CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 63067/12 Irina MUNTEANU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 18 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Irina Munteanu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Ungheni. She is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Briceac, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. On 25 August 2006 the applicant was returning home late at night when she was attacked and brutally beaten up be several individuals. As a result, she suffered numerous injuries to her head, including fractures of several skull bones, severe head concussion and post-traumatic epilepsy. She spent several years in hospital and became disabled. On 20 December 2006 a criminal investigation was initiated by the Ungheni Police Station in respect of the above facts. On 25 October 2007 the prosecutor of the the Ungheni district wrote to the Ungheni Police Station and the Ministry of Internal Affairs that the investigators working on the case failed to implement his indications and to conduct a proper investigation into the circumstances of the case. On 13 November 2007 the Ungheni Police Station informed the prosecutor that the investigators responsible for the investigation of the case were disciplined. Throughout 2008 the applicant’s mother complained on several occasions about the ineficiency of the investigation. As a result, on 8   December 2008, the Prosecutor General’s Office informed her that the case had been withdrawn from the Ungheni Police Station and transmitted to the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Between 2009 and 2011 the applicant’s mother contacted on numerous occasions the investigators in charge of the applicant’s case, who informed her that the investigation was progressing and that soon the perpetrators would be identified. However, on 2 May 2012, the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed her that the investigation had been discontinued on 28 January 2009. The applicant’s mother complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about her being lied to by the investigators in charge of the case and, as a result, the investigation was resumed. The investigation is pending to date. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the State did not discharge its obligation to investigate her allegations of ill-treatment in an effective and timely manner.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   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 the investigation conducted to date in the present case by the domestic authorities 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.