CASE OF TRUTEN v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sergiy Goncharenko;Síofra O’Leary
5. On 27 June 2006 a nineteen-year old woman, K., went to a party in Novy Sanzhary, a small town, and never returned home. 6. On 4 July 2006 her relatives reported her disappearance to the police. 7. Having questioned a number of witnesses, the police established that K. had left the party with her cousin R. and the applicant, one of his friends. At about 6 a.m. on 28 June 2006 K., R. and the applicant were seen drinking beer in a café. Several witnesses stated that while the applicant had been in the café he had carried a certain “pennant” of a mobile operator company. Shortly afterwards, a witness saw the applicant walking down a road with his arms around K. After that nobody saw K. 8. R. told the police that in the morning on 28 June 2006 he had left K. with the applicant and had gone to work. 9. On an unspecified date between 4 and 8 July 2006 the police questioned the applicant as a witness in connection with K.’s disappearance. During that questioning the applicant said that in the morning on 28 June 2006 he had left K. with two unknown men, had taken a taxi at a taxi stand and had gone home. Police officer I. brought the applicant to the taxi stand and asked the taxi drivers whether they had seen him on 28 June 2006. The taxi drivers did not recognise the applicant and the applicant could not indicate the car and the driver who had allegedly driven him on 28 June 2006. He also could not provide any details about the appearances of the car or the driver. 10. After the applicant’s questioning as a witness and the visit to the taxi stand (see paragraph 9 above), on 8 July 2006 the police detained the applicant for an “offence of minor public disorder” and placed him in a cell at the Novy Sanzhary Police Station. Before the Court and the trial court the applicant submitted that he had not committed any such offence and had been placed in the cell without any reasons. No further information about the nature of the offence in question was made available to the Court. 11. Before the Court the applicant stated that on 8 and 9 July 2006, while he had been kept in the cell, police officers had beaten him and threatened him urging him to “tell the truth” about K.’s disappearance. The material in the case file (namely, a copy of the applicant’s indictment) contains reference to the statements of police officers I. and F. saying that on 8 or 9 July 2006, while the applicant was in the cell at the Novy Sanzhary Police Station, they questioned him without a lawyer in connection with K’.s disappearance. On 10 July 2006 they questioned him again on the same issue without a lawyer and he confessed to K.’s murder, robbery and rape. 12. On 10 July 2006 during the questioning by I. and F. the applicant made a written statement saying that in the morning on 28 June 2006, after R. had left, he had decided to walk K. home. As he and K. had been walking down a road, he had tried to hug her but she had struck him in the groin. He had reacted by suddenly grabbing her by the neck with his two hands and holding her for several seconds. K. had fainted so he had let her go. After that he had dragged her body into some bushes, pulled down her knickers, bra and t-shirt and had raped her. After that he had taken 20 Ukrainian hryvnias (approximately 3 euros) from her wallet and had left. As he had been leaving, K. had been unconscious, but he had not known whether she had been dead or alive, he had had no intention to kill K. when he had grabbed her neck but he had realized that such actions could theoretically result in her death. I. and F. passed the applicant’s written confessions to investigator G. from the local prosecutor’s office. 13. Still on 10 July 2006 investigator G. opened a criminal case against the applicant for the rape, robbery and murder of K. and read him his procedural rights as a suspect, including his rights of defence. The applicant confirmed in writing that he understood his rights. G. also arrested the applicant on suspicion of murder, robbery and rape. 14. Some forty minutes later investigator G. carried out a reconstruction of events in the presence of the applicant, attesting witnesses B. and L., and a forensic medical expert, B. The applicant showed them the place where he had grabbed K. by the neck and her body lying in the bushes. The experts and the investigator inspected the crime scene and collected physical evidence. Investigator G. kept written minutes of the inspection of the crime scene. He noted that the corpse was heavily damaged from decay, worms and insects, it was lying face up with legs spread apart. K.’s bra, t-shirt and knickers were pulled down. Near the corpse the police found a pennant of a mobile operator company and K.’s open wallet. 15. On the same day after the reconstruction of events, investigator G. questioned the applicant in his capacity as a suspect without a lawyer being present. The applicant confirmed his previous statements. 16. In his application form the applicant stated that for the first time he had been allowed to see a lawyer on 22 August 2006. However, from the material in the case file, the authenticity of which the applicant did not dispute before the Court, it follows that on 11 July 2006 the investigator G. appointed lawyer V. to represent the applicant under the legal aid scheme and questioned the applicant in his presence. The applicant confirmed that he had strangled K. with both hands, taken 20 hryvnias from her wallet, put her body in the bushes, pulled down her clothes and raped her. 17. On 12 July 2006 S. was appointed as the applicant’s lawyer instead of V. at the request of the applicant’s father. The applicant confirmed in writing that he wished to have S. as his lawyer. 18. Later that day the police conducted a further reconstruction of events which the applicant, lawyer S., two attesting witnesses and two forensic medical experts took part in. The applicant confirmed that he had strangled K. with both hands, and that after she had fainted he had put her body in the bushes, taken 20 hryvnias from her wallet, pulled down her clothes and raped her. During the reconstruction, he told the medical experts that he had not been ill-treated by the investigative authorities. 19. On 14 July 2006 the applicant was questioned again without a lawyer. Before the questioning he noted in writing that he did not object to being questioned without a lawyer. He described the clothes he had worn on the day of the murder and said that after the murder the clothes had been washed. The police seized the clothes in question from the house of the applicant’s parents. 20. On 18 July 2006 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert, who observed no injuries and reported no complaints. 21. On the same date the investigator read the applicant his procedural rights as an accused, including his rights of defence. The applicant indicated that he wanted to have S. as his lawyer. 22. Later that day the applicant was charged with rape, robbery and murder. He was questioned in lawyer S.’s presence and confirmed having strangled K. with both hands, taken 20 hryvnias from her, put her body in the bushes, pulled down her clothes and raped her. 23. Forensic examinations conducted in July and August 2006 revealed that K. had died because she had been strangled by the neck on both sides. The forensic experts did not find on the corpse any forensic evidence (fingerprints, body fluids, genetic material, and the like) originating from the applicant. No such evidence was discovered on the crime scene either. The experts also found no forensic evidence of rape on the body because its soft tissues had been destroyed by decay and worms. However, in their report the forensic medical experts noted that the corpse’s position and the fact that the clothes on it had been displaced proved that K. had been raped. 24. On 9 September 2006 the applicant confirmed that he wished to have S. as his lawyer. Later that day he was questioned in S.’s presence and said that he had not intended to kill or rape K. He had only decided to rape her after she had fainted. He said that he had not taken 20 hryvnias from K.’s wallet. In fact, he had seen 20 hryvnias on the ground near her body, decided that they had fallen from his own pocket and had taken them. He also said that he had given his earlier statements voluntarily without being physically or psychologically coerced into doing so. 25. Witnesses questioned during the pre-trial investigation stated that the pennant found on the crime scene looked exactly as the one which they had seen on the applicant in the morning on 28 June 2006 (see paragraph 7 above). The applicant did not deny that it was the same pennant. 26. On 19 September 2006 the investigator granted the applicant’s request to have his mother appointed as his representative. 27. On the same day the applicant was informed that the pre-trial investigation was completed and the indictment was drafted. The applicant was allowed to study the case file with S. and his mother. 28. On 28 September 2006 the case was sent for trial to the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal. 29. On 16 November 2006, during a court hearing at which lawyer S. was present, the applicant stated that after K. had kicked him in the groin he had suddenly struck her on the neck with one hand. She had fainted and he had put her body in the bushes and left. He denied having strangled K. with his two hands, robbed her, pulled down K.’s clothes, and raped her. He submitted that the police had detained him several days before 10 July 2006, kept him in a cell and ill-treated him until he agreed to confess to the murder, robbery, and rape. 30. The court ordered the prosecution authorities to conduct a preinvestigation inquiry into the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. 31. On 5 February 2007 the Novi Sanzhary prosecutor’s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant’s complaint of illtreatment after questioning F. and I., who denied that they had subjected him to any pressure. Copies of the written minutes of the questioning of F. and I. are not available to the Court. 32. The applicant requested the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal to send his case for additional investigation on the ground that his right to defence had been restricted on 10 July 2006 when he had been questioned without a lawyer. On 23 October 2007 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal rejected that request noting that although the applicant’s right to legal assistance had indeed been restricted on 10 July 2006, the situation had been remedied because starting from 11 July 2006 the applicant had been represented by a lawyer and confirmed his self-incriminating statements in his presence. 33. The court questioned F. and I. and the attesting witnesses present during the reconstruction of events on 10 July 2006. They all denied that the applicant had been coerced. The forensic experts who had examined K.’s body were questioned by the court; they refuted the applicant’s claim that he had struck the victim once on the neck. They said that her injuries proved that she had died because she had been strangled by the neck on both sides, in the exact same way the applicant had described during the pre-trial investigation. 34. Being questioned at a court hearing in the presence of a lawyer the applicant stated that he had involuntarily killed K. by striking her with one hand, he had not strangled, robbed or raped her. According to him, the police had pulled down K.’s clothes, put her body face up and spread her legs because they wanted to accuse the applicant of her rape. 35. On 20 November 2007 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of robbery, rape, and murder of K. and sentenced him to fourteen and a half years’ imprisonment. The court found that the applicant had wanted to rob and rape K. and had strangled her in order to supress her resistance. The court referred to the statement which the applicant had made in the presence of his lawyer, the minutes of the inspection of the crime scene on 10 July 2006, the results of the forensic examination of K.’s body and other material evidence found on the crime scene, forensic expert’s statements made before the court, and statements of witnesses who on 28 June 2006 had first seen the applicant with R. and K. and then later with K. alone walking down the road. The court also noted that the pennant which the applicant had with him when he had been in the café (see paragraph 7 above) had been later found on the crime scene. The court also referred to the statements of witnesses who had seen that on 27 June 2006 K. had with her a note of 20 hryvnias. The conclusion that K. had been raped was made having regard to the position of K.’s body when it had been discovered by the police and the fact that her clothes had been pulled down. In its reasoning the court did not refer to the clothes which the applicant described on 14 July 2006 (see paragraph 19 above) as an evidence of his guilt. However, in the operative part of the judgment the court ordered the police to return the clothes to the applicant’s mother. As to the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment, the court dismissed this as unsubstantiated referring to the prosecutor’s decision of 5 February 2007. 36. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. He complained, in particular, that the trial court had relied on his confessions extracted under duress and without a lawyer. 37. On 27 March 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 20 November 2007. It noted, in particular, that when convicting the applicant the trial court had mainly relied on the statements which he had made in the presence of the lawyer S. on 9 September 2006. 38. In a letter to the Court in September 2009, the applicant described the conditions of his detention in Poltava SIZO. He stated that he had been held there since 27 August 2006 in a cell measuring approximately 15 square metres with three other inmates. The window had been covered by a plastic sheet making it impossible to open. Because of this no fresh air had entered the cell and in summer, the temperature would sometimes reach 45oC. He had never been allowed to leave the cell. The food had been inadequate. 39. The applicant submitted photos of a building which he claimed was Poltava SIZO. The windows appear to have bottom-hinged shutters made of transparent plastic. On the photographs the shutters are open, and there are several tens of centimetres of space between the window and shutter and the shutter and wall. 40. The Government submitted that during his detention in the SIZO, the applicant had been held in various cells and it was unclear which of them he had been referring to in his letter to the Court. From 29 December 2008 to 26 January 2009 he had been detained with three other detainees in cell no. 135, which measured 10.34 square metres. He had therefore enjoyed 2.6 square metres of personal space. From 26 January 2009 to 12 March 2010 he had been detained with three other inmates in cell no. 24, which measured 12.42 square metres. The space allocation for one person had therefore been 3.1 square metres. Both cells were equipped with four beds. The SIZO windows could be opened and had not been blocked with plastic sheets. The food the applicant had received met the standard set by domestic law. The Government did not deny that the applicant had been unable to leave the cells he had been held in.