I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in GOROZHANKIN v. UKRAINE.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2020-09-29
  • Communication date: 2013-02-14
  • Application number(s): 13582/11
  • Country:   UKR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1, 6, 6-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.751975
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Gorozhankin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1979 and is currently detained.
The applicant worked as a chess coach in the Simferopol Youth Centre.
In April 2010 he went to the town of Yevpatoriya together with a seven-year-old D. to participate in the Ukrainian Chess Tournament.
They shared a room in the hotel and, as was later established by the investigation, the applicant beat D., slapped him in the face and locked him in a cupboard on several occasions between 18 and 20 April 2010 as a punishment for losing games.
On 20 April 2010 the parents of D. lodged a complaint against the applicant to the law-enforcement authorities.
On 17 May 2010 the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor’s Office instituted proceedings against the applicant for ill-treatment of minor D. and instructed the Yevpatoriya Police Department to carry an investigation.
On 15 July 2010 the applicant was charged with beating D. On 10 September 2010 the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor’s Office reclassified the applicant’s actions as infliction of minor bodily harm.
On 20 September 2010 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Crimea reclassified the applicant’s actions as torture.
On 21 September 2010 the applicant was arrested on the ground that he was accused of a serious crime and could hinder the investigation.
The applicant’s lawyer challenged his arrest on the same day.
The lawyer noted that the applicant had always appeared upon the investigator’s summons, had a permanent job and place of residence and had never attempted to escape, therefore there were no grounds to detain the applicant.
On 23 September 2010 the applicant was accused of torture of minor D. On 24 September 2010 the Kyivskiy District Court of Simferopol ordered the applicant’s detention for two months on the ground that the applicant was accused of a serious crime punishable by imprisonment of more than five years and could hamper the investigation.
The court also noted that the investigator testified that the applicant had tried to influence the witnesses.
The court also rejected the complaint of the applicant’s lawyer against his arrest.
On 6 October 2010 the investigation reclassified the accusations against the applicant as beatings and torture.
On 15 November 2010 the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to the court for examination on the merits.
On 21 November 2010 the court’s order on the applicant’s pre-trial detention expired, nevertheless he was not released.
On 10 December 2010 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol committed the applicant for trial and ordered his detention pending trial.
During the trial the applicant was represented by an advocate and his mother.
On 22 April 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol found the applicant guilty of beating and torturing minor D. and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.
On 16 August 2011 and 26 July 1012 respectively the Crimea Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the judgment of the first instance court.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that decision on his detention was arbitrary and groundless, given that his arrest took place five months after the alleged crimes had been committed and he gave no reason to the investigator to apply such a strict measure to him.
He further complains under the same Article that the period between 21 November and 10 December 2010 was not covered by any judicial decision.
He further complains under Article 6 § 1 that the charges against him were not clear and that his actions were classified as two different crimes – beating and torture, which made it impossible for him to defend himself effectively.

Judgment