CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 June 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 60865/16 Mykola Mykolayovych MOLOKOV against Ukraine lodged on 10 October 2016 communicated on 26 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns two episodes of the applicant’s alleged ill ‑ treatment by prison officers (in the Zaporizhzhya pre-trial detention centre on 17 February 2015 (the first episode) and in the Berdyansk prison no. 77 on 27 February 2015 (the second episode)) and the adequacy of the domestic investigation into the matter (Article 3 of the Convention). The applicant sustained multiple bruises and sores on both occasions, which was reflected in the detention facilities’ records. It was reported that force and handcuffing had been applied to him in response to his unruly behaviour. The applicant complained to the prosecution authorities about his alleged ill-treatment immediately after both incidents. The investigation regarding the first episode was launched about a month after the events, and the applicant underwent a forensic medical expert examination about five months thereafter (on 18 August 2015). The investigation regarding the second episode was launched on 2 March 2015 and a forensic medical expert examination was carried out on 5 March 2015. Both expert reports stated that it was impossible to establish whose version of the events was more accurate: the applicant’s or that of the prison staff. In respect of both episodes, there were several decisions of the prosecution authorities to terminate the investigation for lack of evidence of a criminal offence, which were eventually quashed as premature. The investigation regarding the first episode is apparently pending. The investigation regarding the second episode was terminated on 20 May 2016, when the prosecutor’s decision to that effect was upheld by a final judicial ruling. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from 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?   The Government are requested to provide copies of all the documents regarding the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, which are not yet in the case file.