THIRD SECTION

Applications nos 59474/11 and 1649/12 Alexandr BALAKIN against Moldova and Valentin RIMSCHI against Moldova lodged on 16 September 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant in the first case, Mr Alexandr Balakin, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău. The applicant in the second case, Mr Valentin Rimschi, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr E. Rudenco and Mr M. Rudenco, lawyers practising in Ialoveni.

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

On 21 August 2009 and 21 July 2009 respectively the applicants were arrested and charged with the offence of producing and putting in circulation counterfeit money. Since then both applicants were remanded in custody pending criminal investigation. The detention warrants were prolonged every three months and each time the reasons for their detention were that they had been accused of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of up to fifteen years that the criminal cases were complex and that if released the applicants could interfere with the investigation, abscond or reoffend. The courts ’ decisions did not contain any explanation as to the risk of the applicants ’ absconding, reoffending or interfering with the investigation.

The last prolongation of the applicants ’ detention before the lodging of the present applications took place on 19 August 2011. The court decisions were based on the same reasons as before and their appeals were rejected by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 5 September 2011.

It appears that the applicants are remanded in custody to date and that no court decision in respect of the criminal accusations against them has been adopted yet.

COMPLAINTS

1. Both applicants complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of their detention and about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention.

2. Both applicants also complain under Article 5 § 4 and argue that in examining their habeas corpus requests the courts did not pay attention to any of the arguments adduced by them.

3. The first applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the criminal proceedings against him are excessively long.

4. The second applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been beaten up on 23 July 2009 by the police in order to extract a confession.

5. Finally, the second applicant complains that his right to be presumed innocent has been breached. He relies on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

QUESTION

Were the reasons relied upon by the Ialoveni District Court and the Chişinău Court of Appeal in their decisions to detain the applicants and to prolong their detention, reasonable and sufficient for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?