CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2718/12 Tetyana Viktorivna AVRAAMOVA against Ukraine lodged on 24 December 2011     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the ITT and the SIZO compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment in detention, in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant’s handcuffing throughout her stay in Bilogirsk Hospital from 29 August to 6 September 2011 in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   4.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and   3 of the Convention, regard being had, in particular, to the extension of her arrest between 26 August and 2 September 2011 and its legal basis, as well as, more broadly, the reasonableness of her arrest and the grounds given to justify her continued detention thereafter?   5.     Does the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation in respect of the alleged violations of her rights related to her deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   6.     Was the applicant’s detention applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by Article 5, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention, given, in particular, that in justifying her detention the authorities referred to her denial of her guilt and her refraining from making any statements?