Fundamentos destacados: 102. En el presente caso, el Gobierno no alegó que las bofetadas de las que se quejaban los dos demandantes hubieran correspondido a un recurso a la fuerza física que su conducta había hecho estrictamente necesario, sino que se limitó a negar que se hubiera administrado alguna vez bofetadas. En efecto, de los autos se desprende que cada bofetada fue un acto impulsivo en respuesta a una actitud percibida como irrespetuosa, lo que ciertamente es insuficiente para acreditar tal necesidad. En consecuencia, la Corte considera que se menoscabó la dignidad de los demandantes y que, por lo tanto, se ha violado el artículo 3 de la Convención.
103. En cualquier caso, el Tribunal de Justicia subraya que una bofetada propinada por un agente de las fuerzas del orden a una persona que se encuentra totalmente bajo su control constituye un grave atentado contra la dignidad de la persona.
[Traducción de LP]
102. In the present case the Government did not claim that the slaps of which the two applicants complained had corresponded to recourse to physical force which had been made strictly necessary by their conduct; they simply denied that any slaps had ever been administered. In fact, it appears from the case file that each slap was an impulsive act in response to an attitude perceived as disrespectful, which is certainly insufficient to establish such necessity. The Court consequently finds that the applicants’ dignity was undermined and that there has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
103. In any event, the Court emphasises that a slap inflicted by a law-enforcement officer on an individual who is entirely under his control constitutes a serious attack on the individual’s dignity.
[Idioma original]
GRAND CHAMBER
CASE OF BOUYID v. BELGIUM
(Application no. 23380/09)
In the case of Bouyid v. Belgium,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber
composed of:
Dean Spielmann, President,
Guido Raimondi,
Isabelle Berro,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ledi Bianku,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Erik Møse,
Helen Keller,
Paul Lemmens,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Faris Vehabović,
Egidijus Kūris,
Iulia Motoc, judges,
and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 October 2014 and 24 June 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the lastmentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 23380/09) against the Kingdom of Belgium, lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Belgian nationals, Mr Saïd Bouyid (“the first applicant”) and Mr Mohamed Bouyid (“the second applicant”), on 28 April 2009.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr C. Marchand and Mr Z. Chihaoui, lawyers practising in Brussels. The Belgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Tysebaert, Senior Adviser, Federal Justice Department.
3. Alleging, in particular, that they were both slapped by police officers while they were in a police station, the applicants complained of degrading treatment and argued that they were victims of a violation of Article 3.
4. The application was allocated to the Fifth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). In a judgment delivered on 21 November 2013 a Chamber of that Section declared the application admissible in respect of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and the remainder inadmissible, and unanimously found that there had been no violation of Article 3. The Chamber was composed of Mark Villiger, President, Ann Power-Forde, Ganna Yudkivska, André Potocki, Paul Lemmens, Helena Jäderblom and Aleš Pejchal, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar. On 24 January 2014, under Article 43 of the Convention, the applicants requested referral of the case to the Grand Chamber. A panel of the Grand Chamber acceded to this request on 24 March 2014.
[Continúa…]
Descargue la resolución aquí
