Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 167
October 2013
D.F. v. Latvia - 11160/07
Judgment 29.10.2013 [Section IV]
Article 3
Positive obligations
Authorities’ failure to ensure safety of prisoner at risk of violence from co-prisoners: violation

Facts – The applicant was convicted in 2006 of rape and indecent assault on minors and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. He was kept in Daugavpils Prison for over a year where he was allegedly subjected to violence by other inmates because they knew he had acted as a police informant and was a sex offender. The prison administration frequently moved him from one cell to another, exposing him to a large number of other prisoners. He made numerous applications to be moved to a specialised prison which had a section for detainees who had worked for or collaborated with the authorities. However, his requests were repeatedly rejected because the Prisons Administration did not find it established that he had been a police informant. He was eventually transferred to the specialised prison.
Law – Article 3:
(a)  Alleged ill-treatment: The applicant had failed to submit any details of his ill-treatment, or supply any proof that he had suffered any injuries.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(b)  Failure to ensure the applicant’s safety: The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) had found that prisoners charged with sexual offences were exposed to a heightened risk of violence by other prisoners. It had also repeatedly expressed particular concern about such violence in Daugavpils Prison. The prison authorities had clearly been aware of the nature of the charges against the applicant and the risk they entailed. In addition, there was information within the State apparatus about the applicant’s past collaboration with the police but such information had not been systematically passed on between the relevant authorities. The Court lacked information on any specific steps taken by the Daugavpils Prison administration to address the applicant’s vulnerability. Moreover, the Government had not submitted any convincing justification for the applicant’s frequent transfers from one cell to another, or referred to any strategy covering the transfers. In accordance with the recommendations of the CPT, any transfer of vulnerable prisoners had to form part of a carefully designed strategy for dealing with inter-prisoner violence. In order for a domestic preventive mechanism to be effective, it had to allow the authorities to respond as a matter of particular urgency, in a manner proportionate to the perceived risk faced by the person concerned. As had been made clear in the applicant’s case, a request to the law-enforcement agencies to acknowledge previous collaboration could turn into a lengthy and heavily bureaucratic procedure owing to a lack of sufficient coordination among investigators, prosecutors and penal institutions with a view to preventing possible ill-treatment of vulnerable detainees. The possibility of requesting an interim measure before the administrative courts could not remedy the situation, as at the material time they were not subject to a time-limit for dealing with such requests. The system in place for transferring vulnerable prisoners had not therefore been effective, either in law or practice. Given the applicant’s fear of the imminent risk of ill-treatment for over a year and the unavailability of an effective remedy to resolve that problem, there had been a violation of Article 3.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also J.L. v. Latvia, 23893/06, 17 April 2012, Information Note 151; Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22893/05, 27 May 2008, Information Note 108; and Premininy v. Russia, 44973/04, 10 February 2011, Information Note 138)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes