FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 28242/10 Yuriy Vyacheslavovich VOROBYEV against Ukraine lodged on 20 April 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Vyacheslavovich Vorobyev , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and is currently serving his sentence in prison.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and related issues

On 31 January 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed an armed robbery. At the police station the applicant was allegedly physically ill-treated and forced to sign a waiver of the right to a lawyer.

On 27 April 2009 the Kerch Town Court of Autonomous Republic of Crimea found the applicant guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon and armed robbery. The court convicted him to nine years ’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his property. The court based its conclusions on oral, material and documentary evidence, including the applicant ’ s statements during the trial in which the applicant admitted that he indeed bought a weapon and broke into a flat to rob an old woman.

The applicant did not appeal against that judgment to the Court of Appeal. However, he lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court claiming that his case had been falsified and his guilt had not been properly established.

On 15 October 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal as unfounded.

On several occasions the applicant requested the first-instance court to provide him with access to the case file, but to no avail.

On 10 January 2011 the Court requested the applicant to provide copies of certain documents from the criminal case file in connection with his application. The applicant made a relevant request to the first-instance court.

On 16 March 2011 the Chairman of the first-instance court rejected the request noting that it had not been based on the domestic law.

2. Conditions of detention

The applicant contracted tuberculosis before his arrest.

Between 31 January 2009 and 7 July 2009 the applicant was held in Kerch Temporary Detention Centre and Simferopol no. 15 Pre-Trial Detention Centre where, allegedly, the physical conditions were unsatisfactory and the medical treatment was insufficient.

Between 7 July 2009 and 25 November 2010 the applicant was held in Hola Prystan no. 7 Prison where the treatment for tuberculosis had been inadequate: the medicaments prescribed to the applicant provoked an allergic reaction. As side effect, his sight deteriorated. In addition, the applicant developed new illnesses: acute chronic bronchitis and osteochondrosis . The prison did not provide appropriate nutrition. The cells were damp and cold. The windows were covered with polyethylene sheets, instead of glass. The heating system was not working properly.

The applicant was then moved to Simferopol no. 102 Prison where he is currently detained.

On 13 May 2011 the applicant was given an extract from his medical history stating that the treatment for tuberculosis had not been effective and that the applicant still suffered from that illness.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that his arrest was unlawful.

2. He complains under Article 3 of the Convention that police officers ill-treated him after his arrest.

3. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he has not been provided with adequate medical treatment during his detention and that the physical conditions of his detention have been inappropriate.

4. The applicant further complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that he was not provided with a lawyer and that he was forced to sign a waiver of the right to a lawyer; he did not have enough time to prepare his defence; the courts failed to examine the evidence properly and question all the witnesses.

5. The applicant also alleges that, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, he has been subjected to discriminatory treatment on the grounds that he is a Russian-speaking national and that he is a prisoner.

6. The applicant complains that his requests to have access to documents from his criminal case file were rejected arbitrarily and that he therefore was prevented from effective protection of his rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the allegedly insufficient medical treatment of the applicant during his detention?

2. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the physical conditions of the applicant ’ s detention?

3. Has there been any hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of petition to the Court, guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have the opportunity to obtain copies of the documents from the case file and to send them to the Court in order to substantiate his application?