CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 17 September 2014   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 63409/11 Roman Vitalyevich GRIGORYAN and Larisa Petrovna SERGEYEVA against Ukraine lodged on 7 October 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Roman Vitalyevich Grigoryan (the first applicant) and Ms Larisa Petrovna Sergeyeva (the second applicant) are a common law couple. They were born in 1981 and 1975, respectively, and live in Kyiv. The first applicant is an Azerbaijani national of Armenian origin and holds refugee status in Ukraine. The second applicant is a Ukrainian national. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr A. Koval and Ms   O.   Markova, lawyers practising in Kyiv. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. In the evening of 6 April 2010 the applicants were travelling in a car with their friends K. and Y. The police stopped the car and asked the first applicant to show his identity papers. He showed his refugee status certificate. The police officers then ordered the first applicant to follow them to a police station. The first applicant entered the police car together with the second applicant who wished to accompany him. Upon arrival at the station, the first applicant was placed in a cell, tied up and forced on the floor. Three police officers beat, strangled and verbally assaulted him referring to his origin. In the meantime, the second applicant waited for her husband in the hallway of the police station. When she asked a policeman about the fate of the first applicant the officer verbally assaulted and slightly hit her. The second applicant reacted by saying that it was inappropriate for a police officer to act in such a way. The policeman placed her in a cell from which she could see the first applicant being beaten by three policemen. She started crying and asking them to stop the beating. Then she took a lamp and threw it on the floor. Several police officers then entered the second applicant’s cell forced her on the floor, tied her hands and feet, hit her, spit on her calling her an “Armenian whore” and threatening to rape her. On 7 April 2010 at about 4.30 a.m. the applicants were allowed to wash themselves. Afterwards, the policemen transferred them to another police station. At 9 a.m. the police told the first applicant’s brother that the applicants would be freed provided that he paid a fine on their behalf. The brother immediately paid a fine of about EUR 10. At 10 a. m. the police ordered the applicants to sign a protocol stating that they had committed “minor hooliganism”. The applicants signed because they did not want to be beaten again. They were released immediately. Later on the same day doctor N. examined the applicants and drew up a report noting that they had numerous bruises on their faces and bodies, which could have been inflicted on 7 April 2010. On several occasions the applicants requested the district prosecutors to institute investigation into their ill-treatment (beating, verbal assault, unjustified tying) by the police officers and unlawful detention. They also alleged that they had been ill-treated and unlawfully detained because the first applicant was of Armenian origin. The district prosecutors refused their requests. The refusals were quashed by higher prosecutors and the courts, which noted that the district prosecutors had failed to carry out all necessary investigative measures, namely: to properly question Y., K. and N; to address the applicants’ allegations concerning their racial discrimination and the unlawfulness of their detention.   On 30 September 2011 the prosecutors again refused to institute criminal proceedings into the matter. The applicants appealed to the Svyatoshynskyy District Court of Kyiv. Further developments in the case remain unknown. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated by the police officers and their complaints in this respect were not duly investigated. 2. They further complain under Article 5 of the Convention that they were unlawfully detained and informed about the reasons for their detention only on 7 April 2012 and not immediately upon their arrest on the previous day. According to them, their detention was not officially registered. 3. They finally complain under Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that the police officers’ conduct was racially motivated. Namely, the police officers detained and ill-treated them because of the first applicant’s Armenian origin.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Were the applicants informed promptly of the reasons for their detention and of any charge against them, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention? Was their detention properly registered?   4.     Has Mr Grigoryan suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 and 5 of the Convention? Has Ms Sergeyeva suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on the ground of her husband’s ethnicity, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 and 5 of the Convention?