Communicated on 3 March 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 78566/14 Sergiy Anatoliyovych LUTSENKO against Ukraine lodged on 6 December 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergiy Anatoliyovych Lutsenko , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1984 and is detained in Khmelnytsk . He is represented before the Court by Mr I.G. Podvornyy , a lawyer practising in Khmelnytsk .

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

As subsequently established by domestic courts, at 10 p.m. on 4 October 2008 the applicant and his co-defendant Mr D.G. seriously assaulted Mr A.G. and Ms L.B. They then placed A.G., unconscious and naked, on the Buh river bank. Both victims subsequently died from brain injuries.

At 9 p.m. on 5 October 2008 the applicant was arrested and taken to a police station. He alleges that for about five hours following his arrest police officers ill-treated him in order to force him to confess to the attack on A.G. and L.B. In particular, he alleges that they beat him, threatened to kill him, suffocated him by putting a plastic bag over his head, suspended him from a crowbar and gave him electric shocks.

At 6.10 p.m. on 6 October 2008 th e applicant was questioned as a suspect. He admitted that he and D.G. had visited the victims ’ flat on the night of the murder. D.G. had unexpectedly attacked the victims. The applicant had then restrained L.B. to prevent her from calling for help, and had punched A.G. in the face once. A.G. had lost consciousness and the applicant had then helped place him on the river bank.

On 9 October 2008 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and diagnosed him with oedema and hyperaemia of the right hand. The expert also noted that he had sustained a craniocerebral injury with concussion on 6 October 2008. According to the expert ’ s report, the applicant complained of headaches and short-term loss of consciousness. The expert classified the injuries as minor and came to the conclusion that they could have been inflicted during the commission of the crime on the night of 4-5 October 2008.

In the course of his trial before the Khmelnytsk City and District Court (“the trial court”), the applicant alleged that his statement of 6 October 2008 had been made as a result of ill-treatment by the police. He testified that he had visited the victims ’ flat on the night of the murder and had restrained L.B. However, he also testified that he had tried to punch A.G. but had missed, and that his fist had hit a wall instead.

The trial court rejected the applicant ’ s ill-treatment allegations, stating that they had been checked and found to be unsubstantiated.

On 20 May 2013 the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to fifteen years ’ imprisonment.

In his appeal on points of law the applicant complained, in particular, that his original statements to the police had been made under duress.

On 4 November 2013 the Khmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant ’ s conviction for murder, modifying references to certain aggravating circumstances, and, considering his sentence excessively lenient, sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 3 June 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal ’ s judgment.

In response to the applicant ’ s arguments concerning ill-treatment, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court stated that his allegations had been checked and proven to be unsubstantiated.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the police and that his complaint in this respect was not duly investigated .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, what was the basis for the diagnosis of concussion given to the applicant on 9 October 2008? According to the relevant protocols, guidelines and practice followed by medical professionals in Ukraine, what symptoms and subjective and objective indications can lead to a diagnosis of concussion?

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