7
- Pulse rate: 84 beats to the minute
- Cardiopulmonary examination: normal.
(b) Cranio-facial segment:
- Two barely visible abrasions, one on the right temple and
the other above the right eyebrow
- Small horizontal bruise to the upper part of the left
eyelid, measuring 2cm in length, colour purplish-red
- Pains complained of on palpation of the right parietal
region of the skull
- Conjunctival redness in both eyes (the patient states that
he had this condition before his police custody), nontraumatic in
origin
- Neurological examination:
Pupils equal size, regular and contractile
No nystagmus
Romberg negative
No asymmetry, no dysdiadochokinesis
Tendon reflexes - normal
No deviation in the index finger test and the blind walk
test
- Left ear:
A dark-red-coloured bruise, warm and allegedly painful on
palpation, in the helix and the anthelix
The external auditory meatus and the eardrum show no sign
of a traumatic injury.
(c) Cervical rachis:
- No apparent trace of traumatism
- Pressure on the processus spinosis of the cervical vertebrae
C1 and C2 allegedly painful
- Unrestricted neck movement, cracking sounds in articulations
could be heard on side movements of the head (commonplace after
the age of thirty)
- No muscular contraction.
(d) Thorax and abdomen:
- Ecchymotic striae (vibices) located as follows:
one at the level of the praesternum
one at the level of the metasternum
three others at the level of the epigastric region
one at the level of the right hypochondrium.
These marks are red in colour, surrounded by a purplish halo,
visible in non-artificial light and allegedly painful on
palpation.
- No hepatomegaly
- No splenomegaly (enlarged spleen)
- Slight abdominal distension.
(e) Lumbar region:
- No apparent trace of traumatism
- No restriction on scope of trunk movement
- No paravertebral muscular contraction.
(f) Left arm:
On the upper third of the postero-internal face of the arm
there is a bruise which is red in colour, with a purplish
periphery in its lower part, measuring 8cm in length and 4cm in
width, claimed to be painful on palpation.
Below this bruise, two others may be seen, of a circular
shape, measuring 1.5cm in diameter, less highly coloured.
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Mr {Felix} Tomasi has the following symptoms, as observed in
the examination of 26 March 1983:
- Superficial bruising to the left upper eyelid, the front of
the chest, in the epigastric region and that of the right
hypochondrium, on the left arm and the left ear
- Two barely visible cutaneous abrasions on the right temple.
The red colouring of the bruises with a peripheral purple halo
makes it possible to fix the date of their origin as between two
and four days before the examination on 26 March 1983.
The simultaneous presence of abrasions and bruises makes it
possible to affirm that these injuries are traumatic in origin;
however, biological tests could be carried out in order to
eliminate another medical cause.
Their extent and form offer no indications of how they first
occurred; they are thus consistent with Mr Tomasi's declarations
but could equally have a different traumatic origin.
These injuries entail temporary total incapacity of three
days."
49. On 24 June 1983 Judge Pancrazi interviewed Mr Tomasi as an
accused. After the expert medical reports concerning the victims
of the attack of 12 February 1982 had been read out to the
applicant and his co-accused, the applicant stated:
"The injuries which were noted during the examinations made
firstly by Dr Rovere and then by Drs Rocca and Ansaldi, were the
result of the acts of Superintendent [D.], his deputy [A.] and
some of the other officers of the criminal investigation
department.
I was beaten for forty hours non-stop. I didn't have a
moment's rest. I was left without food and drink.
A police-officer, whom I would be able to recognise, held a
loaded pistol to my temple and to my mouth, to make me talk. I was
spat upon in the face several times. I was left undressed for a
part of the night, in an office, with the doors and windows open.
It was in March.
I spent almost all the time in police custody standing, hands
handcuffed behind the back. They knocked my head against the wall,
hit me in the stomach using forearm blows and I was slapped and
kicked continuously. When I fell to the ground I was kicked or
slapped to make me get up.
They also threatened to kill me, Superintendent [D.] and
officer [A.] told me that if I managed to get off they would kill
me. They also said that they would kill my parents. They said that
there had been an attack at Lumio where there had been a person
injured and that the same thing would happen to my parents, that
they would use explosives to kill them.
I would like to say in connection with the injuries to my left
ear that, in addition to the bruise noted by Dr Rovere, I bled, to
be more precise my ear was bleeding, as I realised when I put a
cotton bud in my ear. This lasted for a fortnight. I asked if I
could see a specialist and Dr Vellutini told me that I had a
perforated eardrum. I also realised afterwards that I had a broken
tooth. I was therefore not able to tell this to the experts.
Drs Rocca and Ansaldi stated that the bruise to the left upper
eyelid could suggest the shape of spectacles; but my spectacles
are worn on the nose and although they may leave marks on the
nose, they cannot under any circumstances mark the upper part of
the eye."
ii. Judge N'Guyen
50. Following the lodging of Mr Tomasi's complaint and at the
request of the public prosecutor, the President of the Bastia
tribunal de grande instance appointed another investigating judge,
Mr N'Guyen, on 2 June 1983.
Without waiting for the outcome of the application for an
order designating the competent court (see paragraph 55 below), Mr
N'Guyen had already appointed two experts of the Bastia Court of
Appeal, Dr Rocca and Dr Ansaldi, who had examined the applicant on
29 March 1983 at the prison and submitted their report on 1 April.
This document was worded as follows:
"SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:
The patient states as follows:
"On 23 and 24 March 1983 I was beaten up for a period of about
thirty-six hours. I was repeatedly punched and kicked mainly in
the abdomen, on the head and on the face."
SYMPTOMS COMPLAINED OF AT THIS TIME:
The patient complains of the following symptoms:
- pain in the left ear;
- buzzing in the ears;
- headache;
- pain in the lumbar region;
- abdominal pain;
- [illegible].
CLINICAL EXAMINATION CARRIED OUT ON TODAY'S DATE
- Weight: 60 kg
- Height: 1m65
- Blood pressure: 13/8
- Pulse: 72 beats a minute.
1. Examination of the face and the skull:
Mr Tomasi wears corrective lenses for myopia.
On examining him we noted the following:
- a slight bruising of the upper left eyelid, purplish in
colour, 2cm in length;
- minor abrasions 3mm in diameter:
1 - at the level of the right temple,
2 - above the right eyebrow.
On continuing the examination of the face we observed:
- the area of the masticatory muscles was particularly
sensitive on palpation, especially on the right;
- elsewhere, the ocular autokinesis was normal;
- the examination of the surface sensitivity of the face was
normal;
- facial motility was normal.
Further examination revealed:
- pronounced, diffuse erythema in the auricle of the left ear;
- auditory capacity appeared normal, tested by the ticking of
a watch and whispering.
2. Thoraco-abdominal examination:
Examination showed:
- a number of cutaneous abrasions a few millimetres in
diameter, located in the area of the right hypochondrium, the
epigastrium, the right lower thoracic region and the left
parasternal region, close to the metasternum;
- otherwise, pulmonary auscultation, palpation and percussion
of thorax normal;
- likewise examination of the abdomen revealed a supple
stomach, no pain;
- examination of the external genital organs showed no
bruising, no haematoma, no scar, no trace of traumatism.
3. Examination of the upper members:
- On the left arm, postero-internal face, at the middle part
of the arm, a bruise 8cm in length, 4cm in width, ovalshaped.
This bruise was a yellowish colour in the middle and greenish
at the periphery.
- There were in addition two small bruises near to the first
bruise, of a circular shape, about 4mm in diameter, also of a
greenish colour.
4. Examination of the lower members:
Examination entirely normal.
5. Neurological examination:
- Romberg test: negative
- No deviation of index finger
- Muscular strength [illegible] intact
- Tendon reflexes present and symmetrical
- Sensitivity: normal
- Co-ordination: normal.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
After questioning and carrying out a full clinical examination
of Mr {Felix} Tomasi, we noted the following injuries:
- two bruises, a small one on the left eyelid and a larger one
on the left arm;
- in addition, there were abrasions spread out over the
thoracic and parasternal region and on the left temple and right
eyebrow. These abrasions were of minimal size.
The pains and buzzing in the ear require an opinion from an
ear, nose and throat specialist.
The colouring of the bruises makes it possible to fix the date
of the originating traumatism at between four and eight days
previously.
The bruise on the left arm could be the result of strong
manual and digital pressure. The bruise to the left upper eyelid
might suggest the shape of the upper frame of the spectacles worn
by Mr Tomasi.
The cutaneous abrasions noted do not indicate a specific
traumatic origin.
We did not find any scar, any burn mark, or any other injury
capable of suggesting that acts of torture had been committed."
51. On 21 April 1983, at the investigating judge's request,
the two doctors filed a further expert opinion. In this they
concluded: "Mr {Felix} Tomasi qualifies for temporary total
incapacity of two days".
52. On 1 July 1983 Judge N'Guyen interviewed the applicant in
his capacity as a civil party in criminal proceedings. Mr Tomasi
made the following statement:
"- ... I think that we arrived at the police station at around
midday. They began to question me and typed the first record. I
said that I was an active member of the CCN. They asked me if I
knew why I was there. I replied that it was not the first time
that they had detained members of the CCN.
- It was at that moment that they began to hit me;
Superintendent [D.] slapped me repeatedly. Each time he came into
the office he egged his men on. He said that they had to make me
talk and that they had to use every means of doing so.
He hit me throughout the two days of police custody.
- His deputy [A.] also hit me. He used forearm blows to the
stomach, saying that that left no mark. He pulled me by the hair
and knocked my head against the wall.
There were others there but I don't know their names: there
was a small, dark-haired man, who I think was called [G.]. He
slapped me and punched me.
I can also give you the name of [L.] because he told me his
name.
There were others too, but I cannot name them.
These men hit me continuously except when I was speaking. As
soon as I stopped speaking they hit me.
- I'd like to make clear that I had my hands handcuffed behind
my back and I had to remain standing fifty centimetres from the
wall. That started at the beginning of the police custody. The
body search was not carried out on the ground floor but on the
second floor.
- I remember that there was also a man who was with [A.], of
the same height, balding. He too hit me throughout the police
custody. He took my head and knocked it against the wall.
- I had no rest the first night or the second.
- I was questioned by about fifteen police-officers who took
it in turns. Sometimes they were three, often they were between
ten and fifteen. I spent almost forty-eight hours in the same
office.
- I was taken down again on 25 March around six in the
morning. Until then I had no rest, I had neither eaten nor had
anything to drink.
- The first evening I asked for food and drink. The policemen
gave me nothing. The following day, as I had asked to see a
doctor, he came. I told him that I had been beaten continuously
for more than twenty-four hours, that I had not eaten or drunk and
that I was being dealt with by torturers. I made him note the
marks of the blows to my stomach and face. He did not reply. He
took my blood pressure. He told the policemen that I could stand
up to it. Indeed I have written to the medical association on this
point. When I told him that I had had nothing to eat, he looked at
the policemen.
The policemen looked embarrassed and asked me what I wanted. I
said that I would like a cup of coffee and a sandwich. They
refused to give me the coffee and told me that I would have it if
I talked. The sandwich was thrown into the dustbin. It was not
until the following morning that the municipal police-officers
(l'Urbaine) gave me three or four coffees with croissants and
chocolate rolls. That is why when I arrived at the court house I
was in a very agitated state.
- I should also like to say that police-officer [L.] took his
pistol out of his belt, it was loaded, and held it to my temple
and my mouth. He told me to talk. I replied that I couldn't make
things up. He read me the records of the interrogations of the
others. He told me that I should say the same thing.
- After that, [G.] spat at me about ten times in the face and
slapped me.
- The torturer [D.] often came into the office and asked
several times "you haven't undressed him yet?"
- At nightfall they took me into another office. It was still
on the second floor but couldn't be seen into from outside. There
I was completely stripped. This happened during the second night.
I was completely naked, in my socks. [D.] arrived, he asked me why
they hadn't taken off my socks. He slapped me and continued to
question me like that with the doors and windows open. It was a
cold March night. I repeat that in the room where I had been put I
couldn't be seen from the outside. In the other room, they were
careful to lower the metal blind when they turned the light on.
- At one moment I was allowed to sit down. That is when [B.]
arrived. He took me by the shirt or jacket and pushed me. He had
the handcuffs with which my hands were bound behind my back taken
off and made me sit down. He told all the police-officers and the
superintendent to leave. He asked me if I wanted anything. I told
him that I would like to go to the lavatory and wash myself. He
let me go; he then spoke to me for an hour. We spoke together as
we are speaking today.
- That happened on the 24th at around 8 or 10 o'clock in the
evening. [B.] left. They put back the handcuffs and continued to
hit me.
- I should also say that my arms and legs were numb. I was
sometimes hit so much that I fell to the ground. The policemen
made me get up by kicking me and hitting my head against the wall.
- There were also threats to my family. They threatened to
blow up the flat where my parents live. They told me about a woman
from Lumio who had been blown up and who had been injured and said
that they would do the same thing to my parents to kill them. They
also told me that they would kill the families of my brother and
my sister.
- Police-officer [L.] told me that he would make me close the
shop. That it would be French people who would buy it. He told me
that he would make all the Corsicans leave. He told me that he
would also blow up the shop.
- They made threats against me too. The torturers threatened
to kill me. They told me that they would take me to the Legion
camp at Calvi and that they would leave me to the legionaries.
Many other things happened but in one hour it is impossible to
recount everything that happened over forty hours.
[A.] called me a left-winger. He said that he was sure that I
had voted for Mitterrand and that this was the result. They also
said that they were about fifteen policeofficers who were reliable
and that I had better not lay a complaint. They told me that it
wasn't the same for the municipal police-officers because there
were sympathisers among them and they weren't sure of them.
I would like to say that if I am released, because I am
innocent, if something happens to me, it won't be necessary to
look any farther. They told me that if I were freed, they would
deal with me."
53. By a letter of 3 July 1983 the applicant's lawyer
requested the investigating judge to organise a confrontation
between his client and the officers who had taken part in the
interrogations; he also suggested that the judge should take
evidence from the four persons who had been held in custody at the
same time because "they could have heard or seen some of the
ill-treatment inflicted at Bastia police station", as well as Dr
Vellutini "who was asked to examine Mr Tomasi, who had complained
of having problems with his ears". In addition, he asked that the
record of the applicant's first appearance before Judge Pancrazi
be included in the case-file.
54. The participants in the proceedings did not supply either
the Commission or the Court with information regarding any
investigative measures which may have been taken between 1 July
1983 and 15 January 1985.
(b) The applications for the competent court to be designated
i. The first application
55. On 31 March 1983 the Bastia public prosecutor submitted an
application to the criminal division of the Court of Cassation
requesting that the "court responsible for the investigation or
trial of the case" be designated. He was acting pursuant to
Article 687 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which concerns
cases in which "an officer of the police investigation department
is liable to be charged with a criminal offence, allegedly
committed in the area in which he performs his duties, whether or
not in the performance of those duties".
56. On 27 April 1983 the Court of Cassation rejected the
application, because it did not specify either the names or the
position of the persons who were liable to be prosecuted as a
result of Mr Tomasi's complaint.
ii. The second application
57. On 15 January 1985 the Bastia public prosecutor again
applied to the criminal division, seeking the designation of the
competent court.
58. On 20 March 1985 the Court of Cassation gave its decision.
It declared void the investigative measures carried out after 1
July 1983, the date on which the applicant as the civil party in
criminal proceedings had identified the persons whom he accused.
In addition, it instructed the Bordeaux investigating judge to
conduct the investigation into the applicant's complaint.
2. The Bordeaux proceedings
(20 March 1985 - 6 February 1989)
(a) Before the investigating judge (23 April 1985 - 23 June
1987)
i. Judge Nicod
59. On 23 April 1985 the Bordeaux public prosecutor lodged an
application for the opening of an investigation and the President
of the Bordeaux tribunal de grande instance appointed an
investigating judge, Mr Nicod.
60. The latter interviewed Mr Tomasi on only one occasion, on
5 September 1985.
On 24 September he added to the file the certified copies of
several documents from the file opened in Bastia, in particular
the records of the police custody and of the first appearance
before the investigating judge as well as the expert medical
reports.
By a letter addressed to the judge on 4 October, the applicant
requested a confrontation with the police-officers who had
interrogated him.
On 13 December 1985 and 13 January 1986 the investigating
judge interviewed as witnesses persons who had been held in police
custody on the same premises and at the same time as the
applicant. Mr Moracchini stated that he had seen the applicant on
the fourth day at Bastia Prison and had noted that he had marks on
his abdomen and that an ear was running.
ii. Judge Lebehot
61. Mr Nicod was appointed to a new post and the President of
the Bordeaux tribunal de grande instance replaced him on 7 January
1987 by another judge, Mr Lebehot.
62. On 13 January 1987 the latter issued a commission
rogatoire to the Director of the General Inspectorate of the
National Police instructing it to undertake a thorough
investigation.
Fifteen police-officers who had taken part in the arrests,
searches and interrogations were interviewed between 3 and 24
February 1987. None of them admitted having assaulted the persons
held in police custody and none of them was confronted with Mr
Tomasi.
The results of the commission rogatoire reached the court on
6 March 1987.
63. On 23 June 1987 the investigating judge issued an order
finding that there was no case to answer. He cited the same
grounds as those set out in the submissions made the previous day
by the Bordeaux public prosecutor:
"... in view of the formal and precise denials by the officers
concerned, the accusations made by the complainant, even if they
are supported by a few objective medical observations, cannot in
themselves constitute serious and concurring indications of guilt
such as could justify one or several persons being charged."
(b) In the indictments division of the Court of Appeal
(26 June 1987 - 12 July 1988)
64. By a letter of 26 June 1987 Mr Tomasi appealed from the
order finding that there was no case to answer to the indictments
division of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal. He complained among
other things that there had been no confrontation with the
police-officers and that the sequelae of his police custody had
not been taken into account, in particular the fact that his
eardrum had been perforated as was shown by subsequent
examinations.
On 12 October he wrote to the President requesting that a
confrontation be organised.
65. The indictments division gave its decision on 3 November
1987. It allowed the applicant's appeal and, before ruling on the
merits, ordered further inquiries.
On 19 January 1988 the judge with responsibility for these
inquiries issued a commission rogatoire to the Director of the
General Inspectorate of the National Police. Three other
policeofficers were thus interviewed, as well as four persons -
including Mr Filippi - who had been in police custody at the same
time as Mr Tomasi, and the ear, nose and throat specialist -
Dr Vellutini - who had examined him in April 1983.
On 28 January 1988 Mr Filippi stated that he had seen the
applicant on the morning of 25 March 1983. Mr Tomasi's face had
been "bruised and swollen", his hair had been "dishevelled", he
had had "bruises on the chest, on the abdomen and under his right
armpit"; he had complained that he had been "beaten all the time"
and he had "even taken a tooth out of his pocket".
On 25 February 1988 Dr Vellutini made the following statement:
"...
I carried out a medical examination of Mr {Felix} Tomasi as an
outpatient at Bastia Hospital. I cannot specify the date, but it
was in 1983. I treated him for an ear infection and possibly a
perforated eardrum. I examined him once or twice, no more than
that. I have already told this to the investigating Judge N'Guyen
in his chambers. My examination was part of an ordinary
consultation and I never issue a medical certificate in those
circumstances; I merely treat the patients who are brought to me.
..."
On 18 April 1988 the judge submitted the results of the
further inquiries.
66. On 12 July 1988 the indictments division upheld the order
finding that there was no case to answer, on the following
grounds:
"...
There is no doubt that Antoine Filippi, who was held in police
custody at the same time as Tomasi, maintained that he had noticed
in the hall of the police station that the latter's face had been
"bruised and swollen" and that subsequently he had "personally
seen that he had bruises on the chest, abdomen and under the right
armpit";
His co-accused Joseph Moracchini had for his part stated that
Tomasi "had all his chest grazed and that there was liquid running
from an ear";
These statements add somewhat to the observations made by the
investigating judge himself when Tomasi came to his chambers,
namely the presence of bruises on his chest and a redness under
the left ear, as well as those of the doctors designated at
various stages in the proceedings;
During the police custody, on 24 March 1983 at 11 a.m., Doctor
Gherardi examined Tomasi, who complained to him that he had been
beaten, but he did not personally observe anything at that stage.
When he arrived at the prison, on 25 March 1983, Tomasi was
seen, as part of the systematic check-ups of detainees, by the
Senior Medical Officer, Dr Bereni, who noted the presence of a
haematoma behind the left ear spreading slightly down towards the
cheek and slight superficial scratches on the chest and took note
that the applicant reported pain in the head, the neck, the legs,
the arms and back, without any objective symptoms.
An expert, Dr Rovere, appointed by the investigating judge,
examined Tomasi on 26 March 1983 at 12 noon and noted that he had
superficial bruising on the left upper eyelid, on the front of the
chest and in the epigastric region and that of the right
hypochondrium, on the left arm and the left ear, as well as two
cutaneous abrasions, barely visible, on the right temple; the
expert stated that the red colouring of the bruises with a purple
peripheral halo made it possible to fix the date of their
occurrence as between two and four days before the examination and
stressed that the fact that abrasions and bruises were present
simultaneously gave grounds for affirming their traumatic nature
but did not indicate the actual cause of the traumatism; he fixed
at three days the duration of the temporary total incapacity.
The expert report which was entrusted to Dr Rocca and Dr
Ansaldi, in connection with the investigation opened against
persons unknown ... [see paragraph 46 above], revealed in the
course of the examination carried out on 29 March the presence of
two bruises, one a small one on the left eyelid capable of
suggesting the shape of the upper frame of the applicant's
spectacles and the other, larger, on the left arm, being possibly
the result of very strong manual and digital pressure, as well as
abrasions spread out about the thoracic and parasternal regions,
on the right temple and the right eyebrow, which did not indicate
any specific traumatic cause.
The possibility that the applicant had a perforated eardrum
and a bleeding ear was not expressly confirmed by Dr Vellutini, an
ear, nose and throat specialist, and was expressly denied by Drs
Rovere and Bereni.
In any event a comparative study of the various observations
made by several doctors and experts shortly after the supposed
date of the acts of violence of which Tomasi complained showed
that there was a real discrepancy between such violence (punches
and kicks; forearm blows; head hit against the wall for nearly
forty hours) and the slight nature of the traumatisms the origin
of which is in dispute and cannot be determined.
The officers of the criminal investigation police concerned
expressly deny the accusations.
Any confrontation appears at this stage pointless.
There is doubt as to the truth of Tomasi's accusations."
(c) Before the Court of Cassation (21 July 1988 - 6 February
1989)
67. On 21 July 1988 Mr Tomasi filed an appeal on points of law
which the criminal division of the Court of Cassation declared
inadmissible on 6 February 1989 on the following grounds:
"On the basis of the grounds given in the contested judgment
the Court of Cassation is satisfied that, in upholding the order
in question, the indictments division, after having analysed the
facts contained in the complaint, set out the grounds from which
it inferred that there was not sufficient evidence against anyone
of having committed the offence of assault by officials in the
performance of their duties;
The appeal submission, in so far as it amounts to contesting
the grounds of fact and law relied on by the judges, does not
contain any of the complaints which, under Article 575 [of the
Code of Criminal Procedure], a civil party in criminal proceedings
is authorised to formulate in support of an appeal on points of
law against a decision that there is no case to answer by the
indictments division where no such appeal has been filed by the
prosecuting authorities."
C. Subsequent developments
68. At Mr Tomasi's request, Dr Bereni, who was still the Chief
Medical Officer at Bastia Prison, drew up a certificate on 4 July
1989, which he gave to the applicant in person "for the
appropriate legal purposes". This document was worded as follows:
"I, the undersigned, Dr Jean Bereni, ... hereby certify that I
examined the X-rays taken of Mr Tomasi at Toga Bastia Hospital on
2 April 1983.
The X-rays of the left temple show a thickening of the
external auditory meatus with a perforation of the eardrum and the
presence of a haematoma behind the eardrum.
The special-angle X-rays (Hitz) of the facial structure show,
at the level of the bite of the upper left maxillary, the absence
of the first molar.
Following these examinations Dr Vellutini, the senior
consultant in the ear, nose and throat department, prescribed ear
drops (Otipax) and I myself prescribed painkillers and
sleeping-pills."
69. In reply to a letter of 26 August 1991, the Director of
Bastia Regional Hospital communicated to the applicant the
following details:
"(a) The additional investigations carried out have not
revealed any new information of a medical nature in addition to
that mentioned in my attestation of 4 July 1989 as regards your
visit to Bastia General Hospital as an outpatient in the ear, nose
and throat department, probably on 1 April 1983.
(b) At the time of your visit the former Toga Hospital did not
have a structured system for dealing with outpatient consultations
in the specialised departments; in these circumstances, in the
case of mere visits without hospitalisation for an examination by
a specialist, a medical record was not systematically drawn up (Dr
Vellutini, who at the time was an ear, nose and throat specialist
at the hospital, when contacted by my department in connection
with your case, was not able to provide any further information
which he might have remembered).
(c) In fact it is highly probable that the X-ray or X-rays
concerning you were (as continues to be the practice in respect of
detainees who are not hospitalised) immediately handed over to the
persons accompanying you to be given to the medical service of the
prison, without a copy being kept at the hospital.
(d) Moreover - in the unlikely event of medical documents
concerning you having been filed - the move to new premises of the
former hospital and the opening of a new hospital, in 1985,
involved the multiple transportation of a considerable volume of
files and documents, which could inevitably have resulted in the
files being disturbed.
(e) The search for documents concerning Mr Moracchini and Mr
Pieri was likewise fruitless.
In any event I find it hard to see how an action which, as you
suggest, might be brought against Bastia Hospital, either in the
form of an application for an interlocutory injunction or on the
merits, would make it possible to discover medical documents,
whose presence in the archives is, to say the least, highly
improbable and which have been the subject of thorough, albeit
unsuccessful, searches."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
70. In his application of 10 March 1987 to the Commission
(no. 12850/87), Mr Tomasi relied on Articles 3, 6 para. 1 and 5
para. 3 (art. 3, art. 6-1, art. 5-3) of the Convention. He claimed
that during his police custody he had suffered inhuman and
degrading treatment; he also criticised the length of the
proceedings which he had brought in respect of such treatment; he
maintained finally that his detention on remand had exceeded a
"reasonable time".
71. The Commission declared the application admissible on 13
March 1990. In its report of 11 December 1990 (Article 31)
(art. 31), it expressed the view that there had been a violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) (twelve votes to two), Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) (thirteen votes to one) and Article 5 para. 3
(art. 5-3) (unanimously). The full text of its opinion and of the
dissenting opinion contained in the report is reproduced as an
annex to this judgment <3>.
--------------------------------
<3> Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex
will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume
241-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of
the Commission's report is available from the registry.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT
72. In their memorial, the Government asked the Court "to find
that in the present case there [had] been no violation of Articles
5 para. 3, 3 and 6 para. 1 (art. 5-3, art. 3, art. 6-1) of the
Convention".
73. For their part, the applicant's lawyers requested the
Court to
"State that Mr Tomasi was the victim, during his custody on
police premises, of inhuman and degrading treatment in violation
of the provisions of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention.
State that the proceedings brought by Mr Tomasi to obtain
compensation for the damage suffered as a result of such treatment
were not conducted within a reasonable time, in violation of the
provisions of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.
State that, in detention on remand, Mr Tomasi was not tried
within a reasonable time or released pending trial, in violation
of the provisions of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the
Convention.
Set at 2,376,588 francs the just satisfaction for the
consequences suffered by {Felix} Tomasi as a result of the
violation by the French authorities of Article 5 para. 3 (art.
5-3) of the Convention.
Set at 500,000 francs the just satisfaction for the
consequences suffered by {Felix} Tomasi as a result of the
violations by the French authorities of Articles 3 and 6 para. 1
(art. 3, art. 6-1) of the Convention.
State that the French Republic shall be liable for the costs,
fees and expenses of the present proceedings, including defence
fees calculated at 237,200 francs.
With all due reservations."
74. In his written observations the Delegate of the Commission
invited the Court to reject as inadmissible the Government's
objection under Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention.
AS TO THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3)
75. According to the applicant, the length of his detention on
remand infringed Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3), which is worded as
follows:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article (art. 5-1-c), ...
shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release
pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear
for trial."
A. Government's preliminary objections
76. The Government raised two objections to the application's
admissibility; they contended firstly that the applicant had
failed to exhaust domestic remedies and secondly that he had lost
the status of victim.
77. Referring to its settled case-law (see, as the most recent
authority, the Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain judgment of
26 June 1992, Series A no. 240, pp. 31-32, para. 100), the Court
finds that it has jurisdiction to examine these objections,
despite the Commission's view to the contrary in respect of the
first objection.
1. Objection based on the failure to exhaust
domestic remedies
78. The Government stressed, as they had done before the
Commission, that Mr Tomasi had lodged his application with the
Commission on 10 March 1987, and therefore even before having
submitted a claim to the Compensation Board at the Court of
Cassation, which he did on 18 April 1989 (see paragraphs 1 and 40
above). Since then, the compensation awarded on 8 November 1991
(see paragraph 42 above) had rendered the complaint made under
Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention devoid of purpose.
79. Like the applicant and the Delegate of the Commission, the
Court notes in the first place that the right to secure the ending
of a deprivation of liberty is to be distinguished from the right
to receive compensation for such deprivation. It further observes
that Article 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made the award
of compensation subject to the fulfilment of specific conditions
not required under Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3): namely the
adoption of "a decision finding that [the accused] has no case to
answer or acquitting him" and the existence of "damage of a
clearly exceptional and particularly serious nature" (see
paragraph 40 above). Finally, Mr Tomasi lodged his application in
Strasbourg after four years spent in detention.
The objection must therefore be dismissed.
2. Objection based on the loss of the status of victim
80. In the Government's contention the applicant has lost the
status of "victim" within the meaning of Article 25 para. 1 (art.
25-1) of the Convention. By its decision of 8 November 1991
awarding him 300,000 French francs, the Compensation Board had
acknowledged that a "reasonable time" had been exceeded and had
made good the resulting damage.
The applicant disputed this view.
81. The Court notes at the outset that this submission was
made for the first time before it at the hearing on 25 February
1992 and not within the time-limits laid down in Rule 48 para. 1
of the Rules of Court. It observes nevertheless that the
Government filed their memorial before the adoption of the
Compensation Board's decision, so that their submission cannot be
regarded as out of time.
On the other hand, it is open to the same objections as the
plea based on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It is
therefore unfounded.
B. Merits of the complaint
82. Mr Tomasi considered the length of his detention on remand
excessive; the Government denied this, but the Commission agreed
with him.
83. The period to be taken into consideration began on 23
March 1983, the date of the applicant's arrest, and ended on 22
October 1988 with his release following the delivery of the
Gironde assize court's judgment acquitting him (see paragraphs 8
and 39 above). It therefore lasted five years and seven months.
84. It falls in the first place to the national judicial
authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial
detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time.
To this end they must examine all the circumstances arguing for or
against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest
justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of
innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual
liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications
for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given
in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the
applicant in his applications for release and his appeals that the
Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a
violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3).
The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person
arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for
the validity of the continued detention, but, after a certain
lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then
establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial
authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where
such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also
ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed
"special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, as the
most recent authority, the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12
December 1991, Series A no. 225, p. 14, para. 36).
1. The grounds for continuing the detention
85. In order to reject Mr Tomasi's applications for release,
the investigating authorities put forward - separately or
together - four main grounds: the seriousness of the alleged
offences; the protection of public order; the need to prevent
pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses or to avoid
collusion between the co-accused; and the danger of the
applicant's absconding.
(a) Seriousness of the alleged offences
86. The investigating judges and the indictments divisions
stressed the particular or exceptional gravity of the offences of
which the applicant was accused (see paragraphs 22, 31, 34, 35 and
36 above).
87. The applicant did not deny this, but he regarded it as not
sufficient to justify pre-trial detention over such a long period
of time, in the absence of grounds for suspecting him other than
his membership of a nationalist movement. His period of detention
corresponded to the term of imprisonment that would actually be
served by a person sentenced to more than ten years' imprisonment.
88. The Government emphasised the consistent nature of the
statements of a co-accused, Mr Moracchini, implicating Mr Tomasi
in the preparation and organisation of the attack.
89. The existence and persistence of serious indications of
the guilt of the person concerned undoubtedly constitute relevant
factors, but the Court considers, like the Commission, that they
cannot alone justify such a long period of pre-trial detention.
(b) Protection of public order
90. The majority of the courts in question expressed
forcefully, and in very similar terms, the need to protect public
order from the prejudice caused by the offences of which the
applicant was accused (see paragraphs 16, 22, 34, 35 and 36
above).
The Government endorsed this reasoning, which was challenged
by the applicant and the Commission.
91. The Court accepts that, by reason of their particular
gravity and public reaction to them, certain offences may give
rise to public disquiet capable of justifying pre-trial detention,
at least for a time.
In exceptional circumstances - and subject, obviously, to
there being sufficient evidence (see paragraph 84 above) - this
factor may therefore be taken into account for the purposes of the
Convention, in any event in so far as domestic law recognises - as
in Article 144 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure - the
notion of prejudice to public order caused by an offence. However,
this ground can be regarded as relevant and sufficient only
provided that it is based on facts capable of showing that the
accused's release would actually prejudice public order. In
addition, detention will continue to be legitimate only if public
order remains actually threatened; its continuation cannot be used
to anticipate a custodial sentence (see, as the most recent
authority, the Kemmache v. France judgment of 27 November 1991,
Series A no. 218, p. 25, para. 52).
In the present case, the investigating judges and the
indictments divisions assessed the need to continue the
deprivation of liberty from a purely abstract point of view,
merely stressing the gravity of the offences (see, mutatis
mutandis, the same judgment, p. 25, para. 52) or noting their
effects. However, the attack against the Foreign Legion rest
centre was a premeditated act of terrorism, responsibility for
which was claimed by a clandestine organisation which advocated
armed struggle. It had resulted in the death of one man and very
serious injuries to another. It is therefore reasonable to assume
that there was a risk of prejudice to public order at the
beginning, but it must have disappeared after a certain time.
(c) Risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses
and of collusion between the co-accused
92. Several judicial decisions adopted in this case were based
on the risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses -
the Poitiers indictments division even referred to a "campaign of
intimidation" - and that of collusion between the co-accused; they
did not, however, give any details concerning such risks (see
paragraphs 16, 22 and 35 above).
93. According to the Government, the threats against Mr
Moracchini had made it impossible to consider releasing Mr Tomasi.
Mr Tomasi would have been able to increase the effectiveness of
the pressure brought to bear on Mr Moracchini, who had been at the
origin of the prosecution and who had tried to commit suicide.
94. The applicant denied this, whereas the Commission did not
express a view.
95. In the Court's opinion, there was, from the outset, a
genuine risk that pressure might be brought to bear on the
witnesses. It gradually diminished, without however disappearing
completely.
(d) Danger of the applicant's absconding
96. The Government contended that there had been a danger that
the applicant would abscond. They invoked the seriousness of the
sentence which Mr Tomasi risked. They also drew support for their
view from the escape of Mr Pieri, who, facing prosecution for the
same offences as the applicant and having like him always
protested his innocence, had evaded recapture for three and a half
years. Finally, they stressed the special circumstances of the
situation in Corsica.
97. The applicant replied that he had been capable of
providing sufficient guarantees that he would appear for trial;
these guarantees resided in his status as a shopkeeper, his clean
police record and the fact that he was of good repute.
98. The Court notes in the first place that the reasoning put
forward by the Government in this respect did not appear in the
contested judicial decisions. The latter were admittedly based for
the most part on the need to ensure that Mr Tomasi remained at the
disposal of the judicial authorities (see paragraphs 16, 22, 31
and 35 above), but only one of them - the decision of the Poitiers
indictments division of 22 May 1987 - referred to a specific
element in this connection: the help which members of the ex-FLNC
could have given the applicant to enable him to evade trial (see
paragraph 35 above).
In addition, the Court points out that the danger of
absconding cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of
the sentence risked; it must be assessed with reference to a
number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the
existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight
that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see, inter alia,
the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A
no. 207, p. 19, para. 43). In this case, the decisions of the
judicial investigating authorities contained scarcely any reason
capable of explaining why, notwithstanding the arguments advanced
by the applicant in his applications for release, they considered
the risk of his absconding to be decisive and why they did not
seek to counter it by, for instance, requiring the lodging of a
security and placing him under court supervision.
(e) Recapitulation
99. In conclusion, some of the reasons for dismissing Mr
Tomasi's applications were both relevant and sufficient, but with
the passing of time they became much less so, and it is thus
necessary to consider the conduct of the proceedings.
2. Conduct of the proceedings
100. According to the applicant, the case was not at all
complex; indeed the investigation had been completed as early as
18 October 1983, the date of the recapitulatory examination (see
paragraph 12 above). However, there had been numerous errors and
omissions on the part of the judicial authorities. In particular,
the public prosecutor had refused to make submissions
({requisitions}), requested investigative measures which had
already been carried out, asked for the transfer of jurisdiction
from the Bastia courts, instituted proceedings incorrectly in a
court which lacked jurisdiction and placed the accused at a
considerable distance from the investigating authority. The
applicant acknowledged that the Law of 30 December 1986 had
complicated the situation by making the Law of 9 September 1986
applicable to cases already pending, but by that time Mr Tomasi
had been in detention for nearly four years. He complained that he
had been questioned by an investigating judge only once in five
years, on 5 September 1985 in Bordeaux (see paragraph 19 above).
On the subject of his own conduct, he pointed out that he had
lodged twenty-one of his twenty-three applications for release
after his recapitulatory examination (see paragraphs 14, 21, 31
and 33 - 36 above) and that his appeal on points of law against
the decision of the Bordeaux indictments division of 27 May 1986
had led to the decision being quashed for infringement of the
rights of the defence (see paragraph 25 above).
The Commission essentially agreed with the applicant's
position.
101. The Government, for their part, did not consider the
length of the detention in question unreasonable. They stressed in
the first place the complexity of the process of indicting the
applicant and his three co-accused, owing to the operation of the
Law of 30 December 1986 and the joint jurisdiction of the
indictments divisions of Poitiers and Bordeaux (see paragraphs
17 - 18 and 24 - 30 above). They also pointed to the rhythm at
which measures had been taken in the proceedings as showing that
the authorities had consistently displayed due diligence, the two
delays in the investigation being the result of the relinquishment
of jurisdiction by the Bastia judge and the application of the Law
of 30 December 1986 (ibid.). They criticised Mr Tomasi for having
filed several appeals to the Court of Cassation, in particular
against the first committal decision delivered on 27 May 1986 at
Bordeaux (see paragraph 25 above), which, they contended, had
substantially delayed the opening of the trial. Finally they
emphasised the large number of applications for release lodged by
the applicant and expressed the view that he was partly
responsible for the length of his detention.
102. The Court fully appreciates that the right of an accused
in detention to have his case examined with particular expedition
must not unduly hinder the efforts of the courts to carry out
their tasks with proper care (see, inter alia, mutatis mutandis,
the Toth v. Austria judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no.
224, pp. 20 - 21, para. 77). The evidence shows, nevertheless,
that in this case the French courts did not act with the necessary
promptness. Moreover, the principal public prosecutor at the Court
of Cassation acknowledged this in his opinion of 5 June 1991
before the Compensation Board: the investigation "could have been
considerably shortened without the various delays noted", in
particular from November 1983 to January 1985 and from May 1986 to
April 1988 (see paragraph 41 above). Accordingly, the length of
the contested detention would not appear to be essentially
attributable either to the complexity of the case or to the
applicant's conduct.
3. Conclusion
103. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 para. 3
(art. 5-3).
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 (art. 3)
104. Mr Tomasi claimed to have suffered during his period of
custody at Bastia police station ill-treatment incompatible with
Article 3 (art. 3), according to which:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Government's preliminary objection
105. The Government pleaded the applicant's failure to exhaust
his domestic remedies. They argued that he could have brought an
action for damages in the civil courts against the State alleging
culpable conduct on the part of its officials in the performance
of their duties.
106. The only submission concerning the failure to exhaust
domestic remedies raised by the Government before the Commission
in the context of Article 3 (art. 3) related to a completely
different matter, namely the claim that the filing of an
application in Strasbourg was premature as no decision on the
merits had been reached in the French courts. The Court, like the
Delegate of the Commission, concludes from this that the
Government are estopped from relying on their objection.
B. Merits of the complaint
107. In the circumstances of this case Mr Tomasi's complaint
raises two issues, which are separate although closely linked:
firstly that of the causal connection between the treatment which
the applicant allegedly suffered during his police custody and the
injuries noted subsequently by the investigating judge and the
doctors; and, secondly and if necessary, the gravity of the
treatment inflicted.
1. The causal connection between the treatment
complained of and the injuries noted
108. According to the applicant, the observation made on
25 March 1983 by the Bastia investigating judge and the reports
drawn up by various doctors at the end of his police custody (see
paragraphs 45, 47, 48 and 50 above) confirmed his statements, even
though it was, he said, to be regretted that the prison
authorities had failed to communicate the X-rays effected on
2 April 1983 at Bastia Hospital (see paragraph 68 above). His body
had borne marks which had only one origin, the ill-treatment
inflicted on him for a period of forty odd hours by some of the
police-officers responsible for his interrogation: he had been
slapped, kicked, punched and given forearm blows, made to stand
for long periods and without support, hands handcuffed behind the
back; he had been spat upon, made to stand naked in front of an
open window, deprived of food, threatened with a firearm and so
on.
109. The Government acknowledged that they could give no
explanation as to the cause of the injuries, but they maintained
that they had not resulted from the treatment complained of by Mr
Tomasi. The medical certificates showed, in their opinion, that
the slight bruises and abrasions noted were totally inconsistent
with the acts of violence described by the applicant; the
certificate of the Chief Medical Officer of Bastia Prison of
4 July 1989 had been drawn up a long time after the event and was
in complete contradiction with the earlier certificates. The
chronology of the interrogation sessions, which had not been
contested by the applicant, in no way corresponded to the
allegations. Finally, the five other persons in police custody at
the time had neither noticed nor heard anything, and although one
of them referred to Mr Tomasi's losing a tooth, this fact was not
mentioned by a doctor until six years later. In short, a clear
doubt subsisted, which excluded any presumption of the existence
of a causal connection.
110. Like the Commission, the Court bases its view on several
considerations.
In the first place, no one has claimed that the marks noted on
the applicant's body could have dated from a period prior to his
being taken into custody or could have originated in an act
carried out by the applicant against himself or again as a result
of an escape attempt.
In addition, at his first appearance before the investigating
judge, he drew attention to the marks which he bore on his chest
and his ear; the judge took note of this and immediately
designated an expert (see paragraphs 45 and 48 above).
Furthermore, four different doctors - one of whom was an
official of the prison authorities - examined the accused in the
days following the end of his police custody. Their certificates
contain precise and concurring medical observations and indicate
dates for the occurrence of the injuries which correspond to the
period spent in custody on police premises (see paragraphs 47, 48
and 50 above).
111. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for the Court to
inquire into the other acts which it is claimed the officials in
question carried out.
2. The gravity of the treatment complained of
112. Relying on the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of
18 January 1978 (Series A no. 25), the applicant maintained that
the blows which he had received constituted inhuman and degrading
treatment. They had not only caused him intense physical and
mental suffering; they had also aroused in him feelings of fear,
anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating him and breaking
his physical or moral resistance.
He argued that special vigilance was required of the Court in
this respect in view of the particular features of the French
system of police custody, notably the absence of a lawyer and a
lack of any contact with the outside world.
113. The Commission stressed the vulnerability of a person
held in police custody and expressed its surprise at the times
chosen to interrogate the applicant. Although the injuries
observed might appear to be relatively slight, they nevertheless
constituted outward signs of the use of physical force on an
individual deprived of his liberty and therefore in a state of
inferiority. The treatment had therefore been both inhuman and
degrading.
114. According to the Government, on the other hand, the
"minimum level of severity" required by the Court's case-law (see
the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment cited above and the
Tyrer v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A
no. 26) had not been attained. It was necessary to take into
account not only that the injuries were slight, but also the other
facts of the case: Mr Tomasi's youth and good state of health, the
moderate length of the interrogations (fourteen hours, three of
which were during the night), "particular circumstances" obtaining
in Corsica at the time and the fact that he had been suspected of
participating in a terrorist attack which had resulted in the
death of one man and grave injuries to another. In the
Government's view, the Commission's interpretation of Article 3
(art. 3) in this case was based on a misunderstanding of the aim
of that provision.
115. The Court cannot accept this argument. It does not
consider that it has to examine the system of police custody in
France and the rules pertaining thereto, or, in this case, the
length and the timing of the applicant's interrogations. It finds
it sufficient to observe that the medical certificates and
reports, drawn up in total independence by medical practitioners,
attest to the large number of blows inflicted on Mr Tomasi and
their intensity; these are two elements which are sufficiently
serious to render such treatment inhuman and degrading. The
requirements of the investigation and the undeniable difficulties
inherent in the fight against crime, particularly with regard to
terrorism, cannot result in limits being placed on the protection
to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of
individuals.
3. Conclusion
116. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3
(art. 3).
III. Alleged violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
117. The applicant finally complained of the time taken to
examine his complaint against persons unknown, lodged together
with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, in
respect of the ill-treatment which he had suffered during his
police custody. He relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), which
is worded as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by
[a] ... tribunal ..."
A. Government's preliminary objection
118. The Government contended, as they had done before the
Commission, that the applicant had failed to exhaust his domestic
remedies, in so far as he had not brought an action against the
State for compensation pursuant to Article 781-1 of the Code of
Judicial Organisation.
119. The Court confines itself to observing that this
submission is out of time having been made for the first time
before it at the hearing of 25 February 1992, and not within the
time-limits laid down in Rule 48 para. 1 of the Rules of Court.
B. Merits of the complaint
1. Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
120. In the Government's view, the contested proceedings did
not fall within the scope of the notion of "determination of ...
civil rights and obligations". By filing an application to join
the proceedings as a civil party, the person who claimed to be
injured by a criminal offence set in motion the prosecution or
associated himself with proceedings which had already been brought
by the prosecuting authority. He sought to secure the conviction
and sentencing of the perpetrator of the offence in question and
did not claim any pecuniary reparation. In other words, an
investigation opened upon the filing of such an application
concerned the existence of an offence and not that of a right.
121. Like the applicant and the Commission, the Court cannot
accept this view.
Article 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the
filing of a complaint with an application to join the proceedings
as a civil party. According to the case-law of the Court of
Cassation (Crim. 9 February 1961, Dalloz 1961, p. 306), that
provision simply applies Article 2 of that Code which is worded as
follows:
"Anyone who has personally suffered damage directly caused by
an offence [crime, {delit} or contravention] may institute civil
proceedings for damages.
..."
The investigating judge will find the civil application
admissible - as he did in this instance - provided that, in the
light of the facts relied upon, he can presume the existence of
the damage alleged and a direct link with an offence (ibid.).
The right to compensation claimed by Mr Tomasi therefore
depended on the outcome of his complaint, in other words on the
conviction of the perpetrators of the treatment complained of. It
was a civil right, notwithstanding the fact that the criminal
courts had jurisdiction (see, mutatis mutandis, the Moreira de
Azevedo v. Portugal judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 189,
p. 17, para. 67).
122. In conclusion, Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was
applicable.
2. Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
123. It remains to establish whether a "reasonable time" was
exceeded. The applicant and the Commission considered that it had
been, whereas the Government denied this.
(a) Period to be taken into consideration
124. The period to be taken into consideration began on
29 March 1983, the date on which Mr Tomasi filed his complaint; it
ended on 6 February 1989, with the delivery of the Court of
Cassation's judgment declaring the applicant's appeal from the
Bordeaux indictments division's decision inadmissible (see
paragraphs 46 and 67 above). It therefore lasted more than five
years and ten months.
(b) Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
125. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be
determined with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's
case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which
in this instance call for an overall assessment.
A reading of the decisions given in these proceedings (see
paragraphs 63, 66 and 67 above) shows that the case was not a
particularly complex one. In addition, the applicant hardly
contributed to delaying the outcome of the proceedings by
challenging in the Bordeaux indictments division the decision
finding no case to answer and by requesting that division to order
a further inquiry (see paragraph 64 above). Responsibility for the
delays found lies essentially with the judicial authorities. In
particular, the Bastia public prosecutor allowed more than a year
and a half to elapse before asking the Court of Cassation to
designate the competent investigating authority (see paragraphs
57- 58 above). The Bordeaux investigating judge heard Mr Tomasi
only once and does not seem to have carried out any investigative
measure between March and September 1985, and then between January
1986 and January 1987 (see paragraphs 59 - 61 above).
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1).
IV. Application of Article 50 (art. 50)
126. According to Article 50 (art. 50):
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a
legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party
is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations
arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the
said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the
consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the
Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured
party."
Under this provision the applicant claimed compensation for
damage and the reimbursement of costs.
A. Damage
127. Mr Tomasi distinguished three categories of damage:
(a) pecuniary damage of 900,000 francs deriving from the
violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3), corresponding to loss
of salary (600,000 francs) and of commercial income
(300,000 francs);
(b) damage assessed at a lump sum of 200,000 francs and
payable, again in connection with Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3), in
respect of the thirty-two visits made by his family to the
continent in order to see him in prison;
(c) non-pecuniary damage assessed at 1,500,000 francs, namely
1,000,000 for the violation of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) and
500,000 for the breach of Articles 3 and 6 (art. 3, art. 6).
128. In the Government's view, the Compensation Board has
already compensated any damage linked to the excessive length of
the pre-trial detention. If the Court were to find a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 and Article 3 (art. 6-1, art. 3), its judgment
would provide sufficient just satisfaction.
129. The Delegate of the Commission recommended the payment of
a sum covering non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, but left it to
the Court to assess the quantum of such an award.
130. The Court finds that the applicant sustained undeniable
non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage. Taking into account the
various relevant considerations, including the Compensation
Board's decision, and making an assessment on an equitable basis
in accordance with Article 50 (art. 50), it awards him
700,000 francs.
B. Costs and expenses
131. Mr Tomasi also claimed the reimbursement of his costs and
expenses. For the proceedings before the French courts, he sought
276,500 francs (Mr Leclerc and Mr Lachaud: 141,500 francs; Mr
Stagnara: 100,000 francs; Mr Boulanger: 5,000 francs; Mrs Waquet:
30,000 francs.). In respect of the proceedings before the
Convention organs, he requested 237,200 francs.
132. The Government and the Delegate of the Commission did not
express a view on the first amount. As regards the second, the
Government referred to decisions in cases concerning France,
whereas the Commission left the matter to be determined by the
Court.
133. Making an assessment on an equitable basis and having
regard to the criteria which it applies in this field, the Court
awards the applicant an overall amount of 300,000 francs.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Dismisses the Government's preliminary objections;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3,
Article 3 and Article 6 para. 1 (art. 5-3, art. 3, art. 6-1);
3. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant,
within three months, 700,000 (seven hundred thousand) French
francs for damage and 300,000 (three hundred thousand) francs in
respect of costs and expenses;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public
hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 August
1992.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: {Marc-Andre} EISSEN
Registrar
In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the
Convention and Rule 53 para. 2 of the Rules of Court, the
concurring opinion of Mr De Meyer is annexed to this judgment.
Initialled: R. R.
Initialled: M.-A. E.
CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER
(Translation)
It would be unfortunate if paragraphs 107 to 115 of the
judgment were to leave the impression that blows inflicted on a
suspect in police custody are prohibited only in so far as they
exceed a certain "minimum level of severity" <4>, for example on
account of the "large number" of such blows and their
"intensity" <5>.
--------------------------------
<4> Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978,
Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162. See also paragraphs 91 and 102
of the Commission's report in the present case.
<5> Paragraph 115 of the present judgment.
Any use of physical force in respect of a person deprived of
his liberty which is not made strictly necessary as a result of
his own conduct <6> violates human dignity and must therefore be
regarded as a breach of the right guaranteed under Article 3
(art. 3) of the Convention <7>.
--------------------------------
<6> For instance in the case of an "escape attempt" or "an act
carried out ... against himself" (possibilities envisaged at
paragraph 110 of the judgment) or against another person.
<7> Even if the violence consists only of "slaps or blows of
the hand to the head or face". It is somewhat surprising that the
Commission felt able to condone such "roughness"; see in this
connection its reports of 1969 in the Greek case, Yearbook,
vol. 12, p. 501, and of 1976 in the Ireland v. the United Kingdom
case, Series B no. 23-I, pp. 388 - 389.
At the most the severity of the treatment is relevant in
determining, where appropriate, whether there has been
torture <8>.
--------------------------------
<8> Torture constitutes "an aggravated ... form of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment": Article 1 para. 1
of Resolution 3452 (XXX), adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on 9 December 1975. See also the Ireland v. the
United Kingdom judgment, cited above, pp. 66 - 67, para. 167, and
the separate opinions of Judges Zekia, O'Donoghue and Evrigenis,
ibid., pp. 97, 106 and 136, as well as the above-mentioned
Commission reports in the Greek case, p. 186, and the Ireland v.
United Kingdom case, p. 388.
|
