CASE OF BUHANIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria
5. The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Chișinău. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. On 6 and 7 April 2009 large crowds gathered in the streets to protest against alleged electoral fraud. Hundreds of persons were arrested on 7 April 2009 and thereafter. 8. The applicant was arrested in the evening of 7 April 2009 and on the next day was sentenced by a court to ten days’ administrative detention. According to the applicant, he was punched in the eye by a plain-clothes police officer during his arrest and then subjected to ill-treatment in the Buiucani police station and subsequently at the General Police Directorate (“the GPD”). He was hit by groups of five to twelve persons, both in uniform and plain clothes, taken through a “death corridor” in which officers lined up and kicked or hit each victim as he or she passed through the corridor while being taken to or from the police station or, especially, the GPD. 9. He was also hit on both ears simultaneously (a form of torture known as “the telephone”), and struck on the head with fists and rubber sticks, all while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. He was also forced to keep his hands up for long periods of time while being hit periodically. He lost consciousness several times as a result of the ill-treatment. 10. The applicant was also allegedly held with eight other persons in a damp humid cell measuring 4 x 4 metres, where he had no access to daylight or any means of determining the time of the day or the date; he also had no access to the outside world, his relatives, a lawyer or a doctor. 11. No water was provided to him during the first twenty-four hours of his detention. Thereafter dirty water was distributed in unhygienic plastic bottles to be used by everyone in the cell. The applicant was subsequently diagnosed with hepatitis of an unknown origin. No food was provided. In the congested damp cell he had no opportunity to sleep for three days. There was no toilet in the cell and access to the toilet outside the cell was allowed at random and only after subjecting the person to humiliation. 12. Psychological ill-treatment was also allegedly used: the applicant was threatened with a lengthy term of imprisonment, with rape and death. He was subjected to interrogation by several persons simultaneously and was forced to sign blank papers. 13. On 11 April 2009 the applicant was seen by a doctor, who found a haematoma on his left eye. 14. On 15 April 2009 the applicant complained to the military prosecutor of ill-treatment by the police. 15. On 29 April 2009 the applicant was examined at the “Memoria” Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, a non-governmental organisation financed by the European Union and member of the General Assembly of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). On 15 December 2009 it issued an “Extract from the medical file” (Extras din Fişa Medicală) concerning the applicant’s examination. He appears to have undergone detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists. According to the document, the applicant was suffering from, inter alia, the consequences of a head injury, which included intracranial hypertension syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as a post-traumatic ear condition. 16. The prosecutor in charge of the case interviewed the police officers in charge of the applicant’s arrest, who declared that they had not used force against him. On 29 May 2009 the prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations as he found that there was no evidence that a crime had been committed. On 5 February 2010 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office, noting that he had been sent a copy of the prosecutor’s decision only on 22 January 2010. On 18 February 2010 the Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed the decision of 29 May 2009. 17. On 25 March 2010 the applicant challenged in court the decisions of 29 March 2009 and 18 February 2010. On 19 April 2010 the investigating judge at the Buiucani District Court annulled the two decisions and ordered that a supplementary investigation be carried out. The court found that the prosecutors’ decisions had been based only on the statements of the police officers accused of ill-treating the applicant. Moreover, while one of the prosecutors had found that force had been used to apprehend the applicant, which could explain any injuries on his body, the arresting officers had denied the use of any force. 18. On an unknown date prior to 10 May 2010 a formal criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations was initiated. 19. On 19 May 2010 the applicant was officially recognised as a victim in the investigation of the alleged crime. He described the circumstances of his alleged ill-treatment and participated in a photograph identity parade, but did not recognise any of the persons in the photographs. 20. On 25 May 2010 the prosecutor in charge of the case suspended the investigation on the basis that no suspect had been identified. 21. Following the Court’s communication of the present application to the respondent Government on 12 December 2011, on 8 February 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office recommended to the Chișinău Military Prosecutor that the proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaints should be reopened. The prosecutor considered that the decision of 25 May 2010 had been groundless and drew up a list of twelve investigative actions be taken in the new investigation of the complaint. This list included actions such as hearing S., who had been arrested together with the applicant; hearing the persons detained together with the applicant during the events of April 2009; hearing the doctor who had examined him at the Buiucani police station; obtaining various medical evidence concerning the applicant’s state of health prior to and after his detention in April 2009, including the report of the “Memoria” centre; examining the documents in the file concerning the accusations against the applicant; and organising cross-examinations involving both the applicant and the officers who had arrested him on 7 April 2009. 22. On 22 March 2012 the doctor who had examined the applicant at the Buiucani police station was heard as a witness. He declared that he had noted all the injuries present on the applicant’s body. He added that a police officer had been present in the room during the examination, but had not put pressure of any kind on the applicant. 23. On 26 March 2012 two officers were officially declared suspects in the case and were interviewed by a military prosecutor. The parties did not inform the Court of any further developments in this regard. 24. The relevant non-Convention material is summarised in Taraburca v. Moldova (no. 18919/10, §§ 33-37, 6 December 2011).