CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }       FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10397/10 Vitaliy Vladimirovich KULIK against Ukraine lodged on 8 February 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Vladimirovich Kulik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Budy, Kharkiv Region. He was 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 4 May 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a theft. He was taken to the Chervonozavodskyy District Police Department of Kharkiv, where the police officers beat him up, forcing him to confess to the crime. The applicant signed a statement of confession prepared by a police officer. The police officers then drew up a report stating that the applicant had disobeyed and resisted police officers, which constituted an administrative offence. On 5 May 2003 a local court imposed a fine on the applicant for the administrative offence and released him. On the same day the applicant was provided with medical assistance for the injuries sustained in the police department. A doctor at the trauma unit of the hospital noted that the applicant had numerous bruises on his body and diagnosed him with concussion and possible fracture of the nose. On 8 May 2003 the applicant was examined by a surgeon, who noted that he had bruises on the nose, right side of the waist and suprapubic area. On 25 June 2003 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of the theft. In the course of questioning the applicant denied any involvement in the theft and stated that on 5   May 2003 he had signed a statement of confession because the police officers had beaten him up. On 26 June 2003 a medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant was recovering from concussion, still had bruises on the left leg and the trunk, a swollen finger on the left hand, and a swollen nose. The expert opined that the injuries might have been caused to the applicant on 4   May 2003. On 10 July 2003 the applicant applied to the local prosecutor’s office seeking criminal prosecution of the police officers for the alleged ill-treatment. On 19 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office refused to open an investigation in connection with the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. On 12 August 2003 the medical expert issued another report noting that as a result of the events of 4 May 2003 the applicant had sustained concussion, bruises on his right hand and trunk, and swelling of the right and left hands and face; the injuries were of medium severity and had been caused by blunt and solid objects. Following the applicant’s complaint, on 7 October 2003 the Kharkiv Region Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 19 July 2003 as unfounded and ordered that the pre-investigation inquiry be resumed. On 17 October 2003 the local prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. On 7 April 2004 the Kharkiv Region Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the criminal case concerning his ill-treatment had not been investigated in a comprehensive way and the investigator in charge had been given instructions as to the further steps to be taken. On 17 November 2004 the investigation in that case was suspended as the perpetrators of the crime could not be identified. On 30 March 2005 the investigation was resumed. On 11 April 2005 the investigation was suspended again because the perpetrators of the crime could not be identified. On 1 August 2005 the criminal proceeding against the applicant were terminated for lack of corpus delicti . On 27 January 2006 the Kharkiv Region Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 11 April 2005 as unfounded and issued instructions as to the further steps to be taken in order to properly investigate the alleged ill-treatment. On 14 March 2006 the local prosecutor’s office decided to refer the case to the investigating unit of the Chervonozavodskyy District Police Department of Kharkiv. On 20 August 2008 the investigation was suspended as the perpetrators of the crime could not be identified. On 31 October 2008 the supervising prosecutor’s office quashed that decision as unfounded and gave instructions as to further investigation. On 3 August 2009 the local prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that due to the inadequate investigation of the case concerning his ill-treatment, the investigators responsible for the case would be disciplined. B.     Relevant domestic law Code of Criminal Procedure of 28 December 1960 Article 4 of the Code provides that a court, prosecutor, investigator or body of inquiry must, to the extent that it is within their power to do so, institute criminal proceedings in every case where signs of a crime have been discovered, take all necessary measures provided by law to establish whether a crime has been committed, and identify the perpetrators and punish them. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by police officers 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 obligations to investigate claims of 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?   The Government are invited to provide: (a)     a chronological list of procedural actions taken by the authorities in respect of the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment; and (b)     copies of the relevant documents concerning the respective domestic proceedings (including the decisions refusing to open an investigation and suspending the investigation, as well as the decisions of the supervising authorities taken after the review of the above-mentioned decisions).