MENU

A brief description of the KHPG strategic litigations in July–December 2020

06.01.2021
Tamila Bespala, Tamara Horbachevska, Hanna Ovdienko, Maksym Reviakyn, Gennadiy Tokarev, Vladyslav Dolzhko

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

15 сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgements in 2018

Chernov v. Ukraine

Ilchenko v. Ukraine

Kot v. Ukraine

Lynnyk and 4 others v. Ukraine

Lopata and others v. Ukraine

Novikov v. Ukraine

Minyalo and others v. Ukraine

Romanov v. Ukraine

Sargsyan v. Ukraine

Siyanko v. Ukraine

Starishko v. Ukraine

Sukachov v. Ukraine

Sv-ts v. Ukraine

Zavadskiy v. Ukraine

Zabolotnyy and others v.Ukraine

4 cases in which the SLC lawyers represented applicants before the ECtHR on the stage of communication with the Government of Ukraine

D-tsky's v. Ukraine

Kh-n v. Ukraine

K-s. v. Ukraine

Pan-ko v. Ukraine

2 communication with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the implementation of ECtHR decisions

Group Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine

Group of Vintman v. Ukraine

50 cases in which the complaints lodged applications on alleged violations of the Convention or applications on requesting interim measures according to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court have been prepared and lodged to the ECtHR

5 cases related events in the Eastern part of Ukraine

Adam-k v. Ukraine and Russia

G-ko v. Ukraine (“34 other cases”)

Pro-rov v. Ukraine

Tk-ko v. Ukraine and Russia

Tol-chova v. Ukraine and Russia

44 more cases in which applications have been lodged before the ECHR

Al-v v. Ukraine

Al-Seev v. Ukraine

B-ko v. Ukraine

B-ka v. Ukraine

Bir-v v. Ukraine

D-ov v. Ukraine

Vo-zhis against Ukraine

Grits-y and Ukraine

Evhl-y against Ukraine

Ko-ko v. Ukraine

K-ko v. Ukraine

Ku-tsov v. Ukraine

Mal-khov v. Ukraine

M-chenko v. Ukraine

Rya-nin v. Ukraine

Case concerning torture and ill-treatment of convicts in Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony №25

Didenko v. Ukraine

Dy-tkin v. Ukraine

Yev-vsky v. Ukraine and Russia

F-chuk v. Ukraine

Ig-n no.1 v. Ukraine

Ig-n no.2 v. Ukraine

Kol-ko v. Ukraine

Kl-ov v. Ukraine and Russia

K-tsev’s case

K-k v. Ukraine

Ko-i v. Ukraine

L-kyy v. Ukraine

Loz-kiy v. Ukraine

L-n v. Ukraine and Russia

M-chan v. Ukraine

O-ko v. Ukraine

Ov-ko v. Ukraine

Pa-ko v. Ukraine

P-nyy v. Ukraine

Ped-ko v. Ukraine

Pyat-chenko v. Ukraine

R-ov v. Ukraine

So-ak v. Ukraine

Sher-ev v. Ukraine

Sta-k v. Ukraine

Sup-un v. Ukraine

Tkalich v. Ukraine and Russia

Zh-k v. Ukraine

171 cases which were considered in national courts

2 foreigners who are in want of legal defence

Mykha-lov case

Na-ze case

10 cases related drug users

As-v case

B-ov case

Bo-man case

Drozdov case (criminal proceeding on Article 307)

Le-in case

Tel-ov case

Terniv-kyi case

Voy-nko case

Zh-n case

Z-as case

40 cases related people suffered from grievous illness and other vulnerable group of prisoners

B-yan case

Che-chenko case

Her-ko case

Hor-iy case

H’’s case

K-lenko case

Ko-vyy case

K-ets’s case

Koz-y case

The case of Kur-na

Ku-in case

K-ko case

M-k case

N-m case

Nau-chyk. case

Py-k. case

P-tyay case

P-chenko case

P-hoy case

Pet-ko case

R-ut case

Ryab-sky case

R-ko case

S’s case

S-v case

Sad-k. case

S-kova case

Shv. Case

S-lov case

T's case

Tka-nko case

Tem-ko case

Vov-v case

V-ko case

V-ko case

Yan-zov case

Yag-v. case

Yu-ko case

Ye-skyy case

Z-ykh case

5 cases related to the conflict at the Eastern part of Ukraine

Anf-ova case

Si-kov case

Sa-v case

Sazon-v case

To-rya case

13 cases of parole

B-ch’s

B-ov case

Hol-nya case

K-voy. case

Ko-sky's case

Kr-ts case

L-k case

Luts-k case

L-sherst case

M-k case

S-niuk’s case

T-rev case

U. case

33 cases related to the use special force came and ill-treatment of prisoners on 8 January 2020 in Oleksiyvska penal colony №25

B-ov case

B-ko case

B-ch case

Dzh-v case

F-ov case

H-ko case

I. case

K-s case

K-v case

Kh-ov case

Kol. case

K-ov case

Koz. case

K-tskyi case

Kuz-v case

Ku-b case

L-n case

L. case

Ma-k case

Mi-k case

M-ko case

N-ko case

M-va se

Pop-ha case

S-ze case

T-ov case

T-skyy case

Tu-lov case

Tuy-n case

V-ko case

Z-ov case

Z. case

5 cases on human trafficking

B. case

K. case

Kh. case

N. case

Ya. case

29 other cases

An-va case

BKA case

Ch-na case

D-dov case

Dam-n case

D. case

Dro-d case

G-ov case

Gol-ka case

I-shin case

ІАV case

Kl-ko case

K-chuk case

Kuz-inov’s case

L-v case

Le-nova case

L-kh case

Mak-ko case

N-na case

P-ar case

R-yk case

Se-nov case

Sen-ko case

Skor-go case

Sh-ko case

Sh-na case

U-kov case

V-kov and V-kova case

V-din case

34 cases ended in success

Ah-va case

A-s case

B-v case

Gna-k case

Gu-nova case

I-v case

Ko-k case

Kor-na case

Ko-ko case

K-h case

Kud-ko case

Ku-tsov case

La-v case

L-a case

Ma-mov case

Mak-va case

Loshk-v case

Mal-yi case

M-k case

P’s case

P-v case

Pirna-rov case

P-v case

P-ukh case

R-ak case

Salni-va case

Sheve-va case

S-omka case

Tit-renko case

The Tablet Case

Vo-f case

V-din case

Yer-nko case

15 сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgements in 2018

Chernov v. Ukraine

On 20 June 2007 the applicant was arrested for an administrative offence.

On 21 June 2007 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy established that at about 10 p.m. on 20 June 2007 the applicant, being drunk outdoors on Prokofyeva Street in Sumy, had uttered obscenities, reacted aggressively to remarks made by police officers, cursed them in obscene language and attempted to start a fight, and that he had thus breached public order and the peace and had offended human dignity and morals. The court found the applicant guilty of “minor disorderly acts”, an offence under Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and sentenced him to three days’ administrative detention.

This decision became final and could not be appealed against.

The applicant served his sentence from 21 June to 23 June 2007.

On 28 January 2008 the prosecutor lodged an objection against the decision.

On 6 February 2008 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy annulled its decision of 21 June 2007.

The applicant appealed against that decision to the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal.

On 25 February 2008 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy of 6 February 2008.

 On the basis of a referral of 21 June 2007 issued by an assistant prosecutor of the Zarichnyy District of Sumy, a forensic examination of two people, Mu. and P., was carried out on 22 June 2007. It was established that they had minor physical injuries, which may have been inflicted on 20 June 2007.

On 16 July 2007 a prosecutor of the Zarichnyy District of Sumy opened a criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of committing a criminal offence of disorderly acts within the meaning of Article 296 of the Criminal Code on 20 June 2007. The prosecutor established that on 20 June 2007, at about 10 p.m., on Prokofyeva Street in Sumy, the applicant, in an act of hooliganism, had caused physical injuries to Mu. and P.

On 4 August 2007 the applicant was placed on a wanted list.

On the basis of a decision of 20 August 2007 issued by an investigator of the Zarichnyy police department in the Sumy Region, another forensic examination of Mu. and P. was carried out on 14 September 2007. With reference to the descriptive part of the forensic examination of 22 June 2007, an expert concluded that Mu. and P. had minor physical injuries which may have been inflicted by blunt objects.

On 23 December 2007 the applicant was arrested, under Article 296 § 3 of the Criminal Code, on suspicion of committing disorderly acts, namely causing physical injuries to Mu. and P. on 20 June 2007 at around 10 p.m. on Prokofyeva Street in Sumy.

On 29 January 2008 the applicant was indicted for disorderly acts under Article 296 § 3 of the Criminal Code.

On 14 July 2008 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy convicted the applicant under Article 296 § 3 of the Criminal Code of disorderly acts and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The court made no mention of the administrative-offence proceedings or his three-day administrative detention. The applicant, his two representatives and a prosecutor appealed against that decision to the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal.

On 7 October 2008 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on account of inconsistencies between the facts of the case and the court’s conclusion

On 29 October 2008 Judge Ma. at the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy, who had considered the applicant’s administrative case and delivered the decision in the administrative-offence proceedings, withdrew from hearing the criminal case.

On 10 March 2009 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court in so far as it concerned the applicant’s conviction, but reduced the sentence from a term of two years and one month’s imprisonment to a term of two years.

On 24 September 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the appellate court. In response to the applicant’s complaint that he had been tried twice for the same offence, the court explained that the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy had allowed the prosecutor’s objection seeking the annulment of the decision of 21 June 2007 and had “closed” the administrative-offence case.

In 2010 the applicant prepared an application before the European Court of Human rights which was communicated with the Government in 2019.

The lawyer had prepared a reply on the Government observation and on 10 December 2020 the ECHR found violation of Article 4 Protocol 7 of the Convention.

Ilchenko v. Ukraine

The applicant is a Ukrainian national who served his imprisonment in the Zhovtneva correctional colony but in different periods of time he was transferred to the Kharkivskyy detention centre. The applicant suffered from tuberculosis and other grievous diseases. During his detention in Kharkivskyy detention centre he was not treated by appropriate way. He did not get prescribed therapy due to that his health state significantly deteriorated and he got more previous problem with his health.

The applicant points that his medical treatment for tuberculosis was inappropriate due to four long breaks during his therapy: from 3 January 2015 to 2 February 2015 (30 days), from 28 March 2015 to 26 April 2015 (for 28 days), from 8 August 2015 to 7 November 2015 (60 days) and from 25 February 2016 to 23 June 2016 (for 120 days). Totally the applicant did not get medical therapy for 238 days.

As the applicant was transported to the Dnipropetrovsk detention facility on 23 January 2015 he did not get any treatment for a month just because there was no specific Cabinet for the controlled treatment of tuberculosis at the outpatient stage patients (hereinafter – the Cabinet) which had been solely authorized to provide patients with the therapy according to para. 3.7.4. of the Clinical protocol «Tuberculosis» (hereinafter – the Clinical protocol).

In accordance to para. 3.7.4 of the Clinical protocol, medical treatment at intensive stage of the therapy should have been for 2 or 3 months constantly but it was unexpectedly interrupted less than a month after beginning. During the first break the applicant’s health state significantly deteriorated (he was in «the condition of moderate severity due to moderate intoxication syndrome on the background tuberculosis and immunodeficiency» as a doctor wrote after his return to the Zhovtneva correctional colony no.17).

Later the applicant was transported to the Kharkiv detention facility from 27 March to 12 April 2015 and from 7 August 2015 to 8 November 2015 where he did not receive any medicine. Еhe Commission pointed out that «the scheme of the applicant’s medical treatment was in accordance with established standards of medical treatment but there were several breaks in the therapy. The main reason for breaks was transportation of the applicant to detention facilities».

According to para. 4.6.9 of the Clinical protocol, after long breaks, the applicant’s treatment should have been begun again from the start, however it was continued. Because of that and because of significant interruptions in his treatment the applicant health state deteriorated even more than earlier, the resistance to medical therapy has developed. Consequently, the Central medical commission on 25 February 2016 has decided not to prescribe the applicant therapy against TB any more, cancelled existence therapy and prescribed instead palliative care. In other words, the main reasons for the fourth break were previous long breaks in treatment and unwillingness of the Commission to choose another therapy. The applicant objected against cancellation of the therapy asking to change him the scheme but only on 29 June 2016 the Central medical commission decided to renew him medical treatment for tuberculosis cancelling the palliative care. This fact and the fact that the applicant still alive proves that the Commission should have not prescribed the applicant palliative car.

Throughout his period of detention, the applicant had never undergone a course of full-blown TB treatment without interruption. The course of treatment should last 6-8 months, depending on the category of the patient.

In 2016 the applicant made an application before the European court of human rights which was communicated with the Government in 2019. On 10 December 2019 the SLC lawyer made her own comments to the Government’s observations.

On 9 April 2020 the ECHR found violation in the applicant’s case of the Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

Kot v. Ukraine

Mr. K. suffered from various urological diseases and was kept in pre-trial detention. Mr. K. was not provided with adequate medical care in the remand centre. Thus, from 03/16/2017 to 06/22/2018, there was a delay in ureteral stenting, a delay in the removal of kidney stones, a delay in medical examination. From 09/14/2018 to 12/18/2018 there was a delay in ureteral stenting, a delay in the removal of kidney stones.

Mr. K. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance.

The lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a statement to the European Court of Human Rights regarding the violation of Art. 3 of the Convention.

The ECtHR communicated the statement to the government.

The SLC lawyer prepared observations on the Government's comments.

On 4 June 2020 the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr. K., which consisted in failing to provide him with adequate medical care during his detention.

Lynnyk and 4 others v. Ukraine

The applicants were serving prison sentences for various crimes.

The domestic courts allowed petitions by the prison authorities seeking the early release of the applicants. No appeal having been lodged against those decisions, they became final on the dates indicated in the appended table. The applicants were released from prison on various dates ranging from three to six days after the respective court decisions ordering their early release had become final.

According to the material in the case file, the decisions concerning the early release of the applicants were handed down by Judge K. In their submissions concerning the applications of the above-mentioned applicants, the Government provided documents stating that Judge K. had been on sick leave from 29 June to 7 July 2017 and could not notify the parties to the proceedings that the relevant court decisions had become final during that time.

The applicants asked the lawyers to provide them with legal assistance. Lawyers prepared and lodged applications before the European Court of Human rights.

On 22 October 2020 the ECHR found violation of Article 5 of the Convention in this case.

Lopata and others v. Ukraine

On 2 December 2006 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal found Lopatu ('the applicant') guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for almost sixteen years.

 On 1 August 2019 the applicant applied for parole to the Romensky City District Court of the Sumy Region ('the Romensky City District Court'). In his petition, he asked for the sentence to be commuted.

On 8 October 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Sumy Oblast Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 4 February 2020 the Sumy Region Court of Appeal denied the applicant to satisfy his application.

In early June 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On June 24, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of an early mechanism for lifers.

On December 12, 2020 the ECtHR found violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the case “Lopata and others v. Ukraine”.

Novikov v. Ukraine

Mr. N. underwent surgery on his right foot in 2009, all five toes were amputated and the wounds did not heal.

On June 26, 2010, Mr. N. was detained by officers of the Security Service of Ukraine on suspicion of drug trafficking.

On 28 June 2010 Mr. N. was brought before the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv, which extended Mr. N.'s detention at the police to ten days in order to obtain an assessment of his identity.

On 5 July 2010 the court ordered Mr. N. to be remanded in custody.

The court unreasonably continued the pre-trial detention during two years.

On July 8, 2010, Mr. N. consulted a physician who diagnosed him with obliterative endarteritis of the lower extremities. Mr. N. was prescribed ambulant treatment.

In June 2011, Mr. N. sought legal assistance from the SLC.

On 20 July 2011 the lawyer of the SLC prepared and lodged a complaint with the ECtHR under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention alleging that Mr. N.'s detention from 26 June to 20 July 2011 was arbitrary because it was not covered by a court order; under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive and unjustified detention of Mr. N. and Article 3 of the Convention concerning the failure to provide adequate medical care to Mr. N.

From January 27 to February 14, 2012, Mr. N. underwent inpatient treatment at the prison hospital. After his discharge from this institution, he was recommended further outpatient treatment in a pre-trial detention centre.

Mr. N. remained in custody until 6 April 2012, when he was released on personal commitment not to leave his residential area.

On 3 January 2020, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.

Minyalo and others v. Ukraine

On 23 August 2008 lain-clothes police officers requested Mr. K. step into their car to discuss possible hire for window replacement. There they handcuffed and took him to police station, demanding confession to having committed arson together with A.K. (Mr. K’s son). Several officers repeatedly punched and kicked Mr. K. for more than one hour, including in presence of his son. No access to lawyer was given. Between 11 p.m. and 12 a.m. on same day Mr. K. was released after his son had confessed to arson.

Mr. K. filed a criminal complaint. In 2008, the prosecutor's office refused to open criminal proceedings three times.

Mr. K. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance.

In September 2010 a SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the European Court of Justice alleging a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

Only in April 2011 criminal proceedings were opened.

On December 13, 2011, the criminal proceedings were suspended due to the absence of suspects.

On 24 September 2020, the ECtHR found a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention in respect of Mr K.

Romanov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr R, was a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1984 and died in 2015.

On 16 June 2011 a criminal case of infliction of grievous bodily harm was instituted against the applicant.

On 25 June 2011 the investigators reclassified the charges against the applicant as attempted murder.

On 21 July 2011 the applicant appeared before the investigator within the framework of the criminal investigation into attempted murder and gave an undertaking not to abscond.

On 25 July 2011 the investigator arrested the applicant and placed him in police custody on suspicion of attempted murder. The investigator drew up a report on his arrest, making a general reference to Article 106 § 2 and Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to the official report, the applicant had been arrested on th28 травня 2020 e grounds that

“1. [he] was caught on the scene of the crime immediately after an offence had been committed, and

2. eyewitnesses, including the victim, directly identified [him] as the one who had committed the offence”.

It stated that his arrest was justified by the necessity of preventing him from evading justice or obstructing the establishment of the truth, and to ensure that any eventual court judgment could be executed.

On 26 July 2011 a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant was carried out. The experts provided the following conclusions:

“1. Mr R is currently showing signs of chronic mental illness in the form of paranoid schizophrenia. The present psychiatric condition of [Mr R] is such that he is unaware of and cannot control his actions.

2. At the time of the offence with which he has been charged, Mr R was affected by the above-mentioned mental illness and could not have been aware of or controlled his actions.

3. In view of his mental health Mr R requires involuntary medical treatment by way of admission to a psychiatric hospital under strict supervision”.

On 28 July 2011 the Kharkiv Kyivskyi District Court extended the applicant’s detention in police custody to ten days with a view to obtaining an assessment of his personality. No further reasons were provided by the court.

On 4 August 2011 the Kharkiv Kyivskyi District Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention without specifying any time-limits. The court referred in its decision to the conclusions of the psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011 and stated that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence and might otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity. No further reasons were provided by the court, which further ruled that the applicant was to be detained in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre (“the Kharkiv SIZO”).

On 11 August 2011 that decision was upheld on appeal.

On 12 September 2011 the investigator requested compulsory psychiatric treatment for the applicant. On 19 September 2011 the investigator’s request and the case file were transferred to the Kharkiv Kyivskyi District Court.

On 2 December 2011 the Kharkiv Kyivskyi District Court committed the applicant for compulsory psychiatric treatment at a special psychiatric facility under strict supervision. In substantiating its decision the court referred to the conclusions of the forensic psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011. The court also specified that the applicant was to be held in the Kharkiv SIZO pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility.

The applicant and his defence lawyer appealed against this decision on 9 and 8 December 2011 respectively.

On 8 December 2011the application under article 5 of Convention was lodged to ECtHR

On 15 December 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals without examination, on the ground that the applicant and his defence lawyer had both missed the time-limit for lodging their appeals without having requested an extension of that time-limit.

On 7 February 2012 the applicant was placed at the psychiatric hospital under strict supervision pursuant to the court decision of 2 December 2011.

Eventually, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal gave leave for an appeal against the court decision of 2 December 2011, but dismissed it on 6 August 2012.

On 15 October 2013 the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court.

On 14 November 2013 the Dnipropetrovsk Krasnogvardiyskyi District Court refused a request from the doctor at the psychiatric hospital for an extension of the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment. On 21 November 2013 that decision became final.

On 23 November 2013 the applicant was discharged from the psychiatric hospital. He died on 8 November 2015.

On June 2019 the ECtHR sent to the applicant's lawyer the Observations of the Government of Ukraine to his complaint before the ECtHR, and on August 2019, the SC lawyer lodged to the Court the reply to the Government.

On 28 May 2020 the ECtHR find a violation of Article 5 of Convention.

Sargsyan v. Ukraine

On 24 April 2007 the applicant was placed under administrative arrest and transported to the Chernozavodskyy police station. There he was forced to confess to having murdered O., several police officers repeatedly pushed his face into thick sheet of foam rubber and twisted his handcuffed hands behind his back, aiming to suffocate him and inflict severe pain. Subsequently, they made applicant to sit naked; two officers sat on applicant’s legs, while a third squeezed his genitals using plastic bag. In addition, officers repeatedly hit applicant’s head with thick folder; spat in his face; threatened to prosecute his relatives and applied electric current to wet rags pressed against his ears, chin and other parts of his head.

On 25 April 2007 the applicant confessed to murder of O.

On 27 April 2007 the applicant had his first meeting with a lawyer and retracted his confession.

On 28 April 2007 the applicant was released from detention.

On 7 May 2007 the Chervonozavodskiy district prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against applicant for O.’s murder in view that there was insufficient evidence of his involvement.

The applicant asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

The SLC lawyer alleged before the European court of human rights that in the applicant’s case had been violations of Article 3 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs in each of their respective cases.

The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention in April and July 2007 had been arbitrary and that they had been effected with an ulterior motive, namely to force him to give false self-incriminating statements concerning the murder of O. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the investigation of his complaint concerning the arbitrariness of his detention in April 2007, which had been lodged together with his ill-treatment complaint, had been ineffective.

The ECHR has communicated the case with the Government of Ukraine. The SLC lawyer prepared his reply on the Governments observations.

On 9 January 2020 the ECHR delivered a judgement according to which violations of Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention were found.

Siyanko v. Ukraine

Mr. Siyanko (hereinafter – the applicant) was charged for committing several crimes.

Between October 2004 and May 2009 four old women, Tso., S., Z. and Ye., were found dead in their houses in the village where the applicant was living.

In March 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with a theft of money from K.’s house. The applicant and his wife, who were K.’s neighbours, had been involved as attesting witnesses in those proceedings.

In the early morning on 7 July 2009 Kl., another aged neighbour of the applicant, was found murdered at her home. The police dog had brought the police to the applicant’s house. The applicant was taken to the village council and then to a police station.

On the same date a criminal investigation was instituted against the applicant for the murder of Kl. and at 10 a.m. on that day he was formally arrested at the police premises. The available documents suggest that during his arrest the applicant was apprised of his rights as a suspect but waived his right to a lawyer in writing indicating that his refusal was not linked to his financial situation. Investigator Pav. accepted the waiver, noting that legal representation was not mandatory under a murder charge. Following this, from 12.05 to 12.50, the applicant was questioned as a suspect. During the interview, he admitted his guilt in Kl.’s death, submitting that he had killed her by accident on 6 July 2009 and providing details.

According to the applicant, the confession was written on the demands of, and as dictated by, the investigator.

On 10 July 2009, from 11 a.m. to 3.20 p.m. five records of the applicant’s voluntary surrender to the police had been consecutively drawn up by Investigator P., suggesting that the applicant had appeared before him and confessed to having committed a number of crimes: the theft from K.’s house (see paragraph 7 above); the murders of Z. and Tso.; the murder and robbery of Ye.; and the murder of a woman from his village named Motria whose last name he did not remember but who was later identified as S. (see paragraph 6 above).

According to the applicant, his confession to the theft from K.’s house had been made following a threat by an investigator that if he refused to confess, his wife would be charged as his accomplice to the theft and that this would expose their child to the risk of placement in an orphanage. Other self-incriminating statements were also made under “pressure” from the investigator and as dictated by him. He also submitted that on the same date, he had been forced to agree that some ammunition would be planted in his house by the police; he had been promised in this connection that he would not be prosecuted as the bullets were too old and no longer usable.

On 20 July 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on account of unlawful possession of ammunition seized from his house on 11 July 2009.

On 3 August 2009 Investigator Shch. instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with the aggravated murders of Z., Tso., Ye. and S.

On 30 March 2010, during his questioning in the presence of Ts., the applicant denied his guilt in respect of all the charges against him – with the exception of Kl.’s murder, which he insisted had been an accident – and refused to give further evidence, relying on his constitutional right not to incriminate himself.

On unspecified date the case was sent to the Court of Appeal of Cherkasy Region (“the Court of Appeal”) for trial at first instance. During the hearings at the trial court, in which the applicant and F. were present, the applicant admitted his guilt with respect to Kl.’s death only, maintaining that he had killed her by accident and denying he had robbed her.

On 19 October 2010 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty as charged. He was given a life sentence for murder for profit and terms from two to ten years’ imprisonment in respect of the remaining charges. The Court of Appeal found no breach of the applicant’s defence right as the absence of a lawyer at his arrest and during some of investigative actions resulted from his waivers, made of his own free will, of his right to legal assistance. The applicant and his lawyer, F., drafted appeals.

On 15 February 2011 the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters (“the Higher Specialised Court”), acting as the second-instance court, upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence.

On 27 July 2011 there was an application lodged to ECtHR concerning the violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

On 3 July 2013 the applicant also complained to the prosecutor’s office that all confessions in the criminal proceedings against him had been made under psychological pressure from Investigator P.

 On 30 September 2013the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s allegations as unsubstantiated. This decision was upheld by the Kamyanka Town Court and the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal on 14 February and 21 March 2014 respectively.

 In 2017 a similar complaint by the applicant was dismissed by the police as unsubstantiated following an internal inquiry.

On January 9, 2020 the ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the absence of a lawyer on 10 July 2009, when the applicant made his confessions.

Starishko v. Ukraine

The applicant was born in 1980 and is serving a life sentence in Vinnytsya Prison no. 1.

On 14 December 1999 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated murder and theft and sentenced him to the death penalty.

On 30 May 2000 the Supreme Court replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment and upheld the

During the period from 2000 to 2014, the applicant had ten short-term visits (lasting from one to four hours) from his mother, his sister and, on three occasions, a friend. During the meetings the applicant communicated with the visitors via a glass partition. Their conversations were listened to by a prison officer.

The applicant lodged an application before the ECHR related to his life sentence without any hope to be released and as well about restriction in family vists.

In 2019 the case was communicated with the Government and the lawyer provided the applicant with legal assistance on preparation of reply on such observations.

And on 15 October 2020 the ECHR found violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention.

Sukachov v. Ukraine

On 31 May 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in terrorism and production and storage of explosives.

On 20 February 2018, the Industrialnyy District Court of Dnipro (“the District Court”) found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.

During Mr. S.'s detention in the Dnipro SIZO, he spent a total of "540 days" in cells 911 and № 931, where his personal space was less than 3 meters. For a number of periods, "a total of 256 days", his personal space in these cells was 3.25 square meters, and his personal space in cells № 655 and № 661 was 3.35 square meters. His situation was aggravated by the fact that he was in the cells for most of the day, except for a daily one-hour walk in a small yard. The 11.5-square-meter yard of the 661 and 655 cells could not be considered appropriate for a prisoner who was in such cells twenty-three hours a day. Mr. S. also suffered from inadequate toilet separation, lack of fresh air, poor ventilation, humidity, and the presence of parasites in the cells.

Also, Mr. S. suffered from improper conditions of his transfer to court, the car did not have proper ventilation, the cars did not meet safety requirements.

The waiting rooms in the court where Mr. S. was being held during the court hearings were not ventilated and were overcrowded.

Mr. S. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance.

The lawyer of the Central Election Commission prepared and sent a statement to the European Court of Human Rights about the inconsistency of the conditions of detention and transportation of Mr. S. under Art. 3 and 13 of the Convention.

The ECtHR communicated the case. The SLC lawyer commented on the Government's comments.

On 30 January 2020, the ECtHR found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. This decision is a pilot for Ukraine on the conditions of detention in Ukrainian places of detention.

Sv-ts v. Ukraine

On 06 March 2000 Ms S-uk sold 28/100 of a shop “Podolianka” to the applicant on the basis of the sales contract.

On 14 May 2002 the senior investigator of the Shepetivskyi Inter-district Prosecutor's Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant into the crime punishable by Article 27 § 5 ("Types of accomplices")and Article 368 § 3 ("Taking a bribe") of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“CC of Ukraine”).

The general length of criminal proceedings was from 14 May 2002 to 28 January 2012. The criminal proceedings included five circles of pre-trial investigations which were the result of the appeals to the court decisions.

The first circle of proceedings was from 14 May 2002 till 16 September 2004. From 30 August 2002 to 08 July 2003 were taken 13 court hearings in Slavytskyi district court (hereinafter – "District Court"). 6 court hearings were postponed due to the absence of witnesses and 1 due to the absence of prosecutor.

During the second circle of the criminal proceedings in the trial (from 03 June 2005 to 24 July 2006) there were 25 court hearings, 12 hearings from which were postponed due to absence of victim and witnesses or judge or technical problems.

During the third circle of the court hearings in the first instance, there were 16 court hearings, 5 hearings from which were postponed due to the absence of victim, witnesses or judge or a lawyer of another convicted person.

During the fourth round of court hearings in the trial, there were 10 court hearings, 4 from which were postponed due to the absence of witnesses or judge.

On 06 December 2011 the Shepetivskyi Court quashed the resolution of 29 December 2009 and directed the applicant's criminal case-file to the Shepetivskyi Inter-district Prosecutor's Office for re-opening of investigation. It was the fifth round of criminal investigations.

On 28 January 2012 the Shepetivskyi Inter-district Prosecutor's Office terminated the criminal proceedings due to failure to prove a guilt of the applicant and withdrew an arrest imposed on property.

During the whole length of criminal proceedings regarding the applicant's case there were numerous delays and based on no reason adjournments. Several periods of State authorities' inactivity; decisions of re-sending the case-file to additional investigation due to procedural mistakes made by state bodies; use of ineffective tools within the situation, when there is the repetitive and constant absence of witnesses and unwilling to do the forensic expertise caused insurmountable obstacles which failed to provide the reasonable time of proceedings concerning the applicant's case.

Based on the judgment of the Slavutskyi Court dated 17 July 2003 the ownership of 28/100 of a shop “Podolianka” was registered under the United State Tax Inspectorate in Shepetivka. On 11 March 2004 the United State Tax Inspectorate in Shepetivka transferred28/100 of a shop “Podolianka” to private enterprise "Promtekhresurs" for sale at public auction.

From 07 February 2008 till June 2019 Mrs Sv-ts has tried to return her property through administrative and civil procedures. 5 times she lodged requests to the different States authorities (the Prosecutor's Office, the State Treasury Service of Ukraine, Unified Tax Inspectorate), bank "Nadra" on returning her property, they all were refused.

Mrs Sv-ts instituted three civil proceedings regarding the returning of her property. All of them went through three court instances. The third applicant's claim was filed to the District Court in June 2016. The cassation appeal in the third circle of proceedings was filed by the applicant on 18 April 2017. The trial in the third instance is still pending.

In June 2010 Mrs Sv-ts lodged an application before the European Court on Human Rights regarding the breach of Article 6.1 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol 1 to the Convention in the context of the unlawful confiscation of her property.

In January 2019 Mrs Sv-ts turned to the SLC lawyer and asked for legal assistance at stage of communication before the Court.

On 20 June 2019 the SLC lawyer provided the communication before the Court concerning the violations of the Convention made by Ukrainian authorities during the whole length of abovementioned proceedings.

On 07 July 2019 the judgment of the Supreme Court was published from 12 June 2019. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial. Thereby, the fourth circle of civil proceedings concerning Mrs. Sv-ts’s case started.

On 30 April 2020 ECtHR found a violation of Article 6.1 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol 1 to the Convention in the context of the unlawful confiscation of property of Mrs Sv-ts.

Zavadskiy v. Ukraine

Mr. Z. was accused of molesting minors and forcing sexual pleasure in an unnatural way. From 2012 to 2016, Mr. Z. was detained for 2 years and 6 months. Such detention was not based on sufficient grounds and was unfounded. The court repeatedly extended Mr. Z.'s pre-trial detention, taking into account only the gravity of the charges.

Mr. Z. sought legal assistance from the SLC.

The lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a statement to the ECtHR on violation of Art. 5 of the Convention.

The ECtHR communicated the matter with the Government.

The SLC lawyer sent observations to Government’s comments.

On June 18, 2020, the ECtHR found a violation of Art. 5 of the Convention concerning Mr. Z.

Zabolotnyy and others v.Ukraine

On 03 May, 2009 at about 5.30 p.m., having consumed 150-200 ml of vodka at birthday party, Mr. D was walking home when police officers X and Y stopped, searched and handcuffed him and shoved him into police car driven by officer Z.

They drove him towards deserted area and demanded that he pay them for not charging him for being drunk in public. Officer Y (sitting in front seat) took out knife and threatened that Mr. D. would be taken to deserted beach and drowned. Afraid for his life, applicant pushed knife away with handcuffed hands, possibly accidentally hurting driver Z, and attempted to escape. In response, officers immobilised and punched him until he lost consciousness.

When Mr. D. regained consciousness, he found himself lying on ground by entrance to Skadovsk central district hospital, with police officers kicking him. Eventually they dragged him inside hospital, where he was provided with medical assistance

Mr. D. filed a criminal complaint with the Kherson Oblast Prosecutor's Office.

On 26 March, 2009, the prosecutor's office refused to open criminal proceedings.

Mr. K. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance.

In August 2009 the lawyer of the SLC prepared a complaint to the European Court under Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects.

In 3 September 2020, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects.

4 cases in which the SLC lawyers represented applicants before the ECtHR on the stage of communication with the Government of Ukraine

D-tsky's v. Ukraine

Mr. D asked the Kharkiv Human Rights Group for legal assistance. He noted that in 2009 he had lodged before the European Court of Human Rights an application. In 2016, the application was communicated with the Government, but since then the Government has not raised any objections.

After reviewing the case file, on 11 September 2019, the lawyer filed a letter to the European Court of Human Rights on the case. On 30 October 2019, the European Court of Human Rights sent a reply, stating that the Government had requested that the case should be adjourn due to the fact that its materials were in the temporarily occupied territory. The court decided to suspend the case for uncertain time on 20 April 2016.

However, on 15 June 2016 the case-files in the applicant's case were recovered by the domestic court. However, the government did not report this to the European Court of Human Rights, and therefore the case has not been considered in the court for two years. The lawyer informed the Court and added copies of the relevant documents

On 5 December 2019 the Court informed the applicant that his letter, together with the annexes, had been sent to the Government, which had to reply by 17 December 2019.

On 15 January 2020 the Court has sent to the SLC lawyer the Government’s observations.

On 30 March 2020 the SLC lawyer has sent a reply on the Government’s observation under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention.

Kh-n v. Ukraine

In April 2015 the applicant's son, Mr. Kh., was mobilized into the Armed Forces of Ukraine and sent to serve in a reconnaissance unit near the demarcation line in the area of the armed conflict.

On June 25, 2015, Mr. Kh. died under unknown circumstances in the room, where the soldiers of his military unit lived. When he was pronounced dead, numerous injuries were found on his head. According to the results of an official investigation conducted by the military command, Mr. H., while alcoholically intoxicated, tripped over the threshold of the balcony, hit his head on the floor and died on the spot.

During the investigation of Mr. Kh.'s death, the necessary urgent investigative actions were not carried out, in particular, an inspection of the scene, eyewitnesses and other persons were not questioned. Although the forensic examination revealed numerous injuries to the victim, but the expert was unable to give them an explanation because the scene was not inspected.

After that, one and later another former comrades in the service stated that his death was the result of the actions of third parties, committed during the conflict, but this evidence was not properly assessed, and the investigation was repeatedly closed. Moreover, within several years of the investigation, the investigation was not even able to locate eyewitnesses, although this was very easy to do in the first period of the investigation. Numerous complaints of the mother to various authorities did not have results.

In 2019, the applicant lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation.

In 2020, the application was sent for communication to the Government of Ukraine. After that, the Ukrainian authorities resumed the investigation, and the Government wrote in its objections to the statement that the investigation had not yet been completed, so that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies.

In October 2020, the applicant sent regular eyewitness accounts of her son's death that his death was not accidental. She also noted that another soldier who, according to this eyewitness, was involved in her son's death, had already been convicted in another case of the double murder of others, but that the applicant's allegations had not attracted the attention of the investigation.

SLC lawyer prepared and on November 19, 2020 sent to the ECtHR a response to the Government's objections.

K-s. v. Ukraine

The applicant's requests for transfer from one penitentiary institution to another

On 11 February 2001 the applicant was detained on suspicion of aggravated premeditated murder. Prior to his detention, he lived with his parents in the village of Krogultsi, Husiatyn district, Ternopil region, Ukraine

On 12 June 2002 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of a crime and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On the same day, the conviction came into force. Until September 2004 the applicant was serving his sentence in the Kherson detention centre

On 9 September 2004 the applicant began serving his sentence in the Yenakiieve Correctional Facility (Olenivka, Yenakiieve, Donetsk Oblast), located 1,166 kilometres from his parents' residence in the Ternopil Oblast. The applicant's mother was able to visit him only once - on 29 April 2005, his father and brother never came.

During 2004-2014, the applicant repeatedly applied to the State Department for the Execution of Sentences with requests to transfer him to another penitentiary institution closer to the place of residence of his relatives

On 24 December 2015 the Appeals Commission of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine for the Distribution, Referral and Transfer of Sentenced Persons (hereinafter - the Appeals Commission) decided to keep the applicant in the Artemivsk penitentiary for further serving of sentences. The applicant's wish to serve his sentence closer to the relatives' place of residence was not taken into account due to the lack of vacancies in the colonies of the Ternopil region.

The applicant did not agree with the decision and applied for transfer to another penitentiary institution in the Ternopil region to the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine.

On 20 February 2016 the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine refused to transfer the applicant to another penitentiary institution.

The applicant disagreed with the decision and appealed against it in court. Due to heterogeneous case law in appeals against decisions of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine, he was forced to apply simultaneously to the Court of Appeal of Kherson Oblast as a court of general jurisdiction and the District Administrative Court of Kyiv as a court of administrative jurisdiction at the location of the defendant. .

Regarding the appeal of the decision of the State Penitentiary Service in courts of general jurisdiction

On 25 July 2017 the applicant's lawyer applied to the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal for an unlawful refusal to transfer his relatives to serve his sentence. In his petition, the lawyer noted that this category of cases is directly related to the execution of the sentence, and therefore should be considered in criminal proceedings under the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

On 16 August 2017 the applicant's lawyer received a reply from the Kherson Oblast Court of Appeal, which was in the form of a letter. In its letter, the court stated that the transfer of convicts between colonies was not subject to consideration by courts of general jurisdiction and could not be considered under the CPC of Ukraine. As the letter is not a form of procedural decision under the CPC of Ukraine, and procedural decisions were not made by the court, the case has not been considered on the merits so far. The applicant's lawyer was unable to appeal the court's reply because the "letter" was not included in the list of documents to be challenged.

Regarding the administrative appeal of the decision of the State Penitentiary Service

On 5 June 2016 the applicant lodged an administrative action with the Kyiv District Administrative Court declaring the decision of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine illegal. . In his action, the applicant stated that a dispute had arisen between him and the authority over the place where he had served his sentence.

The administrative lawsuit was filed with the Kyiv District Administrative Court on June 8, 2016. Only on 25 January 2017 (six months after the judgment was rendered) did the applicant receive a copy of the decision of the Kyiv District Administrative Court of 16 June 2016 refusing to open administrative proceedings. The court stated in its judgment that the applicant's administrative action concerned the execution of the sentence and should be dealt with in criminal proceedings.

On 15 May 2017, the lawyer filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

In June 2020, the statement was communicated with the Government of Ukraine.

On November 10, 2020, the lawyer prepared and sent his objections to the Government's position to the European Court of Human Rights.

Pan-ko v. Ukraine

In 2004, Pan-ko was sentenced to life imprisonment and served his sentence in Yenakiieve Correctional Colony № 52. At the same time, his relatives always lived in Bakhmut, near Yenakiieve.

In 2008, for unknown reasons, Pan-ko was transferred to the Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary Institution, and later to the Novgorod-Siversky Penitentiary З 31. From that moment on, he and his parents constantly wrote complaints and applications for the transfer of Pan-ko to the Penitentiary. correctional colony closer to the place of residence of relatives. However, despite all the letters and statements, Pan-ko was never transferred closer to his relatives.

In 2012, Pan-ko filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

In June 2020, the statement was communicated with the Government of Ukraine.

On November 10, 2020, the lawyer prepared and sent his objections to the Government's position to the European Court of Human Rights.

2 communication with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the implementation of ECtHR decisions

Group Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine

This group of cases brings together all cases concerning, among other prison issues, violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention due to overcrowding and poor material conditions and lack of access to adequate medical care in places of detention (problems with treatment of viral diseases, use of handcuffs in civilian hospitals, lack of palliative care, access to specialised medical care, replacement therapy, etc.), as well as lack of preventive and compensatory measures in relation to these issues.

In October, the lawyers of SLC prepared and sent a communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the action plan of the Government of Ukraine on the implementation of general measures in the group of cases Nevmerzhytsky v. Ukraine.

In their comments, the lawyers noted the ineffectiveness of the Government's actions to improve the actions of the Government of Ukraine to bring the conditions of detention and provide them with appropriate penitentiary standards and recommended that the Government take several actions.

On 27 October 2020, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe took into account the comments and recommendations of the KHPG lawyers and published them on the official website of the Council of Europe.

Group of Vintman v. Ukraine

The cases concern an unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to respect for family life owing to the authorities’ systematic refusal, between 2001 and 2010 in the Vintman case and between 2005-2015 in the Rodzevillo case, to transfer them to a prison closer to their home, which would enable the applicants’ relatives to visit them more often (violation of Article 8). The Court also found that there was no effective remedy in Ukraine regarding the rejections of his requests for transfer to a prison closer to his home (violation of Article 13).

In the Vintman case, the Court also found the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life on account of the monitoring of his correspondence in prison (violation of Article 8). The Court found that this interference was not “in accordance with the law”.

In the Rodzevillo case, the Court found violations under article 3 and 13 on the account of conditions of detention in SIZO and the lack of effective remedies for this complaint.

On 15 June 2020 the lawyer has prepared the submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe related to general measures at the execution of the judgement of the ECHR.

50 cases in which the complaints lodged applications on alleged violations of the Convention or applications on requesting interim measures according to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court have been prepared and lodged to the ECtHR

5 cases related events in the Eastern part of Ukraine

Adam-k v. Ukraine and Russia

On March 8, 2017, Mr. A. and another volunteer were near the “Zaytsevo” checkpoint, where at approximately 12:35 a.m., terrorist groups of the so-called DNR began mass shelling of Ukrainian territories. During the shelling, a sniper fired a large-calibre weapon at Mr. A. Mr. A. suffered numerous injuries as a result of the shelling.

On May 25, 2017, Mr. A. filed a criminal complaint to the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) in Donetsk region.

On May 25, 2017, Mr. A. filed a criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - RF) regarding his injury in the anti-terrorist operation.

On 8 June 2017 the information concerning the criminal offense against Mr. A was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPTI).

On July 5, 2017, the RF responded that a request for legal assistance regarding Mr. A.'s application was sent to the responsible authorities of Ukraine.

On July 7, 2017, Mr. A. applied to the SSU with a request to conduct investigative actions, in particular, a medical examination of bodily injuries.

On July 17, 2017, Mr. A. received a response from the SSU to grant his request. However, in reality the examination was not conducted.

 On October 5, 2017, Mr. A. sent an application to the SSU regarding the progress of the criminal investigation. However, no response was received.

On 14 May 2018, Mr. A.'s repeated request to the Russian Federation was replied that there was insufficient information on his status as a victim in the criminal proceedings and that he was therefore refused to get a response on legal aid from Ukraine.

On March 29, 2019, when asked by Mr. A. to inform about the progress of the SSU investigation, it was reported that no one was suspected of inflicting bodily harm on him, but Ms. T., who was the second wounded volunteer with Mr. A., was interrogated.

 Over the next eight months, Mr A.'s health deteriorated and he was hospitalized, so he could not effectively exercise his rights as a victim in criminal proceedings.

On February 5, 2020, Mr. A. familiarized with the case-file of the proceedings concerning the bodily injuries inflicted on him, which included: an extract from the URPTI, a decision to order investigative actions, a decision to join the criminal proceedings, the interrogation report of Mr. A. and other formal documents.

On February 14, 2020, Mr. A. applied to the RF for the third time regarding the results of their request for legal assistance to Ukraine, providing documents confirming his status as a victim.

On March 30, 2020, Mr. A. received a reply from the RF refusing to provide information on the results of the request for legal assistance sent to Ukraine and refusing to open criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation.

On June 1, 2020, an SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights regarding the violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention by Russian Federation and the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention by Ukraine and Russia.

G-ko v. Ukraine (“34 other cases”)

Mr G. was subjected to physical violence by law enforcement officials during his detention in the criminal investigation.

On 20 February 2015 a criminal proceedings regarding torture was opened. Mr G. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings.

On 10 March 2017 proceedings were closed. The decision to close the criminal proceedings was challenged by Mr G. in the court.

On 14 June 2017, the decision of the Artemivskyi District Court in Donetsk region found the criminal proceeding been ineffective in investigating the fact of the violence against Mr G. and ordered the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine to conduct a forensic medical examination. However, no action has been taken.

28.06.2017 Mr G. again filed a criminal complaint alleging that he had been tortured by law enforcement officials.

On 29 September 2017 the Pecherskyi District Court in the city of Kyiv obliged the General Prosecutor's Office to enter information to Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations on the request of Mr. G. dated on 28 June 2017, about the fact of the use of physical violence by law enforcement officers.

For two years, Mr G. unsuccessfully was trying to find out about the results of the investigation into the torture against him.

In August 2019, Mr G. turned to SLC lawyer asking to provide him legal assistance.

In December 2019 SLC lawyer submitted a motion for information on the progress of the investigation to the General Department of the National Police in Donetsk (GD NPD) region.

On 21 December 2019, according to the reply received from the GD NPD the criminal proceedings were closed. However, there was no information on how Mr G. can familiarize with the case file and where it is located.

On 8 January 2020, SLC lawyer submitted a motion to familiarize with the case file.

During August – November 2019 Mr. G was lodging numerous motions and requests to General Prosecutor’s Office and to the General Department of the National Police in Donetsk (GD NPD) region trying to find out where the case-file of criminal proceeding concerning a fact of tortures was located which was opened basing on the decision the Pecherskyi District Court in the city of Kyiv from 29 September 2017.

On 4 November 2019, at the request of a SLC lawyer, the administration of General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine announced that, based on the decision of the Pecherskyi District Court in the city of Kyiv dated on 29 September 2017, the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine opened criminal proceedings from June 18, 2018 and transferred it to the GD NPD.

On 15 November 2019 Mr. G sent a motion to familiarize with the case-file of criminal proceeding (hereinafter – cp) to GD NPD.

On 26 November 2019 GD NPD notified Mr. G on termination of cp but didn’t state where Mr. G could familiarize with the case-file of cp.

On 11 December 2019 Mr. G sent a repeated motion on familiarizing with the case-file of cp to GD NPD.

On 21 December 2019 Mr. G received one anther response from GD NPD which was the same as the response from 26 November 2019.

On 9 January 2020, taking into account a factual refuse in providing a concrete address of location of the case-file of cp Mr. G applied to GD NPD again with request on providing him the concrete address of police office where he could familiarize with the case-file and sent a complaint to the head of GD NPD concerning absence of complete information in regard of cp.

On 21 January 2020 Mr. G received a response from GD NPD which stated the address where Mr. G had a possibility to familiarize with the case-file.

On 20 February 2020 Mr. G familiarized with the case-file. The case-file of cp contained one document concerning a conduct of investigative (detective) action within cp, in particular – the record of inspection dated on 25 June 2018, but it only listed present documents on the first criminal proceedings concerning Mr. G’s tortures.

On 2 March 2020 Mr. G lodged a complaint on termination of cp to investigating judge of Kramatorskyi city court in Donetsk region, because on 20 February 2020 he got an access to the decision on termination of cp for the first time and the case-file didn’t consist any confirmation that he was notified on termination of the cp in the appropriate way.

On 13 March 2020 Kramatorskyi city court in Donetsk region returned a complaint with a motivation that Mr. G chose the court jurisdiction incorrectly.

On 17 March 2020 Mr. G appealed to Donetsk Court of Appeal.

On 2 April 2020 Donetsk Court of Appeal granted the complaint of Mr. G and returned the case for a new trial.

On 7 May 2020 Kramatorskyi city court in Donetsk region canceled the decision on termination of the cp due to absence of full and appropriate pre-trial investigation.

On 1 June 2020 Mr. G lodged a motion to GD NPD on the progress of the investigation of cp.

On 19 June 2020 Mr. G received a response from GD NPD from 11.06.2020 which stated that after the ruling of Kramatorskyi court there were no investigative actions conducted and no one was notified with suspicion.

On September 10, 2020, the investigator of the First Investigation Department of the DBR in Kramatorsk terminated the cp.

On October 10, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the ECtHR regarding the violation of Art. 3 of the Convention.

Pro-rov v. Ukraine

 Mr. P., born on October 25, 1992, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

From July 22, 2013 to the present day, Mr. P. is serving his sentence in the Donetsk Pre-trial Detention Centre (hereinafter – CIZO).

On April 7, 2014, the Anti-Terrorist Operation began in the Donetsk region.

In August-September 2014, members of illegal armed groups intensified their activities to seize office buildings. Since then and to this day, the Donetsk pre-trial detention centre is under the control of the so-called "Ministry of Justice of the DNR".

Since the beginning of hostilities, conditions in the Donetsk SIZO have been steadily deteriorating and are currently beyond the minimum human needs.

Mr. P.'s representatives appealed to the Ombudsman with requests to evacuate him. The Ombudsman included Mr. P. in the list of persons applying to the Ombudsman for relocation to the territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine.

To date, Mr. P. continues to be detained in territory not controlled by Ukraine.

In August 2020, Mr. P. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On November 17, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the ECtHR regarding the violation of Art. 3, 5-1, 13 of the Convention.

Tk-ko v. Ukraine and Russia

On July 26, 2016, Ms. T.'s home in Avdiivka was damaged due to a shelling in city of Avdiivka. A pre-trial investigation into criminal proceedings was opened in the Avdiivka Police Department.

In the said criminal proceedings Ms. T was recognized as a victim. Then the case was transferred to investigators of General Department of State Security Service in Donetsk and Lugansk region (GU SBU).

On July 2, 2017, Ms. T. applied to the CSS for legal assistance.

The SLC lawyer has repeatedly asked to be informed of the progress of the investigation and the investigative measures taken, but no response has been received.

From the answer of 2 GU SBU of the SBU of October 09, 2017 it became known that the criminal proceedings were merged into the other criminal proceedings.

During 2019 Ms. T. repeatedly filed complaints about investigator’s inaction due to the absence of any following information.

On 24 January 2019 2 GU SBU notified Ms. T. that she could familiarize with the case-file of the pre-trial investigation.

 In September, Ms. T applied for the familiarizing with the case file.

On 9 October 2019, she was informed by the 1st GU SBU on investigative activities, namely, the one victim's interrogation, the inspection of the scene of a crime and the photo table of the destroyed house.

On 26 November 2019 Ms. T filed criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of Russian Federation.

On 20 December 2019, a SLC lawyer submitted a motion on investigate measures. However, no response was received.

On 26 December 2019 the Investigative Committee of Russian Federation sent a response that the Committee sent a request on legal help to law enforcement agencies of Ukraine.

On 8 January 2020, a SLC lawyer filed a complaint about the investigator's inaction.

On 4 February 2020 Ms. T from a decision of Zhovtnevyi city court of Mariupol on refusing in granting her complaint was informed that her motion on investigative measures had been granted by investigator.

On 19 March 2020 Ms. T lodged a motion to familiarize with a case-file.

On 30 March 2020 GU SBU stated in its response that the case-file had been sent her earlier and the copy of previous response of GU SBU was added.

On 28 April 2020 the SLC lawyer sent an application to ECtHR on violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 13 of the Convention on behalf of Ms. T.

Tol-chova v. Ukraine and Russia

Ms. Tol-Chova (hereinafter - the Applicant) is actively involved in volunteering during the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine.

On 8 March 2017 the applicant, as part of a volunteer group, together with another volunteer with whom she was on friendly terms (hereinafter the second victim), were near the “Zaytsevo” checkpoint, where at approximately 12.35 pm terrorist troupes of so-called “DNR” started mass shelling of Ukrainian territories. During the shelling, the applicant received severe gunshot wounds to the head. The applicant underwent two surgeries to remove shell fragments from her head, to remove shell fragments from facial tissues and from under the trigeminal nerve. From March 2017 until today, the Applicant has been in constant need of inpatient treatment.

For 3 years the applicant had sent requests for investigative actions and requests for information on the progress of the pre-trial investigation. However, none of the investigations requested by Ms T. had been carried out, nor had any person been reported as a suspect.

The applicant also lodged a complaint about the crime with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation informed the applicant that upon her application the investigators had prepared and sent a request for legal assistance to the competent authorities of Ukraine in order to verify the data set out in the application. The applicant did not receive any more information from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

Aware of the ineffectiveness of the investigation by the Ukrainian and Russian investigators into her injury, the applicant sought legal assistance from the SLC.

On July 2, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC sent a complaint to the ECtHR alleging a violation of the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.

44 more cases in which applications have been lodged before the ECHR

Al-v v. Ukraine

On 09 May 2010 Mr. A was remanded in custody.

On 9 February 2012 Mr. A. was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky City District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 25 November 2019 Mr. A. applied to the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 27 January 2020 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast denied Mr. A.'s application because in the court's view early release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 5 February 2020 Mr. A's lawyer lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention.

On 30 January 2020 Mr. A. lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 17 March 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. A.'s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In September 2020 Mr. A. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On October 08, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

Al-Seev v. Ukraine

On 23 December 2016 Mr. A. was remanded in custody.

On 7 September 2017 Mr. A. was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky City District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 10 January 2018 the Court of Appeal in Khmelnytsky region upheld the judgment of the Khmelnytsky City District Court of the Khmelnytsky region and dismissed Mr. A.'s appeal. The sentence came into force.

On 6 June 2019 the Supreme Court granted Mr. A.'s appeal in part and dismissed MR. A's defence counsel cassation appeal. His term of imprisonment from 23 December 2016 to 10 January 2018 was credited to the term of serving the sentence, including one day of pre-trial detention for two days of imprisonment. As for today, Mr. A. has been in penitentiaries and detention centres for more than three years.

On 8 November 2019 Mr. A. applied to the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 22 January 2020 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast denied Mr. A.'s application because in the court's view early release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 5 February 2020 Mr. A's lawyer lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention.

On 10 February 2020 Mr. A. lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 25 February 2020 Mr. A. sent additional data to the appeal to the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal.

On 12 March 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. A.'s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In April 2020 Mr. A. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 13, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

B-ko v. Ukraine

On 6 June 2002 the applicant was sentenced by the Kyiv Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he is in penitentiary institutions for more than twenty-one years.

In 2017, the applicant applied for parole to the Leninsky District Court of Dnipro ('the Leninsky Court'). In his petition, he asked to bring his sentence in line with European law.

On 14 December 2017 the Leninsky District Court of Dnipro denied the applicant his application because, in the court's view, there were no grounds to apply).

The applicant appealed against this decision to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 4 April 2020 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application. The decision is not subject to appeal According to the general rules, the appeal of such a decision in cassation proceedings is not provided.

At the same time, the applicant claims that he is still in prison, that his legal status has not changed and that the violation against him is ongoing.

On 9 September 2020 the lawyer lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention against the applicant.

B-ka v. Ukraine

The applicant, Ms. B., worked as a Deputy Minister of Justice from January 2016 to September 2018 and, in accordance with her functional responsibilities, supervised and coordinated the activities of the Government Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Government Commissioner).

In the summer of 2015, the Government Commissioner applied the amicable settlement procedure in the ECtHR case at the request of one of the legal entities of private law to the State of Ukraine for long-term non-enforcement of the final decision of the national court. Following the approval by the ECtHR of the amicable settlement agreement, the amount of the debt in the amount of UAH 54 million was paid to the legal entity at the request of the debt collector.

In May 2017, National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as NABU) launched a pre-trial investigation into the abuse of office, which caused damage to the state in a particularly large amount. At the same time, the pre-trial investigation body, in particular, considered it illegal to apply the amicable settlement procedure, despite the fact that it is provided for both by the ECtHR Rules and by the provisions of Ukrainian law.

In January 2020 the Office of the Prosecutor General informed the applicant of a suspicion of abuse of office and misappropriation of state budget funds in a particularly large amount. The NABU detective then applied to the investigating judge for bail in the amount of UAH 44 million, which was partially granted in the amount of UAH 7 million, despite the fact that the applicant had an impeccable reputation and had returned from an abroad business trip specifically to participate in the proceedings, and several persons, who deserve respect, offered to court to take her on personal bail.

The applicant appealed against the decision to use bail, but it had no result. Considering her prosecution and suspicion of committing criminal offenses to be completely unfounded, on August 21, 2020 the applicant complained to the ECtHR that there had been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, including a disproportionate amount of bail.

 

Bir-v v. Ukraine

Mr. B. was detained by police on 19 February 2014 for unexplained reasons. No official recording or placement in the detention facility took place within 2 days.

Only on 21 February 2015, at 4.50 pm, by a decision of the Krasnoarmiysk City District Court of the Donetsk Region ("the Court"), Mr. B. was remanded in custody for 60 days. The list of documents attached to the decision contained a report on detention dated February 21, 2015, drawn up at 18.00, which is 1 hour later than the above decision.

On 15 April 2015 the court continued to remand Mr. B. in custody on suspicion of having committed a particularly serious crime and the lack of data on the reduction of risks provided for in Art. 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter - the CPC). The decision did not contain any arguments to any paragraph of Article 177 of CPC. Mr. B.'s defence counsel objected to the continued detention.

The next 7 times (July 22, 2015, September 28, 2015, November 23, 2015, January 20, 2016, March 17, 2016, May 11, 2016, May 25, 2016) the court decisions continued detention.

On July 27, 2016, the Donetsk Court of Appeal refused to initiate proceedings on the grounds that at that time it was impossible to appeal the decision of this type to the court of appeal separately from the verdict.

The next four times (July 20, 2016, September 16, 2016, November 10, 2016, January 4, 2017) the court decisions continued detention.

The next four times (April 20, 2017, May 21, 2017, June 9, 2017, July 26, 2017) the court continued to detain Mr. B. basing on the absence of arguments about the existence of specific risks, the main argument of which was that Mr. B. was accused of committing a particularly serious crime.

The next four times (September 13, 2017, November 9, 2017, December 8, 2017, February 2, 2018) the court continued to detain Mr. B. on the same grounds.

Throughout the above period, Mr. B. repeatedly appealed against the decisions to continue his detention, but each time without success.

On March 6, 2018, the Krasnoarmiysk City District Court of the Donetsk Region found Mr. B. guilty of committing crimes and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. In the decision, the court determined "the precautionary measure until the sentence enters into force to be kept in custody."

Mr. B. had repeatedly lodged complaints with the authorities concerning his unjustified and unlawful detention, both administratively and judicially.

On October 29, 2018, Mr. B.'s defence counsel filed a petition with the Donetsk Court of Appeal to release Mr. B. from custody due to the expiration of his detention, because after the extension of detention specified in the March 6, 2018 decision, the expediency of further detention of Mr. B. was never reconsidered.

On October 30, 2018, Mr. B. filed a petition with the Donetsk Court of Appeal to change the measure of restraint from detention to house arrest.

Neither the defence counsel's nor Mr. B.'s motions were considered by the Court of Appeal. The issue of detention was never resolved during the appeals proceedings.

On November 12, 2018, Mr. B. filed an application with the Artemivsk City District Court of the Donetsk Region pursuant to Art. 206 of the CCP. On November 14, 2018, the investigating judge of the Artemivsk Court denied Mr. B.'s complaint, which he appealed to the appellate court.

On November 21, 2018, Mr. B. filed another application with the Donetsk Region Court pursuant to Art. 206 of the CCP. On November 22, 2018, the investigating judge of the Artemivsk Court denied Mr. B.'s complaint, which he appealed to the appellate court.

On November 26, 2018, the Donetsk Court of Appeal refused to open proceedings on Mr. B.'s complaint.

On December 5, 2018, the Donetsk Court of Appeal refused to open proceedings on Mr. B.'s complaint.

On August 15, 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. B.'s cassation appeal against the decision of the Donetsk Court of Appeal of November 26, 2018.

 On October 4, 2019, the Donetsk Court of Appeal overturned the court's verdict of March 6, 2018 and remanded the case for a new trial. By this decision, the Court of Appeal commuted Mr. B.'s pre-trial detention to 24-hour house arrest.

On 24 February 2020, an SLC lawyer lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in the context of the automatic extension of Mr. B.'s detention on remand for five years.

D-ov v. Ukraine

On October 17, 2017, the car driven by Mr. D. collided with another car driven by Ms. Z., as a result it flew to the sidewalk, fatally injured 6 pedestrians and 6 others were injured, 5 of them - severe.

The car under the control of Ms. Z. moved through the intersection on a prohibitory signal of a traffic light with very high speed, not less than 100 km/h.

Many forensic examinations were carried out, which did not determine the exact speed of the cars, as well as the location of the collision with the reference to stationary objects, although the case file contained video footage of the accident from various video cameras. The conclusions of the experts of the Kharkiv expert institution differed in some respects from those of the experts of the Dnipropetrovsk expert institution, what was pointed out by Mr. P.’s defence.

At the request of the prosecutor, the court of first instance repeatedly interrogated Kharkiv experts, but denied the request of Mr. P.’s defense counsel about interrogation of the Dnipropetrovsk experts.

On February 26, 2019, the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv announced a verdict finding both drivers involved in the accident guilty and sentenced each of them to 10 years in prison, with a joint significant amount of money, mainly to compensate the moral damaged caused to victims.

On August 14, 2019, the Kharkiv Court of Appeals considered the appeals of the defense attorneys in one hearing, without examining the evidence available in the case, and upheld the sentence, in part of the sentence, and changed the amount of joint damages to 50% of the total amount of claims.

SLC lawyer prepared a cassation appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court. At the end of December 2019, the Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court decided to open cassation proceedings and demanded the materials of the criminal proceedings from the court of first instance.

On April 3, 2017, the Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of the lawyers of both convicts and refused to satisfy them. The reasons for leaving the court decisions in the case unchanged were that the court of first instance fully and comprehensively considered all the circumstances of the case, did not violate the right to defense or the principle of adversarial proceedings, and made a lawful and reasoned decision. The appellate court has checked the verdict, so his decision is fair. The Supreme Court did not take into account the arguments of Mr. D.’s lawyer, in particular, that the case in general investigated the connection between violations of traffic rules and the collision of vehicles, and not with the death of people, that the courts did not take into account the last driver’s maneuver of speeding up instead of braking, which played significant role on the consequences of the event. Some of the victims admitted that the degree of guilt of the convicts was different, but the court left the punishment for both of them the same - the maximum, which is provided by this article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On October 3, 2020 the applicant's lawyer lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Mr D.'s right to a fair trial. In particular, the applicant complained that the three courts had failed to provide substantive answers to the main arguments of the defense. In addition, the courts of cassation and appellate instances did not respond to the arguments set out in the appellate and cassation appeals, in particular the lack of causal link between the actions of Mr. D. and the consequences of the event, and in any case, the obvious varying degrees of convicts’ guilt.

At present, Mr. D. is awaiting information from the ECtHR.

Vo-zhis against Ukraine

On 11 March 2011 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal found V. ('the applicant') guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for more than eleven years.

 On 9 March 2020 the applicant applied to the Kherson City Court of the Kherson Region for a change in his sentence to a term of imprisonment.

 On 4 May 2020 the Kherson City Court denied the applicant's application.

On 12 May 2020 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Kherson Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

 On 30 June 2020 the Kherson Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application.

At the end of September 2020, the applicant applied to a SLC lawyer for legal assistance.

On 19 October 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for lifers.

Grits-y and Ukraine

In 2019-2020, Mr. G. appealed to the national courts of the first instance concerning the impossibility of his parole as a person sentenced to life imprisonment.

In October 2020 the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On October 23, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisonment.

Evhl-y against Ukraine

In 2020, Mr. E. appealed to the national courts of the first instance concerning the impossibility of his parole as a person sentenced to life imprisonment.

At the end of August 2020, Mr. E. turned to the lawyer of the SLC for legal assistance.

On 31 August 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for lifers.

Ko-ko v. Ukraine

 In 2020, Mr K. challenged in the national courts of the first instance the impossibility of his parole as a person sentenced to life imprisonment. In both instances, he was denied.

At the end of August 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On September 8, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for convicts, who sentenced to life imprisonment.

K-ko v. Ukraine

K-ko, who is serving his sentence at the Lviv Penitentiary Institution, turned to the SLC lawyer for legal assistance. He provided medical documents confirming that he had spinal cancer and said he needed surgery. To do this, he must be taken to a hospital of the Ministry of Health, where K-ka will be examined by a neurosurgeon and then undergo surgery.

On June 30, 2020, CSS's lawyer filed a complaint against Mr. K-ka withheld from the hospital for diagnosis and consultation with the Lviv Oblast Prosecutor's Office. Branches of the Health Care Centre in Lviv Oblast and to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Commissioner for Human Rights.

On 13 July 2020 the lawyer applied to the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to order the Government of Ukraine to provide the applicant with immediate treatment.

In response, the Government provided documents. That allegedly such treatment is provided and is sufficient in the conditions of the penitentiary institution.

Therefore, on 23 July 2020 the European Court of Human Rights refused to apply Rule 39 to the applicant.

On 10 August 2020 the lawyer submitted to the court the full text of the application alleging violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, and on 10 September 2020 the applicant died. The applicant's relatives refused to support further proceedings in court

Ku-tsov v. Ukraine

On 12 December 1995 the applicant was found guilty of a crime and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court of the Ivano-Frankivsk Region (hereinafter referred to as the Ivano-Frankivsk Court). The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in prison for more than twenty-five years.

On 19 June 2019 the applicant applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court for release from prison or for a milder sentence.

On 22 July 2019 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court denied the applicant's application because, in the court's view, early release for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 1 August 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention

On 11 November 2019 the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court's judgment, stating that the first-instance court had to consider the applicant's application on the merits and that the first-instance court's arguments that there was no lifetime release mechanism in Ukraine were inappropriate. in the absence of a national mechanism, the court should use international practice

On 26 December 2019 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court again refused to release the applicant, stating that he could not replace the legislature and create a new rule of law, and that, in the court's view, the applicant had not proved his correction.

On 9 January 2020 the applicant lodged a new appeal with the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal.

On 20 May 2020 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal, in fact relying on the same grounds as the trial court.

On 16 September 2020 the lawyer lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention against the applicant.

Mal-khov v. Ukraine

On 31 July 2007 the Zaporizhia Regional Court of Appeal found Mr. M. ('the applicant') guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for almost fourteen years.

On 18 June 2019, the applicant applied to the Vilniansky District Court of Zaporizhia region for parole or commutation of the sentence

On 11 November 2019 the Vilniansky court denied the applicant's application, as the possibility of parole provided for in an article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine could apply to persons serving a restraint of liberty or imprisonment for a determinate term.

On 27 November 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention.

 On 30 January 2020 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application.

In early October 2020 the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On 19 October 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for lifers.

M-chenko v. Ukraine

On 28 October 2001 the applicant was sentenced by the Zaporizhia Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in prison for more than nineteen years.

On 17 February 2020 the applicant applied to the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for release on parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or commuted to a milder sentence.

On 11 March 2020 the Izyaslav Court denied the applicant's application because, in the court's view, early release for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 19 March 2020 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 9 April 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application. The decision is not subject to appeal. According to the general rules, an appeal against such a decision is not provided for in cassation proceedings.

On 15 September 2020 the lawyer lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention against the applicant.

Rya-nin v. Ukraine

On 20 February 2006 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal found R. ('the applicant') guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for almost fourteen years.

 On 23 September 2019 the applicant applied to the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia region for parole or commutation of his life sentence to 15 years' imprisonment.

On 3 March 2020 the Vinnytsia City Court denied the applicant's application, as the applicant had not been sentenced to any of the types of sentences listed in the articles on parole of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

 On 12 March 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 29 April 2020 the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal denied the applicant's motion.

In early September 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On September 14, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisonment.

Case concerning torture and ill-treatment of convicts in Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony №25

Because of intimidation, convicts did not complain of torture for many years. However, on December 30, 2019, on the occasion of a report of suspicion of colony officials for committing official crimes and another beating of one of the prisoners, the convicts collectively complained to the colony chief about illegal actions of the administration, primarily torture and ill-treatment, which in some cases reached horrible forms.

On January 3, 2020, representatives of the KHPG conducted a monitoring visit to DEC-25, previously the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture has repeatedly reported on the unsatisfactory situation with respect for the rights of convicts. During the visit, a large group of convicts filed a written complaint against the administration's actions, primarily torture and other ill-treatment, writing allegations of crimes by the colony administration.

It was at this time while the official prosecution of the heads of the institution for food theft and other abuses began, so for the first time in many years, the convicts decided to file their complaints. Seeing that most of the convicts wanted to complain, the penitentiary authorities introduced special forces into the colony at night, with the official version to prevent destabilization of the situation in the institution. The special forces pulled the convicts, mostly complainants, out of their beds, forced them to lie in the cold without clothes on the asphalt, then dragged them to the administration building and forced them to crawl on their knees with their hands behind backs. Those of the convicts who expressed dissatisfaction were beaten.

Surprisingly, during these special events, which were officially conducted as a "general search", all stationary video cameras in the colony, as well as portable video recorders of special services did not work.

The so-called "special conditions regime" was begun in the correctional colony, and since then human rights activists have been barred from entering the colony, and even lawyers have not been allowed into the colony for almost two weeks.

 The special forces were left in the colony for another three weeks, in fact to intimidate the convicts.

Dozens of allegations of crime have been filed with law enforcement, and prosecutors have opened criminal proceedings. The investigation in the case was entrusted to a unit of the State Bureau of Investigation (DBR) in Poltava. Complainant convicts were pressured to drop their complaints, and some were beaten. The SLC lawyers representing these victims had initially requested that security measures be applied to the convicts, but this had not been done in time, so an application was made to the ECtHR for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

As a result of the pressure, many convicts withdrew their claims to the administration, including one to which they were subjected to the most brutal torture.

The pre-trial investigation did not clarify in detail the circumstances that matter, in particular, why the video surveillance system did not work, how special units were introduced into the institution to obtain permission from the penitentiary system, under what circumstances after the so-called "general search" many convicts suffered numerous injuries, including abrasions and bruises on their knees and shoulders.

Medical recording of traces of bodily injuries took place with a significant delay, so some of the injuries disappeared until the time of the examination, which was conducted formally, without complying with international guidelines for the investigation of allegations of torture. Doctors invited by the convicts' lawyers were not allowed to examine the convicts.

On 10 February 2020, SLC lawyers lodged a complaint with the ECtHR on behalf of six convicts alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which was subsequently lodged on behalf of another convict.

The requests of the lawyers to conduct certain investigative and covert investigative (search) actions were not implemented, except for the interrogation of convicts - victims of illegal violence, which were also conducted with considerable delay.

The investigation revealed a complete inability of the DBR to effectively investigate crimes of torture both in terms of content (lack of both methodology and experience in investigating crimes of this kind) and organizational plan, as all communication between victims and investigators takes place exclusively through the DBR's territorial office in Poltava, caused delays of at least two weeks.

Lawyers have also filed several allegations of crimes on banning them from meeting with convicted clients in the colony in criminal proceedings for illegal violence, but they are not actually being investigated.

Currently, the investigation is formally ongoing, its materials have been transferred to the Office of the General Prosecutor.

In February 2020, the materials of the pre-trial investigation were transferred for examination to the Office of the Prosecutor General.

In the end of March 2020, the SLC lawyer filed several motions with the investigator to conduct specific investigative actions, including resolving significant inconsistencies in the testimony of DEC-25 officers, as well as questioning new witnesses and requesting a number of documents. None of the following investigative actions was carried out.

Following the introduction of quarantine measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus infection in April 2020, monitoring groups stopped admitting to DEC-25. During this time, the administration of the institution increased the pressure on convicts in order to force them to withdraw their complaints, and some convicts did so.

At the same time, some other convicts also expressed a desire to complain about ill-treatment by the administration, both on the day of the use of special services (08.01.2020) and in previous periods. Using complaints to the investigating judge, the lawyers of the SLC managed to get the statements of several more convicts included in the materials of the proceedings, and those convicts were recognized as victims of the actions of the institution administration.

In the summer of 2020, the materials of the pre-trial investigation were again sent to the Office of the Prosecutor General “for examination”, but the specific investigative actions, requested by the SLC lawyers, were not carried out.

In July 2020, the ECtHR Registry sent a letter proposing, in addition to the collective complaint of DEC-25 convicts, to send separate completed forms to each of the applicants.

The lawyer of the SLC prepared 5 separate applications and on August 14, 2020 sent them to the ECtHR.

In August 2020, representatives of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) visited Ukraine, when they visited, in particular, DEC-25 and received confirmation of information on the use of torture in this institution during the periods indicated by the convicts.

In October 2020, formal interrogations took place as victim convicts, who applied to the administration last. After these interrogations, the SLC lawyer re-examined the materials of the pre-trial investigation, during which he found out that since January 2020, investigators have not conducted any new investigative actions aimed at establishing the circumstances of ill-treatment of convicts, including the use of special services on 08.01.2020.

After that, the lawyer filed a request for investigative experiments, forensic examinations and interrogation of the victims of the convicts using a polygraph, but none of these investigative actions was carried out.

Didenko v. Ukraine

On 20 November 2000 the Kyiv City Court found Mr. D. guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Mr. D. is still serving his sentence. He has been in penitentiaries for more than seventeen years.

In August 2018, Mr D.'s lawyer first applied to the court to commute his life sentence to a more lenient one due to the fact that the Ukrainian procedure for imposing and serving a life sentence violates Article 3 of the Convention.

On September 3, 2018, the Bohunsky District Court of Zhytomyr (hereinafter - the Bohunsky District Court) denied Mr. D.'s request.

On April 2, 2020, Mr. D. filed a motion for his parole with the Bohunsky District Court. In his petition, he asked for the sentence to be commuted to a milder one.

On June 15, 2020, the Bohunsky District Court denied Mr. D.'s request because, in the court's opinion, parole for life imprisonments was not possible.

On 25 June 2020, Mr. D. appealed against this decision to the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On November 2, 2020, the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal denied Mr. D.'s request. According to the general rules, an appeal against such a decision is not provided for in cassation proceedings.

In November 2020, Mr. D. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 8 December 2020, a SLC lawyer lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

 

Dy-tkin v. Ukraine

On 16 July 2004 the Kyiv Court of Appeal found Mr. D. guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Mr. D. is still serving his sentence. He has been in penitentiaries for more than seventeen years.

On July 31, 2019, Mr. D. filed a motion for his parole with the Romensky City District Court of the Sumy Region (hereinafter referred to as the Romensky City Court). In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or commuted.

On March 13, 2020, the Romensky City Court denied Mr. D.'s request because, in the court's opinion, parole was not possible for life imprisonments.

On 1 April 2020, Mr. D. appealed against this decision to the Sumy Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On September 10, 2020, the Sumy Court of Appeal denied Mr. D. his request. The decision is not subject to appeal. As a general rule, there is no provision for appealing such a decision in cassation proceedings.

In November 2020, Mr. D. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 10 December 2020, a SLC lawyer lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Yev-vsky v. Ukraine and Russia

In March 2019, Mr. Ye. (hereinafter - the applicant) stated that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been serving his sentence in the Donetsk CIZO № 5 for many years.

Only on 08.02.2016 the applicant was evacuated to the territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine - to the State Institution “Bakhmut IES № 6”.

From March 2019 to May 2020, the applicant, with the assistance of a SLC lawyer, tried to challenge the Government's inaction in the domestic law enforcement authorities. However, the applicant alleged that he had been denied access to any remedies due to the inaction of the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. The applicant also claims that due to Russia's failure to recognize the fact of its effective control over the occupied territory, appeals to its authorities are a priori ineffective.

On June 2, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and filed a complaint with the European Court in accordance with Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention.

F-chuk v. Ukraine

 On 12 April 2001 Mr F-chuk (hereinafter - 'the applicant') was sentenced by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for more than six years.

On 11 April 2019 the applicant submitted a motion (with additions of 19 August 2019) to be released on parole to the Krasnogvardeisky District Court of Dnipro

On 19 August 2019 the Krasnogvardeisky court denied the applicant's request because, in the court's view, early release from parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 4 September 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 9 December 2019 the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application. The decision is not subject to appeal.

On 10 April 2020 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On April 20, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisoned person.

Ig-n no.1 v. Ukraine

On 22 August 2001 Mr. Ig-n ('the applicant') was remanded in custody.

On 6 January 2005 the applicant was sentenced by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. He has been in penitentiaries and remand centres for more than eighteen years.

On 2 July 2019 the applicant applied to the Izyaslav City District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 31 July 2019 the Khmelnytsky Court refused the applicant's application because in the court's view release on parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 12 August 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 13 September 2019 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal denied the applicant's appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In December 2019 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On March 10, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On July 2, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

Ig-n no.2 v. Ukraine

Mr. I is serving a sentence in Zamkova correctional colony № 58. Zamkova colony is one of the most remote correctional colonies from home of Mr. I (the city of Mariupol, which is 1100 km away) and where his mother lives.

On 15 May 2017 Mr. I submitted a motion to Ministry of Justice of Ukraine asking to transfer him to another penitentiary facility.

On 30 August 2017 Ministry of Justice of Ukraine rejected to transfer Mr. I.

On 30 October 2017 Mr. I filed an administrative complaint to the Circuit Administrative Court asking to abolish a decision of Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

On 14 December 2017 the Court granted the complaint. Ministry of Justice lodged an appeal.

On 20 February the Court of Appeal refused to grant the appeal of Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice lodged a cassation appeal.

On 16 May 2019 the Supreme Court rejected to grant the cassation.

On 10 July 2019 the Court obligated Ministry of Justice to reconsider Mr. I.'s application.

Despite obligation, Ministry of Justice didn’t do anything and was ignoring all the applications of Mr. I.

In the August 2019 Mr. I turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

On 06 November 2019 SLC lawyer submitted an application to the enforcement department for opening enforcement proceedings regarding the obligation of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to reconsider Mr I.'s application.

On 21 November 2019 the enforcement department issued a resolution opening the enforcement proceedings, stating the need for the Ministry of Justice to execute the decision within 10 working days.

The Ministry of Justice did not comply with the decision of the executor, however, the executor did not use any means of influence required by law to enforce the court decision.

On 27 December 2019 SLC lawyer appealed to the district administrative court with an administrative claim for recognition of the inactivity of the executor and the obligation of the executor to take the actions provided by law.

On 7 February 2020 during the trial the Khmelnytsky Court found that the enforcement department had nevertheless issued a decision under the law on 27 December 2019 but had not notified the applicant of such a decision. In this connection, the Khmelnytsky Court upheld the applicant's claim in part and ordered the executor to send such a decision to Mr. I.

The Executive Service Department filed an appeal with the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal against the decision of the Khmelnytsky Court.

On March 23, 2020, the Seventh Court of Appeal returned the appeal of the Executive Service Department for non-compliance with the procedural deadlines.

As of June 2020, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine has not taken any action to enforce the court decision of May 16, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, the SLC lawyer prepared and sent an application to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.

Kol-ko v. Ukraine

On December 31, 2014, at 3:15 p.m., Mr. K. was detained by police for unexplained reasons at the Bakhmut railway station.

Numerous bodily injuries were inflicted during Mr. K.'s detention. On the same day, at 5 p.m., the police officers drew up a report on the applicant's detention stating that the offense had been committed by Mr. K. on 20 December 2014.

On 1 January 2015, Mr. K. was informed of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal code of Ukraine.

On 2 January 2015 the investigator requested that Mr. K. be remanded in custody. On the same day, the Artemivsk City District Court of the Donetsk Region ("the Court") ruled that Mr. K. be remanded in custody.

On 24 February 2015 the court continued to remand Mr. K. in custody basing on suspicion of having committed a particularly serious crime and the lack of data on the reduction of risks provided for in Art. 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

On 9 April 2015 the court extended the detention of Mr. K. on the ground that "the circumstances which led to the choice of the measure of restraint in the form of detention continue to exist". The decision did not contain arguments on the existence of any of the risks provided for in Article 177 of the CPC.

The next six times (June 5, 2015, August 4, 2015, August 20, 2015, October 15, 2015, December 4, 2015, January 18, 2016) the court continued to detain Mr. K.

Next ten times (March 3, 2016, April 20, 2016, June 10, 2016, August 5, 2016, September 14, 2016, November 7, 2016, December 13, 2016, February 3, 2017, March 10, 2017, 13 April 2017) court rulings extended the detention of Mr. K. in the absence of arguments as to the existence of specific risks, and the main argument for these decisions was that Mr. K. was charged with a particularly serious crime.

On June 9, 2017, the court found Mr. K. guilty of the crime and sentenced him to 11 years in prison. In the decision, the court determined “to keep the measure of restraint in the form of detention until the sentence enters into force”.

For the next nine months, the question of the appropriateness of Mr K.'s detention was not considered.

On March 1, 2018, the decision of the Court of Appeal of Donetsk region overturned the sentence of June 9, 2017 and scheduled a new trial. At the same time, without any argument, Mr. K. was remanded in custody.

The next three times (March 21, 2018, June 25, 2018, July 27, 2018) the decisions to extend the detention of Mr. K. were ruled. Mr. K. appealed the extension of detention to the Court of Appeal.

On August 3, 2018, the Donetsk Court of Appeal refused to open proceedings on the grounds that at that time the CPC did not provide for the possibility of appealing a decision of this type to the court of appeal.

On September 17, 2018, the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings on Mr. K.'s appeal against the decision of the Donetsk Court of Appeal of August 8, 2018.

From September 2018 to November 2019, Mr. K. continued to be detained. Mr. K. continued to challenge the investigating judge's decision to continue his detention, but each time without success.

On November 12, 2019, the Donetsk Court of Appeal overturned the court ruling of September 25, 2019 and replaced Mr. K.'s pre-trial detention with a 24-hour house arrest.

On 25 March 2020, an SLC lawyer lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in the context of the automatic extension of Mr. K.'s detention on remand for five years.

Kl-ov v. Ukraine and Russia

In July 2020 Mr K. ('the applicant') asked the lawyers of the SLC to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant stated that he had been sentenced to imprisonment and that from 2 September 2000 to 04 November 2016 the applicant had been in the Donetsk Penitentiary № 5 (hereinafter referred to as the Donetsk SIZO). From November 4, 2016 to the present, the Applicant is serving his sentence in the State Institution "Yenakiyevo Correctional Colony № 52".

To date, no detainees have been transferred from the occupied territory of Donetsk region.

On July 31, 2020, a lawyer of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group addressed a letter to the Ombudsman. The letter to the Ombudsman stated that the Applicant should be included in the list of prisoners held in the territory temporarily not under the control of the state authorities of Ukraine.

On 28 August 2020 a reply was received from the Ombudsman's representative stating that the Applicant had been included in the list of persons who had applied to the Ombudsman to move to the territory controlled by the state authorities of Ukraine.

On October 5, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and filed a complaint with the European Court in accordance with Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention.

K-tsev’s case

Mr K asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in the case on his parole. K serves a life sentence. He based his claim on the fact that, although the current legislation did not provide for the possibility of parole for life imprisoned, it was in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, the judgement of Petukhov v. Ukraine No. 2 stated that the only release mechanism for such persons was a pardon, but in practice this mechanism does not work.

On 12 September 2019, the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court of the Ivano-Frankivsk region denied K’s request, stating that there was no mechanism of parole for life imprisoned. Mr K appealed against this refusal

On 13 November 2019 the Court of Appeal of the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast upheld the applicant's appeal, stating that, in the absence of national legal regulation, the trial court had to follow the rules of the Convention and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The lawyer prepared written explanations to the first-instance court, stating that the applicant had proved his correction by proper behaviour and work. However, on 26 December 2019, the trial court denied the applicant, stating that the ECHR decision did not explicitly indicate the possibility of parole, and furthermore, the convicted person did not prove his correction.

On 12 February 2020 the SLC lawyer has provided the court of appeal with appeal claim.

On 20 May 2020 the court of appeal in Ivano-Frankivsk region refused the appeal claim on the same basis as the court of first instance.

On 19 September 2020, the lawyer lodged an application in this case with the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The application was subsequently communicated to the Government of Ukraine without the need to respond to the applicant. Mr K. is currently awaiting a decision from the European Court of Human Rights.

K-k v. Ukraine

On 16 July 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal found Ko-ka ('the applicant') guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in penitentiaries for almost eighteen years.

On 22 July 2019 the applicant applied for his parole to the Romensky City District Court of the Sumy Region ('the Romensky City District Court'). In his motion, he asked for the sentence to be commuted.

On 27 August 2019 the Romensky City District Court denied the applicant's application because, in the court's view, early release from parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 2 August 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Sumy Region Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 30 January 2020 the Sumy Region Court of Appeal denied the applicant on his application.

In early June 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On June 24, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for life.

Ko-i v. Ukraine

On 01 October 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal found K ('the applicant') guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in penitentiaries for almost nineteen years.

On 24 July 2019 the applicant applied for his parole to the Artemivskii City District Court of the Donetsk Region ('the Artemivskii Court'). In his motion, he asked for the sentence to be commuted.

On 10 March 2020 the Artemivskii Court denied the applicant's application because, in the court's view, early release from parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 24 March 2020 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Donetsk Region Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 30 April 2020 the Donetsk Region Court of Appeal denied the applicant on his application.

In early September 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On 06 June, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for life.

L-kyy v. Ukraine

On November 2017, policemen of the Chuguev Police Station beat and tortured Mr. L. to get confessions on committing a banditisme.

On 22 November 2017, the policemen of the Chuguev Police Station detained Mr. L.

on suspicion of committing a crime under Art. 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Brigandism) and he was transferred to a police detention facility.

On 22 November 2017, Mr. L. was examined by a doctor in the police detention facility. During the examination, numerous injuries and a burn of a hit were found on Mr. L`s body. Mr. L explained that he was injured by police officers of the Chuguev Police Station.

On 20 April 2018 after, Mr. L.`s appeal to the ombudsman, an investigator of the Prosecutor Office of the Kharkiv region opened criminal proceedings on a fact of the abuse of power by police officers of the Chuguev Police Station under Art. 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On 6 July 2018 the investigator of the Prosecutor Office denied recognizing Mr. L. as a victim of the crime.

The SLC lawyer filed a lawyer`s request to a medical centre of the detention centre on obtaining copies of medical documents concerning the injuries of Mr. L.

On 24 October 2018, after obtaining the medical documents SLC lawyer lodged a motion to the investigator of the Prosecutor Office on admitting as evidence these medical documents in the criminal proceedings and on a recognition of Mr. L. as a victim of the crime.

On 30 October 2018 the investigator of the Prosecutor Office denied recognizing Mr. L. as a victim of the crime.

The SLC lawyer appealed against the order of the investigator of the Prosecutor Office to the Court.

 On 12 December the Chervonozavodskyi Court quashed the order on a refusal to Mr. D. recognition of a victim of the crime.

On 8 January 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a request on informing him about results of consideration of L’s request on victim status.

On 13 January 2019 the investigator has delivered a resolution on termination of the criminal proceedings. The SLC lawyer got it on 25 January 2019

On 5 February 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged a complaint to the court on such resolution.

On 12 March 2019 the court has granted the complaint and cancelled a resolution.

On 16 May 2019 an investigator of the Prosecutor Office in Kharkiv region terminated the criminal proceedings.

On 03 July 2019 the lawyer of Mr. L lodged an appeal concerning the termination of the case.

On 16 December 2019 the Chervonozavodskyi Court quashed the decision of the investigator to terminate the criminal proceedings.

On 24 April 2020 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to ECtHR concerning the violation of article 3 of the Convention.

Loz-kiy v. Ukraine

On 1 October 2004 Mr Lozkogo ('the applicant') was remanded in custody.

On 7 September 2006 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

 On 27 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal and upheld the judgment. For the time being, the applicant has been in penitentiaries and detention centres for more than 15 years.

On 21 May 2019 the applicant applied to the Iziaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 30 October 2019 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast denied the applicant's application because in the court's view release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 8 November 2019 the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention.

On 14 November 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 2 March 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In April 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 26, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On July 16, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

L-n v. Ukraine and Russia

In July 2020 Mr. L. (hereinafter - the applicant) asked the lawyers of the SLC to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant stated that he had been sentenced to imprisonment and that from 15 August 2005 to 2007 the applicant had been held in the Artemivsk pre-trial detention centre. From 2007 to 28 May 2015 the applicant was held in the Donetsk Penitentiary № 5 (hereinafter referred to as the Donetsk SIZO). From 28 May 2015 to the present, the Applicant is serving his sentence in the State Institution “Yenakiyevo Correctional Colony № 52”

To date, no detainees have been transferred from the occupied territory of Donetsk Oblast.

On July 31, 2020, a lawyer of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group addressed a letter to the Ombudsman. The letter to the Ombudsman referred to the need to add the Applicant to the list of prisoners held in the territory temporarily out of the control of the state authorities of Ukraine.

On 28 August 2020 a reply was received from the Ombudsman's representative stating that the Applicant had been included in the list of persons who had applied to the Ombudsman to move to the territory controlled by the state authorities of Ukraine.

On October 3, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and filed a complaint with the European Court in accordance with Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention.

M-chan v. Ukraine

On 28 April 2011 M-an (hereinafter - 'the applicant') was sentenced by the Kherson Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in prison for more than nine years.

On 6 October 2019 the applicant applied for release of his parole from the Kherson City Court of the Kherson Region. In his application he requested his parole or commutation to

On 6 November 2019 the Kherson court denied the applicant's application because, in the court's view, early release from parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 10 and 12 November 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Kherson Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 24 December 2019 the Kherson Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application.

On 3 April 2020 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On April 20, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisoned person.

O-ko v. Ukraine

On 15 July 2014 Mr O-ko (hereinafter - 'the applicant') was sentenced by the Nikopol City District Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for more than six years.

On 16 April 2019 the applicant submitted to the Krasnogvardeisky District Court of Dnipro for his release on parole. In his motion, he asked to be released on parole or commuted.

On 2 August 2019 the Krasnogvardeisky court denied the applicant's application because, in the court's view, early release from parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 2 September 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 23 October 2019 the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal denied the applicant's appeal. On 10 April 2020 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On April 20, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisoned person.

Ov-ko v. Ukraine

On 16 February 2001 Ov-ko (hereinafter - “the applicant') was sentenced by the Kyiv Regional Court to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in prison for more than nineteen years.

On 10 June 2019 the applicant applied for release of the parole to the Novgorod-Siversky District Court of the Chernihiv Region ('the Novgorod-Siversky Court'). In his motion he requested that he be released on parole or commuted

On 16 October 2019 the Novhorod-Siverskyi Court denied the applicant's motion because, in the court's view, early release for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 21 October 2019 the applicant and his lawyer appealed against this decision to the Chernihiv Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 14 January 2020 the Chernihiv Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application.

On 3 April 2020 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On April 20, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisoned person.

Pa-ko v. Ukraine

On 04 August 2006 Mr. Pa-ko ('the applicant') was remanded in custody.

On 20 March 2007 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

On 11 July 2018 the applicant applied to the Iziaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 10 October 2019 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast denied the applicant's application because in the court's view release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 24 October 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 25 August 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In September 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 03 December 26, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

P-nyy v. Ukraine

On 18 September 2002 Mr P-nyy (hereinafter - 'the applicant') was sentenced by the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in penitentiaries for more than seventeen years.

On 10 March 2019 the applicant applied to the Artemivsk City District Court of the Donetsk Region for his release on parole. In his motion, he asked to be released on parole or commuted to a milder sentence.

 On 5 June 2019 the Artemivsk court denied the applicant's motion because, in the court's view, early release from probation was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 10 June 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Artemivsk Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

 On 2 October 2019 the Donetsk Court of Appeal denied the applicant's appeal.

On 13 April 2020 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On April 20, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisoned person.

Ped-ko v. Ukraine

On 26 May 2000 Mr. Ped-ko ('the applicant') was remanded in custody.

On 26 March 2001 the applicant was sentenced by the Cherkasy Regional Court to life imprisonment.

On 29 May 2001 the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine entered into force against the applicant. As for today, he has been in penitentiaries and detention centres for approximately twenty years.

On 6 August 2019 the applicant applied for his parole to the Prydniprovsky District Court of Cherkasy ('the Cherkasy Court'). In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 21 August 2019 the Cherkasy Court denied the applicant's application because in the court's view release on parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 9 September 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Cherkasy Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 2 October 2019 the applicant sent an additional data to the appeal to the Cherkasy Court of Appeal.

On 9 December 2019 the Cherkasy Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In January 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 15, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

Pyat-chenko v. Ukraine

 On 23 December 2006 Mr Pyatchenko ('the applicant') was detained and remanded in custody.

On 20 April 2011 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant is still serving his sentence. For the time being, he has been in penitentiaries and detention centres for more than thirteen years.

On 19 February 2019 the applicant applied for his parole to the Prydniprovsky District Court of Cherkasy ('the Cherkasy Court'). In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 31 May 2019 the Cherkasy Court denied the applicant's application because in the court's view release on parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 18 June 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Cherkasy Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 13 January 2020 the Cherkasy Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.

On 20 February 2020 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the decision of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal.

On 2 March 2020 the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings on the applicant's cassation appeal.

In March 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 18, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On September 10, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

R-ov v. Ukraine

On 20 January 2011 R-ov (hereinafter- 'the applicant') was sentenced by the Kyiv District Court of Semfiropol to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in prison for more than nine years.

On 10 June 2019 the applicant lodged a motion to the Novgorod-Siversky District Court of the Chernihiv Region on his release on parole.

On 24 September 2019 the Novgorod-Siversky Court denied the applicant's motion because, in the court's view, early release for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 27 September and 1 October 2019 the applicant and his lawyer appealed against this decision to the Chernihiv Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 4 December 2019 the Chernihiv Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application.

On 3 April 2020 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On April 20, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisoned person.

So-ak v. Ukraine

In 2020, Mr. S. challenged in the national courts of the first instance the impossibility of his parole as a person sentenced to life imprisonment. Both instances denied his motions.

In December 2020 the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On December 23, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for lifers.

Sher-ev v. Ukraine

Mr Sh., an Tajikistan citizen, when living in Tajikistan was a member of a political-religious organization «PIVT» , participants of which had been persecuted in this country and then this organization was declared as an extremist.

Because of criminal persecutions of this organization in Tajikistan, Mr. Sh. had to leave Tajikistan and in 2015 he moved to Turkey. There he organized web-site on which he shows the problems with corruption and unlawful action of the acting authorities of Tajikistan. For his activity acting authorities of Tajikistan threatened with extortion.

In December 2016 the Turkey policemen and Tajikistan council came to the Mr. Sh. office, unlawfully closed his office. As for Mr. Sh. he was departing from the country. Mr. Sh. moved to Ukraine where on May 2017 asked to provide him with a refugee status. On 24 of October 2017 State Migration Service refused to give this status to Mr. Sh.

A decision about a refusal to provide him with a refugee status was appealed to the court. Consideration of the case is pending.

 On 28 December 2017, the decision was dismissed in satisfaction of the claim and cancellation.

This decision was appealed to the court of appeal.

On 6 March 2018, the court of appeal refused. The SLC lawyer appealed

On 2 April 2018, the Supreme court opened the proceedings.

Due to extradition of Mr.Sh on 30 May 2019 he submitted a motion to the European court on applying urgent measure in his case under Article 39 on prohibition of his explosion to Tadjikistan. The ECHR refused.

On 27 June 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECHR under Article 3 of the Convention.

On 26 February 2020, without informing the appellant about the court hearing, the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal in which the applicant asked the Court to quash the decision of the State Immigration Service not to grant him asylum in Ukraine. After this Supreme Court decision, the applicant remains in the territory of Ukraine without a basis in law and faces the risk of expulsion.

On 28 February 2020, the request under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court was filed with the EHCR requesting to ban the applicant’s expulsion from Ukraine to Tajikistan.

On 3 March 2020, the ECHR asked the Government for the additional information and invited the applicant to file the respective application form with the Court. On 16 March 2020, the additional information was provided. On 16 March 2020, the ECHR decided not to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court to this case.

On 18 May 2020, the application form was sent to the ECHR claiming the violation of Article 3 of the Convention because of the risk of the applicant’s expulsion to Tajikistan.

Sta-k v. Ukraine

On 27 January 2008 Mr Sta-k ('the applicant') was remanded in custody.

On 03 August 2009 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

On 13 November 2019 the applicant applied to the Iziaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 21 May 2020 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast denied the applicant's application because in the court's view release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 02 July 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 23 July 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In August 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 01 December 26, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

Sup-un v. Ukraine

On 5 December 1991 Mr Sup-na ('the applicant') was remanded in custody.

On 14 April 1993 the applicant was sentenced to death by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of Yekaterinburg, Russia.

On 9 January 1999 the applicant was pardoned by Order of the President of the Russian Federation and his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

On 19 May 2010 the Orenburg Regional Court of the Russian Federation granted the applicant's request to be transferred to a penitentiary institution in Ukraine.

On 20 July 2011 a judgment of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv brought the judgment of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of the Russian Federation of 14 April 1993 into conformity with the Ukrainian legislation.

Since 14 March 2012 the applicant has been serving his sentence in the Novgorod-Siversky Penitentiary Facility №31 in the city of Novgorod-Siversky, Ukraine. In 2016 and 2018, the applicant applied for clemency to the President of Ukraine. Both petitions were dismissed.

On 12 June 2019 the applicant applied to the Novgorod-Siversky District Court of the Chernihiv Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 3 October 2019 the Novhorod-Siverskyi District Court of Chernihiv Region denied the applicant's application because in the court's view release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 16 October 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Chernihiv Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention.

On 3 December 2019 the Chernihiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In May 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On June 25, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On October, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

Tkalich v. Ukraine and Russia

In April 2020 Mr. T. ('the applicant') asked the lawyers of the SLC to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant stated that he had been sentenced to imprisonment and that from 1 June 2009 to the present he was serving his sentence in the Slavo-Serbian Correctional Colony № 60.

To date, no detainees have been transferred from the occupied territory of Luhansk region.

On April 8, 2020, a lawyer of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group addressed a letter to the Ombudsman. The letter to the Ombudsman referred to the need to include the Applicant in the list of prisoners held in the territory temporarily out of the control of the state authorities of Ukraine.

On 17 April 2020 a reply was received from the Ombudsman's representative stating that the Applicant had been included in the list of persons who had applied to the Ombudsman to move to the territory under the control of the Ukrainian authorities.

On 23.06.2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and filed a complaint with the European Court in accordance with Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention.

Zh-k v. Ukraine

On 2 April 2007 Mr Zh-k (hereinafter - 'the applicant') was sentenced by the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in penitentiaries for more than thirteen years.

On 17 June 2019 the applicant submitted a motion for the release of parole to the Vilnyansk District Court of the Zaporizhia Region. In his motion, he asked to be released on parole or commuted to a milder sentence.

On 3 October 2019 the Vilnius court denied the applicant's request because, in the court's view, early release from parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 11 November 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 16 January 2020 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal denied the applicant's application.

On 3 April 2020 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On April 20, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisoned person.

171 cases which were considered in national courts

2 foreigners who are in want of legal defence

Mykha-lov case

Russian citizen, Mr. M moved to Ukraine due to the threat to his freedom and political views, because in Russia he participated in many activities of the opposition, including single pickets, mass protests, rallies, etc (protest on the Bolotnaya Square, protest for defence of the Khimki forest, etc).

Mr. M multiple was brought to responsibility for the human rights and oppositional activity. He was registered in the centre «E», which oversees the «unreliable citizens».

After moving to Ukraine, Mr. M. continued to cooperate with the independent organization Conflict Intelligence Team, which exposed the actions of the Russian authorities in the East of Ukraine and Syria.

In fact, Mr. M’s activity is aimed at combating the Russian aggression and exposing the lies of the Russian authorities about the absence of Russian intervention in Ukraine.

7 May 2014. Mr. M first time applied for refugee status to the Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS), he was refused. Mr. M did not appeal against the decision of the SMS. He applied to a lawyer and it was decided to re-apply for the refugee status.

On 25 May of 2018 a response was received about the rejection of the complaint about the refusal of execution of the document to the refugee status in Ukraine.

The SMS refused to execution of the document for the further procedure of refugee status. Layer field a complain about the decision of SMS to the District Administrative Court of Kyiv.

On 18 June of 2018 the court opened the proceeding. According to decision of the court, this proceeding will be conduct under the simplified procedure without notifying trial participants (written proceeding).

On January 30, 2020, the Circuit Court of Kyiv denied the claims of the SLC lawyer.

On March 13, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an appeal against this decision with the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal.

On June 18, 2020, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal held its first hearing on the appeal of the SLC lawyer. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2020.

On August 20, 2020, the attorney and M. together filed a new application for refugee status or additional protection. The SMSU decided to accept the application and draw up documents for protection. The SBU offered cooperation (to be recognized as a witness in the war in Donbass through numerous investigations) and support - to provide an answer on the M.’s procedural status at the SMSU (at the attorney’s request). The case continues.

Na-ze case

Mr. N is a Georgian national who claimed to the court on refuse to get him migrant’s states in Ukraine and deportation him from it’s territory.

On 17 November 2017 Mr. N was illegal detained in a restaurant and deported from Ukraine.

The SLC lawyer got video records of illegal detention. On 20 December 2017 he withdrew statement of crime on kidnapping Mr. N to the prosecutor’s office.

On 5 January 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a complained before the investigative judge on not-entering the statement of crime to the Unified register of pre-trial investigations.

On 2 July 2018 the investigative judge refused on a complaint. The decision has not been received yet.

However the criminal proceedings were opened by the prosecutor’s office with a delay. The N’s civil partner asked the investigator to give her a victim status. The investigator refused. On 4 June 2018 the SLC lawyer appealed against such decision.

The SLC lawyer also got documents according to which Mr. N was deported. In particular it was the resolution on explosion and deportation from Ukraine.

On 15 February 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the circle administrative court on the decision.

On 25 February 2018 the court opened proceedings. The investigative judge refused on complaint.

In April 2019 Mr. N turned to the SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

On 25 April 2019 the SLC lawyer entered into case and started trying to get access to the national security information to have a possibility to familiarize with the case files.

In the August 2019 the SLC lawyer got an access to state secret and familiarized with the case-file. The SLC lawyer is preparing a motion on demanding additional documents.

From July to December 2019 none of the court hearing had been conducted due to the defendant's failure to appear or by initiative of the court.

In 2020, an SLC lawyer filed a motion to hear the case in a specially equipped courtroom due to the need to disclose information that is a state secret. It turned out that the representative of the State Migration Service of Ukraine does not have the necessary access to state secrets, which is necessary for his participation in the case. During the quarantine period, the lawyer filed another motion to adjourn the hearing due to quarantine restrictions.

10 cases related drug users

As-v case

On 27 November 2017 Mr. A., a citizen of the city of Kharkiv, was was detained after conducting two controlled drug purchases by police.

On 29 November 2017 a court adjudicated Mr. A to a preventive criminal procedure measure in the form of custody.

During a pre-trial investigation Mr. A didn’t accept an accusation and stated that police officials provoked a crime. A lawyer of a Centre of free secondary legal aid was participated in the case.

During two years the court was prolongating the custody term.

On 03 October 2019 a SLC lawyer entered into case.

Due to absence of any real investigative actions the lawyer submitted a number of requests concerning conditions of Mr. A’s detention.

On 07 October 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a motion on changing the preventive measure from the custody to less strict measures. Despite only formalistic reasons the court prolongated the custody term again.

The SLC lawyer lodged an appeal concerning the court decision.

On 07 November 2019 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal refused to grant a motion.     

On 03 December 2019 the SLC lawyer repeatedly submitted the motion concerning the change of preventive measure to a house arrest.

On January 23, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge's employment. The next court hearing was scheduled for January 27, 2020.

On January 27, 2020, a witness of the accused was interrogated at the court hearing. The SLC lawyer filed a motion for questioning of witnesses. The next court hearing was scheduled for March 17, 2020.

On March 17, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. The next court hearing ws scheduled for April 1, 2020.

On April 1, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor's business trip. The term of pre-trial detention in the form of house arrest has expired, the court has not received a request to extend the pre-trial detention. On July 1, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On November 17, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge's stay in the deliberation room.

On December 8, 2020, the court hearing was postponed at the request of the prosecutor. The next court hearing is scheduled for March 2, 2021.

The case continues.

B-ov case

On 12 June 2013, M. B who lived in Pokotilovka (Kharkiv region) was detained together with his brother after three episodes of controlled drugs purchase.

On 13 June 2013, Mr. B was noticed on suspicion under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (selling drugs).

On 27 June 2013, the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region chose Mr. B a preliminary measure in the form of detention.

On 6 January 2014, the police officer brought a report according to which Mr. B purchased drugs and kept of potent drugs, He was not noticed about any suspicion in this case and he has not had any information about results yet.

During pretrial investigation Mr. B did not plead his guilt and maintained that police officers provoked him to commit the crime. However the court did not consider testimonies given by Mr. B and did not assess them.

On 10 December 2014, the Kharkiv district court in Kharkiv region found Mr. B guilty and sentenced him to six years imprisonment.

Mr. B and the lawyer lodged appeals.

On 14 April 2015, the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region quashed the verdict and returned case to the trial court.

On 25 March 2016, the SLC lawyer familiarized with case files.

The lawyer submitted request to receive personal characteristics of witnesses, extract evidence of the controlled purchase,

Court hearings were often postponed because of the absence of witnesses.

On 19 May 2016 the Kharkiv district court questioned a police agent, so called “Petrov”. He informed that he met with police officers earlier, used drugs and cooperated with police officers in the form of asking B’ to produce drugs. He hesitated which one of two brothers B. gave him drugs because they were quite similar (Mr. B/’s brother previously was sentenced).

Also the Kharkiv district court maintained that witnesses had been convicted earlier, one of them was a drug dealer. The last witness was absent, now he is in the wanted list.

On 18 July 2016 and 6 September 2016 defence witnesses were interrogated.

On 28 October 2016 the witness did not come to the court.

On 19 December 2016 the court hearing was postponed because of several reasons.

On 11 January 2017 and 28 February 2017 the court hearing was postponed due to several reasons.

On 28 March 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to a bomb threat at the Kharkiv District Court.

On 25 April 2017 the Kharkiv district court terminated consideration of the case. During following legal debates the prosecutor asked the court to find Mr. B guilty and sentenced him to six years and six months imprisonment with deprivation of property. The SLC lawyer insisted on acquittal because the prosecutor failed to prove the charge in this criminal proceeding, used provocation of crime as evidence and did not have any other material evidence of the crime.

On 26 April 2017 the Kharkiv District Court found Mr. B guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to six years of imprisonment with deprivation of property.

On 25 May 2017 the SLC lawyer submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region.

The Court of Appeal opened a procedure. The hearings often postponed because of several reasons such as the prosecutor had not familiarized with an appeal yet.

The court meeting was scheduled on 21 June 2018 but has not taken place due to not-informing of the SLC lawyer

On 5.09.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s business. The next court hearing was scheduled for 4.10.2018.

On 04.10.2018, the court hearing was postponed because the judge had been in the deliberation room. The next court hearing was scheduled for 22.11.2018.

On 22.11.2018, Mr. B. at the court session filed a motion for a judge to be dismissed because the judge previously considered the case against Mr. B. and the conviction was revoked by the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region as unlawful and unfounded.

On 10.12.2018, the lawyer was informed about the appointment of consideration of the motion for 10.12.2018. The court hearing was postponed due to the late notification of the lawyer about the date and time of the court hearing and the lawyer’s business in another court hearing. The next court hearing was scheduled for 27.12.2018.

On 19 March 2019 the pre-trial court meeting has taken place. The case was appointed to consideration.

On 7 May 2019 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of prosecutor.

On 5 June 2019 the court maintained the order of examination of evidences. It decided to consider the testimonies of witnesses at first then examine the accused person. At the same time the prosecutor denied to examine material evidences because they were broken.

The next court meeting is appointed on 16 July 2019.7.4

The court hearing is pending.

On 16 July 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to an absence of witnesses. An order on compelled appearance of witnesses was adopted.

On 10 October 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to an absence of witnesses.

On 05 December 2019 there were three witnesses interrogated.

On January 22, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. The next court hearing was scheduled for March 12, 2020.

On March 12, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge's illness. The next court hearing was scheduled for April 14, 2020.

On April 14, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the epidemic. The next court hearing was scheduled for May 27, 2020.

On May 27, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. The next court hearing was scheduled for June 19, 2020.

On June 19, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On August 19, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the lack of electricity in the courtroom.

On September 23, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On October 21, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On December 16, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

The case continues.

Bo-man case

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Bo-man I. is a drug user, the patient of substitution therapy, he has the third disability group from childhood and heart diseases.

He was arrested on suspicion in committing a crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking).

On 1 April 2015, a lawyer of SLC entered the criminal proceedings. The same day a notification about changed notified suspicion was hand-delivered to Mr. Bo-man.

On 3 April 2015, an indictment was handed to Mr. Bo-man and the criminal proceedings was taken to court.

A lawyer of SLC lodged a lawyer’s request to Kirovograd drug dependence clinic on stopping to give substitution therapy to Mr. Bo-man. The problem was solved in his favor and Mr. Bo-man’s broken right was restored.

Preparatory case hearing was postponed at the lawyer’s request because of the deterioration on Mr. Bo-man’s health and his stay in hospitals.

During the next case hearings only some evidence was examined, prosecution witnesses and the case file were not examined.

The lawyer prepared the motions on admitting some evidence inadequate and inadmissible because of the violations of pre-trial investigation bodies. Additionally the lawyer is collecting data on Mr. Botsman’s diseases.

Subsequently, the court examined the written evidence and identified the need to examine the witnesses.

The court hearings are often postponed because of Mr. Bo-man’s stays in hospitals and necessity to pass medical examinations of his heart diseases.

The court hearing on 15.06.2017 and 29.06.2017 were postponed because the witnesses did not come and the presiding judge was fired.

After determining the new composition of the court, during July-November, the indictment was read out and written evidence was drawn up, witnesses were examined several times.

On 14 February 2018 the court examined records of phone calls. The case was postponed till 20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018 the court meeting was postponed because of the absence of witnesss.

On 20 April 2018 the court meeting was postponed on 17 May 2018 according to the accused’s motion

On 17 May 2018 the court meeting was postponed till 25 July due to the absence of the prosecutor

On 25 July 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to the judge illness.

On 05 September 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to judge presents in other trial.

On 16 November 2018 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to other case was heard.

On 18 December 2018 during trial written evidence were investigated.

The next court meeting is appointed on 05 February 2018.

On 05 February 2019 the court hearing was postponed on 18.03.19 due to participation of the lawyer in other court hearing.

On 18 March 2019 continued the examination of evidence of the case (the listening of the audio records) and pronounced a break till 22 April 2019.

On 22 April 2019 the Court postponed the court hearing till 14 June 2019.

On 14 June 2019 the Court continued the examination of evidence.

On 22 July 2019 the Court started the procedure of examination of covert investigative (detective) actions. The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-file after the court hearing.

During 3 court hearings (on 18.09, 16.10, 25.11.2019) the Court had been analyzing an audio files of covert investigative (detective) actions.

On 18 December 2019 the Court started examine a video of covert investigative (detective) actions.

On February 17, 2020, the court continued to examine the evidence. The court examined the video of covert investigative (detective) actions (operational purchases).

On April 2, 2020, the court postponed the court hearing due to the prosecutor's absence.

On May 12, 2020 the court postponed the consideration of the case due to the illness of the accused.

On July 30, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor's absence at the hearing.

On September 4, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to a change of prosecutor, and the "new" prosecutor was not ready for the case.

On October 23, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor's absence at the hearing.

On December 1, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the illness of the accused.

Drozdov case (criminal proceeding on Article 307)

On 26 October 2017 according to the decision of the investigating judge it was provided a search in the flat of Mr D. Policemen seizure three polymer bundles with fasteners in the middle with a white substance were removed, cash in the amount of 1641 UAH, electronic scales with layers of blue matter, a hat. On the same day Mr D. was informed of the suspicion of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and was detained.

On 27 October 2018 an investigative judge of the Chuguivskyi city court of the Kharkiv region decided to apply to Mr D. a preventive measure in the form of a detention for a term of 60 days.

On 23 November 2017 it was provided a forensic examination of materials of substances and products of total weight of 0.933 grams.

On 22 January 2018 a pre-trial investigation was ended. An indictment act was sent to the Chuguivskyi city court of the Kharkiv region.

 In June 2018 a preliminary court hearing has been held.

On 13 September 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s pre-trial detention by one month.

On 11 October 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s pre-trial detention by 60 days.

On 19 November 2018 the lawyer of SLC submitted a motion on a changing of the preventive measure from the pre-trial detention to a home arrest to the Court. The Court refused this motion.

07 December 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s pre-trial detention by 60 days.

On 29 January 2019 the court has prolonged the term of detention related D to 60 days.

On 22 March 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a motion on changing of the preliminary measure from detention to house arrest.

On 28 March 2019 the court has prolonged the term of detention in 60 days.

On 16 May 2019 the court had changed the preliminary measure from detention to house arrest.

Then, during June – December 2019 there were six court hearings that were postponed.

During 2020 there were 6 another court hearings, each of them was postponed.

The case is still pending.

 Le-in case

L. was in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre on charges of drug trafficking.

On June 30, 2020, L. appealed to the SLC with a request to provide him with legal assistance, as law enforcement agencies fabricated the proceedings and repeatedly provoked him to commit offenses.

On June 30, 2020, the lawyer sent a petition to the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv to replace the lawyer together with a package of documents confirming his authority.

On July 16, 2020, the lawyer filed a petition for familiarization with the case file to the prosecutor's office and the court.

On August 5, 2020, a lawyer's request was sent to the Kiev police department of the city of Kharkiv to provide information about L.

On August 13, 2020, a petition was filed to the court to provide copies of the discs of video recordings of previous court hearings and to the prosecutor's office to provide video recordings from the production materials.

On August 17, 2020 a study of video materials was conducted.

A number of other petitions to the court and lawyer inquiries were submitted to various law enforcement and other bodies, interviews were held with several witnesses for the defence, who were declared in court for questioning.

On September 1, 2020, October 9, 2020, October, 21, 2020, October 26, 2020, November 5, 2020, December 4, 2020, December 9, 2020, December 17, 2020 court sessions, during which the materials were studied, a video of the search was watched, an interrogation of the witness (“buyer”) of accusation.

The next court hearing is scheduled for February 4, 2021.

Tel-ov case

Mr. Tel-ov lives in Kharkiv.

Tel-ov is a drug addict. Tel-ov together with Mr. Bar. used to buy poppy seeds for producing of drugs. Produced drugs they took themselves.

On 10 February 2015 after another buying of poppy seeds and producing drugs, Mr. Bar. took only half of his part. He said that he would take the rest later and left. When he returned, he took the rest and put money in Tel-ov’s pocket without being noticed. On the same day Tel-ov was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing.

On 12 February 2015 an investigating judge chose detention in custody as a preventive measure for Tel-ov.

Tel-ov applied for legal aid to the SLC lawyer.

On 27 May 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged a motion on changing of Tel-ov’s preventive measure.

The motion was granted by the court and Tel-ov was released. House arrest was chosen as a preventive measure in his case.

After his release, Tel-ov participated in a substitution therapy.

Court hearings in Tel-ov’s case are postponed on different reasons.

In 2017, no court hearings were conducted and no witnesses were questioned. They were postponed due to the fact that there were no witnesses or because of participation of a judge or a lawyer in other cases.

In 2018 court hearings were postponed due to the fact that there were no witnesses or because of participation of a judge in other cases.

At the beginning of 2019 the criminal case was transmitted to another judge of the Moskovsky district court in Kharkiv city.

In 2019 all court meetings were postponed due to the absence of witnesses or busyness of the judge in other court meetings.

In 2020, court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to the inability of the prosecutor's office to ensure the participation of prosecution witnesses in court.

From July to December 2020, court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to the constant change of prosecutors in the process and requests from new prosecutors to review the case materials.

In December 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the prosecutor.

Terniv-kyi case

On 08 October 2017 District Court in the city of Kyiv made a conviction in which Mr.T was found guilty in committing crimes prescribed by Part 1Art.307 with imposing a punishment of 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment and by Part 2 of Art.307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine with imposing a punishment of 6 years of imprisonment and confiscation of all his personal property. A finite punishment of 6 (six) years' imprisonment in a criminal institution with the confiscation of all his personal property was imposed in accordance with Part 1 of Art.70 of the Criminal Code.

On 01 October 2018 a contract with a SLC lawyer about providing legal assistance was signed.

On 06 October 2018 an appeal complaint was filed to Kharkiv Court of Appeal on basis of the lack of argumentation and motivation in judgement.

On 30 July 2019 Kharkiv Court of Appeal quashed the indictment of Kyivskyy District Court and remanded the case for a new trial to Kyivskyy District Court.

On 23 August 2019 the case was appointed to consideration in Kyivskyy District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

The SLC lawyer was repeatedly lodging solid objections against prolongation of Mr. T’s custody.

The SLC lawyer lodged a motion on changing the preventive measure on the less severe.

On 19 September 2019 the Court didn’t grant the SLC lawyer’s motion. However, the Court changed the amount of bail to the minimal one.

At the start of court proceedings the Court decided to examine the evidence fully and chose the procedure of its examination according to the position of the SLC lawyer.

For the time being there are 3 witnesses interrogated from 7 alleged from the accusation party.

Due to quarantine restrictions, the prosecutor did not ensure the appearance of witnesses, the next court hearing is scheduled for September 17, 2020.

Voy-nko case

Mr. V., is Ukrainian citizen, who is currently living in Kharkiv. He is a patient of substitution maintenance therapy, he has used drugs for more than 15 years.

In April 2014, Mr. V, together with Mrs. F. were detained by policemen and delivered to Frunzensky police station, where Mr. V was tortured, and Ms. F. was beaten because policeman wanted to find out who has money and use drugs, as well as to give them the consent to be their secret agent.

Moreover, on 09 January, 2015, near the Moscow Police Station, Mr. V. was kicked in the right wing of the hip by a police officer in a civilian form, which was recorded on the video camera near police station.

On 12 March 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a statement of crime made by police officers against B and F.

On 16 March 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the court in fact that policeman refused to enter information in case of Mr. V torturing to URPI.

On 10 June 2015, the judge refused to satisfy the SLC lawyer complaint.

Mr. V. was accused of drug dealing. The court chose a detention as a preventive measure for Mr. V, which was systematically continued every two months. The lawyer participated in these court hearings.

During the 2015-2017 years, the court trials were periodically postponed for various reasons, including the absence of witnesses, the employment of a judge in other court hearings, and the removal of judges.

In 2018, the prosecutor's witnesses have not come to the court. In June 2018, the judge of the Frunzensky District Court satisfied the SLC lawyer motion on change the order of the investigation of evidence and decided to investigate the evidence in connection with the fact that prosecution witnesses were absent.

In 2019 the judge repeatedly ordered to bring the witnesses which hadn’t being executed.

In June 2019 the court started an examination of evidence in the case.

In November 2019 the prosecutor changed indictment from Article 307 (Illegal drug dealing) to Article 309 (Illegal using of drugs without the aim to deal).

From August to December 2020, court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to the constant change of prosecutors in the process and requests from new prosecutors to review the case materials.

In December 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to a request from the new prosecutor to review the case file.

Zh-n case

In the beginning of June 2019 Mrs. Zh turned to the SLC asking to provide her with legal assistance.

According to her, police officers rigged for her proceedings under art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Illegal production, making, purchasing, storage, transportation, sending or sale of narcotics, psychotropic substances or their analogues).

Mrs. Zh doesn’t have any of documents concerning the proceeding of her case. The policemen didn’t familiarize her with case file. Mrs. Zh is sure about her innocence.

Mrs. Zh lodged a motion about involving the SLC lawyer as her defendant in the trial.

On 24 June 2019 the court hearing concerning the motion was supposed to be but it was postponed due to illness of a judge.

The SLC lawyer lodged a motion to familiarize with the case-file.

On 03 September 2019 the court decided the question concerning an interrogation of witnesses and obligated the prosecutor to provide the case-file for familiarizing.

On 07 November 2019 the court postponed the haring on the later date due to an absence of the prosecution witnesses.

On February 20, 2020, a witness (the second witness of investigative action) was interrogated, who took part in two operational purchases and was present during the search of the accused's place of residence.
On March 19, 2020, the court hearing did not take place due to quarantine on the territory of Ukraine.
On May 12, 2020, the court adjourned the court hearing due to the prosecutor's absence.
On 19 May 2020, the court adjourned the hearing due to the prosecutor's failure to provide an appearance of the prosecution witnesses.

On June 22, 2020, the court adjourned the hearing due to the prosecutor's failure to an appearance the prosecution witnesses.

On July 6, 2020, the victim was interrogated in the case, other prosecution witnesses did not appear, the case was postponed to a later date.

On July 24, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the absence of prosecution witnesses.

On August 27, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the illness of the accused.

On September 17, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the prosecutor's failure to ensure the appearance of prosecution witnesses.

On October 20, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the illness of the accused.

On November 30, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the prosecutor's failure to ensure the appearance of prosecution witnesses (legendary).

On December 21, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the illness of the accused.

Z-as case

Mr Z. asked the lawyer to provide him legal assistance because of the accusation under article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Illegal production, manufacture, purchase, storage, transportation or sending of drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without purpose to sell). According to prosecutor there were two episodes of the crime. Earlier Z. committed the same crime during his imprisonment and was repeatedly convicted.

The lawyer pointed the lack of appropriate evidence in the case. As Z. said he was forced to plead the guilt of the crime otherwise police officers threaten to accuse him of graver crime such as drug sailing.

In 2016 there were six court hearings in this case.

Nowadays the district court appointed the preliminary hearing due to changing of territorial jurisdiction.

Finally the preliminary court hearing was appointed on 20 September 2016 but it did not take place. Only after two months - on 22 November 2016 the court conducted the preliminary hearing and called witnesses for trial on 29 November 2016. However witnesses did not come to this court meeting as well as to the meeting on 24 December 2016 when the court also tried to start consideration of the case-files.

On 14 February 2017 and 11 April 2017 the trial was postponed due to witnesses and prosecutor absence.

The trial is currently pending.

On 15 August 2017 the pre-trial court meeting took place.

On 12 September 2017, 28 September 2017, 15 November 2017 due to the absence of witnesses the court meeting was postponed.

On 18 December 2017, 31 January, 28 March, 13 June, 20 June 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. During the last meeting the prosecutor asked the court to change an order of examination of the evidences. The court refused.

On 31 August 2018 during trial a prosecutor witness was interrogated, other prosecutor witnesses did not appear.

On 10 October 2018 the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses

The court hearing is pending.

On 23 January 2019 the preliminary court hearing was appointed due to changing the presiding judge. The consideration was postponed in conjunction with absence of the prosecutor.

On 20 May 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to participation of the judge in the other court hearing.

On 25 June 2019 the preliminary court hearing had been conducted, a preventive measure hadn’t been chosen, the case file was appointed to the court consideration on the merits.

On 24 September 2019 the prosecutor announced the indictment, the court decided the procedure of evidence examination.

On 03 December 2019 the court postponed the court hearing due to absence of prosecution witnesses.

On March 3, 2020, the court postponed the hearing to a later date due to the prosecutor's absence.

On May 4, 2020, the court postponed the hearing to a later date due to the absence of prosecution witnesses.

On June 18, 2020, the court postponed the hearing to a later date due to the absence of prosecution witnesses.

On August 4, 2020, the court hearing was postponed to a later date due to the absence of prosecution witnesses.

On October 6, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the prosecutor's failure to ensure the appearance of prosecution witnesses.

40 cases related people suffered from grievous illness and other vulnerable group of prisoners

B-yan case

Mr B. asked for legal assistance from the lawyer. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including stage 4 HIV. Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence in Vinnytsia Correctional Colony № 81.

On August 5 and September 19, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Vinnytsia Correctional Facility for medical documents. However, she was not answered. Then, on October 13, 2020, the lawyer sent a complaint to the Vinnytsia Region Prosecutor's Office. After that, the penal colony still provided medical documents.

On November 13, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Vinnytsia Correctional Colony № 81 with a request to organize a medical advisory commission for Mr. B. However, such a statement was denied.

On December 17, 2020, the lawyer sent a petition to the Vinnytsia City Court of the Vinnytsia Region to release B. due to illness. The court hearing was scheduled for December 23, 2020, but did not take place due to the failure to bring B. to court.

Che-chenko case

Mr. Ch. Turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he had a serious illness, possibly cancer, but was not being treated.

On October 10, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Pyatihatsky Correctional Facility for medical documents. However, she did not receive an answer to her request.

On November 1, 2020, the lawyer filed complaints about the failure to get response to the request to the Prosecutor's Office of Dnipropetrovsk region and the South-Eastern Interregional Department. However, in response, she was informed that she allegedly had no right to receive the client's medical data.

The lawyer then filed numerous complaints about Mr. Ch .'s lack of treatment with the Health Centre and the Ministry of Justice.

The case is pending.

Her-ko case

G. arrived at the Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 101) to serve his sentence. In early January 2018, he was taken from the colony to the district clinic of Vilnyansk by ambulance, where he was operated on - a colostomy was removed, in addition, he was diagnosed with the following: chronic external feeling, functioning colostomy of the sigmoid colon from 19.01.2018, hygroma 3 fingers left hand. Intestinal torsion was established and reoperation in 2-3 months was recommended.

On June 10, 2020, the SLC received G.'s application for assistance.

On June 11, 2020, an agreement was concluded on the provision of legal assistance to G. and attorney's inquiries were sent to the Branch of the State Institution "Central Department of Internal Affairs of Ukraine" in Zaporizhia region and to the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Kamyanska VK-101" regarding G.'s health and treatment.

On July 28, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion with the court to release G. due to his health condition.

18.08.2020, 27.08.2020 court hearings on G.’s release on health grounds took place at which the lawyer’s request to submit to the court the opinion of the medical advisory commission to the court was granted. The next court hearing was scheduled for September 29, 2020. At the same time. Mr. G. was released on parole by the administration of the colony on 20.09.2020.

Hor-iy case

H. arrived at the Kazanivska Correctional Colony (№ 93) to serve his sentence. The latter appealed to the SLC with complaints about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving his sentence due to his health condition, despite a number of indications and diagnoses.

Since September 2019, H. was in Daryivska General Hospital № 10 with Daryivska CC № 10 on treatment with diagnoses: AIDS 4 clinical stage, pulmonary tuberculosis, liver cirrhosis, chronic progressive hepatitis C, toxoplasmosis of the brain, prolonged weakness, fever. Due to H.'s existing diseases, the latter cannot move and take care of himself.

On March 5, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Kazanivsky District Court of the Mykolayiv Region with a request to release H. due to his health condition.

On March 26, 2020, the lawyer sent a complaint to the Commissioner of the Ombudsman and the chairman of the Kazanivsky District Court of Mykolaiv Region that despite H.'s health, as of March 26, 2020, not even a court date was set, but H.'s condition is being rapidly deteriorated, and he is denied treatment for tuberculosis.

On April 3, 2020, the lawyer sent lawyer's inquiries to the Branch of the State Institution “Centre of Healthcare of SCES of Ukraine”, in the Kherson region and to the Daryivska Multidisciplinary Hospital № 10 at the Daryivska CC № 10 regarding the state of health and treatment of H.

By the decision of the Kazanka district court of the Mykolayiv region dated April 6, 2020, the petition was returned due to the fact that the petition should be considered by a court of another jurisdiction.

On April 24, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Bilozersky District Court of the Kherson Region with a similar motion.

On April 30, 2020, the lawyer sent a lawyer's request to the Southern Interregional Department for the Execution of Criminal Punishments of the Ministry of Justice to provide information about the colony for which H. was fixed and where the sentence is being executed.

On May 21, 2020, the lawyer was denied the motion, as on April 14, 2020, H. was transferred to the Kherson Correctional Colony (№ 61 - Interregional Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital) without informing the lawyer, which makes it impossible for the Bilozersky Court of Kherson region to consider the motion.

On May 25, 2020, the lawyer sent a motion for H’s release for health reasons to the Kherson City Court of the Kherson Region.

30.06.2020 Kherson city court of Kherson region denied the lawyer’s motion.

At the beginning of June 2020, H. was taken to the interregional hospital at the Sofiyivska CC-55 State Institution.

On June 25, 2020, lawyer's inquiries were sent to the Branch of the State Institution “Centre of Healthcare of SCES of Ukraine”, in Zaporizhia region and to the interregional hospital at the State Institution "Sofiyivska СС-55" regarding the state of health and treatment of Н.

H’’s case

Mr. H turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He noted that he was seriously ill, in addition, suffering from cancer and hepatitis C. He was not treated in correctional colonies, despite his station.

The lawyer prepares all the necessary documents for Mr. H. and plans to apply to the Toretsk Correctional Facility.

K-lenko case

Mr. K. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He reported that he was serving his sentence in the Pyatihatsky Correctional Colony № 122. Mr K. was suffering from a cancer called melanoma, but had not been treated for two years.

On November 13, 2020, the lawyer sent a request to the Pyatihatsky Correctional Facility regarding Mr. K's health condition, as well as a complaint about the convict's lack of treatment. After that, Mr. K. was urgently sent for treatment to the Lviv Penitentiary Institution, where he underwent surgery.

The lawyer is waiting for information about the scheme of the next treatment K.

Ko-vyy case

Mr. K. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including stage 4 HIV. Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence in Darya Correctional Colony № 10.

On September 28, 2020, the lawyer sent a request to Darya Correctional Colony № 10 to provide medical documentation to K. However, she did not receive an answer to her request, so on October 10, 2020 she sent a complaint to the Kherson Oblast Prosecutor’s Office for inactivity.

Without waiting for a response from the prosecutor's office, on October 28, 2020, the lawyer sent a petition to the Kherson City Court of the Kherson Region to release K. from serving his sentence due to illness. The court hearing was scheduled for December 23, 2020, but did not take place due to the judge's employment in another trial.

K-ets’s case

Mr K asked the SLC lawyer to provide his with legal assistance because he was suffering from a severe desease - stage 4 HIV. He noted that he was not being given proper medical treatment because he could not get adequate anti-retroviral therapy.

On 28 October 2019, the lawyer requested the Strizhavskaya penal colony No. 86 regarding the available medical documents. On 6 November 2019, the colony reported that K was suffering from HIV but indicated the first stage of the disease. At the same time, according to the copies of the submitted laboratory studies, the level of CD4 cells i was 46 cells, which corresponds to 4 stages of the disease.

On 19 November 2019, a lawyer filed a motion to the Vinnytsia City Court on the K’s release from punishment related with a serious illness. In doing so, she also requested a medical advisory panel to determine Mr K.'s health state.

On 16 January 2020, 26 February 2020, 12 April 2020 and 10 May 2020 the court hearings were postponed due to the judge’s illness, the lack of electricity or other technical problems.

On 9 July 2020, the Vinnytsia City Court denied the lawyer's motion to release Mr. K. due to a serious illness. At the same time, the court also refused to hold a medical advisory commission to establish the severity of the illness, because, in the court's opinion, it was already clear that K. was not subject to dismissal.

The lawyer disagreed with the court's decision and prepared an appeal.

On 25 September 2020, the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal also denied the complaint, stating that the lawyer should apply for a medical advisory commission not to the court, but directly to the colony.

The lawyer applied to the colony for a medical advisory commission, but the colony refused to do so. The lawyer plans to file a complaint against the actions of the institution to the administrative court.

Koz-y case

K. arrived at the Stryzhavska Correctional Colony (№ 81) to serve his sentence. The latter complained to the SLC about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving his sentence due to his health condition, despite a number of indications for this (stage 4 HIV, hepatitis C), besides, he has been not receiving hepatoprotectors due to the lack of medicine for almost a year.

On June 17, 2020, lawyer's inquiries were sent to the Branch of the State Institution "Central Department of Internal Affairs of Ukraine" in Vinnytsia region and to the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Stryzhavska Correctional Colony № 81" regarding the state of health and treatment of K.

On July 17, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion with the Drohobych District Court of the Lviv Region for K.’s release from serving his sentence due to his health condition.

On August 14, 2020, the court denied the lawyer her request without announcing the motivational part of the decision. The full text of the decision was made only on August 17, 2020.

On August 27, 2020, the lawyer received a copy of the full text of the court decision, and on September 3, 2020, she sent an appeal to the Lviv Court of Appeal and a request to renew the terms of filing an appeal.

On September 29, 2020, the lawyer's request was granted at the court hearing and an appeal was opened.

On September 29, 2020, the lawyer's request was granted at the court hearing and an appeal was opened.

On October 29, 2020, the lawyer was denied in her appeal. A cassation appeal and a petition for the parole of K. are being prepared.

The case of Kur-na

Mr. arrived at the Kryvyi Rih Correctional colony № 80 to serve his sentence. The latter complained to the SLC about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving his sentence due to his health condition, despite the list of indications for this (stage 4 HIV, visual disability group 3, chronic hepatitis C, chronic gastroduodenitis, obliterating atherosclerosis of the vessels of the lower extremities, impaired stool and urination, lack of the thumb on the left limb, numbness of the other fingers of the same limb, constant malaise, weight loss and others).

On June 16, 2020, attorneys' inquiries were sent to the Medical Unit of the Kryvyi Rih Correctional Colony № 80 and to the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions regarding information about K.'s health and the provision of his medical documentation.

On July 9, 2020, K. was transferred to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Dniprovske PI № 4.

On August 14, 2020, a lawyer's request was again sent to the branch of the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions regarding information about K.'s health and the provision of his medical documentation.

A lawyer's request was also sent to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Dniprovska PI-4 State Institution in order to obtain information about K.'s treatment and state of health.

On September 4, 2020, lawyers' inquiries about K.'s health were sent for the second time to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Dniprovske PI- 4 State Institution and the third to the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions.

On September 7, 2020, a statement was sent to the Prosecutor's Office of Dnipropetrovsk region about the crimes of the responsible persons of the Medical Unit of Kryvyi Rih Correctional Colony № 80, interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the State Institution "Dniprovska PI № 4" and the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions together with the motion of conducting inspections of the activities of the leaders of the above bodies.

On September 16, 2020, lawyers' inquiries about the state of health and treatment provided to him were sent to the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine, interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the State Institution "Dniprovska PI № 4" and the the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions.

On October 7, 2020, a lawyer of the SLC filed a petition with the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city of Kryvyi Rih for release from further imprisonment due to K.'s illness.

On October 23, 2020, Mr. informed the lawyer about the sudden deterioration of his health and the failure to provide him with medical care despite his diagnoses and even the risk of amputation of limbs (a finger on one of them has already been amputated). Thus, the lawyer applied to the court with a corresponding request for the obligation of the responsible persons of the State Institution “Kryvyi Rih PI-80” ​​to provide K. with the necessary treatment.

Prior to the court hearing, Mr. K. was taken to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Dniprovska PI - 4 (although he had recently been treated there and was told that “no one would treat you here for free and that you should not be taken to a hospital outside the DKVS».) Moreover, K. told the lawyer that the doctors had started the treatment process, made injections, put in drips, as if preparing for an operation, which would still be performed outside the medical facilities of the DKVS system, at the Mechnikov Dnipropetrovsk Regional Clinical Hospital of the Dnipropetrovsk regional council (further - Mechnikov hospital).

The lawyer filed an application with the court to leave without consideration the application on the obligation of the responsible persons of Kryvyi Rih PI-80 to provide K. with the necessary treatment.

On October 18, 2020, K. informed the lawyer that his doctor had informed him that "his treatment was over with the injections, but don't play, because you will be left without legs." The treatment ended because in the Mechnikov hospital, as if twice already refused to accept K. for surgery due to lack of free places.

Moreover, K. is forced to write a refusal of treatment due to inability to provide him with medical care. He refused to do so.

On December 28, 2020, a court hearing was to take place on K.’s release from serving a sentence due to his health condition, but it did not take place due to the fact that the conclusion of the commission was not ready yet, and his examination continued. The date of the next court hearing is still unknown.

Ku-in case

K. arrived at the Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 101) to serve his sentence. The latter complained to the SLC about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving a health sentence, despite a number of indications (HIV, hepatitis C, tuberculosis and amputation of the thumb on the left foot).

On June 16, 2020, a lawyer's request was sent to the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Kamyanska VK-101" regarding the state of health and treatment of K.

K-ko case

K-ko, who is serving his sentence at the Lviv Regional Hospital, asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. He provided medical documents confirming that he had spinal cancer and he is in need to get surgery. For this aim, he must be taken to a hospital of the Ministry of Health, where K-ka will be examined by a neurosurgeon and then undergo surgery.

On 30 June 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint on transportation Mr. K-ko tothe hospital for diagnosis and consultation with the Prosecutor’s Office in Lviv region. The Department of the Health Care Centre in Lviv Oblast and to the Ombudsperson.

On July 9, 2020, the lawyer also appealed to the Halytsky District Court of Lviv with a motion pursuant to Art. 537 of the CPC of Ukraine on providing medical care to Mr. K-ko.

On July 15, 2020, the Halytskyi District Court of Lviv considered the said motion and refused to satisfy it, considering that the penitentiary institution K-ko provided proper medical care.

A month later K-ko died. He was never given proper treatment.

M-k case

M. arrived at the State Institution “Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 34)” to serve her sentence from the State Institution “Odeska VK”.

On September 30, 2020, M. turned to the SLC for legal assistance due to the failure to provide her with medical care, although she had tumours in her breasts, gonorrhoea, and gastrointestinal diseases.

On October 13, 2020, the lawyer sent lawyer's inquiries regarding the state of her health and treatment to the branch of the State Institution "Healthcare Centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine" in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions, the Healthcare branch of the State Institution “Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 34)” and the State Institution “Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 34)”.

On the same day, the lawyer sent a letter to Ms. M.

Having not received answers to his inquiries, on October 29, 2020, the lawyer again sent inquiries to the branch of the State Institution "Healthcare Centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine" in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions and the Healthcare branch of the State Institution “Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 34)”.

On November 10, 2020, the lawyer sent a petition to the court on the obligations of the responsible persons of the Healthcare branch of the State Institution “Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 34)” and the State Institution “Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 34)” to provide the necessary medical care to the convicted M. in the health care institution of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine, and, in case of impossibility, to transfer of the sick convict to the state or municipal health care institution for prevention of lethal consequences.

During the lawyer's request with numerous inquiries and applications for M.'s examinations, Ms. M. was taken to specialized institutions for examinations, which showed that Ms. M. could be treated with medication.

On November 27, 2020, at the court hearing, the lawyer was denied the request for treatment, and the examination had already been conducted at that time.

N-m case

Mr. N-m was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary Facility № 1. He asked the SLC lawyer to file a motion for his release from punishment due to his serious illness. He noted that he had stage 4 HIV and other deseases.

The lawyer sent N-m all the necessary documents for signing, and after receiving them she filed a lawyer's request to the Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary Institution. However, the SLC lawyer did not receive a response to her request within the time limit set by the law, so on 15 June 2020, the SLC lawyer had to re-apply to the institution with a lawyer's request.

On July 10, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint about the inaction of the correctional colony to the Prosecutor's Office of Ivano-Frankivsk Region and the Interregional Department for the Execution of Sentences. After that, about a week later, the lawyer finally received an answer to her request, although it was provided with medical documents not in full.

On July 20, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court of the Ivano-Frankivsk Region with a request to release Mr. N. due to illness. However, some time after such a motion, Mr N. was sent for treatment to the Stryzhava Correctional Colony № 86. Accordingly, the court ruled that Mr N. should be removed from his jurisdiction and sent a lawyer's motion to the Vinnytsia District Court of Vinnytsia Oblast.

On August 15, 2020, the Vinnytsia District Court opened proceedings on a motion to release N. from serving his sentence due to illness. However, during this time Mr. N. had already been discharged from the hospital at the Stryzhavska Correctional Colony and sent back to the Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary.

Therefore, the Vinnytsia District Court of the Vinnytsia Region again ruled on the violation of jurisdiction and returned the case to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court.

On October 20, 2020, the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court reopened the proceedings at the motion of a lawyer to release N. from serving his sentence due to illness. The court hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2020, but did not take place.

The next court hearing is scheduled for January 17, 2021.

Nau-chyk. case

Mr. N. asked the SLC lawyer for legal assistance as he was failing to provide him with medical care. He noted that in recent months his health had deteriorated to such an extent level that Mr N. was almost completely paralyzed. However, he was not receiving medical treatment.

On July 23, 2020, August 17, 2020, and September 8, 2020, the lawyer sent legal requests to the Odessa detention centre to establish the health of Mr. N. However, contrary to current legislation, she did not receive answers to her requests.

Therefore, on August 29, 2020 and October 14, 2020, the lawyer sent complaints to the Prosecutor's Office of Odessa region, the Southern Interregional Department for Execution of Sentences and Probation and the Ministry of Justice. However, the authorities stated that the lawyer allegedly did not have the authority to access the applicant's medical records.

Then, on December 3, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint under Art. 206 of the CPC of Ukraine to the Malynovsky District Court of Odessa with a requirement to immediately organize the treatment of Mr. N. Although the trial was to take place within a day (according to the current CPC of Ukraine), in practice the hearing has not yet taken place.

Py-k. case

On July 31, 2020, P.'s mother filed a complaint with the SLC about non-provision of medical care and failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving a sentence due to his health condition, despite a number of indications: in early January 2020 the first symptoms of cancer began, but doctors of the Medical Department of the State Institution "Vinnytska Institution of the Execution of sentences № 12" did not take any action for examination and treatment, instead, he was diagnosed with pneumonia, which was treated with drips for three weeks in a row after which the condition of Mr. P. deteriorated: from shortness of breath to the inability to move independently, all this was accompanied by excruciating pain, first in the side and then all over the body. Nevertheless, no additional surveys were conducted. Only on July 29, 2020, on the initiative and at the expense of P.'s mother, he was taken to a private clinic, where he was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. For a long time his mother was refused even this. In addition, almost all medicines were paid for by P.'s mother herself.

On the same day, P. himself contacted the lawyer with a similar complaint.

On August 1, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion with the court for release from serving the sentence due to P.’s health, and the court hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2020.

On August 5, 2020, P. was transferred to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Lviv PI № 19/

On 05.08.2020, lawyer's inquiries were sent to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Lviv PI № 19, to the Branch of the State Institution “The Centre of Health Care of the State Criminal Executive Service” in Vinnytska and Lvivska regions concerning the treatment and the condition of health.

On August 6, 2020, the lawyer sent applications for measures to treat P. to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Head of the Department for Supervision of Observance of Laws in Execution of Judgments in Criminal Proceedings, Other Coercive Measures in Places of Imprisonment, and Probation and to the Vinnytsia region Prosecutor's Office.

On August 13, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion with the court to leave the motion for parole without consideration due to the death of the client.

On August 18, 2020, P.'s mother applied to the SLC with a request to represent her interests as a victim in the criminal proceedings over the death of her son as a result of failure to provide him with medical care.

On August 19, 2020, the lawyer sent a criminal complaint to the Vinnytsia region Prosecutor's Office and the Vinnytsia Local Prosecutor's Office.

On September 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a motion for procedural actions to the investigator and attachment of documents.

On 13.10.2020 and 17.12.2020 the lawyer sent motions for procedural actions within the framework of open criminal proceedings.

P-tyay case

Mr. P. is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the Vinnytsia Penitentiary Institution no.1. On October 21, 2020, he turned to a lawyer because of not providing him with medical care. He reported that he had a trophic ulcer on his leg, and doctors said he could amputate the leg, but did not provide any treatment.

On October 28, 2020, the lawyer submitted her request to the penitentiary institution to obtain Mr. P.'s medical records. In response, she was provided with medical records that did not mention a word about a leg ulcer.

To date, the lawyer has addressed the Representative of the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in Vinnytsia region with a request to visit the institution for the treatment of Mr. P.

The case is pending.

P-chenko case

Mr. P. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including eye disease that had led to blindness. Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence in the Sofia Correctional Colony № 45.

On November 1, 2020, the lawyer addressed her request to the Sofia Correctional Colony to obtain P-ka's medical documents. However, she did not receive an answer to her request.

On November 14 and November 17, 2020, the lawyer filed complaints about the failure to get response to the request to the Prosecutor's Office of Dnipropetrovsk region and the South-Eastern Interregional Department. However, in response, she was informed that she allegedly had no right to receive the client's medical data

Then, on December 4, 2020, the lawyer filed a petition with the Sofiyivsky District Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region to release P. due to illness. In her application, the lawyer stated that she could not provide the court with the client's medical records because the colony had not responded to her requests.

The court hearing was scheduled for December 28, 2020.

The case is pending.

P-hoy case

Mr. P. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including cancer (melanoma). Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence.

At the time of his appeal to his lawyer, Mr P. was in the Zamkova Correctional Facility. Therefore, the lawyer sent him all the necessary documents to the address of this institution. However, Mr P. never received a letter from his lawyer.

Therefore, on September 23, October 14, and November 11, 2020, the lawyer filed complaints about obstacles to communication with the client with the Khmelnytsky Oblast Prosecutor's Office, the Central-Western Interregional Penitentiary Department, and the Ministry of Justice. In response, the authorities reported that no letters had allegedly been received from P.'s lawyer.

But in the end, the next letter dated December 1, 2020 was delivered to P.

Pet-ko case

P. is in the State Institution “Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary Institution (№ 12). P. complained to the SLC that he had not been provided with medical care despite diagnoses that interfered with his normal functioning and tended to worsen.

On December 24, 2020, the lawyer sent lawyer's inquiries to the Branch of the State Institution "Healthcare Center of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine" in Chernivtsi, Ivano-Frankivsk and Zakarpattia oblasts and to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Medical Unit № 12 regarding the state of health, examination and treatment of P.

R-ut case

Mr. R., who is a disabled person of the 3rd group on oncology due to an illness received in the military service and who was libelled by Mr. M. As a result of the torture used against him by supplying electricity with the help of a military dynamo machine, Mr. R. confessed to the crime and slandered Mr. M. and another person.

Since September 26, 2019, Mr. R. has been in custody.

In May 2020, Mr. R. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 29, 2020, the lawyer of SLC filed a complaint with the October District Court of Kharkiv regarding the failure to provide medical care to Mr. R.

On June 23, 2020, the court upheld the complaint of the SLC lawyer and ordered the medical unit of the SIZO to conduct the necessary medical examination and medical treatment of Mr. R.

On November 4, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint about the crime with the Territorial Department of the DBR in Poltava, which consisted in the abduction and illegal detention of Mr. R.

On December 8, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC sent a complaint to the Zhovtnevy District Court of Poltava against the decision of the DBR and asked the court to oblige the DBR to enter information into the URPTI.

On December 14, 2020, the Zhovtnevy District Court of Poltava upheld the complaint of the lawyer of the SLC and ordered the DBR to provide information about the crime against Mr. R.

Ryab-sky case

R. arrived at the Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 101) to serve his sentence. The latter complained to the SLC about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving his sentence due to his health condition, despite a number of indications for this (HIV, hepatitis C, tuberculosis and concomitant diseases).

At the beginning of June 2020, R. was taken to the interregional hospital of the Sofiyivska VK-55 State Institution.

On June 25, 2020, lawyer's inquiries were sent to the Branch of the State Institution "Central Department of Internal Affairs of Ukraine" in Zaporizhia region and to the interregional hospital at the State Institution "Sofiyivska VK-55" regarding the state of health and treatment of R.

On July 17, 2020, a petition was sent to the Volnyanskiy District Court of the Zaporozhye Region for the early release from serving the sentence of R.

On 03.08.2020, during the court hearing, the attorney’s petition to obtain the conclusion of the medical advisory commission against R. was upheld.

On August 17, 2020, the meeting did not take place because the judge was in the collegium.

On September 03, 2020, the opinion of the medical advisory commission regarding R. was presented to the hearing, according to the results of which there were no grounds for his release. But during the hearing, the attorney found out that there was no infectious disease doctor in the commission and filed a petition to involve an infectious disease doctor.

On September 29, 2020, the infectious disease doctor did not appear for the hearing, because, according to the colony doctor, from September 14, 2020 she is on sick leave. The doctor also said that on September 15, 2020, a study of R.’s tests for viral load was carried out. Based on this, the attorney filed a petition to involve an infectious disease specialist from the regional AIDS Centre. The next hearing is scheduled for October 12, 2020.

R-ko case

Mr. R-ko, who is serving a sentence in Odesa Correctional Colony № 14, asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On 10 March 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a motion for the release of R-ka due to his serious illness to the Malynovsky District Court of Odessa region.

On 20 May 2020, the Malynovsky District Court of Odesa Oblast denied the lawyer his request to release R-ka due to illness. At the same time, the court meeting was held in the absence of R-ka, and the court did not appoint a medical advisory commission on his health.

On these grounds, on 23 May 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an appeal to the Odessa Court of Appeal.

The court hearing in the case was postponed eight times for various reasons (in most cases - due to the employment of a judge in another case). Finally, on November 2, 2020, the Odessa Court of Appeal denied the lawyer his appeal, stating that there were no grounds for satisfaction. At the same time, Mr. R. was not present at the hearing in the Court of Appeal as well as at the hearing in the court of first instance, although the lawyer insisted on his presence.

S’s case

Mr. S. asked the Kharkiv Human Rights Group to provide him with legal assistance with medical care. He is serving a sentence in the Vinnytsia region in the form of life imprisonment. Recently, he has exacerbated a serious disease - inflammation of the vessels of the lower extremities, due to which their patency is disrupted. The applicant has ulcers on the leg, doctors suspect that he has gangrene

On 28 October 2019, the SLC lawyer filed a request to the Stryzhavsk correctional colony related Mr. S.'s health

On 9 November 2019, the Stryzhavsk correctional colony reported that the prisoner had obliteration of the lower extremity vessels, trophic ulcer of the left leg.

Currently the convict is being treated at a medical facility at Shepetivska Correctional Colony No. 98. Depending on the diagnoses, tactics of further work will be planned.

However, the medical care provided was insufficient, so in the future the lawyer repeatedly applied to inter-oblast hospitals for S.'s removal for treatment. Eventually, S. was taken to the Shepetivka Correctional Colony, where he remains to this day.

S-v case

In May 2020, Mr. S-v asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance and stated that he was serving a life sentence in the Dnipro Penitentiary Facility no.4. He also stated that he had lung cancer, which he had recently been diagnosed with. However, he was not treated, and no diagnosis procedure was made to determine the clinical stage of the disease.

In May 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a lawyer's request to the Dnipro Penitentiary Facility № 4 with a request to provide copies of medical documents. However, this request was not granted, and the documents were provided only after a second request by 2 June 2020.

In addition, in June 2020, the SLC lawyer complained about the non-removal of S-v to the hospital for diagnosis to the Prosecutor's Office in Dnipropetrovsk region, the department of Health Centre in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk region, the Ombudsperson and her regional secretariat coordinators., as well as to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. To date, no response has been received from government agencies.

Therefore, on 19 June 2020, the S:C lawyer submitted to the Krasnogvardeisky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk region a request to oblige the Dnipro Penitentiary Institution no.4 to provide diagnostics and treatment for S-v.

On 26 June 2020, the Krasnogvardeisky District Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region granted the lawyer's request.

However, on July 1, 2020, S-ma died.

Subsequently, the lawyer also assisted S.'s relatives in obtaining the death certificate, as the penitentiary institution and units of the Ministry of Justice refused to hand its over. Eventually, a death certificate was obtained.

Sad-k. case

 Mr. S. is serving a prison sentence in the Odessa correctional colony. He asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid because he was suffering from a serious illness, namely HIV-4. Mr. S. is entitled to be released from the punishment in accordance with Article 84 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On August 5, 2020, the lawyer applied to the correctional colony with a lawyer's request for medical documentation.

On August 23, 2020, the lawyer received a response from the Odessa Correctional Facility with medical documents.

On September 8, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Malynovsky District Court of Odessa with a request to release S. from serving his sentence due to illness.

On October 17, 2020, the Malynovsky District Court of Odessa sent its decision to the lawyer, refusing to open proceedings at the motion of the lawyer. The court noted that the lawyer did not have the right to apply to the court, and this should be done by the penitentiary institution, or, as a last resort, the lawyer, if there is an opinion of the medical advisory commission.

On October 19, 2020, the lawyer filed an appeal with the Odessa Court of Appeal.

The court hearing has not been scheduled yet.

S-kova case

S. is serving his sentence in the Sofiyivska Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital (№ 55) at the State Institution “Sofiyivska Correctional Colony (№55)” S. turned to the SLC for legal assistance due to the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure to submit necessary documents to the court by officials responsible for his release for health reasons.

According to S., as of December 28, 2020, he suffered strokes, after which he learned to walk again with the help of a neighbor in the cell. However, on June 28, 2020, he fell in the middle of the cell. After the cast, the picture showed that the bone did not grow together (due to age and conditions). In addition, he began the process of bone decay. Also, the left upper limb from the forearm to the hand does not work in S. Thus, S. is a bedridden person, his life is counted in hours rather than days, and his condition only worsens with each passing day. Since S. cannot take care of himself, his cellmate does this. He does not even regain consciousness, pain and weakness are his constant companions when he is conscious. They tried to give him crutches, but he could not hold them.

Today, there is a real threat not to the health, but to the life of S. There is no hope to improve his condition.

Given the situation, on December 28, 2020, the lawyer immediately appealed to the court to release him on health grounds.

Shv. Case

On July 16, 2020, S. addressed the lawyer. He said that he was serving a sentence in the Odessa correctional colony. S. suffers from a number of serious illnesses, including stage 4 HIV and tuberculosis. Those illnesses give him the right to release from serving a sentence due to a serious illness.

On the same day, the attorney sent a request to the correctional colony to obtain medical documents. After receiving them, on August 18, 2020, the attorney sent a petition to release S. from serving the sentence to the Malinovsky District Court of Odessa. However, the date of the hearing has not been set yet.

In addition, the lawyer submitted an application to the Odessa correctional colony for S.’s medical advisory commission to establish the severity of his illness. The petition was granted. However, the medical advisory commission found that the severity of S.’s illness was insufficient for release.

On September 19, 2020, the attorney sent a request for medical conclusion mentioned above.

On September 19, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for the medical opinion mentioned above, but ше was never sent.

The court hearing in the case is scheduled for January 2021.

S-lov case

Mr. S. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. Mr. S. is serving his sentence in the Lityn Correctional Colony. He said he had a broken leg a few months ago. Therefore, he needs urgent treatment, in particular, surgery, which is not performed.

On December 8, 2020, the lawyer sent his request to the Lityn Correctional Facility to obtain Mr. S.'s medical records.

The case continues.

T's case

T-ov is serving his sentence in Pokrovskaya Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital № 17. He suffers from tuberculosis and HIV 4 clinical stage, which are the grounds for his release due to illness. He asked the SLC lawyer to provide his with legal assistance on these grounds.

On 17 March 2020, the SLC lawyer sent a lawyer's request to obtain T-ova's medical documents to the Pokrovsky Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital.

On 12 April 2020, the Pokrovsky Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital responded by sending a letter in which it did not establish the full diagnosis of T-ov and did not provide copies of medical records.

Therefore, on 25 April 2020, the lawyer again sent a request to the Pokrovsky Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital № 17. To date, no response has been received.

The lawyer filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkiv region on the lack of answers to her lawyer's requests.

At the same time, without even having medical documents, the lawyer sent a motion to the Balakliia District Court of the Kharkiv Region to release T. due to his illness.

The court hearing scheduled for July 3, 2020 but it did not take place.

On July 14, 2020, the Balakliia District Court denied the lawyer's motion to release T. due to a serious illness, despite the fact that the medical advisory commission gave a positive opinion and the correctional colony doctor upheld the lawyer's request.

The lawyer prepared a complaint and sent it to the appellate court.

On November 3, 2020, the Kharkiv Court of Appeal denied the lawyer's appeal.

The lawyer is currently preparing an application to the European Court of Human Rights.

Tka-nko case

Mr. T. is serving a life sentence in the Dnipro Penitentiary Institution № 4. He asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid because he was suffering from a serious illness, namely HIV-4. Mr. T. is entitled to be released from further serving his sentence in accordance with Article 84 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On June 14, 2020, July 17, 2020 and September 8, 2020, the lawyer sent legal requests to the Dnipro Penitentiary Institution to establish the state of health of Mr. T. However, contrary to current legislation, she did not receive answers to her requests.

Therefore, on August 18, 2020 and October 14, 2020, the lawyer sent complaints to the Prosecutor's Office of Dnipropetrovsk region, the South-Eastern Interregional Department for Execution of Sentences and Probation and the Ministry of Justice. However, the authorities stated that the lawyer allegedly did not have the authority to access the applicant's medical records.

Therefore, on 10 November 2020 the lawyer sent a motion for the T’s release from serving his sentence to the Krasnogvardeisky District Court of Dnipro, in which she stated that she could not substantiate her petition with medical documents.

The court hearing was scheduled for December 16, 2020, but did not take place due to the failure to bring T to the court hearing.

The next court hearing is scheduled for December 24, 2020.

Tem-ko case

T. arrived at the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (No. 101) to serve his sentence. During the first medical examination after arriving at the colony, T. informed the head of the medical unit of his disease: HIV infection, hepatitis C, pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic allergy, liver cirrhosis. However, during the four months after T.'s arrival in the colony, no measures were taken to treat him.

In April 2019, the colony was visited by an infectious disease doctor who diagnosed T. with stage IV HIV, hepatitis B + C, tuberculosis and polyallergy.

Within two days of prescribing the therapy (04/13/2019 and 04/14/2019), T. began an allergic reaction to the drug, which was accompanied by rashes on the body and pain in the side. After that, medical staff stopped giving T. therapy and instead started stabbing the painkillers in the kidneys and injected an anti-allergic drug.

On 20 May 2019, T. was taken from the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (No. 101) to the Stryzhavskaya correctional colony No. 81. There T. was placed in the ward for the examination, after a week of examinations, therapy was prescribed, after three days of receiving the latter, the patient began an allergic reaction, accompanied by rashes on the skin, itching, and itching. after the injection of Dexamethasone. After these events, T. was sent to the Kamyansk correctional colony (No. 101), where he is still serving his sentence.

On 19 July 2019, the SLC lawyer filed a motion on release T. from serving a sentence for health reasons in the Vilnyansk district court of Zaporizhzhya region. The court ordered a forensic medical examination, however later the court meetings were postponed due to the absence of the judge and the expert institution did not send the lawyer documents. That is, court hearings were delayed and T.'s health state who received no treatment was worsening. Moreover, he was even transferred from the medical part of the colony to the living area.

Currently, proceedings are pending.

On 10.12.2019 the court obliged medical unit to provide the SLC lawyer with medical documentation and conduct urgent medical examination of T’s health state.

 02.01.2020 a criminal complaint was lodged to the Vilnyansky police department of the Pologivsky police department of the State National Park in Zaporizhia region of a criminal offense against Mr. T., which consisted in failure to provide without good reason by a medical worker, who is obliged according to the established rules to provide such assistance, if he is aware that this may have serious consequences for the patient, in accordance with the recommendation given by a narrow specialist regarding his disease.

On January 14, 2020, applications for criminal offenses were sent to the VRU Commissioner for Human Rights, Tokmaty Local Prosecutor's Office of Zaporizhia region, Vilnyansky Police Department of the Pologivsky Police Department of the State National Security Service in Zaporizhia region, and judge of the Vilnyansky District Court of Zaporizhia region O. V. Kiyashko, and the Zaporizhia region Branch of the State Institution “Centre of Healthcare of SCES of Ukraine”, which consisted of failing to provide medical care to a patient without good reason by medical worker, who is obliged to provide such care in accordance with the established rules, if he is aware that it may have serious consequences for the patient and non-enforcement of court decisions.

17.01.2020 a criminal complaint was lodged to the Office of the Prosecutor General on a criminal offense, which consisted in non-compliance with the court decision and failure to provide medical care.

31.01.2020 court hearing was conducted on the release of Mr. T. from serving a sentence for health reasons, the court hearing was postponed to 06.02.2020.

On February 6, 2020, the court hearing was conducted on the release of Mr. T. from serving a sentence due to his health condition, the motion was denied.

12.03.2020 writing lawyer's inquiries were to the Branch of the State Institution “Centre of Healthcare of SCES of Ukraine” in Zaporizhia region, Dar'ivska General Hospital № 10 at DVK № 10, the medical unit of the SI “Kamyanska correctional colony 101” on the condition of health and treatment of Mr. T.

16.03.2020 a motion was written for procedural actions to the investigator of the Vilnyansky ID Pologivsky ID of GDNP in the Zaporozhya region.

02.04.2020 a motion was written for procedural actions to the investigator of the Vilnyansky ID Pologivsky ID of GDNP in the Zaporozhya region and to the notice of the Chief of the GDNP in the Zaporozhya region. Criminal complaints were also filed with the Bilozersky District Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Kherson region, the Prosecutor's Office of Kherson region and the Kherson Directorate of Ukrposhta for violating the client's and lawyer's rights to secrecy, medical secrecy, and dissemination of personal data.

On April 22, 2020, a lawyer's request was sent to the Branch of the State Institution “Centre of Healthcare of SCES of Ukraine” in Zaporizhia region and to the medical part of the State Institution "Kamyanska CC №101" regarding the state of health and treatment of Mr. T., in connection with the doctors' statement on the refusal of Mr. T. from treatment.

Vov-v case

V.'s mother applied to the KHPG for legal assistance from her son, who is serving his sentence in the Oleksiyivska CC-25 State Institution, in connection with the failure to provide him with the necessary medical care despite his diagnoses. Also V. called by phone and asked for help.

During the monitoring visit of journalists and lawyers of the NGO "KHPG" to the State Institution "Oleksiyivska CC-25" V. refused any assistance.

In March 2020, V., while being treated at the Daryevsky General Hospital № 10, again sought help, citing the fact that he was no longer afraid to seek help, and asked a SLC lawyer to help him recover from his health condition.

On March 4, 2020, the lawyer sent a lawyer's request to Daryevska Multidisciplinary Hospital № 10 regarding V.'s health and treatment. The request was denied, and V. was immediately transferred to the Kherson CIZO.

Taking into account V.'s state of health and the available possibility to release him from parole, on April 27, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv with a request for parole.

On May 14, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion to attach documents and information to the materials of the criminal proceedings on the application for the release of V.

 On 15.05.2020 a court hearing was scheduled, which did not take place due to the absence of a personal case in the court V. The hearing was postponed to 12.06.2020.

On June 12, 2020, the court session did not take place due to the lack of a personal case in the court. The session was postponed to September 4, 2020.

On September 4, 2020, the attorney filed a petition for the attachment of documents and information to the materials of criminal proceedings on the V.’s application for parole (copies of the characteristics, documents of encouragements and comments, medical documentation, a certificate of employment after release, a letter from the mother about the provision of housing for V.). However, the prosecutor filed a request to get himself acquainted with the case materials and the meeting was again postponed to September 25, 2020 (it also did not take place and the next date was set for November 6, 2020).

November 6, 2020, the court refused V.'s parole. The lawyer did not file an appeal, as less than a month later V. released from serving his sentence after expiration of the sentence term, and his health had already improve

V-ko case

Mr. V.'s mother asked for legal aid from the lawyer because her son had not received medical treatment at the Kharkiv Detention Centre. She said her son was charged with the crime and his case was being tried. At the same time, V. is a mentally ill person who needs constant treatment, otherwise he begins to suffer from constant attacks of aggression and suicidal thoughts.

On March 20, May 13, June 26, and August 30, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Kharkiv Detention Centre and the Northeast Penitentiary Department for medical assistance. However, each time she received a reply that the treatment provided in the detention centre was sufficient.

To date, the lawyer is waiting for V.'s medical documents and has sent a request to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to conduct an investigation into V.'s inactivity.

The case continues.

V-ko case

Mr. V. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including stage 4 HIV. Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence in the Raikiv Correctional Colony.

On October 27, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Raikiv Correctional Colony for medical documentation. However, the response to such a request was received only on December 6, 2020 and after complaints about the institution's inaction.

On December 7, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Berdychiv City Court to release V. due to illness. However, a court hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Yan-zov case

Mr. Y., along with two other individuals, is charged with selling drugs committed by an organized group.

Mr. Y.'s case is pending in court, but he has only been remanded in custody for two years, and in fact the case is not being considered. Mr. Y.'s accomplices were changed from custody to house arrest. Mr. Y. also suffers from a number of serious illnesses, including hepatitis C, and he is not provided with medical care in a pre-trial detention centre.

In March 2020, Mr. Y. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On March 25, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a motion with the court to familiarize with the case file, which was granted by the court. Due to the fact that the written evidence in the case was not examined, it is absent in the materials of the criminal case in court, and there is only an indictment, register and correspondence of the court.

On April 23, 2020, the court extended the detention of Mr. Y. and denied the request of the SLC lawyer to change the measure of restraint to a more lenient one. The court granted another request from the lawyer for access to the written evidence and ordered the prosecutor to provide access to the written evidence and make photocopies of it.

On 21 May 2020, the court extended Mr. Y.’s detention and denied the SLC lawyer's request to change the measure of restraint to a more lenient one.

On 19 June 2020, the court extended Mr. Y.’s detention and denied the CSS's lawyer's request to change the measure of restraint to a more lenient one.

On August 12, 2020, the court extended the term of J.'s detention and denied the lawyer's motion to change the measure of restraint to a milder one.

On October 7, 2020, the court denied the prosecutor’s motion of an extension of his detention and granted the lawyer's request to replace his detention with night house arrest.

On December 16, 2020, the court postponed the hearing to a later date due to the illness of the representatives of the parties.

The lawyer is preparing an application to the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine for the transfer of J. to an institution where he would receive medical care and a medical advisory commission is functioning.

Yag-v. case

Ya. arrived at the Selydivska Correctional Colony (№ 82) to serve his sentence. The latter complained to the SLC about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving his sentence due to his health condition, despite a number of indications (HIV and concomitant diseases).

On July 14, 2020, lawyer's inquiries were sent to the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Selydivska VK-82" and to the Branch of the State Institution “The Centre of Health Care of the State Criminal Executive Service”.

On August 4, 2020, a petition was sent to the Selydiv City Court of the Donetsk Region for release from serving a sentence due to health conditions.

On August 20, 2020, a court hearing took place, in which the lawyer filed a motion to demand the opinion of the LCC.

On September 2, 2020, the court hearing was postponed because the Medical Unit of the State Institution “Selydivska VK-82” did not provide medical documentation to the court.

On September 7, 2020, the Selidovo court granted the request to release Ya. despite the absence of an opinion from the LKK, which, according to the colony's representative, could not be submitted to the court, as there was no material possibility in the colony to transfer J. to the appropriate institution. At this time, Ya. began to provide the necessary medical care (ART therapy, hepatoprotectors), his condition began to improve.

On September 18, 2020, the lawyer submitted a lawyer's request to the Selydiv Correctional Colony State Institution (№ 82) to provide documents characterizing Ya. for filing a petition for Ya.'s parole.

On September 28, 2020, the lawyer received a copy of the decision to initiate appeal proceedings together with a copy of the appeal against the decision of the Selydiv City Court of the Donetsk Region of September 7, 2020.

On October 7, 2020, the lawyer filed an objection to the prosecutor's appeal.

On October 12, 2020, the court hearing in the Court of Appeal of Donetsk Region did not take place due to the lack of court composition.

On 10.27.2020 The Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor's appeal and overturned the decision of the Selydiv City Court of the Donetsk Region of 7 September 2020.

On November 12, 2020, the court hearing on the parole of Ya. did not take place due to communication problems.

On November 23, 2020, on the court hearing on the parole of Ya., a lawyer and a prosecutor filed a motion to call witnesses and demand information.

 On December 16, 2020, the court hearing on the parole of Ya. took place and lawyer’s motion was denied.

The lawyer is preparing an application to the State Institution “The Centre of Health Care of the State Criminal Executive Service”for the transfer of Ya. to an institution where he would receive medical care and a medical advisory commission is functioning.

Yu-ko case

Yu. arrived at the Kamyanska Correctional Colony (№ 101) to serve his sentence. The latter complained to the SLC about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving his sentence due to his health condition, despite a number of indications (HIV and comorbidities).

On June 16, 2020, a lawyer's request was sent to the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Kamyanska VK-101" regarding the state of health and treatment of Yu.

29.07.2020 lawyer made complaints to the State Institution “The Centre of Health Care of the State Criminal Executive Service” and to the Branch of The Centre of Health Care of the State Criminal Executive Service” in Zhaporizhska Region regarding failure to respond to the request dated 16.06.2020.

On August 10, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion with the court for release from serving a sentence due to Yu.

31.08.2020, 22.09.2020, 27.10.2020 court hearings on release from serving a sentence due to Yu .'s health condition took place, during which he was obliged to submit to the court the conclusion of the medical advisory commission on Yu. at the request of the lawyer, an infectious disease doctor was involved to provide his / her separate opinion, as a result of which the lawyer was denied the request. It is planned to file a motion with the court for the parole of Yu. from serving his sentence.

Ye-skyy case

Ye. arrived at the the Interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the at the State Institution “Dnieper penitentiary institution (№ 4)” from the State Institution “Bakhmut SIZO (№ 6)” for treatment of hemorrhoids.

In December 2020, Ye. complained to the SLC about the lack of treatment for the existing disease, which had recently worsened and caused him excruciating pain and discomfort, as it was accompanied by hemorrhages.

On December 24, 2020, the lawyer sent a lawyer's request to the the Branch of the State Institution "Healthcare Centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine" in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions regarding Ye.’s state of health and treatment.

On December 30, 2020, Mr. Ye. announced that he had been transferred to Odessa without any explanation and the place, where he would be taken next, is unknown.

Z-ykh case

Mr. Z. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he suffered from a number of serious illnesses, including stage 4 HIV and tuberculosis. Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence in the Dnieper Correctional Colony № 89.

On October 19, 2020, the lawyer sent his request to the Dnipro Correctional Colony to obtain medical documents. However, such documents were received only in early December 2020.

On December 4, 2020, the lawyer filed a petition for release from serving his illness with the Leninsky District Court of Dnipro. A court hearing has not yet been scheduled.

5 cases related to the conflict at the Eastern part of Ukraine

Anf-ova case

At the end of September, Mr. A. applied to the SLC for legal assistance due to leaving him in danger by employees of the State Institution “Slavyanoserbskaya VK (№ 60)”, where he was till mid-April, 2019. On April 7, 2014, the Anti-Terrorist Operation began in the Luhansk region.

And only in May 2019 he arrived to serve his sentence at the State Institution "Romenska VK (№ 56)", where he is now.

On October 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a letter to A. with a form of application for recognition as his victim.

On November 3, 2020, the lawyer sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. T.

On November 17, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court about the inaction of the responsible persons the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region regarding the failure to enter the information provided in statements above to the URPTI.

On November 25, 2020, the lawyer's complaint was upheld.

Si-kov case

At the end of September, Mr. S. applied to the SLC for legal assistance due to leaving him in danger by employees of the State Institution “Krasnolutska VK (№ 19)”, where he was from 2008 to the end of September 2019. On April 7, 2014, the Anti-Terrorist Operation began in the Luhansk region.

And only in the fall of 2019 he arrived to serve his sentence at the State Institution "Sumy VK (№ 116)”, where he is now.

On October 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a letter to S. with a form of application for recognition as his victim.

On October 20, 2020, the lawyer sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. S.

On November 4, 2020, the lawyer re-sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. S.

On November 17, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court about the inaction of the responsible persons the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region regarding the failure to enter the information provided in statements above to the URPTI

On November 25, 2020, the lawyer's complaint was upheld.

 

Sa-v case

Mr. S was born in the city of Kupiansk in Kharkiv region. On 01 June 2015 during the mobilization process Kupiansk military registration and enlistment office called Mr. S to participate in anti-terrorist operation in the position of deputy commander of a combat vehicle.

On o2 December 2015 there was information sent to the Police Station's Front Office of Artemivsk Police Office which stated that at the checkpoint of the Military Forces of Ukraine in the village of Semyhiryia of Artemisk district in Donetsk region Mr. S was killed. The information about murder of Mr. S was entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

From the very beginning of the pre-trial investigation an investigator was investigating a “suicide” of Mr. S instead of murder. All the data entered by investigator stated the fact of suicide not a murder. This kind of demeanor is a feature of ineffectiveness and prejudication of the investigator.

When conducting forensic examination, experts didn’t set the length of the shot and didn’t accurately determine the distance of the shot.

The investigator repeatedly terminated criminal proceedings regarding Mr. S’s case. The Mr. S’s lodged a grievance on the investigator’s decision to the court.

On 19 March 2019 Mr. S’s mother turned to the SLC asking for the legal assistance.

In June 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged and sent a motion concerning conducting a re-forensic medical examination.

On 7 February 2020 the SLC lawyer prepared and sent a motion to investigator on conducting a commission examination.

For the time being, the SLC lawyer is preparing an application to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

Sazon-v case

At the end of September, Mr. S. applied to the SLC for legal assistance due to leaving him in danger by employees of the State Institution “Slavyanoserbskaya VK (№ 60)”, where he was from January 12, 2008 to October 19, 2019. On April 7, 2014, the Anti-Terrorist Operation began in the Luhansk region.

And only in the fall of 2019 he arrived to serve his sentence at the State Institution "Romenska VK (№ 56)", where he is now.

On October 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a letter to S. with a form of application for recognition as his victim.

On October 20, 2020, the lawyer sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. S.

On November 4, 2020, the lawyer re-sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. S.

On November 17, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court about the inaction of the responsible persons the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region regarding the failure to enter the information provided in statements above to the URPTI.

On November 20, 2020, the lawyer's complaint was upheld.

To-rya case

At the end of September, Mr. T. applied to the SLC for legal assistance due to leaving him in danger by employees of the State Institution “Slavyanoserbskaya VK (№ 60)”, where he was from August 13, 2013 to May 24, 2019. On April 7, 2014, the Anti-Terrorist Operation began in the Luhansk region.

And only in June 2019 he arrived to serve his sentence at the State Institution "Romenska VK (№ 56)", where he is now.

On October 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a letter to T. with a form of application for recognition as his victim.

On October 20, 2020, the lawyer sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. T.

On November 4, 2020, the lawyer re-sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. T.

On November 17, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court about the inaction of the responsible persons the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region regarding the failure to enter the information provided in statements above to the URPTI.

On November 25, 2020, the lawyer's complaint was upheld.

14 cases of parole

B-ch’s

On July 21, 2020, a lawyer of SLC concluded an agreement on providing legal assistance to the convicted Mr. B. in the case of replacing the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one. On the same day, the lawyer sent a request to the court to postpone the court hearing on the case and to hold the next court hearing by videoconference.

On July 30, 2020, the lawyer became aware of the participation of the judge, who was appointed to consider the Mr. B's case, in another case of the Mr. B. regarding parole. On this basis, the lawyer filed a motion to disqualify the judge.

On September 1, 2020, the lawyer sent a request to attach evidence to the case file together with the application-guarantee of the Mr. B's employment and copies of extracts from the register of legal entities of the organization that was to employ him.

On September 8, 2020, the lawyer made and sent a lawyer's request to the State Institution "Kryukovska Correctional Colony (№29)" to obtain a description and conclusion of a psychologist about the Mr. B.

On September 22, 2020, the lawyer attached to the case a response to a lawyer's request from the State Institution "Kryukovska Correctional Colony (№ 29)".

On October 7, 2020, the Poltava District Court of the Poltava Region ruled in the case № 545/1736/20 to deny the granted petitions to replace the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one.

On November 16, 2020, the lawyer filed an appeal against the decision of the court of first instance in the case № 545/1736/20.

On October 30, 2020, the Poltava Court of Appeal granted the lawyer's request to hold a court hearing by videoconference.

On November 18, 2020, the Poltava Court of Appeal dismissed the lawyer's appeal, and the decision of the Poltava District Court of the Poltava Region of October 7, 2020, without changes.

B-ov case

B., as well as other convicts who were serving their sentences in Oleksiyivska VK № 25, complained to the KHPG on January 3, 2020 about the torture of human rights activists during a monitoring visit.

 On February 3, 2020, during a meeting with a lawyer, B. reported that apart from torture, he was not treated for hepatitis C and was forced to work despite direct bans by doctors to hire him due to a number of illnesses. At the same time, he reported that he had already served more than two-thirds of his sentence.

The lawyer sent a number of motions to the medical unit of the colony and to the Branch of the State Institution "Centre of Healthcare of SCES of Ukraine" in Kharkiv and Luhansk regions regarding the doctor's admission to B. and lawyer's inquiries about his health, treatment and providing copies of medical records, however, despite of all agreements, the answer was not provided to the lawyer.

At the same time, the lawyer sent numerous applications for security measures to B., in the form of transfer from OVK № 25.

On February 12, 2020, the lawyer filed an application with the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv for B.'s release from serving his sentence.

On March 13, 2020, B. was transferred to Temnivska Hospital № 100, and then to the Kharkiv SIZO.

By the decision of the Dzerzhinsky court of 15.05.2020, the lawyer was denied on the basis of the certificate of OVK № 25 according to which on 28.02.2020 B. was discharged from Temnivska hospital, 100, so the materials of his personal file cannot be provided and he is there.

 On May 25, 2020, the lawyer filed an application with the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv for B.'s conditional release from serving his sentence.

On July 20, 2020 the Dzerzhinsky court of the city of Kharkiv held a decision to return the motion to the lawyer cause on June 26, 2020 B. was transferred to the Odesky CIZO.

As to the July 24, 2020, B. is located at Kropyvnytska CC 6. On July 27, 2020 the attorney lodged an application for early conditional release of B. from serving the sentence to the Leninsky district court of the city of Kirovohrad.

B.'s health deteriorated, and his hepatitis C symptoms worsened. The attorney send B. hepatoprotectors.

The attorney sent a lawyer's request regarding B.'s personal characteristics and state of health to attach these documents to the materials of the criminal proceedings on the application for parole.

On September 25, 2020, a court hearing on the B.’s parole was not held due to technical reasons.

On October 30, 2020, at the court hearing, the attorney was denied the request for B.’s parole.

On December 22, 2020, B. was released from the colony after the end of his sentence. During B.'s stay in the State Institution “Kropyvnytskyi VK (№ 6)” he underwent a course of treatment for hepatitis C.

De-in case

On July 16, 2020, D., who is serving a sentence in the State Institution “Kholodnogorska correctional colony (No. 18)”, appealed to a lawyer. He said that he has the right to parole from serving sentence, but the institution for the execution of sentences refuses to submit a corresponding submission to the court.

On the same day, the attorney sent a request to the State Institution “Kholodnogorska correctional colony (No. 18)” with a requirement to provide all the necessary documents regarding D.’s personality, penalties and incentives, and employment.

On August 2, 2020, the attorney received all the relevant documents. However, D. asked to wait with the filing of the petition to the court, since the administration of the institution promised him to file a submission on its own.

At the end of September 2020, the State Institution “Kholodnogorska correctional colony (No. 18)” submitted a petition for D.’s parole to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kharkov.

The hearing is scheduled for October 29, 2020. The attorney sent a petition to the court to get herself acquainted with the case materials.

On October 29, 2020, the Oktyabrsky District Court ruled on the parole of D.

Hol-nya case

On 5 December 2019 a wife of Mr. H turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance. The wife said that the latter could not apply to court to replace the part of the sentence with a milder sentence, since his colony did not sent his correspondence.

On 9 December 2019 during the meeting with Mr. H a necessary information was gathered and an agreement to use personal data was signed.

On 20 December 2019 an application was made to replace the term of serving a sentence on the less one to the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv.

16.01.2020 - court hearing, which did not take place due to technical reasons.

12.02.2020 - additional explanations are attached to the request for dismissal of H. during the court hearing, which was postponed due to the request of the prosecutor to provide a psychological description of the Client and a certificate of penalties and encouragements.

03.03.2020 - court session.

March 31, 2020 - the court hearing did not take place due to quarantine measures.

17.04.2020 - the court hearing, the next court hearing is scheduled for 15.07.2020.

On July 15, 2020, the court denied the lawyer's application to replace the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one.

On August 14, 2020, the lawyer filed an appeal against the decision of July 15, 2020, however, on August 15, 2020, G. refused the services of a lawyer.

K-voy. case

On August 10, 2020, K. turned to a lawyer. She said that she had the right to be released on parole, but the State Institution “Kachanovskaya correctional colony (No. 54)” refused to file such submission to the court.

After signing all the necessary documents by K., the attorney sent a request to the colony to obtain information about penalties and incentives, employment, as well as the K.’s characteristics.

On November 11, 2020, the lawyer filed a petition for the parole of K. with the Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv.

The hearing in the case was scheduled for December 11, 2020, but did not take place due to the failure of the correctional colony to provide personal case materials.

The next court hearing is scheduled for January 29, 2021.

Ko-sky's case

On August 19, 2020, Mr. K. applied to the Derhachiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region with a request for his parole. However, the petition was denied.

K. independently filed a complaint with the Court of Appeal, after which he turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. The lawyer got acquainted with the case materials and prepared a legal position.

The court hearing in the appellate court is scheduled for March 2, 2021.

Kr-ts case

On 20 August 2019 Mr. K turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance. Mr. K is serving a sentence in Khrolivsky Correctional Centre. Mr. K reported that on August 14, 2019, Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv region issued a decision refusing to satisfy a complaint on the head of the State Institution «Khrolovsky CC № 40» and the chairman of the supervisory commission at the Kharkiv Regional State Administration of the Kharkiv region on the application of parole in respect of Mr. K.

On 23 August 2019 the SLC lawyer appeled to Kharkiv Court of Appeal.

On 14 November 2019 the first court hearing had been conducted.

19.03.2020 the court hearing was postponed to 10.09.2020.

10.09.2020 The Court of Appeal of Kharkiv Region upheld the lawyer's appeal against the decision of the Kharkiv District Court of Kharkiv Region.

L-k case

Ms. L-ka turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. She said that she was serving her sentence in the Kachanivska Correctional Colony № 54 and was entitled to parole. However, the penal colony refuses to apply to the court for release.

Therefore, on December 19, 2020, the lawyer sent a request to obtain documents on L.'s characteristics, information on her recovery and incentives, and employment.

Luts-k case

On August 15, 2020, a group of convicts from the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” applied to the NGO KHPG for legal assistance, as the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” was being disbanded, and the colony applied for their parole or sentence mitigation.

At the same time, the local prosecutor's office unreasonably delays the process, which means that convicts will be transferred to other regions, far from relatives. That is, convicts who, even in the opinion of the colony administration, are subject to release, are in fact deprived of even the right to relatives visits.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the colony has a minimum level of security with facilitated detention conditions. This means that convicts have already made their correction if they find themselves in an institution of this level, and now this happens again if the colony has supported their release and encouragement. After reviewing the materials, the organization's lawyers made sure that the prosecutor's office was really abusing its rights and ignoring the epidemiological situation in the country at that time. Firstly, lawyers turned to advocacy activities in the form of articles in the media.

Mr. L. was in the group of convicts who asked for legal assistance in the case of his parole, as on 6 August 2020 the court refused to grant his application.

On August 20, 2020, the attorney filed an application with the court to get acquainted with the case materials and to be involved as a representative.

The court hearing in the appellate instance is scheduled for April 8, 2020.

L-sherst case

In the fall of 2014, Mr. L., who worked as a miner in the Donetsk region, discovered that his relative had stolen all his family's savings and valuables, came to the theft and, enraged, punched him in the head, causing his death.

In April 2015, Mr. L. was sentenced to 9 years in prison for premeditated murder. As a person, who has been accustomed to work all his conscious life, Mr. L. continued to work in prisons. As he could not find a professional job in the Toretsk Correctional Colony, where he was sent to serve his sentence, the administration of the institution sent him to work in the medical unit, because there was a constant shortage of staff. He faithfully performed all the work both to care for critically ill patients and to ensure the functioning of the medical unit and the improvement of its premises.

For his conscientious behavior and attitude to work, Mr. L. earned the respect of the institution administration and received numerous awards. When the time for the possibility of applying for Mr. L.’s parole came, the administration of the column in October 2020 without delay filed a petition to the court, considering Mr. L. as a person, who proved his correction.

At the same time, the local prosecutor's office had a different opinion on this issue, and its prosecutor during the proceedings of the colony's application for the Mr. L.’s release from further imprisonment categorically denied the existence of grounds for his release. The prosecutor motivated this by the fact that the convict did not work at manufacturing, and his work concerned only the improvement of the institution, that the medical unit has been separated from the colony since 2017, so his work there cannot be considered for Mr. L as work at all, Mr. L’s awards are improperly issued, so cannot be considered as evidence of his honest work, etc. In this regard, the prosecutor demanded that the institution administration provide the court with evidence of Mr. L’s employment, and the court hearings were paused.

Mr. L. appealed to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, and he was provided with a SLC lawyer to defend him in court. On November 4, 2020, at the court hearing, the lawyer managed to convince the judge of the Dzerzhinsky City Court of the Donetsk Region that Mr. L. still proved his correction, and the formalities of registration of his employment, as well as the place of work, determined for him by the institution administration, do not refute the fact of his many years of socially useful work.

Objecting to the dismissal of Mr. L., the prosecutor filed an appeal, but on December 22, 2020, the Donetsk Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance. Mr. L. was released on parole and returned to his family and work at his native mine.

M-k case

M-k is serving his sentence in Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony № 25. He aksed the SLC lawyer for legal assistance in the case of his parole.

On 3 March 2020, the SLC lawyer sent a request to Oleksiyivska Correctional Colony № 25 regarding the characteristics of M-k, the availability of penalties and incentives, his employment.

On 19 March 2020, the SLC lawyer received all the necessary documents in response and on the same day sent a motion for M-k parole to the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv. However, to date, the meeting has not been scheduled or held. Consideration of the case is pending.

 Court hearings in the case were postponed more than ten times. The last time was due to the judge's illness, and a little earlier - due to the failure to submit M.'s personal file to the court by the colony administration, the judge's employment in another process, and so on. The next court hearing is scheduled for January 23, 2021.

Skor-go case

On August 15, 2020, a group of convicts from the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” applied to the NGO KHPG for legal assistance, as the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” was being disbanded, and the colony applied for their parole or sentence mitigation.

At the same time, the local prosecutor's office unreasonably delays the process, which means that convicts will be transferred to other regions, far from relatives. That is, convicts who, even in the opinion of the colony administration, are subject to release, are in fact deprived of even the right to relatives visits.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the colony has a minimum level of security with facilitated detention conditions. This means that convicts have already made their correction if they find themselves in an institution of this level, and now this happens again if the colony has supported their release and encouragement. After reviewing the materials, the organization's lawyers made sure that the prosecutor's office was really abusing its rights and ignoring the epidemiological situation in the country at that time. Firstly, lawyers turned to advocacy activities in the form of articles in the media.

Mr. S. was in the group of convicts who asked for legal assistance in the case to mitigate his sentence.

On August 26, 2020, the court hearing in the court of first instance was postponed to September 28, 2020, as the prosecutor stated that he needed to confirm the number of hours Mr. S worked in the colony where he was serving his sentence before the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” (the State Institution “Kholodnohirska VK (№ 18)”).

On September 4, 2020, the lawyer sent legal inquiries to the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)”, the State Institution “Kholodnohirska VK (№ 18)” and the State Institution “Mashivska VK (№ 9)” regarding the characteristics, information on the number of hours worked, communication with relatives and documents confirming S.’s employment.

On September 25, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion with the court to schedule a court hearing by video conference with the State Institution “Mashivska VK (№ 9)”, as Mr. S. was already there, and to attach documents.

On September 28, 2020, the court session did not take place because the judge was absent.

On September 30, 2020, Mr. S. refused legal assistance.

S-niuk’s case

Ms. S asked the SLC lawyer to provide her with legal assistance in connection with her parole.

She noted that on 25 October 2019, she had been denied the application for parole because, according to the court, she had not taken the path of correction, several of her rewards had been cancelled by the prosecutor's office over time; she did not pay a civil claim, etc.

In fact, Ms. S noted that she had paid more than 6,000 pecuniary damages in a civil claim, works, has rewards (and canceled rewards were not her fault).

After reading the case file, the lawyer filed several requests.

In particular, the lawyer submitted a request to the Kachanivska correctional colony on the existence of enforcement letter, the voluntary payment of sums due a civil claim and, finally, the specific amount of money paid. In response, the penitentiary institution informed that there was no enforcement letter in the case file, as well as no information on voluntary execution on the civil claim.

In addition, the lawyer appealed to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor's Office No. 5 and the Uman City Prosecutor's Office about the reasons for cancelling Ms. S.'s rewards. The prosecutor's offices in response, noted that rewards had been cancelled due to incorrect mechanism of their delivering.

The SLC lawyer also appealed to the Supervisory Board of the Executive Committee of the Uman City Council for non-compliance with the parole of Mrs. S. In response, the committee provided a minutes of the meeting, which did not contain any references to the reasons, but only indicated the result of the meeting.

On 10 June 2020 the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s vocation.

On 30 June 2020 during the court meeting the term on appealing was restored for Mr. S. The next court hearing is scheduled on 13 February 2021.

T-rev case

Mr. T. asked the lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in the case of replacing his sentence with a milder one. The case was considered by the Dergachiv District Court of Kharkiv Region.

On August 21, 2020, a court hearing took place, during which the prosecutor filed a motion to request additional documents from the Kholodnohirska Correctional Colony. The lawyer was against it, as such documents were excessive in T.'s case, and in addition, the Dergachiv Correctional Colony, where T-rev was serving his sentence, had to be liquidated. However, the court granted the prosecutor's request and adjourned the hearing.

At the end of August 2020, T. was taken from the Dergachiv Correctional Colony to the village of Mashivka, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Dergachiv District Court.

On October 16, 2020, the Dergachiv District Court returned the motion to commute T.'s sentence with a milder one, as T. had been released from the Dergachiv Correctional Colony. However, the lawyer did not agree with the decision and considered that the court had already begun consideration of the case on the merits, and therefore had no right to return the petition for violation of territorial jurisdiction.

The trial in the appellate court continues.

U. case

U. turned to a lawyer with a request to represent his interests in the Dergachevsky District Court of the Kharkiv Region in the case of his release on parole.

On August 19, 2020, the attorney got acquainted with the case materials and prepared written explanations on the essence of the case. However, on the day of the hearing, the attorney was informed that the hearing was postponed due to the judge’s illness.

Due to liquidation of the Dergachevsky correctional colony, U. was transferred to the Mashevsky correctional colony, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Dergachevsky district court.

On October 13, 2020, the court returned the petition due to a violation of jurisdiction.

U. refused further assistance from a lawyer.

33 cases related to the use special force came and ill-treatment of prisoners on 8 January 2020 in Oleksiyvska penal colony №25.

Concerning the events preceding the alleged violations of the convicts’ rights

During a lengthy period the information was being received from OPC-25, which at present is managed by North-Eastern Inter-regional Department for the Execution of Sentences and Probation of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (hereafter – Inter-regional Department) concerning the systematic use of tortures and other forms of ill-treatment of the inmates. This situation in OPC-25 is noted in the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture after its visit to the colony (https://rm.coe.int/168069844d , p.8; https://rm.coe.int/1680698465 - p.9, https://rm.coe.int/16806985fd – pp.4-5, 8-9, 17-18).

For many years the inmates had not complained about the torture because of intimidation. However, on 30 December 2019, on the occasion of the notice of suspicion to the colony officials for committing official crimes and another beating of one of the inmates, the convicted persons collectively complained to the head of the colony concerning the illegal actions of the administration, most notably – torture and ill-treatment.

On 3 January 2020 the journalists of KHPG accompanied by assistant consultant of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine conducted a monitoring visit to OPC-25. During the visit the human rights defenders were contacted by a large group of convicted persons, including the applicants, who voiced their complaints about the actions of the administration.

On 6 January 2020 the Head of the Inter-regional Department, Mr. Romanov, approved the plan of the general search, according to which OPC-25 should have undergone a general search on 8 January 2020 with the involvement of additional forces and means from other institutions, as well as territorial (Inter-regional) paramilitary formation – the so-called rapid response group (RRG).

As stated in the certificate by Acting Chief of OPC-25, Mr. Nekhayev-Oleksandrov, the general search in the colony was conducted on the basis of the instruction from the Inter-regional Department. The cause to accept Mr. Romanov’s instruction to conduct the general search was the application by Mr. Nekhayev-Oleksandrov and the plan of the general search. Meanwhile neither the aforementioned certificate nor the application (the letter of 6 January 2020) with the request for the permission to conduct the general search stated the causes for such search.

Also on 6 January 2020 the First Deputy Chief of Inter-regional Department Mr. Indyk sent to the Head of RRG a request for “subordinate personnel” from all institutions involved in the general search to arrive to OPC-25 at 06 am on 8 January 2020, i.e. before the reception of the permission to conduct the general search. Moreover, in the same letter Mr. Indyk requested the Head of RRG to provide the persons involved in the general search, in particular, with the portable DVRs.

The plan of the general search, compiled by then Acting Chief of OPC-25 and approved on 6 January 2020 by the Head of the Inter-regional Department, lacked the indication of time of start and completion of the search, as well as staff briefing time. The plan also stated that the search should involve 12 portable DVRs, one for every group of personnel from every institution whose personnel was involved in the general search in OPC-25.

Since between 4 and 7 January Ukraine had weekend and holidays (those were Christmas holidays), the plan of the general search in OPC-25 that was sent with a cover letter of 6 January 2020 to receive the permission to conduct it from the Head of the Department of State Prison Service of Ukraine (SPSU), the inter-regional Department, Mr. Mukha, to the administration of SPSU was received by the administration of SPSU in the first work day – on 8 January 2020. Accordingly, that permission could not have been given earlier than the start of the work day on 8 January 2020.

 In the letter to OPC-25 of 8 January 2020 Mr. Mukha has informed the colony that the administration of SPSU has granted permission (agreement) to conduct the general search in OPC-25, without stating the date of provision of that permission. That letter also contained the notification about the obligation to use the means of video recording during the search. However, there is no copy that contains the permission of the administration of SPSU to conduct the general search among the copies of documents sent to the prosecutor by Mr. Romanov in relation to the pre-trial investigation.

In any case, the permission of the administration of SPSU to conduct the general search in OPC-25, if it existed, was received by OPC-25 much later than the time of the alleged search.

According to para.1 of Section VI of Regulations on Territorial (Interregional) Paramilitary Formation of SPSU of Ukraine, the special measures in which the divisions of RRG are involved should be conducted under the orders of the Administration, and in cases of involvement in the objects of SPSU of Ukraine at the place of permanent deployment, under the orders of the Head of the corresponding inter-regional department. No copy of such order was provided by Mr. Romanov to the prosecutor, which casts doubts over the legitimacy of involvement of RRG during the general search in OPC-25.

Concerning the use of the territorial (interregional) paramilitary formation and the personnel of other institutions on OPC-25 and the introduction of the “special conditions regime” in the colony

Although the colony administration, the officials of OPC-25, the management of the South-Eastern Department and the Administration of SPSU provided several copies of the documents concerning the general search in the colony which took place immediately after the rise (06:00 am), the applicants state that the general search in the colony on 8 January was conducted during the night: at night the dormitories in the residential area of the colony were invaded by SPSU personnel equipped with special forces uniform (helmets, masks and other protective equipment), armed with rubber clubs, with the following use of force and special equipment (handcuffs, clubs etc).

According to the applicants’ account of the events, at night (approximately between 03 am and 04 am) during their sleep the convicted persons of the colony were dragged in the courtyard in their underwear, with their hands restrained behind their backs (using handcuffs or tying) discriminately, according to the lists, they were forced to lie down in the cold (about 3 Celsius degrees below zero), after that they were dragged into the “headquarters” where they were forced to crawl on their bellies to various floors of the building (ranging between the second and the forth) with their hands fixed behind their back. During those events the special forces personnel discriminately beat those convicted persons who could not crawl, attempted to rise or change their position, look around etc. After the inmates were placed lying on several floors they were forced to lie like that for about 9-12 hours. At the end of that execution the convicted persons under threat of physical violence were forced to write almost verbatim identical explanations that they allegedly resisted the search, displayed riot etc, and that they had no complaints against the actions of the administration. The convicted persons who were handcuffed were brought to the medical unit where their injuries were documented.

Other inmates who were not dragged from their dormitories outside, were forced to lie quietly and without movement with their hands behind their head till around 09 am, when they were allowed to get up and were brought for the breakfast. Those who had to use restroom during the time of sleep were brought there with their arms twisted behind their back, in many cases such inmates were also beaten.

Appendix 1 to this application contains particular circumstances of the applicants’ injuries and their treatment that was inhuman and degrading.

On 8 January 2020 the Head of interregional department, Mr. Romanov, introduced the “special conditions regime” in OPC-25 for the period starting on 08 am on 8 January 2020 until the “special order”, The aforementioned order by Mr. Romanov on the introduction of “special conditions regime” lacked the indication of such a decision. Moreover, the Minister of Justice of Ukraine was not notified about the introduction of such regime in violation of Art. 105 pt.3 of the Code of Criminal Enforcement (hereafter - CCE) of Ukraine, the documents provided by Mr. Romanov to the prosecutor lacked the copy of such notification.

Moreover, on 8 January 2020, the visits to the inmates were cancelled in OPC-25 for the period of “special conditions regime”, under the orders of the Acting Chief of the colony.

Concerning the beginning of the pre-trial investigation on the facts of abuse of power by the institutions of SPSU, putting pressure on the applicants and other convicted persons, non-provision to them the timely and adequate security measures, obstruction of contact of convicted persons with their lawyers and members of the public

On 10 January 2020 the criminal proceedings No.420200221090000002 were instituted on the facts of abuse of power by the officers of SPSU system during both the events of 8 January 2020 and during 2017-2019.

Not knowing about the institution of criminal proceedings by the investigation bodies, on 11 January 2020 the lawyers of KHPG filed several applications to the prosecution bodies and investigators concerning the criminal offences on the facts of abuse of power by the officers of SPSU system, those applications were added to the materials of the proceedings. In the aforementioned applications the lawyers, in particular, requested to provide the security measures, urgently conduct the forensic examination and seize the videos from the CCTV cameras, as well as from portable DVRs that were used during the events of 8 January 2020 in OPC-25.

Since the time of introduction of “special conditions regime” the assistant of People’s Deputy of Ukraine, Gluschenko V.V., was not allowed to enter the territory of OPC-25, although he was entitled to enter it according to the Art.24 of CCE of Ukraine, with the journalist representatives of KHPG who received complaints from the applicants on 3 January 2020 (see para. 6 of this Application), because of that the applications about criminal offences were filed. The administration of OPC-25 also did not allow to bring doctors to the territory of the colony for the examination of the inmates, including the psychiatrist, to conduct the survey of the applicants by the lawyers or the assistant of People’s Deputy of Ukraine under the regulations of Istanbul Protocol, although it was envisaged by Art.24 of CCE of Ukraine.

 The order to cancel the visits to the convicted persons was also interpreted by the colony administration as ban on the provision of legal assistance to the convicts which is provided during the confidential conversations with them according to Article 110 of CCE of Ukraine. Accordingly, between the introduction of “special conditions regime” and 21 January 2020 the lawyers were not allowed to enter the territory of the colony to provide the legal assistance to the convicted persons detained in OPC-25, including the applicants, except for one case of questioning of the sixth applicant on 16 January 2020, when the lawyer was allowed to enter under the request of the investigator to participate in the questioning of the applicant. Due to obstruction of legitimate professional activity the lawyers several times called the police, filed the applications about the criminal offences which resulted in the institution of the criminal investigations.

When the lawyers were finally allowed to conduct the visits to the convicted persons, the administration of OPC-25 continued to create obstructions by prolonging the “arrangement of documents” to several hours, letting only one lawyer enter at a time and limiting their time of conversation with their clients, and even giving the lawyers the visits to another convicted person who had the same last name as the lawyer’s client (who was not seen by the lawyer yet).

During the entire period after the introduction of ban on the visits to the convicts, the convicted persons were constantly pressured by the personnel of OPC-25 as well as the employees of the operational unit of the interregional department.

According to the information received from the convicted persons, on 4 February 2020 the administration of OPC-25 gathered all convicts who had filed the complaints, including the applicants, and informed them that they are given two days to waive their applications and lawyers, otherwise they will face brutal repercussions. The lawyers – representatives of the convicted persons on the criminal proceedings – filed the application about the criminal offence regarding the use of physical violence and intimidation of the victims and witnesses in the criminal proceedings.

On 5 February 2020 the applicants’ lawyers repeatedly sent petitions for the application of security measures to the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Poltava (hereafter – TD of SBI in Poltava) and the Prosecutor General’s Office. The lawyers requested to bring the convicted persons outside the territorial jurisdiction of the North-Eastern interregional department or provide the round-the-clock protection of the applicants.

Concerning the injuries of the applicants and their documenting

During the use of the special divisions on the territory of OPC-25 on 8 January 2020 all applicants were injured, the injuries were documented.

The medical unit located on the territory of OPC-25 registered the bodily injuries only concerning the convicted persons who were included in the lists of the persons against whom the special means and means of physical coercion were used during the search.

The details about the documentation of the injuries of the applicants and other convicts from OPC-25 are set out in the Appendix 2 to this Application.

B-ov case

B., as well as other convicts who were serving their sentences in Oleksiyivska CC № 25, during the monitoring visit of human rights activists complained on January 3, 2020 about torture against him.

Thus, B. said that on January 8, 2020, he was in the fourth department of the residential area of ​​Oleksiyivska CC. About four o'clock in the morning he woke up from being hit on his bed with a rubber stick. He saw people in camouflage uniforms, one of them inspecting the bed tags on the beds in the sleeping section and pointing to the other with his finger. Then he was gestured for him to lie face down on a pillow and give his hands to the handcuffs, which he immediately was put on. After a while, he was taken to the second floor of the headquarters in only underwear, where he was laid face down on the floor and repeatedly beaten on his legs and back. When he asked to go to the toilet and was taken out, he was beaten again in the liver area. Without clothes, food, or water, B. lay on the second floor until noon.

After a while, the administration brought him clothes that were completely torn and allowed him to get dressed. After that, the employees of Oleksiyivska CC forced him and other convicts to write false explanations about the time and circumstances of the use of special means, and in the next office there were employees of the North-Eastern Department who exerted psychological pressure on B.

After that, on 22.01, 31.01 and 04.02.2020, using threats and falsifying violations of the rules of procedure of Oleksiyivska CC, employees of the administration of Oleksiyivska VK and the North-Eastern Department forced him to write written refusals from a lawyer and filed criminal complaints.

09.01.2020, 11.01.2020 and 13.01.2020 the lawyer was not admitted to B. about which on 13.01.2020 a statement was submitted to the police and a complaint to the court for failure to enter information into the URPTI, as a result criminal proceedings were opened for obstruction of advocacy.

B. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings on several statements, which is confirmed by a copy of the extract from the URPTI.

On January 22, 2020, the lawyer submitted an individual application to the Second Investigation Department of the SBI in Poltava on the committed criminal offense dated January 20, 2020. Also, a request for procedural actions and attachment of documents was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of SBI in Poltava and the Office of the Prosecutor General.

On January 22, 2020, a request for familiarizing with a case-file of the criminal proceedings was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of the SBI in Poltava.

On January 27, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion to the head of the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Oleksiyivska CC № 25" for the doctor's admission to B.

On February 8, 2020, the lawyer participated in the interrogation of B. as a victim.

Throughout the first half of 2020, the lawyer sent numerous requests for procedural actions, from January to March, there were applications sent for the application of security measures to B. in the form of transfer to another colony. As a result, on February 28, 2020, B. was discharged to Temnivska Hospital № 100, from there to the Kharkiv SIZO, and on June 26, 2020 to the Odessa SIZO.

B. arrived at the Kropyvnytska VK-6 State Penitentiary to serve his sentence as part of criminal proceedings to ensure his safety at the request of his lawyer.

The lawyer filed a motion with the Second Investigation Department of the TU DBR in Poltava and the Office of the Prosecutor General, and only formal replies were received. Also, the lawyer sent a lawyer's request regarding B.'s health condition to attach these documents to the materials of the criminal proceedings on the fact of torture, as the requests for this were ignored by the law enforcement agencies.

On December 22, 2020, B. was released from the colony after the end of his sentence.

B-ko case

On January 3, 2020, during a visit by representatives of the KHPG, B. complained of torture by prison officers throughout his sentence in the Oleksiyivska correctional colony on the basis of xenophobia and anti-Semitic sentiments. He was diagnosed with epilepsy, was given psychotropic drugs, forced to hang himself, and used physical, sexual, and psychological violence. While writing his application for legal aid, he had an epic attack.

In early January, the lawyer was not allowed to have a meeting with B.

On January 22, 2020, a request for familiarization with the case-file of the criminal proceedings was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of the State Bureau of investigation in Poltava.

Prison officers of Oleksiyivska correctional colony tried to pass off another convict as B. During a meeting with SLC lawyer, and the lawyer filed a complaint with law enforcement agencies.

From January to March 2020, the lawyer repeatedly filed a petition to the head of the Medical Unit of the Oleksiyivska correctional facility and to the Branch of the Health Centre in Kharkiv and Luhansk regions for admission to the doctor and lawyer's inquiries about health and treatment B ., however, the lawyer was denied.

From January to March, the lawyer filed allegations of crimes and security measures against B.

B. was transferred to Temnivska Hospital № 100 and then to the Kharkiv detention centre.

The lawyer challenged the inaction of the law enforcement agencies in failing to include in the Unified register of pretrial investigations the information set out in the allegations of B to the courts. The court's decisions were not enforced, and the lawyer also filed relevant allegations of crime.

B. was recognized as a victim.

In the first half of 2020, the lawyer sent numerous requests for investigative actions to the Office of the General Prosecutor and the Territorial unit of the State Bureau of investigations, which were partially granted, but were not fulfilled due to quarantine measures.

At the end of July 2020, B.'s health deteriorated. With the support of the KHPG NGO in the Kharkiv SIZO, at the initiative of a lawyer, B. visited a doctor from a specialized hospital, where he was and is being given medication.

The lawyer sent numerous statements and inquiries about B.'s health and treatment, and as a result, he began to receive medical treatment.

Soon, B. was transferred from the Kharkiv SIZO to the Lychakivska VK-30 State Institution.

On the way to the final place of imprisonment, in the Kropyvnytskyi pre-trial detention centre, B. was injured and his condition deteriorated again.

B. arrived at the Lychakivska VK-30 State Penitentiary to serve his sentence as part of criminal proceedings to ensure his safety at the request of his lawyer.

Due to his unsatisfactory state of health, B. was sent to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the State Institution “Lvivska PI № 19”.

As of December 29, 2020, B. was being held at the Lychakivska correctional colony 30, but even his interrogation as a victim was not carried out despite the lawyer's request for procedural actions.

B-ch case

On 03.01.2020 during the visit of the representatives of KHPG Mr. B-ch complained that the administration of OPC-25 extorted money from the convicts and their family members through the so-called “assistants of the administration”, in particular by transferring money to the phone accounts indicated by the colony administration, and it was carried out under the personal instruction of the first Deputy Head of the colony, Mr. K. The amounts of the one-time transfers reached several thousand hryvnias. In order to force the convicts to transfer the money the “administration assistants” with the operative, Mr. G., inflicted psychological and physical pressure on the convicts. The convicts that refused to pay were tortured.

Mr. B-ch filed the application about such actions of the colony administration to SBI and asked to send it there. The human rights defenders sent that application to the law-enforcement bodies and at once filed the petition to apply safety measures to Mr. B-ch, since his application accused the colony officials of serious crimes.

The security measures were not applied to Mr. B-ch. He and other prisoners were pressured, a lawyer from SLC learned about that during their meeting on 17.02.2020.

Despite the lawyer’s petition so far Mr. B-ch is not recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings and he was not questioned even once.

Dzh-v case

 Mr. D. has been serving his sentence at the Oleksiyivska correctional colony (№ 25) from November 22, 2018. On 8 January 2020 at 4:00 the GSR employees broke his hands, pulled him from the department № 12 to “Promzona” in some shorts only and without shoes, where they putted Mr. D on a “stretch” and beat his on the legs.

After 30-40 minutes, they again restrained hands and led them into Headquarters, handcuffed them behind Mr. D’s back and threw him on the floor on the second floor. Several times he was handcuffed, transferred to the third floor and back to the second floor, and was thrown to the floor without being allowed to get up and was led to an interview with the operatives' office.

One of the “Special Forces” stood his feet on Mr. D’s stomach while he was lying and began to pull his head up, threatening to cut off his head. He pressed his back with a boot, making it difficult to breathe. On the ask to mitigate the handcuffs there was no reaction.

Only in the evening Mr. D was brought by clothes, allowed to dress up and was taken to the "sledges" where the wounds were treated. Mr. D. had cuts on both his hands from the handcuffs, blood flowed on his right hand, cuts on both legs, and a hematoma on his left leg in the knee area.

Mr. D transferred to the hospital of the State Institution «Temnivska Correctional Colony (No. 100) where on 10 January 2020 was interrogated as a victim.

On 14 January 2020 examined by an expert (injuries confirmed), 7 January 2020 interrogated additionally as a victim in the presence of a lawyer, confirmed earlier provided testimony and detailed them.

On January 7, 2020 Mr. D. was returned to the State Institution « Oleksiyivska Correctional Colony (No. 25)».

The lawyer made 3 visits with Mr. D. to the State Institution "Temnivska Correctional Colony (No. 100)", participated in his additional interrogation as a victim, made one appointment to the State Institution "Oleksiyivska Colony".

F-ov case

F. was serving his sentence in Oleksiyivska VK № 25.

On February 3, 2020, F asked the human rights activists for help, as he had been one of the victims of illegal actions by officers of the colony and the special forces on January 8, 2020. Thus, F. reported that on January 8, 2020, he was in the dormitory of the residential area of the Oleksiyivska Correctional Colony № 25. At night, while the convicts were asleep, the fighters of the rapid reaction group broke into the room. F. woke up and began to ask what was happening. In response, the fighters dragged the convict into a corridor, where they began threatening, beating his kidneys and breaking his arms.

On February 5, 2020, the lawyer sent allegations of criminal offenses and the application of security measures to F. to the State Bureau of investigations of Ukraine, department of the State Bureau of investigations in Poltava, and the Office of the General Prosecutor’s office.

Numerous statements of the lawyer about criminal offenses and about the application of security measures against F. were repeatedly not entered to the Unified register of pre-trial investigations and were not granted, so the lawyer appealed against the refusal decisions to the courts. By court rulings, law enforcement officials were required to enter information into the URPI.

On June 18, 2020, F. was interrogated as a witness in criminal proceedings on the fact of torture and abuse of office by an investigator of the Department of state bureau of investigations in Poltava. At the beginning of the interrogation, , and where the lawyer, F. and the investigator were in a room for interrogations, the head of the internal security of the colony came in with the camera on his mobile phone and asked the investigator, "Who are you and what are you doing here?" announced his position and that will remove the interrogation.

After the investigator left the room and returned, the colony worker left after a while. F. informed the investigator and the lawyer that he would not and could not testify and stay with us for a long time, after which he ran out of the room. Later, after interrogating others, and when the administration printed out interrogation transcripts for the interrogator and summoned F. to sign the transcript, the latter announced that he had refused to testify due to pressure from the colony authorities. In addition to the protocol, F. stated that he could not testify due to threats from the institution's management and asked for security measures by transferring him to another penal colony outside the jurisdiction of the Northeast regional office of State criminal executive service of Ukraine for the execution of sentences.

The State Bureau of investigations’ investigator did not take any action after F.'s statement was made. Therefore, the lawyer sent a number of statements and complaints to law enforcement agencies, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, the Ombudsperson, requesting urgent security measures by transferring him to the penitentiary institution. , which would not be subordinated to the above mentioned department, as it has objective concerns about the safety and life of her client, who continues to be in the Oleksiyivska correctional colony and enter information into the URPI set out in the statements.

The result of the above appeals were formal refusals, of which it is not even seen the fact of conducting an inspection in these circumstances. Therefore, the lawyer filed a number of other statements and complaints to the same bodies about ensuring F.'s security measures and entering the information contained in the statements into the URPTI.

After lengthy correspondence and complaints about the inaction of the DBR investigator, the answer was provided by the investigator who was a participant in the crime.

The lawyer also filed a complaint with the Pechersk court against the prosecutor's decision to deny the request for security measures.

F. asked the lawyer to stop taking such active actions, as the head of the colony promised him assistance in parole.

As of December 29, 2020, Mr. F. asked the lawyer to represent his interests in the appellate instance on his appeal against the decision of the court of first instance regarding his parole.

H-ko case

H. was serving his sentence in Oleksiyivska СС № 25.

On February 3, 2020, H. turned to human rights activists for help, as he was one of the victims of illegal actions by employees of the colony and the GSHR on January 8, 2020. Thus, H. reported that on January 8, 2020, at about four o'clock in the morning, when H. was in the dormitory of the department № 12 of the residential area of the State Institution "Oleksiyivska Correctional Colony № 25". He woke up when masked men began to pull him out of bed, broke his arms back, beat him with a stick, handcuffed him to his folded arms, and dragged him across the floor to the farmyard, where he was thrown to the ground near the dining room without clothes and shoes. So. he lay on the ground until 10:00 am. When masked men took him from there, other convicts were near him, who also saw him being taken out of bed and beaten on his body from 4:00 am.

At about 10:00 a.m., G. was transferred from the farmyard to the duty room, where he was left lying on the ground, also without clothes, food, water, and the ability to defecate until about 8:00 p.m. If H. asked for water or to take him to the toilet, he was beaten on the legs with a stick. After that, an employee of the administration, using psychological pressure and threats, forced H. to write an explanatory note stating that GSHR had picked him up from his bed at 6:00 am and not at 4:00 am. A coercion H. to write false information. It took place in the presence of convicts.

After that, H. was placed in the medical unit for three days.

On January 9, 2020, H. was interrogated by a person who introduced himself as a "prosecutor" and H. also was delivered a leaflet advising on his procedural rights and duties.

As a result of torture, hematomas and scars remained on H.'s body, which were recorded by medical experts on 11.01.2020 and members of the monitoring group on 03.02.2020 (photo-fixation).

The lawyer sent criminal complaints and the application of security measures to H. to the SBI of Ukraine, the TD SBI in Poltava and the Office of the Prosecutor General.

On February 13, 2020, during a meeting with his lawyer, H. submitted a statement about the systematic torture committed against him before January 8, 2020, as well as about the pressure exerted on him by the colony staff after he appealed to human rights activists on February 3, 2020 with demand to refuse his complaints and the legal aid. The lawyer also sent the last statement to the law enforcement agencies together with a request to apply security measures to H. in the form of transfer to another colony.

H. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings on several statements, which is confirmed by a copy of the extract from the URPTI.

Law enforcement agencies issued rulings denying the lawyer's motions, and the lawyer appealed to the courts.

In the first half of 2020, the lawyer filed numerous motions for procedural actions.

In the second half of 2020, the lawyer also repeatedly applied for procedural actions to the TU DBR in Poltava and the Office of the Prosecutor General.

As of December 2020, H. had been retired for six months after serving his sentence. His interrogation was never conducted.

I. case

Mr. I. arrived to OVK-25 In 2016. During the first day of stay in the colony he was delivered to the 3rd floor of the headquarters (operative department) by Captain G. together with convicts Sh. and G., after refusing to rub asphalt with sandpaper where, at the instruction of the first deputy of the head of the colony K., they put a pack on his head, and started beating Mr. I with feet. Then they took the bat and struck it, put him on the floor, jumped on his stomach, and a cloth for washing the floor was pulled on Mr. I’s head.

As to Mr. I. these actions had been conducted repeatedly, especially he was severely beaten after the submission of complaints by his wife to the Office of General Prosecutor.

During one of these tortures, colony officials broke Mr. I’s zygomatic bone on the right. This injury confuses him to this day.

In November 2019, G. with convicts Sh. and G., after being locked up by a human rights organization on camera while manufacturing a cloak of packages, beaten Mr. I again till losing consciousness. They putted him on the hood and forced to speak to the camera that the packages were transferred, not made.

A criminal complaint concerning these data was written and sent to the Office of General Prosecutor and the DBR.

K-s case

On January 3, 2020, during a visit by representatives of the KHPG, K. complained of torture applied to him by OVK-25 officers throughout his sentence in the correctional colony, and one of the traces was an injury to K.'s arm after a fracture.

On January 8, 2020, K. was in the eighth department of the OVK-25 residential area. About three o'clock in the morning he awoke with a feeling of suffocation, and when he opened his eyes he saw a masked man holding his neck, turning his face into a pillow, and another man standing nearby. He was then strucked several times on the head and ordered to lie in silence with his hands behind his head. He asked to go to the toilet, and when he returned to the room, his bed was unsuitable for lying down, this was repeated twice. Other convicts were in the dormitory section together with K.

K. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings on several statements, which is confirmed by a copy of the extract from the URPTI.

 21.01 and 03.02.2020 K. together with other convicts were forced by employees of the administration, persons represented by the State Bureau of Investigation and the Northeast Interregional Department to write denials of a lawyer, filed allegations of criminal offenses and that human rights activists provoked him to write statements about illegal actions of administration, thus threatening it with use of physical violence.

On January 22, 2020, a request for familiarizing with a case-file of the criminal proceedings was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of the SBI in Poltava.

On January 23, 2020, a request for procedural actions was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of the TD SBI in Poltava and the Office of the Prosecutor General.

On January 25, 2020, a statement was sent about the criminal offenses and gave to his lawyer the statement to the law-enforcement agencies that employees of the administration of DEC-25 and the Northeastern Interregional Department were constantly threatening him with torture, forcing him to renounce his lawyer and the submitted statements, also that after his communication with the staff of local and regional prosecutor's offices, as well as the SBI, the staff of the colony were passing to him the content of their conversations, while informing that no one would help him.

On January 27, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion to the head of the Medical Unit of the State Institution “Oleksiyivska VK № 25” for the doctor's admission to K.

On February 7, 2020, the lawyer took part in the interrogation of K. by the SBI investigator.

On the day of K.'s release from the colony, the colony's staff tried to force him into a train bound for Western Ukraine, but failed, and K. managed to call a lawyer who had already picked him up from the station.

The lawyer of the SLC sent a statement to the law enforcement agencies about the obstruction of advocacy and violation of K.'s rights. After that, the lawyer and K. underwent medical examinations of K., which were necessary for the forensic medical examination of K., which was also conducted.

On February 10, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights alleging violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

In the first half of 2020, the attorney sent numerous requests for procedural actions to the Office of the Prosecutor General and the SBI in Poltava.

In the second half of 2020, the attorney also repeatedly applied for procedural actions to the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Poltava and the Office of the Prosecutor General.

K-v case

In 2018, K. was tortured in OVK-25 by Officer G. On January 8, 2020, an application was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor General for a criminal offense.

Information on K.'s application was entered into the URTPI and a pre-trial investigation was launched.

A request was submitted to the TD SBI in Poltava for the application of security measures to Mr. K. in the form of transfer to another penitentiary institution for further serving of the sentence.

In February 2020, a request was submitted to the TD SBI for familiarizing with the case-file of the criminal proceedings.

Failure to provide answers is being appealed in the Octyabrskyi Court of Poltava.

                

Kh-ov case

Kh., as well as other convicts who were serving their sentences in Oleksiyivska CC № 25, during the monitoring visit of human rights activists complained to KHPG on January 3, 2020 about torture against him.

 On January 8, 2020, H. was in the third department of the residential area of ​​OVK-25. About four o'clock in the morning he woke up from screaming. Masked persons shouted his name and convicts Mr.P. and Sv., looking for them. After he was found, he was handcuffed, broken behind his back, and taken out into the corridor, not even allowed to get dressed.

While wearing handcuffs, one of the four masked men hit him in the chin with his knee. In the corridor he was laid face down on the floor together with the convicts Mr. P. and Sv. Later, Kh. was transferred several times, forcing him to lie on his face on the asphalt in the farmyard together with the convicts Mr. O., Mr. L. and B., where they were beaten with sticks by masked soldiers. In particular, Captain P.G. and calling it a degrading word, struck a blow to the kidneys with a stick. Kh. was then forced to flee with his arms folded behind his back, accompanied by two soldiers, to the second floor of the headquarters. There he was thrown to the floor and forced to crawl on his stomach on the stairs. At about noon he and other convicts were taken to the third floor of the headquarters to the next office with the office of P.G. There were two unknown people in uniform in the office. He was handcuffed and forced to write under dictation an explanation that allegedly on December 30, 2019, convicted Mr. Gr. and Mr. P. wanted to organize a riot and that on 08.01.2020 special means were applied to it not at 03:50, but at 06:10. Kh. was forced to write a similar explanation on January 13, 2020, to the head of the interregional department.

After that, Kh. was again taken to the second floor of the headquarters, where he stood until 8 p.m. Thus, Kh. was without food, water, clothes, shoes and the opportunity to go to the toilet from 03:50 to 20:00. After 20:00 the fifth applicant together with the convicts Mr. N., Mr. D., Mr. Kol., Mr. B., Mr. Koz., Mr. Gor. and others were placed in the medical unit of OVK-25 because there were obvious signs of injuries. In the medical unit the applicant was examined and recorded by doctors unknown to him.

On 09.01.2020, 11.01.2020 and 13.01.2020 the lawyer was not admitted to Kh. about which on 13.01.2020 a statement was submitted to the police and a complaint to the court for failure to enter information into the URPTI, as a result criminal proceedings were opened for obstruction of advocacy.

Kh. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings on several statements, which is confirmed by a copy of the extract from the URPTI.

On January 21, 2020, the Second Investigation Department of the TD SBI in Poltava was submitted by additional explanations of Kh.’s to the statement on the committed criminal offense dated January 3, 2020. Also, a request for procedural actions and attachment of documents was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of the Poltava SBI and the Office of the Prosecutor General.

On January 22, 2020, a request for familiarizing with a case-file of the criminal proceedings was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of the SBI in Poltava.

On January 23, 2020, a statement on the criminal offense and additional explanations of Kh. to the statement on the committed criminal offense dated January 3, 2020 was re-sent to the Office of the Prosecutor General.

On January 24, 2020, during a meeting with his lawyer, Kh. wrote a public appeal in which he described criminal offenses in Oleksiyivska VK and urged not to leave convicts in an institution where persons who had previously physically abused convicts continue to work and now continue to abuse them together with employees of the interregional department, forcing them to refuse both legal aid and applications submitted to law enforcement agencies, declaring reasonable fear for their lives and health.

On January 27, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion to the head of the Medical Unit of the State Institution “Oleksiyivska VK № 25” for the doctor's admission to Kh.

On January 28, 2020, Kh. handed over to his lawyer statements to law enforcement agencies that he was constantly threatened, promising to continue torture, by employees of the OVK-25 administration and the Northeastern Department, forcing him to withdraw his lawyer and the allegations made and also on that his communication with the staff of local and regional prosecutor's offices, as well as the SBI, the colony staff conveys the content of their conversations, while informing that no one will help him.

On 31 January 2020, a request was made for urgent security measures in the form of a transfer to another penitentiary institution outside the North-Eastern Department in respect of Kh., together with a package of statements by Kh. in which the latter reported threats and psychological pressure from administration staff with an aim that Kh. refused the lawyer and the previously submitted applications.

On February 3, 2020, Kh. submitted to his lawyer a statement that on January 31, 2020 he was again threatened with physical violence if he did not renounce his lawyer and criminal complaints. When he did not agree to do so, on the same day, the chief of the OVK-25 operational unit falsified Kh's violation of the internal regulations on which an act had been drawn up. At the same time, he was being forced to admit a violation of which he did not commit and it was stressed once again that his lawyer would not help him. The convicts, who were not even near, witnessed the so-called violation of Kh.

Copies of all Kh.’s statements were sent by the attorney to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Office of the President of Ukraine, the Ombudsman and the TD SBI in Poltava together with his allegations of inactivity of law enforcement agencies, despite violations of the worker of OVK-25 and Northeast Interregional Departmnet on Execution of Sentences and Probation of the Ministry of Justice.

During January-February 2020, the lawyer sent numerous applications to the court and law enforcement agencies to apply security measures to Kh. by changing the place of imprisonment with a similar security regime, outside the North-East Interregional Department, wich would be territorially comfortable for conducting procedural actions in the investigation of criminal offenses set forth in the statements of Kh.

In February 2020, the lawyer sent numerous requests for access to the criminal case in which he was convicted and which are located in the archives of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Poltava, after the judge's illegal refusal to grant these requests, the lawyer sent a complaint to the head of the court and the request was granted. .

At that time, the lawyer's request to apply security measures to Kh. was already granted. He was to be transferred to the Lviv SIZO, but on the way he was detained in the Kharkiv SIZO, where he was taken on March 13, 2020 due to suspension of transportation between penitentiary institutions due to quarantine measures.

From January to July, the lawyer sent numerous requests for procedural actions and criminal complaints. Through the court, she obliged the responsible persons of the TD SBI in Poltava to satisfy the request for investigative actions and to enter the information contained in the criminal complaints into the URPTI.

In the second half of 2020, the attorney also repeatedly applied for procedural actions to the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Poltava and the Office of the Prosecutor General.

As of December 2020, Kh. has been serving his sentence in the State Institution “Mykolayiv VK (№ 46)” for almost six months now, as a result of security measures.

Kol. case

Mr. Kol. arrived to Oleksiivska penal colony No, 25 in 2018. After his arrival he spent a long time in the medical unit because of his medical conditions. However, on 8 January 2020, when he was in the residential facility (dormitory), in the night the room was invaded by the armed enforcers of the special division. They dragged Kol. from his bed and ordered him to go to the so-called “headquarters”. He remained in the “headquarters” until evening. During that time in the “headquarters” Kol. was beaten with rubber batons and punched, threatened and forced to write the applications that he obstructed the search.

On the same day the injuries inflicted on him were documented by a doctor from the medical unit of the penal institution.

On 10 January 2020 Kol. was questioned by the investigator from the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigations in Poltava.

On 29 January 2020 during the meeting with a lawyer from SLC Mr. Kol. wrote an addition to his application about crime which was sent to the Territorial Department of SBI in Poltava.

On 30 January 2020 the lawyer from SLC filed a petition to the Territorial Department of SBI in Poltava to question Mr. Kol. only in her presence

Furthermore, the lawyer from SLC filed a petition to State Bureau of Investigations to familiarize herself with the criminal case file. Such petition was granted. During the familiarization with the case file on 10 February 2020 the lawyer from SLC established that Mr. Kol. underwent a forensic examination.

On 14 February 2020 Mr. Kol. was again questioned in the presence of the lawyer from SLC.

After that, other legally significant actions in the case of Col. did not happen. The lawyer sent inquiries to the State Bureau of Investigation several times, but the answers were formal.

K-ov case

K was served his punishment at the Oleksiyivska correcitonal colony no.25 since 2018.

On 8 January 2020 Mr. K was staying at the sleeping room while armed officers came there, ordered prisoners to lay face down. After that he was beaten several times on his back and legs by sticks.

On 20 January 2020 Mr. K asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal aid and wrtoe down a criminal complaint on torture. However, when the lawyer came to visit Mr K he unexpectedly denied from his previous complaints and from legal aid. Probably it has happned because of psyhological pressure of prison officers on Mr. K.

Koz. case

Mr. Koz. arrived to Oleksiivska penal colony in 2017. After his arrival to the institution he was placed to the disciplinary isolator because he did not obey the demands to clean the rooms. After Mr. Koz. left the disciplinary isolator he was beaten, his arms were twisted behind his back and a plastic bag was put over his head to obstruct the access of air. He lost consciousness several times.

On 3 January 2020 Mr. Koz wrote an application about criminal offence against him. This application is currently attached to the previously instituted criminal proceedings.

On 16 January 2020 Mr. Koz.’s lawyer filed a petition to carry out all investigative measures with her client only in the presence of a lawyer. On 4 February 2020 the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigations in Poltava granted that petition.

On 21 January 2020 a lawyer from SLC had a confidential meeting with Mr. Koz. during which the latter wrote a more detailed application about the criminal offence and reported other details concerning the events in the colony.

Furthermore, the lawyer from SLC filed a petition to State Bureau of Investigations to familiarize herself with the criminal case file. Her request was granted on 28 January 2020, however during the familiarization the lawyer established that no materials were gathered concerning the criminal offence against Mr. Koz.

On 5 February 2020 the lawyer from SLC filed a petition to Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Bureau of Investigations to apply the security measures to Mr. Koz. However, later Mr. Koz. refused to undergo the security measures.

In April – May 2020 prison officers of Olekisiyivska correctional colony several times put Mr. Koz to disciplinary isolator. Therefore one day Mr. Koz has injured himself.

On 5 June 2020 the SLC lawyer during a confidentially meeting with her client asked about last events in the colony and about pressure by the administration. Later she wrote all this information in the claim to the General prosecutor’s office.

Later, Mr. Koz. was transferred for psychological examination to the Vilniansk Correctional Colony № 20. According to Koz., he was not pressured in the colony. The lawyer sent several requests for information on the progress of the investigation to the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation, but the answers were formal.

K-tskyi case

On January 8, 2020, at about 3:30 a.m., K. was beaten by officers of the Rapid Reaction Group (GSHR) during an emergency situation on the territory of the Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony №25 (OVK-25), and a large number of blows were inflicted on various parts of the body.

On January 31, 2020, an application was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine for committing a criminal offense.

On March 2, 2020, a letter was received from the Territorial Bureau of Investigations located in Poltava (TD SBI in Poltava) informing that the entry of information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations was denied.

The non-inclusion in the URPTI was appealed to the Oktyabrsky District Court of Poltava.

By the decision of the Oktyabrsky district court of Poltava from 20.03.2020 the complaint was satisfied. The TD SBI in Poltava was obliged to enter information into the URPTI on the application of K. and to initiate a pre-trial investigation.

On June 18, 2020, K. was interrogated in OVK-25 as a witness, and on the same day an application was submitted for his involvement in the criminal proceedings as a victim.

Kuz-v case

Mr. K. has been serving his sentence at the Oleksiyivska correctional colony (No. 25) since September 2016 (according to the previous sentence - 2013-2016 as well).

At the time of the events of January 8, 2020, he was in the medical unit in connection with the hunger strike because of the ill-treatment of the colony's employees.

On 8 January 2020 at 3:00 he was removed from the medical unit by the GSR staff and together with other convicts kept until 20:00 lying on the floor in the administrative building (headquarters) in handcuffs.

GSR staff kicked, forced to crawl, bullied otherwise the convicts. Mr. K. had not fixed injuries caused by the events on 8 January 2020.

On 18 January 2020 while delivering Mr. K. to the headquarters, one of the employees of the GSR struck him on the neck with an elbow (clothing with elbow pads). According to Mr. K., hematoma was recorded and blood was present.

On 12 February 2020 Mr. K released from the colony dye to finishing of his term of conviction. Mr. K.'s statement of victim recognition and explanation was sent to the DBR. So far, Mr. K. has not been questioned as a victim.

Ku-b case

In October 2017 the applicant arrived at Oleksiyivska VK to serve his sentence, where he was placed in a special dividing section. During his stay in this section, an operative of the penal colony began to force the applicant to wash the toilets without gloves, and when he refused, he was dragged and beaten. However, the applicant still refused to wash the bathrooms, so he continued to be beaten. It was already evening, so the applicant was taken to the operative section, undressed, placed in a cage. He was left in this state until the evening. The applicant was subsequently beaten again, including when he tried to send a complaint of torture to the investigating authorities and handed it over to another convict who was being released. When such a complaint was found, the applicant was beaten and the complaint itself was burned on the applicant's back.

On the night of 7 to 8 January 2020, soldiers of the Rapid Reaction Group (hereinafter - GSR) entered the territory of Oleksiyivska Correctional Colony № 25 (hereinafter - Oleksiyivska VK). They handcuffed the applicant, dragged him out into the yard and left naked lying on the asphalt for two hours. The applicant was then (approximately at 6 am) taken to the administrative building, where he was laid on the floor and humiliated in every possible way for the next twelve hours. In particular, he was forced to crawl up the stairs with his hands closed behind his back, beaten with feet and batons, forced to stand on a stretcher

On 29 January 2020, during a meeting with a lawyer, the applicant described the events that had taken place on 8 January 2020 and the torture in the institution during 2017-2019, and also wrote a statement to the DBR. In the evening of the same day, an officer of Oleksiyivska CF forced the applicant to withdraw his application and the assistance of a lawyer, and when the applicant continued to stand his ground, he took him to the third floor of the administrative building, where he struck him on the back and nose. Over the next few days, the applicant was intimidated by the massacre of the staff of the institution, as well as the operatives of the North-Eastern Interregional Department for the Execution of Sentences

During the next meeting with a lawyer, on 3 February 2020, the applicant reported about physical violence and threats and wrote another statement. The applicant also wrote a request for security measures in the form of taking him outside the competence of the North-East Administration.

For the next few days, the staff of Oleksiyivska CF exerted psychological pressure on the applicant during long conversations, which sometimes lasted up to ten consecutive hours. At that time the applicant was intimidated by future sexual and physical violence. As the applicant knew that the institution had repeatedly set precedents for such violence, including against himself, he considered such threats to be quite real.

On 6 February 2020 the Oleksiyivska CF administration drew up disciplinary offenses against the applicant, as he allegedly swore at another convict during telephone conversations. The applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell where he continued to be pressured. Another convict later wrote a statement alleging that he had been beaten by the applicant.

On 8 February 2020, as a result of the pressure exerted on the applicant, he suffered a hypertensive crisis and, as a result, a micro-stroke. For a day the applicant lost the ability to speak normally and his fingers on his left hand became numb. The applicant was transferred from DIZO to the medical unit of the institution, where he was given only magnesium sulphate, which did not lower his blood pressure. Instead, the applicant continued to be intimidated by the massacre, and a special man was placed next to him, who had been intimidating him all day and forcing him to withdraw his previous statements and lawyer. The applicant stated on it during his next meeting with a lawyer on 11 February 2020.

On 12 February 2020 the CS lawyer referred Rule 39 in the applicant's interests to the European Court of Human Rights and requested security measures to be applied to the applicant. The court gave the government time to comment until February 28, 2020.

On 21 February 2020 the Office of the Prosecutor General informed the applicant's representative that security measures had been applied to the applicant.

On 25 February 2020 the applicant stated that he was under psychological pressure and that he had been subjected to physical violence again in order to force him to withdraw his previous testimony and statements. Later, the monitoring team, which was visiting the institution, managed to record traces of the applicant's injuries on his right forearm. However, the day after the confidential interview with the monitoring group, the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell, allegedly due to a conflict with the convict.

On 28 February 2020 the European Court of Human Rights refused to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the applicant's case.

On 10 March 2020, CSS's lawyer lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Article 3 against the applicant.

On 21 March 2020 the applicant was taken from the Oleksiyivka Correctional Facility to the detention centre, where, according to the applicant, the pressure continued. He was twice put to the disciplinary isolator.

The lawyer systematically informed the Office of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine about the continuation of the pressure.

In June 2020, K-b was finally transferred from the Poltava Penitentiary Institution to the Kamyanka Correctional Colony № 101. However, despite the lawyer’s and K-b’s requests, no investigative actions did not take place during this time. In particular, K-b was not interrogated. The reason for not conducting the interrogation was an epidemic of coronavirus disease, although it did not prevent the Territorial Department of the SBI from interrogating other victims in the criminal proceedings.

L-n case

Mr. L-n arrived to OPC-25 in the early December 2019 when he had a month left until the end of his sentence.

On 03.01.2020 during the visit of the representatives of KHPG Mr. L-n met them and told that he was aware of the facts of the colony administration using torture to other convicts, the results of which – physical injuries – he saw with his own eyes. Mr. L-n provided to the human rights defenders the information about who of the convicts wanted to have a personal meeting with the complaints about the actions of the colony administration.

On 08.01.2020 Mr. L-n awakened in the night from the noise, unidentified masked people wearing camouflage (special forces) dragged him out of his bed, handcuffed his hands behind his back and brought him in his underwear outside from the dormitory. After that he along with other convicts was brought to the building of the administration where he was forced to crawl up the stairs from the first to the fourth floor with his hands behind his back. There the convicts who could not crawl were beaten by the special forces. On the fourth floor the convicts lied on the floor and were lying like that for 9 to 10 hours. During that time the masked persons allowed the convicts to change their pose only once – they were allowed to stand up for several minutes. Mr. L-n received the abrasions from crawling on his knees, and the bruises on his shoulders. Finally the convicts were allowed to stand up, the clothes were brought for them and they were one by one called to the office of the representatives of the colony administration and inter-regional department.

On 09.01.2020 Mr. L-n was released from the colony. On the next day he underwent a forensic examination in the presence of his lawyer, during the examination the expert noted the bodily injuries which, according to the expert, could have been received in the circumstances described by Mr. L-n.

On 12.01.2020 Mr. L-n was questioned as a victim in the presence of a lawyer from SLC.

L. case

On December 7, 2019, Mr. L injured his fingers at the production in workshop No. 2. Around 1 p. m. his sleeve was tightened into the press and his finger was pulled in a circle of the press and as a result of injury to the left hand of the big and index finger which partially lost their functions.

The industrial trauma was not recorded, the convict had being hidden, Mr. I was not given the opportunity to call their relatives. A criminal complaint was written and sent to the Office of General Prosecutor and the DBR.

Further, Mr. I refused his statement and the services of a lawyer.

Ma-k case

On January 8, 2020, at about 3 o'clock in the morning, people in masks and with insignia on the GSHR equipment entered the sleeping lodgment of the colony and began to get everyone out of bed, handcuff them and beat some of the convicts. Mr. M. saw Mr. K. and the other convicts taken out into the cold and held there until 7 am, and then taken to the "headquarters." Mr. M. was not taken outside, but only transferred to another department. Mr. M. suffered injuries in the form of handcuff bruises.

03.02.2020 Mr. M. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance.

In February 2020, a lawyer from the SLC sent a criminal complaint to the DBR.

Mi-k case

On June 18, 2018, M. was tortured and ill-treated on the territory of OVK-25 by officers G. and M.

On January 8, 2020, an application was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor General for a criminal offense.

According to M.'s statement, the information was entered into the URPTI and a pre-trial investigation was launched.

In February 2020, a request was submitted to the TD SBI in Poltava for urgent investigative actions and interrogation of M.

M. refused the services of a lawyer and wrote a statement that he had no claims against the officers of OVK-25.

M-ko case

The convicted Mr. M. was serving his sentence in OVK-25, during which time he was tortured and ill-treated several times.

In September 2017, after that, Mr. M. was hit by one of the employees of the colony. On this occasion, Mr. M. went on a hunger strike, for which he was placed in a separate room and tortured. His arms and legs were twisted, he was beaten, and strangled with a wet rag, during which he lost consciousness several times. After another refusal of the convict to stop complaining to the administration, a rubber truncheon was inserted into his anus and internal injuries were inflicted. One of the convicts from among the so-called "assistants to the administration" exposed his genitals and said that he would now defecate in the face of Mr. M, after which he, fearing to become "humiliated", withdrew his complaints. The entire process was filmed by the colony's staff, threatening to spread it over the Internet.

On March 8, 2020, at approximately 4:30, people in bulletproof vests, helmets and masks broke into the sleeping lodgment of their unit, woke up all the convicts and ordered them to lie face down on a pillow with their arms crossed behind their heads. In this position they were forced to lie for about 5 hours. After breakfast, the convicts were searched one by one, and during the search one fighter from the special unit hit Mr. M. on the knee joint, from which in Mr. M. a hematoma was formed, and later a seal remained.

Since then Mr. M. he was periodically taken to the operative unit of the institution, where he was threatened that he would be prosecuted for disrupting the work of the colony for complaining about the administration, and other convicts to write statements about actions of Mr. M., which he did not actually commit.

In mid-February 2020 the applicant tried to complain about such pressure from the administration of the colony to the supervision prosecutor during the latter's visit to OVK-25, for which he and other convicts booked a personal reception at the institution's administration building. But the staff of the colony did not allow him to enter the room where the reception took place.

The prosecutor promised to visit the institution again in a few days and asked to prepare written complaints for him, which he should pick up during the next visit. But the prosecutor did not come to the colony again, and Mr. M., who continued to be pressured for his complaints, to be taken out of OVK-25, inflicted self-harm by piercing the wall of his abdomen with an awl. He was rushed to hospital, where he underwent surgery. The SLC's lawyer tried to get to Mr. M. in the hospital twice, but he was not allowed by the guards. Four days later Mr. M. was taken to the prison hospital at the Temnovska Correctional Colony №100, where he was met by a lawyer.

On behalf of the applicant, the lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the SBI, but the police refused to open an investigation. Only after filing a complaint with the investigating judge, the SBI entered the information into the URPTI.

On October 19, 2020, the investigator questioned Mr. M. as a victim in the criminal proceedings, during which the applicant reported all the details of both the events of the use of special forces on January 8, 2020 and the applicant's torture in 2017.

After Mr. M.’s interrogation, his lawyer requested an investigative experiment to be carried out with Mr. M. as a victim, as well as that his forensic examination be carried out.

The lawyer also re-filed a request for a number of investigative actions, this request was granted, but has not been fulfilled so far.

N-ko case

N. was serving his sentence in Oleksiyivska VK № 25. On January 14, 2020, N. turned to human rights activists for help, as he was one of the victims of illegal actions by employees of the colony and the GSHR on January 8, 2020. So, N. reported that on 08.01.2020 around 03:20 o'clock in the morning he was on his sleeping place in the fifth department of a residential zone OVK-25 where people in masks broke in and started breaking his arms and striking him in the kidneys and on back. Then he was taken out of the room and let on the asphalt surface. Thus, N. was taken to the second floor of the headquarters, where the other convicts were already lying. Thus, N., along with others, lay without clothes, shoes, food, water and the opportunity to go to the toilet from 03:40 to 19:00. All this time, GSHR officers approached him and asked him should they call human rights activists and if he still wanted to complain, and each time they hit him on the body. Later, N. was forced to write false information about the time and grounds for the application of special means to him.

N. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings on several statements, which is confirmed by a copy of the extract from the URPTI.

On January 10, 2020, during the interrogation of N. as a victim, he reported the torture used against him by GSHR officers.

On January 22, 2020, a request for familiarizing with the case-file of the criminal proceedings was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of the SBI in Poltava.

On January 23, 2020, the lawyer sent a request to the Second Investigation Department of the SBI TD in Poltava to conduct procedural actions and attach documents.

On January 25, 2020, N.'s statement of January 24, 2020 was sent to law enforcement agencies, in which he reported criminal offenses committed by employees of the administration of OVK-25 and the Northeastern Department, who constantly threatened him, promising to continue torture, forcing him to refuse the lawyer, as well as the fact that no one will help him.

On 31 January 2020, a request was made for urgent security measures in the form of transfer N. to another penitentiary institution outside the North-Eastern Department together with a package of statements of N. in which the latter reported threats and psychological pressure from administration staff to do so that N. refused the lawyer and previously submitted applications.

After numerous statements to law enforcement agencies and advocacy measures regarding the use of means of protection of N., he and other victims were taken to the Kharkiv SIZO.

In the first half of 2020, the lawyer sent numerous requests to law enforcement agencies to conduct investigative actions on the behalf of N.

In July 2020, N. was released from the State Institution “Kharkiv Pre-trial detention centre”, where he was being held as a part of security measures after numerous statements and requests from the attorney, due to expiration of the sentence term.

In the second half of 2020, the attorney also sent a request for re-interrogation of N. as a victim (to be held in attorney’s presence) and for other procedural actions. However, none of mentioned above was conducted.

M-va se

The convicted Mr. M. was serving his sentence in OVK-25, during which time he was tortured and ill-treated several times.

In September 2017, after that, Mr. M. was hit by one of the employees of the colony. On this occasion, Mr. M. went on a hunger strike, for which he was placed in a separate room and tortured. His arms and legs were twisted, he was beaten, and strangled with a wet rag, during which he lost consciousness several times. After another refusal of the convict to stop complaining to the administration, a rubber truncheon was inserted into his anus and internal injuries were inflicted. One of the convicts from among the so-called "assistants to the administration" exposed his genitals and said that he would now defecate in the face of Mr. M, after which he, fearing to become "humiliated", withdrew his complaints. The entire process was filmed by the colony's staff, threatening to spread it over the Internet.

On March 8, 2020, at approximately 4:30, people in bulletproof vests, helmets and masks broke into the sleeping lodgment of their unit, woke up all the convicts and ordered them to lie face down on a pillow with their arms crossed behind their heads. In this position they were forced to lie for about 5 hours. After breakfast, the convicts were searched one by one, and during the search one fighter from the special unit hit Mr. M. on the knee joint, from which in Mr. M. a hematoma was formed, and later a seal remained.

Since then Mr. M. he was periodically taken to the operative unit of the institution, where he was threatened that he would be prosecuted for disrupting the work of the colony for complaining about the administration, and other convicts to write statements about actions of Mr. M., which he did not actually commit.

In mid-February 2020 the applicant tried to complain about such pressure from the administration of the colony to the supervision prosecutor during the latter's visit to OVK-25, for which he and other convicts booked a personal reception at the institution's administration building. But the staff of the colony did not allow him to enter the room where the reception took place.

The prosecutor promised to visit the institution again in a few days and asked to prepare written complaints for him, which he should pick up during the next visit. But the prosecutor did not come to the colony again, and Mr. M., who continued to be pressured for his complaints, to be taken out of OVK-25, inflicted self-harm by piercing the wall of his abdomen with an awl. He was rushed to hospital, where he underwent surgery. The SLC's lawyer tried to get to Mr. M. in the hospital twice, but he was not allowed by the guards. Four days later Mr. M. was taken to the prison hospital at the Temnovska Correctional Colony №100, where he was met by a lawyer.

On behalf of the applicant, the lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the SBI, but the police refused to open an investigation. Only after filing a complaint with the investigating judge, the SBI entered the information into the URPTI.

On October 1, 2020, the investigator questioned Mr. M. as a victim in the criminal proceedings, during which the applicant reported all the details of both the events of the use of special forces on January 8, 2020 and the applicant's torture in 2017.

After Mr. M.’s interrogation, his lawyer requested an investigative experiment to be carried out with Mr. M. as a victim, as well as that his forensic examination be carried out.

The lawyer also re-filed a request for a number of investigative actions, this request was granted, but has not been fulfilled so far.

Pop-ha case

On January 3, 2020, P. complained to the KHPG about torture by employees of the administration, the last of which, and the most brutal, were inflicted on him on December 16, 2019.

On January 8, 2020, at about 4 am, P. was in his dormitory in the third compartment of the residential area of ​​OVK-25, where masked men broke in, shouting the names of two other convicts, who also complained to human rights activists looking for them. After he was found, he was handcuffed, broken behind his back, and taken out into the corridor, not even allowed to get dressed. They were laid face down on the floor in the corridor.

On January 9, 2020, the lawyer was not allowed to visit P., about which a complaint was filed with the head of OVK-25.

On 10 January 2001, during the interrogation of P. as a victim, he reported the torture inflicted on him by the administration staff and two other convicts, as well as the inclusion in his medical card on 10 January 2020 of information about his injuries by the head of the medical unit at the initiative of human rights activists. .

P. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings on several statements, which is confirmed by a copy of the extract from the URPTI.

On January 11, 2020, during a forensic medical examination, P. informed the expert that “on December 16, 2019, at about 4:00 p.m., he was summoned to the headquarters by Captain Garkavy, where another worker of OVK-25, L. was. They knocked him down, naked, wrapped his arms and legs with scotch tape, beat him, put a bag on his head, crumpled the newspaper and set it on fire on his body, on January 8, 2020 no one beat him. "

On 17 January 2001, during the re-interrogation, P. again reported that he had been previously tortured by colony staff, and that the forensic medical examination found on 11 January 2020 caused abrasions and bruises on his upper and lower extremities made to him during the general search 08.01.2020, but he refused to testify concerning events 08.01.2020.

In addition, P. informed the lawyer that he had been under constant pressure after numerous Ukrainian media outlets reported that he had been tortured (although his name was not mentioned), and that he had been threatened with even more severe torture than he had experienced earlier.

On January 22, 2020, a request for familiarizing with a case-file of the criminal proceedings was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of TD SBI in Poltava.

On January 23, 2020, the lawyer submitted lawyer's inquiries to the State Institution "“Centre of Healthcare of SCES of Ukraine”", the Branch of the State Institution "“Centre of Healthcare of SCES of Ukraine”" in Kharkiv and Luhansk regions and to the Medical Unit of SI “ Oleksiivska CC 25” on injuries and treatment of P.

On January 27, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion to the head of the Medical Unit of the State Institution “Oleksiyivska CC № 25” for the doctor's admission to P.

On the same day, unable to withstand the psychological pressure of the administration staff and the repeated torture during the meeting with the lawyer, P. refused the lawyer's legal assistance and the criminal complaints, which he informed the lawyer during the meeting.

On January 31, 2020, a forensic medical examination was to be conducted, with the participation of a lawyer in which the prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office insisted, however, P. refused to conduct it.

S-ze case

On 03.01.2020 During the visit of the representatives of KHPG Mr. S-e complained about the torture inflicted on him by the representatives of OPC-25 after his arrival to the colony in June 2019.

On 08.01.2020 Mr. S-e who went to sleep the previous day in section No.3 of unit No.5 was suddenly awakened because unidentified masked persons wearing camouflage dragged him out of the bed, bound his arms behind his back with plastic ties and brought him in the yard while he was only wearing his underwear. There Mr. S-e saw that other inmates were brought outside in the same manner. He was kept undressed, face to the wall, for about half an hour. Later he was brought to the “headquarters” where he was placed face to the wall with other inmates, after that everyone was put face down on the floor with their hands fixed behind their backs and forced to lie like that until evening, when the clothes were brought and the convicts were allowed to dress up.

After that Mr. S-e with other convicted persons was forced to write that they obstructed the search, therefore they were handcuffed. During the use of the special means he was not beaten, the events of 08.01.2020 left him only with the bruises left by the handcuffs. He was subsequently subjected to disciplinary action in the form of placement in a disciplinary isolator for alleged violation of the regime, after that he was transferred to another institution (Kharkiv Penal Colony No. 43).

On 10.01.2020 an investigator from the State Bureau of Investigations questioned Mr. S-e as a victim without his lawyer. So far, no further questioning of Mr. S-e as a victim with the participation of a lawyer was carried out.

T-ov case

On 30.12.2019 Mr. T-v along with other convicted persons from OPC-25 complained to the head (at the time) of the colony about the actions of particular employees of that institution, in particular – the use of illegal physical violence.

Subsequently on 08.01.2020 around 03-00 am Mr. T-v awakened in the dormitory of the fourth unit and saw unidentified masked persons wearing uniform with the insignia of “RRG”. Those persons forced one of the inmates, Mr. L., from his bed, twisted his arms behind his back and dragged him from the dormitory. Then he heard muffled knocking from the corridor that sounded like hits. After that the special force officers brought Mr. B. from the room in the same manner.

Around 05-45 am somebody gave the command to rise and all convicted persons were ordered to leave to the corridor with their mattresses. After the special forces “knocked” on the mattresses the convicted persons were allowed to leave for breakfast. However, on the exit from the local sector Mr. T-v was ordered to visit the first Deputy Head of the Colony (in the headquarters), and he went there. When Mr. T-v opened the doors to the duty unit somebody ambushed him, Mr. T-v’s face was covered with his hat and he was dragged to the fourth floor of the “headquarters” building to the operatives. There one of the rooms already contained 7 inmates who were lying on the floor beaten, wearing only their underwear. Mr. T-v was also thrown on the floor face down. Someone fell on top of him and asked him using obscene phrases whether Mr. T-v recognized him. By their voice Mr. T-v recognized the person who was also masked – it was Mr. G., whose particular cruelty was complained of by many convicted persons. After that Mr. T-v received several hits on his body, in particular on the ribs. All convicted persons were kept on the floor until around 4 pm, after that they were all in turns called to the office of the first Deputy Head of the colony (as is known from other convicts, there they were forced to write the similar explanations that they obstructed the search, and therefore the special means – handcuffs – were applied to them). Finally Mr. T-v was allowed to go to the unit. As Mr. T-v understood, in the room with him there were those convicts who complained to the Head of the colony on 30.12.2019.

On 11.01.2020 an investigator from the State Bureau of Investigations questioned Mr. T-v as a victim without his lawyer. So far, no further questioning of Mr. T-v as a victim with the participation of a lawyer was carried out.

T-skyy case

T was served his punishment at the Oleksiyivska correctional colony no.25 since 2019. H was 58 years old and has some chronical disease related his respiratory system.

On 8 January 2020 Mr. T was staying at the sleeping room while armed officers came there, ordered prisoners to lay face down. Mr. T was not able to execute this direction as he could not breath when he laid in such way due to his illness. If so, he laid and turned his face right. One of the armed officers saw that, came to Mr. T and beat him several times for violation of the order. The applicant got injuries of his legs.

On 20 January 2020 Mr. T asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal aid and wrtoe down a criminal complaint on torture. However, when the lawyer came to visit Mr T he unexpectedly denied from his previous complaints and from legal aid. Probably it has happed because of psyhological pressure of prison officers on Mr. T.

Tu-lov case

On March 8, 2020, at approximately 4:30, people in bulletproof vests, helmets and masks broke into the sleeping lodgement of their unit, woke up all the convicts and ordered them to lie face down on a pillow and with their arms crossed behind their heads. In this position they were forced to lie for about 5 hours. After breakfast, the convicts were searched in turn.

Since then Mr. T. he was periodically taken to the operative unit of the institution, where he was threatened that he would be prosecuted for disrupting the work of the colony for complaining about the administration, and other convicts to write statements about actions of Mr. T., which he did not actually commit.

In mid-February 2020 the applicant tried to complain about such pressure from the administration of the colony to the supervision prosecutor during the latter's visit to OVK-25, for which he and other convicts booked a personal reception at the institution's administration building. But the staff of the colony did not allow him to enter the room where the reception took place.

The prosecutor promised to visit the institution again in a few days and asked to prepare written complaints for him, which he should pick up during the next visit.

Mr. T. was transferred to the Temnivska Correctional Colony №100.

On behalf of the applicant, the SLC's lawyer filed a criminal complaint with the SBI, but the police refused to open an investigation. It was only after the complaint had been lodged with the investigating judge that the SBI entered the information into the URPTI, but Mr. T. has not yet been questioned as a victim.

Tuy-n case

Mr. T., a resident of the city of Izuym in Kharkiv region has been serving a sentence in SI “Oleksiivska correctional colony №25”.

On January 10, 2020, TD SBI in the city of Poltava entered criminal proceedings on fact of exceeding the powers by officials of SI “Oleksiivska correctional colony №25”.

On January 27, 2020, the SLC lawyer was provided to Mr. T. on his application.

On January 27, 2020 the lawyer was informed about the facts of forcing T. and other convicts to work without registration of labour relations and remuneration, and also submitted a statement in this regard to the TD SBI in Poltava during a meeting with Tuytuyn D. L.

The lawyer filed a motion with the TD SBI in Poltava to enter information on T.'s application into the URPTI and to conduct a pre-trial investigation on the preliminary qualification of a criminal offense under Part 2 of Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, interrogation of the victim T. with the participation of a lawyer, application of appropriate security measures to the victim T., providing the lawyer with the opportunity to familiarize with the case-file of the pre-trial investigation, to inform about the time and place for such familiarizing.

Without receiving notification on the results of the motion or a decision to deny the motion, the lawyer addressed an attorney's request to the Director of the SBI in Poltava regarding the results of the motion. After that, on March 2, 2020, a notification was received about the refusal to enter information on T.'s application to the URPTI, which was motivated by the fact that investigators of the TD SBI in Poltava have been caring out a pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings from 11.01.2020 on the grounds of criminal Part 2 of Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

An extract from the ERDR was not attached to the report, so it is not known whether T. is a victim in the specified criminal proceedings. In addition, T. had not even been questioned as a victim for two months.

On March 7, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint against the refusal to enter data to the URPTI to the investigating judge.

By the decision of the investigating judge of the Oktyabrsky district court of Poltava from 12.03.2020 the complaint is left without consideration.

On March 30, 2020, an appeal was filed against the decision of the investigating judge. By the decision of the Poltava Court of Appeal of April 23, 2020, the appeal was dismissed.

On May 13, 2020, a request for a pre-trial investigation on the preliminary qualification of a criminal offense under Part 2 of Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, interrogation of the victim T. with the participation of a lawyer, application of appropriate security measures to the victim T., providing the lawyer with an opportunity to familiarize with the case-file of the pre-trial investigation had been sent.

10.06.2020р. notification was received that the motion was attached to the case-file of the criminal proceedings and verification of the facts during the pre-trial investigation.

A third motion has been prepared to the TD SBIin Poltava, for information to be entered into the URPTI and a complaint to the Prosecutor's Office in Kharkiv region.

On November 5, 2020, T. was interrogated as a victim.

A request for investigative actions has been prepared.

The case continues.

V-ko case

Mr. V. was serving his sentence in Oleksiivska penal colony No. 25 since 2015. Since the moment of his arrival to the colony the means of illegal physical coercion were applied to him. In particular, after his arrival to the institution the operatives of the institution offered Mr. V. to become an orderly, and when he refused they started to abuse him. In particular, Mr. V.’s arms and legs were bound with duct tape, after that he was placed on a mattress, a plastic bag was put on his head which obstructed the access of oxygen, his arms were twisted, a baton was inserted in his anus, and his genitalia were clamped by hot tongs.

On 3 January 2020 Mr. V. wrote an application about the criminal offence. The application is attached to the criminal proceedings that were instituted.

On 8 January 2020 during the general search in the Oleksiivska colony Mr. V. was in the dormitory when several masked special division enforcers entered the room running. They ordered Mr. V. to lie face down and without movement. Several hours later he asked to bring him to the restroom, but they refused. An hour later he was brought to the restroom and hit on the head.

On 16 January 2020 Mr. V.’s lawyer filed a petition to carry out all investigative measures with her client only in the presence of a lawyer. On 4 February 2020 the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigations in Poltava granted that petition.

On 21 January 2020 the lawyer from SLC had a confidential meeting with Mr. V. during which the latter wrote a more detailed application about the criminal offence and reported other details concerning the events in the colony.

Furthermore, the lawyer from SLC filed a petition to State Bureau of Investigations to familiarize herself with the criminal case file. Her request was granted on 28 January 2020, however during the familiarization the lawyer established that no materials were gathered concerning the criminal offence against Mr. V.

On 14 January 2020 Mr. V. was released from the penal institution due to the end of his sentence.

In March 2020 Mr. V. was detained again on suspicion of new crime.

The lawyer had made several motions about the investigation and requests for questioning, but Mr V. had never been questioned by the SBI.

Z-ov case

Mr. Z has been serving his sentence in Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony № 25 since October 2020. From the moment he arrived at the institution, he was subjected to illegal means of physical influence because he refused to clean as he considered it humiliating. He was initially placed in a disciplinary cell for a disciplinary offense, where he remained for almost a month and a half. One day in late November 2019, Mr. Z was taken out of cell № 1 and dragged to the headquarters, where two men began beating him severely, put a bag on his head to block oxygen, wrapped him in duct tape and left him lying for several hours. After that, Mr. Z was released from the disciplinary isolator and allowed to stay in the residential area of ​​the institution and work.

On 3 January 2020, Mr. Z wrote a statement alleging a criminal offense against him. At present, this statement is attached to the previously opened criminal proceedings.

On 16 January 2020, Mr. Z's lawyer wrote a request to conduct all investigative actions with her client only in the presence of a lawyer. On 4 February 2020, the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Poltava granted this request.

On 21 January 2020, the SLC lawyer had a confidential meeting with Mr. Z., during which he wrote a more detailed statement about the commission of a criminal offense and provided other details about the events in the institution.

In addition, the SLC lawyer sent a request to the State Bureau of Investigation to get acquainted with the materials of the criminal proceedings. Such a request was granted on 28 January 2020, but during the review the lawyer found that no materials on the commission of a criminal offense against Mr. Z were collected.

On 5 Februart 2020, the SLC lawyer sent a request to the General Prosecutor’s Office and the State Bureau of Investigation for the application of security measures to Mr. Z. A response to this request has not yet been received.

On 25 February 2020, during a monitoring visit to the penitentiary institution, the SLC lawyer spoke again with Mr. Z. and also took a photo of Mr. Z.'s injuries.

During April-May 2020, Mr. Z was subjected to constant psychological pressure and disciplinary action. The lawyer repeatedly appealed to the Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony for information on such penalties, and also informed the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation about the pressure on her client

In June 2020, the lawyer recognized that Mr. Z. had refused from her legal aid due to constant pressure. Therefore, the interrogation of Mr. Z. took place without the participation of a lawyer. However, later, in November 2020, Mr. Z. contacted a lawyer again. He said that he had been taken to the Vilnyansk Correctional Colony №20 for a psychological examination. He assured that he was in good state today and asked the lawyer to represent him again. Mr. Z. wrote a statement to the SBI that he had refused the lawyer under pressure from the colony administration and sent such a statement to the SBI.

Z. case

On January 8, 2020, at about 3:30 a.m., Z. was beaten by officers of the Rapid Reaction Group (GSHR) during an emergency situation on the territory of Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony №25 (OVK-25), his nose was injured with a rubber stick, and was struck in various parts of body.

On January 31, 2020, an application was filed with the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine for committing a criminal offense.

On March 2, 2020, from the Territorial Bureau of investigations in the city of Poltava (TD SBI in the city of Poltava) a letter was received which stated that the entry of data in the URPTI was rejected.

Absence of entrance to the URPTI was appealed to the Oktyabrsky District Court of Poltava.

By the decision of the Oktyabrsky district court of Poltava the complaint was satisfied. The TD SBI in Poltava was obligated to enter the data into the URTPI on the complaint of Z. and to start pre-trial investigation.

On June 18, 2020 Z. was interrogated in OVK-25 as witness, on the same day he filed an application to involve him to criminal proceedings as a victim.

 

5 cases on human trafficking

B. case

Mr. B. became a victim of human trafficking. After arriving in Russia to work under an employment contract, he was forced to engage in the distribution of drugs under the influence of threats.

On July 20, 2017, Mr. B. was convicted by the Surgut City Court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug - Ugra, Russian Federation, for committing criminal offenses (crimes) under Part 3 of Art. 30, part 5 of Art. 228-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, up to 9 years of imprisonment with serving in a penal colony of the maximum level of security.

On June 25, 2018, the decision of the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Zaporizhia brought the verdict of the Surgut City Court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug - Ugra from of July 20, 2017 and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Mr. B. is serving his sentence in Petrivska Correctional Colony № 49.

In September 2020, Mr. B. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On October 6, 2020, a lawyer from the SLS prepared a criminal complaint against Mr. B. under Article 149 of the Criminal Code (human trafficking) to the Petrivska Police Department.

On October 7, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared an application for Mr. B. to be granted the status of a victim of human trafficking to the Petrivska District State Administration.

On October 15, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared a complaint about the inaction of the investigator of the Petrivska Police Department regarding the failure to enter information into the URPTI to the investigating judge.

The case continues.

K. case

Mr. K. was a fourth-year student and in the fall of 2015, with friends, he saw a post about working in the "near abroad" on the OLX website.

In November 2015, Mr. K. went to Kyiv, where he took a loan for a trip, and with two other acquaintances went to Russia to the reported work.

Nine days after his departure, on November 26, 2015, Mr. K. was detained in Bryansk for drug distribution and placed in custody.

On June 20, 2018, the verdict of the Soviet District Court of Bryansk RF sentenced Mr. K. to 8 years in prison for committing crimes under Part 3 of Article 30, Part 5 of Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced him to 8 years in prison (illegal transportation of narcotic drugs).

On August 22, 2018, Mr. K. was granted the status of a victim of human trafficking by the decision of the Ministry of Social Policy.

On May 30, 2019, by the decision of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv Region this sentence was brought into line with the legislation of Ukraine and it was determined that Mr. K., while continuing to serve his sentence in Ukraine, must serve under Part 3 of Article 15, part 3 Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine 8 years of imprisonment.

Mr. K. was transferred to the territory of Ukraine in the spring of 2020 and is being held in the Kharkiv SIZO.

In November 2020, Mr. K. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On November 17, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared a petition for Mr. K. to enlist in the sentence of pre-trial detention, which he served from November 26, 2015 to September 25, 2018 in the investigative bodies of the Russian Federation.

The case continues.

Kh. case

At the end of February 2016, Mr. Kh. saw an advertisement on the Internet about working as a courier for non-food products distribution in Moscow and turned to the so-called employer, with whom he had previously agreed on the work of the courier.

In early March 2016, Mr. Kh. went to Moscow (by train), reporting to the employer for each step. Upon arrival in Moscow, Mr. Kh. was reassigned to other cities in the Russian Federation, where under the influence of threats to his life and the lives and health of his relatives, Mr. Kh. was forced to decompose drug packages.

On July 19, 2016, Mr. Kh. was detained by police in Stary Oskol.

On 14 February 2017, Mr. Kh. was sentenced by the Starooskol City Court of the Belgorod Region of the Russian Federation to 8 years' imprisonment for a crime under Article 30 § 3 and Article 228.1 (attempt to illegal transportation of narcotic drugs).

On February 26, 2018, Mr. Kh. was found a victim in the criminal proceedings №12018100000000225 under Part 2 of Article 149 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (human trafficking).

On May 14, 2018, the decision of the Illichivsk District Court of Mariupol of the Donetsk Region, granted the request of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to bring the verdict of the Court of the Russian Federation in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine. Mr. Kh. was transferred to serve his sentence in Ukraine.

Mr. Kh. is serving his sentence in Toretska VK №2.

On June 11, 2020, the Ministry of Social Policy refused to grant the Donetsk Regional State Administration's request to establish Mr. Kh.'s status as a victim of human trafficking.

In October 2020, Mr. Kh. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On November 2, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared a motion for the progress of the investigation.

On November 9, 2020, a lawyer of the SLC prepared a complaint to the District Administrative Court of Kyiv against the decision of the Ministry of Social Policy.

On November 16, a SLC lawyer prepared a petition for Mr. Kh.'s pardon for the Office of the President of Ukraine.

The case is pending.

N. case

Ms. N. describes that she became a victim of human trafficking. In late 2014, she saw an advertisement on the Internet about working in Russia.

After agreements with her employer, Ms. N. went to Moscow to work under an employment contract in the labor profession. However, after arriving in Moscow, she was forced to distribute drugs under the influence of threats to her life and health.

She was later transferred to Astrakhan to work as a courier for drug delivery, where she was detained by Russian police in August 2015.

On January 13, 2017, Ms. N. was found guilty and convicted of committing crimes under Part 3 of Article 30, para. "A", "d" part 4 of Article 228.1; Part 3 of Article 30, Part 5 of Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment, serving a sentence in a penal colony of the general regime by the verdict of the Kaluga District Court of the Kaluga region of the Russian Federation.

On April 11, 2017, by the decision of the panel of judges of the Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases of the Kaluga Regional Court the verdict of the Kaluga District Court of the Kaluga region of January 13, 2017 was upheld.

On February 6, 2018, by the decision of the Pervomaisky City District Court of Kharkiv Region the sentence was brought into line with the legislation of Ukraine and it was determined that Ms. N. should continue to serve her sentence under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - 6 years of imprisonment; under Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - 8 years in imprisonment. The final sentence of 8 years of imprisonment was held based on Art. 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by absorbing less severe punishment more severe finally sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Ms. N. continues to serve her sentence in the Kamyanka Correctional Colony № 34.

In September 2020, Ms. N. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On October 5, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared a criminal complaint against Ms. N. under Article 149 of the Criminal Code (human trafficking) to the Kamyansk Police Department.

On October 7, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared an application for granting Ms. N. the status of a victim of human trafficking to the Dnipro Regional State Administration.

On October 14, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared a complaint about the inaction of the investigator of the Kamyansk police department regarding the failure to enter information into the URPTI in the Zavodsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk.

On October 15, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared a request to transfer Ms. N. to a penitentiary institution located near the residence of her relatives.

On October 29, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared a motion for Ms. N. to enlist the term of pre-trial detention, which she served from August 7, 2015 to January 12, 2017, in the investigative bodies of the Russian Federation.

The case is pending.

Ya. case

Mr. Ya., born in 1991, is the only son and breadwinner of an elderly mother who is often ill. Ya's older brother and father died. After receiving incomplete secondary education at a secondary school, he studied at the Okhtyrka Sumy National Agricultural University at the Faculty of Business Economics. After graduation, he continued his studies (by distance learning) at the place of residence in the Okhtyrka branch of Sumy State University, at the same time he was studing at the vocational school № 7 in the specialty "car mechanic-driver". He worked at the Kachanivsky GPZ "Public Joint Stock Company Ukrnafta" as a pump driver of a technical installation and a technical operator for the production of propane. In 2013 he graduated from Sumy State University, however, he did not work in the field of his specialization. Mr. Ya. is married, has a son.

In 2015, he went to work in the Russian Federation and was fraudulently recruited for work related to the distribution of drugs. During the investigation, Mr. Ya. did not want to plead guilty to the crime, so he was tortured. On April 12, 2016, he was sentenced by the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Ryazan (Russian Federation) to 9 years in prison under Article 30 § 3 "G" paragraph 4 of Article 228 of the Criminal Code paragraph 4 "g" (without the condition of non-application of pardon).

The substance which was allegedly traded by Mr. Ya. (was a delivery courier), is not in the list of narcotic and psychotropic drugs of the State Service of Ukraine for Medicines and Drug Control.

On August 23, 2018, the Okhtyrka interdistrict court of Sumy region brought his sentence in line with Ukrainian law and sentenced him to 9 years in prison without confiscation of property under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In Ukraine, based on the decision of the Ministry of Social Policy of March 21, 2018, he was recognized as a victim of human trafficking, and on February 18, 2020, it was extended until March 21, 2021.

At the same time Mr. Ya. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings № 12016250000000100 under Article 149 item 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which was opened in the investigative department of the National Police of the city of Kyiv on March 25, 2016.

On May 25, 2020, the case-file on suspicion of four recruiters of people working in Russia were allocated to a separate criminal case № 12020100000000479, after which an indictment was drawn up, which was received on June 3, 2020 in Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv. In court, the materials of this proceeding were combined with criminal proceedings on charges of the same persons for committing other episodes of human trafficking, which is being considered by the court since July 1, 2017.

The trial in this case had being gone on for almost four years, as there are a large number of victims and defendants in the case.

On November 26, 2020, a next court hearing was scheduled.

The lawyer of the SLC wrote a petition for pardon to the President of Ukraine, but there is no information on the procedure and time of consideration of the petition.

28 other cases

An-va case

Ms. A is accused in a crime prescribed in Art. 187, Part. 2 of CC. According to prosecution version she upon prior conspiracy with unidentified persons, poisoned victims with three high-dose of the drug “Azaleptol” and seized the property of the victims.

Ms. A arrived to Kyiv in her personal affairs. In one of bars she got acquainted with a company of young people. Then they got acquainted with another company. When the bar got closed the whole company went to a lake beach with the aim to continue a rest. They were drinking alcohol and communicating. Through some time three victims lost consciousness. The girl from the first company immediately began to remove gold jewellery, searched bags, took money and mobile phones. After that, she and the two men disappeared from the scene together.

Simultaneously, Mr. A was talking on the phone. She had a birthday last day and was continuing to receive greetings. When she had returned, she saw that part of the company was gone and three people were lying unconscious on the ground. Mrs. A. immediately called police and ambulance. Waiting on the spot, Ms. A. helped to hospitalize the victims, and gave explanations to the patrol police.

As a result of the investigation, witnesses were identified who saw the girl from the first campaign robbing the victims. However, the witnesses of the events didn’t indicate the unlawful actions of Mrs. A. According to the medical examinations, no toxic substances, psychotropic drugs were found in the liquids which were removed at the scene and in the body of the victims.

In the May 2019 Ms. A was notified of suspicion and the preventive measure in the form of custody had been chosen. A prosecutor transferred an indictment to a court.

During June 2019 the witnesses and victims didn’t appear to the court hearings, the prosecutor is hiding evidences that could be used in the favor of Ms. A. There are no documents in the stitched and numbered tom of the criminal proceedings.

In the end of June 2019 Ms. A turned to the SLC asking to provide her legal assistance.

A court of the first instance prolongated the custody several times – on 19 July, 16 September, 13 November and 27 December 2019. All adjudications were appealed by the SLC lawyer but the Court of Appeal dismissed all claims.

Despite the procedural irregularities on the part of the court, the refusal to require the prosecutor to provide available evidence in the case, the refusal to accept and investigate the evidence of the defence party, the SLC lawyer was able to obtain copies of the findings of the court expertise and examine them in court. These examinations are crucial because they indicate the absence of toxic substances at the crime scene.

The SLC lawyer was able to make possible the appearance of a witness who could not be brought to the court for more than eight months. The witness fully affirmed the defence party's version on the circumstances of Ms. A.'s arrest, the absence of a lawyer during the arrest, and the examination of the unsealed physical evidence.

The court refused to in examination of evidences which were received from a familiarizing with the case-file and testify the violation of Ms. A.'s procedural rights to defence during her arrest, search and interrogation.

For the time being, the Court is preparing to examine Ms. A and additional evidence of the prosecution party which was at the disposal of the prosecutor, but was not open to the defence party before the case was brought to court.

In 2020, the court again denied the lawyer in the examination of evidence confirming the violation of the client's right to defence, the absence of status of a suspect in criminal proceedings, the inadmissibility of key evidence of the prosecution. The court of first instance also did not take into account the lack of authority of the prosecutor, who supported public prosecution and systematic violations in summoning victims.

On June 5, 2020, the court of first instance sentenced the client to 8 years in prison. At the moment, the defence counsel is preparing an appeal.

BKA case

Kropyvnytskiy police office opened a criminal proceeding in fact on improper performance of professional duties by healthcare worker. Mrs BKA who was born in 1993 is a victim in this criminal proceeding. This criminal proceeding was opened in fact of death of Mrs BKA new-born child. She was interrogated by the policeman.

On 12 April 2018 The SLC lawyer sent a motion on demanding all medical documentation related with death of child and Mrs BKA health status/

On 02 April 20182018 The SLC lawyer sent a motion on interrogation witnesses (doctors)

On 03 April 20182018 The SLC lawyer sent an application to Perinatal centre of the Kirovohrad Regional Hospital of demanding all medical documentation.

On 04 April 2018 the SLC lawyer participated in the interrogation by an investigator of the witness.

On13 April 2018 the SLC lawyer familiarized with BKA ‘s medical documentation in a medical institution.

On 13 Jun 2018 the SLC lawyer sent a motion on the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination.

According to the latest information, the investigators sent the casefile for forensic medical examination. The SLC lawyer sent a lawyer request to confirm the information.

The investigator ordered a complex forensic medical expertise and submitting the case file of the criminal proceedings and the all gathered medical documents to an expert institution. The case file was sent to the expert institution.

In January 2020, the case was returned to the investigator and instructions were provided to provide additional evidence - medical documents.

In January 2020, the lawyer of SLC sent an attorney's request. In March 2020, the lawyer of the SLC received a respond that the pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings was ongoing (all investigative actions under the CPC are underway).

In April 2020, the investigator informed the lawyer of the SLC about the stay in the hospital and on the sending the materials of the criminal proceedings for an inspection to the Main Investigation Department.

 No information was received during the quarantine period.

In June 2020, the lawyer of the SLC sent an attorney's request for information on the progress of the pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings.

Ch-na case

In September 2019 the president of NGO “Kharkiv woman union “Sphera” turned to SLC asking to provide legal assistance. She reported that on 28 March 2019 there was an attack on the “Sphera” conducted by member of organization “Tradition and order” In the form of penetration to the apartment that had being rented by “Sphera”.

From September till December there were numerous criminal complaints lodged and complaints to the court on inactivity of police officials which consisted of failure to enter to URPTI the information set out in the statement.

On 18 December 2019 the application on adding new data was filed.

On 30 December 2019 an interrogation of victim and witnesses had been conducted.

13.03.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

18.06.2020 writing a request to the investigator to conduct investigative actions.

In the second half of 2020, petitions for procedural actions and re-qualification of criminal proceedings under Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine were filed.

The investigator do not respond to the request, so a complaint to the investigating judge concerning the investigator's inaction is being prepared.

D-dov case

Mr. D. turned to a lawyer because he was a victim of a crime. In 2017, he was injured, as a result of which he went blind in one eye. However, no one was prosecuted for this, and the investigator described the injuries as minor.

The lawyer sent a petition to the Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv to get acquainted with the case materials.

Dam-n case

On 6 August 2019 an SLC attorney started represent Mr. D’s interests.

On 14 August 2019 the SLC attorney found out that the last investigative action had been conducted in 2017 while she was familiarizing with the case file. Then, the attorney filed com-plaints to the Kharkiv Prosecutor Office №1 and sent a letter to the Ombudsman concerning inactivity of investigative bodies and noncompliance with reasonable time of pre-trial investigation.

On 16 August 2019 a motion had been sent to the investigator concerning conduction of procedural actions.

On 29 August 2019 a request had been filed to Shevchenkivsky Police Office in Kharkiv region regarding the progress of pre-trial investigation.

On 10 September 2019           a second complaint on inactivity of law-enforcement and non-compliance with reasonable time of pre-trial investigation had been filed.

On 31 September 2019 the letter had been sent to the head of Shevchnkivsky Police Office in Kharkiv region with ask to clarify reasons for no respond to motions.

On 22 October 2019 a motion had been sent to investigator regarding conduction of pro-cedural actions.

On 13 November 2019 a motion had been sent to investigator regarding conduction of procedural actions.

On 3 December 2019 a motion had been sent to investigator regarding conduction of pro-cedural actions.

On 9 December 2019 a complaint regarding inactivity of investigator was sent to Dzer-zhinsky District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

On 13 December 2019 the first court hearing had been conducted but due to absence of investigator was postponed to 13 January 2020.

13.01.2020 court session had been conducted at which the complaint on inaction of the investi-gator was satisfied.

On February 24, 2020, a petition was filed with the investigator for procedural actions.

19.03.2020 a criminal complaint was written on the investigator’s non-compliance with the court decision to the TD SBI in Poltava.

15.04.2020 a motion for procedural actions was lodged to the investigator, a complaint was written to the Prosecutor's Office of Kharkiv region, a repeated statement about the criminal offense of the investigator for failure to comply with a court decision was written to the TD SBI in Poltava.

18.06.2020 a motion for procedural actions was lodged to the investigator, a complaint was written to the Prosecutor's Office of Kharkiv region, a repeated statement about the criminal offense of the investigator for failure to comply with a court decision was written to the TD SBI in Poltava.

D. case

On October 21, 2015, at about 6 p.m., while Mrs. D.'s condemned husband was in the pre-trial detention centre in the city of Khmelnytsky, the pre-trial detention centre (hereinafter –CIZO) staff escorting him in a personal examination chamber and applied physical exposure measures and special means. As a result, his well-being worsened, and the Mrs. D’s husband died at 6 p.m. in the medical part of the Khmelnytsky CIZO.

In addition, on October 21, 2015, at about half past 5 p.m., the CIZO employees applied physical violence to other detainees, harassing the authorities and their powers.

Ms. D. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 23, 2016, CIZO employees were served with suspicion of committing the criminal offenses under Part 2 of Art. 121, Part 2 of Art. 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On May 30, 2016, CIZO officials were issued to the home arrest as a preventive measure.

In the second half of 2016, the indictment was sent to court. In late 2016, the court began to consider the merits of the case.

During the trial, it turned out that the hard drive, which, according to the instructions, should keep records from the video cameras in CIZO, was broken and the question arose about the possibility of removing videos from that drive.

The court ordered an examination, but the expert could not remove the data from the drive. The following examinations had the same result.

In 2019, the SLC lawyer filed an application for an expert examination that could remove the records from the disc. The court denied the motion of the SLC lawyer because the expert did not have the relevant powers.

In January-June 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed a request for familiarizing with written materials of criminal proceedings, a request for audio recordings of journals of court hearings, provided a legal consultation to the victim Ms. D. and agreed on legal position in further actions in criminal proceedings. The SLC's lawyer also took part in two court hearings in support of the request of the victim, Ms. D. and her representatives, to involve specialists in the case to find out whether it was technically possible to recover information about Mr. D.'s injuries which could contained on hard disks removed from the Khmelnytsky CIZO. In addition, the SLC lawyer filed a motion for summoning and interrogation for Mr. D-va as a witness, who, together with the accused, wrote a report on the incident stating that handcuffs and a rubber truncheon had been applied to the deceased Mr. D.

Further court hearings were postponed due to the absence of specialists, witnesses, and at the request of the accused.

Currently, the SLC lawyer, together with other representatives and the victim, is considering the possibility and expediency of appointing an examination in this case on the availability and recovery of information on hard drives seized in Khmelnytsky CIZO, as well as finding relevant experts with relevant knowledge and technical equipment for such survey.

On August 12, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions. However, no action was taken and no response was provided.

On September 7, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions. However, no action was taken and no response was provided.

On October 21, 2020, the lawyer sent a complaint to the Kharkiv local prosecutor's office №1, in which she asked to take measures in absence of any activity and delays in the investigation of the criminal proceedings.

On November 2, 2020, the lawyer sent another request for procedural actions, to which she did not receive any response.

On November 17, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv against the investigator's inaction.

Dro-d case

Mrs.D was born in 1976.

On 28 April 2016 she was convicted for committing a crime, prescribed by Part1 Art.115 of Criminal Code of Ukraine (murder) by the indictment of Dzergzinskyi District Court of Kryvyi Rih in Dnipro region with imposing a punishment of 8 years of imprisonment. At the moment of signing a contract about legal assistance she was serving her sentence in the Chernihivska Correction Colony №44. Mrs.D has two children and one of them was born and lived with her in the Colony.

According the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine the decision of the Court of Appeal was revoked and the judgment of the District Court was remanded without changed. The case was transmitted to a new court examination in the Court of Appeal.

For the time being an SLC lawyer signed a contract about legal assistance and made consent about strategy of defence with Mrs.D. The SLC lawyer made a request about number of important documents and added them to the case. The lawyer made an amendment to the appeal that was lodged by Mrs.D in 2016. The SLC lawyer has prepared numerous procedural documents regarding different violations of Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

On 09 November 2018 the Court of Appeal in the city of Dnipro made a decision which revoked the indictment and transmitted to the District Court for a new court examination.

In 2019, there were 5 court hearings held in the court of first instance.

In 2020 it was postponed 4 times. The court has not yet begun to consider the case on the merits.

In the second half of 2020, court hearings were scheduled for July 8, September 21, November 4, and December 10, some of which did not take place due to the absence of the prosecutor.

The next court hearing is scheduled for February 4, 2021.

G-ov case

Mr G. (hereinafter – the applicant) is a member of a voluntary battalion “Aydar” which was founded after beginning of the Anti-terrorist operation in the East of Ukraine.

On 1 July 2014 for militaries of the battalion “Aydar” came to the apartment of Mr S. whom had allegedly provided assistance to separatist groups. During their visit one of the militaries demanded Mr. S to give them his cell phone and a laptop in order to find any information concerning separatist activities of Mr. S.

On 2 July 2014 the applicant, together with other militaries, was detained by the police informed about suspicion in commitment of a robbery of Mr. S. At the same day he was interrogated as a suspect and then released.

On 24 June 2015 the applicant was arrested by the police officers in Kharkiv.

On 25 June 2015 the applicant was taken into custody by the ruling of the Pechersk District court of Kyiv, since he was suspected in commitment of an aggravated armed robbery.

On 29 June 2015 the applicant’s defence lawyer filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Kyiv City.

The actual consideration of the appeal took place on 5 August 2015, i.e. after one month and ten days of applicant’s detention in custody which contradicts the requirements of the national legislation according to which such a kind of an appeal shall be considered within three days after its filing.

The delay in consideration of the appeal was caused by unlawful actions of the lower court which had not delivered the materials of the case to the Court of Appeal, as well as by the Court of Appeal which had not arranged properly neither the applicant’s transfer for the court hearing no conduction of the hearing through video conference.

By the ruling of 5 August 2015 the Court of Appeal of Kyiv City issued a decision about replacing of a preventive measure for the applicant from detention in custody to the obligation to appear to court.

However, the applicant was released from custody only on 7 August 2015.

Since other suspects were absconding from justice, in the end of August 2015 materials of the criminal proceedings relating to the applicant were extracted, and in September 2015 the prosecutor's office submitted the indictment against the applicant for consideration to the Troitsky District Court of Lugansk Region (hereinafter - the Troitsk Court).

In October 2015 the SLC lawyer lodged the application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 5 § 1 (a), (c) and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

After two self-disqualifications of judges in the Trinity Court, there were no judges left for the formation of a new composition of the judicial panel, and the HSCU directed the case for consideration in essence to the Svativsky District Court of Lugansk Oblast (hereafter, the Svatoivsky Court).

The preparatory hearing in the case in the Svativsky court was postponed many times, including because of the fact that the two accomplices of the crime were found and arrested in turn, and the criminal charges were joined in the court.

Only on August 31, 2018, the Svativsky court t last carry out the preparatory hearing and, at the request of the party of defenсe, decided to remit the indictment back to the prosecutor for correction of its deficiencies.

On September 17, 2018, the prosecutor sent a complaint to this ruling, together with a request to renew the time limit for appeals, but on 12 November 2018 the Luhansk Court of Appeal refused to renew the term.

On 6 December 2018, the prosecutor lodged a cassation appeal against the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court opened the cassation proceedings.

On May 27, 2019, after the previous postponement of the case, the Supreme Court examined the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, revoked the decision of the Lugansk Court of Appeal and sent the case back for a new consideration.

In July 2019, the Lugansk Court of Appeal considered the merits of the prosecutor's appeal, quashed the decision of the Svativskyi District Court and remanded the case for consideration from the preparatory hearing stage. Since then, no hearing has taken place in the case.

After that, there was no hearing in the case due to the absence of the participants in the process and for other reasons. The SLC lawyer applied for the dismissal of his autority in the case, as his contract for legal assistance had expired.

Gol-ka case

On 23 January 2020 the ECtHR found a violation of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention in respect of Mr G. in the criminal proceedings on the basis of which he had been convicted of a criminal offense.

In July 2020, Mr. G. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance in proceedings on exceptional circumstances in connection with the establishment by the ECtHR of Ukraine's violation of the European Convention in resolving a criminal case against Mr. G.

In the second half of 2020, the lawyer of the SLC provided oral advice to Mr. G. 10 times, prepared and sent a request for review of the case materials, studied the criminal case and participated in court hearings 4 times.

The case continues.

I-shin case

On May 28, 2020, I. applied to the SLC lawyer for legal assistance. During the first meeting, he stated that he identified himself as a woman with the name A.

A. said that she was the victim of an attack by three men who inflicted bodily injuries on her based on her gender identity.

On the same day, SLC's lawyer and A. took part in her interrogation as a victim.

On June 11, 2020, the lawyer sent a lawyer's request to the City Clinical Hospital № 30 in Kharkiv regarding A.'s treatment and state of health.

On June 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions to the Kyiv ID of the GDNP in the Kharkiv region.

On August 5, 2020 and October 16, 2020 the attorney sent motions to the investigator for procedural actions and re-qualification. The motions were granted, however, no action was taken for a long time. On November 2, 2020, the attorney sent a complaint about the inactivity of the investigator to the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights and to the Kharkiv Local Prosecutor's Office №2.

On December 23, 2020, the attorney participated in the re-interrogation of A. (as A.’s attorney).

ІАV case

Kropyvnytskiy police office opened a criminal proceeding in fact on improper performance of professional duties by healthcare worker. Mrs IAV is a victim in this criminal proceeding. This criminal proceeding was opened in fact of IAV injuring during the surgery. She was interrogated by the policeman.

On 19 April 2018 The SLC lawyer sent a motion on demanding all medical documentation related with Mrs IAV health status.

On 12 April 2018 The SLC lawyer sent a motion on interrogation witnesses (doctors).

On 16 April 2018 the SLC lawyer participated in the interrogation by an investigator of the witness.

On 20 April 2018 the SLC lawyer sent a motion on the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination.

On 16 May 2018, the SLC lawyer filed a motion on request a record of a court session (a civil case in which doctors who participated in the surgery were interrogated)

Because of investigator inaction, on 09 November 2018 the SLC lawyer filled a motion on removal of the investigator and the appointment of another investigator.

On 13 November 2018 the investigation judge satisfied the SLC lawyer`s motion on removal of the investigator.

On 26 December 2018 the SLC lawyer sent a lawyer`s request on inform about appointment of another investigator.

The criminal proceeding was transferred to the another investigator.

The SLC lawyer lodged a new motion to the new investigator concerning the conducting of several investigative measures with the motion regarding ordering the forensic medical examination.

In January 2020, the lawyer of the SLC sent an attorney's request, to which in February information was received about the finding of the materials of the criminal proceedings in the Main Investigation Department at the inspection.

Upon a second request (during quarantine) in May 2020, the lawyer of the SLC received a written respond that the pre-trial investigation into the case was ongoing.

The lawyer of the SLC prepared and filed a request for admission as evidence in the criminal proceedings of the audio recording of the court hearing in a civil case (during the interrogation as witnesses in a civil case, doctors who performed surgery, confirmed the information that the removal of the organ was performed without laboratory tests for the presence of malignant neoplasms).

In June 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the prosecutor about taking measures to comply with reasonable time for the pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings.

Kl-ko case

Criminal proceedings regarding accusation in murder

On April 2017 the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region established court jurisdiction and submitted a case to Kominternivskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

Eight court hearings appointed by Kominternivskyi District Court didn’t take place due to an absence of prosecutor.

On December 2017 Kominternivskyi District Court made a decision to file the motion to Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region for the purpose of the establishing the court jurisdiction because at that moment a scene of the crime was in Frunzenskyi district in the city of Kharkiv.

The precautionary measures were not taken to the accused. There were no measures to ensure criminal proceedings.

The case was appointed to court examination. Twelve court hearings were held. At the first court hearing the motion about determination the procedure of evidence examination and inexpediency of the examination of evidence that was the subject of the court hearing of appellate instance was filed.

The Court has established the order of evidence examination. The victim didn’t appear to 10 court hearings.

As to motion of the LSC lawyer the Court changed the order of evidence examination and held to go to the examination of 52 witnesses who were examined during the pre-trial examination.

On 7 August 2019 the court changed the procedure of evidence examination due to victim’s failure to appear to the court hearing.

In 2020, court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to various circumstances, including the absence of witnesses and the employment of judges in other trials.

Criminal proceedings regarding torture applied to Klo-ko

            A request with demand to provide a familiarization with the case file and notification of the progress of pre-trial investigation was filed.

Prosecutor provided for a familiarization the case file of criminal proceedings from which it was seen that it was closed by the decision of the prosecutor.

A complaint was filed to an investigator judge of Chervonozavodskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

            Within five months the investigator judge couldn’t examinate the criminal proceedings because prosecutor didn’t provide case file.

An SLC lawyer filed a number of motions regarding the reasonable time of court hearing in relation to the complaint on the decision to close the criminal proceedings including the motion about the prosecutor’s obligation to provide case file.

            On 23 July 2018 the complaint on the decision to close the criminal proceedings was upheld by the investigator judge, the prosecutor’s decision was revoked and the case was submitted to Kharkiv Prosecutor's Office            for pending of pre-trial investigation.

            There was no reply from Kharkiv Prosecutor's Office to the requests with demand to provide a report about the progress of pre-trial investigation. Thus, a complaint about the omissions of the prosecutor was filed to Chervonozavodskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

The SLC lawyer familiarized with case file of the pre-trial investigation and received an adjudication concerning the terminating of criminal proceedings.

The SLC lawyer lodged a complaint to the court regarding the decision about terminating the criminal proceedings.

Chervonozavodskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv considered the SLC lawyer’s appeal on terminating of the case and quashed the decision of prosecutor and remitted the case for conducting a pre-trial investigation.

The SLC lawyer lodged a motion on informing about the process of proceedings but the respond hadn’t been received yet.

The lawyer of SLC sent a request to the Prosecutor's Office of Kharkiv region about the progress of the case, but no answer has been received yet.

In 2020, the investigator issued a decision to terminate the criminal proceedings.

The SLC's lawyer filed a complaint with the court against the investigator's decision.

Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv considered the complaint of the lawyer of the SLC on termination the criminal proceedings and overturned the decision of the prosecutor, the case was sent for pre-trial investigation.

K-chuk case

K-chuk asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. He reported that he was serving his sentence in the Romenska Correctional Colony № 56. According to recent changes in the law, convicts were allowed to use tablets directly in their cells. However, when K-chuk's relatives sent him an expensive tablet, the penitentiary administration took it away and hid it.

In connection with this situation, the SLC lawyer sent a request to the Romenska Correctional Colony regarding the reasons for the seizure of the tablet and its future fate.

In addition, on 20 June 2020, the SLC lawyer asked the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine for clarifications on the use of tablets by convicts in Ukraine, as such a procedure is not clearly described in public regulations.

Kuz-inov’s case

On August 5, 2020, at about 9 a.m., two unknown men, who introduced themselves as police officers, tried to obtain an explanation from Mr. K. and provided him with a paper to do so. Mr. K. refused to give an explanation because the men did not show their IDs. Then these men attacked K. and began to use physical force, began to twist his arms, press their knees on his arms and neck, tighten the handcuffs and pull him to the car. During these actions, the police officers were visited by their chief, however, who did not find any illegal actions on the part of his subordinates.

Mr. K. was found a suspect in criminal proceedings for robbery.

Mr. K. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance.

On August 12, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation located in Poltava alleging that policemen had committed a crime against K., however the entering of complaint in the URPTI was denied and it was transferred to the Department of Internal Safety in Kharkiv region, where it is under consideration to date. No investigative action has been taken on Mr. K.'s statement so far.

On August 26, 2020, the court remanded Mr. K. in custody and ordered the prosecutor in charge of the case to verify the Mr. K. 's statement about the use of illegal methods by police officers. However, the prosecutor did not carry out any inspections.

L-v case

In the end of June 2019 mr. L turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance concerning the situation in State Institution “South CC № 61”, where he was serving a sentence.

At the moment of applying to SLC Mr. L was in Kharkiv SIZO and then was transferred to SI “Kholodnohirska CC № 18“.

On 26 June 2019 Mr. L and the attorney of SLC signed an agreement on legal aid.

On 2 August and 12 September 2019 criminal complaints were lodged to State Investigative Bureau in the city of Mykolayiv.

On 18 November 2019 the motion had been lodged on conduction of procedural actions in criminal proceedings concerning Mr. L as a victim.

On 27 December 2019 the motion had been lodged on conduction of procedural actions in criminal proceedings concerning Mr. L as a victim.

27.03.2020 attorney's inquiries were sent to the Branch of the State Institution "Central Department of Internal Affairs of Ukraine" in Zaporizhia region and to the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Kamyanska VK-101" regarding L.'s health condition, providing medical documents and the situation on preventive measures and the morbidity rate of COVID-19.

On May 12, 2020, a motion was filed for procedural actions in criminal proceedings.

01.06.2020 the complaint to the Zavodsky district court of the city of Nikolayiv against the decision on a termination of criminal proceedings was submitted.

The trial is scheduled for July 3, 2020.

Le-nova case

Russian citizen, Mrs. L. was accused of preparing for forming terrorist group or organization, committing a terrorist attack by organized group and of illegal weapon handling.

On 9 December 2015 a criminal proceedings was opened. Pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings was provided by the Main Investigation Department of the State Security Service of Ukraine.

A lawyer of SLC filed a criminal complaint on abuse of power of prosecutor officer of General Prosecutor’s offiice of Ukraine and applied for his disqualification.

Since the information on lawyer’s criminal complaint was not entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations the lawyer lodged a complaint to the investigating judge.

Also the lawyer lodged a lawyer’s request to General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine on unauthorized interference in private communication of Mrs. L. and her defender.

Moreover the SLC lawyer lodged a complaint to unauthorized interference in private communication Mrs L with her defender to the Court.

The SLS lawyer lodged to the Court a motion on return Mrs L. her passport.

The SLC lawyer prepared a motion on return the indictment act to prosecutor.

Currently the criminal proceedings is taken to Holosiivskyi District court of Kyiv region.

On 10 November 2016 the case hearing was postponed because of the translator’s and victims’ failures to appear in the court.

On 5 December 2016 the case hearing was postponed again because of the translator’s and victims’ failures to appear in the court.

On 16 January 2017, 13 February 2017, 15 March 2017, 19 April 2017 and 11 May 2017 the case hearings were postponed again because of several reasons like victims’ failures to appear in the court, judge take part in another court hearing, providing medical treatment to accused.

On 12 May 2017 the Court adjourned the case hearing to give time for the prosecutor for making indictment act translation.

On 08 June 2017 the prosecutor has not made translation yet, the case hearing was postponed again.

On 09 July 2017 the trial was postponed because of judge vocation.

On 19 October 2017 in preparatory court hearing the SLC lawyer lodged a motion on return the indictment act to prosecutor. But the Court decided to assign the case to trial.

The first court hearing is going to be on 19 December 2017.

In the end of June 2019 the case was considered by the court. The indictment was announced. From July to December 2019 none of court hearings had been conducted due to systematic non-attendance of the prosecutor and jury.

In 2020, a new jury was appointed in the case. The hearing began again. At the moment, an indictment has been announced, the defence has made defensive speeches, and the procedure for examining the evidence has been established.

On July 3, 2020, the court hearing did not take place due to the employment of a lawyer in another trial.

On July 23, 2020, at the court hearing, the lawyer was denied her complaint against the decision to close the criminal proceedings.

On September 28, 2020 the lawyer filed an appeal against the decision of the Zavodskoho district court of the city of Nikolaev from 07/23/2020.

12.10.2020 The Nikolaev court of appeal refused the lawyer in satisfaction of her appeal.

The lawyer is preparing to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

L-kh case

On 13 October 2015 Mr. L. (hereinafter – the applicant) was found guilty by the Volnovakha district court of Donetsk region. The applicant was accused of participation in a terrorist organization so-called “Donetsk people’s republic”. The applicant was sentenced to 8-years imprisonment.

On 22 December 2015 the Court of Appeal of Donetsk region changed the abovementioned sentence. The applicant’s actions were qualified as participation in an unlawful paramilitary group. The applicant was sentenced to 5-years imprisonment.

In March 2015 the applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid. As it turned out, the applicant had stated for many times during the preliminary investigation that he had been subjected to beating by the Security Service of Ukraine’s officers while staying under detention. Also he had stated that his arrest and detention were unlawful.

The SLC lawyer drafted a cassation appeal and filed it to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on 22 March 2017. In the appeal the SLC lawyer stated that the applicant had been unlawfully arrested and held under detention in a place which is not prescribed by the law to be a place of detention. In addition, the SLC lawyer stated that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment, his right to protection was violated, and the courts grounded their sentences with inadmissible evidences (among other, they used his alleged partial confession of guilt).

On 24 May 2017 the High Specialized Court of Ukraine made a decision on initiating the court procedure in the applicant’s case. The court provided the Prosecutor’s Office with an opportunity to file written objections to the cassation appeal.

03.03.2020 The Supreme Court considered the lawyer's cassation appeal and left the court decisions in the case unchanged. At the same time, the court did not take into account the lawyer's arguments that violations of the CPC of Ukraine were committed during the conduct and registration of the results of covert investigative (search) actions. The essence of the Supreme Court's reasoning is that all these arguments had to be made by the defence during the proceedings in the lower courts.

Mak-ko case

Mrs.M is a victim in criminal proceedings which is taken regarding the doctor F. who is charged with criminal offence prescribed by Part 1 Art.140 of Criminal Code of Ukraine by the fact of the death of Mrs.M husband and medicine experiments that were applied to him. The case is under the consideration of Krasnohvardyiskyi District Court in the city of Dnipro.

Occurence happened in 2016 thus it’s hard to gather all the data and file the necessary documents. There is no incontestable evidence of Mr.F guilt because of unlawfulness of forensic expertise made concerning the fact of death.

During 2018 year there were approximately 20 court hearings appointed and led, 14 witnesses were examined. Interrogation of witnesses is going on.

20 court hearings were appointed and conducted in 2019, witnesses were questioned, case files and evidence were examined.

In 2020, 5 court hearings were held. The trial is coming to an end. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2020.

In the second half of 2020, court hearings were scheduled for July 2, August 18, October 2, October 19, December 7, some of which did not take place for various reasons.

The next court hearing is scheduled for 2021.

N-na case

Ms. N-na, who is accused of fraud, asked the SLC lawer for legal assistance. Ms. N. reported that on 21 January 2020, the Dvorichansky District Court of the Kharkiv Region sentenced her to three years imprisonment with probation period of a maximum term of 3 years.

However, on 10 March 2020, the Prosecutor's Office in Kharkiv region filed an appeal requesting that N-na must be sent to a penitentiary institution to serve her sentence, as she had committed the crime again.

Ms. N-na in her turn stated that she had four children and that her youngest daughter has encephalitis. The children do not have a father.

In view of these circumstances, on 24 June 2020, the SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-files of the criminal proceedings against N-na and prepared written objections.

On 30 June, 2020, the court hearing in the Kharkiv Court of Appeal did not take place due to the fact that the judge was on leave.

On 15 December 2020 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor's appeal and sent N. to serve his sentence in a correctional colony. However, the lawyer did not agree with the decision and is preparing a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

P-ar case

            In October 2009 after the consistent two-weeks treatment in three hospitals of Kharkiv 27-year-old P. died with the high temperature. According to the report of forensic medical examination the cause of death was acute pancreatitis with transition to pancreas necrosis.

The district Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv city refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the fact of death of P., but further their ruling was quashed by the prosecutor of higher lever and transferred to the district police department for conduction of additional verification. In January 2010 the new ruling about refuse to initiate criminal proceedings was issued. This ruling was quashed by the district court in May 2010.

In 2010 the materials of verification were transferred to the Main Bureau of the forensic medical examinations of Kyiv city for conduction of commission forensic examination, the report of which was received only in October 2012.

After taking into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (of 2012) the information about sudden death of P. was registered in the URPTI, but no new investigative actions were conducted in the present proceedings. At the end of 2013, the criminal proceedings were closed, while the father of P. who is the victim in the proceedings, was not informed about its closing.

After applying of the victim to the SLC, the lawyer of the SLC involved the specialist in the sphere of forensic medical examination, and a doctor of the relevant specialization, for obtaining of consultation and medical conclusion. The lawyer prepared the appeal against the decision about closing of criminal proceedings, however the investigation body had not provided the lawyer with the copy of this decision, despite the complaints to the district and city Prosecutor’s Offices. In the absence of evidence of obtaining the decision much later than the date of its issuance, there is no real chances that the complaint against the decision will be considered by the court. Now the lawyer initiates the complaining proceedings for obtaining this decision by means of court order.

In October 2014, the lawyer complaint to the investigator’s refusal to give a copy of the investigator’s decision on termination of the criminal proceedings, and the District court granted this complaint.

Having obtained the copy of the decision, the lawyer complaint the decision itself to the investigative judge of the District court, and in November, 2014, the court granted the complaint and ordered to the investigator to continue the investigation.

No one investigative action was carried out after the revocation of the resolution to close the criminal proceedings. Because of this the SLC lawyer lodged to the investigator the motion to carry out additional investigatory actions, particularly, a complex forensic medical examination.

After reversal of the investigator’s resolution, the case file was passed for the investigation to another District Police Department, but this has not been informed neither to the lawyer, no to the victim’s father. In October, 2015 the lawyer was informed about the disposition of the case, and he addressed to the new (Dzerzhinskyi) Police Department. At the end of December, 2015 the on the request of the lawyer the new investigator questioned the victim’s father in detail, to define necessary investigation actions.

In 2016 it was another change of investigator in the case. For certain time, the case file was passed to the investigation department of the regional department of the National Police. After returning the case file, the SLC lawyer submitted the motion for a forensic medical examination (to determine whether the treatment of the victim Mr P.’s dead son was in accordance with the medical protocols) and the forensic handwriting examination to determine the issue of falsification of medical records.

In December 2016 the investigator granted all the requests and prepares materials for sending experts.

In January 2018, the investigator directed the case-file to the Kharkiv Bureau of Forensic Examinations for the examination, which was finished only on June 20, 2018, but neither the victim nor his lawyer was informed about its completion.

In September 2018, the lawyer got acquainted with the case-file, in particular, with the medical forensic examination report which did not establish violations of medical rules during the treatment of the deceased son of Mr. P. P. in al of the hospitals. It turned out that the examination was not carried out on the originals of documents but on their copies, since the originals, together with other medical evidence, were not transferred when the materials were handed over from one investigative body to another one. The graphological examination was not conducted because, according to its rules, it can be carried out using only the original documents, but they were given copies of such.

Having known this, in October 2018 the lawyer filed a request to the former Kominternivsky Police Department of Kharkiv city about who, when and to whom the materials of the proceedings were handed over, but did not receive the reply.

Having repeatedly requested and again did not receive an answer, in December 2018 the lawyer lodgeda request to the Kharkiv Regional Bar to bring the officers of the police department who were guilty of failing to his lawyer's request, to administrative liability. The head of the Bar refused to draw up a report on such an administrative offense, referring to that this should be resolved within the framework of criminal proceedings.

Having exhausted his own possibilities to find the missing materials of criminal proceedings, the lawyer on January 4, 2019 addressed the Poltava Department of the State Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter - the Poltava SBI Office) with a criminal complaint on the official negligence of the investigator, which led to the loss of evidence.

Having no received a response to his criminal complaint, on January 23, 2019 the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Oktyabrsky District Court of Poltava for inactivity of the investigators of the Poltava SBI Office, which the investigator judge granted on January 31, 2019.

Upon satisfaction of the said complaint, the lawyer sent a statement to the Poltava SBI Office to provide him with an extract from the URPI, as well as a motion for the involvement of Mr P. as a victim in the case and his interrogation as a victim.

On 16 May 2019, the Poltava SBI Office sent a letter informing Mr. P. that he was recognized as a victim in the case.

On June 3, 2019, the lawyer again got acquainted with the case-file in the investigation division of the Shevchenko Police Department of Kharkiv, during which he suddenly found among them a cover letter from the investigator Slobidsky (formerly Kominternivsky) Police Department of Kharkiv city, dated of 22 October 2018, informing that they were sent to the Shevchenko police department, in connection with the lawyer's request for missing criminal proceedings.

At present, the lawyer works to ensure that, upon commissioning the originals of medical documents, to get carrying out the handwriting and graphological (for establishing the membership of the signatures contained in medical documents, certain persons) examinations.

In January 2020, the SLC lawyer senta personal reception to the head of the investigative department of the Kholodnohirsky police department regarding the investigation into the allegation of official forgery by experts, but no investigative actions were carried out. After that, the lawyer twice applied to the investigator of this police department with a request to include in the materials of the Kholodnohirsk police department part of the materials of the “main” investigation of the Shevchenkivsky police department, but did not receive a response. After the investigator did not respond to the repeated request, the lawyer appealed to the Leninsky Court in Kharkiv against the investigator's inaction.

At the same time, the lawyer took steps to intensify the investigation into the "main" criminal proceedings at the Shevchenkivskyi Police Department. At present, the investigator has prepared case materials for sending to the Central Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations in Kyiv for a second forensic medical examination.

R-yk case

R. lives in MI "Zmiiv geriatric boarding house" due to congenital mental disorders - F70.

On May 21, 2020, R. turned to the SLC for help because he had been injured in the boarding house, the son of a saleswoman who was carrying out the outbound trade in the boarding house, and the staff of the boarding house did not take any legal action.

On May 22, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC went to the town of Zmiiv, where an examination of R.'s health was conducted and a request was made for procedural actions in criminal proceedings on the fact of inflicting bodily injuries on R.

On May 27, 2020, the lawyer participated in the interrogation of R. as a victim.

On June 5, 2020, an investigative experiment was conducted in R.'s room at the boarding house where he was injured.

On June 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for investigative actions.

On July 15, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for investigative actions.

On the same day, she sent letters to the Department of Social Protection and to the Zmiiv Geriatric Сare Home, requesting that R.'s application for the latter's transfer to the Khoroshevsky Geriatric Сare Home be granted, as the latter complained of deteriorating treatment of the Zmiiv Сare Home staff. In response, formal replies were received.

On August 11, 2020, the lawyer sent another request for procedural actions and a complaint to the Chuhuiv local prosecutor's office for the inaction of the investigator and the delay of the trial. The prosecutor's office said that the investigator had changed to an investigator and the pre-trial investigation was ongoing.

 On November 2, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for investigative actions.

 On November 16, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court against the investigator's inaction. On November 20, 2020, the complaint was satisfied.

Se-nov case

Mr. S. is an Ukrainian citizen, who is currently living and working in Kharkiv. He has previously been convicted.

On 3 February 2012 he was actually arrested by police officers on suspicion of attempted murder more than two people.

On 6 February 2012 the District Court chose a detention as a preventive measure for Mr. S.

On 9 February 2012 the investigators of the Dzerzhinsky District Police Station had meeting with Mr. S. in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre. During this meeting, the investigators presented indictment and interrogated Mr. S. without a lawyer. According to the CPC the lawyer obligatory takes part in this category of cases. Also the investigators forged the data about lawyer’s participation during investigation in the report.

On 22 January 2016 Mr. S. was recognized as a victim in criminal proceeding against investigators K. and N. of Dzerzhinsky District Police Station (violation of the right to defence).

On 26 January 2016 the investigator K. and N. were noticed on suspicion of forgery.

The cases against the investigators were examined separately in the different District Courts.

On 1 February 2016 the District Court chose a dismissal and a personal commitment as a preventive measure for the investigator K.

On 12 February 2016 another District Court chose a dismissal for the investigator N.

During the trial the investigators K. and N. did not admit their guilt although the evidence of theirs guilt was indisputable.

On 1 March 2016 the indictment of K. was sent to the Zhovtnevy District Court. On 4 March 2016 the indictment of N. was sent to the Dzerzhinsky District Court.

At the request of the victim, on 10 March 2016 the SLC lawyer entered to the K.’s case and on 17 March 2016 the SLC lawyer entered to the N.’s case. During the K.’s trial accused person, victim and almost all witnesses were questioned. The N.’s trial is delayed due to defender’s ungrounded requests of challenge to the judge and the prosecutor.

In relation to N.’s trial the SLC lawyer sent the requests for discovery of additional evidence in criminal proceedings, declared the requests of access to documents which might be considered as proofs.

The K.‘s trial was postponed several times due to the absence of defender and because the judge’s being busy. The both trial is currently pending.

During judicial investigation the court questioned almost all witnesses, an accused person and the victim.

An accused person fired.

On 6 October 2016 the judicial investigation terminated.

On 21 October 2016 the court meeting was postponed due to judge’s being busy.

On 16 December 2016 the court meeting was postponed.

On 21 March 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to absence of accused person.

On 24 May 2017 the court meeting did not take place because of termination of authority of judge.

The court meeting was appointed by the new trial on 29 August 2017

On 29 August 2017 the court meeting was not taken place due to the absence of the lawyer.

On 28 September 2017 the court meeting was not taken place due to the prosecutor’s participation in another trials.

On 1 November and 6 December 2017 and 29 January, 7 March, 19 April, 12 June 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to judges’ business.

On 11.07.2018, the case was postponed due to the absence of the defence counsel. The next hearing was scheduled for 26.09.2018.

On 26.09.2018 the motion of the defence counsel for the disqualification of the prosecutor. The next hearing was scheduled for 08.10.2018.

On 08.10.2018, the hearing was postponed due to the motion of the defendant. The next hearing was scheduled for 20.11.2018.

On 20.11.2018, the hearing was postponed due to the absence of the defendant.

On 16 January 2019 the consideration of the case was postponed due to absence and his representative. The next court hearing was appointed on 19.03.19.

On 19 March 2019 the court consideration of the case was postponed due to absence of the victim. The next court hearing was appointed on 16.04.19.

On 16 April 2019 the court consideration was postponed due to inability of the representative to attend the court hearing. The next court hearing was appointed on 24.06.19.

On 24 June 2019 the court consideration was postponed due to presence of the judge in a counseling room.

On 18 July 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of the judge.

On 11 September 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of the defender.

On 04 November 2019 the court hearing was postponed in conjunction with judge’s being in a deliberation room.

On 16 December 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to judge’s preoccupation.

On March 4, 2020, the case was postponed due to the judge's stay in the deliberation room. The next meeting was scheduled for March 31, 2020.

On March 31, 2020, the case was postponed due to the epidemic. The next meeting was scheduled for May 26, 2020.

On May 26, 2020, the trial was postponed due to the statement of the defendant's defence counsel to adjourn the case. The next hearing is scheduled for July 3, 2020.

The case continues.

Sen-ko case

Sen-ko serves life imprisonment in a Romenska correctional colony. The administration of this institution, through its unlawful actions, brought Mr. Sen-ko to a cardiac arrest.

On 04.09.2019 during the search, a prison officer demanded that Sen-ko go out into the corridor and remove his clothes. Sent-ko had not ben undressed yet when an officer began to pull his pants off himself with the use of physical violence and threats. After that in the presence of the other convicts and staff members, the prison officer began threatening Sen-ko to conduct a search with penetration into the anal opening, using a metal detector, which the officer waved in front of the Sen-ko’s face.

Later, Sen-ko lost consciousness, doctors recorded a cardiac arrest.

After that, S-ko asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal aid. On 17 September 2019 the SLC lawyer sent to the correctional colony a lawyer's request and request for admission of a psychiatrist to S-ka.

On 25 September 2019 the lawyer together with the psychiatrist visited S-ka. During the visit, the doctor examined him and recommended the treatment, and the lawyer took explanations and statements.

On 27 September 2019, the lawyer sent to the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine and the State Bureau of investigation in Poltava the statement of crime, but the information stated in his claim was not entered in the Unified register of pre-trial investigations. In addition, a request was made to the Prosecutor's Office of the Sumy Region for the actions taken by the Prosecutor's Office regarding Sen-ko’s health state.

On 16.10.2019 the lawyer again sent a statement of crime to the State Bureau of investigation in Poltava city. However no action was taken

On 25 October 2019 the Zhovtnevyy district court in Poltava had granted the lawyer's complaint about the inactivity of the State Bureau of investigation in the city of Poltava and obliged the authorized person to enter in the Unified Register of pre-trial investigations the information stated in the lawyer's complaint dated 16.10.2019.

On 30 October 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a request to the Temnovsk Correctional Colony to receive information about medical treatment for S-ka.

On 13 November 2019, a request was sent to the State Bureau of investigation in Poltava regarding the stage of execution of the court decision by 25.10.2019; however on 27.12.2019 the State Bureau responded that there was no reason to enter information to the Unified register of the pre-trial investigation.

On 06.12.2019 the SLC lawyer sent a request to the Prosecutor's Offices of Sumy Region and Romensk Local Prosecution regarding actions taken to verify the illegal activity of the prisoner’s officers.

On January 23, 2020, attorneys' inquiries were sent to the Branch of the Central Department of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Sumy Region, the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Romenska Correctional Colony № 56" and the State Institution "Romenska Correctional Colony № 56" regarding a search in S.'s cell on September 4, 2019 and a medical examination of S. according to the recommendations provided by doctors of Temnivska multidisciplinary hospital № 100.

Also, a request was sent to the TD SBI in Poltava for procedural actions.

24.01.2020 the opinion of a specialist doctor on the psychological violence inflicted on S. by the colony staff was received.

On March 13, 2020, a petition was sent to the SBI TD in Poltava regarding procedural actions.

On April 10, 2020, attorney's inquiries were sent to Romenska Correctional colony 56 and the medical part of Romenska Correctional colony 56 regarding all the client's characteristics available in the personal file materials.

On April 24, 2020, S. sent a statement to the SLC refusing legal assistance.

Sh-ko case

On 22 May 2019 Mr. Sh B turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance. He stated that on 28 March 2018 he became a victim of an attack of members of “Tradition and Order organization” on the basis of sexual orientation.

On 7 June 2019 he lodged a criminal complaint.

On 14 June 2019 he lodged a complaint to investigative judge concerning non-entering the complaint in URPTI.

On 23 Jule 2019 an SLC lawyer filed an application to provide information on the execution of the court's decision to enter information in the URPTI upon the criminal complaint.

On 12 August 2019 a motion on procedural action had been lodged to an investigator.

On 6 September 2019 a request on the progress of criminal proceedings had been sent.

On 18 November 2019 a request concerning the stage of criminal proceedings and a motion on conduction of procedural actions were filed.

On 15 December 2019 a second interrogation of Mr. Sh had been conducted with a presence of a SLC attorney.

13.03.2020 writing a petition for investigative actions to the investigator.

15.05.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

18.06.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

On November 2, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion for procedural actions with the investigator.

On December 7, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion for procedural actions with the investigator.

On December 23, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court concerning the investigator's inaction. The court hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2021.

Sh-na case

In May 2019 Ms. SH turned to SLC asking to provide legal assistance. She reported that on she became a victim of an attack conducted by member of organization “Tradition and order” who thwarted an event involving members of the LGBT community, in particular Ms. Sh.

On 4 October 2019 Ms. Sh and the attorney of SLC signed an agreement on legal aid.

On 22 October 2019 a request was made to the Chief of the Shevchenkivsky District Police Station in Kharkiv region with a request to provide information on the stage of pre-trial investigation.

On 18 November 2019 a second request was sent to the chief of Shevchenkivskyi district police department in Kharkiv region with a request to provide information on the stage of pre-trial investigation of criminal proceedings.

During the admission to the Chief of the Shevchenkivsky District Police Station in the Kharkiv region a new information was find out that the investigator who conducted the pre-trial investigation on November 1, 2019 was released, and the new investigator has not appointed yet.

On January 9, 2020, a complaint was filed against the inaction of responsible persons, which consisted in not appointing a new investigator in the criminal proceedings to the head of the Shevchenkivskyi Police Department in Kharkiv of the GDNP in Kharkiv Oblast.

On February 24, 2020, a lawyer’s request was submitted to the head of the Shevchenkivskyi ID of the city of Kharkiv in the Kharkiv region regarding the stage of the pre-trial investigation.

12.03.2020 sending an application for recognition of Sha-oi as a victim.

14.05.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

18.06.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

On October 16, 2020, the lawyer filed a request for procedural actions with the investigator, to which she did not receive any response.

On October 30, 2020, the lawyer filed complaints about the inaction and delay of the pre-trial investigation by the responsible persons of the Shevchenkivsky ID of the GDNP in the Kharkiv region to the Kharkiv local prosecutor's office 1 and to the Ombudsman.

On November 2, 2020, the lawyer filed another request for procedural actions with the investigator, to which she did not receive any response.

On November 17, 2020, the lawyer appealed to the investigating judge with a complaint about the investigator's inaction.

U-kov case

On 27 June 2008 several police officers came to apartment of spouse Mr, and Mrs. U., and took the latter to Frunzenskyy District Police Station in Kharkiv for being questioned concerning to the murder of Mr L. whose dead body had been found in a courtyard nearby the U’s apartment.

In the station Mr. U. was tortured by difficult ways, namely was being cruelty beaten, suffocated with a gas mask with a smoke inside, twisted with his handcuffed arms behind his back etc., and he confessed in the murder of Mr.L that he allegedly had not committed. At the same time, the police has compelled Mrs. U. to give statement incriminating his husband in the crime, using physical abuse and threatening with exercising more physical abuse. Both Mr. and. Mrs. U. have not been provided with a lawyer at that time.

On 1 July 2008 Mr.U. was escorted to the Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor’s Office for questioning by the prosecutor in course of consideration of the investigator’s request to the court on Mr. U.’s pre-trial detention. The prosecutor has seen Mr. U.’s multiple injuries and he refused to approve the investigator’s request and released Mr. U.

Four angry police officers broke into the Prosecutor’s Office, take out the spouse from the office of the Deputy District Prosecutor who questioned the spouse and brought them to the police station located nearby. On the way, one of the officers kicked Mr. U.

After the District Prosecutor having come to the station, the police officers pulled Mr. U. out from the station through the window. In course of the search of the station, Mrs. U. has been found I one of its rooms.

In course of criminal proceedings against Mr. U., the SLC lawyer many times challenged the unlawfulness of the police actions but the prosecutor’s offices and domestic courts did not pay much attention to that.

The Kharkiv Court of Appeal twice tried Mr. U.’s case and on 4 July 2012 found him guilty and sentenced him for 14 years imprisonment.

At the end of 2012 SLC lawyer lodged the complaint to the ECtHR on the violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

On 22 January 2013 the Higher Specialized Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment. After that the SLC lawyer appended the application before the ECtHR with the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention in the aspect of use by the national courts Mr. U.’s testimonies obtained by means of ill-treatment.

On June 18, 2015 the European court of human rights holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive land procedural limbs in respect of both Mr. and Mrs. U. and a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of the Mr. U.

In October 2015 the CSL lawyer submitted a motion to the Supreme court of Ukraine to retrial the case because of declared violation of Article 6 of the Convention

On 22 December 2015 the Supreme court of Ukraine cancelled all previous decisions and sent the case to the trial court. At the same time the Supreme court of Ukraine has not considered a question of the preliminary measure, accordingly Mr. Us. has not been released from custody He was transferred to the Kharkiv detention centre although there was no court decision of his detention, and the complaint of the lawyer on Mr. U.’s detention was unsuccessful/

On 18 February 2016 Frunzenskyy district court of Kharkiv started a new trial and changed Mr. U.’s pre-trial detention to obligation to appear to court, upon the request of the defence.

In August 2016, the SLC lawyer lodged the application to the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention on the matter of his holding in custody without the authorizing judicial decision after revocation the judgements by the Supreme Court and until changing of the measure of restraint.

In 2016, there were several court hearings in a case in which the accused Mr U. and several prosecution witnesses were questioned. In November 2016, due to a long illness of one judge of the judicial panel he was replaced by another one, and the trial was started from the beginning.

In 2017, more than 10 hearings of the case were appointed, but in fact there were only four. In October 2017, the next change happened in the judicial panel, and the case began to hear for the third time first. After this, before the year of the year, no hearing was actually held.

In 2018, the hearings were scheduled around 20 times but really there were only three ones. Several court hearings are scheduled to the beginning of 2019.

The prosecutor submitted the appeal against the aforementioned decision, and on 5 June 2019, the Dnipro Court of Appeal, after repeated adjournment of the case, reversed the decision of the trial court and passed the new decision, which refused Mr M. to release, given the severity of te crimes committed by him, and the fact that he has disciplinary penalty while serving his sentence.

After exhausting national remedies, the SLC lawyer contemplates the possibility of applying to the European Court of Human Rights.

In July 2019, the court questioned a forensic expert who was involved in the inspection of the scene. In September 2019, one of the witnesses, a neighbour who was called by police to the crime scene, was interrogated, but the witness did not see the victim's corpse there.

There were several more hearings after that, but they hadn’t been conducted due to the absence of witnesses / experts or the employment of judges in other cases.

After that, the court hearings in late 2019 - early 2020 were not held, and later it was due to quarantine over the coronavirus epidemic.

On July 10, 2020, an investigator was interrogated, who began a pre-trial investigation into the case, including conducting an inspection of the scene, an investigative experiment, and ordering examinations. During interrogation, the former investigator, who is now a senior member of the Main Directorate of the Regional Police, found in his memory even small details of the events of 12 years ago, the circumstances of his investigative actions and testifying to suspects (at that time) defendants. The main thesis of his testimony was that his investigation was carried out in strict compliance with the norms of the CPC of Ukraine.

The court decided on a plan for further consideration of the case, granting the lawyer's request to call experts. The hearing is due to continue at the end of August 2020.

After that, the court hearings in late 2019 - early 2020 were not held, and later it was due to quarantine over the coronavirus epidemic.

On July 10, 2020, an investigator was interrogated, who began a pre-trial investigation into the case, including conducting an inspection of the scene, an investigative experiment, and ordering examinations. During interrogation, the former investigator, who is now a senior member of the Main Directorate of the Regional Police, found in his memory even small details of the events of 12 years ago, the circumstances of his investigative actions and testifying to suspects (at that time) defendants. The main thesis of his testimony was that his investigation was carried out in strict compliance with the norms of the CPC of Ukraine.

The court decided on a plan for further consideration of the case, granting the lawyer's request to call experts. The hearing is due to continue at the end of August 2020.

V-kov and V-kova case

On 08 July 2017 Kropyvnytskiy police office opened a criminal proceeding in fact on improper performance of professional duties by healthcare worker. Mrs V. O., who was born in 1988 and Mrs V.V., who was born in 1971 are victims in this criminal proceeding. This criminal proceeding was opened in fact of death of Mrs V.O. new-born children: boy named XTAA and girl, named XCAA. Another child, who was born that day, was alive. Victims were interrogated by the policeman.

The SLC lawyer sent a motion on demanding all medical documentation related with death of children and Mrs V.O. health.

Moreover, the SLC lawyer as a client’s representative, sent to the ombudsman an application where describe a situation and asked to renovate Mrs V.O. and Mrs V.V. rights.

In addition the SLC lawyer sent a motion on the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination. The policemen took a resolution of the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination and sent the case file to forensic examination centre.

The investigator issued a decision on the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination and sent the materials of the criminal proceedings and all the collected medical documents to the expert institution.

The case was sent to an expert institution for forensic examination.

In January 2020, the lawyer sent an attorney's request to the Kropyvnytskyi ID of the PO GDNP in the Kirovohrad region to provide information regarding the criminal proceedings, which were sent for examination. In February 2020, a response was received about the presence of materials in the expert institution and the examination that had being conducted by experts.

In April 2020, the investigator informed the lawyer of the SLC about the return of criminal proceedings to the Kropyvnytskyi ID of the PO GDNP in Kirovohrad region with a request to attach additional evidence (part of the additional evidence in the medical institutions where the victim was examined). In addition, it was proposed to provide medical documents from the clinic where the victim underwent IVF (in vitro fertilization) in Libya, translated into Ukrainian.

Due to the quarantine, the victim was not able to provide documents, but is currently taking all measures to obtain documents and transport them to the territory of Ukraine. After providing all the documents, the materials of the criminal proceedings will be sent to an expert for further investigation.

           

V-din case

Mr. V asked the KHPG because he was prohibited to use a multi-cooker at the Zamkova correctional colony. He pointed that such prohibition had neither legal grounds nor sense.

As the prohibition was oral (not written) on 5 December 2019 the SLC lawyer made similar requests to the Zamkova correction colony and Central – West interregional department on execution of punishment with the question whether prisoners might use multi-cookers and, if not, so why. In reply the department informed that using of such devices was prohibited because multi-cooker did not enlist to the list of material things which allowed at the penitentiary institutions. The Zamkova correctional colony did not answer on the question at all.

Therefore the SLC lawyer also made a request to the State criminal execution service of Ukraine related reasons of such prohibition. In reply the State criminal execution service informed that the main reason of prohibition was another prohibition for prisoners to have food pro

After studying the current legislation and examining the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit with the Kyiv District Administrative Court regarding the illegality of the ban on the use of multicookers and the receipt of products in need of heat treatment by convicts.

On 11 May 2020, the court left the claim without motion and gave time to correct the deficiencies. SLC lawyer sent a corrected statement to the court.

Consideration of the case is pending.

34 cases ended in success

Ah-va case

Mrs. Ah-va, October 18, 1987 is accused of several counts under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illicit trafficking in narcotic substances). The prosecution supports the prosecutor's office of Dnipro region. She committed the crime in the period of serving the sentence under Art. 321 the Criminal Code with the probation. The defence applied on amnesty concerning this sentence.

There are two criminal proceedings which had been considering in Samarskyi District Court related to Ms. A charge on Art. 307, part 2 of CC. As to the first proceedings there were 15 hearings held during 2018. Only two witnesses were interrogated. An SLC lawyer initiated an amnesty process with the aim to avoid a real sentence in the case of convince verdict.

As to the second case, preliminary court hearings took place during 2018 - at which the SLC lawyer filed a motion to return the prosecutor's indictment. The court granted the motion. The Prosecutor's Office appealed against this decision. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and referred the case for reconsideration. Following the return of the proceedings, a preparatory hearing was held. The case is appointed to be considered on the merits.

During 2019 there were 12 court hearings held concerning the first case. On 15 November 2019, the court issued a judgment of acquittal. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the court's acquittal.

The SLC lawyer received and examined the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal and filed written objections.

During 2020, the trial was postponed several times. The next court hearing in the Court of Appeal is scheduled for July 1, 2020.

In another criminal case against Ms. A., on February 24, 2020, after numerous court hearings, the court acquitted Mr. A.

The prosecutor filed an appeal against the court's acquittal.

The SLC lawyer received and examined the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal and filed written objections.

2 court hearings were held. The next court hearing in the Court of Appeal was scheduled for 13.08.2020.

18.08.2020 by a decision of the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal, the acquittal was overturned and the proceedings were remanded for a new trial.

Due to the obvious illegality of such a decision (absence of grounds provided by law) and the lack of legislative control over the possibility of appealing such a decision a statement was made to clarify the court decision, and a cassation appeal was filed. The explanation of the court decision was denied, as well as the opening of cassation proceedings.

Due to the presence of the High Council of Justice decision in a similar situation with regard to the judges of the Sumy oblast panel of judges, the issue of sending a complaint to the High Council of Justice is being agreed upon.

However, the proceedings were transferred for a new trial to the Samara District Court of Dnipro, where 3 court hearings have already taken place. The next court hearing is scheduled for January 25, 2020.

A-s case

Mr. A., who is a citizen of Tajikistan, is being persecuted by Tajik law enforcement agencies because of his political position.

At the end of September 2019, Mr. A. applied for additional protection in Ukraine and simultaneously asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in relation to this case.

On 10 October 2019, the court granted the prosecutor's request and applied to Mr. A. an extradition arrest for 60 days.

On 11 October 2019, the SLC lawyer filed an appeal against the decision of the trial court.

Appeals were adjourned by the court several times.

On 5 December 2019, the court granted the prosecutor's request and extended Mr. A.'s extradition arrest for 60 days. The SLC lawyer appealed against the decision.

On 23 December 2019, the court of appeal postponed consideration of the appeal claim against decision from 5 December 2019 to 14 January 2020 due to the lack of the case-files in the court.

On 26 December 2019 the court of appeal postponed consideration of the appeal claim against decision from 10 October 2019 to 11 February 2020.

On January 14, 2020, the Kyiv Court of Appeal fully granted the request of the SLC lawyer and issued a new decision refusing to extend the extradition arrest and choosing a new measure of restraint in the form of a personal commitment.

State Migration Service of Ukraine in Kyiv accepted Mr. A.'s application for protection in Ukraine.

On February 11, 2020, the SMS of Ukraine in Kyiv denied Mr. A.’s documents for protection in Ukraine.

On February 15, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the S State Migration Service of Ukraine against the decision of the SMS of Ukraine in Kyiv.

On March 20, 2020, the prosecutor's office refused to file a new request to extend the measure of restraint in the form of a personal commitment.

On September 7, 2020, the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv opened the proceedings in the case (written, without notification of the parties).

On September 14, 2020, the prosecutor's office (simultaneously with the SBU) received a request from the Ministry of Justice for updated information regarding the asylum seeker, as the European Court of Human Rights has begun proceedings of the case (communication with the Government has already taken place).

On September 15, 2020, the prosecutor's office received a "notification of Mr. A.'s involvement in the crimes". Prosecutor asked Mr. A. and his attorney to provide explanations about Mr. A.’s place of residence.

On September 16, 2020, Mr. A. provided an explanation to the prosecutor about his place of residence. Mr. A. indicated that if his address changes, he will notify the prosecutor's office and the migration service.

On September 17, 2020, the prosecutor informed Mr. A.'s lawyer about the need to renew the measure of restraint. Mr. A.’s attorney stated his willing to be present at the court hearing, but pointed out an objective reason for his inability.

On September 18, 2020, Mr. A. was detained by SBU officials, who, under psychological pressure, began demanding that Mr. A. refrain from his evidence and explanations to the European Court of Human Rights about him being tortured, ill-treated and a subject of illegal detention in a secret SBU prison.

On September 18, 2020, a judge of the Pechersk court sentenced him to 24-hour house arrest with an electronic surveillance device.

On September 21, 2020, an appeal was filed.

On September 30, 2020, the court hearing on the appeal was postponed due to lack of court documents and re-scheduled for October 8, 2020.

On October 8, 2020, the court hearing was postponed to October 20, 2020.

On October 20, 2020, the court hearing was postponed to November 9, 2020.

On November 9, 2020, the appeal was fully satisfied, the court decision was overturned and a preventive measure was chosen on the offer of attorney side - a personal obligation.

On November 16, 2020, the court granted the prosecutor’s request to extend the personal obligation.

B-v case

On 15 October 2019, B. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in connection with the non-provision him of medical care which should be carried out in case of his illnesses and failure of the colony staff to submit to court a motion on his release from serving sentences due to his grievous diseases

B. is serving a sentence in Kamyanska correctional colony (No. 101) according to the verdict from 01.11.2016 in which the court found him guilty and sentenced to 4 (four) years of imprisonment.

On 8 February 2019, B. arrived at the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (No. 101) to serve his sentence. During the first medical examination after arriving in the colony, the client told the head of medical about his diseases: stage IV HIV, hepatitis B and C, chronic anaemia of severe degree, chronic hearing and pain in his stomach).

On 17 October 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a request to the Centre of medical care in Zaporizhya region and to the Medical unit of Kamyanska correctional colony regarding B’s diagnoses, recommendations, and copies of medical documentation. On 19 November 2019 the SLC lawyer received copies of medical documentation.

According to the received documents, B. received ART-therapy form February to August 2017 and in June 2019 which is indicated in his medical certification.

On 11 December 2019, the lawyer filed a motion for release from further serving of the sentence due to grievous illnesses.

The court hearing was scheduled on 24 December 2019, however, due to the fact that B. was still on the way from one penitentiary institution to another, the court hearing was postponed.

On January 30, 2020, a court hearing was held in which the lawyer's request for release from further imprisonment was granted due to a serious illness, and Mr. B. was released.

Gna-k case

Mrs. G., a citizen of Poland, is a lecturer at the National University “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”.

At the beginning of 2020, the SMS of Ukraine in Kyiv deprived Ms. G. of registration in Ukraine without explanation.

In June 2020, Ms. G. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On June 23 and 24, 2020, the lawyer of SLC sent attorney’s requests to the CNAP of Podilsky district of Kyiv and the SMS of Ukraine in Kyiv region with a request to provide information and relevant documents regarding the deregistration of Ms. G.

Following attorney’s legal intervention, Ms. H. re-applied to the CNAP, which renewed her registration.

Gu-nova case

Mrs. G is a Ukrainian citizen who lives in Horlivka, Donetskyy region. She has a 5-years old daughter.

In October 2012 Mrs. G decided to live with her civil partner in Kharkiv but when her child was born, Mrs. G returned to Horlivka. Time by time she came to Kharkiv to ger allowance for young mothers. All thet time her permanent residence was registered in Horlivka.

When the Antiterrorist operation was started, Mrs. G came to Kharkiv.

In August 2015 Mrs. G asked the Department of social care to give her a certificate of IDP. Her application was granted. Also, she was informed that might get a monthly targeted allowance. Mrs. G submitted an application on such allowance. From 4 November 2015 to 3 February 2016, from 22 February 2016 to 21 August 2018 she got it.

Since August 2017 the department of social care cut off payments and cancelled the IDP’s certificate without any reasons. Only on 9 November 2017 Mrs. G was informed about that decision and was proposed to return the monthly targeted allowance in the amount of 22113 hryvna. Mrs. G did not agree.

27 March 2018 she was noticed on suspicion of fraud under Article 190 of the CC of Ukraine. The preliminary measure was not chosen for her.

On the same day Mrs. G asked the SLC lawyer to provide her with legal assistance.

The criminal proceedings were sent to the Moskovskyy district court in Kharkiv on consideration.

On 15 May 2018 the pre-trial court meeting took place. The SLC lawyer filed an oral motion on returning the indictment to the investigation because it was in consistent with the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine. The Judge noticed that such motion had to be written. So the court meeting was postponed on 11 June 2018

On 11 June 2018 the SLC lawyer made a written motion on returning the indictment.

On 10.07.18, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s business. The next court hearing was scheduled for 24.09.2018.

On 24.09.2018, the court determined the order of examination of evidence. The next court hearing was scheduled for 25.10.2018.

On 10.25.2018, representative of the victim and part of prosecution witnesses were questioned during the hearing. The next court hearing was scheduled for 30.11.2018.

On 30.11.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of prosecution witnesses. The next court hearing is scheduled for 18.01.2019.

On 18.01.2019 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of witnesses of prosecution and Mrs.G’s illness. The next court meeting was appointed on 15 March2019

On 15 March 2019 the court meeting was postponed due to the lawyer’s business. The next court meeting was scheduled on 15 May 2019

On 15 May 2019 the court has interrogated a witness. Other witnesses did not come.

On 12 June 2019 the court meeting was postponed due to Mrs. G’s illness. The next court meeting was scheduled on 16 July 2019.

On 16 July 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of defender.

On 13 August 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of the judge.

On 22 October 2019 the witness didn’t attend the court hearing. The accusation party refused to interrogate the witness. The prosecutor asked for a break with an aim to prepare to examination evidence and interrogation of accused.

On 22 November 2019 there were additional written evidence including the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal.

On 20 December 2020 the court hearing was postponed due to the being the accused at the hospital.

On February 4, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge's stay in the deliberation room. The next court hearing was scheduled for March 10, 2020.

On March 10, 2020, the accused was interrogated at the court hearing and the court investigation was ended. The next court hearing was scheduled for April 15, 2020.

On April 15, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the epidemic. The next court hearing was scheduled for May 18, 2020.

On May 18, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the hospitalization of the accused. The next court hearing was scheduled for June 12, 2020.

On June 12, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge's employment. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 27, 2020.

On July 27, 2020, a court debate took place. The Court moved to the deliberation room. The verdict was scheduled for August 10, 2020.

On August 10, 2020, the court acquitted him.

The prosecutor filed an appeal against the sentence.

The appeal hearing is scheduled for April 27, 2021.

The case continues.

I-v case

In January 2020, Mr. I-v asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance, stating that he was serving a life sentence in the Vilnyanksk Penitentiary Institution № 11. For the past three years, he has been suffering from anal cancer, was under constant pain and could no longer move. He was assisted by a cellmate in carrying out sanitary and hygienic procedures. I-v was not provided with appropriate treatment in the penitentiary institution, although he was a person with a disability of the I-B group and suffered from stage 4 clinical cancer.

On 17 January 2020, the SLC lawyer submitted a motion on I-v’s release from serving punishment due to his serious illness to the Vilnyansk District Court of Zaporizhia region.

On 26 February 2020, the Vlnyansk District Court held a hearing to which Mr. I-nov was not brought, and therefore the cout meeting was postponed to 13 April 2020.

At the same time the Vilnyansk penitentiary institution submitted a similar motion to court for release of I - v.

On 3 April 2020, the Vilnyansk District Court denied the request of the penitentiary institution, and on 13 April 2020, it left the lawyer's request without consideration.

The SLC lawyer appealed the decisions to the Zaporizhia Court of Appeal.

In addition, on 15 April 2020, the lawyer sent a request to the Vilnyansk Penitentiary Institution regarding I-v’s health and asked to provide her with medical documents.

On 10 May 2020, the SLC lawyer sent complaints on the non-treatment to the Prosecutor’s Office of Zaporizhia Oblast, a branch of the Health Centre in Zaporizhia Oblast, and to the Ombudsperson. However, to date, the answer has been received only from the prosecutor's office, which said that no violations were detected.

On 5 June 2020, the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal upheld the lawyer's complaint and, by its decision, released life imprisoned Mr. I. from further imprisonment due to his serious illness.

At the moment I-v is in the hospice. The SLC lawyer plans to provide him with legal assistance in obtaining a pension, as well as palliative care.

Ko-k case

Mr. K. is a resident of Derhachi, Kharkiv region, a patient of the Replacement Supportive Therapy (RST) Program, previously unconvicted, working, married, has two minor children.

On March 31, 2020, after receiving the prescription drug "methadone hydrochloride" in a pharmacy, he was stopped by the patrol police. When asked by the police, he explained that he was a patient of the RST program, and received the drug RST in a pharmacy according to prescription form, and provided supporting documents. The police called an operational investigative group, which drew up a report on the scene and confiscated the drug from Mr. K.

From 31.04.2020 to 02.04.2020 Mr. K. was not able to take the drug.

On April 2, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC entered into a case.

On April 2, 2020, the lawyer visited the Shevchenkivsky investigative office of the GDNP in the Kharkiv region. A conversation was held with the investigator. An extract from the URPTI and a certificate of withdrawal of the RST drug were received from the investigator. On the basis of the certificate, K. was able to take the RST drug again.

The defence counsel sent requests to the medical institution where K. receives prescriptions for the RST drug and to the pharmacy where he received the RST drug to confirm the legality of receiving the RST drug.

After receiving responses to lawyers' inquiries, it is planned to file a motion to close the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti.

Received responses to lawyers' inquiries and copies of documents confirm the legality of receiving the RST drug.

A request to close the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti was sent to the investigator of the Shevchenkivskyi IO of the GDNP in the Kharkiv region.

A request to close the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti was sent to the investigator of the Shevchenkivskyi IO of the GDNP in the Kharkiv region.

No response to the request was received. A lawyer's request about the state of the investigation and the results of the consideration of the petition was sent to the head of the Shevchenkivsky branch of the GDNP.

According to the information received on 20.05.2020, the investigator issued a decision to close the criminal proceedings.

Case is closed.

Kor-na case

K. arrived at the State Institution “Orikhiv Correctional Colony (№ 88)” to serve his sentence.

On September 16, 2020, K. appealed to the Strategic Litigation Centre for help due to the failure to provide him with medical care and the inaction of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release due to his health condition.

On September 17, 2020, the lawyer sent lawyer's inquiries regarding the state of his health and treatment to the Branch of the State Institution “Centre for Health Protection of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine” in Zaporizhia Oblast, interregional hospital at the State Institution “Sofievskaya IK (No. 55)” and to the State Institution "Orikhiv Correctional Colony".

After analyzing the answers to the inquiries, the lawyer found that shortly before applying to the SLC, in May 2020, K. was even examined by a medical advisory commission for the presence of a disease identified by the List of Diseases Reasons for Submitting Convictions from further serving of sentence. However, by the conclusion of 12.05.2020 the medical advisory commission of the Branch of the State Institution "Central Department of Internal Affairs of Ukraine" in Zaporizhia region came to the conclusion that K.'s documents could not be submitted to the court because his diagnosis is not mentioned in the List of Diseases Reasons, approved by the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, the Ministry of Health of Ukraine 15.08.2014 № 1348/5/572.

Thus, in its conclusion of 12.05.2010, the commission established the following K.’s diagnoses: HIV IV clinical stage, pneumocystis pneumonia (which in itself is a concomitant HIV infection according to the List of diseases for discharge), convalescent. Severe immunosuppression (CD4- 63 cells). Chronic viral hepatitis C (L HCV +) is toxic, low activity. Chronic pancreatitis, unstable remission. ЖКХ. Chronic calculous cholecystitis, remission. Chronic atonic colitis. ZZTB (tuberculosis) (2002) of the upper lobes of the lungs.

Moreover, K.'s medical records contained evidence of prolonged diarrhoea and weakness.

During the observation, the patient's condition was defined by doctors as moderate, due to severe immunosuppression and asthenic syndrome.

According to the conclusion of the commission, on April 18, 2020, K. underwent chest radiography, as a result, “In the upper lobes of fibrosis, intense foci. The roots are structural”. Despite this, the suspicion and, according to that, the diagnosis of “pulmonary tuberculosis”, as of the date of the examination and conclusion, had not been established.

At the same time, K. had a positive tendency to treatment, which is confirmed by numerous entries in his medical records.

However, on August 6, 2020, K. arrived at the Sofia Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital (№ 55) on the referral of a doctor, where the following diagnoses were established during the commission meeting on September 15, 2020: RRTB (i.e. tuberculosis with extended resistance - from August 20, 2020), HIV 4th stage, viral hepatitis C, chronic cholecystitis, chronic pancreatitis, chronic atonic colitis, chronic right purulent otitis, acute orchitis of unspecified etiology, venous atresia. A high commitment to treatment was also established.

Thus, exactly three months after the medical advisory commission concluded that K.'s documents could not be submitted to the court for his release from further imprisonment due to his health condition, K. was diagnosed with new diagnoses, including pulmonary tuberculosis with extended resistance, chronic right purulent otitis, acute orchitis of unspecified etiology, venous atresia.

On October 11, 2020, the lawyer immediately appealed to the court with a request to release K. from serving his sentence.

On October 29, 2020, K. was released from serving his sentence due to his health condition.

Ko-ko case

On 19 September 2019, Ko-ko asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in connection with failure to provide him with medical care, non-examination of his existing illnesses and failure of the prison officers to submit a motion on his release due to deterioration of the health state.

Ko-ko was serving a sentence at the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (# 101) under the verdict of the Khmelnytsky's district court of Khmelnytsky region from 01.03.2017 according to which he was sentenced to 6 (six) years of imprisonment.

On 20 September 2019 the SLC lawyer sent a request on Ko-ko’s health state and prescribed medical treatment to the heads of the colony and the medical part of the colony.

On 9 October 2019 the SLC lawyer together with a doctor visited Ko-ko. The lawyer received written and verbal explanations of his health status, signed consent for further legal assistance, the doctor collected an anamnesis, recorded recommendations, and made some examinations.

On 15 November 2019 the SLC lawyer sent a petition on Ko-ko’s parole to the Vinnytsia District Court of Vinnytsia region.

By the decision of Vinnytsia court of 12.12.2019 the lawyer's motion was granted.

On 23 December 2019 The Vinnytsia Court of Appeal opened the appeal proceedings on the appeal of the prosecutor to the Vinnytsia Court's decision of 12.12.2019 and scheduled a court hearing on 15.01.2020.

On January 10, 2020, an objection was filed to the prosecutor's appeal against the decision of the Vinnytsia Court of December 12, 2019.

15.01.2020 the court session of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal on the prosecutor's appeal against the decision of the Vinnytsia Court dated 12.12.2019 was conducted, consideration of the court session was postponed to 05.02.2020.

05.02.2020 court hearing of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal on the prosecutor's appeal against the decision of the Vinnytsia Court of 12.12.2019, at which the prosecutor was denied his complaint, Mr. K was released from serving his sentence.

K-h case

In June 2019, Mr K. requested a lawyer to provide him with legal aid. He noted that he was serving a sentence in the Sinelnikovska correctional colony, located more than 400 kilometres from his relatives' residence. His parents are elderly people who do not have enough money to make often visits to the colony which is situated so far from their home.

In September 2019, the SLV lawyer prepared a motion to the South-East Interregional Department on the Execution of criminal punishment for the transfer of Mr R. from the Sinelnykovska Correcitonal Colony to the Selydivska correctional colony.

On 22 October 2019, the Southeastern Interregional department on execution of criminal punishment denied this request. In particular, the reason for this refusal was the absence of vacancies in the Selidovska correctional colony where Mr K. wanted to be transferred.

On December 3, 2019, a lawyer sent a request to the South-East Interregional Department on Execution of Punishment for vacancies in the Selidov correcitonal colony. In response, the department noted that there were 96 vacancies in the institution.

In addition, on 17 December 2019, the SLC lawyer sent a request to the Sinelnikovska correctional colony for cash on Mr. K.'s account

Actually the lawyer has prepared an administrative claim to the District Administrative Court of Dnipropetrovsk region.

Kud-ko case

Mr. K., a resident of the city of Kharkiv, a patient of the Substitute Supportive Therapy Program, previously convicted (criminal offenses not related to drug trafficking), unemployed, married, has a minor child, suffers from AIDS - III clinical stage.

On November 20, 2020, after receiving the drug "methadone hydrochloride" on the OKTSPBS website, he was going on a taxi for receiving the prescription form. On the way, he was attacked by a taxi driver shouting that K. was a drug addict, strangling him and threatening him with an air gun. The taxi driver then called the police and reported that he had detained the addict. K. explained to the police that he was a patient of the SMT program, and received the SMT drug on the prescription list, and provided supporting documents. The police drew up a report on the scene and confiscated the drug from K. To K.'s remarks about the illegal actions of the taxi driver, which consisted in strangling him and threating him with the gun, the police replied that they had not arrived for this reason. Copies of the protocol on the seizure of the drug K. was not provided, which deprived him of the opportunity to obtain a new drug instead of the seized.

According to a notice of the police criminal proceedings were opened on this matter.

On November 23, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC entered into proceedings.

The defender received a certificate of withdrawal of the drug to obtain a new one.

A statement about illegal actions of a taxi driver was submitted to the police. A complaint was submitted to the prosecutor's office about illegal actions of police officers, regarding illegal seizure of the drug of the SMT and non-response to illegal actions of a taxi driver.

The defence counsel sent a lawyer's request to the medical institution, where K. receives the drug of the SMT to confirm the legality of its receipt.

After receiving a response to the lawyer's request, the lawyer filled a motion to the investigator to close the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti.

On December 18, 2020, the investigator terminated the criminal proceeding on the lack of corpus deliciti.

The case is closed.

Ku-tsov case

In April 2020, the lawyer was approached by Mr. K, who said that due to the coronavirus epidemic in Ukraine, visits to convicts in penal colonies were banned. K. did not agree with such a ban, as it significantly violated his right to family life. In addition, the epidemic could last for years, and then K. would not see relatives for years.

The lawyer asked the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to obtain the text of the normative act, on the basis of which a visit is prohibited. Having received the text of the normative act, on June 16, 2020, the lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit with the Circle Administrative Court of Kyiv to declare such an act illegal and cancel it.

The court hearing in the case was scheduled for November 16, 2020. During the court hearing, the representative of the Ministry of Justice insisted on closing the proceedings, but the court disagreed with the arguments of the representative of the Ministry of Justice and assigned the case for consideration.

At the same time, the Ministry of Justice independently repealed the normative act prohibiting visits for convicts, thus resolving the dispute out of court. Therefore, the lawyer and K. decided to withdraw the statement of claim.

La-v case

On 19.06.2017 citizen Tol-ova turned to a lawyer with request to provide the legal aid her cohabitant La-v, who is suspected in commission of crimes according to art. 307 ( para. 2 ) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

At the same time regarding him the preventive measure has been chosen in the form of detention. He was at the Kherson pre-trial detention centre.

During the jail visitation, La-v explained that he was suspected in the Methadone (MTD) possession with an aim to sell it.

According to La-v, he was buying and possessing this drug for personal consumption.

The SLC lawyer has familiarized with the case-file at the stage of examination. On 22.06.2017 the court was hearing the motion from the investigator concerning the fixation of terms to examine a case. The lawyer lodged an objection and investigator's motion was dismissed.

On 27.06.2017 the court has extended the preventive measure to La-v for 30 days. Concerning this decision an appeal was lodged.

On 04.07.2017 the court again was hearing the motion from the investigator concerning the fixation of terms to examine a case. The lawyer lodged an objection and investigator's motion was dismissed.

It was established during examination, that La-v is charged with “possession with an aim to sell” merely on the grounds of judge and investigator's consideration that drug amount and package La-v has had was intended for selling.

On 17.07.2017 the Kherson court of appeal dismissed the appeal concerning the reversal of the court decision to extend the preliminary measure.

After case examination, the motion to dismiss the case was filed to the investigator due to lack of proof of the guilt upon “possession with an aim to sell”. This motion was unreasonably withheld.

On 11.07.2017 an initial assessment of the case was held. The lawyer's motion to change the preventive measure to the less restrictive has been dismissed by the court.

On 05.09.2017 witnesses for the defence failed to appear in court. The La-v's preventive measure has been extended, the case hearing has been postponed.

On 12.11.2017 witnesses for the defence haven't appeared again. The La-v's custody has been extended, the case hearing has been postponed.

On 02 August 2018 the SLC lawyer's motion to change the preventive measure to the less restrictive has been dismissed by the court again.

On 14 September 2018 the La-v's preventive measure has been extended for the formal reason and procedural action did not conducted.

On 12 November 2018 during trial the written evidences were investigated, the video was watched, the audio was listened. SLC lawyer's motion to change the preventive measure to the less restrictive has been dismissed by the court, Mr. La-v's preventive measure has been extended again.

On 03 January 2019 the written evidence was repeatedly examined, the video- and audio- evidence were examined. Mr. L was rejected in changing the preventive measure to less strict, the term of custody was prolongated.

On 25 February 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to unreadiness of the prosecutor party to the court pleadings, the motion on changing the preventive measure to less strict was dismissed, the term of custody was prolongated.

On 15 April 2019 the court pleadings were conducted, the court consideration was postponed with the aim to give the last plea of the accused.

On 23 April 2019 the lawyer’s motion on changing the preventive measure to less strict was dismissed, the term of custody was prolongated.

On 13 June 2019 the lawyer’s motion on changing the preventive measure to less strict was dismissed, the term of custody was prolongated.

Due to absence of the text of the final Court judgement the court hearing was postponed on the later date.

On 16 July 2019 the Court proclaimed an indictment. The Court found the innocence of accused under Art. 307 of CC and sentenced him under Art. 309 of CC. The SLC lawyer appealed.

On 26 November 2019 the appeal was appointed to consideration at Mykolayivskyy Court of Appeal due to absence a number of judges needed in Khersonskyy Court of Appeal.

On 17 December 2019 the Court postponed the consideration on the later date due to absence of accused and prosecutor.

On February 13, 2020, a court hearing was held. During the hearing, the lawyer of the SLC informed the court about not opening decisions of the appellate court on carrying out IDA in accordance with Art. 290 of the CPC of Ukraine to the defence party. The court ordered the prosecutor to submit these rulings to the court for the next court hearing.

On March 10, 2020, the court adjourned the court hearing due to the prosecutor's absence.

On March 31, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to quarantine in Ukraine due to coronavirus.

On May 28, 2020, pleadings took place. Due to lack of time in the court panel, the case was postponed to a later date for the last plea of the accused.

On June 9, 2020, the appellate court partially upheld the appeals of the prosecutor and the lawyer, the verdict was overturned, and the case was remanded to the court of first instance.

On August 3, 2020, the court hearing of the court of first instance did not take place due to the prosecutor's absence, the consideration of the case was postponed to a later date.

On October 19, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the prosecutor's absence.

On December 11, 2020, the case was postponed to a later date due to the prosecutor's absence.

L-a case

In May 2020, L.’s grandmother applied to the lawyers of the SLC with a request to provide legal assistance to her grandson, who is serving a sentence in the State Institution “Oleksiyivska CC-25”, in connection with illegal imprisonment.

On June 4, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC sent a statement to the investigating judge of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city of Kharkiv about the illegal detention of a person with a request to release L.

On June 15, 2020, the court issued a ruling denying the lawyer his application, but did not provide a copy of the ruling as of June 30, 2020.

Ma-mov case

Mr. Ma-mov lives in Kharkiv.

On 13 May 2015 Ma-mov was arrested on suspicion of drug-dealing. Two controlled purchases had been conducted in his case previously.

On 15 May 2015 an investigating judge chose a preventive measure in Ma-mov’s case – detention in custody.

Ma-mov applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

The SLC lawyer many times filed grounded motions on changing of the preventive measure. However, they were not granted by the court.

The SLC lawyer lodged motions on questioning of the buyer in the court room. The court granted those motions, however they were not carried out by the police. At the same time, the court refused to add the purchaser’s name in the wanted list.

The SLC lawyer lodged motion on requesting of secret documents. The court refused to grant it.

On 19 July 2016 Ma-mov was found guilty in drug-dealing.

The SLC lawyer lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region cancelled the sentence due to absence of the purchaser’s interrogation tape. The case was passed for a new trial to the Kyiv district court.

The term of Ma-mov’s detention was prolonged for many times.

The SLC lawyer lodged a motion on changing of preventive measure. He grounded the motion with the ECtHR’s practice. However, it was not granted by the court.

On 12 January 2019 the court changed the preliminary measure for Ma-mov from detention to house arrest with electronic control.

On 16 April 2019 Kyiv district court in Kharkiv delivered a verdict and found his innocent in drug purchasing but found guilty in Illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale.

The SLC lawyer appealed against the verdict in the part of finding Ma-mova guilty. Prosecution also submitted an appeal on cancellation of the verdict and sentencing of Ma-mov to seven years of imprisonment.

On February 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal held a hearing and scheduled the next hearing for June 18, 2020.

On June 18, 2020, the Court of Appeal postponed the court hearing to January 21, 2021.

Mak-va case

On August 15, 2020, a group of convicts from the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” applied to the NGO KHPG for legal assistance, as the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” was being disbanded, and the colony applied for their parole or sentence mitigation.

At the same time, the local prosecutor's office unreasonably delays the process, which means that convicts will be transferred to other regions, far from relatives. That is, convicts who, even in the opinion of the colony administration, are subject to release, are in fact deprived of even the right to relatives visits.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the colony has a minimum level of security with facilitated detention conditions. This means that convicts have already made their correction if they find themselves in an institution of this level, and now this happens again if the colony has supported their release and encouragement. After reviewing the materials, the organization's lawyers made sure that the prosecutor's office was really abusing its rights and ignoring the epidemiological situation in the country at that time. Firstly, lawyers turned to advocacy activities in the form of articles in the media.

Mr. M. was in the group of those who asked for help. At the time of the application, the court of first instance had already granted his application for parole. However, the prosecutor filed an appeal.

The lawyer, having studied the case file, filed an objection to the appeal. Mr. M. was nevertheless transferred to a colony in another region.

On December 3, 2020, at the court hearing, the prosecutor was denied her appeal. The court hearing was held in the form of a video conference with the State Institution “Mashivska VK (№ 9)”, where M. was at that time, in the presence of a representative of the colony.

Despite this, Mr M. complained that he had been released only two weeks after the appellate court's decision.

The lawyer is preparing a complaint to the ECtHR in this regard.

Mor-za case

On August 15, 2020, a group of convicts from the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” applied to the NGO KHPG for legal assistance, as the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” was being disbanded, and the colony applied for their parole or sentence mitigation.

At the same time, the local prosecutor's office unreasonably delays the process, which means that convicts will be transferred to other regions, far from relatives. That is, convicts who, even in the opinion of the colony administration, are subject to release, are in fact deprived of even the right to relatives visits.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the colony has a minimum level of security with facilitated detention conditions. This means that convicts have already made their correction if they find themselves in an institution of this level, and now this happens again if the colony has supported their release and encouragement. After reviewing the materials, the organization's lawyers made sure that the prosecutor's office was really abusing its rights and ignoring the epidemiological situation in the country at that time. Firstly, lawyers turned to advocacy activities in the form of articles in the media.

Mr. M. was in the group of convicts who asked for legal assistance. After studying the case file, the lawyer decided to talk to M.'s civilian wife. She provided the lawyer with written explanations to the court according to which she had housing, children and could provide work for M. after his release. The lawyer attached the wife's explanation together with supporting documents to the case file on August 18, 2020 before the court hearing, which did not take place and was postponed.

On August 21, 2020, at the court hearing, the lawyer attached to the case file her additional explanations to the application for parole. M.'s application was upheld on the same day. No appeal was lodged, so M. resigned a week later.

 

Loshk-v case

Mr. L, a citizen of Russian Federation, was taking part in the Revolution of Dignity during 2013-2014. Mr. L was sentenced for 2 years of imprisonment in RF for unlawful holding of weapon.

On 14 July 2015 Mr. L was released from custody in accordance with the RF law on amnesty. Then, Mr. L was chased by law enforcement agencies of RF because of his political beliefs.

In the beginning of 2017 Mr. L arrived to Ukraine.

In 2018 Mr. L turned to the SLC lawyers asking for legal assistance in getting a refugee status. The SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application with supplementing documents to State Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS) concerning the getting the refugee status by Mr. L.

SMS held a decision about implementation of a full procedure of consideration an application and documents for getting a refugee status.

In the end of 2018 SMS conducted 3 interviews with Mr. L. In 2019 SMS conducted 2 interviews with Mr. L.

For the time being, the consideration of the application is still pending. The final decision hadn’t been held.

On 10 October 2019 the SMSU conducted interview with Mr. L.

Currently the personal case file is prepared for sending to the Central department of the SMS for consideration.

In 2020, the lawyer of SLC repeatedly submitted attorney’s requests to the SMSU regarding the delay of the decision-making process and violation of the deadlines for making the final decision. The SMSU has never responded to lawyer's requests.

On December 18, 2020, L. received refugee status in Ukraine.

Mal-yi case

On 11 April 2019, the ECtHR found a violation of paragraphs 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in the case of “Mr. M. v. Ukraine”, which was convicted in 2006 of committing multiple robberies, one of which was combined with the killing of two persons.

In connection with the establishment of the ECtHR as an internationally recognized court of Ukraine, Mr. M submitted to the Supreme Court a request for review of court decisions in his case in the exclusive proceedings, namely the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region, as a court of first instance, and The Supreme Court of Ukraine as a court of cassation.

The first hearing of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (“the Grand Chamber”) was held in September 2019, but the case was adjourned, including a providing the discussion of Mr. M a legal position with his lawyer that he was given by the SLC of KHPG.

In September 2019, the SLC's lawyer made a confidential meeting with Mr. M in the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre, during which they reconciled their position on the case.

On November 13, 2019, in a similar case against others, the Grand Chamber declared part of the evidence inadmissible but upheld the rest of the sentence, including the sentence of life imprisonment. In doing so, several judges expressed a dissenting opinion with a view contrary to that of most Grand Chamber judges.

The trial concerning Mr. M’s case was adjourned once more as a result of M. M's illness, and finally on December 19, his motion was considered on the merits. Also, the lawyer filed a motion on the election to M. M’s. a preventive measure not related to taking into custody, in case of cancellation of court decisions the referral of the case for a new trial.

After hearing the arguments of the defence party, the Grand Chamber decided to adjourn the hearing until February 12, 2020.

On February 12, 2020 the Grand Chamber released Mr. M from the court room and remitted the case to a new trial.

M-k case

At the beginning of September 2019, Mr. M's mother asked for a legal assistance on his behalf in connection with the non-provision of medical care, absence of examinations, which should be carried out in case of his illness and failure of the colony’s staff to submit to a court documents on Mr. M’s release from serving a sentence for health reasons.

 Mr. M is serving a sentence in the State Institution «Vinnytska Correctional Colony» (No. 86).

 On September 17, 2019, an SLC lawyer signed an agreement to provide legal assistance to Mr. M.

On September 17, 2019 The SLC lawyer sent a request concerning the health and treatment of Mr. M to the heads of the colony and the medical part of the colony, as well as the request for the doctor's admission to him.

On September 23, 2019 Mr. M also submitted to the medical part of the colony a request for admission to his doctor.

On October 09, 2019 the doctor was not allowed by the administration of the colony to Mr. M, but the lawyer was able to communicate with M-m and receive written statements and explanations from him.

On October 15, 2019 a motion was filed to the investigating judge of the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytska Oblast on exemption from Mr. M’s further serving of sentence due to illness.

In addition, a second request was made to the Head of the Medical Unit of the colony and to the Branch of the State Institution of Health of the DCWS of Ukraine in Vinnitska region regarding the health and treatment of Mr. M.

The court session was appointed on 31.10.2019 - at the hearing the petition of the lawyer was partially satisfied and the decision on carrying out medical examination of M-ka medical-advisory commission was made. The date of the next court hearing was not announced.

On 01.11.2019 a request was sent to the Branch of the State Institution “CHP of the DCWS” in Vinnytsia region regarding the stage of execution of the court decision on conducting medical examination of Mr. M.

On December 17, 2019, a court hearing was held, at which the lawyer’s motion on summon the chairman of the medical advisory commission hadn’t been granted and didn’t grant the Mr. M’s release from serving sentence.

The court hearing was appointed on October 31, 2019. At the hearing the motion of the lawyer was partially satisfied and the decision on carrying out medical examination of Mr. M by medical-advisory commission had been appointed. The date of the next court hearing was not announced.

 On November 1, 2019 a request was sent to the Branch of the State Institution “CHP of DCVS” in Vinnytska region regarding the stage of execution of the court decision on conducting medical examination of Mr. M.

 On December 17, 2019, a court hearing was held, at which the lawyer’s motion on summon the chairman of the medical advisory commission hadn’t been granted and didn’t grant the Mr. M’s release from serving sentence.

On January 1, 2020, appeals were sent to the State Institution “Centre of Healthcare of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine”, the Branch of the State Institution "Healthcare centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine” in Vinnytska region, the head of medical unit of SI “Vinnytska correctional colony 86” concerning Mr. M’s urgent oncologist’s examination, development of the disease, general health according to the recommendation provided by his doctor, as well as on ensuring that Mr. M. is conducted a medical and social examination to establish a disability group in connection with stage III cancer diagnosed in him.

On February 27, 2020, attorney’s requests were lodged to the interregional hospital of Lvivska IEP 19 and to the Branch of the State Institution "Healthcare centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine” in Lvivska region concerning the health condition, examination, treatment and providing medical documentation of Mr. M.

On March 13, 2020, a petition was sent to the investigator to carry out procedural actions in the criminal proceedings, in which Mr. M. was recognized as a victim for failing to provide him with medical care.

On March 20, 2020, two court hearings took place in the Halytsky District Court of Lviv, at the last of which the motion for the release of Mr. M. from serving his sentence due to his health condition was granted.

On April 15, 2020, a request was sent to the investigator to carry out procedural actions in the criminal proceedings, in which Mr. M. was recognized as a victim, on the fact of not providing him with medical care.

12.05.2020 – Mr. M. died.

On June 1, 2020, his mother Pro-va applied for legal assistance in the case of non-provision of medical care to her son Mr. M.

On June 4, 2020, a complaint on the behalf of Ms. Pr-va was filed with the Vinnytsia City Court of the Vinnytsia Region against the decision to close the criminal proceedings in which Mr. M. was recognized as a victim for failing to provide him with medical care.

On June 30, 2020, the court hearing of the complaint by the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia Region was conducted, the hearing was postponed to August 3, 2020, due to the need to attach additional documents to the materials of the court proceedings.

On August 3, 2020, the court upheld the lawyer's complaint against the decision to close the criminal proceedings.

The lawyer sent a number of motions for procedural actions and a complaint to the prosecutor's office. The pre-trial investigation is ongoing.

P’s case

Mr. P’s asked the Kharkiv Human Rights Group to provide him with legal assistance related criminal case against him under Article 391 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine because of the malicious disobedience of the administration. In particular, he stated that he pleaded guilty and agreed to the sentence. However, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the case, in which he asked to increase the rate of sentence.

After familiarize with the case file, the SLC lawyer found that there was a mistake in the sentence of 8 August 2019. In particular, according to Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court had to attach fully or partially the missing part of the sentence under the old verdict to the new verdict. However, instead, the court partially added the sentence by the new verdict to the sentence by the previous verdict. Thus, instead of a final sentence of two years and six months, the court received a sentence of 15 years 6 months.

The prosecutor based his appeal on this incorrect recalculation, but at the same time requested the unsealed part of the sentence under the old verdict to be fully attached. He did not give any other motivation for increasing punishment.

Finding this out, on 5 December 2019, the lawyer filed a statement of clarification of the sentence and elimination of obvious arithmetical errors to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv city. However, on 17 December 2019, the October District Court announced that it could not consider these statements because the case was in the court of appeal.

The lawyer plans to file a supplement to an appeal of similar content.

On 31 March 2020 the court meeting did not take place due to the quarantine restrictive measures.

On 15 December 2020 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor's appeal and sent N. to serve his sentence in a penal colony. However, the lawyer did not agree with the decision and is preparing a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

P-v case

On 28 May 2014 Mr. Pa-v was arrested by policemen in the private taxy. He was delivered to the supermarket, where police unwarranted searched him and took to the flat, where he lived. Policemen also searched Mr. Pa-v`s flat, where find nothing. After that he was taken to police office, where detention report of Mr. Pa-v was draw up. Only after all such actions Mr. Pa-v was provided with a lawyer.

On 24 July 2014 case files was sent to the Moskovskiy district court in Kharkiv region. On 12 January 2015 Mr. Pa-v was found guilty of drug trafficking with verdict of the district court.

On 07 May 2015 Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region closed the verdict of district court and sent the case to a new trial. The prosecution witnesses are not delivered to the court by the prosecutor.

After 1 year and 7 month of Mr. Pa-v being detention, on 20 January 2016 he was released from detention. Home arrest was chosen for him as a preventive measure.

In the end of 2016 a judge, who considered the case, resigned and the case was transferred to another judge who started hearing the case from the beginning.

On 2017 during trial an investigator and expert was questioned as witnesses. The investigator told that she did not remember the circumstances of Mr. Pa-v detention, and the expert explained that the unreliable information written in his expert opinion is a technical mistake. Other witnesses were not questioned.

Moreover, during trial prosecutors has changed several times, and none of them has not provided prosecution witnesses delivering.

During 2018 year the prosecutor did not provide witnesses and the judge repeatedly approved the decisions on the appearance of witnesses.

In June 2018, the judge satisfied the lawyer's motion on change the order of study evidence and decided to investigate the evidence in connection with the fact that the prosecution witnesses has not been delivered.

In 2019 the court examined all the documents of criminal proceedings that were submitted by prosecutor, and conducted an examination of an expert. The case is at the stage of preparation for court debates.

The prosecutor’s office did not provide the presence of prosecution’s witnesses and open all case files for the SLC lawyer.

On 22 July 2019 the court found Mr. P innocent because of not-approval of his guilt.

The prosecutor lodged an appeal claim.

On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals held a court hearing and adjourned to prepare the last word of the accused. The Court of Appeal set the next date for the trial at 11 February 2020.

On 11 February 2020, the Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal of Mr. P.

The prosecutor filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, where he requested that the appeal be remanded for a new trial.

The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor's cassation appeal.

Pirna-rov case

Mr.P was born on 11 august 1992. He is accused in committing crimes, prescribed by Part 3 Art.332, Part 1 Art 258-3, Part 5 Art.27, Part 1 Art.14, Part 2 Art.258, Part 3 Art 358, Part 5 Art 27, Part 3 Art.358, Part 3 Art.332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In the end of 2018 The case was transmitted to Leninskyi District Court in the city of Dnipro from the city of Kyiv. For the time being to Mr.P is under detention.

A SLC lawyer signed a contract about legal assistance and made consent about strategy of defence with Mr.P. The wife of Mr.P gave a number of characteristic documents of Mr.P according to the Sheriat Law.

The indictment and data from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations were examinated by SLC lawyer. The case files were observed in the part which wasn’t added to general case.

The defence strategy was agreed with a defence lawyer of second accused in this case.

The preliminary position of the Prosecutor Office about preconditions of transmitting the case was observed.

The number of violations of Criminal Procedure Code was found and the motion about returning the indictment to the prosecutor was prepared.

On 14 January 2019 the pre-trial court meeting of the Leninskyi district court in Dnipro took place. The indictment was sent back to the prosecution, the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged.

In the end of January 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted an appeal claim on prolonging of the preliminary measure.

The appeal court refused the claim.

Then the prosecutor did not submit a motion on prolonging the term of Pyrna-rov’s arrest and applied to him the extradition arrest.

In March 2019 the prosecutor sent an indictment related to Perna-rov to the court again.

The SLC lawyer has examined the indictment and found several deficiencies and prepared the motion on returning of the indictment to the prosecution.

On 13 May 2019 the appointed pre-trial court meeting did not take place.

On 25 June 2019 the Leninskyi district court in Dnipro during the pre-trial court meeting granted the SLC lawyer’s motion and sent back the indictment to the prosecutor. The preliminary measure for Pyr-rov has not been chosen.

In February 2020, the court returned the indictment to the prosecutor for the second time. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

As of June 2020, the indictment has not been received by the court, and the proceedings have not actually begun.

The indictment after his return to the prosecutor twice, again sent to the Leninsky district court of Dnipro in August 2020. At the same time, the previous violations and instructions of the court have not been corrected, the issue of territorial jurisdiction has not been clarified and confirmed.

The previous court hearing was scheduled three times, but was postponed for various reasons.

The last court hearing took place on December 21, 2020. but after the organizational issues were clarified, it was postponed due to the failure to ensure the appearance of translators. The lawyer prepared and submitted to the court a petition to refer the OA to the prosecutor, and to close the proceedings regarding some of the incriminated offenses under the statute of limitations.

As to the extradition arrest.

On 13 March 2019 the SLC lawyer and Mr. P let a contract on legal aid.

On 13 March 2019 an investigative judge of the Krasnogvardiyskyy district court in Dnipro granted the prosecutor’s motion on choosing of a preliminary measure in the form of extradition arrest.

The SLC lawyer submitted an appeal claim to the Supreme Court on the preliminary measure in the form of extradition arrest.

On 13 April 2019 the Dniprovskyi appeal court upheld the decision of the Krasnogvardiyskyi district court in Dnipro.

On 10 May 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted to the trial court a motion on cancellation of the extradition arrest.

On 10 May 2019 the Krasnogvardiyskyi district court prolonged the extradition arrest.

The SLC lawyer appealed.

On 7 June 2019 the Dniprovskyi appeal court upheld the decision of the Krasnogvardiyskyi district court in Dnipro.

The SLC lawyer made a statement to the SMS on behalf of Mr P. about granting refugee status or a person in need of additional protection - which Mr P. had sent several times from the pre-trial detention centre but had never received. Therefore, the statement, signed by Mr P., was submitted by the SLC lawyer personally to the SMS office.

From July to December 2019, 8 court hearings were held in the Krasnogvardiyskiy District Court concerning a review of the grounds for further extradition arrest to Mr P. The SLC lawyer was filling motions on Mr. P’s release from custody at each hearing to release Mr P. from custody and declaring challenging of prosecute judges who was considering this issue for the second or third time. However, each time the judge denied the requests of the SLC lawyer, rendering decisions which did not contain references to the evidence and arguments of the defence party.

The SLC lawyer filed appeals against each decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeal held 12 court hearings. At each hearing, the SLC lawyer stated its challenges and objections.

The Court of Appeal refused in granting all of the lawyer’s appeals without properly examining the evidence and arguments of the defence party.

In 2020, several court hearings were held.

On 18 February 2020, the investigating judge of the Krasnogvardiisky District Court of Dnipro granted the request of the SLC lawyer and changed Mr P.'s pre-trial detention to house arrest at night.

Mr. P. is currently in Kyiv with his family. The issue of his extradition is not currently being considered.

P-v case

At the end of 2015 Russian citizen, Mr. P moved to Ukraine due to his political views. He participated in the anti-terrorist operation in the East of Ukraine on the side of the Ukrainian government forces. Since June 2015, he defended territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine in the armed conflict with Russia as an undercover agent of the intelligence service of the Ministry of Défense.

On 9 December 2015 Mr. P was detained by the Security Office of Ukraine and charged of various crimes. These detention and charge were caused by political and various intrigues in the security agencies of Ukraine.

Oleg Muzhchil "Lisnik" was the leader of Mr. P. He was one of the most famous, authoritative and honest defenders of Ukraine. He was killed during his detention. He was also charged of crimes, which he allegedly committed.

Over a year ago, Mr. P was arrested. At present, criminal cases were transferred to a trial. The trial has been delayed for more than a year by prosecutors and courts. Courts under various pretences constantly postpone the proceedings.

In the spring of 2017, Mr. B applied for a refugee status to the Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS).

On 13 September 2017, SMS refused Mr. P. for the refugee status.

On 4 October of 2017, Mr. P. received the decision of the SMS from 13 September 2017.

Mr. P has reasonable fear of becoming a victim of discrimination and harassment by the authorities of Russian Federation and non-governmental nationalist organizations (in the form of prosecution, illegal judgment, torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). Consequently, he cannot return to Russia.

Under the decision of the SMS Mr. P has not reasonable fear of becoming a victim of discrimination and harassment by the authorities of Russian Federation

On 10 October 2017, Mr. P. filed a motion to the Kyiv District Administrative Court in which he asked the court to cancel the decision of the SMS on the refusal him to the refugee status and oblige the SMS to give him that status.

On 8 September 2018 the District Court quashed the decision of the SMS from 13 September 2018.

The SMS appealed against the judgment of the District Court.

On 29 November 2018, The Administrative Court of Appeal conducted the proceeding.

The Administrative Court of Appeal obliged State Migration Service to check the application of Mr. P on recognition him as the refugee or the person who needs an additional protection.

On 24 and 26 April 2019 there were two interview conducted within the framework of procedure of determination of refugee status or additional protection in accordance to the court decision.

On February 26, 2020, Mr. P. received refugee status in Ukraine. At present, Mr. P. has already received refugee documents.

P-ukh case

In April 2020, the lawyer was approached by Mr. P, who said that due to the coronavirus epidemic in Ukraine, visits to convicts in penal colonies were prohibited. K. did not agree with such a ban, as it significantly violated his right to family life. In addition, the epidemic could last for years, and then P. would not see relatives for years.

The lawyer asked the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to obtain the text of the normative act, on the basis of which a visit is prohibited. Having received the text of the normative act, on June 16, 2020, the lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit with the District Administrative Court of Kyiv to declare such an act illegal and cancel it.

The court hearing in the case was scheduled for December 18, 2020. During the court hearing, the representative of the Ministry of Justice insisted on closing the proceedings, but the court disagreed with the arguments of the representative of the Ministry of Justice and assigned the case for consideration.

At the same time, the Ministry of Justice independently repealed the normative act prohibiting visits for convicts, thus resolving the dispute out of court. Therefore, the lawyer and P. decided to withdraw the statement of claim.

R-ak case

Ms R’s asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid due to not providing her with medical care. She noted that she was in the Kharkiv detention centre on suspicion of drug trafficking. However, at the time of her detention in August 2019, she already had an ovarian tumour, but did not manage to get all the medical care she needed. She also provided all the medical records.

On 28 October 2019 the SLC lawyer sent a request to the Kharkiv Detention Centre about Ms. R.'s health condition. As the lawyer did not receive her answer, she filed complaints with the Kharkiv Prosecutor's Office and the Health Care Centre in Kharkiv and Luhansk regions. She noted that Ms R's health state was deteriorating and no medical assistance was being provided.

On 12 November 2019, the Kharkiv region prosecutor's office announced that a check would be conducted under the SLC lawyer’s application.

On 12 December 2019, the Health Care Centre in Luhansk and Kharkiv Oblasts reported that Ms. R's health state was normal, she had undergone a medical examination and required medical treatment. During the interview with the SLC lawyer, Ms R confirmed that she had got medical assistance. In doing so, she also noted that she was HIV-positive but had not received appropriate treatment.

On 20 December 2019, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Prosecutor's Office of Kharkiv Oblast, the Health Care Centre in Kharkiv and Luhansk Oblasts, as well as the AIDS Centre, about her failure to provide the ART therapy.

In January 2020 the SLC lawyer was noticed that Mrs. R-k has been providing with ART therapy. Mrs. R-k confirmed this fact and if so, the legal aid was successfully finished.

Salni-va case

Mrs. S. is a resident of Amvrossiyivka in Donetsk region, has a child, who was born on 18.08.

From 2008 to 2012 she studied at the Kharkiv Humanitarian Pedagogical Academy (Kharkiv Humanitarian and Pedagogical Institute), Faculty "Preschool Education" in Kharkiv, on a full-time training course, at a budget cost. She received a bachelor's degree. During studying, she lived and was registered at the hostel. Upon admission to an educational institution, the administration of the academy concluded an agreement with her, according to which S. was obliged, after graduation to work at least three years in a specialty in the public sector of the national economy, that is, from 2012 through 2015, or to reimburse the funds for studying.

After graduation, since there were no vacancies in her hometown, S. according to the agreement was employed in the "Pre-school educational institution" of the communal property in Kharkiv. By that time and to date, she is registered in the city of Amvrosievka, Donetsk region.

From 2013 to June 30, 2014, S. studied under a contract at the Kharkiv National Pedagogical University named G.S. Skovorody, specialty "Preschool education" where she received a master's degree.

According to the order of the Antiterrorist Centre under the SSU of Ukraine of 07.10.2014, No. 33/6 / a, an anti-terrorist operation in the Donetsk region was started on 07.04.2014, that is when S. was registered in the city of Amvrosievka, Donetsk region. S. was not able to return to the residence therefore, was forced to stay in Kharkov.

In 2015, S. married and gave birth to a child.

In the maternity hospital, she was asked to provide a certificate, why does she give birth not at the place of registration. In this regard, she appealed to the Office of Labor and Social Protection of the People (UPPCU) for the certificate of registration of internally displaced persons. She was refused the issuance of the certificate on the grounds that she has lived in Kharkiv since 2008

Due to the lack of registration in the city of Kharkiv and due to the lack of a certificate of registration of an internally displaced person, with an indication of the address of the actual place of residence after the transfer, she could not normally serve in health care institutions and institutions, to hand over a minor son to a pre-school institution in Kharkiv, and so on. Therefore, in order to protect her rights and rights of her child, on 06.12.2016, S. again appealed to the UPPUU for issuing a certificate of taking on the account of the internally displaced person. Such a certificate was issued to her. Upon issuance of the certificate, the UPPCU employee informed her that she was entitled to monthly targeted assistance. Therefore, S. was applied for such assistance. During the period from January 19, 2017 to July 18, 2017, she was paid such assistance.

            On July 19, 2017, the UPPUU stopped paying and cancelled the certificate of taking internally displaced persons without explanation. Only on January 2, 2018, a letter was sent from the notice of the decision to cancel the certificate and termination of payments.

On January 26, 2018, S. was brought to suspicion under Part 1 of Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The preventive measures to S were not chosen.

On January 31, 2018 at the request of S. the case was joined by the lawyer of the USSR.

The criminal proceedings were directed to the Ordzhonikidzevskyi District Court of Kharkiv with an indictment.

February 16, 2018, a preliminary court session was appointed. The trial was postponed due to the absence of a representative of the victim. On March 13, 2018, the court session was postponed due to the employment of a judge.

On April 13, 2018, a preparatory meeting took place.

The SLC lawyer sent motion to the places of study and work of S. Requested the Agreement on work outs, and so on. Answers received for requests.

On May 21, 2018, a representative of the victim and the accused was questioned in the court. The court session was postponed for the summoning of witnesses.

On 16.07.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s business. The next hearing was scheduled for 06.08.2018.

On 06.08.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the witness. The next hearing was scheduled for 27.09.2018.

On 27.09.2018, the court hearing was postponed because the judge had been in a deliberation room.

The next hearing was scheduled for 25.10.2018.

On 25.10.2018, the court hearing was postponed because the judge had been in a deliberation room.

The next hearing was scheduled for 26.11.2018.

On 26.11.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the witness. The next hearing was scheduled for 10.12.2018.

On 10.12.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the illness of the judge. The next hearing was scheduled for 14.01.2019.

On 14 January 2019 the witness was examined in the court hearing, the written evidence was examined. The court rejected to add the judgment of Kharkivskyi Circuit Administrative Court to the case-file because it didn’t come into force.

On 21 February 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to the illness of lawyer.

On 20 March 2019 the court consideration was postponed due to presence of the judge in a counseling room.

On 22 April 2019 the Court granted a motion and held to add the Kharkivskyi Circuit Administrative Court’s judgment and adjudication of Second Court of Appeal to the case-file. A prosecution party was given a time to familiarize with the case-file. The next court hearing was appointed on 29.05.19.

On 29 May 2019 an indictment was pronounced in which Mrs. S was found guilty in committing a fraud and was sentenced to a fine which was paid in the income of the country. The pecuniary damage was also levied.

The appeal was lodged to Kharkiv Court of Appeal concerning the judgment of Ordzhonikidzevskyi District Court from 29 May 2019.

On 19 September 2019 Kharkiv Court of Appeal dismissed the indictment of Ordzhonikidzevskyi District Court in the city of Court and remanded the case for a new trial.

On 22 November 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to the judge being in a deliberation room.

On January 17, 2020, a preliminary court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor's business trip. The next court hearing was scheduled for February 12, 2020.

On February 12, 2020, the preliminary court hearing took place. The case was scheduled for consideration on March 18, 2020.

On March 18, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the employment of a judge. The next court hearing was scheduled for April 29, 2020.

On April 29, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the epidemic. The next court hearing was scheduled for June 12, 2020.

On June 12, 2020, the prosecutor announced the indictment, interrogated the accused and the victim's representative. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 29, 2020.

On July 27, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the defendant's hospitalization. The next court hearing is scheduled for October 12, 2020.

On October 12, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor's business trip. The next court hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2020.

On November 16, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the employment of a judge. The next court hearing is scheduled for December 21, 2020.

On December 21, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses and the accused. The next court hearing is scheduled for February 3, 2021.

The case continues.

Sheve-va case

In the end of March 2015 Mrs. Sh. arrived from Russian Federation (RF) to Ukraine because of her political opinion. She was participating in the Antiterrorist Operation (ATO) in Eastern Ukraine on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. She defended Ukraine interests in the forefront and was a secret cooperator of Ministry of Défence General Department.

On 09 December 2015 due to political intrigues in Ukrainian security agencies she was arrested and accused by Security Service of Ukraine in different crimes. Head Mr. M. «Lisnyk» who was one of the most famous, authoritative and honest defenders of Ukraine - was killed during his detaining in Kyiv (he was also accused in the crimes that he seemed to have done).

Long enough (more than one year) Mrs. Sh. was in custody. For the time being criminal cases are transferred to the court but their hearing is being delayed for almost one year by both prosecutors and judges who under various circumstances made decisions to postpone the process.

In the spring 2016, Mrs. Sh. lodged an application to State Migration Service (SMS) in which she asked to grant her refugee status or a status of person in need of additional protection. On 19 April 2017 Mrs. Sh. received a notification from State Migration Service of Ukraine General Department of Kyiv (SMS KGD) about a decision № 24-17 from 04 April 2017 which stated the dismissal without prejudice her complaint on State Migration Service of Ukraine decision to refuse in official registration of papers for the decision on the issue of recognition her as a refugee or a person who needs additional protection, because she missed a time to appeal that decision.

She has justified fears of becoming the victim of discrimination and persecution both from RF state bodies(as taking criminal proceedings, unlawful conviction, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) and from the non-governmental nationalistic groups and that’s why she can’t return to the country of origin.

Moreover, she substantiated the fact that she couldn’t appeal on SMS KGD decision on time because she was in pre-trial detention centre (SIZO) thereby she was limited in communication with translator, lawyer and her general emotional condition was oppressed.

According to the decision of SMS Mrs. Sh. has no ground to become the victim of discrimination and persecution (as taking criminal proceedings, unlawful conviction, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in the case of her returning to the country of origin.

 On 23 April 2017, Mrs. Sh. applied to the Administrative District Court of Kyiv with an administrative suit for the purpose of appealing the decision of SMS.

On 12 December 2017 in the court hearing a decision was made about taking a written administrative proceeding in the case of Mrs. Sh. (refusal in official registration of papers for the decision on the issue of recognition her as a refugee or a person who needs additional protection).

On 21 November 2019 the court refused Mrs. Sh. on her claim.

The SLC lawyer lodged before the SMS an application on the new consideration of her application on protection in Ukraine.

The SMS received an application and conducted interview with Mrs. Sh., than it decided to consider her document on asylum status or protection in Ukraine.

In 2020, the procedure of reconsideration of Ms. Sh.'s application at the SMS in city of Kyiv and Kyiv region continues. Documents for decision-making are sent to the SMSU.

On August 31, 2020, Sh. received refugee status in Ukraine.

On October 19, 2020, Sh. received a refugee certificate.

S-omka case

S. addressed a lawyer with a request to represent his interests in the Dergachevsky District Court of the Kharkiv Region in the case of mitigation the unserved part of the sentence.

On August 19, 2020, the attorney got acquainted with the case materials and prepared written explanations on the essence of the case.

During the court hearing on August 21, 2020, the petition to replace the unserved part of the sentence with a milder punishment was granted.

The court decision came into legal force.

Tit-renko case

Mr. T., the citizen of the Russian Federation was deprived of additional protection by the decision of the SMS of Ukraine of April 15, 2020.

Mr. T. immediately applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

In May 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the Circuit Administrative Court against the decision of the SMS of Ukraine.

On June 24, 2020, the Circuit Administrative Court passed the ruling to take no action on the complaint of the SLC lawyer and gave the lawyer 5 days to eliminate shortcomings.

On June 25, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the court with the eliminated shortcomings.

On August 12, 2020, proceedings were opened. The Migration Service provided a response, to which a response was sent.

On September 30, 2020, the court partially satisfied the claim - declared the decision illegal and annulled it.

However, he did not renew the documents, because this is the competence of the SMSU.

On October 30, 2020, the migration service announced by telephone that they considered the decision to have entered into legal force and would not appeal. Documents for the renewal of additional protection are under preparation. For now, all documents are at SMSU to obtain a new document.

 

The Tablet Case

K. addressed a lawyer of the SLC with a request to provide legal assistance. He said that he was serving a sentence in the State Institution “Romny correctional colony (No. 56)”. In accordance with the recent legislation changes, the convicts were allowed to use tablets directly in their cells. However, when relatives sent K. an expensive tablet, the administration of the penitentiary institution took it away and hid it.

According to this situation, the attorney of the SLC sent an attorney’s request to the State Institution “Romny correctional colony (No. 56)” about the reasons behind the seizure of the tablet and its further fate.

In addition, on June 20, 2020, the attorney of the SLC appealed to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine for clarification on the procedure for using tablets by convicts in Ukraine, since this procedure is not clearly described in public regulations.

After mentioned above appeal from the attorney, the colony administration unexpectedly allowed K. to use the tablet. Legal assistance has been completed.

Vo-f case

Mr. V. Asked the SLC lawyer for legal assistance in the criminal proceedings. Mr. V. stated that he was accused of robbery, which he did not actually commit. In particular, he is accused of taking the victim's phone and threatening her with a knife. In fact, he did not threaten the victim, and the phone was going to return to the victim. However, the trial court did not listen to his arguments and sentenced him to seven years in prison.

The lawyer prepared a position in the appellate court and written explanations, as she entered the case when the appeal was filed directly.

On November 17, 2020, the Kharkiv Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of the court of first instance and remanded the case for retrial.

The next court hearing is scheduled for January 12, 2021.

V-din case

Mr. V. was serving a life sentence in the Zamkova Correctional Facility № 58. He turned to a lawyer for legal assistance because he was not allowed to use a multicooker in the institution. The lawyer examined the regulations and found that the ban on use was determined by an order of the Ministry of Justice.

On March 14, 2020, the lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit with the Kyiv Circle Administrative Court to appeal the ban on the use of multicookers for convicts. She noted that in accordance with European law, this device can be used by convicts. In addition, self-cooking of convicts promotes their socialization, and the multicooker itself is not a potentially dangerous object.

The court hearing was scheduled for December 10, 2020, but by this time the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine had amended its order and allowed convicts to use multicookers.

Yer-nko case

Mr. Ye is accused of committing of intentional destruction or damage to property of citizens.

In accordance with prosecution’s version, while on 14 January 2019 mr.Ye. was in the territory of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra he burnt the paper in a room. As a result, a fire in the Lavra occurred. Mr.Ye was detained by police near the scene of crime.

Mr.Ye is a drug user who also suffered from the epilepsy.

In accordance with Mr. Ye’s version, around 14 o-clock he drank about 200 ml. of alcohol and took several pills "Methadone"

Being drunk Mr. Ye was going around the Lavra and speaking with acquaintances. Then he saw a crowd and some fire trucks. When he came closer he determined that in a building near the Lavra was fire.

Being drunk Mr. Ye. had a huge desire to become a part of the events. He decided to tell strangers that he burnt the Lavra. He even gave an interview, When police finally came strangers pointed on Mr. Ye and retold his commitment. Mr. Ye was detained and transported to the Pecherskyy police station.

Mr. Ye recovered consciousness in police. He was handcuffed. Mr. Ye did not understand where and for what reasons he stayed. Talking with a policeman he determined that he has already pleaded his guilt on committing a crime. Mr.Ye started to explain that he could not do that because he was religious, worked in the Lavra. When policemen understood that he refused to plead his guilt further they started to threaten him by physical violence. Then Mr. Ye. was tortured for a long period of time.

On 15 January 2019 Mr. Ye was noticed of suspicion in committing a crime and on 17 January 2019 the preliminary measure in the form of detention was applied to him.

In the first three days after Mr. Ye’s detention there were conducted more than 40 investigative actions. In particular an investigator conducted a crime-scene examination, interrogated witnesses and conducted identification.

On 15 April 2019 Mr. Ye was released.

The SLC lawyer used weaknesses in the criminal proceedings and disrupted a court meeting. In the lack of court decision Mr. Ye was released.

On 02 July 2019 Mr. Ye passed ambulant forensic psychiatric examination.

With the assistance of the SLC lawyer, Mr. Ye started a drug treatment course, recovered lost documents and sought for psychiatric help.

With the assistance of the SLC lawyer, Mr. Ye has twice restored the lost passport document. Following the advice of a lawyer, Mr. YE got an official job as a chef at the fast food network “Puzata hata” in Kyiv and receives the help of a physician-narcologist and psychiatrist.

In December 2019, the case was transferred to the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv. Due to the systematic absence of the prosecutor, none of the four court hearings took place.

The SLC's lawyer filed a complaint against the violation of the procedure for extending the term of the pre-trial investigation, which must be considered during the preparatory proceedings. Two more complaints were also filed: declaring illegal and revoking the prosecutor's decision to take samples for examination, as well as on violation reasonable time limits during the pre-trial investigation.

At the request of the prosecutor, the court of first instance returned the indictment to the prosecutor. The reason for making such a decision was the lack of personal data of the victim in the indictment. At the time of making this decision, the victim's representative had already twice participated in the preparatory hearing. At the moment, the prosecutor has handed over a new indictment to the accused and his defence counsel. The trial has not started.

 Share this