THIRD SECTION
Application no. 24163/11
Vasile CRISTIOGLO
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 1 April 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasile Cristioglo, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Turcan and Mr M. Belinschi, lawyers practising in Chişinău.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2001 the Comrat Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant on charges of murder and a detention warrant was issued by the Comrat District Court. Since the applicant had quit the country, an international search order was issued.
On 21 January 2011, upon his return to Moldova, the applicant was arrested and placed in detention. On the day of his arrest the applicant cut open his abdomen as a sign of protest. He was taken to a hospital where his wound was taken care of. The applicant lodged a habeas corpus request, however it was rejected on the ground, inter alia, that he had been in hiding for more than ten years and that, respectively, he could abscond again. Later the detention warrant was renewed several times on similar grounds and the applicant’s appeals were rejected. The last judgment in the proceedings complained of by the applicant dates 18 October 2011 and it was issued by the Comrat Court of Appeal.
During all this time the applicant was detained in Prison no. 13 in Chisinau and in Prison no. 5 in Cahul. The applicant alleges that in both prisons the conditions were very poor. Namely, he complains that the cells were overcrowded and dirty; there was no ventilation system and the air was impregnated with a sewage smell; there was no sufficient natural light because the windows were very small; the daily walks lasted for only one hour and the food served was of a very bad quality. Moreover, the applicant alleges that after his arrest he needed urgent medical care for his wound on the abdomen and for an ear infection and that no medical care was provided to him for one month. He provided medical documents to support his claims concerning his health problems.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of detention in both detention facilities where he was detained amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He also complains that he had not received appropriate medical care.
2. The applicant further complains that his detention was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and alleges a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. He also alleges that the detention breached his right to be presumed innocent as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in so far as his complaint about the conditions of his detention and lack of medical assistance received is concerned?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy