10 July 2009
FOURTH SECTION
Daria Oprea (no. 38055/06), Veaceslav Rotaru (no. 51216/06), Valeriu Mitrofan (no. 50054/07), and Mihai Feraru (no. 55792/08) v. Moldova
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Daria Oprea, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Hîrbovăţ. She is represented before the Court by Mr V. Mardari, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the president of the non-governmental organisation Dumitriţa, which specialises in providing assistance to people in need. She suffers from epilepsy with organic personality changes and low frequency tonic epileptic fits. She was treated on an in-patient basis in the Clinical Psychiatric Hospital during the period 22 May – 12 June 2006.
On 27 July 2006 the applicant was summoned to appear before an investigator of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CCECC”). When she appeared, she was arrested on suspicion of having misappropriated funds given by a Swedish donor organisation to her organisation for distribution amongst those in need. The applicant was placed in the CCECC detention centre.
The applicant informed the investigator of her illness and told him that she needed to regularly take medicines prescribed to her by the psychiatrist. The officer replied that detainees were not allowed to have any medicines in their possession.
According to the applicant, on being taken to her cell she had an epileptic fit and an ambulance was called in to give her emergency assistance. She was then placed in an unventilated cell with another woman, who kept smoking. The applicant does not smoke and was thus exposed to passive smoking, exacerbating her epilepsy problems.
On 29 July 2006 the investigator asked the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the applicant’s arrest. On the same date Judge Drosu, the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court, rejected the request, finding it unsubstantiated. The judge noted that the applicant had pleaded not guilty and that the investigator had not proved an absolute need to detain the applicant. There was no evidence that she might abscond, put pressure on witnesses or interfere with the course of the investigation. Moreover, the court took into account the criteria of Article 176 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely, that the applicant “had a stable residence and a job, was of an advanced age and in an unsatisfactory state of health, and did not have a criminal record”.
Immediately after the hearing of 29 July 2006, the prosecutor informed the applicant that, as a provisional measure valid for 30 days, she was under an obligation not to leave her village.
In reply to a request by the prosecutor of 28 July 2006, on 31 July 2006 the Clinical Psychiatric Hospital of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection (“the CPH”) confirmed that the applicant had been treated for epilepsy in the hospital during the period 22 May – 12 June 2006. The CPH added that urgent medical assistance could be given to the applicant by calling an ambulance and that she was eligible to receive free medication on the basis of a prescription issued by her local psychiatrist.
On 1 August 2006 the prosecutor appealed against the decision of the investigating judge. He noted that the criminal case had been initiated on 16 June 2006 and that the evidence obtained so far, including an audit of the non-governmental organisation’s activity, attested to misappropriation of funds (amounting to 950,970 Moldovan lei or 55,957 euros at the time). As the director of Dumitriţa, the applicant was directly responsible for the manner in which the money and items had been used. Since many of the persons receiving aid from the applicant’s organisation were elderly and poor, they could easily be influenced by the applicant, who was accused of a serious crime for which she risked 10 to 25 years’ imprisonment. Moreover, the applicant might interfere with the course of the investigation, as was clear from her “not guilty” plea and her claim that the Swedish organisation was simply punishing her for her organisation’s refusal to participate in a bigger project.
On 7 August 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed the investigating judge’s decision of 29 July 2006 and ordered the applicant’s detention for 10 days. The court found that
“in examining the request for a preventive measure of detention the [lower] court did not take into account the seriousness of the crime which [the applicant] is suspected of having committed, and adopted a premature and unsubstantiated decision. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed an exceptionally serious crime which is punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, and she may abscond, interfere with the course of the investigation or commit other crimes.”
According to the applicant, she was not summoned to the hearing of 7 August 2006 and did not attend it, although her lawyer did attend. The decision of 7 August 2006 mentioned the applicant’s participation.
The applicant was arrested shortly thereafter at her house, on the basis of an arrest warrant of the same date issued by the Chişinău Court of Appeal. The warrant mentioned that “[the applicant] is suspected of having committed a crime punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, of absconding from the law-enforcement authority and the court, and might interfere with the course of the investigation and commit other crimes”.
Also on 7 August 2006 the applicant was formally indicted with having committed the crime.
In the meantime a request by the applicant’s lawyer to declare unlawful her arrest on 27 July 2006 was rejected as unfounded by the investigating judge on 3 August 2006. The judge found that although the investigator had only noted one reason as the ground for the applicant’s arrest (namely, a direct indication by a witness that she had committed the crime), that ground was expressly provided for by law.
On 11 August 2006 the prosecutor asked for an extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial for another 30 days. The request referred to the same facts as those mentioned in the request of 1 August 2006, mentioning in addition the Court of Appeal’s decision of 7 August 2006 and the formal indictment of the same date. The applicant opposed that request, referring to her stable residence and job, as well as her health problems.
On 15 August 2006 the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court granted the request and extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for another 30 days. The court found that on 7 August 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal had annulled the decision of 29 July 2006 and that on 7 August 2006 the applicant was indicted with having committed the crime. The court added that
“the grounds relied on by the Chişinău Court of Appeal for ordering [the applicant’s] arrest remain valid. In such circumstances the validity of the arrest warrant shall be extended, since the reasons invoked by the prosecution for extending it have priority; [detention] will be part of the normal course of the criminal proceedings; the arguments of the defence were examined by the appellate court”.
The applicant claims that she was summoned before the investigator on several occasions before her arrest on 27 July 2006. Each time she and her lawyer appeared before the investigator and she never absconded from the investigation. On 17 August 2006 the applicant’s lawyer was informed by the Anenii Noi Post Office that no registered mail had been delivered to the applicant during the period 1-17 August 2006. No other evidence could be found in the file that the applicant was in fact summoned to appear before the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 7 August 2006. In the absence of an official summons, the applicant would have been in breach of the preventive measure adopted in respect of the undertaking not to leave her village, imposed on her on 29 July 2006.
According to the applicant, she had a number of epileptic fits during the events described above, both in the CFECC detention facility and in the prosecutor’s office, the court hall and even during a court hearing. Two such fits happened in the prosecutor’s office on 29 July 2006 immediately after the hearing, her lawyer having given her emergency assistance. She also claims that she can occasionally sense the onset of a fit sufficiently far in advance to be able to take the relevant medicines and thus prevent the fit from occurring. However, as she was deprived of access to her medicines in the cell, she could not prevent any of her fits.
No medical assistance was available in the CFECC in 2006, and thus the applicant had to be assisted by a team of ambulance personnel. Moreover, epilepsy required a special type of treatment, including inducing an adequate emotional state. The lack of basic hygiene, the smoking by her cellmate and the uncertainty of receiving medical assistance whenever a fit occurred all contributed to continuous stress and suffering.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she was not given medical assistance adequate to her state of health, which was incompatible with detention.
2. She also complains, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that her detention pending trial was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
3. She finally complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that she was not summoned to the hearing of 7 August 2006 and that she and her lawyer were not given access to the findings of the audit of her non-governmental organisation.
Application no. 51216/06
by Veaceslav ROTARU
against Moldova
lodged on 21 September 2006
On 14 February 2003 the applicant was arrested at his house by masked and armed officers, who allegedly tortured him until he confessed to having committed several crimes of theft and robbery.
The applicant lodged a complaint, asking the prosecutor’s office to investigate his alleged ill-treatment by the police. On 28 February 2004 his complaint was dismissed as unfounded by the head of the Chişinău police. The applicant challenged that decision before the prosecutor’s office. On 11 August 2005 a prosecutor from the Chişinău prosecutor’s office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers, finding that there was no evidence of the applicant’s ill-treatment or of any other unlawful act. The applicant challenged that decision before the investigating judge, who decided to forward it to the trial court for examination as part of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
On 8 June 2005 the applicant was convicted by the Rîşcani District Court. That conviction was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 27 October 2005 and the Supreme Court of Justice on 16 March 2006. On 6 October 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed an extraordinary appeal (recurs în anulare) by the applicant and reduced his sentence in accordance with a new law that was more favourable to him.
From February 2004 the applicant started complaining to the authorities about his inhuman conditions of detention. He received numerous replies from the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecutor General’s Office and Parliament. Many of these replies noted that he had been found to be “healthy for all practical purposes” and not in need of medical assistance. Some of the letters also noted that, due to insufficient funding of the prison system, detainees were not provided with bed linen and only some of the minimum quantities of food was available. In a letter of 8 June 2004 the Minister of Justice noted that the applicant was detained in a cell with 14 beds and 15 detainees. In a letter of 10 August 2004 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant that it was aware that cell no. 24 in which he was detained was overcrowded and that not all the persons detained there had a bed and bed linen. The prison administration was asked to remedy the situation. In a letter of 5 November 2004 the Ministry of Justice informed a group of nine detainees, including the applicant, that medical assistance was available when needed and that only minor repairs could be made in the cells due to lack of funds; the Ministry was aware of the problems in ensuring the proper functioning of the prison system, and taking all necessary measures to improve the situation. The Minister added that no detainees suffering from tuberculosis were held in the nearby cell 24A.
On 18 April 2006 the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis and was admitted to Pruncul Prison Hospital, where he received DOTS treatment. On 1 March 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that under the applicable rules all detainees were provided with the minimum acceptable quantities of food. However, due to lack of funding, such items as meat, fish or dairy products were provided “within the limits of available funds”. On the basis of a doctor’s prescription, increased quantities of food could be provided to ill detainees.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that he has been “intentionally deprived of his health, which also means life” by being kept in inhuman conditions of detention, which have led to his becoming infected with tuberculosis, and of the insufficient medical assistance provided to him.
2. He also complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that he was ill-treated by the police upon his arrest in order to extract self-incriminatory statements.
3. He further complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that he was wrongfully convicted on the basis of evidence obtained through torture and that defence witnesses able to testify to his ill-treatment were not heard by the courts, without reasons.
4. He finally complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that his complaints concerning his ill-treatment, including that of 1 September 2005, were not examined by the authorities.
Application no. 50054/07
by Valeriu MITROFAN
against Moldova
lodged on 15 November 2007
1. The applicant’s detention and the criminal proceedings against him
At the time of the events the applicant was the head of a private high school (V.) and acting head of the Industrial and Construction College (C., a State-funded institution). In 2004 a criminal investigation was opened into acts of fraud and excess of power allegedly committed by the applicant. He was accused of having accepted money from students for their studies and failing to reflect those payments in V.’s accounting documents.
On 24 September 2004 the applicant was arrested on the basis of a warrant issued by the Centru District Court on the same day. On 30 September 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal annulled that decision, finding that there were no reasons to believe that the applicant would abscond or interfere with the course of the investigation, while noting that he had a place of residence, a family and a small child, and had undertaken to appear before the investigation authorities whenever summoned.
On 20 November 2006 the Grigoriopol District Court acquitted the applicant of all the charges except for fraud. In particular, the court found no evidence that the applicant had accepted any money from the students. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
On 8 February 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly quashed the first-instance court’s judgment. The court convicted the applicant of negligence since he had admitted two new students to the private high school V. and accepted tuition fees from them, even though by order of the Minister of Education of 25 December 2003 V.’s licence had been suspended and the applicant had been ordered to transfer all the pupils to other educational institutions. The applicant’s sentence was reduced to eight months’ imprisonment.
In an appeal on points of law, the applicant argued that as the head of a private high school he could not be considered an official (persoană cu funcţii de răspundere) within the meaning of the law and he could not be accused of negligence in carrying out any official duties by accepting pupils to study in his private school. He added that the alleged damage caused (3,020 Moldovan lei (“MDL”)) was smaller than the minimum of MDL 10,000, which was a legal precondition for convicting someone of negligence in carrying out official duties. He finally added that he had admitted new pupils to his school because he had challenged in court the Minister’s order of 25 December 2003 and that order had been suspended and thus had no legal effect pending the outcome of the litigation.
On 28 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice partly quashed the lower court’s judgment. The Court summarised the applicant’s arguments raised in his appeal on points of law, but did not respond to them. It noted, however, that the lower courts had not taken into consideration attenuating circumstances such as the fact that the applicant had not been previously convicted, was positively appreciated and no aggravating circumstances were present, and had incorrectly decided to sentence him to imprisonment. The court therefore replaced the applicant’s prison term by a fine. Taking into account that he had spent time in prison, he was relieved from the duty of paying the fine.
2. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
The applicant describes the conditions in which he was held for more than seven months in prison no. 3 in Chişinău as follows. He was detained in a cell measuring 26 square metres together with 11-13 other detainees. There was no working ventilation and the air came in from several holes in a net covering the window. The cell was very cold in winter and very hot in summer. The walls and ceiling were damp. The toilet was in the cell and was not properly isolated from the rest of the cell. The bed linen was changed very rarely and the cell was never cleaned. There were many parasitic insects and he could not sleep because of them. Light was insufficient for reading. Showers were allowed only once a week. Food was scarce and of low quality, and even the meagre quantities decided upon by the Government were not observed.
The applicant complained to various authorities of the conditions of detention and asked for a reduction of the number of persons in the cell or his transfer to a non-smoking cell since he was subjected to passive smoking. All his complaints were either ignored or rejected.
The applicant notes that he was detained in a closed prison, even though he was sentenced to detention in a semi-closed one. He was thus deprived of certain conditions to which he had a right, such as the right to circulate freely inside the prison area (as opposed to a one-hour daily walk in the closed prison).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the inhuman conditions of his detention.
2. He also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he had no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of his complaints concerning the inhuman conditions of detention.
3. He finally complains, under Article 6, that he was unlawfully convicted, as the courts failed to deal with some of his strongest arguments.
Application no. 55792/08
by Mihai FERARU
against Moldova
lodged on 31 October 2008
1. The applicant’s arrest and detention pending trial
The applicant is an artisan specialised in installing roof drainage systems. In the early morning of 29 September 2008 he was arrested at his house by the police and brought to Rîşcani Police Station in Chişinău, apparently on the ground of having committed an administrative offence. He was detained there incommunicado until 6 October 2008 and was forced to return the money which he had taken from B. I. for installing a roof drainage system on his house. According to the applicant, he had not managed to finish the work on that installation when B. I. asked for the return of the money and called his relatives from Rîşcani Police Station in order to intimidate the applicant and obtain a full repayment. His detention was officially registered as having started on 4 October 2008.
On 6 October 2008 the prosecutor asked the Rîşcani District Court to order the applicant’s detention for 10 days. The applicant was accused of defrauding B. I. by accepting 8,000 Moldovan lei (MDL, approximately 560 euros (EUR) at the time) in May 2008 as payment for installing a roof drainage system, but failing to carry out any work. He was also accused of two similar crimes, but no details other than the criminal-file numbers were given.
The applicant’s lawyer was not able to read the request until immediately before the hearing and was not given a copy at that time. He did not see any other document being submitted to the investigating judge to substantiate the prosecutor’s request and no documents were shown to the defence or discussed by the investigating judge at the hearing.
On 6 October 2008 the investigating judge of the Rîşcani District Court granted the prosecutor’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial for 10 days. The reasons given by the court were that
“the act of which [the applicant] is accused is considered a less serious crime, which is a legitimate ground for detention pending trial; the character, degree of harm and circumstances of the crime constitute sufficient grounds for supposing that [the applicant] will interfere with the normal course of the investigation; the materials submitted to the court clearly confirm that there is a reasonable suspicion that [the applicant] committed a less serious crime, and there are sufficient grounds to prevent [the applicant] from hindering the establishment of the truth and from absconding from the investigating authority; the materials in the file confirm the reasonable suspicion that [the applicant] might reoffend, since it follows from the operative investigations’ information obtained by the investigating authority that [the applicant] may have committed other similar crimes; ... [the applicant] has no stable income and works periodically, there is no information about his financial status and his state of health is not incompatible with detention; [the applicant] and his lawyer did not submit any evidence in support of their statements; ...”
The applicant’s lawyer appealed, complaining of the applicant’s de facto arrest on 29 September 2008 and his detention incommunicado thereafter, without legal assistance until 6 October 2008. There was no response from the lower court to that complaint. He also described the applicant’s conditions of detention, which he considered inhuman and degrading. The lawyer informed the court of the fact that he had read the prosecutor’s request only at the hearing of 6 October 2008 and had not had time to properly prepare for that hearing. Besides the prosecutor’s request, no other document had been submitted to the court or shown to the defence to substantiate the need for the applicant’s detention. Nor did the prosecutor refer to any additional document or other evidence during the hearing. The applicant had asked the first-instance court to hear a witness who could confirm that the applicant had a contract with B. I. and that the latter’s relatives from the police had threatened him if he refused to return the money for the on-going work, but the court refused without giving any reasons. Moreover, the judge relied on grounds which had not been mentioned by the prosecutor, thus showing bias towards the prosecution. The lawyer relied on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention and referred to the absence of any evidence to support the prosecutor’s request for the applicant’s detention pending trial, including the absence of any judgment or other evidence concerning the other similar crimes allegedly committed by his client. In the lawyer’s opinion, there was no reason to believe that the applicant would abscond or interfere with the investigation.
On 10 October 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as unfounded, referring to similar grounds as those referred to by the lower court, including that the applicant had allegedly committed other similar crimes “as can be seen from the criminal file”.
On 13 October 2008 one of the applicant’s relatives paid EUR 500 to B. I., who signed a statement that he no longer had any claims against the applicant.
Also on 13 October 2008 the prosecutor asked for an extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial for 30 days. He referred to three separate occasions on which the applicant was accused of having accepted money for installing roof drainage systems but had failed to do so, including in respect of B. I.
On the same day the investigating judge of the Rîşcani District Court granted the request and ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial for 30 days. The court noted that
“... a serious crime has been committed for which the law provides a penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment; there was no compensation for the pecuniary damage caused; there are reasons to believe that [the applicant] could abscond or interfere with the normal and objective course of the investigation; the grounds on which the initial detention was ordered remain valid”.
The applicant’s lawyer appealed, relying on the same grounds as in his previous appeal. He added that his client had told the lower court that he had no debts towards B. I., whom he had reimbursed fully. Moreover, the lawyer had read the prosecutor’s request only immediately before the hearing of 13 October 2008. No document other than the prosecutor’s request was examined by the court during the hearing or shown to the defence. The lawyer added that the applicant had a stable residence, had two children to support and had not been previously convicted of any offence.
On 21 October 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, relying on the same grounds as those referred to by the lower court.
2. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
The applicant describes his conditions of detention as follows. During his detention at Rîşcani Police Station he was held in a cell without a bed or any other furniture. There was no ventilation, toilet or running water in the cell. He was not given any food and had to beg for it from other detainees. The cell was overcrowded and many detainees smoked, exposing the applicant to passive smoking. The cell was damp.
From 13 October 2008 the applicant was detained at the General Police Department (“the GPD”). He was placed together with seven other persons in a cell measuring 12 square metres. The cell was dirty and infested with parasitic insects and rats. There was no furniture in the cell, and the detainees slept directly on the floor, in their own clothes. The cell was damp and very cold. A low-intensity lamp, covered by a metal sheet, was on 24 hours a day and there was no window in the cell. The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell, offering no intimacy. Due to the large number of persons using it, the toilet was busy most of the time and smelt bad. The applicant was not given any hygienic items, clean clothes or bed linen. He had to constantly wear the clothes in which he was arrested. The applicant received little food, of very bad quality (a cup of warm water in the morning and evening and boiled vegetables with warm water for lunch). Even though he had a stomach ulcer and high intercranial blood pressure, he did not receive any medical assistance. He was detained in such conditions 24 hours a day, without any right to take exercise or to recreation.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the inhuman conditions of his detention.
2. He also complains, under Article 5 of the Convention, that he was arrested in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime and that the courts did not give relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering and extending his detention pending trial, and that he was detained without a lawful basis between 29 September and 4 October 2008.
3. He finally complains, under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, that he and his lawyer did not have access to any materials on which the domestic courts allegedly based their decisions, and that a defence witness was not heard.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law has been set out in Sarban v. Moldova (no.3456/05, §§ 51-56, 4 October 2005) and Istratii and Others v. Moldova (nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 24, 27 March 2007).
In addition, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code read as follows:
“Article 126. ... large proportion ...
1. The value of objects stolen, obtained, received, fabricated, destroyed, used, transported, deposited, sold, taken through customs, the value of damage caused by a person or a group of persons shall be considered to be ... substantial if it amounts, at the time of committing the crime, to more than ... 500 times the standard unit fine [10,000 Moldovan lei]”
“Article 329. Negligence in carrying out duties
(1) The failure to carry out, or the inappropriate carrying out of duties by a public official as a result of a negligent or careless attitude towards such duties, where substantial damage is caused to the public interest or the lawful rights and interests of natural or legal persons, shall be punished with a fine of up to 500 times the standard unit or by imprisonment of up to 3 years, in both cases with (or without) a prohibition from occupying certain posts or carrying out certain activities for a period of up to 3 years”
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In each of the applications mentioned above, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which each applicant was detained and/or adequacy of the medical treatment to his or her state of health, including measures to prevent the applicants from contracting any infectious disease while in detention?
In their replies to the latter question, the parties are invited to make their comments in the light of the recommendation made by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) in paragraph 63 of their report concerning the visit to Moldova between 10 and 22 June 2001, namely “... to transfer the entire responsibility for remand prisoners from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice”.
2. In the cases of Mr Rotaru and Mr Mitrofan, has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Having regard to:
- the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment concerning its visits to Moldova in 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007;
- the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (United Nations Human Rights Council, document A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, 12 February 2009);
- the Court’s judgments in the cases of Ostrovar v. Moldova (no. 35207/03, 13 September 2005), Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005), Becciev v. Moldova (no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005), Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006), Holomiov v. Moldova (no. 30649/05, 7 November 2006), Istratii and Others v. Moldova (nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, 27 March 2007), Modarca v. Moldova (no. 14437/05, 10 May 2007), Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 12066/02, 19 June 2007), Stepuleac v. Moldova (no. 8207/06, 6 November 2007), Ţurcan v. Moldova (no. 10809/06, 27 November 2007), Paladi v. Moldova [GC] (no. 39806/05, 10 March 2009), and Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova, no. 4834/06, 7 April 2009:
Do the facts of each of the present applications disclose the existence of a “systemic problem” concerning conditions of prison and medical care and treatment of prisoners such that the deficiencies in the national law and/or practice complained of may give rise to numerous similar applications?
4. In the case of Mr Feraru, has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic court establish in its decision ordering the applicant’s arrest a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime?
5. In the cases of Ms Oprea and Mr Feraru, has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts give relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering and/or extending each of the applicants’ detention pending trial?
6. In the case of Mr Feraru, was there a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as a result of the alleged failure to give the defence access to any parts of the criminal file during the initial phase of the investigation and to allow sufficient time for the defence to prepare for the hearings concerning the applicant’s detention pending trial?
7. In the case of Mr Mitrofan, has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts respond to all the serious arguments raised by the defence, such as the two grounds for the alleged inapplicability of Article 329 of the Criminal Code to this applicant’s case?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy