CCPR/C/130/D/2820/2016 Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s arguments that, on 15 September 2005, he was attacked by two police officers who mistook him for a drug dealer, that the police officers only identified themselves at a later stage, once he was handcuffed and put into their car, that a judicial medical certificate indicated that the author had two lacerated contusions on his head, as well as visible bruising owing to contusions of the skin on the right side of the abdomen, and that he spent four days in hospital for the treatment of the injuries sustained as a result of the beating. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the explanation of the State party that the author suffered minor bodily harm as a result of a police raid aimed at arresting an alleged drug trafficker. The Committee also takes note of the information provided by the State party indicating that, on 16 September 2005, a disciplinary committee was appointed by order of the Director of the Kardzhali District Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior. The disciplinary committee acknowledged that the police officers had used disproportionate and unnecessary physical force against the author. It further takes note of the information provided that, during the investigation, testimonies were taken from the author and witnesses, reports were requested from the police officers concerned and the forensic medical certificate was examined. The disciplinary committee established that the two police officers did not make sure that the author had understood that they were law enforcement officers and used force that was not proportionate to the situation that arose, and disciplinary sanctions were imposed on the police officers as a result. 7.4 The Committee takes note of the fact that criminal proceedings were subsequently initiated against the two police officers concerned, which concluded with a decision of the Military Court of Appeal upholding the Plovdiv Military Court’s decision, by which the two police officers were acquitted. It also takes note of the State party’s argument that the fulfilment of the effective remedy requirement under the Covenant should not be conditional on a specific outcome. However, the Committee considers that the acquittal from criminal charges of the police officers involved does not necessarily imply that the abuse actually suffered by the author at the hands of the police – which remains uncontested by the State party and was duly recognized by the disciplinary committee appointed by order of the Director of the Kardzhali District Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior – did not amount to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee recalls that use of force by the police, which can be justified in certain circumstances, may be viewed as contrary to article 7 under circumstances in which the force used is deemed excessive.20 The Committee refers to paragraph 4 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which states that law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, should, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force. 7.6 The Committee also recalls that the aim of the provisions of article 7 of the Covenant is to protect both the dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual against both intended and unintended harm. 21 In that connection, the Committee notes that the allegations of the author concerning the abuse suffered at the hands of the police are very detailed and supported by medical evidence,22 that the facts have been conceded by the State party, that the nature of the injuries sustained, in particular those to the head, required the author’s hospitalization for four days and that a disciplinary committee found that the police officers had failed to adequately identify themselves and had used disproportionate and unnecessary force against the author. Noting that a disciplinary committee set up within the Ministry of the Interior of the State party did not refute that the abuse suffered by the author at the hands of the police amounted to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, the 20 21 22 Chernev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/125/D/2322/2013), para. 12.2. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20, para. 2; and A.H.G. v. Canada (CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011), para. 10.4. Abromchik v. Belarus (CCPR/C/122/D/2228/2012), para. 10.2. 9