CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51651/10 Volodymyr Mykolayovych ORYEKHOV against Ukraine lodged on 30 August 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Mykolayovych Oryekhov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1987 and is currently serving his sentence in prison. Sine April 2009 the applicant needs special assistance and treatment on account of fractures of both heel bones and injury to lumbar vertebras. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the case On 9 February 2008 the applicant robbed a man in a street of Novovolynsk, Volyn Region. Criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant. On 9 March 2009 the applicant moved from Novovolynsk to Zasillya village, Mykolayiv Region, to work at a factory. The applicant lived at his friend’s flat. 2.     Alleged events of 27 and 28 April 2009 Allegedly, on the evening of 27 April 2009, on his way to a shop in Zasillya village, the applicant was stopped by police officers of the Zhovtenvyy District Police Department of Mykolayiv Region. They asked the applicant about his current place of residence and let him go. On his way back from the shop the applicant noticed the same police officers together with two young men. When he walked further along the street, the two men approached him and started to beat him. The applicant fell to the ground but the men continued to kick him. The men took money and two cell phones from the applicant and disappeared. The applicant returned to the shop, explained to the seller what had happened to him and asked to call the ambulance. He lost consciousness and came around in the hospital. The hospital reported about the incident to the police. Allegedly, at 11 a.m. on 28 April 2009 the police visited the applicant at his friend’s flat enquiring about the incident. The applicant identified one of the police officers who had talked to him a day before and said that that police officer had also spoken to the attackers before the incident. The police then asked him to follow them to the police station. Instead, they took him to an abandoned building, walked up on the second floor and suggested that he might like to think over his statements and consider whether it was really necessary to complain about the incident. The applicant insisted that he would complain to the authorities. The police officers then started to beat him. At a certain moment the applicant was severely pushed to a window. As result he broke it through and fell out in the street. The applicant lost consciousness and came around in hospital. At the hospital the applicant was diagnosed with concussion, injuries to the right side of the forearm, fractures of both heel bones and injury to lumbar vertebras. The applicant’s complaints concerning these events were unsuccessful. 3.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 30 April 2009 the Novovolynsk Town Court placed the applicant in pre-trial detention on charges of robbery. On 22 June 2009 that court found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered that the applicant should pay UAH   5162.40 by way of damages to the victim of the crime. The judgment was based on the oral, documentary and material evidence, including the applicant’s confession during the trial. On 15 September 2009 and 2 February 2010 the Volyn Region Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. 4.     Conditions of detention On 3 May 2009 the applicant complained to the prosecutor that the officers of the pre-trial detention facility had not provided him with the requisite assistance despite they knew that he could not walk by himself as his legs were plastered. In particular, he had to wait for two hours for an officer to come and help him go to the toilet. He had not been even able to come up to the cell door where the food was served. For the same reasons he could not wash himself. The ambulance had not arrived at his demands. On 21 September 2009 the applicant made a similar complaint to the Prosecutor General. On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to Olshanske no.   53 prison. According to the applicant during his pre-trial and post-conviction detention he was not provided with requisite medical assistance. The surgical treatment which he badly needed has not been offered to him. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law can be found in the judgment in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, §   45, 15 May 2012). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was beaten up on 27 and 28 April 2009 and there was no effective investigation in that respect. 2.     The applicant complains that, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, the pre-trial detention facilitates failed to secure him with special assistance which he needed in view of his physical disability. 3.     The applicant further complains under the same Convention provision that throughout his pre-trial and post-conviction detention the applicant had not been provided with requisite medical treatment. 4.     The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case were unfair. 5.   The applicant also complains of violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of the events of 27   April 2009, has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment, was the investigation in that respect by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     In respect of the events of 28   April 2009, has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment, was the investigation in that respect by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention? Was the applicant provided with required assistance and aid during his detention? Was the applicant provided with requisite medical treatment during his pre-trial and post-conviction detention? What is the current state of the applicant’s health?   In respect of each of the above-mentioned issues under Article 3 of the Convention, the Government are invited to provide copies of the applicant’s complaints submitted to the domestic authorities, the authorities’ decisions taken in connection with the applicant’s allegations and the material supporting these decisions.