THIRD SECTION

Application no . 27631/12 Ghennadii VARTIC against Romania lodged on 30 March 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applica nt, Mr Ghennadii Vartic , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Jilava .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant alleges that due to his numerous complaints to the prison administration and letters to the Court he was beaten by the intervention team of Rahova Prison on 24 and 25 April 2002.

He alleges that the medication he was taking (Diazepam) made him fall asleep during the evening roll-call. As a result, he was taken to the doctor ’ s office where he was forced to swallow salt water. He resisted, and four people wearing masks from the intervention patrol were called. They beat him up, and he lost consciousness.

He was then removed to a room for dangerous detainees where he was handcuffed to the radiator. He was beaten again and forced to drink six litres of salt water, which made him vomit.

A psychiatrist visited the applicant in the morning and ordered the applicant to be released from handcuffs. The doctor observed that the applicant ’ s ear was bleeding and ordered that he see a specialist.

The applicant alleges that the beatings had broken his nose and destroyed his hearing.

In 2005 he lodged a criminal complaint of abuse, negligence and receiving illicit benefits against the members of the special patrol unit which had taken action on 24-25 April 2002 and against the management of the Rahova prison hospital and the doctor and the nurse who were present during the incident.

On 31 March 2008 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute, on the ground that the matters alleged did not constitute criminal offences.

The public prosecutor established that the applicant stockpiled the antidepressants prescribed by the doctor. On 24 April 2002 the applicant was suffering from accentuated somnolence, did not respond to the evening roll-call and could not move by himself.

Once at the prison medical office, the nurse on duty ordered the applicant to drink salt water to make him vomit up the pills he had taken. When the applicant refused, the special unit was called. The members of the special unit handcuffed the applicant and ordered him to drink salt water.

An incident report was drafted following the incident. The report was signed by the applicant and stated that he had tried to commit suicide.

Following the expert report ordered by the public prosecutor, the National Institute for Forensic Science issued report no. A8/12230/2007 establishing that it was highly improbable that drinking salt water would have cracked eardrum and lead to the consequent loss of hearing. Neither was it plausible that drinking salt water could affect the applicant ’ s sense of taste.

The report also established that in the event of severe intoxication evacuation of the gastric content by the means of drinking water and provoking vomiting is required if the patient is conscious.

By the decision of 23 September 2008 the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s complaint against the public prosecutor ’ s decision not to prosecute of 31 March 2008.

The applicant alleged that the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal of 23 September 2008 has been quashed on appeal and that the criminal investigation has been re-opened.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the fact that he has been ill-treated by the Rahova Prison intervention team on 24 and 25 April 2002 .

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the fact that the criminal investigation initiated in 2005 for the alleged ill-treatment is still pending.

QUESTIONS

1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention due to the alleged ill-treatment in Rahova Prison on 24 and 25 April 2002 ? Has the applicant lost hearing as a result of the alleged ill-treatment?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit information as to the outcome of the proceedings against the Rahova Prison intervention team and a complete copy of the applicant ’ s medical file concerning his alleged loss of hearing.