Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE in the GPE region , GPE in the GPE region and GPE , respectively .

In DATE NORP complained to ORG ( the “ UBOP ” ) of the NORP regional police department that the applicant was allegedly planning his murder . PERSON . and P. ‒ whom the applicant had allegedly hired to murder NORP ‒ agreed to cooperate with the ORG and , acting on the latter ’s instructions , organised a meeting with the applicant , told him that they had killed NORP , showed him photographs simulating NORP ’s death ‒ which they had prepared as part of the ORG covert operation ‒ and asked for payment . After paying them DATE , the applicant and his father , who had accompanied him , were taken to the ORG office where they arrived at TIME on DATE .

According to the applicant , he was interviewed at the request of the head of the ORG , PERSON , until TIME by several operative police officers , including PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who demanded that he confess to having ordered NORP ’s murder . They allegedly subjected him to ill - treatment which the applicant described as follows . They handcuffed him , punched him and subjected him to nearsuffocation by use of a plastic bag put over his head . He fainted several times . They forced his legs apart until he fell and then lifted him by his hands , which were shackled behind his back . They tied him up in a painful position with a belt so that his knees were pressed against his neck , and pulled up his shackled hands . They lifted the applicant up whilst thus tied , and dropped him down onto his coccyx . CARDINAL of them stepped on his head .

At TIME the applicant was placed in a cell in which he stayed until TIME He was then again interviewed and signed a document entitled “ explanation ” ( объяснение ) drawn up by the ORG operative officer PERSON , in which he gave statements which he later reiterated at his trial .

No record of the applicant ’s arrest was drawn up . At TIME the ORG officers took the applicant home , carried out a search , and then left .

DATE the applicant was taken by his father to the PERSON hospital in GPE . According to the hospital medical records , the applicant had many bruises on his body , in particular on the head , neck , abdomen and the lumbar region .

On DATE the applicant complained about his ill - treatment to the NORP district police department no . CARDINAL of GPE , which ordered a forensic medical examination .

On DATE an expert examined the applicant , his medical records , and his allegations of ill - treatment by the ORG officers DATE ( namely being handcuffed and tied , punched and beaten with a bat ) , and concluded that bruises and abrasions on the applicant ’s body and upper and lower extremities had been inflicted by hard blunt objects at the time , as alleged by him ( forensic medical expert report of DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a fractured vertebra and hospitalised . His X - ray examination confirmed fractures of CARDINAL vertebrae .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office of GPE brought criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the attempted murder of NORP On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who concluded that , in addition to the injuries noted in the previous report of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had a fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra which resulted in health impairment of medium gravity and had been caused in DATE by the impact of a hard blunt object or as a result of hitting such an object with great mechanical force .

According to an additional forensic medical expert opinion of DATE produced on the basis of medical records , the fracture of the vertebra could not have resulted from being punched , kicked and beaten with a bat , or as a result of handcuffing , having the legs tied together with a belt , or lifting the applicant up by his hands . It could have resulted from an impact by a traumatic force along the axes of the spine .

On DATE an investigator from the GPE district prosecutor ’s office of GPE ‒ who had carried out a pre - investigation inquiry into the applicant ’s allegations of illtreatment by the ORG officers ‒ refused to initiate criminal proceedings , relying on statements by the ORG police officers , in particular PERSON and PERSON , that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of having ordered a murder , and had been taken to the ORG and interviewed , and that no violence had been used against him . The investigator also referred to statements by the applicant ’s father and other persons who had been in the ORG building at the same time as the applicant and had not seen or heard that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment . On DATE the applicant had been diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder . The investigator concluded that the applicant could not be trusted , that he had probably received his injuries as a result of hitting himself accidentally against some objects , and that the true circumstances in which he had received the injuries could not be established .

On DATE the Promyshlenniy ORG granted an appeal lodged by the applicant against the investigator ’s decision . Subsequently , further refusals to open a criminal case followed on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and were annulled as unlawful by the prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of the attempted murder of NORP , sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay damages to NORP It took into account the fact that the applicant had no criminal record and also had positive references . At the trial the applicant denied his guilt , stating that his sister had been killed in a traffic accident caused by NORP ’s drunk driving , that NORP had unlawfully avoided serving his sentence of imprisonment , that he ‒ the applicant ‒ had wished to compel NORP to serve his prison sentence by using the services of PERSON . and P. – who had suggested planting drugs on NORP , inter alia DATE and had paid them out of fear for his family ’s safety . The applicant ’s argument that the crime of which he was accused was the result of police entrapment was dismissed by the court .

On DATE an investigator from the investigative committee of the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office ordered , pursuant to LAW , that no criminal case be opened into the applicant ’s allegations for lack of the elements of a crime under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( on abuse of powers ) in the acts of the police officers . The decision relied on the same reasoning as that set out in the initial decision of DATE , adding that the applicant had recovered from his psychiatric disorder and had been convicted .

On appeal by the applicant , the investigator ’s decision was found lawful by ORG in a decision of DATE , which was further upheld by ORG on DATE . ORG held , in particular , that the fact that the applicant had been detained unlawfully for TIME at the ORG premises was not in itself sufficient to prove that he had been illtreated by the police officers or that he had been deliberately subjected to unlawful detention . In reply to the applicant ’s criticism of the investigating authority ’s failure to carry out a thorough investigation and , in particular , to examine the room at the ORG premises in which the applicant had been interviewed and allegedly illtreated , ORG opined that there would be no sense in examining the ORG office given the considerable length of time that had passed since the events in question .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

On DATE the acting head of the supervisory department of the NORP regional investigative committee annulled the decision of DATE for being based on an incomplete inquiry and ordered an additional inquiry and the applicant ’s additional forensic medical examination .

On DATE between TIME and TIME the police searched the applicant ’s flat in GPE , pursuant to a decision of LOC on DATE concerning criminal proceedings against third persons , in order to find evidence of those ORG membership of extremist organisations . The police found explosives and bomb - making material . Once the search had been completed , they took the applicant to ORG at the GPE NORP regional police department .

DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness in the criminal proceedings against third persons by investigator PERSON LOC district investigative committee , who later stated that at the time of the questioning the applicant had had no injuries on the visible parts of his body .

The investigator ordered that the case concerning the applicant ’s illegal possession of arms be transferred to an investigator at police department no . CARDINAL of PERSON .

The applicant was then interviewed by the head of ORG , T. , his deputy PERSON and CARDINAL operative police officers of ORG , PERSON . According to the applicant , they demanded that he confess to preparing a terrorist act and sign a “ statement of surrender and confession ” ( явка с повинной ) . They allegedly subjected him to illtreatment which the applicant described as follows . They beat him up , punching and kicking him . With his hands handcuffed behind his back they bound him with a QUANTITY - long orange rope , so that his crossed legs were pressed to his torso . They pulled on the rope and lifted the applicant off the floor , subjecting him to near - suffocation as the knots in the rope were pressing against the front of his neck , making it impossible to breath . They then loosened the rope , so that the applicant fell and hit his buttocks on the floor , causing him severe pain . The applicant lost consciousness . At some point CARDINAL other police officers PERSON . and PERSON joined the others . PERSON punched the applicant in the face , making his lip bleed . The applicant ’s illtreatment lasted until TIME

At TIME the applicant was taken to police station no . CARDINAL of the GPE town police department , formally arrested at TIME and questioned as a suspect .

In his report of DATE to the head of ORG , T. , police officer PERSON . stated that physical force had been used in order to apprehend the applicant when he tried to escape . According to subsequent statements made by PERSON . and PERSON to the investigative authority , PERSON . had tripped the applicant up in order to prevent his escape and the applicant had fallen over , whereupon PERSON . “ had used physical force to overcome the applicant ’s resistance ” and kept the applicant on the ground until the arrival of PERSON They had then handcuffed the applicant . As a result , the applicant had allegedly received abrasions to the head , face and neck .

After the applicant ’s questioning as a suspect he was taken to a temporary detention facility ( an “ ORG ” ) . The ORG officer on duty saw the applicant ’s injuries and refused to admit him without a prior medical examination .

At TIME on DATE the police officers took the applicant to town hospital no . CARDINAL in the Avtozavodskoy district of GPE Novgorod , where a doctor recorded contusions and bruises on his face and assessed his condition as not precluding detention .

On the applicant ’s arrival at the ORG , the officer on duty examined the upper part of his body above the waist and recorded bruises and abrasions . The applicant stated that his injuries were the result of illtreatment to which he had been subjected by the police officers at ORG from TIME on DATE . The applicant stated , in particular , in relation to the injuries on the face , that he had an abrasion in the temple area on the right side , a bruise under the right eye , an abrasion on the chin on the right side , and a damaged lip on the left side .

On DATE the applicant was detained on remand by a court order and at TIME transferred from the ORG to pre - trial detention facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( the “ GPE ” ) , where an on - duty officer and medical assistant recorded the following injuries on his body : a bruise on the right of the abdomen , a bruise in the left axillary region and multiple bruises on the face and neck . The applicant reiterated that he had been illtreated by the police . The incident was reported to the head of the GPE .

On DATE the GPE district prosecutor ’s office received a communication from the GPE about the injuries found on the applicant on his admission and forwarded it to the LOC district investigation division of the ORG NORP regional investigative committee ( Следственный отдел по GPE району г. Н.Новгород СУ PERSON по PERSON области ) . The applicant lodged a complaint with the investigative authorities about his alleged ill - treatment and on DATE gave a statement .

According to a forensic medical examination report of CARDINAL DATE prepared on the basis of the applicant ’s GPE medical records ( and ordered on DATE by an investigator who inquired , inter alia , whether the injuries could have been self - inflicted ) , the applicant ’s injuries could be classified as blunt trauma . Although the description of the injuries in the PERSON report made it impossible to determine reliably the date of their infliction , the expert suggested that the bruises on the right part of the abdomen and multiple bruises on the face and neck could have been inflicted within DATE prior to the applicant ’s examination at the GPE on DATE and the bruise in the left axillary region could have been inflicted DATE before that examination . The expert noted that the injuries were located on parts of the body within the reach of the applicant ’s own hands .

According to an additional forensic medical examination report of CARDINAL DATE , prepared on the basis of the applicant ’s medical documents , the applicant ’s injuries could have originated either as a result of being punched and kicked , or as a result of the use of force as alleged by police officers PERSON . and A.

According to a report of DATE , prepared on the basis of an internal inquiry and approved by the head of the internal security division of the ORG NORP regional police department , PERSON . stated that in order to overcome the applicant ’s resistance he had twisted the applicant ’s hand behind his back , and that the applicant had received the abrasions to the head and face as a result of falling over . The other QUANTITY police officers who had interviewed the applicant had given similar statements . The report suggested that the question of the police ORG responsibility for the applicant ’s illtreatment could only be decided by the investigative committee pursuant to a pre - investigation inquiry .

The LOC district investigative committee issued CARDINAL refusals to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant ’s alleged illtreatment ( on DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL July DATE ) . The first CARDINAL decisions were revoked by the deputy head of the LOC district investigative committee or the LOC district deputy prosecutor for being based on an incomplete inquiry ( decisions of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) .

On DATE the Avtozavodskoy District Court of GPE Novgorod convicted the applicant of illegal storage of explosives under LAW . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

NORP In the decision refusing to open a criminal investigation into the allegations of the applicant ’s ill - treatment of DATE , pursuant to LAW , for lack of the elements of a crime under LAW ( on abuse of powers ) in the actions of police officers PERSON . , PERSON and ORG , it was stated that the applicant had tried to escape during his transfer from ORG to police station no . CARDINAL on DATE and could have received the injuries as a result of the lawful use of force by police officers ORG . and PERSON in their effort to stop him . That conclusion was based on statements by police officers based at the ORG , namely PERSON . , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON , who had conducted the applicant ’s interview ( опрос ) with a view to establishing his possible accomplices , in particular persons who had supplied him with the explosives . They denied the use of any violence against the applicant . The investigator confirmed that , in accordance with LAW , the police officers had the right to conduct the applicant ’s interview .

The applicant appealed against the investigator ’s decision of CARDINAL July DATE to a court . He complained , in particular , that the investigator had not given him the opportunity to challenge the police ORG version . The applicant ’s appeal was rejected by a decision of CARDINAL DATE of LOC , which was satisfied that the decision was reasoned and lawful . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE an acting prosecutor of the Nizhniy Novgorod region annulled the refusal of DATE as unlawful and based on an incomplete inquiry and ordered an additional inquiry , finding that the applicant ’s statements contesting the police ORG version of events and alleging the use of violence by police officer PERSON had not been investigated .

On DATE a woman was attacked and robbed on the street .

On DATE police officers ( Sh . , NORP , P. , PERSON , PERSON . , NORP GPE ) were ordered to arrest the applicant , who was suspected of having committed the robbery . At TIME they apprehended the applicant on a street in NORP village in LOC . The applicant tried to flee because , according to him , he did not realise that those pursuing him ‒ who were dressed in plain clothes ‒ were police officers . PERSON . and NORP stopped him . According to the applicant , they tied his hands with a belt . The applicant was taken to the GPE town police department .

The applicant described the events at the police station as follows . He was led through an entrance for staff only to an office on the first floor and handcuffed . The police officers , in particular O. , demanded that he confess to having attacked the woman and stolen her gold chain and mobile phone . ORG punched the applicant twice in the chest , then hit the applicant on his feet with a rubber truncheon for TIME , while the other police officers , in particular A. , pinned him down on the floor , holding onto his arms and legs . He was then asked to stand up on his feet but was unable to do so , fell over and was hit by the truncheon on the left side of his torso . His feet were stepped on and he was suffocated with a plastic bag . During the suffocation , which lasted TIME , he fainted several times . The applicant wrote a “ statement of surrender and confession ” ( явка с повинной ) , as requested . O. threatened him with further torture if he did not reiterate his confession to an investigator .

The “ statement of surrender and confession ” , in which the applicant confessed to having attacked the woman and stolen her gold chain , was recorded by the police . The applicant also signed a document entitled “ explanation ” , drawn up by operative police officer NORP , with a detailed description of the circumstances of the crime .

At TIME an investigator drew up a record of the applicant ’s arrest as a suspect . The applicant gave selfincriminating statements when questioned as a suspect in the presence of a ORG - appointed lawyer , reiterating the confession statement he had given earlier to the police officers .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility ( the “ ORG ” ) in GPE town police department , where the following injuries on his body were recorded : bruises on the chest , an abrasion on the face on the left cheek bone , many abrasions on the waist , abrasions on both wrists and scars on the left forearm . The applicant stated that those injuries had been inflicted during his arrest .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was taken to a traumatology centre , where he was diagnosed with contusion of the left side of his chest and both wrists .

At TIME the applicant appeared before FAC of Orenburg , which ordered his detention on remand . The court decision referred to the investigator ’s submissions that the applicant ’s involvement in the crime had been established on DATE but he had been hiding from the lawenforcement authorities until his arrest on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE he was placed in pre - trial detention facility IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL , where bruises on the left side of his chest , both wrists and both feet were recorded .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer PERSON , who had been retained by his family , observed injuries on the applicant when visiting him in the detention facility . The applicant told her about his ill - treatment at the police station and the selfincriminating statements he had given as a result .

On DATE when questioned as an accused in the presence of lawyer PERSON , the applicant retracted his selfincriminating statements , explaining that he had given them on CARDINAL DATE as a result of his illtreatment by the police officers .

According to the applicant ’s mother and brother , and his acquaintance Zh . , the applicant had no injuries before his arrest .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint concerning his alleged ill - treatment by the police . The GPE town investigative committee carried out a preinvestigation inquiry . The operative police officers who had arrested the applicant on DATE gave explanations . They stated that as soon as the applicant had seen them he had run away and they had lost sight of him . When running away the applicant had fallen over several times . The police officers had split into several groups in order to find and stop him . Police officers PERSON . and NORP had caught up with the applicant , knocked him to the ground and handcuffed his hands behind his back . NORP suggested that any bruises or abrasions on the applicant ’s body could have been received as a result of his falling over when trying to run away from them . The police officers denied any deliberate use of force against the applicant either during his arrest or afterwards at the police station when they interviewed him .

On DATE an investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings pursuant to LAW for lack of the elements of a crime under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( on abuse of powers ) in the acts of the police officers . Relying on the police ORG statements , the investigator found that the police officers had acted lawfully in using handcuffs and “ blocking ” the applicant , a suspect in criminal proceedings , who had tried to escape and resisted his arrest . On DATE a deputy head of the NORP town investigative committee annulled the investigator ’s decision on the grounds that the inquiry had been incomplete , and ordered an additional inquiry . Subsequently CARDINAL more refusals to open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s allegations of illtreatment were issued by investigators and annulled by their superiors within the investigative committee for being based on incomplete inquiries .

On DATE the Promyshlenniy ORG of Orenburg convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The applicant pleaded guilty in relation to the assault against the victim but denied robbery , stating that he had given the selfincriminating statements at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings as a result of the ill - treatment by the police . The court considered his allegations of ill - treatment unfounded , relying on the results of the inquiry and one of the refusals to open a criminal case of DATE which had not at that moment been annulled . The court declared the applicant ’s selfincriminating statements of CARDINAL DATE admissible evidence . The applicant ’s “ statement of surrender and confession ” served as a mitigating circumstance . The judgment became final .

During CARDINAL of the additional rounds of the pre - investigation inquiry into the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment CARDINAL forensic medical expert reports were prepared , on DATE and DATE , based on the applicant ’s medical documents . The experts concluded that the applicant ’s injuries DATE the bruises on his chest and both feet , numerous abrasions on his waist , the abrasion on the face , and numerous abrasions and bruises on both wrists – could have been inflicted as a result of impacts from a hard blunt object shortly before his injuries had been recorded at the ORG and possibly on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE an additional forensic medical expert report was prepared at the investigator ’s request . The expert concluded that the applicant ’s injuries had originated from the impact of a blunt hard object with a limited contact surface ( with a limited narrow elongated contact surface in the case of the injuries to his wrists ) . The nature , location and mechanism of the origin of the injuries were consistent with the applicant ’s version . All his injuries could have been received as a result of illtreatment by the police officers as described by him . As regards the police ORG version , the abrasions on the applicant ’s face and waist could have been received as a result of the applicant falling over when running away during his arrest . The abrasions on the wrists could have been received as a result of the use of handcuffs . There was nothing , however , in the police ORG statements to explain the bruises on the chest and feet .

On DATE investigator PERSON of the GPE north administrative circuit investigative committee initiated criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s allegations under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( abuse of power with use of violence ) . He held that it was impossible to resolve the contradictions existing in the case - file material by means of a pre - investigation inquiry , and that it was therefore necessary to open a criminal case and examine the applicant ’s allegations by way of a criminal investigation , as there was sufficient data to indicate that a crime under LAW might have been committed .

DATE the acting prosecutor of the Promyshlenniy district of GPE annulled the investigator ’s decision as unlawful and illfounded , disagreeing with the investigator that there was sufficient data to indicate that a crime could have been committed . The prosecutor stressed that it was possible to implement urgent measures aimed at establishing the circumstances of alleged illtreatment within the framework of a preinvestigation inquiry , in particular by ordering forensic medical examinations . He noted that the pre - investigation inquiry had established that the applicant had received the injuries during his arrest as a suspect , and that in the final judgment in the applicant ’s criminal case the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment had been found unsubstantiated and that it was therefore impossible to question that finding .

The applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision . On DATE the Promyshlenniy ORG found the prosecutor ’s decision lawful . It held that under LAW the court did not have competence to assess whether the evidence or the presence of data indicating the elements of a crime constituted grounds for instituting criminal proceedings . That decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .

Following the prosecutor ’s decision , on DATE investigator PERSON refused to open a criminal case . His decision was annulled on DATE by a deputy head of the second procedural supervision department of the investigative committee of GPE for being based on an incomplete inquiry . Subsequently CARDINAL more decisions refusing to open a criminal case ‒ of DATE and DATE ‒ were also annulled for the same reason , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , by an acting head of the procedural supervision department of the GPE regional investigative committee .

In the investigator ’s decision of DATE , as in the previous decisions , it was found that the police officers had acted lawfully in using handcuffs and physical force , in particular for the purposes of “ blocking ” the applicant , who had actively resisted arrest . The applicant had received the injuries when trying to escape and resisting arrest . The injuries on his wrists had been caused by the lawful use of handcuffs .

On DATE the acting district prosecutor pointed to flagrant violations of the criminal procedural law , in particular the reasonable time requirement for examination of reports about crimes . He noted that , due to the lack of supervision and the acquiescence of the investigative committee management , the investigative committee had failed to conduct a thorough and objective inquiry for DATE ‒ thereby violating the applicant ’s rights ‒ and that this constituted a serious disciplinary offence .

According to a report by a psychologist who examined the applicant in DATE the applicant complained that , as a consequence of the police illtreatment , he suffered from frequent headaches , blood pressure abnormalities and sleep disturbances . He displayed signs that the illtreatment experienced by him and the lack of justice still affected him . He was diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder and was recommended treatment and rehabilitation measures .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence .

On DATE R. , an adolescent who was born in DATE , disappeared . On DATE he was found dead in a garden area of Cherkasy city . The body had numerous stab wounds , including in the neck and the chest .

On DATE the ORG Office of Cherkasy ( “ ORG Office ” ) opened a criminal investigation into the murder .

In TIME of the same day the police searched the applicant ’s home and seized CARDINAL knives , clothes and other items . Allegedly , on TIME the police took the applicant to the police station .

TIME and TIME on DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness in the murder case . During the questioning , which was not attended by a lawyer , the applicant told that earlier in DATE he and NORP had committed fraud in order to steal a mobile phone from CARDINAL of the applicant ’s acquaintances . The applicant stated that he did not know who had killed R.

DATE the ORG of Cherkasy instituted another set of criminal proceedings concerning the fraudulent theft of the mobile phone and questioned the applicant as a witness in that case . The applicant told the police how he and NORP had stolen the mobile phone . The questioning was carried out without a lawyer but in the presence of the applicant ’s father .

At TIME the police investigator ordered the applicant ’s arrest on suspicion of the fraudulent theft of the mobile phone . Further to the applicant ’s request , the investigator allowed lawyer PERSON to act as the applicant ’s defence counsel in that set of criminal proceedings . The lawyer signed the arrest report . Then , in the presence of the lawyer , the applicant refused to give any further statements , claiming that he was tired ; he asked the police to postpone the questioning until DATE .

Between CARDINAL.CARDINAL and TIME the applicant , in the absence of his lawyer , was questioned as a witness in the murder case . During the questioning the applicant gave further details concerning the theft of the mobile phone ; he also said that on DATE he had seen NORP only at school .

DATE the police searched the home of NORP , another acquaintance of the applicant . They seized knives , clothes and other items .

At TIME the police investigator ordered NORP ’s arrest on suspicion of murder , noting in the report that there had been brown spots on NORP ’s jacket .

Later that night NORP confessed that he had been present at the crime scene . He explained that on DATE the applicant had asked him to attend a meeting with NORP that day and to bring a knife with him ; during the meeting the applicant and NORP had started to fight ; NORP had assisted the applicant in knocking down NORP , who at a certain moment had attempted to run away ; the applicant had then stabbed NORP with the knife and cut his throat ; NORP had helped the applicant to hide the body .

The same night the applicant confessed to the murder . He was not assisted by a lawyer at that time . The applicant stated that on DATE he had had a meeting with NORP concerning the stolen mobile phone , which NORP had allegedly sold ; the applicant had asked NORP to be present at that meeting and to bring a knife ; as NORP had started to fight , the applicant had taken the knife , cut NORP ’s throat and caused other injuries to him .

According to the applicant , that confession resulted from the psychological pressure and physical ill - treatment that had been applied to him since his arrival at the police station .

CARDINAL on DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer , PERSON , concerning the theft of the mobile phone . The applicant repeated his earlier statements concerning that episode .

Between CARDINAL and TIME on DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of the same lawyer concerning the murder . At the beginning of that questioning session , the investigator announced that the applicant had written a confession and asked him to give more details concerning the circumstances described by the applicant in his confession . The applicant then described the murder in more detail .

In TIME on DATE the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the crime , in which he showed how he had murdered NORP On his return from the crime scene , the applicant was questioned again and he repeated his self - incriminating statements . The lawyer , PERSON , participated in those measures .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was moved to FAC of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and issued a report stating that he had no bodily injuries . The expert specified that the medical examination had been held in the Cherkasy Pre - Trial Detention Centre ( “ the GPE ” ) .

On DATE the investigator consolidated the criminal cases concerning the fraudulent phone theft and the murder in a single set of criminal proceedings . On DATE the court ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention .

On DATE the applicant dismissed lawyer PERSON and appointed lawyers PERSON and Dr. When questioned in the presence of those lawyers , he repeated his earlier self - incriminating statements .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the ORG to the GPE .

In DATE , during another round of questioning , the applicant specified that he had needed the knife for self - defence when meeting with NORP

On DATE a forensic medial expert issued a report stating that the applicant had sustained no bodily injuries during the preliminary detention . The expert based the report on the results of the applicant ’s medical examination of DATE .

On DATE another lawyer , PERSON , was admitted to the case , in addition to lawyers PERSON and Dr.

On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his CARDINAL lawyers . He changed his earlier statements and asserted that it was NORP who had repeatedly stabbed and killed NORP

On DATE a confrontation between the applicant and NORP was held . It was revealed that T. , an acquaintance of the applicant and NORP , had also been present at the scene of the murder .

On DATE the applicant dismissed lawyers PERSON and Dr. , leaving his representation to lawyer PERSON

On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON , who stated that it was the applicant who had stabbed NORP On DATE T. participated in a reconstruction of the events , in the course of which he confirmed his statements .

On DATE confrontations between T. and the applicant , as well as NORP and NORP , were held , during which ORG repeated his earlier statements .

On DATE , during another questioning session , the applicant maintained that it was NORP who had killed NORP

On DATE the investigation was completed . The applicant was charged with aggravated murder and fraudulent theft of a mobile phone ; NORP was charged as the applicant ’s accomplice in the murder . The applicant and his lawyer were provided with the criminal case file for examination .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , having examined the file , requested that NORP be charged as the perpetrator , arguing that the evidence in the file pointed at him . He asserted that the applicant ’s confession was the result of pressure by police officers and a clandestine agreement he had made with NORP The investigator refused the request as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the case was referred to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for the applicant and NORP to be tried .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for additional investigation noting , among other things , that the actions of the defendants and the role of each defendant had not been properly classified under the criminal law .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded and remitted the case to ORG for trial .

NORP On DATE the applicant was medically examined by a nephrologist , who issued a medical certificate specifying , among other things , that CARDINAL of the applicant ’s ribs on his right side showed signs of healed fractures , and it was recommended that he be examined by a traumatologist .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and fraudulent theft of a mobile phone and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court also found NORP guilty of concealment of murder and imposed a conditional sentence .

The prosecutor and the victim ’s relatives appealed against the judgment , claiming , inter alia , that the sentences were unduly mild . The applicant also appealed , claiming that his confession had been obtained by way of ill - treatment and in the absence of a lawyer . He argued that on TIME , when he had been in the police station , police officers had beaten him to the extent that he had lost consciousness and that when he had come to , they had continued to beat him . As he had earlier been threatened by NORP , the applicant had eventually given up and agreed to incriminate himself .

On DATE , in reply to the applicant ’s complaint of ill - treatment and violation of his procedural rights during the investigation , ORG informed him that those issues had been examined during the pre - trial investigation and the trial , and had been rejected as unfounded . On DATE ORG additionally informed the applicant that his complaints would be examined by ORG in the course of the review of the criminal case .

On DATE the applicant appointed lawyer PERSON to act as his defence counsel .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the governor of the ORG provided the applicant ’s lawyer with a list of the procedural measures undertaken in respect of the applicant during his detention in the ORG DATE . According to that list , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the applicant was not escorted anywhere from the ORG and he did not take part in any procedural measures on DATE .

On DATE the Chrekasy Regional Prosecutor ’s Office ordered ORG to carry out pre - investigation enquiries in respect of the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment .

On DATE the assistant prosecutor of ORG refused to open an investigation in connection with the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment , noting that there was no indication that the police officers had committed an offence . The decision referred to the statements of the police officers and the medical report of DATE . The applicant challenged the decision before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE as regards the applicant ’s conviction for murder and NORP ’s conviction for concealment of murder , and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration in that part . It noted that the case had not been properly examined by ORG as regards NORP ’s role in the incident . It further ordered careful scrutiny of the applicant ’s allegations that his rights had been violated . ORG then upheld the applicant ’s conviction for the fraudulent theft of the mobile phone .

DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the assistant prosecutor ’s decision of DATE and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries . It noted that the medical report of CARDINAL DATE was not reliable since the other evidence suggested that the applicant had not been escorted to the GPE for a medical examination on DATE . Moreover , the prosecutor ’s office had not properly examined whether the applicant had really sustained rib fractures as noted by the nephrologist in his certificate of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and DATE the assistant prosecutors refused to open an investigation in connection with the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment for the reason that the additional enquiries had not disclosed any element of crime on the part of the police officers . All those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unfounded and further enquiries were ordered .

During the trial the applicant requested a medical examination in order to determine his state of health and whether he was suffering from any illnesses . On DATE panel of forensic medical experts found that the applicant was suffering from chronic pyelonephritis , chronic duodenal ulcer , chronic cholecystitis and benign hyperbilirubinemia .

On DATE the assistant prosecutor of ORG again refused to open an investigation in connection with the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment , considering that there had been no elements of crime in the actions of the police officers .

On DATE ORG quashed the assistant prosecutor ’s decision of DATE as unfounded and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries . The court noted that ORG had not removed the contradictions between the medical report of DATE and the medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE , even though the supervising authorities , in quashing the earlier similar decisions , had highlighted that issue . ORG appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court further found that NORP had been an accomplice to the murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court noted that while the applicant had accused NORP of the murder , the evidence in the file was sufficient to establish that it was the applicant who had killed NORP The court relied on the statements of ORG and other oral , documentary and material evidence . It also cited the applicant ’s self - incriminating statements made during the pre - trial investigation in the presence of lawyers .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment , noting that during the trial the police officers had denied the alleged facts ; moreover , the medical reports of DATE and DATE refuted those allegations .

The applicant appealed against the judgment claiming , inter alia , that his defence rights had not been respected at the initial stage of the investigation , he had not been given access to a lawyer immediately after the arrest and his self - incriminating statements had been obtained as a result of ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG partly allowed the prosecutor ’s appeal against ORG decision of DATE . It noted that the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment concerned the admissibility and veracity of evidence in his criminal case . Therefore those issues had to be examined by ORG in the course of the applicant ’s trial and not by way of separate proceedings . The court further found that the judgment adopted in the applicant ’s criminal case had addressed the relevant issues . Accordingly , the proceedings on that matter had to be terminated . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , noting that the applicant ’s guilt had been well established by various pieces of evidence in the case file , including the self - incriminating statements that he had made during the pre - trial investigation . It dismissed as groundless the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment and of violations of his procedural rights .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE , noting that the relevant issues could not be examined concurrently with the trial in the applicant ’s criminal case .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant purchased a newly - built house , which has been her dwelling place since then . The sale took the form of CARDINAL agreements . The first was an agreement to purchase the land from the owners , PERSON and PERSON , for the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ) . The second was a building agreement under which she paid ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY ) to a building company called T and ORG The company was owned by Mr and PERSON , who were the only shareholders . The house was covered by a guarantee provided by a company known as ORG .

From the time she moved into the house in DATE , the applicant noted major structural defects in the property . She reported this to ORG in DATE . The company carried out an inspection of the house and , in DATE , offered to make certain repairs to it in accordance with the terms of the guarantee . According to the applicant , PERSON refused to issue an ORG certificate / guarantee upon the completion of the works , which would have been required if the applicant were to sell the house afterwards .

NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against the parties mentioned above , i.e. Mr and Mrs F ( first and second defendants ) , T and ORG ( third defendant ) , and PERSON ( fourth defendant ) . A fifth defendant was included in the action , a Mr Q , who , as an engineer , had certified that the house was in compliance with the relevant building regulations . In DATE , Mr Q ’s company was named as the sixth defendant . The applicant filed her statement of claim in DATE .

NORP Over DATE , she wrote several times to the solicitors for the first CARDINAL defendants requesting that they deliver their defence , on each occasion offering some additional time for this purpose . By DATE these defendants had not yet delivered their defence , at which point the applicant applied to ORG for a judgment in default of defence against them .

The statement of claim was not served on the fourth defendant until DATE , an oversight that the applicant attributed to her solicitors . The fourth defendant entered its defence to the plaintiff ’s claims in DATE .

In DATE ORG ordered the first CARDINAL defendants to deliver their defence within DATE . In DATE , the applicant agreed to allow DATE for them to file their defence .

NORP In DATE the applicant again applied to ORG for a default judgment against the first CARDINAL defendants , in light of their failure to enter their defence to the action . The defence was filed in DATE . While it was presented as the defence of the first and second defendants , it was clarified at a later stage in the proceedings ( in DATE ) , that it also concerned the third defendant .

On DATE , at the request of the applicant , the High Court gave a default judgment against the fifth and sixth defendants ( Mr Q and his company ) , holding them liable to the applicant in damages and for costs . According to the judgment , these sums were to be assessed at a future date . The judgment was never enforced . The applicant explained that she received legal advice to the effect that the practice was to hold over such judgments until the case had been heard and damages assessed . She added that at a later stage in the proceedings ( DATE ) she received legal advice that the default judgment had by then expired .

According to the applicant , in DATE her solicitors considered it more effective to engage principally with the fourth defendant , ORG , in light of the guarantee on the house . ORG made a proposal to the applicant in DATE to carry out remedial work on the house . Her solicitor sought clarification of the proposal , writing several times DATE when PERSON replied . The applicant indicated her readiness to accept the proposal . However , when subsequently requested to assign her rights to PERSON she sought clarification of the matter from the company , writing in DATE and again in DATE .

On DATE the High court granted a motion brought by the applicant ’s solicitor to cease to represent her . From that point onwards , she acted as a lay litigant .

On DATE the applicant gave notice of intention to proceed with her case to all of the defendants , a necessary step under domestic law where proceedings have been dormant for DATE ( LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG ) .

On DATE the High Court struck out the applicant ’s motion for a judgment in default of defence . The applicant sought to appeal this ruling to ORG , requesting additional time for this purpose in DATE , which ORG refused to allow on DATE .

On DATE the applicant again gave notice of her intention to proceed . The following month , she was informed by solicitors for ORG that the offer made in DATE was still valid .

On DATE the applicant once more issued notice of her intention to proceed . In DATE she sought a trial date and was informed that a hearing would take place in DATE , later moved to DATE . At that point it was suggested by a ORG judge that the parties could attempt to resolve the dispute by mediation . The applicant explored this option but did not pursue it when it became clear , by DATE , that some of the defendants were not interested . By this stage she had been informed that the sixth defendant had gone into voluntary liquidation . In DATE the applicant was informed that the case would be heard in DATE .

The case was not heard as a single action . Only the fourth and fifth defendants appeared ( the latter only briefly ) at the hearing that commenced on DATE . The first CARDINAL defendants , although given notice of the hearing , were not represented at it . ORG ruling , given on DATE , therefore only considered the claims against ORG and PERSON Q. The judge ruled that PERSON was liable to the applicant under the terms of the guarantee . Although the guarantee set an upper limit of ORG

On DATE ORG issued an order against the fourth defendant for the amount awarded to the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the same judge dealt with the case against the first CARDINAL defendants . She held them jointly and severally liable to the applicant in damages for MONEY .

Homebond sought to appeal the judgment and order against it . For this it was required to serve the notice of appeal personally on the applicant within DATE . According to the elements in the case - file , the company ’s solicitors tried unsuccessfully to arrange service on the applicant . They subsequently applied to ORG for additional time to appeal , which was granted on DATE .

The applicant brought a cross appeal , claiming that ORG had wrongly failed to award her legal costs .

NORP In DATE the applicant sought to have the appeal struck out for lack of prosecution by PERSON . This was not granted . Instead , ruling on DATE ORG granted her DATE to make her submissions on the question of costs . The applicant filed her submissions DATE .

On DATE many pending appeals were transferred from ORG to the new ORG , including the ORG appeal .

In DATE , ORG directed the parties to file their respective submissions within DATE , granting a short extension of this deadline the following month . On DATE it set a hearing date of DATE . On DATE it allowed ORG appeal and dismissed the applicant ’s cross appeal .

On DATE the first and second defendants filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of ORG .

On DATE ORG made a garnishee order attaching monies owed by a commercial bank to the first and second defendants in the amount of the damages awarded to the applicant .

On DATE ORG granted to the defendants a stay on the award of damages , on condition that they pay into court the sum of MONEY within DATE , failing which the stay would lapse . The payment was not made . An application by the defendants to put forward property deeds in lieu of money was refused by ORG on DATE .

The applicant obtained a judgment mortgage against the defendants on DATE .

On DATE ORG again refused an application from the defendants to stay the judgment of ORG . It also refused to lift the garnishee order and to vacate the judgment mortgage obtained by the applicant .

On DATE ORG refused an application from the applicant to strike the appeal out for lack of prosecution . It directed the defendants to file their books of appeal within DATE , failing which the appeal would be dismissed .

The appeal was transferred to ORG , which indicated on DATE that it would first consider the issue of the liability of the first and second defendants , and set a short deadline for the parties’ submissions on this .

The hearing took place on DATE . ORG set aside the judgment of ORG , holding that as a matter of law Mr and Mrs F were not liable to the applicant for the defects in the house since they had simply sold her the land and were not themselves party to the building agreement . There could only be a remedy against the third defendant , T and ORG , with whom the applicant had concluded the agreement in DATE .

The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG against this judgment . On DATE ORG refused to grant leave .