THIRD SECTION

Application no. 3312/11 Vasile COLESNIC against Moldova lodged on 24 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vasile Colesnic, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1960 and lives in Şoldăneşti. He was represented before the Co urt by Mr C. Ciobanu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.

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

On 11 October 2008 the applicant was beaten up by two persons. As a result the applicant was hospitalised for thirty-two days in two different hospitals.

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Soldanesti Prosecutor ’ s Office about the beating. The Prosecutor ’ s Office ordered a medical forensic examination to be conducted in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations.

In a report dated 30 October 2008 a forensic doctor, having examined the medical documents submitted by one of the hospitals where the applicant underwent treatment, concluded that the applicant had suffered injuries to his internal organs, contusion of the soft tissues, fracture of a rib and a head concussion necessitating in-patient medical treatment for more than twenty-one days.

On an unspecified date, for unknown reasons, the Prosecutor ’ s Office ordered a repeated medical forensic investigation . In a report dated 9 December 2008 a commission of forensic medical doctors examined the medical documents from the hospitals where the applicant had undergone treatment and came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant ’ s rib no. 9 on the left side had been broken on 11 October 2008. That conclusion resulted from the fact that some of the medical documents examined by the commission referred to rib no. 9 while others to rib no. 11. The forensic medical commission concluded that no injuries had been present on the applicant ’ s body; it did not refer to any other injuries indicated in the medical documents issued by the hospitals where the applicant had undergone treatment for thirty-two days.

On 26 February 2009 the Soldanesti Prosecutor ’ s Office dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint about ill-treatment in view of absence of injuries on his body. No other reasons had been given. The applicant appealed against this decision and requested, inter alia , the hearing of several witnesses and a confrontation with his aggressors. He also expressed doubt in respect of the impartiality of the Prosecutor ’ s Office and pointed to the fact that the son of one of the aggressors had had influence over it by virtue of his function. The applicant also contested the results of the second forensic report and requested that the forensic examination be repeated.

On 24 June 2009 the Soldanesti District Court upheld the applicant ’ s appeal and quashed the Prosecutor Office ’ s decision. It found, inter alia , that the Prosecutor ’ s Office did not pay attention to all the medical documents and that it had not heard any witnesses.

On an unspecified date the Prosecutor ’ s Office ordered a repeated forensic medical examination of the applicant ’ s medical documents. Such an examination was conducted on 6 January 2010 and it reached exactly the same conclusion as the one contained in the forensic report dated 9 December 2008. Therefore, on 28 January 2010, the Soldanesti Prosecutor ’ s Office dismissed again the applicant ’ s complaint about ill-treatment on exactly the same grounds as the first time: that no injuries had been found on his body. The applicant challenged this decision by appeal; however, the appeal was dismissed on 18 June 2010 by the Soldanesti District Court. The decision of the court was sent to the applicant on 25 June 2010.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his alleged ill-treatment have been unfair.

QUESTION

Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was any investigation conducted in the present case by the domestic authorities? If so, was it effective for the purposes of that Article?

The Government are asked to submit a copy of the full version of the case file, concerning the criminal investigation instituted by the Prosecutor ’ s Office in respect of the applicant ’ s criminal complaint.