Communicated on 11 May 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 2087/12 Sergey Vasilyevich PEKNICH against Ukraine lodged on 21 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Vasilyevich Peknich , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1975. He is currently held in the Sumy pre-trial detention centre.

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

On 15 January 2011 police officers arrested the applicant in the city of Khmelnytskyy where he lived. During the arrest, the police officers allegedly planted on him narcotic drugs. The officers then took him by car to the city of Sumy, which is about 660 kilometres away. Allegedly, between 15 and 17 January 2011 the applicant was held incommunicado on the premises of the Sumy Organised Crime Police Department where the police officers beat him up and exercised psychological pressure on him; they eventually forced him to confess to being a member of an organised group involved in illegal drug trafficking.

At 6 p.m. on 17 January 2011 the police investigator formally arrested the applicant, having prepared an arrest report.

On 20 January 2011 the Zarichny District Court decided, at the request of the investigator, to place the applicant in pre-trial detention.

In February 2011 the applicant complained to the authorities of ill-treatment and incommunicado detention between 15 and 17 January 2011.

Between March 2011 and August 2012 the Sumy Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office conducted pre-investigation enquires and took eight decisions refusing to open criminal investigation against the police officers. All those decisions were quashed as unfounded by the supervising authorities, including the courts. Each time further enquiries were ordered.

On 17 December 2012 the Sumy Prosecutor ’ s Office initiated criminal proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s allegations of unlawful detention and ill-treatment.

On 4 February 2014 the investigator of the Sumy Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office closed the criminal proceedings finding that the applicant ’ s allegations were unsubstantiated. The investigator found, in particular, that on 15 January 2011 the police officers had not taken the applicant to Sumy; on 17, 20 and 25 January 2011 the applicant had been medically examined and had not shown any bodily injuries.

On 12 March 2014 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy quashed the decision of 4 February 2014 as unsubstantiated. The court found that the investigator had not taken appropriate measures to scrutinise the applicant ’ s allegations and establish the latter ’ s whereabouts between 15 and 17 January 2011.

On 28 July 2014 the investigator of the Sumy Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office closed the criminal proceedings once again, finding that the applicant ’ s allegations were unsubstantiated. The investigator considered that the available evidence did not indicate with sufficient certainty that on 15 January 2011 the applicant had been taken to Sumy by police officers; on the contrary, it could be suggested that the applicant had come to Sumy on his own. According to the results of the medical examinations of the applicant on 17, 20 and 25 January 2011, he had not had any injuries.

On 14 August 2014 the Deputy Prosecutor of Sumy Region quashed the investigator ’ s decision of 28 July 2014 as unsubstantiated and ordered further investigations.

The criminal case against the applicant and other defendants is pending before the first-instance court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that between 15 and 17 January 2011 he was unlawfully detained and ill-treated by police officers and that his allegations of ill-treatment have not been effectively investigated.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. With regard to the alleged events between 15 and 17 January 2011, has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Were the domestic proceedings in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment between 15 and 17 January 2011 compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

3. With regard to the alleged events between 15 and 17 January 2011 , was the applicant deprived of liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide the medical documents concerning the applicant relating to the period of his alleged ill-treatment.