Communicated on 16 January 2014
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 32776/06
Vitaliy Viktorovich SEMENYUTIN against Ukraine
lodged on 11 July 2006
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Viktorovich Semenyutin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Gorlovka.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 March 2002 the applicant was apprehended by the police on suspicion of involvement in robbery.
On 20 March 2002 the court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
Being HIV positive since 1996, the applicant developed while in detention a number of serious diseases, including chronic hepatitis and heart disease, but he was not properly examined and did not receive adequate medical care. From the submitted documents it appears that while in detention he was received treatment from certain diseases but no details are available. In particular the applicant was diagnosed with and received iout-patient treatment from atherocardiosclerosis (October 2003, September-October 2005, March 2006), psychic disorder (October 2003), herpes (September 2004), oral thrush (November 2006, January-February 2007, October 2007), chronic hepatitis and cholecystitis (July 2006, September 2007).
On 13 October 2004 the Gorlovka Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court (the District Court) found the applicant and Mr P. guilty. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for robbery committed together with Mr P.
On 7 June 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) quashed the judgment of 13 October 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first-instance court.
On 8 November 2005 the District Court referred the case for additional investigation. It also decided that the preventive measure of detention should remain unchanged.
On 4 August 2006 the District Court found the applicant and Mr P. guilty. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for robbery committed together with Mr P.
By letter of 11 May 2007 the District Court informed the applicant that his criminal case-file contained no requests for release or any decision upon such request and that the applicant and his lawyer who had studied the case-file had never made any objection or comments to the minutes of the trial, which did not mention such requests either.
On 24 July 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 4 August 2006 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first-instance court.
On 10 April 2008 the District Court found the applicant and Mr P. guilty. The applicant was sentenced to six years and three months’ imprisonment for robbery committed together with Mr P.
It appears that no appeal was lodged by the applicant against the judgment of 10 April 2008.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about lack of appropriate medical care in detention. With reference to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, he further complains about excessive length of his detention pending investigation and trial. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant also complains that the criminal proceedings against him lasted too long.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention having regard to his health problems and his complaints of lack of appropriate medical assistance during his detention?
2. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. 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?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy