FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 31898/06 Ivan Vasilyevich TARAN against Ukraine lodged on 27 July 2006

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the Sevastopol ITT?

2. Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant ’ s transportation between the Simferopol SIZO and the Sevastopol ITT?

3. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, based on court decisions adopted between August and October 2005, contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide copies of the documents evidencing the dates on which the relevant investigator ’ s requests were submitted to the court and the dates on which the applicant was notified of the relevant court hearings.

4. Was the applicant ’ s detention in custody after 29 November 2005 in conformity with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

5. 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 requested to provide copies of all the decisions by which the domestic authorities applied, extended or maintained the applicant ’ s detention in custody.

6. With respect to the administrative proceedings in which the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his detention after 29 November 2005:

(a) Was Article 5 § 4 of the Convention applicable to those domestic proceedings? If so, did those proceedings comply with that Convention provision? In which way could the administrative courts ensure the applicant ’ s release, taking into account their powers under Article 162 of the Code of Administrative Justice?

(b) With respect to that stage of criminal proceedings, did the applicant have at his disposal any other judicial procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? If so, the Government are invited to provide examples of the domestic case-law.

( с) Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to those domestic proceedings? If so, did those proceedings comply with that Convention provision?

7. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

8. 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?