EIT:n suuri jaosto: Romanian viranomaisten tutkinta vuoden 1990 mellakoihin liittyen riittämätöntä

23.9.2014 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto katsoi tuomiossaan, että hallitus oli vastuussa siitä, että hallituksen vastaisten mellakoiden lopettamisissa kuolleen sekä siellä loukkaantuneen valittajan tapausten tutkinta ei ollut riittävän tehokasta.

Merkittävää ratkaisussa oli myös se, että valitukset tutkittiin siitä huolimatta, että ne oli tehty yli kymmenen vuoden kuluttua mellakoista. EIT katsoi tältä osin, että poikkeuksellisissa tilanteissa valtion edustajien kaltoinkohtelun kohteeksi joutuneilla henkilöillä voi olla sellaisia hyväksyttäviä psykologisia esteitä valituksen tekemiselle, että valitus voidaan tutkia siinä vaiheessa, kun nämä psykologiset esteet ovat vähentyneet ja valitus saadaan tehtyä.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Mocanu and Others v. Romania (application nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08), which is final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:

a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 (right to life – investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Ms Mocanu;
a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment – investigation) of the Convention in respect of Mr Stoica; and, unanimously, that there had been
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) in respect of the Association “21 December 1989”.

The case concerned the investigation and the length of the proceedings which followed the violent crackdown on anti-government demonstrations in Bucharest in June 1990. During the crackdown, Ms Mocanu’s husband was killed by gunfire and Mr Stoica was arrested and ill-treated by the police. The Court accepted that, in exceptional circumstances, the psychological consequences of ill-treatment inflicted by State agents could undermine victims’ capacity to complain about treatment inflicted on them and could constitute a significant impediment to their right to redress.

Mr Stoica, like the majority of the victims, had found the courage to lodge a complaint only several years after the events, when the investigation which had already been opened of the authorities’ own motion seemed to be making progress. The Court therefore considered that, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, Mr Stoica’s vulnerability and his feeling of powerlessness amounted to a plausible and acceptable explanation for the fact that he had not lodged a complaint until 2001, more than ten years after the events. The Court found that the authorities responsible for the investigation had not taken all the measures which could have led to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the violent events and that the applicants had not had the benefit of an effective investigation for the purposes of the Convention.

While acknowledging that the case was indisputably complex, the Court considered that the importance of the political stakes for Romanian society should have led the Romanian authorities to deal with the case promptly and without delay in order to avoid any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts.

EIT:n lehdistötiedote kokonaisuudessaan, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: Press release

Tilaa
Ilmoita
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments