CAT/C/63/D/678/2015 State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 In a note verbale dated 6 November 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the complaint, while maintaining its position about the inadmissibility of the case. It states that there has been no violation of article 16 of the Convention because the injuries sustained by the complainant are compatible with the lawful use of force that was necessary when he resisted arrest and detention and attacked and threatened the police officers. The complainant’s account must also be considered in the light of the fact that he suffered from hallucinations and a distorted perception of reality, including paranoid delusions about the police. The State party alleges that the complainant’s suffering during the stay in the holding cell did not go beyond the inevitable element of suffering that is connected with detention in a situation such as the matter in hand. There is no evidence that the officers perceived the complainant as being mentally ill. In any case, the complainant was in an intoxicated state which ruled out mental care before the next morning, when he was released. The State party refers to Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, in which the Committee found that “while recognizing that pain and suffering may arise from a lawful arrest of an uncooperative and/or violent individual, the Committee considers that the use of force in such circumstances should be limited to what is necessary and proportionate”. 13 Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that the treatment “must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment” in order to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 14 Thus, lawful detention in a holding cell does not in itself raise an issue under the said provision. 6.2 The State party reiterates that because the alleged violations occurred more than 10 years ago, the situation with evidence in the case is challenging. The State party has been in touch with several of the officers who were present when the complainant arrived at the holding cells, who could neither remember the complainant nor the alleged incident. Apart from this, the available evidence is limited to written reports and other documents from the time. 6.3 The State party rejects the complainant’s allegation that his injuries were inflicted by three police officers who came into his cell at night and beat him. It provides its own explanation for the injuries, suggesting that they could have been sustained when the complainant was arrested and brought into the cell. The behaviour of the complainant required the police officers to use proportionate force on three occasions: (a) when the complainant opposed the arrest;15 (b) when he bit one of the police officers and needed to be held down in the police car;16 and (c) when the police conducted a body search in the cell after the complainant had threatened to attack the officers.17 The State party submits that in view of the above, the injuries sustained are compatible with the use of force that was necessary due to the complainant’s aggressive and violent behaviour, and that no excessive force was used against the complainant. As regards the credibility of the complainant, the State party reiterates that it has subsequently become clear that the complainant was suffering from mental illness that made him see things on and around the time of the detention on 8 November 2006.18 The State party also refers to a preliminary judicial declaration from 2008 issued by the senior consultant psychiatrist of Oslo District Court which reveals that the complainant expressed “paranoid delusions about the police”. 13 14 15 16 17 18 6 CAT/C/41/D/257/2004, para. 9.3. See European Court of Human Rights, Kudla v. Poland (application No. 30210/96), judgment of 26 October 2000, paras. 92 and 93. It is stated in the police report that when being handcuffed, the complainant “resisted and attempted to wriggle free when the police fastened the handcuffs behind his back”. It is stated in the police report that after the complainant bit one of the police officers’ finger, the officer “placed him stomach down in the seat between the officers and lay half on top of him because he tried to wriggle free”. It is stated in the police report that the complainant “was laid flat on the mattress in the cell and searched before his handcuffs were removed”. The State party refers to excerpts from the complainant’s medical report from 2005 and 2006, in which it is stated that he had hallucinations, heard voices, and had post-traumatic stress disorder and dissociative disorder.