THIRD SECTION
Application no. 56074/10
Sergiu BUHANIUC
against Moldova
lodged on 30 September 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Sergiu Buhaniuc, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1990 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Zama from “Lawyers for Human Rights”, a non-governmental organisation based in Chişinău.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. On 6 and 7 April 2009 a large crowd protested in the streets against alleged electoral fraud. Hundreds of persons were arrested on 7 April 2009 and thereafter.
1. The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment
4. The applicant was arrested in the evening of 7 April 2009 and was sanctioned by a court to ten days of administrative detention on the next day. He claims that he was punched in the eye by a plain-clothed officer during his arrest and then subjected to ill-treatment in the Buiucan police station and subsequently at the General Police Directorate (“the GPD”). He was hit by groups of 5-12 persons both in uniform and plain-clothed, taken through a “death corridor” where officers lined up and each kicked or hit each victim as he or she passed through the corridor when taken to or from the police station, especially at the GPD.
5. He was also hit in his both ears simultaneously (a torture act called “telephone”), hit on his head with fists and rubber sticks, all while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. He was forced to keep his hands up for long periods of time, while being periodically hit. He became unconscious several times as a result of ill-treatment.
6. The applicant was also allegedly kept together with eight other persons in a cold humid cell measuring 4x4 meters without any access to daylight and without any possibility of determining the time of the day or the date, without any access to the outside world, his relatives, a lawyer or a doctor.
7. No water was available during the first 24 hours of detention. Thereafter dirty water in unhygienic plastic bottles used by everyone in the cell was distributed. The applicant was subsequently diagnosed with hepatitis of an unknown origin. No food was provided. In the congested humid cell he did not have the possibility to sleep during three days. There was no toilet in the cell and access to the toilet outside the cell was allowed randomly and after subjecting the person to humiliation.
8. Psychological ill-treatment was also allegedly used: the applicant was threatened with a lengthy term of imprisonment, with rape and death. He was subjected to interrogation by several persons simultaneously and was forced to sign blank papers.
2. Investigation into the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment
9. On 11 April 2009 the applicant was seen by a doctor, who found a haematoma on his left eye.
10. On 15 April 2009 the applicant complained to the military prosecutor of ill-treatment by the police.
11. On 29 April 2009 the applicant was examined at the Memoria Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, a non-governmental organisation financed by the European Union and a member of the General Assembly of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). On 15 December 2009 it issued an Extract of the medical file (Extras din Fişa Medicală) concerning the applicant’s examination. He appears to have undergone detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists. According to the document, the applicant had suffered, inter alia, the consequences of a head injury including intracranial hypertension syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as a post-traumatic condition of his ears.
12. On 29 May 2009 a prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations in the absence of evidence that a crime had been committed. That decision was confirmed by the superior prosecutor on 18 February 2010.
13. On 19 April 2010 the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court annulled the two decisions mentioned above and ordered the prosecution to carry out a supplementary verification. The court found that the prosecutors’ decisions had been based only on the statements of the police officers accused of having ill-treated the applicant. Moreover, while one of the prosecutors found that force had been used to apprehend the applicant, which could explain any injuries on his body, the arresting officers had denied the use of any force.
14. The investigation is pending before the prosecuting authorities. Since the sending of the case back for further verification, a single procedural act has taken place, namely an identity parade based on photographs.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about ill-treatment by the police.
2. He also complains, under the same provision, of the failure to ensure an effective investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:
1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment and other inhuman or degrading treatment?
2. Was there a speedy and effective investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy