WPC3 Ƈg7`hԇmkﭠHATG9gJQwu i"|Sſ ;~qd1iVfa b͊(̀sWzCn7T'UxM^bl6g\`G4Y~l}J` Tsa;Ƒ؜|Ϡ[e-y:d #+97|C@R;)'_ץD. B="-C~~r^"v| JYW͎k\Rk]&¦PMYe|^#$UN %3 0:9 0s 0g 0X 0F 01 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0\ 08 0 0 0 0 0W 0! 0 0 0 0 0h 0: 0  0 00 0< 0 ! 0>! 0v" 0`|" 0`" 0`<# 0`# 0`# 08\$ 0$ 02f% 0% 0:& 0Y& 0_'' 0 ' 0j( 0) B*~+ D/+ D++ 0, D/- 0- 06. 0. 0:/ 0^/ 0<Y0U60U>0U* 1 1 B731j1 0U02 0(2 AM2222222222222 BW2222^ Q3w]34a3u33 m3HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($UKUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K?<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 75(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS4)2dxd0KS.SampleK?<6X9`(Courier NewKS@\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3+  d d d Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2F$ !UKUS.,  ($DEF6A<< cS$ Button Top/Left1+ d F 2qd- :PB-3|xU !UKUS.,  _  COMMITTEEAGAINSTTORTURE  R.S.v.Austria  30April2002 p CommunicationNo.111/1998 P  CAT/C/28/D/111/1998 0  VIEWS  P  Complainant:Mr._R.S._Ԁ   Representedby:Mr.Richard_Soyer_,counselinVienna,Austria  Stateparty:Austria  Dateofcommunication:16April1997(initialsubmission) p TheCommitteeagainstTorture,establishedunderarticle17oftheConventionagainstTortureand 0 OtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment,  p Meetingon30April2002, P HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.111/1998,submittedtotheCommittee 0 againstTortureunderarticle22oftheConventionagainstTortureandOtherCruel,Inhumanor   DegradingTreatmentorPunishment, ! Havingtakeintoaccountallinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthecommunication, #! hiscounselandtheStateparty, $" AdoptsitsDecisionunderarticle22,paragraph7,oftheConvention. p&!$ 1.1ThecomplainantisMr.R.S.,anAustriancitizen,atthetimeofthefirstsubmissionimprisoned @)$' inVienna,Austria,onaconvictionforhousebreaking,procuringofprostitutionanddrugtrafficking. 0*%( HeclaimstobethevictimofviolationsbyAustriaofarticle13oftheInternationalConvention  +p&) againstTortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment.Heisrepresented ,`'* bycounsel. -P(+  -@), 1.2Inaccordancewitharticle22,paragraph3oftheConvention,theCommitteetransmittedthe  petitiontotheStatepartyon11January1999.  Factsassubmittedbythecomplainant  2.1On30July1996,thecomplainantwasquestionedbypoliceofficersatthe_Leopoldstadt_ԀDistrict `  PolicestationoftheViennaFederalPoliceDirectorate.Whilethecomplainantwasquestionedby P  officersofoneinvestigationteam,threeofficersenteredtheroomandbroughtthecomplainantinto @  theofficeofoneofthem.Theofficersoftheinvestigationteamprotestedagainstthecomplainant's 0  transfer,becausetheyhadnotyetfinishedtheirinterrogation.Shortlyafterthecomplainanthadbeen  p  broughtintotheotheroffice,hewasfoundoutsidetheofficewiththreebleedinginjuriesonhisright `  lowerleg.Thecomplainantwasexaminedbyamedicalofficerofthepoliceandphotosofthe P  injuriesweretaken.On1August1996,thecomplainantwastransferredbyhisprivatedoctorto @  hospitalforfurtherexaminationsthatwereundertakenon2August1996.Thecomplainantwas 0  releasedimmediately.Thereportofthehospital,submittedbythecomplainant,documentedinjuries   oftherightlowerlegandaslightlyswollennose.  2.2On9August1996,theViennaFederalPoliceDirectoratesentareportonthefactsofthecase  andtheallegationsofthecomplainantthathehadbeenilltreatedtothePublicProsecutor'sOffice.  On20August1996,thePublicProsecutorinstitutedcourtproceedingsagainstthethreepolice  officerschargingthemwithmistreatmentofaprisonerandattemptedcoercion. p 2.3Thefirstcourthearingtookplaceon7October1996.On6November1996,thecomplainant's P trialattorneyproposedtothecourtandtotheprosecutorthatanexaminingjudgebeassigned,in @ accordancewithadecreebytheFederalMinistryofJustice,tocompletethepreliminary 0 investigationcarriedoutbytheFederalPoliceDirectorate.Thisproposalwasrejectedbythecourt  p andtheprosecutor.On25November1996,thethreepoliceofficerswereacquitted.On10March ` 1997,theprosecutorwithdrewhisappeal.Itissubmittedthat,therefore,thedecisionofthecourtis P final. @ Thecomplaint   3.1Thecomplainantclaimsthaton30July1996hewassubjectedtoilltreatmentbythreepolice "  officerswhilebeingquestionedattheLeopoldstadtDistrictPolicestationoftheViennaFederal #! PoliceDirectorate.Allegedly,onepoliceofficermadehimfalltothegroundandthenkickedhim. $" Thecomplainantallegesfurtherthatthispoliceofficerintentionallykickedhimandsteppedonhis % # rightsshin,whichwasalreadyinjured1.Asaresultthewoundstartedtobleed.Whenthe p&!$ complainantstooduphisfacewasslappedbyanotherpoliceofficer.Hewasthentoldtomakea `'"% confession.Thecomplainantstatesthatafourthpoliceofficerwaspresentintheroom,butthathe P(#& didnotparticipateintheilltreatment. @)$' 3.2Thecomplainantclaimsthatatthefirstcourthearingon7October1996beforetheVienna  +p&) RegionalCriminalCourt,seriousdeficienciesinthepreliminaryinquiryappeared.Inparticular,the ,`'* investigationsdidnotattempttoidentifythefourthpersonintheinterrogationroom,despitethefact -P(+ thatthetestimonyofthatpersonwouldhavebeenessentialtodeterminingthefacts. -@), Ї3.3Thecomplainantcontendsthatthepreliminaryinquirieslackedthenecessaryimpartiality,  becausetheywerecarriedoutbythepoliceand,therefore,constitutedabreachofarticle13ofthe  Convention.Impartialinvestigationswouldhaveidentifiedthe"fourthperson".  3.4ThecomplainantfurthersubmitsthatthereisnolegalbasisinAustrianlawforpreliminary p policeinquiriessuchastheonecarriedoutinthepresentcase,althoughsuchinquiriesarefrequently `  conductedinAustria.Neitheramagistrate'spreliminaryinvestigationnoralegalpreliminary P  inquiry,bothprovidedforintheCodeofCriminalProcedure,wascarriedout. @  3.5Finallythecomplainantsubmitsthattheonlydomesticremedystillavailableisacivilaction  p  (_Amtshaftungsklage_).Suchanaction,however,wouldnotbepracticable,becauseintheabsenceof `  athoroughcriminalinvestigationacivilactionwouldfail. P  Stateparty'sobservationsonadmissibility 0  4.1On20May1999,theStatepartysubmitsthatthecaseshouldbedeclaredinadmissible.The  Statepartystatesthattheinterrogationofthecomplainantbythefirstinvestigationteamwas  interruptedwhentheofficerassignedtothecaseatthepolicestationhadhimbroughtintohisoffice  tobeexaminedbythemedicalofficeroftheViennaFederalPoliceDirectorateinordertodetermine  whetherhishealthandstateofmindwereimpairedasaresultofdrugconsumption.  4.2Afterbeingexaminedbythemedicalofficer,thecomplainanttoldanotherofficialofthestation ` (ColonelP.)thathehadbeenilltreatedbytheofficerwhohadquestionedhim,themedicaloffice P andotherpoliceofficer.ColonelP.immediatelyinformedtheheadofthepolicestationofthe @ complainant'sallegations.Thelatterphoned,withoutdelay,thePresidentoftheViennaFederal 0 PoliceDirectorateandtheDirectoroftheCriminalInvestigationsOffice(_Sicherheitsbro_)and  p requestedthemtotakeaction.TheCriminalInvestigationsofficeimmediatelyopenedan ` investigation.Onthesameday,onlyaboutoneandahalfhoursafterthecomplainanthadmadethe P allegations,hewastakentotheCriminalInvestigationsOfficeandquestionedatlength. @ 4.3TheaccusedpoliceofficersandColonelP.wereinterrogatedextensivelyon31Julyand1   August1996.FiveotherpoliceofficerswerealsoquestionedthoroughlybyofficersoftheCriminal ! InvestigationsOfficeon2,5and6August1996.TheCriminalInvestigationsOfficealsotried, "  unsuccessfully,tofindoutwhetherafourthpersonhadbeenpresentduringtheallegedilltreatment. #! 4.4TheCriminalInvestigationsOfficesubmittedaStatementofFactstotheViennaPublic % # Prosecutor'sOfficeon9August1996reportingontheresultsofitsinvestigations.Thepublic p&!$ prosecutorfiledchargesagainsttheaccusedpoliceofficerswiththeViennaRegionalCriminalCourt `'"% on20August1996forhavinginflictedsufferingonandtryingtocoerceaprisoner.Thisinformation P(#& arrivedattheViennaRegionalCriminalCourton28August1996. @)$' 4.5TheCriminalInvestigationsOfficecontinueditsinquiriesandfoundthatafourthperson(G.W.)  +p&) hadcomeintotheofficewherethecomplainantwasbeingquestioned.Thatpersonwasanofficial ,`'* fromtheViennacityadministrationwhotestifiedthathehadstayedintheofficefornomorethan -P(+ oneortwominutesandthatduringthistimetherehadbeennosignsofanyilltreatmentofthe -@), complainant.ThisinformationwassubmittedtothePublicProsecutor'sOfficeon26August1996.  4.6On7October1996thetrialagainstthethreepoliceofficersbeganattheViennaRegional  CriminalCourt.Thecomplainantandtheaccusedpoliceofficerswerequestionedatlengthbythe  courtinthepresenceofthepublicprosecutor,counselforthedefenceandthecomplainant's p representative.Anumberofwitnesseswerealsoquestioned,includingG.W.whorepeatedthathe `  hadstayedintheoffice,wherethecomplainantallegedlyhadbeenilltreated,forashortperiodand P  hadnotwitnessedanyilltreatment. @  4.7Inviewofthecomplainant'sdenialthatG.W.wasthefourthperson,theCriminalInvestigations  p  Officecontinueditsinquiriesparalleltothecourtproceedings.Inthisregardthecomplainantwas `  requested,on30August1996,toassisttheofficersintheirefforts,butherepliedthathewouldnot P  answeranysummonsanddidnotmakeanystatementswhenaphotographofG.W.wasshownto @  him. 0  4.8Thethreeaccusedofficerswereacquittedforlackofevidencebyjudgemententeredon25  November1996.Thecourtreliedinparticularonthemedicalexpertopinion,accordingtowhich  theilltreatmentallegedbythecomplainantwouldhavehadfurtherconsequenceswhichwouldhave  beennoticedbythemedicalofficerwhoexaminedthecomplainantimmediatelyafterthealleged  incident.Theexpertalsotooktheviewthatthecomplainantmighthaveinflictedtheinjuryupon  himself.Anappealannouncedbytheprosecutor'sofficewaswithdrawnon6March1997and p thereforethejudgementbecamefinal.Subsequenttothat,thedisciplinaryproceedingsinitiated ` againstoneofthethreeofficerswerediscontinued,whereasanotheronewasacquittedinsuch P proceedings;nodisciplinaryproceedingswereinitiatedagainstthethirdofficer. @ 4.9TheStatepartyclaimsthatthecomplainant'srightunderarticle13oftheConventionagainst  p TortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishmenttohavehiscasepromptly ` andimpartiallyexaminedbythecompetentauthoritieswasfullysecured.Onthesamedaythe P complainantmadehisallegations,thePresidentoftheViennaFederalPoliceDirectoratewas @ informedandtheCriminalInvestigationsOfficestarteditsinvestigations.TheStatepartynotesin 0 thisrespectthattheCriminalInvestigationsOfficeandthedistrictpolicestationsbelongtodifferent   departmentsofthepoliceandthatthesedepartmentsareindependentofeachother. ! 4.10ThefactthattheinvestigationwascarriedoutbytheCriminalInvestigationsOffice,which #! dealswithonlythemoreseriouscrimes,showsthatthecasewasgivenpromptattentionbythe $" competentauthorities.Thedelaybetweenthebeginningofinvestigationsandthepassingonof % # informationtothePublicProsecutor'sOfficewastheshortestpossibleandtheinquiriescarriedout p&!$ afterwardswereextensive.Comprehensiveinvestigationswerecarriedoutfollowingthe `'"% complainant'sstatementthatafourthpersonhadbeenpresentduringtheallegedilltreatment.This P(#& issaidtoshowthattheinvestigatingauthoritieswereunbiasedandconductedthenecessary @)$' investigationsimpartially. 0*%( 4.11Theresultsoftheinvestigationswouldhavebeenthesameevenifpreliminaryexaminations ,`'* hadbeenconductedbyacourtoflaworthefilehadbeensentbacktotheinvestigatingjudge.The -P(+ witnessesandtheaccusedpersonsquestionedbypoliceofficersduringthepreliminary -@), investigationswereagainquestionedatlengthbythejudgeatthetrial.Hence,anypossiblefaults  ofthepreliminaryinvestigationwouldhavebeencorrectedatthattime.Accedingtotherequest  madeon6November1996bytherepresentativeofthecomplainanttoreturnthefiletothe  investigatingjudgewouldhavebeencounterproductive,asitwouldnothaveproducedanynew  resultsandwouldhavecreatedaconsiderabledelayinthecriminalproceedings. p 4.12TheStatepartyfinallycontendsthattheprerequisitesenshrinedintheConventionhavenot P  beenfulfilledinthecaseatissueandconsidersthattheCommitteeshoulddeclarethecomplaint @  inadmissible. 0  Commentsbythecomplainant `  5.Inaletter,dated28July1999,thecomplainantstatedthathehadsubmittedallrelevant @  information. 0  Decisiononadmissibility  6.Atitstwentythirdsession,inNovember1999,theCommitteeconsideredtheadmissibilityofthe  complaintunderarticle22oftheConvention.InthecaseunderconsiderationtheCommitteenoted  thatthecommunicationwasnotanonymousandthatthesamematterwasnotbeingnorhadbeen  examinedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement.Italsonotedthat p complainant'sstatementthatalldomesticremedieshadbeenexhausted.TheStatepartydidnot ` contestthatstatement.Moreover,theCommitteeconsideredthatthecomplaintdidnotconstitutean P abuseoftherightofsubmissionofsuchcommunicationsnorwasitincompatiblewiththeprovisions @ oftheConvention.ItheldthattheobservationssubmittedbytheStatepartyconcernedthemerits 0 ratherthantheadmissibilityissue.TheCommittee,therefore,foundthatnoobstaclestothe  p admissibilityofthecomplaintexisted.Accordingly,theCommitteedeclaredthecomplaint ` admissibleon18November1999. P Stateparty'sobservationsonthemerits 0 7.1Initsubmissiondated9June2000,theStatepartyreferstoitspreviouspresentationofthefacts ! ofthecase. "  7.2InresponsetoarequestbytheCommittee,theStatepartysubmitsinformationontheprocedure $" setforthinitsdomesticlegislationtodealwithcomplaintsoftorture.TheStatepartycontendsthat % # remediesareavailable,whichintheirentiretyensureapromptandimpartialexaminationofcases p&!$ ofallegedtorturethatmeettherequirementsofarticle13oftheConvention. `'"% Complainant'scommentsonthemerits @)$' 8.1Inhissubmissionof8January2002,thecomplainantmakesadditionalsubmissionconfirming  +p&) hispreviousclaims. ,`'* 8.2HesubmitsthatnotwithstandingtheStateparty'sclaimthatadequateinvestigations_were -@), undertakenintotheallegationsoftorture,infact,theCriminalInvestigationsOfficedidnottakeany  adequateoreffectivemeasuretoidentifythefourthpersonwhowaspresentduringtheilltreatment.  TheonlyinquirymentionedbytheStatepartywasthesummonsofthecomplainanttoappearatthe  CriminalInvestigationOfficetoidentifyaphotograph,on30August1996.Thecomplainantargues  thatherefusedtocooperatebecause,atthattime,onlypoliceinvestigationswerecarriedout,without p participationofjudicialauthorities,andthecomplainantdidnottrusttheindependenceofthese `  investigations. P  8.3ThecomplainantfurthersubmitsthatthePublicProsecutor'sOfficeisnotanimpartialand 0  independentauthorityfortheinvestigationofallegationsagainstmembersofthesecurityorgans,  p  asitissubjecttoordersbytheFederalMinisterofJustice.Thecomplainantarguesthatonlythe `  investigativejudge,whoseindependenceisguaranteedbyarticle87oftheFederalConstitutionof P  Austria,wouldbeadequatetocarryoutsuchinvestigations.Inthepresentcase,theRegional @  CriminalCourtrefusedtotakeactionthroughtheinvestigativejudge. 0  Considerationofthemerits  9.1TheCommitteehasconsideredthepresentcomplaintinthelightofallinformationmade  availablebytheparties,asprovidedforinarticle22,paragraph4,oftheConvention.  9.2TheCommitteenotesthecomplainant'sclaimthattheStatepartywasinbreachofarticle13of p theConvention,becausetheRegionalCriminalCourtfailedtoopenajudicialinvestigationintohis ` allegationsoftorture.Hecontendsthatonlyajudicialinvestigationcouldbeconsideredimpartial. P InthisconnectiontheCommitteeobservesthatthedecisionoftheRegionalCriminalCourtof25 @ November1996revealsthatthecourttookintoaccountallevidencepresentedbythecomplainant 0 andtheprosecutorwhendecidingtoacquitthethreepolicemen.TheCommitteefindsthatthe  p complainanthasfailedtosubstantiateinwhatwaytheinvestigationsconductedbytheStateparty ` werenotimpartialwithinthemeaningofarticle13oftheConvention. P 10.TheCommitteeagainstTortureconcludesthattheStatepartydidnotviolatetherulelaiddown 0 inarticle13oftheConventionandthat,inthelightoftheinformationsubmittedtoit,nofindingof   anyviolationofanyotherprovisionsoftheConventioncanbemade. ! Note $" 1󀀀ThisinjurywasaburnthatMr.R.S.hadinflictedonhimselfwhenhehadbeeninprison p&!$ approximatelyfouryearsbeforetheincidentatissue.Theburndidnotcompletelyhealandstill `'"% tendedtoopen. P(#& =____