THIRD SECTION

Application no. 50166/06 Vasile COROTCHI against Moldova lodged on 17 November 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vasile Corotchi , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1960 and is currently detained in a detention facility in Moldova unknown to the Court.

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

On 15 June 2005 the applicant was convicted for rape of a minor and sentenced to seventeen years ’ imprisonment. The applicant ’ s appeal was dismissed by the Bălţi Court of Appeal on 19 October 2005. He did not lodge an appeal on points of law.

According to the applicant, during the pre-trial detention he was subjected to severe ill-treatment and acts of torture with a view of extracting confessions. It does not appear that the applicant filed any complaints in respect of these allegations.

On 18 June 2005, while being detained in the Bălţi prison, the applicant was subjected to a severe beating by three prison guards on the ground that he had knocked in his cell ’ s door and had requested cigarettes and tea. According to a forensic report dated 18 May 2006, concluded on the basis of previous medical documents, as a result of the beating the applicant had suffered a fracture of his shinbone, fracture of several ribs and numerous abrasions.

The applicant ’ s complaint about the ill-treatment ended in a final conviction of the three guards to a criminal fine of 10,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of approximately 650 euros ) each.

The domestic courts qualified the deeds of t he accused guards under article 152 (2) (e) of the Criminal Code (intentional body harm committed by two or more persons), an offence punishable with imprisonment of three to six years and under article 154 (2) (e) of the Criminal Code (intentional ill-treatment and acts of violence), an offe nce punishable with fine of MDL 5,000-10,000, or community work of up to 240 hours, or imprisonment of three to six years.

However, the accused guards were found guilty only of committing the offence provided under article 154 (2) (e) of the Criminal Code. The domestic courts did not explain why the accused were not found guilty of the other offence imputed to them.

The final judgment was passed by the Supreme Court of Justice on 31 October 2007. The civil action introduced by the applicant was dismissed and the applicant was instructed to introduce a separate civil action against the prison guards.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains in substance under Article 3 of the Convention about two instances of ill-treatment, one during his pre-trial detention and another one on 18 June 2005.

2. The applicant also complains that the criminal proceedings against him were not fair as required by Article 6 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS

1. Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment in br each of Article 3 of the Convention? Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 in view of the criminal proceedings against the guards who had ill-treated him?

2. Did the domestic authorities fully discharge their positive obligation to ensure the identification and punishment of all the persons alleged to have ill-treated the applicant, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the sentence passed on the accused persons have a sufficient deterrent effect to prevent similar crimes in the future (see Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey , no. 32446/96, 2 November 2004 )?