CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 6 November 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2705/20 Vitaliy Nikolayevich BELEY against Ukraine lodged on 12 December 2019 communicated on 17 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the continued allegedly ineffective investigation of the applicant’s claims of ill-treatment by the police after the Court’s judgement in his case finding violations of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention. By judgment of 20 June 2019 in the case of Beley v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 34199/09, the Court found, inter alia , a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of torture the applicant was subjected to while in police custody in 2008 and lack of effective investigation into his related complaints.​ In particular, the Court noted that no full-scale investigation had been conducted into the applicant’s complaints which had been examined by way of preliminary inquiry that had been very limited in means and in which the applicant had no formal status. Furthermore, the investigation’s decisions to terminate the proceedings had been on numerous occasions quashed by the prosecutor or the court as being superficial and one-sided. The Court also noted serious delays in the conduct of investigative actions or court review of the decisions on the termination of the proceedings (paragraphs 74-76 of the judgment). In November 2019, relying on the Court’s judgment, the applicant lodged with the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and with the Minister of Justice a request to investigate his ill-treatment complaints. By a letter of 3 December 2019, the Kramatorsk Department of the State Bureau of Investigations informed the applicant that on 6 August 2019, upon the respective submission from the Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine, criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaints had been initiated for the “infliction of light bodily harm” and “abuse of power”. He was further informed that his request had been joined to the case file. On 12 December 2019 the applicant submitted the present application. Under Article 13 he complained of the State’s failure to investigate his complaints about ill-treatment even after the judgment of the Court. He noted, in particular, that he had not been informed of the start of the investigation until he asked about it and had not been granted a victim status therein, and that no actual investigative measures had been undertaken. As transpires from the applicant’s additional submissions to the Court filed in 2021, he was first invited to be questioned as a victim in July 2021. His motion for additional forensic medical examinations to establish the origin of the traumas he had sustained was refused, but the respective investigator’s ruling was quashed by the court on 10 November 2021. No other investigative actions have been undertaken according to the applicant. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES With respect to the period after the Court’s judgment in the case of Beley v. Ukraine [Committee] (no. 34199/09, 20 June 2019), did the investigating authorities comply with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did they act with the requisite diligence and promptness, and did they ensure the applicant’s effective involvement in the proceedings as a victim (see V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2) , no. 19421/15, 15   November 2018)?