Communicated on 6 October 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 4989/15
Sergey Anatolyevich PATSEV
against Ukraine
lodged on 25 December 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Anatolyevich Patsev, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Kramatorsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Following several head injuries sustained in the 1990s, the applicant has been suffering from a number of neurological symptoms, including epileptic seizures involving loss of consciousness. On an unspecified date he was officially registered as a disabled person of “the third degree” (mildest category of disability).
At about 7 p.m. on 5 October 2009 F.B. suffered a serious cerebral trauma and other injuries, of which he died on 19 October 2009.
At about 11 a.m. on 6 October 2009 several police officers in civilian clothes approached the applicant at the entrance of his home and forced him to follow them to the Kramatorsk police station, where they entered by the back door, avoiding the external surveillance cameras. The applicant was placed in one of the offices and questioned concerning the circumstances in which F.B. had suffered his injuries. As the applicant denied having been aware of any relevant facts, the police officers started ill-treating him with a view to obtaining confessions concerning his involvement in the assault on F.B. They beat him on the head with books; electrocuted him on the genitals, suffocated him by putting a plastic bag over his head and applied other ill-treatment techniques. In addition, the police officers threatened to cause troubles to the applicant’s family. The applicant’s requests for a lawyer and his submissions concerning his invalidity were ignored.
At an unspecified time on the same date the applicant signed a document entitled “explanation”, wherein he confessed to having attempted to steal F.B.’s belongings from the trunk of his car.
At about 1:10 a.m. on 7 October 2009 the applicant was brought to a forensic expert, who detected several fresh haemorrhages on the applicant’s back, knees and buttocks and concluded that they had been sustained within the twenty-four hour period preceding the assessment.
From 1:49 a.m. to 3:03 a.m. on the same date the applicant was questioned as a suspect in presence of a defender D., the circumstances of whose engagement have not been disclosed. During this questioning the applicant reiterated his submissions that he had attempted to steal F.B.’s belongings from his car.
At about 3 p.m. on 7 October 2009 the applicant was released from the police station after having signed an undertaking not to abscond.
On 31 October 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having stolen F.B.’s belongings from his car.
On the same date the Kramatorsk Court remanded the applicant in custody referring, primarily, to the seriousness of the incriminated offence and his prior criminal record.
Questioned as an accused on the day of his arrest, the applicant retracted his previous confessions, alleging that he had given them as a result of ill-treatment by police officer A.B. and other officers, whose names he did not know. He further submitted that at the time when the offence imputed to him had taken place, he had been several kilometres away from the crime scene, helping his acquaintances G. and O. to tow their car.
On 25 January 2010 the applicant was additionally accused of having been an accomplice to F.B.’s murder, in which three other individuals had participated.
On 26 March 2010 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment, according to which the applicant and three other persons were committed to stand trial before the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“Regional Court”), sitting as a first-instance court. The applicant was accused of having taken part in F.B.’s murder, having stolen his belongings and having attempted to hijack his car.
On 6 April 2010 the applicant’s complaint concerning his purportedly unlawful detention on 6 October 2009 and his alleged ill-treatment by the police was forwarded to the Kramatorsk Prosecutor’s Office for investigation.
On 16 May 2011 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending entry of the judgment into force.
On 7 December 2011 the Kramatorsk Police informed G., a representative of one of the applicant’s co-defendants, that according to the log of the police station visitors, on 6 October 2009 the applicant had been on the premises of the police from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m. On leaving the police station, he had signed the log with a statement that he had no claims or complaints against the police.
On 19 January 2012 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court (“the Higher Court”) quashed the judgment of 16 May 2011, having found, in particular, that there were some 2,000 stylistic, logical and orthographical errors in the judgment text. It further remitted the case for a retrial.
On 10 September 2012 the Kramatorsk Prosecutor’s Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment, referring to the lack of evidence that a crime in his respect had been committed.
On 24 January 2013 the Kramatorsk Court quashed this decision upon the applicant’s appeal, having noted, in particular, that the prosecutor’s office had failed to investigate, where the applicant had been between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. on 6 October 2009 and whether he had had any injuries before entering the police station. The probability of the applicant’s arrival in the police station before 7 p.m. on that day by the back door had likewise never been reasonably assessed.
On 6 February 2013 a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment was opened.
On 30 April 2013 this investigation was closed for lack of evidence that a crime had been committed.
On 16 July 2013 this decision was quashed by the Donetsk Region Deputy Prosecutor, who gave further instructions as to investigating these allegations.
On 23 September 2013 the proceedings were closed again for want of evidence that a crime had been committed.
On 6 November 2013 the Kramatorsk Court acquitted the applicant of the charges concerning his participation in F.B.’s murder and hijacking of his car. On the other hand, it found him guilty of having attempted to steal objects from F.B.’s car and sentenced him to four years and eight months’ imprisonment. The court also ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending entry of the judgment into force.
On 7 November 2013 the Kramatorsk Court quashed the decision of 23 September 2013 to close the criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. It noted, in particular, that the police records, according to which the applicant had left the police station at 10 p.m. on 6 October 2009 were at odds with the record of his questioning as a suspect between 1:49 a.m. and 3:03 a.m. on 7 October 2009 and that further persons had to be questioned with a view to establishing the relevant facts.
On 29 April 2014 the Court of Appeal examined appeals lodged by the prosecutor, the defendants and one of the injured parties, quashed the judgment of 6 November 2013 and remitted the case for retrial. It further ordered the applicant’s release from custody under an obligation not to abscond.
Between April 2014 and April 2015 several further decisions to close the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of misconduct by the law-enforcement authorities in his respect were quashed.
On 17 June 2015 the Kramatorsk Court quashed a decision in this respect taken on 28 April 2015 and ordered a further investigation, which, according to the materials on the file, is currently pending.
The criminal proceedings against the applicant are also pending before the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that in October 2009 he was detained off-record and ill-treated by the police with a view to extort false self-incriminating statements and that he has had no effective remedies in respect of his relevant complaints. He also complains that his detention pending trial and the criminal proceedings against him have been unfair and inordinately lengthy.
The applicant invokes Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention in respect of his complaints.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment by the police authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in October 2009?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the allegations of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty from 11 a.m. on 6 October 2009 until 3 p.m. on 7 October 2009 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy