Communicated on 10 November 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 2593/09
Vladimir Alekseyevich DROZDOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 17 December 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Alekseyevich Drozdov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and is detained in Kharkiv.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 11 January 2008 the applicant and R. found the dead body of P. and called the police. On the same day the applicant was taken to the police station, where he gave his account of the events in question.
On 14 January 2008 criminal proceedings were initiated in connection with P.’s murder.
According to the applicant, he was arrested as a suspect on 14 January 2008. According to official documents, he was arrested the following day.
On 18 January 2008 the applicant was charged with the murder of P. and formally interviewed.
On 14 March 2008 the case was referred to the Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region for trial.
On 3 June 2010 that court decided to send the case for additional investigation.
On 16 September 2010 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above decision and remitted the case to the Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region for trial.
On 3 February 2011 the prosecutor’s office asked the court to accelerate the proceedings.
On 17 May 2011 the Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region found the applicant guilty of P.’s murder and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.
On 8 December 2011 the Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and sent the case for additional investigation. It instructed the investigating authorities to conduct a comprehensive investigation in order to establish all the circumstances of the crime. The court further ordered that the applicant should remain in detention.
In February 2012 the investigating authorities referred the case to the Dergatchivsky District Court (“the District Court”) for trial.
On 9 April 2013 the District Court ordered the investigating authorities to establish the whereabouts of particular witnesses and carry out a reconstruction of the crime with their participation.
On 22 July 2013 the District Court sent the case for additional investigation, in view of a number of procedural violations on the part of the investigating authorities.
On 1 November 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed the above ruling and ordered the District Court to consider the case on the merits.
On 20 December 2013 the District Court sent the case for additional investigation.
The applicant lodged a number of complaints with different State authorities regarding the length of criminal proceedings against him, but to no avail.
No information is available as to the outcome of the proceedings.
2. Conditions of detention in the detainees’ room of the Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region
On 22 April, 8 May and 27 October 2009, and on 11 January, 8 February, 7 April and 6 July 2010, as well as on three occasions between February and April 2011 the applicant was taken to the Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region for trial. While waiting to be taken into court, he was kept for at least six to eight hours in a room for detainees which was very small, cold and damp. He was not fed and was not provided with any medical assistance during this time. On most of the dates mentioned, no hearings actually took place and the applicant was returned to the detention centre.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the detainees’ room at the Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
He further alleges under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him is excessive and that he has no effective domestic remedies in respect of that complaint.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the conditions in which the applicant was detained during his repeated periods of detention in the detainees’ room of the Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region constitute inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Is the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to provide an information note (set out in chronological order) on the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, as well as copies of all procedural decisions in the case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy