CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 20 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 59851/14 Valeriy Volodymyrovych KARAS against Ukraine lodged on 27 August 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was arrested on suspicion of and eventually convicted of false imprisonment committed in respect of Ms N. and carjacking and vandalism committed in respect of a car owned by Mr M. He alleges that, while in police custody, he was ill-treated by police officers and N.’s husband to extract statements which would exonerate N.   from liability in connection with the carjacking and vandalism episodes. In convicting him, the domestic courts relied, in part, on those statements. The applicant complains, under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and 13 of the Convention, that N., M., Mr   V.R. (police officer who pursued M.’s car carjacked by the applicant) and Ms   T.D. (N.’s friend who had heard of the events from her), were not examined at the trial but the domestic courts relied on their statements in convicting the applicant.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant 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 (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.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and also in the light of the procedural guarantees afforded by Article 6 §   3 (d) of the Convention?