Communicated on 22 January 2019<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no.2525\/10
\nVadym Viktorovych GLAVATYY
\nagainst Ukraine
\nlodged on 4 January 2010<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u00a0March 2017 (see paragraph 15 below).<\/p>\n
The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0First set of criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 September 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed aggravated theft. He remained in detention until 4\u00a0January 2007, the date on which he was released under an undertaking not to abscond. The criminal proceedings continued.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently, the applicant remained in detention for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 October 2008 the investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv for trial.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 March 2009 the court found the applicant guilty of multiple counts of aggravated theft and rape and sentenced him to nine years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 December 2009 the Appellate Court of Kyiv quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the same court for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0Following several reconsiderations of the case on the merits, culminating in the decisions of the courts of two judicial instances of 25\u00a0October 2011 and 21\u00a0May 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\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 January 2014 the Appellate Court of Kyiv upheld the judgment of 24 May 2013.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0On 27\u00a0January 2015 the Higher Specialised Court in Civil and Criminal Matters generally upheld the applicant\u2019s conviction, having reduced his sentence to seven years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 February 2015 the applicant was released from detention.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0On 12\u00a0October 2016 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed rape in September 2015. Subsequently, he remained in detention.<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0By the judgment of the Desnyanskyy District Court of Kyiv of 23\u00a0June 2016, which was upheld by the Appellate Court of Kyiv on 6\u00a0September 2016, the applicant was found guilty of aggravated rape and illegal deprivation of liberty and sentenced to nine years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0According 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\u00a0November and 2\u00a0December 2006, between 14 and 17 June 2008, and between 12 and 13\u00a0October 2015.<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0On 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 (\u201cthe SIZO no.\u00a013\u201d), the applicant was allegedly beaten up by guards.<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 November 2014 he was allegedly beaten up by guards in the Boryspilska Correctional Colony No.\u00a0119 (\u201cthe prison no.\u00a0119\u201d).<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0According to copies of a number of medical reports submitted by the applicant, he was medically examined either on the dates of his alleged ill\u2011treatment 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\u2019s alleged ill-treatment between 30 November and 2\u00a0December 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.<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2019s most recent submissions, some of his complaints were still being examined by the authorities in 2017.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Allegedly inadequate medical treatment<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0As it transpires from copies of documents from the applicant\u2019s medical file, while he was detained between 14 June 2008 and 14\u00a0February 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of inadequate medical assistance to the administration of the SIZO no.\u00a013 and the prison no.\u00a0119, to the prosecutors and to the courts, but allegedly to no avail.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the SIZO no.\u00a013 and in the prison no.\u00a0119<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0Between 14 June 2008 and 12 February 2014 the applicant was detained in the SIZO no.\u00a013.<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date he was transferred to the prison no.\u00a0119, where he remained until his release from detention on 14 February 2015.<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant, he was detained in seriously overcrowded cells with poor sanitary and hygiene conditions.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant made numerous complaints about the poor conditions of his detention to the administration of the SIZO no.\u00a013 and of the prison\u00a0no.\u00a0119 and also to the prosecutors, but allegedly to no avail.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions in which the applicant was allegedly transported, his detention in transit cells and confinement in a metal cage during court hearings<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0According 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.<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0During 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.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n
30.\u00a0\u00a0He also complains under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 that the decision of the Appellate Court of Kyiv of 4\u00a0December 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\u00a0December 2009 and 25\u00a0October 2011 had no legal basis.<\/p>\n
31.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complains under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of excessive length of the first set of criminal proceedings against him.<\/p>\n
32.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article\u00a013, he complains of the lack of domestic remedies for his complaints\u00a0under Article\u00a03.<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant\u2019s complaints concerning:<\/p>\n
(i)\u00a0\u00a0his ill-treatment by the police and guards in the Investigative Detention Facility No. 13 in Kyiv and the Boryspilska Correctional Colony No.\u00a0119 and the lack of effective investigation into those matters;<\/p>\n
(ii)\u00a0\u00a0inadequate medical assistance while he was in detention between 14\u00a0June 2008 and 14 February 2015;<\/p>\n
(iii)\u00a0\u00a0overcrowding and poor material conditions of his detention and transport during that period; and<\/p>\n
(iv)\u00a0\u00a0his confinement in a metal cage during court hearings in the course of the proceedings terminated on 27 January 2015?<\/p>\n
In that regard, reference is made to Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.\u00a0Russia[GC], nos. 32541\/08 and 43441\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 135-38, ECHR 2014 (extracts), (confinement in a metal cage during court hearings)); Melnik v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a072286\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0101-112, 28 March 2006 (overcrowding, poor material conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical assistance in prisons (correctional colonies)); Malenko v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a018660\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a048\u201152, 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.\u00a0Ukraine, no. 23893\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 172-180, 15\u00a0May 2012 (police ill-treatment and absence of an effective investigation); Yaroshovets and Others v.\u00a0Ukraine, nos. 74820\/10, 71\/11, 76\/11, 83\/11, and 332\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0100-104, 3\u00a0December 2015 (poor conditions of transport to and from court hearings); andKushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 94-98, 3\u00a0December 2015 (handcuffing prisoners to their hospital beds).<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Was the applicant\u2019s detention between 4\u00a0December 2009 and 25\u00a0October 2011 in compliance with Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities,Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a040107\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a073-76, 10 February 2011; Tretyakov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a016698\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 51-52, 29\u00a0September 2011; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0124-28)?<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Was the length of the criminal proceedings terminated on 27 January 2015 in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, P\u00e9lissier and Sassi v.\u00a0France [GC], no. 25444\/94, \u00a7 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Yaroshovets and\u00a0Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 166-72)?<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Did 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, \u00a7\u00a7 113-16, and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908\/05, \u00a7\u00a077, 12\u00a0January 2012)?<\/p>\n