THIRD SECTION
Application no. 22966/13
Roman STEFOGLO
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 12 March 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Roman Stefoglo is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Cazaclia. He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Mihailov-Moraru, a lawyer practising in Chisinau.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a disabled person suffering from mental incapacity.
On 3 December 2011 he was arrested on charges of theft. On 5 December 2011 a police officer ill-treated him during questioning. He was allegedly hit on his head with a plastic bottle full of water and hit on his left hand with a baton.
On 6 December 2011 a judge ordered the applicant’s remand in custody.
On 9 December 2011 the applicant’s lawyer learned from the applicant about the ill-treatment and lodged a criminal complaint. After that, the applicant was taken to a hospital where he was diagnosed with fracture of two fingers on his left hand.
The investigation into the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment ended with the Ciadir-Lunga District Court’s decision of 12 November 2011 by which the complaint was dismissed. In dismissing the complaint, the court relied on a statement made by one of the applicant’s detained co-accused, according to which he had mistakenly hit the applicant on his hand on 3 December 2011, before the arrest. The court reached the conclusion that the applicant’s injury predated his arrest.
In the meantime, the applicant was detained in prison until 22 May 2012, when he was moved to a psychiatric hospital for forced treatment. It does not appear that the hospitalisation and the forced treatment were ordered by a court in accordance with the law.
On 25 May and on 8 August 2012 the psychiatric hospital, where the applicant was hospitalised, wrote to the Ciadar-Lunga District Court requesting a court order for the forced treatment of the applicant but to no avail. On 20 November 2012 the psychiatric hospital decided to release the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he has been subjected to ill-treatment and that the domestic authorities failed to properly investigate his allegations of ill-treatment.
2. The applicant complains that his detention was unlawful and therefore contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241‑A)?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was any investigation conducted in the present case by the domestic authorities? If so, was it effective for the purposes of that Article?
3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the deprivation of liberty lawful under domestic law?
The Government are asked to submit a copy of the full version of the case file, concerning the criminal investigation instituted by the Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the applicant’s criminal complaint.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy