MENU
Documenting
war crimes in Ukraine

The Tribunal for Putin (T4P) global initiative was set up in response to the all-out war launched by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022.

Similar articles

Five confessions are fineAgainst tortureHow widespread is the use of torture and ill-treatment in Ukraine?How Ukraine is protecting its citizens against tortureDon’t say you didn’t knowUkrainian priest abducted and tortured to death in Russian-occupied Kherson oblast Russia has turned Crimea into a huge prison for political prisoners and hostages from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblastsKherson IT specialist abducted, tortured and sentenced in Russian-occupied Ukraine to 11 years for trying to get his family to safety ‘Mom died on the basement’s steps,’ — Mikhailo Ivanov, MariupolRussia drops all pretence in ‘trial’ of Ukrainian hostages imprisoned since 2018 in occupied Donbas Russian invaders abduct two Ukrainian Greek Catholic priests from Berdiansk and accuse them of ‘terrorism’ Russian soldiers given long sentences in Ukraine for bombing civilian targets in Kharkiv oblast Terror and abductions as Russia tries to break Ukrainian resistance in Kherson and other occupied citiesMayor of Melitopol Ivan Fedorov abducted after refusing to collaborate with the Russian invaders Russian proxy Donbas ‘republic’ threatens death sentence after torturing young father into ‘confessing’ to being a Ukrainian saboteur “Kyiv Post has been killed”. Journalists cry foul as crucial Ukrainian English-language newspaper abruptly closes Russia crushes human rights group defending political prisoners and fighting state secrecy, including about war against Ukraine Ivan Yatskin sentenced to 11 years on ‘state treason’ charges for opposing Russia’s occupation of Crimea Criminal investigation initiated after Mayor of Ivano-Frankivsk orders forced eviction of RomaImprisoned journalists in occupied Crimea and Russia that Ivan Golunov’s defenders never noticed

Next stop Strasbourg

21.03.2008    source: www.helsinki.org.ua

Torture in Ukraine can be considered a legitimate means of gaining a confession if one considers the judgment handed down on this week by the Supreme Court in the case of Motsny and Nechyporuk

The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union called on people to follow this disturbing and unprecedented case.

Two men – Oleksandr Motsny and Ivan Nechyporuk – were identified as suspects by the victim of an attack whose mother was killed trying to protect him.  It was not an eyewitness identification – the victim simply said that it might have been the two because of their height and build. 

The police did the rest.  The main evidence as such was the men’s confessions.  We have reported Ivan Nechyporuk’s father’s account of how this confession was extracted from his son.  He asserts that when they tried to beat a confession out of Ivan with no success, they brought in his heavily pregnant wife, and threatened to torture her.

The police, in fact, ended up with five confessions. During the court hearing, a representative of the Prosecutor General’s office asserted that the five confessions demonstrated the growing competition of the police officers who questioned the men.  They get better and better is presumably the idea. Looking at the material of the case, one does however get the impression that it was less their skill in interrogation, as the means of torture that changed. Some of the methods described could surely compete with those used during the Spanish Inquisition.

The Khmelnytsky Region Inter-District Court acquitted the men on the grounds that the confessions given by Ivan Nechyporuk and Oleksandr Motsny had not been voluntary.

This verdict was appealed, and the Ternopil Regional Court of Appeal convicted the two men of murder, effectively on the basis of those confessions.

The two defendants described the torture that they had been subjected during the Supreme Court hearing, as well as certain other irregularities, such as the fact that no protocol at all was taken of the court hearing in the Court of Appeal.

Yet the Supreme Court chose not to consider this and upheld the convictions and 15-year sentences.

It now remains for the European Court of Human Rights to consider whether 5 confessions are credible proof of the crime or whether a clear violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the prohibition of torture was involved.  Since this Convention is binding upon Ukraine, the Supreme Court’s judgment may well not be the end of the story.

 Share this