FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 40057/11 Edgar Samvelovich MELIKSETYAN against Ukraine lodged on 21 June 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Edgar Samvelovich Meliksetyan , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Kharkiv . He is represented before the Court by Mr M.O. Tarakhkalo , a lawyer practising in Kharkiv .

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

On 5 April 2010 the applicant was apprehended by the police and taken to the police station, in which he was beaten for several hours by the police officers B., P. and Sh. who tried to force him to confess to swindling and the theft of a mobile phone. Afterwards, police officer P. called forensic medical expert S., who spoke to the applicant and despite his complaints conducted no examination and concluded that he had no visible injuries. Later the same day the police officers took the applicant home.

The applicant ’ s wife called the ambulance and the applicant was taken to hospital, in which he was diagnosed with bruises to the soft tissue of the head and in the lumbar area.

On 6 April 2010 the applicant wrote a complaint to the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of Interiors.

The same day police officers came to the hospital and tried to persuade the applicant not to complain about the ill-treatment. The next morning the hospital discharged the applicant.

On 7 April 2010 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination and was diagnosed with brain concussion, kidney injury, and bruises to the face, the back of his head, his neck, chest, lumbar area, arms and knees. The same day the applicant was admitted to hospital.

On 13 April 2010 the hospital was visited by the police officers and the next day the applicant was discharged.

On 16 April 2010 the applicant addressed yet another hospital but concealed the cause of his traumas as he was afraid that otherwise he would be discharged again without proper treatment. He stayed in that hospital until 28 April 2010.

In May 2010 the applicant complained about his ill-treatment to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office.

On 17 May 2010 the Kharkiv Frunzensky District Prosecutor ’ s Office (the District Prosecutor ’ s Office) refused to institute criminal proceedings upon the applicant ’ s complaint.

On 20 May 2010 the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of Interiors completed internal investigation and sent its results to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office.

On 2 June 2010 the District Prosecutor ’ s Office cancelled its own decision of 17 May 2010.

On 7 June 2010 the District Prosecutor ’ s Office instituted criminal proceedings into the beating of the applicant by the police officers.

Police officer B. challenged the above decision before the court.

On 15 September 2010 the Kharkiv Frunzensky District Court cancelled the prosecutor ’ s decision of 7 June 2010. The court decision was appealed against by the applicant.

On 30 September 2010 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.

On 26 November 2010 the Kharkiv Frunzensky District Court upheld the prosecutor ’ s decision of 7 June 2010.

On 6 January 2011 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court.

On 14 July 2011 the Kharkiv Dzerzhinsky District Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officer B. The applicant challenged that decision in the court.

On 19 August 2011 the Kharkiv Dzerzhinsky District Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the forensic expert S. who examined the applicant on 5 April 2010. The applicant challenged that decision in the court.

On 27 September 2011 the Kharkiv Leninsky District Court referred the criminal case against police officers P. and Sh. for additional investigation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about ill-treatment by the police officers . Under Articles 3 and 13 he complains about ineffectiveness of the investigation.

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?