CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2020

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 7 February 2020 Published on 24 February 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57123/14 Nichita IPATE against the Republic of Moldova and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern alleged ill-treatment inflicted upon the applicants or excessive use of force against them by State agents. It further concerns allegedly insufficient investigation into their complaints about such ill-treatment or excessive use of force, including mild punishment for the perpetrators or low compensation awarded to the victims. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, as described in the annex. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in each of these cases? In particular, was each applicant subjected to ill-treatment or excessive use of force by State agents (see, among many other authorities, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015 and Ciorap v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 5) , no. 7232/07, §§ 43-47 and 64, 15 March 2016)?   2.     Did the authorities conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ complaints within the meaning of Article 3 (see, for instance, Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, §§ 103-107, ECHR 2016)? In particular, in applications nos. 57123/14 and 83718/17, did the criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment ensure the preventive effect of legislation aimed at eliminating the phenomenon of torture by State agents (including the choice of the applicable provisions of the Criminal Code and the punishment for the alleged torturers)? Can the applicants in these two applications still claim to be victims of a breach of their Article 3 rights (see O.R. and L.R. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 24129/11, §§   73-82, 30   October 2018)?   APPENDIX No. Name and application no. Lodged on Complaints 1 57123/14 Ipate 26/07/2014 Article 3 – the applicant’s ill-treatment while in prison, very mild punishment for the offenders (impunity) and low amount of compensation 2 72190/17 Golovatiuc 22/09/2017 Article 3 – ill-treatment during arrest and insufficient compensation. 3 83718/17 Baban 23/11/2017 Article 3 – ill-treatment in prison and low compensation