Communicated on 11 February 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 57854/13
Mykhaylo Mykolayovych KLYUY
against Ukraine
lodged on 23 August 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mykhaylo Mykolayovych Klyuy, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1979. He is represented before the Court by Mr O.V. Amelchyshyn, a lawyer practising in the city of Kryvyy Rig, Ukraine.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s arrest, alleged ill-treatment and subsequent investigation
On 29 December 2007 the applicant was arrested upon suspicion of murder. He was brought to a police station where he was allegedly ill‑treated (the applicant states that he was tied to a chair and police officers pushed the chair so that the applicant fell to the floor together with the chair several times; that the police officers tortured him by administering electric shocks; and that they put a plastic bag over his head). As a result the applicant confessed to murder.
On 30 December 2007 a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant had scratches on his arms and legs. The scratches on his arms could have resulted from handcuffs and the scratches on the legs from falling down.
The applicant and his lawyer complained on numerous occasions about the applicant’s ill-treatment. Following those complaints, between 2008 and 2015 several decisions not to institute or to terminate the instituted criminal proceedings against the police officers in question were taken, but subsequently quashed. In particular, on 18 March 2015 the Zhovtnevyy District Court quashed the decision of 16 December 2014 to terminate the criminal proceedings against the police officers for absence of evidence of a crime and sent the case for additional investigation. The court noted the superficial character of the investigation and its numerous shortcomings.
2. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his pre-trial detention
On 31 December 2007 the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court placed the applicant in pre-trial detention. The term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was further extended by a court on several occasions.
On 28 March 2008 the criminal case against the applicant was received by a court.
On 5 February 2009 the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court returned the case for additional pre-trial investigation. The court decided to prolong the applicant’s pre-trial detention without indicating any reasons.
On 6 May 2009 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and returned the case for trial.
On 17 November 2010 the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.
On 2 February 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The court also decided to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention without indicating any reasons.
On 13 February 2012 the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court adopted a sentence identical to the one of 17 November 2010.
On 24 May 2012 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and returned the case for additional investigation. The court decided that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention.
On 15 May 2014 the Saksaganskyy District Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail.
According to the applicant, the criminal proceedings against him are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that he was tortured and subjected to psychological pressure, and that the State authorities failed to effectively investigate his complaints in this matter.
The applicant further complains about his unlawful and lengthy pre-trial detention, the impossibility of properly challenging his pre-trial detention in the court and of obtaining compensation for the alleged breaches of Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicant finally complains about the length of the criminal proceedings.
The applicant relies on Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 (c), 3, 4 and 5, and Article 6 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture, or to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy