Last Updated on November 2, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 6 March 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no.26947/09
IurieMURADU
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 4 May 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr IurieMuradu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Chișinău. He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Gășițoi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. General background of the case
1. On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. The preliminary results of those elections were announced on 6 April 2009. According to the published results, the ruling Communist Party of Moldova narrowly won the elections.
2. On 6 April 2009 growing discontent with the results of the elections and with alleged electoral fraud was expressed, notably in various online forums. At 6 p.m. several hundred people, mostly young, gathered in front of the Stephen the Great (Ştefancel Mare) monument in the centre of Chişinău. Half an hour later there were 3,000-4,000 people assembled who began to protest against the alleged electoral fraud, doing so in front of the Presidential Palace and the Parliament building and then returning to Great National Assembly Square. A bigger demonstration was then announced for 10 a.m. the next day.
3. On 7 April 2009 the protest restarted with the participation of some 5,000‑6,000 people. While the demonstration was peaceful at the beginning, several hundred of the participants gradually became violent. As established by the subsequently created parliamentary commission of inquiry tasked with the elucidation of the causes and consequences of the events following the general elections held on 5 April 2009 in Moldova (“the Commission”), two incidents of poorly planned intervention by a fire truck and the riot police brought the crowd to a point beyond which massive violent acts could no longer be prevented. Following violent attacks and stone throwing, which met very weak police resistance, approximately 250 violent protesters were eventually able to take over the lower floors of the Presidential Palace and the Parliament building. They looted those floors and set the canteen in the Presidential Palace alight. During the night, several fires broke out in the Parliament building, some of them breaking out after full control over the building had been restored by the authorities at around 11 p.m.
4. At approximately 1 a.m. on 8 April 2009 various police and special forces units started a massive operation aimed at re-establishing public order. However, as established by the Commission, excessive force was used and all those still present in the main square were arrested, regardless of whether they had acted violently or not. The arrests continued for several days. The media reported cases and showed video footage of young people being arrested and/or being beaten by both uniformed and plain-clothed police officers in the city centre on 8 April and in the following days, long after the protests ended on the evening of 7 April 2009.
2. The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment
5. According to the applicant, on 7 April 2009 at approximately 4.15 p.m. he was arrested by the police and taken to the Centru police station in Chișinău. He was allegedly not informed of the reasons for his arrest, nor was he allowed to call his parents or to hire a lawyer of his own choosing. The arrest report, drawn up at 11 p.m., did not mention the precise time of the applicant’s arrest.
6. At the police station the applicant was allegedly forced to pose for photographs with a police riot shield in his hand and with a black T-shirt over his head partly masking his face. During all this time he was hit and verbally assaulted by the officers, and burned with lit cigarettes.
7. The applicant was then placed in a cell which had no furniture except for a chair, where he spent nine hours without food or water and without access to a toilet or the possibility to rest.
8. At approximately 1 a.m. on 8 April 2009 he was brought before a prosecutor and a lawyer was appointed as his counsel. His request to call his parents and to hire his own lawyer was rejected without any reason.
9. The applicant was asked to sign several documents, without being able to read them. Whenever he tried to read what he was signing the police officers would hit him.
10. During his detention the applicant was regularly ill-treated by various police officers, even in front of the investigator. The latter told the applicant on 8 April 2009 that if he failed to cooperate and sign every document he was asked to sign he would be tortured. Having seen young men in the cell with very severe signs of ill-treatment, he knew that the threat was serious and signed all the documents.
11. On 16 April 2009, on the day of his release from detention, he was examined at the Memoria Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, a non-governmental organisation financed by the European Union and a member of the General Assembly of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). On 31 July 2009 it issued an “Extract from the medical file” (Extras din FişaMedicală) concerning the applicant’s examination. He appears to have undergone detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists. According to the document, the doctors found three signs of burns on the applicant’s left hand. He was also suffering from, inter alia, the consequences of a head injury, which included intracranial hypertension syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as a post-traumatic ear condition. The doctors concluded that the medical and psychological evidence supported the applicant’s statements concerning his ill-treatment.
3. Conditions of detention
12. On 8 April 2009 the applicant was taken to a cell measuring 12 sq. m and hosting twenty-four or twenty-five detainees. Except for a chair, there was no furniture. There was insufficient fresh air and no toilet in the cell; the detainees had to ask for permission to go to the toilet, which was often refused. No food was given and his medical condition (a stomach illness) worsened as a result. He could not rest or sleep. He spent two days in those conditions.
13. On 10 April 2009 the applicant was moved to the general police headquarters, where he was detained in a cell measuring 12 sq. m together with nine other people. The cell was not equipped with beds. A water tap with a hole underneath replaced the toilet and was not separated from the rest of the room. A small window and an artificial light, which was constantly on, provided little illumination.
14. On 11 April 2009 he was transferred to Prison no. 13. In his cell there were were six beds and the seven detainees had to take turns to sleep.
15. In response to a complaint made by another person detained at the Centru police station, on 10 July 2008 the head of that station declared that his institution did not have the status of a detention facility. Accordingly, a person could be detained there only for short periods of time, all such people being transferred to the general police headquarters or Prison no. 13 by the end of the day of arrest. In view of this limitation of the duration of detention at that station, no beds, bed linen or food were provided.
4. Proceedings against the applicant and the legal assistance given to him
16. During the “interview” of 8 April 2009 the applicant was assisted by a lawyer appointed by the State (V.R.), despite his request to hire his own lawyer. He did not know the name of the lawyer and could not consult with him. That lawyer simply attended and signed documents, not defending the applicant’s rights in any manner.
17. On 9 April 2009 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge on the premises of the police station. He was not informed of the nature of the meeting he was to attend and was not given a copy of the prosecutor’s application to order the applicant’s detention pending trial or of any other document in the file. V.R. did nothing either to inform him of his rights or to defend him.
18. The “hearing” lasted about five minutes, the judge having asked the applicant a single question, while looking at the photos of him with the police shield and the “mask”: “Did you also throw stones [at the police officers]?”. Afterwards he was taken out of the room and was brought back together with five other people, the judge informing each of them the length of pre-trial detention ordered. In the applicant’s case the judge ordered twenty days’ detention.
19. The applicant was not given a copy of the judge’s decision.
20. Starting from 10 April 2009 the applicant’s mother, who had found out in the meantime about his arrest, attempted to locate her son’s place of detention. She was sent from one institution to another, virtually sleeping on the steps of the police station for several nights, but was never allowed to see her son.
21. On 11 April 2009 the applicant’s parents hired a lawyer (Ms V. Gașițoi). On the same day the lawyer tried to find the applicant’s whereabouts, but the police refused to give her any information. On the same day she asked, by telegram, the Chișinău prosecutor’s office and the head of Chișinău police that all procedural measures involving the applicant’s participation be carried out in her presence.
22. On 12 April 2009 the lawyer again attempted to find the applicant’s whereabouts and to meet with him, but she was again refused any information about her client. On the same day she repeated her request of the previous day by telegram to the Chișinău prosecutor’s office and the head of Chișinău police.
23. On 13 April 2009 the applicant’s lawyer obtained access to the case file against the applicant and lodged a habeas corpus application. She noted, inter alia, that the applicant had been ill-treated by the police and was being held in inhuman conditions of detention. She also submitted that her client’s defence rights had been breached by preventing him from meeting with the lawyer hired by his parents. She added that, before the hearing at which his detention was ordered by the investigating judge, her client had not been given a copy of the prosecutor’s request for ordering detention and had not had “the time and facilities to prepare his defence”, while the hearing had taken him by surprise and without preparation. Moreover, neither her, nor her client had access to the case file, which were shown only to the judge. The decision taken by that judge had not been properly reasoned, failing to even describe what the applicant had done and did not refer to any evidence of the need to detain the applicant.
24. On the same day she made a formal complaint to the Chișinău prosecutor’s office, where she described the refusal to allow her to meet with her client on 12 April 2009 or to inform her where he was detained.
25. On 16 April 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal allowed the application and ordered the applicant’s release on the spot against an undertaking not to leave the city. Although the applicant’s lawyer had claimed compensation, the courtdid not award any.
5. Complaints lodged by the applicant
26. On 14 April 2009 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Chișinău prosecutor of the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police. She also described the conditions of his detention and the breaches of his defence rights. She asked for the identification of those responsible for the violation of her client’s rights, notably those who had ill-treated him, and for their criminal prosecution. According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer received a reply to this complaint.
COMPLAINTS
27. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was refused medical treatment and was held in inhuman conditions of detention. He also complains, in substance, of ill-treatment while in detention and of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.
28. He also complains, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, that he was arbitrarily arrested on 7 April 2009 without indicating the precise time of his arrest in the arrest report and without properly informing a prosecutor.
29. He further complains that the investigating judge did not give “relevant and sufficient reasons” for ordering his detention pending trial, contrary to the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
30. The applicant also complains, under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, that he did not have access to any material in the case file before the judge ordered his detention pending trial and that he was prevented from securing the services of a lawyer of his choosing.
31. The applicant lastly complains of a breach of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention due to the refusal to award him any compensation for his unlawful detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) was the applicant ill-treated while in detention?
(b) has there been an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment?
(c) was the applicant in need of medical assistance during his detention and if so was he given such assistance as was required by his medical condition?
(d) was the applicant held in inhuman and/or degrading conditions of detention?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant lawfully arrested “on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence”? Was the procedure for his arrest and extension of that arrest on the premises of the police station in accordance with domestic law?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts give “relevant and sufficient reasons” for the applicant’s detention pending trial?
4. Did the fact that the applicant was denied the lawyer of his choice, combined with the alleged failure of the State-appointed lawyer to defend his interests, and the alleged lack of access to the file prevent the applicant from exercising his rights under Article 5 § 4 properly?
5. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention in the present case?
Leave a Reply