Communicated on 14 October 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 24413/13 Zinaida Viktorovna TRACHUK against Ukraine lodged on 29 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Zinaida Viktorovna Trachuk , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1951 and is currently serving her prison sentence.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 29 October 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of her former husband. She was questioned in that respect at the police station. According to the applicant, the police officers beat her up and psychologically pressured her in order to obtain her self-incriminating statements.

In the evening on the same day the applicant was examined by a medical doctor. The doctor stated that the applicant had small oedema, hyperaemia and haemorrhage in the areas of her right cheek and left cheekbone. Later on that day, when admitted to a temporary detention centre, the applicant lodged a complaint on account of her ill-treatment.

On 1 November 2010 the Kramatorsk Town Court (“the Town Court”) ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.

On 18 December 2010 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers finding that the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded. The decision referred to the statements of the police officers and the witnesses who observed the applicant ’ s arrest. The police officers denied the allegations of ill-treatment. The witnesses stated that they had not seen any injuries on the applicant ’ s face.

On 26 October 2011 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of attempting to arrange, for mercenary motives, the murder of her former husband. The court sentenced the applicant to ten years ’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of her property. The applicant appealed.

On 13 April 2012 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 26 October 2011 as unfounded and remitted the case to the Town Court for a fresh consideration.

On 13 September 2012 the Town Court, conducting the trial, instructed the prosecutor to carry out additional measures in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment.

On 1 November 2012 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office, having conducted additional enquiries, refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers considering that there had been no evidence in support of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant challenged that decision in the court.

On 9 November 2012 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of attempting to arrange, for mercenary motives, the murder of her former husband. The court sentenced the applicant to ten years ’ imprisonment and ordered confiscation of property. The Town Court relied on witness statements, other oral, material and expert evidence. It also referred to the applicant ’ s statements made during the pre-trial investigation. The applicant appealed.

On 19 February 2013 the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk dismissed as unfounded the applicant ’ s complaint against the decision of 1 November 2012 concerning the refusal to investigate the allegations of police ill-treatment. The applicant appealed.

On 22 February 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant ’ s conviction and sentence. It also noted that the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment had been unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed on the points of law.

On 17 May 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed the court decision of 19 February 2013 and ordered the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk to conduct a fresh examination of the applicant ’ s complaint against the decision of 1 November 2012 taken on the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment.

On 13 June 2013 the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint against the decision of 1 November 2012. The court found that the impugned decision of the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office was well-reasoned and substantiated.

On 26 August 2014 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court reviewed the applicant ’ s conviction and amended the characterisation of the crime under the domestic law. In that regard it specified that the applicant had been at the stage of preparation to the murder. It further reduced the prison sentence to seven years and six months. The applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment were rejected as unfounded.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she was ill-treated by police officers and that there was no effective investigation in that regard.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts unfairly convicted her, referring to evidence obtained through ill-treatment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Were the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Did the courts convict the applicant using the evidence which was obtained allegedly in breach of her privilege against self-incrimination and by means of ill-treatment? Were the principles of fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention breached on that account?

The Government are invited to provide, among other things, the following material:

(a) the medical documents concerning the applicant relating to the period of her alleged ill-treatment;

(b) the copies of the minutes of investigating measures between 29 October and 1 November 2010 and the copies of the applicant ’ s statements made in that period;

(c) the copies of the applicant ’ s statements to which the courts referred when adopting decisions in the criminal case against the applicant.

(d) the documents concerning the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, including decisions by which the authorities refused to open an investigation and the decisions of the supervising authorities reviewing those decisions.