THIRD SECTION

Application no. 54780/07 Iulian HOATER

against Romania lodged on 20 November 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Iulian Hoater , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1934 and lives in CireÅŸu .

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

On the night of 21 August 2005 the applicant was attacked by a group of ten unidentified third parties. Five of the said third parties hit him repeatedly.

On 23 August 2005 the applicant brought criminal proceedings with civil claims against the unidentified third parties who beat him.

On 23 August 2005 the Podeni Police Department, in particular police officer P.C., after questioning M.S. and L.M., produced a report in respect of the applicant ’ s complaint identifying the third parties who were involved in the incident, including M. and P.

On 2 September 2005 the Mehedinţi Medical Forensic Institute, following the applicant ’ s request, issued a forensic report. It concluded that the applicant ’ s body and face was covered in bruises, hematomas and scars; that the injuries could have been caused by hitting with and against hard objects and required seventeen to eighteen days of medical care.

On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s case was referred to the Orşova District Court. The said court heard several witnesses. One of the witnesses testified inter alia that his relative, A.S., had heard P. stating that he had beaten an individual. Another witness testified that he had seen the applicant being beaten by five individuals, but he could not identify the aggressors because he was at a distance and he was trying to hide. However, he heard that one of the aggressors was called M. by the other members of the group hitting the applicant.

By a judgment of 28 March 2006 the Orşova District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. It held that based on the available evidence it could not be clearly determined if the individuals standing trial were in fact the same individuals who beat the applicant as none of the witnesses could clearly identify them. In addition, witnesses M.S. and L.M. had changed their testimonies and had stated that they had no knowledge about the incident in question. The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment.

By a final judgment of 30 June 2006 the Mehedinţi County Court allowed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law, quashed the judgment of 28 March 2006 and ordered a retrial. It held inter alia that, given the available forensic expert report, the first-instance court should have exercised an active role in the proceedings and should have administered additional evidence in order to determine the circumstances of the case.

On retrial, without administering any additional evidence, by a judgment of 6 July 2007 the Orşova District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. It held that, although V.P. had seen the defendants among the group of ten individuals which attacked the applicant, it could not determine with certainty that they were the ones who hit him. The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. He argued that the acquittal of the defendants was unjustified given that they had been identified by the police as the perpetrators of the aggression and their presence at the scene of the incident had been clearly established.

By a final judgment of 5 October 2007 the Mehedinţi County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law. It held that although it was uncontested that the applicant had been beaten on 21 August 2005, it could not determine the exact identity of the aggressors based on the available evidence.

COMPLAINT

Relying expressly on Article 6 and in substance on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was beaten by several third parties on the night of 21 August 2005 and that the investigation carried out by the domestic authorities in respect of his criminal complaint lodged against the said third parties was ineffective.

QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of the alleged ill-treatment by third parties on the night of 21 August 2005?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?