Communicated on 4 May 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 16421/12
Pavel Vladimirovich DOKIL
against Ukraine
lodged on 10 March 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavel Vladimirovich Dokil, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Zhytomyr. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Borisenko, a lawyer practising in Kryvyy Rig.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 January 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of complicity in a murder. According to the applicant, the police officers beat him up and applied electric shocks following which he confessed to the crime.
On 30 January 2010 an ambulance was called to the applicant. The paramedic stated that the applicant had sustained abrasions on both wrists and bruises on both superciliary arches on the face.
On 1 February 2010 the applicant was examined by medical expert who did not find any injuries on the applicant.
On 27 August 2010 the Kryvyy Rig prosecutor’s office refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers finding that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded.
On 4 October 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, found the applicant guilty of murder committed in aggravating circumstances and other less serious crimes committed at the same time as murder. The court sentenced the applicant to fifteen years of imprisonment and ordered confiscation of his property. The Court relied, among other evidence, on the applicant’s initial self-incriminating statements and found that the allegations of ill-treatment had been groundless.
On 13 September 2011 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the applicant’s conviction of murder and partly upheld the conviction of other crimes. The sentence remained the same. The applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were rejected as unfounded.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that following his arrest the police officers ill-treated him with the purpose of extracting his confession and that there was no effective investigation of his allegations.
2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts convicted him relying on his self-incriminating statements obtained through ill-treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Were the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the courts convict the applicant using the evidence which was obtained allegedly in breach of his privilege against self-incrimination and by means of ill-treatment? Were the principles of fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention breached on that account?
The Government are invited to provide, among other things, the following material:
(a) the medical documents concerning the applicant relating to the period of his alleged ill-treatment;
(b) the documents concerning the applicant’s arrest and detention in January and February 2010;
(c) the documents concerning the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, including decisions by which the authorities refused to open an investigation and the decisions of the supervising authorities reviewing those decisions.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy