Communicated on 3 April 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 26738/12
Aleksey Vladimirovich TARASOV against Ukraine
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The circumstances of the cases
On various dates the applicants complained to the national authorities of Ukraine that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by law-enforcement authorities, which were seeking to coerce them to give self-incriminating statements. Facts relative to individual cases are summarised in the table appended below.
In most cases, the domestic courts repeatedly quashed the decisions of the investigative authority not to institute/to terminate criminal proceedings with a view to investigating the applicants’ complaints, referring to various mistakes and omissions in the inquiry.
In none of the cases the circumstances in which the applicants suffered the injuries complained about have been clearly and unequivocally established.
COMPLAINTS
1. All applications
1. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by law-enforcement authorities, who sought to coerce them to give self-incriminating statements.
2. They further complain that their relative complaints have not been effectively investigated by the domestic authorities. They invoke Article 3 and/or Article 13 of the Convention in this respect.
2. Application no. 26738/12 - Tarasov v. Ukraine
The applicant also invokes Articles 5 § 1 and 13 of the Convention complaining that he was arrested on 31 March 2011, while an arrest report was drawn only on 1 April 2011. In addition, he complains under the same provision that his arrest remained unlawful until 4 April 2011, when the judge ordered him to be remanded in custody, because this decision was taken after the expiry of the seventy-two-hour period maximally allowed by the domestic law for police detention.
3. Application no. 39701/12 - Rud v. Ukraine
1. The applicant also complains that the conditions of his detention in the Kharkiv SIZO were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and that he had no effective remedies for the relevant complaint within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention. He submits, notably, that his cell was overcrowded so that detainees needed to take turns to sleep; that there was mold and fungi on the walls; and that ventilation and thermic isolation in the cell were lacking.
2. In addition, the applicant complains that since 1 September 2012 he has been detained on the basis of the fact that his case has been remitted to the court for consideration. He alleges that this situation is in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and that he has no effective remedies for this complaint within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.
4. Application no. 51935/12 - Bazheryan v. Ukraine
The applicant also complains that the length of his detention pending investigation and trial, which lasted, in total, from 9 October 2007 until 4 April 2015 (during three rounds of proceedings) and the length of the criminal proceedings themselves (ending on 8 June 2015) were excessive for the purposes of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
5. Application no. 16495/13 - Kulayev and Others v. Ukraine
1. The applicants also invoke Article 5 § 1 of the Convention complaining that on 21 April 2012 they were arrested without any legal basis and held in undocumented detention for about twelve hours. They also allege that their detention was unlawful in view that they were brought before a judge only in the afternoon on 24 April 2012, that is, after the expiry of the seventy-two-hour period maximally allowed by the domestic law for police detention.
2. In addition, the applicants invoke Article 8 of the Convention complaining that early in the morning on 21 April 2012, while they were sleeping, the police stormed their flat, entered it by breaking the door and conducted an unlawful search.
3. Finally, the applicants complain under the same provision that their correspondence with the domestic authorities was perlustrated at the Kharkiv pre-trial detention facility (SIZO). They submit copies of official letters addressed to them personally, which contain a SIZO “entering correspondence” stamp.
6. Application no. 68237/13 - Amirli v. Ukraine
1. The applicant also complains that the conditions of his detention in the Donetsk SIZO no. 5 between November 2013 and August 2015 were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He notes, in particular, that the cell was very cold and humid, particularly as there was no glass in the window; that sanitary equipment was broken and that sewage waters from the upper floor constantly infiltrated through the walls creating intolerable smell and sanitary risks.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case, which were initiated in July 2010 and still pending as of May 2018, is excessive.
7. Application no. 41893/14 – Maslennikov v. Ukraine
The applicant also complains that the length of his detention pending investigation and trial, which has lasted since 2 December 2011 and until present (during several rounds of proceedings) and the same length of the criminal proceedings are excessive for the purposes of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention respectively.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. With respect to circumstances, listed in the appended table, have the applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 169-182, 15 May 2012), was the investigation of the applicants’ relevant complaints by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to provide copies of all pertinent medical records and procedural documents concerning the investigation of ill‑treatment complaints raised by the applicants.
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. Application no. 26738/12 - Tarasov v. Ukraine
Was the applicant deprived of his liberty between 31 March and 4 April 2011 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? (see, for example, Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 74-78 and 81-84, 15 November 2012 and Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 79‑85, 7 November 2013).
2. Application no. 39701/12 - Rud v. Ukraine
1. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Kharkiv SIZO amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?
2. Is the applicant’s detention starting from 1 September 2012 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 73-76, 10 February 2011).
3. Did the applicant have an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3 concerning the conditions of his detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Application no. 51935/12 - Bazheryan v. Ukraine
1. Was the length of the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Application no. 16495/13 - Kulayev and Others v. Ukraine
1. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty between 21 and 24 April 2012 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? (see, for example, Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 74-78 and 81-84, 15 November 2012 and Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 79‑85, 7 November 2013).
2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention?
(a) on account of the police conduct on 21 April 2012 (compare with Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 103-108, 7 November 2013; Koval and Others v. Ukraine, no. 22429/05, §§ 110-113, 15 November 2012; and Zosymov v. Ukraine, no. 4322/06, §§ 61-62, 7 July 2016);
(b) on account of alleged perlustration by the SIZO authorities of the applicants’ correspondence with the Ukrainian authorities (see Sergey Volosyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1291/03, §§ 83-86, 12 March 2009).
5. Application no. 68237/13 - Amirli v. Ukraine
1. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Donetsk SIZO amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?
2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
6. Application no. 41893/14 – Maslennikov v. Ukraine
1. Was the length of the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
Applicant
Date & place of alleged ill-treatment
Injuries sustained
Applicant’s account of the relevant circumstances
1. Application no. 26738/12 lodged on 7 December 2011
TARASOV
Aleksey Vladimirovich
Ukrainian national
born in 1975
residing in Kyiv
On 31 March 2011, in the Darnytsia District Police in Kyiv
Minor injuries (abrasions, scratches) recorded by medical staff of the Kyiv Temporary Detention Centre (ITT) on 02/04/2011
Forcing the applicant to testify that he had participated in a robbery and committed several other offences, police officers beat and threatened him; suffocated him by placing plastic bags on his head and spraying tear gas under the bags.
2. Application no. 39701/12 lodged on 21 June 2012
RUD
Aleksey Vladimirovich
Ukrainian national
born in 1982
residing in Kharkiv
On several dates in June-August 2012 in the premises of the Kharkiv Regional State Security Service
Hematomas, swollen nose, broken tooth. Applicant provided a photo & a statement by his lawyer
Forcing the applicant to testify that he was a Chinese spy, Security Service officers beat and threatened him. They also kept him handcuffed to a chair during interrogations.
3. Application no. 51935/12 lodged on 18 April 2012
BAZHERYAN
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich
Ukrainian national
born in 1984
residing in Oleksandriya
Between 9 and 16 October 2007 in the Oleksandriya town police
Minor injuries certified by forensic expert
Forcing the applicant to testify that he had participated in an armed robbery and several other offences, organised crime police and city police officers beat and threatened him.
4. Application no. 4173/13 lodged on 26 December 2012
RAFALSKIY
Aleksandr Anatoliyevich
Ukrainian national
born in 1971
deceased in 2016
Between 13 and 26 June 2001 upon arrest in the flat of the applicant’s girlfriend; in various police premises; in the forest on the way between two detention facilities
Head wound, abrasions and bruises recorded in various medical documents
Forcing the applicant to testify that he had participated in five murders, police officers beat him. They also electrocuted, suffocated, strangled, and threatened the applicant with firearm.
5. Application no. 16495/13 lodged on 9 February 2013
1. KULAYEV
Vasi Dudarovich
Georgian national
born in 1979
detained in Kharkiv
2. ALBOROV Aslan Nikolayevich
Russian national b
born in 1986
detained in Kharkiv
3. BESTAYEV
James Tamerlanovich
Ukrainian national born in 1982
Detained in Kharkiv
4. PLIYEV
Anatoliy Ruslanovich
Russian national
born in 1984
Detained in Kharkiv
(a) In respect of all applicants, between 21 and 26 April 2012, in the premises of the Kharkiv Regional Organised Crime Police;
(b) In respect of the first applicant, Mr Kulayev, also on 15 September 2013 in Kharkiv SIZO no. 27 (pre-trial detention facility)
(a) Hematomas, scratches, abrasions and other injuries classified as “minor” by a domestic expert on 21/04/2012 and recorded by medical staff of the pre-trial detention facility;
(b) Trauma in the groin area; witness testimonies by several inmates provided
(a) Forcing the applicants to testify that they had participated in armed robbery of R. and engaged in some other crimes, police officers deprived them of food, drink or access to lavatories & kept them handcuffed for many hours. They also beat them, threatened, twisted their limbs, stepped on their twisted extremities. They also placed gas masks whose respiratory valves were filled with cigarette smoke on the applicants’ heads to induce burns and suffocation.
(b) Prison guard kicked the first applicant in his groin by way of disciplining for allegedly inappropriate conduct (bending over to the door of another cell while walking in the corridor)
6. Application no. 45940/13 lodged on 11 July 2013
BALOYAN
Dmitriy Valeriyevich
Ukrainian national
born in 1978
Residing in Olishevka
On 12 February 2012 in the Kozelets town police
Bruising and minor injuries recorded by medical staff of detention facility on 17/02/2012
Forcing the applicant to testify that he had committed a murder, officer I.B. beat and threatened him
7. Application no. 68237/13 lodged on 14 October 2013
AMIRLI
Sakit Mykhtar Ogly
Azerbajani national
born in 1957
Detained in Zaporizhia
On 10 and 11 July 2010 in a police car, in the forest and in the Primorskiy District Police in Mariupol
Bruises, abrasions, lesions, chest contusion certified by forensic experts in July 2010
Forcing the applicant to testify that he had committed a murder and several other crimes, police officers beat him, threatened, electrocuted and suffocated.
8. Application no. 41893/14 lodged on 21 May 2014
MASLENNIKOV
Nikolay Sergeyevich
Ukrainian national
born in 1981
Residing in Kharkiv
On 2 December 2011 in the Kharkiv municipal hospital
Applicant’s declaration
Forcing the applicant to testify that he had committed a double murder, Frunzenskiy District Police officers dragged him outside of a hospital reanimation chamber, where he was treated on account of poisoning, handcuffed him to a radiator, beat and threatened that otherwise his girlfriend would be accused of the above crime in his stead.
9. Application no. 74276/14 lodged on 21 November 2014
FEDORYSHYN
Ruslan Borysovych
Ukrainian national
born in 1977
Residing in Kyiv
On 25 and 26 September 2010 in the Vasylkiv District Police premises
Bruises on buttocks, abrasions on buttocks and knees, rib fractures certified by a forensic expert on 29/09/2010
Forcing the applicant to testify that he had murdered his mother-in-law, police officers beat him, suffocated and threatened.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy