FIFTH SECTION

Application no . 11817/10 Larisa Valentinovna RYAPOSOVA against Ukraine lodged on 5 February 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Larisa Valentinovna Ryaposova , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1969 and currently serves her prison sentence at the Pryazovska Correctional Colony.

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

On 13 October 2008 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having intentionally set her flat on fire, which resulted in the destruction of the entire building. The applicant alleges that she was physically ill-treated and threatened by a police officer with the aim of extracting her confession of having committed that crime. As a result , the applicant made statements that she and her mother had committed the crime.

The applicant remained in detention for the entire duration of the proceedings. From 13 to 16 October 2008 she was held at a police detention facility ( “ the ITT ” ). On the latter date she was taken to a pre-trial detention facility ( “ the SIZO ” ), at which she stayed until 1 December 2009. Subsequently , she has been detained at the Pryazovska Correctional Colony.

According to the applicant , during her detention at the ITT and at the SIZO she needed medical assistance as she had been seriously injured (mainly multiple burns) as a result of the incident on 13 October 2008. She states that she was not provided with such assistance.

During the applicant ’ s questioning by the investigator in October 2008, the applicant complained about her ill-treatment by the police o n 13 October 2008. Following an inquiry into the matter, which was allegedly confined to the questioning of several police officers, the pro secutors rejected the applicant ’ s complaint as unsubstantiated. The co urts dealing with the applicant ’ s criminal case also rejected that complaint as unsubstantiated, the reasons for which remain unclear, as the applicant has not been able to provide any documents concerning her criminal case (see below) .

The applicant and her mother were tried by the Mykolaiv Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of first instance. On 17 July 2009 that court found them guilty as charged and sentenced the applicant to fourteen years and six months ’ imprisonment. Her mother was ordered to undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment. On 15 October 2009 the conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court.

According to the applicant, during the court hearings she was not given the opportunity to question witnesses against her or to have witnesses on her behalf questioned. The lawyer, who was appointed to the applicant by the authorities, allegedly did not defend the applicant. The lawyer did not attend the hearing before the Supreme Court. The applicant states that the conviction was based on false evidence.

In 2010 the Court invited the applicant to submit copies of various documents from her criminal case file. She could not provide copies of any of the documents, as her requests for such copies were refused by the Mykolaiv Regional Court of Appeal, which kept the case file. The Court of Appeal informed the applicant that copies of the documents could be submitted directly to the European Court of Human Rights, if the latter requested the authorities to do so.

According to the applicant, in October 2010 the administration of the SIZO , to which she was temporarily taken at the time, did not dispatch her letter addressed to the Court, to which she joined the originals of the replies she had received from the Court of Appeal concerning her requests for copies of the documents.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she was tortured by the police with the aim of extracting her confession. The applicant also complains under the same provision that she was not provided with medical assistance during her detention at the ITT and at the SIZO.

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against her.

The applicant also complains under Article 34 of the Convention that the authorities have refused to provide her with the possibility to obtain copies of documents she needed for substantiation of the application and that they blocked one of her letters addressed to the Court .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to her complaint of ill-treatment by the police ?

2. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to her complaint about the lack of adequate medical assistance in detention?

3 . Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her ? 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?

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 her 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 ?