FIFTH SECTION        CASE OF BANDALETOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 23180/06)         JUDGMENT  STRASBOURG 31 October 2013 FINAL 31/01/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bandaletov v. UkraineThe European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ann Power-Forde, Ganna Yudkivska, André Potocki, Paul Lemmens, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 8 October 2013,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 23180/06) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Gennadiy Vitalyevich Bandaletov (“the applicant”), on 18 May 2006.2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr Mykhailo Tarakhkalo and Mr Arkadiy Bushchenko, lawyers practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.3. The applicant complained, in particular, that he had not been legally represented during the initial stage of the pre-trial investigation.4. On 9 September 2010 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently serving a life sentence in Ladyzhynska Prison no. 39.A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant6. Late in the evening of 20 April 2005 Mr and Ms L., the applicant’s upstairs neighbours, were killed in their apartment. Ms L. was 65 years old and Mr L. was a similar age.7. On 21 April 2005 a criminal investigation was launched into the murder as having been committed by unknown persons.8. On the same date the police inspected the crime scene and questioned several neighbours and members of L.’s family. The persons in question made written statements as to what they knew about the victims and the events of the night before. The questioning appears to have taken place at the police station (see paragraph 21 below).9. In particular, the police questioned the applicant’s adult stepson, Mr Lo., who described in detail his own actions on the evening before. He stated that he had gone out for a while and that, upon his return home after midnight, he had seen his mother asleep in one room and the applicant drinking some alcohol and watching a film in another room. He noticed that the applicant had a black eye, but did not attach any importance to that. The applicant’s stepson also submitted that there had often been conflicts in the victim’s family and that Mr L.’s son, who lived separately, had earlier served a prison sentence.10. The applicant’s wife stated that she had not seen or heard anything suspicious. When she had woken up some time after midnight, she had seen her son and the applicant drinking and talking.11. The police also questioned the son of the deceased Mr L., who stated that he had been with a friend at the time of the events. That friend, who was also heard as a witness, confirmed the aforementioned.12. The applicant was also questioned, and confessed to the double murder. He submitted that there had been a longstanding conflict between him and Ms L., who had often complained about the noise caused by the refurbishment of his flat and about the construction of a roof over his balcony below her own flat. The applicant noted that, when smoking on the balcony during the evening on 20 April 2005, he had heard extensive swearing and cursing by Ms L., and had heard his name mentioned. He had picked up a knife (“just in case”), and gone upstairs. Having opened the door to him, Ms L. had allegedly insulted him, and a fight had ensued. He had stabbed Ms L. to death. Mr L. had attacked the applicant with a stool, but with no success. The applicant had hit him with the same stool and stabbed him with the knife. Subsequently, the applicant had thrown away the knife, the broken legs of the stool and his blood-stained T-shirt.13. All the aforementioned statements began with a note that the requirements of Article 63 of the Constitution had been explained to their authors. All these persons, save the applicant, signed next to the reference to that constitutional provision, in addition to signing at the end of the document. As to the applicant, he signed each page of his statement and added a note at the end: “This has been accurately written from my words, and I am willing to repeat my statements in court”. The applicant also made an additional written statement that he confirmed his submissions and that, relying on Article 63 of the Constitution, he did not wish to make any further statements.14. It is not known where the applicant was between his questioning on 21 April 2005 and his arrest on 22 April 2005 (see below). The applicant did not state that he was detained during that period.15. On 22 April 2005, at 11.30 a.m., the applicant was arrested as a suspect. He wrote in the arrest report that he had no statements or complaints to make.16. About half an hour later the applicant and the lawyer, Mr T., who had been appointed for him at some point earlier that day, signed a report on “the familiarisation of the suspect with his defence rights”. This document contained extensive pertinent quotations from the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant wrote in that report: “My rights are clear and I understand them”.17. From noon to 1 p.m. on 22 April 2005 the applicant was questioned in the lawyer’s presence and signed a typed summary of his account of the events of 20 April 2005, similar to that given on 21 April 2005, as being accurate and complete. He supplemented it with a handwritten note as to how and where he had thrown the knife and the stool legs.18. On the same date, from 2.40 to 4 p.m., a videotaped reconstruction of the crime was conducted in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant again repeated his confession and stated that he was testifying of his own free will. All the participants, including two experts and two attesting witnesses who were also present, watched the video recording and signed a report to that effect, making no additional remarks or statements.19. At 4.30 p.m. on 22 April 2005 the applicant was placed in a cell at the Kerch Temporary Detention Centre (“the ITT”).20. The aforementioned investigative activities of 22 April 2005 were documented on pages 56-63 of the case file.21. Also on 22 April 2005, the applicant’s stepson, Mr Lo., gave some additional written explanations. He submitted that he had found out about the murder on the morning of 21 April 2005 from the police, who had invited him and the applicant, among others, to the police station for questioning. Upon his return home, Mr Lo. had noticed that a knife had gone missing from the kitchen. He gave the description of that knife.22. On 29 April 2005 the applicant was formally charged with double murder.23. During his questioning on 30 April 2005, in the presence of his lawyer, he again repeated his confession.24. On the same date the pre-trial investigation was declared complete. The applicant and his lawyer signed in confirmation of having studied the investigation file. According to handwritten notes by both of them, they had no statements or remarks to add.25. On 8 August 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Crimea Court”), acting as a court of first instance, commenced the trial.26. According to the minutes of the court hearing of 25 August 2005, at that stage the applicant was represented by a new lawyer, Mr N. The applicant stated that he did not object to being represented by that lawyer. He also maintained his confession, stating that he understood the accusations and that he sincerely regretted what he had done.27. According to the minutes of another court hearing, held on 5 September 2005, the applicant’s lawyer submitted the following arguments in defence of his client: he emphasised that the applicant had voluntarily confessed to the crime and had shown sincere remorse; he noted that the applicant had never sought to abscond and had consistently cooperated with the investigation; and, lastly, he drew the court’s attention to the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record and that he had two minor children to support.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: no_violation