THIRD SECTION
Application no. 74450/11
Radu BANARI
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 25 November 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Radu Banari, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Chisinau. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Banari, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
On 5 April 2009 general elections took place and the Communist Party, which had a majority of votes in the outgoing Parliament, won 60 seats out of a total of 101.
On 6 and 7 April 2009 a protest against alleged electoral fraud took place in the centre of Chişinău. The protest was peaceful in the beginning; however, in the afternoon of 7 April 2009 some of the protesters became violent. Clashes with the police took place and the Parliament building and the Presidential Palace were damaged by stone throwing. A large number of police officers and protesters were injured. At a certain moment the police forces, largely outnumbered by the protesters, abandoned the two buildings, allowing several hundred persons to enter. Those persons destroyed and pillaged the buildings, setting parts of the Parliament alight. On the same night some 200 persons were arrested on charges of large-scale disorder. The opposition was accused of an attempted coup d’état.
In the evening of 7 April 2009 the applicant with a group of friends went to the centre of the city to see the results of the violent protests. At approximately 10 p.m. they were stopped by a group of masked persons wearing military uniforms and after being punched and kicked were transported to a police station. At the police station he was forced to kneel and was severely ill-treated. He was released the next day.
After release the applicant could not walk and was picked up by a friend who took him to a hospital. According to the medical records, the applicant had a broken rib and numerous injuries all over his body. He needed approximately thirty days of medical treatment.
On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint in respect of his ill-treatment by the police. After hearing witnesses and police officers from the police station where the applicant had been detained, on 26 May 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office decided to discontinue the investigation on the ground that it could not identify the persons responsible for the applicant’s ill-treatment. The applicant’s appeals were subsequently dismissed by the hierarchically superior prosecutor’s office and by an investigating judge on 8 May and 12 June 2012.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He also argues that the State authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in respect of his complaint about ill-treatment.
2. He finally alleges that he had no effective remedies against the breaches enumerated above, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241‑A)?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was any investigation conducted in the present case by the domestic authorities? If so, was it effective for the purposes of that Article?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are asked to submit a copy of the full version of the case file, concerning the criminal investigation instituted by the Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the applicant’s criminal complaint.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy