CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFC8B7517 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center } .sEE8FA83B { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .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 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } THIRD SECTION Application no. 61050/11 Alexandru MESCEREACOV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 19 September 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Alexandru Mescereacov, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Chișinău. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Turcan and Mr M. Belinschi, lawyers practising in Chişinău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant on charges of murder and a detention warrant in respect of him was issued by the Buiucani District Court on 14 February 2002. Since the applicant had quit the country, an international search order was issued. In December 2010 the applicant was arrested in the Russian Federation and extradited to Moldova where he was placed in detention on 29   December 2010 on the basis of the detention warrant of 14   February 2002. The applicant lodged a habeas corpus request in which he complained, inter alia , that he had not been informed about the detention warrant of 14 February 2002 within seventy-two hours as provided by law, and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons to deprive him of liberty. However, the request was rejected on the ground, inter alia , that he had been in hiding and that, respectively, he could abscond again. Later the detention warrant was renewed several times on similar grounds and the applicant’s appeals were rejected. The last decision in the proceedings concerning his remand in custody dates 27 May 2011 and it was issued by the Buiucani District Court. By that decision the applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged until 29 June 2011. During his detention the applicant was jailed in Prison no. 13 in Chişinău. The applicant alleges that the conditions were very poor. Namely, he complains that the cells were overcrowded and dirty; there was no ventilation system; there was no sufficient natural light because the windows were very small; the daily walks lasted for only one hour and the food served was of a very bad quality. On 14 June 2011 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. After this date no more detention warrants were issued and he continued to be detained on the basis of the above sentence. The Court was not informed about subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 2. He also complains under Article 5 § 1 that there was no reasonable suspicion that he has committed an offence and that the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts to remand him in custody were not relevant and sufficient. He also alleges that the detention breached his right to be presumed innocent as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. 3. The applicant also complains under Article 5 §§ 2 and 3 that upon his placement in detention on 29 December 2010, he was not brought promptly before a judge and was not informed within seventy-two hours about the detention warrant issued on 14 February 2002. He finally complains that after 29 June 2011, when the last detention warrant expired, his detention was unlawful. QUESTION Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in so far as his complaint about the conditions of his detention is concerned?