THIRD SECTION

Application no. 7232/07 Tudor CIORAP against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 15 November 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Tudor Ciorap , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Chișinău .

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

A. The applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment

3. The applicant was serving his sentence of eleven years ’ imprisonment in prison no. 13 in Chișinău . On 28 October 2006 he and five other detainees were in cell no. 20, reserved for medical treatment. Three of them, including the applicant, had second-degree invalidity, while the others were under medication.

4 . At around 3 p.m. several masked men armed with rubber sticks and metal shields came to the cell and ordered everyone out, while shouting at them and swearing at them. The applicant allegedly asked for the reason for such an intervention, but was hit with a rubber stick and ordered to stay with his face towards the wall. The detainees were periodically beaten for approximately 30 minutes. In the meantime, some of the masked men entered the cell and searched it for prohibited items.

5. The detainees were then ordered back into the cell. When the applicant saw that their possessions, including food and documents, were scattered on the floor, in the toilet sink and in total disorder, he declared that he would enter the cell only after a representative of the prison administration made a report about the search and the disorder caused. He was then hit and thrown to the floor, kicked in the stomach, hit with the cell door on his foot several times and thrown into the cell. His reading glasses fell on the ground and were smashed by one of the masked men. After the search he discovered that a folder with 24 photographs allegedly illustrating ill-treatment caused to other detainees by the prison staff had disappeared, together with the originals of letters from the European Court and other institutions.

6. After the incident the applicant ’ s foot was swollen and he had to be taken by ambulance to a hospital in Chișinău . The doctor diagnosed him with contusion of soft tissues of the right ankle, suspected fracture of the bone.

B. Investigation into the applicant ’ s complaint of ill-treatment

7. On 31 October 2006 the applicant complained about ill-treatment to the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the military prosecutor ’ s office and to other State authorities. Four other detainees who had been held in the same cell made similar complaints.

8. On 28 November 2006 the applicant was examined by another doctor, who confirmed the diagnosis of a broken bone and found a haematoma on his right leg, corresponding to signs of violence and leading to long-lasting health problems (over 21 days).

9. On 6 December 2006 a prosecutor from the Chișinău Military Prosecutor ’ s Office decided not to start a criminal investigation into the complaints made by the applicant and other detainees.

10. On 8 December 2006 a prosecutor from the Chișinău Prosecutor ’ s Office started a criminal investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations.

11. Between 28 November and 5 December 2007 several persons, members of a special forces ’ battalion who participated in the action of 28 October 2006 were charged with having exceeded their powers by using excessive force against the applicant.

12. On 15 February 2008 a prosecutor from the Chișinău Prosecutor ’ s Office discontinued the criminal inv estigation. He found that on 28 October 2006 the applicant had disobeyed lawful orders of the prison staff during the search of his cell, acted provocatively and refused to return to his cell. He had to be taken there by force. Moreover, it was not excluded that he had caused injuries to himself in order to subsequently accuse the authorities of ill-treatment. All the detainees confirmed the applicant ’ s statements, including those who had been for their daily walk during the search (they confirmed having seen upon their return a big disorder in the cell, with all the food and personal items torn apart and thrown to the ground, the detainees cleaning the mess). Another witness, a member of the prison staff (V.), stated that he had not seen any violence towards the detainees or any disorder being made in cell no. 20 during the search of 28 October 2006, which had lasted for approximately 30 minutes. Another member of the prison staff (N.) stated that he had filmed “certain parts of the search” and had not witnessed any disorder or violence towards the detainees. The deputy Head of prison no. 13 stated that after the search the team did not report having applied force to anyone or having had any exceptional situati on to deal with. At around 7 p.m. later that day he was informed that the applicant had a problem with his leg and that an ambulance had been called to treat him. A video filmed by N. during the event, lasting for six minutes, did not reveal any kind of violence towards the detainees, but only the applicant ’ s refusal to enter his cell. He was sitting on the ground, insisting to see a prosecutor and asking that the leader of the group tasked with the search identified himself and that the interior of the cell be filmed so as to show what happened to the food, property and his reading glasses. The video also showed the applicant asking for a report to be made about the event.

13. On 10 March 2008 the deputy Prosecutor General annulled the decision of 15 February 2008.

14. On 17 April 2008 a prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation.

15. By its final decision of 12 August 2008 the Buiucani District Court upheld the decision of 17 April 2008.

16. The applicant made an extraordinary appeal ( recurs în anulare ) to the Supreme Court of Justice and asked for the annulment of the decision of 12 August 2008.

17 . On 1 October 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected his request, finding that the Buiucani District Court had adopted a lawful decision after verification of the evidence in the file.

COMPLAINTS

18. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated during the search of 28 October 2006.

19. He also complains that he did not have at his disposal effective remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3, as required under Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) was the applicant subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 during the search of 28 October 2006?

(b) has there been an effective investigation into the applicant ’ s allegation of ill-treatment?

2 . Has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention?