Published on 27 March 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 7164/18
Devid Kharrison UZU
against Ukraine
lodged on 24 January 2018
communicated on 6 March 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an alleged racist motivated ill-treatment of the applicant by private persons on 19 August 2015. The applicant is of Afro‑Ukrainian descent and was sixteen years old at the time of events. The applicant complains that he was beaten by around ten people and was called “monkey”. He complained to the police on the same date. Following repetitive closures and reopenings, the criminal proceedings were closed on 11 March 2020 for lack of corpus delicti. He has provided to the Court two medical certificates from different hospitals stating that he had sustained concussion, contusion of the soft tissues of the left side of the face, of the lower jaw, corpus, and limbs.
The applicant relied on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14. He also complained under Article 13 read in conjunction with Articles 3, 8 and 14, and on Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. The applicant’s complaints fall to be examined under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, and under Article 13.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 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 in the present case in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the authorities taken all reasonable steps to investigate any possible racist motives behind the alleged attack, as required by Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 or Article 8 (see Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, §§ 66 and 67, 31 May 2007; and Burlya and Others v. Ukraine, no. 3289/10, § 163, 6 November 2018)?