FIFTH SECTION

Application no . 1858/08 Vladimir Andreyevich LAVRINYUK against Ukraine lodged on 11 October 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Andreyevich Lavrinyuk , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Kharkiv .

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

On 17 July 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having seriously injured his wife. Subsequently, the applicant was also charged with other crimes. The applicant remained in detention for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings against him.

The applicant alleges that he had been tortured by the police and the investigators, as a result of which he had confessed of having committed the crimes of which he had been suspected . The applicant was not medically examined and therefore his injuries were not recorded. He states that his health problems (see below) were related to his ill-treatment by the police. Later on in the proceedings the applicant partly retracted his confession and stated that he had unintentionally injured his wife.

The applicant also states that during the investigation his request for confrontation with his wife, who eventually died before his trial, was not allowed, that the material evidence was unlawfully collected without a court order, that the statements of one of the witnesses, who eventually retracted them, were extracted under torture by the police.

The applicant was tried by the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv , which on 7 April 2005 convicted him of having injured two persons, including his wife, and of having stolen money from another person. The applicant was sentenced to seven years ’ imprisonment.

During the trial the applicant stated that he did not remember the circumstances in which his wife had been injured and that he had not injured another victim. The applicant also stated that his confession had been obtained under torture. He requested the court to summon several witnesses, including forensic experts, on whose reports the charges had been based. Some of those witnesses were not found, while some of them refused to come.

The trial court noted that the applicant ’ s guilt had been evidenced by the statements of several witnesses, including one of the victims, made at open hearings, reports of several forensic experts, and the applicant ’ s own statements made at the pre-trial stage.

The applicant lodged with the higher courts an appeal and a cassation appeal against his conviction. He could not provide their copies (see below). The applicant states that in the course of the criminal proceedings he could not effectively prepare his appeals, as he was not allowed to study all the material contained in the case file.

By decision of 29 November 2005, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal partly changed the first-instance court ’ s judgment, having terminated the applicant ’ s prosecution for theft as time-barred and having released the applicant from serving his sentence for one of the counts of infliction of bodily injuries. The applicant ’ s remaining conviction and his sentence for seven years ’ imprisonment was upheld. The Court of Appeal also noted that the applicant ’ s allegations that he had been tortured by the police had been refuted by the results of the prosecutors ’ inquiry.

On 8 May 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s cassation appeal as unsubstantiated, having upheld the findings of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court also noted that the applicant had familiarised himself with the case file after the completion of the investigation, on two occasions during the trial, and also after the delivery of the first-instance court ’ s judgment.

From 25 October 2003 to 4 April 2005 the applicant was detained at the pre-trial detention facility (“the SIZO”) in Kharkiv in allegedly inhuman conditions.

From 4 April 2005 to 16 July 2010 the applicant was detained at the Romenska Correctional Colony. During that period the applicant suffered from various health problems, including hypertension, heart diseases and inguinal hernia . The applicant had a cerebral infraction and underwent several surgeries. The applicant states that on several occasions during that period he was transported in overcrowded train cars to a prison hospital, which was in another town.

The applicant also alleges that while at the Correctional Colony he was detained in overcrowded cells with poor sanitary and hygiene conditions. On several occasions he was not allowed to have daily walks. The applicant states that prisoners were not allowed to receive certain types of food and the number of cigarettes they were allowed to receive was limited . The administration of the Correctional Colony allegedly blocked, delayed and screened his letters addressed to the Court and the letters from the Court. In particular, the applicant ’ s letter, which he had asked the administration to send to the Court on 11 October 2007, was dispatched only in December 2007. The applicant complained of interference with his correspondence to the prosecutors, who subsequently informed him that they had carried out an inquiry into the matter and found that the applicant ’ s allegations were unsubstantiated.

The applicant unsuccessfully tried to institute civil proceedings against the Correctional Colony for the alleged violations of his rights during detention.

In 2008 the Court invited the applicant to submit copies of his appeals and of procedural documents relating to his complaints about the domestic court ’ s alleged refusal to summon witness on his behalf. The applicant requested the authorities, including the administration of the Correctional Colony and the Kyivskyy District Court , to provide him copies of the required documents. His requests have remained without a reply.

COMPLAINTS

The ap plicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (d) of the Convention about the unfairness of his criminal prosecution, stating that his conviction was based on the illegally obtained and forged evidence, and that he was not given sufficient facilities to prepare and present his defence arguments either during the investigation or the ensuing court proceedings.

Relying on Articles 8, 13, 17 and 34 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the conditions of his detention at the Romenska Correctional Colony, including the alleged blocking and screening of his correspondence by the authorities , the alleged limitations on the contents and number of parcels prisoners were allowed to receive, and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard .

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 su bstantiation of the application and that the authorities blocked, delayed and screened his letters addressed to the Court and the letters from 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 at the Romenska Correctional Colony and concerning the conditions of his transport during his detention at that c olony ?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him ? In particular, having regard to the applicant ’ s complaints of unfair trial , did the authorities comply with the requirements of the first and third paragraphs of Article 6 of the Convention?

3. Was there 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 and monitoring of his correspondence by the prison authorities?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

5. 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 or monitor the applicant ’ s communication with the Court ?