COM M ITTEE SECRETARIAT GENERAL OF MINISTERS COM ITÉ DES MINISTRES SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS CONSEIL DE L EUROPE SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES

Contact: Abel Campos Tel: 03 88 41 26 48

Date: 30/01/2014 DH-DD(2014)148

Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1193 meeting(4-6 March 2014) (DH)

Item reference: Action report(28/12/2013)

Communication from concerning the case of Petriks against Latvia (Application19619/03) No.

***********

Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1193 réunion(4-6 mars 2014) (DH)

Référence du point : Bilan d'action

Communication de la Lettonie concernant l’affaire Petriks contre Lettonie (requête19619/03) n° (anglais uniquement). DH-DD(2014)148 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.______

DGI 2 8 DEC, 2013

SERVICE DE L'EXECUTION DES ARRETS DF LA CED H ACTION REPORT

of the Government of the Republic of Latvia on the execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case

Petriks

v.

Latvia

Application no. 19619/03

Judgment of 4 December 2012 Final on 4 March 2013 DH-DD(2014)148 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. _ _ _ _ _

I. INTRODUCTION

1. On 17 June 2003 Mr Kaspars Petriks (“the applicant”) submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) under Article 34 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”).

2. On 4 December 2012 the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court ordered the Latvian Government (“the Government”) to pay the applicant within three months from the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Convention, EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The judgment became final on 4 March 2013.

3. In the context of the new working methods for the supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgments and decisions adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 December 2010, the Government hereby presents its action report setting out the execution measures taken.

II. CASE DESCRIPTION

4. The applicant is a Latvian national who was bom in 1979. On 13 November 2000 the applicant was arrested and detained. The applicant was held at the short term detention facility in , which was located in a police station, for the following eight periods: 5 June to 5 July 2002; 5 September to 22 November 2002; 13 to 22 December 2002; 5 to 13 January 2003; 22 to 29 January 2003, 5 to 13 March 2003; 22 March to 13 April 2003; and 13 to 23 May 2003.

5. The applicant complained that the conditions of the short-term detention facility in Saldus had not been appropriate for prolonged periods of detention. According to the applicant, the conditions therein had been unsanitary and had not met the basic hygiene standards. There had been no natural light and the artificial light had been insufficient for reading. There had been no ventilation in the cell. Furthermore, access to water and toilet facilities were limited. The applicant had not been able to take a shower and the sleeping facilities consisted of a wooden platform.

6. On 9 June 2003 the Kurzeme Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to imprisonment of thirteen years. On 3 November 2003 the Chamber of Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first instance court upon the applicant’s appeal. On 13 January 2004 the Department of Criminal Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of the points of law.

III. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

7. The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 23 May 2003 the applicant was transferred from the Saldus short-term detention facility to the Liepäja Prison; since then the applicant has not been held in the Saldus short-term detention facility.

8. In these circumstances, no further individual measures appear to be necessary in the present case. DH-DD(2014)148 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. _ __ _ _

IV. GENERAL MEASURES

9. In the case Petriks v. Latvia the Court highlighted the necessity to improve the conditions of the short-term detention facilities in Latvia. The Latvian authorities have worked purposefully on the issues identified by the Court and the European Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, particularly referred to by the Court in the judgment.

10. In this connection, the adoption ofLaw the on Procedure of Keeping Apprehended1 and Persons the Administrative Procedure Law,2 the administrative measures undertaken to ensure that the conditions of the short-term detention facilities conform to the Convention’s requirements, as well as the existence of an effective remedy capable of dealing in substance with the complaints alleging inhuman conditions of detention and providing redress thereof, are sufficient measures to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

IV.l. Measures to improve the conditions of the short-term detention facilities

11. On 21 October 2005 theLaw on Procedure of Keeping Apprehended entered Persons into force. According to Article 7 of the said Law, the minimum living space for detained persons is from 4 square meters (for 1 person) to 15 square meters (for 5 persons); each cell of a short-term detention facility must have access to natural light; detained persons have right to walk in the fresh air for at least 30 minutes (or 60 minutes for minors) per day; detained persons receive food three times daily, including one hot meal, and drinking water at any time; short-term detention facilities are equipped with separate beds, mattresses, blankets, shelves and benches, as well as in-cell toilet facilities and call-buttons for calling police officers.

12. With the entry into force ofLaw the on Procedure of Keeping Apprehended several Persons, short-term detention facilities in , Kräslava and have been closed after it was established that they do not comply with the provisions of the new Law. New short-term detention facilities have been operating in Liepäja (since 2006), Riga (since 2008), Kuldiga (since 2011), (since 2012) and Daugavpils (since 2013). Furthermore, in the beginning of 2012 the short-term detention facility in Saldus was repaired, in particular, the in­ cell toilet facilities have been partitioned from the living space, as well as new windows have been installed.

13. Following the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 20 December 2010 in the case No. 2010-44- 01, the words “by a wall with a height not exceeding 1.2 meters” (concerning privacy for in­ cell toilet facilities) of Article 7, paragraph 5 (1), and paragraph 1 of the Transitional Rules of the Law on Procedure of Keeping Apprehended were Persons found incompatible with Article 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. As regards the provisions of the Transitional Rules of the said Law, the Constitutional Court highlighted that the lack of budgetary funding cannot serve as a justification for non-observance of fundamental rights. As a result, financial resources were allocated to repair or renovate short-term detention facilities in order to bring the conditions therein with the legislative requirements by 1 January 2012.

1 Available in Latvian at: http://likumi.lv/doc.php7icLl 19371: available in English at: http://www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/docs/LRTA/Likumi/Procedures for Holding the Detained Persons.doc 2 Available in Latvian at: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=55567: available in English at: http://www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/docs/LRTA/Likumi/Administrative Procedure Law.doc 3 Constitutional Court’s judgment of 20 December 2010 in the case No. 2010-44-01. Available at: http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/upload/spriedums 2010 44 Ol.htm DH-DD(2014)148 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. ______

14. In addition, pursuant to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 38 of 10 January 2006 “On material norms o f nutriment, detergents and items o f personal hygiene for persons placed in short-term detention facility”,4 each detainee is provided with items of personal hygiene.

15. Moreover, as of 2013 many of the short-term detention facilities in Latvia have undergone major repair and renovation works. Thus, for instance, in the short-term detention facilities in Preiji (currently closed), Rëzekne, , , , , , Jëkabpils, Kuldlga, , Saldus, Liepäja, Jurmala, Ogre, Riga, Alüksne, , , Cësis, Limbazi, and the in-cell toilet facilities have been partitioned from the living space, while in Preili and Rëzekne precincts the toilet facilities are also equipped with new motion sensor artificial lights.

16. In the short-term detention facilities in Preiji, Rëzekne, Aizkraukle, Bauska, Dobele, Jelgava, Tukums, Jëkabpils, Kuldlga, Talsi, Saldus, Jürmala, Ogre, Gulbene, Cësis and Madona new windows have been installed, including the change of frosted glass bricks to plastic windows in cells.

17. Furthermore, in the short-term detention facilities in Aizkraukle and Jëkabpils new ventilation system was built, as well as the water-pipes and drainage were reconstructed. General repair works, such as priming, grinding and painting of floor, walls and ceilings, have been performed in Bauska, Tukums, Kuldlga, Alüksne and Valka precincts.

18. In addition, in-cell call-buttons were installed in Jürmala, Ogre and Madona short-term detention facilities, while in Kuldlga and Valmiera precincts new walking areas were built.

IV.2. Measures to improve the complaint mechanism on conditions of the short-term detention facilities

19. On 1 February 2004 theAdministrative Procedure Law entered into force, envisaging a specific procedure for individuals to challenge before the administrative de courts facto actions of the public institutions, including actions and omissions of the State police. According to Article 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law, this Law ensures the observance of human rights by the State authorities by subjecting the latter’s decisions andde facto actions to the administrative court’s scrutiny.

20. In accordance with Article 1, paragraph 3, of theAdministrative Procedure Law, an administrative act is also a decision that considerably limits human rights of a specially subordinated person. The Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court Senate through its case-law has established that de facto action of an institution has to comply with the features of an administrative act, with the sole difference that, unlike an administrative act, it creates actual instead of legal consequences for the individual concerned. Given that pursuant to the case-law of administrative courts imprisoned persons are regarded as “specially subordinated persons” to places of deprivation of liberty, an applicationde regardingfacto action of the place of deprivation of liberty, which substantially limits person’s human rights, is subjected to the administrative court’s review. Moreover, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court has established that although imprisoned persons have to obey the restrictive order of places of deprivation of liberty, they still are entitled to enjoyment of an adequate scope of humaninter rights, alia, not to be subjected to inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment. Thus, the administrative courts are competent to review

4 Available in Latvian at: http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=126344: available in English at: http://www.vvc.gov.lv/export/sites/default/docs/LRTA/MK Noteikumi/Cab. Reg. No. 38 - Products for Persons Placed in a Short-term Place o f D.doc DH-DD(2014)148 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. ______

complaints concerning material conditions of detention, which has been also approved by the Court’s case-law.5

21. The practical effectiveness of the remedy provided by administrative courts is ensured by their extensive investigative powers while reviewing the lawfulness of administrative actsde and facto actions. One of the basic principles governing the administrative proceedings is the principle of “objective investigation” (Article 103), the aim of which is to ensure proper respect for a person’s rights, given that a private person undeniably is not an equivalent opponent in disputes with the State. Accordingly, in examining any administrative case an administrative court is obliged, and in fact is doing so on its own motion, to establish the objective truth and ensure sufficient evidence irrespective of whether the participants to the proceedings have informed the court about all essential circumstances of the case that would allow its proper adjudication or have gathered sufficient amount of evidence. If an administrative court finds the application well founded, it renders a judgment forbidding the institution to carry out the particularde facto action, as well as awards monetary compensation, if requested (Articles 253- 255 of theAdministrative Procedure Law).

22. The existing case-law of the administrative courts sufficiently clearly demonstrates that the latter indeed covers detained persons’ complaints invoking different aspects of conditions of the short-term detention facilities. For instance, in May 2006 a detained person challenged before the Administrative District Courtde facto actions (inhuman conditions of the detention facility and prohibition of correspondence) of the short-term detention facility of the State police Ventspils city police station that had taken place in various periods from August 2003 until August 2006. On 11 July 2012 the Administrative Regional Court delivered a judgment by which it awarded a compensation amounting to LVL 8,000 (approximately EUR 11,000);6 by a final decision of 13 December 2012 the Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of the points of law and refused to initiate cassation proceedings. Moreover, in the judgment of 12 March 2013 (final) the Administrative District Court examinedde facto actions of the short-term detention facility of the State police Zemgale region Aizkraukle precinct (inhuman conditions of the detention facility and lack of daily outdoor exercise) in various periods from September 2010 until May 2011 and awarded the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of LVL 1,000 (approximately EUR 1,400). Furthermore, conditions of the Aizkraukle short-term detention facility were once more scrutinised in the administrative case No. A420350812, where the detained person contestedde facto actions (inhuman conditions of the detention facility, lack of daily outdoor exercise and prohibition of correspondence) of the State police Zemgale region Aizkraukle precinct. By the Administrative District Court’s judgment of 22 August 2013 (final) the contestedde facto actions were held unlawful and the applicant was similarly awarded compensation in the amount of LVL 1,000 (approximately EUR 1,400).8

23. Thus, the existing legislative framework taken together with the effective domestic remedy that is capable of dealing in substance with detained persons’ complaints concerningde facto

5 See, e.g., I(jins v. Latvia (application No. 1179/10), decision of 5 November 2013, paragraphs 36-41;Ignats v. Latvia (application No. 38494/05), decision o f 24 September 2013, paragraph 110. 6 Administrative Regional Court’s judgment of 11 July 2012 in the case No. A42583206. Available at: http://www.tiesas.lv/files/AL/2012/07 2012/11 07 2012/AL 1107 at>g AA43-3027-12 11.pdf 7 Administrative District Court’s judgment of 12 March 2013 in the case No. A420348212. Available at: http://www.tiesas.lv/Media/Default/Admin.tiesu%20spriedumi/Admin.rai.tiesas%20spriedumi/2013/Marts/12.03.2013/ AL 1203 rai A-00699-13 42.pdf 8 Administrative District Court’s judgment of 22 August 2013 in the case No. A420350812. Available at: http://www.tiesas.lv/Media/Default/Admin.tiesu%20spriedumi/Admin.apg.tiesas%20spriedumi/Augusts/22.08.2013/AL 2208 rai A-00891-13 28.pdf DH-DD(2014)148 : distributed at the request of Latvia / distribué à la demande de la Lettonie. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. / Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. ______

actions of the authorities of the short-term detention facilities and provide redress thereof, properly address the shortcomings identified by the Court in the present case.

IV. 3. Publication and dissemination of the judgment

24. On the day of the delivery of the judgment, a press release on the Court’s judgment was issued, summarising the facts of the case, the Court’s conclusions and explaining reasoning thereof, including the reference to the judgment and a web-link to the website of the Court’s case-law.9

25. The Court’s judgment has been translated in Latvian and published in the official website of the domestic courts of the Republic of Latvia.10 Moreover, under Latvian law direct effect is accorded to the Convention.

26. Furthermore, the Court’s judgment has been analysed during the annual Human Rights Conference held in Riga on 22 April 2013, which is widely attended by the representatives of domestic judiciaries and the Prosecutor Office, as well as by representatives of other competent State authorities.11

27. Given the foregoing, no further general measures appear to be necessary in the present case.

V. JUST SATISFACTION

28. The just satisfaction awarded by the Court in the amount of EUR 6,000 in respect of non- pecuniary damage was paid to the applicant on 8 May 2013. The Government has notified the Execution Department and submitted evidence concerning the payment of just satisfaction by e- mail.

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF THE MEMBER STATE

29. The Government believes that no further individual measures are necessary in the present case. The general measures undertaken, in particular with regard to measures adopted to improve the conditions of the short-term detention facilities, and the existence of an effective remedy capable of dealing in substance with complaints alleging inhuman conditions of detention and providing redress thereof, fulfil the requirements arising from the Court’s judgment and prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. Accordingly, it is sufficient to conclude that Latvia has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention concerning the violation of Article 3 of the Convention and the examination of the case should be closed.

K ristlne Lice Agent of the Government of the Republic of Latvia Riga, 27 December 2013

9 Available at: http://www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/Jaunumi/zinas/2012/decembris/04-3/ 10 Available at: http://www.tiesas.lv/eiropas-cilvektiesibu-tiesas-ect-spriedumi-rm-lemumi 11 Available at: http://www.rgsl.edu.lv/en/news-and-events/515/annual-discussion-current-human-rights-issues-in-latvia