FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 48421/10 Anzor Sergeyevich SHONIYA against Ukraine lodged on 9 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Anzor Sergeyevich Shoniya , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1967 and is currently undergoing compulsory inpatient psychiatric treatment in a mental health facility. He is represented before the Court by Mr D.I. Medvedskiy , a lawyer practising in Donetsk .

The circumstances of the case

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

On the evening of 13 May 2007 the applicant murdered his cohabitant while they were drinking alcohol.

On the same date the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Prosecutor ’ s Office of Horlivka (“the prosecutor ’ s office”) opened an investigation in connection with the murder. The applicant was arrested on the same day. Subsequently, a court ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention. The applicant was placed in the Artemivsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Artemivsk SIZO”) which was an ordinary pre-trial detention facility provided with a standard medical unit.

On 22 June 2007 a board of forensic psychiatric experts issued a report stating that at the time of the crime the applicant suffered from mental disorder (paranoid schizophrenia) and therefore he could neither understand his actions, nor control them when committing the crime. At the time of the examination the applicant still suffered from that disorder. The experts concluded that the applicant required compulsory inpatient psychiatric treatment under strict supervision in a mental health facility.

On 30 June 2007 the prosecutor ’ s office referred the case to the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court of Horlivka (“the District Court”) for taking a decision on compulsory psychiatric treatment of the applicant.

On an unspecified date the District Court ordered another forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant.

On 24 February 2009 a board of forensic psychiatric experts issued a report confirming the conclusions of the report of 22 June 2007.

On 3 July 2009 the District Court decided that the applicant could not be tried due to his mental disorder and had to undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment in a mental health facility.

On 10 November 2009 the Donetsk Region Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration.

On 15 July 2010 a board of forensic psychiatric experts issued another report confirming the conclusions of the earlier reports as to the applicant ’ s mental health.

On 29 November 2010 the head of the medical unit of the Artemisk SIZO informed the applicant ’ s lawyer that according to the results of the psychiatric examinations the applicant needed specialist inpatient treatment in a mental health facility while the decision on his transfer to that facility had not yet been taken by the court.

On 15 March 2011 the District Court found that the applicant could not be held responsible for the crime due to his mental disorder. It further held that the applicant should undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment under strict supervision in a mental health facility.

On 23 August 2011 the District Court refused the aggrieved party ’ s leave to appeal against that decision.

On 10 October 2011 the applicant was removed to a mental health facility for compulsory treatment.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was not provided with requisite psychiatric treatment during his pre-trial detention.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention? Did the Artemisvsk SIZO have requisite medical staff, medicaments and equipment to ensure an appropriate medical treatment of the applicant?

2. 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?

The Government are invited to provide a chronological list of the investigative and judicial actions taken in the applicants ’ case.