Communicated on 3 December 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 32566/08 Volodymyr Petrovych IVANISHEN against Ukraine lodged on 7 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Petrovych Ivanishen , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and is currently in detention in Chernivtsi. He is represented before the Court by Ms G.V. Nazarova , a lawyer practising in Chernivtsi.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 15 March 2008 the applicant and three other people were arrested by the Glyboka town police. According to the report by one of the arresting police officers to his superior on 16 March 2008, the circumstances of the arrest were as follows. The police had been investigating a number of thefts from various construction sites. They received information about a suspicious car with four people at a construction site. Upon their arrival at the site, the police asked the people to produce their identity papers, but they refused to cooperate. One person tried to escape and another threatened the police with a metal bar. As further noted in the report, the police had to use physical force, martial arts ’ techniques and handcuffs.

The applicant and the other three people were arrested f or an administrative offence (disobeying and resisting police officers).

On 17 March 2008 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of theft. On the same date he was detained as a criminal suspect.

In the evening of 17 March 2008 the applicant was taken to the Kitsman Town Police Department. The investigator drew up a report on the applicant ’ s injuries, which were as follows: a bruise under the right eye; abrasions and swelling on the right side of the face; a bruise in the jaw area; an abrasion measuring 5 cm by 5 cm on the left part of the applicant ’ s back; and bruising on the right ankle and on the left knee. The applicant and two witnesses signed the report in question.

On 20 March 2008 the Kitsman Town Court examined an application by the investigator for the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention as a preventive measure. The judge considered that there was insufficient information about the suspect for the issue to be decided. As a result, the applicant ’ s arrest was extended to ten days.

On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s wife complained to the Chernivtsi Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office of the ill-treatment of her husband by the Glyboka town police. Her complaint was forwarded to the Glyboka Town Prosecutor ’ s Office (“the Glyboka Prosecutor ’ s Office”).

On 27 March 2008 a charge of several counts of theft was formally brought against the applicant.

Between March and August 2008 the Glyboka Prosecutor ’ s Office refused three times to open a criminal case against the Glyboka police officers owing to a lack of corpus delicti in their actions. It stated that the applicant had sustained his injuries as a result of the application of physical force against him by the police in response to his attempt to flee and his resistance to arrest. Accordingly, the prosecutor concluded that the applicant had not been ill-treated. Each of the three refusals was eventually quashed as premature.

On 8 December 2008 a forensic medical expert examination report on the applicant ’ s injuries was issued. It stated that the applicant had extensive bruises and abrasions on his face, chest, back, ankles, wrists, and the right knee, which were assessed as minor bodily injuries. The expert concluded that they could have been sustained on 15 March 2008 as a result of the use of truncheons and handcuffs, and the impact of blunt, hard objects. The injuries in question could not have been self-inflicted.

In January and February 2009 the Glyboka Prosecutor ’ s Office issued two more refusals to institute criminal proceedings against the police in respect of the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment.

No further developments are documented in the case file.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the police. Relying on Article 13, he further alleges that his complaints in that respect did not receive a proper response. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was unlawful.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

2 . Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (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?

3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit all the documents concerning the investigation of the applicant ’ s allegation of ill-treatment in police custody and concerning his detention.