This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
They asked him to sign a testimony against a person that he didn’t even know
The main respondent is a 24-year-old man from Syria. According to him, he was granted international protection, so he can legally reside in Bulgaria. He states that on the 21st of February during the day he was stopped by a police officer in front of the Harmanli camp, who checked his documents and told him to follow him in the police car. He reports that two other officers joined and they drove him to the police station near the Humpback Bridge. At the station, a translator for Arabic was present.
The respondents claims that the police officers asked him to sign a testimony against a person that was accused of smuggling. The respondent refused to do so, because he didn’t know that person at all. He states that the police told him that it didn’t matter if he knew him or not, by signing the paper he would do something good for the country that granted him protection (Bulgaria). According to the respondent, the police officers became very angry after he refused to sign for a second time. He reports that they then took his fingerprints and finally let him go. He claims that he was told by his friends that 2 other persons from the camp were asked to sign the paper and actually did it.
legal analysis
Bulgaria violated the right to liberty and security of a person and the freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (Art. 3, 9 UNDHR, Art. 9 and 10 ICCPR, Art. 5 ECHR, Art. 6 EUCFR) as well as the right to respect private and family life (Art. 12, UNDHR, Art. 17 ICCPR, Art. 8 ECHR, Art. 7 EUCFR).
The determination of deprivation of liberty always depends on the specific situation of the individual concerned while taking into account all relevant factors, “such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question” (ECtHR, Guzzardi v. Italy, App no. 7367/76, 1980, § 92). Even when a person goes willingly with the law enforcement to testify as a witness, the specific circumstances on location can result in a deprivation of liberty: “Although the applicant was not handcuffed, placed in a locked cell or otherwise physically restrained after entering the MNS premises, it appears that he had no opportunity to contact members of his family or lawyer of his own choosing.” (ECtHR, Salayev v. Azerbaijan, App no. 40900/05, 2010, §§ 40-43)
The police officers took the respondent to the police station with the aim to convince him to sign a testimony against a person that was accused of smuggling and insisted even after the respondent had stated he didn’t know the person. During this period of time and given the power dynamics between police officers and individuals, especially PoM, the respondent was not able to leave the police station resulting in a de facto deprivation of liberty without legal basis and thus arbitrary detention.
Taking the respondent’s fingerprints without a valid legal reason or consent violates his right to privacy. Even more so since he was already registered and proved so to the officers by showing them his documents of international protection issued by Bulgaria.
