CASE OF KURIPKA v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)
André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Síofra O’Leary
4. The applicant was born in 1964. He is currently serving a prison sentence. 5. At the time of the events the applicant had previous convictions from 1983 and 1989. He was released from prison in October 2002. 6. Following his release from prison the applicant cohabited with T.B. in the village of Blahovishchenka, in the Zaporizhzhya Region. T.B.’s sister cohabited with Sh. in the same village. 7. On the evening of 24 April 2006 Sh. visited T.B. and the applicant. A conflict arose between him and the applicant, developing into a fight which T.B. attempted to settle down. At a certain point the applicant seized a knife and stabbed Sh. in the chest. The latter was taken to hospital, but he died shortly afterwards. 8. Later that evening the applicant was taken to the police station, where he was questioned in relation to the incident. He stated that he did not know who might have stabbed the victim. The applicant was not released and remained at the police station. 9. At 2.00 a.m. on 25 April 2006 the applicant confessed that he had had a fight with Sh., and that during the fight he had grabbed a knife and stabbed Sh. twice in the chest and abdominal area. 10. At 8.00 p.m. on 25 April 2006 the investigator drew up an arrest report in respect of the applicant. According to the report, the applicant was suspected of murder. 11. On 26 April 2006 the applicant was allowed to consult a lawyer for the first time. On that day he was questioned again. He explained that he had stabbed Sh. when falling down from the blows he had received from him. The stab had been unintentional. Later on the same day, in the course of a reconstruction of the events, the applicant showed how he had been beaten by Sh. and how he had fatally stabbed him. 12. On 27 April 2006 a court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 13. On 28 April 2006 the applicant was questioned again. Before the questioning, the applicant signed a waiver of his right to a lawyer. He then made statements about the incident which were similar to those which he had made earlier. 14. On 15 June 2006 the applicant was charged with aggravated murder and questioned again in the presence of his lawyer. That day, he stated that he had acted in self-defence, as Sh. had approached him with a glass bottle. 15. On 2 August 2006 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) commenced the trial of the applicant. During the trial, he stated that he had fatally stabbed Sh., who had approached him with a glass bottle, while trying to defend himself. 16. On 8 August 2006 the court found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court relied on the material, oral, expert and documentary evidence examined during the hearings. It referred in particular to the applicant’s self-incriminating statements made on 25 April 2006 and later. His allegation that he had acted in self-defence was rejected as unsubstantiated. 17. The applicant and his lawyer appealed, claiming that the conviction was unfounded and that his right to a lawyer had not been properly ensured. 18. On 21 December 2006 the Supreme Court considered the applicant’s case and upheld the conviction. However, having regard to his behaviour immediately after the incident, namely the efforts he had made to provide the victim with medical assistance, it reduced the sentence to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 19. On three occasions between August and October 2006 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant to have family visits. 20. On 16 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Court of Appeal, asking for permission to correspond with his relatives. His application was registered by the SIZO mailing service under number 2/k517. No reply followed. 21. On 2 October 2006 the applicant made the same application, which was registered by the SIZO mailing service under number 2/k-579. No reply followed. 22. On 12 October 2006 the applicant complained to a prosecutor in that regard, but received no response.