FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 12597/07 Murad Ekhtiramovich ALIYEV against Ukraine lodged on 5 March 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Murad Ekhtiramovich Aliyev, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Bezlyudivka.

A. The circumstances of the case

In June 2002 the applicant was arrested and, together with several co-defendants, placed in detention on remand in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre (SIZO) no. 27 pending criminal investigation of charges of robbery and several other crimes against them.

According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention were inhuman and degrading. In particular, most of the time he was confined to a small cell, where two to three detainees had to share one sleeping place. The cell was poorly ventilated and full of cockroaches, lice and bedbugs. The food was meagre and hardly suitable for consumption.

On 23 March and 10 May 2005 the applicant requested the Kharkivskiy District Court to release him under undertaking not to abscond referring to the deterioration of his health. He submitted, in particular, that since December 2004 his haemorrhoids started to deteriorate progressively and he had difficulties falling asleep because of the constant pain. The SIZO medical staff lacked proper qualifications and medicines to help him and the applicant was in need of a surgery, for which the SIZO lacked facilities. In addition, the applicant was suffering from eczema, nervous breakdown and depressive symptoms.

On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s case was transferred to the Kominternivskiy District Court of Kharkiv for trial.

On 11 November 2005 the applicant requested the Kominternivskiy Court to release him from detention, referring to further aggravation of his health. He noted, in particular, that the only medicine available to him was analgin (a pain-killer). To calm down the pain he had to take five doses of it each time, which was harmful for his liver and stomach.

On an unspecified date in autumn of 2005 the applicant was escorted to the hospital of the Correctional Colony no. 100 to have surgery. However, according to the applicant, the hospital facilities were filled with lice, lacked basic hygiene and medications, and the proposed surgery was intended to be performed by a medical student. Fearing adverse consequences, the applicant refused from the operation.

On 22 February 2006 the applicant requested the Kominternivskiy Court to consider his previous requests, which remained without its attention.

On 16 March 2006 the applicant further requested release from detention, submitting that his rectum was falling out and that he had to insert it back into his body with his fingers each time after visiting a toilet.

The court adjourned his request to seek an opinion by a medical professional.

On 5 April 2006 the applicant requested the Kominternivskiy Court to accelerate consideration of his request.

On 22 May 2006 the Kominternivskiy Court rejected the applicant ’ s request for release, referring to the gravity of the charges against him and an expert opinion that the applicant ’ s surgery could be performed after trial.

On 26 May 2006 the Kominternivskiy Court referred some of the charges against the applicant for additional investigation.

On 18 September 2006 the applicant renewed his request for release from detention on medical grounds.

On 19 November 2006 the applicant complained to the Kominternivskiy Court that he started suffering from heart problems in view of his extended stay in a poorly ventilated prison cell and that his nervous system was deteriorating.

On 24 November 2006 the applicant requested his release again, complaining that the length of his detention and of the criminal proceedings against him were unreasonable and incompatible with human rights standards.

On 28 December 2006 the Kominternivskiy Court convicted the applicant of robbery and several counts of theft in an organised group and sentenced him to six years ’ imprisonment.

The applicant appealed, alleging that his sentence was too severe.

On 3 May 2007 he further added to his appeal, alleging, in particular, that the court had wrongly calculated the term of his imprisonment from 17 June 2002, while in fact he had been detained since 12 June 2002.

On 3 May 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the trial court ’ s judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation. He has not informed the Court about the outcome of his cassation proceedings.

On an unspecified date following his conviction the applicant was transferred from the SIZO to the Correctional Colony no. 100 to serve his sentence.

On 20 August 2007 the Kharkiv District Court examined the charges, which had earlier been remitted for further investigation, convicted the applicant of armed hooliganism and sentenced him to six years ’ imprisonment calculated from the same date as under the earlier sentence of the Kominternivskiy Court . The applicant did not appeal against this judgment and it became final.

On 17 June 2008 the applicant was released from the correctional colony.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in the SIZO were inhuman and degrading and that no appropriate medical assistance was available to him.

He next complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the period of his detention was incorrectly calculated from 17 rather than 12 June 2002.

The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention pending investigation and trial was inordinately lengthy.

Finally, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unreasonably long and unfair.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the physical conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the SIZO no. 27 been compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Has the applicant received adequate medical treatment while detained in the SIZO no. 27, in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention?

3. Was the length of the applicant ’ s detention pending investigation and trial in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

4. Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?