CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2018

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 16 April 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 41467/11 Sergiy Ivanovych US against Ukraine lodged on 24 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergiy Ivanovych Us, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Voznesensk. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Netidova, a lawyer practising in Yuzhnoukrainsk. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. According to the applicant, on 13 October 2010 police officers came to his home requesting him to appear at the local police station at 3 p.m. the same day. Having appeared at the Voznesensk police station, the applicant was questioned about his relations with T., whose dead body had been found. According to the record of his questioning, the applicant was questioned as a witness between 4.25 p.m. and 7.10 p.m. on 13 October 2010. According to the applicant, the police officers handcuffed and ill-treated him in order to pressure him into confessing to the murder of T. On 14 October 2010, after the applicant had confessed to the murder of T., the investigator formally documented the applicant’s arrest. On 15 October 2010 the local court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand within the context of the criminal case concerning the murder of T. Subsequently, his detention was extended by the court a number of times. On 22 October 2010 the applicant lodged with the Voznesensk Local Court a complaint regarding the alleged unlawfulness of his detention by the police on 13 October 2010. On the same day the applicant lodged with the Voznesensk prosecutor’s office a complaint concerning his alleged ill-treatment by the police on 13   October 2010. In the course of the examination of the applicant’s complaint about unlawful detention, the Voznesensk Local Court observed that the applicant had been questioned as a witness at the police station on 13 October 2010 and that he had been arrested the following day after confessing to the murder of T. On 8 December 2010 the Voznesensk Local Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about his allegedly unlawful detention as unsubstantiated. On 27 December 2010 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal finally upheld this decision. In the course of the examination of the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint, the investigator of the Voznesensk prosecutor’s office interviewed the deputy head of the Voznesensk police station, who stated that in the course of his questioning the applicant on 13 October 2010 the latter, had confessed to the murder of T. On 6 June 2014 the Voznesensk Local Court acquitted the applicant. That decision was upheld, following appeals by the applicant, by the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal and by the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters on 20 May and 6 June 2015 respectively. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5   §   1 of the Convention that his detention between 13 and 14 October 2010 was not documented. QUESTION With regard to the alleged events between 13 and 14 October 2010 (application no. 41467/11), and between 26 and 27 July 2011 (application no. 8562/13), were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Osypenko v. Ukraine , no.   4634/04, § 49, 9 November 2010 and Smolik v. Ukraine , no. 11778/05, § 46, 19 January 2012)?