RUDYAK v. UKRAINE JUDGMENT
3
that he could be detained. He was also examined by an ophthalmologist and
diagnosed with an old optic subatrophy in the left eye.
14. On 6 May 2005 the applicant was placed in Kharkiv Pre-Trial
Detention Centre no. 27 (“the SIZO”). It was noted in his medical file that
on 25 February 2004 he had suffered an eye injury and that on
19 April 2005 he had been suffering from a head injury. He was diagnosed
with a cataract and with a subatrophy of the left eye.
15. On 3 June 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered
the Head of the Kharkiv Regional Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
of Ukraine (начальник Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ
України в Харківській області – “the regional head”) to look into the
applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment.
16. On 21 July 2005 the regional head informed the applicant that the
police officers involved had not broken any laws.
17. On 5 October 2005 the applicant asked the Chervonozavodskiy
Court to obtain medical evidence from his SIZO medical file which would
confirm the infliction of injuries on him.
18. On 25 October 2005 the applicant complained to the regional head
that:
“... on 19 April 2005 police officers, M., S., Sh., K. and G., accompanied by two
witnesses, arrived in Gadyach. Again on 20 April 2005 the same diagnosis [was
established]: closed craniocerebral injury, facial fractures, nasal fracture, haematomas
on the body, arms, legs and left ear, scratches.”
19. On 19 April 2006 the Chervonozavodskiy Court, examining the
applicant’s case on the merits, ordered the Chervonozavodskiy District
Prosecutor’s Office (Прокуратура Червонозаводського району м
Харкова) to look into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. The court
noted that, according to the applicant, he had been beaten in Kharkiv by
police officers M., S., Sh. and G., and that he had later been examined in
Hospitals nos. 4 and 11.
20. On 27 June 2006 the Chervonozavodskiy District Prosecutor’s
Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. It
was noted that the decision to arrest the applicant had been adopted on
22 April 2005 and that the applicant had been questioned on this date. He
had refused to have a lawyer present. The applicant had never complained
of any ill-treatment. The police officers had stated that they had never illtreated the applicant. On the same date the Prosecutor’s Office informed the
Chervonozavodskiy Court of the decision taken.
21. On 11 August 2006 the Chervonozavodskiy Court examined the
applicant’s case. The applicant pleaded guilty to some of the charges and
stated that he was a drug addict, that the confiscated drugs had been for his
personal use only and that he had confessed to drug trafficking after being
subject to physical pressure by the police. The court convicted the applicant