Strasbourg will find out if the Lithuanian police have legally used electric shocks

According to the representatives of the ECHR, according to the data in the case, A. Sokolov suffered a minor health disorder when he, detained as a person who committed an administrative offense, did not comply with the legal demands of the policemen and actively resisted. .

An electroshock device was used against the man several times during his detention, prompting the prosecution to open a pre-trial investigation for possible abuse of power, but the investigation was eventually terminated after finding no evidence of a crime or misdemeanor.

The final decision of the Lithuanian court stated, firstly, that although A. Sokolov’s actions were not so dangerous as to endanger the lives of the officials, considering that the conflict situation lasted long enough and that the conflict became in non-compliance and resistance, which was manifested in the fact that the complainant did not allow the officers to perform personal checks, pushed, did not allow them to put handcuffs on him, his behavior became aggressive – in fact, the acts of resistance became a fight and the health of the agents could be in danger.

According to the court, the official’s decision to use the electric shock device in this case was appropriate and proportionate to the situation, as the video shows that even after using the electric shock device, the plaintiff continued to oppose the use of the electric shock device. electric shock again. . The court also noted that even if the argument of the plaintiff’s complaint that the electric shock had been used without sufficient grounds were accepted, such conduct by the officials would not be within the limits of criminal responsibility and their actions could only be assessed from the point of view of official responsibility.

According to the ECHR, in the present case, the Strasbourg judges will assess whether Mr. Sokolov suffered inhuman and degrading treatment during his detention, which is prohibited by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court will also assess whether the investigation into the plaintiff’s complaint of police ill-treatment met the procedural requirements imposed on States under the provisions of the Convention.

The ECtHR Representation in Lithuania recalls that this is the second case referred to the Government of Lithuania in relation to the use of electric shocks. If Znakov vs. Lithuania 2019 ECHR. 19 November In its decision, the plaintiff found that the plaintiff had suffered conduct prohibited by the Convention as a result of the use of force by a police officer, but that his investigation into police misconduct did not met the procedural requirements.

In the present case, the ECHR noted that no court had determined the number of times the officer had used an electric shock against the applicant, that the applicant had not been warned about the use of the device, and that the officer had not even considered measures less coercive.

The ECHR also stated that the applicant was 61 years old, unarmed, handcuffed and alone against two policemen. Finally, the ECHR has taken into account the CPT standards that electrical pulse devices should only be used in situations where there is a real and imminent danger of death or serious injury.

In assessing the effectiveness of the applicant’s investigation into the officers’ misconduct, the ECHR noted that the prosecutor had decided not to open a pre-trial investigation into the officer’s actions, based primarily on the testimony of the police officers and that officers could use physical violence, including the TASER device, against individuals, breach of legal requirements of officers. This conclusion of the prosecutor was also confirmed by the courts.

The ECHR determined that in this case neither the prosecutor nor the courts sought to clarify the circumstances of the use of the electric shock. The trial did not attempt to determine the number of times the electric shock was used, if the applicant was warned about the possible use of the device and, if not, if the legal requirements for its use were met or if it was less serious and why . Coercive measures were considered. The ECHR concluded, in light of the foregoing, that in the present case the investigation of the allegations of misconduct by the plaintiff’s police officer did not meet the standard of effectiveness under the provisions of the Convention.

The Strasbourg court in this case sentenced the applicant to more than 14 thousand. EUR, of which – 12 thousand. Eur Lithuania had to pay moral damage.