Communicated on 29 September 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 74497/13
Alexandru MIRON
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 7 November 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Alexandru Miron, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Chișinău. He is represented before the Court by R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
A. 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 and detention
On 24 August 2011 the applicant was taken into police custody on charges of murder and unauthorized possession of a firearm. He was remanded in custody by the Centru District investigating judge on 28 August 2011 and his detention was subsequently extended every thirty days until 21 January 2012 on the grounds that given the seriousness of the charges against him, he may abscond, re-offend and interfere with the investigation. The applicant did not appeal those decisions.
On 17 January 2012 the applicant’s case was committed for trial and his detention was extended by the court every three months, finding that the grounds which justified his initial detention had remained valid.
In his appeals against the decisions of 12 April, 10 June and 10 July 2013 the applicant complained, inter alia, about the length of his detention, which was no longer justified by any risk of collusion because all witnesses had been heard and their statements did not support the charges against him. He also complained that the courts failed to consider his request for house arrest as an alternative measure which could just as effective in respect of the alleged risk of absconding. He argued that his detention pending trial had already exceeded the twelve-month time-limit set under Article 186 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the courts had not put forward any exceptional circumstance justifying such a long detention period, while the seriousness of charges could not by themselves constitute sufficient ground for his extended deprivation of liberty.
By decisions of 23 April, 20 June and 25 July 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant as an exceptional circumstance which determined the risk of absconding, of re-offending, of interfering with the investigation, and of putting pressure on witnesses.
On 11 October 2013 the Centru District Court found the applicant guilty on all charges and sentenced him to twenty-three years of imprisonment.
2. Conditions of detention
On 28 September 2011 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13 in Chișinău. At the time of submitting his application he was still being held in that prison.
According to the applicant, he was detained in cells with poor lighting, damp walls, accommodating six inmates in an area of 6 sq.m. Due to overcrowding, the applicant had to share a bed with another inmate with whom he took turns to sleep. During his detention the applicant did not receive any bedding or clothing. Certain inmates were diagnosed with tuberculosis or with HIV and had bleeding wounds. He was allowed to walk outside the cell only one hour per day. Without a functional ventilation system, in summer the air indoors was hot, humid and smelly which made it difficult to breathe. In cold weather the heating was not turned on and the temperature in the cells was extremely low. The squat toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. The prison laundry was not operational and the applicant was unable to wash his clothes.
The applicant submitted that he did not receive food of a sufficient quantity and quality. On hearing days the applicant was away from prison for more than eight hours, during which he did not receive any food or water and was not allowed to use the toilet. Transportation to and from the court was made in a van which was not heated during the winter.
On 18 April 2014 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about the applicant’s detention conditions in prison no. 13. By a letter of 15 May 2014 the Department of Penitentiary Institutions denied the complaints on overcrowding, TB infected inmates, insufficient food and medical assistance.
B. Relevant domestic law
According to Article 25 (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, the period of detention may be extended only by a judge or a court, in accordance with the law, to a maximum of twelve months.
According to Article 186 (8) of the Moldovan Code of Criminal Procedure after a case was referred to court for trial, the examination of the case with the accused in custody shall not exceed twelve months if the person is charged with a crime for which the maximal penalty is twenty-five years of imprisonment or life detention.
According to Article 186 (9) of the Moldovan Code of Criminal Procedure the extension of detention pending trial after the expiry of the time-limit provided under Article 186 (8) is possible only in exceptional circumstances.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the material conditions of detention in prison no. 13 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
He also complains that he did not have, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, any effective remedies at his disposal for his complaint under Article 3.
The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention during judicial proceedings exceeding the twelve-month time‑limit set under the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure was unlawful and that the overall length of his pre-trial detention was excessive without relevant and sufficient reasons.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant held in inhuman or degrading conditions of detention?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 regarding his conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty after 17 January 2013 fall within paragraph (c) of this provision?
4. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy