CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Communicated on 7 December 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 71568/14 Gennadiy Borisovich KONONOV against Ukraine lodged on 28 October 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Gennadiy Borisovich Kononov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk. He is represented before the Court by Mr S.   Moysak, a lawyer practising in Nikopol. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The applicant’s arrest and the criminal proceedings against him On 19 November 2010 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of the corruption of minors. The arrest took place in the presence of one of the victims and her father, who also attempted to intervene and apprehend the applicant. The victim subsequently stated that, in the course of arrest, the applicant had been pushed to the ground. The victim’s father stated that he had punched the applicant while trying to apprehend him. According to the applicant, at the police station three police officers ill-treated him to force him to confess to offences he had not committed. In particular, he alleges that they hit him on his arms, legs and ribcage, cut off his air supply using a gas mask, fully stripped him and threatened him with castration and rape. At 3 p.m. on 21 November 2010, the applicant’s arrest was documented with an arrest report. On the same day, the applicant wrote two surrender statements for the police, admitting a robbery. On 24 November 2010, noting that the applicant was suspected of robbery and the corruption of minors, the Nikopol Court remanded him in custody. On 27 November 2010 the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who noted that he had a haematoma on his face and abrasions and haematomas on his upper and lower limbs ( кінцівки ). The applicant was tried in Nikopol Court (the trial court) on charges of robbery and the corruption of minors. In the course of the trial the applicant complained that there had been a delay in recording his arrest, and that he had been ill-treated. On 25 September 2012 the trial court convicted the applicant of robbery and the corruption of minors, but after several remittals the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on 8 July 2014 and remitted the case to the same trial court for a retrial. On 11 August 2014 the prosecutor dropped the robbery charges. The applicant pleaded guilty to the remaining charges. On 12 August 2014 the trial court convicted the applicant of the corruption of minors and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. It ordered that the term of imprisonment be counted from 19 November 2010 as the date of de facto arrest. B.     Investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations On 1 February 2011 the applicant’s parents complained to the Nikopol prosecutor regarding his alleged ill-treatment by the police. On 10 February 2011 the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against any police officers. On 20 April and 4 August 2011 the trial court asked the prosecutor’s office to investigate the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations raised in the course of the trial. On 9 August 2011 the prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings. On 12 January 2013 the prosecutor’s office opened an investigation into the applicant’s allegations, but on 8 October 2013 this was discontinued on the grounds that it had not been established that an offence had been committed. On 11 June 2015 the Nikopol Court overruled the decision of 8 October 2013. It appears that on the date of the most recent communication from the applicant, 14 August 2015, the investigation was still ongoing. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention of ill ‑ treatment by the police and that there was no effective investigation of his complaints. Under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention he complains that his detention went unrecorded between the moment of his arrest on 19 November 2010 and 3 p.m. on 21 November 2010 and under Article 5   § 3 that he was not brought before a judge until 24 November 2010. Under Article 5   § 5 and Article   13 of the Convention, he complains that he had no right to compensation and no effective domestic remedy in that respect.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by the police, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or 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?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, as regards the period between his arrest on 19 November 2010 and 3 p.m. on 21 November 2010?   4.     Was the applicant brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   5.     Does the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article   5   §§   1 and 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?