Communicated on 6 March 2018<\/p>\n
SECOND SECTION
\nApplication no.26947\/09
\nIurieMURADU
\nagainst the Republic of Moldova
\nlodged on 4 May 2009
\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
The applicant, Mr IurieMuradu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Chi\u0219in\u0103u. He is represented before the Court by Ms\u00a0V.\u00a0G\u0103\u0219i\u021boi, a lawyer practising in Chi\u015fin\u0103u.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0General background of the case<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0On 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 (\u015etefancel Mare) monument in the centre of Chi\u015fin\u0103u. 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.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 April 2009 the protest restarted with the participation of some 5,000\u20116,000 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 (\u201cthe Commission\u201d), 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.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0At 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.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s arrest and alleged ill-treatment<\/em><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant, on 7 April 2009 at approximately 4.15\u00a0p.m. he was arrested by the police and taken to the Centru police station in Chi\u0219in\u0103u. 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\u2019s arrest.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0At 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.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0At 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.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0During 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.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 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 \u201cExtract from the medical file\u201d (Extras din Fi\u015faMedical\u0103) concerning the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s statements concerning his ill-treatment.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of detention<\/em><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 April 2009 the applicant was taken to a cell measuring 12\u00a0sq. 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.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0In 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.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings against the applicant and the legal assistance given to him<\/em><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0During the \u201cinterview\u201d 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\u2019s rights in any manner.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 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\u2019s application to order the applicant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The \u201chearing\u201d 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 \u201cmask\u201d: \u201cDid you also throw stones [at the police officers]?\u201d. 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\u2019s case the judge ordered twenty days\u2019 detention.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was not given a copy of the judge\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Starting from 10 April 2009 the applicant\u2019s mother, who had found out in the meantime about his arrest, attempted to locate her son\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 April 2009 the applicant\u2019s parents hired a lawyer (Ms\u00a0V.\u00a0Ga\u0219i\u021boi). On the same day the lawyer tried to find the applicant\u2019s whereabouts, but the police refused to give her any information. On the same day she asked, by telegram, the Chi\u0219in\u0103u prosecutor\u2019s office and the head of Chi\u0219in\u0103u police that all procedural measures involving the applicant\u2019s participation be carried out in her presence.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 April 2009 the lawyer again attempted to find the applicant\u2019s 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 Chi\u0219in\u0103u prosecutor\u2019s office and the head of Chi\u0219in\u0103u police.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 April 2009 the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s request for ordering detention and had not had \u201cthe time and facilities to prepare his defence\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day she made a formal complaint to the Chi\u0219in\u0103u prosecutor\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 16\u00a0April 2009 the Chi\u0219in\u0103u Court of Appeal allowed the application and ordered the applicant\u2019s release on the spot against an undertaking not to leave the city. Although the applicant\u2019s lawyer had claimed compensation, the courtdid not award any.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Complaints lodged by the applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 April 2009 the applicant\u2019s lawyer complained to the Chi\u0219in\u0103u prosecutor of the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0He also complains, under Article 5 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0He further complains that the investigating judge did not give \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d for ordering his detention pending trial, contrary to the requirements of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also complains, under Article 5 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lastly complains of a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention due to the refusal to award him any compensation for his unlawful detention.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0was the applicant ill-treated while in detention?<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0has there been an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment?<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0was 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?<\/p>\n (d)\u00a0\u00a0was the applicant held in inhuman and\/or degrading conditions of detention?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant lawfully arrested \u201con reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence\u201d? Was the procedure for his arrest and extension of that arrest on the premises of the police station in accordance with domestic law?<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts give \u201crelevant and sufficient reasons\u201d for the applicant\u2019s detention pending trial?<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Did 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 \u00a7 4 properly?<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 5 of the Convention in the present case?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 Chi\u0219in\u0103u.…<\/p>\n