Communicated on 23 November 2010 and 31 May 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 36641/05 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ALEKSYUTIN against Ukraine lodged on 24 September 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Aleksyutin , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1970 and is detained in Temnivka , the Kharkiv Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr V.I. Dovzhenko , a lawyer practising in Mariupol.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

According to the applicant, he was arrested at 8.15 a.m. on 8 October 1999 and brought to a police station where the police officers ill-treated him to make him confess to a number of charges. In particular, the police officers twisted his arms, hit him on the chest, stomach and groin. They also held him face-up on a desk with the applicant ’ s legs hanging down. In this position they pressed his knees to the edge of the desk to immobilise him, put a gas mask on him and blocked the air vent cutting off his air supply. According to him, this treatment led to haematomas subsequently discovered on the back of his knees.

The applicant further alleges that, being distressed by that treatment, he broke a window in the office where he was held, attempted to cut the veins on his left wrist and his jugular vein with a glass shard and thus to commit suicide.

At 10.30 p.m. on 8 October 1999 an ambulance was called to the police station for the applicant. The ambulance feldsher (paramedic) who examined the applicant gave a written statement to the police immediately afterwards. According to the statement, when treating the applicant she had observed that he had had cuts on his wrist and injuries on his throat. She had also observed glass shards lying nearby. According to her statement, the applicant had explained to her that he had attempted to cut open his veins but had denied having been ill-treated by the police.

The applicant alleges that the police continued to detain him at the police station and at another police detention facility and ill-treat him until 13 October 1999.

According to the applicant, because of the ill-treatment, on 9 October 1999 he again attempted to commit suicide by trying to bite through the veins on his left wrist.

On 10 October 1999 the applicant ’ s arrest was documented with an arrest report.

On 12 October 1999 the applicant gave a statement of surrender ( явка з повинною ) to the police . In it, he implicated himself in a number of crimes committed with other suspects, in particular the burglary of Ms T. ’ s home, burglaries of the homes of families S. and K., burglary of the home of family P. and the murder of Mr P.

On the same day the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert at the police station. The expert recorded that the applicant had a bite and cuts on his left wrist and cuts on his throat.

On 14 October 1999 the applicant was admitted to the Donetsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre ( слідчий ізолятор , “the SIZO”). At the time of admission, the SIZO doctor observed the following injuries on the applicant ’ s body: haematomas on his stomach, right thigh and the backs of his knees and cuts on his wrist. According to the written report of the examination, the applicant had stated to the doctor that he had sustained those injuries prior to his arrest. On the same day the applicant wrote a statement addressed to the SIZO administration explaining that he had received the haematomas while resisting arrest and had cut his wrist later in protest against his arrest.

On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s mother complained to the Prosecutor General that, according to the words of the applicant ’ s lawyer, her son had been ill-treated by the police.

On 11 November 1999 an investigator of the Donetsk regional prosecutor ’ s office questioned police officer G. who stated that he was part of the police team who had arrested the applicant on 10 October 1999 in his home. The applicant had not resisted arrest and no force had been used against him. He had not been ill-treated afterwards on police premises. However, officer G. had seen the applicant attempt to cut his throat and wrist.

On 15 November 1999 the Donetsk regional prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant ’ s mother that the inquiry conducted in response to her complaint had not found any proof of ill-treatment and that they had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police due to the absence of a corpus delicti in the police officers ’ actions.

On 22 November 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a trial court, convicted the applicant and his co-defendants on a number of charges including creation of an organised armed gang, a number of armed burglaries and robberies, and two murders. It sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. The term of his imprisonment was to be counted from 9 October 1999, apparently considered the date of his arrest. The court rejected the applicant ’ s allegation that he had given his pre-trial statements under duress holding that the fact that he had been able to change his statements over the course of the pre-trial investigation and had attempted to minimise his responsibility in them was evidence that his statements had been given freely. In convicting the applicant of the burglary of Ms T. ’ s home, burglaries of the homes of families S. and K., burglary of the home of family P. and the murder of Mr P., the court relied in particular on his statement of surrender of 12 October 1999.

The applicant appealed on points of law. He argued, in particular, that he had been ill-treated by the police and his complaint in this respect had not been investigated effectively.

On 8 September 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction and sentence. It held, in particular, that the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that police officers ill-treated him to extract a confession and that the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate his complaint in this respect.

The applicant next complains under Article 6 § 1 that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, in that his conviction was based on his statements made under duress.

The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 that the criminal proceedings against him were unreasonably lengthy.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation undertaken by the domestic authorities into the applicant ’ s allegation of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that the courts convicted him relying, inter alia, on his statements allegedly obtained under duress?