FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 10493/12 Oleksiy Ivanovych ADNARALOV against Ukraine lodged on 8 February 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Oleksiy Ivanovych Adnaralov , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Kharkiv .

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

On 5 May 2004 the applicant was apprehended by four police officers on suspicion of bribe-taking. The police officers took him to the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Police Station and beat him for several hours forcing him to confess.

On 6 May 2004 the applicant was taken to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor ’ s Office. He complained about his ill-treatment to a senior prosecutor from the above office. The prosecutor referred the applicant for a forensic medical examination.

On 7 May 2004 the applicant was hospitalised with the diagnosis of head concussion.

On 8 May 2004 the applicant underwent forensic medical examination which established numerous bruises on his face, chest, legs and arms, as well as damaged crown of a tooth.

On 11 May 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of bribe-taking.

On 2 June 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kharkiv City Prosecutor ’ s Office about his ill-treatment by the police officers.

On 12 August 2004 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. This decision was quashed by the higher prosecutor on 7 October 2004 and an additional inquiry was ordered. Afterwards, the prosecutors refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on several occasions; all those decisions were quashed by higher prosecutors or the courts and an additional inquiry was ordered.

On 27 April 2007 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated for lack of corpus delicti .

On 17 February 2012 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill ‑ treatment.

On 19 June 2012 the above decision was quashed by the Kharkiv Kyivskiy District Court which referred the case file back to the prosecutor for further inquiry. This decision by the first-instance court was upheld on appeal by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal.

On 31 August 2012 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill ‑ treatment. The applicant challenged that decision to the Kharkiv Kyivskiy District Court on 20 September 2012.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by police officers on 5 and 6 May 2004. He further complains under Article 13 about the failure of the domestic authorities to investigate his allegations of ill-treatment properly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (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. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under the substantive limb of Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?