SKANT v. UKRAINE
Inadmissible
André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev
1. The applicant, Mr Gleb Davidovich Skant, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Kharkiv. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms A. Mukanova, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented, most recently, by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna, of the Ministry of Justice. 3. After 7 p.m. on 18 October 2008 the applicant went out onto the staircase landing in front of his flat to talk to an acquaintance of his, Y.K., a user of injection drugs. According to the applicant, they spoke about computer games. According to Y.K., the applicant asked him to inject him with a syringe which the latter provided. According to a subsequent forensic analysis, the syringe seized from Y.K. contained an illegal drug, but the relevant amount was below the level needed for a prosecution. 4. In the course of the subsequent investigation it emerged that the residents in the applicant’s block of flats had for some time observed drug use on the staircase landings in the building. Having seen the applicant and Y.K. on the landing, and suspecting them of drug use, O.Ya. – the grandson of a lady who lived two floors above the applicant – contacted his friend D.T., a police officer, and asked him to intervene. 5. While the applicant and Y.K. were standing on the landing and, according to Y.K., while he was giving the applicant the injection, they were approached by D.T., accompanied by O.Ya. and a certain I.L. D.T. explained that he had brought along the other people as potential witnesses. 6. According to all those involved in the incident other than the applicant, D.T. identified himself as a police officer and enquired what the applicant was doing. According to the applicant, D.T. did not identify himself. The applicant attempted to open the door to his flat and retreat. 7. According to the applicant, he was then hit on the head, kicked and punched, and those attacking him also attempted to put a syringe in his pocket. He cried for help. The attackers pushed him to the floor and continued to kick him. 8. According to all the other people involved in the incident, including Y.K., the applicant resisted D.T. when the latter tried to stop him from retreating into his flat. He started struggling with D.T., but D.T. eventually overpowered him and pushed him to the ground face down. I.L. helped D.T. hold the applicant down. 9. The applicant cried for help. D.T. called his colleague, officer O.Z., for backup. I.P., a neighbour, subsequently stated that, after hearing cries for help, he went up one floor from his flat and saw the applicant, whom he knew by sight, lying on the ground and being held down by two people while struggling. A third person assisting with the arrest was holding Y.K., who was standing facing the wall. Other than that, nobody was moving. I.P. saw O.Z. arrive and handcuff the applicant. 10. The applicant and Y.K. were taken out of the building. G.D., a neighbour, saw them on the ground floor and did not see any ill-treatment. 11. According to the applicant’s submissions to the Court, immediately before putting him in the car, the police officers hit him repeatedly. Y.K. and another neighbour, N.Zh., saw no ill-treatment. 12. The police officers took the applicant and Y.K. to the Kharkiv Kyivsky District police station in the same car, and took the applicant to the third floor without registering him at the front desk. 13. According to the applicant, in the car and at the police station the police continued to beat him. They also threatened to continue beating him and rape him once they were in one of the offices at the station. The officers and all the other people present, including Y.K., denied these allegations. 14. It is undisputed that when the applicant was taken to the third floor of the station, and as D.T. was opening an office door, the applicant either kneed or headbutted him in the face, ran along the corridor to a window and jumped out, breaking the glass with a part of his body, either his head or shoulder. On 24 October 2008 a forensic medical expert recorded that D.T. had a haematoma on his face, diagnosed him with concussion, and stated that the injuries were consistent with D.T.’s account that he had been hit by the applicant. 15. The applicant was found lying on a lawn and was taken to hospital. 16. On 24 October 2008 a forensic medical expert recorded that, based on the applicant’s personal examination and hospital records, he had a wound on the crown of his head which had scabbed over, a wound on his right elbow which had scabbed over, redness in his waist area on the right and a circular bruise on his left wrist. He was diagnosed with a closed head trauma, concussion and several fractures. The expert concluded that, other than the wrist bruise, all of the injuries could be explained by the applicant’s jump through the window and fall, and the bruise could be explained by the handcuffing. 17. On 21 November 2008, in connection with his conduct in the course of his arrest, the Kharkiv Moskovsky District Court convicted the applicant of the administrative offence of disobeying a police officer, and gave him a fine. 18. On 3 September 2012 the applicant was recognised as a Category 3 disabled person (the least severe category of disability). 19. On 18 October 2008 an inspection of the scene of the incident at the police station was conducted. A shattered window and shards of glass were discovered, spread over the ground and covering a wide area. 20. On 20 October 2008 the applicant’s mother lodged a formal complaint regarding the alleged ill-treatment. On 21 October 2008 an investigator of the Kharkiv Kyivsky district prosecutor’s office took a statement from her. The statement was mainly based on the applicant’s account, which she had heard while visiting him in hospital. 21. On 23 October 2008 the applicant told the investigator that he had been attacked by strangers on the landing of his building. He had hit back and struggled with them for two minutes. They had pushed him to the ground and hit him. They had then hit him in the car on the way to the police station, stopping several times on the way to do so. When they had taken him to the third floor of the police station, somebody had threatened him with rape. He had not been able to bear it, had hit one of the officers, and had jumped out of the window. 22. On 24 October 2008 the applicant and D.T. underwent forensic medical examinations, in accordance with the investigator’s instructions (see paragraphs 14 and 16 above). Subsequently, the investigator took a number of statements from various witnesses (see, in particular, paragraph 11 above) and the applicant. 23. On 28 October 2008 a certain Ms T.O. told the investigator that on the night in question she had been collecting empty bottles near the applicant’s building when she had seen, at a distance of about fifteen metres, six strangers take two arrestees to a car. One person, with his hands handcuffed behind his back, had been hit and kicked in the kidneys, neck and head for about ten minutes while he screamed for help. Before putting him in the car one of the assailants had said, “Don’t forget to plant [that thing on him]” (“Что б не забыли подложить”). When she had called the applicant’s mother the next day to tell her about the incident, she had learned that the person she had seen had been the applicant. T.O. said that she was the applicant’s mother’s former classmate, and made other statements indicating that she knew the family well. Neither the applicant nor his mother mentioned in their initial statements (see paragraphs 20-22 above) the events which, according to T.O., had happened in front of the police car. 24. On 30 October 2008 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings, for lack of corpus delicti in the police officers’ actions. On 8 November 2008 the Kharkiv regional prosecutor’s office overruled that decision, instituted criminal proceedings in relation to suspected abuse of power by the police officers, and entrusted the investigation to an investigator at the regional office. On the same day the police officers were questioned, and denied subjecting the applicant to any ill-treatment. 25. On 15 November 2008 the applicant was recognised as an aggrieved party in those proceedings, and was questioned in that capacity. 26. In the course of the subsequent criminal investigation, all the witnesses mentioned above and several others were repeatedly interviewed, and several formal confrontations between witnesses and on-site reconstructions were held, with the participation of the applicant and the police officers. In particular, on 6 March 2009 the applicant was questioned about his personal history. He stated that he had previously participated in kickboxing and karate tournaments, and in 1994 had been a karate champion in Ukraine. He also stated that in 2000 he had changed his name from Maksim Vladimirovich Inyutin to Gleb Davidovich Skant, since this was a requirement for converts to Islam. He did not attend any church in particular, but felt closest to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. 27. The investigator also obtained the opinions of a number of experts. In particular, on 21 April 2009 a psychologist concluded that the applicant’s conduct might have been driven by such pronounced personality traits as an appetite for risk, a heightened sense of injustice, a strong will, and a tendency to become easily insulted. The expert noted that, according to the applicant, he had thought about jumping out of the car on the way to the police station. On 30 June 2009 a panel of medical experts confirmed the findings of the examination of 24 October 2008 (see paragraph 16 above), and concluded that the applicant’s injuries were inconsistent with his account of ill-treatment. 28. On 30 September 2010 the investigator decided not to bring charges against the individuals who had been involved in the incident (D.T., O.Z., O.Ya. and I.L.), for lack of corpus delicti in their actions, and on 2 October 2010 the investigator decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings, finding that there were no sufficient grounds to bring any charges. The investigator concluded, in particular, that the applicant’s account diverged from the accounts of all witnesses and the medical evidence, while the officers’ accounts did not. As to T.O., her account contradicted the consistent statements of other disinterested parties, and she was the applicant’s mother’s former classmate. 29. On 24 November 2010 the Kharkiv Chervonozavodsky District Court overruled the decision of 2 October 2010 and sent the case back for further investigation, stating in particular that the investigator had failed to take into account T.O.’s statements. 30. In the course of the subsequent investigation, the investigator repeatedly attempted to contact the applicant, without success, and then ordered the police to look for him. According to a police report of 7 April 2011, the applicant’s parents and neighbours said that he had moved in with his girlfriend. Although he visited them from time to time, his parents maintained that he had not left an address. They promised to inform the applicant that the investigator was looking for him when they next saw him. The investigator’s efforts to contact the applicant through his lawyers were equally unsuccessful. 31. On 31 May 2011 the investigator again discontinued the criminal proceedings, coming to the same conclusions, particularly concerning T.O.’s statements. According to the Government, the applicant was notified of that decision on the same day by letter. According to the applicant, he learned of it on 3 June 2013.