[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> YAROVENKO v. UKRAINE - 24710/06 - HECOM [2012] ECHR 1735 (24 September 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/1735.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 1735

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

FIFTH SECTION

Application no.24710/06
Yuriy MikhaylovichYAROVENKO against Ukraine
lodged on 11 June 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Mikhaylovich Yarovenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a life sentence in prison.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and post-conviction events

On 22 September 2004 an elderly couple was robbed and murdered in their apartment.

Following the incident, the police allegedly tapped the applicant’s phone and established thereby the applicant’s involvement in the incident.

On 25 September 2004 the applicant was arrested. His accomplice was arrested on 4 October 2004. Following the applicant’s arrest he was allegedly beaten up and tortured with the purpose confessing to the crimes.

On 23 November 2005 the Court of Appeal of Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the first-instance court”) found the applicant and his accomplice guilty of aggravated robbery, two counts of murder, and unlawful possession of firearms. The court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment with confiscation of property. The accomplice was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property.

 The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court which on 20 April 2006 upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

Following his conviction the applicant asked the first-instance court to be allowed to study the case file and obtain copies of the court decisions in his case. In reply, the first-instance court informed the applicant that he had to make such requests to the prison authorities.

On 7 August 2006 the first-instance court additionally informed the applicant that he had been given copies of the court decisions in his case and had studied the case file during the criminal proceedings.

On 30 August 2006 the applicant attempted to send a letter to the Court via the postal service of the detention facility where he was held. During the next few days the administration of the facility requested the applicant to rewrite the letter so that the conditions of his current detention would not be mentioned. On 6 September 2006 they returned the letter to the applicant refusing to send it on.

Following an enquiry by the applicant’s mother in 2011, the prison authorities informed her that on 21 December 2011 the applicant had familiarised himself with the materials of the file at prison and had not requested a copy of any document.

2. Conditions of detention

The applicant suffers from astigmatism since his childhood. In 1995 he contracted tuberculosis.

Following his arrest, on 25 September 2004 the applicant was placed in Simferopol Temporary Detention Centre (“the ITT”) where he was held in a cold and damp cell located in the basement. Because of these conditions his tuberculosis progressed but no medical assistance was available.

On 25 October 2004 the applicant was transferred to hospital where he was treated till 5 November 2004. He was then returned to the ITT and placed in a cell similar to the previous one.

On 19 November 2004 the applicant was transferred to the tuberculosis department of the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 15 (“the Simferopol SIZO”) where the windows were covered with polyethylene sheets, instead of glass. As a result, in winter the cell was too cold so that the applicant had to sleep in a coat. Moreover, the food was inappropriate.

Since 29 June 2005 the applicant was held in a cell alone due to health reasons (active form of tuberculosis).

On 23 November 2005 he was moved to a solitary cell scarcely letting in daylight or fresh air while there was no artificial ventilation. The toilet was not separated and smelled of excrement. There was no hot water supply; cold water was supplied irregularly.

Between 17 March 2006 and 1 May 2006 the applicant was held in the Dnipropetrovs’k Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 3 and the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 13 for ensuring his appearance before the Supreme Court considering his appeal.

On 2 May 2006 the applicant was transferred back to the Simferopol SIZO and placed in solitary cell. The medical treatment was insufficient. The applicant complained to the prison authorities about the conditions of his detention, but to no avail.

On 4 November 2006 the applicant was transferred to Kherson Prison no. 61 where he was not provided with requisite medical treatment. Due to the dim light in the cells where the applicant was held his sight deteriorated badly. The applicant also developed new illnesses: myocardial dystrophy and cardiac insufficiency. He did not receive appropriate medical treatment in respect of these illnesses.

The applicant is currently detained in that prison.

B.  Relevant domestic law

1. The Pre-Trial Detention Act of 30 June 1993

Section 8 of the Act provides, inter alia, that in exceptional cases a pre-trial detainee may be held in solitary cell for medical reasons on the basis of decision of the authority in charge of the detainee’s criminal case or the governor of the pre-trial detention centre, approved by the prosecutor.

2. Code on the Enforcement of Sentences of 11 July 2003

Section 151 § 1 of the Code provides that, as a rule, prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment shall be held in cells by two persons. Life prisoner may be held in solitary cell on the basis of, inter alia, the medical conclusion and the relevant decision of the prison governor.

3. Combating Tuberculosis Act of 5 July 2001

Section 17 of the Act provides that persons suffering from tuberculosis detained in prisons should be treated in specialised prison hospitals.

COMPLAINTS




       The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was beaten up and tortured by police officers after his arrest.




       The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment during his detention.




       He further complains that the physical conditions of his detention, including the fact of his prolonged solitary confinement, amounted to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.




       The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that on various occasions he was ill-treated and humiliated by prison guards.




       The applicant complains that his arrest and pre-trial detention was contrary to Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention.




       Relying on Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention the applicant complains that his post-conviction detention is unlawful.




       The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 and Article 13 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, that the courts misinterpreted the facts, wrongly applied the law, failed to ensure his rights to examine the case file and witnesses and the right to legal assistance.




       The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the police unlawfully tapped his mobile phone before his arrest.




       Relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 the applicant complains that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by the prison authorities on the ground of his illnesses.




    The applicant further complains of the violation of Article 17 of the Convention arguing that the law-enforcement authorities abused their powers.




    The applicant complains under Article 34 of the Convention that the administration of the Simferopol SIZO refused to dispatch his letter of 30 August 2006 to the Court.




    The applicant complains under Article 34 of the Convention that the authorities refused to familiarise him with the case file and provide him with the copies of certain documents which were necessary for his application to the Court.




    Under the same Convention provision the applicant complains that the administration of the Simferopol SIZO turned off the light too early in the cells and this practice impeded the exercise of his right of application to the Court.




    The applicant also complains that the Supreme Court failed to ensure his right of appeal as guaranteed by Article 2 Protocol No. 7.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

 




  Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the allegedly insufficient medical treatment of the applicant during his pre-trial and post-conviction detention?

The Government are invited to provide medical and other relevant material in support of their submissions.

 




  Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the physical conditions of the applicant’s detention?

 




Has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention in solitary cells?

The Government are invited to specify the dates when the applicant was held in cells alone and provide decisions and other materials justifying his solitary confinement.

 




With respect of the events between 30 August and 6 September 2006, has there been any hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of petition to the Court, guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention?

The Government are requested, in accordance with Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, to treat the statements of the applicant’s inmates and their names as confidential.