FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 42164/09 Sergey Sergeyevich SERIKOV against Ukraine lodged on 29 July 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Sergeyevich Serikov , is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Khark i v . He was represented before the Court by Mr A.A. Kristenko , a lawyer practising in Kharkiv .

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

A. The applicant ’ s ill-treatment

On 16 May 2008 at around 6.30 p.m. two armed police officers arrested the applicant, a minor at the time. The applicant ’ s friends informed the applicant ’ s mother of his arrest. A t a round 10 p.m. the applicant ’ s family learned that he was at Kharkiv p olice s tation.

Having arrived at the police station, the applicant ’ s mother found him with bruises on his face, a swollen chin and traces of handcuffs on his wrists. The applicant told her that that the police officers had punched and kicked him on the face and body and subjected him to sexual assault and Palestinian hanging.

The applicant ’ s mother made the police call an ambulance. When the ambulance arrived, the head of the drug offence s unit was present during the applicant ’ s examination. After the examination, the head of the drug offence s unit spoke to the doctor and the latter noted in the medical certificate that the applicant had no complaints and that no abnormalit ies had been detected ( практически здоров ).

B. Investigation into allegations of ill-treatment

On 17 May 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers with the Kharkiv Regional Police Department. The applicant ’ s mother further lodged a similar complaint with the prosecutor.

The same day the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert.

Later that day the applicant felt unwell and was hospitalised. In hospital he was diagnosed with concussion and head and chest trauma .

On 26 May 2008 the investigator of the Moskovsk y y Police Department of Kharkiv instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for storing drugs.

On 6 June 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office (hereinafter – the KRPO) refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti in their actions. This decision was appealed against by the applicant ’ s mother.

On 12 August 2008 the Kharkiv Chervonozavodsk y y District Court quashed the KRPO ’ s decision of 6 June 2008 and remitted the case for further investigation. The KRPO appealed.

On 12 January 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first - instance court.

On 19 January 2009 the Kharkiv Moskovsk y y District Court examined the criminal case against the applicant and remitted the case to the prosecutor in order to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of unlawful methods of investigation used on the applicant.

On 16 February 2009 the Moskovsk y y District Prosecutor ’ s Office (her e inafter – the MDPO) refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The applicant ’ s mother challenged this decision in the Moskovsk y y District Court.

On 30 March 2009 the Kharkiv Moskovsk y y District Court quashed the decision of 16 February 2009 and remitted the case for further investigation.

On 22 October 2009 the MDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers.

On 27 November 2009 the Kharkiv Moskovsk y y District Court quashed the decision of 22 October 2009 and remitted the case for further investigation. On 28 December 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first - instance court.

The inquiry in the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment is pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the police tortured him. He also complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that his complaints of torture have not been investigated properly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?