Communicated on 2 April 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 55886/13
Iulian MOROI
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 29 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Iulian Moroi, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Cărpineni. He is represented before the Court by Ms O. Doronceanu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
A. General background 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 and the Communist Party, which had a majority of votes in the outgoing Parliament, won 60 seats out of a total of 101.
4. On 6 and 7 April 2009 a protest against alleged electoral fraud took place in the centre of Chişinău. The protest was peaceful in the beginning; however, in the afternoon of 7 April 2009 some of the protesters became violent. Clashes with the police took place and the Parliament building and the Presidential Palace were damaged by stone throwing. A large number of police officers and protesters were injured. At a certain moment the police forces, largely outnumbered by the protesters, abandoned the two buildings, allowing several hundred persons to enter. Those persons destroyed and pillaged the buildings, setting parts of the Parliament alight. On the same night some 200 persons were arrested on charges of large-scale disorder. The opposition was accused of an attempted coup d’état.
B. The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment
5. According to the applicant, he went in the evening of 7 April 2009 to the centre of Chişinău to see the protests. He and his friends entered the empty and devastated building of the Parliament; while leaving he picked up several objects thrown in the bushes around the Parliament building.
6. On 9 April 2009 at around 05.00 p.m. the applicant was arrested by four civilians in his home. The civilians searched his home and found the objects he had taken from the Parliament. After being punched and kicked, the applicant was transported to the Ciocana police station. At the police station he was forced to kneel and was severely ill-treated. He was charged with theft and placed in a cell in the Temporary Detention facility of the police station.
7. On the night from 9 to 10 April 2009 he was transferred to the General Police Inspectorate, where he was again ill-treated.
8. On 10 April 2009 he was brought before the Ciocana investigating judge who prolonged his detention. Upon his return to the General Police Inspectorate, before reaching the cell, several police officers kicked him. His request for medical assistance was ignored.
9. In the evening of 10 April 2009 the applicant was transferred to Prison No. 13. Before reaching the car, three police officers kicked him. Upon his arrival the applicant was told that he would no longer be ill-treated. He was released on 13 May 2009.
C. Investigation into the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment
10. On 9 April 2009 a medical examination at the General Police Inspectorate found “a suffusion on the back near the right scapula (upon arrest)”.
11. On 12 May 2009 the Prison No. 13 administration informed the Institute for Human Rights in Moldova about the injuries present on the applicant’s body on 11 April 2009:
“two linear red ecchymoses of 7.0 cm x 1.8 cm near the right scapula and two linear red ecchymoses of 13 cm x 2.0 cm near the left scapula.”
12. On 14 April 2009 doctor I.S. from the Moldovan Centre for Forensic Medicine examined the applicant and drew a medical examination report, reading as follows:
“... According to the [applicant] on 9 April 2009 at around 05.00 p.m. he was ill-treated, arrested and taken to the Ciocana Police Station, where he was again ill-treated. ...
[A]n elongated ecchymosis of 9 x 4.5 cm, situated obliquely horizontal, brown-yellow between the paravertebral lines T IV-T VI.
The ecchymosis on the back resulted from the action of a blunt and hard object, with a limited interaction surface, possibly in the time and the circumstances described.”
13. On 28 October 2009 the applicant sought medical assistance at the “Memoria” Rehabilitation Centre, 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). He appears to have undergone detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists. The Centre issued an Extract of the medical file (Extras din Fişa Medicală) which stated, inter alia, that the applicant had suffered cranial trauma, had experienced post-traumatic stress and had presented mixed anxious-depressive syndrome, problems typical of victims of ill-treatment.
14. On 14 April 2009 and on 21 May 2009 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint in respect of his ill-treatment. After hearing police officers from the police station where the applicant had been detained, on 14 August 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that all police officers denied any use of force in respect of the applicant and that the injuries found on the applicant’s body could have occurred in other circumstances. On 12 November 2009 the hierarchically superior prosecutor upheld that decision.
15. On 16 December 2009 the Buiucani District investigating judge annulled the prosecutor’s decisions of 14 April 2009 and of 12 November 2009 and obliged the prosecutor to perform an additional investigation on the case by hearing witnesses other than police officers and by examining medical records.
16. On 21 December 2009 a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by police officers was initiated on charges of torture. On 1 February 2010 the applicant was acknowledged the status of victim.
17. On 22 March 2010 the same forensic doctor I.S. drew another medical examination report, reading as follows:
“The ecchymosis on the back resulted from the action of a blunt and hard object, with a limited interaction surface, and is more than seven days old at the date of the examination. ...”
18. On 3 May 2010 a panel of forensic doctors from the Moldovan Centre for Forensic Medicine examined the applicant and the previous medical reports and drew another report, reading as follows:
“On the [applicant’s] body was found an ecchymosis in the interscapular region, seven days old when first examined (on 14 April 2009). ... The conclusions of the 14 April 2009 report implying that the injury was five days old does not correspond to the type of the injury and was probably a mechanical error and should be considered ill-founded.”
19. On 13 May 2010 the investigation was discontinued in respect of two police officers, G.B. and R.P., on the ground that their actions did not contain the elements of the crime of torture. The prosecutor relied on the medical report of 3 May 2010 to conclude that the injuries on the applicant’s body were more than seven days old. The prosecutor concluded that the applicant had not been tortured once he voluntarily pleaded guilty on charges of theft before the Buiucani District Court on 3 November 2009. On 28 May 2010 the hierarchically superior prosecutor upheld this decision.
20. On 13 August 2010 the Buiucani District investigating judge annulled the prosecutor’s decisions of 13 May 2010 and of 28 May 2010 and obliged the prosecutor to perform an additional investigation on the case by analysing all witness statements and all medical reports.
21. On 2 August 2011 a panel of forensic doctors from the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Iasi, Romania, examined the applicant and the previous medical reports and drew another report, reading as follows:
“An ecchymosis on the back in the interscapular region found on 14 April 2009 ... given its colour (brown-yellow) could be three-seven days old and could have been inflicted on 9 April 2009.
The ecchymoses on the back bilaterally in the interscapular zone found on 11 April 2009 ... given their colour (red) could be several hours old and could have been inflicted on 11 April 2009.”
22. On 24 December 2012 another panel of medical doctors from the Moldovan Centre for Forensic Medicine upheld the findings of the medical report of 3 May 2010. The doctors explained the discrepancies between the medical reports of 9 April 2009 and 11 April 2009, on one side, and of 14 April 2009, on the other side by an error made by the examining personnel in the first two reports.
23. On 29 January 2013 the prosecutor’s office discontinued the investigation on the same grounds as before. The applicant’s appeals were subsequently dismissed by the hierarchically superior prosecutor’s office and by an investigating judge on 4 March 2013 and 16 April 2013 respectively.
COMPLAINTS
24. The applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He also argues that the State authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in respect of his complaint about ill-treatment.
25. The applicant also complains that he had no effective remedies as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241‑A)?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities in the present case effective for the purposes of that Article?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy