Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights has recently rendered its judgment in the case of Etxebarria Caballero v Spain (74016/12, 7 October 2014, see also similar case of Ataun Rojo v. Spain (no. 3344/13) concerning the lack of effective investigations into alleged ill-treatment during incommunicado detention. The applicant, a terrorist suspect, was in March 2011 incommunicado detained in Bilbao for 5 days without having access to a lawyer and without being able to inform relatives about her location. She also stated that she was subjected to ill-treatment (abuse, threats and humiliation) during her incommunicado detention. The Court found that the Spanish authorities procedurally violated Article 3 ECHR as they did not provide thorough and effective investigation into the allegations of the applicant. More specifically, the Court noted that :
48. La Cour insiste par ailleurs sur l’importance d’adopter les mesures recommandées par le CPT pour améliorer la qualité de l’examen médicolégal des personnes soumises à la détention au secret (paragraphe 28 et suivants ci-dessus et Otamendi, précité, § 41). Elle estime que la situation de vulnérabilité particulière des personnes détenues au secret commande que soient imposées par le code de procédure pénale des mesures de surveillance juridictionnelle appropriées et que celles-ci soient rigoureusement appliquées, afin que les abus soient évités et que l’intégrité physique des détenus soit protégée (paragraphe 30 ci-dessus). La Cour souscrit aux recommandations du CPT, reprises par le Commissaire aux droits de l’homme du Conseil de l’Europe dans son rapport du 9 octobre 2013 (paragraphe 32 ci-dessus), ainsi qu’aux observations du tiers intervenant (paragraphe 42 ci-dessus) concernant aussi bien les garanties à assurer en pareil cas que le principe même, en Espagne, de la possibilité de garder une personne au secret.
49. En conclusion, eu égard à l’absence d’enquête approfondie et effective au sujet des allégations défendables de la requérante (Martinez Sala et autres c. Espagne, no 58438/00, § 156-160, 2 novembre 2004), selon lesquelles elle avait subi des mauvais traitements au cours de sa garde à vue, la Cour estime qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention dans son volet procédural.
However, the Court was not able to find a substantive violation of Article 3 due to the lack of evidence that the abuse of the applicant during her incommunicado detention reached a minimum level of severity. However, it recognized difficulties in producing evidence of such alleged conduct by the state authorities during incommunicado detention. More specifically, it noted that :
57. La Cour est consciente des difficultés qu’un détenu peut rencontrer pour produire des preuves des mauvais traitements subis pendant qu’il était en détention au secret et notamment lorsqu’il s’agit d’allégations d’actes de mauvais traitements ne laissant pas de traces, comme ceux dénoncés par la requérante dans sa requête. Cependant, en raison de l’absence d’éléments probatoires suffisants résultant notamment de l’insuffisance de l’enquête menée, la Cour ne s’estime pas en mesure d’affirmer avec le degré de certitude voulu par sa propre jurisprudence que la requérante a été soumise, lors de son arrestation et de sa détention, aux mauvais traitements allégués.
This case illustrates the dilemma encountered by states in reconciling two conflicting values in contemporary democratic societies. This is whether the prevention of terrorism and the protection of national security may undermine the protection of fundamental human rights, and whether the protection of fundamental human rights may impede the suppression of terrorism and the protection of national security. This case derives from the specific situation in the Basque country and in Spain. As it is historically known, the Basque customs and language were totally oppressed during the totalitarian fascist regime, which partly influenced the emergence of an embryonic armed guerrilla resistance, still continuing today under the auspices of the military terrorist group ETA, which the European Union now includes on its list of persons, groups and entities supporting terrorism. After Franco passed away in 1975, the Basque country was granted broad autonomy, with its own parliament, autonomous government and the delegation of powers in the most important areas, with the exceptions of the areas of foreign policy, defence and justice.
The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, noted in his 2008 report on Spain that “the violence perpetrated by ETA has taken more than 820 lives since 1968” (para. 47). However, the Spanish government has adopted counter-terrorism policies to combat radical pro-independence groups. Unfortunately, as this case and other cases and reports illustrate, the Spanish authorities have not paid any significant attention to their obligations under the ECHR and have preferred to give priority to national security considerations. In other words, that national security was given the trump card over the protection of the freedoms of expression and association. Such conduct has led led to the long-term polarization of Basque society between pro-independence and contra-independence political parties and the polarization of Spanish society between the left and the right. The Court has in this cases and others urged Spanish authorities to in the future strike a better balance by assessing the real level of threat to the democratic order and the human rights protection during police detention. It remains to be seen if they will do so.
Esohap 