login | registration | forgot the password
today 30.09.2016 21:36
(by Kyiv time)

navigation

Kharkiv Human Rights Group Social Networking



A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations in the first half of 2016

20.07.16 | Gennadiy Tokarev

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

Andrey Zakharov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Andrey Yevgenyevich Zakharov, was born in 1954 and is serving his prison sentence in Gorodyshche Town.

On 9 February 2004 police officers B., T., and S. entered the applicant’s house and asked whether or not he had any firearms. The applicant showed them a gun and some ammunition which a certain Va. had brought round to his house earlier. The police took the applicant to the police station. The applicant’s arrest was recorded on video. Before the Court the applicant stated, without providing any further details, that during and after his arrest police officers B., T., and S. had subjected him to physical and psychological ill-treatment.

On 10 February 2004, during reconstruction of events which was conducted by investigator Ch. and recorded on video, the applicant showed where he had buried V. and Sh., and the police sent their bodies for forensic examination. The experts established that the victims had died of cold in November 2003.

On the same day investigator Ch. ordered the applicant’s detention, and instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of having illegally stored a firearm and concealed the deprivation of liberty and death of two people. The applicant’s defene rights were explained to him, and he expressed a wish to have a lawyer.

On 3 June 2004the applicant was questioned in the presence of lawyer K. and denied all the statements he had given earlier. He stated that he had given self-incriminating statements previously because he had been in a state of “shock”.

On 6 July 2004 investigator Ch. instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for having participated in the fraudulent sale of the apartments belonging to Sh. and V.

On 25 May 2005 the Kyiv Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of having forcefully held N., V., and Sh. in his house, an action which led to the deaths of V. and Sh. The court also found the applicant guilty of absconding from detention facility, illegal storage of firearms and participating in the fraudulent sale of the apartments belonging to N. and V. The applicant was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment.

On 22 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s convictions and sentence, having found no irregularities in the first-instance court’s decision.

On 7 June 2006 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court. On 29 August 2006 he submitted a duly signed and completed application form. On 29 September 2006 and 21 March 2007 the Court asked the applicant to provide a copy of his cassation appeal, and copies of his complaints concerning the alleged ill-treatment by the police. The applicant asked the Kyiv Court of Appeal to send those documents to him, but on 14 May 2007 that request was refused on the ground that the law did not empower the applicant to obtain copies of case documents after the conclusion of criminal proceedings. On 24 January 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal sent the applicant the copies which he had requested. In October 2011 the applicant requested the same court to send him various materials from his case file, in particular, all the courts’ decisions, reports of medical experts and copies of all the statements and requests which the applicant had made during the criminal proceedings. On 18 November 2011 the Kyiv Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request on the same grounds as on 14 May 2007.

Before the Court the applicant stated that the services provided to him by his lawyers had been of low quality. They were not interested in his case because he did not have any money to pay them. According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention at the pre-trial detention facility (ITT) in which he was detained for three periods between 9 February and 27 July 2004 were inhuman and degrading.

On 7 January 2016 the European Court has found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention in respect to the refusal of the authorities to provide the applicant without unjustified delay with a copy of his appeal.

The applicant's representative before the European Court – Mr M.O. Tarakhakalo, a lawyer of SLC who is practicing in Kyiv.

 

Rodzevillo v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Oleg Leonidovich Rodzevillo, born in 1967 and is currently serving a life sentence in Ladyzhynska Correctional Colony no. 39, Gubnyk (“the Ladyzhynska Colony”), in the Vinnytsia Region.

I n October 2003 the applicant was remanded in custody pending criminal proceedings against him and placed in the Dnipropetrovsk Pre-trial Detention Centre (SIZO) no. 3, where he remained in detention until April 2007.

The conditions of his detention in SIZO no. 3 were incompatible with human dignity. In particular, for some time he had to share a ten-bed cell with nineteen detainees. However, for most of his time as an inmate in SIZO no. 3 he shared a two-bunk cell with one other inmate. The applicant spent most of the day in the cell, which measured 1.9 by 3.7 metres. The cell was located in the basement and so was exposed to hardly any daylight or fresh air, while the electric light was dim and there was no artificial ventilation. The cell lacked basic furniture and appliances, such as cupboards, a mirror or a rubbish bin. The toilet was some 1.2 metres from the dining table and was not separated from the living quarters. It smelled of excrement and was frequently flooded. The premises were infested with rats and were never disinfected. The detainees had very limited access to news and information about the outside world, the only source being a radio, which was turned on by the guards for a limited part of each weekday and was turned off completely at weekends. The food was meagre and consisted mostly of bread and wheat cereal. On numerous occasions the applicant’s requests for medical treatment for the after-effects of a head injury he had sustained in 2001 and for elevated blood pressure were ignored or rejected. Likewise, a request by the applicant to be placed in a solitary cell on account of his unstable psychological state was refused.

In May 2007 the applicant was moved to the Ladyzhynska Colony no. 39 (“the Ladyzhynska Colony”) to serve his sentence, where, according to the case-file, he has been accommodated until present. On 25 November 2009 the applicant additionally notified the Court of other matters concerning his detention in the Ladyzhynska Colony which, according to him, constituted breaches of his rights. These matters included an alleged prolonged failure on the part of the administration to repair and clean the bathing facilities and to exterminate rats; the administration’s failure to renovate the applicant’s cell and to transfer him to the second floor, despite the fact that his parents had made donations towards the cost of renovating the prison; alleged instances of beating detainees by the guards and arbitrary orders of the administration that the detainees wear woollen hats in summer and assume unnatural positions when moving around the colony or when the doors to their cells were opened by guards.

According to the applicant, on 24 August 2006 he was severely beaten by eight SIZO no. 3 guards in response to his request for the radio to be turned on. He further alleged that his request that a doctor examine and record his injuries had been refused and that he had only been given a painkiller by way of medical treatment.

Also the applicant requested a transfer to a detention facility located closer to his hometown of Simferopol, in the Crimea, in order to facilitate visits by his parents and minor son. He noted, in particular, that his parents were pensioners (his mother was born in 1940 and his stepfather in 1925) who were unable to undertake long-distance travel for financial and health reasons (his step-father had a serious disability; his mother suffered from hypertension and other diseases and was his stepfather’s primary caregiver), but their requests was rejected.

On 14 January 2016 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 in respect to the conditions of the applicant’s detention in SIZO no. 3, Article 13 (in conjunction with Article 3) and a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

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

 

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. Sometime 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.

On 11 February 2016 the European Court has found that the applicant has been subjected to torture, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention; and that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegation of torture by the police.

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

 

Zakshevskiy v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Zakshevskiy, born in 1972 and is currently serving a sentence in prison no. 100.

On 11 November 2001 the applicant was arrested in accordance with the Chervonodzerzhynskiy District Court (“the District Court”) decision of 30 October 2001 that granted the prosecutor’s request to put the applicant, a former police officer, on remand as a suspect in the criminal proceedings concerning the robbery on the Kharkiv-Dnipropetrovsk-Simferopol road. The District Court held that, as the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious crime and had absconded during the investigation, his detention was necessary to prevent him from re offending. On the same day he had presented himself to the police voluntarily once he had become aware that he was wanted. On the same day, he drafted a “statement of voluntary surrender”.

On 13 November 2001, in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant was questioned in the context of the robbery proceedings. On 10 July 2002 after the change of the “state” lawyer to the another lawyer, the applicant was charged with a number of crimes, including banditry, several counts of armed robbery, premeditated murder and attempted murder, and questioned. He pleaded not guilty as charged and refused to give further testimonies.

On 4 January 2002 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to four months. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.

 On 7 March 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, having heard the investigator and the prosecutor, and referring to “the applicant’s personality”, albeit without assessing it, the seriousness of the charges against him, and the need for additional time to conduct the necessary investigative measures, extended the applicant’s detention to six months. The decision was not amenable to appeal. After that the detention was several times extended on ground on the same reasons.

Between 28 July and 13 October 2004 the applicant was held in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre no. 27 (“Kharkiv SIZO”), in cell no. 537. He submitted that his cell had been overcrowded: it had measured 16 square metres, contained eight beds for ten people, and detainees had had to take turns to sleep. He also alleged that some of the cell mates had been suffering from tuberculosis.

On 17 March 2016 the European Court has found that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Kharkiv SIZO between 28 July and 13 October 2004, a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective procedure for judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention after 7 March 2002 as well as of his detention during the trial, a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c), in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, of the Convention.

The applicant's representative before the European Court – Mr M.O. Tarakhakalo, a lawyer of SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Korneykova and Korneykov v.Ukraine

The applicants, Ms Viktoriya Yuryevna Korneykova and Mr Denis Yuryevich Korneykov, a mother and her three-month-old child are Ukrainian nationals, who were born in 1990 and 2012 respectively and were detained in pre-trial detention facility in Kharkiv (SIZO).

The applicants consider that the conditions of their detention in the SIZO did not satisfy the requirements of article 3 of the Convention. The applicants describe their conditions of detention as follows: the cell is situated in semi-basement; lack of fresh air and natural light, lack of warm water and means of hygiene; the food is too poor for a nursing mother, duration of the walks is not sufficient, and one of their cell-mates is HIV-positive.

Besides, the applicants believe that a violation of Article 3 of the Convention has been in their case due to the lack of medical treatment in the SIZO. The second applicant suffered from phimosis and had developed an inflammation. No paediatrician was available in the SIZO. The first applicant had requested the penitentiary authorities to have the second applicant examined by a doctor, but received no answer. She also had lodged an oral request before the court concerning such a medical examination. Her request was rejected as the case-file contains a document certifying medical visit that took place on 13 August 2012. The first applicant states that her son was not examined by a doctor for the last two months.

On 31 August 2012 the legal expert of the KHPG on behalf of the applicants filed the request for application of interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicate to the Government of Ukraine to transfer immediately the first applicant with her son in civic neonatology clinic, provide medical examination for the second applicant and medical treatment in the appropriate civic medical facility.

Upon request, the applicants and the Government provided (on 14 and on 18 September 2012 respectively) medical documents issued upon the medical examination of the second applicant that took place on 10 September 2012. The documents confirmed that the second applicant had been diagnosed with physiological phimosis, allergodermia and dysplastic cardiopathy. No surgical or other urgent treatment had been prescribed. Hypoallergenic diet had been prescribed to the first applicant.

Upon the second request, on 8 October 2012 the Government provided the information concerning the applicants’ conditions of detention with several official statements signed by SIZO deputy heads, a record of the potable water analysis, and photographs of the cells.

On 15 October 2012 the Court indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court to the Government to keep the applicants in conditions suitable for a small child and a nursing mother, inter alia, the Court indicated that the adequate medical supervision and assistance should be provided to the second applicant, for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

On 26 October 2012 the legal expert of the KHPG on behalf of the applicants lodged complaint before the Court. The applicants stated that their rights provided by Article 3 of the Convention were violated due to poor conditions of the detention in the SIZO, lack of adequate medical care for the second applicant, content of the applicants in the metal "cage" in court hearings and use of handcuffs and chains in the hospital.

On 24 March 2016 the European Court has found that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the first applicant’s shackling in the maternity hospital, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the physical conditions of the applicants’ detention in the Kharkiv SIZO, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the medical care provided to the second applicant during his stay with the first applicant in the Kharkiv SIZO, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the first applicant’s placement in a metal cage during court hearings.

The applicant's representative before the European Court – Mr G.V. Tokarev, a lawyer of SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Umnikov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Sergey Anatolyevich Umnikov, is in detention.

In April 2005 the applicant was arrested by police officers on suspicion of rape of a minor. At the police station the applicant was allegedly beaten up with the aim of forcing him to confess to having committed the rape. The applicant was also forced, by means of psychological pressure, to sign a document waiving his right to a lawyer.

On an unspecified date a lawyer was appointed by the authorities to defend the applicant. In January 2006 the Kominternivskyy Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of rape of a minor and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. In his appeal the applicant's lawyer mainly disagreed with the court's factual findings and submitted that the conviction had not been based on relevant evidence. In particular, he argued that the court had failed to establish the exact date and time of some of the events and that the medical examination of the victim had revealed no injuries to her body.

 In December 2006 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant was not escorted to that hearing, despite his written request in that regard.

In November 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's and his lawyer's appeals. It found no procedural violations on the part of the investigators or the courts, noting in particular that the applicant's request to take part in the appeal hearing had been lodged with the court after the hearing had been held. Acting upon the Court's instructions, the applicant asked the authorities to give him copies of various documents from his domestic case file, but his requests were refused.

On 19 May 2016 the European Court has found that has been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c) and d) of the Convention and that the State has not failed to comply with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

The applicant's representative before the European Court – Mr M.O. Tarakhakalo, a lawyer of SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Shiyanov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Viktor Grigoryevich Shiyanov, born in 1951 and lives in Kremenchuk.

On 19 June 1998 the applicant’s 17-year-old daughter, M., was found dead in a field in the Kharkiv region. Her body was naked and had numerous injuries.

On 22 June 1998 the Kharkiv inter-district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case in respect of the murder.

. The investigation of M.’s murder has been unsuccessful. Between 1998 and 2010 it was suspended at least thirteen times for failure to establish who had committed the murder. At least five of those decisions were quashed as premature and as not based on a comprehensive investigation. In the remaining instances the investigation was resumed without any further details being given in the respective decisions. At least four times (in particular, in 1998, 2001 and 2009) the investigator complained to his supervisors that his instructions to the police had not been complied with. In particular, on 20 January 2009 the investigator, when instructing the police to undertake certain investigative measures, noted that earlier instructions to that effect, given in 2000, had not been followed up. Overall, throughout the period in question, the investigator’s instructions to the police remained the same: to identify all the possible witnesses to the murder and to verify whether any of M.’s acquaintances, or any people with a criminal record living nearby, could have been involved in it.

The applicant submitted numerous complaints to the prosecution authorities about the length and ineffectiveness of the investigation. He also put forward his own version of events and mentioned the names of several people whom he suspected of being involved in the crime. He was informed on at least four occasions that there had indeed been omissions in the investigation and that the police officers responsible had been disciplined. As regards the applicant’s requests for access to the case file, they were rejected on the grounds that under the applicable procedural legislation, an aggrieved party could only have such access after the pre-trial investigation had been completed.

The applicant also brought a civil claim against the prosecution authorities, but courts at three levels of jurisdiction found against him.

On 2 June 2016 the European Court has found that has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

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

 

I.N. v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr I.N., born in 1963 and lives in the town of Severodonetsk, Ukraine.

The applicant alleged that, following his numerous complaints to a prosecutor’s office about the failure to investigate the case, in 2000 the prosecutor’s office had requested his placement in a psychiatric facility.

On 18 March 2000 the principal of the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association (hereinafter the “Severodonetsk Hospital”) received a letter from the Severodonetsk Town Prosecutor’s Office asking for an opinion on the state of the applicant’s mental health.

Psychiatrists Ma. and K. studied the applicant’s letters at the prosecutor’s office and decided that the applicant should be examined, since the letters contained evidence of a “high probability of socially dangerous behaviour”. On 19 March 2000, Ma., assisted by a team of paramedics and two police officers, visited the applicant at home.

Once the applicant had opened the door, Ma. said that they should go to a hospital to examine the applicant there. A police officer, P., was shouting at the applicant and threatening him with criminal prosecution for resisting the police. The applicant replied that he would “submit to force”. He was subsequently taken by his arms and put in an ambulance.

On 20 March 2000 the applicant was examined by a panel of four doctors, including Ma. and K., which confirmed the necessity of his urgent hospitalisation.

Between 21 March and 7 September 2000 the applicant was a patient in the Lugansk Hospital. He was allegedly examined on 21 April, 22 May, 23 June and 22 August 2000 by a panel of three psychiatrists. Each time it was decided that his treatment had to be continued. On 26 July 2000 the applicant was examined by a regional medico-social expert commission, which established that he had a second-degree disability.

 On 7 September 2000 the applicant was transferred to the Svatove Regional Psychiatric Hospital (the “Svatove Hospital”) to continue his treatment there. He was discharged from the hospital on 4 December 2000. The applicant also stayed in a hospital between 31 May and 26 June 2001. From 2001 to 2005 he without success tried to complaint the unlawfulness of his his confinement in psychiatric hospitals and received a compensation.

The applicant alleged that his confinement in psychiatric hospitals had been unlawful, that he had had no enforceable right to compensation for that and that the civil proceedings in which he had challenged the lawfulness of his confinement and claimed compensation had been unreasonably long. He invoked Article 5 §§ 1 and 5, and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

On 23 June 2016 the European Court has has found that has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention; and a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant's representatives before the European Court – Ms Y.V. Zaikina and Ms L.G. Ibadova, lawyers of SLC who are practising in Kharkiv.

 

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

     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.

On 25 March 2016 the lawyer has prepared and sent the response of the Ukrainian government observation to the European court of human rights.

 

     Patsev v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. P., is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Kramatorsk.

Following several head injuries sustained in the 1990s, the applicant has been suffering from a number of neurological symptoms, including epileptic seizures involving loss of consciousness. On an unspecified date he was officially registered as a disabled person of “the third degree” (mildest category of disability).

At about 7 p.m. on 5 October 2009 F.B. suffered a serious cerebral trauma and other injuries, of which he died on 19 October 2009.

At about 11 a.m. on 6 October 2009 several police officers in civilian clothes approached the applicant at the entrance of his home and forced him to follow them to the Kramatorsk police station, where they entered by the back door, avoiding the external surveillance cameras. The applicant was placed in one of the offices and questioned concerning the circumstances in which F.B. had suffered his injuries. As the applicant denied having been aware of any relevant facts, the police officers started ill-treating him with a view to obtaining confessions concerning his involvement in the assault on F.B. They beat him on the head with books; electrocuted him on the genitals, suffocated him by putting a plastic bag over his head and applied other ill-treatment techniques. In addition, the police officers threatened to cause troubles to the applicant’s family. The applicant’s requests for a lawyer and his submissions concerning his invalidity were ignored.

At an unspecified time on the same date the applicant signed a document entitled “explanation”, wherein he confessed to having attempted to steal F.B.’s belongings from the trunk of his car.

At about 1:10 a.m. on 7 October 2009 the applicant was brought to a forensic expert, who detected several fresh haemorrhages on the applicant’s back, knees and buttocks and concluded that they had been sustained within the twenty-four hour period preceding the assessment.

From 1:49 a.m. to 3:03 a.m. on the same date the applicant was questioned as a suspect in presence of a defender D., the circumstances of whose engagement have not been disclosed. During this questioning the applicant reiterated his submissions that he had attempted to steal F.B.’s belongings from his car.

At about 3 p.m. on 7 October 2009 the applicant was released from the police station after having signed an undertaking not to abscond.

On 31 October 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having stolen F.B.’s belongings from his car.

On the same date the Kramatorsk Court remanded the applicant in custody referring, primarily, to the seriousness of the incriminated offence and his prior criminal record.

Questioned as an accused on the day of his arrest, the applicant retracted his previous confessions, alleging that he had given them as a result of ill-treatment by police officer A.B. and other officers, whose names he did not know. He further submitted that at the time when the offense imputed to him had taken place, he had been several kilometres away from the crime scene, helping his acquaintances G. and O. to tow their car.

On 25 January 2010 the applicant was additionally accused of having been an accomplice to F.B.’s murder, in which three other individuals had participated.

On 26 March 2010 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment, according to which the applicant and three other persons were committed to stand trial before the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“Regional Court”), sitting as a first-instance court. The applicant was accused of having taken part in F.B.’s murder, having stolen his belongings and having attempted to hijack his car.

On 6 April 2010 the applicant’s complaint concerning his purportedly unlawful detention on 6 October 2009 and his alleged ill-treatment by the police was forwarded to the Kramatorsk Prosecutor’s Office for investigation.

On 16 May 2011 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending entry of the judgment into force.

On 19 January 2012 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court (“the Higher Court”) quashed the judgment of 16 May 2011, having found, in particular, that there were some 2,000 stylistic, logical and orthographical errors in the judgment text. It further remitted the case for a retrial.

On 10 September 2012 the Kramatorsk Prosecutor’s Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment, referring to the lack of evidence that a crime in his respect had been committed.

On 24 January 2013 the Kramatorsk Court quashed this decision upon the applicant’s appeal, having noted, in particular, that the prosecutor’s office had failed to investigate, where the applicant had been between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. on 6 October 2009 and whether he had had any injuries before entering the police station. The probability of the applicant’s arrival in the police station before 7 p.m. on that day by the back door had likewise never been reasonably assessed.

On 6 February 2013 a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment was opened.

On 30 April 2013 this investigation was closed for lack of evidence that a crime had been committed.

On 16 July 2013 this decision was quashed by the Donetsk Region Deputy Prosecutor, who gave further instructions as to investigating these allegations.

On 23 September 2013 the proceedings were closed again for want of evidence that a crime had been committed.

On 6 November 2013 the Kramatorsk Court acquitted the applicant of the charges concerning his participation in F.B.’s murder and hijacking of his car. On the other hand, it found him guilty of having attempted to steal objects from F.B.’s car and sentenced him to four years and eight months’ imprisonment. The court also ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending entry of the judgment into force.

On 7 November 2013 the Kramatorsk Court quashed the decision of 23 September 2013 to close the criminal proceedings into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. It noted, in particular, that the police records, according to which the applicant had left the police station at 10 p.m. on 6 October 2009 were at odds with the record of his questioning as a suspect between 1:49 a.m. and 3:03 a.m. on 7 October 2009 and that further persons had to be questioned with a view to establishing the relevant facts.

On 29 April 2014 the Court of Appeal examined appeals lodged by the prosecutor, the defendants and one of the injured parties, quashed the judgment of 6 November 2013 and remitted the case for retrial. It further ordered the applicant’s release from custody under an obligation not to abscond.

Between April 2014 and April 2015 several further decisions to close the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of misconduct by the law-enforcement authorities in his respect were quashed.

On 17 June 2015 the Kramatorsk Court quashed a decision in this respect taken on 28 April 2015 and ordered a further investigation which previously had been discontinued.

In December, 2015 the applicant lodged the complaint to the ECtHR on the matter of violations of Articles 3, 5 §1 and 6 §1 of the Convention.

On 6 October 2015, the case was communicated by the ECtHR to the Government of Ukraine.

In April 2016, the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant prepared and submitted to the ECtHR a reply to the Observations of the Government.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant are also pending before the first-instance court.

 

Trachuk v. Ukraine.

On 29 October 2010, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of her former husband. She was questioned in that respect at the police station. According to the applicant, the police officers beat her up and psychologically pressured her in order to obtain her self-incriminating statements.

In the evening on the same day the applicant was examined by a medical doctor. The doctor stated that the applicant had small oedema, hyperaemia and haemorrhage in the areas of her right cheek and left cheekbone. Later on that day, when admitted to a temporary detention centre, the applicant lodged a complaint on account of her ill-treatment.

On 1 November 2010, the Kramatorsk Town Court (“the Town Court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

On 18 December 2010, the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers finding that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded. The decision referred to the statements of the police officers and the witnesses who observed the applicant’s arrest. The police officers denied the allegations of ill-treatment. The witnesses stated that they had not seen any injuries on the applicant’s face.

On 26 October 2011, the Town Court found the applicant guilty of attempting to arrange, for mercenary motives, the murder of her former husband. The court sentenced the applicant to ten years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of her property. The applicant appealed.

On 13 April 2012, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 26 October 2011 as unfounded and remitted the case to the Town Court for a fresh consideration.

On 13 September 2012 the Town Court, conducting the trial, instructed the prosecutor to carry out additional measures in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.

On 1 November 2012, the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office, having conducted additional enquiries, refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers considering that there had been no evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant challenged that decision in the court.

On 9 November 2012, the Town Court found the applicant guilty of attempting to arrange, for mercenary motives, the murder of her former husband. The court sentenced the applicant to ten years’ imprisonment and ordered confiscation of property. The Town Court relied on witness statements, other oral, material and expert evidence. It also referred to the applicant’s statements made during the pre-trial investigation. The applicant appealed.

On 19 February 2013, the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 1 November 2012 concerning the refusal to investigate the allegations of police ill-treatment. The applicant appealed.

On 22 February 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence. It also noted that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed on the points of law.

On 17 March 2013, the Court of Appeal quashed the court decision of 19 February 2013 and ordered the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk to conduct a fresh examination of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 1 November 2012 taken on the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.

On 29 March 2013, the applicant lodged an application to the European court of human rights under Article 3 (ill-treatment of police) and 6 (on the matter of breach of the privilege against self-incrimination and of the right to silence) of the Convention.

On 13 June 2013, the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 1 November 2012. The court found that the impugned decision of the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office was well-reasoned and substantiated.

On 26 August 2014, the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court reviewed the applicant’s conviction and amended the characterisation of the crime under the domestic law.

At the stage of communication with the Ukrainian government the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide legal assistance. In April, 2016 the SLC lawyer familiarized with case files, prepared a reply to the Observations of the Government and sent all appropriate materials to the European court of human rights.

 

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 The cases related to EuroMaidan cases

Dnipropetrovsk Euromaidan cases

On 26th of January 2014 at about 2 p.m. a Euro Maydan a protest against a policy of the former President Yanukovich took place in Dnipropetrovsk, in front of the Regional State Administration. There was.

At this meeting a group of “titushki” (members of pro ex-Presidential para-military gangs) confronted to the protesting people, was throwing stones towards them provoking them for fight. Among the young men from both sides began a mutual exchange of foul language and throwing stones. Some of men from the building of Dnipropetrovsk State Administration started using foam extinguishers and smoke bombs.

The police arrested a lot of people, and the prosecution at the same day instituted criminal proceeding under Article 294 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (organizing and participation in mass disorders).

Mr Balabay, Mr Bereza, Mr Lapin, Mr Khlusov, Mr Shebanov, Mr Tsyganov (hereinafter – the applicants) have been arrested together with other participants, brought to a police station interrogated as suspects and at the same day were officially informed on suspicion in having committed the crime.

In the same night, investigators submitted to a district court a motion on pretrial detention of each of the applicant.

The next day investigating judges of the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“Babushkinskyy Court”) ordered detention on remand for a period of 60 days for all of the protesters.

All the protesters appealed to the decision on detention, and the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region ("Court of Appeal"), and the Court of Appeal changed detention on remand for Mr Balabay, Mr Lapin Mr Tsyganov and Mr Shebanov to home arrest, and for Mr Bereza and Mr Khlusov – to personal recognizance.

On 19-20 February 2014, Babushkinskiy Court exempted the applicants from criminal liability according to the Law of Ukraine “On Elimination of Negative Impacts and Prevention Prosecution and Punishment of Persons Involved the Events that Took Place During Peaceful Assembly.” The criminal proceedings against the applicants were closed.

Then the Supreme Rada of Ukraine has enacted the Law “On preventing prosecution and punishment of people with regard to the events that occurred during peaceful assemblies, and repealing some laws of Ukraine", and the prosecutor of Dnipropetrovsk lodged an appeal to the Babushkinskiy Court decisions of 19-20 February 2014. The court rejected the prosecutor’s appeal and transmitted the case-file to the Prosecutor's Office in the city of Dnipropetrovsk for conducting the criminal proceedings according to standard procedure.

In May-June, 2014 the prosecutor’s office of Dniperpetrovsk passed the final resolution on discontinuance of the criminal proceedings due to absence of the events of crime.

In June 2014, Mr Balabay, Mr Bereza, Mr Lapin, Mr Khlusov filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor’s office of Dnipropetrovsk, Police Department of Dnipropetrovsk Region and State Treasury Service of Ukraine on compensation non-pecuniary damage caused to him by unlawful prosecuting him, illegal arrest and illegal detention. Mr Shebanov, Mr Tsyganov have not lodged the claim.

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

In November – December, 2014 the Babushkinskyy Court passed judgments on the benefit of the applicants on satisfaction of the applicant’s moral damages in a sum of 50,000 Hryvnas for each, and then higher courts had confirmed the judgments.

On 25 June 2016 the SLC lawyer on behalf of all the applicants submitted replies on the Government’s observations to the ECtHR.

 

Kharkiv Euromaidan cases

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 Euromaidan (called «titushkas») armed with sticks arrived at the scene. They also participated in mass beatings of picketers, and the police did not take measures to stop these actions and arrest those, who actually committed crimes against picketers.

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

Lawyers were not allowed to the arrested people. After midnight detainees were secretly brought to the Chervonozavodskyy 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 the time of examination of the administrative cases.

All of the detained protesting people have been punished with 15 days of administrative arrest.

On 22 February 2014, the Supreme Rada of Ukraine enacted the law that exempt form criminal and administrative liability of persons participated in the protesting events since November, 2013. At the same day the prosecutor of Kharkiv lodged to the Chervonozavodskyy Court a motion on exempt the arrestee from administrative punishment, and the cort released them from the arrest.

In August, 2014 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the protesting people, Mr Golubev, Mr Sinelnikov, Mr Vorontsov, Mr Marynchev, Mr Savchenko, Mr Romankov, lodged complaints to the ECtHR on violation of Article 5 of the Convention on the matter of unlawful detention and administrative arrest.

On 25 June 2016, the SLC lawyers submitted replies on the Government’s Observations in the cases of the applicants.

 

Rustinov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Anton Rustinov, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

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

On 1 March 2014, near the building of Khakiv Regional State Administration (hereinafter - Administration) a rally was held. The participants of the rally supported European vector of Ukraine's foreign policy. This rally was called Euromaidan.

There was a crowd of protesters opposite the Administration. These protesters represented Antymaidan (hereinafter - antymaydanivtsi).

Also there were police officers in the Administration and on it’s perimeter.

The applicant participated in Euromaidan.

About 2 p. m., antymaydanivtsi started to seize the building of the Administration. At that time the applicant had been inside the Administration. As he was in terror of his life and health he ran out into the courtyard of the Administration. Then the applicant climbed over the fence and found himself on Mironositskaya street. This street is located near the building of the Administration. There the applicant was attacked by a crowd of antymaydanivtsi. As a result of the attack the applicant received minor injuries.

On 17 September 2014, the applicant requested the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor that criminal proceedings be instituted against the police officers that had to protect the public peace in the Administration and it’s perimeter.

On 10 October 2014, the information was entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and the criminal proceedings on the fact of neglect of duty of the police officers was opened.

On 30 October 2014 and on 1 April 2014 an investigator of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office issued the decisions on refusing to recognize the applicant as a victim. These decisions were appealed to the investigating judge.

On 21 November 2014, on 23 April 2015 and on 16 September 2015 the investigator issued the decisions on closure of the criminal proceedings because of the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. These decisions were also appealed to the investigating judge.

On 15 March 2016, a lawyer of SLC complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

 

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

     Grankov v. Ukraine.

On 1 June 2012, Mr. Grankov (hereinafter — the Applicant) was detained on suspicion of a rape and theft. The district court chose him a preliminary measure in the form of detention. He was kept on custody at the Bahmut detention centr.

In September 2012, the pretrial investigation was terminated and the cas was sent to the Centralno-Miskyy town court in Horlivka.

On 1 February 2013, Centralno-Miskyy town court in Horlivka found the Applicant guilty and sentenced him to seven years and six month imprisonment.

The applicant filed a complaint to the Court of Appeal in the Donetsk region.

On 6 August 2013, the Court of Appeal in Donetsk region quashed the verdict and sent the case to a new trial.

On 17 December 2013, the Centralno-Miskyy district court in Horlivka found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment.

The applicant filed an appeal.

On 14 May 2014, the Court of Appeal in Donetsk region quashed a verdict and sent the case to a new tiral.

On 14 April 2014, Ukrainian government conducted the Anti-terrorist operation in Donetsk region. Later Horlivka city was captured by unknown military forces of so-called Donetsk people's republic. The court of Appeal in the Donetsk region and the Centralno-Miskyy court in Horlivka temporary hold to perform the appropriate functions.

According to the order made by the Higher specialized court “On determination of territory jurisdiction” the case files were sent to the Severodonetsk district court because of impossibility of the fair trial.

Until today the Severodonetsk district court did not consider the case simultaneously noticed that documents had not been received from occupied territory yet. However there are some special procedures provided by the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine for recollection of the lost criminal case files which were conducted by the Prosecutor's Office in Donetsk region.

On 24 November 2015 Bahmut district court in Luhansk region terminated consideration based on the prosecutor's motion related to restoration of criminal proceedings. The court noticed that collected evidence and documents were not full and enough.

The applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistance. The applicant stressed that his detention was unreasonable long, the consideration of the criminal proceedings did not provide, the case files were lost and had not been restored, the motion on choosing of criminal proceedings did not consider, and at the same time the Applicant was not found guilty and his verdict had not come into force. The lawyer familiarized with the case files and prepared several motions related to recollection of the lost criminal case files, changing the preventive measure and releasing the Applicant under Article 206 the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine (because his unlawful detention).

On 15 December 2015, Bahmut district court dismissed a motion on release the Applicant from custody under Article 206 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine.

     On 15 March 2016 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the European court of human rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention connected to unlawful detention and breach of fair trial.

 

     Novikov v. Ukraine

On 8 April 2014 Mr. Novikov (hereinafter – the Applicant) was detained on suspicion of committed repeatedly burglary by a group of people.

On 11 April 2014 Bryankivskyy district court in the Luhansk region chose a preliminary measure for the applicant in the form of detention. The applicant was kept in the Starobelsk detention centre.

On 2 June 2014 the criminal proceedings were sent to the Bryankiv district court.

On 14 April 2014 Ukrainian government conducted the Anti-terrorist operation in Luhansk region. Later Bryanka town was captured by unknown military forces of so-called Luhansk people's republic. Bryankivskyy district court temporary hold to perform the appropriate functions.

According to the order made by the Higher specialized court “On determination of territory jurisdiction” the case files were sent to the Lysychansk district court in the Luhansk region because of impossibility of the fair trial.

On 20 November 2014 the Lysychanskyy district court continued the term of preliminary measure in the form of detention to 21 January 2015. The case was considered in the lack of case files and later the preliminary measure was continued for several times in the same obstacles. Although the Applicant was not sentenced to any punishment, court hearings were not conducted, the case files were lost, the term of preliminary measure was continued again and again. It could have been proceeded for years.

The applicant submitted several request to the Prosecution's Office in Luhansk region and to the Ombudsman but public officers did almost nothing to solve the problem.

     The applicant had to file a complaint to the Starobilsk district court to change the preliminary measure under Article 2016 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine (because of unlawful detention).

On 27 February 2016 the Starobilsk district court dismissed the complaint.

The Ombudsman filed a complaint to the Starobilsk district court to change the preliminary measure under Article 2016 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine (because of unlawful detention). The complaint was shelved without consideration.

The applicant repeatedly filed a motion to change the preliminary measure in the form of detention.

On 8 December 2015 Lysychansk district court changed the preliminary measure to the form of personal recognisance.

Mr. Novikov asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistance.

On 16 February 2016 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention regarding unlawful detention of the Applicant.

The application was declared admissible.

 

     Osipov v. Ukraine

Mr Osipov Yuriy Leonidovich (hereinafter – the applicant) is an internally displaced person according to the Law of Ukraine On provision of rights and freedom of internally displaced persons.

The applicant is employed with the Regional department on exploitation of the channel of a public utility company “Company Water of Donbass” (hereinafter – the Company).

On 28 August 2014 due to conduction by the Ukrainian authorities the anti-terrorist operation (hereinafter – the ATO) the director of the Company issued an order about temporal termination of the work of the Company and announced an unavoidable delay.

The applicant, fearing for his personal security and security of his family, due to the frequent shelling of the city of Gorlovka, on 29 August 2014 had, as many other employees of the Company, to leave Gorlovka for the territory under the control of the Ukrainian authorities.

Through performance his job duties by the applicant a computer network company worked in Slavyansk, transactions in the "Client-Bank" were performed, the salaries were payed.. The Company was satisfied with the applicant’s work and his work hours were counted and included into the timesheet.

On 25 September 2015 the management of the Company issued an order no. 173 by which they cancelled the order no. 161 which had been issued on 28.07.2014. By the order no. 173 all employees of the Company, including the applicant, were obliged to return to Gorlovka, on the territory beyond the control of the Ukrainian authorities, and begin performing their job duties according to the job contract of 29 September 2014.

The applicant, in order not to expose his life to danger, and not to go to perform his job duties in Gorlovka, which is on the territory, temporarily uncontrolled by the Ukrainian authorities, used all possible kinds of vacations, namely, from 29 September to 10 November 2014 he had regular vacations, from 11 November to 19 November 2014 he had vacations without payment, from 20 November to 19 December 2014 he was temporarily incapable to work.

On 22 December 2014 the applicant applied in written to the management of the Company about continuation of his work on the position at the working place on the basis of the Slovyansk regional department of the Company. By the reply of 16 January 2015 the applicant was refused in satisfaction of his request. The salary was stopped to be calculated and payed.

On 27 February 2015 the applicant lodged a suit against the Company to the city court of Slovyansk (hereinafter – the first instance court) about cancelling of the above mentioned order and payment of salary for the time of forced unemployment.

By the decision of 31 March 2015 the first instance court refused to satisfy the suit claims of the applicant.

On 9 April 2015 the applicant filed a complained to the Court of Appeal of Zaporizhya region.

On 12 May 2015 the Court of Appeal issued a ruling by which it refused to satisfy the applicant’s appeal.

On 30 May 2015 the applicant filed a cassation appeal to the High specialized court of Ukraine on consideration of civil and criminal cases (hereinafter – the court of cassation).

By the ruling of 14 July 2015 the court of cassation refused to open the cassation proceeding under the applicant cassation.

The applicant applied for legal aid to the Strategic Litigation Center (the SLC) of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

On 14 January 2016 a lawyer of the SLC filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR) about violation of Article 6 § 1 (right for fair trial) and Article 8 (right for respect for private and family life) of the European convention on human rights.

    

     Sogura v. Ukraine.

On 3 November 2012 Mr. Sogura (hereinafter — the Applicant) was detained on suspicion of a murder. The district court chose him a preliminary measure in the form of detention. He was kept on custody at the Starobilsk detention center.

On 29 December 2012 the pretrial investigation was terminated and the cas was sent to the Kamyanobridskyy district court in the city of Luhansk

On 11 March 2014 the Kamyanobridskyy district court in the city of Luhansk found the Applicant guilty and sentenced him to twelve years imprisonment.

The applicant filed a complaint to the Court of Appeal in the Luhansk region.

On 28 April 2014 the Court of Appeal in Luhansk region opened the appeal proceedings and appointed a court meeting on 27 June 2014 but it has not been conducted yet.

On 14 April 2014 Ukrainian government conducted the Anti-terrorist operation in Luhansk region. Later Luhansk city was captured by unknown military forces of so-called Luhansk people's republic. The court of Appeal in the Luhansk region temporary hold to perform the appropriate functions.

According to the order made by the Higher specialized court “On determination of territory jurisdiction” the case files were sent to the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region (and later – to the Court of Appeal in Luhansk region which is currently situated in Severodonetsk) because of impossibility of the fair trial.

Until today the Court of Appeal in the city of Luhansk did not consider the case simultaneously noticed that documents had not been received from occupied territory yet. However there are some special procedures provided by the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine for recollection of the lost criminal case files which were conducted by the Prosecutor's Office in Luhansk region.

On 3 July 2015 the Prosecutor's Office in Luhansk region pointed out that special measures were successfully taken and the appropriate motion was sent to the district court.

On 24 November 2015 Starobilsk district court in Luhansk region terminated consideration based on the prosecutor's motion related to restoration of criminal proceedings. The court noticed that collected evidence and documents were not full and enough.

The applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistance. The applicant stressed that his detention was unreasonable long, the consideration of the criminal proceedings did not provide, the case files were lost and had not been restored, the motion on choosing of criminal proceedings did not consider, and at the same time the Applicant was not found guilty and his verdict had not come into force. The lawyer familiarized with the case files and prepared several motions related to recollection of the lost criminal case files, changing the preventive measure and releasing the Applicant under Article 206 the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine (because his unlawful detention).

On 14 December 2015 Starobilsk district court of Luhansk region dismissed a motion on release the Applicant from custody under Article 206 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine.

On 25 March 2016 the Court of Appeal in Luhansk region noticed that it was impossible to recollect lost criminal case files.

On 31 March 2016 the Court of Appeal in Luhansk region dismissed a motion related to changing of the preliminary measure.

On 30 May 2016 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the European court of human rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention connected to unlawful detention and breach of fair trial.

 

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

Ukrainian citizens, Mr. P., Mr, Sh and Mr. D. (hereinafter – the applicants) participated in the Anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in Eastern Ukraine in the body of Ukrainian military forces.

 At the beginning of June 2015, the were captured nearby Popasna town (located on the borderline) by unknown armed men dressed in military uniforms without any marks. Later applicants were driven to the Luhansk city.

Being at the Commandant's office the applicants had been interrogated with using of unlawful physical pressure. After that they were conducted to the basement at a building where they were detained for a month. Than terrorist changed the place of detention three times more but every time all rooms did not comply with health standards and conditions of dentition did not comply with rules according to which prisoners should have been treated. The general principles of personal hygiene and nutrition were ignored not speaking about the necessary medical treatment.

The applicants were suffered from degrading treatment. They were detained in horrible conditions – in small overcrowded rooms without firing. Applicants were not saved from bad weather condition, did not have beds etcetera. The service officers worked in the detention centre threatened them to use physical pressure which became a reason of applicants' clinical depression During more then three months applicants ate horrible food and drank industrial water because they had no access to potable water. During detention applicants were interrogated several times with using unlawful methods of examination.

On 29 October 2015 applicants were exchanged for the rebels, and released from custody.

On 29 April 2016 the SLC lawyer lodged several applications to the ECHR under Articles 3 and 3 of the Convention on the base of unlawful detention and inhuman or degrading treatment.

 

3.3. Other applications to the Court

      Babenko v. Ukraine

On 8 May 2007 Mr Babenko Yuriy Yuriyovych (hereinafter the applicant) was arrested by the police officers of Novovovdolazhskiy district police station of Kharkiv region (hereinafter – the district police station) on suspicion of having committed a robbery. Another man, Mr M., was arrested together with the applicant

After the arrest the police officers took the applicant and Mr M. to the district police station and during the night from 8 to 9 May they beat the m in order to force them for giving a confession.

At the result of these beatings and torture the applicant’s face was broken, his nose, lips and temporal area were bleeding, bruises and bleedings formedon the applicant’s hands, legs and torso, there were bumps on the head.

Because of tortures and beating the applicant gave self-incriminating statements and signed all the protocols, which was required by the police officers.

On 11 May 2007 the head of the medical unit of the Kharkiv pre-trial detention facility examined the applicant, however, with the aim to hide the fact of tortures and ill-treatment in the district police station, he only wrote in the medical certificate that the applicant had bruises on the outer surface of the left thigh.

On 17 April 2013, when his case started to be considered on the merits by the Novovodolazhsky District Court of Kharkiv region (hereinafter - the Novovodolazhsky court), the applicant in the court hearing verbally informed about the fact of being subjected to torture in the Novovodolazhsky the police station and gave detailed evidence of the court in this regard.

On the same day the Novovodolazhsky court issued a separate ruling, which by which obliged the prosecutor Novovodolazhsky district of Kharkiv region to conduct verification based on the explanations of the applicant and Mr M.

At the same day the applicant lodges a motion about recognition his as a victim and provide him with a free legal aid.

On 19 April 2013 an investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office issued an order by which it refused to satisfy he applicant’s motion, pointing out that the applicant is a witness in the criminal case and thus, he could not be provided with free legal aid.

On 23 April 2013 the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office issued an order about of termination of criminal proceedings against the police officers.

On 14 November 2013 the Novovodolazhsky court cancelled the order of the investigator on the applicant’s complaint.

On 29 January 2014 the Prosecutor’s Office issued an order about of termination of criminal proceedings against the police officers.

On 27 April 2014 the the Novovodolazhsky court issued a ruling in which it satisfied the applicant’s complaint on the order of 29.01.2014, cancelled the order of 29.01.2014and delivered the case file to the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region.

After that the investigation has been terminated several times and renewed by the court’s decisions. The applicant does not have any information about the course of criminal proceedings, investigative actions carried out, its termination.

In April 2016 the applicant applied for legal aid to the SLC of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

In June 14 2016 a lawyer of the SLC filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR) about violation of Article 3 (prohibition of tortures) and Article 13 (right for an effective remedy) of the European convention on human rights.

 

Khosha v, Ukraine

Khosha Tetyana Vasylivna (hereinafter – the applicant) in 2011 applied to the Moscow district court of Kharkiv with an administrative suit in which she asked to declare unlawful the actions of the Management of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Moscow district of Kharkiv (hereinafter – the Pension Fund) and oblige the defendant to conduct recalculation of her pension.

On 9 June 2011 the Moscow district court issued a ruling in which satisfied the suit claims of the applicant.

On 29 July 2011 was issued a ruling about opening of executive proceedings.

On 31 October 2012 was issued a ruling about termination of the executive proceedings concerning partial execution of the court’s decision.

In April 2015 the Pension Fund lodged an appeal against the ruling of the Moscow district court of Kharkiv of 6 June 2011 to the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal. In their appeal they asked to renew the term for lodging the appeal, providing the arguments that the Pension Fund had received the ruling of the Moscow district court of 09.06.2011 only on 30 March 2015.

On 23 June 2015 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal issued a ruling in which renewed the term for lodging an appeal and satisfied the appeal claims of the Pension Fund.

The applicant received the above mention ruling of the Court of Appeal only after applying to the court on 30 October 2015.

After receiving the ruling of 30.06.2015 the Pension Fund conducted repeated recalculation of the applicant’s pension the amount of which was reduced.

On 5 November 2015 the applicant received the reply to her request from the Pension Fund in which they confirmed the fact of receiving the ruling of 09.06.2011 on 4 August 2011.

In February 2016 the applicant applied for legal assistance to the Strategic Litigation Center (the SLC) of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

On 20 April 2016 a lawyer of the SLC sent an application to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR) in which asked to find the violation of the applicant’s right provided by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter – the Convention) due to the violation by the national courts the principle of the equality of arms, legal certainty and the finality of courts decisions, as well as violation of Article 1 of the Protocol 1 to the Convention concerning unlawful recalculation and reducing the amount of the applicant’s pension.

 

Kavinski v. Ukraine.

On 18 September 2014 Mr. Kavinski (hereinafter — the Applicant) asked the district department of the State migratory service of Ukraine to draw the foreign passport. According to Orderless of drawing and issuance of foreign passport, the Applicant lodged all necessary documents which mantioned at the specific list. He did not offer any charged services.

The Department of the State migration service of Ukraine refused to accept the Applicant's documents because he did not provide the receipt of payment by given services and blanks in the amount of 207 hrivnyas. The applicant stressed that this payments has not been contemplated in the mentioned legal act.

`On the same day the Applicant filed a complaint to the Head of the district department of the State migratory service of Ukraine. On 17 April 2015 the Applicant received an answer according to which it was necessary to pay for charged services provided by the State migration department of Ukraine.

On 22 October 2014 the Applicant had to pay for the services.

On 28 October 2014 the Applicant lodged again the pack of documents to draw the foreign passport. The pack also contained receipt of payment by given services and blanks.

On 27 December 2014 the foreign passport was drawn.

On 29 December 2014 the Applicant submitted a request to the Main department of the State migratory service of Ukraine in Kharkiv region to return unduly paid funds.

On 14 March 2015 the Applicant pointed a claim to Kharkiv circuit administative court on recognition of illegal actions and obligation to take certain actions.

On 15 June 2015 the Kharkiv circuit administrative court passed a decision according to which the claim was partly granted. Actions committed by the State migratory service of Ukraine was found illegal but the Applicant took no compensation for his damages.

 On 3 July 2015 the Applicant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal in the circuit.

 On 15 July 2015 the State migratory service of Ukraine also appealed.

On 11 August 2015 the Court of Appeal in the circuit granted the appeal lodged by the State migratory service of Ukraine and dismiss a complaint submitted by the Applicant.

On 3 September 2015 the Applicant submitted appeal to the Higher specialized court of Ukraine.

On 9 September 2015 the Higher specialized court of Ukraine refused to open the court proceedings.

At this stage the Applicant asked the SLC lawyer to proved him legal assistance. The SLC lawyer familiarized with case file and on 4 March 2016 lodged an application to the European court of human rights under Article 6 of the Convention on the matter of a violation of the fair trial.

 

 Lopushynska v. Ukraine

The applicant, Ms Lydmyla Mykytyvna Lopushynska, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1958 and is currently living in the Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

In the April 2010 the applicant addressed to the doctor Hopko, who done pharmacological blockade to her in violation of the order of the procedure.

Besides, the doctor at that time was only certified as the doctor neurosurgeon, and data manipulation carried out the study in the own homes, converted at a medical office, where there was no necessary equipment that could be helpful in the event of a situation that needs emergency assistance.

As a result of the injections made by the doctor, the applicant immediately lost sight and hearing and sense of smell, state of her health was extremely difficult. As a result of the injuries she became disabled.

The applicant was treated in the intensive care unit for 20 days, which caused her and her family considerable mental suffering. During this time, the applicant, her husband and daughter didn’t know whether doctors will return her to life that struck the applicant and the members of her family considerable damages.

In April 2010 by the criminal complaint of the SLC lawyer a criminal case was initiated, but the investigation is still ongoing.

On April 2013 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant filed a civil claim against doctor Hopko to the Octyabrsky district court of Poltava.

On June 5, 2014 the Octyabrsky district court of Poltava rejected all the claims of the applicant.

On July 21, 2014 the Court of Appeal of the Poltava region upheld the decision unchanged.

On 9 August 2014 the SLC lawyer filed a cassation appeal to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine.

On 24 June 2015 the High Specialized Court of Ukraine rejected the abovementioned appeal and upheld the previous court decision.

On November 6, 2014 a SLC lawyer filed a complaint in accordance with Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine to the decision of the investigator of Octyabrsky District Police Station about closing the criminal proceeding against Mr. Hopko.

On February 2, 2015 the Octyabrskyi district court of Poltava decided to cancel the investigator's decision to close the case against Mr. Gopko and return the case for additional investigation.

On March 3, 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a motion to the investigator of Octyabrsky District Police Station concerning a comprehensive medical examination of the Applicant.

On 27 March 2015 the investigator granted the abovementioned motion.

On 16 February 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of the Articles 2,3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Comprehensive medical examination of the Applicant was conducted only in 2016.

 

     Nikitin v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Nikitin is a Russian national, who lived 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.

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, 2015 the criminal proceeding 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.

On 24 June 2015 the Court granted the SLC lawyer’s motion on temporary access to information of a Guselnikov’s mobile phone to establish the subscriber who called him on the 10 of September 2014. This information was reclaimed from the mobile operator. Furthermore, the court granted the SLC lawyer’s motions on temporary access to information of victim M.’s and accused O.’s mobile phones. This information was also reclaimed from the mobile operator. This information is currently analysed.

On 16 February 2016 at the request of SLC lawyer the Court interrogated investigator, police agents, specialist and forensic medical expert, who had taken part at the pre-trial investigation.

On the same date the Court also granted the SLC lawyer’s motion about Mr. Tagayev attraction in this trial as a specialist.

On 3 March 2016, an expert who conducted the forensic ballistic examination at the pre-trial investigation was questioned by the Court. Moreover, the SLC lawyer submitted several motions on temporary access to information of his mobile phone, choosing a detention as a preventive measure for Mr. Nikitin. The Court refused to change Mr. Nikitin’s preventive measure, and the period of detention was extended until 2nd May 2016. On the same day the SLC lawyer filed a motion on inadmissibility of some evidences such as gun seizure report and the following forensic ballistic examination. Consideration of this motion was postponed.

On 31 March 2016 the Court finished evidences examination.

On 1 April 2016 the Court granted the SLC lawyer’s motion on the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical and ballistics examination. On 13 April 2016 the case files and other evidences were sent to the Kharkiv Medical Forensic Examination Office. 

According to medical certificate of death Mr. Nikitin died of unknown reason on 16 June 2016 at the Starobelsk pre-trial detention centre. The cause of his death will be determined after histological research

The SLC lawyer is going to achieve the continuation of the criminal proceedings with the goal of Mr. Nikitin’s rehabilitation.

 

     Panchuk v. Ukraine

Mr. P is an Ukrainian national, who was born in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and is currently living in Kharkiv region.

On 12 March 2014 the Armyansk District Court award a conviction, Mr. P. was found guilty of burglary and sentenced to 1 year and 6 month imprisonment.

According to the verdict Mr. P.’s term of sentence has calculated since his detention from 12 March 2014.

On 24 October 2014 the Mr. P’s defence counsel sent an application to the Kiev Court of Appeal.

On 29 October 2014 the Court of Appeal returned the defender’s appeal back because of the time limit.

On 12 August 2015 Mr. P filed a motion on recovering of missed terms of appeal. A bit later, he sent an appeal to the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

On 11 September 2015 the Kyiv Court of Appeal refused to renew the term for appeal.

On 12 September 2015 term of Mr. N. punishment has expired but he has not been released from prison till 18th of September.

According to Ukrainian legislation prisoners should be released from the prison in the first half of the last day of punishment.

On February 2016 Mr. P. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistants.

The SLC lawyer prepared a complaint to the ECtHR and on 4 March 2016 sent the complaint to the ECtHR on a violation of Article 5 of the Convention.

 

     Sukachov v. Ukraine

Sukachov Victor Valeriyovych (hereinafter – the applicant) on 31 May 2012 was detained by the police officers on suspicion of having committed a terrorist attack. The case concerned the series of explosions which took place in Kharkiv, Zaporizhya and Dnipropetrovsk from 12 October to 27 April 2012.

A preventive measure in the form detention in custody was chosen for the applicant.

Since October 2012 the applicant has been detained in the Dnipropetrovsk pre-trial facility (hereinafter – the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO).

On 8 November 2012 the criminal case on accusation of the applicant and two other persons, Mr. P. and Mr. R., were transferred for consideration on the merits to the Industrial district court of Dnipropetrovsk.

On 11 March 2014 the Prosecutor’s Office refused to support accusation against Mr. P. and Mr. R., and they were released from custody in the court room.

During the period of consideration of the criminal case the Industrial district court has repeatedly issued rulings about continuation of the applicant’s detention in custody.

The court mainly justified its decisions about applicant’s detention referring to the public danger and gravity of the crimes in commitment of which the applicant was accused. The court has not taken into account the facts that the applicant had never been subjected to the criminal liability before this, had permanent place of work and residence and strong social connections.

During all the time of his detention in the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO the applicant has been kept in the cells, conditions of detention in which are inadequate and do not comply with the international standards concerning keeping in custody of prisoners and detainees.

In particular, the cells have bad sanitary conditions, there is not enough access to fresh air and daylight, the living space per one person is less than 1 m2, detainees do not have possibility to take hot shower as hot water is often absent in the shower rooms, detainees are not dully provided with soap and other sanitary-hygienic products.

The applicant applied for legal assistance to the Strategic Litigation Center (the SLC) of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

On 5 May 2016 a lawyer of the SLC sent an application to the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR) in which asked to find the violation of the applicant’s right enshrined by Article 5 § 1 (), 5 § 3, 5 § 4 (violation of the rights for liberty; excessing time of pre-trial detention; violation of guarantees of fair trial when considering the matter of extending the term of detention in custody) Article 6 § 1 (length of the criminal proceedings) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter – the Convention).

At present, an application is being prepared on violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning inadequate conditions of detention in the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO.

 

     Svetskyy v. Ukraine

On 17 February 2015 Ms. K. came to the district police station to inform that her parents disappeared. After three months search police officers found two unknown bodies which were recognized as Mrs. Ya and Mr. K.who had carried of business. They had been owner of a car stolen of which was considered as a reason for the further murder.

During pretrial investigation police officers made several violations of law. They conducted the inspection of a crimescene without any permission from the investigative judge, conducted two or more investigative actions at the same time which was physically impossible. Also some evidence were extracted during illegal search or inspections of the crime scene. Moreover the prosecution did not mantain whether found bodies should have been identified as bodies of Mrs. Ya and Mr. K. or not. In particular the police did not provide an identification of bodies.

On 15 February 2015 Mr. Svetskyy (hereinafter — the Applicant) bought a car at the market. As he knwe further this car had belonged to killed Mrs. Ya.

The applicant was detained on 6 June 2014.

On 7 June 2014 the Slavutskyy district court in Khmelnytskyy region chose a preliminary measure for hm in the form of detention.

On 16 February 2015 the Slavutskyy district court in Khmelnytskyy region found the Applicant guilty, sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of his property.

On 13 March 2015 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the court. He noticed that the trial court wrongly assessed evidenced, breached a presumption of innocence, used evidence which were taken by illegal way.

On 29 April 2015 the Court of Appeal in the Khmelnytskyy region dismissed the appeal without proper consideration of arguments and their assessment.

The applicant filed a complaint to the Higher specialized court of Ukraine.

     On 12 October 2015 the Higher specialized court of Ukraine returned the appeal and refused to open proceeding.

     At this stage the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

     The SLC lawyer familiarized with case-file and has prepared an application which was sent to the European court of human rights on 12 April 2016.

 

4. In the following nine cases SLC lawyers represent interests of individuals in national court proceedings.

4.1. The cases related to the events on Eastern Ukraine and ATO

     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.

In September 2015 the case was transferred for consideration on the merits to the Troitskiy district court of Lughansk region (hereinafter – the Troitskiy court). After that, the case was postponed to the illness of one of the judges of the three-judge panel.

On 1 October 2015, the lawyer applied for providing security measures for minor children of Mr G., who remained in the territory controlled by the the militants, and as their father was prosecuted for committing actions against the activists of the separatist movement while participating in the fighting on the side of Ukrainian military forces, there was a threat for their lives posed by militants.

Just the next day Mr G.’s daughter called him and said that some men had come to school asked about her, and the same thing had happened in the kindergarten where her brother, the son of Mr G., had been. In these circumstances, it became apparent that there had been leak of data from the Troitskiy court relating to security measures, which should not have been done by law.

At these circumstances, as there were reasons to reckon that the consideration in the Troitskiy court would not be impartial, on 3 October 2015 the lawyer filed a motion to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on consideration of civil and criminal case (hereinafter – the HSCU) about transfer of case to another court.

On 7 October 2015 the HSCU refused to satisfy the above mentioned motion.

On 25 November 2015, during the preliminary court hearing, one of the judges declared self-recusal, as he was a friend of the victim. This recusal was satisfied by the panel of judges and the consideration of the case was postponed until the new panel is created.

While the proceedings in the case was continuing the police arrested another suspect in the case - Mr L., after that on 1 December 2015 the Troitskiy court joined the criminal cases against Mr G. and Mr L. to one proceeding.

On 14 January 2016, the Troitskiy district court satisfied the self-recusal of another judge, as his wife is a god mother of the victim’s daughter, so this could lead to the conflict of interests during consideration of the case.

After this self-recusal there were no judges remained in the Troitskiy court for consideration of the case, and the court delivered the submission with the case file to the Court of Appeal of Lughansk region about solving the matter of jurisdiction. Simultaneously, the lawyer lodgged a motion to the Court of Appeal about transfer of the case to one of the courts in Kharkiv region, where live the main part of witnesses.

On 1 February 2016, the Court of Appeal refused to satisfy the lawyer’s motion and recommended applying to the HSCU.

On 14 March 2016, the lawyer of the SCL lodged a motion about call and interrogation of the witnesses of defense in the court hearing. The court satisfied this motion. After this the lawyer applied with a motion about transferring the case file to the HSCU for considering the matter of jurisdiction due to the fact that the main part of witnesses live in another region of Ukraine.

The Troitskiy court satisfied this motion and transferred the case file to the HSCU. Since then the matter of jurisdiction has not been considered.

In connection with the criminal prosecution of a large number of participants in the antiterrorist operation in the whole Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the law on exemption of combatants from criminal liability, but under this law is applied only to persons who have not committed grave crimes. Thus, the fate of Mr. G. as the future course of the criminal proceedings are uncertain.

 

Case on traffic accident of military vehicles

On 5 of January 2015 a military convoy moved in the direction of Artemivsk in the ATO zone. There was a bus with military men moving with the convoy. Another big military vehicle, loaded with ammunition, at the same time was moving in the opposite direction to the column (allegedly, to Slovyansk) without warning lights and escort. The road was narrowed by snow dumps on the both sides of it. Big military vehicle went into the oncoming lane and collided with the convoy. It ran into the bus. As a result – 13 people were killed, 5 people sustained severe injuries, 9 people - injuries of medium level of severity, 6 – minor injuries.

In spite of the fact that this tragedy had happened because of big military vehicle driver’s traffic infringement, criminal proceeding was initiated against lieutenant of the National Guard of Ukraine was driving the bus with the soldiers.

On 14 of October 2015 Mr. P. was detained. It was based on the fact that his name was put to the wanted list in April 2014 as a name of the person, who has committed a robbery.

The SLC lawyer prepared a complaint on premature and unlawful putting to the wanted list. The complaint was filed to the Drohobych District Court.

On 3 of December 2015 investigating judge obliged an investigator to take away Mr. P.’s name from the wanted list.

The SLC lawyer filed a motion to change the preventive measure but on 9 of December 2015 the court of first instance rejected.

The SLC lawyer filed an appeal on the abovementioned decision and on 21 of December 2015 the Court of Appeal chose a bail as a preventive measure for Mr. P. and he was released.

In January 2016 the investigator completed the pre-trial investigation.

Jurisdiction of the case was set by the High Specialized Court of Ukraine. The case was handled to the Kyiv-Svyatoshyn District Court of Ukraine.

On 12 of April 2016 the case was ordered to examination by the Kyiv-Svyatoshyn District Court of Ukraine.

The case is still pending. The SLC lawyer insists on conducting necessary forensic examinations to prove Mr. P.’s innocence.

 

Case of Mr. Panov

Mr. Andrii Panov was mobilized to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He underwent initial training and was sent to the military unit to serve. When Mr. Panov arrived to the military service he wrote a report on appointing to the post of the temporary performing duties of the platoon commander.

On 5 September 2015, Mr. Panov was sent to the composite infantry platoon which had been locating in another territory.

On 7 September 2015, Mr. Panov obtained an orally order from the commander. He was obliged to make reconciliation of personal weapons platoon. He has conducted such examination on the street. However he refused to examine the weapon which belonged to Mr. Zemlyachenko because he was walking with a drunk person.

On 8 September 2015, Mr. Panov was sitting on the bed. At this time Mr. Zinchenko came to him with the submachine gun with the arsenal. The gun had been shotted but Mr. Zincenko did not warn about it. Mr. Panov conducted an examination of the submachine gun and when he dropped the gun down a shot went off. This accident was considered as a crime.

The lawyer submitted numerous request to different government structures on excluding document and interrogating of witnesses. Responses were not received and witnesses were interrogated by phone calls therefore the lawyer filed a complaint to the court. The complaint has not been considered and the commander gave no answer of several requests.

The indictment was sent to the court under Article 414 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Violation of the handling of weapons, substances and objects which are increasingly dangerous)

On 22 April 2016, the SLC lawyer familiarized with case files.

On 26 April 2016, the lawyer filed a complaint on excluding of documents and interrogating of witnesses.

On 28 April 2016, the lawyer filed a motion on excluding of medical documentation and conducting of the confrontation between the victim and the accused person.

On 29 April 2016, the court chose preliminary measure in the form of personal commitment.

On 30 April 2016, the lawyer sent a new request on providing with documentation.

On 5 May 2016, Mr. Pannov was interrogated again.

On 28 May 2016, the SLC lawyer sent a motion on obliging of the prosecutor to conduct an interrogation.

On 1 June 2016, the Dzerzhinskyy district court of Kharkiv refused to grant motions. The lawyer sent an appeal.

Prosecution of hero of war

Mr. Strilets is an Ukrainian citizen served in the Military Law Enforcement Service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. As a solder he took part in several battles during Anti-terrorist operation including an Ilovaysk where he saved lives a lot of soldiers, has been injured and became a disabled person. Nowadays he has several diseases which are significantly deteriorating his health. Nevertheless, he is detained in Starobelsk detention centre without any properly medical care.

In accordance with official duties he had to guarantee the orderliness and military discipline of the military unit number A2331.

On 29 June 2014 during his official service at the post number 6 which was located near Novoastrahan village (Lugansk region) Mr. S. stopped the car which was driven by Mr. K. As soon as Mr. K. went out of his car, Mr. S. understood that Mr. K. had got drunk. In addition, Ukrainian military maps have been found in the car. Mr. S. suspected Mr. K. in terrorist activities and detained him and took him to a military camp. In course of that he used physical force to Mr. K. caused minor injuries.

Related to this, Mr. S. is charged on abuse of power accompanied by violence or using of weapon.

The SLC lawyer entered to the case at the beginning of the trial. Realizing that the Mr. S. suffered from the lack of medical care, he sent a motion to the Ombudsman office. Taking to consideration that Mr. S. had several serious diseases the lawyer considered his detention in Starobelsk detention center not only as unreasonable but even more, as apparent ill-treatment. The lawyer requested that the applicant had to be transferred to other detention facilities or to the civil hospital.

The SLC lawyer also appealed to the Higher Specialized Court of lawyer grounded the motion that witnesses in this case had been staying in the Western Ukraine and the distance between the place of their permanent living and the court was too far but the motion was not satisfied.

He was detained, questioned, the indictment was prepared and the case was sent to the Kreminets district court. Also the SLC lawyer submitted a motion to the court with the request of examination of new witnesses, which has been granted. The proceedings are continued.

 

4.3. “Heaven’s hundred” cases

     Case of Mr. Chernetskyy

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. On 11 January 2016 the Shevchenkivskyy district court in Kyiv postponed the court meeting because the jury has not been chosen yet . The lawyer filled a complaint to increase damages in the civil complaint especially relating to pecuniary damage (loses of medical treatment).

There were fourteen court hearings. During this time, the preliminary measure was prolonged twice. The case is pending.

 

     Case of Mr. Kapynos

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.

The indictment was sent to the Shevchenkiv district court in Ukraine. The defender tried to terminate the case but the motion was dismissed.

Shevchenkiv district court in Kyiv conducted a preparatory meeting. The lawyer lodged a motion to return the indictment to the prosecutor. The motion was granted but the prosecutor filled an appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court and returned the criminal proceedings to the prosecutor.

During this time, the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged

     Case of Mr. Lubarskyy

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.

On 11 January 2016 the court noticed that the list of the jury had been made but had not been put in the automatically system. So the court meeting was postponed to 3 February 2016

 

     Case of Mr. Tsepun

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 health care 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 enter of emergency medical care and disaster Medicine in Kyiv.

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

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

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

The answer from the entre 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.

n 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 defence 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.

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.

In 2016 the investigator was changed. The SLC lawyer repeatedly submitted motions to conduct the forensic medical examination. According to the first one Tsypun died on the score of under cooling. The new forensic medical examination maintained the similar cause of the death.

 

Case of Mr. Veremiy

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 investigation 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 per-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 per-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 defence 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 proceedings; 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.

In 2016 there were seven court hearings.

The accused appeared in the court room without gourd. The lawyer gave a request to the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine to know whether safety measures have been conducting. The General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine replied that the security measures are proceeding.

On 02 February 2016, the lawyer announced that the accused appeared to the court without a guard.

    

Additional cases on the Heaven’s hundred

Case on accusation of “Berkut” servicemen Mr. Z. and Mr. A. in committing of murder of 39 people (protestors, who had participated in peaceful assemblies on Institutska street in Kyiv), committed on 20 February 2014. Among others, following persons were killed: Mr. K. (his father was acknowledged as a victim), Mr. P. (victim – his mother). Mr. Z.’s murder, committed on 20 February 2014, only in the year 2016 was identified as the one, allegedly committed by servicemen of “Berkut”. The SLC lawyer signed legal aid contracts with all three victims.

On 20 February 2014, Desniansky District Police State in Kyiv entered the information on the criminal proceedings on the basis of murder to 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 to conduct the pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings.

Court consideration of the case is pending. Accused are held under detention.

In March 2016 accusation against “Berkut” servicemen Mr. T., Mr. M, Mr. Y. (they have allegedly committed similar crimes on 20 February 2014) was subjoined with the criminal proceeding against Mr. Z. and Mr. A. Consideration of the joint case by the court was started from the beginning.

Criminal consideration is pending. All five accused are held in custody.

In March 2016, the SLC lawyer filed a civil lawsuit in the interests of Mr. P.’s mother (the second victim) for compensation of moral damage. In cases of other victims (Mr. K. and Mr. Z.) civil lawsuits had been filed previously.

 

4.4. Other cases

     Case of Mr. Akrysh

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

He admitted his guilt in exercising of theft but he did not admit his guilt in the violent robbery.

On 9 April 2013, a court passed a judgment. Mr. A. 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 Court of Appeal.

Mr. A. did not agree with decision of the Court of Appeal. He applied to the SLC lawyer 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 appeal was filed. The appeal was grounded with an abuse of procedural law and inconsistence of the Court of Appeal’s decision to the facts of the case. Also a failure to prove Mr. A’s guilt in committing a robbery was grounded in the appeal.

On 12 March 2015, the appeal was granted partially. The judgment was cancelled and the case was handled for the second examination to the Court of Appeal.

During the court hearing in the Court of Appeal, pretrial investigation was partly renewed and evidence of committing by Mr. A. a theft (not robbery) were examined. On 16 September 2015 actions of Mr. A. were re-qualified to theft and the final sentence was 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment.

On 16 December 2015, prosecutor filed a cassation appeal on decision of the Court of Appeal of 16 September 2015.

According to new legislation, one day of pre-trial detention must be calculated as two days of imprisonment. On 19 January 2016, a request on period of Mr. A.’s detention was filed to the State Penitentiary Service. The information was received.

On 18 February 2016, the SLC lawyer filed a motion on recalculation of imprisonment term.

On 15 March 2016 the court recalculated Mr. A.’s term of imprisonment and released him as a person who had served his term.

On 2 March 2016, written objections on prosecutor’s appeal of 16 December 2015 were filed.

On 7 April 2016, the High Specialized Court of Ukraine quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision according to which Mr. A.’s actions were qualified as theft. The case was handed for a new consideration to the Court of Appeal.

On 9 June 2016, the Court of Appeal refused lawyer’s appeal to the sentence of 9 April 2013 and the first sentence (9 years of imprisonment) was left in force. There was no mention about Mr. A.’s detention in the above mentioned sentence. Nevertheless, he was detained. Only after his detention the court added requirement of Mr. A.’s detention to its decision of 9 June 2016.

The SLC lawyer is preparing a appeal to the Court of Appeal’s decision of 9 June 2016.

    

     Case of Mr. Baigush

On 6 March 2015 Ms. B. was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment. On 18 June 2015 she was diagnosed HIV-positive (4 stage). Starting from this point state of her health deteriorated all the time. She was complaining on high temperature and chest pain. Examinations of phlegm were negative. Only on 16 February 2016 after conducting a computed tomographic scanning she was diagnosed extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Since that antiretroviral therapy and anti-tuberculosis treatment was assigned to Ms. B. In spite of the medical treatment, the state of her health deteriorated rapidly. On 17 March 2016 there were only 7 CD4 cells, which confirm critical state of Ms. B.’s health.

On 25 May 2016, the SLC lawyer signed a contract with Ms. B. On 27 May 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a request to the per-trial detention centre on state of Ms. B.’s health and for providing a copy of medical case record. Information about Ms. B.’s health was given but no copies of medical records were provided.

On 26 May 2016, surgeon conducted an examination of Ms. B. He prescribed conducting a surgery on lymph nodes.

On 27 May 2016, the lawyer received access to Ms. B.’s medical record.

On 2 June 2016, an independent infectious diseases specialist conducted examination of Ms. B. He prescribed her surgery and recommended to avoid long-distance transporting.

On 3 June 2016, the lawyer filed a motion to pre-trial detention centre on urgent transporting of Ms. B. to specialized medical care unit to conduct a lymph nodes surgery.

On 6 June 2016, Ms. B. was transported from pre-trial detention centre in breach of doctor’s recommendations and without any notifying of lawyer.

On 6 June 2016, the lawyer filed a request on the place of Ms. B.’s imprisonment to the State Penitentiary Service (the SPS).

On 8 June 2016, the lawyer filed a motion to the ombudsman on providing Ms. B. with adequate medical treatment.

On 13 June 2016, the lawyer received an answer from the SPS. Ms. B. was held in correctional colony #63 in Ternopil region.

On 20 June 2016, the lawyer filed a motion on releasing of Ms. B. because of her serious illnesses which create obstacles to further serving of her sentence.

On 20 June 2016, the lawyer filed a motion to the regional representative of the ombudsman on providing Ms. B. with adequate medical treatment.

 

Case of Mr. Baylov

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. B and the lawyer filed appeals.

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

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

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

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

The court hearing is pending.

 

Case of Mr. Bocharov

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. In fact there is no trial. The trial does not take place because of the prosecutor absence or trial ignorance by the judge.

 

     Case of Mr. Bogorodytskiy

On 05.05.2014 a soldier Mr. Oleg Bogorodytskiy was given an oral order to go for a study trip. He applied for clarification of this order. He refused to fulfill it as he had been originally informed that he would be send to the zone of the Anti-terrorist operation (ATO) for rotation. The criminal proceedings were initiated under suspicion of Mr. B. of committing of a crime provided by Article 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of military service).

Mr. B. 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. B. complained on sleep disorders, constant anxiety, mental stress caused by conducting of the ATO in the East of Ukraine, where his parents live. After medical examination in the military unit he was prescribed for examination and treatment in a mental hospital in Kyiv. Mr. B. was not sent to the mental hospital because the commander of his military unit (no. 37/65) prohibited it.

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. B. was prevented from receiving adequate medical treatment in Kyiv mental hospital).

On 4 September 2014 Mr. B. was recognized as a victim in the above proceedings.

On 24 November 2014 investigator terminated the criminal proceedings under Article 425 of the CCU.

The lawyer appealed against this order to the court.

The per-trial investigation was restored by the court’s decision.

On 25 May 2015 investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for the second time, despite the presence of proofs of serviceman's guilt. The investigator also refused to conduct all the necessary investigative actions, prescribed by the court.

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 terminated the criminal proceedings for the third time on 16 September 2016. This order was appealed by the SLC lawyer 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 investigative judge, on 30 November 2015 made a decision to terminate the proceedings. The lawyer appealed against this order to the court.

Among other evidence of Mr. B.’s guilt the prosecution has an extract from the Order familiarization book (soldiers put their signatures there after becoming familiar with an order). There was Mr. B.’s signature in this book in spite of the fact that he hadn’t signed it. On 4 November 2014 criminal proceedings were initiated against military officials who had allegedly committed a document forgery. Mr. B. was questioned as a witness in this case. The SLC lawyer filed a motion on recognition of Mr. B. as a victim in the case. Another lawyer’s motion was filed for conducting a handwriting expertise.

A number of prosecutorial abuses took place during the pretrial investigation of crime, allegedly committed by Mr. B.: document forgery, refusal on access to state secret by defence, the investigation was conducted by unauthorized person; medical documents of Mr. B. were received by investigator without due legal grounds. On 29 November 2014 the SLC lawyer filed a number of criminal complaints on the above mentioned violations. Criminal proceedings were not initiated. Lawyer filed an appeal to the court. On 4 November 2014 the court granted the appeal, criminal proceedings were initiated. On 17 April 2015 prosecutor terminated criminal proceedings. On the same day the SLC lawyer filed an appeal to the court on the abovementioned prosecutor’s decision. The court granted the appeal, prosecutor’s decision was revoked.

     On 24 October 2015 the Act of indictment concerning accusation of Mr. B. in committing of a crime under Article 402 of the CCU, was sent to the 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 hearing to the state secrets due to need of familiarization with orders which contain state secrets. This request was granted by the court. However, during the fulfilling of the granted motion, it was not handled to the due performer. A motion was filed for the second time.

     On 10 January 2016 the order was appealed to the court. However, the prosecutor renewed the investigation without any court decision.

     On 8 February 2016 the investigative judge dismissed the above mentioned claim. On this court’s decision lawyer filed an appeal. On 21 March 2016 the appeal was granted and the abovementioned court decision of 8 February 2016 was quashed. The case was handled to the Prosecutor’s Office for conducting further investigation.

     The court hearing was delayed until the question of access to the state secrets would be solved.

 

Case of Mr. Gorgulyov

Mr. Gorgulyov was found guilty and sentneced to life imprisonment but the verdict was chenged by the Higher specialized court of Ukirane which sentenced him to fifteeen years imprisonment. Mr. Gorguliov had been serving the punishment since 1996.

On 24 March 2014, the Court of Appeal in Odessa region elaborated previous verdict to correct the biographical particularizes of the convicted person and also pointed that Mr. Gorgulyov began serving punishment since 7 March 2007.

On 24 April 2014, the lawyer lodged a cassation complaint to the Higher specialized court of Ukraine due to mistake found in the full text of court decision.

On 11 June 2014, the Kyyv national university named after Taras Shevchenko sent an scientific opinion according to which Mr. Groguliov might be considered as a person fully served the term of imprisonment since 12 March 2011.

On 13 June 2014, the lawyer filled a request to know whether the Court of Appeal had sent her complaint to the Highter specialized court of Ukraine. The lawyer bothered that her complaint could have been sent with delays or have not been sent at all.

On 1 July 2014 and 15 September 2014 (repeatedly), the lawyer filled requests to provide information about the case which had been extracted and sent to the additional investigation.

On 1 August 2014, the lawyer filled a motion to know the date of court meeting in the Higher specialized court of Ukraine.

On 1 August 2014, the lawyer filled the statement of crime against the judge who delivered a new verdict in the case.

On 7 August 2014, the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine transferred the statement of crime to the Prosecutor's Office in Odessa region.

On 10 September 2014, the lawyer submitted a request to the Prosecutor's Office in Odessa region to provide infromation about investigation process.

On 09 October 2014, the Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine in Odessa refused to enter information about criminal proceedings to the United register of per-trial investigations.

On 13 October 2014, the lawyer filled a complaint to the district court on not-entering information about criminal proceedings to the United register of pretrial investigations. The investigative judge transferred the complaint to the Court of Appeal in Odessa region. The judge also pointed that if he had delivered any decision in the case it later would have been appealed to the court which delivered unlawful verdict. So it could have been conflict of interests.

The lawyer tried to recuse the judge but her motion was not granted. Than on 4 December 2014 the investigative judge also refused to oblige prosecutor officers to enter information in the United register of pretrial investigations.

On 21 August 2014, the Higher specialized court of Ukraine did not conduct the court meeting without any legal ground.

On 11 September 2014, the lawyer filled requests to the Higher specialized court of Ukraine and the Court of Appeal to provide information about the court meeting which did not take place. The Higher specialized court of Ukraine sent a latter according to which case files had been returned to the lower court. The latter could not be considered as a proceedings document so lawyer had no chance to appeal against it.

On 17 December 2015, the lawyer sent to the Court of Appeal a motion to elaborate the term of imprisonment. The motion was shelved without any proceedings decision.

The lawyer sent a complaint to the Ombudsman which later applied to the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine in that case. Nevertheless the request was sent lower to the Prosecutor's Office of Odessa region which did nothing.

On 10 March 2015, the lawyer gave a statement of crime to the Deputy of the General prosecutor of Ukraine.

On 14 April 2015, the Deputy of the General prosecutor of Ukraine refused to enter information to the United register of pretrial investigations.

On 18 April 2015, the lawyer sent an application to the European court of human rights.

The European court of human rights recognized the application as inadmissible.

On 11 September 2015, the lawyer had lodged a statement of crime to the General prosecutor of Ukraine which was later sent to the Prosecutor's Office of Odessa region.

On 1 November 2015, the Prosecutor's Office of Odessa region refused to open criminal proceedings.

On 9 November 2015, the lawyer filled a complaint against the refusal on opening of criminal proceedings. The lawyer filled a complaint to the district court against this resoultion but it was not granted.

Nowadays Mr. Gorguliov served his punishment in the temporary occupied territory.

According to the new legal act one day in the pretrial detention centre is counted as two day in the correctional colony. On 03 December 2015 the lawyer sent a request to the Penitentiary service of Ukraine and to the Department of the interior issues of Ukraine. State bodies informed that nowadays Mr. Gorguliov served his punishment in the temporary occupied territory.

On 11 January 2016, the lawyer sent a complaint to the Court of Appeal in the Odessa region and to the Markivskyy district court in the Lugansk region (according to the territorial jurisdiction). Motions were returned. In particular Markivskyy district court in the Lugansk region pointed that it was impossible to consider the case because of lack of previous court decisions in the case files.

On 01 February 2016, the lawyer asked the Court of Appeal to provide her with previous court decision. Her request was granted.

On 11 February 2016, the lawyer filled a complaint to the Ombudsman on transference him to the territory under controlled of Ukraine. On 29 February 2016 the Ombudsman answered that Mr. Gorguliov had been already put in the List of people who would be transferred.

On 26 February 2016, the lawyer sent again the motion with previous case decisions but the motion was returned again.

On 14 March 2016, the lawyer appealed.

On 10 May 2016, the Court of Appeal cancelled previous decision and sent the case to new trial.

 

Case of Mr. Demko

Segrey Demko has been 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 dependency, 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 last time and recommended to pass a detoxication, but it was not provided to him.

On 18 March 2013 Mr D. health state was deteriorated, and a special emergency medical narcology team was called to him. They detected an state of abstinence without complications and the detainee was provided with an 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 month 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 SIZJ 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 the decision to the District Court.

In September 2013 the the Shevchenkovskyi District Court quashed the investigator decision and send 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 informed the lawyer about a course of the proceedings. Than the new investigator has passed 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 to the lawyer’s request. At last at the end of the August 2015, the lawyer as the victim’s representative familiarized himself with the new investigator’s decision and complained it to the District Court.

The hearing several times was postponed and the complained should 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 case 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 withdrawal).

On 31 May 2016 the criminal proceedings was terminated again. The lawyer filed a complaint against the resolution to the investigative judge and currently is waiting for consideration of the complaint.

 

Case of Mr. Didenko

Defense in the criminal proceedings under Part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

In the late 2013 Mr. Didenko, together with three other accomplices was considered guilty in commitment of a murder of two persons by prior agreement in order to capture another's property combined with entry into a place of residence and violence with causing grievous bodily harm, and sentenced by the first instance court to life imprisonment.

During the proclamation of judgment M. Didenko was absent from the courtroom. He learned about the sentence only after the change of regime of detention in the SIZO.

Throughout 2014, Mr. Didenko was not delivered to the court for familiarizing with the case file, the court did not send a sentence to him either.

Mr. Didenko applied for the legal aid to a lawyer of the SLC for familiarizing with the case file and filing an appeal, because he completely disagreed with the sentence and could not obtain the sentence and familiarize with the case file.

When familiarizing with the case file the lawyer found out that the volume no. 9 which contained the sentence and protocols of the last court hearings at which Mr. Didenko was not present, was missing.

The lawyer lodged an application about familiarizing with the volume no. 9, in reply to which she was informed about conduction of the official verification in order to establish its location. On the results of verification the lawyer was informed that the volume was lost and guilty persons were subjected to the disciplinary liability.

The Prosecutor’s Office initiated restoration of the lost volume.

Representing a victim in the criminal proceedings under his complaint about commitment of a criminal offence by a judge.

During the proclamation of judgment M. Didenko was absent from the courtroom. He learned about the sentence only after the change of regime of detention in the SIZO.

Throughout 2014, Mr. Didenko was not delivered to the court for familiarizing with the case file, the court did not send a sentence to him during a year either.

. For termination of these offenses and renewal of his right to defence Mr. Didenko filed a complaint about a crime to law enforcement bodies, but criminal proceedings were not opened.

Mr. Didenko applied to a lawyer of the SLC for representation of his interests as a victim in a trial concerning appealing against omissions of the Prosecutor’s Office and their refuse to register his complaint about a crime in the URPTI.

The court granted this complaint and ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to register information concerning unlawful actions of a judge in the URPTI.

In November 2014, the Prosecutor’s Office registered the information concerning a criminal offence in the form of unlawful actions of a judge in the URPTI.

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.

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 12 March 2016, the court grantid a motion previously given by the lawyer ans the case was returned to the pretrial investigaiton. The prosecutor filed an appeal.

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.

On 22 June 2016, the investigator conducted questioning of Mr Didenko as a victim.

 

Case of Mr. Iliev

Mr. M. Iliev is accused by the law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation of the participation in the armed groups that are not required by the law of the Russian Federation on the territory of foreign country.

On 2 April 2015, M. Iliev was put on the international wanted list.

On 17 January 2015, the officers of Security Service of Ukraine of Zaporizhzhia region detained M. Iliev.

On 19 January 2016, prosecutor’s office of Zaporizhzhia region submitted a motion to an investigating judge on M. Iliev’s temporary arrest. The investigating judge granted the motion.

On 9 February 2016, a lawyer of SLC entered the criminal proceedings. The lawyer submitted a motion to the prosecutor’s office on impossibility of M. Iliev’s extradition because of the real threats of tortures, forced disappearance and inhuman treatment in the territory of the Russian Federation.

On 25 February 2016, the prosecutor’s office submitted a motion to a court on M. Iliev’s extradition arrest. The lawyer filed an objection and gave the evidence that argue the possibility of using preventive measure that is not related to M. Iliev’s detention.

The same day the investigative judge decided to grand the motion and to arrest M. Iliev for two months.

In April 2016, M. Iliev applied to the Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk region for refugee status.

Two times (on 24 April 2016 and on 23 June 2016) the prosecutor’s office submitted the motions on prolongation of the term of M. Iliev’s extradition arrest. The lawyer filed the objections. Despite the lawyer’s objections the investigation judge granted the motions.

On 29 June 2016, the lawyer appealed the last investigation judge’s decision on prolongation of the term of M. Iliev’s extradition arrest.

The case hearing has not been conducted yet.

 

Case of Mr. Meyriev

Mr. R. Meyriev is accused by the law-enforcement bodies of the Russian Federation of abetting terrorist activities and preparation for terrorist attack when he was on the territory of the Crimea.

On 26 February 2015, R. Meyriev was put on the international wanted list.

On 16 January 2016, the officers of Security Service of Ukraine of Zaporizhzhia region detained R. Meyriev.

On 19 January 2016, prosecutor’s office of Zaporizhzhia region submitted a motion to an investigating judge of Jovtnevyi District Court in Zaporizhzhia on R. Meyriev’s temporary arrest. The investigating judge granted the motion.

On 9 February 2016, a lawyer of SLC entered the criminal proceedings. The lawyer submitted a motion to the prosecutor’s office on impossibility of R. Meyriev’s extradition because of the real threats of tortures, forced disappearance and inhuman treatment in the territory of the Russian Federation.

On 25 February 2016, the prosecutor’s office submitted a motion to a court on R. Meyriev’s extradition arrest. The lawyer filed an objection and gave the evidence that argue the possibility of using preventive measure that is not related to R. Meyriev’s detention.

The same day the investigative judge of Jovtnevyi District Court in Zaporizhzhia decided to grand the motion and to arrest R. Meyriev for two months.

In April 2016, R. Meyriev applied to the Main Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk region for refugee status.

Two times (on 24 April 2016 and on 23 June 2016) the prosecutor’s office submitted the motions on prolongation of the term of R. Meyriev’s extradition arrest. The lawyer filed the objections. Despite the lawyer’s objections the investigation judge granted the motions.

On 29 June 2016, the lawyer appealed the last investigation judge’s decision on prolongation of the term of R. Meyriev’s extradition arrest.

The case hearing has not been conducted yet.

 

Ganshyn case

Mr. G., a citizen of Ukraine, was serving his sentence in Temnivskiy penal colony no. 100 in the Kharkiv region. From time to time, he expressed his displeasure on illegal actions of the administration of the colony, complained to various official commissions during their monitoring visits to the colony, and due to this he was victimized by the colony administration.

In particular, in February 2012, he had a conflict with another convict, for which Mr G. was imposed with a penalty in a form of detention in a disciplinary cell for 11 days. At the same time, another conflict was used by only a reprimand.

Finally, the Office of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Kharkiv region decided to transfer Mr. G. into another colony, even without informing him of the decision. Being transported in a specialized vehicle and approaching to the unknown institution, Mr G. began to get nervous because he did not know the purpose of this transfer and the final destination, and thought that the transfer was of revenge for his complaints against the administration of the colony. As a result, he cut of skin on the forearm.

By such action, Mr G. was punished by custody in a disciplinary cell for a period of tree month.

In April, 2015 the SLC lawyer has filed three lawsuits in the Kharkiv District Administrative Court on the two above mentioned disciplinary penalties, as well as on the ungrounded transfer to another correctional colony. All three claims were rejected by the court on the basis of wrong jurisdiction, and the court held that the cases had to be considered in the course of criminal proceedings. The lawyer appealed the trial court's decision to Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal. In June, 2015 the court refused to satisfy the appeal, although in former the panel of judges of this court of the same composition considered a similar case on the merits.

Then the lawyer in June 2015 filed a complaints the same content to a general court, which passed the sentence in a criminal case of Mr. D. in 2010 under the rules of criminal procedure, namely Kominternovsky District Court of Kharkiv. One of the complaints was immediately rejected by the court due to incorrect jurisdiction, in respect of the other two, court ruled that they should be dealt with by the general courts of another jurisdiction at the location of prison.

After the refusal to examine the case on the merits of Kominternovsky District Court in July, 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the courts at the place of Mr G. serving his punishment: one - to the court, where he was serving his sentence at the time of having imposed a disciplinary sanction, the other one - to the colony, where he was serving his sentence at the time of appealing the sanction to the court. But both the courts denied in examination of the case on the merits.

Thus, none of the courts as administrative and general concluded that the case has considered each of them.

The problem of prisoners to appeal in court the legality of disciplinary measures is very topical in Ukraine. This situation provides the administrations of penitentiary institutions virtually unlimited discretion in imposing penalties on prisoners in any order.

The SLC lawyer prepared a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and in April, 2016 submitted it to the Court on behalf of Mr G. wit a request to provide an official interpretation of the procedure of consideration by courts complaints lodged by inmates unlawful decisions, actions and omissions of the administration of correctional institutions.

 

Case of a murder of traffic police officers

Mr. Horanin is a Ukrainian citizen, who took an active part in mass protests in February 2014. He was called as the head of the organization "White hammer".

On 2 March 2014, three police officers of the traffic police were killed during performing their official duties. Two member of the “White hammer” were detained as suspects of murder. Until today, their guilt has not been proving and they were staying under house arrest. After detention of this two men prosecutor submitted a motion on Mr. H's detention. The motion was immediately granted.

On 21 March 2014, Mr. H. was detained near his house and then police officer used physical force against him. They punched and kicked him, beat on his head and torn his ears with metal wire. Police officer wanted him to plead guilty.

On the next day, the court satisfied new motion to change the preliminary measures to detention for Mr. H.

On 04 April the SLC lawyer filed a complained against chosen preliminary measure. The previous decision was cancelled and Mr. H was released.

On 27 June 2014, Mr. H was noticed on suspicion of murder. According to the prosecution, he played an instigator role in the crime, namely offered other members of criminal organization to steal specific firearm. In addition, he pulled into the crime committing a minor and concealed heinous crime.

On 01 July 2014, the prosecutor decided to separate the criminal proceeding in relation of Mr. H. from his co-defendants.

On 07 July 2014, the prosecutor postponed the criminal proceedings because of absence of Mr. B. On 21 October 2014 Mr. H was put in the wanted list.

Later the resolution of 07 July 2014 and the resolution of 21 October 2014 were cancelled. But Mr. H has not been delayed from the wanted list yet.

On 22 October 2014, the prosecutor filled the motion according to which Mr. H. had to be detain and followed to the court. Also, the prosecutor asked to change the preliminary measure to detention. Any motions were rejected and later the prosecutor tried to transmit the case to another district Prosecutor's Office.

On 10 March 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Depute of the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine because of unlawful investigations. On 10 April 2015 General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine informed that there was no violation during the investigation

On 13 April 2016 the prosecutor submitted a request to the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine in the case of continuation of the pre-trial investigation to ten month more although the maximum term of pre-trial investigation may not be more 12 months (Article 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The SLC lawyer contested against the request but his objection did not consider by the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine and the term of pre-trial detention was continued.

On 15 April 2016 Mr. H was repeatedly notified on the suspicion of the same crime.

On 10 May 2016 the SLC lawyer filled a complaint against the resolution of continuation of pre-trial investigation because this resolution must have been passed with abuse of power, and had signs of corpus delicti.

With regard to the alleged torture of Mr. H. the events were going on as follows.

On 31 March 2014, the SLC lawyer filled necessary criminal complaint about the crime to the police and to the Prosecutor's Office in the fact of his torture. On 27 April 2014, the SLC lawyer sent the same criminal complaint to the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine. Prosecutor's Office refused to investigate the case.

On 25 December 2015, the SLC lawyer filled a complaint against the refusal to enter the criminal proceedings. The complaint was not satisfied.

On 10 March 2015, the SLC lawyer repeatedly lodged the motion to the court in the case of failure to enter information about the case to the URPTI.

On 09 April 2015, the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine opened criminal proceedings on of torture. However, there were no actions in this case during a long period of time.

On 09 July 2015, SLC lawyer lodged a request on progress of the pre-trial investigation. According to the reply the criminal proceedings was terminated

Also the SLC lawyer sent several requests on obtaining the audio record of the court minutes during which Mr. H. alleged about the torture. This record is necessary for use as the evidence submitted to prove that Mr. H earlier told about the torture which had been used against the police offices. Until now there has been receiving no reply on this requests.

 

Case of Ill-treatment of a soldier by a military commander

(criminal proceedings on the matter of ill-treatment of the soldier)

Mr. Diordiyashenko is an Ukrainian military officer. On 24 February 2014, Mr D. was beaten by a commander of a military unit on the territory of this unit. After that he was forcibly escorted to the building of the Kyiv City State Administration on the Independence Square in Kiev where he was subjected to torture by the protecting people and then under threat of the murder he was placed to a he was forced to a mental hospital for 24 hours.

After that, he could not come back to the military unit to continue his service because of danger to be ill-treated again. That is why he wrote the reports about the impossibility to continue the service. 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 27 February 2014 Mr D. submitted a criminal complaint on the fact of his beating and his keeping in a psychiatric institution. On the same day, he applied to forensic institution and received expert opinion on injuries.

On 28 February 2014, the military Prosecutor’s Office entered the information on the fact of the possible using the physical violence to Mr D.by the military unit officers to the URPTI.

From other side, the military prosecutor’s office has opened criminal proceedings against Mr D.’son the fact of his termination of the service. After completing the investigation the judicial criminal proceedings were appointed in Pecherskiy District Court in Kyiv. The hearing on the merits was postponed on the preliminary hearing because of the incorrectness of the indictment.

The lawyer submitted to the military commands the requests on getting the videos from checkpoint’s cameras and the searching on Mr D. 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 Mr D. at the building of Kyiv City State Administration on 24 February 2014. At the same time, the lawyer represents the interests of Mr D. 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 URPTI. 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 Mr D. by the military unit officers on the grounds of the absence of the corpus delicti. He was not informed timely about issuance of the resolution.

On 15 September 2014, the SLC lawyer sent a request to the military unit and on 26 September 2014 she received information about the car which had been used for transferring the Mr. D.

On 02 October 2014, the SLC lawyer submitted to the military command the requests on getting the videos from checkpoint’s cameras and the searching on the Applicant by the authorized persons of the military unit and their documentary evidence unit. On 14 October 2014 the request was not satisfied.

On 02 October 2014, the applicant submitted a request in taking the resolution about termination of the criminal proceedings. The answer was not received.

On 13 October 2014, the applicant sent a request in the case of his beaten and on 17 October 2014 he received the answer.

On 05 November 2014, the SLC lawyer asked about the cause of the lack of answer. On 21 November 2014, the SLC lawyer took a note that no documents were received in this context.

On 7 November 2014 during preliminary hearing, the court examined the indictment and granted the lawyer’s motion of the return of it 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, prosecutor submitted an appeal to the decision on the return of the indictment, and on 25 December 2014, the lawyer filed written objections for the prosecutor’s appeal.

On 13 January 2015, the complaint was sent to the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine in the case of failure to receive the resolution.

On 19 February 2015 the SLC lawyer received the resolution of terminating of the criminal proceedings. On 27 February 2015, the resolution was complained. On 23 March 2015, the Court of Appeal considered the arguments of the prosecutor, and refused to satisfy his appeal. The prosecutor again did not comply with the court’s guidelines and sent the indictment to the court practically without changes.

On 14 August 2015, the court refused to cancel the resolution. On 19 August 2015, the SLC lawyer applied against the trial court decision. On 3 September 2015, the Court of Appeal cancelled the resolution of terminating of the criminal proceedings and turned a case to the police

On 12 of November 2015, the request about Mr D.’s examination was sent to the Medical Forensic Examination Office. On 26 of November 2015, the Medical Forensic Examination Office sent the answer about the impossibility of the examination because the investigator had not given the applicant’s medical documentation.

On 13 of November 2015, the lawyer sent a request in the renewal of the investigation of Mr D.’s torturing, but the investigation is not carried out. The Prosecutor's Office reported that the investigation was not renewal for two months.

On 18 November 2015, the SLC lawyer sent a request in the conducting of the investigation on the fact of Mr D.’s torture. On 4 December 2015, the police informed that there was no appropriate criminal proceedings.

On 15 December 2015 and on 25 December 2015, the SLC lawyer sent a request on examining of the witnesses.

On the 11 of January 2016, the lawyer filed a complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine about inactivity of the pre-trial investigation bodies. Until now, there is no answer to the request.

In the criminal proceedings on the complaint against the military authorities’ illegal actions, the events developed as follows.

Mr D. was tortured and after that he submitted a complaint about the crime to the prosecutor's office, ombudsman and senior military leadership. After that, he could not come back to the military unit to continue his service because of danger to be ill-treated again. That is why he wrote the reports about the impossibility to continue the service. 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 27 March 2014, the applicant tried to continue his service and came to the military unit with his sister and her daughter. But his sister and the small child was detained in the territory of the military unit. The applicant call to the police, and after police officers coming they were released. Then the applicant tried to continue his service again but he was not stopped because the order of the military commander.

On 01 July 2014, the applicant was noticed on the suspicion of failure to appear for duty without any reasonable excuse over a month

On 7 November 2014 during preliminary hearing, the court examined the indictment and granted the lawyer’s motion of the return of it 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, prosecutor submitted an appeal to the decision on the return of the indictment, and on 25 December 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 again did not comply with the court’s guidelines and sent the indictment to the court practically without changes

On 14 of August 2015 the court refused the complaint. The lawyer appealed against the district court’s decision, and on the 3 September 2015, the court of Appeal granted the complaint.

On 12 of November 2015 the request about examination Mr. D. was sent to the Medical Forensic Examination Office. On 26 of November 2015 the Medical Forensic Examination Office sent the answer about the impossibility of the examination because the investigator had not given Mr. D.’s medical documentation.

On 13 of November 2016 the lawyer sent a request in the renewal of the investigation of Mr. D.’s torturing, but the investigation is not carried out.

On 23 December 2015, in the preliminary court hearing the judge returned the indictment to the prosecutor for amendment.

On the 11 of January 2016 the lawyer filed a complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine about inactivity of the pretrial investigation bodies. Until now there is no answer to the request.

On 16 March 2016 the Court of appeal considered appeal which was submitted by the Prosecutor's Office. The previous decision was cancelled, and the court appointed new hearing in the trial court.

 

     Case of Mr. Krylov

Mr. Alexander Krylov was detained by the police officers and was beaten by them.

On 8 June 2015, because of the received injuries A. Krylov was operated.

On 10 February 2016, Selydivskyy City Court of Donetsk region sentenced A. Krylov to 12 years in prison for committing a robbery.

On 10 March 2016, a lawyer of SLC appealed the judgement of Selydivskyy City Court of Donetsk region.

On 30 May 2016, the lawyer applied to the Head of medical unit of Artemivska penal institution number 6 for A. Krylov’s moving to the specialised hospital. The same day the lawyer filed a complaint to the Head of Artemivska penal institution number 6 on not sending A. Krylov to Medical Disability Expert Commission for establishing a disability category. Also the lawyer filed a lawyer’s request to the Healthcare Department of Donetsk Regional State Administration on information on Tentative list of health care institutions that provides health care to the persons taken into custody.

On 2 June 2016, Court of Appeal of Donetsk region canceled the judgment of Selydivskyy City Court of Donetsk region and remanded the criminal proceedings for a new trial.

In the appellate decision nothing was told about A. Krylov’s holding in custody and, on 4 June 2016, the lawyer filed a complained to the investigative judge of Artemivskiy City Court of Donetsk region on A. Krylov’s releasing from custody.

On 11 June 2016, a lawyer’s request on information on A. Krylov’s health certificate, his medical documentation and the list of cases when it was impossible to hold videoconferences because of A. Krylov’s bad health condition.

Artemivska penal institution number 6 sent a letter in which it refused to refer A. Krylov for healthcare to the penitentiary service because he is not a prisoner and refused to provide healthcare to A. Krylov in pre-trial detention centre. That is why the lawyer filed a claim with Artemivskiy City District Court of Donetsk region. The lawyer asked to admit the refusal to refer A. Krylov for healthcare to the penitentiary service as direct discrimination.

The lawyer filed a complaint against the Head of medical unit of Artemivska penal institution number 6 on providing inadequate healthcare to A. Krylov. After filling the complaint A. Krylov was discharged from a medical ward and providing healthcare was stopped. Because of that the lawyer filed the complaints to the Head of Main Territorial Department of Justice on A. Krylov’s prosecution for filling the complaints. The same day the lawyer filled a complaint to the Head of Artemivska penal institution number 6 on stopping to provide healthcare to A. Krylov.

 

     Case of Mr. Kurovskyy

Mr. Kurovskyy and Ms. S are accused of committing crimes under Article 189 (extoriton), Article 187 (brigandage with aggravating circumstances), Article 289 (car theft), Article 146 (kidnapping).

Mr. S. divorced from her husband. They lived together in spite of several conflicts on the ground of division property. One day Ms. S. came to the motor car station where Kurovskyy worked. She claimed on physical pressure at home and asked Kurovskyy to have a talk with her husband. Kurovskyy retold this story to his comrades from Batalion “Aidar”.

On 23 September 2014 Krukovskyy and his friends arrived to the house where Mr. And Ms. S. lived. They asked Mrs. S. whether the relationship with her husband changed and adviced to call the police or the Batalion “Aidar” if something bad would have happened. Than Kurovskyy returned to the motor car station to repair the car.

On the same day Kurovskyy was driving along the street while he was watching unknown people in the Ms. S.'s house. He went out from the car to keep track of events and partly noticed that Mr. S. was beaten by men in masks. Kurovskyy did not take part in the accident and might be recognized only as an eye-witness. Later he heard that Mr. S. was siriously injured, kidnapped and his car was stolen but he did not see it and could not confirm it.

The military prosecutor's office opened criminal proceedings on the fact of extortion, berigandgage and car theft. Kurovskyy was detained on suspicion of committing this crime.

On 7 December 2014 the district court chose detention as a preliminary measure for him.

In January 2015 the Holosyyvskyy district court in the city of Kyyv began to consider the case files. Nowadays the criminal proceedings are pending more than a year. During this time the court only questioned witnesses. and partly announced written evidence. The prosecutor filled a motion to change the jurisdiction.

The lawyer familiarized with case file on 16 May 2016. She took part in three court meetings.

On 30 May 2016 the Holosyyvskyy district court in the city of Kyyv proceeded the preliminary measure in the form of detention.

The new court meeting is appointed on 14 July 2016.

 

`    Case of Mrs. Litvinenko

On 22 March 2016 The Kygychivska district council on the extraordinary session fired Mrs. Litvinenko from the post of the head editor of the news company “Nash kray”. The labour contract was prematurely terminated on the base of systematic non-performance without any good reason of assigned duties.

The discharged was held with numerous violations of the labour law. So Mrs. Litvinenko asked lawyer to provide her legal assistance. The SLC lawyer familiarized with documents and prepared the claim to the administrative court.

There were three court meetings at this case. The court questioned parties and maintained that Mrs. Litvinenko was fired during her vocation which was illegal according to the national legislation.

The next court hearing is appointed on 7 July 2016.

 

Case of Mr. Lapshov

Mr. Lapshov is accused of committing crime under Article 263 (illegal handing with weapon, ammunition or explosives), Article 187 (brigandage with several aggravating circumstances), Article 289 (stealing of a car with aggravating circumstances) and Article 115 (murder with aggravating circumstances). In particular he is accused of committing several brigandage and murder in Cherkasy region with the aim to inappropriate took vehicles, weapons and money from victims. According to the prosecutor he was a member of the group of person by prior conspiracy

On 27 December 2009, Lapshov was detained by police officers and transferred to the Chercasy district police station. Police officers used against him physical and psychological pressure with the purpose to plead him guilt.

On 28 December 2009, police officers conducted illegal search in Lapshov's house while he was not even noticed about suspicion.

On 29 December 2009, Lapshov signed the report on recognition of guilt being under physical and psychological pressure. Also he signed a rejection from the lawyer in spite of domestic criminal procedure which provided compulsory participation of the attorney since detention of the person if the crime was previously qualificated as been punished to life imprisonment. In the present case there were two unificated criminal proceedings under Article 187 (brigandage with aggravating circumstance) and Article 115 (murder with aggravating circumstances) which are totally may be qualified to life imprisonment. So in any case the lawyer had to take part in the per-trial investigation.

On 30 December 2009 and 31 December 2009, police officers conducted investigation actions in the absence of defender. In particular police officers supported recording of circumstances and further recording of their video files which were used as the base of accusation.

On 27 April 2015, Prydniprovskyy district court in the city of Chercasy found out several violation which are unacceptable in the pre-trial investigation.

On 28 April 2015, the Prydniprovskyy district court in the city of Chercasy was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. The verdict was handed to the lawyer and Lapshov but later Prydniprovskyy district court gathered a meeting during which changed the punishment to life imprisonment and canceled the previous verdict as invalid. This illegal meeting was conducted in absence of parties and by the own initiative of the court.

On 30 March 2016, the Court of Appeal of Cherkasy region cancelled the verdict due to the violation of the secret of the retring room (as a result of the official investigation) and sent the case file to the new trial.

On 06 July 2015, the Prosecutor's Office started criminal proceedings against police officers under Article 365 (abuse of power), Article 371 (knowingly unlawful detention) and Article 374 (violation of the right on defense) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Information about stated crimes was put in the Register of per-trial investigations on the execution of the separate court order.

On 29 April 2016, the investigator terminated criminal proceedings against police officers under Article 365 (abuse of power), Article 371 (knowingly unlawful detention) and Article 374 (violation of the right on defense) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On 12 June 2016, the lawyer filled a motion to the Prydniprovskyy distinct court on the investigator's report of termination of criminal proceedings.

The criminal proceedings in the both cases are pending.

 

Case of Mr. Lysenko

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 the 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 Penitentiary 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 Penitentiary Service of Ukraine, the Berdychiv correctional colony no. 70; third party was the Zhitomir Department of Penitentiary 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.

On January 25, 2016 Shevchenkiv district court in the city of Kyyv remained the previous decision unchanged. Domestic law did not provide any procedure to appeal against this judgment.

 

Case of Mr. Maksimenko-Legeza

Ms. Maksimenko-Legeza is an Ukrainian national who is currently living in the Dnipropetrovsk region Ukraine. On 1 October 2004 her husband died in the process of experimental clinical tests in the regional hospital.

On 8 November 2006 the Prosecutor's Office of Dnipropetrovsk region initiated a criminal case under Article 139 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (failure to provide necessary treatment that caused death of a patient) which was later requalified under Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (improper execution of professional duties by a doctor). The criminal case was initiated only after two years from the accident.

On 23 January 2013 the criminal proceedings was registered in the United register of pretrial investigations according to the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine.

In march 2013 the doctor was noticed on suspicion under Article 140 (improper execution of professional duties by a doctor) and Article 164 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On 31 October 2014 the criminal proceedings were terminated on the lack of the corpus delicti.

In November 2014 Ms. M-L asked the lawyer to provide her legal assistance. The lawyer familiarized with case files and filled a complaint on unlawful termination of the criminal proceedings.

On 26 December 2014 the Babushkinskiy district court in the city of Dnipropetrovsk canceled the resolution terminated of the criminal proceedings. The judge noted that investigators had not determined the amount of drugs given to the patient, doctors had not been questioned and the type and time of the medical treatment had not been established.

In 2015 the lawyer lodged several requests to provide information about the phase and action in the criminal proceedings. Because of permanent delays in the investigation process the lawyer filled several complaints to the investigation judge on the inaction of the police officers. Also the lawyer initiated additional forensic medical examination which will be conducted soon.

In 2016 the lawyer again submitted requests on the matter of renewing proceedings in the case. The criminal proceedings are pending.

 

     Case of Ms. Mikhailenko and Ms. Gritsenko

Ms. M and Ms. G. are an Ukrainian citizens, who are currently living in the village Khoroshevo, Kharkiv region. On 14 February 2016, they had rest in nightclub located in Kominternovsky district, Kharkiv.

When they were at club they met their friend and unknown person. Ms. M and Ms. G with their new friends went to the street. Whereas it was cold on the street they decided to go to the entrance of the block of flats near the club.

While they were in the entrance one boy pulled out the pocket of something like white powder. At the same time two men dressed in civilian clothes came to the entrance. They introduced themselves as police officers and searched Ms. M. and Ms. G. things.

After some time another two policemen drove to the entrance on the police car. They said that Ms. M and Ms. G had to go to the Kiev District Police Station with them. Police officers banned Ms. M. and Ms. G. informing their parents about the detention.

In the building of Kiev District Police Station police officers searched the Ms. M’s and Ms. G’s belongings and clothes again. Ms. M. and Ms. G. had to give their phones and student ID cards to the police officers. Police officers spoke foul language, abuse to Ms. M and Ms. G., threatened them with physical violence. Also the police officers threatened to use custody to Ms. M and Ms. G.

Generally Ms. M. and Ms. G. were in the Kiev police department more than 4 hours with having no connection with the family and being under constant psychological pressure. Being under pressure they had to sign unknown documents.

On 15 February 2016, Ms. M and Ms. G. asked to SLC lawyer to provide them legal assistance. On the next day the SLS lawyer made a criminal complaint about crime committed by police officers, and sent it to the prosecutor.

The prosecutor received the criminal complaint but did not enter the information about the case to the URPTI. In this regard the SLC lawyer repeatedly lodged the motion to the court in the case of failure to enter information about the case to the URPTI.

The SLC lawyer represented the Ms. M.’s and Ms. G.’s interests in the court. On 4 April 2016, the court ordered the prosecutor to enter information about the crime against Ms. M. to the URPTI. On 5 April 2016, the court made a similar decision in regard of Ms. G.

The prosecutor began an investigation and on 25 May 2016 combined Ms. M. and Ms. G. proceedings.

On 30 May 2016, the prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings. He used data of police officers interrogation only whereas of using data of Ms. M. and Ms. G. questioning and exploring the Journal of visitors. Therefore on 10 June 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the court. The trial is currently pending.

 

Zalikhta case

On 3 December 2015, at 19:30 Mr M. and his juvenile brother Mr A. without court order were illegally detained near their house by the police officers of the District Police Station, allegedly, to provide explanations about a theft of a bicycle, committed 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.

On 2 March 2016, a motion on prolongation of criminal proceedings till 4 March 2016 was handed on.

Mr M. was interrogated as a victim in criminal proceedings against police officers in the presence of his lawyer. The criminal proceedings were initiated on criminal complaints of Mr M. ad his brother.

 

     Murder of a schoolgirl

In November 2015 a corpse of a girl was found in a wood line of a far district of Kharkiv region. Later, she was recognized as a 15-years-old schoolgirl, resident of the Krasnokutsk district of Kharkiv region. The traces of sexual were revealed on the girl’s body.

Soon after finding the body the police arrested several young men who had been seen in the company of the girl before her death. However, the main part of them was released after the interrogation. The relatives of the girl began to worry that the case would not be investigated properly, as among the suspects there were children of rich farmers. So, they applied for legal assistance to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

A lawyer of the SLC joined the case as a representative of the victims. He conducted his own lawyer’s investigation, questioned the relatives, and collected information about friends of the murdered M. Since the case was high profile, it was transferred for investigation to the Regional department of the National police in Kharkiv region. A fellow villager of the girl was named a suspect in the murder and his brother was named a suspect in the theft of the girl’s mobile phone, which he had committed when she had already been dead.

On 20 March 2016 the pre-trial investigation was finished and the case was transferred to court. Due to the fact that there were not enough judges for consideration of the case by the panel. In the district court at the place of commitment of the murder, the case was transferred to the Bohoduhiv district court of Kharkiv region.

At the beginning the accused had admitted his guilt, but then, when the case was transferred to court, he stated that he had made a confession under the tortures by the police officers, and actually, his involvement in the case had been limited to the fact that he had taken other men with M. to the wood line by his car.

The lawyer of the SLC with the aid of information, received from the relatives, is trying to get evidence in this mysterious murder.

 

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 informing 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.

On 27 August 2015 investigator made a decision on termination of criminal proceeding.

On 6 September 2015 the above mentioned decision was appealed to the court. Lawyer filed a motion on familiarizing with a case file. This motion was rejected by the court in breach of criminal procedure law.

On 25 December 2015 investigative judge quashed the investigator’s decision of 27 August 2015 and renewed criminal proceedings. The judge pointed out the necessity of conducting additional investigative actions by investigator.

On 28 April 2016 investigator made a decision on termination of criminal proceeding for the second time for lack of corpus delicti.

The SLC lawyer found a court sentence in a similar case. There was the same issue of newspaper “Novorossia”. According to forensic linguistic examination it 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. Investigator’s decision of 28 April 2016 was based on results of another forensic linguistic examination, according to which there were no unlawful calls in this issue of newspaper. Moreover, instructions of investigative judge were not fulfilled.

In this circumstances the resolution on termination of criminal proceedings was appealed to the investigative judge on 10 May2016.

Now the lawyer waits for examination of her complaint by an investigating judge.

 

Case of Mr. Nesolonyy

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 improper 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 Penitentiary 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 became 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 24 November 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.

On 19 January 2016 the lawyer filled an appeal.

On 24 February 2016 the Court of Appeal in the city of Kyyv dismissed the complaint.

On 15 March 2016 the lawyer filled an appeal, and on 01 June 2016 the HSSU dismissed the complaint.

The lawyer plan to lodge the complaint on violation of fair trial to the European Court on the matter of violation of fair trial.

 

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 bull, who tried to attack an applicant’s son and grandson, and brought him to the police station.

Despite the old age of the victim and the fact that she is a member of hostilities, the investigation department of Ordzhonikidze District Police Department initiated criminal a proceedings only ten days after event, namely on the 1st of January 2014. The criminal case was instituted under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (light bodily injury). In fact, the investigation of this crime was not conducted.

The case was transferred to another investigator after the victim applied for legal aid to the KHPG and the lawyers of the KHPG filed the complaint on ineffective investigation of the case. At that new investigator didn’t classify actions of the offender under Article 162 § 2 (invasion into a housing committed by police) of the CC of Ukraine either.

From March 2014 to June 2014 the investigation of the case was conducting with participation of the lawyer of the SLC.

On 28th of March 2014 the lawyer filed statement about committing crimes against applicant under Article 162 § 2 (invasion into a housing committed by police) of the CC of Ukraine to Ordzhonikidze District Police Department/

In March 2014 the lawyer filed a complaint to the Ordjokinidze district Prosecutor’s Office in which he asked to conduct investigation as the crime was committed by a police officer.

The Prosecutor’s Office did not reply to this complaint. The complaint was not included into the case file of the criminal case.

After that on 29th of March 2014 the ex-policeman was charged in crimes under Articles 125 § 2 and 162 § 2 Article 162 of the CC of Ukraine (as it was mentioned in descriptive part of act) but the reasoning part of act contained reference only on Article 125 § 2 of the CC of Ukraine.

As policeman was fired from police after he committed the crime the criminal proceedings were conducted as if he was not a special subject of the crime - a state agent.     For this reason the lawyer of the SLC prepared and filed a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Ordzhonikidze district on transferring case to the Prosecutor’s Office as the crime was committed by a policeman.

However, the lawyer has not 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.

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.

On 30 April 2015, the court approved the not guilty verdict according to which the policeman was fully justified on the grounds that the prosecutor had to conduct pre-trial investigation.

The SLC lawyer appealed this verdict to the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region. On 2 July 2015, the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region cancelled this verdict.

On 30 July 2015, another judge of District court Mr. Maslov returned the indictment to the prosecutor.

On 11 August 2015, Mr B. was recognized as the legitimate representative of elderly woman and questioned as a witness.

On 17 September 2015, the indictment was signed. Mr P. has been notified of the suspicion.

On15 October 2015, the Court held a preparatory hearing. The case was scheduled for consideration.

On 8 November 2015, the claim was filed to the court.

On 10 November 2015, the court hearing was held to determine the order of examination of evidence.

On 3 December 2015, the court hearing was adjourned because the judge had been in the deliberation room.

On 16 December 2015, the lawyer filed a complaint against the judge Klimenko to the Higher Qualification Commission of Judges (HQC).

On 18 December 2015, the court hearing was adjourned because of the fact that the prosecutor did not come to the court.

On 22 December 2015, the lawyer sent the request to examine the material of supervisory review.

The court hearing was scheduled for 26 January 2016, but it is not commenced because of non-appearance of a prosecutor of postponing it by the judge upon any reasons.

 

     Case of Mr. Sidorov

Mr Sidorov is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kherson, Ukraine. He has HIV and 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 on committed of three episodes of the crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking).

On 11 June 2015 the court chose him the preliminary measure in the form of detention. The lawyer immediately filled a complaint against court decision noticed that it was unlawful and combated with national law. Nevertheless the Court of Appeal agreed with position maintained by the trial court.

According to information provided by Sidorov, he had been provoked on commitment the crime by a special police buying agent and practically had not had his own desire to participate in the event.

The case have been hearing by the Novokakhovskiy district court in Kherson region. The lawyer makes some efforts to prove the fact of police incitement.

On 24 December 2015 the trial court considered the motion submitted by the lawyer on the base of changing preliminary measure. According to the court decision Sidorov was released. The preliminary measure was changed to the house arrest.

In 2016 there were eight court hearings. The court questioned some prosecution witnesses.

The court hearing is pending.

Nowadays the preventive measure in the form of house arrest was cancelled.

 

     Case of Mr. Selivanov

Mr. S. is an Ukrainian citizen, who is currently living and working in Kharkiv. He has previously been convicted.

On 3 February 2012 he was actually arrested by police officers on suspicion of attempted murder more than two people.

On 6 February 2012 the District Court chose a detention as a preventive measure for Mr. S.

On 9 February 2012 the investigators of the Dzerzhinsky District Police Station had meeting with Mr. S. in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre. During this meeting the investigators presented indictment and interrogated Mr. S. without a lawyer. According to the CPC the lawyer obligatory takes part in this category of cases. Also the investigators forged the data about lawyer’s participation during investigation in the report.

On 22 January 2016 Mr. S. was recognized as a victim in criminal proceeding against investigators K. and N. of Dzerzhinsky District Police Station (violation of the right to defene).

On 26 January 2016 the investigator K. and N. were noticed on suspicion of forgery.

The cases against the investigators were examined separately in the different District Courts.

On 1 February 2016 the District Court chose a dismissal and a personal commitment as a preventive measure for the investigator K.

On 12 February 2016 another District Court chose a dismissal for the investigator N.

During the trial the investigators K. and N. did not admit their guilt although the evidence of theirs guilt was indisputable.

On 1 March 2016 the indictment of K. was sent to the Zhovtnevy District Court. On 4 March 2016 the indictment of N. was sent to the Dzerzhinsky District Court.

At the request of the victim, on 10 March 2016 the SLC lawyer entered to the K.’s case and on 17 March 2016 the SLC lawyer entered to the N.’s case. During the K.’s trial accused person, victim and almost all witnesses were questioned. The N.’s trial is delayed due to defender’s ungrounded requests of challenge to the judge and the prosecutor.

In relation to N.’s trial the SLC lawyer sent the requests for discovery of additional evidence in criminal proceedings, declared the requests of access to documents which might be considered as proofs.

The K.‘s trial was postponed several times due to the absence of defender and because the judge’s being busy. The both trial is currently pending.

 

     Case of Mr. Shabala

Mr. Shabala was actually arrested on 27 September 2014 on suspicion of murder of his parents but practically the arrest report was made up on 29 September 2014. In particular from 27 to 29 September 2014 Mr. Sh was at the police station under mental pressure without any chance to make contact with a lawyer. Police officers later orally testified that Mr. Sh confessed to the murder of his parents and pointed a place where he had dug bodies.

On 20 May 2015 Mr. Sh was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with confiscation of property. As one of the most important evidence the court assessed written document according to which Mr. Sh pleaded his guilt and pointed out on a place where he had hidden the crime instrument. This document was excluded from his cellmate. The lawyer filed an appeal against the verdict.

On 2 November 2015 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Mr. Sh submitted an appeal to the Higher specialized court of Ukraine. The court proceedings was opened and the first court hearing was appointed on 27 April 2016.

At that stage Mr. Sh asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistance. The SLC lawyer had to postpone a court meeting to familiarized with case files and prepare addition to the appeal.

On 2 June 2016 the court meeting was also postponed because parties needed to familiarize with addition to the appeal.

 

Case of Mr. Shmargalov

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 SLC lawyer filed a motion on involvement the State as a second defendant. The hearings are pending.

In fact there is no trial. The trial does not take place because of the prosecutor absence or trial ignorance by the judge.

 

     Case of Mr. Tishchenko

At the beginning of July 2015 Mr Tishchenko asked the lawyer to provide him legal assistance. During July the lawyer held two meetings with Mr Tishchenko in the Mikolayivsk pre-trial detention Centre.         On 12 August 2015 the lawyer joined the pretrial investigation at the stage of opening the case file and familiarized with them. According to the case file Tishchenko was accused of drugs sailing committed twice on 13 May and 25 June 2015. The lawyer was assure that prosecutor had not had any proofs of guilty. Moreover he considered detention of Tishchenko as illegal and unlawful.

On 27 June 2015 Tishchenko was arrested under Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The main reason of his detention was testimonies of witness who said that Tishchenko sold him drug – acetylated opium. There was no more reason to detain Tishchenko however the investigator did not revise information received by the witness and did not have another proofs of his guilty.

On 28 September 2015 the lawyer sent to the Kherson Prosecutor's Office a statement of the crime under Article 371 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The lawyer stressed the unlawful nature of detention procedure at the present case. But until now he was not provided with answer on his complaint.

Also the lawyer noticed that Tishchenko was unnecessary injured by police officers. His traumas were confirmed and registered by a doctor of pretrial detention center. Tishchenko also pointed that he had not signed any proceedings documents during first hours in the police office. According to him signatures had been forged. Nevertheless the court farther rejected to hold an expertise of his handwriting.

On 19 October 2015 a new indictment against Tishchenko was presented at the court hearing. The prosecutor refused from the accusation in the episode taken place on 13 May 2015.

On unspecified date the court debate has been conducted. The lawyer stressed the numerous of non-compliance in the case file and Tishchenko submitted the motion about examination of witnesses. The court granted his motion as his last will.

In 2016 there were four court hearings in the trial court.

On 9 February 2016 Tishchenko was found guilty of the crime provided under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with confiscation of property.

The lawyer appealed against the verdict. Nowadays the court hearing is appointed on 4 July 2016.

 

     Case of Mr. Yevmenov

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 preventive measure 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 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.

The lawyer submitted a statement of the crime to Prosecutor's Office in the case of illegal detention and accusation. But there is no information about results of the investigation of the criminal proceedings on the fact of illegal actions of police officers.

The case was 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.

Yevminov was questioned in the court.

In 2016 there were totally six court hearings.

Particularly on 14 March 2016 Yevmenov was found guilty and sentenced to six years and six month of imprisonment with confiscation of property.

The lawyer appealed the conviction. Until now the court hearing has not being appointed.

 

Case of Mrs. Ya. B.

At the begining of 2014 Mrs. B started collecting information about the heroes of the Prykarpatska Haven hundred by her own initiative and by her own money. She conducted several visits to the relatives and than published information which was collected at the international resource Vikna and at the social network.

On 1 March 2016 Mrs. B accidently saw a leaflet "The Book of Sorrow, Remembrance and Honour of Ukraine. Ivano-Frankivsk region. Heroes of the Revolution of Dignity " in which somebody published her articles without any permission. Moreover articles did not sign by Mr. B and one of them was signed by unknown person.

On 3 March 2016 Mrs. B asked the publisher to bring her an apologize and excluded copies of the book from selling.

On 1 April 2016 the publisher informed about providing of other actions instead of excluding and apologizing before Mrs. B.

Mrs. B asked the SLC lawyer to provide her legal assistance and in June 2016 she filed a claim on copyright protection.

The case hearing is appointed in August 2016.

 

     Case of Mr. Zukas

Mr Zukas asked the lawyer to provide him legal assistance because of the accusation under article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Illegal production, manufacture, purchase, storage, transportation or sending of drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without purpose to sell). According to prosecutor there were two episodes of the crime. Earlier Zukas committed the same crime during his imprisonment and was repeatedly convicted.

The lawyer pointed the lack of appropriate evidence in the case. As Zukas said he was forced to plead the guilt of the crime otherwise police officers threaten to accuse him of graver crime such as drug sailing.

In 2016 there were six court hearing in this case.

Nowadays the district court appointed the preliminary hearing due to changing of territorial jurisdiction.

 

     5. Successful cases in national proceedings

     Case of Ms. Alizade and others.

The applicant, Ms Sofiya Mykolayvna Alizade, is living in Kharkiv.

In September 2015 she was fired from the post of a senior programmer despite the fact that she was on maternity leave. The ground of her dismissal was the liquidation of the transport police in connection with the New Police reform in Ukraine.

On the same day the SLC lawyer on behalf on the Ms A. filed an administrative claim to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court on the recognition of the dismissal order as unlawful and reinstatement her to former position.

On 21 January 2016 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court upheld the claim, the order of the dismissal was found unlawful and the court stated to reinstate Ms A. to her former position.

On 22 March 2016 Ms A. was reinstated to the former position, but on the same day she was fired again from 6 November 2015 because of staff reduction. Ms A. had appealed this order to the court again.

On 20 May 2016 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court upheld the claim. The order of dismissal was found unlawful, Ms A. was reinstated to her former position.

     Tha SLC lawyer is preparing complaints in cases of Ms Ekaterina Anatolyevna Dubenko and Olena Andryyvna Zymovets who had equal situation as Ms Alizade.

    

     Case of Mrs. Buzukina

The applicant, Ms Marina Oleksandryvna Bizukina, is living in Kypyansk, Kharkiv region.

On 23 September 2015 she was fired from the post of a senior investigator despite the fact that she was on maternity leave. The ground of her dismissal was the liquidation of the transport police in connection with the New Police reform in Ukraine.

On the same day the SLC lawyer on behalf on the Ms B. filed an administrative claim to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court on the recognition of the dismissal order as unlawful and reinstatement her to former position.

On 1 March 2016 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court upheld the claim, the order of the dismissal was found unlawful and the court stated to reinstate Ms B. to her former position.

On 22 March 2016 Ms B. was reinstated to the former position, but on the same day she was fired again from 6 November 2015 because of staff reduction. Ms B. had appealed this order to the court again.

On 19 May 2016 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court upheld the claim partly. The order of dismissal was found unlawful, Ms B. was reinstated to her former position but not in the new National Police.

On 13 June 2016 the Appeal Administrative court of Kharkiv region upheld the decision of the first instance court in force.

     The SLC lawyer filed an appeal to this decision. The court hearing is pending.

    

Case of Mr. Bondarenko

At the beginning of July 2015 Bondarenko asked the lawyer to provide him legal assistance. During July the lawyer held two meetings with Bondarenko in the Mikolayivsk pre-trial detention Centre.

On 12 August 2015 the lawyer joined the pretrial investigation at the stage of opening the case file and familiarized with them. According to the case file Bondarenko was accused of drugs sailing committed twice on 13 May and 25 June 2015. The lawyer was assure that prosecutor had not had any proofs of guilty. Moreover he considered detention of Bondarenko as illegal and unlawful.

On 19 October 2015 Velycolepetsk district court found Bondarenko guilty and sentenced him to eight years imprisonment. Therefore the lawyer prepared an application to the Court of Appeal.

The lawyer pointed that Bondarenko was illegally detained under Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The circumstance of the accident can be described as follows.

On 27 June 2015 Bondarenko was arrested under Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The main reason of his detention was testimonies of witness who said that Bondarenko sold him drug – acetylated opium. There was no more reason to detain Bondarenko however the investigator did not revise information received by the witness and did not have another proofs of his guilty.

On 28 September 2015, the lawyer submitted to the Kherson Prosecutor's a criminal complaint for illegal arrest of Mr B. on the part of the police, under Article 371 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The lawyer stressed the unlawful nature of detention procedure at the present case. But until now he was not provided with answer on his complaint.

On 15 October 2015, Velykolepetyhivskyy district court in Lugansk region found Mr B. guilty in commission of evading from fulfillment of a judgment in a form of correctional works (Article 389 of the CC), illegal possessing drugs (Article 309) and selling drugs (Article 307 of the CC).

The SLC lawyer submitted an appeal stating that the test purchase of drugs has been exercised in the case beyond the procedure prescribed by law, therefore the evidence obtained in course of this covert police operation may not be admitted for Mr B.’s conviction e they had been obtained in illegal way.

On 31 March 2016, the Court of Appeal in Kherson region recognized arguments of the lawyer and acquitted Mr B. in illegal possession of drugs, sustained the judgment of the trial court only in the part of evading from fulfillment of a judgment, and changed the punishment from eight years of incarceration to two years and three month of imprisonment. As he actually served that punishment, B has been released from custody at the courtroom.

 

Drazman and others case

The first applicant – Mrs V.D. and the third applicant Ms. I.D. are currently living in Kharkiv, Ukraine. The second applicant Mr. N.L. is serving in the Anti-terrorist operation’s zone, Ukraine.

On 3 May 2001 Mr G. drove a car and struck Mr. L.’s daughter who was walking in the street. She died from the injuries sustained. Two passengers in the car, including Mr. D– son of Mrs. V.D. and father of Ms. I.D. 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 Specialized 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

In 2016, the SLC lawyer prepared and filed to the Kupiansk town court a lawsuit against Mr. G. on compensation of moral damages.

In spring 2016, the court satisfied the lawsuit: Mrs. V.D. and Ms. I.D. were granted with a third part of a flat, which belongs to Mr. G.

On 29 June 2016, the Court of Appeal upheld the abovementioned judgment.

 

     Case of Mr. H.

Mr. H. Is a Ukrainian national who has been living in Lviv region.

In December 2013 Mr. M lodged a statement of crime according to which Mr. H. sold drugs. The police immediately started criminal proceedings but objectively investigation actions were started only after six months from registration of crime in the URPI. In July 2013 Mr. H was detained after controlled purchases.

The SLC lawyer familiarized with case file at the phase of trial investigation. The trial court found Mr. H guilty disregarded arguments given by SLC lawyer. According to the report of search and supervising a police agent was in two places at once. Moreover attended witnesses were interrogated only after month since conducting of investigation actions and during court proceedings Mrs. M was not question at all.

The SLC lawyer submitted an appeal. The court of Appeal in Lviv region cancelled the verdict and sent a case to the new trial.

 

Case of Mr. Kanus .

Mr. Kanus is a minor gypsy who was found guilty of a crime under para 2 Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (disturbance of public order with aggravating circumstances) and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Simultaneously the Dvorichanskyy district court of Kharkiv region released him on probation of one year. He asked lawyer for legal assistance.

On 16 December 2015 Kanus was repeatedly found guilty of a crime under para 3 Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (disturbance of public order with aggravating circumstances committed repeatedly) and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. Taking into account the previous verdict Dvorichanskyy district court of Kharkiv region imposed final penalty on two years and one month imprisonment.

The lawyer immediately filled a complaint to the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region. In the appeal the lawyer pointed on numerous violations during pretrial investigation and court hearing. Particularly the court did not consider a motion of hearing behind closed doors. The victim was always absent during court hearings, prosecution used inappropriate evidence to prove Kanus's guilt. The court did not even take account of the age of accused person choosing the penalty. Also the trial court did not make any decision in the motion of recusal of the judge.

On 22 February 2016 the verdict was cancelled by the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region and the case file were returned to the trial court. At the same time Kanus was released from custody in the court room.

On 23 June 2016 the trial court considered a motion submitted by the lawyer on the basis of improper qualification of the crime. The motion was granted and now Mr. Kanus actions are qualified as disturbance of public order without any aggravating circumstances.

 

Kiyan case

On 26 January 2014, Mr. K. was arrested. He was suspected in illegal drug possession and selling drugs (crimes, provided by par 2 article 307 and article 309 of the CC). He was handed a notice on suspicion.

On 17 May 2014, the Moskovskyy district court chose for the applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand.

On 17 December 2014, Mr. K. was found guilty by the Moskovskyy district court and was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months of imprisonment.

On 9 June 2015, the abovementioned sentence was canceled by decision of the Court of Appeal. The case-file was directed to the first-instance court for new consideration.

Term of Mr. K.’s detention was expired for three times on prosecutor’s motions during the time of firs-instance court’s consideration. Prosecutor stated that there were risks of undue behavior of Mr. K. However, no evidence of such risks’ existence was provided to the court.

Mr. K. and his lawyer filed motions on changing of preventive measure for many times. They grounded their motions with the fact that prosecution had provided no evidence on existence of abovementioned risks. The lawyer stated that such risks are absent because Mr. K. has the place of permanent residence in Kharkiv, also he needs to look after his old father and Mr. K.’s state of health demands visiting doctors.

On 29 May 2016, the court granted the lawyer’s motion and chose house arrest as a preventive measure for Mr. K. Finally, person who has been holding in custody for more than 2 years without a sentence was released.

 

Case of Mr. Kuksov

Mr. Kuksov was detained on suspicion of committing a robbery and a murder. He was kept in custody since 2012. According to the indictment, Mr. K choked to death his fancy woman and then stole a mobile phone.

Mr. K stressed that he did not commit any crimes however the Lozivskyy district court in Kharkiv region found him guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years of imprisonment. Later the verdict was cancelled and the case-file was returned to the trial court. Nevertheless, the Lozivskyy district court repeatedly brought the same verdict according to which Mr. K was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment.

After the cancellation of the verdict the lawyer uncovered falsification of the single direct evidence — the forensic medical examination according to which the victim had kept on her arm Mr K.'s hair.

Nowadays the court hearing is pending with numerous delays. In particular there was no court hearing in Mr. K.’s case for half a year. One of the main reasons for delays was refusal of authorities of detention facility to bring Mr. K. to court hearings. They stated that they couldn’t fulfil their duties on convoying of Mr. K. because of lack of financing.

In 13 May 2016, after filing many lawyer’s motions on changing of preventive measure for Mr. K., the lawyer filed one more. He grounded his motion with statements that Mr. K.’s health had deteriorated during his detention and he couldn’t have received due medical aid in the detention facility. Moreover, risks of his undue behaviour had disappeared because he had had strong family relationships and he was not an alcoholic anymore. Finally, the motion was granted and Mr. K was released from custody.

    

Case of Mr. Krotov

On 9 June 2008 the Court of Appeal of Rovne region found Mr. Krotov guilty of the crime under Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the murder) and sentenced him to fourteen years imprisonment. Mr. Krotov was served his punishment in the Sofiyivska correctional colony no. 45.

On unspecified date the lawyer conducted a monitoring event to the Sofiyivska correction colony no. 45. During arrangement the lawyer met with Mr. Krotov who had several diseases which might be considered as a reason to release the prisoner from execution of punishment.

On 27 April 2015 the lawyer lodged a request to the Sofiyivska correctional colony no. 45 to provide her information about Mr. Krotov's health and treatment.

On 20 May 2015 the Sofiyivska correctional colony no. 45 replied that Mr. Krotov had been put for impatient treatment to the hospital for several times. It was also noticed that he had several disease such as

-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.

From the beginning of his sentence Mr. Krotov repeatedly had surgeries on his limbs. Because of crucial disease he suffered from high amputation of his legs (to the middle of the third of hips) and high amputation of his right hand (to the middle of the third of shoulder) and also his left hand (to the upper third of the shoulder).

On 24 November 2011 Mr. Krotov was recognized as a disabled person with the first group for lifetime.

On 29 May 2015 the lawyer filled a motion to the Sofiyivskyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk region. The lawyer asked the court to release Mr. Krotov from punishment due to his several diseases. Simultaneously the special medical commission concluded that Mr. Krotov could proceed his punishment further.

On 24 October 2015 the lawyer submitted before the Sofiyivskyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk region a motion to conduct new special medical commission of Mr. Krotov. The motion was granted but there was no difference between previous and second medical opinion. So the lawyer had to ask for providing forensic medical examination.

On 21 December 2015 the district court appointed forensic medical examination. As was later established Mr. Krotov had disease which could be the base to release him from punishment.

On 15 March 2016 the Sofiyivskyy district court released Krotov from custody because of his disease. The prosecutor submitted an appeal.

On 28 April 2016 the Court of Appeal in Dnipropetrovsk region quashed the previous decision and returned the case file to a new trial.

On 13 June 2016 Sofiyivskyy district court rejected the motion submitted by the lawyer.

On 19 June 2016 the lawyer submitted an appeal.

On 24 June 2016 the case file was transferred to the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region.

 

     Case of Mr. Larin

At the beginning of December 2015 the Commission in the Temnivska correctional colony 100 (located in Kharkiv region) refused to file a request on the base of probation related Mr. L. who had been served the necessary part of punishment to have a possibility to be released. During consideration the Commission analyses the personal characteristic of him.

As it often happens, the personal characteristic did not include all necessary information which might describe Mr. L. as a good person. Instead the prisoner was described in a mediocre manner and failed to prove the positive results of corrections process by his behaviour and attitude to work Simultaneously the administration of the Correction colony noticed as the main argument against his release that Mr. L. did not improve his professional skills, did not work at the manufacture. In fact during surviving the punishment Mr. L. has never violated the order in colony. Actually he did not work at the manufacture but it was connected with his participation in another community service.

Believing in his rightness Mr. L. asked Kharkiv right protection group to provide him legal assistance because he needed to prepare a motion to the court. The SLC lawyer talked with Mr. L., familiarized with documents and the personal case and than made a motion to the court on probation.

During court hearing the SLC lawyer proved that documents which had been previously used for making refusal from release were also contained another important information. Particularly there were facts pointed on prisoner's successful correction during serving punishment such as lack of disciplinary penalty, existence of three encouragements, following of lawful and friendly relations with officers, treating with responsibility to landscaping.

At the same time the SLC lawyer retorted negative information connected with improving Mr. L's professional skills and not working at the manufacture. As it was mentioned during court hearing the prisoner had taken the certificate of electric welder in the correctional colony. The SLC lawyer also submitted as evidence the personal characteristic made by the Church of Christ according to which Mr. L. was a religious man. He worked on landscaping of prayer room and took responsibility for spiritual literature, seriously and conscientiously concerned of performing his social duties.

On 10 February 2016 the Kharkiv district court in the Kharkiv region listened the evidence and testimonies given by the prosecutor who objected against probation. The court granted the motion and released Mr. L. on probation.

The prosecutor appealed however there were no legal grounds for the complaint.

On 24 March 2016 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region dismissed the appeal. Nevertheless the administration of the Correctional colony practically released Mr. L from custody only on the eleventh day after oral announcement of the decision.

On 28 March 2016 the SLC lawyer submitted a statement of crime to the Prosecutor's Office in Kharkiv region related with unperformed the decision of the Court of Appeal and unlawful detention. The prosecutor's Office dismissed to open criminal proceedings but the SLC lawyer alleged a complaint to the Chornozavodskyy district court in Kharkiv on the base of innaction committed by serviceman.

On 13 April 2016 the Chernozavodskyy district court in Kharkiv obliged prosecution to enter information about the crime to the United register of pretrial investigation and started working on criminal proceedings.

Nowadays the investigation has not been terminated but according to the ordinary practice in the such type of cases the criminal proceedings will not be sent to the court. Therefore the SLC lawyer is going to lodge an application to the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention in the aspect of unlawful detention in the correctional colony during 11 days after release on probation.

 

     Case of Mrs. Medenets

The applicant, Ms Oleksandra Ihoryvna Medenets, is living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

On 15 October 2015 she was fired from the post of a senior investigator despite the fact that she was on maternity leave. The ground of her dismissal was the liquidation of the transport police in connection with the New Police reform in Ukraine.

On the same day the SLC lawyer on behalf on the Ms M. filed an administrative claim to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court on the recognition of the dismissal order as unlawful and reinstatement her to former position.

On 10 February 2016 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court upheld claim, the order of the dismissal was found unlawful and the court stated to reinstate Ms M. to her former position.

On 23 March 2016 Ms M. was reinstated to the former position, but on the same day she was fired again from 6 November 2015 because of staff reduction. Ms M. had appealed this order to the court again.

On 27 May 2016 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court upheld the claim partly. The order of dismissal was found unlawful, Ms M. was reinstated to her former position but not in the new National Police.

The SLC lawyer filed an appeal to this decision. The court hearing is pending.

 

     Case of Mr. Molokov

Mr. M. 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 the above mentioned fact criminal proceedings were initiated. However, proceedings were terminated on 29 December 2015 without notifying Mr. B. about that. On 16 February 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a request to obtain a copy of investigator’s resolution on termination of proceedings. The resolution was appealed to investigative judge on 26 April 2016. Investigative judge canceled the resolution on 5 May 2016.

On 27 February 2015 Mr. M. was transferred to correctional colony and there he was subjected to ill-treatment.

On 2 March 2015, this information about above mentioned ill-treatment 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.

On 12 May 2015 investigator terminated the criminal proceeding for the second time. This decision was appealed to the court. On 28 July 2015 the court quashed the above mentioned investigator’s decision.

On 26 November 2015 investigator terminated the criminal proceeding for the third time. On 14 December the above mentioned decision was appealed to the first-instance court.

On 20 April 2016 claim was rejected. On 25 April 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an appeal on the above mentioned court decision. On 20 May 2016 the appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Now an application to the ECtHR is being prepared on violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

To hide the fact of Mr. M.’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 written according to the law; moreover the charge was not formulated 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 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.

In the above mentioned criminal proceeding no preventive measure was applied to Mr. M. because the latter was still staying imprisoned according to the previous sentence. In December 2015 new law was adopted according to which one day of pre-trial detention must be calculated as two days of imprisonment. According to this law, Mr. M. had already served his term. On 31 December 2015 he was released from the pre-trial detention centre.

On 27 January 2016 prosecutor filed a motion on pre-trial detention of Mr. M. Defence provided evidence of unsubstantiated character of the motion. The court applied house arrest at night time (7 p.m. – 7 a.m.).

On 1 March 2016 the lawyer’s motion on changing of house arrest conditions was granted and the time was changed (10 p.m. – 6 a.m.).

Case of Mr. Panov (2)

On 28 May 2014 Mr. Panov was detained by police officers on suspicion of selling drugs. The Moskovskyy district court in Kharkiv brought a verdict against Mr. Pannov according to which he was found guilty and sentenced to the imprisonment. On 7 May 2016 the verdict was quashed by the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region and the case was sent to a new trial. It should be noticed that the criminal proceedings were considered by several courts and none of them granted a motion on changing of preliminary measure.

According to the courts' decision Mr. Panov was deprived of liberty on the same grounds and on the same obstacles during whole period of detention. The Moskovskyy district court in Kharkiv continued the period of detention without any proper reasons to continuation.

Than Mr. Panov asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistance.

The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case files and prepared motion on changing the preliminary measure. The SLC lawyer noticed that the court proceedings are lasted in five months and during this period of time only one witness was brought to the court. Moreover the Moskovskyy district court in Kharkiv passed no motion on attachment of the police agents to the court. The SLC lawyer also made refferenced to the decisions of the European court of human rights and the Convention to prove illegal nature of detention.

 On 20 January 2016 the Moskovskyy ditrict court in Kharkiv granted the motion on changing of the preliminary measure from detention to house arrest. Mr. Panov was released from custody.

 

     Case of Mr. Semerenko

Mr. S. is an Ukrainian citizen, who is currently studying in the college and living in Krasnograd, Kharkiv region. He has not previously been convicted. On 26 March 2014 Mr. was arrested by police officers after two controlled purchases of drugs.

On 27 March 2014 Mr. S. was noticed on suspicion of drugs trafficking and storing.

On 28 March 2014, the prosecutor filed a motion to choose a detention as a preventive measure. The Court chose a house arrest as a preventive measure for Mr. S.

On 12 May 2014, Mr. S. was noticed on suspicion of burglary.

On 27 May 2014, the Court chose a detention as a preventive measure for Mr. S.

During investigation and trial Mr. B. admitted his guilt of drugs storing and burglary although he did not admit his guilt of drugs trafficking and said that he had not committed these crimes and police officers had provoked them. The Court did not take Mr. B.’s complaints into account and did not consider them.

On 22 December 2014, Krasnograd District Court award a conviction, Mr. S. was found guilty of drug trafficking, storing and burglary. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for committed crimes.

Mr. S. and his lawyer filled the appeals against the verdict.

On 19 February 2015, the SLC lawyer entered to the case. The SLC lawyer sent to the Court of Appeal the addition comments to the appeal, which included an analysis case files and reference to the practice of the ECHR.

On 30 June 2015, the Court of Appeal reversed the conviction in the part conviction with drags trafficking and sent the case for the retrial. In accordance with new verdict Mr. S. was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

During retrial the SLC lawyer sent numerous requests to know the specification of witnesses. According to reply they had permanent connection with police officers and previously had taken part in the different criminal proceedings. Also the lawyer reclaimed information about the controlled purchase and then initiated the judicial investigation on this fact. According to documents two controlled purchases of drugs were held illegally, with provocation of crime.

On 27 January 2016, the Krasnograd District Court delivered judgment of acquittal and cancelled the detention as a preventive measure, referring to a number of judgment of the ECtHR.

On 22 April 2016, Mr. S. was released from custody. The prosecutor submitted an appeal. The SLC lawyer could prove that the acquittal was fully substantiated by the trial court, and on 08 June 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the not guilty judgment.

    

Case of Mr. Veretiy

Mr. Veretiy is an Ukrainian citizen who was detained on 27 April 2012 by the investigator of Bryankivskyy police department on suspicion of a repeatedly murder.

On 20 April 2012 the Bryankiv town court chose Mr. Veretiy a preliminary measure in the form of termless detention according to the old Criminal procedure code of Ukraine. Mr. Veretiy was at the Starobilsk detention centre.

The pretrial investigation persisted more than two years however the case has not been sent to the court. Since Bryanka town had been captured by unknown armed groups of so-called Luhansk people's republic the investigator provided no action to transfer case files to the territory controlled by Ukrainian government. Moreover case files has not been recollected even with support of the Red Cross.

For 27 May 2016 Mr. Veretiy was in custody four years and a month. In six months the SLC lawyer submitted several requests to the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine, the Human Rights Committee of Verhovna Rada of Ukraine, Ukrainian President, Ombudsman and to the Starobilsk district court,

The lawyer filed a complaint to the Lysychansk town court on changing of the preliminary measure. The court granted the motion and released Mr. Veretiy from custody at the court room.

 

     Ushakov case

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.

In October 2015 the CSL lawyer submitted a motion to the Supreme court of Ukraine to retrial the case because of declared violation of Article 6 of the Convention

On 22 December 2015 the Supreme court of Ukraine cancelled all previous decisions and sent the case to the trial court. At the same time the Supreme court of Ukraine has not considered a question of the preliminary measure.

Mr. Ushakov has not been released from custody and was transferred to the Kharkiv detention centre although there was no court decision of his detention.

At the end of January 2016 the lawyer submitted a claim to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Kharkiv according to the territory jurisdiction. However on 6 February 2016 the investigative judge refused to release Mr. Ushakov. The Judge noticed that during pretrial detention the trial court chose a preliminary measure for him in the form of detention which was continued by several times.

On 18 February 2016 Frunzenskyy district court of Kharkiv started a new trial. The SLC lawyer and Mr. Ushakov submitted motions on changing of the preliminary measure. The motions were granted and Mr. Ushakov was released from custody.

The court hearing is pending. The SLC lawyer is going to prepare an application to the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

 

     Case of Mr. Yankovoy

Mr. Yankovoy is an Ukrainian nation who currently is serving his punishment in the correctional colony.

On 30 April 2014 the Samarskyy district court brought a verdict according to which Mr. Yankovoy was found guilty under article 307 (organization of selling drugs) and sentenced to nine years and six months imprisonment with confiscation of property.

On 25 December 2014 the Court of Appeal in Dnipropetrovskyy region has not changed a verdict

In March 2015 Mr. Yankovoy asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistance.

Thw SLC lawyer familiarized with case files and prepared an appeal to the Higher specialized court of Ukraine.

On 1 July 2015 as a result of numerous violations during trial and pretrial investigation the Higher specialized court of Ukraine granted the appeal, quashed the previous decision and sent the case for new trial.

The trial court changed the preliminary measure to the form of house arrest and the accusation was changed too.

On 30 April 2016 the Samarskyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk found Mr. Yankovoy guilty and sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment. Mr. Yankovoy has already served the term of imprisonment and was released in the court room.

 

Zavadskyy case

     Mr. Zavadskyy is the world-famous accordionist, the winner of international awards and honored artist of Ukraine.

     On 23 Marhc 2012 an investigative opened a criminal proceedings against Mr. Zavadskyy on suspicion of committing crime under article 156 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (perversion of minors). On the same day police officers conducted a search at his apartment and approximately at 22:40 detained Mr. Zavadskyy.

     On 26 March 2012 Shevchenkivskyy district court in Kyyv chose him a preliminary measure in the form of detention. Mr. Zavadskyy appealed.

     On 29 March 2012 the police officers brought a charge against Mr. Zavadskyy on committing crimes under article 157 (perversion of minors) and under article 153 (sexual abuse) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

     On 12 April 2012 the Appeal court in Kyyv upheld the decision on choosing of the preliminary measure. For next three and half years the preventive measure has not been changed in spite of the fact that Mr. Zavadsyy and his defenders lodged numerous motions. There were more than 40 same motions at the case files.

     In their motions Mr. Zavadskyy and his defenders pointed on his positive personal characteristic, artistic achievements, social connections and existence of the job. Even further cancellation of the verdict and sending the case files to a new trial have not been considered as a basis for release Mr. Zavadskyy from custody. In decisions the courts also did not assess the fact of his ill health. Mr. Zavadskyy did not have a possibility to practice music which essentially deteriorated his emotional state.

     On 11 December 2012 Podolskyy district court in Kyyv started consideration of the criminal proceedings.

     On 10 July 2014 Podolskyy district court in Kyyv found Mr. Zavadskyy guilty.

     On 18 July 2014 Mr. Zavadskyy and his defenders appealed against the verdict.

     On 11 December 2015 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the European court of human rights.

     On 20 April 2016 the Court of Appeal in Kyyv partly granted appeals, quashed the verdict of the Podolskyy district court in Kyyv and sent the case to a new trial, however the court remain without changes the preventive measure.

     When retrial of the case started, the SLC lawyer lodged a motion on changing of detention on remand to the personal bail.

     At last on 13 June 2016, Podolskyy district court in Kyyv granted the motion released Mr. Zavadskyy from custody on bailment. It is indicative that the court in its decision refers to the same arguments for the release of Mr. Z, which the lawyer referred to in her numerous previous motions.

     On 30 June 2016 the SLC lawyer lodged an additional application to the European court of human rights in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention.

 

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 centre "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 labour 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.

The Pechenigy district council filled a complaint to the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region. The SLC lawyer objected against the claim.

On May 25, 2016 the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region upheld the court decision.

 

comments

new comment