Communicated on 17 April 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 14466/12 Igor GORIUNOV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 1 March 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Igor Goriunov , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1968 and is detained in Rezina .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3 . The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on an unknown date some 10 years prior to the relevant events and is serving his sentence in prison no. 17 in Rezina . On 16 March 2011 the prison administration found a mobile phone in his cell. Since this is an object the possession of which is prohibited by the prison rules, on 23 March 2011 the Prison Commission sanctioned him with a reprimand.

4 . On 26 July 2011 the Prison Commission applied a further sanction to the applicant, namely the mandatory wearing of handcuffs during six months for all movements outside his cell. The extract from the decision of the Prison Commission issued to the applicant mentioned that the commission had “examined [the applicant]” and decided to apply the sanction. No further reasons were given.

5 . On 28 July 2011 the applicant asked the prison administration about the reason for the sanction of handcuffing him. On 3 August 2011 he was informed that the sanction had been applied on the basis of Order no. 4 of the Prisons Department adopted on 13 January 2009. No further details were given.

6 . The applicant initiated court proceedings against the prison administration, arguing that he had been sanctioned twice for the same offence, contrary to the express legal requirements, and that he had not been informed of the reasons for applying the second sanction of handcuffing.

7 . In their submissions to the court, the prison administration argued that the sanction had been lawfully applied and that the applicant had been properly informed. The prosecutor, who also participated, added that the sanction had been necessary in order to prevent the danger which the applicant posed to other detainees.

8 . On 25 November 2011 the Rezina District Court rejected the applicant ’ s complaint as unfounded. It found that the relevant sanction had been applied lawfully and in order to prevent the danger which the applicant posed to other detainees. That decision was final.

B. Relevant domestic law

9 . According to Section 52 of the Regulation concerning the Serving of Sentences, adopted by Government Decision no. 583 of 26 May 2006, only one sanction may be applied for a disciplinary offence.

10 . According to Section 95 of the same Regulation, as modified on 26 September 2008, persons serving life imprisonment sentences may be handcuffed during all their movements outside their cells if it is established that the absence of such a measure will pose an immediate danger to other detainees, prison staff or other persons.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman treatment through the wearing of handcuffs without any reason given by the prison administration.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, notably by being handcuffed at all times while outside his cell during six months? What is the relevance of his alleged repeated sanctioning, despite the provisions of Section 52 of the Regulation concerning the Serving of Sentences, adopted by Government Decision no. 583 of 26 May 2006?