login | registration | forgot the password
today 30.09.2016 19:50
(by Kyiv time)

navigation

Kharkiv Human Rights Group Social Networking



A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations for 2014

17.05.15 | Gennadiy Tokarev

1. During the reporting period the European Court delivered 1 judgment in case of the Strategic Litigations Centre (SLC).

 

Aleksandr Vladimirovich Smirnov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Aleksandr Vladimirovich Smirnov is a Russian national, who is currently lives in the Russian Federation.

On 5 December 2002 the applicant was stopped by the police at a bus station in Odessa, Ukraine, and detained in a holding facility for vagrants on the grounds that he had no identity documents with him. He was detained and held alternately in the aforementioned facility and the Kakhovka, Kherson and Mykolayiv police detention facilities until 23 December 2002, and was questioned off the record about his alleged involvement with a terrorist group plotting to instigate a revolt to reinstate a communist state.

On 29 December 2002 the applicant was indicted for membership of a terrorist group and participation in a terrorist act. In February 2003 the applicant was transferred to the Odessa no. 21 pre-trial detention facility, as the investigation of the case had been transferred to the Odessa SSU.

In November 2005 the applicant was transferred to the Slavyanoserbsk no. 60 Correctional Colony (“the Slavyanoserbsk Colony”), where he served his sentence until he was transferred to another detention facility in September 2007. The conditions of his detention therein were incompatible with human dignity.

In 2006 the applicant sent a complaint in the European court of human rights. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the Slavyanoserbsk Colony, including physical arrangements and medical assistance, had been incompatible with human dignity. Also the applicant complained that he had been hindered in the effective exercise of his right to mount a defence in the criminal proceedings against him, as he had not been properly represented. In particular, he had had no access to a lawyer at the beginning of the investigation. Furthermore, the incriminating evidence obtained from him in breach of his right to legal assistance had been used as a basis for his conviction. The applicant also lodged numerous further complaints alleging breaches of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 34 of the Convention in connection with the criminal proceedings against him and during his detention in various facilities.

In 2013 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s arguments set out in their Observations.

On March 13, 2014 the European court of human rights holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and also holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

 

Anatoliy Rudenko v. Ukraine

In 2005-2006 Mr. Anatoliy Rudenko (hereinafer – the applicant) created a local non-governmental organisation, as well as several newspapers.

On 16 November 2006 the Kryvyy Rig Transport Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of interfering with gas pipeline repairs in July 2006.

On 17 May 2007 the Kryvyy Rig City Prosecutor’s Office opened another criminal case in respect of the applicant, on suspicion of extortion from a local politician.

On 4 June 2007 the applicant was detained.

 On 6 June 2007 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (“the Dzerzhynskyy Court”) ordered that he remain in pre-trial detention. 

On 11 June 2007 an outpatient forensic psychiatric expert examination of the applicant was carried out in the Kryvyy Rig Psychoneurological Dispensary. The expert discerned indications of a paranoid personality disorder with a tendency towards “forming fixed ideas”. An inpatient examination was recommended for a more precise diagnosis.

On 15 June 2007 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 6 June 2007.

On 27 June 2007 the applicant was taken to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital for an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination in the framework of the criminal case regarding the charge of extortion from Ms B.

On 26 July 2007 the inpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant (see paragraph 16 above) was completed. 

 On 25 December 2008 the Dzerzhynskyy Court ordered another in-patient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant, with a view to establishing his ability to stand trial in the criminal cases.

From 30 January to 26 February 2009 the applicant underwent an examination in the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital.

On 3 June 2009 the Dzerzhynskyy Court found the applicant guilty of extortion from Ms B. As to the charge of extortion from Mr S., the court held that there was insufficient evidence of the applicant’s guilt. It also established that the applicant had impeded the gas pipeline repairs. The court noted that the applicant could not be held accountable for the criminal offences in question and required involuntary medical treatment in a mental facility.

 On 23 December 2009 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court of 3 June 2009 as it had been delivered in the applicant’s absence. 

On 8 April 2011 the Dzerzhynskyy Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant in so far as the aforementioned charges were concerned. On the same date the court found the applicant guilty of extortion from Ms B. Relying on the medical reports concerning the applicant’s mental health, the court held that his mental health had subsequently deteriorated to an extent warranting involuntary medical treatment. 

On 16 August 2011 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision on the involuntary medical treatment of the applicant.

On 2 October 2008 the applicant lodged an application to the European Court of Human Right (hereinafter – the ECtHR).

He complained that his detention from 17 August to 17 September 2007 was in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights. (hereinafter – the Convention). He also complained under Article 5 § 3 about the length of the entire period of his pre-trial detention. He also complained that his confinement in a psychiatric hospital had been an arbitrary and unnecessary measure.

On 4 February 2013 the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

In July 2013 a lawyer of the SLC prepared the reply to the Government’s Observations.

On 17 April 2014 the ECtHR issued the judgment in which it found violations of Article 5 § 1, 5 § 3, 5 § 4 of the Convention.

 

Budchenko v. Ukraine

From 1953 to 1966 Mr. Budchenko (hereinafter – the applicant) worked in a mine.

In 2001-2002 the applicant asked the Lenin Mine (his former employer) and the State mining enterprise Artemvugillya (the Lenin Mine’s legal successor) to explain to him how section 43 of the Mining Act was to be implemented, and to pay his electricity and gas costs in accordance with this provision. In reply he was informed that persons who were entitled to receive coal free of charge but were living in houses with central heating had the right to exemption from electricity and gas payments, such costs being borne by the mining companies. However, no appropriate legal mechanisms implementing “the methods of calculation and the sources of financing” had been adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers.

In 2003 the applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office that his requests to have his electricity and gas payments covered had been ignored.

In April 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court against the State mining enterprise Artemvugillya and local communal heating and gas providers. 

On 7 April 2004 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court found against the applicant.

On 29 July 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

On 4 April 2006 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant.In a decision of 1 December 2006 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court ordered the applicant to settle his heating debts, noting that section 43 of the Mining Act did not exempt him from paying for heating services. That decision was upheld on 26 June 2007 by the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal. On 23 October 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a request by the applicant for leave to appeal on points of law.

On 11 September 2006 the applicant lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR). He complained that on 7 April 2004 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court had rejected his claim unlawfully. In his application he invoked Article 6 of the Convention.

The ECtHR decided that this complaint should be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter – the Convention) which guarantees respect for the private property.On 25 August 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.

In December 2011 a lawyer of the SLC prepared the reply to the Government’s Observations.

On 24 April 2014 the ECtHR issued the judgment in which it found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine

Both applicants were born in 1938 and live in the city of Lugansk and in the town of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine, respectively.

Both applicants have the special status of “a child of war”. From, 1 January 2006, they were entitled to a special supplement to their pensions in the amount of 30% of the minimum pension in accordance with section 6 of the Children of War Social Protection Act.

In May 2008, the first applicant instituted court proceedings against the Artemovskyy District Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine and the Lugansk Regional Main Department of the State Treasury of Ukraine, asking them to recalculate his pension for 2006-08, to determine the amount of and to pay him the outstanding indexed debt, and to pay his pension in the recalculated amount in the future. The first applicant also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and legal expenses.

On 22 July 2008, the Lugansk Regional Administrative Court held that in 2006 section 6 of the Children of War Social Protection Act had been suspended by the State Budget Act 2006. In return the State Budget Act had empowered the Cabinet of Ministers to set up a mechanism for a pension increase. However, because in 2006 no such mechanism had been set up, the first applicant’s claims relating to 2006 had to be rejected.

The court further found that in 2007 section 6 had again been suspended, and in 2008 it had been modified by the State Budget Acts for the relevant years. However, this modification was found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 9 July 2007 and 22 May 2008. The court consequently held that the State Pension Fund should recalculate the first applicant’s pension for the periods between 9 July and 31 December 2007 and as of 22 May 2008.

On 19 December 2008, the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

On 28 July 2010, the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.

 In December 2009, the second applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodsky Town Court against the Pension Fund, asking for recalculation of his pension from January 2006.

On 2 March 2010, the court found in part for the second applicant. It held that the second applicant was entitled to the supplement from the date of the decision of the Constitutional Court (9 July 2007) and not from 1 January 2006. The court further held that the Pension Fund should recalculate the second applicant’s pension for the periods between 9 July and 31 December 2007 and between 22 May 2008 and 2 March 2010.

On 10 August 2010, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The decision of the Court of Appeal was final.

On 14 February 2011, the second applicant instituted a second set of proceedings in the Zhovtovodsky Town Court claiming payment of the above-mentioned supplement to his pension starting from 3 March 2010.

On 17 May 2011, the court found for the second applicant and held that the Pension Fund should recalculate the applicant’s pension from 3 March 2010. On 14 October 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

On 1 and 9 November 2010, the applicants lodged the applications to the European Court of Human Right (hereinafter – the ECtHR).

The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had not been paid social benefits in the amount claimed by them.

On 25 August 2011, the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

In January 2012, a lawyer of the SLC prepared the reply to the Government’s Observations.

On 26 June 2014, the ECtHR found that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the period between 2 April 2006 and 31 December 2006.

 

Osakovskiy v. Ukraine

On 8 June 2004, the applicant, Ukrainian national, was arrested by the Leninskiy District police of Kharkiv and confessed to having inflicted injuries on F., a cashier in a game-machines arcade, and robbed the arcade in August 2003. According to the applicant, that confession was false and had been given by him as a result of ill-treatment. In particular, police officers had applied electric current to his body, suffocated him in a gas mask and applied various other unspecified torture techniques.

On 10 June 2005, the applicant was officially charged. On the same date the Leninskiy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody, and on 11 June 2004 the applicant was placed in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention facility (“the Kharkiv SIZO”).

 On 31 July 2004, the applicant retracted his previous confessions, claiming that they had been given under duress from the police, and pleaded innocent.

On 4 August 2004 in a confrontation with the applicant, police officer B. denied having ill-treated him. On 4 August 2004, the Leninskiy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to set up a criminal inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment for want of objective evidence.

On 18 August 2004, the applicant was committed to stand trial before the District Court.

On 14 December 2004, the applicant complained in court that he had been ill-treated by the authorities with a view to extract self-incriminating statements and requested to be released from pre-trial detention against an obligation not to abscond. On the same date the District Court ordered the applicant’s release against an undertaking not to abscond. It noted that, notwithstanding the gravity of the charges against the applicant, there was no evidence that he might abscond or commit other crimes if at liberty.

On 16 March 2005, the District Court remitted the applicant’s case for further investigation, having found that the applicant should have been charged with murder, rather than with injuring F. The court also ordered that the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations be verified. By the same decision, the court remanded the applicant in custody again. The applicant appealed against the decision. The prosecutor appealed against the District Court decision to remit the case.

On 7 July 200,5 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court”) allowed the prosecution’s appeal and remitted the case for trial. It also rejected the applicant’s request for release from custody.

In August 2005 the District Court ordered the prosecutor’s office to inquire into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints, and  in September 2005 the District Court adjourned the proceedings because of non-completing of the prosecutor’s inquiry..

On 12 September 2005, the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, which found, in particular, that he had an old scar and an area with a modified skin on his body. However, it was not possible to establish whether he had sustained any injuries in June 2004. On the same date the district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers.

On 19 December 2005, the District Court remitted the criminal case against the applicant for further investigation, having found that insufficient evidence had been collected for his conviction and that procedures had been breached in collecting the evidence. The court also ordered a further inquiry into the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations. In the same decision the District Court refused the applicant’s request for release from custody.

In January 2006, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office revoked the decision of 12 September 2005 not to institute criminal proceedings, but in February

In February 2006 the district prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints. 31.  According to the applicant, he complained about that decision on various dates to different authorities, including the General Prosecutor’s Office, but to no avail. He did not submit copies of his relevant complaints to the Court.

In March 2006, the applicant’s case was remitted to the District Court for trial.

On March 2006, the applicant lodged his application to the ECtHR. He alleged that he had been ill-treated in custody; that the period of his detention had been unreasonable; that he had been deprived of access to a procedure whereby the lawfulness of his detention could be decided and that the criminal proceedings against him had been excessively lengthy.

On 14 April and 14 June 2006, the applicant requested that he be released against an undertaking not to abscond, but the court refused his requests. Later the applicant moved to the District Court to release him from custody but in vain.

On 18 August 2006, the District Court acquitted the applicant of the charges and released him from custody, having held that in those circumstances, any doubts as to the applicant’s guilt should be interpreted in his favour and he should be acquitted.

On 30 October 2007, the Regional Court quashed the above judgment and ordered a further investigation of the charges against the applicant.

On 15 January 200,8 the applicant was placed in hospital with acute sinusitis. On the same date the investigation was suspended.

In July 2012, the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s Observations.

On 27 July 2012, the investigation was resumed.

On 17 July 2014 the ECtHR found that there has been a violation of Articles 3,  5 § 3, 5 § 4,  6 § 1 (regarding to the length of the proceedings) of the Convention.

 

Vintman v. Ukraine

On February 2000, the applicant, Ukrainian national, was detained on suspicion of several counts of robbery and a murder. He claimed that he had been beaten by the police.

On 13 September 2000, the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged. It sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 21 December 2000, the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment.

On 30 October 2009, the Supreme Court reviewed the applicant’s case under an extraordinary procedure and commuted his sentence to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

On 6 December 2001, the applicant was transferred to Vinnytsya Prison, which had a section for life prisoners, to serve his sentence. That prison is located some 700 kilometres from Zaporizhzhya, where the applicant had been living before his detention and where his mother lived.

On numerous occasions the applicant and his mother, Mrs Kapiton, asked the State Department of Ukraine for the Enforcement of Sentences (“the Prison Department”) to transfer the applicant to a prison closer to his home to make it easier for her to visit him as it is the long travel time from Zaporizhzhya to Vinnytsya by public transport and Mrs Kapiton is the old lady that has poor health (she had been officially certified “second-degree” (medium) disabled).

All applicant’s and Mrs Kapiton’s requests on transfer the applicant to a prison closer to his home, were rejected. On numerous occasions the Prison Department repeated its previous reasoning, referring to the legal requirement that prisoners must serve their entire prison term in the same establishment.

On 1 December 2009, following a review of the applicant’s sentence, the Prison Department’s regional commission on prisoner distribution, allocation and transfers examined his case. It decided that he would be held in a maximum-security prison, in ordinary accommodation. Pursuant to that decision, on 10 December 2009, he was transferred to Sokal Prison (a maximum-security prison) located in the Lviv region, around 1,000 kilometres from Zaporizhzhya.

Repeated applicant’s and his mother’s requests for transfer to a medium-security prison in the Zaporizhzhya region or to a prison in the Donetsk or Lugansk region (neighboring the Zaporizhzhya region) were submitted. All their requests were rejected.

The applicant suffers from ingrowing eyelashes of the left eye, which have to be removed periodically. In addition, the applicant felt pain and discomfort in his left eye. The applicant’s eye problem was connected to his alleged beating by prison guards following his arrival at the prison in 2001. That’s why, on an unspecified date in 2005, the applicant’s mother complained to the prosecutor’s office.

On 5 and 25 April 2005, the Vinnytsa Prosecutor’s Office responded that there was no basis for launching a criminal inquiry into that complaint.

The applicant and his mother, acting on his behalf, complained to the prosecution authorities and the Prison Department about the routine monitoring of his correspondence by the prison administration.

The prosecutor’s response was that the applicant’s correspondence was subject to monitoring under the legislation in force; however, there had been no instances of withholding letters or seizing objects which the prisoners were allowed to keep.

On 7 July 2003, the Vinnytsa Regional Prison Department wrote to the applicant’s mother, in reply to her complaint regarding, in particular, the interference with his correspondence, that on 11, 16 and 23 April 2003 the prison administration had “withheld some letters written by [the applicant], because their content did not comply with the requirements of the Instruction on Review of Prisoners’ Correspondence”.

On 29 June 2005, the applicant lodged an application to the European Court of Human Right (hereinafter – the ECtHR).

The applicant complained, under Article 8 of the Convention, that his rights to family life and to respect for his correspondence had been violated. He also raised a complaint regarding the medical care available to him in detention in respect of his pathological condition of ingrowing eyelashes.

On 2 January 2012, the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

In May 2012, a lawyer of the SLC prepared the reply to the Government’s Observations.

On 23 October 2014, the ECtHR found that there has been a violation of Articles: 8 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s inability to obtain a transfer to a prison closer to his home; 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 on account of the aforementioned issue; 8 of the Convention on account of the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence in Vinnytsa Prison.

That part of the application concerning regarding the medical care available to the applicant in detention in respect of his pathological condition of ingrowing eyelashes was rejected by the ECtHR.

 

Adnaralov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Oleksiy Ivanovych Adnaralov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Kharkiv.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarized as follows.

On 5 May 2004 the applicant was apprehended by four police officers on suspicion of bribe-taking. The police officers took him to the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Police Station and beat him for several hours forcing him to confess.

On 6 May 2004 the applicant was taken to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office. He complained about his ill-treatment to a senior prosecutor from the above office. The prosecutor referred the applicant for a forensic medical examination.

On 7 May 2004 the applicant was hospitalized with the diagnosis of head concussion.

On 8 May 2004 the applicant underwent forensic medical examination which established numerous bruises on his face, chest, legs and arms, as well as damaged crown of a tooth.

On 11 May 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of bribe-taking.

On 2 June 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office about his ill-treatment by the police officers.

On 12 August 2004 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. This decision was quashed by the higher prosecutor on 7 October 2004 and an additional inquiry was ordered. Afterwards, the prosecutors refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on several occasions; all those decisions were quashed by higher prosecutors or the courts and an additional inquiry was ordered.

On 27 April 2007 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated for lack of corpus delicti.

On 17 February 2012 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment.

On 19 June 2012 the above decision was quashed by the Kharkiv Kyivskiy District Court which referred the case file back to the prosecutor for further inquiry. This decision by the first-instance court was upheld on appeal by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal.

On 31 August 2012 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment. The applicant challenged that decision to the Kharkiv Kyivskiy District Court on 20 September 2012.

On May 23, 2014 a lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s arguments set out in their Observations of March 31, 2014.

On 27 November 2014, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive limb and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural limb.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court –Ms Nataliia Okhotnikova, a lawyer of SLC.

 

Kushnir v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Dmytro Valentynovych Kushnir, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Kyiv.

On 5 October 2005 the applicant was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to two years’ restriction of liberty.

In March 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion of robbery, theft and illegal drug dealing committed in 2005 and 2007. The applicant was detained as a suspect within this set of proceedings from 8 to 23 March 2007 and from 10 September 2007 to 21 October 2008. During the remaining period of the pre-trial investigation he was bound by an undertaking not to leave his town of residence.

On 21 October 2009 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Shevchenkivskyy Court”) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment, which also absorbed the outstanding part of the sentence of 5 October 2005.

On 9 April 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.

On 3 July 2009, at about 7 p.m., the applicant was summoned to the Shevchenkivskyy District Police Station no. 2 by a telephone call. He was arrested in the police station upon his arrival there without any explanation. According to the report of the police officer involved, the latter had “invited [the applicant] to the police station on suspicion of having committed the criminal offence alleged by Mr B.”.

The case file contains his written explanations to the police dated 3 July 2009 regarding the events of 22 June 2009. He admitted that he had met Mr B., but denied his involvement in the robbery.

The applicant alleged that, following his arrest on 3 July 2009, he had been “severely beaten” by the police.

On 4 July 2009 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of having robbed Mr B. , the applicant was questioned as a suspect and denied that he was guilty.

On the same day, at 2.15 p.m., the police issued a report, according to which the applicant had been apprehended at 2 p.m. on 4 July 2009 in the premises of the police station on suspicion of having committed a crime.

On 7 July 2009 the Shevchenkivskyy Court remanded the applicant in custody for two months.

On 8 July 2009 the applicant was taken to the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (the SIZO). His medical examination, which was carried out on the same day, did not reveal any injuries, and the applicant did not mention to the doctors that he had been ill-treated. His only complaint was about epigastric pain. The applicant was detained in the SIZO from 8 July 2009 to 2 July 2012.  Without specifying in which cells he had been held and for how long, the applicant described his cells as severely overcrowded, poorly ventilated and damp. Upon his arrival at the SIZO, the applicant underwent a medical examination and X-ray, which revealed post-tuberculosis residual lung changes. His height and weight were recorded as 180 cm and 74 kg respectively. The applicant complained of epigastric pain. He also informed the doctors of his past medical history of viral hepatitis B and C, and his HIV-positive status.

On 31 August 2009 the court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three months, having taken into account “the volume of investigative measures still to be undertaken”.

 From 25 August to 22 September 2009 the applicant was held in the Kyiv City Centre of Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examinations with the aim of clarifying whether he could be held criminally liable.

On 6 March 2012 the court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.

On 5 July 2012 the applicant was transferred to the Zhovtnevska prison no. 17.

On 21 May 2012 the application of the applicant was communicated to the Government.

On 11 December 2014, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the physical conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Kyiv SIZO and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of adequate medical care for the applicant in the Kyiv SIZO. The Court also has found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s arrest on 3 July 2009 and detention until 4 July 2009.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court –Ms L.S. Mnushkina, a lawyer of SLC who is practicing in Kyiv.

 

 

2. In the following cases lawyers of the SLC continued legal representation of the victims of torture in the European Court on the stage on communications with the Government of Ukraine.

 

Abdulayev v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Romazan Amiraslanovich Abdulayv, is a Russian national, who was born on 01.09.1986, is currently detained in the SIZO of Luhansk City, Ukraine. The applicant is an ethnic Chechen.

In the Russian Federation the criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for murder. The authorities of the Russian Federation started extradition procedure.

On 27 March 2014 the applicant applied for political asylum with the Luhansk Regional Migration Service of Ukraine, maintaining that his health and life is under the risk in the case of his extradition to the Russian Federation, as relatives of the victim threatened him with blood feuds.

Besides, the applicant stated that taking into account that he is an ethnic Chechen, he has a risk to be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment threatened in the case of his extradition to the authorities of the Russian Federation.

However, in April of 2014 Luhansk Regional Department of Migration Service refused to initiate asylum proceedings in the applicant’s case. At that, migration service department did not explained their refusal by any cause.

In April 2014 a legal expert of the KHPG prepared administrative suit against refusal of migration service department, which was filed by the applicant to Luhansk Regional Administrative Court. The court proceeding is pending.

 

I.N. v. Ukraine

On 18 March 2000 the principal of the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association received a letter from the Severodonetsk Town Prosecutor’s Office. 

On 19 March 2000, Ma., assisted by the ambulance brigade and police officers, visited the applicant. The applicant was examined and placed in the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association hospital.

On 20 March 2000 the applicant was examined by a commission of doctors who confirmed the necessity of his urgent hospitalization. On the next day the applicant was examined by an assistant of the Mental Medicine Department of the Lugansk State Medical University. He was offered hospital treatment. Since the applicant refused he was further examined by three doctors of the Lugansk Regional Psychoneurological Hospital.

On 17 July and 2 August 2001 the applicant requested the medical establishments where he had stayed to allow him to study his medical file and to inform him what the legal basis had been for his placement into these hospitals.

On 26 September 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Severodonetskyy Town Court against the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association complaining about the failure to answer his request about his treatment.

On 6 February 2003 the applicant modified his claims. He complained that his placement in the psychoneurological department of the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association on 19 March 2000 and his further stay until 21 March 2000 had been unlawful, and that he had been unlawfully transferred to the Lugansk Regional Psychoneurological Hospital and to the Svativsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital where he stayed until 4 December 2000. 

On 13 August 2007 the court partially allowed the applicant’s claims. 

The decision of 13 August 2007 was upheld on 29 November 2007 and on 12 February 2008 by the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, respectively.

On 23 November 2010 the applicant complained to the Severodonetskyy Town Court that he had not received the writ of enforcement. In reply the court informed him that he could receive the writ of enforcement in the court’s secretariat upon a written request.

On March 29, 2008 the applicant lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights about violation of Article 5 § 1, 5 § 5 of the Convention.

On October 16, 2014 a lawyer of the SLC prepared a reply on the Government’s observation in the case.

 

Kiyashko v. Ukraine

6 September 2004 K who was at that time undergoing inpatient medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital from 3 to 16 September 2004 (according to the certificate issued by the hospital), was apprehended by the police and taken, without explanations, to the police station.

On 17 September 2004 the investigator opened a criminal case against K. on suspicion of having committed fraud as part of a group.

On 6 October 2006 the Kyivskyi District Court of Poltava found K. guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.

From 4 October 2004 to 2 October 2007 K. was detained in the SIZO, in various cells of the same time type. Each cell had poor sanitary conditions. It was very humid and the walls were covered with smoke and mould. It was infested by rats, mice, bedbugs, lice, spiders and cockroaches. The toilet was not separated from the living area, had no flush and emitted a foul smell that lingered in the air. Detainees were forced to eat their meals in close proximity to the toilets. No hygiene items were distributed to them. Bed linen was issued once and for the whole period of detention which, in the applicant’s case, was for three years. The mattress was dirty and torn. The food was of poor quality. Detainees were allowed to take shower once in 7‑10 days or even a fortnight, only ten to fifteen minutes.

From 2 October 2007 to 22 September 2009 K. was serving his sentence in the prison. His cell measured 120 square metres and accommodated seventy to eighty prisoners. Many of them were HIV-positive, suffered from tuberculosis, hepatitis and fungal diseases. The cell was dirty and infested with parasitic insects. There were no disinfection products available while all cellmates shared vessels, scissors and a needle. Shower, toilets and dining rooms were in unhygienic state as well. The toilets had no flash and emitted a foul smell. The food was of poor quality and often made from spoilt products.

Throughout his detention K. regularly submitted complaints about the poor conditions of his detention and lack of the medical treatment to different State authorities. The majority of the complaints were eventually transferred for examination to the SIZO and prison governors, which led to threats on their part and on the part of the officials of the State Department for Execution of Sentences. 

In 2007 K. filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

On January 16, 2014 the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

In July, 2014 the lawyers of the SLC prepared the reply to the Government’s submissions to the application.

 

Kravchenko v. Ukraine

In 2005 the applicant was prosecuted for theft and sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment.

After his release in 2006 he was prosecuted for murder. The criminal proceedings were completed in 2007 and he was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment.

From 11 December 2011 to 22 July 2013 the applicant was detained at the Romenska Correctional Colony. On the latter date, he was transferred to the Gorodyshenska Correctional Colony.

The applicant suffers tuberculosis of lungs, duodenal ulcer and other deceases.

During his detention in various correctional colonies the applicant did not obtained proper medical treatment of his illnesses.

The applicant applied to the administration of the colonies with the requests to provide him with necessary treatment, but his applications were ignored.

In 2009 the applicant filed the complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. He alleged about violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning non-providing of him with the necessary medical treatment. He also complained on violation of Article 34 of the Convention concerning the refuse of the national courts to provide him with the copies of documents for preparation of his complaint to the ECtHR.

In November 2013 the case was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

In May 2014 the lawyer of the SLC prepped the reply to the Government’s Observations.  

 

Kulik v. Ukraine

The applicant was convicted for commitment of a murder. During his trial in the court of first instance the video recording of the reconstruction of the event of a crime was translated  by the TV channel “Kyiv” in the TV show “Chornyy kvadrat”. Moreover, the investigator, who conducted investigation of his criminal case, gave an interview for this TV channel in which he mentioned the name of the applicant as the main suspect.

The applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office on unlawful actions of the investigator who violated the principle of presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, his complaints did not lead to proper results.

During consideration of his criminal case by the Supreme Court of Ukraine the applicant was held in the metal cage.

In 2009 the applicant applied to the European Court of Human Rights. Among other complaints, he complained on violation of Article 3 of the Convention regarding his keeping in the metal cage during the court hearing in the Supreme Court of Ukraine, Article 8 of the Convention concerning revealing of the video recording of the reconstruction of the event of a crime in the TV show “Chornyy kvadrat”.

In March 2012 the case was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

In February 2014 the lawyer of the KHPG prepared on behalf of the applicant the reply to the Government’s Observations.

 

Meliksetyan v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Edgar Samvelovich Meliksetyan, is a Armenian national, who was born in 1980 and is currently living in the Kharkiv, Ukraine.

On 5 April 2010 three police officers arrested the applicant with the application of physical force, applying to him the metal handcuffs.

Then they beaten Applicant in the District Police to forcing him to write a written confession to the crime.

After the beating, the police officers took on a personal car the Applicant to forensic expert, in order that she witnessed the applicant’s lack of injuries. 05.04.2010 forensic expert examined the applicant in the car and witnessed the lack of injuries, violating his job descriptions. 

By the forensic medical examination of 18.05.2010, it was determined that the Applicant had suffered damage in the form closed head injury as a concussion, which refers to light injuries, bruises on the face and other body parts.

After beating the Applicant treated renal damage by now with a diagnosis of "sub-capsular rupture of left kidney".

Since 2010 by now prosecutors repeatedly issued refusal to open a criminal investigation into the abuse of authority by one of the police officers, and as for misconduct of the forensic expert. With the help of the  lawyer of the SLC the Applicant  had repeatedly appealed these decisions to the court, which repealed these decisions as unfounded.

 

In 2011, the case against the two police officers who are accused with abuse of power in relation to the applicant was transferred to the Leninsky district court of Kharkiv.

Applicant in trial was granted victim status. From the third quarter of 2012 and currently the   SLC lawyer presents Applicant’s interests as a victim in trial.

In the framework of trial the lawyer of the SLC requested to call witnesses whose testimony was not properly considered at the pre-trial investigation.

In February 2013 the applicant filed an application for a crime against a third police officer and a forensic expert under the new Criminal Procedure Code. The application was registered in accordance with the law. The criminal proceedings were instituted. The forensic expert acknowledged as the person who is suspected of committing a crime.

During 2013 the lawyer of the SLC filed an application for the study of physical evidence and reviewing video in the court.

On February 20, 2014 the Leninsky district court issued indictments against two police officers who tortured the applicant in 2010 and sentenced them to 7,5 years imprisonment.

On 2011 the applicant complained to the ECtHR under Article 3 about the ill-treatment by police officers with the aim of extracting his confession and under Article 13 on account of absence at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3.

In March, 2014 the SLC lawyer sent the Reply to the Observations of the Ukrainian government to the ECHR. Currently the applicant expects a final decision by the European Court of Human Rights.

 

Sokil v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Maksim Viktorovich Sokil, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1981 and living in Kyiv.

According to medical documents submitted by the applicant, since 1996 the applicant has been taking drugs and is currently suffering from numerous diseases.

On 13 July 2010 the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment for drugs related offences and a theft.

In May 2011 the applicant was diagnosed with IV stage HIV.

On 7 July 2011 the court released him from serving further sentence in view of his poor state of health.

Since 25 July 2011 the applicant was subjected to regular medical checks in the Kyiv City AIDS Centre.

On 1 February 2012 the applicant was apprehended on suspicion of committing further drugs related offences and a theft.

On 20 March 2012 the applicant was placed in the SIZO medical ward.

On 18 April 2012 his CD4+ T cell count was 762.

On 13 August 2012 the applicant was discharged from the medical ward. Upon discharge the applicant was diagnosed with HIV and various chronic diseases. It was also noted that during the last month the applicant had been feeling worse. Further treatment in a specialized hospital was recommended. Among the medications listed in the medical certificate issued upon the applicant’s discharge the antiretroviral drugs are absent. During his stay in the medical ward the applicant was receiving mostly antibiotics and various medications in respect of his liver diseases.

On 3 September 2012 the Dniprovskyy District Court of Kyiv convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.

On 14 November 2012 a SIZO doctor examined the applicant and noted that there were no signs of active tuberculosis and that the applicant was “practically healthy”. However, on 4 January 2013 another doctor diagnosed the applicant with the tuberculosis and noted that the applicant had “moderately grave” health deterioration.

On 23 January 2013 the applicant’s CD4+ T cell count was 314.

On 28 January 2013 a court of appeal upheld the first instance court’s judgment.

On 18 February 2013 the applicant was transferred to a correctional colony. According to the applicant’s submissions of 3 April 2013, upon arrival he was examined by a doctor. On 1 April 2013 he had a CD4+ T cell count examination the results of which are unknown.

On June 24, 2014 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s arguments set out in their Observations of April 24, 2014.

 

Sidorenko v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Vladislav Viktorovich Sidorenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1985 and currently detained.

On December 18, 2005  the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.

The protocol on the applicant’s detention under Art. 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued by the investigator on December 19, 2005. 

On December 19, 2005 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Part 1 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code (murder). On December 22, 2005 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Part. 2 Art. 187 of the Criminal Code (robbery).

On December 22, 2005 the court selected for the applicant to the measure of restraint in the form of detention. The court based its decision on the gravity of the offense and also on consideration that being on the loose, the applicant might abscond from the investigation and trial, impede the establishment of the truth and continue his criminal activity. No one specific evidence of the risks of the applicant’s possible misconduct was not mentioned in the decision.

On June 6, 2006 the criminal proceedings against the applicant for the first time returned to the prosecutor`s office for further investigation due to the need for additional investigation. The court upheld the measure of restraint to the applicant based solely on the seriousness of the offense, giving guidance on the execution of specific investigative actions.

Criminal investigation against the applicant had been carried out for 6 years 4 months and 6 days (pre-trial investigation), and all this time the applicant was detained.

In 2011 the applicant filed a complaint to the ECtHR concerning duration of the applicant’s detention in violation of the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and the lack of the effective procedure by which the applicant could challenge the lawfulness of his detention according to Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and the lack of effective and enforceable right to compensation for applicant’s detention under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4,  and the length of the criminal proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 §1 of the Convention.

In September 2014 the SLC lawyers submitted the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s arguments set out in their Observations of July 8, 2014.

 

Soyma v. Ukraine

The present application was introduced by Mr Sergiy Volodymyrovych Soyma, a Ukrainian national born in 1976 who lived in Vinnytsa.

On the 28th of December 2004 the applicant lodged his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (application No. 1203/05. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr V.M. Shulgin, a lawyer practicing in Vinnytsya. After his death in 2006 his mother, Ms Pavlina Petrivna Soyma expressed her wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in her deceased son’s stead. A lawyer of KHPG has been provided legal assistance to Ms Soyma in this case.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarized as follows.

In 2001 the applicant was arrested in the break-away “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”) on charges of murder. On 28 June 2002 he was finally convicted by the MRT Supreme Court and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

According to the applicant, during his pre-trial detention he was subjected to ill-treatment in order to make him confess to the committing of the murder.

After his conviction the applicant requested on many occasions from different Ukrainian authorities to be transferred to a Ukrainian prison. However, his efforts did not pay of. In particular, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine informed him that it had contacted the similar authority in Moldova which informed that Moldova did not exercise any control over the territory of the MRT and could not therefore ensure his transfer to a Ukrainian prison.

On 24 May 2006 the applicant was found dead from hanging in the gym of the prison in which he was detained. It does not appear that the applicant’s mother requested and/or obtained a medical forensic report concerning the circumstances of his death.

The applicant’s mother complained under Article 2 of the Convention that Moldova, Russia and Ukraine are responsible for the applicant’s death.

She also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the applicant was subjected to torture by the MRT militia.

She further complained against Moldova and Russia under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the applicant’s detention was not ordered by a lawfully constituted court.

The applicant’s mother also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention against Moldova and Russia that the applicant was convicted by illegally constituted MRT courts.

Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant’s mother complained that the applicant could not meet his parents while in detention.

She finally complained under Article 13 that the applicant could not challenge the decision of the MRT Supreme Court of 28 June 2002.

The Court communicated the case to the Government with the questions under Article 1 (an issue of the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or the Russian Federation), Article 2, Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

On 6th of September 2013 and 17th of September 2013 the Governments of Moldova and Russian Federation respectively presented their observations in this case.

On 31st of March 2014 a lawyer of KHPG submitted on behalf of Ms Pavlina Petrivna Soyma the Observations in reply for arguments of the Governments of Russian Federation and Moldova. The Court has not delivered a judgment in this case yet.

 

3. In the next cases lawyers of the Legal Aid Centre drew up and submitted applications to the Court.

 

3.1. «Euro Maydan» cases in Dnipropetrovsk

Prehistory

In November 2013 the ex-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the association agreement with the EU at the summit in Vilnius.

Thousands of people went on peaceful protest to express dissatisfaction with the refusal of the ex-President of Ukraine to sign the association agreement with the EU on Maydan Nezalezhnosti in Kyiv. On the night of November 30 to December 1, 2013 participants of the meeting were crackdown and beating by police units called “Berkut”. The next day even more people came on meeting on Maydan. This protest received

From November 2013 to February 2014 a big number of protests against the actions of ex-President and beating peaceful protesters by police on Maydan Nezalezhnosti took place in many cities of Ukraine. These protests received name “Euro Maydan” protests according to the name of the Maydan Nezalezhnosti square in Kyiv, where the biggest number of people accumulated for permanent protest.

On 26th of January 2014 at about 2 p.m. a Euro Maydan protest took place in Nnipropetrovsk, namely in front of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration.

At this meeting a group of “titushkas” (members of pro ex-Presidentil gangs) were throwing stones towards protesters.

Some protestants were throwing stones backward. Among the young men from both sides began a mutual exchange of foul language and stones. Some of men from the building of Dnipropetrovsk State Administration started using foam extinguishers and smoke bombs.

On 26th January 2014 a criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 294 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“Organizing mass disturbances, accompanied by violence against the person, pogroms, arson, destruction of property, seizure of buildings or structures, forceful eviction of people, resistance to authorities with weapons or other items that are used as weapons, as well as participation in riots).

 

Babin v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Leonid Georgiyovych Babin is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

The applicant didn’t take part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk on the 26th of January 2014.

An applicant with two unfamiliar persons were arrested by unknown persons in civilian clothes at the crossroad of Serov street and Karl Marx Avenue. People in civilian clothes took them into a car and brought to a police station.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine near building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 31st of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 31st of January 2014 appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for house arrest.

On the 19th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pre-trial investigation.

On 22 December 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to Mr. Babin.

 

Balabay v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Yevgen Vitaliyuvych Balabay is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

The applicant didn’t take part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk on the 26th of January 2014.

He was arrested by the policemen on the same day at about 5:30 p.m. in Pushkin avenue near the flowers shop. The applicant was taken to a police station. Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine near building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 27th of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On 31 of January 2014 appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for house arrest.

On the 20th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

On the 13 May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss of the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

On the 28th of May 2014 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk issued u ruling about closing of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pretrial investigation.

On 24 December 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral harm to Mr. Balabay.

.

Bereza v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Olexandr Anatoliyovych Bereza is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

The applicant didn’t take part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk on the 26th of January 2014.

The applicant was arrested by policemen not far from the building of Dnipropetrovsk State Administration, when he was going towards public transport stop on Kirova Avenue. When the applicant was in about 10 meters from the building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration, he heard footsteps behind him and at this point got hit in the face with a police shield. Several policemen caught him by the arm and dragged into the yard of Dnipropetrovsk State Administration. Further the applicant was brought to a police station.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine near building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. The applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 3rd of February 2014 appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for undertaking not to abscond for two months.

On the 20th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pretrial investigation.

On 10 November 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to Mr. Bereza.

 

Bezotosnyi v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Petrovych Bezotosnyi is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

The applicant took part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk on the 26th of January 2014.

The applicant was arrested by policemen near the building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration, when he helped to an elderly man to stand up from the ground, who fell down on the ground, when policemen started to disperse protesters.

The applicant was taken to a police station. Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine near building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 30th of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On 31 of January 2014 appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for house arrest.

On the 19th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling tot dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pre-trial investigation.

On 22 December 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to Mr. Bexotosnyi.

 

Dubovtsev v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Valeriy Olexandrovych Dubovtsev is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

The applicant didn’t take part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk on the 26th of January 2014.

On that day the applicant with two other persons was arrested by unfamiliar persons at the crossroad of Serov street and Karl Marx avenue, what is in 3 km from the building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration, where according to investigators he committed illegal actions.

Persons, who arrested the applicant, did not show him any document identifying them and they wore civilian clothes. The applicant realized that he was arrested by policemen only in police station, where he was brought by unfamiliar persons.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 31st of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 3rd of February 2014 appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for house arrest.

On the 19th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pre-trial investigation.

On 18 December 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to Mr. Dubov.

.

Harkusha v. Ukraine

On the 26th of January 2014 of January 2014 the applicant took part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

Applicant and his friend were arrested by unknown for them people wearing civilian clothes on public transport stop at the crossroad of Pushkin Avenue and Savchenko Street. The applicant and his friend had no documents identifying them, so they were brought to a police unit by people, who were wearing civilian clothes.

On the 27th of January 2014 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 31st of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 5th of February the appeal court partially satisfied a petition of the applicant’s representative, quashed the ruling of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of the 27th January 2014, and changed a preventive measure for the applicant from detention to undertaking not to leave/

On the 20th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling about dismiss of the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Later the investigation was renewed, and it continues until now.

 

Khlusov v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Andriyovych Khlusov is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

On the 26th of January 2014 the applicant took part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

Applicant and his friend were arrested by unknown for them people wearing civilian clothes on public transport stop at the crossroad of Pushkin Avenue and Kirov Avenue. The applicant and his friend had no documents identifying them, so they were brought to a police unit by people, who were wearing civilian clothes.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 31st of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 3rd of February 2014 the appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for personal undertaking not to abscond.

On the 19th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

On the 22nd of April 2014 the appeal court cancelled the decision of Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk of 19th of February 2014 and case was transmitted to a new consideration.

On the 20th of May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk rejected the request of Dnipropetrovsk prosecutor to dismiss the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” The court returned the case to a prosecutor’s office for further investigation.

On the 8th of May 2014 a prosecutor’s office decided to close criminal proceedings against the applicant because of absence of corpus delicti.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pre-trial investigation.

On 22 December 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to Mr. Khlusov.

 

Khmelyovskyi v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Sergiy Vitaliyovych Khmelyovskyi is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

On the 26th of January 2014 the applicant took part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

The applicant left the meeting after some people from the building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration started using foam extinguishers and smoke bombs, as he suffers from a respiratory illness and being in smoky places is contraindicated to him by the doctors,.

On the same day the applicant was arrested by unknown for him persons and brought to a police unit. Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

The applicant was arrested on the crossroad of  Chkalov and K. Libkneht street, what is in about 2 km. from the building of Dnipropetrovsk State Administration, where according to investigators he committed illegal actions.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 29th of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 3rd of February 2014 appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for house arrest.

On the 19th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicants filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to them by unlawful prosecuting them, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss of the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pre-trial investigation.

On 10 November 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to Mr. Khmelyovskyi.

 

Lapin v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Valeriy Volodymyrovych Lapin is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

On the 26th of January 2014 the applicant didn’t take part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

On that day the applicant was arrested by policemen in a park located behind of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration when he with his wife was going to a grocery store, located in Kirov Avenue. Policeman arrested the applicant without explanation of reasons. They knocked him and beat him with batons and kicked him. After that the applicant was taken to a police station.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. The applicant appealed against this decision.

On the 3rd of February 2014 appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for personal undertaking not to abscond.

On the 20th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pre-trial investigation.

On 10 November 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to Mr. Lapin.

 

Orbeladze v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Kostyantyn Kahovych Orbeladzeis a Ukrainian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

On the 26th of January 2014 the applicant didn’t take part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

Applicant with his friend Mr. Dubovtsev V.A. and unfamiliar for him Mr. Babin L.G. were arrested by unidentified people in civilian clothes at the crossroad of Serov street and Karl Marx Avenue. The policemen in civilian clothes took them into a car and brought to the police station.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 31st of January 2014 the a lawyer of SLC on behalf of the applicant appealed against this decision.

On the 3rd of February 2014 appeal court rejected the appeal and uphold the decision of the first instance court on detention of the applicant.

On the 12th of February 2014 the Head of the Investigation District of Police Department of Dnipropetrovs Hegion Mr. Sysoev E.O. requested the investigating judge to change the applicant’s preventive measure as there was nor a part of the risks indicated in the court decision of 27 of January 2014  anymore.

By the decision of 12 February 2014 the investigating judge of Babushkinskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk changed the applicant’s preventive measure to house arrest.

On the 19th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

 

Pegarkov v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Kostyantyn Volodymyrovych Pegarkov is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

On the 26th of January 2014 the applicant took part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

The applicant was arrested by policemen in the park located behind of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration. The applicant was taken to a police station.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014.The applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 31st of January 2014 the appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for personal undertaking not to abscond.

On the 19th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss of the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicant, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pre-trial investigation.

On 22 December 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to Mr. Pegarkov.

 

Tsyganov v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Oleg Mykolayovych Volodymyrovych Tsyganov is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

On the 26th of January 2014 the applicant took part in the EuroMaydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

The applicant was arrested by policemen in the park located behind of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration when he was talking to his friends. The applicant was taken to a police station.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014.O 29th of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 31st of January 2014 the appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for to house arrest.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

 

Shebanov v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Vadym Anatoliyovych Shebanov is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

On the 26th of January 2014 the applicant took part in the EuroMaydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

The applicant was detained by policemen in front of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration. He was taken to a police station.

Later that day he was notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicant’s detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 29th of January 2014 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On the 31st of January 2014 the appeal court changed the decision of the first instance court for to house arrest.

On the 20th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicant from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicant were closed.

The applicant filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicant also complained that the court decision on his detention was groundless. The proceedings are pending. The proceedings are pending.

On the 4th of June 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling to dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

On the 4th of June 2014 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk issued u ruling about closing of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicant.

 

Shevchenko and Shevchenko v.Ukraine

The applicants are Mr Vladyslav Eduardovych Shevchenko, a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1988, and his father Mr. Eduard Vyacheslavovyh Shevchenko, Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962. They live in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

On the 26th of January 2014 the applicants and his friend Mr. Kmelyovskyi took part in the Euro Maydan protest in Dnipropetrovsk.

The applicants left the meeting after some people from the building of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration started using foam extinguishers and smoke bombs.

On the same day the applicants were arrested by unknown persons and brought to a police unit. Later that day they were notified of the suspicion of having committed a crime under Article 294 § 1 of the CC of Ukraine.

The applicants were arrested on the crossroad of  Chkalov and K. Libkneht street, what is in about 2 km. from the building of Dnipropetrovsk State Administration, where according to investigators they committed illegal actions.

On the 27th of January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk delivered a decision on applicants’ detention for a period of 60 days, i.e. up to March 27, 2014. On 29th of January 2014 the applicants’ lawyers appealed against this decision.

On the 3rd of February 2014 appeal court rejected their appeals and uphold the decision of the first instance court on detention of the applicants.

On 12 of February 2014 the Head of the Investigation District of Police Department of Dnipropetrovs Hegion Mr. Sysoev E.O. requested the investigating judge to change the applicants’ preventive measure as there was nor a part of the risks indicated in the court decision of 27 of January 2014  anymore.

By the decision of 12 February 2014 the investigating judge of Babushkinskyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk changed the applicants’ preventive measure to house arrest.

On the 19th of February 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk dismissed the applicants from criminal liability according to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” Criminal proceedings against the applicants were closed.

The applicants filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine for compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to them by unlawful prosecuting them, illegal arrest and illegal detention.

In February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicants lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained on violation Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in view of the lack of "reasonable suspicion" in crime. The applicants also complained that the court decision on their detention were groundless. The proceedings are pending.

In May 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk issued a ruling dismiss the petition of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk on the exemption of the applicants from criminal liability under the Law of Ukraine no. 737 from 01.29.2014-VII "On elimination of negative impacts and preventing prosecution and punishment of persons concerning the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings" and the petition and added materials were returned to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for carrying out criminal proceedings in general terms.

As for today, criminal proceedings are closed by order of the Prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk about closing of the criminal proceedings in the absence of a criminal offense.

Moreover, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk in which he asked to institute criminal proceedings concerning unlawful actions of investigating judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk, as well as investigators and prosecutors who participated in conducting criminal investigation concerning the applicants.

In connection with unlawful detention, unlawful use of a preventive measure against the applicants, a lawyer of the SLC applied to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk with a civil suit for compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful actions of the bodies of inquiry and pre-trial investigation.

On 10 November 2014, the District Court judged 50,000.00 Hryvnas compensation for moral damages to each of the plaintiffs.

 

3.2. The cases related to the events on Eastern Ukraine and anti-terrorist operation

 

Case of  “Prisoners of war” in Donetsk region

Due to the disorders and  the armed seizure of the administrative centers in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine in spring 2014, the Acting President of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov announced about the beginning of the antiterrorist operation in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine. A lot of mobilized, voluntarily joined the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the course of the antiterrorist operation were captured or illegally detained on the territory that were not under the control of Ukraine authorities.

 

The applicants, Mr. Vyblyi, Mr. Abdulkin, Mr. Gayun, Mr. Kirnev, Mr. Taran, Mr. Molokov, Mr. Ryabchenyuk, Mr. Gavrus, Mr. Martynenko, Mr. Petrenko, and Mr. Stupakovsky passed military service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2014.

The applicants were sent to the area of anti-terrorist operation. There in different days of August-September, 2014, under different circumstances they were captured by armed persons in Russian military uniform without any badges, who had military vehicles. The applicants point out that, according to  their form, weapons, equipment, parlance, used phraseology and national identity, they were members of the armed forces of the Russian Federation.

The applicants, together with their colleagues were given by members of the unit without any badges to the members of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People’s Republic" and had been imprisoned  from the 24 August 2014 to 17 November 2014.

During their imprisonment the applicants had been forced to physically demanding, unhealthy and morally overwhelming work – to clear the debris in the houses, destroyed during the battles, search, exhumation and reburial of the corpses in the later stages of putrefaction. The prisoners were not provided either protective nor hygienic equipment for  their work.

The aapplicants were constantly kept in improper life conditions (in rooms without heating, no well-protected from the bad weather conditions, without beds and bedding) and they were permanently in a state of mental depression, because persons provided control, convoy and  their examination, purposefully used methods of mental and physical suppression to enhance  obedience of the prisoners. In particular, a naked men was handcuffed to a car  in front of the one of places of detention and was not given any water and food and the other prisoners were threatened  to give him some water. On the fifth day the man died. During four months the applicants also had low quality and poor diet, they had no access to drinking water and had to drink technical water.

In connection with applicant’s illegal detention, tortures, cruel and degrading treatment, the lawyers of SLC applied to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5 of the Convention on 14 December, 2014.

 

Diordiyashenko case

Mr. Diordiyashenko is a citizen of Ukraine. He is a serviceman.

On 24 February 2014, Diordiyashenko was beaten by a commander of a military unit on the territory of this unit. After that he was forced to the Independence Square. In the building of the Minister’s Cabinet he was subjected to torture and then he was forced to the asylum. There he had been held for 24 hours.

After that, he could not come back to the military unit. That is why he wrote the reports. But he couldn’t register them in the office because the leadership of the military unit prevented this. Also he appealed to the chief of the military forces on the fact that he is not allowed to service.

On 28 February 2014, the military prosecutor’s office entered the information on the criminal proceedings on the fact of the possible using the physical violence to Diordiyashenko by the military officers of the military unit to the United Register of Pre-Trial Investigation.

Due to Diordiyashenko’s absence in the military unit the criminal proceedings was opened in the military prosecutor’s office. After completing the investigation the judicial criminal proceedings were appointed in Pechersky District Court in Kyiv. The SLC lawyer entered the criminal proceedings on the preliminary hearing. The hearing on the merits was postponed because of the wrong resolution on the prosecutor change.

The lawyer submitted to the military the requests on getting the videos from checkpoint’s cameras and the searching on Diordiyashenko by the authorized persons of the military unit and their documentary evidence unit. Also the lawyer submitted the requests to the TV channels “1+1” and “Inter” on providing the videos as their operators were present with Diordiyashenko near the building of Kyiv City State Administration on Independence square on 24 February 2014.

At the same time, the lawyer represents the interests of Diordiyashenko as a victim in the criminal proceedings.

 On 29 April 2014, the military prosecutor’s office entered the information on the criminal proceedings on the fact of the possible using the actions which are defined as torture, such as causing cuts, burns cigarettes and the use of electric shocks by unknown persons, to the United Register of Pre-Trial Investigation.

These two criminal proceedings were joined. The investigation authority issued the resolution on closure of the criminal proceedings in the part of the criminal offense on the fact of the possible application of physical violence to Diordiyashenko by the military officers of the military unit. Diordiyashenko was not informed properly on such resolution.

On 29 April 2014, the investigator of the military prosecutor’s office closed the criminal proceedings on the charge under Part par.2 Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the grounds of of the absence of the criminal offense.

The lawyer is going to familiarize herself with a case file and to appeal the decision on closure of the criminal proceedings on the abuse of power by the military officers of the military unit.

Diordiyashenko’s case with indictment was transferred to the district court for trial, and on 11 June 2014 , during the preliminary hearing the court issued the decision to return the indictment act to prosecutor due to shortages in the charging document. On 5.December 2014, the decision on the return of the indictment prosecutor submitted an appeal.

On 16 December 2014, the Court of Appeal. of Kyiv opened the appeal proceedings, and on 12.25.2014, the lawyer filed written objections for the prosecutor’s appeal.

Prosecutor’s decision on termination of the criminal proceedings was not sent to Mr. Diordiyashenko. Because of this the lawyer in October and November, 2014 directed two requests to the prosecutor’s office to give a copy of the decision, but in vain.

 

Dubinyak case

On July 2014, by the order of the commander of the anti-terrorist operation the applicant arrived to Donetsk and Luhansk region for taking part in the anti-terrorist operation with the purpose to cover the area of the state border.

On 03.08.2014 due to lack of ammunition and food products, and in order to save the lives of subordinate personnel Mr. Dubinyak decided to withdraw the personnel through the buffer zone, but they were detained at the checkpoint «Gukovo», in the Russian Federation.

From August 4, 2014 till August 6, 2014 the applicant with the rest of the personnel in the amount of 440 people were in the camp under armed guard. Security was carried out by military personnel of the Russian Federation. In this case, the applicant was actually deprived of his liberty, because had not been able to move freely.

On August 6, 2014 the applicant and four other officers of the battalion were summoned for interrogation in a separate tent where were investigators of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The applicant was detained.

On August 7, 2014 on the applicant was handcuffed, and taken in the temporary detention centre in Donetsk of the Russian Federation. The applicant was suspected that he, as a member of the armed forces of Ukraine, applied unlawful methods of warfare in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic, and attempted not involved in armed conflict Russian citizens - journalists channel «Life News».

On August 8, 2014 about 09-00 the applicant in handcuffs was taken by police to a police car and arrived to the District Court of Krasny Sulin, Rostov Region. The court hearing was carried out behind closed doors at the request of the prosecution and decided to choose the measure of restraint – the placement in custody.

On August 9, 2014 about 20-00 the applicant was released from custody. After that the applicant was released from temporary detention centre and taken to the border of the Rostov region.

The lawyer of SLC complaints to the ECtHR under Article 5 about the absence of reasonable suspicion at the determination of the measures of restraint.

 

Okhrimenko case

On July 2014, by the order of the commander of the anti-terrorist operation the applicant arrived to Donetsk and Luhansk region for taking part in the anti-terrorist operation with the purpose to cover the area of the state border.

On 03.08.2014 due to lack of ammunition and food products, and in order to save the lives of subordinate personnel mr. Okhrimenko decided to withdraw the personnel through the buffer zone, but they were detained at the checkpoint «Gukovo», in the Russian Federation.

From August 4, 2014 till August 6, 2014 the applicant with the rest of the personnel in the amount of 440 people were in the camp under armed guard. Security was carried out by military personnel of the Russian Federation. In this case, the applicant was actually deprived of his liberty, because had not been able to move freely.

On August 6, 2014 the applicant and four other officers of the battalion were summoned for interrogation in a separate tent where were investigators of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The applicant was detained.

On August 7, 2014 on the applicant was handcuffed, and taken in the temporary detention centre in Donetsk of the Russian Federation. The applicant was suspected in the ill-treatment of prisoners of war or civilians, deportation of civilians, looting of national property in occupied territory, the application of an armed conflict of means and methods prohibited by international treaty of the Russian Federation.

On August 8, 2014 about 09-00 the applicant in handcuffs was taken by police to a police car and arrived to the District Court of Krasny Sulin, Rostov Region. The court hearing was carried out behind closed doors at the request of the prosecution and decided to choose the measure of restraint – the placement in custody.

On August 9, 2014 about 20-00 the applicant was released from custody. After that the applicant was released from temporary detention centre and taken to the border of the Rostov region.

The lawyer of SLC complaints to the ECtHR under Article 5 about the absence of reasonable suspicion at the determination of the measures of restraint.

 

Polyakov case

On June 2014, by the order of the commander of the anti-terrorist operation the applicant arrived to Donetsk and Luhansk region for taking part in the anti-terrorist operation with the purpose to cover the area of the state border.

On 03.08.2014 due to lack of ammunition and food products, and in order to save the lives of subordinate personnel mr. Polyakov decided to withdraw the personnel through the buffer zone, but they were detained at the checkpoint «Gukovo», in the Russian Federation.

From August 4, 2014 till August 6, 2014 the applicant with the rest of the personnel in the amount of 440 people were in the camp under armed guard. Security was carried out by military personnel of the Russian Federation. In this case, the applicant was actually deprived of his liberty, because had not been able to move freely.

On August 6, 2014 the applicant and four other officers of the battalion were summoned for interrogation in a separate tent where were investigators of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The applicant was detained.

On August 7, 2014 on the applicant was handcuffed, and taken in the temporary detention centre in Donetsk of the Russian Federation. The applicant was suspected in the ill-treatment of prisoners of war or civilians, deportation of civilians, looting of national property in occupied territory, the application of an armed conflict of means and methods prohibited by international treaty of the Russian Federation. On the same day the investigator conducted an interrogation of the applicant in the presence of a lawyer provided by the investigator.

On August 8, 2014 about 09-00 the applicant in handcuffs was taken by police to a police car and arrived to the District Court of Krasny Sulin, Rostov Region. The court hearing was carried out behind closed doors at the request of the prosecution and decided to choose the measure of restraint – the placement in custody.

On August 9, 2014 about 20-00 the applicant was released from custody. After that the applicant was released from temporary detention centre and taken to the border of the Rostov region.

The lawyer of SLC complaints to the ECtHR under Article 5 about the absence of reasonable suspicion at the determination of the measures of restraint.


3.3. Other applications to the Court

 

Aleksandrov v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Igor Alexandrov, is a Ukrainian national who has a permanent address in Kharkov.

The applicant is remain under care of neurologist at the Kharkiv City Polyclinic ¹ 11 since April 2006, as he was having intense pain in the lumbar spine.

The applicant twice underwent surgery of herniated disc LV-SI at the Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology named after prof. M.I. Sitenko (hereinafter – Sitenko Institute) (May 16, 2006 and May 23, 2007).

About 6 months after the second surgery the applicant felt satisfactory. Then, his state has been slowly deteriorating.

On 28 October 2011 the applicant complained to the specialists of Sitenko Institute about severe pain in the lumbar spine. They gave advisory opinion N 71160, according to which "it is recommended to consider the possibility of using narcotic analgesics."

Despite applicant’s constant complaints on pain and notification that non-narcotic analgesics does not help to relieve the pain, the doctor of the Kharkiv City Polyclinic ¹ 11 did not prescribe narcotic analgesics to him.

On 24 May 2012 specialists of Sitenko Institute recommended again "to consider the possibility of using narcotic analgesics."

On 30 May 2013 a commission was established upon the petition of the applicant. Commission examined medical records and the applicant. According to the conclusion of the commission the applicant suffers from pain which is not cropped by non-narcotic analgesics.

However, opioid analgesics, which are able to stop the pain, were not prescribed to him.

Thus, adequate pain relief was not provided to the applicant. He is still suffering from pain. This situation is causing him physical and mental suffering.

In June 2013 the lawyer of the KHPG lodged a suit against Kharkiv City Polyclinic ¹ 11 in favour of the applicant.

In the mentioned suit the plaintiff asks the court to order the defendant to provide the plaintiff with adequate pain medication and to reimburse the costs for the purchase of medicines as well as non-pecuniary damage.

On 5 December 2013 the District Court of Kharkiv rejected applicant’s claim. The appeal against this decision was prepared by a legal expert of the KHPG. The applicant lodged this appeal against the decision of 5 December 2013 to the Court of Appeal.

On 6 of May 2014 the appeal court rejected his appeal. The cassation appeal against this decision was prepared by a legal expert of the KHPG.

On 27th of June 2014 the applicant lodged his cassation appeal.

On October 27, 2014, SLC lawyer on behalf on the applicant complaints to the ECtHR under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by the Kharkiv City Polyclinic ¹ 11.

Boichuk Case

The applicant is a Ukrainian national and now he is serving his sentence in a penal colony.

In 2002 and 2004 the applicant committed  a number of thefts.

On 03.01.2005 the applicant was apprehended on suspicion of the crimes committed by him in 2002 and 2004. From this date the applicant has been detained in the places of confinement.

On 13.09.2005 the court found the applicant guilty of committing the crimes which took place in 2002 and 2004. The final sentence of five of imprisonment was appointed to him. Herewith, the court ruled to count the term for serving the sentence from 03.01.2005, i.e. from the date of his apprehension.

On 05.07.2010 the court delivered its verdict recognizing the applicant guilty of committing other crimes in 2003. The court appointed the final sentence for multiple crimes in the form of imprisonment for 8 years with the confiscation of property. Herewith, the court ruled to count the sentence appointed to the applicant from 14.09.2009 – the date which was artificially determined by the court as the start for applying the preventive measure in the form of keeping in custody, though the applicant continued to serve his sentence according to the previous verdict.

The applicant appealed this ruling in the part of incorrect appointment of the final sentence by the court.

The respective court of appeal and the prosecutor`s office recognized that the court of first instance applied the provisions of the national legislation incorrectly. In particular, this provision stipulates that in the case when after the verdict has been delivered it was established that the convicted was guilty also in another crime committed by him before the delivery of the previous verdict, the sentence which was served in full or partly according to the previous sentence must be counted to the final sentence appointed to him.

The court of first instance didn`t change its judgment. The lawyers of the Strategic Litigation Center have drafted and sent the application to the European Court of Human Rights claiming the violation of Article 5 § 1 a) of the Convention. On 18 September 2014 the Court found the application inadmissible.

 

Danilchenko v. Ukraine

On June 8, 2010 the applicant was detained by the police officers under suspicion of commitment of the fraud.

On June 11, 2010 the applicant was taken into custody by the ruling of the the Industrialnyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk city.

On June 17, 2010 the Industrialnyy district court changed a preventive measure for the applicant from pre-trial detention to undertaking not to leave the town of residence.

On June 23, 2010 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region issued a ruling by which it quashed the decision the Industrialnyy district court of 17 June 2010 and sent the case back for a new trial in the court of first instance.

On August 4, 2010 the Industrialnyy district court ordered the preventive measure for the applicant in the form of detention.

On June 2, 2011 2011 the Ternovskiy District Court issued a ruling in which it satisfied granted the application of the applicant’s defense lawyer for changing a preventive measure for the applicant from pre-trial detention to undertaking not to leave the town of residence.

On December 2, 2013 the Ternovskiy District Court issued a judgment in which it found the applicant guilty of committing fraud. According to the verdict a preventive measure for the applicant was changed from undertaking not to leave the town of residence to detention without any substantive reasons.

On 7 January 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 2 December 2013. In his appeal the applicant also requested the court to change the preventive measure.

On April 4, 2014 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region issued a ruling in which it partially satisfied the applicant’s appeal, quashed the judgment of the Ternovskiy District Court of December 2, 2013, and sent the case back for a new trial in the Court of First Instance. Preventive measure for the applicant was changed into undertaking not to leave the town of residence.

In October 2014 the lawyer of the SLC prepared an application to the European Court of Human Rights about violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (concerning taking him into detention on the 2nd of December) and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (concerning length of criminal proceedings).

 

Gorbatenko v. Ukraine

On August 10, 2004 the applicant was detained by the police officers of the Kharkiv district police department under suspicion of commitment of robbery and theft. The criminal case was instituted.

In August 2011 the criminal proceedings were ended and the case was delivered for to the Kharkivskyy district court.

On November 9, 2011 the Kharkivskyy district court held that the applicant was guilty in commitment of two episodes of theft and robbery.

During consideration of his criminal case in the court of first instance there were numerous violations of the applicant’s procedural rights: the applicant’s statements which were allegedly obtained at the result of tortures were laid in the basis of the sentence; the court refused to question all witnesses mentioned by the applicant; the applicant’s father was no appointed as his defender.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the sentence of the Kharkivskyy district court of November 9, 2011.

On January 22, 2013 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region issued the ruling in which he dismissed the claims of the applicant’s appeal.

During consideration of his criminal case in the Court of Appeal the applicant was not provided with the defence lawyer.

The applicant lodged a cassation complaint to the Higher Court of Ukraine for Consideration of civil and criminal cases.

On January 22, 2014 the Higher Court of Ukraine for Consideration of civil and criminal cases issued the ruling in which it dismissed the applicant’s claims.

In April 2014 the lawyer of the SLC prepared on behalf of the applicant an application to the European Court of Human Rights about violation of Article 6 § 1, 6 § 3 (b), 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention.

 

Klimenko v. Ukraine

On December 30, 2008 the applicant was arrested by the police officers of Poltava city on suspicion of commitment of a crime.

The applicant was delivered to the Poltava City Police Department where police officers beat and tortured him in order to obtain confession in commitment of a theft and a murder.

The applicant was subjected to ill-treatment for several days from 30 December 2008 to 29 January 2009. At the result of tortures he obtained injures which were fixed by the doctors of the medical unit of Poltava SIZO.

On October 29, 2009 during the court hearing of his criminal case the applicant applied for the court with the request to appoint prosecutor’s verification on the fact of his beating and torturing by the police officers.

On November 26, 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office of Poltava city issued an order about refuse to open criminal proceedings against police officers.

The applicant appealed against this order to the Prosecutor’s Office of Poltava region. On February 8, 2010 the Prosecutor’s Office of Poltava region sent the case for new verification to the district Prosecutor’s Office.

On March 26, 2012 the Prosecutor’s Office of Lenin District after additional verification issued an order about refuse to institute criminal proceedings against police officers.

The applicant appealed against this order to the Court of Appeal of Poltava region.

On August 26, 2012 the Prosecutor’s Office of Poltava refused to institute criminal proceedings under the applicant’s allegation about ill-treatment.

On September 28, 2012 after conduction of additional verification the Prosecutor’s Office of Poltava city quashed the order of August 26, 2012. However, on October 8, 2012 it repeatedly issued an order about institution of criminal proceedings against police officers.

The applicant complained against this decision to the Oktyabrskiy district court of Poltava.

On November 13, 2012 the Oktyabrskiy district court of Poltava refused to satisfy the applicant’s complaint.

The applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal of Poltava region.

On March 13, 2013 the Court of Appeal of Poltava region refused to satisfy the applicant’s appeal.

The applicant lodged a cassation to the High specialized court for consideration of civil and criminal cases.

On June 5, 2014 the High specialized court for consideration of civil and criminal cases issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy the applicant’s cassation.

In October 2014 a lawyer of the SLC prepared an application to the European Court of Human Rights about violation of Article 3 of the Convention in material and procedural aspect.

 

Koren v. Ukraine

On June 8, 2010, the applicant was detained by the police officers under suspicion of commitment of the fraud.

On June 11, 2010 the applicant was taken into custody by the ruling of the Industrialnyi district court of Dnipropetrovsk city.

On June 17, 2010 the Industrialnyy district court changed preventive measure for the applicant from pre-trial detention to recognizance not to leave.

On August 4, 2010 the Industrialnyy district court issued a ruling about changing of the preventive measure for pre-trial custody.

On May 17, 2011 the Industrialnyy district court satisfied the applicant’s request about changing of the preventive measure to a recognizance not to leave.

On December 13, 2011 the criminal case was delivered for new consideration to the Ternivskyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk region.

On May 22, 2012 the Ternivskyy district court changed the prevention measure for the applicant from a recognizance not to leave to pre-trial detention in Dnipropetrovsk SIZO.

The applicant was detained in the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO till the 4th April 2014 when she was released under the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region.

On December 2, 2013 the Ternivskyy district court held that the applicant was guilty n commitment of several episodes of fraud.

In February 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal against the sentence of first I stance.

In May 2014, the lawyer of the SLC prepared on behalf of the applicant the application to the European Court of Human Rights about violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (concerning excessive length of the applicant’s detention in the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO) and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (concerning length of the proceedings in the court of first instance).

In June 2014 the application was registered by the ECtHR.

Krupko v. Ukraine

On June 8, 2010 the applicant was detained by the police officers under suspicion of commitment of the fraud.

On June 11, 2010 the applicant was taken into custody by the ruling of the Industrialnyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk city.

On June 17, 2010 the Industrialnyy district court changed preventive measure for the applicant from pre-trial detention to undertaking not to leave the town of residence.

On August 4, 2010 the Industrialnyy district court issued a ruling about changing of the preventive measure for pre-trial custody.

On May 17, 2011 the Industrialnyy district court satisfied the applicant’s request about changing of the preventive measure to a undertaking not to leave the town of residence.

On December 13, 2011 the criminal case was delivered for new consideration to the Ternivskyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk region.

On May 22, 2012 the Ternivskyy district court changed the prevention measure for the applicant from a undertaking not to leave the town of residence to pre-trial detention in Dnipropetrovsk SIZO.

The applicant was detained in the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO till the 4th April 2014 when she was released under the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region.

On December 2, 2013 the Ternivskyy district court held that the applicant was guilty in commitment of several episodes of fraud.

In February 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal against the sentence of first I stance.

In October 2014 the lawyer of the SLC prepared on behalf of the applicant the application to the European Court of Human Rights about violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (concerning excessive length of the applicant’s detention in the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO) and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (concerning length of the proceedings in the court of first instance).

 

Serzhantov v. Ukraine

Mr. Serzhantov (hereinafter - S.) is drug addicted, HIV-infected, a carrier viral hepatitis C. He is registered as drug user with a diagnosis of "addiction from opioids."

Since 2009 S. has been a member of substitution therapy program (with interruptions), he has received antiretroviral therapy.

On August 4th, 2014 at 20:20 S. was detained by Nikolayev Regional Department for Combating Organized Crime (hereinafter - DCOC) on extortion charges (Part 2 of Article 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). C. was kept in the police detention centre.

While S. was kept  in the detention centre he was brought for taking substitution maintenance therapy in accordance with the doctor’s prescription. When S. was transferred to the detention centre, a narcologist started abruptly reduce the dose of substitution (within 20 days).

Given the simultaneous refuse of S. from taking other illegal drugs, which he occasionally received along with substitution therapy, such a method of withdrawal of S. from program has had a negatively impact on his somatic condition.

Starting from August 12, 2014 S. could not independently get out of the convoy vehicle in which he was taken to the program of substitution therapy. Taking the drug and medical examination of S. was carried out directly in the convoy vehicle.

On August 13 state of the S.’s health worsened. The attending narcologist prescribed him drugs that could ease his physical condition and recommended urgent hospitalization for undergoing detoxification in a hospital.

On August 14 S. not only remained in the vehicle, but was physically unable to take a sitting position.

On August 15 S. was not brought to the room of receiving of replacement therapy at all.

 Since the placement of S. into SIZO on August 9, 2014 he has not been provided with any medical assistance.

On August 15, 2014 the lawyer of the SLC prepared an application to the ECtHR in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, in which he asked to apply urgent measures in order to ensure proper medical care of S. and renew taking by him of the replacement therapy.

 

Skyba v. Ukraine (application to the ECHR / Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court)

Mr. Dmytro Stepanovych Skyba is a Ukrainian national against whom the Russian authorities initiated criminal proceedings for alleged committing a fraud in 2007.

In March 2013 the applicant was arrested on the territory of Ternopilska Oblast (Ukraine) in connection with the search by the Russian law enforcement authorities.

In April 2013 the General Prosecutor`s Office of the Russian Federation sent a request to expel the applicant from Ukraine.

In June 2013 the General Prosecutor`s Office of Ukraine ruled to expel the applicant. The latter challenged this decision in the court though unsuccessfully. He complained that the Russian authorities intentionally falsified his criminal case and he was a person requiring additional protection.

Actually the applicant was neither expelled, nor released 1 year after his apprehension in violation of the Ukrainian legislation which stipulates that extradition arrest cannot last for more than 12 months. The applicant was only released in April 2014 thus staying in detention for more than 1 year and 1 month.

The SLC lawyer sent the application to the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court to apply the interim measures to the applicant and immediately stop the process of extradition with regard to the plausible torture and ill-treatment he could be subjected to in the Russian detention facilities. However, the Court dismissed this request stating that it was unfounded without explanation.

After that, the lawyers sent the full application to the European Court of Human Rights challenging the violation of Article 5 § 1 f) of the Convention (Right to liberty and security). The answer from the Court on receipt and consideration of this application is still pending.

 

Veklich v. Ukraine

Mr. Vekhlich (hereinafter – “the applicant”) was diagnosed with HIV-infection in 1998. Since 2004 he has been on dispensary registration in the Kharkiv Regional Centre for Prevention and Control of AIDS (RCPCA) and is provided with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Besides of that he suffered from hepatitis C and other chronical diseases. He is a drug addict and before received opioid substitution therapy.

At the end of October, 2013 the applicant was arrested on suspicion in illegal drug operations. The administration of the detention centre (SIZO) has not informed the RCPCA) about detention of the applicant, as it prescribed by law. Due to he was left without ART  medicines. The applicant’s state of health deteriorated during his stay in SIZO without necessary medical treatment. Medical examination diagnosed HIV – infection of the 4 clinical stage, that itself is the ground for raising a question of release an inmate from serving a punishment. The number of CD 3+ CD4+ cells has sufficiently decreased during his stay in the SIZO.

The head of medical unit of the SIZO issued the conclusion, that to be in conditions of the SIZO without adequate medical help is dangerous for health and life of the applicant itself.

On June 25, 2014 the applicant sent to the ECtHR an application for applying interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, namely to provide the applicant with the necessary medical treatment. The Court requested to the Ukrainian Government to submit to the Court necessary documents relating to the applicant’s health. The Court’s has decided not to indicate to the Government the interim measure. No the SLC lawyer prepares the full application form to the ECtHR.

At he end of December the SLC lawyer lodged the full application to the ECtHR on violations of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of medical care to the applicant.

 

4. In the following nine cases SLC lawyers represent interests of victims of torture and ill-treatment in the national court proceedings.

 

4.1. “Euro Maydan” cases

 

Chuvilyov case

On 18.02.2014 Chuvilyov E. Yu. together with other unidentified people organized a crowd with the aim to conduct active actions during  the riot in the center of Kyiv. This was accompanied by violence against representatives of the authorities, destruction of property, resistance to authority, using items that were used as weapons.

According to this fact on February 18, 2014 criminal proceedings was initiated in the grounds of a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On February 19, 2014 Chuvilyov received notice of the suspicion by senior investigator of the investigative group of the ID of  PG MIA of Ukraine in Kiev,  senior investigator of ID of Dnieper District PG MIA of Ukraine in Kyiv, Senior Lieutenant of police Vechirka R. S. 

Chuvilyov was suspected in intentionally participation in the riots, accompanied by violence against people, destruction  of property, resistance to authorities, using of items that have been used as weapons, which entailed grave consequences, i.e. criminal offense under Part 2 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On February 19, 2014 Dniprovsky district court of Kyiv considered the  investigator’s request about applying for Chuvilyov E. Yu. a preventive measure in the form of detention, with participation of the SLC lawyer. 

At the same day Dniprovsky district court of Kyiv issued a ruling in which it refuse to satisfy the investigator’s request and applied a preventive measure in the form of personal commitment.

For today  Dnieper District PG MIA of Ukraine in Kiev issued a ruling about closure of criminal proceedings against Chuvilyov.

 

4.2. “Auto Maydan" cases

 

On 11.01.2014 the Investigation Division of Department of Police in Kyiv instituted criminal proceedings as to blocking transport communication on Peremogy Avenue in Kyiv.

Applicants in their cars blocked this road to stop the special police unit "Berkut", which was sent to Kiev to suppress by force peaceful protest on Maydan. This action had the character of peaceful protest. Unknown armed men threatened by the use of force to the applicants, but they had refused to release the road till 3 a.m.

"Avtomaydan" requested a lawyer of the SLC to provide them with legal aid in this case. The lawyer assisted at the interrogation the following persons:

Mr. Badrak Mykola Mylolayovych, who was questioned on 17.01.2014;

Mr. Smirnov Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych, who was questioned on 17.01.2014;

Mr. Kryuk Maxym Sergiyovych, who was questioned on 17.01.2014;

Ms. Volkova Yulia Igorivna, who was questioned on 17.01.2014;

Mr. Lymar Vitaliy Pavlovych, who was questioned on 17.01.2014;

Mr. Grytsenko Yuriy Grygorovych, who was questioned on 20.01.2014;

Mr. Telizhenko Andriy Grygorovych, who was questioned on 20.01.2014;

Mr. Grytsenko Oleg Yuriyovych, who was questioned on 20.01.2014;

Mr. Tsirikashvili Nadari Shalvovych, who was questioned on 23.01.2014;

Mr.  Maksymenko Volodymyr Igorovych, who was questioned on 23.01.2014.

None of the above-mentioned persons received suspicion. They were not called for further questioning.

Criminal proceedings against the applicants were terminated due with the adoption of the Amnesty law of the participants of Maydan events.

 

Hnatyuk case

The materials of an administrative case against Mr. Hnatyuk Valeriy Volodymyrovych were sent to Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv.

The case-files contain a protocol on administrative offense of 17.01.2014 prepared by the traffic policemen as to Mr. Hnatyuk Valeriy Volodymyrovych, although at the time, when the protocol was issued, his son Mr. Hnatyuk Denys Valeriyovych was the driver. He who disposed of the vehicle according to the warrant given by Mr. Hnatyuk Valeriy Volodymyrovych.

The SLC lawyer filed a petition to the court to refer the material of an administrative case to the Traffic Police Department of Shevchenkivskyi District for revision.

According to the law "On Amnesty", the administrative case was closed in the Traffic Police Department of Shevchenkivskyi District.

 

Case of Radich

Radich A. B. received the notifications of 08.01.2014 and 01.13.2014’s, about the call to the traffic police department of Obolon District PG MIA of Ukraine in Kiev, which had no information about kind of administrative offense he had committed.

On 15.01.2014 the protocol about administrative offence was drawn which indicated that Radich A. B. had not complied with the lawful request of a police officer by which he violated § 2.4 of Traffic rules administrative responsibility for which is provided by Article 1222  of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter- the CAO).

Materials of the case were referred by the traffic police department of Obolon District of PG MIA of Ukraine in Kiev to Obolon District Court on grounds of administrative offense which, in the opinion of traffic policemen, were committed by Radich A.B. on 29.12.13.

At the trial the SLC lawyer filed  the motion on calling for questioning in court traffic policemen who drew reports about the failure of Radich A. B. to stop after the officers’ request. Judge satisfied this petition and summons were repeatedly sent for the traffic inspectors, but they have not appeared in court for questioning for months.

In this regard, the materials on administrative offense concerning Radich A. B. were directed to the traffic police department of Obolon District PG MIA of Ukraine in Kiev for rework.

Referring to the Law of Ukraine “On Amnesty” the Prosecutor’s Office released Radich A. B. from administrative liability.

 

Case of Lymar

On January 23, 2014 a judge of Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv issued a ruling on administrative offense according to which Lymar V. P. was declared guilty under Article 1222 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (hereinafter – the CAO) and sentenced to administrative penalty in the kind of deprivation of the right to drive for a period of three months.

This case was considered by the court on the fact that according to the traffic inspectors Lymar V. P., on 28.12.2013, when driving a car, did not comply with the request of the traffic police to stop, which was filed by a whistle and a rod by the inspector of DPS Boychuk O. S., and continued to move.

In its ruling of 23 January 2014 the judge used only the protocol of administrative report and report as evidence of guiltiness of Lymar V. P. at committing of an administrative offense.

The defense counsel, SLC lawyer believed that recognition Lymar V. P. guilty on the basis of the protocol and the report, drawn up by traffic police is unreasonable and contrary to the laws of Ukraine, since traffic police completely illegally, without any reason drew up a protocol on administrative offense on the basis of the report based, and subjectively assessed the circumstances of the case.

The defense counsel – the SLC lawyer prepared an appeal to the ruling of Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv of 23.01.2014.

According to the Law of Ukraine “On Amnesty” Lymar V. P. was released from administrative liability.

 

Case of Masorina

Under consideration in the Dnipro district court of Kyiv there were the materials of administrative proceedings about subjecting of Masorina O. S. to administrative liability, however, such materials lacked documents (materials, photos, videos) on which a protocol on administrative offense of 14.01.2014 was based.

The SLC lawyer who represented the interests of M. during the court hearing completely denied the assumptions set out in the protocol of the alleged violation of traffic rules as well as no police officer did not stop M. while she was driving in the above direction.

The defense lawyer filed a petition about transferring of the case to another jurisdiction, petition about reclaim of evidence, calling and questioning of  witnesses.

On 27.01.2014 the defence lawyer filed an administrative suit to the Pechersk district court of Kyiv about unlawful actions of the inspector of the Traffic police of Dnipro district.

In this connection a petition was filed to the Dnipro district court on suspension of consideration of administrative proceedings before resolving other administrative proceedings against M.

Dnipro district court of Kyiv closed administrative proceedings against M. due to lack of evidence of commitment of an administrative offense.

The application about calling and questioning of witnesses was filed in the Pechersk district court in Kyiv. In the present case there were about 5-6 hearings at which no of the defendants appeared.

In this connection M. refused to support her claims in court.

 

Mykhailenko case

On 11.02.2014 the judge of the Shevchenkivskyy district court of Kyiv issued a ruling in a case about administrative offence according to Mykhailenko G. A.  was declared guilty under Article 1222 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (hereinafter – the CAO) and sentenced to administrative penalty in the kind of deprivation of the right to drive for a period of three months.

This case was considered by the court on the fact that according to the traffic inspectors Mykhailenko G. A.,  when driving a car on 29.12.2013, did not comply with the request of the traffic police to stop.  

The first instance court did not approach to ascertainment of the circumstances of this case fully, impartially and objectively, only referred to traffic police’s documents that were drawn up in violation of the law.

Regarding the above mentioned, in this case there were grounds for issuing of a ruling about closure of the case on the administrative offense (§ 3 Part 1 of Article 284 of the CAO) § 1 of Part 1 of Article 247 of the CAO, namely, the absence of corpus delicti in his actions.

21.02.2014 the SLC lawyer prepared an appeal to the ruling of Shevchinkivskyy District Court of Kyiv of 11.02.2014.

The Court of Appeal of Kyiv applied in the above case the Law of Ukraine "On Amnesty" and released Mikhailenko G. A.  from administrative liability.

 

Ostapenko case

On 05.02.2014 the judge of the Shevchenkivskyy district court of Kuiv issued a ruling in a case about administrative offence according to which Ostapenko A. G. was declared guilty under Article 1222 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (hereinafter – the CAO) and sentenced to administrative penalty in the kind of deprivation of the right to drive for a period of three months.

 This case was considered by the court on the fact that according to the traffic inspectors Ostapenko A. G., when driving a car on 29.12.2013, did not comply with the request of the traffic police to stop. 

In its ruling of February 5, 2014 the judge used only the protocol of administrative report and report as evidence of guiltiness of Ostapenko A. G. at committing of an administrative offense.

The defense counsel – the SLC lawyer believed that recognition Ostapenko A. G. guilty on the basis of the protocol and the report, drawn up by traffic police is unreasonable and contrary to the laws of Ukraine, since traffic police completely illegally, without any reason drew up a protocol on administrative offense on the basis of the report based, and subjectively assessed the circumstances of the case.

The SLC lawyer prepared an appeal to the ruling of Shevchinkivskyy District Court of Kyiv of 05.02.2014.

The Court of Appeal of Kyiv applied in the above case the Law of Ukraine "On Amnesty" and released Ostapenko A. G. from administrative liability.

Disagreeing with the actions of traffic policemen Ostapenko A. G. complaint to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. At present, examination of the case is being conducted.

 

Case of Tarasov

Under consideration in the Darnitskyi district court of Kyiv there were the materials of administrative proceedings about subjecting of Tarasov A. S. to administrative liability, however, such materials lacked documents (materials, photos, videos) on which the protocols on administrative offense of 14.01.2014 were based.

The SLC lawyer who represented the interests of Tarasov A. S., filed objections to the protocol on administrative offence. It was also submitted a request for reclaim of evidence and questioning of the inspector of the Traffic police.

After examination of the case file and the objections the judge concluded that the materials of administrative proceedings should be sent to the Traffic police for processing.

Subsequently, at the request of the Prosecutor the administrative proceedings were closed

 

Case of Goranin (murder of traffic police officers)

Goranin V. Yu. Has been a suspect in commitment of the criminal offence provided by § 5 of Article 27, § 2 of Article 115, § 5 of Article 27, Article 348, § 2 of Article 262 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (attempt of murder, unlawful possessions of firearms, attempt of murder of the officer of the law-enforcement bodies).

 During his detention on 27.06.2014 he was beaten and tortured by the officers of the special unit “Sokil” and police officers, at the result of which he obtained severe bodily injuries.

For today, the lawyer of Goranin V. Yu.  prepared the application about the crime against Goranin V. Yu.

In addition, the lawyer of Goranin V. Yu. partially familiarized with the materials of the criminal case.

The materials of the criminal case lacked the evidence of commitment by the crimes under § 5 of Article 27, § 2 of Article 115, § 5 of Article 27, Article 348, § 2 of Article 262 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by Goranin V. Yu.

After receiving on 27.06.2014 of the results of expertise, questioning of witnesses the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine issued the decision about changing of suspicion in commitment of crimes under § 4 of Article 27, § 3 of Article 262, § 1 of Article 263, Article 304, § 1 of Article 396 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (stealing, appropriation, extortion of firearms; carrying, of firearms (other than smooth-bore hunting) without statutory authority; engaging minors in criminal activity; concealment of a crime).

The mother of Goranin V. Yu., Goranina L. M. also signed an agreement about provision of legal aid with the lawyer of the SLC concerning violation of her right during conduction of the search by the police officers in her apartment. In particular, the police officers took her personal belongings.

The lawyer of the SLC has prepared several requests to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dniprovskyy district of Kyiv city and to the Dniprovskyi district police department. She has not received replies to these requests.

For today Goranin V. Yu. has been placed into the wanted list. Negotiations with the investigation authorities have been conducted regarding appearance of Goranin V. Yu. before the court for choosing of a prevention measure for him.

The lawyer got the investigator’s resolution on suspending the criminal proceedings due to the Goranin’s having abscond from the investigation and declared as a wanted person. The lawyer appealed the resolution to the court. The court granted the resolution, cancelled the suspending of the criminal proceedings. The investigation was restored.

Due to the lawyers complaints the prosecutor’s office in Kyiv reclaimed the criminal proceedings for examination. After the examination, the case file was moved to the Ministry of Interior.

The investigator informed Dneprovskyi District Police Station in Kyiv on moving the criminal proceedings, and the new investigator and prosecutor has been appointed to the proceedings.

The lawyer additionally submitted the requests on the location of Goranin’s  criminal complaint to General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine and the prosecutor’s office in Kyiv. Because of absence of responses  of the prosecutors on the lawyer’s request the lawyer submitted criminal complaints on the prosecutor’s inactivity.

 

 

4.3. “Haven’s hundred” cases

 

Case of Aksenin

On 20.02.2014 Aksenin V. S. was injured on Institutska street in Kyiv. He was hospitalized to the Kyiv clinical hospital no. 18 with the diagnosis: “gunshot wound of pelvic, gunshot fracture of the pelvis: the sacrum, femoral head displacement of fragments, bleeding from veins and places of fracture, traumatic shock of the third degree”. On 26.02.2014, Aksenin was transferred to Poland for treatment.

On 12.03.2014 Aksenin died at hospital in Polish city Zheshuv.

On 12.03.2014 the district Prosecutor’s Office of Zheshus instituted criminal case about infliction of damage to the health of Aksenin which posed a real threat for his life and at the result of which his death occurred, i.e. a crime under § 1, 3 of Article  156 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On 17.03.2014 a prosecutor of the district Prosecutor’s Office of Zheshus appointed conduction of forensic examination.

On 20.06.2014 the mother of the victim, Mrs. Aksenina filed a complaint about the crime to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

The SLC lawyer who represented the interests of Aksenina collected and provided the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine the materials from the district Prosecutor’s Office of Zheshus, as well as materials containing information the victim’s staying during injuring on the Institutska street in Kyiv on 20.02.2014.

On 11 April 2014 Mrs. Aksenina was questioned as a victim.

 

Arutyunyan v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Arutyunyan is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kyiv, Ukraine.

On February 20, 2014 the applicant’s relative, Georgyi Vagarshakovych Arutyunyan, was killed on the Maidan Nezalezhnosty in Kiev.

Recently the material of the pre-trial investigation about this incident was included in the Unified Register of pre-trial investigation (URPI).

In June, 2014 the applicant has concluded a contract with an advocate of the SLC about providing the legal assistance.

The advocate of the SLC filed a several petitions (about examination of witnesses, search for video from the event, assignment of a forensic medical examination), because currently a person who committed the crime is unknown. Aforementioned petitions were partially satisfied.

The lawyer submitted the request on demanding the documents on giving the gun for officers of special police forces, the ballistic charts of the police firearms to the investigating body and General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine. The documents were not obtained, as they were destroyed in their storage by unknown persons with the purpose of hiding the crimes. Then the lawyer submitted the motions on establishment the responsible persons for destroying this documents. Such the persons haven not been established until now.

The lawyer initiated seeking of possible witnesses of the murder and their questioning.

The forensic medical and ballistic examinations were conducted. As well due to cooperation with the TV channels and NGOs the videos of peaceful protests which was very important for investigation were received, processed and added to the case file.

From the criminal proceedings was separated the episode of the killing of thirty-nine persons by three special police officers. The case file was moved to the court, and Arutyunyan was one of the victims of the murder in this case. This special police officers were charged and detained. The detention of one of the police officers was changed by the court’s decision to home arrest, and after that the latter  ran away. The court’s decision was appealed by the prosecutor. As well, the criminal complaint against the judge was submitted, and the criminal proceedings against the judge were opened.

The Mai Investigation Department of the GPO disclosed the case file for review. On 29 September 2014, the SLC lawyer familiarized herself with the case file and submit the motion to attach the video with Maidan events, which aren’t in the prosecutor’s case file..

The indictment was handed to the suspect in the case and directed to the Pecherskiy district court. At the preliminary hearing the judge declared his recuse, which was granted, and the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for definition of venue of the case.

 

Baydovskyi case

On 20th of February 2014 Mr. Baydovskyi Sergiy Romanovych was killed near the October Palace in Kyiv, when clashes between so called Euro Maydan protestants and police units occurred. The criminal proceedings was instituted.

The lawyer of the SLC familiarized partially with the materials of the criminal case as to the murder of Mr. Baydovskyi.

The lawyer is preparing petition for questioning witnesses, namely:

(a)  A person who filled out the protocol of examination of the body of Mr. Baydovskyi;

(b)  Mr. Tkachuk Volodymyr, who is a witness of murder of Mr. Baydovskyi.

The lawyer of the SLC got and watched videos taken on 20th of February 2014 near the October Palace in looking for persons who could be witnesses of murder of Mr. Baydovskyi.

They were destroyed in the storage by unknown persons for the purpose hiding the crimes. Than the lawyer submitted the motions to find the persons responsible for destroying these documents. Such the persons have not been recognized till now.

The search of the witnesses and their questioning were initiated.

The forensic medical examinations and commission forensic ballistic examinations were conducted. Baydovskyy’s mother is recognized as a victim. Due to cooperation with the TV channels and NGOs the videos of peaceful protests which was very important for investigation were received, processed and added to the case file.

From the criminal proceedings was distinguished the fact of the killing of thirty-nine persons by three special officers. The case file was moved to the court. Baydovskyy was one of the victims of the murder in this case. This special police officers were notified about the suspicion and detained. The detention of one of the police officers was changed by the court’s decision to home arrest, and after that the latter  ran away. The court’s decision was appealed by the prosecutor. As well, the criminal complaint against the judge was submitted, and the criminal proceedings against the judge were opened.

The investigation continues.

On 29 September 2014, the lawyer familiarized herself with the case file. Then  she submitted  other video materials collected by her own.

The Mai Investigation Department of the GPO disclosed the case file for review. On 29 September 2014, the SLC lawyer familiarized herself with the case file and submit the motion to attach the video with Maidan events, which aren’t in the prosecutor’s case file..

The indictment was handed to the suspect in the case and directed to the Pecherskiy district court. At the preliminary hearing the judge declared his recuse, which was granted, and the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for definition of venue of the case.

 

Diakovskyi Case

On May 2014, there was found a corpse of Yurii Ivanovych Diakovskyi in the settlement of Raihorodok of Slovyanski District of Donetska Oblast. The death was on 18.04.2014. According to the information from the Main Department of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Service in Donetska Oblast of 06.05.2014 ¹ 8 the diagnosis of Diakovskyi Y.I. was a combined injury of the body, incised wound of the abdomen, and drowning. According to the mother of the dead Diakovskyi Y.I. following this fact the criminal proceeding was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. The investigation was carried out by the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in Donetska Oblast.

In connection with the situation in Donetska and Luhanska Oblasts there are some doubts as regards the completeness and objectivity of the investigation into the torture and murder of Diakovskyi Y.I.

The lawyer in the case referred to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine with a petition to change the jurisdiction and compel the materials of the criminal proceedings as regards the murder of Diakovskyi Y.I. for investigation in the Kyiv City.

Upon this petition there is an answer sent from the General Prosecutor`s Office stating that the consideration of the petition was directed to the prosecutor`s office of Donetska Oblast.

As a result of this there was a meeting organized with the deputy of the General Prosecutor as regards the change o jurisdiction in the case of Diakovskyi and other people.

The repeated motions to the General prosecutor resulted in mowing the criminal proceedings on the Dyakovskyy’s murder to the Ministry of Interior.

The pre-trial investigation conducts by the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry informed that the criminal proceedings were joined in one that.

The criminal proceedings on the Dyakovskyy’s murder was destroyed in Gorlovskiy District Police Station in the Donetsk region. The investigator’s resolution on conducting the exhumation and forensic medical examination has been passed.

The photos of Dyakovskyy’s dead body that were taken by the experts and the witnesses that were present during the Dyakovskyy’s torture were given to the investigation.

 

Hrynevych Case

On 20.02.2014 Eduard Mykhailovych Hrynevych was killed at the 8th barricade near the Khreshchatyk metro station in Kyiv. Relating information was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial, and they started the investigation.

The lawyer partly familiarized herself with the materials of the criminal investigation as regards the murder of Hrynevych E.M.

There was also a petition prepared to call for questioning the witness who directly saw the place of commission of the murder of Hrynevych E.M.

The lawyer submitted the request on removing the documents on giving the gun for special police officers, the ballistic charts of the police firearms to the investigating body and General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine. As such documents were not timely seized they were destroyed in the storage by unknown persons for the purpose hiding the crimes. Than the lawyer submitted the motions to find the persons responsible for destroying these documents. Such the persons have not been recognized till now.

The forensic medical examinations, the investigative experiment were conducted, and several witnesses were questioned upon the lawyer’s request. As well due to cooperation with the TV channels and NGOs the videos of peaceful protests which was very important for investigation were received, processed and added to the case file.

From the criminal proceedings was distinguished the fact of the killing of thirty-nine persons by three special officers. The case file was moved to the court. Hrynevych was one of the victims of the murder in this case. This special police officers were notified about the suspicion and detained. The detention of one of the police officers was changed by the court’s decision to home arrest, and after that the latter  ran away. The court’s decision was appealed by the prosecutor. As well, the criminal complaint against the judge was submitted, and the criminal proceedings against the judge were opened.

The investigation continues.

On 29 September 2014, the lawyer familiarized herself with the case file. Then  she submitted  other video materials collected by her own.

The Mai Investigation Department of the GPO disclosed the case file for review. On 29 September 2014, the SLC lawyer familiarized herself with the case file and submit the motion to attach the video with Maidan events, which aren’t in the prosecutor’s case file..

The indictment was handed to the suspect in the case and directed to the Pecherskiy district court. At the preliminary hearing the judge declared his recuse, which was granted, and the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for definition of venue of the case.

 

Kapynos v. Ukraine

The applicant, Sergiy Anatoliyovych Kapynos, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kyiv, Ukraine.

On 18 February 2014, near 22:45 p.m. he was brought to the Kyiv city Hospital ambulance diagnosed with the open head injury, the slaughter brain, the fracture of the frontal bone, the bruise of soft tissues and lungs. On 19 February 2014, near 09:37 a.m. Kapynos due to the obtained injuries died. On 20 February 2014, Desniansky District Police State in Kyiv entered the information on the criminal proceedings on the basis of murder in Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

Later the case file was transferred to Investigation Department of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine to conduct the pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings.

In the criminal proceedings forensic medical examination was conducted and some investigative actions were conducted.

On 26 June 2014, the lawyer of the SLC familiarized herself with the case file and submitted a motion on participation in the investigation actions and in others proceedings’ actions.

According to Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the lawyer gathers evidence (examinations of witnesses, search of video from the scene of a crime) because the investigation hasn’t established a place of murder and the person/persons who committed a crime up to now.

On 15 July 2014, the lawyers motion on obtaining the information and the documents, on the location of units of the Ministry of Interior, their weapons and on the persons who received such orders on the Independence Square on 18 February 2014 from the Ministry of Interior was submitted. The investigator didn’t grant the motion because such information has been already obtained from the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry provided the formal information.

On 28 July 2014, the motion on opening additional case file to the representative of the victim till the end of the pre-trial investigation was submitted. The investigator granted the motion partially.

On 28 July 2014, the lawyer familiarized herself with the pre-trial case file. The investigation didn’t establish the suspects in this case.

Two witnesses, who are victims in other criminal proceedings relating to the events (mass shooting of people) of 18 February 2014 on the Independence Square in Kyiv, investigating by General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine, were found by the lawyer. In the evening of 18 February 2014 these victims probably got injured from the same gun, approximately at the same place where was killed Kapynos on the Independence Square. These persons were questioned in the lawyers office on those events. Also Kapynos‘s  photos were shown to them but they said that they didn’t know him. Besides these witnesses gave the video from the Internet that represents the events of that evening and described the overall picture of mass shootings of people.

This information and the video were provided to the investigation that additionally questioned these persons as victims.

On a lawyers request the investigation replied that special police forces “Berkut” were questioned. It is planed the new papers of the case file (protocols of examinations of witnesses) investigation will be given to the lawyer for her familiarizing.

In fact, the significant part of the investigation is provided by the lawyer of SLC in this case.

Later, the investigator conducted investigatory actions to find witnesses of Mr. Kapinos’s murder and other evidence. The examinations of the staff of special police squad ‘Bercut‘ continues.

On 19 December 2014, after getting acquainted with the new materials of the criminal proceedings, the lawyer of the victim submitted a motion to the GPOU’s  investigator on the implementation of the proceedings, namely the treatment of the investigator to the investigating judge for interim access to things and documents, in particular - with regard to data and documents alignment of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine on 18 February 2014, on the Independence Square in Kiev during a peaceful protest which weapons and special means they were given, who gave the orders.

 

Tarasiuk Case

Ivan Mykolayovych Tarasiuk born in 1993 was killed on the Independence Square (“Maidan Nezalezhnosti”) on 20.02.2014.

The father of Mr. Tarasiuk signed a contract on provision of legal aid of 20.06.2014.

Later it was found that the mother of the deceased signed a contract on provision of legal aid on 19.04.2014 with a lawyer.

In connection with this the contract was terminated.

 

Tsepun case

On 21 February 2014, near 07:45 a.m. Tsepun Andrew M. was delivered  to the Kyiv city Hospital ambulance diagnosed with the coma, the general hypothermia. The same day near 08:00 a.m. he died. On 26 February 2014, Obolonsky District Police State in Kyiv entered the information on the criminal proceedings on the basis of murder in Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

In the criminal proceedings forensic medical examination was conducted and some investigative actions were conducted.

On 27 June 2014, the lawyer of the SLC familiarized herself with the case file and submitted the motion on participation in the investigation actions and in others proceedings’ actions.

According to Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine  the lawyer gathers evidence (examinations of witnesses, search of video from  a scene of a crime, viewing the scene of a crime) because the investigation hasn’t established the place of murder and the person/persons who committed a crime up to now.

The motion on providing the information and the documents about the fact of Tsepun’s delivery to the Kyiv city Hospital ambulance and on providing à healthcare for him was submitted to the Kyiv city Hospital ambulance. Also the motion on providing the information and the documents on the call address of ambulance team, on a person who called to the ambulance etc., was submitted to the Ñenter of emergency medical care and disaster Medicine in Kyiv.

On 27 June 2014, the lawyer travelled to the place of location of  the killed and to the possible finding places of the body for the purpose of searching of witnesses, video and testing  eyewitness’s testimony on the location place of the body.

The lawyers motion on conducting Voytenko’s (a doctor who travelled to the call) additional examination and on the identification and examination of the persons at the address from which Tsepun was delivered to the Kyiv city Hospital ambulance to know whether they called to the ambulance found the Tsepun’s body (for clarification and establishment the scene of a crime) was submitted to the investigation.

The victim was questioned on Tsepun’s clothes and his injuries upon presentation of the corpse for identification by the lawyer (the protocol was recorded). On 4 August 2014, this evidence and the motion on the Shishkin’s additional examination ware submitted to the investigation. The investigator didn’t granted the motion  because of inexpedience.

The answer from the Ñentre of emergency medical care and disaster Medicine in Kyiv was received. In this answer was indicated that the ambulance call was from the address from which Tsepun was delivered to the Kyiv city Hospital ambulance. So, in a such way the lawyer independently  documented (took the written evidence) Tsepun’s body location place before the ambulance arrival.

The answer from the Kyiv city Hospital ambulance was received. The copy of Tsepun’s medical card was given.

Àn ad about searching the witnesses who saw Tsepun in the night between 20 February 2014 and 21 February 2014 was placed on the Internet. The search of new witnesses who could see that events is making. The lawyer hasn’t found new witnesses and other additional evidence up to now.

The lawyer has a version of Tsepun’s murder. She thinks that he was killed by “tityshky” (people who were involved for the suppression of the peaceful protests and meetings in Ukrainian support of the European vector of the development by the criminal authorities and the police). As he was present on the barricades that prevented Kyiv citizens from “tityshky” to help law enforcement agencies to detain “tityshky” he could be killed by them.

That’s why the motion on joining this criminal proceedings with the criminal proceedings on crimes that were committed by “tityshky” those are investigating by General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine was submitted. But General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine replied to the lawyer’s request that there are no basis for determining the investigative jurisdiction of this criminal proceedings.

In fact, the significant part of the investigation is provided by the lawyer of SLC in this case. Obolonsky District Police State in Kyiv as the pre-trial investigation provides ineffective investigation in this criminal proceedings.

As no investigation was not actually conducting, on 22 October 2014, a lawyer’s  request on giving the information related to the implementation of investigate and criminal search for the period from 28 June 2014 to 22  October 2014 was submitted to the attorney’s authority pre-trial investigation (Obolon District Office of Ministry of Interior Ukraine in Kiev).

On 11 July 2014, the answer was received. The lawyer’s request was not granted. 

It was known on the meeting with the members of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine that, on 29 October 2014, the Obolon District Office of Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in Kiev issued the resolution on closure of the criminal proceedings.

The letter on the abolition of the said resolution as the fact that the number of investigation (investigative, procedural) actions in the criminal proceedings were not provided by the pre-trial investigation authority was sent to the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine and to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kiev.

The resolution on closure of the criminal proceedings was canceled.

On 18 December 2014, the lawyer sent the letter to the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine on transferring the criminal proceedings to another investigation body (to change the investigative jurisdiction).

 

Varenitsa case

On February 2014 Mr. Varenitsa Roman Mikhaylovych was killed in Kyiv, when clashes between so called Euro Maydan protestants and police units occurred.

On 21st of February 2014 statements on the crime was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

The lawyer of the SLC Mr.  was partially provided with materials of the criminal case.

Due to the fact that the correction of bullets calibre, namely from 7.62 to 5.45 in the protocol of examination of the scene of crime of 21st of February 2014, the lawyer filed the motion for questioning the investigator as a witness.

The lawyer submitted the request on removing the documents on giving the gun for special police officers, the ballistic charts of the police firearms to the investigating body and General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine. As such documents were not timely seized they were destroyed in the storage by unknown persons for the purpose hiding the crimes. Than the lawyer submitted the motions to find the persons responsible for destroying these documents. Such the persons have not been recognized until now.

The lawyer initiated seeking of possible witnesses of the murder and their questioning.

The complex forensic medical examinations was assigned and ballistic examinations were conducted. Due to cooperation with the TV channels and NGOs the videos of peaceful protests which was very important for investigation were received, processed and added to the case file.

From the criminal proceedings was distinguished the fact of the killing of thirty-nine persons by three special officers. The case file was moved to the court. Varenitsa was one of the victims of the murder in this case. This special police officers were notified about the suspicion and detained. The detention of one of the police officers was changed by the court’s decision to home arrest, and after that the latter  ran away. The court’s decision was appealed by the prosecutor. As well, the criminal complaint against the judge was submitted, and the criminal proceedings against the judge were opened.

The investigation continues.

On 29 September 2014, the lawyer familiarized herself with the case file. Then  she submitted  other video materials collected by her own/

The Mai Investigation Department of the GPO disclosed the case file for review. On 29 September 2014, the SLC lawyer familiarized herself with the case file and submit the motion to attach the video with Maidan events, which aren’t in the prosecutor’s case file..

The indictment was handed to the suspect in the case and directed to the Pecherskiy district court. At the preliminary hearing the judge declared his recuse, which was granted, and the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for definition of venue of the case.

 

Zubenko case

On 20 February 2014, Zubenko Vladislav V. was transported  to the Kyiv city Hospital and diagnosed with a gun shot wound. On 28 February 2014, in the Department of intensive therapy for grown ups of the Heart Institute in Kyiv Zubenko died. On 20 February 2014, Desniansky District Police State in Kyiv entered the information on the criminal proceedings on the basis of murder in Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

Later the case file was transferred to the Investigation Department of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine to conduct the pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings.

In the criminal proceeding forensic medical examination was conducted and some investigative actions were conducted.

On 25 June 2014, the lawyer of the SLC familiarized herself with the case file and submitted the motion on participation in the investigation actions and in others proceedings’ actions.

According to Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the lawyer gathers evidence (examinations of witnesses, search of video from the scene of a crime) because the investigation has not established a place of murder and the person/persons who committed a crime up to now.

The lawyer was advising the family members on the matter of getting one-time pecuniary compensation to the persons, whose death is related with the participation in the massive public protest actions that were occurred between 21 November 2014 and 21 February 2014. Also on 24 June 2014, an application for financial aid for the victim with the supporting documents were submitted to Ukrainian Charity Fund “Social partnership”. În 25 June 2014, the letter about providing an apartment or à land plot under construction in the city with the supporting documents to the President of Ukraine were prepared by the lawyer.

On 20 August 2014, the lawyer familiarized with the pre-trial case file, but the investigator gave not all the materials.. The investigation did not establish the suspects in this case. In the case file there is a video of events of morning of 20 February 2014 in which Zubenko was identified and in which seen how Zubenko falls.

The lawyer of SLC provides the work that aimed at the searching of witnesses, videos. New witnesses and new videos are not found to date.

The investigator started to conduct investigatory actions to find witnesses of Mr. Zubenko’s murder and other evidence.

 

Prohorskyy case

On 19 February 2014, on the territory of St. Michael’s Cathedral was found a corpse of an unidentified man with the signs of a violent death. On 19 February 2014, Shevchenkivsky District Police Station in Kyiv entered the information on the criminal proceedings on the basis of murder in Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.  Later, 22 February, 2014, the corpse was recognizable by the relatives and it was found that this corpse is of Prohorskyy Vasily P.. It was found by the investigation that he was killed in the evening of 18 February 2014 on the Independence Square during the meeting.

In the criminal proceedings was conducted forensic medical examination, whereby Prohorskyy died due to a gun shot wound.

Later the case file was transferred to the Investigation Department of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine to conduct the pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings.

In the criminal proceedings  forensic ballistic examination was conducted, the witnesses were questioned and the investigative actions were conducted.

On 24 June 2014, the lawyer of the SLC familiarized herself with the case file and submitted the motion on the participation in the investigation actions and in the others proceedings actions.

On 14 July 2014, the witness was questioned in the presence of the lawyer of the SLC that provided information to the investigation about this witness.  This eyewitness’s testimony managed to recreate the events till 6 p.m. of the day of Prohorskyy ‘s murder.

On 15 July 2014, the lawyers submitted the motion on obtaining the information and the documents, on the location of units of the Ministry of Interior, their weapons and about the persons who received such orders on the Independence Square on 18 February 2014 from the Ministry of Interior. The investigator granted the motion.

On 28 July 2014, the motion on opening additional case file to representative of the victim till the end of pre-trial investigation was submitted. The investigator granted the motion partially.

On 20 August 2014, the lawyer familiarized herself with the pre-trial proceedings file. There was no documents on the location of the police forces, on their weapons and on the persons who received such orders on the place of events. The investigation didn’t establish the suspects in this case.

Two witnesses, who are victims in other criminal proceedings about the events (mass shooting of people) on 18 February 2014 on the Independence Square in Kyiv investigating by General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine, were found by the lawyer. In the evening of 18 February 2014, these victims probably got injured from the same gun, approximately at the same place where was killed Prohorskyy on the Independence Square. These persons were questioned in the lawyers office on those events. Also Prohorskyy ‘s  photos were shown to them but they said that they didn’t know him. In addition, these witnesses gave a video from the Internet that represents the events of that evening and described the overall picture of mass shooting of people.

This information and the video were provided to the investigation that additionally questioned these persons as victims.

On a lawyers request the investigation replied that special police forces “Berkut” were questioned. It is planed the new papers of the case file (protocols of examinations of witnesses) investigation will be given to the lawyer for her familiarizing.

In fact, the significant part of the investigation is provided by the lawyer of SLC in this case.

Later, the investigator conducted the investigation actions to find witnesses of Mr. Prohorsky’s murder and other evidence.

On 19 December 2014, after getting acquainted with the new materials of the criminal proceedings, the lawyer of the victim submitted a motion to the GPOU’s  investigator on the implementation of the proceedings, namely the treatment of the investigator to the investigating judge for interim access to things and documents, in particular - with regard to data and documents alignment of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine on 18 February 2014, on the Independence Square in Kiev during a peaceful protest which weapons and special means they were given, who gave the orders.

 

Veremiy  case

On 19.02.2012 approximately at 04.30 am at the department of poly-trauma of the Kyiv clinical medical emergency hospital Veremiy Vyacheslav Vasilyovych (hereinafter – ‘V.’) died. He was delivered to the hospital form Velyka Zhitomirska street in Kyiv with the diagnosis: closed craniocerebral trauma, destructive head wound, gunshot wound of the chest wall to the left.

 On 19.02.2014 Desnyanskyy district station in Kyiv city registered the information in the Unified Registry of Pre-trial Investigations (hereinafter – the URPTI) with preliminary legal qualification as an intentional murder.

Subsequently the materials of case file were transferred to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (hereinafter – ‘GPO’) for conducting preliminary investigation in the criminal proceedings, which are included to the URPRI another registry number. Later the case regarding the murder of V. was allocated to the third criminal proceedings with a separate registry number.

In the criminal proceedings the forensic medical examination was conducted, the suspects were founded, in particular, one the suspect was declared wanted, and another one was detained. He was suspected in aggravated deliberate murder and deliberate destroying or harming a property, and has been taken into custody.

However, on 24 April 2014, the prosecutor of the GPO issued the ruling on termination of criminal proceedings against the suspect under the qualification of aggravated deliberate murder and deliberate destroying or harming a property. The crime was re-qualified to hooliganism, and the insestigation continued.   .

On 24 June 2014, the SLC lawyer filed the motion on participation in investigation (search) and other procedural actions.

On 26 June 2014 the SLC lawyer, representing the mother of the murdered, Mrs. Veremyi, familiarized herself  with the case file.

On 1 July 2014 the SLC lawyer filed the complaint on the ruling of the prosecutor about termination of criminal proceedings of 24 April 2014 to the investigating judge of Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv. She also directed the motion to the GPO with the request of re-qualification of the criminal charge, change of a preventive measure against the second suspect.

The SLC lawyer has provided a legal consultation for the victim V. on obtaining the compensation for the loss of her son.

The investigating judge granted the complaint of the lawyer and quashed prosecutor’s decision of about termination the criminal proceedings.

The General’s Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine continued pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings with respect to the suspect K. with the qualification as the aggravated deliberate murder, during that additional witnesses and victims were questioned.

However, after this, on 1 August, 2014 the prosecutor of the GPO adopted the resolution on termination the criminal proceedings and again re-qualified the suspicion as hooliganism. This decision was not appealed, because the victim refused to appeal against it.

On 6 August 2014, the pre-trial investigation was ended and the lawyer familiarized herself with the completed case file.

For other suspects who took part in the attack and the murder of the journalist V., the GPO continued pre-trial investigation, the suspects were identified and put into the wanted list.

The suspect K. and other persons involved in the attack and the murder of V. are so-called "titushki" who have been strongly connected with criminal organizations and corrupted law enforcement and involved by them in order to resist peaceful protesters (these facts are established by investigators).

On 22 August 2014, during the preparatory hearing in the Shevchenkivskyy district court of Kyiv a preventive measure for defendant was changed from home arrest to personal obligations. The court passed the resolution to held closed hearing, as a protection measures for the defendant. The court appointed to start trial of the case on 01 September 2014..

The lawyer of the SLC prepared the complaint against the prosecutor in the case as well as the motion on disqualification of the prosecutor from the case and filed them to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine (hereinafter – ‘GPU’), together with the motion on discovery of documents and videos relating to the events of the murder from the GPU. Later, the hearing was postponed.

On 11 November 2014, a lawyer of the victim Mrs.Veremiy (mother) submitted a motion on the implementation of the proceedings actions by the prosecutor, in particular, on the filing of the prosecutor to the court to change the pre-trial restriction for the defendant from a personal commitment to house arrest (24-hours ) to the prosecutor. The Prosecutor’s office granted the motion.

On 17 November 2014, at the hearing, the Prosecutor submitted a motion to change the pre-trial restriction from a personal commitment to the house arrest (24-hours), but the court dismissed the petition.  In this court session victim Mrs. Veremiy (wife of the murdered) was interviewed.

On 24 November 2014, during the next court hearing other victims who were participants in those events were interviewed: 1) the taxi driver who picked up Mr. Veremiy and was the eyewitness of the attack, as well as the victim; 2) the co-worker of Veremiy, who also rode in the taxi, was the eyewitness of the attack on Veremiy and also the victim.

At the stage of pre-trial investigation security measures in the form of personal protection were applied to the accused. As a result, the court made the decision on a closed case hearing due to the security measures.

However, the lawyer has doubts on the fact of the reality of the circumstances that threatened the life of the accused. In particular, there are some differences between the testimonies of the accused and his wife’s  testimonies on the same events. According to the lawyer’s view the fact of such circumstances could be confirmed by the existence of criminal proceedings information about which was entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (hereinafter referred to as URPTI), in connection with what the lawyer’s request to the GPO was submitted.

The lawyer’s request on the existence of criminal proceedings and provided investigation actions by GPO on the fact of the threat to the defendant ‘s (Mr. Krysin’s) life, on the weaning (extortion) of his car and 50 thousand US dollars. According to the given answer the investigation actions were provided in the frame of the criminal proceedings (defendant’s examination, the examination of the wife of the accused as a witness). So, no information to the URPTI was entered.

On 12 December 2014, the lawyer of the victim Mrs. Veremiy (mother of the murdered) in the case hearing again submitted a motion on the holding the trial in a closed session only in a part that relates the witnesses in respect of which security measures have been taken. That is, the case should be partially open, partially closed, as it is permitted by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court dismissed this petition.

The lawyer submitted a motion on the recuse legal term, but it wasn`t granted.

The next case hearings were not held due to illness of the accused and due to the judge’s illness.
 

4.4. Kharkiv Euromaydan cases

 

Case on abuse of force against protesting people

On 19.02.2014 near the Academy of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine (hereinafter - the "Academy") a protest took place against sending students of the Academy to Kyiv for suppressing protests on Maydan Nezalezhnosti square. In the evening special police units including the "Berkut" came to the Academy. They broke up a picket. At that they injured picketers using batons. Some of them received head injuries and were brought by ambulance to the hospital. The opponents of Euromaydan (called «titushkas») armed with sticks arrived at the scene. They also participated in mass beatings of picketers, and the police did not take measures to stop these actions and arrest those, who actually committed crimes against picketers.

More than 10 people from the picketers were arrested at the scene and brought to the district police unit. After a while, two lawyers of the SLC came there to provide legal aid to the detainees, who were interrogating because of the charges of the mass public disorder.

Lawyers were not allowed to participate in the proceedings despite their appeal by phone to the Police Department of Kharkiv Region and emergency call to the police patrols because of obstruction to the legal activities of lawyers, arrival to the police unit of the Deputy Chief of the Police Department of Kharkiv region, etc.

During the three-hour standby lawyers with detainees’ relatives in front of the door of the police unit protocols on administrative arrest and administrative offenses allegedly committed by them (the persistent failure to obey the lawful demands of police) were issued under pressure to detainees.

After midnight detainees were secretly brought to the District Court of Kharkov but detainees’ relatives noticed this and notified the lawyers. The lawyers come to a court, but they were not allowed to come inside as well as relatives of the detainees, who wanted to be present at court considerations of the administrative cases. The lawyers spent about three hours in front of the courthouse, but they were not allowed to provide legal aid to detainees in the court, but lawyers from the Legal Aid Centre freely entered into the courthouse.

After these events criminal complaints were prepared on behalf of several of these picketers. The criminal complaints were submitted to the prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv region. The lawyers of the SLC, who were not allowed to enter the police unit and the courthouse, filed the complaints to the prosecutor’s office on obstruction to the legal activities of the lawyers, as well as violations of the right to the defence of detainees.

All these statements were gradually joined into one criminal case, and the investigation was entrusted to a large group of investigators of Kharkiv region led by the several prosecutors. However, the pre-trial investigation conducted formally. The person, who committed the above crimes, have not been identified yet. The investigations of the case of obstruction to the legal activities of the lawyers in mid-June 2014 was closed by the resolution of the Deputy Head of the investigation department of prosecutor’s office because of the lack of the corpus delicti.

This resolution was appealed to the investigating judge, but the case-files of the investigation were sent to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine. The investigative judge of the District court refused the complaint on the decision on termination of the investigation. Then the SLC lawyer had appealed to the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, that quashed the decision of the investigating judge and send the case back to the Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office for renewing of the investigation.

In December, 2014 the prosecutor’s office once again terminated the criminal proceedings. The lawyer again complained the decision to an investigative judge, and the complaint procedure is pending.

 

Khryplyvyi v. Ukraine

The applicant, Oleksandr Mykolayovych Khryplyvyi, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

On March 1, 2014 the applicant was beaten by pro-Russian activists in the Kharkiv regional state administration, after this he was forcibly taken out to the Svobody Square. The applicant has received numerous visible injuries. With the SLC lawyer the applicant was delivered to the regional traumatology where he was examined.

On March 2, 2014 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant made a statement about the crime and handed it to the Kievskiy district police station of the Kharkiv with photos of the person who beaten the applicant. The investigator referred the proceedings by the order the Head of Investigation office to the Kharkiv City Police Department without warrants of the prosecutor. As there was no warrant, the Kharkiv City Police Department sent them back the proceedings after a short time.

On March 4, 2014, the SLC lawyer filed a motion for an investigation, but the investigator took no action. Applicant’s examination was conducted on the basis of his medical records and photos.

Currently the proceedings was transferred from the Kharkov City Police Department to the Office of the Security Service of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region, where conducted investigations on an identification of persons who beaten the applicant.

In September 2014 the applicant left the city to participate in anti-terrorist operation in Eastern Ukraine and wrote the motion to hear the case without his participation.

In November 2014 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant filed a motion to Kyivsky District court with a request to inform who is on charge in the  case in which the applicant is a victim and send him verdict or other decision.

 

Svynarenko case

The applicant, Sergiy Svynarenko, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

On February 20, 2014 the applicant found out from the media about the shooting of peaceful protesters which happened in Kiev the day before. Many people were killed instantly; some were injured and needed medical treatment. The applicant was very indignant by this fact, so he made a banner with the words "Stop Yanukovich" (President of Ukraine) and arrived at the Svobody Square in Kharkiv to participate in a single peaceful picket.

Despite the fact that the applicant did not violate legislation, police officers, acting on the orders of blocking all meetings of people who disagree with the actions of the authorities have stopped this picket.

Police officers arrested the applicant and drafted on the same day protocol on administrative violation, which was transferred to the court.

On March 6, 2014 Dzerzhinsky district court of Kharkiv ordered the applicant to pay a fine at the rate of 1,700 UAH (the maximum sum for such violations).

On March 12, 2014  the SLC lawyer prepared and sent to the Court of Appeal of the Kharkiv region an appeal in which he asked to cancel this fine in connection with the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the applicant. The lawyer pointed out that the applicant was on the Svobody Square alone, so to bring him to liability for violation of the order of mass assembly is incorrect.

As it was known later, the District Court dismissed its judgment on the basis of the Statute of so-called ‘conditional’ amnesty, which foreseen to excuse from criminal and administrative liability all the participants of the protesting actions all around Ukraine. Thus, the Court of Appeal did not examined the case, because of absence of the judicial decision. The SlC discontinued to support the case because of unwilling of the client to proceed.

 

Tucha case

The applicant, Oleksandr Anatolyovych Tucha, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Pervomaysk, Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

On March 1, 2014 the applicant was beaten by pro-Russian activists in the Kharkiv regional state administration, after this he was forcibly taken out to the Svobody Square. The applicant has received numerous visible injuries.

On March 4, 2014 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant made a statement about the crime and handed it to the Kievskiy district police station of the Kharkiv with photos of the person who beaten the applicant. The investigator referred the proceedings by the order the Head of Investigation office to the Kharkiv City Police Department without warrants of the prosecutor. As there was no warrant, the Kharkiv City Police Department sent them back the proceedings after a short time.

The applicant was recommended to go to hospital for fixing injuries, but he did not do this, motivating it by fear, because in the city where he is living – Pervomaysk - there is a power of the Party of Regions.

    The investigator of the Kievskyi district police station of the Kharkiv sabotaged the investigation and issued a direction to the applicant for medical examination only after notification about a complaint in higher authorities. However, the investigator did not take from the forensic expert the data of the applicant’s examination.

On July 2014 in the proceedings it was changed several investigators, no investigations were conducted.

On July 23, 2014 the lawyer filed a complaint to the Head of the Kharkiv City Police Department about inaction of the investigator and the Head of the investigation department of the Kharkiv City Police Department. This complaint was neither examined by the supervising authority, no answer was given on this complaint.

On November 2013 a new complaint on the matter of ineffective investigation was submitted to the head of the Regional Police Department.

On September 14, 2014 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant filed a complaint to the Police Department of the Kharkiv region on the failure to investigate the case.

 

4.4. Other cases

 

Case of Anti-Ukrainian Newspapers

In November 2014, during the visit of the public representatives to  a correctional colony, prisoners informed them about distribution of a newspaper “Novorossia” among the prisoners, which contained different anti-Ukrainian materials. 

One of the issues of this newspaper, in particular, contained articles with the following titles:

- “Election of 2 November is a new civil feat of Donbass” ;

-  “The Great Donetsk revolution and Novorossia”; «

 - “To the Citizens of Novorossia”, with the relevant content of the articles. 

On 26 November 2014 the criminal proceeding were instituted under this fact on grounds of violation of territorial integrity and inviolability.

Prisoners of the correctional colony applied to a lawyer of the SLC for representation of their interests as witnesses in the criminal proceedings under the fact of distribution of this newspaper.

The lawyer of the SLC, foreseeing possible pressure on prisoners of the colony due to their notice about distribution of the newspaper in the colony, filed a pleading about call and questioning of witnesses in criminal proceedings with her participation.

An investigator appointed forensic linguistic examination in order to determine whether this newspaper contained calls for actions directed on changing the boundaries of a territory or state border of Ukraine against the order established by the Constitution of Ukraine, despite the fact that the content of these newspapers was obvious anti-nature. Currently the pre-trial investigation is continuing.

 

Akem case

On 12 November 2014, two African students Mr. Akem (citizen of Cameroon) and his friend Mr. Ibrahim (citizen of Guinea) were stopped by the policemen near the entrance to the underground station “Heroes of Labor” in Kharkiv. After it turned that students had no documents the policemen started beating them near the entrance to the underground. As there were a lot people there, the policemen called other employees and two guards of the market that is located near underground. The policemen forcibly moved students in a dark place and continued beating them, burning fire lighters fingers, etc. Then students were moved to the guards’ room where they were also beaten. Two credit cards and two mobile cards were taken from Akem.

After those events two students were thrown outside. Ibrahim was able to go by foot. The ambulance was called for Akem. He was delivered to the hospital where he made X-ray head. Akem was not hospitalized. Ibrahim left for his motherland.

On 17 November 2014, the criminal complaint was submitted to the prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv region by Akem.

On 21 November 2014, he passed the forensic medical examination in Kharkiv regional bureau of forensic medical examination. Traces healing of two wounds that related to minor injuries were found.

On 27 November 2014, magnetic resonance tomography was made. Pathology were not found.

On 28 November 2014, Akem was examined by urologist. Then tests were taken. No serious health disorders were found.

As it turned out then, on 25 December 2014, the investigation authority issued the resolution on closure of the criminal proceedings in the absence of the crime. A lawyer of SLC is going to appeal this resolution as obviously illegal.

 

Berezan Case

Convicted Mr. Berezan was serving a sentence in correctional colony ¹70 from 28 December 2010, constantly complained about his health state.

On 12 November 2012, Berezan was sent by the medical unit of the correctional colony ¹70 to the surgical department of Buchanskaya correctional colony ¹85, where he was medical treated from 12 November 2012 to 13 January 2013.

On 25 February 2013, the Berezan was admitted for medical treatment to the oncology department. The patient state was moderate.

On 25 March 2013, he was issued with the recommendations: "D" medical supervision - physician, "D" medical supervision - surgeon.

On 28 August 2014, the correctional colony ¹70 sent Berezan for medical treatment in Buchanskaya correctional colony ¹85 again. But it turned out that the hospital specialization did not meet the further examination tactics of Berezan. So, on 10 April 2014, he was sent back to the correctional colony ¹70.

After the meeting with a lawyer Mr. Berezan has complained on ill treatment in the penal establishment and on sending him for medical treatment in the institution that has no possibility to treat, but it took a lot time to find out. The lawyer suggested to appeal on improper treatment and she appealed to the management of the correctional colony. Having lodged the complaints, Mr. Berezan was sent for routine hospitalization and underwent surgery.

The lawyer collected medical data for filing complaints on improper treatment.

 

Bocharov case

Bocharov, V. M., a resident of Kharkiv city, together with another man, stayed in  Kharkiv SIZO on the basis of the criminal proceedings instituted by the Lenin District Police Station. On 09.21.2014 they were taken by a convoy vehicle to the Frunze District Police Station, where some investigative actions were conducted in relation to these persons in the scope of the criminal proceedings instituted by the Frunze District Police Station. Thus, the Free Legal Aid Centre was not informed of their detention.

Then, unlawful methods of investigation and procedural actions were carried out with respect to these men, who are drug addicts and who had not received any medical care in the Kharkov SIZO, without presence of a lawyer and allowing to use any legal assistance. Thus, despite the fact that detainees were “sick” they were not taken to a doctor and no medication was given to them.

Despite the fact that due to a drug overdose above mentioned persons were in condition dangerous to life, officers of convoy did not inform ambulance about this situation began to deliver these people to hospital themselves. At the result of this, on 20 August 2014 at about 8 -00 hours B. died in a convoy vehicle on the territory of a hospital, but the cause of death and its real time police officers were hidden by the police.

Nor prison officers, neither employees of Dzerzhinsky District Police Station, nor the prosecutors of Dzerzhinsky District and prosecutors of Kharkiv region notified the mother of B.  about a death of her son.

Only having received the information from the SLC lawyer, B.’s mother could apply to the Prosecutor’s Office and obtain permission for the burial of her son, while it is indicated in the preliminary medical certificate of death 29 August 2014, that the cause of death cannot be established until obtaining the results of additional examinations.

On 1 September 2014 B.’s mother filed the criminal complaint on the officers of the Frunze District Police Station under the following corpus delicti: leaving in a danger, abuse of power, negligence, violation of the right to defence to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region, prepared for her by a lawyer of the SLC.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region refused to register this complaint in its Unified Register of pre-trial investigation (‘URPTI ‘) and sent it for registration in the URPTI to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv city.

Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv city also refused to register this complaint and sent it for registration in the URPTI to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Frunze district of Kharkiv.

The Prosecutor’s Office of the Frunze district of Kharkiv refused to register this complaint in the URPTI and sent it for registration to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region refused to register this complaint in the URPTI, referring to the fact that on 20 August 2014 the information about the B.’s death was filed in the URPTI.

At present, there is a complaint in the Chervonozavodskyi District Court of Kharkiv on the matter of  the refuse to include information about the commission of the following crimes against B.: leaving in a danger, abuse of power, negligence, violation of the right to defence Also, an application about involvement the mother of Mr. Bocharov as a victim in the criminal proceedings is filed to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region.

In November 2014 a motion of the lawyer of SLC was satisfied and Bocharov’s mother was questioned as a victim.

In November 2014 the lawyer of SLC filed a civil lawsuit against the Police Department of the Kharkiv region for moral damages in the amount of 500 000 UAH.

In the end of 2014 investigator informed the lawyer of SLC that in a few days he would bring in charge to police officers.

 

Bohorodytskyi case

The materials of the criminal case as regards the citizen of Ukraine Oleh Volodymyrovych Bohorodytskyi born on February 10, 1981 who was convicted of committing a crime stipulated by Part 1 of Article 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are kept in Brodivskyi District Court of Lvivska Oblast.

The court hearing was appointed at 10 a.m. on September 5, 2014.

The  SLC lawyer was admitted to the aforementioned proceedings as an advocate of Bohorodytskyi O.V.

In connection with this criminal proceedings as regards the serviceman Bohorodytskyi O.V. were initiated.  The Acting Chief of the military unit PPV  37/65 Zakharchenko S.V. and Prosecutor`s Office of Ternopilska Oblast on supervision over the observance of law requirements relating to Bohorodytskyi O.V., by the military command and by the head of the psychiatric clinic in HVMKTs “HVKH” colonel of medical service Druz O.V. to constant psychological pressure to prevent his in-patient examination and treatment with the aim to determine the level of suitability for military service.

In this regard the lawyer submitted the following documents:

- application on the crime – to the Kyivska, Ternopilska and Lvivska prosecutor`s offices on supervision over the observance of laws in the defense sector;

- request and report to the colonel of the military unit  37/65 Zakharchenko S.V.;

- application and request to the head of the psychiatric clinic in HVMKTs “HVKH” colonel of medical service Druz O.V.;

- application to Brodivskyi District Court of Lvivska Oblast on familiarizing with the materials of the case.

The applicant  also complained to disorder of sleeping, constant anxiety, mental stress because of the anti-terrorist operations in the East of Ukraine. As a result of the medical examination in the military unit it has written  directions to the assessment and treatment of the applicant in a psychiatric clinic in Kyiv. The clinic denied examinations and treatment of the applicant due to the order of the military unit.

October 24, 2014 p. the indictment against the applicant for an offense under Part. 1 Art. 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was sent  to the court. The case was appointed to the court hearing.

In July 2014 it was opened criminal proceedings under Part. 1 Art. 425 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the illegal orders of the military unit and the fact of not providing medical assistance to the applicant in the clinic. On November 24, 2014 the applicant was considered as victims in this proceeding.

In July 2014 it was opened criminal proceedings regarding the fact of the fake of documents by military officers. The applicant was questioned as a witness.

At the pre-trial investigation the prosecution has repeatedly been tampered official documents, the applicant’s right to defense was violated by refusal in access to state secrets.

According to the facts criminal complaint was sent to the police. In entering data on this application to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations it was denied, this decision was appealed to the court.

 

Bondarenko case

In July 2013 a lawyer of the SLC visited Zamkova Penal Colony No. 58 in order to provide legal assistance to B, who was serving a disciplinary sanction in DIZO at the time. The lawyer was refused to have a meeting with B. Administration of the penal colony argued their refusal that prisoners have no right to have meetings while they serve disciplinary sanction in DIZO.

In the past, the lawyer was given an opportunity to have meeting with B. at the time when the latter was serving a same disciplinary action.

This refusal was given in writing, and after the lawyer complained to the regional prosecutor’s office the lawyer received an answer about whether actions of administration of penal colony meet the requiremtns of national law.

Thus, the lawyer faced a situation, where different interpretations of the existing provisions of the Penal Code by various official authorities were given.

Besides, the Internal Regulations of Penal Institutions contain two conflicting provisions regarding the right to legal assistance in the case of the imposition of disciplinary sanction on the one hand, and the prohibition to have any meeting in case of the imposition disciplinary sanction.

In this regard, the lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit to recognize refusal to grant meetings unlawful.

However, an administrative court refused to initiate proceedings on the ground that the dispute has to be considered in the scope of criminal proceedings according to the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, but not administrative proceedings.

Counsel has prepared a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) asking for the official interpretation of the provisions of Article 131 § 1 paragraph 11 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. In January 2014 the lawyer applied to the CCU.

The CCU sent back the appeals to the lawyer with the following motivation: the representative of the person has the right to lodge a constitutional appeal on behalf of another person; and the above two different interpretations of authorities were not appealed against to the courts, etc.

The lawyer filed an appeal against the refusal to consider the constitutional appeal according to the Rules of the Constitutional Court and he is waiting for response.

When the second appeal was received the changes to the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine were made. These changes provided the convict’s right for dates with a lawyer during serving penalties. Because of this, the lawyer discontinued to support the case.

 

Chernega and Others v. Ukraine (Gorky Park)

On 19 May 2010 the Executive Committee of the Kharkiv City Council allowed the felling of 503 trees in Gorky Park for the construction of a road, in accordance with the General Urban Development Plan adopted in 2004. On the same day the Municipal Architecture Department entered into a contract with the private company P. for the construction works, to be completed before December 2010. P., in its turn, subcontracted the municipal company Kharkivzelenbud to do the tree-felling. Also on that day the Kharkiv City Department of the Ministry of the Interior developed an action plan for ensuring public safety during the works. According to the plan, thirty-seven officers (including ten reservists) were assigned for ensuring public order and safety at the tree-felling site. It was mentioned in the plan that the tree-felling could potentially generate picketing, manifestations of protest, and other sudden actions by opponents of the construction project. On 20 May 2010 the works commenced, attracting a number of individuals (including the applicants) who protested against the works. In some instances clashes took place between the protesters and the loggers and a large group of men dressed in black camouflage with Municipal Guard badges, which resulted in injuries to the protesters. On at least fifteen occasions ambulances were called to the site and eventually at least nine people were hospitalized with various injuries. The police officers deployed at the site allegedly paid little if any attention to the clashes and never interfered with the workers’ or the guards’ actions. Moreover, in many cases the police officers arrested protesters, including the applicants, and took them to police station. The applicants were charged of malicious insubordination in the face of lawful demands of police officers and were brought before the court. On various dates the protesters, including the applicants, complained to the law-enforcement authorities that they had been assaulted by unidentified loggers and the black-clothed men, and that the police officers stationed nearby had done nothing to protect them. In August 2010 the Kharkiv City Prosecutors’ Office took the final decision not to institute any criminal proceedings, and the applicants notwithstanding their persistent efforts, have not been able to gain access to the decision at issue to appeal against it.

The applicant complaints to the ECtHR under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by the loggers and the black-clothed men and that the police failed to protect them and that the investigation of their respective complaints was ineffective; under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were unable to participate in the appeal hearings in the administrative cases against them, as they were serving their detention sentences at the material time; under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the courts hearing administrative cases against them lacked impartiality, because, since there was no requirement under the applicable law for a prosecutor to take part in this type of proceedings; the courts were de facto obliged to support the charges against these applicants; under Articles 7, 11 and 18 of the Convention that Article 185 of the Code of Administrative Offences lacked foresee ability; under Article 11 of the Convention that their arrests, convictions and sentences were not necessary in a democratic society and about numerous assaults by loggers and individuals wearing Municipal Guard badges and failure of the police to protect them.

In 2014 the case about acceptance as illegal the actions and inactions of the police was re-examined by the Kharkiv Adminisrative District  Court.

On November 10, 2014 Kharkiv Adminisrative District  Court reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties, after hearing the witnesses and watching videos from the event, and as a result - recognized the actions and omissions of the Kharkiv City Police Department as illegal, but denied to satisfy other requirements.

On November 24, 2014 a SLC lawyer filed an appeal to the Adminisrative Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region.

 

Deriy and others case

The first applicant, Mr Alexandr Vasylyevich Deriy, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1953, and is currently detained in Pervomayskiy, Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

On 27 December 2010 Chief of the "Zmiiv’s regional hospital" Mr. Lysak M.P. actually eliminated stationary of the Byrky’s district hospital by order ¹ 408.

On 10 March 2011 the residents actually learned about the closure of the Byrky’s district hospital when came to the building and saw that the entrance to the hospital was closed on the lock. No public hearings on the matter have been conducted.

On 25 June 2011 the Applicants filed a complaint to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court, which asked for a violation of their right to timely medical care and to open the hospital.

On 13 December 2011 Kharkiv district administrative court rejected the claim.

On 17 April 2012 Administrative Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region ordered the closure of the court of appeal proceedings in the case concerning the head doctor communal health "Zmiiv’s regional hospital" on the grounds that the Head Doctor is not a person of public law. In another part of the proceedings was closed (relative inactivity of the Department of Health of the Kharkiv region). The Administrative Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region upheld the decision.

On 12 May 2012 the Applicants filed the cassation to the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine.

In November 2012, the monitoring group, which consisted of representatives of the Ombudsman and legal expert of the KHPG, visited the hospital to monitor violations of the law, particularly Article 3 of the Convention The results of the visit members of the group was compiled report of reported violations and recommendations for addressing them.

On 16 July 2013, Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine made a decision of partial satisfaction of the requirements of the applicant and sent the case back to the matter of fact in Kharkiv District Administrative Court.

In October 2013 Kharkiv district administrative court delivers a judgment on the benefit of the plaintiffs. The court declared the actions of the Chief of the "Zmiiv’s regional hospital" Mr. Lysak M.P. aimed at closing the Byrky’s district hospital as an illegal. The court also declared inaction of the Department of Health of the Kharkiv region as an illegal.

In January 2014 The Administrative Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region upheld the decision.

In March, 2014 administrative proceedings started in the Executive Office of Ukraine. Lawyer of SLC sent a several statements to executive office, but received no response.

The applicants considers that the actual acts and omissions of defendants, aimed at closing the district hospital, causing them personally big difficulties in obtaining medical care and daily life as it actually is unable to get medical care and it’s violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicants complaint that the closure of the hospital has also violated provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of persons with disabilities.

The court judgment has not been executed till now.

 

Didenko case

Defense in the criminal proceedings under Part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

In the late 2013 Mr. Didenko, together with three other accomplices was considered guilty in commitment of a murder of two persons by prior agreement in order to capture another’s property combined with entry into a place of residence and violence with causing grievous bodily harm, and sentenced by the first instance court to life imprisonment. 

During the proclamation of judgment M. Didenko was absent from the courtroom.  He learned about the sentence only after the change of regime of detention in the SIZO.

Throughout 2014 Mr. Didenko was not delivered to the court for familiarizing with the case file, the court did not send a sentence to him either.

Mr. Didenko applied for the legal aid to a lawyer of the SLC for familiaring with the case file and filing an appeal, because he completely disagreed with the sentence and could not obtain the sentence and familiarize with the case file.

When familiarizing with the case file the lawyer found out that the volume no. 9 which contained the sentence and protocols of the last court hearings at which Mr. Didenko was not present, was missing.

The lawyer lodged an application about familiarizing with the volume no. 9, in reply to which she was informed about conduction of the official verification in order to establish its location. On the results of verification the lawyer was informed that the volume was lost and guilty persons were subjected to the disciplinary liability. 

The Prosecutor’s Office initiated restoration of the lost volume.

Representing a victim in the criminal proceedings under his complaint about commitment of a criminal offence by a judge.

During the proclamation of judgment M. Didenko was absent from the courtroom.  He learned about the sentence only after the change of regime of detention in the SIZO.

Throughout 2014 Mr. Didenko was not delivered to the court for familiarizing with the case file, the court did not send a sentence to him during a year either.

. For termination of these offenses and renewal of his right to defence Mr. Didenko filed a complaint about a crime to law enforcement bodies, but criminal proceedings were not opened.

Mr. Didenko applied to a lawyer of the SLC for representation of his interests as a victim in a trial concerning appealing against omissions of the Prosecutor’s Office and their refuse to register his complaint about a crime in the URPTI.

The court granted this complaint and ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to register information concerning unlawful actions of a judge in the URPTI.

In November 2014 the Prosecutor’s Office registered the information concerning a criminal offence in the form of unlawful actions of a judge in the URPTI.

Currently the lawyer is conducting collection of evidence of the absent of Mr. Didenko in the court hearing, non-delivering of him to the court for familiaring with the case file, collecting all the applications which had been sent to law enforcement bodies about illegal actions of a judge and lack of response to them.

 

Case of Dzuba v. Ukraine

In July 2011 Dmitriy Dzuba, Ukrainian national (“the applicant”), was arrested by police officers in Kiev and brought to a district police station. During one day the police was not filling in the arrest record, and interrogated the applicant in absence of a defence lawyer. Initially the court rejected the investigator’s motion to select a preliminary detention to the applicant, and prolonged the term of the arrest to 10 days, but later it granted the motion and the applicant was placed in Kiev SIZO. The applicant is charged with aggravated robbery so the prosecution several times prolong the investigation and accordingly applied to the court with a motion to prolong the terms of the applicant’s preliminary detention.

The last time a court of appeal denied the motion to prolong the applicant’s detention up to several months, and granted only 5 months of detention. After expiry of the court’s detention order in December 2011, the prosecution directed the case with an accusatory act to the court. Since issuance of the last detention order there have no been legal basis for the applicant’s detention. On this ground the applicant had applied to a trial court with the motion to release him from the detention, but the court did not examined the motion at all. Therefore the applicant is kept in custody without judicial order during about two years.

The SLC lawyer lodged several complaints on the matter of the applicant’s illegal detention to the court, but the court refused to examine them. As well the lawyer lodged a criminal complaint to a prosecutor’s office for the applicant’s illegal deprivation of liberty.

In  August 2013 the lawyer drafted an application on the violation of Article 5 of the Convention and lodged it to the ECtHR on behalf of the applicant.

On December 29, 2013 a district court in Kiev has passed a verdict and imposed Mr. Dzuba with the final sentence of 13.5 years imprisonment. The lawyer submitted an appeal to the Appellate Court of Kiev. The appeal besides of the matter of the criminal accusation itself the lawyer raised a question on the illegal actions (inactivity) of the trial judge which during long time did not considered numeral complaints on ungrounded detention of Mr. Dzuba. The lawyer also moved to the Appellate Court on conducting investigation of important evidence in court, so the appeal is expected to be scrutinized.

 

Girgel case

On May 12, 2014 G.’s fellow called him and  requested to take a package at Kyiv railway station in order to hand it to the third person. After getting the package from unknown woman (it was not big, but heavy), he became suspicious and left it near the dumpster at solitary place.

On May 29, 2014 police officers came to his apartment, arrested him and, under the threat of being accused of commitment of premeditated murder, asked him to give them the package.

G. and police officers came to the dumpster and after a few hours of search, have found a package with weapon inside.

G. was moved to Kharkiv, on the next day after several hours of informal "questioning" the protocol of detention was composed and two days later the investigating judge applied to him the detention as preventive measure.

G. applied to the SLC for legal assistance and in August, 2014 a lawyer started to defend him.

On September 8, 2014 SLC’s lawyer filed an application for closure of criminal proceedings under part 3 of article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the voluntary delivery of the prohibited items, but the application wasn’t examined during 3 days as prescribed by law, and there is no decision on this issue.  Also, the lawyer filed a complaint for an illegal detention of G.

Without waiting for a reply to the application, on October 9, 2014 .G filed a request for a deal with the prosecutor for the remission of penalty on the basis of articles 369 - 372 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

This request of G. got no response and on September 10, 2014 The SLC lawyer submitted to General Prosecutor Office of Ukraine petition on crimes committed by police officers: unlawful detention without decision of investigating judge, violation of the right to defense, abuse of power and obstruction of a lawyer. There is also no response to this petition.

At the end of 2014 the prosecutor proposed G. to sign a confession of judgment subject to remission of penalty. As of the end of 2014 an agreement between the prosecutor and G. has not yet been concluded, The SLC  lawyer continues to appeal against illegal actions and omissions of charge.

Fedorovych case

As for 2008, Mr. Fedorovych’s had the second group of disability due to of spine disease.

When he was invited to a police station he was beaten. He was hospitalized by ambulance just from the station. Because of the police brutality he was hospitalized for about three months and then the first group of disability has been recognized for him. Since 2008 the victim repeatedly lodged the complaints for the police abuse but the prosecutor’s office in turn denied to open the criminal case. Then he complained the decision of prosecutor’s office to the court, and after the latter’s refusal of the complaint by the appellate court, appealed to the cassation court. After the cassation court having quashed the decisions of the trial and the appellate courts, the new case hearing started.

In December 2014, a lawyer of SLC entered to the proceedings. There were several witnesses in the case, and all of them were questioned in the court.

On 19 December 2014, the court denied to satisfy the complaint on prosecutor’s office decision not to institute criminal proceedings.

The complaint was prepared and filed to the appellate court. At the same time the SLC lawyer prepared on behalf of the client a criminal complaint on the basis of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, that does give the possibility to institute criminal proceedings.

 

Glavatiy case

In 2006 Vladimir Glavatiy, Ukrainian national, allegedly suspected in robbery, was arrested in Kiev and brought to a district police station. In the station he was cruelty tortured and get a lot of injures, including fractures. To hide the obvious signs of torture the police placed him to a psychiatric hospital, where he was kept until the superficial signs of torture (bruises) disappeared. As there was no evidence of involvement of the man to the criminal activity the case in December 2007 was dismissed and he was released from custody. In the results of the police abuse he became incapable to speak and to hear, and had very limited ability to write with one hand.

But this victim of police abuse continuously complain to it, and in June 2008 he was arrested for having committed several episodes of sexual crimes (rape and others). Since that time the lawyer have tried to prove innocence of the man, but she is under a strong pressure of the prosecutors’ system unofficially interfering to courts. Twice a district court held a judgment of conviction of the defendant, and twice the lawyer achieved in a court of appeal cancellation of the judgments. Then the district court thirdly had passed the next judgment of the G.’s conviction with a sentence of 8 year imprisonment, and the lawyer again lodged an appeal to the judgment. At the end of the year the appellate court upheld the judgment of trial’s court. The SLC lawyer has lodged an appeal to the cassation court.

The cassation court opened proceedings in the case, but the appeal has not been examined by the cassation court yet.

 

Gorgulyov case

On 18 October 2011, the Court of Appeal of Odessa passed the judgment of conviction of Ukrainian national Mr. Gorgulev (hereinafter – the applicant) and imposed the applicant with the final punishment of 15 years imprisonment as a sum of the punishments on several counts for the last and the previous judgments.

On 24 January 2014, the Court of Appeal of Odessa issues a decision about clarification of the personal data of the convicts under the sentence of the criminal chamber of the Court of Appeal of Odessa region of 18.10.2011.

According to this ruling the term of serving of sentence by Mr. Gorgulyov. A. should be started on 07.03.2007.

The lawyer of the SLC who represented the interests of Gorgulyov Ye. A. did not agree with the above mentioned ruling and lodged the cassation appeal to the Higher specialized court of Ukraine on the consideration of civil and criminal cases (HSCU). 

On 24 April 2014, the lawyer sent the cassation appeal to the VSCU through the the Court of Appeal of Odessa, and that there was no information about course of the cassation proceedings.

On 11 June 2014, the expert opinion of Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University about  calculation of the term of the sentence intended for Gorgulyov  was received, under which from 12 March 2011, Mr. Gorgulyov should be considered as being served a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 15 years, specified in the ruling  of the HSCU of  July 30, 2013. 

Further keeping of Gorgulyov in the places of deprivation of liberty actually occurs without proper legal basis and violates the requirements of Articles 29, 63, 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

On 26  June 2014, the above mentioned expert opinion was delivered to the Court of Appeal of Odessa. 

On 03 July 2014, the case file regarding appeal against the above mentioned decision of the Court of Appeal of Odessa delivered to the HSCU. 

The examination of the Gorgulyov’s case by HSCU is scheduled to 21 August 2014, but the hearing has not been carried out.

On 11 September 2011, the lawyer lodged to the HSCU the request concerning the whereabouts of the cassation appeal, as well as of the decisions issued in course of the appeal.

On 12 September 2014 the lawyer lodged the complaint to the Court of Appeal of Odessa concerning on absence of a reply for the lawyer’s request about the whereabouts of the cassation appeal.

On 30 September 2014 the SLC lawyer got the reply from the HSCU of 11 September 2014 with the information that the cassation appeal was returned to the Court of Appeal of Odessa.

On 20 October 2010 the lawyer got the reply of the Court of Appeal of Odessa for the lawyer’s request of 12 September 2014 along with the copy of the letter of the HSCU of 18 August 2014.

20.10.2014 ð. àäâîêàòîì Çàÿâíèêà áóëà îòðèìàíà â³äïîâ³äü Àïåëÿö³éíîãî ñóäó Îäåñüêî¿ îáëàñò³ íà àäâîêàòñüêèé çàïèò â³ä 12.09.2014 ð. ç êîﳺþ ëèñòà ÂÑÑÓ Âèõ¹3479/0/24-14 â³ä 18.08.2014 ð.

Having expired all domestic measures, the lawyer is going to lodge the complaint to the ECtHR on violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

 

Kaminska case

On 22 December 2014, the of SLC lawyer applied to the Head of Lviv pre-trial detention centre (“Head”) to give her a date with Mr. Mankowski. which was in transit over the institution. The application was not granted with the oral reasoning that the persons which are in transit have no right for the meetings. In a rude way the Head refused to write the reasons of the refusal on the application, and the lawyer officially lodged the application in the pre-trial detention centre.

Later the lawyer has lodged the criminal complaint on hindering to the lawyer’s professional activity to the Prosecutor’s Office of Lviv region.

In the afternoon of the same day, the lawyer again tried to get the meeting with Mr. Mankowski. The Head by phone refused to give the meeting and informed her that he had 10 days to examine her application, before issuing a decision.

Then the SLC lawyer called to the police emergency phone number. The police told her that she had to lodge the criminal complaint to the District Police Station, and she did it. The investigating authorities are not willing to investigate the case, because the violation of law on the part of the Head is clear, and such the actions constitute the corpus delicti foreseen in the Criminal Code. Anyway, the lawyer will stay on his position to the end.

 

Karpachev case

Mr. Karpachev was serving a sentence in Zamkova correctional colony no. 58 (“ZCC no. 58”).

In July 2014, the administration of the colony together with the penal officers form other institutions held mass searches of the prisoner’s rooms with beating a number of prisoners.

During the visit of the representatives of NGOs to the correctional colony some prisoners complained to them. The prisoners who complained were moved to the different institutions of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine to hide the fact of illegal administration’s actions.

In December 2014, Mr. Karpachev was transported to another penal institution. His moving was carried out through several institutions and for a long time.

When Mr. Karpachev was brought to the Lviv pre-trial detention centre the lawyer of SLC got a meeting with him. During the meeting he wrote the circumstances of his beating and the list of complaints that he filed.

As he had headaches, he have been examined by the neurosurgeon, which concluded that the victim had  signs of post traumatic syndrome of his head. 

The applications to the prosecutor’s office in Lviv region were filed. These applications contained the information on Karpachev’s health problems and some problems with his personal file.

 

Korobov v.Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Vyacheslav Viktorovich Korobov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1966 and currently serves his prison sentence at the Correctional Colony in Sympheropol.

On 6 July 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of murder. The applicant remained in detention for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant was tried by the Sympheropol Court, which on 7 October 2004 found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

The applicant appealed to the higher courts, disagreeing essentially with the first-instance court’s qualification of his actions as intentional murder.

In his cassation appeal he also argued that he had not been given the opportunity to study the criminal law and procedural regulations so that he could have defended his rights effectively during the proceedings.

By decisions of 23 November 2004 and 1 December 2005, the Crimea Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, rejected the applicant’s appeals as unsubstantiated.

On 27th of April 2006 the applicant lodged his application before the European Court of Human Rights (the application No. 19017/06) complaining on the unfair court trial.

In order to substantiate his application, in particular as regards the complaints of unfair trial, the applicant submitted a number of requests to the authorities, including the Sympheropol Court, to give him access to his criminal case file and to provide him with the possibility of obtaining copies of various procedural documents. The applicant’s requests were refused as not based on the law.

The applicant complains under Article 34 of the Convention that the authorities have refused, for a considerable period of time, to provide him with the possibility to obtain copies of documents he needed for substantiation of the application.

On 26th of February 2014 the Government presented their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.

On 25th of April 2014 the Reply to the Government’s observations has been filed on behalf of applicant by the legal experts of the KHPG. The Court has not delivered a judgment in this case yet.

 

Kovalenko case

On 28 of August 2012 Mr Kovalenko was arrested by policemen of the Bryanka Police Department of Lugansk region in his apartment and he was taken to the police department. On 28 and 29 August 2012 he was beaten and tortured by the policemen, who demanded a confession of a crime, which he didn’t commit. Under torture he signed a confession in a robbery.

In September 2012, when the Criminal Procedural Code of 1960 was in force, Kovalenko filed several complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka. He received "replies" ("â³äïèñêè").

On 24 of December 2012 the applicant’s statement of crime was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (the URPTI). On of 28 December 2012 a decision to terminate criminal proceedings was held due to a lack of corpus delicti under Articles 358, 364, 366, 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in actions of the policemen of Bryanka Police Department.

The applicant’s lawyer received the mentioned decision only on 6 of February 2013 and she appealed to Bryanka Town Court, but the court refused to accept her appeal.

The applicant’s lawyer appealed against this refusal to the Appeal Court of Lugansk region. The appeal court upheld her right to appeal on behalf of her client.

The Bryanka Town Court examined the criminal case against Mr. Kovalenko during the trial before the Court of Appeal of Luhansk region. On 19 of March 2013 at the interrogation Mr Kovalenko told the court the details of his beating and application torture.

On 19 of March 2013 Bryanka Town Court ordered the Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka to verify the defendant’s arguments about application physical action to him by policemen of Bryanka Police Department with purpose to obtain his confessions. According to the decision another criminal proceedings were instituted on 19 March 2013.

On 25 of March 2013 the Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka decided to terminate criminal proceedings. Mr Kovalenko and his lawyer appealed against this decision to the Bryanka Town Court.

On 26 of June 2013 the Bryanka Town Court quashed the ruling of a senior investigator of Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka of 25 of March 2013 on termination of criminal proceedings of 19 of March 2013 and ordered to carry out an additional inquiry of the circumstances specified by Mr Kovalenko of being subjected to ill-treatment in the scope of pre-trial investigation of the criminal case against him under Article 187 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. As for now Prosecutor’s Office hasn’t conducted any investigative action for the month.

On 7 of August 2013 Mr. Kovalenko was taken to Bryanka Town Court, but the court hearing in his criminal case was not held because of the absence of information from the Prosecutor’s Office on results of additional inquiry, which was held under the mentioned court decision. Mr. Kovalenko refused to leave the court basement, where he was detained, for his transportation to a temporary detention center (ITT) and he spent a night in the basement of Bryanka Town Court.

On 7 of August 2013 the Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka passed a ruling on termination of criminal proceedings of 19 March 2013 in view of the absence of corpus delicti provided by  Articles 365, 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The ruling was appealed by Mr. Kovalenko and his defence counsel Ms. Semeniuk to the Bryanka Town Court.

On 24 October 2013 Bryanka Town Court abolished the ruling of the Prosecutor’s Office of Brianka in orde to conduct additional inquiry.

After that Mr. Kovalenko was not questioned concerning the circumstances of that case  and he was not called to participate in any investigative action.

Besides, at the same time significant developments occured in the criminal case against Mr. Kovalenko. On 9 of August 2013 the Bryanka Town Court decided to transfer the criminal case to the Prosecutor of Brianka to arrange additional pre-trial investigation (according to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960), which was upheld on 4 of October 2013 by the Appeal Court of Lugansk region as result of court consideration of the Prosecutor’s appeal.

On 23 of December 2013 a prevention measure as to Mr Kovalenko was modified from detention under remand to hose arrest.

On 15 of January 2014 a sentence regarding  Mr. Kovalenko was delivered.

At the end of December 2013 the applicant sent requests to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka and Prosecutor’s Office of Lugansk Region to provide information on the results of the investigation.

In May the applicant’s lawyer received a letter from Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka according to which the applicant’s case was transferred to the regional prosecutor’s office. From the regional prosecutor’s office the applicant’s lawyer received information that investigation is pending.

 

Krupa case

The applicant, Ms Krupa, who was born and detained in Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

The applicant has been in custody, she detained in Kachanivska penal colony in Kharkiv number 54 instead of detention facilities.

During the detention the applicant was forced to work in the production of the colony, despite the fact that she was accused person and it was forbidden to engage her in socially useful work. The applicant will not be provided adequate medical care because of her health problems by traumatic nature.

On June 6, 2014 lawyer of SLC on behalf on the applicant filed an application about the crime against the administration of the colony.

Government authorities refused to register this application in the Unified Register of pre-trial investigation.

The lawyer of SLC appealed this decision before the District Court of Kharkiv. By the decision of the investigating judge on July 22, 2014 the application was rejected.

The lawyer made requests to the Prosecutor Office. After receiving responses the lawyer of SLC filed an application about a criminal offense committed by officials of the Kachanivska penal colony, in which applicant is working and detained. The procedure of complaining by the lawyer of SLC an illegal actions of prison administration and state enterprises continues.

In November 2014 the lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint about a crime against Kachanivska penal colony regarding coercion the applicant to labor.

The SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant filed a request to the Kachanivska penal colony to provide all the documents with the signature of the applicant  about her work and receiving wages.

The Applicant is going to complaints to the ECtHR under Article 3 on account of inappropriate conditions of detention in Colony, under Article 13 on account of absence at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3.

 

Kryvdyk case

The applicant, Mr. Kryvdyk R., is a Ukrainian national, living in Lviv region, Ukraine.

10 April 2009 the Applicant was detained by police as a person suspected of a crime. Over 1, 5 days the applicant was detained in the police department without providing food and adequate conditions for sleep. During his detention, police officers forced the Applicant to sign a voluntary admission that he committed the crime.

The detention of the Applicant was not registered documented, and has been issued a voluntary attendance of the Applicant to the police department.

When the Applicant was in the police department, police officers conducted a search without the permission of the court in his apartment.

The SLC lawyer has filed complaint against the actions the police officers in court. The court found these actions are illegal. After consideration in court, the case was returned to the pre-trial investigation.

Due to the large number of complaints in 2013 criminal case against the Applicant was terminated due to lack of the corpus delicti in the his actions. This result corresponds to the acquittal by the court. Now the lawyer helps the applicant to seek a compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages inflicted with unlawful criminal persecution.

In December 2013 under the petition of the lawyer preparation of the conclusion of a specialist (expert) of Forensic Examination Institute on determination of the amount of non-pecuniary damage started. It was finished in February 2014.

In January 2014 a lawsuit lodged  to the District court the civil claim for compensation of damages caused by unlawful actions of the inquiry, pre-trial investigation bodies and prosecutor’s office. After obtaining the conclusion of a specialist (expert) the amount of non-pecuniary damage was clarified in the lawsuit.

Every month the court appointed at least two hearings, but for some reasons they were postponed.

During 2014, the defendants – the investigating authority in the criminal case on prosecution of Mr. Kryvdyk- did not provide the case file to the court for reviewing. The proceedings are pending.

 

Lapo case

Lapo Vitaliy Oleksandrovich (hereinafter – L.) is a life-sentenced prisoner who is currently serving his prison service in the correctional colony no. 61.

He has invalidity of the 2nd group concerning tuberculosis of lungs and other accompanying deceases.

Before his sentencing in 2008 L. received the state social assistance in the form of monthly payment according to the Law of Ukraine “On state social assistance to individuals who are not entitled to pension and persons with disabilities”.

After the sentence concerning L. came into force, the bodies of social care has stopped payment of social benefits for L. referring to the provisions of § 36 of the Ruling of the Cabinet of Ministers no. 261 which regulate the order of implementation of the above mentioned Law.

In January 2014 the lawyer of the SLC prepared an administrative suit on behalf of the applicant in which she asked a court to recognize § 36 of the Ruling of the Cabinet of Ministers no. 261 such which contradicts the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, as well as provisions of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

In its ruling of 27 February 2014 the Kyiv Administrative Court rejected the administrative suit.

In March 2014 the lawyer of the SLC prepared the appeal against the above mentioned court’s decision.

In its ruling of 16 October 2014 the Kiyv Administrative Court of Appeal refused to satisfy the appeal and left in force the ruling of 27.02.2014.

For today the lawyer of the SLC has prepared the cassation appeal against two above mentioned decisions of the lower courts and submitted it to the Hiher Specialized Court of Ukraine.

 

Lazarenko case

On 03.14.2014 at about 12:30 p.m., the group of unidentified persons entering the cabinet room no. 13, which is located in the premises of the City Council of Korosten City on Hrushevskoho street 22, ignoring the basic rules of behavior in society, caused a brawl, during which they caused injuries to the following citizens: Anatoly Ivanovich Lazarenko in the form of closed fracture of VI-VII left ribs on the, penetrating wounds of the lower lip on the left, Khomenko Alexei Alexandrovich, in the form of wound of the abdominal cavity, coalface of the lower jaw on the right, Moshkin Mikhail, in the form of coalface of the chest on the left, bruises on right mandible;and threatened with physical harm Lazarenko Valentina.

On 14.03.2014 the criminal proceedings were instituted due to the fact that during commitment of the mentioned crime police officers of the Korosten district police department were in the premises of the City Council of Korosten and did not stop unlawful actions and contributed to the commitment of the crime.

The defense lawyer of the SLC who represented the interests of Lazarenko A. I., prepared and delivered applications to the people deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine about inactivity of the police officers of the Korosten district police department.

After consideration of these applications the decisions were made about delivering of them to the Prosecutor’s Office of Zhytomyr region.

For today investigational experiments are conducted, people involved in the crime are questioned. Joint interrogations are conducted.

After receiving by the investigation the results of the medical examination, a decision on presentation of suspicion will be made.

The investigator informed on the results of the forensic medical examination, he is going to charge the suspects. The lawyer plans to lodge ta civil claim in course of the proceedings.

Pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings is pending. The complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office as to long delay of the preliminary investigation has been submitted.

 

Litvin case

The applicant, Ms Ganna Litvin, is a Ukrainian national, advocate, who is currently living in the Kyiv, Ukraine.

On December 15, 2014 the applicant, came to the colony for providing legal aid to prisoners, but she did not have permission to visit them for several hours. The administration of the colony substantiated a rejection that it must be paid for using room visits. The applicant paid cash and got a receipt. At the same time, the applicant called police.

Three days later, the applicant filed a motion with request to enter the information to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations to the police station.

 

Lopushynska v. Ukraine

 The applicant, Ms Lydmyla Mykytyvna Lopushynska, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1958 and is currently living in the Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

In the April 2010 the applicant addressed to the doctor Hopko, who done pharmacological blockade to her in violation of the order of the procedure.

Besides, the doctor at that time had only certified as the doctor neurosurgeon, and data manipulation carried out the study in the own homes, converted at a medical office, where there was no necessary equipment that could be helpful in the event of a situation that need of emergency assistance.

As a result of the injections made by the doctor, the applicant immediately lost sight and hearing and smell, state of her health was extremely difficult. As a result of the injuries she became disabled.

The applicant was in the intensive care unit for 20 days, which caused her and her family considerable mental suffering. During this time, the applicant, her husband and daughter didn’t know whether the doctors will return her to life that struck the applicant and the members of her family considerable damages.

According this fact in April 2010 by the statement of the SLC lawyer initiated a criminal case, but the investigation is still ongoing.

On April 2013 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant filed the civil claim against the doctor Hopko in the Octyabrsky district court of Poltava.

On June 5, 2014 the Octyabrsky district court of Poltava decided to refuse to satisfy all the claims of the applicant.

On July 21, 2014 the Court of Appeal of the Poltava region upheld the decision unchanged.

The SLC lawyer is going to lodge a cassation to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine.

On November 6, 2014 a SLC lawyer filed a complaint in accordance with Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine to the decision of the investigator of Octyabrsky District Police Station about closing the criminal proceeding against Mr. Hopko.

 

Lytvak case

On 28 May 2014, Shevchenko District Court of Lviv found the police officers guilty of abuse of power and illegal deprivation of liberty and appointed them real punishments (see Drug user’s case’ below)/

In August 2014, Lviv Court of Appeal quashed the sentence and directed the case for the further investigation.

In September 2014, the case was directed for the further investigation.

During the further investigation six volumes of evidence were gathered.

All investigative actions were provided repeatedly. Such as: accident reconstruction, viewing the scene of a crime, interrogations of the suspects, questioning new/additional witnesses, examination of the victim that was provided three times, his mother’s examination, that was provided two times and his brother’s examination that also was provided two times, information retrieval from communications links, witnesses’ search. Also additional forensic medical examination was conducted.

The analysis of the suspects’ location place by their mobile phones was conducted. Such analysis refuted their examinations and alibi.

A lawyer of the SLC uploaded the documents which confirm illegal keeping of Mr. Litvak in police custody for more than three days

The investigator is going to bring the defendants to official charges.

 

Mankowski case

Mr. Mankowski was serving a sentence in Zamkova correctional colony ¹58 (“ZCC ¹58”).

In July 2014, the administration of the colony together with the penal officers form other institutions held mass searches of the prisoner’s rooms with beating a number of prisoners.

During the visit of the representatives of NGO to the correctional colony some prisoners complained to them. The prisoners who complained were moved to the different bodies of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine to hide the fact of illegal administration’s actions.

In December 2014, Mankowski was moved to another penal institution. His moving was carried out through several institutions and for a long time. Twice he was brought to Lutsk pre-trial detention centre where he was placed in solitary confinement under a false basis of his alleged violation of the regime

When Mankowski was brought to Lviv pre-trial detention centre the lawyer of the SLC tried to get a meeting with him. The Head of Lviv pre-trial detention centre refused to give such the meeting, so the consultation for the convict was given by phone.

The lawyer tried to attract the attention of journalists but in vain.

It is planned to submit some lawyer’s requests and other documents on the state of the convict upon the arrivals to each institution.

 

Melnichenko and Levchenko Case

In November 2012 in Ladyzhyn City (Vinnytsia region) Melnichenko and Levchenko appealed to their employer demanding to pay their wage arrears for their work on construction. The staff of the City Department of Internal Affairs of Ukraine beat them, applied the rubber sticks and handcuffs and took them to the city police station. There police officers tortured the applicants. As a result of illegal actions of the police officers, Melnichenko and Levchenko received numerous injuries such as bruises and bleeding. Levchenko got a closed fracture of the left ulna in the lower third, the main phalanx of the second finger of the right hand and the head of the main phalanx of the fourth finger of the left hand.

The next day Melnichenko wrote a statement to the Prosecutor`s Office about his injuries, which were caused by police officers. On the same day, the police officers who tortured Melnichenko and Levchenko filed reports about the alleged commission of the crime – resistance to police officers - and the criminal proceedings were opened. In a week, Levchenko also filed an application about criminal actions of police officers. The criminal proceedings at the request of Levchenko against the behaviour of the police officers were initiated in a week.

The police officers drafted the protocols on administrative detention and administrative offense – the allegedly malicious defiance of these men. The applicants found out about the existence of these protocols only while reading the materials of the criminal proceedings against them as their refusal to sign the protocols was recorded.

On December 5, 2012, the district prosecutor’s office ordered to close the criminal proceedings, which was cancelled by Prosecutor’s Office of Vinnytsa region the next day. The decision to close the criminal proceedings was cancelled and sent for the preliminary investigation to be continued on the grounds of incomplete preliminary investigation.

On January 4, 2013, Melnichenko and Levchenko finally got the memo about the procedural rights and obligations of the victims.

On February 20, 201,

3 the district prosecutor’s office issued another decision to close the criminal proceedings. The SLC lawyer appealed this decision in the court.

On April 25, 2013, the Prosecutor’s Office of Vinnytsa region cancelled the abovementioned decision due to the need for further forensic examination.

On October 2, 2013, the investigator closed the criminal proceedings on the grounds of lack of corpus delicti in actions of the police officers.

On December 10, 2013, upon a complaint of the SLC lawyer this decision was cancelled by the district court because of the violations of criminal procedural law during the pre-trial investigation.

In January 2014, the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicants submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights claiming the violations of Article 3 and Article 5 Section 1 of the Convention.

On February 27, 2014, the prosecutor’s office sent an indictment to the court on charges against Melnichenko and Levchenko on accusation of resistance to the police officers and injuring them. Presently the court proceedings continue.

On April 15, 2014, the lawyer of the applicants lodged a complaint with the local court against the inaction of the investigator who repeatedly closed the proceedings at issue due to his actual refusal to carry out investigative actions.  

On June 27, 2014 a forensic expert provided his opinion upon the lawyer`s request as regards the nature, mechanism of formation and the time of infliction of the bodily injuries to the applicants. According to him, there were no comments and/or objections as regards the conclusions contained in the forensic documentation issued for Levchenko before. In particular, the forensic expert mentioned that the closed fracture of the left hand the applicant suffered from was typical for self-defence due to its place on the body. And this injury could be inflicted by a blunt hard object such as a truncheon. The fractures of the phalanges of both hands could be sustained in the result of squeezing between the planes with rough surface such as a shod foot and the floor.

As regards Melnichenko, the expert noted that the nature of the majority of the injuries on his body couldn`t have been inflicted by the applicant himself. They couldn`t have been sustained because of intentional blow of his body by himself against the protruding pieces of furniture which were in the room where the investigative experiment took place.

Thus, this forensic expertise showed that the complaints of the applicants weren`t ungrounded. There was a reasonable suspicion that they were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The investigation assigned the new forensic examination.

At the same time during court hearing in the case on charging or the men in resistance to the police officers and injuring them the prosecution seeks to persuade them to conclude the agreement of admission the guilt.

The proceedings are pending both in the case against Melnichenko and Levchenko and in the other where they are victims.

 

Case of Musienko

Musienko Oleg has passed military service since 2002. He has been a commander of the 4th self-propelled howitzer artillery battery of the 2nd self-propelled howitzer artillery battalion of the since April 2014.

In June 2014 Musienko O. together with the personnel of his unit of 54 soldiers were assigned to the 72nd brigade.

According to a notification about suspicion of 31.07.2014 Musienko is suspected of having committed a criminal offense under Part 2 and Part 3 of Article 409 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (refusal of passing military service in a combat situation perpetrated by previous concert by a group of people).

By a decision of the Zhovtneviy district court of Dnipropetrovsk of 01.08.2014 a preventive measure of personal responsibility was applied to Musienko.

Disagreeing with the above decision, the Prosecutor Office of Zaporizhya for Supervision over the observance of laws in the military sphere of the Southern region of Ukraine appealed to the Zaporizhya Court of the appeal, in which asked to cancel the decision of the Zhovtneviy district court from 01.08.2014 and pass a new decision, Apply towards the applicant a preventive measure in the form of detention.

The Zaporizhya Court of the appeal refused to satisfy the appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office and left in force the decision of 01.08.2014.

The pre-trial investigation is currently conducted.

 

Mykhalchenko case

In January 2013 a hung corpse of a sailor Mykhalchenko was found on one of the military ships in the territory of the military port of Ochakov city. The criminal proceedings regarding this incident were initiated and soon terminated because of the absence of corpus delicti. After the SLC lawyer having entered to the case as a victim’s representative, he revealed that the investigation had been deficient from the moment of the crime scene examination.

The SLC lawyer of the parents of the deceased visited the military unit (the ship) twice. He conducted the crime scene examination and participated in the questioning of the witnesses.

Then the investigation was terminated secondly. The lawyer appealed against this ruling and it was annulled by the military prosecutor’s office. Currently the investigation of the case is not finished.

In Mykhalchenko case upon his death on January 3, 2013 a petition was submitted, most of the items of which were fulfilled by the inspector with my participation. The place of incident was re-examined with detailed and panoramic photographing, all team members were questioned, as well as the boatswain, captain and commander of the unit, the logbook was demanded, the close friends of the deceased were questioned, the crew`s room where he lived was examined, the girl he was close friends with at the time of his death was questioned, as well as the persons on duty of the checkpoint, the telephone of Mykhalchenko was examined including the SMS which he received and sent immediately before death were read, and the witness who was with Mykhalchenko in Ochakov before his death.

A lot of investigatory actions were carried out on motions of the lawyer. However, no direct or indirect evidence that Mykhalchanko’s death was violent have been produced. There weren`t find any enemies or foes of the victim. Until now the investigation was not closed. Taking into consideration practical absence of prospective to bring somebody to criminal responsibility for the sailor’s death, the lawyer have an intention to lodge the case to the European Court on the matter of violation of Article 3 of the European Convention.

 

Nazarenko and Chukhno case

The applicants, Mr Volodymyr Mykhaylovych Nazarenko and Sergiy Ivanovich Chukhno are a Ukrainian nationals, who live in Barvenkovo, Kharkiv’s region.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarized as follows.

In 2010-2011 attorney Anatoly Magda, providing them with legal assistance as victims by accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, by means of deception, obtained forged signatures of the victims on the loan agreement for 50 000 uah to Mr Chukhno and 20 000 uah to Mr Nazarenko. Applicants have signed many documents compiled by attorney including blank sheets of paper.

With the attorney’s assistance the applicants’ claiims were granted by the court, and their pension have recalculated. For this service, applicants have paid attorney’s fees, but there were no official agreements between the lawyer and the victims.

In November 2013, the attorney sued the applicant Chukhno with the requirement to pay the amount owed in the amount of 50 thousand Hryvnas.

On April 14, 2014, Barvenkovsky District Court satisfied this claim in full.

In April, 2014, the SLC lawyer lodged the appeal on the judgment.

In April 2014, the lawyer of SLC filed the criminal complaint to the prosecutor of the Kharkiv region on bringing the attorney Magda to criminal responsibility for having committed a fraud.

On June 13, 2014 the Court of Appeal of the Kharkiv region upheld the decision unchanged.

On June, 2014 the SLC lawyer lodged a cassation to the Higher Specialized Court of Ukraine. He also filed the complaint to Qualification and Disciplinary Board of the Bar of the Kharkiv region on bringing attorney Magda to disciplinary responsibility.

On July, 2014, the SLC lawyer lodged a claim for recognition of the loan agreement between the applicant and attorney invalid. A hearing of the case is conducted in the Barvenkovsky District Court.

On July 22, 2014 the Barvenkovsky District Court rejected claim for declaring the transaction as invalid.

On September, 2014 the Court of Appeal of the Kharkiv region overturned the decision of the Barvenkovsky District Court in connection with the fact that the defendant did not correctly selected in the claim.

On September, 2014  the Barvenkovsky District Court rejected a new claim for declaring the transaction as invalid on the grounds that there is a decision entered into force for the claim for the recovery of debt for the loan agreement. The lawyer of SLC appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of the Kharkiv region.

On July, 2014 the investigator of the investigation department of the Barvenkovsky District ordered the termination of criminal proceedings on the application about committing fraud by the attorney Magda.

By the decision of the investigating judge of the Barvenkovsky District Court ruling on termination of criminal proceedings has been cancelled due to gross violations of the criminal procedure law. The case was sent to the District Prosecutor for the organization of the pre-trial investigation.

By the request of the representative of the victims the two of criminal proceedings were joined are combined to the united proceeding, and a lot of investigative actions were carried out.. Today pre-trial investigation continues.

The Applicants are going to complain to the ECtHR.

 

Old lady’s abuse case

On 20th of December 2013 a drunk policeman of Ordzhonikidze District Police Department rang to the apartment of 84-year resident of Kharkov and asked her to open the door.

After the elderly woman opened the door policeman began to beat her. Her neighbours heard noise made by him and applicant’s shouting and called to police. Applicant’s body and her head were all bruised.

After beating the applicant the policeman started to rummage in her cabinets. A police patrol that arrived on the scene arrested the raging bully, who tried to attack an applicant’s son and grandson, and brought him o the police station.

Despite the old age of the victim and the fact that she is a member of hostilities, the investigation department of Ordzhonikidze District Police Department initiated criminal a proceedings only ten days after event, namely on the 1st of January 2014. The criminal case was instituted under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (light bodily injury). In fact, the investigation of this crime was not conducted.

The case was transferred to another investigator after the victim applied for legal aid to the KHPG and the lawyers of the KHPG filed the complaint on ineffective investigation of the case. At that new investigator didn’t classify actions of the offender under Article 162 § 2 (invasion into a housing committed by police) of the CC of Ukraine either.

From March 2014 to June 2014 the investigation of the case was conducting with participation of the lawyer of the SLC.

On 28th of March 2014 the lawyer filed statement about committing crimes against applicant under Article 162 § 2 (invasion into a housing committed by police) of the CC of Ukraine to Ordzhonikidze District Police Department/

In March 2014 the lawyer filed a complaint to the Ordjokinidze district Prosecutor’s Office in which he asked to conduct investigation as the crime was committed by a police officer.

The Prosecutor’s Office did not reply to this complaint. The complaint was not included into the case file of the criminal case.

After that on 29th of March 2014 the ex-policeman was charged in crimes under Articles 125 § 2 and 162 § 2 Article 162 of the CC of Ukraine (as it was mentioned in descriptive part of act) but the reasoning part of act contained reference only on Article 125 § 2 of the CC of Ukraine.

As policeman was fired from police after he committed the crime the criminal proceedings were conducted as if he was not a special subject of the crime - a state agent.For this reason the lawyer of the SLC prepared and filed a complaint to the prosecutor’s office of Ordzhonikidze district on transferring case to the prosecutor’s office as the crime was committed by a policeman.

However, the lawyer has not receive the reply. The complaint and reply were not attached to the case-files of criminal proceedings, but instead it was attached to case-files of supervisory proceedings.

When in June 2014 the court hearings started in Ordzhonikidze District Court of Kharkiv the prosecutor asked the applicant’s son to refuse from legal assistance of the lawyer of the SLC. When they refused to do it the prosecutor tried to induce the lawyer not to notify the court that the crime was committed by a policeman, as in this case a judge will close the case immediately due to the lack of corpus delicti of the defendant.

The lawyer filed the motion to call as witnesses members of police patrol, who arrested the policeman who beaten the applicant. The petition was refused by the judge on the grounds that the petition didn’t contain information about domiciles of policemen from police patrol as well as their first names and family names.

On 09.07.2014 the lawyer participated in a court hearing. His petition calling the police officers who arrested the police officer who beat the elderly women as witnesses, was rejected by the judge on the grounds that the petition did not contain home address policemen and their first name and patronymic. Before the court hearing the prosecutor asked the lawyer not to inform the court under recording that the accused was a police officer, as the judge would close the case on the ground of lack of corpus delicti in his actions.

After the motion of the lawyer to draw the Kharkiv Region Police Department as co-defendant in the civil lawsuit the judge announced a break in the hearings as he sent the request to the police station about providing the court with order of dismissal of the accused.

After ignoring this request the judge once again made the request, but the answer did not come, and instead the prosecutor changed the indictment, stating therein that the crime was committed by a police officer who was not in the performance of official duties, and not in the form of a police officer.

For today the criminal proceedings are pending. Next hearing was scheduled for March 16, 2015. The judge rejected the appointment of re-examination of injuries because the indictment is not specified on the arraignment for causing serious injury.

The lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint against the Ordjokinidze district Prosecutor’s Office about the impropriet  direction of the indictment to the court and obtaining bribes.

 

Ovsiy case

On 12 November 2014, during conduction of the general search in the Berdychev colony no. 70, beating of approximately 10 prisoners by the officers of the operative department of the institution took place. In the course of examination of a prisoner Ovsiy A. M., a medical expert confirmed the fact of the presence of bodily injuries on the prisoner’s body. 

A lawyer offered Mr. Ovsiy A. M. to lodge a complaint about commitment of a criminal offence. The information about the offence was registered in the URPTI, but in violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Ovsiy was questioned as a witness, without presence of a lawyer. The lawyer lodged relevant requests. He has not received any replies to these requests yet.

 

Pushkar 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.

 

Pustovoyt case

On 18th of November 2011, the Prosecutor General’s Office adopted the indictment on charges of Pustovoyt Ruslan and Isaychenko Dmitriy in commitment banditry, illegal arms, as well as robbery and aggravated fraud in a group of persons .Both of them were arrested by policemen of Department for Combating Organized Crime (DCOC)on the 1st of November 2010. After that they were subjected to severe torture.

A court appointed them a preventive measure in the form of detention on remand. All arrested persons had bodily injuries, when they were brought to the Mariupol SIZO.

On 18th of December 2011 the criminal case was sent to Ordzhonikidze District Court of Mariupol. At the court hearing the defendants notified the court which of the policemen of the DCOC tortured them and under what circumstances they were tortured.

At the court consideration 15 victims and more than 50 witnesses were questioned. They did not recognize the defendants. Upon request of a lawyer of SLC, who was a counsel of Mr Pustovoyt and Mr. Isaychenko, information and documented alibi of defendants were obtained from Mariupol SIZO and other detention centres. Besides, other evidence excluding the guilt of the defendants were collected.

On 26th of December 2012 at the initiative of the applicants’ counsel criminal proceedings against illegal actions of DCOC was instituted.

On 11th of March  2013 the court decided to extend detention of defendants for two months. However, at the initiative lawyer, who referred in his petition on provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of «Kharchenko v. Ukraine" and provisions of Article 331 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, on 8th of April 2013 Mr. Pustovoit’s preventive measure in the form of detention on remand was changed for bail.

In view of the absence of evidence of guilt of the accused Ordzhonikidze District Court of Mariupol decided to transfer case for additional investigation. However, the Court of Appeal of Donetsk region quashed this decision and remitted the case to Ordzhonikidze District Court of Mariupol to continue court consideration of the case. In connection with the events in the Donetsk region of Ukraine the court consideration has not resumed yet.

In connection with the events in the region, the prosecutor repeatedly failed to appear   to the court, due to the case was scheduled for 14 August 2014.

On  August 2014, the SLC lawyer filed to the GPO to decide motion on termination of the prosecution.

On 9 September 2014 the reply from the GPO was received with information that the motion sent to the prosecutor’s office of Donetsk region for passing a decision. In connection with the events in the city of Mariupol, the presiding judge had left the city of Mariupol, so from August to now the case was not appointed.

On 25 July 2014 the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office of Mariupol received the lawyer’s request for giving the information on the criminal production regarding torture Pustovoyt. The answer to this request has not been received, so the lawyer sent the request again on 2 October 2014.

The responses for the lawyer’s requests had not come. Because of that, the lawyer prepared the administrative claim to get ta reply to her requests.

At this time, Pustovoyt is in the wanted list.

 

Rusanov case

On June 2014 in the evening à young man Rusanov came to see his daughter that lives separately from him with his ex-wife. Several men came up to him. Two police officers were among them. One of the police officers was his ex-wife’s cohabitant. These men started to beat him. When he fell down the men continued kicking him till he stopped his movement and moved into a semiconscious state. After that he was plunged into the car’s backseat and moved to the city land. On the way the men bought a bottle of petrol. At that time was already night.

There Rusanov was put on his knees and poured petrol. He was forced to write a renouncement of his daughter. When he wrote it these men tried to set him on fire lighter but Rusanov was managed to escape. He ran a small distance tripped and fell down to the ground.  Persecutors couldn’t catch up him so they left. Rusanov went some kilometers on foot and than called to the police.

He wrote a criminal complaint. The information was entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. Rusanov’s forensic medical examination was conducted. After that, a criminal proceedings was moved to the District prosecutor’s office. At that time Rusanov was examined in the Regional Prosecutor’s Office.  Viewing the scene of a crime wasn’t conducted for two weeks. Only after the lawyer’s motions to the General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine and to ombudsman, such investigation action was conducted with a victim and his lawyer. Also the lawyer submitted the motions to establish the persons that are involved to this crime, on reclaiming the information on ex-wife’s phone calls and the information from a petrol station. Then the case file of three criminal proceedings that were opened in three different pre-trial investigation bodies was joined into one. Different assignments were given but the investigative actions actually were not conducted.

If a resolution on ending of the criminal proceedings is issued the lawyer will apply a complaint.

 

Rystsova case

In December 2010, a police officer of one of the district department of Kharkiv came to homeownership of R., located outside of Kharkov, climbed over the fence and into the yard and letting another two men into the yard demanded to let him enter into the house. R. refused to let him inside then a police officer knocked the door, entered the house, caused R. bodily injury, made an illegal search of the house, and took the victim’s money. Another man beat minor son of R., caused him minor bodily injuries.

In connection with these events R. lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office. Prosecutor’s office issued many decisions about the refuse to open criminal proceeding which were appealed by the lawyers of the KHPG. At the result of consideration of these appeals the Prosecutor’s decisions were quashed by courts and prosecutors of high lever. In 2012 the district Prosecutor’s Office of town of Zarkova instituted criminal case against a police officer under Articles 365 (abuse of power), 162 (trespassing) and 186 (robbery), and he was removed from his post. Criminal cases against other persons were allocated in separate proceeding.

Since April 2012 criminal case is considered in the district court of Kharkiv region, during this period of time a large number of witnesses both on the part of prosecution and the defence have been interrogated. At the beginning of July 2013, the case was referred for further investigation due to established by the court impossibility to consider the case without its combining with the criminal cases against other persons, who had invaded to homeownership of the victim. The lawyer has filed a complaint against the mentioned resolution, and the Appellate Court has quashed the decision and ordered to continue the trial.

After returning the case file to the trial court, the perpetrator of the crime proposed to the victim compensation of the harm had been caused by the crime. The victim have been fully satisfied with the proposed compensation, and the case has been terminated on the basis of the victim’s refusal to insist on  the criminal prosecuting.

 

Shmargalov case

In August 2012 the police officers of one of the district of Kharkiv have detained Mr. Shmargalov (hereinafter – the applicant) who was going to a work in the café. The applicant was forced to go the police department. On the morning and evening of the following day police officers using threats and physical violence forced him to give confession in the illegal drug trafficking.

Unable to bear the torture the applicant has signed the confession. All night he was kept in the police department. Next morning, being in the toilet and understanding that after he signed the confession he could be convicted to the long term imprisonment, the man under stress tried to escape from police department through the window of the toilet. He tried to go down the wall but fall on the asphalt. At the result of the fall both arms and both legs of the applicant were broken. He was delivered to the hospital and then operated. The applicant lost the ability to move and use his arms’ function.

Despite the fact that accusation was completely falsified in October 2012 the pre-trial investigation was terminated and the case on the unlawful drug trafficking was delivered to the court.

From 2013 the proceeding in the district court of Kharkiv was started. As the applicant is unable to participate in the court hearing on the reason of his inability to go to the court the consideration of his case was terminated until his convalescence.

The defence lawyer of the applicant lodged complains on unlawful actions of the police officers to the Prosecutor’s Office. After verifications on these applications Prosecutor’s Office issues decisions about refuse to institute criminal proceeding, which later were quashed by the court. At the end of the year the case has been remitted for conducting additional investigation, and his preventive measure – obligation not to leave a place of his residence without the investigating authority permission has been cancelled.

At present the appealing against unlawful actions of police officers is continuing. The lawyer submit complaints on inactivity of the investigation to the three Prosecutor’s offices: district, city and regional (oblast), but there are no any actions on investigation of the policemen’s crime. Having exhausted the possibility in investigation of the police abuse, the lawyer now prepares to the ECtHR.

In November 2014, the lawyer filed a motion for recognition the application as a victim and resolution for access to the criminal proceeding.

The criminal case against Shmargalov was closed due to lack of evidence.

 

Skyba case

At the end of March 2014 the mother of the citizen of Ukraine Skyba applied to the Strategic Litigation Center. Mr. Skyba was apprehended by the police at the place of his mother`s residence in Ternopilska Oblast on March 15, 2013 due to his placement in the international wanted list for committing a crime in the territory of the Russian Federation. On 24.04.2014 the extradition arrest was applied to him and since then he was detained in SIZO.

According to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine the maximum term for keeping a person in custody including in the case of extradition arrest should not exceed 12 months. Herewith, in case of apprehension of a person it should be counted from the moment of arrest of the person.

The lawyer of the Strategic Litigation Centre filed a complaint to the investigating judge of a district court of Kharkiv City at the place of detainment of Mr. Skyba on the immediate taking of him to the investigating judge and checking the lawfulness of keeping him in custody. As a result of consideration of this complaint the investigating judge refused to release Mr. Skyba and determined the beginning of the term of his detainment not from the moment of his apprehension, but from the date of adoption of the decision on application of the extradition arrest in violation of the law.

In 2 days after the refusal of the investigating judge to release Mr. Skyba the lawyer again filed a complaint to the court asking to release his client on the ground that the term for his extradition to the bodies of the Russian Federation established by the General Prosecutor`s Office (01.04.2014) had expired.

Shortly before the expiry of 12 months from the date of adoption of the decision on applying the extradition arrest to Mr. Skyba the lawyer filed another complaint to the investigating judge to release his client. Finally, Mr. Skyba was released from the SIZO and soon he submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights as regards the violation of Article 5 § 1 f) of the European Convention (see par. 2.3. above).

 

Case of a student’s murder

In early October 2014, a student of the National Law University  Viñtor P. was killed in a fight with a knife near the bar-restaurant in Kharkov. Victor’s parents addressed to SLC as they feared that the criminal who fled the scene of a crime is going to be able to avoid the criminal liability. They asked to represent their interests in a criminal proceedings as the representatives of the victim.  A lawyer was given.

Identity of the person who committed the crime, has been established. He was detained and notified about the suspicion of the deliberate murder. The man who killed the student did not deny the fact of the murder. This fact was confirmed by several witnesses and the record of CCTV cameras which are installed near the scene of a crime. But the man claimed that he had committed the murder accidentally as he was just waving a knife from attacking him by the student.

Initial qualification of the offense was a "simple" murder. Due to the strong position of the lawyer about the fact that the murder was committed absolutely without any reasons, in the fight and out of hooligan motives, actions of the accused were reclassified on the aggravated deliberate murder - out of hooligan motives.

Victor’s parents as the victims in the criminal proceedings submitted a civil suit. They asked about the reimbursement for harm caused to them, including moral harm that was caused by loss of son.

In the end of 2014, Kyiv District Police Department finished the pre-trial investigation of this crime and sent the case to the court.

The hearing on the merits started. The victims hope for fair punishment for their son’s killer.

 

Taranenko case

On 04.04.2014 Mr Taranenko (hereinafter – the applicant) informed his defense lawyer about his health problems, including weakness and drowsiness, fever, hard breathing, shortness of breath, sweating, large loss of weight, heart pain and heart attacks, pneumonia, severe headaches, high blood pressure.

On 13.03.2014, when T. arrived at the colony, his defence lawyer informed the head of the colony about his state of health with simultaneous request to send T. for conducting of appropriate examinations. Nevertheless, this request was ignored by the administration of the colony. Moreover, the defense lawyer was not allowed to visit the applicant.

After this the defence lawyer called the police in order to complain on obstruction of the access of the lawyer to a client. He also called the ambulance. The ambulance was able to get on the territory of the colony and see the applicant. After this, doctors form the ambulance that the applicant, who had passed x-ray examination on 13.03.2014, had not been examined by a phthisiologist yet. Such a situation was a gross violation of the order of preventive examinations for tuberculosis.

  On 17.03.2014 during the meeting with the lawyer T. informed him that he felt very ill, had high body temperature, pain in the chest, dyspnea and coughing, and he had not been provided with any medical assistance. Although, the false information was written in the medical documents of T. that he was transferred to the in-patient facility for attendance with the diagnosis neurocirculatory dystonia on cardial and hypotonic type, but not bronchitis or pneumonia. Later, in violations of established rules, a phthisiatrician did not examine and questioned T., as well as he did not examined his medical records, but just looked at x-rays, and then T. was taken for the dispensary registration with the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Also, bacteriological examination of sputum for the presence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis was not conducted, despite the fact that on the basic of X-rays of his lungs T. was diagnosed with tuberculosis.

In addition, the Head of the medical unit of the colony wrote in the medical card of T. that T. was self-cured of tuberculosis without taking any drugs and he was put on the registration as a person who has residual changes of pulmonary tuberculosis.

After this administration of the colony conducted pressure on T. demanding to refuse the legal aid of a lawyer of the SLC to whom he applied for legal aid concerning his complaints on the administration of the colony.

In November 2014 T. was transferred to the colony no. 78 in Khmelnytsk region.

The lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine with the request to conduct a verification regarding inadequate medical treatment of T.

He also filed a request to the head of the colony requesting medical assistance with the list of T’s diseases and request about taking his sputum for TB.

The lawyer of the SLC has been collecting the documents for preparation of the application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning violation of the right of T. for proper medical assistance.

 

Tsymbal case

In October 2014 an armed robbery was committed against Mr. S and Mr. A. in a rented flat. The information about this crime was registered in the URPTI. I  a day Tsymbal L. A. was detained as a suspect in commitment of the crime.

During detention Mr. Tsymbal signed the testimony which had been already prepared by the police officers, and at the second time, under influence of a lawyer, he signed a minute of the interrogation of a suspect. The farther of Mr. Tsymbal, after meeting with him, informed another lawyer that Mr. Tsymbal had not committed this crime and he signed all the documents under pressure. A lawyer of the SLC familiarized with the case file and found out that the persons of the victims had not been properly established and detention of Mr. Tsymbal was unlawful, the prosecutors and investigators who took part in pre0trial investigation, did not have powers.  The lawyer lodged a pleading to the Prosecutor’s Office, but a prosecutor refused to satisfy it.

On 15 December 2014 an indictment was referred to the court. During the trial the lawyer spoke against assignment of case for judicial examination and filed a pleading, with pointing to all the shortcomings of the pre0trial investigation. The court satisfied the pleading and returned the indictment and the case file to the prosecutor for improvement.

 

5. Successful cases.

 

Case on acquittal of a drug “seller”  

The applicant, Mr. D. is a resident of Kharkov City. He was accused in manufacture, storage and marketing of handicraft manufactured psychotropic substances under Article 307 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

A lawyer of the SLC logged a number of petitions and notified District Court of Kharkov, which considered the case as the first instance court, about the substantial violations of law in the proceedings.

In particular there was shortcomings at the legal documentation of the procedure of operational procurement as well as the procedure of operational procurement itself:

-        the actual place where operational procurement was held does not correspond to the place indicated in the decision on conducting operational procurement;

-        lack of information on whether the person who took part in the procurement procedure gave his/her agreement in written to participate in this procedure;

-        the series and number of a bank note, that was given to the purchaser was not indicated, while the series and numbers of cash seized from Mr. D. allegedly given to him were indicated.

Besides, one of the witnesses testified that he signed documents at the demand of policemen and in fact he was not present at investigative and operational activities.

The results of operational procurement were subsequently used as a basis to prove the guilt of Mr. D.

At the court consideration applicant’s preventive measure in form of the detention on remand was changed for undertaking not to abscond according to the petition of the applicant’s counsel.

In view of the above-mentioned shortcomings on 9th of December 2013 at pre-trial investigation court transferred the case for further investigation.

On 26th of June 2014 an investigator of Police District Department of Kharkiv Region closed the criminal case due to lack of corpus delicti in case against Mr. D.

According to the order of investigator on closing criminal case against Mr. D of 26th of June 2014 it was not possible to eliminate the above-mentioned shortcomings, that had important role for prosecuting Mr. D.

 

Case on preterm release of inmate

On 14th of 2014 a national court granted the petition filed by the Chief of the Daryivska Penal Colony No. 10 (based in Kherson region) on release from further punishment appointed by the court due to serious illness that prevents further serving punishment convicted Mrs. U., who suffered from severe form of HIV. The filing petition was initiated by a lawyer of SLC.

The woman was convicted in 2011. Only 11 months left before the release. But at this time her condition was extremely deteriorated. In addition to 4-stage of HIV she suffered from Kaposi’s sarcoma, pulmonary tuberculosis, tuberculosis of lymph nodes, candidiasis and severe immunosuppression. Accordingly, it was impossible to provide her with the necessary treatment in the colony. Doctors stated that her state of health was getting worse. Then the administration of the institution filed the petition for her release due to her poor state of health.

Local court quickly agreed with the arguments of the administration of penal colony and decided to release her from serving further punishment, but prosecutor’s office appealed against this decision. According to the lawyer of SLC the court, usually the prosecutor’s office refuse such petitions, not recognizing the right of terminally ill people, who are already physically can not cause harm to society, to spend their the last days at home and receive adequate medical care.

The prosecutor’s office appealed against the release of the applicant, based on vague arguments that condemned never embarked on the path to reform, and that she has not retained social ties, despite the facts that her common-law husband was waiting for her and the colony provided the court with all medical records confirming that she cannot receive treatment she need in any prison.

However, the court of appeal took into consideration the arguments of the applicant’s counsel and defended the rights of the convicted women. On 19th of April 2014 the court refused the prosecutor’s appeal. After that, the decision of the first instance court entered into force. Respectively, after the release Mrs. U.S. has no barriers to obtaining adequate health care in the regional cenre for prevention and control of AIDS.

 

Case on release from serving a punishment due to a serious disease of an inmate

A SLC lawyer working in the All-Ukrainian Aid Network for Drug Addicted and HIV-Positive People was seeking the early release of his client from incarceration in the court of appeal on the grounds of serious disease of the inmate.  The district court didn`t see the reasons for his early release notwithstanding that the man was ill with HIV of the 4th stage and was undergoing social rehabilitation, as well as his behaviour was noted by the penal colony as exemplary.

The administration of Holoprystanska Penal Colony ¹ 7 and the supervisory board at the district administration offered to early release F. The grounds for this were the exemplary behaviour of the prisoner, completion of the social rehabilitation, participation in the construction works outside the colony, as well as the HIV illness of the 4th stage which was impossible to treat. Moreover, at the moment of consideration of the colony`s petition F. served 2/3 of his sentence in the prison.

However, Holoprystanskyi Court of Khersonska Oblast didn`t see the reasons for his early release having considered that F. wasn`t corrected enough as there were too many complaints about his behavior. Herewith, it wasn`t taken into account that it took place more than 3 years ago when he served his sentence in another colony.

“I would like to add, - the lawyer says, - that the court of first instance refused to release him referring to the characteristic of 2013 based on which the Holoprystanskyi District Court refused to change the punishment to a softer one on 14.08.2013. The characteristic itself wasn`t contained in the case file. When I requested this characteristic from the penal colony ¹ 7, it was stated in it that F. was “on the way to correction”. That is when refusing to conditionally release the applicant, the court took into consideration only the words the prosecutor said who had never see the convicted. At the same time, the court didn`t take into consideration the information from the commission of the penal colony ¹ 7 the members of which know the convicted “from all sides” and provide commission conclusion that the convicted turned to the way of correction. It also didn`t take into consideration the conclusion of the commission at the Holoprystanska District State Administration. So, the opinion of the prosecutor not supported by anything was mandatory for the court while the conclusions of the competent commissions were disregarded”.

The lawyer contested this decision in the Court of Appeal of Khersonska Oblast. The panel of judges agreed with the arguments of the lawyer who noted that a persons who constantly needed medical assistance, actively participated in social activities and clearly sough to change his life had the right to early release.

On June 12, 2014 the ruling of Holoprystanskyi Court was cancelled and F. was able to be released on probation of 1 year and 5 months.

 

Case on termination of criminal prosecution

Police officers made proposal for Mr. X. to sell drugs under their protection. When he refused, the criminal proceedings were instituted against him under suspicion not only in use, storage and sale of drugs, but also keeping a brothel.

A lawyer of the SLC represented interests of Mr. X. during consideration of his criminal case by the court.

The court established that false attesting witnesses, as the court had found, not only were absent during the control purchase, but  waited police officers near the entrance into the block of flats, and as they themselves admitted, suggested that drugs could be thrown down  to the defendant.

In the decision of the Samarskiy district court of Dnepropetrovsk the following gaps were mentioned, as the court spent a lot of time figuring out the circumstances of the case, questioning additional witnesses. Having exhausted all procedural possibilities to eliminate contradictions in the case, the court directed it for further investigation. The defendant was released in the courtroom. Simultaneously, the court passed and directed particular ruling to the prosecutor, which pointed to serious shortcomings in the work of investigation.

The issued decision of the court in the circumstances of Ukrainian criminal proceedings is equivalent to acquittal. The facts of falsifications, pointed by the lawyer, nullify the further investigation of the case, and it would likely be "buried" somewhere in the re-investigation stage.

 

Euro Maydan activist’s case

In early January 2014 Euro Maydan activist Mr. Ch. was arrested in Kharkov on trumped criminal proceedings for alleged distribution pornographic materials in the Internet from his profile in the social network. The investigation of the alleged crime, which is neither serious nor violent one, was carried out with unusual rapidity: two hours later after the alleged filing an statement on crime allegedly committed by Mr. Ch. to the district police department he was arrested by police officers of special operational unit of Police Department of Kharkiv region (hereinafter - "Kharkiv Police Department) on human trafficking.

After the arrest Mr. Ch. was brought to police unit, where his cell phone was taken. Using his cell phone police officers changed the password to his profile on the social network and received the opportunity to work with this account.

The information about his arrest and the investigation of this crime, which is not resonant, was posted on the website of Kharkiv Police Department. After that the information about this was twice posted on the web-site of Kharkiv Police Department. It was mentioned, in particular, that Mr. Ch. is "reasonable suspicion" and "unmasked" in the crime.

In addition, the investigator, who conducted this investigation and prohibited Mr. Ch. to disclose information about the investigation, gave several interviews to the media, in which he notified the details of the pre-trial investigation, after which this information was posted in the Internet.

A lawyer of the SLC, who represented Mr. Ch. in the criminal case against him, prepared a statement about the crime committed by police officers: illegal arrest and falsification of evidences.

However, the investigator of the prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv region stopped the proceedings under this statement on crime in two weeks. The lawyer as a representative of the victim appealed against this decision, and in early April 2014 the investigating judge quashed that decision and sent the case for further pre-trial investigation.

On February 13, 2014 criminal proceedings as to the dissemination of pornographic materials were terminated because of lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers.

On 16.06.2016 the investigator issued an order on terminating the criminal proceedings, which were opened upon the fact of the divulging the information about the investigation that was offensive to Mr. Ch. The lawyer appealed against the decision to the investigating judge. The investigating judge has refused the complaint and later the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision.

On 26 February 2014 the criminal proceedings against the police officers on the matter of illegal arrest and falsification of evidences have been terminated, and the SLC lawyer was not informed about this notwithstanding to two requests to provide the information. Having got the decision officially, the lawyer will complain it two the investigating judge.

 

Drug user case

In December 2011 Yuri Lytvak, Ukrainian national, was apprehended by patrol police officers and brought to a district police station in Lviv. The next morning he was forced to confess in having committed several thefts by means of torture. After the confession had been obtained he was transmitted to another district police station, where he was forced to confession in other crimes. The record of his arrest has not been filled out. In total he was illegally kept in police custody more than three days. The SLC lawyer lodged several complaints to district, city and regional prosecutor’s offices during the person’s detention. At once after release from the police custody the lawyer called ambulance and the man was transported to a hospital. He had a lot of bodily injures, particularly bruises which were filled up in medical records. Journalists from one TV channel interviewed the man.

After several attempts of the lawyer to convince the prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings against the police one of the district prosecutor’s offices has opened the case. In July 2013 the investigation was completed and four police officers, including deputy chief of the police division, were accused in having committed of crime in abuse of power. The case with an accusatory act was directed to a district court of Lviv. It is a very rare occasion when police officers are prosecuted for abuse of power on presence only minor bodily harm of the victim.

A lot of witnesses were questioned in the court, and now the proceeding are coming to the end. 

For two years and a half of proceedings the lawyer of the SLC filed dozens of different petitions, participated in dozens of investigative and judicial actions, fought alone with defence counsels of the defendants, was subjected to threatens from these ex "werewolves in epaulets", but she did not step back from her position of principle.

Despite the fact that the policemen did not admit his guilt, on 28th of May 2014 Shevchenko District Court sentenced them to real punishments.

District Court of Lviv found four ex police officers guilty of abuse of power and illegal deprivation of liberty and appointed them a real punishments, namely: from three to five years’ imprisonment with deprivation of special police ranks.

The deputy chief of the police station, who according to the findings of the court directed the actions of subordinates received maximum term of imprisonment, namely: five years in prison. The convicts appealed against the sentence of the court, and their appeals will be considered by the appeal court.

 

Police abuse of force case

In December 2011, police arrested two men in the basement of one of the buildings in Lviv. The men were brought to the police station where they were held until morning. Having learned that one of the detainees was under the administrative supervision, the police changed their minds to release the men and transferred them to the office of the local police officers.

Subsequently, one of the detainees were released while the other one, L., was demanded to confess in commitment of multiple thefts to which he had really no any relation. The police started beating him including with wooden stick, kicking etc. Under the pressure, L. has signed the confession. Four police officers involved in the torture including the Deputy Chief of the District Police Station.

Mother of the detainee, as well as SLC lawyer was not informed about whereabouts of his son. The lawyer filed a complaint on illegal arrest and detention of L.

On the third day, the lawyer managed to locate the AL, which are kept in the building of the police station of another district of the city. When a lawyer achieved L.’s release he was in a very weak state suffering from hepatitis C and HIV and having spent three days without necessary medication and proper nutrition, having underwent to torture.

At once after L.s release, the ambulance transported him to a hospital where he was being treated during a week. There were found numerous bruises and hematomas on L.’s body, which were recognized by a forensic medical expert as minor injuries. The lawyer involved the media to illuminate the incident and make it public and at last, criminal proceedings in the case were initiated by the prosecutor’s office.

A lot of interviews, confrontations, investigative experiments and other investigative actions were carried out during the pre-trial investigation of the case. The lawyer lodged numerous requests and motions and participated in the most of the investigation actions. The proceedings in this case lasted two years and six months, and L.’s lawyer opposed to several lawyers of the accused.

Despite the fact that the police did not admit his guilt, on May 28, 2014, Shevchenkovskyi District court of Lviv adopted the conviction of the police officers and recognized them guilty in abuse of power and unlawful deprivation of liberty of L. The evidence in court was the forensic medical report of L., testimonies of other detained man, L.’s mother, his clothes had been left in the police premises and found during its search etc.

The court imposed the accused real terms of imprisonment, deprivation of their special ranks and the right to serve in police for specific time.

This occasion is the rare one where the court convicted the police officers in the case of unlawful use of force, the effects of which had no serious consequences for the victim’s health.

 

Case of Portyanenko

Captain Olexandr Portyanenko has passed military service under the contract since 2007.

Approximately on 18.05.2014 by the order of the commander of the military unit Portyanenko O. and personnel of the squadron of snipers withdrew to Donetsk region for exercises. Further, Portyanenko O. and personnel of the squadron on the order of the commander of the military unit took part in anti-terrorist operations.

On 02.08.2014 due to lack of ammunition and food products, and in order to save the lives of subordinate personnel Portyanenko O. decided to withdraw the personnel through the buffer zone, but they were detained at the checkpoint "Gukovo."

On 03.08.2014 Portyanenko O. and the personnel were transferred to the Ukraine border guards.

On 08.04.2014, Portyanenko O. was arrested in the building of the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk for Supervision of the observance of laws in the military sphere on suspicion of having committed a crime under Part 3 of Article 409 (refusal of passing military service in a combat situation perpetrated by previous concert by a group of people), Part 3 of Article 411 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On 08.04.2014, the data were included in the Unified Register of pre-trial investigations and pre-trial investigation under Part 3 of Article 409 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was initiated.

By a decision of the Octyabrskiy district court of Dnipropetrovsk a preventive measure of personal responsibility was applied to Portyanenko O.

On 26 December 20014 the agreement on recognition of the guilt was concluded between the proseccutir and the defendant, Mr. Portyanenko O. was concluded with the extremely beneficial terms for him. Namely, the punishment for the crime upon Part 3 of Article 409 foresees from three to seven years imprisonment, and upon Part 3 of Article 411 of the Criminal Code – from three to eight years imprisonment.

The same day the District Court of Luhansk oblast has adopted the agreement and imposed Mr. Portyanenko with the punishment much less than ones prescribed by the Criminal Code of service limitation for one year for the first crime and for two years for the second one with additional fines of 10% form his salary to be taken to the state budget. In fact, Mr. Portyanenko can continue his military service in usual way.

 

‘The grenade in a pan’ case

In June 2014 in Internet materials were distributed calling for actions aimed at changing the boundaries of the territory or the state border of Ukraine with the participation of Ukrainian national from Dnepropetrovsk Ms. Zhukova.

On June 24? 2014 during a search at the apartment of Zh. grenades and six explosive devices were found and seized.

On June 26, 2014 Zh. was informed as a suspect for calls to unconstitutional changes of the territory or the state border of Ukraine and for illegal possession of weapons and explosives, and the preventive measure in the form of preliminary detention was applied to her. SLC lawyer filed a complaint against the use of the preventive measure, but the Court of Appeal has left the measure unchanged.

Later during the preliminary investigation, the lawyer could prove non-participation the commission of a criminal offense.

On September 11, 2014 the criminal proceedings against Zh. was closed due to the absence of sufficient evidence to prove her guilt in committing these crimes and released from custody.

 

comments

new comment