FOURTH SECTION       CASE OF ALAKHVERDYAN v. UKRAINE (Application no. 12224/09)        JUDGMENT        STRASBOURG 16 April 2019   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Alakhverdyan v. Ukraine.The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President, Faris Vehabović, Carlo Ranzoni, judges,and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 26 March 2019,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 12224/09) 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 Sergey Vladimirovich Alakhverdyan (“the applicant”), on 11 February 2009.2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr M. Tarakhkalo, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchina.3. On 19 January 2016 the complaints concerning an alleged breach of the right to legal assistance in criminal proceedings and of the right of individual petition were communicated to the Government, and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee, but provided no reasons. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it (see, in respect of a similar approach, Nedilenko and others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 43104/04, § 5, 18 January 2018; Lada v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 32392/07, § 4, 6 February 2018; and Geletey v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 23040/07, § 4, 24 April 2018).THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1984 and is serving his life sentence in a prison.6. On 10 December 2004 the bodies of two women, D. and S., were found in a village – in D.’s house – with numerous stab wounds. The prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings on the same day, and over the following days proceeded to interview those of the victims’ neighbours and relatives who might have known something about the incident.7. On 11 December 2004 the police searched the house of Dor., a resident of same village, and found clothes bearing blood traces. According to the case file, on the same day the applicant, who knew both D. and Dor., was summoned in the context of these proceedings by a prosecutor; however, he did not appear. No other details are available in the file in this regard.A. The events of 12 December 20048. On 12 December 2004 police officers arrived at the applicant’s home and asked him to go with them to the investigator from the Tatarbunary prosecutor’s office (“the investigator”). The applicant agreed. On their way they picked up G., an acquaintance of his.9. From 10 to 11 a.m. on that date, at Tatarbunary police station, the investigator questioned the applicant as a witness in the context of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. His testimony did not contain any confessions or incriminating remarks and did not provide any specific information relating to the circumstances of the crime. He submitted, inter alia, that he did not know who could have committed the murder and that on a number of occasions he had seen D.’s husband communicating with two suspicious men. According to the applicant, the police officers had then taken him and G. to a forest. D.’s husband had been there and had offered them money in exchange for their confession to the murder of D. and S., which had been ordered by Dor. The applicant alleged that they had refused and had been tortured by the police until he had finally agreed to plead guilty to the murder, which he had not in fact committed.10. A few hours later, at 2.20 p.m., while still at Tatarbunary police station, the applicant made a “statement of surrender and confession” (явка з каяттям). This statement commenced by noting that the applicant had been warned of his criminal responsibility if he refused to testify and that he had been advised of his right under Article 63 of the Constitution not to incriminate himself. In his statement, the applicant submitted that he and G. had murdered D. and S. after being incited to do so by Dor., who had wished to take revenge on the women because she believed that one of them had been having an affair with her partner and that the other one had facilitated the start of the affair. At noon on the day of the murder, Dor. had given them knives, which the applicant described in detail, and they had then gone away. At about 6.30 p.m. on that day they had again come to Dor.’s place and then gone to D.’s house. As they had been approaching D.’s house, they had seen her husband leaving home in his car. They had then entered the house carrying the knives given to them by Dor. in their hands. The applicant had entered first and had seen three women in the kitchen – D. and two others whom he did not know. He had approached one of the women and had stabbed her once or twice until G. had stopped him, saying that she was “from our village” and asking him not to harm her. The applicant had then stabbed D. and the third woman to death while G. had watched. The woman he had injured had sat with her face lowered and with her ears covered by her hands. After both of the stabbed women had fallen to the ground the applicant had gone away; G. had remained, talking to the injured woman.As G. had been leaving the house he had encountered D.’s neighbour. Then G. and the applicant had gone to Dor.’s home, where they had met T., one of her relatives. Dor. had then arrived and had asked them to leave. G. had taken the applicant’s knife from him and had hidden it in one of some old disassembled bikes standing in the backyard of Dor.’s house. For half an hour they had hidden first in a field and then at a farm until, one after the other, they had gone back to Dor.’s house. The applicant had taken off his jacket because it had been covered with blood and had put on a leather one given to him by Dor. Then they had gone to the garden of G’.s home, where, using diesel fuel, the applicant had burned his clothes (a detailed description of which was provided by the applicant), including the jacket given to him by Dor. Thereafter they had gone to the applicant’s home and then to a disco bar. The applicant also submitted that the “sweater that I was wearing” was at his home; since 10 December 2004 he had not seen Dor. or T. On 11 December 2004 they had gone to Dor.’s house but she had not been at home; they had not checked whether the knife with which he had committed the murder was still in the place where G. had hidden it.The statement of surrender and confession closed with a handwritten statement by the applicant to the effect that he had given the above evidence of his own free will, with no duress having been applied to him.11. From 4.30 p.m. until 6.04 p.m. on the same day, in order to clarify and verify information that the applicant had provided in his confession, the investigator conducted a reconstruction of the crime scene in the presence of attesting witnesses and a specialist on criminal procedure. As can be seen from the video recording of the reconstruction and the relevant verbatim record of this investigative step (which have been provided by the Government to the Court), the investigator invited the applicant – referring to him as “a suspect” – to tell him about the circumstances of the crime that he had allegedly committed. He did not inform the applicant of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present. The applicant repeated his confession and provided details in reply to the investigator’s questions. He submitted, inter alia, that he had not witnessed the moment at which G. had hidden the knife, but had only been made aware of the hiding place when G. had told him about it. A subsequent inspection of Dor.’s backyard by the participants in the reconstruction did not uncover any knife in the place indicated by the applicant. In G.’s garden, in the presence of G.’s parents, fragments of burned clothes – which matched the description provided by the applicant – were found. To the investigator’s question regarding whether the applicant had been forced in any way to give evidence during the reconstruction the applicant replied in the negative. The verbatim record of the reconstruction, as well as the record of the review of the reconstruction video, are both signed by the applicant without any statement or comment.12. On the same day, at 7.30 p.m., the investigator drew up an arrest report ordering the applicant’s detention as a suspect in the premeditated murder of D. and S. According to the report, the applicant was arrested on the grounds of his statement of surrender and confession, and his right to a lawyer was explained to him. The applicant signed the report and noted that he regretted what he had done. The applicant also signed a separate document explaining his rights as a suspect, including the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before his first questioning. When signing the document, the applicant noted that he wished to be legally represented. On the same day, the investigator appointed a legal-aid lawyer, Dym., for the applicant.B. Subsequent investigation and the applicant’s trial13. On 13 December 2004 the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the presence of Dym. He repeated his earlier statements, elaborating on them in detail: he did not deny that he had murdered D. and S., but he did deny that he had done so for profit. He also submitted that he not had burned all his clothes, as he had stated before. Specifically, he had not burned his trousers (as they had been brand new) but had given them to G. so that he could wash them; he had hidden the leather jacket given to him by Dor. at his home, behind a sofa. On the same date the police officers inspected his home and, in the presence of the applicant’s mother, seized the jacket. The applicant’s mother confirmed that the jacket did not belong to her son. On an unspecified date, G’s mother testified that on the night of 11 December 2004 her son had asked her to wash his trousers, as they had been dirty. While washing them, she had noticed that the water had become blood-red. Her son explained this by stating that he had been involved in a conflict at a disco bar.14. On the same date N., the woman whom the applicant had allegedly injured (but not killed) at D.’s home, was questioned. No record of her questioning has been submitted to the Court. The trial-court judgment (see paragraphs 27 and 28 below) suggests that she provided an account of the events that was similar to that given by the applicant; she submitted, inter alia, that D. had addresed the applicant by name while he had been stabbing her. When shown passport photographs of the applicant and G. she identified the applicant as the person who had inflicted injuries upon her and had killed D. and S.; she identified G. as his accomplice.15. From 14 December 2004 onwards the applicant, in Dym.’s presence, repeatedly confirmed his confession during different investigative actions (his questioning as a suspect and as accused, the reconstruction of the crime scene, and a confrontation conducted between him and Dor.) and provided details of the murder. When doing so, however, he persistently denied that he had committed the murder for profit. He also stated that he must have been poisoned or placed under some kind of hypnosis by Dor. as in normal circumstances he would have never killed D., as he had known her well and had been on good terms with her.16. On 17 December 2004 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert, who concluded that he had no bodily injuries.17. On 20 December 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, G. and Dor. in connection with the aggravated murder of D. and S.; on 21 December 2004, in the presence of Dym.

Outcome for Article 34: violation