FIFTH SECTION

Application no . 13124/08 Vasyl Ivanovych BOSYY against Ukraine lodged on 8 February 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vasyl Ivanovych Bosyy , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1974 and is currently detained at the pre-trial detention facility (“the SIZO”) in Kirovograd.

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

In 2005-2006 the applicant was prosecuted for various crimes. He was eventually found guil ty and sentenced to seven years ’ imprisonment, the final decision having been adopted on 19 September 2006.

From 27 May 2005 to 3 October 2006 the applicant was detained at the SIZO in Kirovograd. From 3 October 2006 to 20 March 2008 the applicant was detained at the Kirovogradska Correctional Colony. Subsequently, the applicant was detained at the Raikivetska Correctional Colony. On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to the SIZO in Kirovograd at which he is currently detained.

The applicant alleges that the conditions of his detention were inhuman (overcrowded cells, poor sanitary and hygiene situation, lack of water supply, prolonged electricity cuts, and poor quality of food) and that he was often beaten up and subjected to other forms of ill-treatment by guards, which included solitary confinement in disciplinary cells, verbal abuses and threats. The guards also tried to place the applicant into a psychiatric clinic in March 2007. On several occasions the applicant went on a hunger strike.

The applicant tried to have the complaints about his ill-treatment in detention examined by the domestic authorities, including the prosecutors and the courts dealing with the applicant ’ s criminal case. Many of those complaints were allegedly blocked by guards or ignored by those to whom the y were addressed. The applicant ’ s correspondence was allegedly screened by guards and he was not allowed to keep any documents relating to his complaints, including replies from the domestic authorities. The applicant also contends that he has got no access to his domestic criminal file. Due to this , the applicant could not provide copies of documents relating to his application to the Court.

The applicant also alleges that chief officers of the Raikivska Correctional Colony threatened him with death for having lodged his application with the Court.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was subjected to the inhuman conditions o f detention and ill-treated by guards.

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there was no effective remedy available to him at the domestic level for his complaints under Article 3.

Without relying on any specific provision of the Convention, the applicant complains about the authorities ’ interception of his correspondence.

The applicant complains under Article 34 of the Convention that the authorities have refused, for a considerable period of time, to provide him with the possibility to obtain copies of documents he needed for substantiation of the application. He also complains under the same provision that the authorities hindered his communication with the Court and persecuted him for having applied to the Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention , having regard to his complaints concerning the conditions of detention and about his ill-treatment by guards at the pre-trial detention facility in Kirovograd and at the Kirovogradska and Raikivetska Correctional Colonies ?

2. Was the re a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, having regard to his allegations of interception of his correspondence by the prison authorities ?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

4. Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effe ctive exercise of the applicant ’ s right of petition, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have the opportunity to obtain copies of the documents from his case file and to send them to the Court in order to pursue the application ? Did the authorities hinder the applicant ’ s communication with the Court ? Did the authorities intimidate the applicant on account of his application?