I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in MEREUTA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-05-15
• Communication date: 2015-11-26
• Application number(s): 64401/11
• Country:   MDA
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.792041
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Mihail Mereuța, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Opaci.
He is represented before the Court by Mr Valeriu Batîr, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.
The injuries inflicted on the applicant On 29 July 2009, while at his rented lake and in a state of alcoholic intoxication, S. went to deal with the alleged ill-treatment of his uncle by a group of people celebrating the applicant’s birthday at that lake.
S. took his lawfully possessed hunting weapon with him.
On his way to the location of the party he hit a third party (M.) with the barrel of his gun, then he fired four gunshots towards the cars parked nearby.
Both the applicant and M. attempted to prevent S. from continuing shooting, but to no avail.
S. had damaged the parked cars belonging to some members of the party group, including the applicant’s.
S. ignored the applicant’s demands to stop shooting and shot him from a distance of five metres, inflicting an injury to the inner top part of the right calf.
The applicant approached S., grabbed the barrel of his gun with both hands and pressed it into the ground in order to prevent S. from shooting the other members of the group.
S withstood, lifted the weapon up to the level of applicant’s right femur and fired two gunshots into the applicant’s already wounded leg.
A forensic report established on 12 August 2009 that the applicant had sustained the following bodily injuries: gunfire wound to the right leg calf and femur, impairment of the muscles and major vessels that resulted in the amputation of the right leg at an upper third level.
These injuries were qualified as being of serious severity.
2.
Criminal investigation and proceedings On 31 July 2009 and 12 August 2009 respectively, the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against S. on charges of hooliganism with the use of a firearm and severe deliberate harm to bodily integrity and health.
On 29 December 2009 S. was indicted.
On 12 January 2010 S. was heard as an accused.
He acknowledged his guilt, but refused to make any declarations.
On 23 February 2010 the criminal proceedings were remitted for examination from the Căușeni Police Station to the Anenii Noi Police Station.
On 14 December 2010 the case-file was transmitted to the Anenii Noi prosecutor’s office with the proposal to be submitted to court for consideration.
On 20 December 2010 both the applicant and his representative were notified of the completion of the criminal investigation and of the possibility to examine the case-file.
The applicant requested to have his civil action admitted within the criminal proceedings, to be acknowledged as a civil party and for S. to be acknowledged as bearing civil responsibility.
The prosecutor’s office admitted these claims.
The applicant also requested that S. be detained pending trial as a preventive measure and to change his indictment, but these claims were dismissed.
On 30 December 2010 the prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against S. due to the expiry of the prescription period.
On 18 February 2011 at the request of the applicant’s representative, the prosecutor’s office decided to annul its previous decision of 30 December 2010, and to resume the criminal investigation on the ground that new facts had been discovered.
The applicant also contested the prosecutor’s office’s decision of 30 December 2010 before the investigation judge.
On 4 March 2011 the court decided to dismiss the applicant’s objection, referring to the already existing prosecutor’s decision (of 18 February 2011) resuming the criminal investigation.
On 31 March 2011 the court admitted S.’s objection to the prosecutor’s office decision of 18 February 2011, ordering its annulment.
The applicant and his representative were not summoned or informed about these proceedings.
On an unknown date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision.
On 14 September 2011 the court dismissed it as ill-founded.
B.
Relevant domestic law According to Article 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the suspect, the accused, the defence lawyer, the aggrieved party and other participants in the proceedings whose rights have been breached by the unlawful actions of the prosecuting authority and of the operative investigation agencies may challenge such actions before the investigating judge.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains in substance under Article 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in respect of his complaints about the injuries inflicted by a private party.