FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 50737/09 Ivan Oleksiyovych SEVRYUKOV against Ukraine lodged on 14 August 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ivan Oleksiyovych Sevryukov , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Kherson.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant worked as a journalist of the newspaper “ Zakhystnyk Vitchyzny ”. He also headed a local branch of a political party bearing the same name. The applicant conducted investigations into corrupt practices of employees of the Tax Administration and of other civil servants.

Since 1990 he has been suffering from bone tuberculosis and received periodical in-patient treatment.

On 16 January 2008 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of fraud and money laundering and brought him to a police station. According to the applicant, between 16 and 19 January 2008 police officers “tortured and tried to kill” him. He does not give further details in this respect.

On an unspecified date the police seized the applicant ’ s passport.

On 29 January 2008 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant ’ s detention on remand for a period of two months. The applicant was placed in Kyiv SIZO no. 13.

On 14 March 2008 the same court extended the applicant ’ s detention for four months until 19 May 2008.

On 16 April 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal refused the prosecutors ’ request to extend the applicant ’ s detention further and released the applicant on bail. The applicant ’ s passport was not returned to him despite his repeated requests.

On 4 June 2008 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended due to his illness, but were resumed on 21 October 2008. On the same date, the investigative authorities could not find the applicant at his permanent place of residence and he did not reply to the investigator ’ s phone calls. They therefore concluded that the applicant had absconded and declared him wanted. The applicant denies these allegations and submits that the investigative authorities did not try to contact him.

On 12 December 2008 the local authorities issued a new passport to the applicant.

On 15 December 2008 the police officers carried out a search in the office of the newspaper “ Zakhystnyk Vitchyzny ” and seized unspecified items and documents belonging to the newspaper and to its employees. The police also arrested the applicant who was in the newspaper ’ s office at that moment and placed him in a “cold basement”. It is unclear in which establishment the “basement” was located. During the next five days the applicant remained in the “cold basement”, he was not provided with a bed, linen or food and did not have access to sanitary facilities . According to the applicant, during his stay in the “cold basement” the police officers beat him up causing him ribs fractures and kidney contusion. He does not submit, however, any evidence that he had actually sustained those injuries or raised his complaints of ill-treatment by the police before the domestic authorities.

On 18 December 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal , in the applicant ’ s presence , extended his pre-trial detention up to six months stating, inter alia , that while at liberty the applicant could abscond. The court based its conclusion on the prosecutor ’ s statement that the applicant had previously absconded after his release on bail. It appears that that statement was not supported by any material or documentary evidence. On the same date the applicant was placed in Kyiv SIZO no. 13.

On 10 February 2009 the same court extended the applicant ’ s detention up to eight months on the same grounds.

On unspecified date the preliminary investigations in the applicant ’ s case were completed and the case was submitted to the Shevchenkivskyy Court for trial.

At a preliminary hearing of 9 April 2009 in the applicant ’ s absence the court upheld the applicant ’ s detention, without giving any reasons and without setting any time-limit.

Until 26 August 2009 the court did not ho ld any hearing in the applicant ’ s case because the prosecutors failed to attend the hearings for unknown reasons.

On 5 June 2009 the court granted the applicant ’ s request to appoint his mother as his legal representative.

On 22 June 2009 the applicant went on hunger strike because, according to him, the prosecutors had intentionally slowed down the consideration of his case by the court. During that strike the SIZO staff forcibly fed the applicant by condensed milk through a tube inserted in to his stomach through the mouth. During the force - feeding he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back.

On 7 September 2009 the applicant terminated his hunger strike and was placed in the SIZO medical unit to receive treatment in connection with the malnourishment.

On 25 September 2009 the applicant went again on hunger strike. The purpose and reason of that strike stayed unknown. He remained on hunger strike at least until 28 January 2010 and was forcibly fed according to the procedure described above.

On 26 February 2010 the SIZO asked the judge dealing with the criminal case against the applicant to carry out forensic medical examination to assess whether the applicant was fit for detention.

On 1 March 2010 the Shevchenkivskyy Court ordered the forensic examination, but it is not clear whether the examination was actually conducted.

On 3 July 2010 the court ordered the applicant ’ s release. It noted in particular that “according to the information provided by the SIZO, the applicant ’ s health condition deteriorated during his detention”. Further details of that deterioration of the applicant ’ s health are not available to the Court. It also remains unknown whether the court ordered any preventive measure against the applicant.

On 1 March 2011 a State commission of medical experts concluded that the applicant was disabled. It remains unknown what the main reason for this conclusion was . The criminal case against the applicant is currently pending before the first instance court.

The applicant states that during the criminal proceedings he was represented by Ch., a lawyer appointed to him by the authorities under the legal aid scheme. On many occasions he unsuccessfully requested the authorities to appoint him lawyer D. instead. There is nothing in the case file substantiating these facts.

According to the applicant, during his pre-trial detention he sent many requests to the court dealing with his criminal case. However, they were intercepted by the investigative authorities and did not reach that court. The subject matter of those requests remain unknown.

The applicant ’ s conditions of detention in Kyiv SIZO no. 13

In Kyiv SIZO no. 13 the applicant was held with 58 other inmates in a cell which had only 30 sleeping places. The cell was infested with pests. According to the applicant, he was not allowed to have a walk or wash himself “for several months”. During his pre-trial detention the applicant was held together with persons who smoked, use d drugs, suffered from infectiou s diseases and were HIV positive.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that: i ) the police officers tortured him from 16 to 19 January and from 15 to 18 December 2008; ii) the conditions of his pre-trial detention in the “cold basement”, the police station and Kyiv SIZO no. 13 were poor and incompatible with his state of health; iii) his state of health deteriorated while in detention in Kyiv SIZO no. 13; iv) the procedure of his force feeding amounted to torture.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was too lengthy, unlawful and unjustified.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant ’ s conditions of deten tion in the SIZO no. 13 from 18 December 2008 to 3 July 2010 onward s amount to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, has the Government complied with their obligation to safeguard the applicant ’ s health while in detention? Was the procedure of the applicant ’ s force feeding compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention from 18 December 2008 onwards comply with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention from 18 December 2008 onwards compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to be tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial?

4. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?