EIT:n suuri jaosto: 12-vuotiaan pojan 30 päivän vapaudenmenetys epäoikeudenmukaisen prosessin seurauksena muodosti useiden artikloiden loukkauksen

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto on eilen antamassaan tuomiossa arvioinut 12-vuotiaan lapsen vapaudenriistoa Venäjällä. Lapsen oli katsottu syyllistyneen rikoksiin, mutta koska hän oli alle vastuuikärajan, hänet oli sijoitettu 30 päiväksi nuorisovankilaan “käyttäytymisen korjaamiseksi” (behaviour correction).

EIT katsoi menettelyn rinnastuneen rikosprosessiin ja kun lapsella ei ollut oikeutta käyttää avustajaa eikä vastakuulustella todistajia, oli prosessi EIS 6 artiklan vastainen. Vapaudenriisto ei myöskään täyttänyt alaikäisen vapaudenriiston sopimuksenmukaisia vaatimuksia, ja lisäksi lapsen kärsiessä ADHD:sta ja yökastelusta, hänen olisi tullut saada asianmukaista hoitoa, mitä hän ei saanut. Asiassa oli siten rikottu EIS 3, 5 § 1 (d) ja 6 artiklaa.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In [a] Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Blokhin v. Russia (application no. 47152/06) the European Court of Human Rights held:

unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;
unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security); and
by a majority, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial).

The case concerned the detention for 30 days of a 12-year old boy, who was suffering from a mental and neurobehavioural disorder, in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders.

The Court found that the boy had not received adequate medical care for his condition at the temporary detention centre, in violation of Article 3. His placement in the centre could not be justified under Article 5 § 1 (d), as “detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision”, since it had not served an educational purpose. Instead, the domestic courts deciding on his placement had referred to “behaviour correction” and the need to prevent the boy from committing further delinquent acts, neither of which was a valid ground covered by Article 5 § 1 (d).

The Court agreed with the Chamber judgment in the case that the proceedings concerning the boy’s placement in the temporary detention centre were to be considered criminal proceedings for the purpose of Article 6, although they had not been classified as criminal under Russian law. In particular, the domestic courts had referred to the fact that the boy had committed a delinquent act as the main reason for his placement in the detention centre. His defence rights had been violated because he had been questioned by the police without legal assistance and the statements of two witnesses whom he was unable to question had served as a basis for his placement in temporary detention.

Furthermore the Court underlined that it was essential for adequate procedural safeguards to be in place to protect the best interest and well-being of a child when his or her liberty was at stake. Children with disabilities might moreover require additional safeguards to ensure that they were sufficiently protected.

Koko lehdistötiedote löytyy täältä: here