Communicated on 4 May 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 57142/11 Aleksandr Nikolayevich LIPOVCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 1 September 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Lipovchenko , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Dnestrovsk .

The circumstances of the case

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

At the relevant time the applicant lived in Odesa.

In the evening on 21 May 2008 the police officers arrested the applicant in a street of Odesa considering that he had behaved inadequately. At the Kyivskyy District Police Department of Odesa the police officers seized cannabis from the applicant ’ s pocket. Two attesting witnesses observed the seizure.

According to the applicant, the drugs were planted on him by police officers; they physically and psychologically ill-treated him. In particular, the police officers twisted his arms and handcuffed him in the street; they beat him up at the police department, one of the police officers severely smashed the applicant ’ s forearm against the edge of the table thereby inviting him to write a confession. The applicant gave up and incriminated himself in having purchased the drugs for personal use.

In the evening on 24 May 2008 the applicant was released under a written obligation not to abscond. On the same day he applied to a traumatology centre of the local hospital seeking medical treatment. The traumatologist diagnosed the applicant with left forearm muscle strain and traumatic neuritis of the radial nerve.

In the morning on 25 May 2008 the applicant complained to the law-enforcement authorities on account of his ill-treatment.

On 29 May 2008 he was examined by a forensic medical expert who, on 24 June 2008, issued a report stating that the applicant ’ s left forearm radial nerve had been injured; the injury was minor and might have been caused by clamping the forearm shortly before the applicant applied to the traumatology centre.

On 22 June 2008 the Kyivskyy District Prosecutor ’ s Office of Odesa refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers on account of the alleged ill-treatment for lack of corpus delicti .

On 22 October 2008 the Odesa Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office quashed that decision as unfounded and ordered further pre-investigation enquires.

On 13 November 2008 the Kyivskyy District Prosecutor ’ s Office of Odesa refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers finding that there had been no corpus delicti .

In March 2009 the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the Kyivskyy District Court of Odesa to conduct the trial.

The applicant pleaded not guilty and contended that the drugs had been planted on him and that he had been ill-treated by police officers who had forced him to confess.

On 25 June 2010 that court found the applicant guilty of having purchased cannabis for personal use and imposed on him a fine of 850 Ukrainian hryvnias. In its judgment the court did not refer to the applicant ’ s initial confession but relied on the material, expert and witness evidence, including the statements of the attesting witnesses and the police officers. The court then dismissed the allegations of ill-treatment, noting that they had been unsubstantiated.

On 31 August 2010 the Odesa Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the judgment of 25 June 2010. It found that the applicant ’ s guilt had been properly established by the evidence; as to the allegations of ill-treatment, they had been groundless.

On 14 April 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal against the judgment of 25 June 2010 noting that the decisions of the lower courts were lawful and substantiated and the allegations of ill-treatment had been duly examined.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by police officers and that there was no effective investigation in that regard.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. 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 by police officers compatible with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide the following documents:

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

(b) the documents concerning the applicant ’ s arrest, detention and release in May 2008;

(c) 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.