FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 10025/06 Mariya Kuzmivna PELESHOK against Ukraine lodged on 15 February 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Mariya Kuzmivna Peleshok , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1935 and lives in the city of Ternopil , Ukraine.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant states that in 1999 she lent 21,500 United States dollars (USD) to Sh. Only part of this sum was returned to the applicant.

According to the applicant, after her request to return the remainder of the sum, on 30 July 2002 she was beaten by Sh. and Sh. ’ s husband.

On the same day the applicant was called an ambulance and was admitted to a hospital at around 5:30 p.m. She stayed in the hospital for several days but it is unclear on what date she was discharged from the hospital.

On 9 August 2002 the police rejected the applicant ’ s request to institute criminal proceedings against the Sh. couple in the absence of evidence of a crime.

On 29 October 2002 this decision was quashed by the Ternopil deputy prosecutor and criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant ’ s alleged aggressors.

A forensic medical examination was performed in November 2002. It was noted that on 30 July 2002 the applicant had been called an ambulance and had been admitted to a hospital. Upon hospitalisation the applicant had stated that at 11:00 a.m. she had been beaten by “an acquaintance”. She had been diagnosed with a brain concussion and an injury of the right side of her chest. The expert concluded that the applicant had sustained a brain concussion and had a bruise on the right side of her chest. As she had suffered from the brain concussion for more than three weeks, such injury was qualified as a medium bodily injury. The bruise, however, was a light bodily injury.

On 25 February 2003 the criminal proceedings were terminated in the absence of evidence of a crime. It was found that the applicant had frequently lent money to Sh. The Sh. couple and two witnesses, T. and B., testified that on 29 July 2002 there had been a quarrel in the Sh. ’ s yard but not a fight. It was noted that numerous witnesses had been questioned, face-to-face interrogations had been held and forensic medical examinations had been performed. The police concluded that it was impossible to establish whether the incident had happened on 29 or 30 July 2002 and who had inflicted the applicant ’ s injuries on 30 July 2002.

On 4 March 2003 the Ternopil Prosecutor ’ s Office quashed this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation.

Between March 2003 and September 2006 the criminal proceedings in the applicant ’ s case were terminated on five occasions (on 5 August 2003, 14 September 2003, 28 December 2003, 17 May 2004 and 27 August 2004). All of these decisions were quashed by a prosecutor and the case remitted for an additional investigation.

In 2004 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against officer Z. on account of the lengthy investigation and breaches of law; the outcome of these proceedings is unknown.

On 23 September 2006 the police again terminated the criminal proceedings against the Sh. couple. The police noted that Sh. and her husband had testified that the applicant had lent them USD 8,100. After the money had been paid back the applicant had started to claim interest. On 29 July 2002 the applicant and her husband came to the Sh. ’ s yard. They had a small pot with an unknown liquid, which they said was the acid. They threatened to pour the acid liquid into the eyes of Sh. ’ s child. Sh. ’ s husband had called the police but the applicant and her husband had left before its arrival. The police concluded that it was impossible to establish who had inflicted the injuries upon the applicant.

COMPLAINT

Invoking Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lengthy investigation of her case.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06 , 31 July 2012 ), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?