5.  The applicant, Mr Sergiu Sochichiu, was born in 1973 and lives in Chişinău. At the time of the events he was a real estate agent. 6.  On 17 January 2007 the applicant was arrested by four plainclothes police officers in front of his daughter’s kindergarten. According to the applicant, he was sitting in his car when four armed people approached him. When he got out of the car he received a blow to his head and fell down, injuring his face. His hands were then tied with his belt and he was taken to a police station in a police car. 7.  According to the Government, the applicant attempted to lock the doors of his car and to flee when approached by the police officers. When taken out of the car, he engaged in a fight with one of them. The Government submitted that the arresting officers had had no other option but to apply force in order to immobilise him. 8.  The Government submitted a video showing a part of the applicant’s arrest. The video starts with images from a moving car approaching two other cars. Near those cars, the applicant can be seen lying with his face on the ground surrounded by several men in plain clothes. One of the men is pressing his foot on the applicant’s head. The applicant does not move and his hands are placed on the ground. He is asked his name and he answers. One of the men asks another man whether he has handcuffs and receives a negative answer. Then he starts taking the applicant’s belt off. The applicant cooperates and raises his midsection from the ground in order to allow the police officer to take off his belt. Then, the man with his foot on the applicant’s head brushes off his lower trouser leg with his hand, without removing his foot from the applicant’s head. Then that man takes his foot off the applicant’s head and another man orders the applicant to put his hands behind his back. The applicant complies and one of the men starts tying his hands with his belt. At that point, one of the men bends down to speak to the applicant and asks what happened and the applicant answers that his teeth have been knocked out. That man then tells the others that two of the applicant’s teeth are missing. One of the men says with a sarcastic tone: “they will grow back, won’t they?” The applicant says that they will not. Then the applicant is lifted from the ground and taken to a white car. On his way, one of the arresting men shouts a swear word at the applicant. The applicant gets into the car, after which the video stops. The video lasts almost two minutes. 9.  One of the arresting officers drove the applicant’s car to the police station. The applicant’s wife and daughter witnessed his arrest. According to the applicant, his arrest was also witnessed by many other parents who were taking their children home from kindergarten. This submission was disputed by the arresting officers during the criminal proceedings against them. 10.  At the police station the applicant was informed that he was suspected of fraud connected with the sale of an apartment belonging to a third party. After two hours, the applicant’s lawyer was called and then an ambulance. The doctors found injuries on the applicant’s face, in particular on his lips and jaw and concluded that he needed inpatient examination and treatment. It appears that on the same day the applicant’s lip was stitched. The applicant’s car was returned to his family the next day. 11.  On the same day as the applicant’s arrest the arresting officers drafted a record of his arrest, which stated that the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of fraud. The record did not contain any information concerning resistance by the applicant to arrest. 12.  On 19 January 2007 the applicant was taken before an investigating judge, to whom he complained of being ill-treated at the time of his arrest. The investigating judge forwarded his complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office and ordered the applicant’s forensic medical examination. 13.  In a report dated 20 January 2007 and bearing number 348, a forensic doctor observed that the applicant had presented with a bruise on his lower lip and bruises and scratches on his jaw and upper limbs. According to the doctor, the injuries had been caused by a blunt object and needed between six and twenty-one days of medical treatment. 14.  The criminal case file also contains two forensic reports, one dated 19 January 2007 and bearing number 350 and another one dated 22 January 2007 and bearing number 369, according to which one of the arresting officers had presented with a bruise on his left arm and scratches on his hands. It does not, however, appear that the police officer in question made any complaints against the applicant or that the applicant was charged with the offence of resisting arrest. 15.  Also on 20 January 2007 the Buiucani District Court rejected the prosecutor’s request to remand the applicant in custody and instead ordered the applicant’s house arrest for a period of ten days. 16.  Between February 2007 and April 2009 prosecutors from the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers involved on three occasions. Their decisions were quashed each time by court orders or by the Prosecutor General’s Office. Each time, the prosecutors’ rationale was that the police had applied force in order to counter the applicant’s resistance and that the use of force had been justified. In support of this conclusion, the prosecutors relied on forensic report no. 350 dated 19 January 2007.
In particular, on 16 February 2007 prosecutor G., who was the prosecutor in charge of the criminal investigation against the applicant, refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the officers. That decision was quashed on 6 June 2007 by a deputy Prosecutor General on account of the fact that prosecutor G. had not been independent.
On 6 July 2007 prosecutor H. refused to initiate criminal proceedings. His decision was quashed by the Prosecutor General’s Office on 28 March 2008 on account of the fact that the investigation had not yet been completed.
On 15 July 2008 prosecutor P. refused to initiate criminal proceedings. His decision was quashed by the Râşcani District Court on 21 April 2009 on account of the fact that prosecutor P. had failed, inter alia, to examine the video of the applicant’s arrest and to question the applicant’s wife and the other people who had witnessed the applicant’s arrest. 17.  On 20 May 2009 prosecutor R. from the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office formally initiated criminal proceedings against the officers involved, but they were discontinued on 14 December 2009. Prosecutor R. based his decision to discontinue the proceedings on the same grounds as the previous decisions not to institute proceedings. He did not question the applicant’s wife, arguing that she had refused to talk to him, and did not identify other possible witnesses, arguing that due to the time elapsed since the date of the arrest, it was impossible to identify such witnesses. The decision of prosecutor R. was quashed by the Râşcani District Court on 21 June 2010, when the court ordered the reopening of the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the Prosecutor’s Office had failed to determine whether the force applied against the applicant had been proportional to the intensity of his resistance and to question the applicant’s wife, who had been present at the arrest, and to examine the video of the arrest. 18.  On 30 December 2010 prosecutor R. questioned the applicant’s wife, who stated that she had been coming out of the kindergarten with her and her husband’s three-year-old daughter when they had witnessed her husband’s arrest by four men armed with guns. She stated that when the applicant had gotten out of the car, the men had started beating him and had thrown him to the ground face down. Then they had tied his hands and had taken him away in their car. One of them had driven off with the applicant’s car. She also stated that the event had been witnessed by many other parents who had been taking their children home from kindergarten. 19.  On the same date prosecutor R. again closed the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment. In his decision, the prosecutor did not give any consideration to the statement given by the applicant’s wife. Relying on the statements of the accused officers to the effect that the applicant had resisted arrest and on forensic report no. 350 dated 19 January 2007, the prosecutor concluded that the use of force by the arresting officers had been justified. The prosecutor also explained the fact that the number borne by the forensic report dated 19 January 2007 was higher than the report dated 20 January 2007 as a technical error. The applicant appealed against this decision. 20.  On 22 April 2011 the Râşcani District Court quashed the decision of 30 December 2010 and ordered the reopening of the criminal proceedings. The court found numerous flaws in the investigation, among which were the disappearance of the original video cassette on which the arrest of the applicant had been filmed and the excessive length of the investigation. 21.  On 18 July 2011 the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office again closed the criminal proceedings on similar grounds as the previous occasions. The applicant challenged this decision before the Râşcani District Court. However, on 27 October 2011 the applicant’s appeal was finally dismissed. 22.  As to the criminal proceedings against the applicant, it appears from the statements of the parties that he spent one hundred and fifty days under house arrest and that no conviction has been delivered to date.