Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 22 January 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no.2525/10
Vadym Viktorovych GLAVATYY
against Ukraine
lodged on 4 January 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Vadym ViktorovychGlavatyy, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1976. According to his most recent submissions, in 2017 he was detained in Kyiv pending the proceedings on his cassation appeal of 31 March 2017 (see paragraph 15 below).
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. First set of criminal proceedings against the applicant
3. On 1 September 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed aggravated theft. He remained in detention until 4 January 2007, the date on which he was released under an undertaking not to abscond. The criminal proceedings continued.
4. On 14 June 2008 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed aggravated rape which was linked to the then ongoing criminal proceedings.
5. Subsequently, the applicant remained in detention for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings.
6. On 15 October 2008 the investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv for trial.
7. On 24 March 2009 the court found the applicant guilty of multiple counts of aggravated theft and rape and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.
8. On 4 December 2009 the Appellate Court of Kyiv quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the same court for fresh consideration.
9. Following several reconsiderations of the case on the merits, culminating in the decisions of the courts of two judicial instances of 25 October 2011 and 21 May 2012 respectively, on 24 May 2013 the Podilskyy District Court found the applicant guilty of multiple counts of aggravated theft and rape and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.
10. On 21 January 2014 the Appellate Court of Kyiv upheld the judgment of 24 May 2013.
11. On 27 January 2015 the Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters generally upheld the applicant’s conviction, having reduced his sentence to seven years’ imprisonment.
12. On 14 February 2015 the applicant was released from detention.
2. Second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant
13. On 12 October 2016 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed rape in September 2015. Subsequently, he remained in detention.
14. By the judgment of the Desnyanskyy District Court of Kyiv of 23 June 2016, which was upheld by the Appellate Court of Kyiv on 6 September 2016, the applicant was found guilty of aggravated rape and illegal deprivation of liberty and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.
15. On 31 March 2017 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters. He did not inform the Court of any further developments in that regard.
3. Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant
16. According to the applicant, in the course of both sets of the criminal proceedings against him various police officers beat him up in order to obtain self-incriminating statements from him concerning the charges against him. They also subjected him to other forms of ill-treatment, including handcuffing him while he was unconscious. In particular, he was ill-treated by the police between 1 and 4 September 2006, between 30 November and 2 December 2006, between 14 and 17 June 2008, and between 12 and 13 October 2015.
17. On 15 July 2010, 28 May, 30 May and 3 August 2012, 5 August 2013, and 12 February 2014, while he was detained in the Investigative Detention Facility No. 13 in Kyiv (“the SIZO no. 13”), the applicant was allegedly beaten up by guards.
18. On 23 November 2014 he was allegedly beaten up by guards in the Boryspilska Correctional Colony No. 119 (“the prison no. 119”).
19. According to copies of a number of medical reports submitted by the applicant, he was medically examined either on the dates of his alleged ill‑treatment or within several days after the alleged ill-treatment. The medical examinations revealed various injuries on his body, including multiple haematomas, head injuries and chest contusions. In the reports relating to the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment between 30 November and 2 December 2006, it was noted that the applicant had closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, closed fracture of his left shoulder bones and multiple haematomas on his body.
20. The applicant complained of his ill-treatment mainly to the prosecutors and the courts. While most of his complaints were rejected mainly for the reason that no fault of the police officers or the guards concerned had been proven, according to the applicant’s most recent submissions, some of his complaints were still being examined by the authorities in 2017.
4. Allegedly inadequate medical treatment
21. As it transpires from copies of documents from the applicant’s medical file, while he was detained between 14 June 2008 and 14 February 2015 he had various medical issues, including hypertension, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, neuralgia, certain types of gastro-intestinal dysfunction, and eye and skin diseases. Allegedly, he also had hearing and speech problems. During several intervals within that period of the applicant’s detention, he was suffering from, initially, the second highest and, subsequently, the third highest officially recognised degree of disability, which allegedly was linked to the applicant’s ill-treatment (see paragraphs 16-18 above). According to him, while he was in detention no adequate medical assistance was provided to him as regards those medical issues or the injuries he had obtained as a result of his alleged ill-treatment by the police and the guards.
22. The applicant complained of inadequate medical assistance to the administration of the SIZO no. 13 and the prison no. 119, to the prosecutors and to the courts, but allegedly to no avail.
5. Conditions of the applicant’s detention in the SIZO no. 13 and in the prison no. 119
23. Between 14 June 2008 and 12 February 2014 the applicant was detained in the SIZO no. 13.
24. On an unspecified date he was transferred to the prison no. 119, where he remained until his release from detention on 14 February 2015.
25. According to the applicant, he was detained in seriously overcrowded cells with poor sanitary and hygiene conditions. Allegedly, the cells were dark, stuffy and full of rodents, cockroaches and rats; they had lacked ventilation and daylight; the cells were insufficiently heated in winter; tap water was unsuitable for drinking; and the food was of poor quality. Often he had to wait for several months to take a shower. The family visits took place in allegedly inhuman conditions, the applicant being placed in a cage and separated from the others by a glass partition, which hindered his communication with the visitors.
26. The applicant made numerous complaints about the poor conditions of his detention to the administration of the SIZO no. 13 and of the prison no. 119 and also to the prosecutors, but allegedly to no avail.
6. Conditions in which the applicant was allegedly transported, his detention in transit cells and confinement in a metal cage during court hearings
27. According to the applicant, while transported to and from court hearings in the course of the first set of criminal proceedings against him, he was detained for several hours in overcrowded prison vans and in special transit boxes in the court buildings, with insufficient access to fresh air and no heating. During his transport he had no access to water, food or lavatory and he was constantly handcuffed.
28. During the court hearings the applicant was confined in a metal cage. Although ambulance was called for the applicant on a number of occasions, no medical assistance could be provided to him while he was in the cage.
COMPLAINTS
29. The applicant complains under Article 3 of his ill-treatment by the police and guards and the lack of effective investigation into those matters; of inadequate medical assistance in detention; of overcrowding and poor material conditions of his detention and transport; and of his confinement in a metal cage during court hearings in the course of the proceedings terminated on 27 January 2015.
30. He also complains under Article 5 § 1 that the decision of the Appellate Court of Kyiv of 4 December 2009, by which his criminal case was sent for retrial (see paragraph 8 above), did not provide for his continued detention and thus his detention between 4 December 2009 and 25 October 2011 had no legal basis.
31. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of excessive length of the first set of criminal proceedings against him.
32. Relying on Article 13, he complains of the lack of domestic remedies for his complaints under Article 3.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s complaints concerning:
(i) his ill-treatment by the police and guards in the Investigative Detention Facility No. 13 in Kyiv and the Boryspilska Correctional Colony No. 119 and the lack of effective investigation into those matters;
(ii) inadequate medical assistance while he was in detention between 14 June 2008 and 14 February 2015;
(iii) overcrowding and poor material conditions of his detention and transport during that period; and
(iv) his confinement in a metal cage during court hearings in the course of the proceedings terminated on 27 January 2015?
In that regard, reference is made to Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia[GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 135-38, ECHR 2014 (extracts), (confinement in a metal cage during court hearings)); Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 101-112, 28 March 2006 (overcrowding, poor material conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical assistance in prisons (correctional colonies)); Malenko v. Ukraine, no. 18660/03, §§ 48‑52, 55-58 and 62, 19 February 2009 (poor material conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical assistance in pre-trial detention facilities); Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 172-180, 15 May 2012 (police ill-treatment and absence of an effective investigation); Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, and 332/11, §§ 100-104, 3 December 2015 (poor conditions of transport to and from court hearings); andKushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865/11, §§ 94-98, 3 December 2015 (handcuffing prisoners to their hospital beds).
2. Was the applicant’s detention between 4 December 2009 and 25 October 2011 in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities,Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 73-76, 10 February 2011; Tretyakov v. Ukraine, no. 16698/05, §§ 51-52, 29 September 2011; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 124-28)?
3. Was the length of the criminal proceedings terminated on 27 January 2015 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Yaroshovets and Others, cited above, §§ 166-72)?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Melnik, cited above, §§ 113-16, and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 77, 12 January 2012)?
Leave a Reply