search  
print
28.02.2016 | Gennadiy Tokarev

A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations for 2015

   

1. During the reporting period the European Court delivered 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 new 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 profit-motivated murder 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.

 

Temchenko v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Georgiyevich Temchenko, born in 1942 and lives in Kryvyy Rig. Before his arrest he was rector of a State-owned university.

On 23 September 2009 the applicant was medically examined. An endocrinologist noted that he had type-2 diabetes and prescribed insulin injections. The endocrinologist advised that commencement and adjustment of the insulin treatment should take place on an in-patient basis in a local hospital.

On 29 September 2009 an investigator from the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office arrested the applicant on suspicion of having received bribes in his capacity as university rector. He was detained in the temporary detention facility of Kryvyy Rig.

On 2 October 2009 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention for three months, stating, without referring to any concrete facts, that he might abscond, hinder the investigation or continue his criminal activities. The court also noted that there was evidence in support of the prosecutors’ suspicion that the applicant had received bribes. The applicant’s detention prolonged several times.

According to the applicant, the window in his cell in the SIZO “had no glass in it”, which resulted in “dampness and air temperature fluctuations”. The food provided by the SIZO was of poor quality.

On 5 October 2009 the doctor who had examined the applicant upon his arrival at the SIZO decided, in view of the applicant’s abnormally high blood pressure, to place him in the cardiology department of a municipal hospital. On the same date the applicant was taken to municipal hospital no. 3, which had cardiology and endocrinology departments. The applicant was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, stenocardia, hypertensive diseases (stage II), chronic cholecystitis (remission stage) and pancreatitis (remission stage), type-2 subcompensated diabetes of medium severity, kidney cyst, prostate adenoma, and chronic pielonefritis (remission stage).

On 29 January 2010 the investigation in the applicant’s case was completed and the case was referred to the District Court for trial.

On 11 February and 9 March 2010 the SIZO medical unit informed the applicant’s lawyer that, according to the results of medical tests, the applicant’s diabetes and kidney pathology warranted in-patient examination in a specialist medical institution. However, no further steps were undertaken in this respect.

In a preliminary hearing on 9 March 2010, the District Court ruled that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant had to be maintained as there were no reasons to change it. The court did not fix the length of the applicant’s detention.

On 31 May 2010 the applicant submitted his request to the SIZO administration asking them to send it to the District Court for examination. On 2 June 2010 the SIZO administration duly forwarded the request. On 7 June 2010 the District Court rejected the request, holding that if he were freed, the applicant could influence witnesses.

On 6 August 2010, 21 and 22 February 2011, the applicant submitted further requests for release, either against an undertaking not to abscond or on bail. Relying on the findings of forensic medical examinations carried out on 12 November 2010 and 28 January 2011 he argued that the treatment provided to him during his detention had not been adequate and that he needed in-patient treatment in a medical institution.

In written requests for release, the applicant stated that his state of health was incompatible with detention and that, as he no longer held the post of rector, he could not hinder the investigation. But District Court rejected the request, holding that if he were freed, the applicant could influence witnesses.

In a judgment of 23 May 2011, the District Court sentenced the applicant to five years and two months’ imprisonment for bribery. On 5 October 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal modified that judgment and sentenced the applicant to five years’ suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of three years. On the same date the applicant was released from the SIZO. The judgment became final.

On July 16, 2015 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the State’s failure to safeguard the applicant’s health in detention, a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy for the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 concerning the adequacy of medical assistance, a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention from 29 January 2010 to 23 May 2011, a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the whole period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the authorities’ failure to examine the applicant’s request for release of 31 May 2010 in due time,  violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court – Ms A.S. Mukanova, a lawyer of the SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Serikov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Sergey Sergeyevich Serikov, born in 1991 and lives in Kharkiv.

On 16 May 2008 the applicant was arrested by police officers G. and B. of the drug crimes unit and taken to the Kharkiv City Police Department (“the police station”). Officer G. drew up a report following the search of his personal effects, according to which a package containing a substance, later determined to be marijuana, was found on the applicant. The report, indicating that it was drawn up at 6.25 p.m. on 16 May 2008, was signed by the applicant and attesting witnesses L. and T.

At the police station the applicant was ill-treated to make him confess. In particular, he alleged that he was threatened with rape, kicked and hit on the head and torso, and threatened with weapons. He was subjected to a “Palestinian hanging”; with his hands cuffed behind his back he was raised to the height of one or one and a half metres and then dropped face down on the floor. He lost consciousness several times.

At 11.10 p.m. on 16 May 2008 an ambulance arrived at the police station and the applicant was examined by a paramedic, F. The paramedic noted in her report that the examination was completed at 11.40 p.m. According to the report, the applicant had no complaints and nothing abnormal was detected. The head of the drug crimes unit, officer O.D., was present during this examination and spoke with the paramedic afterwards.

The applicant and his mother went to the Kharkiv Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior at about 11.45 p.m. on 16 May 2008, and where the applicant lodged a complaint accusing police officers of ill-treatment. At 00.47 a.m. on 17 May 2008 forensic medical expert A.P. examined the applicant, according to his records the applicant had a haematoma of 1.5 cm in width on the applicant’s neck, a haematoma of 2 x 1.5 cm on the inner side of his left shoulder, and two strip-like bruises on his left wrist. The expert took the view that the injuries could have been inflicted on the date and under the circumstances described by the applicant, and that the bruises on his wrist could have been caused by handcuffs.

At 3.46 p.m. on 17 May 2008 the applicant sought medical aid at the Kharkiv City Hospital (“the hospital”) where he was diagnosed with concussion and contusion of the soft tissues of the head and the rib cage. Hospitalisation was recommended but the applicant refused.

On 17 May 2008 the applicant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint with the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“the KRPO”) against the police officers. She alleged that excessive force had been used to arrest her son and that he had then been tortured, humiliated and threatened with rape at the police station.

On 6 June 2008 the KRPO, referring to the above-mentioned evidence, refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of a corpus delicti in their actions. The KRPO found that the applicant’s handcuffing was the only instance of the use of force in respect of the applicant and that it had been lawful under the Police Act of 20 December 1990.

On 12 August 2008 the Kharkiv Chervonozavodskyy District Court set aside the KRPO’s decision of 6 June 2008 and remitted the materials for additional inquiry. The court held, in particular, that the KRPO’s enquiries had failed to explain the applicant’s injuries recorded at 00.47 a.m. on 17 May 2008.

On 16 February 2009 the MDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on grounds similar to the KRPO’s decision. The applicant’s mother appealed.

On 30 March 2009 the District Court set aside the decision of 16 February 2009 and remitted the materials for additional inquiry.

During the next two years the MDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers and all this refusals the applicant appealed to the District Court.

On July 23, 2015 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb and under its procedural limb.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court – Mr A.A. Kristenko, a lawyer of the SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Sokil v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Maksim Viktorovich Sokil, born in 1981, who is currently living in Kiev, Ukraine.

The applicant has been using drugs since 1996. In 1997 the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C and hepatic cirrhosis. The applicant has been HIV-positive since 2008. In 2008 he also had tuberculosis. On 1 February 2012 the Dniprovskyy District Court sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment for theft.

On 2 February 2012 the applicant was placed in the Kyiv SIZO. On arrival the applicant was examined by medical staff and had two X-rays of his chest. It was recommended that the applicant consult a tuberculosis specialist. On 8 February 2012 the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and diagnosed with post-tuberculosis residual changes in the right lung.

On 16 or 20 March 2012 (relevant documents contain both dates) the applicant was placed in the SIZO medical ward. He stayed there until 18 February 2013 with the following diagnoses: acute haemorrhoidal bleeding, haemorrhoids, chronic multiple drug use, HIV at clinical stage 3, oropharyngeal candidiasis, chronic secondary candidiasis, acute enterocolitis, chronic hepatitis, residual post-tuberculosis changes, liver cell failure, and other conditions.

Between March 2012 and 18 February 2013 the applicant received the following medical care: on 10 April 2012 the applicant had a chest X-ray and it was recommended that he see a tuberculosis specialist. Subsequently the applicant was examined and diagnosed with post-tuberculosis residual changes in the right lung. On 13 July 2012 he had another consultation with a tuberculosis specialist; on 24 October 2012 the applicant was examined by an infection diseases specialist and diagnosed, inter alia, with HIV at clinical stage 4. It was also suspected that the applicant had had a tuberculosis relapse, so an additional X-ray was recommended; on 7 November 2012 the applicant had an X-ray. On 14 November 2012 a tuberculosis specialist examined the applicant and concluded that there were no signs of active tuberculosis.

Between 18 April and 20 December 2012, according to the test results, the applicant’s CD4+ cell count dropped from 762 (18.4%) to 467 (14.3%).

On 14 January 2013 the applicant was examined in the Kyiv City Diagnostic Centre. Two days later the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and diagnosed with tuberculosis. The applicant was prescribed anti-tuberculosis treatment.

On 5 February 2013 the applicant requested under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the respondent Government be asked to secure an appropriate medical examination and treatment for him which, according to the applicant, was impossible in the Kyiv SIZO. On 7 February 2013 the Court refused the applicant’s request.

On 11 February 2013 it was recommended by a tuberculosis specialist that the applicant be transferred to a specialised tuberculosis hospital. On 31 January 2014 the applicant was released, having served his sentence.

The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment because of the failure to provide him with prompt and adequate medical assistance. He contested the Government’s statement about proper and timely medical treatment provided to him. In particular, instead of improving, the applicant’s health deteriorated. Some of the information submitted by the Government was untrue or contained intentional omissions. The declining number of the applicant’s CD cells confirms this statement; in particular, the applicant’s HIV status progressed from clinical stage 3 to clinical stage 4.

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

On October 22,  2015, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning ill-treatment because of the failure to provide the applicant with prompt and adequate medical assistance in detention.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court –Ms N. G. Okhotnikova, a lawyer of SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine

The applicant , Mr Sergey Vasilyevich Antonov, born in 1975. In September 2013 the applicant arrived at Buchanska Correctional Colony No. 85, Ukraine, to serve a sentence.

Since November 2009 the applicant has been registered with the Kyiv City Aids Prevention and Control Centre. It appears that in December 2011 the applicant had a CD4+ cell count, the result of this count being 23 cells.

On 7 September 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft. At the moment of his arrest he had had the following illnesses: human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) at clinical stage 4, post-tuberculosis residual effects, oropharyngeal candidiasis, and chronic hepatitis type C.

Between 27 September 2012 and 29 September 2013 the applicant was detained in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre.

On 14 February 2013 the applicant was placed in the infectious diseases ward of the SIZO. It was noted that the applicant’s state of health was of “medium seriousness”. He underwent an X-ray and various other examinations and was diagnosed with a tuberculosis relapse, extra-pulmonary tuberculosis, HIV infection at clinical stage 4, chronic hepatitis of the mixed type (toxic type and C type), and other diseases. The applicant was prescribed anti-tuberculosis treatment, detox and symptomatic treatment. Between 14 February and 12 June 2013 the applicant’s weight dropped from 63 kg to 58 kg.

On 18 June 2013 the applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release before the national court.

On 11 July 2013 the Kagarlytskyy District Court, Kyiv Region, extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months. The applicant’s lawyer’s request for release on medical grounds was rejected by the court as not substantiated by appropriate documents. It also rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s request for a medical examination for him.

On 29 September 2013 the applicant was transferred to Buchanska Correctional Colony No. 85 to serve a sentence (the parties did not submit to the Court the details of the applicant’s conviction). He was provided with ART medication for two months’ treatment. On arrival at the Colony the applicant was examined by a doctor and diagnosed with HIV infection (IV clinical stage), hepatitis in the stage of remission, and post-tuberculosis residual changes.

On 10 October 2013 the applicant complained of fever, cough and abdominal pain. He was diagnosed with aggravation of his hepatitis, gastroduodenitis, and bronchitis, and was placed in a medical ward.

On October 22, 2015, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning ill-treatment because of the failure to provide the applicant with prompt and adequate medical assistance in detention, a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; also that the State has failed to fulfill its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court –Mr Y.V. Ovsiyenko, a lawyer of the SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Lunev v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Andrey Vladimirovich Lunev, born in 1977 and staying under house arrest in the town of Bryanka, Ukraine.

In January 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.

On 30 January 2012 the applicant was placed in the Starobilsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). On arrival the applicant was examined by a general practitioner, a psychiatrist, a dentist, a tuberculosis specialist and a dermatologist. According to the Government, the applicant was diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”) (clinical stage 3), chronic bronchitis, toxic encephalopathy and neuropathy caused by prolonged use of drugs, and tuberculosis residual changes.

On 9 January 2013 the applicant was found unconscious in his cell. On the same day the Head of the SIZO requested the Bryankivskyy Local Court to accelerate the proceedings in the applicant’s case or to release him on an undertaking not to abscond, since the applicant needed urgent medical treatment in a specialised hospital.

On 10 January 2013 the above court decided that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention but should be placed either in a specialised prison hospital or in a civilian hospital. According to a medical certificate, between 9 and 11 January 2013 the applicant was in hospital. He was diagnosed with acute serose meningoencephalitis. It was noted that the applicant was “in a soporose state”.

On 11 January 2013 the applicant was returned to the SIZO, where he stayed in the medical unit until 15 February 2013. During this period the applicant was also an inmate at least once in the Alchevsk Temporary Detention Facility (“Alchevsk ITT”).

On 17 January 2013 the applicant requested under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the respondent Government be asked to place him in a hospital. It was argued that the applicant needed additional examination, in particular by a psychiatrist, in order to be prescribed anti-retroviral therapy (“the ART”), and for the stage of his tuberculosis to be correctly determined and for appropriate treatment to be prescribed, as well for him to be provided with adequate medical assistance in respect of the epilepsy from which the applicant allegedly suffered.

On 19 February 2013 the Bryankivskyy Local Court sentenced the applicant to six and a half years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking.

At the end of January 2013 the lawyer of SLC received a call from an unknown man who presented himself as an employee of a prosecutor’s office. The person wanted to know whether Ms Semenyuk indeed represented the applicant and whether the applicant had lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Ms Semenyuk replied positively to both questions.

On 19 February 2013 the Bryankivskyy Local Court sentenced the applicant to six and a half years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking.

On 22 March 2013 the Court refused the applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

On 24 May 2013 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 19 February 2013 in the criminal case against the applicant and remitted the case for a fresh court consideration.

On 19 June 2013 the Bryankovskyy Town Court released the applicant and placed him under house arrest. The court noted that the case-file materials contained enough evidence to satisfy the applicant’s lawyer’s request. The court further noted that the applicant required medical treatment which he could not receive in detention.

On October 22, 2015, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical assistance in detention, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints about ill-treatment.

The applicant’s representatives before the European Court - Ms O.G. Semenyuk, a lawyer practising in the town of Bryanka, Ukraine, and Ms Y.V. Zaikina, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

 

Savinov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Eduard Volodymyrovych Savinov, born in 1970 and living in the town of Illichivsk, Ukraine.

The applicant tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”) as early as 1996. On 30 December 2006 the applicant was arrested and placed into the Illichivskyy Pre-trial Detention Facility.

Between 15 January 2007 and 25 December 2008 the applicant was detained in the Izmayilskyy Temporary Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). He was also there between 10 March and 4 May 2009.

On 29 May 2007 the Illichivskyy Town Court sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment for theft. On 25 June 2008 the same court convicted the applicant of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to eight and a half years’ imprisonment. Since the applicant had previous unserved convictions the total term was established as nine years’ imprisonment.

Between 26 December 2008 and 10 March 2009 the applicant was serving a sentence in Odessa Correctional Colony No. 14. He was also there between 5 May 2009 and 5 September 2012.

Between 23 November and 3 December 2011 the applicant was in a medical ward with a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis.

In July-August 2012 the applicant had numerous blood tests, including a CD4+ cell count with a result of 74 cells. On 12 August 2012 the applicant was diagnosed HIV-positive at clinical stage 4, with tuberculosis of the lymph glands and oropharyngeal candidiasis. It was noted that the applicant was in a critical condition. On 30 August 2012 the applicant was prescribed anti-tuberculosis treatment.

On 26 October 2012 the applicant was examined by an infectious diseases specialist and diagnosed with HIV at clinical stage 4 and tuberculosis of the peripheral lymph nodes. In November-December 2012 the applicant was examined by a surgeon, diagnosed with after-thrombophlebitis syndrome of both legs in oedema-ulcerous form and prescribed treatment. The applicant had further examinations and tests between November 2012 and January 2013. In particular, the applicant had a CD4 cell count on 21 November 2012 (44 cells, or 18.4%).

On 4 and 25 February 2013 the Head of the Golaprystanska Correctional Colony lodged with the Golaprystanskyy District Court two requests under Article 84 of the Criminal Code for the applicant’s release, stating that the applicant was suffering from AID and had other serious health problems. The requests were based on the reports of a medical commission, according to which the applicant’s diseases formed part of the list of health problems for which prison authorities could seek prisoners’ release.

On 11 February and 11 March 2013 respectively the court refused both requests, principally on the grounds that the applicant had been repeatedly convicted of serious crimes and while imprisoned he had been disciplined for violating prison regulations on twelve occasions, which demonstrated that he engaged in persistent anti-social behaviour and did not wish to improve.

On 22 April 2013 the Goloprystanskyy District Court refused a new request from the head of the colony to release the applicant in view of his health condition. It was noted that the applicant had Aids and a number of serious health problems.

On 20 June 2013 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and decided to release the applicant in view of his serious health problems.

On 26 June 2013 the applicant was released.

On October 22, 2015, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical treatment between November 2011 and March 2013, a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective remedies in respect of the lack of medical assistance complained of.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court –Ms O.Y. Sapozhnikova, a lawyer of the SLC who is practicing in Kyiv.

 

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 Ustiment the reply to the Government’s Observations.

On 29 October 2015 the ECtHR issued a judgment in which it found violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning unjustified renewal of the term for filying an appeal for the Pension Fund of Ukraine.

 

Basenko v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Basenko, born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv.

On 24 February 2002 the applicant was travelling on a tram and was approached by Mr G. and Mr S., ticket inspectors employed by the Kyivpastrans municipal enterprise (“the transport company”). They insisted that the applicant pay a fine for travelling without a ticket, while he insisted that he had broken no rules. The applicant was asked to get off the tram. It was then agreed that the applicant would accompany the inspectors to a tram depot to resolve the dispute. While they were on their way to the depot S. kicked the applicant. In response the applicant sprayed the inspectors with tear gas from a can he had on him. S. then kicked the applicant in the left knee, causing a fracture. A struggle between the applicant and S. ensued. G. and S. then left the scene. The applicant could not stand up or walk following the knee fracture, he was helped to the nearby tram stop by the bystanders who called an ambulance for him. The applicant has been receiving treatment for his injury until early 2005.

On 26 February 2002 the applicant made a statement to the police describing the circumstances of the incident.

On 4 March 2002 a police investigator of the Svyatoshynskyy District Police Department (“the District Police Department”) refused to institute criminal proceedings into the incident.

On 5 March 2002 a forensic medical expert diagnosed the applicant with a knee fracture and classified this as bodily injuries of medium gravity.

On 18 December 2002 the Svyatoshynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) quashed the decision of 4 March 2002 and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of deliberate infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity.

On 9 April 2003 the applicant, in the course of a photo identification, identified S. as the person who had assaulted him.

On 14 October 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrator. On 2 February 2005 the District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 14 October 2003 to suspend the investigation, finding that possible perpetrators had in fact been identified.

On 7 February 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Holosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv, against the transport company, seeking damages for the unlawful actions of its employees.

On 14 April 2005 the investigator charged S. with infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity, committed in conspiracy with G. The investigator placed S. and G. on the list of wanted persons, and suspended the investigation as the whereabouts of the accused were unknown.

On 15 November 2005 the court rejected his claim on the ground that he had not proved that he had been injured by the employees of the defendant in the performance of their duties. The court noted that the applicant had failed to explain why the individuals identified by him had not yet been charged or convicted, and that the criminal case in connection with the incident was still under investigation.

On 24 January 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 14 June 2006 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings against G. for lack of corpus delicti in his actions. He relied on the testimony of G., who denied assaulting the applicant, and the testimony of the applicant to the effect that it was S. and not G. who had assaulted him. On the same day he suspended the remaining part of the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrator.

On 20 November 2007 the trial court examined the case on the merits in the presence of S., his lawyer and the prosecutor and in the absence of the applicant. The trial court, after obtaining favourable opinions from all parties present, ruled that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the applicant and witness G. who, the court stated, “had been duly notified about the hearing”. The court further ruled that, should their presence prove necessary, measures would be taken to ensure the applicant’s and G.’s appearance. In the course of the hearing the court heard a statement from S. S. did not contest the charges and admitted his guilt. The court ruled that in view of S.’s confession and admission of guilt there was no call to examine any other evidence.

On the same day the trial court convicted S. as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years with probation. In sentencing S. the court took into account that S. had admitted his guilt and expressed remorse, the fact that he had no prior convictions, was employed and had positive references from his then-current place of employment.

On 30 November 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, upheld the decisions of 15 November 2005 and 24 January 2006.

On November 26, 2015 the European Court has found a procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention, a substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention and a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court – Mr A.A. Kristenko, a lawyer of the SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Kushch v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Sergey Viktorovich Kushch, born in 1969 and lives in Kyiv.

On 20 July 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted in respect of the applicant, as well as two other persons, on suspicion of municipal property embezzlement in particularly large amounts in the context of the tram reconstruction works.

On 21 July 2010 the investigator of the Police Department for Combating Organised Crime telephoned the applicant and invited him to appear to give some explanations. The applicant complied and was arrested.

On 22 July 2010 the applicant’s lawyer challenged his client’s arrest as unlawful before the Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Golosiyivskyy Court”).

On the same date the investigator applied to the court for the applicant’s pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial. The application repeated the grounds, on which the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant had been instituted

On 23 July 2010 a judge of the Golosiyivskyy Court ruled to extend the term of the applicant’s arrest to ten days.

On 29 July 2010 the Golosiyivskyy Court ordered his pre-trial detention (for two months) as a preventive measure pending trial. It noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a particularly serious offence punishable by imprisonment of up to twelve years.

On 15 August 2010 the applicant was placed in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”). Upon his arrival there, he was examined by the SIZO general practitioner and underwent an Rh-factor blood test and an X-ray chest examination. The applicant was diagnosed with an ischemic heart disease, atherosclerosis of aorta and coronary vessels, stage-II hypertension, chronic cholecystitis in remission, osteochondrosis, chronic maxillary sinusitis in an unstable remission and chronic prostatitis. Certain medicines were prescribed to him.

On 26 November 2010 a criminal case was opened in respect of the applicant on suspicion of another episode of embezzlement. It was joined to the first criminal case.

On 21 December 2010 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention to seven months. It also rejected his request for release under an undertaking not to abscond with reasoning identical to that given earlier.

On 21 March 2011 the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention expired.

On 24 March 2011 the Podilskyy Court held a preparatory hearing, during which it decided to keep the applicant under detention. It noted that there were no grounds for changing that preventive measure.

On 20 April 2011 the applicant lodged a request for release submitting that his health was deteriorating and that there was nothing to indicate that he would abscond or hinder the establishment of the truth if at liberty. On the same date the Podilskyy Court rejected the request.

On 3 August, 7 September, 19 October and 21 December 2011, as well as on 24 January 2012, the Podilskyy Court rejected further requests by the applicant for release based on reasoning similar to that given in its ruling of 20 April 2011.

On 23 September 2011 the applicant requested the Court to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in his case and to indicate to the Government the necessity of his urgent medical examination and treatment in a civilian hospital.

On 27 October 2011 the Acting President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Government of Ukraine, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant’s medical examinations which had already been found to be necessary should be carried out and that the conclusions of those examinations should be acted upon without delay.

The applicant was placed from the SIZO in the Kyiv City Emergency Hospital several times. From 21 February to 5 March 2012 the applicant had been constantly handcuffed to his bed.

On 6 March 2012 the applicant was released.

On December 3, 2015, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the medical care available to the applicant in detention, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s handcuffing in hospital, a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention from 23 to 29 July 2010, from 21 to 23 March 2011, and from 24 March 2011 to 6 March 2012, a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court – Mr A.P. Bushchenko, a lawyer of the SLC who is practicing in Kyiv.

 

Tikhonov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Igor Nikolayevich Tikhonov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1979 and is currently serving his sentence in prison.

On 12 February 2006 a man was found killed in his house in the village of Pavlysh, Kirovohrad Region. A criminal investigation was opened.

On the same day the police arrested the applicant under Article 263 of the Administrative Offences Code for minor disorderly conduct which constituted an administrative offence laid down in Article 173 of that Code. Allegedly, during the next two days the police officers repeatedly questioned the applicant without allowing him to sleep, psychologically pressured him and applied physical violence against him with the purpose of extracting his confession to the murder.

On 14 February 2006 the applicant confessed to the crime. The confession was videotaped. He was then arrested as a suspect to the murder. The material concerning the administrative offence was not submitted to any authority for being considered on the merits.

On 15 February 2006 the applicant participated in the reconstruction of the crime where he showed how he committed the murder. During the above period the applicant was not given access to a lawyer.

On 24 February 2006 the applicant was provided with a legal aid lawyer. The applicant refused that lawyer and requested that another lawyer, hired by his relatives, be admitted to him. The request was refused and applicant was questioned without any lawyer on that day.

On 21 June 2007 the District Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The court based its findings on the material, oral, documentary and expert evidence. The court referred in particular to the applicant’s initial self-incriminating statements and noted that they were consistent with the other evidence available in the file. As to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, the court questioned the law-enforcement officers and the witnesses participating in the reconstruction of the crime who denied the allegations. The court also reviewed the videotapes of the applicant’s self-incriminating statements and found no signs of ill-treatment.

On 15 January 2008 the Kirovohrad Region Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 21 June 2007.

On 7 October 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as unfounded and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

On March 2009 the applicant lodged the application to the ECtHR. The applicant complained that during the first days of his detention he was subjected to psychological and physical ill-treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest and initial detention were unlawful. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts failed to properly examine the evidence in the file and to correctly apply the law and under Article 6 § 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that he had no access to a lawyer at the initial stage of the proceedings.

On November 2012 the ECtHR decided to communicate the application to the Government of Ukraine. The SLC has provided legal aid for the applicant when prepared the reply on the Government’s Observations.

On 12 December 2013 a lawyer of the SLC prepared the reply on the Government’s Observations.

On 10 December 2015 the ECtHR issued a judgment in which it found a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention concerning lack of the access to legal assistance at the initial stage of criminal proceedings.

 

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

 

Burakov v. Ukraine

In February 2010 Mr Burakov, a resident of Kherson, was arrested on suspicion in illegal acts with drugs, and was detained in a temporary detention centre. In the centre he was frozen in the cell and got pneumonia. Two week later the applicant was brought to the Kherson SIZO. On 5 March 2010 the applicant died in Kherson SIZO from bronchopneumonia.

The deceased person was HIV-infected and a drug user, moreover he was a patient of opioid substitution therapy that discontinued after he was having been detained.

At the end of 2011 the SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr B.’s mother lodged the application to the European Court for Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR) on the violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, namely on the matter of absence of adequate and timely medical care during his detention.

In 2011-2014 another lawyer of SLC practicing in Kherson represented Mr B.’s mother as a victim in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings against officials and medical staff whose inactivity or other forms of wrongdoings in his opinion led to Mr B.’s death. The actions were being conducted to support the application in the ECtHR

In July, 2015 the SLC’s lawyer prepared and sent to the Court a reply to the Observation of the Government on the questions asked by the Court concerning a violation of the applicant son’s right to life in material and procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, and lack of effective domestic remedy for the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

Now the case is pending to its consideration by the ECtHR.

 

Drazman and others v. Ukraine

The first applicant – Ms Valentina Drazman and the third applicant Ms Irina Drazman are currently living in Kharkiv, Ukraine. The second applicant Mr Nikolay Logachev is serving in the Anti-terrorist operation’s zone, Ukraine.

On 3 May 2001 Mr G. drove a car and struck Mr Logachov’s daughter who was walking in the street. She died from the injuries sustained. Two passengers in the car, including Mr Drazman – son of Ms Valentina Drazman and father of Irina Drazman, died as well. The other two passengers were injured but remained alive.

On 4 May 2001 the police instituted criminal proceedings against Mr G. for having violated traffic safety rules causing deaths of victims. On an unspecified date the first and the second applicants lodged civil claims which were joined to the criminal case file.

On 10 April 2002 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of G.

On 15 April 2002 that decision was quashed as unsubstantiated and further investigation was ordered.

In letter of 5 June 2002 the police authorities informed the applicants that the police officers who had caused delays in the criminal proceedings had been disciplined.

In November 2002 the case was referred to the Kupyansk District Court of Kharkiv Region (“the District Court”) for consideration on the merits. During the trial the District Court ordered technical expert examination to remove the inconsistencies in the evidential basis.

On 20 August 2010 the District Court found that the charges against G. were unsubstantiated and acquitted him. The civil claims of the first and the second applicants were dismissed without consideration.

On 3 February 2011 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 20 August 2010 and remitted the case for a new trial.

On 20 May 2011 the third applicant was admitted to the proceedings as a civil claimant.

On 17 June 2011 the District Court terminated the criminal proceedings against G. as time-barred.

On 8 September 2011 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 17 June 2011 and remitted the case for a new trial.

On 21 December 2011 the District Court found that G. violated traffic safety rules; however, he had to be released from punishment due to the expiry of time-limit for criminal responsibility. The District Court further partly allowed the civil claims of the first and the second applicants.

On 15 March 2012 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and terminated the criminal proceedings as time-barred. It noted that the applicants were entitled to pursue their civil claims in the course of a separate set of civil proceedings.

On 19 June 2012 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Cases upheld the decision of 15 March 2012.

In 2012 a lawyer of SLC complained under Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the Convention that the investigation and further court proceedings concerning the circumstances of their relatives’ deaths have not been effective; the courts failed to establish the facts properly and apply domestic law correctlyand civil claims have not been examined by the domestic authorities for a considerable period of time.

On August 12, 2015 lawyers of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s arguments set out in their Observations of June 19, 2015.

On October 2015 a lawyer of SLC filed a request for examination of the property assessment of Mr G. to enforce the court decision on the transfer of his ownership to the apartment in Kupyansk, Kharkiv region to Ms Drazman and Mr Logachev.

 

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

 

Shcherbakov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Oleg Yevgeniyovych Shcherbakov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1964 and is detained in Gorodyshche.

On 11 July 2010 the applicant broke a window in the home of Mr and Mrs Ma. (“the victims”) and threw a jar of petrol with a burning fuse into the room where Mrs Ma. slept. As a result, Mrs Ma.’s head caught fire and she was disfigured.

On 19 July 2010 the applicant was arrested. According to him, following his arrest from 19 to 22 July 2010 the police officers ill-treated him in order to force him to confess to attempted murder of the victims. He also alleges that during that period he was kept without food and water, tightly handcuffed and not allowed to use the toilet.

On 21 July 2010 the applicant gave a statement to the police. On 22 July 2010 an arrest report was drawn up documenting the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of attempted murder.

A report of a forensic medical expert dated 29 July 2010 documented that the applicant had bruises on his wrists, a hematoma on his forehead, and pink spots on the back of his thighs.

On 3 November 2010 an investigator of the Slovyansk Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment for lack of corpus delicti in their actions.

On 23 February 2012 the Slovyansk Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder, infliction of grievous bodily harm and arson. It sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. In convicting the applicant the court relied, in particular, on the applicant’s statements made during the pre-trial investigation which the trial court interpreted to mean that the applicant had realised that the house set on fire had been the victims’ home and that they might have been inside at the time.

On 15 July 2012 the Slovyansk prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti in their actions.

On 12 July 2012 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction. It also noted that according to the findings of the Prosecutor’s Office of 15 July 2012 the applicant had been handcuffed on 19 July 2010 and there was no evidence that the applicant had been released afterwards. In view of these findings, the Court of Appeal concluded that the applicant’s allegations that he had been kept in unlawful detention where he had been ill-treated from 19 to 22 July 2010 were not without basis and ruled that this period of detention was to be deducted from his sentence.

On 19 March 2013 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the judgment of the trial court and the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

In 2013 the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to torture by police officers and that there was no effective investigation in this respect. He also complains under Article 6 that the domestic courts admitted in evidence his and Mr Mi.’s incriminating statements obtained under duress in the course of pre-trial investigation.

On October 10, 2015 a lawyer of SLC prepared and submitted to the ECHR the Observations in reply to the Ukrainian Government’s arguments set out in their Observations of September 22, 2015.

 

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”)

 

3.1.1. “Prisoners 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 the city of Antratsyt in Lugansk region, Yurchenko, Vilorov, Sahnyuk, Tobeychyk were transported to the city of Snizhne in Donetsk region and Hryshanyk was transported to the city of Ilovaysk in Donetsk region.

After the apprehension, the applicants were searched during which they were beaten and humiliated, and 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 corpsees in the later stages of putrefaction. The prisoners were not provided either with 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 who provided control, convoy and  their examination, purposefully used methods of mental and physical suppression to enhance  obedience of the prisoners. In particular, a naked man 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 and poor nutrition of low quality, they had no access to drinking water and had to drink technical water. Several times during the detention period the applicants were interrogated 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 enlisted for military service and 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 bury the bodies of killed 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 the town of Snezhnoe. There he was placed into a little patio under the open sky where 40 men had already been placed. There the applicant’s interrogation 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 poor nutrition of low quality; 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 space 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 enlisted for military service and 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 poor nutrition of low quality; 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 space 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.

On 15 - 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 militants of Russian army.

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 interrogated by a military officer of Russian special forces on the matters: who he was, from what unit he was, how much military equipmentand how many soldiers the Ukrainian side had, where these 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 interrogated by 10 military officers of the Investigative Committee of Russia on the same matters: who he was, from what unit he was, how much military equipment 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 the SLC applied to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

Gukov v. Ukraine

Mr Yuriy Gukov (hereinafter – the applicant) is a member of a voluntary battalion “Aydar” which was founded after beginning of the Anti-terrorist operation in the East of Ukraine.

On 1 July 2014 for militaries of the battalion “Aydar” came to the apartment of Mr S. whom had allegedly provided assistance to separatist groups. During their visit one of the militaries demanded Mr. S to give them his cell phone and a laptop in order to find any information concerning separatist activities of Mr. S.

On 2 July 2014 the applicant, together with other militaries, was detained by the police informed about suspicion in commitment of a robbery of Mr. S. At the same day he was interrogated as a suspect and then released.

On 24 June 2015 the applicant was arrested by the police officers of the Kharkiv regional police department where he came for filing an application about the murder of his wife on the territory of so-called “Lughansk People Republic”.

On 25 June 2015 the applicant was taken into custody by the ruling of the Pechersk district court of Kyiv, according to which he was suspected in commitment of an aggravated robbery of Mr. S., despite the fact that the victim had not directly pointed at the applicant as a person who assaulted him.

On 29 June 2015 the applicant’s defense lawyer filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Kyiv City.

The actual consideration of the appeal took place on 5 August 2015, i.e. after one month and ten days of applicant’s detention in custody which contradicts the requirements of the national legislation according to which such a kind of an appeal shall be considered within three days after its filing.

The delay in consideration of the appeal was caused by unlawful actions of the lower court which had not delivered the materials of the case to the Court of Appeal, as well as by the Court of Appeal which had not arranged properly neither the applicant’s transfer for the court hearing no conduction of the hearing through video conference.

By the ruling of 5 August 2015 the Court of Appeal of Kyiv City issued a decision about replacing of a preventive measure for the applicant from detention in custody to undertaking not to leave.

However, the applicant was released from custody only on 7 August 2015.

In September 2015 a lawyer of the SLC prepared the application to the ECtHR about violation of Article 5 § 1 (a), (c) and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

 

 

 

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 in 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 neither among the list of live troops, nor among the list of the dead soldiers.

On February 27, 2015 the lawyer of the 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.

On July 7, 2015 a lawyer of SLC complained to the ECtHR under Article 2,3 about the missing of Mr Topal under circumstances that hazardous to his life and health.

 

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 in 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.

On July 7, 2015 a lawyer of SLC complained 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 in 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» a video of the Russian TV company «Lifenews» was published, 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 in 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» a video of the Russian TV company «Lifenews» was published, 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 the 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 the 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 in 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» a video of the Russian TV company «Lifenews» was published, 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 in 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 the entire left side of his body was splited, 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 in Donetsk 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 held in the premise of the former SSU in Donetsk city, where he was guarded. All this time, the applicant was not fed normally, rebels gave 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-mates.

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

The applicant was held in captivity for 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 v. Ukraine

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

On April 10, 2015 the applicant’s brother went 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 the 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.

On July 1, 2015 a lawyer of the SLC complained to the ECtHR under Article 3 and 5 regarding the holding of Mr Moroz in a hostage under circumstances that hazardous to his life and health and the absence of reasonable suspicion at the application of the measures of restraint to him.

On December 24, 2015 a lawyer of the SLC complained to the ECtHR under Article 2 regarding the death of Mr Moroz in a hostage.

 

Cases of Bretousov, Vasylkov, Tsymbalyuk v. Ukraine

On 31 June 2014 the applicants were enlisted to the ranks of the Military Forces of Ukraine, a military unit no. 3730, flak missile regiment where they had received military training till 27 October 2014.

On 30 December 2014 the applicants together with other militaries, went by a car for the meeting with militaries of the 72nd brigate in order to provide the last with diesel oil and scrims. On the autoroot Mariupol-Donetsk their car came to a check point which was under the control of separatists.

The car, in applicant were sitting, searched two militaries in uniform which turned their guns on the applicants and ordered to get out of the car, threatening them with a murder.

The insurgents started shooting at the applicants’ car, at the result of which one of the Ukrainian militaries was killed.

On 30 December 2014 the applicants were taken to a village Olenovka of Donetsk region.

After arrival to the point of destination the insurgents withdrawn the applicants from the car trunk, took them to the premise where they tied their hands behind the backs. The applicants were sitting in such a position for several hours, all this time the insurgents humiliated them, pushed with hands and feet, spat on them and shot from automatic guns over their heads.

The applicants were further taken for interrogation with an insurgent who was wearing a uniform “Afganka” with a hash mark “Oplot”.

This insurgent started beating the applicants with a baseball beat. After that the applicants were taken from the study and handcuffed. 

The applicants were tortured by separatist insurgent for 3 days who beat them and applied electric current. During all this period of time they were deprived of sleep, they were given very little food and water.

At the night form 31 December to 1 January the second applicant was taken for execution with a bag on his hand. He was threatened with death several times, but the separatists shot over his head.

From 05 January 2015 the insurgents had started providing the applicant with 3-times-a day meal (including cereals, wheat porridge and pasta). They were given only technical water. The applicants were not allowed to visit the toiled as often as they needed. They were not allowed to shave or take a shower either.

From 1 January to 25 January the applicants were beaten every day with hands, feet and clubs of automatic guns.

On 25 January 2015 the applicants were taken to the building of the television broadcasting station of Donetsk and kept there till 10 February 2015.

From 1 February 2015 the applicants were forced to cleaning works on the territory: they were forced to sweep out the garbage, to clean of premises in which terrorists lived. All this was accompanied by the humiliation on the part of terrorists, as well as physical violence.

On 10 February 2015 the applicants were taken to the warehouse of building materials where they were kept for three days.

On 27 May 2015 the applicants were taken to the building of the State Security Service of Ukraine in Donetsk. There they were interrogated and photos of them were taken. Some of the terrorists threatened the applicants with bodily harm.

Starting from 1 May 2015 the terrorists forced the applicants to bring waste paper, office equipment, furniture, air conditioning, laminate flooring, toilets in the building of the former bank. All this was brought by truck. During performing of works, the applicants were humiliated and insulted.

On 31 August 2015 the applicant were released. The first and the third applicants were transferred to Khmelnytskiy, the second applicant was transferred to Krasnoarmiysk.

In December 2015, the application on violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention was sent to the ECtHR.

 

Parkhomenko v. Ukraine

On 12 May 2014 the applicant was enlisted for serving military service in the ranks of the Military Forces of Ukraine and sent to the military unit B2603 on the position of the chief of the medical service.

From 09 to 29 August 2014 the applicant participated in the military operation on scouring of the town of Illovaysk where he was taken hostage.

From 01 to 13 September 2014 the applicant was kept in hostage in the village of Novoekaterinovka. After his release the applicant continued his military service in the 40th battalion.

On 22 December 2014 the applicant was sent for being on station in the east edge of the city of Debaltsevo, Donetsk region.

On 26 December 2014 the applicant was given an order to go for strengthening a defensive pivot near the railway station Debaltsevo. 

On 15 February 2015 the applicant together with two other Ukrainian militaries went to hold negotiations with separatists.

On 16 February 2015 the negotiations were held again, during which the separatists threated Ukrainian militaries. 

On 17 February 2015 the applicant and other Ukrainian militaries were taken hostage, where they were searched and their personal belongings were removed. The applicant’s mobile phone, wallet, bullet-proof vest and other belonging were taken by the terrorists. The hostages were taken to the commandant’s office of Lughansk which was situated in the central registry office. They were placed into a basement. The wounded hostages were not provided with medical assistance.

From 18 to 22 February 2015 the applicant was interrogated several times, he was suggested to sign a document about cooperation, but the applicant refused. After his refuse the terrorists threatened him with bodily harm and threatened to kill his family members.

Fearing for the life of his relatives the applicant agreed to sign the document.

On 23 February 2015 several drunken separatists came into the applicant’s cell and started beating hostages. The applicant was beaten with feet and left lying on the cell floor without any medical aid.

On 24 February 2015 15 separatists beat the applicant and other hostages with spade handles, metal crutches, firearm, which they constantly directed at the detainees with removed protectors.

Conditions of detention were inadequate.

From 17 February to 22 May 2015 the applicant was not provided with a daily every day walk, during all the period of detention the applicant had the opportunity to have a shower only three times. He had to use a plastic bottle as a toilet.

In June 2015 the applicant and other hostages several times unloaded trucks with humanitarian aid.

On 10 July 2015 the applicant was informed about possible exchange of hostages.

On 11 July he was released and sent for giving statements to the Security Service of Ukraine. The same day the applicant left for Kharkiv.

In December 2015, the application on violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention was sent to the ECtHR.

 

Kharatin v. Ukraine

On 17 May 2014 the applicant was enlisted for serving military service in the ranks of the Military Forces of Ukraine and sent to the military unit B2603.

On 22 December 2014 the applicant was sent for being on station in the east edge of the city of Debaltsevo, Donetsk region.

On 9 January 2015 the applicant went to Debaltsevo as from 21 December 2014 to 7 January 2015 he was under medical treatment. After arrival in Debaltsevo the applicant performed the functions of an intelligence officer

On 15 February 2015 when performing a military task the applicant was injured into the leg and taken hostage by separatists who called themselves Donskie kazaki. During his interrogation by the separatist the applicant was heavily beaten and lost consciousness. When he regained conscience, the applicant noticed that he was handcuffed and wore only underwear. The cell in which he was kept was very cold.

From 15 to 17 February 2015 the applicant was kept in this cell. The size of the cell was 6 m2, it had concrete floor, and there were several boxes for storage of weapons which were used as a bed. The applicant was not given food or water. The applicant was taken to the toiled only two times in two days. The separatists often went to the applicant’s cell, and subjected him to the mental pressure, threatening to kill him and his relatives.

On 17 February 2015 the applicant was taken to the town of Perevalsk Lughansk region, where he was placed in the former building of the Employment center.

From 20 February to 20 May 2015 the applicant was kept in the cell situated under the ladder where another Ukrainian military was kept. There was no heating in the cell, the applicant was not provided with clothes.

The separatists who were guarding the cell humiliated the hostages, sprayed on them from fire extinguishers; beat with truncheons for talks between hostages.

On 20 February the applicant was taken for the first interrogation. It was conducted without physical violence. During the further interrogation the applicant was beaten with a chair, feet and a club of a machine gun.

At the end of February 2015 the applicant was interrogated by representatives of kazak military forces who wanted to find out the presence of African soldiers in the Ukrainian Military Forces. During this interrogation the applicant was severely beaten. At the same day the applicant was taken outside, the temperature at that time was about -20 C, the applicant was undressed and wet with water. After that the terrorists continued beating and broke two applicant’s ribs.

During all the period of his detention the applicant was interrogated about 20 times, and all this time he was beaten.

At the interrogations a representative of the OSCE was presented, however he did not intrude. 

On 18 May 2015 the applicant was taken to the commandant’s office of Lughansk.

In June 2015 the applicant and other hostages several times unloaded trucks with humanitarian aid.

On 10 July 2015 the applicant was informed about possible exchange of hostages.

On 11 July he was released and sent for giving statements to the Security Service of Ukraine. The same day the applicant left for Kharkiv.

In December 2015, the application on violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention was sent to the ECtHR.

 

Shanidze v. Ukraine

At the end of May 2014 the applicant joined the military service in a voluntary battalion “Aidar”, a military unit 0624 and served the service near village of Polovinkino, Starobelsk district, Lughansk region.

On 15 October 2014 the applicant together with other Ukrainian militaries were performing a military task and went in the direction of the city of Severodonetsk.

At the result of shelling by separatists from mortars and small arms, near a checkpoint at the highway Bakhmutskaya the car’s wheels were punctured and all the soldiers were forced to leave the car. Almost all of them were injured.

The applicant was injured and taken hostages by separatist insurgents.

The applicant was threatened with death because of his Georgian nationality.

Late at night on 15 October 2014 the applicant and other hostages were taken to Lughansk.

Separatists searched the applicant and seized his weapon and personal belongings. Later the surgery was conducted on his leg.

From 15 October to 23 December 2014 the applicant together with other three hostages was provided with medical treatment. 

From 16 to 21 October 2014 all the hostages were kept in a hospital. They were visited by separatists who threatened to kill them.

On 22 October 2014 for the first time the separatists were going to exchange hostages, but the exchange did not take place.    

From 23 December 2014 the applicant was kept in the basement of the commandant’s office in Lughansk. At the middle of January 2015, the applicant was taken to the building of the Ministry of Defense of so-called LPR. There the applicant was subjected to tortures and ill-treatment. 

On 17 February 2015 other hostages were placed into the applicant’s cell. Conditions of detention were inadequate, the nutrition was very poor, the applicants were not provided with drinking water, there was not enough living space and the hostages were not allowed to have an everyday walk.

From 22 May 2015 the applicant and other hostages were allowed to have 10-minutes walks for 4-5 times per week. Also they were allowed to have a shower one time per week.

In June 2015 the applicant and other hostages several times unloaded trucks with humanitarian aid.

On 10 July 2015 the applicant was informed about possible exchange of hostages.

On 11 July he was released and sent for giving statements to the Security Service of Ukraine. The same day the applicant left for Kharkiv.

In December 2015, the application on violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention was sent to the ECtHR.

 

3.1.2. Civil victims of the military operations

 

Malay v. Russia and Ukraine

     The applicant, Malay Ludmila Olexandrivna, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Debaltseve, Ukraine.

     In April 2014 the Anti-terrorist operation (ATO) was started on the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk regions. On 19 January 2015 hard shelling started in Debaltseve. The city was controlled by Ukrainian armed forces. Since April 2014 and till now Debaltsevo has been under control of illegal military formation “DPR”.

     When the shelling began, the applicant moved to Artemivsk, Donetsk region (Ukraine). Her parents didn’t want to leave their home in Debaltseve and they stayed.

     On 9 February 2015 applicant’s mother was killed with a bomb on the backyard of her house. It was impossible to bury the applicant’s mother because the applicant’s family was obliged to get a lot of permits to do this. Moreover, the authorities failed to provide measures concerning placing dead bodies to a morgue, and did not provide simplified procedures for burying victims of the hostilities.

The woman was buried in the garden near her home under incessant attacks. A month later the applicant’s mother was dug up and taken to the morgue.

On March 5, 2015 it was conducted an autopsy and issued a medical certificate of death.

The certificate stated that the cause of death was explosive fragmentation fracture of lower limb that occurred as a result of shelling of the area. Only after the autopsy the applicant’s mother could be buried in a cemetery in compliance with Christian rites.

The other bomb damaged applicant’s house. It is impossible now to apply to local governmental bodies for remuneration: there are no Ukrainian state institutions functioning on those territories. So-called “DPR” doesn’t provide any compensation of losses. It is dangerous to file an application to law-enforcement bodies of so-called “DPR” because they react inadequately to such applications.

     The applicant and her father are still living in the damaged house. They cannot rebuild it because military actions still take place on the territory of Donetsk region and there is a big probability of further shelling in Debaltsevo. Ukraine hasn’t provided any variants of obtaining compensations for destroyed houses during ATO which are situated in the regions, controlled by illegal military formations.

     On 22 June 2015 the Applicant filed a complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine asking for investigation of her mother’s death and causing of damages to her property.

Because of events mentioned above, the Applicant applied to the KHPG. She asked its experts to prepare an application to the ECtHR on the grounds of violations of Article 2 and Article 1 of the 1st Protocol of the Convention.

     On 4 September 2015 the application was filed to the ECtHR.

     On 30 September 2015 the ECtHR informed the applicant about receiving the application and about its further consideration.

 

Vardanyan v Russia and Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Vardanyan, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Lugansk, Ukraine.

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

On 18 July 2014, Vardanyan came out from his house to find some fresh water. He caught a bombardment and his hand was injured. He was delivered to the hospital. His life was under threat and he experienced behavior that waked fear, oppression, anguish of body and mind.

As it was dangerous to stay in Lugansk, on 26 July 2014, his wife and he tried to leave the city but train traffic was stopped that day. So their free movement was limited.

All the time their house had been under bombardments so they was not able to come back home. They had to leave their house because it was dangerous for their lives to stay there. They had to hide in a skip. To save their lives they left Lugansk with the help of a person who engaged private transportations.

On 29 May 2015, Vardanyan filed a criminal complaint to General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine.

0n 16 June 2015, his complaint was sent in accordance with the jurisdiction to the Prosecutor’s Office in Lugansk region.

As the criminal proceeding was not opened there is no effective national remedy. Now he has no access to his housing and transport.

On the grounds of events mentioned above, the applicant applied to the KHPG for making an application to the ECtHR about violations of Article 2, 3, 8 and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

The applicant complaints under Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

 

Yedushevs v. Russia and Ukraine

Applicants, Yedusheva Ludmila Vasylivna and her son Yedushev Leonid Volodumyrovych, live in a small town Novotroitske, Volnovakha district, Donetsk region, Ukraine. It is situated exactly on the line of a military conflict, on a cross line of the Anti-terrorist operation.

On 18 October 2014 the applicants’ house was shelled hardly. Yedushev Vladimir Leonidovich, who was the husband of the first applicant (father of the second applicant) was killed with a bomb. Applicants were hardly injured. Their house was ruined. Novotroitske is often under shelling even now. So, the applicants have a permanent feeling of fear for their lives.

On 18 October 2014 the both applicants and Yedushev Vladimir Leonidovich (the father) were at home in separate rooms. About 19.30 the shelling started without any warning. There was a direct hit to the applicants’ house. The father of this family was killed by the shelling. Yedushev Leonid Volodumyrovych was wounded in his hand by shrapnel. His hand was broken badly. Some time after the shelling, the both applicants were taken to the hospital. There they were questioned by police officers but no criminal proceeding was started on the basis of their testimony.

On 7 September 2015 the applicant filed a complaint to the Volnovakha district police station with a notification about the crime committed against her, her husband and son, and her property. There was no answer.

As a result of the shelling of the 18th October 2014 their house was damaged badly. It is not possible to live there in winter. According to the inquiry act made by village council, there are no windows in the house, the roof is ruined, and one of the walls is damaged. The fence is ruined, the backyard is damaged. Their car, which was parked in the yard, was also damaged. Applicants do not have other place to live in or money to make all the necessary repairs in their own house.

In spite of many complaints filed by the applicants, no effective investigation of their relative’s death and property damages was conducted.

Because of aforementioned events applicants asked the KHPG to provide legal aid. They wanted experts to prepare an application to the ECtHR under the violations of Articles 2, 3, 8 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

On 16 September 2015 application was filed to the ECtHR.

On 30 September 2015 the ECtHR answered to applicants. They were informed about receiving of the application and about its further consideration.

 

Kornilovs v. Russia and Ukraine

Applicants, Kornilova Mariya Ivanivna (born in 1939) and her son Kornilov Olexandr Vitaliyovich (born in 1970), live in small town Novotroitske of Volnovakha district, Donetsk region. It is situated exactly on the line of a military conflict, on a cross line of Anti-terrorist operation.

On 13 January 2015 Kornilova Inna Olexandrivna, granddaughter of the first applicant and daughter of the second applicant, died during the “GRAD” shelling of a bus near Volnovakha.

On 13 January 2015 Inna Kornilova was on her way to Donetsk to receive her certificate of education. She went there by a civil bus. Its route was “Donetsk - Zlatoustivka”. On that day it moved from Zlatoustivka to Donetsk. At 14.35 the bus stopped near the Ukrainian armed forces’ checkpoint no. 5 between the village Bugas and the city Volnovakha. During the passport checking the checkpoint was bombarded with “GRADs”. One of the bombs with a shrapnel head (according to the OSCE monitoring mission’s data http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/134636 ) landed in 12-15 meters from the bus. The nearest to the explosion side of the bus was covered with through shot holes.

Inna Kornilova was in that bus at that day. She was badly wounded in her stomach, her internals were seriously injured and she had huge blood loss. As a result, she died on 13 January 2015.

The second applicant found information about his daughter’s death on the Internet. The next day applicants went to the district council to see a list of people died in the bus. His daughter’s name was mentioned in the list.

Some officials saw applicants crying and came to them. They asked them to go to an office. There applicants were questioned and an official gave them 10.000 UAH as a financial aid. On that day the applicant had a talk with representatives of the police and the Security Service. Applicants have no information about any actions of government to contact them after the 14th of January 2015.

On 6 June 2015 the applicant filed a complaint to the Volnovakha district police station. She asked police to provide information on the investigation. But there was no response.

The both sides of military conflict place responsibility for that terrible incident on each other. There is information on the Internet that the Prosecutor’s Office of Donetsk region initiated criminal proceedings on the Article 258 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (terrorist act).

On 20 January 2015 during a press-conference of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine V.Yarema and the head of Security Service V.Nalyvaychenko, an official version of investigation was announced (http://rian.com.ua/inquiry/20150120/362290742.html ). The main goal of their investigation was to put the responsibility on terrorists and to justify actions of the Ukrainian armed forces.

Prosecutor’s Office of so-called “DPR” also announced an initiating of criminal proceedings #18-094-14 to investigate that incident (http://www.interfax.ru/world/417888 ). Ministry of foreign affairs of so-called “DPR” made an announcement about their non-participation in shelling of the bus (http://mid-dnr.ru/ru/news/zayavlenie-kasatelno-obstrela-marshrutki-pod-volnovahoj/ ). It is mentioned that terrorists do not have a physical opportunity to hit the checkpoint because it is situated out of the fire area of their arms.

After 20 January 2015 there was no announcement about the investigation. Neither publicity, nor the applicants have any information about the results of investigation. It is not clear, whether new information about the investigation will be provided or not. In any case, applicants do not find it normal to find out the information about the investigation of their child’s death on the Internet.

Applicants asked the KHPG for help. Experts of the KHPG prepared an application to the ECtHR on violations of Article 2, 13 of the Convention.

On 28 December 2015 the application was filed to the ECtHR.

 

Grytsenyak v. Russia and Ukraine

The applicant, Mykola Grytsenyak, a native Ukrainian citizen, lives in a small town Novotroitske, Donetsk region. It is controlled by Ukraine. Terrorists of “Donetsk people’s republic” have been shelling Novotroitske since the October 2014. Many houses and other property of its citizens were destroyed.

After beginning of the shelling the applicant took his family (wife and two children) to Kharkiv. The applicant decided to come back to Novotroitske because of pillagers. When he was coming home his neighbors called him and said that applicant`s house was destroyed after shelling. When he came home he found his house badly damaged. The bomb damaged the foundation, floor, roof, walls and windows. The house is in critical condition and it`s impossible to live there. The Novotroitske town council takes a note and issues a certificate, which acknowledges the major damage of applicant`s house due to shelling. The town council proposed the remuneration in the amount of 1000 hrivnas (about 40 euro).

Police officers didn`t arrive at the scene. The criminal proceeding was initiated only after the lawyer of the Human Rights protection Group filed a complaint to the police. The neighbors of the applicant appealed to the police too but police officers answered that they could do nothing in such situation because there were so many people who had incurred losses and the state had no money for remunerations.

Investigation hasn’t been carrying out since the initiating of criminal proceeding.

The applicant now lives with his family in Novotroitske. He has to rent a flat and keep his family in such difficult circumstances and bad conditions for living.

In September 2015 the lawyer of the KHPG prepared an application to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the Grytsenyak M. The applicant complains that in his situation takes place the violation of Article 8, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

On 18 September 2015 the application was filed to the ECHR.

On 15 October 2015 the Court addressed an answer to the applicant with information about receiving of his application and further consideration of his case.

 

Nuykins v. Russia and Ukraine

Applicant 1 – Nuykina Rita Anatoliyvna, Applicant 2 – her husband Nuykin Mykola Mykolayovich, Applicant 3 – mother of Applicant 1 Dubina Ludmila Grigorivna. Applicants 1,2 and 3 lived in a village Shirokine, Novoazovsk district, Donetsk region, Ukraine.

Applicants lived together in a house in Shirokine. Applicant 2 also owned another house in Shirokine. Shirokine is situated in 20 km to the east from Mariupol.

On 15-16 February there was an uphill fighting for Shirokine.

On 15 February Applicants 1 and 2 were on their way home from Mariupol. They were not allowed to enter Shirokine and they couldn’t take Applicant 3 away from there. Applicant 3 is an old lady of 73. She cannot walk without help, has weak eyesight and cannot take care of her natural necessities on her own. She had to spend a night under the “GRAD” shelling with a soldier of volunteer battalion “AZOV”. He advised her to sit in a room without windows. That night bombs didn’t hit the house. When Applicants 1 and 2 were taking Applicant 3 away, there were soldiers of “AZOV” in their house.

The both of houses were badly damaged with bombs as a result of a military standoff between terrorist organization “Donetsk people’s republic” and Ukrainian national armed forces during February-April 2015. Applicants do not even know the exact date of ruining of their houses. It was not possible for them to get to Shirokino and to get an access to their property.

From March 2015 to July 2015 there were a number of uphill fights for Shirokino. Grenade machine guns, 120-millimiters mine throwers, large-caliber machine guns, small arms – all these were used.

A house of Applicant 2 is situated on a little hill. In February – March 2015 the house was under control of the Ukrainian armed forces (in 100 meters there were positions of “DPR”). According to information provided by co-villagers, the roof of that house was also hit by a bomb. Applicants do not know how many more bombs had hit the house of the second applicant. It is obvious that all the property in a house without roof is damaged because of rain and snow.

At the end of April terrorists of “DPR” occupied Shirokino and placed their positions there (http://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-no-end-in-sight-for-the-women-of-shyrokyne/a-18408494 ). As of 28 October 2015 there are Ukrainian armed forces in Shirokine. Shelling continues. The “regime of silence” is violated badly. The village itself is totally destroyed.

In fact, their 2 houses are ruined and unlivable. Applicants have no other place to live in. Now applicants live in Mariupol as internally displaced persons (IDPs).

On 1 July 2015 terrorists left Shirokino and announced it a demilitarized zone.

On 15 July 2015 Applicants 1 and 2 filed a complaint to the Head of Volnovakha district police station asking for an investigation of their houses’ demolition. Complaints were ignored in spite of the fact that identical complaints of their neighbors were satisfied and the criminal proceeding was initiated.

On 12 October 2015 Applicants 1 and 2 sent written complaint with information about crime to the Ministry of internal affairs. No investigation is being held.

Concerning the above mentioned events applicants asked the KHPG for legal help. Lawyers prepared an application to the ECtHR on violations of Article 8, 13 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

On 28 October 2015 the application was filed to the ECtHR.

 

Yakovenkos v. Russia and Ukraine

Applicant 1 – Yakovenko Tetyana Olexyivna, Applicant 2 – her husband Yakovenko Olexandr Grygoriyovych, Applicant 3 – their son Yakovenko Andriy Olexandrovych, lived in a village Shirokine, Novoazovsk district, Donetsk region, Ukraine.

Applicants lived together in a house in Shirokine. The house was owned by the Applicant 2. Their house was under shelling for a few times. Bombs directly hit it definitely more than one time. It was a result of military standoff between illegal military formation “Donetsk people’s republic” and Ukrainian national armed forces. The second floor of the house is totally ruined, on the first floor walls, framing constructions are damaged badly.

At the beginning of February 2015 unknown armed men entered the house of Applicants. They demanded from applicants money and other valuable things. After Applicants answered that they have nothing, they made a threat to kill the Applicant 2. They shoot near him from their guns to threaten Applicants.

In the middle of March 2015 the house was hit by the first large-caliber flame projectile. Applicants do not even know the exact date of that occasion. As their co-villagers say, there were some more bombs which hit the house of applicants. Applicants know that the second floor of the building is ruined and almost all their things are stolen from the house.

On 15 October 2015 the Applicant 1 filed a complaint to the Ministry of internal affairs, but there was no response. At the end of 2015 applicants filed a complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office but there was no response either. The investigation is not being held.

Applicants asked the KHPG for legal help. Lawyers prepared an application to the ECtHR on violations of Article 8, 13 and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

On 30 November 2015 the application was sent to the Court.

 

Romanukhas v. Russia and Ukraine

The Applicants, Romanukha Natalia Petrivna (Applicant 1) and Romanukha Mykola Andriyovich (Applicant 2), live in a small town Novotroitske, Volnovakha district, Donetsk region. It is situated exactly on the line of a military conflict, on a cross line of the Anti-terrorist operation.

On 20 October 2014 the house of applicants was under shelling. The Applicant 1 was injured in her face. The Applicant 2 was at home on that day. He luckily escaped from being injured but his life was also in danger.

Property of the applicants – the roof, windows, walls of the house, steadings and their car – all these was seriously damaged. Because of that the applicants were ought to spend winter at their parents’ house.

On 20 October 2014 the applicants were at home in separate rooms. At about 22.30 without any warning the shelling was started.

It was just a usual evening. Applicant 2 was having a rest and Applicant 1 was heating water to wash dishes. When Applicant 1 came through the corridor there was an explosion near the house and all the window glasses broke out. After that 2 bombs fell on their house. Applicant 1 was hurt in her face. She hid in the corner and started screaming in panic. At that moment the third bomb fell on their house. Applicant 2 was in other room and he was knocked down by the third explosion.

When the applicants came down to the basement to hide, they saw that it was also ruined. Then they came to stokehold. Doors were twisted in a knot and Applicant 2 tried to tear it away. Window glasses in stokehold also were broken out but there was a bit safer. There the applicants spent 30 minutes of horror. When it became silent outside they went to the next house to their daughter.

The next day the daughter of Applicant 1 took them to the hospital. Applicant 1 needed an eye surgery. Doctors took a piece of shrapnel 1.5x1.7 sm. out of her eye. Applicant 1 cannot see with her left eye.

In the house of the applicants, 14 windows are broken out, the roof of the house, the garage and steadings are damaged. The back wall of the garage and its gates are damaged. The summer kitchen is damaged. The house is not liveble especially in winter. Applicants neither have another place to live in, nor do they have money to repair their house.

The Applicant 2 had a stroke in summer 2015. Both of applicants are disabled.

On 8 August 2015 Applicant 1 filed a complaint to Volnovakha district police station.

On 12 August 2015 police officers came to her house and said: “There are many people in the same situation here, we have a war” and “it is beyond the scope of our obligations”. Then Applicant 1 asked officers to give her an official written answer on her complaint about committed crime. But she received nothing. Investigation is not being held.

Applicants asked the KHPG for legal help. Lawyers prepared an application to the ECtHR on violation of Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

On 28 December 2015 it was sent to the Court.

 

Stepanyan v. Russia and Ukraine

The the applicants, Stepanyan Karine Romanivna (born in 18.09.1990) – Applicanat 1 and Grinuk Volodymur Romanovuch (born in 05.02.1999) – Applicant 2, are a sister and a brother. They live in Khrarkiv, Ukraine.

On 5 January 2015 the mother of the applicants, Grinnuk Mariya Mykhailivna with Applicant 2 went to Donetsk to check their house.

On 7 January 2015 the mother of the applicants fell over the stairs and hurt her hand. She was taken to the nearest Ukrainian hospital. It was situated in Volonovakha.

On 13 January 2015 the mother of the applicants went to the hospital and her route bus got under shelling near the village Bugas.

Because of the shelling the applicants’ mother died. A police officer initiated criminal proceedings on that day. However, the applicants found out about their mother’s death from the Internet. The mother of the applicants died because of the perforating wound of her neck and heavy blood loss.

Applicant 1 on that day came to Donetsk and took her brother away.

Because of that tragedy the applicants have lost their mother. Applicant 2 was fully kept by his mother because their father doesn’t live with them and has another family. He doesn’t support the applicants at all. Now Applicant 1 is fully responsible for keeping of her younger brother. She works at court and receives minimal wages (about 45 euro).

In May 2015 the applicants moved to Kharkiv, a city where Applicant 1 works. They live in a dormitory because they cannot afford another accommodation.

On 13 January 2015 the Prosecutor’s Office of Donetsk region initiated criminal proceeding no. 22015050000000021 on par.3 of article 258 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (terrorist act). Since then there is no information about the investigation.

On 13 October 2015 Applicant 1 addressed to Prosecutor’s Office of Donetsk region for information about the investigation of her mother’s death.

Donetsk region council announced that there would be compensations provided to families of people, died in the Volnovakha tragedy.

On 14 January 2015 the special commission of Donetsk region council decided to pay compensations from the region budget.

The Applicant 1 applied for compensation for many times but her letters were ignored. The compensation was paid her only on 12 August 2015 after her another application. Applicants received 100 000 hrivnas (about 3640 euro).

On 24 July 2014 applicants left Donetsk because of the active phase of ATO (they could easily be killed).

They used to live in Novoselivka, Krasnuy Lyman district, Donetsk region.

Since July 2014 applicants have the status of IDPs. They cannot return even now. Applicants underline that their house had already been bombed.

Applicants cannot return home because Donetsk is controlled by terrorists and their flat is situated near the Donetsk airport, which is under shelling from both sides (Ukrainian army and “DPR”).

The mother of applicants had property in Donetsk: three flats and one private house. Because of the real danger for life applicants cannot peacefully possess their property. They do not even know whether this property still exists or not.

There was no response on complaints of applicants to the General Prosecutor’s Office. In January 2016 they repeated their complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office.

Applicants asked the KHPG for legal help. Lawyers prepared an application to the ECtHR on violations of Articles 2, 8, 13 and Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 2 Protocol 4 of the Convention.

On 25 November it was sent to the ECtHR.

 

Firsovs v. Russia and Ukraine

The applicants, Firsov Mykola Mykhailovych (born 15.12.1949) – Applicant 1 and Firsova Olena Mykolaivna (born 07.02.1972) – Applicant 2, are a married couple. They live in Mariupol, Donetsk region, Ukraine.

On 10 February 2015 in the village Shirokine uphill fights began.

On 11 February 2015 the applicants went to Mariupol with their daughter. There they were registered as IDPs. They hoped to return home some time after but it didn’t occur.

On 25 February 2015 the first bomb hit their house. The house was seriously damaged. Applicants couldn’t come and try to repair it because it was simply dangerous and nobody was allowed to go there.

In June 2015 the applicants found out from the Internet that the second bomb (high-explosive as it may be seen on photos) had hit their house. The house, which applicants had been building for 20 years, burned in 45 minutes. There are only ashes on the place where their house stood.

The applicants had tried their best to build a comfortable house. They had spent on it almost all their income. They hoped that their children would live there. Applicants had built a lot of steadings on the territory near the house, a summer kitchen, a toilet and a shower, a basement, a garage and gates, 2 fences. All the ruined property is listed in an inquiry act issued by Shirokine village council (10 August 2015). According to the act, amount of losses is about 350 000 hrivnas. Village council in Shirokine doesn’t function. So, there is no legal way to seek compensation. Nobody in Ukraine offered compensations to applicants. An order to apply for compensation in Ukraine doesn’t exist. No criminal proceedings were initiated.

On 19 October 2015 the applicant filed complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Donetsk region with notification about the crime. There was no response. In January 2016 applicants are going to file another complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office. As the applicants know, there was no investigation.

Applicants asked the KHPG for legal help. Lawyers prepared an application to the ECtHR on violations of Article 8, 13 and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

On 2 December 2015 the application was sent.

 

Vdovenko and Gulko v. Russia and Ukraine

The applicants, Vdovenko Victoriya Victorivna (Applicant 1) and her ex-husband Gulko Andriy Olexandrovich (Applicant 2), and their son Gulko Mykyta Andriyovich (Applicant 3), lived in village Shirokine, Novoazovsk district, Donetsk region, Ukraine.

The applicants lived together in a house in Shirokine. The house belonged to Applicant 1. As a result of military standoff between terrorist organization “Donetsk people’s republic” and Ukrainian national armed forces in February-June 2015 the house of applicants was under shelling. At the time of filing this complaint, the roof was badly damaged, walls and framing were seriously damaged and property was stolen from the house.

On 28 February 2015 was the only time when applicants were allowed to go to the village to take warm clothes. Positions of “DPR” then were situated in a village on the side of Novoazovsk. Positions of the Ukrainian armed forces were situated on the side of Mariupol. Then Applicant 1 noticed that there were a lot of empty cartridge cases in her garden. That confirms that terrorists were shooting exactly from her house.

After the arrival to the village on 28 February 2015, the applicants noticed that their house was damaged with bombs and shrapnel. There were a lot of holes in walls, window glasses were out, and the roof was damaged. The Printer, TV, doors and fridges were stolen.

At the end of May 2015 there was another bomb which fell on the roof of applicants’ house. After that there was a huge hole in the roof.

The pediment of the house was totally ruined, the roof – partly. Applicants do not know exact dates of shelling because they had no opportunity to take care of their property. They just watched news on Internet and saw that their house was damaged.

On 20 October 2015 Applicant 1 filed a complaint to the head of Volnovakha district police station asking for investigation. On identical complaints of applicants’ neighbors the police initiated criminal proceedings. But the complaint of Applicant 1 was ignored. The applicants think that it was an obligation of state agents to come to Shirokine and to provide an official estimate of losses.

On 26 November 2015 Applicant 1 filed a complaint on a committed crime to the police but there was no response. Now there is no investigation being held.

The applicants asked the KHPG for legal help. Lawyers prepared an application to the ECtHR on violation of Articles 8, 13 and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

On 30 November 2015 the application was sent to the ECtHR.

 

Klishko and Newken v. Russia and Ukraine

The applicants, Klishko Tetyana Ivanivna (Applicant 1) and Newken Ludmila Mykolayivna (Applicant 2), lived in village Shirokine, Novoazovsk district, Donetsk region.

The applicants are not relatives but they lived together for 17 years in a house in Shirokine. The house was owned by the Applicant 1. In February-June 2015 the house was hit by bombs and shells.

In spring and summer of 2015 there was a military position of “DPR” in the applicant’s house. Positions of Ukrainian army were bombed directly from there. The house was seriously damaged. A car of the Applicant 1 was stolen. The applicants don’t have another place to live in. They are peaceful civilians, have no connections with any of combating sides.

The house of applicants has 3 floors. It is built on a plain country so it is clearly visible from the “Lighthouse” – a hill upon the Sea of Azov, where Ukrainian armed forces have strong positions.

On 12 February 2015 at about 11.00 there was an explosion near the house. The applicants were hiding under stairs. In a meter from the north-western corner of the house exploded a large-caliber shell. There is a huge shell hole on that place. The north wall of the house immediately cracked. The north-western corner was pulled out. All window glasses broke out. The roof was pulled off.

Evacuation by Ukrainian military men was held under shelling. They had only 1 car, which was jam-packed with people and their luggage. Applicant 1 decided not to go on her own car because Ukrainian soldiers could think that there are terrorists of “DPR” in the car and start shooting. The applicant hoped to return home some time after so she went with a car going the same way. Applicant 2 decided not to leave the house and to stay with her neighbor Potina Galyna Ivanivna.

On 10 February 2015 there was no water, gas and electricity. Applicant 2 with her neighbor finally left the village because they had a fear of death. Now applicants live in Mariupol as IDPs. Further the applicants could keep an eye on their property only through the Internet.

On 10 March 2015 the neighbor of applicants left Shirokine from the side of village Sakhanivka. From his garden he saw that unknown man was walking in the applicants’ yard. The neighbor knew that the applicants had left their house, so he came closer to garden gate. A man with a submachine gun in military equipment without any signs of recognition came out from the house. He checked the neighbor’s documents. While he was doing this, the neighbor noticed that there was no car in garage. Unknown man let the neighbor go saying: “It’s not the best time to walk around here, man”.

On 1 October 2015 Applicant 1 was allowed to come to her house for 2 hours. Applicant 1 noticed that possibly her house was a place from where someone was shooting in spring-summer 2015. There were barricades made of furniture near windows. All those furniture, walls and ceilings were riddled with bullets. All 12 windows were broken out, a summer kitchen, a garage and steadings were also damaged. The doors were broken, property stolen or damaged. There was no car in the garage. On the second floor there was a support installation for shooting.

Applicants had tried hard to make their house more comfortable. They made a number of improvements: steadings, a summer kitchen, a toilet, a shower, a garage, a vineyard with rare sorts of grapes, a wine cellar with a huge collection of wine, which applicants collected for a long time, a big orchard (more than 50 trees, currant bushes, raspberry canes). The list of all stolen property was made by the commission of Shirokino village council.

On 27 August 2015 Applicant 1 filed a complaint to the head of Donetsk region police department with a notification of committed stealing of property. In a phone conversation a representative of the police department Myronenko Ludmila Volodumyrivna told Applicant 1 that her complaint was received on 4 September 2015. In spite of that, at the date of this application no investigation was held.

On 23 September 2015 Applicant 1 filed the same complaint on stealing of car. It was received on 1 October 2015.

The applicants do not know exactly on which territories her car is now. On 17 November 2015 the applicant addressed to so-called law-enforcement bodies of so-called “Donetsk people’s republic” on occupied territories in Novoazovsk. All complaints were left without any response.

The applicants asked the KHPG for legal help. Lawyers prepared an application to the ECtHR on violations of Articles 8, 13 and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention.

On 25 December 2015 the application was sent to the ECtHR.

 

3.2. Other cases

 

Konovalchuk v. Ukraine

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.

 

Kovalenko v. Ukraine

Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Kovalenko (hereinafter – the applicant) had lived with his family in a town of Bryanka, Lughansk region. 

On 28 August 2012 the police officers of Bryanka district police department (hereinafter the police department) came to the applicant’s house and without any explanations placed him into a service car and took him to the police department. During their trip a policeman three timed hip the applicant on the head with his fist.

The policemed did not draft any document’s concerning the applicant’s detention. He had no opportunity to leave the police department. The police officers took his mobile phone and did not let the applicant to contact his relatives or a defense lawyer. 

In a office of the police department two police officers extorted money in the sum of 1500 USD from the applicant in exchange of his release. When the applicant refused to agree on these conditions, the police officers started beating him on the head with a plastic bottle.

After that the police officers explained to the applicant that the robbery of Mr L., who was the applicant’s colleague in a mine, had taken place, and that the applicant was suspected concerning the fact that he had been convicted earlier. They demanded that the applicant have written an acknowledgement of guilt, however, the applicant refused. After that the police officers continued beating of the applicant on the head and body.

The next day, on 29 August 2012 two policemen took the applicant tried to force the applicant to give confession in committing a robbery of Mr L. Obtained his refuse, they continued torturing the applicant, in particular, by cuffing his hand behind the back and suspending him in such position for 10 minutes, beating the applicant’s legs and stomach from time to time. The applicant lost consciousness several times and the policemen poured cold water on him. Than the policemen put handcuffs, made from iron wire, on his fingers and started twisting them, which caused exquisite pain.

At the end, the applicant could not stand tortures and made a confession in commitment a robbery of Mr L.

From 28 to 30 August 2012 the applicant was unlawfully kept in the police department without any registration of his detention. 

On 30 August 2012 an investigator drafted a protocol of the applicant’s detention.

On 31 August 2012 the applicant was taken to the court for choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention in custody.

After that the applicant filed a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office on unlawful actions of the police officers. The applicant further complaint to the Prosecutor’s General Office of Ukraine.

On 24 December 2012 official investigation was started by the Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka. 

On 28 December 2012 the criminal investigation was terminated.

On 19 February 2013 the applicant challenge the decision about termination of the criminal investigation in the court. The investigation was renewed. 

On 20 May 2013 the applicant was questioned as a witness in the case concerning applying to him unlawful measures by police officers.

On 25 May 2013 the investigation was terminated. The applicant challenged the termination in the Bryanka district court (the district court).

The district court quashed a decision about termination of the investigation and obliged the investigator to conduct additional verification.

On 8 August 2013 the applicant received a ruling about termination of the investigation. The applicant challenged this order in the district court.

On 23 December 2013 the preventive measure for the applicant for changed from detention in custody to home arrest.

20. On 15 January 2014 the applicant was sentenced by the Bryanka district court for commitment a theft and an act of hooliganism.

At the end of April 2014 the building of the Prosecutor’s Offcie of Lughansk region was seized by unlawful armed groups.

On 29 December 2014 the lawyer of the SLC who acted as the applicant’s defense lawyer, sent a request to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bryanka concerning investigation of the case of tortures of the applicant by police officers.

The lawyer received a reply in which it was mentioned that the investigation had been terminated due to the lack of the event of crime.

The lawyer sent an additional request to the Prosecutor’s Offcie of Lughansk region. In the reply to it the Prosecutor’s Office replied the lawyer that there was no opportunity to provide her with the necessary document as the case file in on the territory which was oiut of control of the Ukrainian Government. 

The lawyer challenged the prosecutor’s order in the court.

On 10 July 2015 the Severodonetsk city court of Lughansk region issued the ruling in which it refuse to satisfy the lawyer’s complaint. The lawyer appealed against the ruling to the Court of Appeal of Lughansk region.

On 30 July 2015 the Court of Appeal of Lughansk region refused to satisfy the lawyer’s appeal.

In November 2015 the lawyer lodged an applicant to the European Court of Human Right on violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

 

Leonidov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Ihor Ivanovych Leonidov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1964 and is detained in Kharkiv.

On August 15, 2008, the applicant as suspected of committing premeditated murder of Mr Ignatenko. After application to him of unlawful methods of pressing to write a confession, he was arrested and since then he has been kept in custody for 7 years and 4 months.

On August 18, 2008 it was issued a ruling about recognition of the applicant as an accused person. Over the 21 months of the investigation the pre-trial investigation authorities prolonged several times the investigation by directing the sample requests that the higher bodies satisfied without adequate checks.

On March 20, 2010 the indictment in a criminal case on charges of the applicant and four other persons on illegal deprivation of liberty, misappropriation of the vehicle, premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances was sent to the District court of Lozova city of Kharkiv region (hereinafter – Lozovskyy court).

On June 27, 2014, after 4 years and 3 months after the initial referral to the court of first instance, the Lozovskyy court ruled on sending the case for additional investigation bodies of pre-trial investigation.

On October 15, 2014 Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region quashed the above decision and sent the case back for a new trial in the Lozovskyy court by another panel of judges.

The court hearings against the applicant and other people are pending. The hearings were repeatedly postponed and/or canceled, for example, on August 21, 2015. It was adjourned till October 21, 2015 in connection with the departure of judges on vacation. In October 2015 it was held three hearings, an average of three hours each, during which the trial court questioned three defendants. The next hearing was postponed till 13 November 2015, it also did not take place because of the absence of one of the lawyers, and was postponed again.

On December 14, 2015 the lawyer of the SLC on behalf on the applicant complained to the ECtHR under Article 6 of the Convention regarding the enormous length of the pre-trial and trial investigation.

 

Mazanko v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Ms Yuliya Mazanko, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Luhansk region, Ukraine.

On June 12, 2015 the applicant’s husband gone missing in Stakhanov, in the territory of in the Anti-terrorist operation. It’s obvious that the kidnapping of applicant’s husband due to the fact that the adhered to pro-Ukrainian position.

Since then about the fate of the applicant’s husband 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 23, 2015 the website Vesti.ru published a video called "Lugansk militia detained two spies of the SBU", where it was stated that the applicant’s husband was detained by militias of LNR as an agent of the Security Service and confessed that that he regularly traveled to the Ukrainian side and handed data about terrorists.

On July 1, 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 husband and to provide help in his release from captivity.

On July 3, 2015 the lawyer of the 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.

 

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 the city of Severodonetsk of Luhansk region. On 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 drafted.

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 murder).

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 the Severodonetsk District Court appointed a preliminary hearing on 25 December 2014. At the same time, the court did 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 the 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 Court of Appeal on the investigative judge decision, but the appeal was not 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 crime scene, questioned potential witnesses and submitted a motion on the witnesses’ examination in the court. As well he got the court’s order 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.

Since March 04, 205 the criminal preceding on charges the Applicant have been pending in Svatovo District Court. The applicant still detains and the term of his detention constantly have been renewing.

The next meeting is scheduled On February 02, 2016.

 

Pyvovarnyk v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Pyvovarnyk, is a Ukrainian national, who is detained in Kirovograd pre-trial detention centre.

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

On 26 June 2014, the applicant was detained by the police officers. He was notified about suspicion on committing a crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking). Only when four hours after actual detention passed a custody record was issued and close family members were informed about applicant’s detention.

By the time of detention, the applicant had suffered from hepatitis "C".

On 27 June 2014, an investigator of City Police Department in Kirovograd region submitted a motion to a court on applicant’s taking into custody. Despite applicant’s state health and lack of risks that are provided in Article 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine the motion was granted.

Also the court set an excessive bail – 40 minimum wages. The amount of the bail exceeded the annual household income. That is why the applicant has been detained in Kirovograd pre-trial detention centre up to now.

On 11 September 2014, 10 November 2014, 23 December 2014, 23 January 2015, 13 February 2015, the terms of applicant’s detention were extended. All the texts of court’s decisions on extending the term of pre-trial investigation were identical. General term of detention for 12 months exceeded reasonable time.

During the detention the applicant suffered from pain because of his disease. All his requests on help were ignored.

A lawyer of SLC submitted a lot of motions to the court on changing the preventive measure. But they were not granted.

Because of the absence of proper medical treatment and diet food applicant’s state health deteriorated.

The lawyer applied for interim measures (urgent providing of necessary medical examination; in-patient treatment; diet food; conditions of detention due to health reasons) due to Rule 39 of European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – ECtHR).

On 19 June 2015, ECtHR decided to apply Rule 39 and obliged the government of Ukraine to provide proper medical examination and proper medical treatment.

On 2 July 2015, the lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR.

In October 2015 the ECtHR sent the application to the Government of Ukraine for communication.

The lawyer complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, that his right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment had been violated and under Article 5 of the Convention, that his right to liberty had been violated.

On 15 September 2015, diet was prescribed for the applicant. The same day the applicant started getting this diet.

On 16 September 2015, it was denied to get diet without any explanation.

On 14 October 2015, the ECtHR proposed to the Government of Ukraine to submit its Observations, the communication procedure in the ECtHR is pending.

 

Tkachov v. Ukraine

Mr. Roman Tkachov (hereinafter – the applicant) worked as an officer of a patrol service from 2007 to 2011.

On 6 August 2011 an aggravated murder and robbery of Mr H. was committed.

On 11 August 2011 the applicant was arrested by police officers under suspicious in commitment of the above mentioned crimes and taken to the Poltavskiy district police department.

In the police department the police officers subjected the applicant to tortures and ill-treatment in order to force him to make confession in commitment of the crimes.

He further was questioned as a suspect without presence of a defense lawyer.

On 11 June 2012 the applicant was declared guilty in the murder of Mr H. by the sentence of the Poltava city-district court.

On 25 June 2012 the applicant’s defense lawyer appealed against the above mentioned sentence.

On 20 December 2012 the Court of Appeal of Poltava region quashed the sentence of 11 June 2012, referring to the fact of conduction of the investigation by an appropriate body (police rather than Prosecutor’s Office, which is to investigate crimes, committed by officials of law-enforcement bodies).

The additional investigation was ordered.

However, on 31 October 2013 by the sentence of the Lubny district court the applicant was repeatedly declared guilty and sentenced to life-imprisonment.

The court based its sentence on the evidence, collected with violation of the national procedural law.

The applicant appealed against the sentence of 31.10.2013.

On 6 March 2014 the Court of Appeal of Poltava region refused to satisfy the applicant’s appeal.

The applicant filed a cassation appeal to the High Specialised Court of Ukraine on consideration of civil and criminal cases (hereinafter – the HSCtU).

On 23 April 2015 the HSCtU issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy the cassation appeal.

The applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 23 October 2015 a lawyer of the SLC sent an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 6 § 1, 6 § 2, 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, concerning using of evidence, which was obtained with application of unlawful methods, violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, violation of the applicant’s right for defense.

 

Ushkalova v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant Valentyna Ushkalova, is a Ukrainian national, who is currently living in Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

On June 2014, by the order of the commander of the Anti-terrorist operation the applicant’s son Dmytriy Ushkalov, arrived in Donetsk region for taking part in the Anti-terrorist operation with the purpose to cover the area of the state border.

On August, 6 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 son was injured and went missing after this fire attack.

Since then about the fate of the applicant’s son nothing has been known, his name was not found neither among the list of live troops, nor among on list of the dead soldiers.

On August 25, 2015 a lawyer of the 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.

On November 27, 2015 a lawyer of the SLC complained to the ECtHR under Article 2,3 about the missing of Mr Ushkalov under circumstances that hazardous to his  life and health.

 

Applications to the UN bodies

 

Korzh and others v. Libya and Ukraine

The applicant are the workers of oil industry whose professional duties include service of drilling rig systems.

In June 2011 the applicant arrived in Libya for working on contract in an oil company.

In September 2011 the civil was started in Libya.

The five applicants together with other Ukrainian and Russian citizens, who worked with them at the mentioned period time, were taken hostage by representatives of the military brigade Al-Kaaka.

Subsequently, the applicants were charged with providing assistance to the Kaddafi regime in Libya.

For three years the applicants were detained in different premises, conditions of detention of which were inhuman and degrading. In particular, there was not proper ventilation and access to day light in the applicants’ cells, they were not provided with drinking water and food of proper quality. The applicant were not provided with medical assistance either.

The applicants were not informed about any legal reasons for their detention and their arrest was not fixed in any procedural documents. They were deprived of the possibility to appeal against the decision on their detention.

Moreover, in custody the applicants were subjected to forced labor when they were obliged to conduct various repairing and building works.

In August 2014 the applicant and other twelve detainees were released by the militants of the Russian Federation and taken to Moscow.

On 31 August 2014 the applicant were transferred to Ukraine.

The applicants applied to the SLC in order to obtain legal assistance in preparation of the complaint to the UN Committee on Human Rights.

In October 2015 a lawyer of the SLC finished to prepare the application to the UN Committee on Human Rights on violation of Article 8 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), Article 9 (prohibition of unlawful deprivation of liberty), Article 10 (prohibition of inhuman treatment of detainees) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

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

 

4.1. Euromaidan cases

 

4.1.1. Kiev Euromaidan cases

 

 “Heaven’s hundred” cases

 

Case of Aksenin

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

On 12.03.2014 Mr Aksenin died at hospital in Polish city Zheshuv.

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

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

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

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

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

After the death of Mr. Aksenin, two his sons remained who expressed the willingness to enter the criminal proceedings as victims. The lawyer prepared the relevant requests and sent them to an investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office.

On 6 February 2015 the lawyer discovered the video recording of the scene of crime which was attached to the case file. The lawyer also received materials from the Prosecutor’s Office of Poland which were attached to the case file.

 

Arutyunyan v. Ukraine

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

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

Recently the material of the pre-trial investigation about this incident was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigationsinvestigation (URPI).

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

The SLC lawyers, who were representing the victims, lodged motions to the investigation bodies and the General Prosecjutor’s Office about seizure of documentation on the issuance of special weapons for officials, shooting cards for the weapon that were issued for special employees, but those documents were not timely seizured and were destroyed by unidentified persons in their places of storage, for concealing a crime. After that, the motions were lodged about establishment of persons in charge for destroying the documents. These persons have not been established to the present time.

Medical forensic expertise and an investigatory experiment were conducted, witnesses found and questioned. A collaboration with civil society organizations and TV channels was conducted for receiving and processing video recordings of peaceful protests, important for the investigation, which were attached to the case.

The murder of thirty-nine people by three employees of special services were separated from criminal proceedings and transferred to the court, Mr A. is among these 39 persons. Three employees of the special forces were submitted with a suspicion and taken into custody. By the court’s order a preventive measure for one officer of Special Forces was changed to house arrest, and he taking advantage of this, fled. This decision was appealed by the Prosecutor’s Office, and an application on a crime of the judge was filed, criminal proceedings were opened against the judge.

The Main Investigation Department of the GPO disclosed the case file for review. On 29 September 2014, the SLC lawyer familiarized herself with the case file and submited the motion to attach the video with Maidan events, which had not been in the prosecutor’s case file.

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

On 25 February 2015 the Court of Appeal determined the venue of the case for Svyatoshinskiy district court of Kyiv. At this time, the court selects jury.

Nowadays court hearing is pending in the Svyatoshinsk district court.

 

Baydovskyi case

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

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

The lawyer prepared petition for questioning witnesses, namely:

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

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

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

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

The search of the witnesses and their questioning were initiated.

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

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

The investigation continues.

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

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

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

On 25 February 2015 the Court of Appeal determined the venue of the case for Svyatoshinskiy district court of Kyiv. At this time, the court selects jury.

Nowadays the court hearing is pending.

 

Diakovskyi case

On May 2014, a corpsee of Yurii Ivanovych Diakovskyi was found in the settlement of Raihorodok of Slovyanski District of Donetska Oblast. The death was on 18.04.2014. According to the information from the Main Department of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Service in Donetska Oblast of 06.05.2014 no. 8 the diagnosis of Diakovskyi Y.I. was a combined injury of the body, incised wound of the abdomen, and drowning. According to the mother of the dead Diakovskyi Y.I. following this fact the criminal proceeding was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. The investigation was carried out by the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in Donetsk region.

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

On 25 July 2014 the lawyer in the case applied to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine with a petition to change the jurisdiction and compel the materials of the criminal proceedings as regards the murder of Diakovskyi Y.I. for investigation in the city of Kyiv.

Upon this petition there is an answer sent from the General Prosecutor`s Office stating that the consideration of the petition was directed to the Prosecutor`s Office of Donetsk region.

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

Repeated appeals to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine  led to the granting of a request on transferring a criminal case on the murder of Mr. Diakovskyi to the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Main Department).

The pre-trial investigation is conducted by the Main Department of the MIA which informed on 18 August 2014 that the criminal proceedings on the murders of Mr. Diakovskyi, Mr. Rybak and Mr. Popravka had been joined into common criminal proceedings.

For today it became known that the criminal proceedings on the fact of a murder of Mr. Diakovskyi were destroyed by the Gorlovskiy District Police Station in the Donetsk region. That’s why the investigator on 7 October 2014 issued the order on conducting an exhumation and forensic medical expertise.

The lawyer received and gave to the investigation bodies photographs of the corpse of Mr. Diakovskyi, which had been made by experts in Gorlovka.

The lawyer also provided the investigator with the data of witnesses which had been present during torturing of Mr. Diakovskyi.  

All necessary evidence is collected; suspicions in commitment of a crime are presented. The search of the suspects is ongoing.

 

Hrynevych case

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

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

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

The SLC lawyers representing the victims lodged motions to the investigation bodies and the General Prosecjutor’s Office about seizure of documentation on the issuance of special weapons for officials, shooting cards for the weapon that were issued for special employees, but those documents were not timely seizured and were destroyed by unidentified persons in their places of storage, for concealing a crime. After that, the motions were lodged about establishment of persons in charge for destroying the documents. These persons have not been established to the present time.

Medical forensic expertise and an investigatory experiment were conducted, witnesses found and questioned.  Collaboration with civil society organizations and TV channels was conducted for receiving and processing video recordings of peaceful protests, important for the investigation, which were attached to the case.

The murder of thirty-nine people by three employees of special services were separated from criminal proceedings and transferred to the court, Mr H.is among these 39 persons. Three employees of the special forces were submitted with a suspicion and taken into custody. By the court’s order a preventive measure for one officer of Special Forces was changed to house arrest, and he taking advantage of this, fled. This decision was appealed by the Prosecutor’s Office, and an application on a crime of the judge was filed, criminal proceedings were opened against the judge.

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

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

On 25 February 2015 the Court of Appeal determined the venue of the case for Svyatoshinskiy district court of Kyiv. At this time, the court selects jury.

Nowadays the court hearing is pending in the Svyatoshinsk district court.

 

Kapynos v. Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigation actions on search for the witnesses of Kapinos’s murder and other evidence are conducted. Questioning of the special police forces “Berkut” conducts.

The representative of the victim familiarized herself with the case file, in particular with the records of the examinations of the special police forces “Berkut”.

No suspect/suspects of the murder has/have been found yet.

Criminal proceeding is still on the stage of pretrial investigation.

Investigative bodies collected evidence on complicity of Oleksandr Yuriyovych Schegolev in a murder of Oleksandr Kapinos. Schegolev is a former head of the Kyiv regional department of Security Service of Ukraine. He was notified about suspicion of committing the crimes, provided by the following Articles:

-              part 4 of article 41, part 3 of article 28, article 340 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine;

-              part 4 of article 41, part 3 of article 28, part 3 of article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine;

-              part 3 of article 27, part 3 of article 28, paragraphs 1,5 of part 2 of article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine;

-              part 3 of article 27, part 3 of article 28, part 2 of article 121 Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Schegolev is suspected in commitment of murders of protesters, police officers and inflicting of grievous bodily harm to police officers.

At the moment the case materials (104 volumes) were revealed for familiarization by the parties according to the article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ukraine. The term of familiarization was limited to 12 February 2016.

 

Tsepun case 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As no investigation was actually conducted, on 22 October 2014, a lawyer’s request on giving the information related to the implementation of investigative and criminal search for the period from 28 June 2014 to 22 October 2014 was submitted to the attorney’s authority pre-trial investigation (Obolon District Office of Ministry of Interior Ukraine in Kiev).

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

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

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

The resolution on closure of the criminal proceedings was cancelled.

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

The motion of the defense lawyer to the police department about transfer of the criminal proceedings to the investigation body of higher qualification was satisfied on January 1, 2015, and now the pre-trial investigation is conducted by the police department of the city of Kyiv.

On 13 February 2015, the lawyer familiarized herself with the case file. An additional medical forensic expertise was conducted and the witnesses, who had already been questioned, were questioned repeatedly.

On 17 February 2015, the lawyer filed a motion to the investigator about conduction of investigative (search) actions.

The above mentioned motion was not considered by the investigator and he refused to give a reply on it. Due to this, on 23 March 2015, the lawyer filed a complaint to the Shevchenkivskiy district court of Kyiv on the inaction of the investigator and failure to reply on the motion and issue an order on initiating investigative (search) actions. On 26 March 2015, an investigation judge satisfied the lawyer’s complaint.

On 17 February 2015, the lawyer filed a motion to the General Prosecutor’s Office about determination of the other body of investigation – the Office of special investigations of the GPO of Ukraine, because the Police department of the city of Kyiv conducted improper investigation. The GPO of Ukraine refused to satisfy this motion.

On 19 March 2015, the lawyer filed a motion to the Kyiv police department and the Police department of the Obolonskiy District Police Station in Kyiv about conduction of the official investigation on the actions of the investigator of the Police department of the Obolonskiy District Police Station in Kyiv Mr. Haydayenko. The above mentioned bodies gave the reply to the lawyer that they had not find any violations in the actions of the investigator Mr. Haydayenko.

The lawyer lodged a lawyer’s request about providing written conclusion of the specialist. She obtained the conclusion of the specialist of 31 March 2015 in which it was mentioned that it was impossible to establish objectively the reason of the death of Mr. Tsepun.

Further, on 6 May 2015, the lawyer filed a motion about initiation of conduction of the procedural actions, including additional medical forensic expertise with obligatory repeatedly examination of microscopic samples.

The lawyer familiarized herself with the case file of the criminal proceedings, on 28 April 2015. During familiarizing with the case file it was revealed that, on 13 February 2015, the investigator had terminated the criminal proceedings, however the order about termination was cancelled by the GPO of Ukraine.

Criminal proceeding is still on the stage of pre-trial investigation.

At the moment, criminal investigation is being held by the Kyiv Department of the National police. A new investigator was assigned. No investigative actions have been conducted yet. An answer on the lawyer’s request was received on 10 February 2015. There was mentioned that a motion of victim’s representative (to conduct additional procedural actions – a forensic inquiry and others) was enclosed to the case file but it was not granted.

 

Varenitsa case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigation continues.

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

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

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

On 25 February 2015 the Court of Appeal determined the venue of the case for Svyatoshinskiy district court of Kyiv.

Nowadays the court hearing is pending in the Svyatoshinsk district court.

 

Zubenko case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 28 January 2015, the lawyer filled a claim with the court on reimbursement of non-pecuniary damage.

The investigation actions on search for the witnesses of Zubenko’s murder and other evidence are conducted. No suspect/suspects has/have been found yet.

Criminal proceeding is still on the stage of pre-trial investigation.

According to the information provided to the lawyer, three new “Berkut” militia men were notified about suspicion of committing a murder. Also, case materials were revealed to them.

 

Prohorskyy case 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigation actions on search for the witnesses of Prohorskyy’s murder and other evidence are conducted. Questioning of the special police forces “Berkut” conducts.

The representative of the victim familiarized herself with the case file, in particular with the records of the examinations of the special police forces “Berkut”.

The second forensic ballistic examination was conducted but examiner’s conclusion is not ready yet. No suspect/suspects of the murder has/have been found yet.

Criminal proceeding is still on the stage of pretrial investigation.

The investigation is directed only to clarifying the circumstances of the crime. There is still no suspect actually.

 

Veremiy case  

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

 On 19.02.2014 Desnyanskyy district station in Kyiv city registered the information with preliminary legal qualification as an intentional murder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The criminal proceedings are on the stage of court hearing (finding out circumstances of the case; questioning of witnesses).

The court hearings from January to March 2015 were cancelled due to the illness of the defense lawyer, and then – of the judge.

In the court hearing of March 3, 2015 two witnesses were questioned (a medical assistant of the ambulance and a surgeon).

In the court hearing of April 4, 2015 four witnesses were questioned (three habitants of the house which is near the place of event and a forensic expert).

On April 22, 2015 the court hearing did not take place due to the absence of the witnesses.

On April 29, 2015 one witness was questioned (a person who had worked for the company on the address where Mr. Veremiy had been attacked, she had seen the attack from the window of the building).

On June 6, 2015 the accused fell ill, the court hearing was cancelled.

On June 10, 2015 two witnesses were questioned (so-called “titushka” and an eye witness). The lawyer of the victim requested the rescue of the trial judge.

On June 30, 2015 a judge of the Shevchenkivskiy district court of Kyiv considered the request about rescue of the judge and refused to satisfy it.

For the period from July 01, 2015 to December 30, 2015 the hearings have not occurred for many reasons such as: illness, a business trip of the judge, prosecutor’s involvement in another trial, lawyer’s involvement in another proceeding; or due to the accused was arrested and taken into custody on other criminal proceedings which are not connected with “Maidan cases”.

On December 08, 2015 a lawyer of the SLC filed a motion to the GPO for its addressing to the Shevchenkovskyi District Court with a request to review additional charge under Article 340 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (CCU) in the same proceeding with the initial charge under par. 4 Art. 296 of the CCU concerning the accused Mr Kr.

On December 16, 2015 the prosecutor granted the petition and assured that during the trial he will take measures for bringing an additional charge under Article 340 of the CCU.

 

Additional “Heaven’s hundred” cases

 

The case concerning accusation of the officers of “Berkut” Mr Zinchenko S. P,, Mr Abroskin P. in commitment on 20.02.2014 a mass murder of 39 people (protestors, participants of peaceful rallies on Isstitutska str., Kiev). Among the murdered people were Mr Igor Kostenko Jn. (the victim  - Igor Kostenko Sr. – father, with whom the lawyer made an agreement about providing legal assistance), Mr Leonid Polyanskiy (the victim in the case – Mrs Lyudmila Polyanska, mother, with whom the lawyer made an agreement about providing legal assistance).

 

Kostenko and Palyanskiy case

The case is considered by a panel of jury. In particular, the victims are being questioned. The pre-trail detention for the accused is extended. All court hearings take place. The schedule of the questioning of the victims is elaborated and they are questioned according to it. One victim is questioned during a single court hearing, including broadcasting of the video recording of the death of his/her relative. The prosecutor provides written evidence which concern the circumstances of the death of a specific victim. Thus, the case is considered as planned.

 

Chernetskyy case

On 19 February 2014, during peaceful protests in Kyiv called “Revolutsia gidnosti” Mr. Chernetskyy with other protesting people was walking down Zhytomyrska Street in Kyiv. He was walking toward the junction between Zhytomyrska Street and Volodymyrska Street. Near a kiosk called “Pressa” Chernetskyy received a gunshot wound in the right leg. Other protesting people that were with him also received gunshot wounds.

After that civil persons called “titushky” run up to Chernetskyy and other protesting people and started beating them. As a result Chernetskyy had a broken left arm and got wounds on his right hand. So he obtained serious injuries.

The investigation found guilty persons – Mr. Kostenko, Mr. Heban, Mr. Pogrebnyy.

In November 2015, a lawyer of the SLC familiarized herself with the case file.

On 7 December 2015, the court extended the detention on remand of Kostenko and Heban. Pogrebnyy was placed under home arrest.

Lubarsky filed a claim with the court on reimbursement of non-pecuniary damage.

Pre-trial investigation was ended and now criminal proceedings are heard by Shevchenkivskyy District court in Kyiv.

The accused submitted a motion on trial by a jury. The jury has not been chosen yet.

An application on increasing stated claims is going to be filed at the next court hearing.

 

Lubarskyy case

On 19 February 2014, near 01:40 o’clock during peaceful protests in Kyiv called “Revolutsia gidnosti” Mr. Lubarskyy and two his friends were going by a taxy through the junction between Zhytomyrska Street and Volodymyrska Street. They were going to pick up Lubarskyy’s car that had been parked by him at this junction in the afternoon that day. But the junction was blocked by civil persons called as “titushky”. “Titushky” did not pass anyone. Lubarskyy entered the door of the taxi and tried to leave it but at that moment he received a gunshot wound. He fell and received one more gunshot wound. He got up and fled. His friends were not injured.

As a result Lubarskyy obtained serious injuries.

The investigation found guilty persons – Mr. Kostenko, Mr. Heban, Mr. Pogrebnyy.

In November 2015, a lawyer of SLC familiarized herself with the case file.

On 7 December 2015, the court extended the detention on remand of Kostenko and Heban. Pogrebnyy was placed under home arrest.

Lubarskyy filed a claim with the court on reimbursement of non-pecuniary damage.

Pre-trial investigation was ended and now criminal proceedings are heard by the Shevchenkivskyy District court in Kyiv.

The accused submitted a motion on trial by a jury. The jury has not been chosen yet.

 

4.1.2. Kharkiv Euromaidan cases

 

Euro Maydan activist’s case

In early January 2014 a Euro Maydan activist Mr. Ch. was arrested in Kharkov on trumped criminal proceedings for alleged distribution of pornographic materials on the Internet from his profile in the social network. The investigation of the alleged crime, which is neither serious nor violent one, was carried out with unusual rapidity: two hours later after the alleged filing an statement on crime allegedly committed by Mr. Ch. to the district police department he was arrested by police officers of special operational unit of Police Department of Kharkiv region (hereinafter - "Kharkiv Police Department) on human trafficking.

After the arrest Mr. Ch. was brought to police unit, where his cell phone was taken. Using his cell phone the police officers changed the password to his profile on the social network and received the opportunity to work with this account.

The information about his arrest and the investigation of this crime, which is not resonant, was posted on the website of Kharkiv Police Department. After that the information about this was twice posted on the web-site of Kharkiv Police Department. It was mentioned, in particular, that Mr. Ch. is "reasonable suspicion" and "unmasked" in the crime.

In addition, the investigator, who conducted this investigation and prohibited Mr. Ch. to disclose information about the investigation, gave several interviews to the media, in which he notified the details of the pre-trial investigation, after which this information was posted in the Internet.

A lawyer of the SLC, who represented Mr. Ch. in the criminal case against him, prepared a statement about the crime committed by police officers: illegal arrest and falsification of evidence.

However, the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region stopped the proceedings under this statement on crime in two weeks. The lawyer as a representative of the victim appealed against this decision, and in early April 2014 the investigating judge quashed that decision and sent the case for further pre-trial investigation.

On February 13, 2014the criminal proceedings as to the dissemination of pornographic materials were terminated because of lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers.

On 16.06.2016 the investigator issued an order on terminating the criminal proceedings, which were opened upon the fact of the divulging the information about the investigation that was offensive to Mr. Ch. The lawyer appealed against the decision to the investigating judge. The investigating judge has refused the complaint and later the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision.

On 26 February 2014 the criminal proceedings against the police officers on the matter of illegal arrest and falsification of evidences have been terminated, and the SLC lawyer was not informed about this notwithstanding to two requests to provide the information.

In December, 2014, having got the decision officially, the lawyer appealed it to the District court of Kharkiv.

On 5 February 2015 an investigating judge quashed the investigator’s decision.

On 27 March 2015 a new investigator issued the new decision on termination of the criminal proceedings, having not conducted any investigation action. The lawyer submitted a complaint on the decision to an investigating judge, and in May 2015 the latter again quashed the decision. Since that time, the investigating authorities did not inform about a progress of the proceedings.

 

Case on abuse of force against protesting people

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

More than 10 people from the picketers were arrested at the scene and brought to the district police unit. After a while, two lawyers of the SLC came there to provide legal aid to the detainees, who were being interrogated because of the charges of the mass public disorder.

Lawyers were not allowed to participate in the proceedings despite their appeal by phone to the Police Department of Kharkiv Region and emergency call to the police patrols because of obstruction to the legal activities of lawyers, arrival to the police unit of the Deputy Chief of the Police Department of Kharkiv region, etc.

During the three-hour standby lawyers with detainees’ relatives in front of the door of the police unit protocols on administrative arrest and administrative offenses allegedly committed by them (the persistent failure to obey the lawful demands of police) were issued under pressure to detainees.

After midnight detainees were secretly brought to the District Court of Kharkov but detainees’ relatives noticed this and notified the lawyers. The lawyers come to a court, but they were not allowed to come inside as well as relatives of the detainees, who wanted to be present at court considerations of the administrative cases. The lawyers spent about three hours in front of the courthouse, but they were not allowed to provide legal aid to detainees in the court, but lawyers from the Legal Aid Centre freely entered into the courthouse.

After these events criminal complaints were prepared on behalf of several of these picketers. The criminal complaints were submitted to the Prosecutor’s LOffice of Kharkiv region. The lawyers of the SLC, who were not allowed to enter the police unit and the courthouse, filed the complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office on obstruction to the legal activities of the lawyers, as well as violations of the right to the defence of detainees.

All these statements were gradually joined into one criminal case, and the investigation was entrusted to a large group of investigators of Kharkiv region led by the several prosecutors.

After falling of V. Yanokovych regime, the Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office started the investigation on the fact of crackdown of the peaceful action caused injuring of the protesting people. In fact, the pre-trial investigation conducted formally. From the beginning, the investigating authorities lost much of the evidence, and this can be easily explained by the fact that the first examination of the crime scene has been held as part of the proceedings against peaceful protesters on suspicion of riots, but not in the proceedings on the fact of their being beaten. The investigation lasted more than a year, and resulted with submitting to a court of indictments in relation on the chief of a public security police of Kharkiv, and on the head of police special division "Grifon". Surprisingly, the two police chiefs were tried for an official inaction during the same events in the same place, but in different cases. It should be noted, that the investigating authorities have not established and, accordingly, brought to liability any police officer for abuse of force causing bodily harm for protesters, that indicats the poor quality of the investigation. Materials of proceedings against armed attack civil individuals ("paramilitaries"), so-called "titushok", which allowed the police to commit violent actions of protesters, were extracted to a separate proceeding, that made impossible to prove a link between criminal acts "titushok" and inaction of law enforcement.

Since April 2015 the criminal case against the chief of public security police began to be examined in Chervonozavodsky district court of Kharkiv, which was attended by all victims of police actions that addressed the criminal complaints to the police actions. Those that during the events of crime, have been the police officers, mostly referred to forgetting circumstance, so the prosecution has almost no chance of getting evidence in its favour. At the end of 2015 the trial continues.

Concerning investigating of the case on hindering to admission of the lawyers to the detained protesting people, the identities of the perpetrators have not been found out.

The investigations of the case of obstruction to the legal activities of the lawyers in mid-June 2014 were closed by the resolution of the Deputy Head of the investigation department of Prosecutor’s Office because of the lack of the corpus delicti.

This resolution was appealed to the investigating judge, but the case-files of the investigation were sent to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine. The investigative judge of the District court refused the complaint on the decision on termination of the investigation. Then the SLC lawyer had appealed to the Kharkiv Court of Appeal that quashed the decision of the investigating judge and send the case back to the Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office for renewing of the investigation.

     In January 2015, the Prosecutor’s Office once again terminated the criminal proceedings. In April 2015, an investigating judge again quashed the resolution of the prosecutor’s office.

On 5 June 2015 the Prosecutor’s Office once again passed the resolution on termination of the criminal proceedings, and the lawyer, in its turn, complained the resolution to an investigating judge.

On 25 November 2015 the investigator issued another decision to termination of the criminal proceedings, the lawyer again complained it, and in December, 2015 the investigating judge again overturned the ruling of the investigator. As for the "quality" of the preliminary investigation, it should be noted that all the time even the investigation actions, the request for which was filed in the original criminal complaint, have not been conducted. After each of the court rulings the investigator have not undertaken new investigative action, which could provide new evidence. Now the so-called "investigation" takes again.

 

4.2. “Enlistment” 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 enlistedand 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 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 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 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.

 

4.3. Cases connected with the ATO

 

Veretiy case

Mr. Anatoly Veretiy (hereinafter - the applicant) was born in 1966. More than four years he has stayed in the Starobilsk previous detention centre. The applicant was detained by the police on suspicion of a murder. After some time the pretrial investigation was terminated and the indictment was submitted to the court. However, the judicial consideration lasted for more than four years and a final decision has not been made.

In August 2015 the lawyer requested the Starobilsk district court to release the applicant from illegally custody, but the motion was not intended to consideration.

The lawyer twice appealed to the court against the inaction of judges and sent a complaint to the Ombudsman.

On December 21, 2015 the motion was considered. At this hearing the lawyer filed written explanation of the case and the requirement to release applicant from custody, but the court refused. The judge notified that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine had not pointed the term for preliminary measures and these measures could be gone on automatically

 

4.4. Other cases

 

Case of Anti-Ukrainian Newspapers

In November 2014, during the visit of the public representatives to the Berdychiv correctional colony no.70, prisoners informed them about distribution of a newspaper “Novorossia” among the prisoners, which contained different anti-Ukrainian materials. 

One of the issues of this newspaper, in particular, contained articles with the following titles:

- “Election of 2 November is a new civil feat of Donbass” ;

-  “The Great Donetsk revolution and Novorossia”; «

 - “To the Citizens of Novorossia”, with the relevant content of the articles.

On 26 November 2014 the criminal proceeding were instituted under this fact on grounds of violation of territorial integrity and inviolability.

14 prisoners of the correctional colony applied to a lawyer of the SLC for representation of their interests as witnesses in the criminal proceedings under the fact of distribution of this newspaper because they were afraid to be persecuted by the colony officers for the informi about spreading the newspapers in the colony.

The lawyer of the SLC, foreseeing possible pressure on prisoners of the colony due to their notice about distribution of the newspaper in the colony, filed a pleading about call and questioning of witnesses in criminal proceedings with her participation.

An investigator appointed forensic linguistic examination in order to determine whether this newspaper contained calls for actions directed on changing the boundaries of a territory or state border of Ukraine against the order established by the Constitution of Ukraine, despite the fact that the content of these newspapers was obvious anti-Ukrainian nature. Currently the pre-trial investigation is continuing.

On 15 December 2014, the SLC lawyer filed a motion to the colony administration to provide her with a meeting with her client that was one of the witnesses of spreading the newspaper. The motion was not granted. The colony administration refused to give the meeting without payment for it by the lawyer as it is envisaged for the meetings of inmates with their relatives in special meeting rooms, and proposed to  pay for the rooms, that was a clear violation fo the law.

 Having paid the bill for the meeting room, the lawyer called to the police emergency phone number (“102” – an analogy of “911” in the USA) aiming to fix the fact of barring to a lawful lawyer’s activity. A criminal complaint on this matter was filed. No report on registration of this complaint was received.

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 to provide information on the results of the criminal proceeding was submitted. No answer has been received yet.

On 3 June 2015, the second request to provide information on the results of the criminal proceeding was submitted, but there was no answer again.

On 27.08.2015 at the results of conducted pre-trial investigation the investigator issued an order about termination of criminal proceedings.

The lawyer appealed against the above order to an investigating judge. Before the court hearing the lawyer lodged a motion about familiarizing with the case file, however, the judge refused to satisfy this motion. Concerning the refuse, the lawyer challenged the judge, which was not satisfied. This fact got a wide resonance in the media, after that the judge voluntary refused participate in consideration of the case and the case was transferred to another judge. 

On 25.12.2015 the judge issued a decision in which he satisfied the lawyer’s complained and quashed the order about termination of the criminal proceedings.

 

Akem case

On 12 November 2014, two African students Mr. Akem (citizen of Cameroon) and his friend Mr. Ibrahim (citizen of Guinea) were stopped by the policemen near the entrance to the underground station “Heroes of Labor” in Kharkiv. After it turned that students had no documents the policemen started beating them near the entrance to the underground. As there were a lot people there, the policemen called other employees and two guards of the market that is located near underground. The policemen forcibly moved students in a dark place and continued beating them, burning their fingers with fire lighters, etc. Then the students were moved to the guards’ room where they were also beaten. Two credit cards and two mobile cards were taken from Mr Akem.

After those events two students were thrown outside. Mr Ibrahim was able to go by foot. The ambulance was called for Mr Akem. He was delivered to the hospital where he passed through X-ray of the head. Mr Akem was not hospitalized. Mr Ibrahim left for his motherland.

On 17 November 2014, the criminal complaint was submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region by Mr Akem.

On 21 November 2014, he passed the forensic medical examination in Kharkiv regional bureau of forensic medical examination. Traces healing of two wounds that related to minor injuries were found.

On 27 November 2014, the magnetic resonance tomography was made. Pathology was not found.

On 28 November 2014, Mr Akem was examined by an urologist. Then tests were taken. No serious health disorders were found.

As it turned out then, on 25 December 2014, the investigation authority issued the resolution on closure of the criminal proceedings in the absence of the crime. A copy of the resolution was not provided to Mr Akem. During the so-called investigation the victim, Mr Akem was not questioned, the police officers involved to the incident were not identified, medical records ot the emergency hospital were not reviewed etc.        The SLC lawyer complained the resolution only in February, 2015, and an investigating judge of the District Court quashed the resolution and directed the case to continue the pre-trial investigation.

After that at last, a forensic medical examination has been conducted. But the investigating authorities still did not identified perpetrators of the crime, and even did not carried out an investigatory experiment with participation of the victim, although the SLC lawyer lodged such the motion.

The investigation is nominally continued, but in fact no investigatory actions aiming for disclosure the crime are undertaken, and Mr Akem have not been called to the investigation at all.

During thre so-called investigation the victim, Mr Akem was not questioned, the police officers involved to the incident were not identified, medical records ot the emergency hospital were not reviewed etc. The SLC lawyer complained the resolution only in February, 2015, and an investigating judge of the District Court quashed the resolution and directed the case to continue the pre-trial investigation.

After that at last, a forensic medical examination has been conducted. But the investigating authorities still did not identified perpetrators of the crime, and even did not carried out an investigatory experiment with participation of the victim, although the SLC lawyer lodged such the motion.

The investigation is nominally continued, but in fact no investigatory actions aiming for disclosure the crime are undertaken, and Mr Akem have not been called to the investigation at all.

 

Artemchuk case

Applicant, Artemchuk Yan Viktorovych, had been a HIV-positive participant of the replacement therapy program.

In 23 October he was arrested by patrol policemen on the territory of medical institution which actually provides the replacement therapy. He was suspected in committing the robbery. On the same day the applicant was brought to a district police station. After the detention the applicant for several times told the police officers that he had been a participant of the replacement therapy program and that he must take specific meds regularly.

On the same day at about 5 p.m. the applicant was granted with a lawyer from the center of free legal aid. On the same day a search was conducted in an applicant’s apartment. During the search applicant’s mother tried to pass necessary meds by a police officer to her son. But he refused to do so.

On 24 October the applicant was taken into custody by a court’s order. The court, making a decision, didn’t take notice of the applicants’ state of health. It also didn’t take into account that the applicant needs to take meds regularly. On that day the applicant also was not taken to the medical institution of replacement therapy to take necessary meds.

On 25 October at night the applicant committed a suicide by hanging himself in a toilet of a Police detention center.

The Prosecutor’s Office initiated criminal proceedings according to the fact of the applicant’s death. The information about a committed crime (causing somebody to commit suicide and negligence of the official) was entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial InvestigationsInvestigations. The applicant’s brother Artemchuk Kostyantun Viktorovych was acknowledged as a victim.

During the pre-trial investigation the investigator questioned the employees of the police detention center. Also she requested the video tapes from police detention center. On the lawyer’s motion social workers of the medical institution which witnessed the Applicant’s brother arrest.

 

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. The High Specialized Court of Ukraine on consideration of civil and criminal cases refused to satisfy the cassation.  

 

Bashkirova case

In April 2015, Mrs. Bashkirova was detained for the attempt of drug trafficking on the territory of Lychakivska correctional colony no.30 (“LCC no.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, Mrs 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 her partial realizing of her actions during the committing 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 IІІ 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 applicant’s defender filed a written notification about a crime (excess of authority) and a written complaint on actions of inquiry bodies. No actions were undertaken by prosecutor. The defender appealed on his failure to act to the court.

A court decided to provide Mrs. Bashkirova with compulsory medical treatment.

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

In September 2015 an indictment against the Applicant was filed to the court. She was accused of committing a theft. No evidence was presented.

 

Berezan Case

Convicted Mr. Berezan was serving a sentence in Berdychev correctional colony no.70 from 28 December 2010, constantly complained about his health state.

On 12 November 2012, Berezan was sent by the medical unit of the correctional colony no.70 to the surgical department of Buchanskaya correctional colony no.85, where he was medical treated from 12 November 2012 to 13 January 2013.

On 25 February 2013, the Berezan was admitted for medical treatment to the oncology department. The patient state was moderate.

On 25 March 2013, he was issued with the recommendations: "D" medical supervision - physician, "D" medical supervision - surgeon.

On 28 August 2014, the correctional colony no.70 sent Berezan for medical treatment in Buchanskaya correctional colony no.85 again. But it turned out that the hospital specialization did not meet the further examination tactics of Berezan. So, on 10 April 2014, he was sent back to the correctional colony no.70.

After the meeting with a lawyer Mr. Berezan has complained on ill treatment in the penal establishment and on sending him for medical treatment in the institution that has no possibility to treat, but it took a lot time to find out. The lawyer suggested to appeal on improper treatment and she appealed to the management of the correctional colony. Having lodged the complaints, Mr. Berezan was sent for routine hospitalization and underwent surgery.

The lawyer collected medical data for filing complaints on improper treatment.

On 19 January 2015 the lawyer received a reply to her request from Berdychev correctional colony no. 70 about treatment and staying of Mr. Berezan in medical institutions.

On 27 January 2015 the lawyer received a reply from the Buchanska correctional colony no. 85 with medical documentation of Mr. Berezan.

On 20 April 2015 the lawyer received a reply from Daryivska correctional colony no. 10 with information about state of health of Mr. Berezan and his medical documentation.

On 7 May 2015 the lawyer received a reply to her request from Lviv penitentiary institution with a medical certificate of Mr. Berezan.

In June Mr. Berezan was released from punishment by the court’s order due to hi disease.

For today, the complaint has prepared concerning his improper treatment.  But there is no possibility to receive documents for the case because the SLC lawyer does not have any information about Mr. Berezan’s location.

 

Bocharov case

Bocharov, V. M., a resident of Kharkiv city, together with another man, stayed in Kharkiv SIZO on the basis of the criminal proceedings instituted by the Lenin District Police Station. On 09.21.2014 they were taken by a convoy vehicle to the Frunze District Police Station, where some investigative actions were conducted in relation to these persons in the scope of the criminal proceedings instituted by the Frunze District Police Station. Thus, the Free Legal Aid Centre was not informed of their detention.

Then, unlawful methods of investigation and procedural actions were carried out with respect to these men, who are drug addicts and who had not received any medical care in the Kharkov SIZO, without presence of a lawyer and allowing to use any legal assistance. Thus, despite the fact that detainees were “sick” they were not taken to a doctor and no medication was given to them.

Despite the fact that due to a drug overdose above mentioned persons were in condition dangerous to life, officers of convoy did not inform ambulance about this situation began to deliver these people to hospital themselves. At the result of this, on 20 August 2014 at about 8 -00 hours B. died in a convoy vehicle on the territory of a hospital, but the cause of death and its real time police officers were hidden by the police.

Nor prison officers, neither employees of Dzerzhinsky District Police Station, nor the prosecutors of Dzerzhinsky District and prosecutors of Kharkiv region notified the mother of B.  about a death of her son.

Only having received the information from the SLC lawyer, B.’s mother could apply to the Prosecutor’s Office and obtain permission for the burial of her son, while it is indicated in the preliminary medical certificate of death 29 August 2014, that the cause of death cannot be established until obtaining the results of additional examinations.

On 1 September 2014 B.’s mother filed the criminal complaint on the officers of the Frunze District Police Station under the following corpus delicti: leaving in a danger, abuse of power, negligence, violation of the right to defence to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region, prepared for her by a lawyer of the SLC.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region refused to register this complaint in the URPTI and sent it for registration in the URPTI to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv city.

Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv city also refused to register this complaint and sent it for registration in the URPTI to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Frunze district of Kharkiv.

The Prosecutor’s Office of the Frunze district of Kharkiv refused to register this complaint in the URPTI and sent it for registration to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region refused to register this complaint in the URPTI, referring to the fact that on 20 August 2014 the information about the B.’s death was filed in the URPTI.

At present, there is a complaint in the Chervonozavodskyi District Court of Kharkiv on the matter of  the refuse to include information about the commission of the following crimes against B.: leaving in a danger, abuse of power, negligence, violation of the right to defence Also, an application about involvement the mother of Mr. Bocharov as a victim in the criminal proceedings is filed to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region.

In November 2014 a motion of the lawyer of SLC was satisfied and Bocharov’s mother was questioned as a victim.

In November 2014 the lawyer of SLC filed a civil lawsuit against the Police Department of the Kharkiv region for moral damages in the amount of 500 000 UAH.

In the end of 2014 investigator informed the lawyer of SLC that in a few days he would bring to charge to police officers.

In March 2015 the prejudicial inquiry was finished and an indictment act was handed over to the Frunzenskyi District Court. A copy of the indictment was not submitted to Bocharov’s mother.

However, the indictment act was submitted to the court only in relation of criminal negligence of the policeman, Mr H., the prosecution against other two officers was detached to separate proceedings.

In the court hearings, the lawyer of SLC filed a civil lawsuit against the Police Department of the Kharkiv region and policeman H. for moral damages in the amount of            1,000,000 UAH.

The lawyer of SLC is going to file a motion on involvement as a second defendant the State Treasury of Ukraine to the court.

At last, after long-term delay the trial started in the court on the charge of committing a crime under Art. 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (negligence that led to grave consequences). The case considered in the Frunze district court.

The hearing is often not held because of absence of witnesses, the trial is pending.

 

Bondarenko case

At the beginning of July 2015 Mr. Bondarenko asked for help the lawyer to providing legal assistance.

During July the lawyer held two meetings with Mr. Bondarenko in Mikolayivsk pre-trial detention Centre.

On August 12, 2015 the lawyer joined the court case at the stage of the opening of the case file and familiarizing with it.

Bondarenko is accused of two episodes of drugs sale (the drug substance - acetylated opium).

On October 19, 2015 the Velycolepetsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty.

Currently, the lawyer is preparing an application to the Court of Appel.

 The lawyer thinks that Mr.Bondarenko was illegally detained under Art. 208 the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

On June 27, 2015 Mr. Bondarenko was arrested by the investigator in the manner of Art. 208 the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

As stated in the report, the reason for the detention was the testimony of a witness. The witness notified that the applicants had sold him a drug - acetylated opium.

There were no reasons specified in the protocol of detention under Art. 208 the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine

On September 28, 2015 the lawyer sent to the Kherson Prosecutor’s Office application of crime and bringing those responsible to justice under Art. 371 the Criminal Code of Ukraine (knowingly unlawful detention, house arrest and detention).

So far, the lawyer didn’t receive the answer about the consideration of the complaint.

 

Bogorodytskiy case

On 05.05. 2014 a soldier Mr. Oleg Bogorodytskiy was given the oral order to go in a business trip for study. He applied for clarification of this order to refused fulfill it as he had been originally informed that he was sent to the rotation from the ATO zone and not to study. The criminal proceedings were initiated under suspicion of Mr Bogorodytskiy of commitment of the crime provided by Article 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of military service).

Mr Bogorodytskiy and prosecutors signed an agreement on recognition of guilt. The agreement on the recognition of guilt was cancelled by the court and the case was sent for further investigation.

Mr Bogorodytskiy complained on sleep disorders, constant anxiety, mental stress caused by conducting of the Anti-terrorist operation in the East of Ukraine, where his parents live. As a result of the medical examination in the military unit he was prescribed examination and treatment in a psychiatric clinic in the city of Kyiv.

The commander of the military unit no. 37/65, where Bogorodytskiy O. V. served his military service, has carried out permanent psychological pressure on Bogorodytskiy O. V. and the Chief of the clinic of psychiatry in order not to allow Bogorodytskiy O. V. to pass the impatient examination and treatment in order to determine the degree of his suitability for military service.

In this occasion, the lawyer of the SLC who represents the interests of Bogorodytskiy O. V. filed the following applications to the state bodies:

-                The application about a crime to Kyiv, Ternopil, Lviv prosecutors on supervision over the observance of laws in the military sphere;

-                The request and the report to the commander of the military unit no. 37/65 Zaharchenko S. V.;

-                The application and the request to the chief of the clinic of psychiatry;

-                The application to the Brodivskiy district court of Lviv Region about familiarizing with the case file.

On 14 July 2014 the criminal proceedings were initiated on the lawyer’s complaint about a crime, under Article 425 of the CCU (concerning the unlawful order by which Mr Bogorodytskiy for sent for study).

On 4 September 2014 Mr Bogorodytskiy was recognized a victim in the above proceedings.

On 24 November 2014 the investigator issued an order about termination of the criminal proceedings under Article 425 of the CCU.

The lawyer appealed against this order to the court.

The pre-trial investigation was restored by the court’s decision.

On 25 May 2015 the investigator repeatedly terminated the criminal proceedings, despite the presence of the proof for submitting a suspicion for the servicemen. The investigator also refused to implement the court’s instructions.

On 27 May 2015 the lawyer filed an appeal to the court against the above order of the investigator.

The court quashed the order of 25 May 2015 and renewed the pre-trial investigation.

In the scope of the renewed pre-trial investigation the investigator conducted investigative actions, initiated by the victim.

After that, the investigator again ordered termination of the proceedings; this order was appealed against due to the lack of proper legal assessment of the legality of the order and the delivered letter. The court satisfied the complaint and quashed the order of 16 September 2015. However, the investigator, ignoring instructions given by the investigating judge, on 30 November 2015 makes a decision to terminate the proceedings. The lawyer appealed against this decision to the court.

On 24 October 2015 the Act of indictment concerning accusation of Mr Bogorodytskiy in commitment a crime under Article 402 of the CCU, was sent to court. The case is appointed for the trial. In the court hearings the part of the case file was studied, the lawyer lodged a motion for admission of the participants of the case to the state secrets due the need to study the orders containing state secrets. This request was granted by the court. Admission of the participants of the process to is ongoing.

 

Botsman case

Mr Botsman (hereinafter – the applicant) is a drug addict, a patient of the substitution replacement therapy (the SRT), disabled since childhood and has heart diseases. He was arrested under suspicion in commitment of a crime, provided by part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (acquisition and distribution of drugs).   

A lawyer of the SLC took the case in 01.04.2015.

On 01.04.2015 the applicant was given the notice about changing of the suspicion in commitment a crime under Article 302 of the CCU.

On 03.04.2015 the applicant was given the act of indictment and the case was transferred to the court.

The lawyer of the SLC sent a request to the Kirovograd narcological dispensary due to termination of providing the applicant with medications on the SRT program. The issue was solved in favor of the applicant; the violated right of the patient was reinstated. 

The court appointed a preparatory hearing, however the hearing was postponed at the request of the lawyer of the SLC due to the deterioration of health of the accused and his stay in hospitals.

The lawyer prepared motions about recognition the part of evidence as inadmissible according to the procedural violation committed by the investigation bodies.

The lawyer is collecting data concerning the applicant’s deceases related to his disability and connected with his complaints on the state of health.

The court hearings are pending. Only part of evidence was examined, the witnesses of accusation were not questioned; the case file was not examined. 

 

Brygyda case

On March 24, 2012 Brygyda (hereinafter – the Applicant) was detained on suspicion of sexual insults and abuse of minors. The accusation based on eyewitnesses’ testimonies of the circumstances that had occurred five years ago and video which had been shot by hidden cameras in the Applicant’s apartment. The investigation has failed to provide proofs of legal installing of these cameras.

The Court chose a preliminary restraint measure for the applicant in the form of detention

On July 10, 2014 the court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The applicant filled a complaint due to the lack of crime and asked for refusal of previous decisions. Familiarizing with case files the lawyer found that the appearance docket had not corresponded with court hearing records. In this regard, more than a hundred remarks were described and much of them were satisfied by the court.

The lawyer stated that during the pre-trial investigation there had been a significant number of violations. The case was completely fabricated starting from illicit criminal proceedings without legal grounds. The authority opened criminal proceeding in violation of jurisdiction, conducted the investigation acts with no permission, issued illegal decisions about the search, illicitly varied jurisdiction, and conducted illegal technical measures in the Applicant’s apartments. The court’s findings did not correspond with actual circumstances and evidences had not generally assessed as admissible. Despite the unlawful obtaining the court still considered evidence as appropriate.

In December 2015 the lawyer had filed a motion to change the preliminary restraint but the court refused.

In September 2015 the lawyer had filed the motion for partial restoration of the pre-trial investigation. The lawyer obtained that the police had to study new evidences and questioned witnesses, but the court refused again.

In December 2015 a new law under which the detention day counted as two days of imprisonment came into force. Given the fact that the applicant previously jailed over 3.5 years, and the trial court sentenced him to 7 years he was released from custody on November 1, 2016

 

Danyluk case

Mr. Danyluk (hereinafter – the applicant) is a citizen of Ukraine, who permanently residing in the territory of Khmenitsk region.

On November 7, 2012 the Kamenets-Khmelnitsky District Court found the applicant guilty of committing extortion and hooliganism. The applicant was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.

By October 21, 2015 the applicant was in Khmelnitsk detention centre because of appealing procedure in the court on his case.

On October 21, 2015 at 17 o’clock the applicant was brought to talk with the Head of the Detention Centre. Officers handcuffed his hands behind the back and led out of the chamber in the basement of the first floor - a joiner’s workshop where the applicant was severely beaten. After some time the applicant died because of inflicted him injuries. The applicant’s body was taken to the Bureau of forensic medical examinations, and his cell was searched.

The victim’s wife asked the Bureau of forensic medical examinations for information on the death of his husband. She was notified about the numerous injuries on his head. Such damages are typical for blowing by hard blunt objects.

The police department opened a criminal proceeding for murder in excess of necessary defense. In this investigation the applicant’s wife was recognized as a victim of crime.

On October 26, 2015 the lawyer filed a number of complaints about the course of the proceedings, and a number of requests to the Bureau of forensic medical examinations about the time and circumstances of the applicant’s body delivering. Also, the lawyer filed a complaint to the leadership of the detention center for providing information about things removed from the cells, his cellmates, and the applicant’s health at the time before the death. The lawyer also asked for the report of primary care and ambulance arrival time

On November 9, 2015 the lawyer requested to change the qualification of the crime at the murder. The investigator refused.

On November 13, 2015 the lawyer familiarized himself with the materials of the criminal proceedings.

Criminal proceeding is pending.

 

Demko case

Segrey Demko was arrested for illegal possession drugs and on 12 March 2013 was placed in Kyiv Pretrial Detention Centre (the SIZO). On initial medical examination on taking to the SIZO he was diagnosed with chronic opioid drug addiction, and he informed the SIZO medical staff that he was a patient of opioid substitution therapy.

On 14 March 2013, he was escorted to a site of substitution therapy where he was given the necessary therapy for the last time and recommended to pass detoxication, but it was not provided to him.

On 18 March 2013 Mr D.’s health state deteriorated, and a special emergency medical narcology team was called to him. They detected a state of abstinence without complications and the detainee was provided with advice, without providing any medical assistance.

Early morning on 26 March 2013 Mr D. died, and forensic medical expert determined an acute heart failure as a reason of his death.

In May 2013, the SLC lawyer prepared a criminal complaint on negligence on the part of the SIZO’s medical staff, and Mr D. to the Shevchenkovskyi District Prosecutor’s office.

The investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office carrying out the investigation of Mr D.’s death, during two months was hindering to the SLC lawyer to enter to the proceedings as a victim representative.

In July 2013, the investigator issued the decision on termination of the criminal proceedings due to lack of corpus delicti on the part of the SIZO medical staff. Noticeable, that the investigator has not even appointed a medical forensic examination on the matter of possible wrongdoings of the SIZO medical staff. The lawyer at last got an access to the case file and complained against the decision to the District Court.

In September 2013 the Shevchenkovskyi District Court quashed the investigator decision and sent the case back for continuance of the investigation.

Later the Prosecutor’s Office changed the investigator in the proceedings, and during a long time did not inform the lawyer about a course of the proceedings. Then the new investigator passed a new decision on termination of the proceedings on the grounds of lack of corpus delicti.

The information about the decision was not provided by the Prosecutor’s Office on the lawyer’s request. At last at the end of August 2015, the lawyer as the victim’s representative familiarized himself with the new investigator’s decision and complained against it to the District Court.

The hearing was postponed several times and the complain is to be examined in the nearest future. In any way the lawyer will argue the groundlessness of the decision due to lack of forensic medical examination in course of the investigation. The complaint is planned to be prepared to the ECtHR on the matter of violations of Article 2 (medical negligence resulted to death) and Article 3 (lack of medical care in the state of abstinence).

 

Deriy and others case

The first applicant, Mr Alexandr Vasylyevich Deriy, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1953, and lives in Pervomayskiy, Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

On 27 December 2010 Chief of the "Zmiiv’s regional hospital" Mr. Lysak M.P. actually eliminated stationary of the Byrky’s district hospital by order no. 408.

On 10 March 2011 the residents actually learned about the closure of the Byrky’s district hospital when came to the building and saw that the entrance to the hospital was closed on the lock. No public hearings on the matter have been conducted.

On 25 June 2011 the applicants filed a complaint to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court, in which complained on violation of their right to timely medical care and to open the hospital.

On 13 December 2011 Kharkiv district administrative court rejected the claim.

On 17 April 2012 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region ordered the closure of the court of appeal proceedings in the case concerning the head doctor communal health "Zmiiv’s regional hospital" on the grounds that the Head Doctor is not a person of public law. In another part of the proceedings was closed (relative inactivity of the Department of Health of the Kharkiv region). The Administrative Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region upheld the decision.

On 12 May 2012 the applicants filed the cassation to the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine.

In November 2012, the monitoring group, which consisted of representatives of the Ombudsman and legal expert of the KHPG, visited the hospital to monitor violations of the law, particularly Article 3 of the Convention. The result of the visit members of the group was compiled report of reported violations and recommendations for addressing them.

On 16 July 2013, the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine made a decision of partial satisfaction of the requirements of the applicant and sent the case back to the matter of fact in Kharkiv District Administrative Court.

In October 2013 the Kharkiv district administrative court delivers a judgment on the benefit of the plaintiffs. The court declared the actions of the Chief of the "Zmiiv’s regional hospital" Mr. Lysak M.P. aimed at closing the Byrky’s district hospital as an illegal. The court also declared inaction of the Department of Health of the Kharkiv region as illegal.

In January 2014 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region upheld the decision.

In March, 2014 administrative proceedings started in the Executive Office of Ukraine. Lawyer of SLC sent a several statements to executive office, but received no response.

The applicants considers that the actual acts and omissions of defendants, aimed at closing the district hospital, causing them personally big difficulties in obtaining medical care and daily life as it actually is unable to get medical care and it’s violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicants’ complained that the closure of the hospital also violated provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of persons with disabilities.

The court judgment has not been executed until now.

On January 21, 2015 on behalf the applicant the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Prosecutor Office of Kharkiv region concerning non-execution of the decision of the Kharkiv district administrative court.

On March 5, 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a motion to the Zmiiv’s Department of the Executive Office of Ukraine and asked for an opening of executive proceeding. On March 23, 2015 a representative of the Zmiiv’s Department of the Executive Office of Ukraine rejected the motion and sent it to the SLC lawyer.

In June 2015 on behalf the applicant the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Kharkiv district administrative court and asked to cancel this decision of the Executive Office.

On July 6, 2015 by the decision of the Kharkiv district administrative court the administrative complaint of the applicant was partially satisfied and found misconduct of the Zmiiv’s Department of the Executive Office of Ukraine to refuse to initiate enforcement proceedings.

On October 28, 2015 by the decision of the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal the above decision was canceled.

In November 2015, the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant submitted an cassation to the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine.

In reply to her lawyer’s request the lawyer received information that the investigative jurisdiction had been changed and the case had been transferred for additional investigation to the police bodies.

After constant requests of the lawyer Fastivskiy interdistrict court held several visiting hearings during which the ninth volume of the criminal case was resumed. A copy of the judgment was given to Mr. Didenko and the schedule of his familiarizing with the case file was adjusted.

On 30 April 2015 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the European Court of Human Right.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv region registered the case in the URPTI and started investigation. For today pre-trial investigation is being carried out. The Prosecutor’s Office does not react at Mr. Didenko’s application about recognition of his status as a victim.

On 26 June 2015 the lawyer sent an additional application about recognition of Mr. Didenko a victim.  

The ECtHR declared the above mentioned application inadmissible.

The lawyer prepared and filed appeals to the decision of the court of first instance. At the result of their consideration the Court of Appeal issued a ruling in which it cancelled the sentence of the court of first instance and transferred the case for repeated consideration.

At the preliminary court hearing the lawyer lodged a motion about returning the case for additional investigation due to the violation of the right of the accused which could not be restored during the pre-trial investigation, as well as defining the term of pre-trial detention for 2 month, regarding the fact that it had not been limited in time.  

 

Diordiyashenko case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 7 November 2014 the court examined in the preliminary hearing the Act of indictment and granted the lawyer’s motion of the return of the Act of indictment to the prosecutor due to its inconsistency with the Criminal Procedural Code. The prosecutor did not agree with the decision and on 5 December 2014 appealed against it.

On 5 December 2014, the decision on the return of the indictment prosecutor submitted an appeal.

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

On 23 March 2015 the Court of Appeal considered the arguments of the prosecutor, and refused to satisfy his appeal. The prosecutor did not implement the court’s guidelines again and sent the Act of indictment to the court.

On 23.12.2015 in the preliminary court hearing the judge returned the Act of indictment to the prosecutor for amendment.   

In the criminal proceedings on the complaint against the authorities’ illegal actions the events developed as follows.

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

After repeated requests and complaints the lawyer received a resolution on termination of the criminal proceedings, and on 27 February 2015 immediately filed a complaint to the district court.

On January 21, 2016 the court hearing was postponed upon the lawyer’s motion.

Dudchenko case

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

He was detained on suspicion of distributing the drugs in the territory of the Lychakivska correctional colony no. 30 (“LCC no.30”). His detention was not registered. In fact, Mr Dudchenko had 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 registered in the URPTI.

For a long time, Mr Dudchenko had 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 Mr Dudchenko because of his absence in the place of investigation. Also, he was put on the wanted list. When he was detained for the second time a protocol of detention was 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 questioned of several witnesses were provided. Search officers were also questioned, and they had different versions of events.

The applicant’s state of health has become worse short after court hearings. The defender addressed written requests to the AIDS center and made written motions.

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.

 

Dudka case

The applicant, Dudka Vasyl Victorovych, was sentenced in 2003. He applied to a court with a motion about the changing of non-served part of a sentence. The court refused. It mentioned about violations of prison rules by the applicant. Also it refused to attach documents on the applicant’s personality to the case materials.

The applicant’s defender filed an appeal on the abovementioned court decision.

The Appeal Court refused to satisfy the defender’s appeal.

The defender filed a cassation.

 

Efremov case

Mr. Efremov, is a Ukrainian national, who is serving his sentence in Berdychiv correctional colony no. 70 (“BCC no. 70”).

Efremov applied to the lawyer with the complaints on his improper medical treatment in BCC no.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 no.73 (“RCC no.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.

Last year Mr E. three times underwent to the outpatient treatment from dermatology diseases in above mentioned medical facilities but the treatment was absolutely ineffective. The lawyer obtained comprehensive medical information about Mr E.’s state of health and the treatment provided, and requested an opinion of a medical specialist on the matter of adequacy of the treatment. In case of negative opinion on the matter of adequacy of the treatment, the lawyer plan to submit claim against the penitentiary administration.

 

Lawyer’s rights case

Mr. G., in May 2015 applied to a lawyer for legal help. According to his words, he was unlawfully detained.

As things turned out, Mr. G. is kept in pre-trial detention center on the ground of the decision of appeal courts. According to this decision, the preventive measure was chosen for Mr. G. perpetually in a compliance with provisions of the old Procedure Code. According to the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a term of detention can not exceed 2 months.

The case of Mr. G. was directed to investigator for conducting a new investigation. That’s why provisions of the old Criminal Procedure Code can not be applied in this case.

Mr. G. was held in pre-trial detention center for more than 2 months. On the basis of facts mentioned above, his further detention was unlawful.

On 3 May 2015 and 1 June 2015 (holidays, established by the state) the lawyer applied to the court with a motion for the Mr. G.’s release from the detention. But the court guard didn’t allow him to enter the court building. Additionally, an assistant of the investigating judge on duty refused to accept and to register the lawyer’s motion. According to the Instruction on granting of access to court buildings, individuals are allowed to enter the court building on holidays in a common manner in the case if the schedule of investigating judges’ duty days has been established.

The lawyer called the police. Police officers came and took written explanation of the court officials and of the lawyer.

On 15 June 2015 the lawyer received a notification about passing the case materials to the Prosecutor’s Office in order to conduct an investigation. There was no response from the prosecutor’s office.

The lawyer filed complaints on actions of court officials to the head of court’s guard. In his written response dated to 30.06.2015 it was stated that no violations of law were found in the actions.

On 8 July 2015 the lawyer filed a complaint to court on refusal of initiating of the investigation of the mentioned above events. The court refused to satisfy the lawyer’s complaint. Thus, the investigation was not initiated.

On 3 June 2015 and 8 July 2015 the lawyer filed written requests to the court for providing him with the schedule of investigation judges’ duty days (only for 30 May 2015 and 1 June 2015). Those documents were not provided because, in the court’s opinion, they are in-house documents and are not for common use.

On 30 September 2015 the lawyer filed a suit about establishing of unlawfulness of the court’s refusal to provide the lawyer with the schedule. The suit was left without further progress on some formal reasons. The lawyer had to fix some formal mistake. But the suit itself and the judge’s remarks were not sent back to the lawyer. He filed a request for return of the documents. But no documents were provided. The case was closed.

 

Geynyk case

Mr Oleh Geynyk, is a Ukrainian national, who is detained in Lviv penalty colony no. 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 submit 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 work 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

A correspondent Vasil Melnychuk 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 filed 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 refuse to initiate 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 the ruling about ending the criminal proceedings was issued. On 19.03.2015 the mentioned 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, did not include registering the pleas of offense, in connection with this on 09.04.2015 the ruling about ending the criminal proceedings was issued.

 

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 Gonchar. After the familiarization the SLC lawyer is going to file several motions concerning a big amount of violations during the trial.

15 court hearings were held in 2015. The criminal proceeding is pending.

 

Gorgulyov case

On 18 October 2011, the Court of Appeal of Odessa region passed the judgment of conviction of a Ukrainian national Mr. Gorgulev (hereinafter – the applicant) and sentenced the applicant with the final punishment of 15 years imprisonment as a sum of the punishments on several counts for the last and the previous judgments.

On 24 January 2014, the Court of Appeal of Odessa issued a ruling about clarification of the personal data of the convicts under the sentence of the criminal chamber of the Court of Appeal of Odessa region of 18.10.2011.

According to this ruling, the term of serving of sentence by Mr. Gorgulyov was supposed to start on 07.03.2007.

The lawyer of the SLC who represented the interests of Gorgulyov did not agree with the above mentioned ruling and lodged the cassation appeal to the High specialized court of Ukraine on the consideration of civil and criminal cases (HSCU). 

On 24 April 2014, the lawyer sent the cassation appeal to the HSCU through the Court of Appeal of Odessa, and that there was no information about course of the cassation proceedings.

On 11 June 2014, the expert opinion of Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University about calculation of the term of the sentence intended for Mr Gorgulyov was received, under which from 12 March 2011, Mr. Gorgulyov should be considered as being served a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 15 years, specified in the ruling of the HSCU of July 30, 2013. 

Further keeping of Mr Gorgulyov in the places of deprivation of liberty actually occured without proper legal basis and violates the requirements of Articles 29, 63, 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

On 26 June 2014, the above mentioned expert opinion was delivered to the Court of Appeal of Odessa region. 

On 03 July 2014, the case file regarding appeal against the above mentioned decision of the Court of Appeal of Odessa region delivered to the HSCU. 

The examination of the Gorgulyov’s case by HSCU is scheduled to 21 August 2014, but the hearing has not been carried out. On this occasion, an application on a crime on the part of the judges was sent to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine.

A separate application was filed on a crime committed by judges of the Appeal Court of Odesa region. The Prosecutor’s Office of Odessa region refused to register this application in the URPTI. So the lawyer complained to the court that opened proceedings and sent the request to the Court of Appeal of Odesa region for changing jurisdiction.

On 11 September 2011, the lawyer lodged to the HSCU the request concerning the whereabouts of the cassation appeal, as well as of the decisions issued in course of the appeal.

On 12 September 2014 the lawyer lodged the complaint to the Court of Appeal of Odessa region concerning the absence of a reply for the lawyer’s request about the whereabouts of the cassation appeal.

On 30 September 2014 the SLC lawyer got the reply from the HSCU of 11 September 2014 with the information that the cassation appeal was returned to the Court of Appeal of Odessa region.

On 20 October 2014 the lawyer got the reply of the Court of Appeal of Odessa for the lawyer’s request of 12 September 2014 along with the copy of the letter of the HSCU of 18 August 2014.

After familiarizing of the lawyer with the case file in the Court of Appeal of Odessa region she got aware of the facts of offences of the judges, such as failure to provide replies to the motions of Mr Gorgulyov and his lawyer.

The lawyer applied to the Ombudsman with an application on which the verification is being conducted now.

A judge of the HSCR did not make a decision which according to the law must be final, and, subsequently, deprived Mr Gorgulyov of his right for appeal. For today applications to the European Court of Human Rights, the Disciplinary commission of judges and a complaint on the unlawful actions of the Prosecutor’s Office of Odesa region are being prepared. 

On 18 April 2015 the lawyer sent an application to the ECtHR about priority consideration of the case concerning deprivation of liberty of Mr. Gorgulyov.

The ECtHR refused to initiate a case on the application filed in the interests of Mr. Gorgulyov.

The lawyer prepared an application about a crime regarding unlawful court’s decision about the start of the term of serving the punishment. The criminal proceedings were not initiated under this application. The lawyer filed a complaint about failure to act to the court.

 

Gudz case

The applicant’s name is Gudz Volodumyr Ivanovych.

On 27 August 2015 a search was conducted in his apartment. A court’s decision of 26 June 2015 was a legal basis to the search. So, it was conducted 2 months after the date of court’s decision which violates par. 1 part 2 article 235 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

During the search there was found a pot with a marijuana sprout. But police confiscated only the sprout without the pot (it affects the qualification of an offence). Police officer also failed to provide a copy of protocol to the applicant.

The applicant’s defender filed a notification about a crime committed by a judge and a police officer because the term of the execution of such court’s decision was 3 months (which itself violates the provisions of article 235).

The investigation of the applicant’s offence connected with drugs is pending.

 

Horovenko case

The applicant, Olexander Ivanovich Horovenko, is a Russian nationality who was born in 1974 in Korsun-Shevchenko city. Recently he actually has lived in Kharkiv.

On February 22, 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of selling drugs. The indictment was received by the Moskovskiy District Court on May 29, 2014. On March 11, 2015 The Moskovskiy District Court passed the sentence.

On July 23, 2015 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal overturned the sentence of the district court and forwarded it for consideration to the same court.

On August 20, 2015 the motion about return of the indictment and change the preventive measure was drawn up.

On 20 August 2015 the judge Bukreeva adjourned the case because of the absence of witnesses. The court extended the detention period to 22 October 2015 without specifying the size of the bail.

On October 20th the lawyer filed the motion about changing of a preventive measure.

On October 20, 2015 the judge Bukreeva adjourned the case because of the absence of witnesses. The court extended the detention period to 21 December 2015 without specifying the size of the bail. The next hearing was appointed for November 16, 2015.

On November 16, 2015 the court hearing, which was scheduled for 14 o’clock did not take place because of absence of the public prosecutor. The judge refused to postpone the hearing. This fact was recorded in the statement that the lawyer submitted to the office of the court.

On December 8, 2015 the lawyer filed a motion about changing of a preventive measure. On the same date the court adjourned the case because of the absence of witnesses and continued detention until 8 February 2016 without specifying the size of the bail. Also it was announced a certificate from the medical unit of the pre-trial detention center. The certificate stated that Horovenko ill with hepatitis B and C in remission and he was examined by a medical practitioner only doctor of the detention center.

On January 12, 2015 the lawyer filed a complaint with the chief place the Penitentiary no.27 of refusal Horovenko proper medical care.

 

Kaluszhnuy and others case

The applicants, Kaluszhnuy Grygory Volodumyrovych, Koscovyat Stepan Borysovich, Sameraz Khrystyna Tarasivna, Skoryk Natalya Igorivna.

On 3 September 2015 at night the applicants were going in a car and were stopped by patrol police. All applicants were handcuffed and brought to a district police station. There they were kept for 6 hours without any records. In an attendance book they were recorded as visitors.

The defender came to the police station at 7 a.m. She noticed the status of applicants (“visitors”) and tried to lead them out from the station. They were stopped by policeman.

After that the applicants were questioned.

All the Applicants pointed that they were unlawfully held for 6 hours in detention.

On the same day, the defender filed a written notification about a crime (excess of power) to the Prosecutor’s Office. No information was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial InvestigationsInvestigations.

The lawyer complained on the prosecutor’s failure to act to a court. Her complaint was satisfied. An investigation of the applicants’ unlawful detention was renewed.

On 2 December 2015 the lawyer received an investigator’s decision to close the investigation. The defender appealed to a court.

 

Kaminska case

On 22 December 2014, the SLC lawyer applied to the Head of Lviv pre-trial detention centre (“Head”) to give her a meeting with Mr. Mankowski who 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 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.

The lawyer filed a complaint on the prosecutor’s failure to act to a court. The court refused to satisfy the complaint.

 

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 was 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.

The lawyer has no opportunity to familiarize herself with the case materials as Karpachev is a witness in this criminal proceeding (witness or his representative has no right to get familiarized with case materials).

The defender filed many complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office and to the court on the status of witness of the applicant. She demanded them to change it for the victim. But all governmental bodies refused to consider those complaints on the ground that witness has no right to file a complaint.

 

Khaliman case

Ms Andriy Olehovych Khaliman, is a Ukrainian national, who lives 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, which 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 appointed a detention as a preventive measure for the applicant – detention in the Kharkiv SIZO.

The SLC lawyer filed an appeal to the Kharkiv Court of Appeal. It rejected the SLC’s lawyer’s 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 no.17, which is a specialized correctional institution and has necessary conditions for the diagnosis and medical treatment of tuberculosis.

The colony no.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 being transported from the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre. During this transportation he asked for some water because he felt unwell. 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, a lawyer 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.

The investigator replied to many applicant’s motions that he would prolong the term of pre-trial investigation.

The lawyer filed a motion to the Penitentiary service for a transfer of Mr. Kolyada to the penitentiary institution which is situated closer to a place of living of applicant’s relatives.

The lawyer filed a complaint to the Penitentiary service on the applicant’s transfer to an institution which is actually situated in a zone of Anti-terrorist operation.

    

Krotov case

On 9 June 2008 Mr Krotov was sentences by the Court of Appeal of Rovne region to 14 years of imprisonment. He is serving his sentence in the Sofiyivska correctional colony no. 45.

During the monitoring mission in the the Sofiyivska correctional colony no. 45 a lawyer of the SLC revealed a fact of keeping in the colony of Mr Krotov who must be released from punishment due to the presence of a disease which in on the List of diseases giving the reason for applying to court for release of a prisoners from further serving a punishment.   

On 27 April 2015 the lawyer lodged a request to the Sofiyivska correctional colony no. 45 about providing information on the state of health of Mr Krotov.  

On 20 May 2015 the lawyer received the reply on her request with information during serving the punishment Mr Krotov had had periodically impatient treatment regarding serious health problems, including the following diseases:

- Nonspecific aorto-arteyit (Buerger’s disease);
- Acute Q-myocardial infarction of the lower wall of the left ventricle since 03.10.2008;
- Hypertension of II level;
- Stomach ulcers;
- Moderate sclerotic retinal angiopathy of both eyes;
- Postinfarction cardiosclerosis;
- Coronary heart disease and other diseases.

Since the beginning of the serving his sentence Mr Krotov has had several surgeries on limbs amputations. As of date, Krotov has high legs amputation at the middle third of a hip, high amputation of the right hand at the level of the middle third of the shoulder, high amputation of the left hand at the upper third of the shoulder.

Since 24 November 2011 Mr Krotov has had established first group of invalidity for a lifetime.

On 29 May 2015 the lawyer lodged a request to the Sofiyivskiy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk region about release of Mr Krotov of punishment due to the disease.

On 24.10.15 on the motion of the lawyer the court appointed a repeated special medical commission for medical examination of Mr Krotov.

On 21.12.15 on the lawyer’s motion the court appointed forensic medical examination for establishing the fact of presence of diseases which will let to release Mr Krotov from subsequent serving of punishment, as the conclusion of the repeated examination was identical to the previous one, which had had information about absence of obstruction connected with the state of Mr Krotov, which would make in unable for him to serve his term of imprisonment. 

 

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 in 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 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.

 

Kryvdyk case

Mr. Kryvdyk R., is a Ukrainian national, lives in Lviv region, Ukraine.

10 April 2009 the Applicant was detained by police as a suspected criminal. Over a one and half day the applicant was detained in the police department without providing any food and adequate conditions for sleep. During his detention, police officers forced the Applicant to sign a voluntary admission that he committed a crime.

The detention of Mr Kryvdyk was not registered. In a register book there was a sign about a voluntary attendance of the applicant to the police department.

When Mr Kryvdyk was in the police department, police officers conducted a search in his apartment without the permission of the court.

The SLC lawyer filed a complaint on actions of the police officers to a court. The court found those actions illegal. After consideration in court, the case was returned to the pre-trial investigation.

In 2013 criminal proceeding against Mr Kryvdyk was terminated due to lack of the corpus delicti in his actions. Now the lawyer helps the applicant to seek for a compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages inflicted by unlawful criminal persecution.

In January 2014 a lawsuit on compensation of damages caused by unlawful actions of pre-trial investigation bodies and prosecutor was lodged to the District court. After obtaining the conclusion of the expert about the amount of non-pecuniary damage it was clarified in the lawsuit.

In February 2014 the forensic expert examination on determination of amount of non-pecuniary damage was conducted under the motion of the lawyer by Forensic Examination Institute.

There were held 15 court hearings in the case in 2015.

 

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.  

 

Lawyer’s rights case

Mr. G., in May 2015 applied to a lawyer for legal help. According to his words, he was unlawfully detained.

As things turned out, Mr. G. is kept in pre-trial detention center on the ground of the decision of the Court of appeal. According to this decision, the preventive measure was chosen for Mr. G. perpetually in a compliance with provisions of the old Procedure Code. According to the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a term of detention can not exceed 2 months.

The case of Mr. G. was directed to investigator for conducting a new investigation. That’s why provisions of the old Criminal Procedure Code can not be applied in this case.

Mr. G. was held in the pre-trial detention center for more than 2 months. On the basis of facts mentioned above, his further detention was unlawful.

On 3 May 2015 and 1 June 2015 (holidays, established by the state) the lawyer applied to the court with a motion for the Mr. G.’s release from the detention. But the court guard didn’t allow him to enter the court building. Additionally, an assistant of the investigating judge on duty refused to accept and to register the lawyer’s motion. According to the Instruction on granting of access to court buildings, individuals are allowed to enter the court building on holidays in a common manner in the case if the schedule of investigating judges’ duty days has been established.

The lawyer called the police. Police officers came and took written explanation of the court officials and of the lawyer.

On 15 June 2015 the lawyer received a notification about passing the case materials to the Prosecutor’s Office in order to conduct an investigation. There was no response from the prosecutor’s office.

The lawyer filed complaints on actions of court officials to the head of court’s guard. In his written response dated to 30.06.2015 it was stated that no violations of law were found in the actions.

On 8 July 2015 the lawyer filed a complaint to court on refusal of initiating the investigation of the mentioned above events. The court refused to satisfy the lawyer’s complaint. Thus, the investigation was not initiated.

On 3 June 2015 and 8 July 2015 the lawyer filed written requests to the court for providing him with the schedule of investigation judges’ duty days (only for 30 May 2015 and 1 June 2015). Those documents were not provided because, in the court’s opinion, they are in-house documents and are not for common use.

On 30 September 2015 the lawyer filed a lawsuit about establishing of unlawfulness of the court’s refusal to provide the lawyer with the schedule. The lawsuit was left without further progress on some formal reasons. The lawyer had to fix some formal mistake. But the lawsuit itself and the judge’s remarks were not sent back to the lawyer. He filed a request for return of the documents. But no documents were provided. The case was closed.

 

Levchenko case

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

The applicant 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. 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.

On 10.09.2015 the lawyer lodged a repeated application about providing information concerning the results of the investigation. On 13.11.2015 the lawyer received a reply about refuse to initiate criminal proceeding on her application about a crime. 

On 22.11.2015 the lawyer appealed against the above refuse with a request to oblige the competent bodies to initiate pre-trial investigation.

The above mentioned appeal is appointed for consideration.

 

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 Mr 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 the 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 InvestigationsInvestigations.

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 the Lviv correctional colony no.48 (“LCC no.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 has not been increasing.

The administration of the LCC no.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.

In August, 2015 the lawyer lodged the second motion, but the colony administration did not conduct Mr L.’s medical examination and therefore, `special medical commission has not issued an opinion whether the inmate has the disease which contains the basis for release from serving a punishment. Moreover, a District Court refused to appoint Mr L.’s medical examination on those matters. On this basis the court secondly rejected the motion on release.

A motion was filed by the defender to the court on re-calculation of the applicant’s sentence.

 

Lysenko case

During the visit to the Berdychiv correctional colony no.70 (“BCC no.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 had not placed Mr 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 the Stryzhavska correctional colony no.81 (“SCC no.81”).

On 12 January 2015, during the meeting with Lysenko the lawyer of the 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 Mr Lysenko’s diagnosis and health status, proper medical treatment, providing insulin to the SCC no. 81, requests for hospitalization during the period of his sentence were submitted.

Also, the request on providing insulin to thr SCC no.81 in 2012, 2013, 2014 was submitted by the 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 the BCC no.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.

On August 3, 2015 the lawyer submitted the claim to the Shevchenkyvsk District Court for recovery of moral damages in the amount of 60 000 UAH. The defendants in this case were the State Penitentuary Service of Ukraine, the Berdychiv correctional colony no. 70; third party was the Zhitomir Department of Penitentuary Service of Ukraine.

The court opened proceedings in the case. On September 30 2015 the first court hearing was held. All defendants in the process attended the hearing. The case was considered on merits. The defendants objected to the claimant, filed their objections, which pointed out that the disease is progressing diabetes, this is normal that the Lysenko health became worse. The Colony regularly refers patients for elective treatment. The defendants had filed a copy of the medical card from the Berdychiv city hospital, which indicates the number of issued insulin. Also the defendants filed a copy of Lysenko refusals from insulin.

The lawyer was announced request for additional time for the submission of written explanations and evidences.

On November 24, 2015 the lawyer submitted a written request for clarification and attracting new evidences.

On November 30, 2015 the court appointed consideration of the case. The lawyer was engaged in another process. On November 24, 2015 the lawyer filed a motion about adjourning consideration of the case to another date. The next court hearing is going to be on January 25, 2016.

 

Lytvak case

On 28 May 2014, Shevchenko District Court of Lviv found the police officers guilty of abuse of power and illegal deprivation of liberty and appointed them real punishments (see Drug user’s case’ below).

In August 2014, the Lviv Court of Appeal quashed the sentence and directed the case for the further investigation.

In September 2014, the case was directed for the further investigation.

During the further investigation six volumes of evidence were gathered.

All investigative actions were conducted repeatedly. Such as: accident’s reconstruction, viewing the scene of a crime, interrogations of the suspects, questioning new/additional witnesses, examination of the victim that was conducted three times, his mother’s examination, that was provided two times and his brother’s examination that also was provided two times, information retrieval from communications links, witnesses’ search. Also additional forensic medical examination was conducted.

The analysis of the suspects’ location place by their mobile phones was conducted. Such analysis refuted their examinations and alibi.

A lawyer of the SLC uploaded the documents, which confirm the fact of illegal keeping of Mr. Litvak in police custody for more than three days

The investigator was going to bring the defendants to official charges.

In December 2014, the investigator brought the defendants to official charges.

On 4 February 2015, the preliminary hearing was held.

During the case hearings, some witnesses were examined. The prosecution asked to examine 20 witnesses. The examination of the witness lasts for 2-3 hours, so it takes a lot of time in total.

Documents, which prove that the Applicant was wanted by the police since 05 December 2011 (a day before he was released from the unlawful detention), were provided by the defender.

There were 30 court hearings in 2015. The proceedings are pending.

 

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, 2006 the Prosecutour Office of Dnepropetrovsk region 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 been

 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. Now he is waiting for the Prosecutor’s Office’s responce

 

Mankowski case

Mr. Mankowski 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 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, Mr 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 the Lutsk pre-trial detention centre where he was placed in solitary confinement under a false basis of alleged violation of the regime by him.

When Mr Mankowski was brought to the Lviv pre-trial detention centre the lawyer of the SLC lawyer tried to get a meeting with him. The Head of the 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.

The lawyer filed a motion to an investigator with a request to conduct necessary investigative actions but there was no response.

The lawyer filed a complaint to the heading prosecutor which answered that the investigation is being held. However, by the reason of the applicant’s status of witness in the case it’s impossible to take his motions into consideration.

The complaint on the investigator’s failure to act was filed to the court. The court refused to  initiatie the procedure on the score of the applicant’s status of witness.

 

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 Mr Mazur and he was transferred to the Lviv SIZO without providing an opportunity to take his personal belongings.

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

When familiarizing with the case files the lawyer revealed false signature of Mr 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 in the URPTI about disappearance of the personal belongings.

The lawyer made a request to the Lviv SIZO about the state of health of Mr 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. 

The court refused to satisfy the lawyer’s claim on investigator’s failure to act (he didn’t enter the information to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations).

Mr Mazur has a heart disease. Because of that the ambulance was called for him twice during a court hearing.

An administration of the Pre-trial detention center denies any facts of existence of applicant’s health problems. The lawyer’s motions on involving a health-care specialist in examination of applicant are ignored. The lawyer filed a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office.

The court proceedings are in progress.

 

Mikhailenko case

The Ukrainian national Mr Mikhailenko was serving imprisonment in the 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 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 was appointed for September.

 

Mykhaylyschun case

From the 29th of May 2010 to the 16th of July 2010 a little baby (born on 26th of May 2010) of the Ms M. was on in-patient treatment in the Department of preemies’ pathologies. The baby had respiratory dysfunction.

On 1 July 2010 doctor of Lviv region clinic hospital had decided to make a transfusion of packed red blood cells. As a result of this medical manipulation, the baby was infected with HIV because of a medical stuff’s negligence.

On 25 November 2010 a complaint on committing of crime (Articles 137 and 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) was filed.

On 14 January 2011 the Lviv sanitation center sent to the Ministry of Health a written notification #194/08 with information about a conducted investigation. As a result of investigation it was found out that the baby could have been infected by HIV which contained packed red blood cells. Also medical professionals failed to conduct a leucocytic infiltration which was a necessary procedure on pre-transfusion stage. Additionally, the packed red blood cells which were transfused to the baby were previously obtained from the donor, who was defined as HIV-positive on 6 September 2010.

On 19 January 2011 the Regional health-care department issued an order no. 62/7-ВО. There was established a fact of the baby’s infection with HIV. It was caused by a violation of provisions of the Ministry of Health’s order no. 385 “On inflectional security of donor’s blood and its components”. Also the order no. 62/7-ВО obliged the Head doctor of Lviv region clinical hospital to conduct an official inquiry into the incident till the 31 January 2011.

On 16 March 2012 the lawyer obtained a copy of investigator’s refusal to initiate criminal proceeding.

On 22 March 2012 the lawyer filed a claim on the investigator’s refusal, mentioned above, to a prosecutor. He satisfied the claim and abolished the refusal.

The preliminary investigation is obviously dragged out. Since the end of 2012 and till now there was medical staff questioned and medical documents withdrawn. A forensic medical expert examination was appointed only on 31 October 2013 on a lawyer’s motion. The examination was finished on 10 December 2013. Experts made a conclusion that the baby could have been infected with HIV because of the packed red blood cells transfusion. Other questions were left without answers.

In 2015, the lawyer prepared a civil claim against the hospital which will be filed after receiving of medical documents from Ms M.

 

Nesolonyy case

During the visit to the Berdychiv correctional colony no.70 (“BCC no.70”) the lawyers of the SLC found out 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 the Stryzhavska correctional colony no.81 (“SCC no.81”). There TB was diagnosed in him. When the medical treatment of diabetes was finished he was brought to the Kherson correctional colony no.61 (“KCC no.61”) for medical treatment of TB. The second group of disability was assigned to him there.

On 12 January 2015, during the meeting with Mr 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 Mr 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 requests on providing insulin to BCC no.70 in 2012, 2013, 2014 were submitted by the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

Due to the information contained in the replies, the lawyer made the conclusion that Mr Nesolonyy’s health damage was caused by illegal actions of administration of the BCC no.70 and of the 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.

On Jun 25, 2015 the lawyer submitted the claim to the Shevchenkyvsk District Court for recovery of moral damages in the amount of 60 000 UAH. The defendants in this case were State Penitentuary Service of Ukraine, Berdychiv correctional colony no. 70, third party was the Zhitomir Department of Penitentuary Service of Ukraine.

The court opened proceedings in the case. On August 18, 2015 the first court hearing was held. All defendants in the process attended the hearing. The case was considered a matter of fact. The defendants objected to the claimant, filed their objections, which pointed out that the disease is progressing diabetes, this is normal that the Nesolonyy health becоme worse. The Colony regularly refers patients for elective treatment. The denied stated that previously Mr. Nesolonyy has had pulmonary tuberculosis. Pulmonary tuberculosis has recovered again. Pulmonary tuberculosis had diagnosed during his treatment in the Strizgavsk colony. After that he was transferred for pulmonary tuberculosis treatment to the Kherson correctional colony. The defendants had filed a copy of the medical card from the Berdychiv city hospital, which indicates the number of issued insulin.

The lawyer was announced request for additional time for the submission of written explanations and evidences.

On November 24, 2015 the lawyer submitted a written request for clarification. On December 9, 2015 a court hearing was held. On this court hearing the court accepted decision and declared introductory and resolution part of the decision, the court denied the claim.

After getting the full text of the judgment the lawyer will appeal in to the Court of Appeal.

 

Old lady’s abuse case

On 20th of December 2013 a drunken policeman of Ordzhonikidze District Police Department rang to the apartment of 84-year resident of Kharkov and asked her to open the door.

After the elderly woman opened the door policeman began to beat her. Her neighbours heard noise made by him and applicant’s shouting and called to police. Applicant’s body and her head were all bruised.

After beating the applicant, the policeman started to rummage in her cabinets. A police patrol that arrived on the scene arrested the raging bully, who tried to attack an applicant’s son and grandson, and brought him o the police station.

Despite the old age of the victim and the fact that she is a member of hostilities, the investigation department of Ordzhonikidze District Police Department initiated criminal a proceeding only ten days after event, namely on the 1st of January 2014. The criminal case was instituted under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (light bodily injury). In fact, the investigation of this crime was not conducted.

The case was transferred to another investigator after the victim applied for legal aid to the KHPG and the lawyers of the KHPG filed the complaint on ineffective investigation of the case. At that new investigator didn’t classify actions of the offender under Article 162 § 2 (invasion into a housing committed by police) of the CC of Ukraine either.

From March 2014 to June 2014 the investigation of the case was conducting with participation of the lawyer of the SLC.

On 28th of March 2014 the lawyer filed statement about committing crimes against applicant under Article 162 § 2 (invasion into a housing committed by police) of the CC of Ukraine to Ordzhonikidze District Police Department/

In March 2014 the lawyer filed a complaint to the Ordjokinidze district Prosecutor’s Office in which he asked to conduct investigation as the crime was committed by a police officer.

The Prosecutor’s Office did not reply to this complaint. The complaint was not included into the case file of the criminal case.

After that on 29th of March 2014 the ex-policeman was charged in crimes under Articles 125 § 2 and 162 § 2 Article 162 of the CC of Ukraine (as it was mentioned in descriptive part of act) but the reasoning part of act contained reference only on Article 125 § 2 of the CC of Ukraine.

As policeman was fired from police after he committed the crime the criminal proceedings were conducted as if he was not a special subject of the crime - a state agent.     For this reason, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and filed a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Ordzhonikidze district on transferring case to the Prosecutor’s Office as the crime was committed by a policeman.

However, the lawyer has not received the reply. The complaint and reply were not attached to the case-files of criminal proceedings, but instead it was attached to case-files of supervisory proceedings.

When in June 2014 the court hearings started in Ordzhonikidze District Court of Kharkiv the prosecutor asked the applicant’s son to refuse from legal assistance of the lawyer of the SLC. When they refused to do it the prosecutor tried to induce the lawyer not to notify the court that the crime was committed by a policeman, as in this case a judge will close the case immediately due to the lack of corpus delicti of the defendant.

The lawyer filed the motion to call as witnesses members of police patrol, who arrested the policeman who beaten the applicant. The petition was refused by the judge on the grounds that the petition didn’t contain information about domiciles of policemen from police patrol as well as their first names and family names.

On 09.07.2014 the lawyer participated in a court hearing. His petition calling the police officers who arrested the police officer, who beat the elderly women as witnesses, was rejected by the judge on the grounds that the petition did not contain home address policemen and their first name and patronymic. Before the court hearing the prosecutor asked the lawyer not to inform the court under recording that the accused was a police officer, as the judge would close the case on the ground of lack of corpus delicti in his actions.

After the motion of the lawyer to draw the Kharkiv Region Police Department as co-defendant in the civil lawsuit the judge announced a break in the hearings as he sent the request to the police station about providing the court with order of dismissal of the accused.

After ignoring this request the judge once again made the request, but the answer did not come, and instead the prosecutor changed the indictment, stating therein that the crime was committed by a police officer who was not in the performance of official duties, and not in the form of a police officer.

For today the criminal proceedings are pending. Next hearing was scheduled for March 16, 2015. The judge rejected the appointment of re-examination of injuries because the indictment is not specified on the arraignment for causing serious injury.

The lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint against the Ordjokinidze district Prosecutor’s Office about the impropriate direction of the indictment to the court and obtaining bribes.

During hearing the court found violation of the investigating jurisdiction, namely, the case against a crime of a police officer has been investigated by the police authority, although according to the CCP it had to be done by a prosecutor’s office.

Given to this in March 2015, the Ordjokinidze district court found no corpus delicti in the actions of the police officer. The SLC lawyer appealed this verdict to the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region. To this moment, the appeal is not examined.

On July 2, 2015 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region quashed the verdict of the judge Klimenko.

On July 30, 2015 the judge Maslov returned the indictment to the prosecutor.

On August 11, 2015 Mr Babusiyisin was recognized as the legitimate representative and questioned as a witness.

On September 17, 2015 the indictment was signed. Mr Polyansky has been notified of the suspicion.

On October 15, 2015 the Court held a preparatory hearing. The case was scheduled for consideration.

On November 8, 2015 a claim was filed to the court.

On November 10, 2015 the court hearing was held to determine the order of examination of evidence.

On December 3, 2015 the court hearing was adjourned because the judge had been in the deliberation room.

On December 16, 2015 the lawyer filed a complaint against the judge Klimenko to the Higher Qualification Commission of Judges (HQC).

On December 18, 2015 the court hearing was adjourned because of the fact that the prosecutor did not come to the court.

The court hearing is scheduled for January 26, 2016.

On December 22, 2015 the lawyer sent the request to examine the material of supervisory review.

 

Panoitov case

Mr. Panoitov (hereinafter – the applicant) was accused of refusing to comply with legal requirements of penitentiary administration by a person who was serving a sentence of imprisonment.

On March 12, 2015 officers of the colony administration performed intensive control sector bypass to verify compliance the order of convicts serving sentence. They opened the camera no.7 where the applicant was sleeping on bunks. Officers ordered him to stand up, introduce himself, report about the number of convicts in the cell, but the applicant responded negatively and categorically refused to comply.

On 29 May 2015 the applicant was notified of suspicion. The police stated that during serving his sentence in Ladyzhinsk penalty colony no.39 the applicant had imposed three penalties in the form of transfer to cell-type rooms.

On July 27, 2015 the indictment was submitted before the court.

On August 5, 2015 the lawyer filed a motion to Lysychansk city court against the decision on imposition of penalty for violation of the established order of punishment.

On August 14, 2015 Lisichanskiy city court turned the motion due to the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine did not regulate these relations.

On September 1, 2015 the lawyer filed an appeal

On October 23, 2015 The Court of Appeal upheld the previous decision.

On December 11, 2015 the lawyer filed a complaint to Ladyzhyn City Court against the decision on imposition of penalty for violation of the established order of punishment.

Nowadays, the trial continues.

 

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 lives in Ternopil, Ukraine.

On 4 July 2014, Mr Peleshok was detained by an 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 the Petrіvska correctional colony no.49 (“PCC no.49”).

On 12 March 2015 he was serving discipline penalty. On the version of the administration of PCC no.49, he refused to clean a cell at the day of his duty according to a schedule.

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

The case file was directed to the Petrivskyy District Court.

On 5 May 2015, a lawyer of the SLC arrived at the PCC no.49 to get the full information on Petrenko’s transportation to the Kirovograd pre-trial detention centre.

On 6 May 2015, the lawyer arrived and had a confidential meeting with Petrenko in the 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.

Having familiarized herself with the case file, the lawyer submitted the motion to the court to call several witnesses of defence.

On 06.07.2015 the lawyer of the SLC visited the applicant in the Kirovograd SIZO and discussed further legal position in the court, the list and content of questions for the witness.

The court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to the vacation of a judge, non-attendance of witnesses, and not-deliverance of the applicant to the court.  

On 27.08.2015 the applicant informed about deterioration of his health, the measures were taken for his medical examination and the lawyer received the reply to his request about diagnostic of a serious disease.   

On 23.11.2015 the lawyer of the SLC lodged a motion about consideration of the case in the form of video conference from the Kirovograd SIZO considering impossibility of the applicant’s transfer to the court which is far from the SIZO.   

The lawyer sent to the court several medical certificated which contained information about serious diseases of the applicant, with a request for recognition of these diseases as a mitigating circumstance.

On 23.11.2015 and on 05.01.2016 the court hearings were conducted in the form of video conference, the last hearing was postponed under the motion of the prosecutor.

On 31.12.2015 the lawyer filed a request and received a certificate about the term of pre-trial detention of the applicant in the scope of criminal proceedings. She further prepared a motion about taking into consideration the term of the applicant’s previous detention.  

The consideration of the case is ongoing. Next hearing is appointed on 08.02.2016.

 

Pushkar case

In October 2009 after the consistent two-weeks treatment in three hospitals of Kharkiv 27-year-old Mr P. died with the high temperature. According to the report of forensic medical examination the cause of death was acute pancreatitis with transition to pancreas necrosis.

The Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv city refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the fact of death of P., but further their ruling was quashed by the prosecutor of higher lever and transferred to the district police department for conduction of additional verification. In January 2010 the new ruling about refuse to initiate criminal proceedings was issued. This ruling was quashed by the district court in May 2010. 

In 2010 the materials of verification were transferred to the Main Bureau of the forensic medical examinations of Kyiv city for conduction of commission forensic examination, the report of which was received only in October 2012.

After taking into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (of 2012) the information about sudden death of P. was registered in the URPTI, but no new investigative actions were conducted in the present proceedings. At the end of 2013, the criminal proceedings were closed, while the father of Mr P. who is the victim in the proceedings, was not informed about its closing.

After applying of the victim to the SLC, a lawyer of the SLC involved the specialist in the sphere of forensic medical examination, and a doctor of the relevant specialization, for obtaining of consultation and medical conclusion. The lawyer prepared the appeal against the decision about closing of criminal proceedings; however the investigation body had not provided the lawyer with the copy of this decision, despite the complaints to the district and the city Prosecutor’s Offices. In the absence of evidence of obtaining the decision much later than the date of its issuance, there are no real chances that the complaint against the decision will be considered by the court. Now the lawyer initiates the complaining proceedings for obtaining this decision by means of court order.

In October 2014, the lawyer complaint to the investigator’s refusal to give a copy of the investigator’s decision on termination of the criminal proceedings, and the District court granted this complaint.

Having obtained the copy of the decision, the lawyer complaint the decision itself to the investigative judge of the District court, and in November, 2014, the court granted the complaint and ordered to the investigator to continue the investigation.

No one investigative action was carried out after the revocation of the resolution to close the criminal proceedings. Because of this the SLC lawyer lodged to the investigator the motion to carry out additional investigatory actions, particularly, a complex forensic medical examination.

After reversal of the investigator’s resolution, the case file was passed for the investigation to another District Police Department, but this has not been informed neither to the lawyer, no to the victim’s father. In October, 2015 the lawyer was informed about the disposition of the case, and he addressed to the new (Dzerzhinskyi) Police Department. At the end of December, 2015 the on the request of the lawyer the new investigator questioned the victim’s father in detail, to define necessary investigation

 

Pyrojanskiy case

Applicant, Pyrojanskiy Olexandr Oleksiyovich, was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment.

The applicant serves his sentence in the Bucha penal colony. In December 2014 he was given a diagnosis of cortex osteoma. The hospitalization lasted a day. The applicant was discharged on his written request (which he didn’t write, as he says).

The applicant’s defender filed a written notification about a committed crime (document forgery) to the Bucha Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant was questioned. After that the defender received a refusal to enter the information to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.

From February to May, 2015, the applicant was provided with a medical treatment in a mental health facility with unknown diagnosis.

In July 2015 the applicant was hospitalized for 2 weeks to oncological department of the Lviv Pre-trial detention center.

In August 2015 the applicant was iteratively hospitalized to oncological department of Lviv Pre-trial detention center. Medical professionals diagnosed an osteoma of back side of cortex. No medical help was provided except general analyses and X-ray picture.

In October 2015 the applicant was brought to Lviv Pre-trial detention center. There he was examined by a cancer specialist. Conclusion: he needs a neurosurgery. The defender applied to the Ombudsman. She filed a number of written requests for information about health-care measures provided to the Applicant. She was provided with copies of the Applicant’s written refusals on providing medical help.

The defender filed a written request to the Bucha penal colony asking for information about the execution of cancer specialist’s recommendations.

 

Shmargalov case

In August 2012 the police officers of one of the district of Kharkiv detained Mr. Shmargalov (hereinafter – the applicant) who was going to a work in the café. The applicant was forced to go the police department. On the morning and evening of the following day police officers using threats and physical violence forced him to give confession in the illegal drug trafficking.

Unable to bear the torture the applicant has signed the confession. All night he was kept in the police department. Next morning, being in the toilet and understanding that after he signed the confession he could be convicted to the long term imprisonment, the man under stress tried to escape from police department through the window of the toilet. He tried to go down the wall but fall on the asphalt. At the result of the fall both arms and both legs of the applicant were broken. He was delivered to the hospital and then operated. The applicant lost the ability to move and use his arms’ function.

Despite the fact that accusation was completely falsified in October 2012 the pre-trial investigation was terminated and the case on the unlawful drug trafficking was delivered to the court.

From 2013 the proceeding in the district court of Kharkiv was started. As the applicant is unable to participate in the court hearing on the reason of his inability to go to the court the consideration of his case was terminated until his convalescence.

The SLC lawyer lodged complains on unlawful actions of the police officers to the Prosecutor’s Office. After verifications on these applications Prosecutor’s Office issues decisions about refuse to institute criminal proceeding, which later were quashed by the court.

In November 2014, the lawyer filed a motion for recognition the application as a victim and resolution for access to the criminal proceeding.

At the end of the year the case has been remitted for conducting additional investigation, and his preventive measure – obligation not to leave a place of his residence without the investigating authority permission has been cancelled.

The lawyer continuously submitted complaints on inactivity of the investigation to the three Prosecutor’s offices: district, city and regional (oblast), but there are no any actions on investigation of the policemen’s crime. Having exhausted the possibility in investigation of the police abuse, the lawyer now prepares to the ECtHR.

Theese were also submitted applications for an offense under Art. 120 the Criminal Code of Ukraine (bringing to suicide) against the prosecutor of Kharkiv region. This statement was not included to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial InvestigationsInvestigation. On August 15, 2014 The court ordered the prosecutor to put the statement on this information to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial InvestigationsInvestigation and started a pre-trial investigation.

Over 2014 the victim party has repeatedly filed complaints about the length of the period of pre-trial investigation.

In 2015 an investigating experiment on the crime scene was conducted with the participation of the SLC lawyer and the applicant.

In April 2015 the indictment was drafted relatively the policeman of the Ordzhonikidze district police station. By this act investigator was accused of committing crimes under Art. 365 (the abuse of power, leading to serious consequences) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and article 127 (torture) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Then the SLC lawyer filed a civil claim against the Police Department of the Kharkiv region and the policeman for moral damages. During the court hearing the lawyer of SLC filed a motion on involvement the State as a second defendant. The hearings are pending.

 

Selin case

The applicant, Yevgeniy Selin, is a military man of the Ukrainian armed forces.

On 24 August 2015 the applicant came to a house of Mr. Vinnyk because he knew that there was a fact of domestic violence and he wanted to hold an inquiry. Mr. Yevgeniy Vinnyk with his father Vinnyk Mykola was at home. There was a conflict between the applicant and two men mentioned above. The applicant drew a gun (which he had as a military man) and shoot for a few times at legs of Mr. Vinnyk and his father.

The applicant’s actions later were categorized as hooliganism (par. 4 of art. 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), intentional infliction of mild bodily injury (par. 2 of art. 125 of the CC), intentional infliction of bodily harm which was dangerous for a life (par. 1 of art. 121 of the CC), unlawful handling of arms (par. 1 of art. 263 of the CC).

There were conducted two forensic examinations and one search. During the search officers found ammunition (about 530 cartridges) and arms. The first forensic examination showed that those ammunition and arms were capable to be used. The second forensic examination was a medical one. It confirmed the presence of mild bodily injuries on Mr. Vinnyk and his father.

SLC lawyer received the case on 11 September 2015.

The indictment was directed to the Starobilsk district court of Lugansk region.

The applicant was released on bail.

Presiding judge Kudryavcev announced his self-recusation. Later judge Ozerov was assigned for the case.

Criminal proceedings in the case are 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 custody 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.

Until this moment, any witnesses have not questioned.

On December 24, 2015 a lawyer’s motion was granted. In the same date preventive measure as detention was changed to home arrest.

The next court hearing is going to take place on January 27, 2016.

 

Sivachenko case

The administration of the pre-trial detention center submitted a motion to the court on release from serving the sentence because of Mr Sivachenko’s bad state of health. On 10 March 2015, this motion was not granted because of lack of his housing and absence of agreement of his relatives on taking care of him. The SLC lawyer submitted an appeal to the court decision.

On 2 June 2015, the appeal was considered, and it was was granted partially. The decision was changed only in a part of the use of invalid law. During the case hearing the doctor testified that there was a life-threatening situation. The lawyer prepares an appeal of cassation.

The cirrhosis was diagnosed to him and CD4 cells fell down from 300 to 134. The lawyer sent a request to the correctional colony for conforming this.

The new motion on release from serving the sentence because of Sivachenko’s bad health is preparing now. Also a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights is being prepared now.

Information about improving of the applicant’s state of health was provided on lawyer’s request and increasing of the CD4 cells amount.

The lawyer filed a motion on releasing of the applicant on the basis of his health conditions to a court on the place of sentencing. The court obliged the applicant to pass a special medical examination. During 4 months Mr Sivachenko is transferred to different medical institutions.

The applicant was diagnosed with a hepatitis C.

 

Slivotsky case

Mr Slivotsky asked for help the lawyer to represent him in the Mykolayivsk Court of Appeal.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Now he is serving his sentence in the Berdychiv correctional colony no. 70.

The first court hearing was appointed in August 2015. At this court hearing, the lawyer filed a motion about familiarization with the case file.

The court satisfied the lawyer’s motion and postponed the court hearing on October 13, 2015.

A lawyer familiarized himself with the case file and revealed some violations.

The lawyer decided to supplement the claim for review of newly discovered circumstances.

On October 13, 2015 Mr Slivotsky sent the motion to the court for his participation in the hearing.

The court satisfied the motion and postponed the court hearing on December 3, 2015.

On December 3, 2015 the court hearing did not take place for the reason that Mr Slivotsky was not taken to the court.

On December 24, 2015 the Court of Appeal dismissed the case because the Court of Appeal is not a court of first instance, as provided for the CPC of 1960.

Mr Slivotsky sent a claim to the District Court for a decision.

 

Soroka case

The applicant, Mr Soroka T.G., on 25 November 2015 at about 18.00 was arrested by the patrol police. He was handcuffed. Physical violence was applied to him. He was taken for a medical examination on a subject of alcohol intoxication.

On the same day later he was brought to the Lychekivsk district police station. There police officers filled in a protocol on refusal of driver license providing.

On 25 November 2015 a police officer made a decision to institute administrative proceedings against the applicant.

After the applicant was released, he applied for medical help. The applicant was hospitalized with injuries of his hands, head and legs. The applicant was sober. He was hospitalized for a week. After that he was provided with ambulant therapy. Bodily injuries of the applicant were described in medical documentation but a medical forensic examination was not conducted.

On 30 November 2015 the applicant’s defender filed an appeal on the investigator’s decision mentioned above.

On 30 November 2015 the lawyer filed written requests to the Patrol police for providing of video materials of the applicant’s detention. The Patrol police gave a written refusal to provide any video materials because this is ordering information.

On 16 December 2015 the defender filed a written notification about a crime (excess of authority by police officers). However, a prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceeding.

On 28 December the lawyer complained to a court on the prosecutor’s failure to act.

 

Tishchenko case

At the beginning of July 2015 Mr Tishchenko asked the lawyer for providing legal assistance.

During July the lawyer held two meetings with Mr Tishchenko in the Mikolayivsk pre-trial detention Centre.

On August 12, 2015 the lawyer joined to the court case at the stage of the opening of case file and familiarizing with it.

Mr Tishchenko is accused of two episodes of drugs sale - acetylated opium, that took place on May 13, 2015 and 25 June, 2015.

On October 19, 2015 during the court hearing prosecutor presented to Tishchenko a new indictment. The prosecutor refused from indictment in the episode which had taken place on May 13, 2015.

The court hearing was pending.  Another hearing was appointed on November 10, 2015.

The lawyer thinks that Mr Tishchenko was illegally detained under Art. 208 the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

On June 27, 2015 M. Tishchenko was arrested by the investigator in the manner of Art. 208 the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

As stated in the report, the reason for the detention was the testimony of a witness. The witness notified that the applicants had sold him drug - acetylated opium.

There were no reasons that are specified in the protocol of detention under Art. 208 the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine

On September 28, 2015 the lawyer sent to the Kherson Prosecutor’s Office application of crime and bringing those responsible to justice under Art. 371 the Criminal Code of Ukraine (knowingly unlawful detention, house arrest and detention).

So far, the lawyer didn’t receive the answer about the consideration of the complaint.

According to Tishchenko, police officers realized and unnecessarily inflicted injures on him.

The injuries were confirmed by local hospital doctor and were registered, when Mr. Tishchenko was placed to the pre-trial detention centre.

The court rejected to hold the expert of handwriting analysis on the forgery of signatures Mr Tishchenko.

Court debate has been conducted. During court debate non-compliance of the case were found. When Mr Tishchenko said his last word he had submitted the motion about examination of witnesses. The court granted the motion.

The court did not appoint a date for the next hearing.

 

Tsviliy case

Tsviliy Oleg Volodymyrovich, born on 12.12.1972, who is currently serving a punishment in Kremenchug penal colony no.69, on 12.05.2014 was transferred from the pre-trial detention center in Kyiv to Temnivka penal colony no.100.

From the moment of arrival of Mr Tsviliy O.V. at the 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 Mr Tsviliy O.V. submitted the information about criminal offences to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigationsinvestigations with number  no.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 no.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 no.100.

These criminal proceedings have been ended according to the decision of the investigators. However, they were not given to Mr 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 no.12014220430002901 and no.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 the Kremenchug penal colony no.69 which were provided with the reply containing the medical records of convicted Mr 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 Mr Tsviliy O.V. to suicide.

On 14.05.2015 Mrs 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 the Temnivka penal colony no.100.

On 26.05.2015 the lawyer in the interests of the wife of Tsviliy O.V. filed a complaint to the 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 Mr 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.

 

Case of Vasyukov

Mr Oleg Vasyukov (hereinafter – the applicant) on 30 April 2015 was sentences by the Novopskovsk district court for subjecting severe bodily injuries which resulted in death of Mr T.

The pre-trial investigation and court’s consideration of the criminal case were conducted with significant violations of the national material and procedural law.

In particular, all conducted forensic expertise did not identified involvement of the applicant in the incident, the witnesses who were questioned by the court and on whose statements the sentence was based, had not seen in person how the applicant had been beating the victim.

The court refused to conduct forensic expertise of the clothes and other personal items of the persons, who also had been in the same house with the victim and might have been perpetrators.

Moreover, the court mentioned as an aggravating circumstance the fact of commitment of the crime at the state of alcohol intoxication, however, according to the medical examination of the applicant’s blood there had not been any alcohol agents in his blood.

The applicant applied against the sentence to the Court of Appeal of Lughansk region.

On 21 July 2015 the Court of Appeal of Lughansk region issued a ruling in which it regected the applicant’s statement and refused to satisfy his appeal claims.

Mr Vasyukov applied to the SLC for legal assistance in preparation of a cassation appeal.

In November 2015 a lawyer of the SLC prepared the cassation appeal to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on consideration of civil and criminal cases (hereinafter – the HSCtU).

In December 2015 the HSCtU by its ruling refused to satisfy the cassation appeal.

For today, the issue is considering regarding filing an application to the ECtHR.

 

Voloshin case

On 17 February 2012, Mr Voloshin with his relatives arrived at 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 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 peace. After that, they took Mr 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 Mr Voloshin’s examination the officers threatened, used vulgar language, and used force to him. The uniformed officer gripped his arms, then wrang 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 were 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 applying to the police and to the emergency hospital. At the same day, he was diagnosed the intracranial injury and brain concussion 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 lives in Kherson, Ukraine.

Mr 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 Mr 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 have not been hold.

The applicant was questioned in court.

There is no information about results of the investigation of the criminal proceedings on the fact of illegal actions of police officers.

The next court hearing is going to take place on January 14, 2016.

 

Zalikhta case

On 3 December 2015, at 19:30 Mr M. and his juvenile brother Mr A. without court order were illegally detained near there house by the police of the District Police Station, allegedly, to get explanations about a theft of a bicycle by M. During the arrest, the report has not been made up, and special tools - handcuffs have been used in relation to M and A.

At approximately 20:30 on the same day, on different vehicles, Mr M. and Mr A. were brought to the Police Station and were questioned. At the time of being kept in the station, the incident happened, the police officers beat M. Near for a day they kept him in the station, then the detention report was made up, and they provided M. with the official notification on suspicion in committing of the serious crime – inflicting bodily injuries to the police officers. Then he was transported to the police temporary detention centre.

On 5 December 2015, the District Court applied for Mr M. a home arrest as a preventive measure. At the same time, the court upon a motion of the lawyer ordered to the prosecutor to carry out a forensic medical examination on the matter of his injuries inflicted by the police officers.

On 8 December 2015, the lawyer lodged the complaint on the unlawful detention of Mr M. and Mr A. to the District Prosecutor’s Office.

On 9 December 2015, the lawyer applied with the complaint to the Ukrainian Ombudsman relating to the unlawful detention of Mr M. and Mr A.

On 29 December 2015 the Court of Appeal of Kiev city examined the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision on the home arrest, and appeal was rejected.

 

5. Successful cases in national proceedings

 

Аkrysh case

In March 2012, Mr Akrysh with three accomplices pre-engaged to commit a theft. They arrived at the house where hosts of the house should be absent. Mr Akrysh stayed outside and two other accomplices got into the house and committed a violent robbery. They did not tell 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 admited his guilt in commitment 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 Court of Appeal a decision to the facts of the case. Also a failure to prove Mr 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.

In the Court of Appeal, under the initiative of the lawyer, the pre-trial investigation was partly renewed and the proof was examined which confirmed that Mr Akrysh committed a theft, but not a robbery.

At the result of the court’s consideration his actions were re qualified form a robbery to a theft and the final punishment in the form of 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment was established. 

 

Bakumenko v. Ukraine

Mr Sergey Bakumenko, is a Ukrainian national, who lives 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 an 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 application to the state authorities.

 

Boychuck case

During 2002-2004 years Mr Boychuck committed a series of thefts and robberies in countryside of Odessa region. On 03 January 2005 he was arrested on a suspicion of commitment above mentioned crimes. On 13 September 2005 district court found him guilty and sentenced him to 5 years of imprisonment.

On 5 July 2010 the Kotovskyy district court of Odessa region (hereinafter – the Kotovskyy court) found Mr Boychuck guilty in commitment of assault related to robbery and sentenced him to 8 years of imprisonment. The above mentioned crime was committed in 2005. The judge failed to implement the provision of part 4 article 50 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, according to which a court must include a served part of previous punishment to the punishment for the next crime.

However, the judge failed to implement the aforementioned rule and didn’t include the served part of punishment of Mr. Boychuck to the punishment for the next crime. Moreover the court defined the date of starting serving punishment and it was 14 September 2009 in spite of the fact that Mr. Boychuck was held in detention since 3 January 2005. Also the last sentence was made by the court on July 2010. And in this case the applicant had been detained since 15 September 2005.

In November 2013 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint on commitment of criminal offence by the judge F. of the Kotovskyy court. Judge F. intentionally failed to execute instructions of the Court of Appeal of Odessa region and didn’t correct mistakes on misusing of provisions of part 4 article 70 of the Criminal Court of Ukraine. In spite of the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office of Odessa region refused to initiate criminal proceedings against judge F., some time after they filed a cassation appeal to the Court of Appeal of Odessa region with simultaneous motion for renewal of term of cassation appeal. The prosecutor stated in his appeal that alleged violation of provisions of part 4 article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and resulted unlawful imprisonment of Mr Boychuck.

Judge F., who issued a sentence in Mr Boychuck’s case, didn’t grant the prosecutor’s motion for renewal of term of cassation appeal but the Court of Appeal granted this motion.

After receiving of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal by the High Specialized Court of Ukraine, Mr. Boychuck was granted with a possibility to file his objections. The SLC lawyer asked the Court to exceed the bounds of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and to implement the provisions of part 4 article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (which is allowed by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine).

On 2 December 2015 the Court after consideration of the prosecutor’s appeal decided to include a served part of the punishment (from 15 September 2005 to 14 September 2009) to his last punishment. As a conclusion, Mr. Boychuck was realized from penitentiary institution as a one who fully served his punishment.

 

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 sent 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 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.

The Ministry of Defense appealed against the decision of the court of first instance in which they asked to quash the decision due to violation of material and procedural law.

The lawyer prepared and lodged to the court the observations to the appeal.

On 17.07.2015 the Court of Appeal of Sumy region left the decision of the court of first instance without amendment.

The Ministry of Defense lodged a cassation against the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.

The prepared and lodged to the court the observations to the cassation. 

On 13.01.2016 the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on consideration of civil and political cases refused to satisfy the cassation of the Ministry of Defense. 

 

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.

Only on July 28, 2015 Mrs. Syromyatnikova was reinstated an editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Pechinizhkiy Krai” with several violations of the labor law.

On the same day she was invited to the meeting of the Pechenigy district council. At the meeting she was distrust and removed from the post.

On August 21, 2015 the lawyer appealed to the Pechenigy district court with a suit about reinstatement at work and recovery of average salary during her forced absence

On October 19, 2015 the Pechenigy District Court decided to charge the average salary during her forced absence from June 09, 2015 till July 27, 2015 in the amount of 7 968, 10 UAH.

On January 12, 2016 the Pechenigy district court decided to reinstate Mrs. Syromyatnikova at work as an editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Pechinizhkiy Krai”and charge the average salary during her forced absence from July 29, 2015 till January 12, 2015 in the amount of 26 180.90 UAH.

 

Holobudov case

Mr. Vladimir Holobudov (hereinafter – the applicant) was born in 1971 and until recently time was a serviceman who performed his military function in the battalion "Tornado".

The applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of committing torture, rape, forcible sexual insults and illegal handling of weapons, ammunition or explosives. Police officers have recognized as the victim his girlfriend, with whom the applicant lived together for over ten years and had sexual relations. Probably she was questioned under psychological or physical pressure.

On June 21, 2015 the Novopskov District Court firstly chose a preliminary restraint measure in the form of detention which reputedly went on.

On December 8, 2015 the lawyer filed the motion for investigation of evidence, and the motion to change the preliminary restraint measure, as well as the motion for recognition of inadmissible evidence and request for examination witnesses. All motions were refused.

The further hearing was scheduled for January 13, 2016. The lawyer sent a complaint to the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine on procedural violations and prepared an application of challenge the judge.

 

Mr D.’s case

On 27 August 2008, Mr D. was arrested on suspicion of arson, which caused death, under par.3 Art.194 of the Criminal Code. Since then, he has continuously been detained in prison.

Twice, in August, 2009 and in December, 2012 the court returned the case for further investigation. During the proceedings, the prosecution supplemented the charges with more serious counts - committing premeditated aggravated murder under par. 2 Art.115 of the Criminal Code.

Only in November 2015, the Shevchenkovskyi District Court of the city of Kyiv proclaimed the verdict and Mr D. together with other co-defendants was found guilty of damage to property by arson that caused death.

On 4 July 2015, the Court of Appeal of Kyiv city quashed the verdict of the trial court, the case was returned for the third time for further investigation. After the abolition of the sentence and remand the case for further investigation, proceedings in this case were carried out under the rules of the new CCP of Ukraine of 2012. Thus, the prosecution had to immediately register the information of committed criminal offenses in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPI), and if there were grounds to detain Mr D., hand in him a written notification on suspicion and apply for selecting of pre-trial detention to the investigating judge.

This just was not done, so from 4 July 2015 Mr D. was detained without a court decision. Only on 14 Mat 2015, the information about the offence was registered in the URPI, and former case materials were attached to the new criminal case file. Since then, the criminal case has ceased to exist, while Mr D. in the new criminal proceedings had no the status neither a suspect nor an accused, however he was refrained to kept in the prison.

Since 2 July 2015, the SLC lawyer, Mr D.’s defence counsel, challenged the unlawfulness of his detention to the Shevchenkovskyi District Court. Kyiv, the Court of Appeal of Kyiv city, sent a request to a chief of the Kiyv SIZO on release of Mr D. from custody, a criminal complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office, but in vain. Even failure to provide him with the notification on suspicion, he continued to be held in the SIZO without any legal grounds.

In late June, the prosecutor applied to the court with the indictment under Art. 194 of the Criminal Code. On 30 July 2015 the court held a preparatory hearing on the case, resulted in directing the indictment back to the prosecutor and the detention period for Mr D. along with other defendants in the case haved been extended for 60 days.

Subsequently, the indictment has been returned three times to the prosecutor, and period of Mr D.’s detention, along with other defendants, "automatically" was being prolonged, with arguing for a standard way of our courts - the severity of the crime and the severity of the potential sentence, if the defendants were found guilty by the court, despite the constant denial of the lawyer, that this argument detention for several years is on the contrary to the rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case law of the European Court.

Having exhausted all legal remedies in the Ukrainian legal system, in October 2015 the lawyer filed a complaint to the ECHR on violation of Mr D.’s freedom during the criminal proceedings.

In December 2015, the prosecutor again lodged the indictment to the Shevchenkovsyi court, who ruled the again to return it to the prosecutor. In fact, for several months the trial court refused to consider criminal charges, while "stamping a blueprint ’decision to extend the detention period of the accused.

On December 23, the Court of Appeal of Kyiv city considered the appeal the prosecutor’s decision to return the Shevchenkovskiy Court the indictment, in which the prosecutor also requested to extend the period of detention for the accused.

The lawyer presented to the court her objections to the appeal of the prosecutor, in which asked the court to release Mr D. from custody, repeated about the lack of grounds for the continued application of the preventive measure, referenced to the latest decisions of the ECHR against Ukraine under Article 5 of the Convention.

After a long discussion the panel of judges decided to grant the lawyer’s request for release Mr H. from custody.

 

Didenko case

Defense in the criminal proceedings under Part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

In the late 2013 Mr. Didenko, together with three other accomplices was considered guilty in commitment of a murder of two persons by prior agreement in order to capture another’s property combined with entry into a place of residence and violence with causing grievous bodily harm, and sentenced by the first instance court to life imprisonment. 

During the proclamation of judgment Mr Didenko was absent from the courtroom.  He learned about the sentence only after the change of regime of detention in the SIZO.

Throughout 2014 Mr Didenko was not delivered to the court for familiarizing with the case file, the court did not send a sentence to him either.

Mr Didenko applied for the legal aid to a lawyer of the SLC for familiaring with the case file and filing an appeal, because he completely disagreed with the sentence and could not obtain the sentence and familiarize with the case file.

When familiarizing with the case file the lawyer found out that the volume no. 9 which contained the sentence and protocols of the last court hearings at which Mr. Didenko was not present, was missing.

The lawyer lodged an application about familiarizing with the volume no. 9, in reply to which she was informed about conduction of the official verification in order to establish its location. On the results of verification, the lawyer was informed that the volume was lost and guilty persons were subjected to the disciplinary liability. 

The Prosecutor’s Office initiated restoration of the lost volume.

Representing a victim in the criminal proceedings under his complaint about commitment of a criminal offence by a judge.

During the proclamation of judgment Mr Didenko was absent from the courtroom.  He learned about the sentence only after the change of regime of detention in the SIZO.

Throughout 2014 Mr Didenko was not delivered to the court for familiarizing with the case file, the court did not send a sentence to him during a year either.

For termination of these offenses and renewal of his right to defence Mr Didenko filed a complaint about a crime to law enforcement bodies, but criminal proceedings were not opened.

Mr Didenko applied to a lawyer of the SLC for representation of his interests as a victim in a trial concerning appealing against omissions of the Prosecutor’s Office and their refuse to register his complaint about a crime in the URPTI.

The court granted this complaint and ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to register information concerning unlawful actions of a judge in the URPTI.

In November 2014 the Prosecutor’s Office registered the information concerning a criminal offence in the form of unlawful actions of a judge in the URPTI.

The lawyer collected evidence of the absence of Mr. Didenko in the court hearing, non-delivering of him to the court for familiarizing with the case file, as well as collected all the applications which had been sent to law enforcement bodies about illegal actions of a judge and lack of response to them.

In reply to the motion about recognition of Mr Didenko a victim, he received a refuse as he had not been an applicant in the case.  

 

Grishpon v. Ukraine

Mr Grygory Grishpon, is a Ukrainian national, who lives 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 have been 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 first instance court found Mr. Grishpon guilty in drug-dealing.

The lawyer filed an appeal which was partly satisfied – the court decision was abolished and the case was directed for a new trial.

 

Korotyuk case

In March 2014, Mr Korotyuk was enlistedto 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 K.’s participation in the ATO at the moment of his injury.

 

Lupashko case

Mr Lupashko, born in.1994, was accused of having committed armed robbery (par.2 Article 187 of the Criminal COde of Ukraine), a robbery (par.2. Art. 186 of the CC), and hooliganism (par.2 Art.296 of the CC).

At the time of the crime (23 October 2011) Mr L. was a minor. Since that time, he was in custody. For today, a verdict has not been passed, and the proceedings are continued.

Mr L. applied to the SLC lawyer with the request to protect his rights and interests because of the undue delay of the criminal proceedings and applying to him the detention as a preventive measure.

On 25 May, the lawyer for the benefit of Mr L submitted to the Shevchenkovskyi district court a motion to change the preventive measure of holding in custody. The motion has been granted and the detention has been changed to the personal surety (to appear to court).

As for today, the lawyer continues the defence of Mr L. in the criminal proceedings.

 

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, and 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 no.6 (“KCC no.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 no.6.

The lawyer of the SLC sent a request about preparation of the documents concerning transferring of Mr N. to the specialized medical institution. The reply was received about preparation of the documents and adjusting the transfer with the Department of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Kirovograd region. After that Mr N. was supposed to be transferred for medical treatment.

At the end of November Mr N. was transferred from the correctional colony no. 6 to the Kirovograd SIZO due to revision of his sentence in the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on consideration of civil and criminal cases (the HSCU).    

The HSCU cancelled the sentence, the case was returned to the Court of Appeal for additional consideration.

The criminal proceedings are ongoing. The appointment of the date of the court hearing in the Court of Appeal of Kirovograd region is waited for.  

 

Onischenko and Kryvomaz case

Mr. Alexei Onishchenko and Mr. Oleg Kryvomaz (hereinafter – Applicants) were servicemen who performed their military functions in the battalion "Aydar".

Applicants were detained by police on suspicion of unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping and unlawful taking of a vehicle. For a long time they were detained in Starobilsk SIZO. During this time the pre-trial investigation was completed and the indictment against applicants submitted to the Starobelsk district court.

On September 28, 2015 the lawyer requested the Starobilsk district court for examining case files. However, the judge was on leave so the appeal was handed over to the President of the Starobelsk district court. On the same day the case files were provided for examining.

During the studying case files, the lawyer found two unfiled court decisions, one of which was dated September 30, 2015. This decision was not signed, but had a bar code of the court’s base. According to this decision, the detention had been extended until the end of November for both applicants.

On September 30, 2015 the Starobilsk district court began hearing. Realizing that the draft decision had been prepared in advance the lawyer challenged judges, but her motion was refused. Then the prosecutor made application for extension of detention. After brief consideration judges postpone the court hearing and appointed the announcement at Morning 1 October 2015.

At midnight on November 1, 2015 preventive measures of detention have been ending for both applicants. The court hearing was over, but the prison authorities did not adopt the applicants and the police were not taken them away. Fortunately, after a while applicants were released, and in the morning they appeared before the court. Prosecutor’s motion to extend the period of detention was denied.

The next hearing was scheduled for 21 October, 2015. But since both applicants were treating in military hospitals, the court hearing was postponed.

On 3 November, 2015 new hearing had been appointed, but Kryvomaz was declared wanted by the Prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor also tried to set Mr. Onischenko on a preliminary restraint measure in the form of detention, but the court decree was chosen as a preventive measure of house arrest. The term of house arrest ended on January 3, 2016. Nowadays the trial has not yet been appointed, the judge have been staying in the hospital. Mr. Kryvomaz wanted.

 

Ogorodnik case

After the ECtHR judgment of 5 February 2015 has become final (see the description of the case “Ogorodnik v. Ukraine” above) the SLC lawyer prepared and filed a motion for the cancellation of all court decisions in the applicant’s case and referral of the case for a new trial.

On 30 November 2015 the Supreme Court of Ukraine overturned the verdict of the trial court, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and the resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and sent the case to the trial court.

 

Prysyazhniy case

Mr. Prysyazhnyi (hereinafter – the Applicant) performed military functions in the National Guard of Ukraine. The applicant alleged car accident, which killed thirteen people, five people obtained grievous bodily injuries, nine people got injuries of medium gravity, and six people obtained minor injuries. The incident also destroyed military equipment and ammunition.

On January 5, 2015 a military column consisting of car "Mercedes-Benz", bus «Atamant» and KamaZ car moved in the direction of Artemivsk town. The applicant was setting in the car "Mercedes-Benz". At the same time towards military vehicles moved KrAZ loaded ammunition. The road was limited by snow dumps on both sides. At the junction the car "Mercedes-Benz" ran into KrAZ then KrAZ continued traffic and collided with the bus "Ataman". Avoiding collision KamAZ driver went into the oncoming lane, but collided with the car KrAZ.

On October 14, 2015 the suspect was chosen a preliminary measure in the form of detention. The main reason for that was the Applicant’s putting on the wanted list since April 2014 on suspicion of theft.

The lawyer prepared a complaint against the premature and unlawful putting on the wanted list. The complaint was filed with the Drohobytsoh District Court.

On December 3, 2015 the investigating judge quashed the report of the announcement on wanted list.

The lawyer prepared a motion to change the preliminary measure but in December 2015 the trial court rejected.

On December 21, 2015 Court of Appeal allowed the appeal lawyer at the court of first instance. The applicant was chosen a preventive measure in the form of bail, which was listed.

The applicant was released from custody.

In January 2015 the investigator plans to complete the pre-trial investigation was completed.

 

Refunding by a fraudulent company

In late January 2015, to the Kharkiv Human Rights Group asked Mr B., Refunds from rogue companies

In late January 2015 a resident of Kharkiv Mr B.  applied to the Kharkiv Human Rights Group, and said that in early July 2014 he had buy a car from the company "Auto-Finance", having paid almost all of the cost of the car. But it was not handed over to him, money has not been returned, instead he was asked to pay an even greater amount to get the car.

Mr. K. then learned that dealing with deceivers that cheated many people in Ukraine, so he asked to help him in this difficult situation. The SLC lawyer who took the case, carefully studied the contract with the company, which was called a leasing contract, but in fact, contain conditions that practically make it impossible to receive the subject of the leasing - the car, if the company does not want to do that. The contract contained a number of contradictory conditions that allow their ambiguous interpretation as well as discriminative ones, which put Mr. B., as the recipient of the contract, in a very disadvantageous position.

In February 2015 a lawyer sent a letter to the company, which asked me to the car to Mr. B., for which he received an offer to agree a fee according to the new price of the car. In response, the lawyer sent a second letter indicating the specific conditions of the contract that violated the company, but this letter latter refused to pass a car.

The research of Ukrainian case law has shown that the Unified State Register of judgments contains hundreds similar claims against the company. Only a few of the claims were satisfied by the court of first instance, but they have been quashed by the courts of higher instances, that gives the reasons to suppose that the owners (s) of the company had some influence on the courts. The main problem was that after signing the contract it is very difficult to prove in court that it has been signed under the influence of fraud, as it has been the obvious Mr B.’s negligence in this case.

In addition, there is a lot of information in the Internet on criminal complaints of defrauded people against the company, but the complaints have been unsuccessful.

Under these circumstances, in preparing the lawsuit the lawyer tried to take into account the experience of previous cases, use all possible arguments to prove the legal position as to the guilt of the company at negotiating and executing of the contract. For this goal, the lawyer did not only use the provisions of civil law and the special legislation on leasing relationships, but the legislation on protection of customers, under which in early July 2015 the lawsuit was lodged to the Zhovtnevyi district court of Kharkiv, according to the location of Mr. B. - the plaintiff in the case.

The company used in the litigation all means to prevent the case was to be considered on the merits. Firstly, the court could not call its representative to the court as a defendant, since at the address specified in the contract there was no its office. Then the company sent an objection, in which asked the court to terminate the proceedings, since these relationships allegedly not covered by the scope of the legislation on protection of customers. At the time of the court proceedings, the company sent to Mr. B. the proposal to return a portion of the money he paid in advance, if he will take his claim back. This offer Mr B. has not accepted.

Suddenly, the company offered to give the money back that he had paid in advance, if he would take the claim back. The lawyer did the amendments to the additional agreement to the contract offered by the company to Mr. B, namely on entering the refusal from the claim into a force only after coming of the returned funds to his bank account. Immediately after the signing of the additional agreement, the money was transferred to the account of Mr. B.

Although the case has been nominally settled out of court, but in fact, this result has been achieved through painstaking purely legal work.

 

Semeniuk case

Mr. Vasyl Semeniuk (hereinafter - the Applicant) was a serviceman who performed his military functions in the twenty-fourth brigade. The applicant had previous criminal history.

The applicant was detained by the police on suspicion in commitment of the crime of threats or violence against the head during military service. The applicant admitted own guilt. The lawyer made a settlement with commander so the prosecutor agreed to choose a sentence of six months’ guardroom

Court proceedings carried out in a simplified manner. The Novoaydarivskyy district court confirmed the guilty agreement, as a result, Mr Semeniuk have been sentenced for minimal punishment.

 

Shvarov case

Mr. Victor Shvarov (hereinafter – the victim) is a former soldier who takes service in the Severodonetsk military commissariat.

In 2014 the victim had been captive by terrorists. Upon his illegal detention and tortures the police opened criminal proceedings. However, the pretrial investigation was carried out with constant delays.

Recently the applicant recognized person who questioned him in the basement during captivity. This person was detained by the police officer and indentified as a lawyer Taranukha, who was later released from custody.

The police interrogated the victim, the detained lawyer and held their simultaneous interrogation. The investigator turned to the mobile operator to locate his cell phone, but no information has been received. No other action was carried out.

 

Stepanov case

Mr. Andrew Stepanov (hereinafter - the Applicant) was a serviceman who executed his military function in the battalion "Aydar". The applicant was sent to the area of Anti-terrorist operation. As a result of several arm attacks he got grievous injuries and was hospitalized for medical treatment. Despite the best efforts of doctors his leg was amputated.

On June, 25 2014 the applicant was detained by police on suspicion of robbery, unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping, illegal handling of weapons, ammunition or explosives, as well as the unlawful taking of a vehicle. The applicant was taken to the Lugansk police department and has been registered under someone else’s name - as Alexander Styepankov. Throughout the preliminary investigation the applicant has repeatedly stated that indeed he was identified by wrong way and he had another name.

On July 14, 2015 the Court of Appeal has refused to change the preventive measuret. During the court hearing personal information about the suspect was not properly identified by authorities.

On August 23, 2015 The Kreminna District Court extended the detention term, but the identity of the suspect has not been conducted again.

The lawyer had filed an appeal. Complaint was scheduled for September 4, 2015. However, the hearing did not take place because the suspect was not brought to the courtroom. The meeting was postponed to 8 September 2015, however, at that time the appeal was not considered for the same reasons too.

The court hearing was postponed to 9 September 2015 and at that meeting the Applicant has been taken. During the court hearing prosecutor submitted the clarification statement according to which the detainee was truly another person.

On the same day, September 10, 2015б the lawyer submitted to the Kreminna district court for immediate Applicant’s release as illegally detained person. The judge considered all evidence in this case and found that the applicant had to be released in the courtroom.

As a result of the excitement the applicant lost his consciousness in the courtroom. He was hospitalized to the intensive care unit of the Kreminsky hospital. That time the police officers used illegal actions against the lawyer, they forcibly removed her from the medical facilities, threaten her by means of a demonstration gun-machines, to prevent from her communication with the client. The lawyer was staying at the hospital building all the night to prevent forcible transportation of the client by the police. Then she has organized the press conferences regarding the case to make the case public.

The applicant’s health has deteriorated. Later police has taken the applicant to the court on a stretcher. On September 11, 2015 Kreminna District Court dismissed the suspect from custody in the courtroom, applying to him as a preventive measure personal guarantee.

The prosecutor appealed but after consideration the Lugansk regional court of appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance.

 

Tkachuk case

Mr. Tkachuk (hereinafter - the applicant) is a citizen of Ukraine, who is accused of insubordination (another deliberately failure by the order of the commander in a military situation)

On January 31, 2015 the leader of the sector "C" in the area of counter-terrorism operations gave a battle order for preventing illegal military formations breakthrough and maintenance operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.  According to the order, anti-tank battery of the military unit had to perform a combat mission, namely to prevent breakthrough of the enemy and lead him to fire damage, and to support assault groups of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Applicant did not perform this order.

Subsequently, the Applicant was arrested and the police opened a criminal proceeding under three articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On February 3, 2015 the applicant was chosen a preliminary measure in the form of detention. The lawyer appealed against this decision.

During consideration the appeal court found that the battle order had been secret and the case had not contained this document. According to the prosecutor’s explanation in the same court hearing the order must have been in verbally form, while the suspicion report had told about written notice.

On March 2, 2015 the Zaporozhye region Court of Appeal changed the preventive measure of detention on personal surety. Also in this judgment the Court noted that since March 3, 2015 the Applicant would be located in the territory of headquarters in Kramatorsk city.

After his release, the Applicant was again appointed as a commander and sent for performing his military functions in the Luhansk region. In October 2015 the applicant was promoted to captain position.

Nowadays, the case was referred to the Pechersk district court of Kyiv for consideration.

 

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 a 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.

 

Tsymbal case

Mr Tsymbal, is a Ukrainian national, who lives in Kyiv.

In October 2014, a robbery with violence was commited in a dormitory room.

On 20 October 2014, an information about a robbery with violence was entered to the URPTI.

On 21 October 2014, Mr Ts. was detained in a room in a dormitory by operative police officers because of suspicion in commitment a crime under Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery with violence).

The officers forced him to sign the signification that had already been written by the police. Then under the influence of a lawyer he signed the protocol of interrogation of accused.

On 22 October 2015, Mr Ts. was informed about official suspicion in commitment of the crime.

Later Mr Ts.’s father informed a lawyer of SLC that his son had not committed this crime and the documents had been signed by force.

The lawyer of SLC familiarized herself with the case file. It turned out that the personalities of the victims were not detected, Mr Ts.’s detention was illegal, a prosecutor’s officer and the investigators had no power and authority to provide the investigation.

The motion on simultaneous questioning of Mr Ts.’s and the victim was submitted to the prosecutor’s officer but it was not granted.

On 15 December 2014, the indictment was directed to the court. On preliminary hearing, the lawyer submitted a motion with a request to return the case to the prosecutor because of shortcomings in the indictment. The motion was granted and the indictment and the listing of the case file materials was returned to the prosecutor’s officer for reworking.

On 19 January 2015, the indictment was directed to the court again. The lawyer submitted a motion on it’s non-compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court granted the motion and again sent the indictment for reworking.

When the indictment had been directed to the court at the third time the case was appointed to the trial.

On the facts of the above said violations of law on the part of investigating authorities, on 24 Febbruary 2015, the lawyer on behalf of Mr T. lodged three criminal complaints. The Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv refused to enter information about these crimes to the URPTI, and on 3 March, 2015, the lawyer complained the prosecutor’s insctivity to an investigating judge of Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv.

On 23 April 2015 the judge satisfied the complaint and ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to log the criminal complaints in the URPTI. Even after the coutt’s order the Prosecutor’s Office did not registered the information in the URPTI, and only on 28 May 2015 it has been done.

On 11 June 2015, the lawyer submitted a motion on Mr T.s release from custody for an obligation to appear to court. This motion was granted partially, and a preliminary restraint measure in the form of home arrest was imposed on the defendant.

In the court hearing all the case file was examined and the witnesses were questioned. The passing of the decision is delayed due to not-appearance of the victims. The lawyer lodged a motion about temporary access to the information and establishing the place of residence of the victims. The motion was satisfied by the court and the enforcement of the court ruling is continuing.

 

Ushakov case

After the ECtHR judgment of 18 July 2015 has become final (see the description of the case  “Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine” above), the SLC lawyer prepared and filed a motion for the cancellation of all court decisions in the applicant’s case and referral of the case for a new trial.

On 21 December 2015 the Supreme Court of Ukraine overturned the verdict of the trial court, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and the judgment of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine, and returned the case to the trial court.

 

Yankis case

Mr Sergiy Yevhenovych Yankis, is a Ukrainian national, who lives 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.

 

Yankovoy case

The applicant, Mr Yankovoy, is a Ukrainian national who has a permanent address in Dnipropetrovsk.

In 2014 Mr Yankovoy was apprehended on suspicion of the drug crimes committed and has been detained by police officers.

On April 30, 2014 the Samara district court found the applicant guilty of committing drugs sales organization and appointed the final sentence in the form of imprisonment for 9 years with the confiscation of property. The verdict was appealed to the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region, but it was upheld. More than six months the applicant stayed in the places of confinement without any idea for further complaining.

At this stage the SLC lawyer familiarized himself with the case file and prepared the complaint to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine. The lawyer notified a lot of violations and found investigation actions as inappropriate. Police officers had conducted test purchases exclusively on their own initiative, which could be recognized as a provocation crime. At the same time the sentence contains a number of details that contradict each other.

On July 1, 2015 the High Specialized Court of Ukraine quashed the verdict and sent the case for reconsideration. Nowadays, the proceedings at the trial court continue.

 

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top