FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 59731/09
Sergey Aleksandrovich SAVENKO
against Ukraine
lodged on 29 October 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Savenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975. His application was lodged on 29 October 2009. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Bushchenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On the date of the application, the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Temnivka no. 100 Prison, in the Kharkiv Region.
On 10 July 2008 the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell as punishment for a disciplinary offence committed in the prison.
On 11 July 2008 the first deputy governor of the prison, O., took the applicant to a storage room and asked him for certain information about alleged unlawful activities on the part of other prisoners. When the applicant refused, O. cuffed the applicant’s hands behind his back, pushed him onto a mattress and put a plastic bag over his head. When the applicant chewed a hole in the bag, O. threw several mattresses on him and, presumably, jumped on them. The applicant lost consciousness.
On 15 July 2008, following a consultation with a lawyer, the applicant complained to the prosecutor of ill-treatment. He further asked for medical assistance on account of injuries on his forearms allegedly caused by handcuffs.
On 18 July 2008 the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who had about one year of experience. During the medical examination, the applicant explained that he had caused the injuries himself using coarse thread. The expert reported abrasions to both forearms and opined that the injuries could have been sustained at the time indicated by the applicant, that is, on 11 July 2008, and could have been caused either by metal handcuffs or coarse thread.
On 19 July 2008 the applicant wrote a statement to the effect that the injuries had been self-inflicted using coarse thread. His cellmate stated in writing that the applicant had inflicted the injuries himself using a rope he made out of a floor mat. The cellmate also specified that the applicant had rubbed salt into the skin of his forearms to deepen the injuries.
On 25 July 2008 the prosecutor’s office responsible for supervising the lawfulness of the enforcement of sentences adopted a decision refusing to open an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. The decision was taken as a result of a pre-investigation inquiry, which comprised of an examination of the statements of the applicant and his cellmate and the medical report of 18 July 2008.
On 28 July 2008 the applicant explained to his lawyer that the prison staff had exerted psychological pressure on him, as a result of which he had stated that the injuries had been self-inflicted.
On 23 March 2009, in reply to the applicant’s lawyer’s request, a medical expert, whose experience exceeded thirty-seven years, examined the medical documentation in respect of the applicant’s injuries. The expert issued a report in which he concluded that the applicant’s injuries could not have been inflicted by a thread or a rope; there was no indication that salt had been applied to the affected areas of skin; and the applicant’s initial statements that the injuries had been caused by metal handcuffs corresponded to the objective medical information.
The applicant’s lawyer challenged the decision of 25 July 2008 before the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv.
On 12 May 2009 the court upheld the decision of 25 July 2008 as lawful and substantiated. It noted that the report of 23 March 2009 did not disprove the other evidence in the file suggesting that the injuries had been self-inflicted.
On 4 June and 14 December 2009 respectively the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law can be found in the judgment in the case of Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 112, 1 July 2010).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by a prison officer and that there was no effective investigation of the incident.
2. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedies, in particular, no civil remedy, in respect of his allegations of ill-treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment, did the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities meet the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have access to a civil remedy in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy