FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 35770/08 Mikhail Ivanovich SIRYAK against Ukraine lodged on 22 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mikhail Ivanovich Siryak , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Lesovoy , a lawyer practising in Simferopol .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 18 March 2006 the General Prosecutor ’ s Office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and three other persons in connection with two counts of murder.

On 25 April 2006 the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons as his whereabouts were unknown.

On 27 April 2006 the applicant was arrested. The arrest report stated that the applicant did not make any requests for legal assistance and his relatives had been informed of his arrest. The report was countersigned by the applicant.

On the same day the applicant was escorted to Odesa Temporary Detention Centre (“the Odesa ITT”). He was placed in a small, dirty, stuffy and dark cell. The food provided to him was not adeqaute . The sanitary and hygienic conditions were unsatisfactory. The applicant was held in such conditions for sixty-eight days and then transferred to a different detention facility.

Allegedly, following the applicant ’ s arrest the police officers physically and psychologically ill-treated him with the purpose of extracting his confession.

On 28 April 2006 the Prymorskyy District Court extended the applicant ’ s preliminary detention to ten days.

On 29 April 2006 the applicant was examined in the Odesa city hospital. The applicant made no complaints to the doctors.

On 5 May 2006 the same court ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for two months. The court noted that the applicant was charged with a serious crime, he had no permanent place of residence and before his arrest he was placed on the list of wanted persons. For these reasons the court concluded that the applicant might abscond from justice, obstruct the investigation, and continue his criminal activities.

Subsequently, the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was extended by the courts.

On 15 October 2007 the Kyiv Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention to eighteen months and four days that is to 31 October 2007.

On 31 October 2007 the case was referred to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for trial.

On 24 January 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal committed the applicant and other defendants for trial. It decided that the preventive measures in respect of the defendants should be maintained.

During the trial the applicant requested his release for the reason that his involvement in the crime had not been established. On 9 April, 30 July and 14 October 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s requests noting that the examination of all the evidence in the case had not been finished.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) can be found in the judgment in the case of Molodorych v. Ukraine (no. 2161/02, §§ 57-59, 28 October 2010).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that the condi tions of his detention in Odesa ITT amounted to ill-treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.

2. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that after his arrest the police officers physically and psychologically ill-treated him.

3. The applicant complains that the court decision of 15 October 2007, extending his pre-trial detention to more than eighteen months, was unlawful.

4. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his detention between 31 October 2007 and 24 January 2008 was not based on any court decision.

5. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was excessive.

6. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was unreasonable.

7. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 of the Convention that his right to legal assistance and his right to have sufficient time and facilities to prepare for the defence have not been ensured.

8. The applicant alleges that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention because his complaints to the prosecutor ’ s office and the courts were futile.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, based on the court decision of 15 October 2007, contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention between 31 October 2007 and 24 January 2008 in conformity with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the overall length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement? Did the courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention? Did they consider alternative measures of ensuring the applicant ’ s appearance at trial?

The Government are invited to provide copies of all the missing court decisions by which the domestic authorities applied, extended or maintained the applicant ’ s detention in custody.

4. Has the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?