CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 30 October 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 54825/18 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ROMANENKO against Ukraine lodged on 20 November 2018 communicated on 9 October 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of his alleged ill-treatment by the police and the lack of an effective investigation into that incident. He also raises complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that his case was not tried by an impartial tribunal and that the tribunal breached his right to the presumption of innocence by declaring him guilty before the end of the trial. Finally, the applicant complains of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him. On 16 September 2010, in the course of his arrest in connection with a criminal investigation into the murder of police officer, the applicant sustained bruises on his body. The investigation into his alleged ill ‑ treatment lasted until 31 August 2020, allegedly without any result. In the course of the trial the Kirovskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, when considering the applicant’s requests for release of 17 March 2015, 29   July and 13 December 2016, expressly stated that he had committed a crime. Furthermore, the Committee of the District Court which extended the applicant’s detention during the trial had examined his case on the merits, found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment on 23 February 2017. Following the prosecutor’s appeal, the above ‑ mentioned sentence was modified on appeal on 10 January 2018, resulting in the sentence being changed to life imprisonment. On 5 June 2018 the Supreme Court upheld this sentence with slight modifications. The applicant’s argument regarding the lack of impartiality of the panel of judges at the trial court was not addressed by the Supreme Court. The criminal proceedings against the applicant lasted from 16 September 2010 to 5 June 2018 before courts of three instances.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman and degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR   2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§   169-182, 15   May 2012), was the investigation of the applicant’s complaints of ill ‑ treatment by the domestic authorities compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? 3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in view of the rulings of the Kirovskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 17 March 2015, 29 July and 13 December 2016, was that court impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Meng v. Germany , no. 1128/17, §§ 42-52, 16 February 2021)? 4.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention? 5.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, in view of the rulings of the Kirovskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 17 March 2015, 29 July and 13 December 2016?