EIT:n suuri jaosto: Latvialla oli velvollisuus suorittaa tehokas tutkinta EIS 3 artiklan vastaisesta kohtelusta, jonka se oli yksipuolisessa julistuksessaan myöntänyt

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto arvioi tuoreessa tuomiossaan ns. yksipuolisen julistuksen (unilateral declaration) käytännön merkitystä tilanteessa, jossa vastaajavaltio oli myöntänyt EIS 3 artiklan vastaisen kohtelun. EIT:n mukaan vastaajavaltio ei voi tällaisissa tapauksissa välttyä vastuultaan suorittaa tehokas tutkinta kaltoinkohteluun syyllistyneiden osalta pelkästään maksamalla valittajalle korvauksia ja ilmoittamalla myöntävänsä, että kaltoinkohtelua oli tapahtunut.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

In [a] Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Jeronovičs v. Latvia (application no. 44898/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, by ten votes to seven, that there had been:

a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights under its procedural head.

The case primarily concerned the national authorities’ refusal to reopen the criminal proceedings relating to Mr Jeronovičs’s ill-treatment, following a unilateral declaration in which the Government had acknowledged, among other breaches, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The Court had adopted a strike-out decision on 10 February 2009 in the case of Jeronovičs v. Latvia (no. 547/02) in respect of the complaints referred to in the declaration. In that connection the Court observed that the unilateral declaration procedure was an exceptional one and that, when it came to breaches of the most fundamental rights contained in the Convention, it was not intended to allow the Government to escape their responsibility. In the Court’s view, it had been a pre-condition of its strike-out decision that Mr Jeronovičs should retain the possibility to exercise other remedies in order to obtain redress.

The Court held that its strike-out decision had not extinguished, and could not extinguish, the Latvian Government’s continuing obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. Accordingly, it could not be said that the State had discharged its continuing procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention by paying the amount of compensation indicated in its unilateral declaration and by acknowledging a violation of the Convention. Were it otherwise the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, thus making it possible for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and rendering the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, ineffective in practice.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here