CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mai 2013

.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 } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } THIRD SECTION Application no. 39553/12 Ecaterina DOROSEVA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 12 June 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Ecaterina Doroseva, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Chisinau. She is represented before the Court by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chișinău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 11 November 2009 at approximately 11.30 p.m. the applicant was arrested on the street by several police officers wearing plain clothes, on suspicion of possession of drugs. According to the applicant, she was ill-treated by the police officers before being taken to the police station. At the police station she was held until the next morning. In a medical report issued on 13 November 2009 a forensic doctor found that the applicant presented numerous bruises to her face, arms and hips. An x-ray examination of the applicant’s head, which according to the medical report was conducted on the same date, showed that the applicant also had a broken nose. On 15 November 2009 the applicant was examined by a neurologist who determined that she had also suffered a head concussion. On 14 January 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office concerning her ill-treatment by the police on 11   November 2009. On 1 April 2010 the Rascani Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant’s complaint was ill-founded. The Prosecutor’s Office reached this conclusion after having heard the accused police officers who had denied having ill-treated the applicant. On 15 October 2010 a superior prosecutor from the same Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s appeal. On 29 November 2010 an investigating judge from the Rascani District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and ordered a re-examination of the applicant’s case. The judge found that the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office had been superficial and incomplete. On 20 May 2010 the Rascani Prosecutor’s Office refused again to initiate criminal proceedings. This time the prosecutor argued that according to his verifications, the x-ray of the applicant’s nose had been carried out not on 13 but on 10 November 2009. The prosecutor’s decision does not contain an explanation as to how such a conclusion had been reached and as to why the forensic medical report indicated that the x-ray had been conducted on 13   November 2009. This decision was upheld by a superior prosecutor on 26 September 2011 and by an investigating judge from the Rascani District Court on 1 November 2011. COMPLAINT The applicant claims that there has been both a substantive and a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Tomasi v. France , judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241 A)? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was any investigation conducted in the present case by the domestic authorities? If so, was it effective for the purposes of that Article? The Government are asked to submit a copy of the full version of the case file, concerning the criminal investigation instituted by the Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the applicant’s criminal complaint.