login | registration | forgot the password
today 28.09.2016 01:21
(by Kyiv time)

navigation

Kharkiv Human Rights Group Social Networking



A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations for the first 6 months of 2015

24.08.15 | Gennadiy Tokarev

1. During this period the European Court delivered 6 judgments in the following cases of the Strategic Litigations Centre (SLC).

 

Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine

The applicant was born in 1988 and is currently serving a prison sentence.

On 28 February 2004, R. was found dead in a garden area of Cherkasy city.

On 18 March 2004, the Sosnivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Cherkasy (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) opened a criminal investigation into the murder.

In the evening of the same day, the police searched the applicant’s home and seized seven knives, clothes and other items.

On 19 March 2004, the applicant confessed to the murder. He was not assisted by a lawyer at that time. According to the applicant, that confession resulted from the psychological pressure and physical ill-treatment that had been applied to him since his arrival at the police station.

Several examinations of the applicant and of the witnesses, a reconstruction of the crime, were conducted, the confrontations were held.

On 21 March 2004, a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and issued a report stating that he had no bodily injuries.

On 22 March 2004, the court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

On 26 March 2004, the applicant was transferred from the ITT to the SIZO.

On 22 July 2004, the investigation was completed. The applicant was charged with aggravated murder.

On 27 July 2004, the applicant’s lawyer requested that D., another acquaintance of the applicant, to be charged as the perpetrator, arguing that the evidence in the file pointed at him. The investigator refused the request as unsubstantiated.

On 10 August 2004, the case was referred to the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) for the applicant and D. to be tried.

On 21 September 2004, the Court of Appeal remitted the case for additional investigation noting, among other things, that the actions of the defendants and the role of each defendant had not been properly classified under the criminal law.

On 14 December 2004, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 21 September 2004 as unfounded and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for trial.

On 26 August 2005, the applicant was medically examined by a nephrologist. Some injuries were found.

On 7 November 2005 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. The court also found D. guilty of concealment of murder and imposed a conditional sentence.

The prosecutor and the victim’s relatives appealed against the judgment. The applicant also appealed, claiming that his confession had been obtained by way of ill-treatment and in the absence of a lawyer.

On 8 November 2005, in reply to the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment and violation of his procedural rights during the investigation, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed him that those issues had been examined during the pre-trial investigation and the trial, and had been rejected as unfounded.

On 25 November 2005, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office additionally informed the applicant that his complaints would be examined by the Supreme Court in the course of the review of the criminal case.

On 5 March 2006, the assistant prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to open an investigation. The applicant challenged the decision before the Prydniprovskyy District Court of Cherkasy (“the District Court”).

On 16 May 2006, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 7 November 2005 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for fresh consideration in that part.

On 2 August 2006, the District Court quashed the assistant prosecutor’s decision of 5 March 2006.

On 13 August and 25 December 2006, and 28 February and 25 June 2007 the assistant prosecutors refused to open an investigation.

On 10 August 2007, the assistant prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office again refused to open an investigation.

On 19 November 2007, the District Court quashed the assistant prosecutor’s decision of 10 August 2007.

On 28 November 2007, the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.

The applicant appealed against the judgment claiming, inter alia, that his defence rights had not been respected at the initial stage of the investigation, he had not been given access to a lawyer immediately after the arrest and his self-incriminating statements had been obtained as a result of ill-treatment.

On 18 December 2007, the Court of Appeal partly allowed the prosecutor’s appeal against the District Court’s decision of 19 November 2007. It noted that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment concerned the admissibility and veracity of evidence in his criminal case.

On 6 May 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 28 November 2007.

On 10 June 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision of 18 December 2007.

On 13 November 2012, the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

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

On 29 January 2015, the ECtHR found that there has been a violation of Articles: 3 of the Convention because the domestic authorities failed in their procedural obligation to effectively investigate the allegations of ill-treatment; 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention because the applicant had not been provided with access to a lawyer in the initial period of the criminal proceedings.

 

Ogorodnik v. Ukraine

On 16 July 2008 Mr. Ogorodnik was detained on suspicion of robbery with assault. On the same date he confessed to the incriminated crime.

In July and August 2008 a number of criminal cases were opened against him and several other persons.

Mr. Ogorodnik wrote numerous confessions. According to him, he did so under duress and without legal assistance.

He was also ill-treated in the police custody on many occasions between 16 July and 5 November 2008.

In September and October 2008 he complained about his alleged ill-treatment in police custody to various authorities, including the General Prosecutor’s Office. His complaints contained detailed description of the events in question. His complaints were forwarded to the respective local prosecution authorities.

On 7 November 2008 Mr. Ogorodnik underwent a medical examination which discovered bruises on his buttocks measuring 7 x 10 cm and 15 x 10 cm respectively. The doctors also documented sores on his wrists caused by handcuffs. The examination certificate referred to another sore having been discovered, but the notes are illegible.

On 7 and 19 November and 4 December 2008 the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the Vinnytsia and Vyshgorod Town Prosecutor’s Offices, respectively, delivered rulings refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers allegedly involved in Mr. Ogorodnik’s ill-treatment for the lack of evidence of their guilt.

On 6 May 2009 the Staromiskyy District Court of Vinnytsia found Mr. Ogorodnik guilty of numerous counts of aggravated theft and robbery and sentenced him to eleven and a half years’ imprisonment, as well as confiscation of all his personal property.

He appealed against this sentence. On 16 July 2009 the Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal rejected his appeal.

Mr. Ogorodnik further appealed on points of law. He submitted, in particular, that his conviction had been based on his self-incriminating statements obtained under duress and with substantial violations of the criminal procedural legal provisions.

On 26 February 2010 the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Ogorodnik’s request for leave to appeal on points of law. As to his allegation of ill-treatment, it noted that he had not raised this issue in his appeal and that he had maintained his confessions, having deciding to retract them only at the stage of the appeal on points of law.

On 5 May 2010 Mr. Ogorodnik filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR). He complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police and that there had been no effective domestic investigation into the matter. He also complained that his right under Article 6-1 to enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination had been violated and that he had been denied access to a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings against him.

On 10 December 2012 the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

In May 2013 a lawyer of the SLC prepared a reply to the Government’s observations.

On 5 February, 2015 the ECtHR issued the judgment in which it found violations of Article 3 in its material and procedural aspects and Article 6-1 of the Convention.

 

Kotiy v. Ukraine

The applicant was born in 1974. In 2003 the applicant, his wife and two children (born in 1992 and 1999) settled in Germany.

On 14 April 2008, the Kyiv Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with a financial fraud allegedly committed by him in April 2005.

On 19 April 2008, the investigator decided to put the applicant on the national list of wanted persons, stating that the latter had not lived at the registered place of his residence in Ukraine and his whereabouts were unknown.

In November 2008, the applicant arrived in Ukraine on personal business. When he arrived at the migration service department in Kharkiv to exchange his international travel passport for a new one, he was arrested and escorted to Kyiv.

At 1.30 a.m., on 14 November 2008, the applicant was questioned by the investigator in the Shevchenkivskyy District Police Department of Kyiv in connection with the charges against him. The questioning session terminated at 4.17 a.m. in the morning.

At 4.20 a.m., on 14 November 2008, the investigator decided to arrest the applicant for seventy-two hours on suspicion of having committed the crime.

On 17 November 2008, the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) considered the investigator’s request to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. The District Court found that before taking its decision concerning the application of a preventive measure, it needed to examine in more detail the personality of the applicant, his place of employment and residence, his family status and the risk of his absconding. The court therefore extended the applicant’s preliminary detention to ten days.

On 20 November 2008, the investigator instituted another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant and the director of company L. on the grounds that they had obtained a loan from a bank on the basis of forged documents and had later misappropriated these funds.

On 24 November 2008, the District Court again examined the investigator’s request to detain the applicant in custody. The court released the applicant. The prosecutor appealed. The appellation was not granted.

The investigator obtained from the applicant a written undertaking not to abscond from his registered place of residence in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

On 27 November 2008, the investigator seized the applicant’s old and new international travel passports.

On 6 May 2009, the applicant complained to the prosecutor on account of his unlawful arrest and detention and the violation of procedural rules by the investigator.

On 6 July 2009, the applicant challenged before the District Court the investigator’s decisions to initiate criminal proceedings against him.

On 31 July 2009, the District Court allowed the applicant’s claim. The prosecutor appealed against that decision.

On 21 August 2009, the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 31 July 2009 and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration.

On 3 November 2009, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.

On 4 December 2009, the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 3 November 2009.

On 8 December 2011, the investigator closed both sets of criminal proceedings, finding that the charges against the applicant had not been proved and that there had been no corpus delicti. The preventive measure (a written undertaking not to abscond) was lifted.

On 9 December 2011, the investigator returned the seized international travel passports to the applicant.

On 22 October 2012, the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

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

On 5 March 2015, the ECtHR found that there has been a violation of Articles: 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s detention between 14 and 24 November 2008; 5 § 5 of the Convention because the applicant did not have an enforceable right to compensation in respect of his unlawful arrest and detention; 8 of the Convention on the grounds that the interference with the applicant’s private and family life was not “in accordance with the law” and was not “necessary in a democratic society”.

 

Kulik v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Kulik was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Budy, Kharkiv Region.

On 4 May 2003, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of stealing cucumbers from a greenhouse on a vegetable farm. On the same day the applicant was also arrested for an administrative offence (disobeying and resisting police officers).

On that day police officers beat him up in the Chervonozavodskyy District Police Department of Kharkiv (“the Police Department”), forcing him to confess to the theft. The applicant made self-incriminating statements. He was released on 5 May 2003 after the court had imposed a fine on him for the administrative offence.

On 5 May 2003, the investigator of the Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another person (P.) in connection with the theft of the cucumbers. As a preventive measure the applicant signed a written undertaking not to abscond.

On 26 June 2003, a medical expert completed the medical examination (which started on 8 May 2003) and issued a report stating that the applicant’s injuries should be classified as an injury of medium severity. The expert opined that the injuries had been inflicted by blunt solid objects and could have been sustained on 4 May 2003. The expert also cited the applicant’s statement that the injuries had been caused on 4 May 2003 by unknown persons in the street.

On 10 July 2003, the applicant applied to the Chervonozavodskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) seeking criminal prosecution of police officers for ill-treatment.

On 19 July 2003, the prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, for lack of corpus delicti.

On 7 October 2003, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 19 July 2003 as unfounded and ordered further pre-investigation enquiries.

On 17 October 2003, the District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings on account of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant.

On 17 November 2004, the investigation in that case was suspended as the perpetrators of the crime against the applicant could not be identified.

On 30 March 2005, the investigation was resumed.

On 11 April 2005, the investigation was suspended again because the perpetrators of the crime against the applicant could not be identified.

On 1 August 2005, the criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning the theft of the cucumbers were terminated for lack of corpus delicti.

On 27 January 2006, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the decision of 11 April 2005 had been quashed as unfounded and that instructions had been given for a proper investigation of the alleged ill-treatment.

On 13 March 2006, the investigator of the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against specific officers of the Police Department in connection with the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.

On 14 March 2006, the District Prosecutor’s Office decided to refer the case to the investigation unit of the Police Department for further proceedings.

On 20 August 2008, the investigation was suspended as the perpetrators of the crime against the applicant could not be identified.

On 31 October 2008, the supervising prosecutor’s office quashed that decision as unfounded and gave instructions for a further investigation.

On 3 August 2009, the local prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the investigators for inadequate investigation of the case concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment.

On 20 September 2012, the investigation was pending.

On 19 March 2012, the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

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

On 19 March 2015, the ECtHR found that there has been a violation of Articles: 3 of the Convention because the applicant had been ill-treated by police officers and that there had been no effective investigation of the incident; 13 of the Convention because the applicant did not have civil remedy in respect of his allegations of ill-treatment.

 

Kirpichenko v. Ukraine

The applicant Mr Sergey Anatolyevich Kirpichenko, Ukrainian national, who was living in Donetsk.

On 28 January 2003 the applicant sustained two knife cuts. According to him, they were inflicted by two strangers, who attacked him on a deserted street.

At about 2 p.m. on 29 January 2003 the applicant was arrested at his home by three police officers and taken to the Proletarskiy District Police Station in Donetsk (“District Police Station”) for questioning in connection with a murder of L.S., an adolescent girl. Later on the same day he was also taken for questioning to the Proletarskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“District Prosecutor’s Office”).

On the same date O. was appointed as the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer. According to the applicant, she saw him briefly, advised him to remain silent and left him alone during the actual questioning. In the evening of 29 January 2003 an ambulance team was called to provide the applicant with medical assistance for his cuts.

On 30 January 2003 the applicant complained to the District Prosecutor’s Office of having been tortured by the police officers before and after having been brought to the police station. He noted, in particular, that the three police officers who had arrested him had severely beaten him all over his body, including in the groin area, notwithstanding that he was unable to resist his arrest in any event as he was suffering from two cuts sustained the previous day.

In March 2003 investigator A.D. of the District Prosecutor’s Office, who was investigating L.S.’s murder and the theft from her flat organized confrontations between the applicant and several police officers implicated by him in his ill-treatment. During these confrontations, the officers denied that any ill-treatment had taken place. The applicant refused to comment claiming that A.D. had been rude, biased and insulting towards him.

On 18 March 2003 the District Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment in January 2003. It noted that no evidence of ill-treatment had been discovered during the questioning of the officers involved and the confrontations between the parties. It further noted that according to the detention facility’s log book, the applicant had been detained alone and not with a sick inmate, as he had claimed.

The applicant appealed against the aforementioned decision to the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“Regional Prosecutor’s Office”) and to other authorities, complaining, in particular, that the confrontations had been organized with a view to obtain self-incriminating evidence from him, rather than to verify his allegations of ill-treatment. He also complained that as a result of having been beaten by the police, he could no longer move his left leg properly

 On 16 May 2003 the applicant was escorted from the SIZO to the District Police Station for questioning and temporarily detained in the police detention facility. According to him, police officer V.D., who was on duty on that day, insulted him, punched him twice in the face and also kicked his back. On the same date upon the applicant’s return, the SIZO medical staff recorded that he was suffering from a contused wound on the lip, bruising of the soft tissues of the face and an abrasion on his back and forwarded the applicant’s complaints concerning V.D.’s conduct to the District Prosecutor’s Office for investigation.

On 27 May 2003 the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the incident of 16 May 2003.

In 2003 SLC lawyers filed on behalf of applicants the complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

The applicant having died in October 2012, while the case was pending before the Court, his mother, Mrs Svetlana Semyonovna Savich, informed the Court of her wish to pursue the application. The Court finds that while the applicant’s mother has not been directly affected by the violations of the Convention complained of by the applicant, following his death she has standing to pursue the present proceedings on his behalf

On April 2, 2015 the European court of human rights holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the purported ill-treatment on 6 and 16 May 2003; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective investigation into the complaints concerning ill-treatment on 29 and 30 January, 6 and 16 May 2003.

 

Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine

The applicants are Mr Sergey Viktorovich Ushakov (“the first applicant”), who is detained and Ms Anna Mikhaylovna Ushakova (“the second applicant”), who is living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

On 27 June 2008 Mr L. was found dead in his house, a criminal investigation was opened into the murder. On that same day the applicants came home where several police officers were waiting for them. The applicants were taken to the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Police Department.  The applicants were questioned and held in the police station during the night on 27-28 June 2008. On 28 June 2008 the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, the examination revealed multiple bruises and sores on virtually all the body of the first applicant. He was taken to the criminal investigation department, where one of the officers suggested that he should confess to the murder of Mr L. As the first applicant refused to do so, some officers started to torture him.

On the same date, 28 June 2008, the investigator appointed a lawyer, Mr M., for the first applicant. He maintained his initial confession during his questioning in the presence of the lawyer. According to the first applicant, he did so fearing further ill-treatment and not having the possibility to talk with the lawyer in private prior to the questioning.

As regards the second applicant, in the morning on 28 June 2008 she was taken from the police station to her home, where a search was conducted. The police allegedly threatened her that if she did not testify against her husband, they would accuse her of a drug-related offence having previously planted drugs in her apartment.

Thereafter the second applicant was taken back to the police station, where she made a statement, allegedly under coercion, that her husband had admitted to her having murdered Mr L. More specifically, the second applicant submitted that three police officers had hit her several times on the head and had pulled her by the hair.

On 1 July 2008 the investigator submitted for approval to the Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor’s Office an application for the first applicant’s pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial. The prosecutor decided to question the first applicant himself before taking a decision. He saw that the first applicant had multiple injuries and concluded that his confession had been extracted by force. Furthermore, the prosecutor noted a number of discrepancies between the confessions of the first applicant and the autopsy report in respect of the victim. The second applicant was questioned too. She submitted that she had incriminated her husband under duress.

As a result, the prosecutor refused to approve the investigator’s application, quashed the latter’s decision on bringing the charges against the first applicant and released him. The prosecutor also directed his subordinates to question both applicants about their ill-treatment in police custody and to duly report their submissions.

While the applicants were making written statements in the office of the deputy prosecutor, at about 10.30 p.m., four officers of the Frunzenskyy District Police Department, broke in. Disregarding the objections of the deputy prosecutor and constraining him by force, they took the applicants out. There were more police officers waiting in the corridor. The applicants were handcuffed and taken to the Frunzenskyy Police Department, located near the prosecutor’s office. On the way, one of the officers allegedly hit the first applicant in the right hip. The first applicant remained detained.

The first applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision about terminated of the criminal proceeding against police officers before the domestic courts.

On 4 July 2012 the Kharkiv Court once again found the first applicant guilty of murder for profit and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property. The court relied, inter alia, on his confessions made on 28 June 2008 and further reiterated on 30 June 2008 in the presence of his lawyer.

In 2012 SLC lawyers filed on behalf of applicants the complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

On June 18, 2015 the European court of human rights holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of both applicants; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of both applicants; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of the first applicant.

 

2. In the following 3 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.

 

Matushonok v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Aleksandrovich Matyushonok, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1985 and is currently serving a life sentence in Prison no. 39.

On 19 September 2003 the Ukrainian authorities instituted a criminal investigation into a murder of two persons. In the context of these proceedings, the applicant was arrested in Belarus on 15 October 2003 and transported to Ukraine. His detention on remand was ordered in his absence; a copy of the order was not served on the applicant. It appears that he did not have access to the investigation file and that he was questioned in the absence of a defence lawyer.

By a judgment of 31 May 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) found the applicant and his three co-accused guilty of aggravated murder of two persons and of other crimes, and sentenced them to life imprisonment ordering confiscation of all their property.

In 2006 the applicant complains to the ECHR  under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his detention on remand and after conviction and that there was no effective investigation into his complaints in that regards. He also complains about the conditions of his detention and transportation.

Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant challenges the fairness of the proceedings in his criminal case in that he was not represented by a lawyer during the hearing before the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

The applicant further alleges under Articles 10 and 34 of the Convention that his correspondence with the Court and the domestic authorities was monitored by the prison administration and that some of his letters were not forwarded at all or were sent out with delay. He also states that the authorities obstructed his access to the criminal case file and refused to provide him with copies of the documents he had requested to substantiate his application to the Court.

On February 27, 2015 the SLC lawyers prepared and submitted to the ECHR the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s arguments set out in their Observations.

 

Pomilyayko v. Ukraine

The applicant, Svitlana Mykolayivna Pomilyayko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Kharkiv.

In the beginning of November 2008 some equipment was stolen from the enterprise in which the applicant worked. The Kharkiv Ordzhonikidze District Police Department invited the applicant and one of her colleagues for questioning in respect of the theft.

On 8 November 2008, at 11.15 a.m., the applicant came to the police and was tortured there.

Officer T. and his colleague S., who was also in the office, intimidated the applicant with a view to making her confess to the investigated theft.

Having failed to get the applicant’s confession, T. and S. made her sit on a chair, put a plastic bag on her head and started to strangle her. At the same time they were hitting her head, face and mouth so that she could not bite through the bag. The applicant fainted several times. When she told the officers she needed to use the toilet, S. hit her into the stomach and to the head. She fainted once again and urinated involuntarily. Some time later the applicant noticed the presence of another officer, P., in the office.

After several hours of ill-treatment, the applicant was taken to another office where she stayed for about twenty minutes. Thereafter she was brought before a female officer who conducted her formal questioning. At about 6 p.m. the applicant signed the questioning report. She was then taken to the office of the head of the search unit who stated that she was the main suspect in the theft case and that all her colleagues had indicated her as the likely thief.

Next day the applicant wrote the application about ill-treatment. Last time the applicant enquired about the investigation progress in March and May 2011. Her enquiries remained without answer.

In 2011 the SLC lawyer complainted to the ECtHR under Article 3 and 13 about the torture, ill-treatment and absence of effective investigation the applicant’s complaints about the fact of torture by policemen, lack of effective domestic investigation into her complaints to that regard.

On May 26, 2015 the SLC lawyer prepared and submitted to the ECHR the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s arguments set out in their Observations.

 

Ustimenko v. Ukraine

Mr Ustimenko lodged an administrative claim for pension recalculation against the Department of the Pension Fund in Amur‑Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District of Dnipropetrovsk.

On 1 December 2010 the Amur‑Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, having considered his claim by way of abridged administrative procedure, allowed the claim.

On 13 January 2011 the defendant lodged an appeal against the judgment.

On 11 April 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal as lodged ten days after the time-limit for appeal had expired.

On 1 June 2011 the District Court issued a writ of enforcement indicating that the judgment had become final on 11 April 2011.

On 15 August 2011 the defendant lodged a new appeal requesting that the Court of Appeal extend the time-limit for its submission on the ground that the defendant had received a copy of the judgment of 1 December 2010 with a delay.

On 26 October 2011 a judge of the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal ruled to schedule consideration of the question of extension of the time-limit for appeal for 26 January 2012.

On 26 January 2012 the Dnipropetrovsk Court extended the time-limit for the defendant’s appeal. It recounted the sequence of procedural events in the case from 1 December 2010 to 15 August 2011 described above but did not state why it believed that extension of the time-limit for appeal was warranted.

On 27 January 2012 a judge of the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal ruled to open appeal proceedings, to send to the parties copies of the ruling and of the appeal and to invite the applicant to provide his reply to the appeal.

On 13 June 2012 the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and rejected the applicant’s claim.

On 27 November 2012 the defendant sent a letter to Mr Ustimenko informing him that his pension had been reduced in accordance with the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal of 13 June 2012.

In 2013 Mr Ustimenko applied to the European Court of human right with a complaint on violation of Article 6 of the Convention. He complained that he was not duly informed about the proceedings on appeal and was not sent a copy of the defendant’s appeal in his respective cases.

He also complained that the quashing of the final judgment of 1 December 2010 in his favour breached the principle of legal certainty.

In December 2014 the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

On 27 March 2015 a lawyer of the SLC sent to the Court on behalf of Mr Ustimenko the reply to the Government’s Observations.

 

3. In the next cases lawyers of the Legal Aid Centre prepared and lodged to the ECtHR complete applications on violations of the Convention or applications on requesting interim measures according to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court

 

3.1. Cases originated from the ATO (“war conflict cases”)

 

“Prisoner of War” during the military conflict in Eastern Ukraine

Ukrainian citizens, Mr. Usarov, Mr. Oliyarnyk, Mr. Scheibler, Mr. Stepanov, Mr. Skybchyk, Mr. Yurchenko, Mr. Vilorov, Mr. Sahnyuk, Mr. Tobeychyk, Mr. Hryshanyk, Mr. Babchyi, Mr. Stasiuk, Mr. Manzyk, Mr. Pokumeyko, Mr. Lynchuk, Mr. Deinega, Mr. Tkachenko, Mr. Horbatenko, Mr. Marynets, Mr. Kaidan, Mr. Kuharets, Mr. Dzhanbekov, Mr. Lazutyn, Mr. Kachkovsky, Mr. Tynkalyuk, Mr. Hyn’ko, Mr. Kushnir, Mr. Lynev, Mr. Starovoytov, Mr. Fomenko, Mr. Shlyakhov, Mr. Knish, Mr. Pavlov, Mr. Goviadovskyi, Mr. Nazarenko, Mr. Riabov (hereinafter – the applicants) participated in the anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Eastern Ukraine in the body of Ukrainian military forces. On 29-30 August, 2014, in course of military operation at Ilovaysk in Donetsk region, under different circumstances they were captured by armed persons in Russian military unmarked uniform on military armed vehicles. The applicants point out that, according to the uniform, weapons, equipment, the language and the accent, the national identity, they were members of the armed forces of the Russian Federation.

The applicants, together with other their comrade-in-arms has been transferred by members of the unit without insignia to the members of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic" and had been detained from the end of August, 2014 to 26 December 2014 (Mr. Pavlov was released on 31 January 2015 and      Mr. Knish on 22 February 2014).  

After a while, Babchyi, Stasiuk, Manzyk, Pokumeyko, Lynchuk, Deinega,  Tkachenko, Horbatenko, Marynets, Kaidan, Kuharets, Dzhanbekov, Lazutyn, Kachkovsky, Tynkalyuk, Hyn’ko, Kushnir, Lynev, Starovoytov, Fomenko, Shlyakhov, Knish, Pavlov were transported to the building of the Security Service of Ukraine in Donentsk, Usarov, Oliyarnyk, Scheibler, Stepanov, Skybchyk were transported to city Antratsyt in Lugansk region, Yurchenko, Vilorov, Sahnyuk, Tobeychyk were transported to city Snizhne in Donetsk region and Hryshanyk was transported to city Ilovaysk in Donetsk region.

After the apprehension, the applicants were searched during which they were beaten and humiliated, then they were interrogated under the threat to be murdered for pro-Ukrainian position. Russian journalists questioned the applicants with the questions in degrading manner and recorded the interviews on a camera, eg.: “Why didn’t you refuse to shoot peaceful people?”, insulted them etc.

During their detention the applicants had been ill-treated, sometimes they were cruelty beaten or endangered to be immediately killed  (executed) without any grounds, physically forced for compulsory labor  particularly to unhealthy and morally overwhelming work – to clear the toilets 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.

On October 16, 2014, the applicants were separated, part of them was transported to the temporary detention facilities of Ilovaysk, the others continued to be kept in the basement of the building of the Security Service of Ukraine in Donentsk.

The applicants were kept in improper life conditions (in small overcrowded 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 nutrition, they had no access to drinking water and had to drink technical water. Several times during the detention period the applicants were interrogate in the same brutal manner as it was at the time of the initial interrogation.

On Decevber 26, 2014 all the applicants were exchanged for the rebels, and released from custody.

In connection with applicant’s illegal detention and keeping in custody, tortures, cruel and degrading treatment, in March 2015, the lawyer of SLC applied to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

 

Burenko v. Ukraine

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Burenko was mobilized for military service participated in the anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Eastern Ukraine in the body of Ukrainian military forces. On 23 August, 2014, in course of military operation near Ilovaysk in Donetsk region, under different circumstances he was captured by armed persons in Russian military unmarked uniform on military armed vehicles. According to the uniform, weapons, equipment, the language and the accent, the national identity, they were members of the armed forces of the Russian Federation.

On 24-25 August 2014, the applicant and other Ukrainian soldiers were used as “a living shield” during a military engagement. After the military engagement they had to inter the bodies of died Ukrainian soldiers. Also they were examined on their personal data on video.

On 26 August 2014, the applicant has been transferred by  the members of the unit without insignia to the members of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic" and had been detained from the end of August 2014, to 26 December 2014.

After a while, he was transported to the building of Police station in city Snezhnoe. There he was placed into a little  patio under the open sky where 40 men had already been placed. There the applicant’s examination was conducted. He was asked from what unit he had been, how much military technique had been from the Ukrainian side, why he had come to fight against them.

Then the applicant was placed into a cell of a police temporary detention centre (ITT). This cell was for two persons but in fact six persons were placed into it.

On 27 August 2014, the applicant was placed into a bus and transported to the building of the Security Service of Ukraine in Donentsk. During the transportation his hands were tied, he was beaten and humiliated. In the building he was placed into a place of an archive, and there he spent the rest of his detention.

The applicant was kept in improper life conditions (in technical areas, without beds and bedding, ha was taken out to the toilet four times a day) and he was 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. During four months the applicant also had low quality and poor nutrition, he had no access to drinking water and had to drink technical water during his visits to the toilet. Sometimes a lot of people (near 140 persons) were kept in archive. There was not enough place for them all.

In the beginning of October, the applicant was forced for work on stock as a loader.

On 26 Decevber 2014, the applicant was exchanged for the rebels, and released from custody, whilst.

In connection with applicant’s illegal detention and keeping in custody, tortures, cruel and degrading treatment, in April 2015, the lawyer of SLC applied to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

 

Gajewski v. Ukraine

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Gajewski was mobilized for military service participated in the anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Eastern Ukraine in the body of Ukrainian military forces. On 23 August, 2014, in course of military operation near Ilovaysk in Donetsk region, under different circumstances he was captured by armed persons in Russian military unmarked uniform on military armed vehicles. The applicant point out that, according to the uniform, weapons, equipment, the language and the accent, the national identity, they were members of the armed forces of the Russian Federation.

 On 24-25 August 2014, the applicant and other Ukrainian soldiers were used as “a living shield” during a military engagement. After the military engagement they had to inter the bodies of died Ukrainian soldiers. Also they were examined on their personal data on video.

On 26 August 2014, the applicant has been transferred by  the members of the unit without insignia to the members of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk People's Republic" and had been detained from the end of August 2014, to 26 December 2014.

After a while, he was transported to the building of Police station in city Snezhnoe. There he was placed into a little  patio under the open sky where 40 men had already been placed. There the applicant’s examination was conducted. He was asked from what unit he had been, how much military technique had been from the Ukrainian side, why he had come to fight against them.

Then the applicant was placed into a cell of a police temporary detention centre (ITT). This cell was for six persons but in fact 30 persons were placed into it.

On 27 August 2014, the applicant was placed into a bus and transported to the building of the Security Service of Ukraine in Donentsk. During the transportation his hands were tied, he was beaten and humiliated. In the building he was placed into a place of an archive, and there he spent the rest of his detention.

The applicant was kept in improper life conditions (in technical areas, without beds and bedding, ha was taken out to the toilet four times a day) and he was 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. During four months the applicant also had low quality and poor nutrition, he had no access to drinking water and had to drink technical water during his visits to the toilet. Sometimes a lot of people (near 140 persons) were kept in archive. There was not enough place for them all.

In the beginning of October, the applicant was forced for work on stock as a loader.

On 26 Decevber 2014, after Russian journalists questioned the applicant with the questions in degrading manner and recorded the interviews on a camera the applicant was exchanged for the rebels, and released from custody.

In connection with applicant’s illegal detention and keeping in custody, tortures, cruel and degrading treatment, in April 2015, the lawyer of SLC applied to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

 

Goloviy v. Ukraine and Russia

Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Goloviy participated in the anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Eastern Ukraine in the body of Ukrainian military forces.

On15 - 24 July 2014, his military unit was  holding a defence line at Khmelnytskyi in Lugansk region.

On 25 July 2014, he was captured by armed persons in Russian uniform on military armed vehicles. The applicant point out that, according to the uniform and the chevrons with the Russian flag on it, weapons, equipment, the language and the accent, the national identity, they were members of the armed forces of the Russian Federation. They did not hide the fact that they were forces of Russian arms.

The applicant was asked to take off his military uniform, to give away his belongings and the telephone, to change into civilian clothes. All his actions were under control of the invaders. After that he was examined by military officer of Russian special forces on the matters: who he was, from what unit he was, how much technique and how many soldiers Ukrainian side had, where this technique and soldiers were located. Also personal data, names of relatives, their numbers were asked. During the examination the applicant had been humiliated, endangered to be ill-treated or immediately killed (executed) without any grounds, the weapon was demonstrated to him. The examination was captured on video and recorded.

In 11 p. m. the applicant  was moved to the frontier post. There he was fed once.

On 26 July 2015, he was placed into a bus and was moved to the main gate check point. There he was asked if he wanted to stay in Russia as a displaced person, but he refused. Then the applicant was transported across the border without any documents and placed into the room for examination of cargo vehicles. There he was examined by 10 military officers of Investigative Committee of Russia on the same matters: who he was, from what unit he was, how much technique and how many soldiers Ukrainian side had, where this military technique and soldiers were located. Also personal data, names of relatives, their numbers were asked. This examination has lasted for all night and was accompanied by a level of the threat of violence and physical attack. Also during the examination Russian journalists questioned the applicant in degrading manner and recorded the interviews on a camera. If somebody refused to answer the journalist’s questions they were beaten.

Mr Goloviy had contused wound and needed medical aid. Medical aid was not given to him.

For several times during the examination the applicant was asked if he wanted to win refugee status. After his clear flat refusal to that, he was delivered in the territory of Ukraine where he was released to Ukrainian side on grounds of the acceptance and transfer certificate.

In connection with applicant’s inhumane and humiliating treatment, the lawyer of SLC applied to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

 

Case of Topal v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Vladimir Topal, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Odessa region, Ukraine.

On June 2014, by the order of the commander of the anti-terrorist operation the applicant’s brother Oleksandr Topal, 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 August 6, 2015 the column of military machines was fired by terrorists by mortars, BM-21 "Grad" weapons and small arms near Nyzhniy Nagol’chik of Luhansk region. The applicant’s brother was injured and missed after this fire attack.

Since then about the fate of the applicant's brother nothing has known, his name was not found either among the list of live troops, not among the list of the dead soldiers.

On February 27, 2015 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR a request on applying urgent measures on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the applicant's brother is in serious danger due to the fact that he was injured and he is  in the territory under the control of terrorist organizations.

The lawyer of SLC is going to complaint to the ECtHR under Article 2,3 about the missing of Mr Topal under circumstances that hazardous to his  life and health.

 

Case of Kislitskiy and Kislitskaya v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Nadezhda Kislitskaya, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Odessa region, Ukraine.

On June 2014, by the order of the commander of the anti-terrorist operation the applicant’s son Oleh Kislitskiy, 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 August 6, 2015 the column of military machines was fired by terrorists by mortars, BM-21 "Grad" weapons and small arms near Nyzhniy Nagol’chik of Luhansk region. The applicant’s brother was injured and missed after this fire attack.

Since then about the fate of the applicant's brother nothing has known, his name was not found either among the list of live troops, not among the list of the dead soldiers.

On March 6, 2015 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR a request on applying urgent measures on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the applicant's son is in serious danger due to the fact that he was injured and he is  in the territory under the control of terrorist organizations.

The lawyer of SLC is going to complaint to the ECtHR under Article 2,3 about the missing of Mr Kislitskiy under circumstances that hazardous to his  life and health.

 

Makukh v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Alla Makukh, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Dniepropetrovsk region, Ukraine.

On January 2015, by the order of the commander of the anti-terrorist operation the applicant’s son Oleksandr Makukh, arrived to Donetsk and Luhansk region for taking part in the anti-terrorist operation.

On February 9, 2015 the applicant's son was captured by the troops of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Russian troops.

On February 10, 2015 on the site «Youtube» was published a video of the Russian TV company «Lifenews», which reported that the Ukrainian military men, whose names were not called, were in captured by rebels of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. The applicant recognized her son on this video.

On February 21, 2015 in the framework of the Minsk agreement 139 soldiers were released from captivity, including soldiers from the battalion "Kryvbas", however, the applicant's son was not among them.

On March 23, 2015 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR a request on applying urgent measures on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the applicant's son is in serious danger due to the fact that he is captured in the territory under the control of terrorist organizations.

The lawyer of SLC is going to complaint to the ECtHR under Article 3 and 5 about the helding of Mr Makukh in a hostage under circumstances that hazardous to his  life and health and the absence of reasonable suspicion at the determination of the measures of restraint.

 

Lazarenko v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Nataliia Lazarenko, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Dniepropetrovsk region, Ukraine.

On January 2015, by the order of the commander of the anti-terrorist operation the applicant’s husband, arrived to Donetsk and Luhansk region for taking part in the anti-terrorist operation.

On February 9, 2015 the applicant's husband was captured by the troops of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Russian troops.

On February 10, 2015 on the site «Youtube» was published a video of the Russian TV company «Lifenews», which reported that the Ukrainian military men, whose names were not called, were in captured by rebels of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. The applicant recognized her husband on this video.

On February 21, 2015 in the framework of the Minsk agreement 139 soldiers were released from captivity, including soldiers from the battalion "Kryvbas", however, the applicant's son was not among them.

On March 23, 2015 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR a request on applying urgent measures on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the applicant's son is in serious danger due to the fact that he is captured in the territory under the control of terrorist organizations.

The lawyer of SLC is going to complaint to the ECtHR under Article 3 and 5 about the holding of Mr Lazarenko in a hostage under circumstances that hazardous to his  life and health and the absence of reasonable suspicion at the determination of the measures of restraint.

 

Gerasimenko v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Nataliia Gerasimenko, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Dniepropetrovsk region, Ukraine.

On January 2015, by the order of the commander of the anti-terrorist operation the applicant’s husband, arrived to Donetsk and Luhansk region for taking part in the anti-terrorist operation.

On February 9, 2015 the applicant's husband was captured by the troops of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Russian troops.

On February 10, 2015 on the site «Youtube» was published a video of the Russian TV company «Lifenews», which reported that the Ukrainian military men, whose names were not called, were in captured by rebels of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic. The applicant recognized her husband on this video.

On February 21, 2015 in the framework of the Minsk agreement 139 soldiers were released from captivity, including soldiers from the battalion "Kryvbas", however, the applicant's son was not among them.

On March 23, 2015 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR a request on applying urgent measures on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the applicant's son is in serious danger due to the fact that he is captured in the territory under the control of terrorist organizations.

The lawyer of SLC is going to complaint to the ECtHR under Article 3 and 5 about the holding of Mr Gerasimenko in a hostage under circumstances that hazardous to his life and health and the absence of reasonable suspicion at the determination of the measures of restraint.

 

Varfolomeeva v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Olena Varfolomeeva, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Izrael.

On January 9, 2015 the applicant's daughter Ms Mariya Varfolomeeva, was detained by military forces of Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) while trying to photograph residential buildings in the city of Luhansk.

She was accused of collaboration with the volunteer battalions "Aydar" and "The Right Sector", that was expressed in the fact that she allegedly transferred photos and location coordinates of the armed forces of units of the LPR.

On March 27, 2015 in media was published an article in which said that investigation of the case against Mariya Varfolomeyeva has completed, the investigation is completely proven her guilt. She found guilty in supporting of the volunteer battalions "Aydar" and "The Right Sector", coordinating fire of the systems of multiple rocket launchers "Grad" and "Uragan" in Luhansk. The applicant's daughter could face up to fifteen years in prison.

On April 1, 2015 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR a request on applying urgent measures on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the applicant's daughter is in serious danger due to the fact that she is captured in the territory under the control of terrorist organizations.

On April 27, 2015 the lawyer of SLC complainted to the ECtHR under Article 3 and 5 about the holding of Ms Varfolomeeva in a hostage under circumstances that hazardous to her life and health and the absence of reasonable suspicion at the determination of the measures of restraint to her.

 

Krutolevich v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Vladimir Vladimirovich Krutolevich, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.

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 August 28, 2015 the column of military machines was fired by terrorists near Stanitsa Luhanskaya of Luhansk region. The applicant was injured and was taken by terrorist as a hostage.

The applicant was wounded - an eye was knocked out and split the entire left side of his body, he was seriously injured. Part of the applicant's friends were killed on the spot, two others were seriously injured. From August 29, 2014 during the week the Applicant was held  in a general ward, where he was guarded. All this time, the applicant was not fed, rebels given him only some water.

On September 4, 2014 the applicant was transferred to the former premise of editorial office of newspaper “Vechernyy Alchevsk” where he was holding before the October 1, 2014.

On October 1, 2014 the applicant was transferred in the bulding of former Traffic police OF Alchevsk. All this time the applicant worked hard under circumstances that hazardous to his life and health.

The applicant was holding in captivity during 4 months and was released on December 5, 2014.

On June 4, 2015 the SLC lawyer complainted to the ECtHR under Article 3, 4 and 5 of Convention about ill-treatment and compulsion  the applicant as a hostage to work under circumstances that hazardous to his  life and health, and also the absence of reasonable suspicion at the determination of the measures of restraint to him.

 

Oleynik v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Andrey Vitalievych Oleynik, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Kirivograd region, Ukraine.

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 August 29, 2015 the column of military machines was fired by terrorists near Chervonoselskoye  of Luhansk region. The applicant was seriously injured and was taken by terrorist as a hostage.

From August 31, 2014 the applicant was captured in the premise of former SSU in Donetsk city, where he was guarded. All this time, the applicant was not fed normally, rebels given him only some water.

The applicant and other prisoners were guarded by armed warmen by the Donetsk People’s Republic, who constantly beat the applicant and his co-workers.

All this time the applicant worked hard under circumstances that hazardous to his life and health.

The applicant was holding in captivity during 4 months and was released on December 26, 2014.

On June 4, 2015 the SLC lawyer complainted to the ECtHR under Article 4 of Convention about ill-treatment and compulsion the applicant as a hostage to work under circumstances that hazardous to his  life and health.

 

Marchenko and Moroz

The applicant Yuriy Marchenko, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

On April 10, 2015 the applicant’s brother gone missing in Luhansk, in the territory of in the anti-terrorist operation. It’s obvious that the kidnapping of applicant’s brother due to the fact that the adhered to pro-Ukrainian position and did not hide expressing this point of view both personally and in telephone conversations with family and friends.

Since then about the fate of the applicant's brother nothing has known, his name was not found either among the list of live persons, not among the list of the dead civilians.

On June 5, 2015 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant submitted an application to the Security Service of Ukraine and  to the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Luhansk region with a request to the Unified State Register of pre-trial investigation of his statement about the disappearance of his brother and to provide help in his release from captivity.

On June 8, 2015 the lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR a request on applying urgent measures on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the applicant's brother is in serious danger due to the fact that he was injured and he is  in the territory under the control of terrorist organizations.

 

3.2. Other cases

 

Konovalchuk case

On 16 September 2013v Mrs. Konovalchuk was sentenced by the Malynovsliy district court of Odessa to the final punishment in the form of 6 years and 6 months of imprisonment with confiscation of her property. The sentence was taken into force on 19 August 2014. 

Mrs. Konovalchuk was delivered for serving thea sentence to the Daryivska correctional colony no. 10 in Kherson region.

During all the period of imprisonment in this colony Mrs. Konovalchuk was not provided with proper medical assistance. Mrs. Konovalchuk suffered from diseases that are included to the List of diseases that give the grounds for submission of materials to court for release of prisoners from further serving a punishment (Annex 2 to the "Order of the provision of medical assistance to prisoners" approved by the joint order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the Ministry of Health of Ukraine no. 1348/5/572 from 08.15.2014). Thus, she had a legal basis to be released fro the colony under a provision of Article 84 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, the administration of the colony, despite the presence of the grounds, did not apply to the court with a motion to release Mrs. Konovalchuk from further serving a punishment due to the disease.

Because of lodging a cassation appeal to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on consideration of civil and criminal cases, on 10 March 2015 Mrs Konovalchuk was transferred to the Kyiv SIZO for the period of consideration of the appeal.

Having taken the case, the SLC lawyer on 28 April 2015 filed a request to the administration of the Kyiv SIZO about providing information of the state of health of Mrs. Konovalchuk.

On 21 May 215, the lawyer got a reply with a medical certificate of the SIZO in which it was mentioned that Mrs. Konoalchuk was put on the Registry of the infectious diseases physician and the therapist of the medical division of the institution with the following diagnoses:
• HIV infection of the clinical stage IV, severe immunosuppression.
• Orofarynhialnyy candidiasis.
• Chronic hepatitis of unknown stage in the activity.
• C-r colli uteri T3 N0 Mx II cells. Group (malignant tumor of the cervix).
• Ovarian cysts.
• fibroma of vocal cords.

He got a specific scheme for antiretroviral therapy according to the prescription of  the infectious diseases physician and was recommended consultation gynecologist routinely and additional  clinical laboratory examination of CD4 - every 6 months.

So Mrs. Konovalchuk suffered from a number of serious diseases, including HIV of the clinical stage IV, as well as a cancer of the stage requiring surgery, which greatly complicated the course of other diseases, and despite such serious conditions she was held not in a medical unit of the prison, but in the cell on the general terms.

On 25 May 2015, the lawyer filed a motion for release of Mrs. Konovalchuk from punishment due to the disease, which according to Article 539 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine shall be considered by the court within 10 days.

On 8 June 2015 the administration of the SIZO sent the response to the lawyer’s request about state of health of Mrs. Konovalchuk to the judge who considered the criminal case. According to the response and the SIZO’s certificate the state of health of Mrs. Konovalchuk is regarded as of medium gravity with the tendency to deterioration, which could lead to lethal outcome, the need is also pointed out for radiation treatment that cannot be achieved in conditions of SIZO.

In spite of significant health problems of Mrs.  Konovalchuk the  Shevchenko District Court of Kyiv examined the motion only on 25 June 2015, and refused to satisfy applications for release of Mrs. Konovalchuk from punishment due to the disease, even without appointment of a special medical commission, about which the lawyer had requested the court.

On 30 June 2015 the lawyer lodged an application to the European Court of human rights about applying interim measures according to the Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court.

 

Nikitin v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Nikitin is a Russian national, who is living in Ukraine.

On 31 August 2014, Mr. Medvedev was killed in Severodonetsk town of Luhansk region. In that day the information on his murder was entered to the URPI.

In the morning of 10 September 2014, Mr. Nikitin was detained in his rental apartment by the police and was delivered to Severodonetsk District Police Station. In that time a search in his rental apartment was conducted. The gun fitted with silencers was found there. In the evening of the same day, the protocol of his detention was executed.

On 11 September 2014, Mr Nikitin was officially notified about suspicion in commitment of a crime under Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (willful killing).

On 12 September 2014, the remand on custody was imposed by an investigating judge and Mr Nikitin was delivered to Starobelsky pre-trial detention centre.

On 3 November 2014, the term of pre-trial investigation was extended.

On 5 November 2014, the term of Mr Nikitin’s detention in custody was extended to 9 December 2014.

On 3 December 2014, an indictment was made up, and additionally to the first suspicion in willful murder Mr Nikitin was informed about new suspicion in committing a murder and in illegal weapon handing.

On 9 December 2014  a panel of judges of Severodonetsk District Court appointed a preliminary hearing on 25 December 2014. At the same time, the court does not consider the matter of prolonging of terms of Mr. Nikitin preliminary detention.

On 10 December 2014, a motion on release in Nikitin 's from custody was submitted to Starobelsky pre-trial detention centre by a lawyer of SLC, but it was declined.

On 11 December 2014, the SLC lawyer lodged the  motion to investigative judge on immediate Nikitin’s deliver by the administration of Starobelsky pre-trial detention centre for clarifying the matter of lawfulness of his holding in custody, grounded with the absence of judicial decision for continuance of Mr. Nikitin holding in custody, but the judge refused the motion..

On 15 December 2014, the lawyer lodged the appeal to the Appellate Court on the investigative judge decision, but the appeal has not been granted as well.

On 2 February 2015, the preliminary hearing was conducted, and the panel of judges  extended the term of Nikitin’s preliminary detention. 

In course of the defence, the SLC lawyer conducted his own examination of the a crime scene, questioned potential witnesses and submitted a motion on the witnesses’ examination in the court. As well he got the court’s order he to be acquainted with a record of a mobile phone company regarding to the place of location of specific persons at the time of the murder and of the following investigatory actions.

The criminal proceeding is pending.

On 4 March 2015, a criminal complaint on the fact of Nikitin’s illegal detention was filed to the prosecutor’s office in Lugansk region.

On 16 March 2015, the criminal complaint was sent to the prosecutor’s office in Severodonetsk city. Nothing has been heart from the prosecutor’s office in Severodonetsk city till now.

On 10 March 2015, the lawyer lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights on a violation of Article 5 of the Convention.

 

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

 

4.1.  “Mobilization” to Ukrainian military forces cases

In course of routine recruitment (twice a year) and mobilization to the Ukrainian Military Forces (hereinafter - the UMF) on the basis of the Presidential Decree issued due to the necessity to participate in the ATO on the East of Ukraine there have been disclosed specific violations in relation to the potential combatants. In fact, the recruiting process included to itself new kind of arrest (detention) of the persons without legal basis carried out jointly by the police and officers of a military enlistment offices, keeping them in a some sort of military «quazi-custody», combined in some case with reluctance to specific family conditions (having three own minor children or custody etc.),  a prohibition on medical grounds for the persons to be mobilized and serve in army, and even  with issuance of new medical examination certificates and other medical documents. In the most of the cases, the persons wanted to serve, and they were not previously called to the mobilization centre, as it prescribed by law. The persons, factually detained on the streets, were prepared with papers for the service and in the atmosphere of secrecy to their relatives have been transported to preparatory military camps.

Although the court had not recognized violations on the part of mobilization authority, after the legal actions of the SLC lawyers and media campaign the next mobilization actions were less extensive, with possibility for relatives to have a meeting and to say “Goodbay” to their son, husband, brother, friend.

 

Case of Markoboh

The applicant, Vladyslav Olehovych Markoboh, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Alchevsk, temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine.

On June 24, 2015 near the Kharkiv University the applicant was arrested by two police officers and an employee of the military enlistment office, he was delivered to the Kharkiv military enlistment office.

On June 25, 2015 of the military enlistment office workers refused to allow the SLC lawyer to the applicant, referred to the fact that there was no oral order of the head of the military enlistment office. At the same day the SLC lawyer filed an application about the crime about violation of the applicant’s right to defense and legal aid and the enforced deprivation of liberty of the applicant.

On June 26, 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Leninsky district court in the order of Article 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine for the immediate release of the applicant  from the premises of the Kharkiv military enlistment office.

In the same day the court hearing was provided. The SLC lawyer filed a motion on the transferring of the applicant to the court and questioning him about circumstances of his detention, but it was rejected by the judge.

The SLC lawyer had filed an appeal against this decision and asked the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region to overturn the decision and send the case for a new consideration.

 

Case of Zhupinsky

The applicant, Vladislav Gulamovych Zhupinsky, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Lubotin, Kharkiv region.

On June 24, 2015 near the university the applicant was arrested by 2 police officers and  an employee of the military enlistment office, he was delivered to the Kharkiv military enlistment office.

On June 25, 2015 of the military enlistment office workers refused to allow the SLC lawyer to the applicant, referred to the fact that there was no oral order of the head of the military enlistment office. At the same day the SLC lawyer filed an application about the crime about violation of the applicant’s right to defense and legal aid and the enforced deprivation of liberty of the applicant.

On June 26, 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Leninsky district court in the order of Article 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine for the immediate release of the applicant  from the premises of the Kharkiv military enlistment office.

In the same day the court hearing was provided. The SLC lawyer filed a motion on the transferring of the applicant to the court and questioning him about circumstances of his detention, but it was rejected by the judge.

The SLC lawyer had filed an appeal against this decision and asked the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region to overturn the decision and send the case for a new consideration.

 

Case of Kucheryavy

The applicant, Anatoliy Aleksandrovych Kucheryavy, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Kharkiv.

On June 24, 2015 while the applicant was on the trolley stop, 2 policemen asked him to show them his documents. The applicant declared that they are not with them, and then policemen invited him to the patrol car, and delivered him to the Oktyabrsky military enlistment office.

Under the threat of criminal liability for evasion of military service, the applicant signed the necessary documents. The applicant was sent to the passage of the military medical commission. The results confirmed that the applicant was unfit for military service.

On June 29, 2015 the applicant and the SLC lawyer visited the Oktyabrsky military enlistment office and submitted to the officer on duty an application about the fact that the applicant had a mother who is pensioner, and a wife, who was on maternity leave and 2 little children and with the statement to add these documents to the personal file of materials about the applicant in the Oktyabrsky military enlistment office.

 

4.2. Other cases

 

krysh case

In March 2012, Mr Akrysh with three accomplices pre-engaged to exercise theft. They arrived to the house where hosts of the house should be absent. Mr Akrysh stayed outside and two other accomplices got into the house and committed violent robbery. They did not told about the circumstances of the event to Mr Akrysh. On the grounds of this fact, a criminal proceeding was opened. Mr Akrysh’s case file was separated from two others accomplices.

He admit his guilt in exercise the theft but he did not admit his guilt in the violent robbery.

On 9 April 2013, a court passed a judgment. Mr Akrysh was convicted and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment for the violent robbery.

On 16 July 2013, the judgment was upheld by a decision of the appellate decision.

Akrysh did not agree with appellate decision. He applied to a lawyer of SLC to help him to prepare a cassation appeal, grounding it among others with the fact of erroneous taking into account his previous criminal records. The lawyer collected all the documents about his previous convictions.

On 2 March 2015, an addendum to cassation appeal was filed. The appeal was grounded with an abuse of procedural law and inconsistence of the Appellate Court decision to the facts of the case. Also a failure to prove Akrysh’s guilt in robbery was grounded in the appeal.

On 12 March 2015, the cassation appeal was granted partially. The judgment was canceled and the case was remanded for the second examination to Appeal Court.

The criminal proceeding is pending.

 

Baluk case

Mr Baluk, is a Ukrainian national, who is detained.

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

The SLC lawyer submitted a petition to the court for release from serving the sentence of Mr B. due to his health condition. The SLC lawyer provided to the court all the documents proving grounds for release from serving the sentence of Mr B., paid special attention to the fact that he couldn’t work all the time in accordance certificates the doctor.

On May 6, 2015 the court rejected the motion of the SLC lawyer on the ground of lack of “good behavior” on the part of Mr B. during the last year.

On May, 15 the SLC lawyer submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal and asked to prolong the terms of appealing, but the Court of Appeal rejected this appeal without any legal grounds, although the SLC lawyer had provided evidences of the validity of the reasons for missed the deadline.

The SLC lawyer is going to appeal this decision of the Court of Appeal.

 

Bashkirova case

In April 2015, Mrs. Bashkirova was detained for the attempt of drug trafficking on the territory of Lychakivska correctional colony 30 (“LCC 30”). She passed a parsel, in which nothing prohibited was found. A personal search was conducted on the post. Nothing was found. Then she was searched in operating unit. During the search the buprenorphine was found in her bra.

She was delivered to Shevchenkivskyy District Police Station. She was asked to write the confession of guilt but she refused. Then she was beaten. At that time, Mr Bashkirova was pregnant. Due to the obtained hits, hematomas formed on her uterus. In three weeks, a complaint was filed and a forensic medical examination was conducted in course of that other injuries were found.

Because of use of the force, she wrote the confession in committing the crime. Anyway, during two months she was in the status of a witness.

As Bashkirova periodically had mental treatment in specialized institutions because she has been in depression from 2006 after the first pregnancy, due to this the case hearing has not been finished. Most of witnesses have already been examined. At the same time, no complaints on illegal actions were filed in course of judicial proceedings

Two forensic psychiatric examinations were conducted. The fact of the partial realization of her actions during the commission of the crime was established. For several times Bashkirova has been in a hospital treatment because of her psychiatric illness. Besides this, she is disabled person of group I because of asthma.

Now the forensic medical examination is conducting. Also, the documents on Bashkirova’s detention and copies of registry are being provided to the court.

The proceedings are pending at the court.

On 12 June 2015, Bashkirova was notified about suspicion on a theft offence. Any evidence was not presented.

 

Efremov case

Mr. Efremov, is a Ukrainian national, who is serving his sentence in Berdychiv correctional colony 70 (“BCC 70”).

Efremov applied to the lawyer with the complaints on his improper medical treatment in BCC 70. The SLC lawyer requested the information on health problem and the medical treatment provide and diagnosis detected in the medical facilities of Raykivska correctional colony 73 (“RCC 73”). According to the reply of the RCC of 30 June 2015, Mr E. had some chronic dermatology disease that caused a lot of suffering to him because of lack of treatment.

 

Dudchenko case

Mr. Dudchenko is a Ukrainian national, who is lives in Lviv.

He was detained on suspicion of throwing the drugs in the territory of Lychakivska correctional colony 30 (“LCC 30”). His detention was not registered. In fact, Mr Dudchenko has been imprisoned for 12 hours.

In April 2014, the information on commitment a crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug activity) was filed to the URPTI.

For a long time, Mr Dudchenko has been in the status of witness, not a victim.

In February 2015, a notification about suspicion in commitment of the crime was issued but was not handed in to Dudchenko because of his absence in the place of investigation. Also, he was put on the wanted list. When he has been detained for the second time a protocol of detention has not been drafted.

The case with an act of indictment was directed to the court.

On the basis of the case file, the SLC lawyer has the grounded opinion that the prosecution has a plenty of shortcomings. During the case hearings, the examinations of several witnesses were provided. Search officers were also examined, and they had different versions of events.

The proceedings are pending in court, and the lawyer tries to prove that Mr Dudchenko is not guilty in the crime he is charged with.

 

Geynyk case

Mr Oleh Geynyk, is a Ukrainian national, who is detained in Lviv penalty colony #48.

Over the sentence Mr G. received the 3nd group of a disability due to HIV+ and two related diseases - tuberculosis and hepatitis.

The administration of the colony refused to submitting a petition to the court for release from serving his sentence of Mr G. due to his illness using. The administration motived its refusal by the fact that  he didn’t working  in the colony.

The SLC lawyer filed motions about the condition of Mr G. ‘s health. Also the SLC lawyer is going to submit a petition to the court for release from serving the sentence of Mr G. due to his health state.

From April 1, 2015 the Lviv detention center did not admit all motions of the SLC lawyer concerning the condition of health of Mr G.

In May, 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on involvement her as a defender of Mr G. to the court.

 

Case on inactivity of the GPO of Ukraine

Correspondent Vasil Melnychuk has received the information about beating and possible illegal transfer of prisoners to another detention facility.

On 28.11.2014 a criminal complaint based on this fact was filed to General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, but the prosecutor who was present at 9 pm refused to register said complaint. On this fact the militia was called to register this fact. Upon reviewing the record created by the militia staff it was sent to General Prosecutor’s Office.

On the fact of the prosecutor’s refusal to register a plea the correspondent Mr M. on 01.12.2014 sent a criminal complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office. On 19.12.2014, the General Prosecutor’s Office filed a denial of starting criminal proceedings on that complaint.

On 25.12.2014 the inactivity which is consisted of in not starting criminal proceedings was challenged in court and satisfied, after that on 12.01.2015 the pre-trial investigation was started.

On the results of the pre-trial investigation on 06.03.2015 was issued the ruling about ending the criminal proceedings. On 19.03.2015 said ruling was challenged in court and reversed on the fact of discrepancy in the facts of the case and their incomplete establishment, the pre-trial investigation was resumed.

On the results of the investigation, it was established that contrary to the requirements of the article 214 of the CCP, the General Prosecutor’s Office lacked the persons responsible for registering criminal complaints, and the functions of the prosecutor who didn’t register the  complaint do not include registering the pleas of offense, in connection with this on 09.04.2015 was issued the ruling about ending the criminal proceedings.

 

Grishpon v. Ukraine

Mr Grygory Grishpon, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Lviv, Ukraine.

Mr Gr. is charged with a sale of narcotic drugs - buprenorphine during an operational procurement. Within 6 months after the opening of the criminal proceedings no procedural actions has done.

The ground for opening of criminal proceedings was a statement of a person who allegedly bought drugs from Mr Gr. and immediately informed the police about this fact. However, during the trial the witness wasn’t questioned by the court. The SLC lawyer filed a motion about questioning of this witness in the court, but this person lives changed her address that’s why it’s impossible to call her to the court.

In addition the court questioned the “buyer” without participation of all parties of the court proceedings against to the requirement of the CPC of Ukraine.

The SLC lawyer filed a motion about questioning of the witness who confirms the alibi of Mr Gr.

The criminal proceeding is pending.

 

Gonchar v. Ukraine

Mr Anton Gonchar, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Lviv, Ukraine.

He was charged with a sale of narcotic drugs - buprenorphine during an operational testing purchase. In the criminal proceeding there were many contradictions that have not been seen nor by the prosecutor nor by the judge.

In March 2015, the SLC lawyer filed a motion about a familiarization with the criminal case of Mr Gon.. After the familiarization the SLC lawyer is going to file several motions concerning a big amount of violations during the trial.

The criminal proceeding is pending.

 

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.

In December 2014, the lawyer’s complaint was directed to the Office of Execution of Sentences Authority for the official investigation.

A complaint on investigator’s actions on not registering the information to the URPTI was filed to the court. On 22 January 2015, the complaint was not granted.

In February 2015, the Head granted to the lawyer a meeting with Mr. Mankowski. As the lawyer has been given the meetings for twice and for one time she has been refused in it at he same circumstances, the lawyer submitted a criminal complaint on barring to exercise a lawyer’s  professional duties. Any notice was not given to the lawyer. That is why several lawyer’s requests were submitted. 

Later it turned out that the criminal complaint was lost. That is why, in June 2015, a copy of the criminal complaint was sent to the prosecutor of Lviv city.

 

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.

In February 2015, several lawyer’s requests on the matter of granting to Mr Karpachev status of a victim in this criminal proceedings were submitted to the investigator who carries out the criminal proceedings.

In March 2015, a reply for the lawyer’s motion was received with the information, that Mr Karpachev was just a witness. So, the layer submitted a motion on Karpachev’s questioning as a victim to the investigator, but no answer was received.

In April 2015, the second motion on Karpachev’s questioning as a victim was submitted to the investigator. No answer has been received yet.

At the end of May 2015, a complaint on investigator’s inaction was filed. No answer has been received yet.

The lawyer may not familiarize herself with the case file as Karpachev is a witness in this criminal proccedings.

 

Khaliman case

Ms Andriy Olehovych Khaliman, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kharkiv region, Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by Mr Kh., may be summarized as follows.

He is a homeless person, who was wanted for theft and carrying homemade firearms, that were committed in 2012. In February 2015 the Mr Kh. was arrested.

Mr Kh.has no feet and he is suffering from open form of the tuberculosis.

The SLC lawyer filed a complaint on the illegal detention during consideration of Mr Kh. for a preventive measure. A judge found the fact of detention of the applicant illegal, but he has appointed to the applicant a detention as a preventive measure – detention in the Kharkiv SIZO.

The SLC lawyer filed an appeal to the Kharkiv Court of Appeal. It has rejected the SLC’s lawyers appeal as ungrounded.

In the same time the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Administration of Kharkiv SIZO with a request to provide adequate treatment to Mr Kh.. After this request, Mr Kh. was transferred to the specializing colony 17, which is a specialized correctional institution and has necessary conditions for the diagnosis and medical treatment of tuberculosis.

The colony 17 provided to Mr Kh. specialized medical examination and treatment.

During the consideration on charges of Mr Kh. the SLC lawyer focused the court’s attention on the health of the applicant and his need for proper treatment.

The Court granted to Mr Kh. with term of the probation and released him from custody in the court room.

After Mr Kh.’s release, the SLC lawyer provided him a legal aid and recommended to apply to the TB Hospital for immediate treatment.

 

Kolyada case

On 23 April 2015, Mr. Kolyada was transporting from Kyiv pre-trial detention centre. During this transportation he asked some water because he felt bad. It was refused to give him some water. Then he said that he had a right to be given some water. The administration got angry and beat Kolyada. To pay someone’s attention and to register the fact of beating he inflicted the cuts on his hands. When he was delivered to Lviv pre-trial detention centre the injuries were discovered.  The investigation and operational group was called, the explanation of the events was taken and the injuries were filed in a special registry book.

On 3 June 2015, an attorney took the explanation of the events and ordered to provide the follow-up examination.

On 9 June 2015, the motions on Kolyada’s examination as a victim, conducting the forensic medical examination, examination of the witnesses that saw all events of Kolyada’s beating were submitted. No answer was received. That is why a complaint on investigator’s inactivity was filed to the court.

Also the lawyer’s request on Kolyada’s health problems was submitted to the correctional facility.

 

Krylov case

On 16.01.2015 Mr. Krylov was visited at his house by several soldiers who suggested that he should come with them by his private car in order to detain a separatist.

After they arrived to the house of the separatist, the soldiers started to speak with his relatives who explained that the separatist was not there. Mr K. waited for them in his car.

The next day the policemen came to Mr K's house, arrested him and delivered to the police station in Selidovo. There they started to beat and torture the  Mr K. in order to force him to make confession in commitment a robbery of the house of the relatives of the separatist.

At the result of the beating Mr K.’s hip bone was broken, he had numerous injuries. The policemen took him to the hospital where he received medical assistance as a person with a domestic trauma.
After leaving the hospital at the early February  Mr K. was taken into custody in the SIZO of Artemivsk.

He is still in SIZO. No proper medical assistance is not provided for the applicant concerning his traumas of a leg and kidneys.

A lawyer of the SlC sent a Power of Attorney to Mr. Krylov. However, the Administration of the SIZO refused to verify it. 

At present, an application is being prepared on unlawful actions of the SIZO's administration to the Prosecutor's bodies.

 

Kryvogub case

In June 2014, Mr Kryvogub was enlisted for participation in the anti-terrorist operation conducted in Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine.

On  July, 6 2014 he arrived at the territorial department of the battalion “Kyiv Rus”.

On September 30, 2014 during a performing a combat task at the checkpoint near the village Chornuhyne of Perevalsky district, Luhansk region he was captured members of illegal paramilitary formations.

The first time Mr Kryvogub contacted his father on October 3, 2014 when he informed about being a hostage.

In November 2014 the father of Mr Kryvogub filed a complaint to the Security Service of Ukraine in which he asked to take necessary measures in order to release his son.

On November 8, 2014 the farther of Mr Kryvogub got a reply to his complaint in which it was mentioned that his son was indeed a hostage of illegal paramilitary formations and that at the moment measures were carried out to release Ukrainian soldiers from captivity.

In March 2015 Mr Kryvogub’s father applied to the SLC for legal assistance in preparing an application to the European Court of Human Rights.

In April 2015 a lawyer of the SLC prepared an application to the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court concerning applying interim measures directed at immediate release of Mr Kryvogub.

For today, Mr Kryvogub is released by the Security Service. The lawyer of the SLC is preparing an application to the Court about violation of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention concerning ill-treatment of him by the representatives of illegal paramilitary formations, subjecting to forced labor and unlawful deprivation of liberty.   

 

Levchenko case

Mr. Levchenko is accused in murder of Mr. M. and in attempted murder of Mr. I.

The accused applied to a lawyer of SLC because he had been in custody from 21 December 2009 without issuing a judgment in the case.

In June 2010, the case file was directed to the court.

On 28 May 2015, a lawyer of SLC entered the criminal proceeding. At that day the lawyer lodged a motion on application of practice of European Court of Human Rights regarding to detention in custody.

The lawyer familiarized herself with the case file and discovered a lot of violations of procedural and criminal law that led to wrong qualification of Levchenko’s actions were found.

The lawyer prepared the recusation of the prosecutor and that of the composition of the court.

Other motions on discovery of documents that can prove Mr Levchenko’s innocence were prepared.

 

Lytvyn case

On 15 December 2014, Ukrainian lawyer, Mrs. Lytvyn filed a motion on giving her a meeting with her client. The motion was not granted. The colony administration stayed on the position that the meeting could be provided if she would pay for using the room for the meetings.

 After the lawyer had paid for the room, she called to the police to fix the fact of prevention from providing lawyer’s activity and of illegal extortion of money. The criminal complaint was filed by the police, but the lawyer was not informed about the registration.

On 18 December 2014, the lawyer lodged a motion on adding the evidence: photo copies of the application on providing the meeting and of the receipt of payment for the room.  was submitted. The lawyer was not informed about the hearing on the motion.

On 4 April 2015, a motion on information about the results of the criminal proceeding was submitted. No answer has been received yet.

On 3 June 2015, the second motion on the results of the criminal proceeding was submitted, and no replyer has been received yet.

 

Lyhosherstov case

On 11 April 2013, policemen came to the office where Mr. Lyhosherstov was conducting business on repairing the computer equipment. They took away a computer, optical disks, money and delivered Lyhosherstov to District Police Station. The protocol of inspection was not issued and the attesting witnesses were not taken. Later Lyhosherstov was notified about suspicion in commitment a crime under Article 176 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of copyright and related rights).

Later it turned out that a part of the documents of the criminal proceedings was signed by investigator, who worked in other District Police Station at that time.

Despite of violation of the procedure of obtaining and fixing physical evidence, the criminal proceedings was finished and the case file was taken to court for hearing on the merits.

During the examination of the physical evidence in the court it turned out that three optical disks and all the money were missed. A lawyer of SLC submitted several motions including those on admitting the evidence inadmissible. The motions were ignored by the court.

On 29 December 2014, the court found Lyhosherstov guilty in commitment a crime under Article 176 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In January 2015, the lawyer filed a criminal complaint on illegal actions of the policemen during taking out the physical evidence, execution of the procedural documents and on falsification of the case file to prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv region. The prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv region issued a decision on refusal on entering the information to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

On 25 January 2015, the lawyer filed a complaint on the decision to investigating judge, and the complaint has been satisfied. The prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv region was compelled to enter the information to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

In the end of January 2015, the lawyer filed an appeal on first instance judgments. On 21 May 2015, Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region quashed the sentence and returned the case file for the new court hearing to the first-instance court.

In the end of May 2015, the investigator issued the resolution on closure of the criminal proceedings. The copy of the resolution has not been given to the lawyer until now.

 

Lopukhov case

Mr. Lopukhov is serving a sentence in Lviv correctional colony 48 (“LCC 48”). During serving his sentence the second group of disability was assigned to him because of HIV and associated diseases such as TB and hepatitis. The antiretroviral therapy was prescribed to him and the number of CD4 cells have not been increasing.

The administration of the LCC 48 refused on submitting a motion to the court on release from serving the sentence on the grounds of his bad health.

On 1 April 2015, several lawyer’s requests on the information about Mr Lopukhov’s health status were submitted.

In May, a medical certificate was received by the lawyer. There was told that Mr Lopukhov had refused from hospital treatment and from the antiretroviral therapy.

In January 2015, the antiretroviral therapy was prescribed to Mr Lopukhov again and he was provided with in-patient medical treatment. During the medical treatment TB was diagnosed in him. Now he is preparing for transportation to the special medical institution in other correctional colony.

On 30 June 2015, the motion on release from serving the sentence because of his bad health was submitted.

 

Lysenko case

During the visit to Berdychiv correctional colony 70 (“BCC 70”) the lawyers of SLC learned that Mr. Lysenko had suffered from diabetes and he had not got proper medical treatment. Medical workers did not conduct any tests, did not give insulin in time and sometimes did not give it at all. For a long time the administration of correctional colony has not placed Lysenko to the special medical institution for getting proper medical treatment of diabetes, notwithstanding of deterioration of his health. All drugs and medical equipment that he needed were provided to him by his relatives.

On 27 November 2014, after numerous oral appeals he was placed to the special medical institution in Stryzhavska correctional colony 81 (“SCC 81”).

On 12 January 2015, during the meeting with Lysenko the lawyer of SLC questioned him on the circumstances of his improper medical treatment and complaints on his health state submitted by him. Also the lawyer familiarized herself with the personal case file and with the outpatient and inpatient medical cards of the convict.

The lawyer’s requests on Lysenko’s diagnosis and health status, proper medical treatment, providing insulin to SCC 81, requests for hospitalization during the period of his sentence were submitted.

Also, the request on providing insulin to SCC 81 in 2012, 2013, 2014 were submitted by Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

Due to information contained in the replies, the lawyer made the conclusion that Lysenko’s health damage was caused by illegal actions (inactivity) of administration of BCC 70 and of State Penitentuary Service of Ukraine.

On 25 June 2015, a claim on reimbursement of moral damage caused by deteriorating of Mr Lysenko’s heath because of inadequate medical treatment was filed with the court.

 

Maksimenko-Legeza case

Ms Maksimenko-Legeza, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.

On October 1, 2004 Ms M.-L.’s husband Mr Legeza died in process of experimental clinical tests in the Dnipropetrovsk hospital.

On November 8, 20006 Dnepropetrovsk Prosecutour Office opened a criminal case under Part 2 art. 139 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - (failure without good reason to provide necessary treatment that caused the death of the patient), which was later reclassified to Part 1 of Art. 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (improper execution of doctor’s professional duties).

On January 23, 2013 the data about this crime was registered to the URPTI.

On October 31, 2014 the criminal proceeding was closed on the ground on lack of corpus delicti in actions of doctors.

In November 2014 the SLC lawyer familiarized with the case file and filed a complaint in accordance with Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine to the decision of the investigator about closing the criminal proceeding.

On December 26, 2014 the Babushkinskiy district court of Dnipropetrovsk canceled the resolution on closure of the criminal proceeding.

The judge noted that investigators had not determined the amount of the drug that was given to the patient, doctors were not questioned on this subject, it not established when and for what medical records had falsified, and all the pre-trial investigationwas not complete.

In 2015 the SLC lawyer filed several complaints about the actions and inaction of prosecutors and investigators.

 

Mankowski case

Mr. Mankowski was serving a sentence in Zamkova correctional colony 58 (“ZCC 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 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.

The lawyer’s requests on providing the information about the state of the convict upon the arrivals to each institution were submitted. According to replies to the requests, at the time of arrival to each of the institutions any injuries were not revealed.

In April 2015, the lawyer familiarized herself with the personal file and with the medical card of Mankowski.

In May 2015, the lawyer received materials on the matter of violation of regime in colony.

Nowadays, the lawyer deals with complaining of false penalties imposed to the convict for his protest against illegal actions of penitentiary officers.

 

Mazur case

In March 2015, Mr. Mazur was notified about suspicion in commitment a crime under Article 391 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (insubordination to authority of the administration of penitentiary institution). The pre-trial investigation lasted for 4 days. Mazur was not provided with the case file for familiarizing.

After notification about suspicion a preventive measure in the form of taking into custody was chosen for Mazur and he was transferred to the Lviv SIZO without providing an opportunity to take his personal belongings.

In April 2015 Mazur signed an agreement with a lawyer of the SLC.

When familiarizing with the case file the lawyer revealed false signature of Mazur. She filed a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office about criminal offence concerning disappearance of the personal belongings.

During the court consideration of the case the lawyer lodged a motion about engagement of an interpreter, which was declined by the court. She also lodged a motion about call of witnesses, which was left by the court unconsidered. 

For today the consideration of the case by the court of first instance is ongoing. The lawyer is planning to appeal against the refuse to register a complaint about disappearance of the personal belongings in the URPTI.

The lawyer made a request to the Lviv SIZO about the state of health of Mazur concerning his injury obtained after fall. The administration of the SIZO denied this fact. They also refused to provide materials on the committed violation of the rules of serving a punishment, and denied the lawyer in access to the personal file and the medical documents.

For present the lawyer is preparing an administrative suit about annulling imposed penalties together with the request to provide the court with the relevant documents. 

 

Mikhailenko case

The Ukrainian national Mr Mikhailenko was serving imprisonment in Temnivska correctional colony no.100 (hereinafter - the colony). He had a plenty of chronical diseases, including hepatitis C and HIV.

The number of CD 3+ CD4+ cells has sufficiently decreased during his stay in the colony. The colony administration stated that the deterioration of his health state had happened due to his refusal from an antiretroviral therapy (hereinafter – the ART). During a meeting with MR M. the SLC lawyer knew, that  the ART did not fit to Mr M.  and gave essential side effects, particularly skin rash, because of the his liver decease. Notwithstanding of that the ART was not modified, and Mr M. in several occaisions refused from antiretroviral therapy.

In May 2014 Mr M. was diagnosed with HIV of clinical of stage IV, in February, 2014 Mr M. passed outpatient treatment in a hospital in another colony. According to the concluding certificate of the hospital, his HIV-infection disease became of III clinical stage. This fact raised doubts in reliability of the certificate information.

At the  end of May, 2015 Mr M. submitted to a district court a motion on his conditional release form serving of the punishment on probation, but on 18 June 2015 the court dismissed the motion.

On June 2015 the lawyer lodged a complaint to the decision of the district court, arguing the appeal with the following: Mr M. had no discipline penalties for whole time of his stay in the colony, he worked on the manufacturing works in the colony, attended religious meetings etc. The examination of the appeal in appointed on September.

 

Molokov case

Mr Molokov is serving his sentence in the correctional colony.

On 27 February 2015, a convict was escorted from correctional colony to Zaporizkyy pre-trial detention centre. There the administration used illegal force to him and threatened to transfer him to another colony and to kill him there.

On 2 March 2015, this information was entered to the URPTI, however Mr Molokov was not recognized as a victim despite of numerous injuries he had.

On 31 March 2015, the decision on termination of the criminal proceeding because of absence of the event of crime was issued by the investigator.

On 1 April 2015, this decision was quashed by the prosecutor’s officer because of its prematurity.

To hide the fact of Molokov's beating by the officers of the colony filed a criminal complaint to the prosecutor's office on his alleged assault to the officers. Due to this allegation, on 31 March 2015, he was officially notified about suspicion in committing of the crime under following circumstances. On 27 February 2015, when he was being escorted to Zaporizkyy pre-trial detention centre, he refused to left the car, terrorized other convicts, used force to the colony officers, threatened them and caused injuries to some of the convicts.

On 22 April 2015, at preliminary hearing a lawyer of SLC submitted a motion on returning the indictment to the prosecutor because it was not in conformity with law, moreover the charge had not been formularized clearly. The motion has been ignored by the court, and the case was appointed for hearing.

The lawyer lodged the applications on guarantee of proper investigation of the events to the General prosecutor’s officer, the head of the State Service on Enforcement of Sentences, the Minister of Justice and the Ombudsman.

The lawyer several times submitted to the court the motions on questioning of witnesses and victims that were serving their sentence in the correctional colony, but the administration of the colony failed to bring them to the court.

 

Nazarov case

Mr. Nazarov is waiting for entry of judgment into legal force in Kirovograd pre-trial detention centre. He has serious virulent disease – long-lasting virus HCV-related cirrhosis. His health status is going into free fall, the disease is progressing, medical aid is not provided. There is no reaction of facility on convict’s complaints on his health deterioration.

A lawyer of SLC submitted a request to the head of the Kirovograd pre-trial detention centre on Nazarov’s proper medical treatment, information on drugs that had been prescribed to him and on giving the copy of his medical outpatient card. This information was needed for convict’s release on reasons a bad health state.

No answer was given and the lawyer motion on issuance the conclusion on necessity of convict’s placement to examination and treatment in day and night hospital. The head of the office issued the recommendation on convict’s placementto examination and treatment in day and night hospital.

Mr Nazarov was sent to the Kirovograd correctional colony 6 (“KCC 6”) for serving his sentence. He was not sent for examination and treatment in day and night hospital.

A motion on issuance the conclusion on necessity of convict’s placement to examination and treatment in day and night hospital was submitted to the Office of the State Penitentiary Service in Kirovograd region and to the head of KCC 6.

The criminal proceeding is pending.

 

Nesolonyy case

During the visit to Berdychiv correctional colony 70 (“BCC 70”) the lawyers of SLC learned that Mr. Nesolonyy had suffered from diabetes and he had not got proper medical treatment. Medical workers did not conduct any analyzes, did not give insulin in time or did not give it at all. For a long time the administration of correctional colony has not placed Nesolonyy to the special medical institution for getting proper medical treatment of diabetes because of deterioration of his health. All drugs and medical equipment that he needed were sent by his relatives.

On 27 November 2014, after numerous oral appeals he was placed to the special medical institution in Stryzhavska correctional colony 81 (“SCC 81”). There TB was diagnosed in him. When the medical treatment of diabetes was finished he was brought to Kherson correctional colony 61 (“KCC 61”) for medical treatment of TB. The second group of disability was assigned to him there.

On 12 January 2015, during the meeting with Nesolonyy the lawyer of SLC questioned him on the circumstances of his inproper medical treatment and complaints about his health. Also the lawyer familiarized herself with the personal case file and with the outpatient and inpatient medical cards of the convict.

The lawyer’s requests on Nesolonyy’s diagnosis and health status, proper medical treatment, medical certificate on assignation of the group of disability, requests for hospitalization during the period of his sentence were submitted.

Also the request on providing insulin to BCC 70 in 2012, 2013, 2014 were submitted by Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

Due to the information contained in the replies the lawyer made the conclusion that Nesolonyy’s health damage was caused by illegal actions of administration of BCC 70 and of State Penitentuary Service of Ukraine.

On 25 June 2015, a claim on reimbursement of moral damage caused by deteriorating of Mr Nesolonyy’s heath because of inadequate medical treatment was filed with the court.

 

Panych case

Mr Panych, is a Ukrainian national, who is detained.

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

The SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr P. submitted a petition to the court for release from serving the sentence of Mr P. due to his condition of the health of the applicant. The SLC lawyer provided to the court all the documents proving grounds for release Mr P. from further serving the sentence, paid special attention to the fact that the proceedings in the court last during 17 months.

On March 11, 2015 the court ruled the decision about rejection of the all requirements of Mr P..

On April 2015, the SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr P. filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

On May 5, 2015 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of the first instance.

 

Peleshok case

Mr. Peleshok is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Ternopil, Ukraine.

On 4 July 2014, Peleshok was detained by investigator about suspicion in commitment a crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking). He is charged with a sale of narcotic substance - buprenorphine during an operational testing purchase on 3 June 2014 and 4 July 2014.

On 5 July 2014, a preventive measure in a form of home arrest was imposed to Mr. Peleshok. Also, the SLC lawyer raised the issue of illegal detention of Mr Peleshok, and the judge informed the prosecutor about this issue..

Five witnesses have already been examined. It is planed to examine “an agent” and the accused, investigate the case file.

From August 2014 to the present time, the case is tried by the Ternopol city-district court.

The defence strategy is to prove a provocation of the crime on the part of police agent. During questioning in court witnesses testified that the agent” called by phone to Mr. Peleshok several times with the request to sell him (to the agent) the drugs.

The proceedings in the case are pending.

 

Petrenko case

Mr. Petrenko is serving his sentence in Petrvska correctional colony 49 (“PCC 49”).

On 12 March 2015, when he was serving discipline penalty. On the version of the administration of PCC 49, he refused to clean a cell at the day of his duty according to a schedule.

Criminal proceedings on the matter of his committing the crime under Article 391 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine has been instituted (insubordination to authority of the administration of penitentiary institution)Than Mr Petrenko was notified about suspicion in commitment. At the end of the investigation, an indictment was handed in to him.

The case file was directed to Petrivskyy District Court.

On 5 May 2015, a lawyer of SLC arrived to PCC 49 to get the full information on Petrenko’s transportation to the Kirovograd pre-trial detention centre.

On 6 May 2015, the lawyer arrived. had a confidential meeting with Petrenko to Kirovograd pre-trial detention centre, and told about potential witnesses of the defence, then reviewed the case file.

On 16 June 2015, the case hearing started. The lawyer submitted a motion on examination of the witnesses and familiarized himself with the case file.

The criminal proceeding is pending.

 

Sidorov case

Mr. Sidorov is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kherson, Ukraine. He has HIV and he takes antiretroviral therapy. Previously he was sentenced under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (storage of drug with no intent of drug trafficking), and committed a new crime at the time of probation.

He was suspected in commitment of three episodes of the crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking)..

On 11 June 2015, the remand in ustody was chosen for him. An appeal against a decision on the remand in custody was filed by a lawyer of SLC, at it was refused by the Appellate Court.

According to information provided by the defendant, he was provoked on commitment the crime by a special police buying agent, in fact Mr S. only went to the drug on the request of the agent.

 At the moment the case is in Novokakhovskiy District Court in Kherson region, and the lawyer makes efforts to prove the fact of police incitement.

 

Tsviliy case

Tsviliy Oleg Volodymyrovich, born on 12.12.1972, who is currently serving a punishment in Kremenchug penal colony 69, on 12.05.2014 was rought from pre-trial detention center in Kyiv to Temnivka penal colony 100.

From the moment of arrival of Tsviliy O.V. to Temnivka Penal Colony he was subjected to constant psychological pressure by the administration officials of said colony with the aim of breaking his will and humiliating his honor and dignity, and to illegal use of physical force with the aim of fabricating the contrived criminal offense on the article 391 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely persistent non-compliance to the requirements of the detention facility officials.

After two suicide attempts Tsviliy O.V. has submitted the information about criminal proceedings to the Unified Register of pre-trial investigations with number  12014220430002901 on 16.07.2014 on the fact of inciting Tsviliy O.V. to suicide according to pt. 1 of article 120 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and on 28.06.2014 to the URPTI was entered the information about the criminal offense with number 12014220430002631 according to pt.1 of article 120 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine about driving Tsviliy O.V. to suicide, which also took place in TPC 100.

These criminal proceedings have been ended according to the decision of the investigators. However, they were not given to Tsviliy O.V., thus he didn’t have the opportunity to challenge them.

There was a gross violation of article 24 of the Law of Ukraine “On Advocacy and legal practice” by the investigation department of Kharkiv Regional Department (serving Kharkiv district and the town of Lyubotin) of Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in Kharkiv District which conducted the pre-trial investigation of the criminal proceedings 12014220430002901 and 12014220430002631. The lawyer in the interests of Tsviliy O.V. has sent the lawyer’s requests from 16.01.2015 and 02.02.2015 asking to provide a copy of the rulings of closing the criminal proceedings, which were illegally ignored by the investigation department of Kharkiv Regional Department  of MIA in Kharkiv District that has jurisdiction on investigating crimes in the town of Lyubotin. According to the letter from the investigation department of MIA in Kharkiv Region of 08.06.2015 the lawyer was informed about the inspection and the disciplinary measures applied to the investigator and chief investigator of the branch – the direct executants of the lawyer’s requests. Said response was received only after the lawyer’s complaint to the MIA of 28.04.2015.

The lawyer’s requests were addressed to Kremenchug penal colony 69 which were met with the reply containing the medical records of convicted Tsviliy O.V. Also the requests were sent to the prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv region about providing the copies of the rulings about the closure of criminal proceedings on fact of driving Tsviliy O.V. to suicide.

On 14.05.2015 Lashkina T.V., the wife of Tsviliy O.V., filed a criminal complaint to General Prosecutor’s Office. On 22.05.2015 the Prosecutor’s office of Kharkiv region sent a letter of refusal to start criminal proceedings on fact of administration misconduct of Temnivka penal colony 100.

On 26.05.2015 the lawyer in the interests of the wife of Tsviliy O.V. filed a complaint to Pechersk District Court regarding the inaction of the prosecutor on failing to enter the information about criminal proceedings to the Unified Register of pre-trial investigations.

On 01.07.2015 the lawyer in the interests of Tsviliy O.V. filed two complaints to Kharkiv District Court of Kharkiv region on the rulings of the investigators to close the criminal proceedings about driving Tsviliy O.V. to suicide.

 

Voloshin case

On 17 February 2012, Mr. Voloshin with his relatives arrived to the market up the street Heroyiv Pratsi. While he was being between the rows of the market he saw crowded people who were quarreling. He decided to appease the people and called to keep the peace. Suddenly, a policeman and one person in civilian clothes run up to the crowd. They started to grab the people and stretch them aside calling them to keep the peace. After that, they took Voloshin to the police room.

The police refused to call a lawyer to Voloshin. The uniformed officer said that Voloshin had to forget about his rights. During Voloshin's examination the officers threatened, used vulgar language, used force to him. The uniformed officer gripped his arms, then wring them behind his back, bumped him. He bumped his head of the wall. At this time two other officers run up to him and started to help to beat him. They threw him to a floor and kicked him in the head and the face.  In the presence of attesting witnesses they kicked him stronger. He has lost a conscience from the pain. When he came round he was handcuffed, he had a headache and his trousers was taken down so that his intima places were open. After that, his clothes and things were returned to him and he was released.

 On 17 February 2012, in the evening he came to a hospital at a place of his residence, where he recommended to apply to the police  and to the emergency hospital. At the same day, The intracranial injury and brain concussion were diagnosed in him in the emergency hospital.

The information was entered to the URPTI on the fact of commitment a crime under Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (abuse of power and office).

On 28 April 2014, the investigation authority issued the resolution on closure of the criminal proceedings, which was received by the SLC lawyer only on 11 March 2015.

On 11 March 2015, the lawyer appealed this resolution to an investigating judge.

On 20 April 2015, the investigating judge cancelled this resolution.

The criminal proceedings are pending.

Yevmenov case

Mr. Yevmenov is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kherson, Ukraine.

Yevmenov was suspected in commitment a crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking). Three episodes of drug trafficking were incriminated to him.

On 13 March 2015, the remand in custody was chosen for him. According to oral information provided by Yevmenov he was provoked on commitment the crime by a special police buying agent who induced Mr Y. under different excuses. He did not have any drugs at home they were planted on him by the police officers.

On 28 April 2015, the SLC lawyer took the case at the time of disclosure of evidence.

Before the detention, Yevmenov was a patient of opioid substitution therapy for six years. After the detention the therapy was discontinued. According to oral information provided by Yevmenov his everyday dose was 25 millilitres. This dose was reduced to zero by a doctor in three days without any explanations.

 At the moment the case is tried by the Novokakhovskiy District Court in Kherson region. As the witnesses twice failed to appear to a court, the hearings has not been hold.

 

5. Successful cases in national proceedings

 

Bakumenko v. Ukraine

Mr Sergey Bakumenko, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

Mr B. is internally displayed person from Luhansk, the temporary occupied territory of Ukraine. After the start of military action he has moved to Kharkiv.

In March 2015, the Mr B. asked the Kharkiv authorities for a status of Internally displaced person (IDP) person but it rejected him on the ground that the applicant changed his official registration in Luhansk region in June, 2014 after the start of military action in this region and had no registration in Luhansk on the moment of applying. He has been living in Kharkiv without registration.

The SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr B. prepared and sent to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine a request about an official interpretation of the law concerning the award of status of IDP person in Ukraine. Also the SLC lawyer asked the speaker of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to protect the violated rights of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of the law because of incorrect interpretation of the rules of law by the director of the Kharkiv city Department of Labor and Social Policy.

After this request a representative of Kharkiv city Department of Labor and Social Policy called MR B. and sked him to visit this authority for receiving the certificate about a status of IDP person.

The case was resolved without apply to the courts under appeal to the state authorities.

 

Buynovskiy case

On 29 May 2014 Mr Buynovskiy voluntary came to the battalion “Aydar”. After this, he directly participated in military actions during ATO, at first as a machine gunner and then as an operator of truck antiaircraft mounting.   

On 1 September 2014 when patrolling the Town of Schastya he was wounded by the explosion of a grenade and, as a result, his right hand and right leg were amputated.

The battalion "Aydar" acquired the status an official military formation during the stay of Mr Buynovskiy there. An appropriate list of fighters of this military unit was drafted, however, for unknown reasons, this list is considered to be missing, and the battalion leadership does not have any documents in respect of Mr Buynovskiy.

In the absence of documents he could not get the status of a participant in military operations or of a war invalid in order to receive social benefits from the state. There was no information from the Defense Ministry about Mr Buynovskiy since he had not been enlisted for the military service by mobilization and his name was not on the lists of the military unit – no. V0624 "Aydar". Thus, Mr Buynovskiy could not get a status of a participant in military operations, moreover there was no direct regulation of this issue for volunteers.

In March 2015, the SLC lawyer send requests In the Defense Ministry to the State Service of Ukraine on war veterans and members of ATO and to the Defense Ministry. The replyto the requests indicated the information about lack of regulation concerning  the status of a participant of military operations for volunteers  and the inability to solve the issue of Mr Buynovskiy.

Because of the absence of documents required by law for obtaining the status of a participant of military operations, on 01 April 2015 the SLC lawyer lodged an application on behalf of Mr Buynovskiy to the Krolevets District Court of Sumy region on establishing the a legal fact, of his direct participation in the military operations as part of the battalion "Aydar" for obtaining further opportunities for appropriate registration documents.

On 02 June 2015 by the decision of the Krolevets District Court, the defense lawyer’s application was satisfied and the fact of participation in military operations during the anti-terrorist operation in the period from May 2014 to September 1, 2014 in Luhansk region was established.

 

Case of the editor-in-chief of a newspaper

Mrs. Tetyana Syromyatnikova had been working as an editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Pechinizhkiy Krai” in Kharkiv region for 15 years. She achieved that the edition of the newspaper is 1100 copies for ten thousand of population of the district and appears on six broadsides.  

This year on 16th of March the District state administration decided to fire Mrs. Syromyatnikova under the pretext  non-issuance of the newspaper.

According to the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, on the 22nd of January, members of the Pechenizhkiy district council adopted the budget and allocated money to finance the issuing the newspaper, but the funds were blocked by the district state administration, and therefore there was no money to pay for printing of the newspaper. The editors repeatedly officially informed the administration about lack of funding, but there was no reaction to them.

After dismissal of Mrs. Syromyatnikova as the acting editor-in-chief, “an outside person” was appointed, who had no relations to the newspaper and was retired. Moreover, the next day all the documents for funding the newspaper were signed by the state administration.

Co-founders of the newspaper are the Pechenizhkiy district state administration, the Pechenizhkiy district council and a collective of the editorial radio press center "Pechenizhskiy Krai". The consent of the majority of the co-founders during making the decision about dismissal of the editor-in-chief was not obtained.

Mrs. Syromyatnikova applied to the court with a suit about reinstatement at work. Her interests were represented by a lawyer of the SLC.

On June 9, 2015 after five court hearings, the Pechinizhkiy district court ordered to recognize unlawful and quash the decision on her dismissal and reinstall on the position of the editor-in-chief of the newspaper. Moreover, the court ordered to pay for Mrs. Syromyatnikova her average salary for the period of forced unemployment and compensate the non-pecuniary damage.

 

Korotyuk case

In March 2014, Mr Korotyuk was mobilized to the Ukrainian military forces for participation in the ATO. On 28 May 2014, in combat against terrorist group he was wounded to his eye and placed for inpatient treatment to a hospital in Dnipropetrovsk.

Notwithstanding the fact of Mr K.’s participation in the ATO, he was not granted with the status of a participant of the battles.  Particularly, a command of his military unit did not issue a document proving his participation in the ATO was not submitted to the special Commission on recognition of the status of a participant of battles.

In January 2015, the SLC lawyer lodged an application on recognition of the fact of participation in the ATO to a District court of Dnipropenrovsk. At the time of the hearing in court representatives of the military command and of the military recruitment office objected against recognizing the fact of Mr K.’s participating in the ATO to the date of his injuring, and stated that he officially had started to participate in the operations only since 31 May 2015.

During the hearing, the lawyer submitted to the court written evidence of Mr K.’s participation in the battles, medical certificate of his injury, a report of internal investigation of the fact of the injury, and found an eye witness to be called to the court.

On 17 June2015 the court recognized the fact of Mr B.’s participation in the ATO at the moment of his injury.

 

Tretyak case

Mr Tretyak, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.

On November 6, 2013 employees of MIA of Ukraine found in the safe of the Mr Tretyak – the Head of Department of Narcology of the Nikopol Hospital -  three tablets of methadone with inscription «25».

In the same day the criminal proceeding against Mr Tretyak was opened on the article 320 h. 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of the rules of keeping of drugs).

On November 22, 2013 he was notified about suspicion on this crime.

Then the parties signed an agreement on the recognition of guilt and the criminal proceedings was sent to the court

In December 2013 the SLC lawyer familiarized with the case file and filed a complaint about the fact that police created an misconception about the criminal responsibility of Mr Tretyak before the signing of the agreement.

On March 19, 2014 the agreement on the recognition of guilt was canceled by the order of Nikopol district court of the Dnipropetrovsk region. The fact of deceit and fraud on the part of policemen in the descriptive part of the judgment was recognized. The indictment had been returned to the  Prosecutor Office.

On May 7, 2014 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region held a decision about leaving the appeal of the prosecutor without satisfaction. The court said that the applicant was deprived of the right on due process, because suspicion and accusations was based only on material obtained as a result of the police inspection of the office and safe chamber of the hospital.

In 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint on closure of the criminal proceeding on the ground of absence of corpus delicti in the actions of Mr Tretyak.

 

Yankis case

Mr Sergiy Yevhenovych Yankis, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kharkiv region, Ukraine. The facts of the case, as submitted by Mr Y., may be summarized as follows.

On February 2014, Mr Y. was detained during the special operation - operational procurement. Mr Y. denied that he had sold drugs. The former defender of the applicant agreed with the prosecution on drug sales and asked the defendant to commute the sentence.

On August 22, 2014, Mr Y. was found guilty in two episodes of the sale of drugs and sentenced to six years of imprisonment.

The SLC lawyer entered to the case on the stage of appeal. He appealed the verdict and paid the court’s attention on the matter of police provocation and violation of Mr Y.’s right to defence.

The Court of Appeal overturned the verdict on the ground of violation of the right to defence and referred the case to the trial court for further consideration.

During the re-trial consideration the SLC lawyer filed motions on the disqualification of a judge, recognition an evidence as inadmissible, obtaining documents to verify the admissibility of evidence (instructions to conduct operational testing purchase and on obtaining money for operational action), change the preventive measure and questioning persons in the court room.

In April 2015 on the ground of the motion of the SLC lawyer, the court has changed the preventive measure of the applicant to the home arrest.

On the next hearing the SLC lawyer is going to examine the video of the operational procurement, investigate and written evidence, to hear the testimony of the accused person, to change preventive measure for the applicant.

The court hearing is pending.

 

 

 

 

comments

new comment