THIRD SECTION

Application no. 22966/13 Roman STEFOGLO against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 12 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Roman Stefoglo is a Moldovan national, who w as born in 1992 and live s in Cazaclia . He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Mihailov-Moraru , a lawyer practising in Chisinau .

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

The applicant is a disabled person suffering from mental incapacity.

On 3 December 2011 he was arrested on charges of theft. On 5 December 2011 a police officer ill-treated him during questioning. He was allegedly hit on his head with a plastic bottle full of water and hit on his left hand with a baton.

On 6 December 2011 a judge ordered the applicant ’ s remand in custody.

On 9 December 2011 the applicant ’ s lawyer learned from the applicant about the ill-treatment and lodged a criminal complaint. After that, the applicant was taken to a hospital where he was diagnosed with fracture of two fingers on his left hand.

The investigation into the applicant ’ s complaint about ill-treatment ended with the Ciadir-Lunga District Court ’ s decision of 12 November 2011 by which the complaint was dismissed. In dismissing the complaint, the court relied on a statement made by one of the applicant ’ s detained co-accused, according to which he had mistakenly hit the applicant on his hand on 3 December 2011, before the arrest. The court reached the conclusion that the applicant ’ s injury predated his arrest.

In the meantime, the applicant was detained in prison until 22 May 2012, when he was moved to a psychiatric hospital for forced treatment. It does not appear that the hospitalisation and the forced treatment were ordered by a court in accordance with the law.

On 25 May and on 8 August 20 12 the psychiatric hospital, where the applicant was hospitalised, wrote to the Ciadar-Lunga District Court requesting a court order for the forced treatment of the applicant but to no avail. On 20 November 2012 the psychiatric hospital decided to release the applicant.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complain s under Article 3 of the Convention that he has been subjected to ill-treatment and that the domestic authorities failed to properly investigate his allegations of ill-treatment .

2. The applicant complains that his detention was unlawful and therefore contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Tomasi v. France , judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241 ‑ A)?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was any investigation conducted in the present case by the domestic authorities? If so, was it effective for the purposes of that Article?

3 . Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the deprivation of liberty lawful under domestic law?

The Government are asked to submit a copy of the full version of the case file, concerning the criminal investigation instituted by the Prosecutor ’ s Office in respect of the applicant ’ s criminal complaint .