THIRD SECTION

Application no. 35436/08 Stanislav BOGDANOVICI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 24 June 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Stanislav Bogdanovici , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Pruncul . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Rahlea , a lawyer practising in Chisinau.

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

On 20 November 2005 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention on charges of theft. After arrest he had allegedly been subjected to ill-treatment in order to induce him to confess.

On 14 June 2006 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to eight years ’ imprisonment. On 21 November 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeal lodged by the applicant and reduced the sentence to five years and two months. On 5 March 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law.

In the meantime the applicant complained to the Prosecutor ’ s Office about his alleged ill-treatment. However, it does not appear that his complaint was successful.

Throughout his detention the applicant was detained in two detention facilities. In particular, he was detained on three different occasions in Prison No. 13 between the following dates: 14 December 2005 – 4 February 2007 (the first period of detention), 5 April 2007 – 19 April 2007 (the second period of detention) and 10 May 2007 – 7 February 2008 (the third period of detention). The rest of the tim e he was detained in Prison No. 9.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he has been subjected to ill-treatment and, in support of his allegations, invites the Court to contact the persons with whom he shared the cell at the time and who could confirm his allegations.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 3 about the poor conditions of his detention in Prison No. 13.

3. The applicant further complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention on remand was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and that it had no legal basis.

4. Finally, the applicant contends that the criminal proceedings against him have not been fair as required by Article 6 of the Convention and that they have been excessively long. Since the courts failed to take into consideration his arguments, the applicant also submits that he did not have an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTION

Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which the applicant has been detained between 10 May 2007 and 7 February 2008 in Prison No. 13?