CASE OF MEREUTA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
5. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Opaci. 6. On 29 July 2009, the applicant was celebrating his birthday with a group of friends by a lake when they were attacked by S. who was intoxicated and carrying a hunting rifle. S. was angry because the applicant and his friends had allegedly ill-treated his uncle earlier. During the conflict, S. hit one of the applicant’s friends with the barrel of his gun and fired four gunshots at the group’s cars parked nearby. The applicant attempted to prevent S. from continuing shooting but was shot from a distance of some five metres into his right calf. The applicant’s repeated attempts to disarm S. resulted in his receiving two more gunshots from a very short distance into his already wounded leg. 7. As a result of the attack the applicant sustained serious injuries to his right leg which led to amputation of his leg above the knee. 8. On 31 July 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against S. on charges of hooliganism with the use of a firearm resulting in the causing of severe harm to the applicant’s health. 9. Between 1 and 10 August 2009 twenty-five witnesses were questioned and by 12 September 2009 most of the investigative measures were completed. 10. On 12 August 2009 S. was declared a suspect in the criminal proceedings and on 29 December 2009 he was indicted. 11. On 12 January 2010 S. was heard as an accused. He acknowledged his guilt, but refused to make any declarations. 12. On 23 February 2010 the criminal case-file was remitted for examination from the Căușeni Police Station to the Anenii Noi Police Station. 13. Between March and December 2010 the Anenii Noin all the investigative measures. 14. On 14 December 2010 the case-file was transmitted to the Anenii Noi prosecutor’s office with the proposal to be remitted to a court for consideration. 15. On 20 December 2010 both the applicant and his representative were notified of the completion of the criminal investigation. 16. On 30 December 2010 the prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against S. The prosecutor’s office found that according to Article 63(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person’s status as suspect cannot be maintained longer than three months. Since S. was indicted on 29 December 2009, that is four months and seventeen days later, the indictment was unlawful. Therefore, all charges against S. were dropped and the proceedings discontinued. 17. On 18 February 2011 at the request of the applicant’s representative, the prosecutor general’s office decided to annul its previous decision of 30 December 2010, and to resume the criminal investigation on the ground that new facts had been discovered. 18. On 31 March 2011 the Rascani District Court upheld S.’s objection against the prosecutor’s decision of 18 February 2011, ordering its annulment. The applicant and his representative were not summoned or informed about the proceedings.