search  
print
16.02.2017 | Gennadiy Tokarev

A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations in 2016

   

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 17 сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgments in 2016

Andrey Zakharov v. Ukraine

Chernaya v. Ukraine

Gavrashenko and others v. Ukraine

Gerbey and others v. Ukraine

I.N. v. Ukraine0

Konovalchuk v. Ukraine0

Korneykova and Korneykov v.Ukraine

Pomilyayko v. Ukraine

Pivovarnik v. Ukraine

Rodzevillo v. Ukraine

Shiyanov v. Ukraine

Sitnevskiy and Chaikovskiy v. Ukraine

Strogan v. Ukraine

Tymchenko v. Ukraine

Umnikov v. Ukraine

Yarovenko v. Ukraine

Zakshevskiy v. Ukraine

2.1. Six cases in which the SLC lawyers represented applicants before the ECtHR on the stage of communication with the Government of Ukraine

Case of Goncharenko v. Ukraine

Case of Drazman and others v. Ukraine

Case of Patsev v. Ukraine0

Case of Trachuk v. Ukraine

Case of Zabolotnyy v. Ukraine

2.2.  14 cases of Euromaydan protesting people in which 13 ones are in the ECtHR on the stage of communication with the Government of Ukraine

Case of Babin v. Ukraine

Case of Balabay v. Ukraine

Case of Bereza v. Ukraine

Case of Bezotosnyy v. Ukraine

Case of Dubovtsev v. Ukraine

Case of Hlusov v. Ukraine

Case of Khmelyovskyy v. Ukraine

Case of Lapin v. Ukraine

Case of Orbeladze v. Ukraine

Case of Pegarkov v. Ukraine

Case of Shebanov v. Ukraine0

Case of Shevchenko E. v. Ukraine0

Case of Shevchenko V. v. Ukraine

Case of Tsyganov v. Ukraine

2.3. Two cases of Euromaidan participants in Kharkiv

Case of Mr. Ch. v. Ukraine

Case on abuse of force against protesting people

3.  47 cases in which the complaints complete applications on alleged violations of the Convention or applications on requesting interim measures according to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court have been prepared and lodged to the ECtHR

3.1. 28 cases related to events in the East of Ukraine

Seven cases of prisoners left at the occupied territories

Mr. L v. Ukraine, Mr. G. v. Ukraine, Mr. D. v. Ukraine

Case of Gr. v. Ukraine

Case of Nov. v. Ukraine

Case of Os. v. Ukraine

Case of Sog. v. Ukraine

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

Case of M-ko v. Ukraine

20 cases related to causing deaths, injuries and destroyed property of individuals in course of the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine

Case of Az v. Ukraine and Russia0

Case of Al. K. v. Ukraine and Russia0

Case of Al. L. v. Ukraine and Russia0

Case of Bar. v. Ukraine and Russia0

Case of Bon. v. Ukraine and Russia0

Case Bu. v. Ukraine and Russia0

Case of Cher. v. Ukraine and Russia0

Case of Dmyt. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Greb. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Kos. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Kar. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Karp. Yulia v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Kuz. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Lyash. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Mal. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Mah. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Naz. v. Ukraine and Russia

Case of Zen v. Ukraine and Russia

3.2.  Six cases related to Savchenko’s Law

Case of K. v. Ukraine

Case of R. v. Ukraine

Case of G. v. Ukraine

Case of T. v. Ukraine

Case of S. S. v. Ukraine

Case of K. M. v. Ukraine

3.3. Other 13 cases in which applications have been lodged to the ECtHR

Case of Am. v. Ukraine

Case of B. v. Ukraine

Case of Gl v. Ukraine

Case of I. v. Ukraine

Case of Kh. V. Ukraine

Case of Kav. v. Ukraine

Case of Lop. v. Ukraine

Case of O.K. v. Ukraine

Case of P. v. Ukraine

Case of Sha. v. Ukraine

Case of S. v. Ukraine

Case of Sv. v. Ukraine0

Case of Zat. v. Ukraine0

Case of Zavadskyy v. Ukraine

4.  97 cases which were considered in national courts

4.1. Seven cases of asylum seekers

Case of A-T

Case of Mr. As

Case of Ms. A. Bab

Case of Mr. Bel

Case of Mr. Il

Case of Mr. Mey

Case of Mr. Tum

4.2.  10 cases related to the conflict in the East of Ukraine

Case of Mr. B

Case of Mr. Bogor

Case of Mr. Guk

Case of a murder of traffic police officers

Case of Ill-treatment of a soldier by a military commander0

Case of Mrs. K

Case of traffic accident of military vehicles

Case of a separatist in a “secret prison” of the SSU

Prosecution of hero of war

Case of Mr. Pan

Case of Mrs. Y. (the applicant - Mrs. S.)

4.3. Seven cases of the victims in the events of Revolution of Dignity in Kyiv, including 7 cases of “Hundred Haven” heroes

Case of Mr. Ch. and L

Case of Mr. Kapynos

Case of Mr. Veremiy

Cases of Igor Kostenko, Leonid Polyanskyi and Vladyslav Zubenko

4.4. 33 cases related drug users, people suffered from grievous illness and other vulnerable group of prisoners

Case of Mr. M. B

Case of Ms. B-sh0

Case of Mr. Boch

Case of Mr. Bots

Case of Mr. D

Case of Mr. Gr

Case of Mr. Kab

Case of Mr. Kr

Case of Mr. L

Case of Mr. Les

Case of Mr. Luk

Case of Mr. Lys

Case of Mr. M

Case of Mr. Myh

Case of Mr. N

Case of Mr. Nat

Case of Mr. Nes

Case of Mr. Ned

Case of Mr. Pah

Case of Mr. Pon

Case of Mr. Rad

Case of Mr. Rud

Case of Mrs. Ras

Case of Mr. Sav0

Case of Mr. Sch0

Case of Mr. S0

Case of Mr. Sid

Case of Mr. Sl

Case of Mr. Tish

Case of Mr.T

Case of Mr. Y

Case of Mr. Ya

Case of Mr. Yev

Case of Mr. Zh

4.5.  Five cases related to unlawfull discharge of pregnant women and women who recently gave a birth

Case of Ms. Al. and others

Case of Mrs. Buz

Case of Mrs. Med

4.6. 34 other cases

Case of Mr. A

Case of Mr. Ak

Case of Mrs. B

Case of Mr. Bond

Case of Mr. Fed

Case of Mr. Gor

Case of Mrs. I

Case of Mr. J

Case of K0

Case of Mr. Kan0

Case of Mr. Kru0

Case of Mr. Kryl

Case of Mr. Kuk

Case of Mr. Lap

Case of Mrs. Leon

Case of Mrs. L

Case of Mr. Lyt

Case of Ms. M-L

Case of Ms. M. and Ms. G

Case of Mr. M

Murder of a schoolgirl

Case of Mr. N

Case of Anti-Ukrainian Newspapers

Old lady’s abuse case

Case of Ms. P

Case of killled student

Case of Mr. P00

Case of Mr. S01

Case of Mr. S01

Case of Mr. Sh02

Case of Mr. Shm02

Case of Mr. T03

Case of Mr. Ush03

Case of Mr. Ver04

Case of Mr. Z05

Case of Mr. Zal05

 

 

 

1. 17 сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgments in 2016

 

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 defenсe 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.

 

Chernaya v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mrs Raisa Stepanovna Chernaya, died on 7 November 2009 and her son, Mr Yevgenii Vadimovich Chernyi, expressed the wish to pursue the application.

On 9 June 2004, the applicant, 69 at the time, was walking in the centre of Kharkiv and was hit in the face by a pellet fired from an air gun.

The applicant was admitted to hospital the same day and the pellet was removed from her face. It was subsequently seized as evidence by the police. The doctors noted in the applicant’s medical file that she had a gunshot wound on the infraorbital region of her face.

Later that day she lodged a criminal complaint with the police. The applicant alleged that the shot had been fired from a particular flat in a building in the centre of Kharkiv.

From 10 to 26 June 2004 the applicant underwent outpatient medical treatment for her injury.

On 2 July 2004, at the request of the police, she was examined by an expert, who concluded that the applicant’s injury was of a minor degree and might have been caused by a gunshot. On 31 October 2005 the applicant underwent an additional medical examination, which confirmed the previous conclusion.

By decisions of 22 March and 8 December 2005 and 9 August 2006, the police refused to open criminal proceedings, stating that it was not possible to identify the offenders and that the applicant’s allegations that the shot had been fired from a particular location were unfounded. They further found that there had been no serious breach of public order in the applicant’s case and noted that the applicant could have lodged a criminal complaint directly with a court in the framework of private prosecution proceedings. Despite her repeated requests, the applicant was not given access to the police investigation file related to the incident of 9 June 2004.

On appeal by the applicant, those decisions were annulled by different prosecutors and the courts generally on the grounds that the police enquiry had fallen short of the requirements of a full and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. It was noted that the police had failed to examine the relevant evidence, including the pellet, and that the case contained elements of the crime defined by Article 296 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism). In particular, on 21 August 2007 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv ruled that the case should be returned to the prosecutors for further investigation.

No further investigation was carried out after that date.

By a letter of 21 August 2009, the Deputy Prosecutor of the Dzerzhynskyy District of Kharkiv informed the applicant that the investigation case file had gone missing. There is no information as to any further developments in that regard.

On 7 November 2009 the applicant died. Her death was unrelated to the incident of 9 June 2004.

On 15 December 2016 the European Court has found that here has been a violation of been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

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

 

Gavrashenko and others v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Andrey Nikilayevich Gorin, was born 1968, is resident of Kommunist, Kharkiv Region.

On 21 July 2001 the traffic accident happened between applicant’s car and car of Mr. N. The applicant’s mother who was in the applicant’s car was injured.

On 31 July 2001 Police Department of Liptsy instituted criminal procedure under the fact of the traffic accident. On 14 May 2002 Police Department of Police of Kharkiv instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. At the same day the preventive measure in the form of undertaking not to abscond was appointed to the applicant. The criminal proceedings are still pending. To date the length of the criminal proceedings constitutes more then 10 years and 2 months. The applicant is still under undertaking not to abscond. On 3 May 2012 at the court hearing he filed a written petition to cancel the preventive measure. However, the Kharkiv District Court of Kharkiv region left the preventive measure for the applicant without changing.

On 08 December 2016 the European Court has found that here has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, and a violation of Protocol 4 Article  2 (1) in respect of excessive length of obligation not to abscond.

The applicant's representative before the European Court –Ms Yana Zayikina, lawyer of SLC who is practicing in Kharkiv.

 

Gerbey and others v. Ukraine

The applicants, Mr Vyacheslav Viktorovich Korobov and Mr Aleksandr Viktorovich Bagatskiy, were born in 1966 and 1969 respectively.

On 6 July 2004 Mr Korobov was arrested by the police on suspicion of murder. He remained in detention for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings against him. Subsequently, he served his prison sentence at the Simferopolska Correctional Colony.

The applicant was tried by the Simferopol Court, which on 7 October 2004 found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment.  By decisions of 23 November 2004 and 1 December 2005 the Crimea Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, rejected appeals lodged by him.  In order to substantiate his application the applicant submitted a number of requests to the authorities, including the Simferopol Court, for him to be given access to his criminal case file and be provided with the possibility to obtain copies of various procedural documents. His requests were refused as having no legal basis. Eventually, copies of some of the requested documents, principally court decisions, were given to the applicant.

In 2009 Mr Bagatskyi was prosecuted for illegal possession of arms and drug dealing and eventually sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his property. The final decision in his criminal case was given by the Supreme Court, of which he was informed on an unspecified date in November or December 2009. The fourth applicant was not allowed to keep a copy of that decision. On 11 March 2011 he was released from detention. In 2010 and 2011, prior to and after the applicant’s release from detention, the Court invited him to submit copies of various documents from his criminal case file. He was not able to provide copies of any of the required documents, as the Amur Nyzhnyodnirpovskyy District Court in Dnipropetrovsk, which held his case file, had refused to give him access to it

On 21 July 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 applicants copies of necessary documents.

The applicant's representative before the European Court – Ms Yana Zayikina and Nataliia Okhotnikova, lawyers of SLC who are practicing in Kharkiv, respectively.

 

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.

 

Konovalchuk v. Ukraine

The applicant, Viktoriya Leonidivna Konovalchuk, was born in in 1975 and prior to her arrest had a permanent address in Artsyz in Odessa Region.

On 16 September 2013 the applicant was sentenced for the drug dealing. The sentence was taken into force on 19 August 2014. 

The applicant was delivered for serving the sentence to the Daryivska correctional colony no. 10 in Kherson region.

During all the period of imprisonment in this colony the applicant was not provided with proper medical assistance. She 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 for 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 the applicant 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 the applicant 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 the applicant.

On 21 May 215, the lawyer got a reply with a medical certificate of the SIZO in which it was mentioned that the applicant 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, candidiasis, Chronic hepatitis of unknown stage in the activity and others.

So the applicant 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 the applicant 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 the applicant to the judge who considered the criminal case. According to the response and the SIZO’s certificate the state of health of the applicant 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 the applicant the  Shevchenko District Court of Kyiv examined the motion only on 25 June 2015, and refused to satisfy applications for her  release 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 1 July 2015, the Court indicate to the Government of Ukraine to present the applicant urgently for medical examination by a specialized doctor;  secure immediately, by appropriate means, treatment of the applicant relevant to his health condition.

On 14 September 2015 the applicant wrote to the Court, alleging that the Government had failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court. In particular, she alleged that she was still not receiving the recommended radiation therapy. She also alleged that her transfer to the Oncology Facility would be conducted by rail in conditions incompatible with her state of health.

From 24 September 2015 the applicant started a course of examinations and treatment at the HIV Treatment Facility and at the Kherson Regional Oncology Clinic.

From 5 to 27 October 2015 the applicant underwent radiation treatment at the Kherson Regional Oncology Clinic; she was recommended another course starting on 17 November but on 14 November 2015 she refused to undergo it citing the side effects of the previous treatment.

On 25 October 2015 the Government informed the Court of the applicant’s first radiation therapy course. On 30 October 2015 the applicant left the HIV Treatment Facility and on 14 November 2015 she was admitted to the Oncology Facility.

On 4 January 2016 the applicant was released on health grounds.

On 13 October 2016 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect to the applicant’s medical treatment in detention; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the conditions of the applicant’s transportation; and also that the respondent State has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention.

The applicant's representatives before the European Court - Ms Anna Lytvyn and Mr Vasyl Melnychuk, lawyers practicing in Kyiv, and Mr Gennadiy Tokarev, a lawyer practising 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.

 

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.

 

Pivovarnik v. Ukraine

The applicant, Yuriy Stepanovich Pivovarnik, was born in 1977 and prior to his arrest his permanent address had been in Svitlovodsk, Kirovograd Region.

On an unspecified date prior to his arrest the applicant had been diagnosed with hepatitis C (“HCV”).

On 26 June 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a drug-related offence and on 7 July 2014 placed in Kirovograd Remand Prison no. 14 (“the prison”).

On 27 June 2014 the Svitlovodsk Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant appealed, arguing in particular that he was suffering from HCV. On 14 July 2014 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld the detention order. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended until his conviction.

On 6 August, 27 November and 3 December 2014 and on 9 January and 4 June 2015 the applicant consulted the prison doctor, complaining in particular of discomfort in the hypochondrium (below the lower ribs), on the right-hand side. According to the applicant’s medical record, the applicant claimed to be suffering from HCV, but the doctor noted that there were no documents to support this diagnosis. The applicant asked for a medical certificate, to be provided to the courts examining his criminal case. According to three separate reports signed by three prison employees, during three of those consultations – those of 6 August and 27 November 2014 and 4 June 2015 – the applicant was offered an opportunity to undergo a “blood test” (it is unspecified of which type) to verify whether he had HCV but refused without giving any reasons. The applicant denied the latter allegation.

On 24 March 2015 the Svitlovodsk Court convicted the applicant of the unlawful purchase, possession and transportation of drugs and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.

On 19 June 2015 the acting President of the Section, upon the applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, decided to indicate to the Government that they should present the applicant urgently for medical examination by a specialised doctor of the City Hospital; secure for the applicant immediately, by appropriate means, treatment to his state of health; and inform the Court by 17 July 2015 about the applicant’s state of health and the measures undertaken.

From 6 until 9 July 2015 the applicant underwent an in-patient examination at the City Hospital in the course of which a number of blood tests and an ultrasound examination were conducted and the applicant was examined by a number of specialists.

 On 9 July 2015 the hospital issued an opinion according to which the applicant was suffering from сhronic HCV “in an inactive phase” and liver impairment. The applicant complained that he had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention.

On 13 October 2015 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal amended the applicant’s sentence and released him on probation.

On 6 October 2016 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect to the inadequate medical care afforded to the applicant in detention and a violation of Article 34 of the Convention in respect to the refusal of the authorities to provide the applicants copies of necessary documents.

The applicant's representative before the European Court – Ms Iryna Monina, 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.

 

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.

 

Sitnevskiy and Chaikovskiy v. Ukraine

The applicants, Mr Oleg Mikhaylovich Sitnevskiy (“the first applicant”) and Mr Vitaliy Viktorovich Chaykovskiy (“the second applicant”). The first applicant was born in 1969 and is serving a life sentence in Perekhrestivka in the Sumy region. The second applicant was born in 1967 and is serving a life sentence in Gorodyshche in the Rivne region.

The applicant was arrested in Russia in November 2001 and in February 2002 was extradited to Ukraine. He was a defendant in the same criminal case as the second applicant.

On 6 October 2005 the Donetsk Regional court acting as a first instance court, sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment for having committed a series of murders and armed assaults in a body of a criminal gang. In its special ruling the court it showed to several breaches of domestic law concerning the right to defence, namely: the defendants’ initial confessions to having been involved in one episode of murder had been obtained in the absence of their lawyer when they were questioned about the another episode of assaults. For several subsequent months the investigative authorities continued to question the applicant and co-defendants as witnesses in the crimes in the absence of the lawyers, notwithstanding the mandatory participation of a lawyer according to law.

After the conviction having passed by the trial court, the applicant submitted a cassation to the SCU and stated that that the conviction had been based solely on his and co-defendant’s testimonies given under duress during the pre-trial investigation. No other evidence or testimony of witnesses or victims had directly identified him as a perpetrator of the crimes. During the pre-trial stage no confrontations with other co-defendants or witnesses had been organized to him; no identification parade has been carried out. During the trial, in spite of the applicant’s request, the court did not questioned numerous prosecution witnesses. The court likewise refused to question the applicant’s witnesses who could prove his alibi on episode of a murder. The applicant’s participation in two other episodes has been based only on thee testimony of his co-defendant who had died after being tortured in the pre-trial detention facility, and other defendant who copied the testimony from the latter’s records under the police duress. The applicant also complained that he had not been given the opportunity to study the case file when preparing his cassation appeal.

In October 2006 the SCU upheld the judgment having found it reasonable.

On 14 October 2001 the second applicant was arrested, then he was charged for having belonged to a criminal gang and having committed a number of assaults and murders in complicity with a group of other individuals. One of the alleged accomplices has been killed during his arrest, another one has died in a detention facility. According to the official records, he committed suicide by hanging himself, while according to the applicant the individual was tortured to death by the investigative authorities. The applicant and other defendants confessed to having participated in some of the gang’s activities. At later stages of the pre-trial investigation they retracted these confessions claimed that they had been given under physical and psychological duress. In December 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal having considered the case as a trial court remitted the case for additional investigation.

On October 2005 during the second trial the Regional Court found the applicant guilty in commitment of eight offences in complicity with other members of the gang and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. During the trial, the applicant and his co-defendants denied their involvement in any criminal activity and alleged that they had been ill-treated by the investigative authorities to extract confession. The court rejected the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ allegations of ill-treatment, referring to the prosecutor’s findings that there are no reasons for undertaking measures of prosecutor’s reaction. At the same time the court issued a separate ruling drawing the attention of the prosecution to falsification of signatures on the case documents, breaches of provision of law regarding to the right to defense and other violations of rules of criminal procedure. The applicant lodged a cassation, arguing groundlessness of the judgment by not questioning key witnesses and victims of the offences, and stated that his conviction had been based solely on his confession. The SCU as cassation court upheld the previous judgment, considered that the trial court acted properly having questioned those witnesses who were able to make themselves available in open court, and rejected the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment having relied upon the finding of their prosecutor’s examination.

On 10 November 2016 the European Court has found that here has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of the first applicant; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention in respect of the first applicant on account of the admission of the untested statements of G.S. and N.K. as evidence;  violations of Article 6 § 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention in respect of the applicants on account of the admission of the untested statements of O.Va. and S.Va. as evidence and in respect of the second applicant on account of the admission of the untested statements of R.M. as evidence.

The applicant's representatives before the European Court – Ms Yana Zayikina and Mr Mykhaylo Tarakhkalo, lawyers of SLC who are practicing in Kharkiv and Kiyv, respectively.

 

Strogan v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Yakov Ilkovich Strogan, was born in 1967 and is living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

On the morning of 16 August 2010 the police took the applicant to the Kyivskyy District police station in Kharkiv (“the district police”). The applicant was at the police station from 7 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. and gave evidence in relation to the fight with his neighbour.

According to the applicant, at 9.45 a.m., as he left the police station, police officers took him and drove him to a forest where they beat him up and tortured him using handcuffs and an electric shock device. The police officers then took the applicant to another part of the police station that he had just left, where they continued to ill-treat him. During that time the police officers put pressure on the applicant to admit that he had intended to murder his neighbour. On 19 August 2010 they released him.

On 21 August 2010, following the applicant’s complaint to the internal security unit of the Kharkiv Region police, he was examined by a forensic medical expert. The latter found that the applicant had sustained bruises on his head, nose, upper lip and chest. The expert considered those injuries as being minor and that they could have been caused by blunt, solid objects during a period of three to five days before the medical examination.

On 23 September 2010 the district police opened criminal proceedings in relation to the moderately severe injuries sustained by the applicant’s neighbour during the fight of 15 August 2010. At 2.45 p.m. on 9 December 2010 an investigator with the district police arrested the applicant on suspicion of attempted murder. The applicant was placed in a police cell. on the evening and night between 9 and 10 December 2010 police officers beat him up at the police station.

As the applicant had complained about his health, he was examined late in the evening of 9 December 2010 by a panel of doctors who found no injuries on his body.

On 10 December 2010 the hearing before the District Court concerning the preventive measure in the applicant’s case was interrupted because the applicant had to be provided with medical care. The ambulance team which arrived at the court stated that the applicant had concussion, a haematoma by the left eye and a bruise on his chest. The applicant complained that the injuries had been inflicted by police officers.

On 21 December 2010 the prosecutor’s office, having concluded its pre-investigation inquiry, refused to open criminal proceedings concerning alleged police brutality against the applicant on 9 and 10 December 2010. According to the decision, there had been no evidence suggesting that the applicant’s injuries documented after the alleged ill-treatment had been caused by police officers. The decision referred to the police officers’ statements that the applicant had inflicted the injuries on himself.

The applicant challenged that decision before the District Court, but received no reply. In 2012, 2013 and 2015 he made applications to the District Court in relation to his complaint, but to no avail.

On 6 October 2016 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in relation to the investigation of the events of August 2010 and in relation to the investigation of the events of December 2010; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicant in December 2010; a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s arrest and detention between 9 and 10 December 2010 on the basis of the investigator’s decision; a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;  a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention

The applicant's representative before the European Court – Ms Aigul Mukanova, lawyer of SLC, who is practicing in Kharkiv.

At present, another SLC lawyer initiated the renewal of the pre-trial investigation against the policemen allegedly tortured the applicant and continues to represent him in the criminal proceedings.

 

Tymchenko v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Yevgen Oleksandrovych Tymchenko, was born in 1977 and is currently serving a life sentence in Ladyzhynska prison no. 39.

In the evening on 17 August 2005 the applicant arrived from Sumy, where he lived, to Kyiv. Shortly thereafter, at 21.20 p.m., while still being at the railway station, he was arrested on suspicion of two counts of murder and robbery committed earlier that month in Sumy. Some items belonging to the victims were found in his luggage. The applicant spent the night at the police station, without any investigative measures undertaken.

On 18 August 2005 three police officers, who had arrived from Sumy, transported the applicant to that city (340 km from Kyiv) in their vehicle. He was handcuffed and had one of his ankles shackled in a tight manner. When he protested, one of the officers hit him several times in the stomach. The police stopped their car in a forest, made him go out and subjected him to cruel ill-treatment with a view to extracting his confession to the investigated criminal offences. The applicant maintained that he had only witnessed the offences in question, whereas those were his acquaintances, A. and Se., who had committed them. The police officers severely beat him all over his body. Subsequently they undressed him, stuffed his mouth with earth and grass, and raped him with a wooden stick. The applicant urinated involuntarily. He conceded to all their requirements. After a pause, during which the officers drank alcohol, while the applicant stayed in the car with the driver, they made him “rehearse” his confessions. They insisted that he should plead guilty without mentioning the involvement of anybody else.

The applicant was placed in the Sumy Temporary Detention Facility (“the Sumy ITT”, a part of the police infrastructure), in which he was detained until his transfer to the Sumy Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Sumy SIZO”) on 7 October 2005.

During his questioning on 30 September 2005 the applicant retracted his earlier confessions as obtained under duress. He stated that he had only been a witness of the crimes and that the murders had been committed by other persons, A. and Se., who had later forced him to sell the property belonging to the victims. The applicant indicated those persons’ first names and physical description.

Two police officers implicated in the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant visited him in the SIZO (where he had been transferred from the ITT on 7 October 2005) on 18, 22 and 30 November 2005. They allegedly continued putting pressure on him, to which the investigator failed to react.

On 15 February 2006 an investigator of the Sumy Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment by the police officers for the lack of corpus delicti in their actions. It was noted in the decision that the applicant had raised that complaint for the first time during his questioning on 13 February 2006.

On 12 May 2006 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Sumy Court”) sitting as a court of first instance found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life-term imprisonment with confiscation of all his property. The court relied on the applicant’s confessions made during the pre-trial investigation as eventually modified by him.

On 17 August 2006 the Supreme Court partly changed the reasoning of the verdict, having upheld, on the whole, the findings of the first-instance court and the applicant’s sentence. The Supreme Court noted that the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated and that they had been rejected by the prosecutor’s decision against which the applicant had failed to lodge an appeal. The Supreme Court also noted that the applicant’s allegation about other persons’ responsibility for the crimes had been duly examined at the pre-trial stage and during the trial and that it was unsubstantiated.

On 9 April 2007 the applicant was transferred from the SIZO to Ladyzhynska prison no. 39 to serve his sentence.

On 13 October 2016 the European Court has found a violation a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the ineffective domestic investigation into the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the violation of the applicant’s right to the privilege against self-incrimination.

The applicant's representative before the European Court –Mr Mykhaylo Tarakhkalo, 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.

 

Yarovenko v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Yuriy Mikhaylovich Yarovenko, was born in 1975 and is serving his sentence in Lugansk Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO).

On 24 (or 25 according to the Government) September 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and murder. According to the applicant, the police subjected him to various forms of ill-treatment following his arrest.

On 23 November 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, sitting as a court of first instance, found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery, two counts of murder, and unlawful possession of firearms. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of property. The applicant appealed on points of law.

On 20 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

The applicant was detained in the following detention facilities:

the Simferopol Temporary Detention Facility (“the Simferopol ITT”, a part of the police system): from 25 September to 26 October and from 4 to 19 November 2004 (during the intervening period from 26 October to 4 November 2004 the applicant was undergoing a forensic psychiatric examination in a psychiatric hospital);

the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Simferopol SIZO”): from 19 November 2004 to 16 March 2006 and from 2 May to 18 October 2006;

the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO: from 17 March to 6 April, from 25 April to 1 May and from 19 to 29 October 2006;

the Kyiv SIZO: from 7 to 25 April 2006 (that is during the time when the applicant’s case was examined by the Supreme Court);

the Odessa SIZO: from 30 October to 4 November 2006 (the applicant raised no complaints in respect of his detention there); and

Kherson Prison no. 61: from 4 November 2006 onwards.

The applicant stated inappropriate conditions of detention in every facility.

Prior to his detention the applicant had been suffering from chronic hepatitis, neurocirculatory asthenia, varicose veins, and astigmatism of both eyes. It is not known whether he had undergone any medical treatment in that connection.

 Furthermore, in 1995 the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis for the first time. In November 2001 his tuberculosis disease was considered to have developed in a chronic form. The applicant complained that he had not been provided with appropriate treatment for his tuberculosis and other diseases while in detention. More specifically, he contended that no treatment had been provided for him at all in the Simferopol ITT. Although subsequently, during his detention in the Simferopol SIZO and in Kherson Prison no. 61, he had been treated for tuberculosis, that treatment had not been effective and had led to the deterioration of his health. The applicant observed in this connection that his first drug susceptibility test had taken place only on 20 February 2007, that is more than two years since the beginning of his detention. It had shown that he was resistant to the medications, with which he had been treated all that time.

On 6 October 2016 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect to the poor physical conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Simferopol ITT, Simferopol SIZO, Dnipropetrovsk SIZO and Kyiv SIZO and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of inadequate medical care afforded to the applicant in detention.

The applicant's representative before the European Court – Ms Yelena Ashchenko, 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.

 

2.1. Six cases in which the SLC lawyers represented applicants before the ECtHR on the stage of communication with the Government of Ukraine

 

Case of Goncharenko v. Ukraine

On  20 October 2010 near  9:00 the applicant was detained by police officers in Odessa. The police took him by car "Volkswagen", went in a forest outside the city of Odessa. There police beat Applicant in different parts of his body, (head, torso etc.), put a plastic bag on his head. After the torture, which lasted several hours, police ordered the applicant to dig a grave for himself. All this time the police had ordered him to confess to committing murder.

In the night of  21 October 2010 (4-5 hours after the beating) the applicant was taken to the Dniprovskyy District police station Kiev. Police continued to beat the applicant. For nearly 30 hours (from the moment of detention at 9.00 on October 21 by the time the protocol on detention - 15.00  22 October 2010) the applicant was held in custody without the protocol and registration.

On 22 October 2010 under the influence of prolonged torture the applicant was exhausted from the physical and psychological violence, he was fearing for his life and for his sister, that’s why he signed a protocol of interrogation of the testimony and found himself guilty to committing a crime under Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (premeditated murder).

On 22 October 2010 at 22.00 the applicant was taken to the temporary detention facility  in Kiev (hereinafter - ITT). During the initial medical examination a doctor found on the applicant’s body hematoma in the left ear, nose, both eyes on the buttocks that was noted in the special Register.

On 25 October 2010 the applicant was transferred to the Kyiv detention centre №13. The applicant had bruises around the right and left eye, left ear, extensive bruises on the buttocks. The applicant stated that he was subjected to torture by police officers.

On 18 November 2010 the applicant filed a complaint to the prosecutor office on unlawful actions of police officers on torture and force to write a confession to the crime.

Since that time the applicant and his lawyer maintained his complaint to the prosecutor office challenging refusals to initiate criminal proceedings due to the higher prosecutors and to the court.

On 8 October 2013 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the ECHR on violation of the article 3 of the Convention.

On 3 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a response on the Government’s Observation to the ECHR. 

 

Case of Drazman and others v. Ukraine

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 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.

 

Case of 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.

 

Case of Zabolotnyy v. Ukraine

On 12 December 2007 the applicant was driving his car and became involved in an argument with the driver of another vehicle. An hour later, four men approached the applicant outside a warehouse where he was conducting some business. One of the men stated that he was a police officer and requested that the applicant follow him to his car. 

When the applicant asked the men to come into the light inside the warehouse, they grabbed his arms and started twisting them. The applicant was taken to the vehicle, where he was beaten on the head and body. He was then taken to the premises of the regional Department for the Prevention of Organised Crime (УБОЗ УМВС) (“the Department”) where he was beaten again and threatened that he would be killed because of the incident on the road. As he had been beaten and was afraid for his life, the applicant signed a document that had been given to him by a senior police officer, in which the applicant acknowledged that he had physically assaulted the driver in question. He was then taken to the Leninsky District police station.

On 13 December 2007 an ambulance was called to the police station and the applicant was taken to the neurological unit of the city hospital where he spent twenty-six days. He was diagnosed with a closed head injury and concussion.

On 17 December 2007 the applicant’s brother reported a crime to the prosecutor’s, stating that the applicant had been ill-treated by police officers on 12 December 2007 and that no steps had been taken to investigate the incident, despite the fact that the applicant had complained of having been beaten when he had been taken to hospital.

On 8 January 2008 the prosecutor’s office of the Vinnytsya Region refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers owing to a lack ofcorpus delicti

The applicant appealed against the prosecutor’s decision.

On 27 February 2008 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the prosecutor’s decision had been based on a comprehensive and thorough inquiry.

On 8 March 2008 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision of 27 February 2008.

On 9 April 2008 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as time-barred, finding that the applicant had missed the statutory seven-day deadline for appeals, and had failed to request an extension.        That decision was upheld by the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 28 May and 14 October 2008 respectively.

The applicant lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) in which he complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he was tortured by the police on 12 December 2007 and that there has been no effective investigation into his allegations. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he further complains that he has had no possibility to appeal against the District Court’s judgment of 8 January 2008.

On 11 February 2016 the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

On 19 December 2016 a lawyer of the SLC acting on behalf of the applicant sent to the ECtHR the reply to the Government’s Observations of 26.10.2016.

 

2.2.  14 cases of Euromaydan protesting people in which 13 ones are in the ECtHR on the stage of communication with the Government of Ukraine

 

Case of Babin v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 22 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 8 June 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process).

On 18 June 2014 the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant was closed by the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 22December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention on remand.

On 2 March 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Balabay v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 3 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 2 June 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 24 December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention.

On 11 February 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH.

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Bereza v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 29 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 28 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 16 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 10 November 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention.

On 27 January 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH.

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Bezotosnyy v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the instance.

On 3 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 5 June 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process

On 6 June 2014 the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant was closed by the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 24 December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention on remand

On 11 February 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Dubovtsev v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand.

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 3 February 2014 the Court of Appeal quashed the court decision dated 27 January 2014, instead had chosen house arrest concerning the applicant as a preventive measure.

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the term of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 9 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 15 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 18 December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court, the applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention on remand and detention

On 17 March 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Hlusov v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 23 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 20 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 22 December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention.

On 4 March 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH.

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Khmelyovskyy v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offense.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand.

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the applicant appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On the 3 February 2014 the Court of Appeal quashed the court decision dated 27 January 2014, instead had chosen house arrest concerning the applicant as a preventive measure.

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 10 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 14 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 28 May 2014 the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant was closed by the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 10 November 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention on remand and detention

On 17 June 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Lapin v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 20 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 22 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 14 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 22 December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention.

On 26 February 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH.

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

 

Case of Orbeladze v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 22 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Pegarkov v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand.

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 20 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance

On 23 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 19 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 28 May 2014 the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant was closed by the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 22 December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention on remand and detention

On 17 June 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Shebanov v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 20 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 15 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 4 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 31 July 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention.

On 10 March 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH.

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Shevchenko E. v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 10 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 28 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 22 December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention on remand and detention durinf 8 days

In February 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court  in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH.

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Shevchenko V. v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 16 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 15 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 10 November 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention.

In February 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH.

In February 2014 the lawyer alleged an application before the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention.

In April 2016 the European court of human rights communicated the application with Ukrainian government.

In June 2016 the lawyer received objection made by Ukrainian government.

In July 2016 the lawyer prepared and sent to the European court of human rights observations in the case.

Proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Tsyganov v. Ukraine

On 26 January 2014 the applicant was detained by investigator of Investigating Unit of Kirovskyy District Department of Dnipropetrovsk City Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine under signs of crime provided by part 1 of Article 294 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Mass riots») Furthermore, a series of other criminal proceedings for the consequences of events at the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration were started by the Police City Department of Dnipropetrovsk. On the same day the applicant was notified of suspicion in the indicated criminal offence.

On 27 January 2014 Babushkinskiy District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter - the District Court), represented by judge Mr R., applied for the  applicant a preventive measure in form of detention on remand

On 31 January 2014 advocate of the  applicant, Mr. G., appealed the decision of the court from 27 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal of the Dnipropetrovsk region (hereinafter - the Court of Appeal)

On 19 February 2014 according to the request of the prosecutor of the city Dnipropetrovsk Court exemptioned the applicant from criminal responsibility and closed the criminal proceedings against him under Art. 1 of the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) from 29 January 2014 (hereinafter - the Law from 29 January 2014) on not rehabilitating grounds.

On 27 February 2014 the defense counsel of the  applicant, Mr P., appealed against the court's decision of February 19, 2014. He asked to renew the tearm of appeal and to terminate the criminal proceedings under Paragraph 1 Part 1 Article 284 Criminal Code of procedure of Ukraine in connection with the lack of event of crime .Besides that, the court's decision of 19 February 2014 was appealed by the prosecutor, who took part in consideration of the criminal proceedings by the court of the  instance.

On 8 April 2014 Court of Appeal partly granted the the prosecutor's appeal and cancelled decision of the court from 19 February 2014 and ordered a new trial of the applicant case by court of the  instance.

.On 27 May 2014 the court after consideration requests of the prosecutor of Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk, Mr P., of 18 February 2014 on release of the  applicant from the criminal responsibility according to Law of 29 January 2014, rejected the request and sent the materials of the case to the Prosecutor's Office of the city of Dnipropetrovsk to conduct criminal proceedings in a general process.

On 19 June 2014 according to the Prosecutor's of the city of Dnipropetrovsk decree passed a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 23 December 2014 by the decision of the Babushkinsky District Court,  applicant was awarded compensation for moral damage of 50 000.00 UAH caused by the illegal starting of the criminal proceedings against him, choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention.

In March 2015 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region in its decision upheld the decision of the court in the part of compensation to the applicant 50 000.00 UAH.

2.3. Two cases of Euromaidan participants in Kharkiv

Case of Mr. Ch. v. Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2016, the lawyer again managed to get a copy of the new decision on closing the proceedings, and he again appealed on it to the investigating judge. In November 2016, the investigating judge of Chervonozavodskyi District Court of Kharkiv once again quashed the closure of the criminal proceedings and sent back the case file to resume the preliminary investigation.

In April 2016 the Eueopean court of human rights communicated the appliations with the Government.

On 25 June 2016 the SLC lawyers prepared and sent observations to the European court of human rights.

In the end of November 2013 protests were started in the city of Kyiv and others regions, focused on supporting eurointegration process of Ukraine. Protests were occurring in the form of rallies, demonstrations, strikes, which participants were brought to criminal or administrative liability.

On 19 December 2013 the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating of negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies)) № 712-18 was adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. On January 29, 2014 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine «On elimination of negative impacts and prevent prosecution and punishment for taking part in the events that occurred during peaceful gatherings)) №737-VII.

On 21 February 2014 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine «On eliminating negative consequences, preventing prosecution and punishing people in connection with events taking place during peaceful assemblies and ceasing certain invalid Some Laws of Ukraine)) №743-VII.

On 26 January 2014 about 14.00 at the square near Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration (hereinafter - Administration), located at Kirov ave., 1 3 in the city of Dnepropetrovsk occurred peacefull protest aimed to support European integration, as well as dissent of the actions of the previous government.

During the peaceful protest there was a clash, during which part of the peaceful protesters, including the applicants, who were at that moment on the intersection of Serov str. and K. Marks pr., were detained by police.

Case on abuse of force against protesting people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the beginning of the 2016, the trial judge was dismissed from the post, and after a long delay a new judge was appointed. In August. 2016, at last the preliminary hearing was completed during which the victims lodged new civil claims. In October – November, 2016 two hearing were carried out, and several victims were questioned. No one witness was questioned in court yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2016, the investigator again terminated the “investigation’, and the SLC lawyer again complained the decision, and investigating judge again reversed the decision and send the case file back for renewing of the investigation.

 

3.  47 cases in which the complaints complete applications on alleged violations of the Convention or applications on requesting interim measures according to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court have been prepared and lodged to the ECtHR

3.1. 28 cases related to events in the East of Ukraine

Seven cases of prisoners left at the occupied territories

Mr. L v. Ukraine, Mr. G. v. Ukraine, Mr. D. v. Ukraine

 

Since 2014 Ukraine permanently faced with some difficulties in the eastern regions. Unlawful military groups occupied towns and founded independent “republic”. To save territory and people Ukraine had to provide counter-terrorist operation inspite of which several places were captured. In August 2014 - November 2014 state bodies were removed from dangerous zone to other regions. Ukrainian government evacuated almost all state departments, courts, police offices, some civilians left homes and were looking for shelter in other region. At the same time prisoners being under government’s control stayed at the occupied territory. During strong armed attacks they could not leave cells to hide and prison officers did not put them to a shelter when it was vital necessary.

On 14 November 2014 the Ukrainian president issued a decree according to which all prisoners and deteinees immediately had to be evacuated from dangerous places. However the decree was not performed. Military forces and police have postponed evacuation in 14 days while terrorists extended military operation more and more. Finally government tried to evacuate prisoners but at the last moment it was terminated cause of a mistake. No attempts were conducted later.

On 27 November 2014 the National post office ceased to deliver and send mails in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Thus prisoners have had no chance to make complaints or statements of crime to appropriate state bodies. In February 2015 last prison officers left occupied territory (or cooperated with terrorists) and military groups easily captured detainees and convicted persons.

Naturally terrorists did not provide prisoners with appropriate medical treatment, nutrition and conditions. They suffered from hunger, cold and humidity. For months prisoners ate only thin soup or small piece of bread per day, were not able to wash. In winters the temperature in cells dropped to five degrees - walls, clothes, linens were cold and wet. People got ill, some of them died or committed suicide.

Actually there are near ten thousand prisoners stayed at the occupied zone. Ombudmsna evacuated near 60 of them, negotiations are pending

In August - September 2016 three prisoners (Mr. L, Mr. D and Mr. G) found an opprtuninity to connect with the SLC lawyer. They asked to provide them with legal assistance as they stayed at the Yenakievska corrcetional colony number 52.

The SLC lawyer filed requests to the Ombudsman’s office on entering this prisoners to special list of people who want to serve punishment in other regions.

Also in September 2016 the SLC lawyer made a statement of crime committed by Minister of Justice of Ukraine and other public officers who left prisoners in occupied territory. The prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region did not enter information to the United register of pretrial investigations. So the SLC lawyer made three complaints to the Zhovtnevyy district court in the case of not-sstarting pretrial investigation.

In October 2016 the investigative judge granted all complaints and obliged the prosecutor to enter information about the crime to the United register of pretrial investigation. However prosecutors did not make any action with the aim to investigate the crime.

On 20 October, 24 October and 3 November 2016 the SLC lawyer alleged three application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed outj that conditions in the correctional colonies and psyhological presure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

In December 2016 the first application was declared admissible.

Proceedings are pending

 

Case of Gr. v. Ukraine.

On 1 June 2012, Mr. Gr. (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 centуr.

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.

 

Case of Nov. v. Ukraine

On 8 April 2014 Mr. Nov, (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.

 

      Case of Os. v. Ukraine

Mr Os. 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.

     

      Case of Sog. v. Ukraine.

On 3 November 2012 Mr. Sog. (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 closing 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.

Case of M-ko v. Ukraine

The applicant Mr M-ko, is a Ukrainian national.

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

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

On July 1, 2015 the SLC lawyer on behalf of the applicant submitted an application to the Security Service of Ukraine and to the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Luhansk region with a request to the Unified State Register of pre-trial investigation of his statement about the disappearance of the applicant and to provide help in his release from captivity.

On July 3, 2015 the SLC lawyer prepared and submitted to the ECHR a request on applying urgent measures on Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the applicant  is in serious danger due to the fact that he was injured and he is  in the territory under the control of terrorist organizations.

On 28 February 2016 the applicant was released from captivity.

On 25 August 2016 the SLC lawyer filed to the ECHR a complaint on Articles 3,5, 13 of the Convention

20 cases related to causing deaths, injuries and destroyed property of individuals in course of the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine

 

In the middle April 2014 in some towns and cities of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine seizures of governmental buildings took place. They were conducted by pro-russian armed groups. In Donetsk and Luhansk self-proclaimed states “Luhansk people’s republic” (“LPR”) and “Donetsk people’s republic” (“DPR”) were created.

On 14 May 2014 the Antiterrorist operation (the ATO) was started in Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Since June 2014 on the territory of Stanytsia Luhanska district active military actions have been conducted between terrorist forces and Ukrainian military units. During 2014 military actions in Stanytsia Luhanska reached high level of severity (daily shelling and shooting, sabotage and so on).

Many private houses were damaged or destroyed as a result of shelling. According to the data, provided by Stanytsia Luhanska administration, 28 citizens were killed and 36 were wounded during the period of 2014-2015.

According to the Ukrainian criminal law, such incidents are qualified as terrorist acts. However, till the middle of 2016 officials did not inform the sufferers about investigation of the abovementioned events.

Some victims obtained compensation from local state bodies in amounts of 1000 hrivnas each (about 40 euro). Damaged houses were not rebuilt. Locals filed requests to state bodies on obtaining money for repair works. They received answers that such remunerations are not possible due to lack of financing. Only thanks to help of volunteers and foreign donors some citizens have rebuilt their houses.

Locals, who had suffered from shelling, filed written notifications about crimes to the Security Service of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SSU) and to the Investigative committee of Russia (due to resolution of PACE, Russia exercises effective control over so-called “LPR”).

Applicants received answers from the Investigative committee that requests to governmental bodies of Ukraine had been prepared with the purpose to check their statements.

Investigators of the SSU failed to inform the applicants on registration of their notifications and starting of investigations. The applicants filed complaints to the Severodonetsk city court on investigator’s failure to act. Investigating judges granted their complaints and obliged the SSU investigators to start investigations.

Only after such actions the applicants received letters from the SSU informing them that data from their notifications were entered to the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations and investigations were started. At the same time, as it turned out, pretrial investigations of the abovementioned events (8 criminal proceedings) had been started by local department of the National police.

Since the abovementioned events of shelling have passed from 1 to 2 years. However, applicants were not interrogated in criminal proceedings as victims. They filed to the SSU motions on conducting of investigative actions. After a substantial delay the motions were granted. Nevertheless, even after granting of the motions, investigative actions were not conducted. The SSU investigator gave errands on conducting of investigative actions to local department of the National police, but applicants still were not interrogated in the place of their residence, which is a crime scene at the same time.

The majority of applicants’ motions to the Prosecutor’s Office of Luhansk region on consolidation of criminal proceedings which are conducted according to the same events of crime were left unconsidered. Prosecutor stated that applicants do not have a victim status, thus they have no right to file motions.

Taking into account obvious ineffectiveness of investigations, conducting by law-enforcement bodies of Russia and Ukraine, there is no prospect of finding guilty persons. At the same time, there is no prospect of obtaining compensations of damages. Considering the abovementioned, applicants decided to apply to the ECtHR against these two countries, which, as applicants believe, are responsible in violations of their rights in context of article 1 of the Convention. Lawyers of the SLC filed applications to the ECtHR on violations of article 1 of Protocol 1, article 8 of the Convention. In cases of deaths or wounds as a result of shelling – lawyers also filed applications on article 2 or 3 of the Convention, depending on particular case.

 

Case of Az v. Ukraine and Russia

On 2 September 2014 the house of Mr Az (hereinafter – the applicant) in Stanytsia Luhanska was almost completely destroyed as a result of the  shelling

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of his property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 30 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Case of Al. K. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Al. K. lives in urban village Stanytsia Luhanska. He is an applicant.

On 24 January 2015, during the shelling applicant’s apartment was completely destroyed. The applicant at that time was in the apartment and survived only as a result of a lucky escape.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of his property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 29 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Case of Al. L. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ukrainian citizen Mrs. Al. L. lives in urban village Stanytsia Luhanska. She is an applicant.

On 18 August 2014, during the shelling applicant’s apartment was almost completely destroyed.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of her property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 29 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Case of Bar. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ukrainian citizen Mrs. Bar. L. lives in urban village Stanytsia Luhanska. She is an applicant.

On 2 September 2014 and 19 July 2015, during the shelling applicant’s house was almost completely destroyed. The applicant and her brother at that time were in the house and survived only as a result of a lucky escape.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of her property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 29 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Case of Bon. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 9 September 2015 during the shelling house and farm buildings belonging applicant - Mrs. Bon., a resident of Stanitsia Luhanska, were badly damaged. The applicant and her husband at that time were in the house and survived only as a result of a lucky escape.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of her property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 30 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Case Bu. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 18 August 2014 and several times in the period  from 19 February till 15 August 2015 the house of Ms Bu (hereinafter – the applicant) in Stanytsia Luhanska was almost completely destroyed as a result of the  shelling.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of her property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 29 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

  

Case of Cher. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 18 July 2015 the house of Mrs. Cher. in Stanytsia Luhanska cought fire and was totally destroyed as a result of another shelling. Since the last date she has rent a house in the town because she got no money for renewals of her own property. Her children and other relatives have left Stanytsia Luhanska and currently lives in Russia.

On 28 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

 

Case of Dmyt. v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs D. (hereinafter – the applicant) herself was wounded in the course of shelling on 2 September 2014 in Stanytsia Luhanska. On 3 September 2014 her house in Stanytsia Luhanska was damaged as a result of another shelling.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the facts of her wound and destruction of her property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 30 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of articles 2, 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

 

Case of Greb. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ukrainian citizen Ms G. with her children (13-year old boy and 7-year old girl) lives in Stanytsia Luhanska.

On 4 July 2015 the applicant’s flat in Stanytsia Luhanska was destroyed as a result of another shelling.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of her property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 30 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the Convention.

 

Case of Kos. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 18 August, 29 August, 2 September 2014 the house of Mrs. Kos. in Stanytsia Luhanska was totally destroyed as a result of another shelling. Since the last date she has left the town, for a year lived with her children in Odessa and Luhansk which is situated in the occupied territory. After that she arrived to stanytsa Luhanska and tried to restore her house but she did not have enough money for that. Currently her children live in Luhansk

On 28 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

 

Case of Kar. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 8 February 2015 the house of Mr Kar. (hereinafter – the applicant) in Stanytsia Luhanska was almost completely destroyed as a result of the  shelling.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of his property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 29 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Case of Karp. Yulia v. Ukraine and Russia

On 18 August, 29 August, 2 September 2014 the house of Mrs. Karp. in Stanytsia Luhanska was totally destroyed as a result of another shelling. Since the last date she has left the town, for a year lived with her famly in Odessa and Luhansk which is situated in the occupied territory. After that she arrived to stanytsa Luhanska and tried to restore her house but she did not have enough money for that.

On 28 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

 

Case of Kirich. v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs K’s (hereinafter – the applicant) house of in Stanytsia Luhanska was destroyed as a result of shelling. During the shelling 02 and 03 September 2014, 19 January 2015 and the period from 5 to 27 August 2015 the Applicant's house was damaged so heavily that stay there became impossible. The applicant with her children was forced to move to live with his mother in the territory which are not kept fighting. Applicant's husband stayed in Stanytsia Luhanska because he had to look after animals, so applicant had not seen her husband for more than a year. The applicant returned to live to Stanytsia Luhanska.

On 29 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

 

Case of Kuz. v. Ukraine and Russia

Mr. K’s (hereinafter – the applicant) house of in Stanytsia Luhanska was damaged as a result of shelling. During the shelling 02 June 2014, 09 January 2015 and from 27 to 28 June 2015 the Applicant's house was heavily damaged: roof and windows were broken, a garage was burned. Applicant’s granddaughter, who had lived together with him, moved to live in a peaceful area. The applicant has lost connection with her since June 2014.

On 30 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 2, 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

 

Case of Lyash. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 1 February 2015 Mrs L.’s (hereinafter – the applicant) house in Stanytsia Luhanska was damaged as a result of another shelling. As a result of the destruction, living in the house was almost impossible. Applicant’s son had moved to the Russian Federation therefore she lost contact with him. Moreover, the applicant's health deteriorated. She is disabled person of group III.

 On 29 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 2, 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

 

Case of Mal. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 2 September 2014 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs Mal., causing significant damage the house and destroying farm buildings.

On the night of 19 to 20 July 2015 during the shelling the household of the applicant was damaged again, the roof and the plastic windows were completely destroyed.

On the night of 19 to 20 August 2015 there was a new shelling, which caused a fire in households applicant, which resulted in completely burned roof and the wooden windows.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of her property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 30 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Case of Mah. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 3 September 2014 during the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs Makhrevych. The applicant at that time was in the kitchen of her house. As a result of hitting the roof and walls of the house were significantly damaged.

On 11 August 2015 the repeated shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which several shells hit in the applicant’s household, destroying farm buildings (a barn, a summer shower, a toilet, a greenhouse).

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the fact of into destruction of her property by the investigating authorities of Ukraine and Russia the applicant applied for legal aid the lawyers of the SLC.

On 30 December 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.

 

Case of Naz. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ukrainian citizen Mr Naz. have lived in a private house in a township Stanytsia Luhanska with his wife and son.

On 2 and 9 September 2014, the applicant’s house was shelled and burned. The artillery shelling has severely damaged the house, the belongings inside it have burned and it become impossible to live in it. At the time of the shelling the Applicant’s family was in the Applicant’s relatives house and only by lucky coincidence they remained alive. As well, the Applicant’s business object – a cafe and a saloon of beauty have been damaged too.

Since in fact the investigation of the crimes did not carried out, the Applicant applied to the SLC. Afner certain time after lodging the criminal complaints to investigating authorities both Ukraine and Russia, it became apparent that it was ineffective and guilty persons would never be determined and brought to the responsibility, as well as it could not lead to compensation of the harm for the Applicant.

Given to this, the SLC lawyer prepared and on 31 December, 2016 lodged to the ECtHR an application on violation of the rights of the Applicant foreseen by Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 of the Convention and by Article 1 of Protocol no.1 to the Convention.

 

Case of Zen v. Ukraine and Russia

On 22 - 23 January 2015 and on 14 September 2015 the house of Mr. Zen in Stanytsia Luhanska was damaged as a result of another shelling. Since the last date he has rent a house in the town because he got no money for renewals of his own property. His children and other relatives have left Stanytsia Luhanska and currently lives in Moscow.

On 28 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

 

3.2.  Six cases related to Savchenko’s Law

 

Case of K. v. Ukraine

Mr. Pavlo Mykolayovych K. is Ukrainian nation who currently serves his punishment at the Artemivsk penitentiary institution.

On 11 February 2001 K. was detained on suspicion of commiting repeatedly murders. During the preliminary investigation as well as the trial he was kept at the Kherson preliminary detention center.

On 12 June 2002 the Kherson court of appeal found K. guilty and sentenced him to the life imprisonment. Totally he was kept at the preliminary detention center for 3 years 6 months and 9 days. Despite the verdict he was not transferred to a correctional colony till 9 september 2004 and had to stay at the preliminary detention center where conditions were much worse than in any other penitentiary institution. Finally he was transferred to the Yenakiieva correction colony on 9 september 2004 and for many years served his punishment in the Donetsk region. However because of the beginning of the Anti-terrorist operation in the East part of Ukraine he was left at the occupied territory under control of terrorists without any chance to live. Fortunately he survived and in December 2015 was transferred to Artemivsk.

On 26 November 2015 the Verkhovna Roda of Ukraine adopted amendsments to the Criminal code of Ukraine according to which a day of preliminary detention should be counted as 2 days of serving punishment. The law did not assume any special restrictions on the ground of personality, punishment or other reasons.

On 23 May 2016 K. submitted a motion to the Kherson court of appeal on recounting of the term of his punishment. The main reason for his application was a chance to fill a pardon as early as it was possible.

On 10 June 2016 the Kherson court of appeal informed K. on returning of his motion . The court noted that he was not allowed to fill that motion because he served life imprisonment and the specific amendment did not extend on this category of prisoners. The refusal was formed as a letter signed by the had of the criminal chamber. Therefore K. did not recieve any proceedings decisions because the criminal proceedings code of Ukraine did not provide such form of the proceedings document as a letter.

In August 2016 K. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The lawyer familiarized with the case files and prepared an application to the European court of human rights under Article 6 and 14 of the Convention. The lawyer pointed out that the applicant had not access to the trial court and had no opportunity to appeal against unlawful decisions. The lawyer also considered that K. was illegally descriminated on the base of the type of his punishment.

 

Case of R. v. Ukraine

Mr.Oleg Grygoriyovych R. is Ukrainian nation who currently serves his punishment at the Vilnyanska penitentiary institution

On 13 March 2004 R. was detained on suspicion of committing repeatedly murders. During the preliminary investigation as well as the trial he was kept at the Kherson preliminary detention center.

On 21 March 2006 the Kherson court of appeal found R. guilty and sentenced him to the life imprisonment. Totally he was kept at the preliminary detention center for 3 years 6 months and 25 days. Despite the verdict he was not transferred to a correctional colony till 12 October 2007 and had to stay at the preliminary detention center where conditions were much worse than in any other penitentiary institution. Finally he was transferred to the Yenakiieva correction colony and for many years served his punishment in the Donetsk region. However because of the beginning of the Anti-terrorist operation in the East part of Ukraine he was left at the occupied territory under control of terrorists without any chance to live. Fortunately he survived and in December 2015 was transferred to Artemivsk.

On 26 November 2015 the Verkhovna Roda of Ukraine adopted amendsments to the Criminal code of Ukraine according to which a day of preliminary detention should be counted as 2 days of serving punishment. The law did not assume any special restrictions on the ground of personality, punishment or other reasons.

On 23 May 2016 the applicant submitted a motion to the Kherson court of appeal on recounting of the term of his punishment. The main reason for his application was a chance to fill a pardon as early as it was possible.

On 10 June 2016 the Kherson court of appeal informed R. on returning of his motion . The court noted that he was not allowed to fill that motion because he served life imprisonment and the specific amendment did not extend on this category of prisoners. The refusal was formed as a letter signed by the had of the criminal chamber. Therefore R. did not recieve any proceedings decisions because the criminal proceedings code of Ukraine did not provide such form of the proceedings document as a letter.

In August 2016 R. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The lawyer familiarized with the case files and prepared an application to the European court of human rights under Article 6 and 14 of the Convention. The lawyer pointed out that the applicant had not access to the trial court and had no opportunity to appeal against unlawful decisions. The lawyer also considered that R. was illegally descriminated on the base of the type of his punishment.

 

Case of G. v. Ukraine

Mr. G. is a Ukiranian national who currently serves life imprisonment.

He was datained in 1999 on suspicion of committing several murders.

On 10 December 2001 the Zaporizzhya court of appeal found G. guilty and sentenced him to the life imprisonment. Until that moment he was kept at the preliminary detention center for 10 years, 10 months, 3 days.

On 26 November 2015 the Verkhovna Roda of Ukraine adopted amendsments to the Criminal code of Ukraine according to which a day of preliminary detention should be counted as 2 days of serving punishment. The law did not assume any special restrictions on the ground of personality, punishment or other reasons.

On 16 February 2016 G. submitted a motion to the Artemivsk district court in Donetsk region on recounting of the term of his punishment. The main reason for his application was a chance to fill a pardon as early as it was possible.

On 3 March 2016 the Artemivsk district court refused to the motion. The judge thought that G. served life imprisonment and the specific amendment did not extend on this category of prisoners.

G. appealed but on 26 April 2016 the Court of appeal in Donetsk region uphold the decision.

He also submitted an appeal to the High specialized court but it did not consider merits.

In September 2016 G. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The lawyer familiarized with the case files and prepared an application to the European court of human rights under Article 6 and 14 of the Convention. The lawyer pointed out that the pincple of fair trial and Ryle of Law were broken. The lawyer also considered that Trotchenko was illegally descriminated on the base of the type of his punishment.

 

Case of T. v. Ukraine

Mr. T. is Ukiranian national who currently serves life imprisonment.

On 30 April 2010 the Kharkiv court of appeal found T. guilty and sentenced him to the life imprisonment. Until this moment he was kept at the preliminary detention center for 5 years, 11 months, 26 days.

On 26 November 2015 the Verkhovna Roda of Ukraine adopted amendsments to the Criminal code of Ukraine according to which a day of preliminary detention should be counted as 2 days of serving punishment. The law did not assume any special restrictions on the ground of personality, punishment or other reasons.

In February 2016 T. submitted a motion to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Kharkiv on recounting of the term of his punishment. The main reason for his application was a chance to fill a pardon as early as it was possible.

On 2 October 2016 the Zhovtnevyy district court in Kharkiv refused to the motion. The judge thought that T. served life imprisonment and the specific amendment did not extend on this category of prisoners.

T. appealed but on 26 May 2016 the Court of appeal in Kharkiv region uphold the decision.

He also submitted an appeal to the High specialized court but it did not consider merits.

In September 2016 T. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The lawyer familiarized with the case files and prepared an application to the European court of human rights under Article 6 and 14 of the Convention. The lawyer pointed out that the pincple of fair trial and Ryle of Law were broken. The lawyer also considered that T. was illegally descriminated on the base of the type of his punishment.

 

Case of S. S. v. Ukraine

Ukrainian citizen Mr. S. S. serves his life imprisonment.

On 14 January 2010, the High Spesialized Court of Ukraine found S. S. guilty and and sentenced him to the life imprisonment.

On 26 November 2015, the Verkhovna Roda of Ukraine passed a law under which one day of detention is counted as two days of imprisonment. There are no restrictions on the persons to whom this law can be enforced.

On 1 February 2016, S. S. submitted a motion on recounting the term of his imprisonment. The reason of submitting such the motion was to speed the possibility of submitting a petition on mercy to the President of Ukraine. The motion was not granted. He appealed.

On 6 April 2016, the Court of Appeal did not satisfied the complaint.

On 14 June 2016, S. S. appealed to the Higher Specialized Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Ukraine.

On 4 July 2016, it was refused to open the cassation proceedings.

On 1 November 2016, a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 6§1 in combination with violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

 

Case of K. M. v. Ukraine

Ukrainian citizen Mr. K. M. serves his life imprisonment.

On 22 February 1996, the Supreme Court of Ukraine found K. M.  guilty and sentenced him to death.

On 2 June 2000, death penalty was changed to life imprisonment.

On 26 November 2015, the Verkhovna Roda of Ukraine passed a law under which one day of detention is counted as two days of imprisonment. There are no restrictions on the persons to whom this law can be enforced.

On 1 June 2016, K. M. submitted a motion on recounting the term of his imprisonment. The reason of submitting such the motion was to speed the possibility of submitting a petition on mercy to the President of Ukraine. The motion was not granted. He appealed.

On 19 July 2016, the Court of Appeal did not satisfied the complaint.

On 1 August 2016, K. M. appealed to the Higher Specialized Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Ukraine.

On 7 September 2016, it was refused to open the cassation proceedings.

On 2 November 2016, a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 6§1 in combination with violation of Article 14 of the Convention.

 

3.3. Other 13 cases in which applications have been lodged to the ECtHR

 

Case of Am. v. Ukraine

Mr Am., a Tajikistan national, had lived in Tajikistan before he leaved for Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation in 2012 for finding a job.

When working in Saint-Petersburg he joined an NGO “Group 24” (hereinafter – the NGO). As a member of this NGO Mr Am. shared its ideology among Tadjik people working in Saint-Petersburg, he participated in rallies and performed fund-raising functions. 

The aim of the NGO was explaining to the Tajikistan nationals their rights for free election and the necessity of organisation of peaceful protests directed at non-violent change of the current government. Because of this position on 9 October 2014 the NGO was considered by the Supreme Court of Tajikistan an extremist and unlawful NGO, after that the persecution of its members has started.  

At such circumstances Mr Am., having been afraid that he could be extradited or unlawfully rendered to Tajikistan where he would be prosecuted for his participation in the NGO, in February 2016 decided to leave Russia and went to Turkey. However, after killing of the NGO leader in Turkey he leaved for Ukraine and arrived in this country on 23.06.2016.  .

On 14.07.2016 in Kharkiv Mr Alimor and four other people were detained at the place of their temporary residence of their friend Mr Asadullobekov by the law-enforcement officers, which did not introduce themselves.  After detention they were taken to an unknown building. During his detention in this building Mr Am. was twice subjected to ill-treatment – the first time for finding out the location of escaped Mr Asadullobekov, the second time – in order to force his to confess in his involvement in the activities of a terrorist organisation “ISIS”. Also the officers took photos of Mr Am. against the “ISIS” flag and threatened him that if he complained about ill-treatment these photos would be sent to Tajikistan. 

Mr Am. was held in this building till 21.07.2016 and then he was delivered to the court for considering an issue about his deportation. Before the court hearing the persons who had subjected Mr Am. to tortures and ill-treatment, threatened him with physical violence if he complained about tortures before the court.

At the same date the court made a decision about deportation of Mr Am. from Ukraine.

Due to the court’s decision Mr Am. was taken to the Chernigiv temporary detention centre for foreigners (hereinafter - the TDC). 

On 19.09.2016 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine issued an indication that from   22.07.2016 Mr Am. was held in custody without the court decision about his detention and placement into the TDC and there were no reasons for keeping of him in the TDC.  

On 21.09.2016 the Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in Chernigiv region lodged a suit about detention of Mr Am.. The same day Mr Am. was detained by the court order and placed into the TDC till 20.03.2016.

On 30.08.2016 Mr Am. lodged an asylum request.  On 21.09.2016 he received a refusal in satisfaction of this request. .

On 28.09.2016 he appealed against the refusal to the court. On 11.10.2016 the court refused to satisfy his claims.

The applicant of Mr Am. lodged an appeal against the above mentioned court decision to the Court of Appeal. The case is pending. 

Also, the lawyer appealed against the decision about deportation of Mr Am..

On 22.12.2014 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal remained the decision of the first instance court in force.

On 23.12.2016 the lawyer lodged within the European Court of Human Rights with an application about applying of interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and discontinue the deportation of Mr Am..

On 28.12.2016 the ECtHR granted this request and informed the Government of Ukraine that Mr Am. should not be deportated till finishing of the procedures before the Court.

 

Case of B. v. Ukraine

On 8 May 2007 Mr Yuri B. (hereinafter - the Applicant) was detained with Mr M. by Novovodolazhsky district police department of the Kharkiv region on suspicion of committing a robbery.

On the same day,  immediately after the arrest, police officers brought Applicant and Mr. Miroshnyk in police station and they were beaten during the night from 8 to 9 May 2007. As a result of being subjected to torture and beatings the applicant signed all documents, as the police demanded.

On 7 September,2007 an indictment against the applicant was issued and the case was sent to court.

Throughout his examination of the prosecution, the applicant repeatedly submitted complaints against the judge L.A. Maryuhna. In particular, on 26 February 2013 the applicant filed complaint on recusal of the judge, referring to the fact that he had the conviction on clearly accusatory consideration of his criminal case, as well as delaying the proceedings in breach of Article 6.

On 31 July 2015  the Valkovsky District Court issued a verdict according to which applicant was convicted of committing crimes he was accused under the new indictment.

On 13August 2015 the applicant appealed this verdict.

On 21 October 2015 Court of Appeal decided to return the criminal case against the applicant to Valkovsky court.

On 25 February 2016 Court of Appeal issued a ruling that changed the sentence by 31.05.2015  and released the applicant from detention.

The applicant appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of Ukraine (hereinafter - VSSU).

On 10 May 2016  the VSSU refused to open proceedings on the applicant’s cassation.

On 30August 2016 the VSSU issued a second decision refusing the opening of procedure.

On 1 July 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the ECHR on Article 3 of the Convention on torture and ill-treatment.

On 10 October 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the ECHR on Article 6 of the Convention.

Case of Gl v. Ukraine

Gl Volodymyr Borisovich (the applicant) - retired from Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine (the Interior Ministry), on January 27, 2011.

On 12 May 2016 the applicant filed a request to the Office of the Pension Fund in the Kharkiv region (further Pension Fund) to brought his pension as a retired police officer into line on the increase of salaries in the National Police.

On 16 May 2016 the Pension Fund refused on the grounds of lack of documentation  from the Interior Ministry to increase allowance of police and recalculation of pensions

On 12 September 2016 the applicant filed an administrative suit to the Kominternovsky District Court of Kharkov, which asked to recognize refusal of the Pension Fund as unlawful and obliges brought his pension as a retired police officer into line from the date of the relevant application to the Pension Fund.

On 25 October 2016 the Kominternovsky District Court of Kharkov refused  the claim of the applicant.

On 4 November 2016 the applicant, not agreeing with the decision of the trial court, appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region.

On 29 November 2016 the Court of Appeal refused the appeal of the applicant.

On 31December  2016 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the ECHR in violation of Article 6, Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 12 to the Convention.

 

Case of I. v. Ukraine

Mr. I. (hereinafter – the applicant) is a citizen of Ukraine.

Since 1997 the applicant suffers from personality disorder. He underwent medical treatment for a number of times. Also he has been recognized as a disabled person (II group). In 2001 the applicant was recognized as HIV-positive. Since 2006 the applicant suffers from tuberculosis.

As to the applicant’s conviction.

On 1 December 2014 the applicant was arrested.

On 24 June 2015 the applicant was found guilty by the Frunzenskyy District Court. He was sentenced to six-year imprisonment.

On 2 March 2016 the Court of Appeal left the abovementioned sentence unchanged.

In August 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a cassation appeal to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine. The court hearing is appointed to 26 January 2017.

As to the applicant’s medical treatment in detention.

In December 2014 the applicant was diagnosed a relapse of tuberculosis. Medical treatment with the anti-tuberculosis meds of the first row was appointed to the applicant.

However, the anti-tuberculosis treatment was provided to the applicant with sufficient breaks.

On 11 March 2015 the applicant was diagnosed a multi-resistant tuberculosis.

On 10 November 2015 the applicant’s health rapidly deteriorated and on 25 November an active phase of anti-tuberculosis treatment was re-opened. However, the anti-tuberculosis meds of the second raw have become ineffective.

On 10 February 2016 anti-tuberculosis treatment of the applicant was terminated.

In June 2016 the SLC lawyer drafted an application to administration of the applicant’s penitentiary institution on his release because of his diseases. Medical commission found his diseases not severe enough for the applicant’s release.

In June 2016 anti-tuberculosis medical treatment of the applicant was re-opened.

On 2 November 2016 the SLC lawyer drafted and addressed to the ECtHR an application. He stated that providing the applicant with an inadequate medical treatment in custody violated his rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

The SLC lawyer and the applicant’s wife filed a number of complaints and applications concerning the applicant’s release because of his diseases.

In December 2016 a specialized medical commission re-examined the applicant. Documents on his release were filed to the court.

On 29 December 2016 the court decided to release the applicant because of his diseases.

 

Case of Kh. V. Ukraine

Kh. 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. 

 

Case of Kav. v. Ukraine

On 18 September 2014 Mr. Kav. (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.

 

Case of Lop. v. Ukraine

The applicant, Ms Lydmyla Mykytyvna Lop., 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 Mr H. 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 H.

On February 2, 2015 the Octyabrskyi district court of Poltava decided to cancel the investigator's decision to close the case against Mr. H 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.

 

Case of O.K. v. Ukraine

On 11 August 2013, ukrainian citizen O. K. Was arrested by the police officers on suspicion of committing a double murder and robbery. Her arrest was not officially drawn.

During two days she was kept in the Police Station where she was tortured and forced to admit her guilt. When her wiil was broken she admitted guilt.

On 13 August 2013, protocol of detention was drawn, a legal aid lawyer was appointed and an investigative experiment was conducted. Since the police officers used tortures to O. K. during the investigative experiment she was forced to admit her guilt again.

On 6 May 2015, the lawyer of SLC applied to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of Article 3 of the Convention.

On 24 September 2014, a verdict was passed and O. K. was found guilty in committing the alleged crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment. The verdict was appealed.

On 23 January 2015, the Court of Appeal left the verdict unchanged. Such the decision was appealed.

On 26 April 2016, the High Specialized Court of Ukraine left the verdict and the decision of the Court of Appeal unchanged.

On 9 September 2016, the lawyer of SLC applied to the European Court of Human Rights for violations of Article 6 of the Convention.

 

Case of P. 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.

 

Case of Sha. v. Ukraine

In the evening 28 October 2014 Mr. Sha. was staying at his parents’ house. Last two days he had been looking for disappeared mother and father. The search was totally unsuccessful so he had to call the police. Officers examined the building and then asked Sha. to go with them for talk. At the police station they locked Sha in a room where he could not sleep, because the night was cold and he did not take any warm clothes. During the next day he did not eat and drink.

In the morning 29 September 2014 Sha was registered at the Visitors journal. All day police officers forced him to plead guilt, made physical and moral pressure on him with the aim to get confession. They beat Sha. several times. In the evening (at 9 p.m.) the investigator made a protocol of Sha’s detention where he noted 9 a.m. as the time of his factual detention.

Also on 21 November 2014 he was beaten and handcaffed without any legal purpose at the Lutsk pretrial detention center. Next day he made complaints to the Head of the Penitentiary department in Volynskyy region and Prosecutor’s Office. However the crime was not investigated appropriate - police officers insisted that he was handcaffed on 27 November 2014. Sha agreed that handcuff were used against him twice and the second one was legal but the first one was not officially registered.

Finally on 18 December 2014 his cellmates started threatening and beating him. They broke his fingers and bit his head. Sha wrote a confession.

Sha. more then twenty times complained of ill-treatment to the Prosecutor’s office in Volynska region, Lutsk city court and the court of appeal in Volynsk region. He also pointed out that DVRs at the police station had to include a video of his detention and ill-treatment but video records were not taken in time and were deleted.

In February 2016 Sha asked SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On 10 March 2016 the lawyer prepared a statement of crime but the prosecutor’s office in Volynsk region made no action. So on 20 March 2016 the SLC lawyer made a complaint to the Lutsk town court in Volynskyy region in the case of non-entering information about the crime to the United register of pretriall investigations. The complained was refused on 22 June 2016.

On 22 December 2016 the SLC lawyers prepared and alleged an application to the European court of human rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

 

Case of S. v. Ukraine

S. 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 (с), 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. 

 

Case of Sv. 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. Sv. (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.

 

Case of Zat. v. Ukraine

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Zat. lives in Ukraine in Kharkiv region.

On 27 January 2015, Mr. Zat. R. was invited to Shevchenkivskyy District Police Station in Kharkiv region for examination about a car theft.

The same day Mr. Zat. arrived to Shevchenkivskyy District Police Station in Kharkiv region. When during the examination he said that he had known nothing about the car theft the police officer started beating him, to make psychological pressure and threaten him with a physical violence. The police officers wanted to force Mr. Zat. to admit guilt in car theft. When Mr. Zat.’s will was broken he had to admit his guilt.

As a result of the beating Mr. Zat. received minor injuries and was hospitalized.

On 29 January 2015, Mr. Zat. lodged a criminal complaint to the prosecutor’s officer of Kharkiv region.

On 12 February 2015, an information on Mr. Zat.’s criminal complaint was entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and a criminal proceedings was opened.

On 29 May, 14 August, 27 November 2015, 13 May and 12 October 2016, an investigator closed the criminal proceedings because of the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. Such the decisions were appealed to the investigating judge.

On 26 May 2016, a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

 

Case of Zavadskyy v. Ukraine

      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.

 

4.  97 cases which were considered in national courts

4.1. Seven cases of asylum seekers

Case of A-T.

The applicant is a citizen of Sierra Leone Mr A-T..

On November 22, 2016 he was not  passed to the territory of Ukraine by the State Border Service (hereinafter - SBS) during the border control after the arrival of the flight from Istanbul to Kharkiv in the International Airport "Kharkiv" (hereinafter - the Airport).

Since he was held in a room for temporary detention of detainees. The applicant did not speak Russian and Ukrainian languages, so he had no opportunity to complain about the unlawfulness of his detention. He once PER day received some food that apparently did not comply with rules in places of temporary detention.

On December 2, 2016 the SLC lawyer several times has tried to get the opportunity to hold a meeting with the applicant, but officers of the SBS didn’t  allowed this meeting, because of the need to obtain permission of the Aviation Security. The lawyer called patrol police and filed a application on the crime of Border officers.

On December 5, 2016 the SLC lawyer again tried to have access to the applicant, and the lawyer had filed a second application on the crime of Border officers.

On December 6, 2016 the SLC lawyer had access to the applicant, he gave him legal aid, wrote a statement of offense on behalf of the applicant. On 7 December 2016 the applicant in the presence of the SLC lawyer wrote the application for refugee status, and he was released.

Since 7 December the SLC lawyer supports the applicant's case to the State Migration Service, as well as the complaining of illegal actions of Border offers.

 

Case of Mr. As.

Mr As., Tajikistan national, had lived in Tajikistan before he leaved for Moscow, Russian Federation in 2014 for finding a job.

When working in Moscow he joined an NGO “Group 24” (hereinafter – the NGO). As a member of this NGO Mr Amirov shared its ideology among Tadjik people working in Moscow, and participated in rallies. 

The aim of the NGO was explaining to the Tajikistan nationals their rights for free election and the necessity of organisation of peaceful protests directed at non-violent change of the current government. Because of this position on 9 October 2014 the NGO was considered by the Supreme Court of Tajikistan an extremist and unlawful NGO, after that the persecution of its members has started.  

At such circumstances Mr, having been afraid that he could be extradited or unlawfully rendered to Tajikistan where he would be prosecuted for his participation in the NGO, decided to leave Russia and went to Ukraine

He arrived in Ukraine at the beginning of 2015.

On 20.04.2016 As. was found in Kyiv by officers of the State Migration Service of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SMS) who made a decision about his forced return. For execution of this decision he bought plane tickets to Turkey, however he was not let to leave in the international airport “Boryspil” on the reason that he did not have a return ticket. After this refusal, having no money for another ticket, Mr As. went to Kharkiv with the aim to gain money for his depart.   

On 14.07.2016 r As.  and for other people were detained at the place of their temporary residence of their friend Mr As. by the law-enforcement officers, which did not introduce themselves.  After detention they were taken to an unknown building. During his detention in this building Mr As. was twice subjected to ill-treatment – the first time for finding out the location of escaped Mr Amirov, the second time – in order to force his to confess in his involvement in the activities of a terrorist organisation “ISIS”. Also the officers took photos of Mr As. against the “ISIS” flag and threatened him that if he complained about ill-treatment these photos would be sent to Tajikistan. 

Mr As. was held in this building till 21.07.2016 and then he was delivered to the court for considering an issue about his deportation. Before the court hearing the persons who had subjected Mr As. to tortures and ill-treatment, threatened him with physical violence if he complained about tortures before the court.

At the same date the court made a decision about deportation of Mr As. from Ukraine.

Due to the court’s decision Mr As. was taken to the Chernigiv temporary detention centre for foreigners (hereinafter - the TDC). 

On 19.09.2016 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine issued an indication that from   22.07.2016 Mr As. was held in custody without the court decision about his detention and placement into the TDC and there were no reasons for keeping of him in the TDC.  

On 21.09.2016 the Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in Chernigiv region lodged a suit about detention of Mr As.. The same day Mr As. was detained by the court order and placed into the TDC till 20.03.2016.

On 30.08.2016 Mr As. lodged an asylum request.  On 21.09.2016 he received a refusal in satisfaction of this request.  

On 28.09.2016 he appealed against the refusal to the court.  On 11.10.2016 the court refused to satisfy his claims.

The applicant of Mr As. lodged an appeal against the above mentioned court decision to the Court of Appeal. The case is pending. 

The applicant of Mr As. after receiving of the case law appealed against the decision about deportation of Mr As..

The consideration of the appeal is appointed for January 2017.

 

Case of Ms. A. Bab.

On 09.09.2016 Ms A. Bab., a Russian national of Chechen origin arrived at the International Airport “Kharkiv” from Istanbul. When she was descending the plane he was accompanied by a flight attendant. When Ms Bab. was passing through the passport  control she was suggested going to the office of the state border guard service. In the office Ms Bab. was told that she would not be admitted to the territory of Ukraine given the fact that in Turkey she was suspected in terrorist activity.

A friend of Ms Bab. was waiting for her at the airport. Having found out that Ms Bab. was detained she contacted the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group for legal assistance.

At the same day a lawyer of the SLC arrived at the airport for providing legal assistance for Ms Bab., however he was not let to meet with her.

The next day the lawyer came again to the airport and the board guard officers did not admit him to Ms Bab., referring to the fact that she had not crossed the Ukrainian board and stayed in the premises which were under the control of the air security service. At the same time, the air security officers informed the lawyer that Ms Bab. stayed at the transit zone and was under supervision of the board guard officers.

During her detention at the airport Ms Bab. informed her friend that the unknown persons, who introduced themselves as the officers of the State Security Services, visited her, took her tablet and a mobile phone and without permission took photos of all conversations.

Because of the resistance to performance of him his legal functions, the lawyer called the police for fixation of criminal offence. Nevertheless, after the arrival of the police the lawyer was not let to speak with Ms Bab.. 

The lawyer applied to the regional representative of the Ombudsman Office. After the arrival of the representative at the airport and her conversation with the head of the border guard service Ms Bab. was released. However, the board guard officers refused to return her foreign

The lawyer called the police and finally the passport was returned to Ms Bab.

On 12.09.2016 Ms Bab. went to the Department of the State Migration Service in Kharkiv where she applied for a refugee status. The migration officers informed Ms Bab. that she would be refused in accepting her asylum request. Simultaneously, they refused to return her foreign passport and asked to wait for some time.

After finishing of the official working day of the State Migration Service several men came into the office. Ms Bab. recognised one of them as one of the persons who had visited her at the airport. This man told Ms Bab. to follow him to one of the rooms in another premise of the State Migration Service; however she refused and called her lawyer. Suddenly, the unknown persons grabbed Ms Bab. and using the force took her outside through the exit opening. On the street they put Ms Bab. into a car and ran into unknown direction. The friend of Ms Bab. who accompanied her to the State Migration Service, informed the lawyer about this incident.  The lawyer called the police and informed them about kidnapping of Ms Bab..

Then, the lawyer came to the building of the State Security Service in Kharkiv and demanded to provide him a confidential meeting with Ms Bab.. As he was refused in satisfaction of his lawful requests, the lawyer called the police. In half an hour a representative of the Ombudsman also arrived at the State Security Service and applied to the duty officer and demanded to call a person in charge. After long delay the duty informed that there were no persons in charge at that time and that Ms Bab. was not hold in the building of the Security Service.

The lawyer lodge an application about providing him of a meeting with Ms Bab., to an investigator of the Security Service, who took this application but did not registered it. 

Further the lawyer called the police and asked them to send an investigation and operational group regarding the kidnapping of Ms Bab.. After arrival of the police officers questioned the lawyer and Ms Bab.’s friend, and suggested going to the Shevchenko district police station for drafting relevant procedural documents. 

In the police station the lawyer lodged an application about kidnapping and carried out all necessary actions in order to establish the personality of the officers of the Security Service who was involved in the crime.

After this the lawyer received a message from the telephone of Ms Bab. where she informed him that the Security Service officers had taken her tablet.

After a while, the press service of the Security Service reported that Ms Bab. had voluntarily left the territory of Ukraine, which indirectly confirms their involvement in the disappearance Ms Bab..

Some time later it became known that Ms Babayev was transferred by the officers of the Security Service to one of the road border crossing points with Russia in Kharkiv region and was actually expelled from Ukraine.

All applications of the lawyer about a criminal offense, committed by the law enforcement bodies of Ukraine did not give any result. The lawyer continues to appeal against the refusal to accept documents for a refugee status.

 

Case of Mr. Bel.

The Extradition procedures

On 19.11.2015 Mr Bel., a Russian national of Ingush origin (hereinafter- the applicant) was arrsested on the territory of the Chernigiv region, Ukraine, under the request from the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation about his extradition. He was placed into the Chernigiv pre-trial detention facility (hereinafter – the Chernigiv SIZO).

According to the documents, provided by the authorities of the RF, the applicant was accused in participation in a terrorist group on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.

On 31.08.2016 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine issued a ruling about extradition of the applicant to the RF. It was mentioned in the order that the Security Service of Ukraine did not have any information that the applicant was a member of any religion organization, an oppositional political party (movement) and their persecution by the law-enforcement bodies of the RF. Moreover, it was mentioned that a terrorist organization “Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar” in participation in which the applicant was accused, was managed by ethnical Chechen terrorists. The Prosecutor’s Office did not considered the fact that the applicant belongs to another ethnical group. Thus, the national bodies of Ukraine did not study personal circumstances of the applicant, i.e. that he belongs to the religion group of muslims-salafits that is being persecuted in the RF.   

The applicant was transferred to the Kyiv SIZO where he was held till 04.11.2016 and then transferre to the Kharkiv SIZO. р

The applicant’s lawyer challenged the order about extradition before the Novozavodskiy district court of the Chernigiv region (hereinafter – the district court).

On 16.09.2016 the district court  issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy the lawyer’s application.

On 20.09.2016 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the ruling of 16.09.2016 to the Court of Appeal of the Chernigiv region.

On 26.09.2016 the Court of Appeal of the Chernigiv region issued ruling in which it refused to satisfy the lawyer’s appeal.

On 11.02.2016 the lawyer Ms Biryukova lodged to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) an application about applying temporary measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and suspention of the extradition of the applicant to the RF.

After receiving the Court’s order about suspention of the extradition the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine have not implemented this order, violations Ukraine's obligations under the Convention.

On 05.12.2016 the lawyer Ms Biryukova lodged to the ECtHR a fully completed application form about violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The procedures under the asylum request.

Also, the applicant applied to the Department of the State M|igration Service of Ukraine in the Chernigiv region (hereinafter – the SMS) with an asylum request.

On 16.01.2016 the SMS issued an order by which it refused to satisfy the request.

The applicant challenged this request before the Crernigiv district administrative court.

On 30.03.2016 the Crernigiv district administrative court  issued an order by which it refused to satisfy the applicant’s complaint.

The applicant appealed against this order to the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal.

On 26.05.2016 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy the appeal.

 

Case of Mr. Il.

On 17.01.2016 the officers of the Zaporizhya Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SSU) arrested Mr Il., a Russian national of Chechen origin, who was at the wanted list of Interpol and was suspected in commitment a crime under to Article 208 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation (participation in an armed group in a foreign state, not provided by the legislation of that state for purposes in conflict with those of the Russian Federation. 

On 19.01.2016 having considered the motion of the Prosecutor’s Office of Zapirizhya region an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court of Zaporizhya issued a ruling about temporary detention of Mr Il. till 26.02.2016.

The lawyer of Mr Il. collected information that in the case of his extradition to the RF there were reals risks of subjecting him to tortures and ill-treatment. The information was also collected about cases of tortures, forced disappearances and murders of civil population in the Chechen Republic (the place of extradition). At these reasons the lawyer lodged a motion to the Prosecutor’s Office about termination of the extradition.

On 25.02.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office filed a motion to the court about application to Mr Il. of the extradition arrest.  

On 25.02.2016 the lawyer lodged a protest against the above motion of the prosecutor. She referred, among other circumstances, to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning cases of extradition and deportation.  

On 25.02.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court applied extradition arrest to Mr Il. for the term of two months.

In April 2016 Mr Il. with the aid of his lawyer applied to the State Migration Service with an asylum request.

On 24.04.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Il..

The lawyer lodged a protest to the above motion.

On 24.04.2016 an investigating judge issued a ruling about continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Il. for the term of two months.

On 23.06.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition request of Mr Il..  

On 23.06.2016 an investigating judge issued a ruling about continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Il. for the term of two months. 

On 29.06.2016 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the ruling of 23.06.2016.

On 08.07.2016 the Court of Appeal of Zaporizhya region refused to satisfy the appeal.

On 22.08.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition request of Mr Il..  

The lawyer lodged a protest to the above motion.

On 22.08.2016 an investigating judge issued a ruling about continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Il. for the term of two months. 

On 21.10.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition request of Mr Il..

The lawyer lodged a protest to the above motion.

On 21.10.2016 an investigating judge issued a ruling about continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Il. for the term of two months. 

On 24.10.2016 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the ruling of 21.10.2016.  

On 03.11.2016 the Court of Appeal of Zaporizhya region refused to satisfy the appeal.

Procedures concerning an asylum request

Mr Il. lodged to the Department of the State Migration Service a dully completed application form about providing him a status of a refugee or an asylum seeker.

On 16.12.2016 Mr Il. received a reply of the State Migration Service of 14.11.2016 with a refuse to give him a a status of a refugee or an asylum seeker, based on the decision of 27.10.2016.

The lawyer of the SLC prepared and lodged to the court an administrative suit about considering unlawful and quashing a decision of the State Migration Service of 27.10.2016.

The consideration of the case is pending.

 

Case of Mr. Mey.

On 16.01.2016 the officers of the Zaporizhya Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SSU) arrested Mr Mey., a Russian national of Ingush origin, who was at the wanted list of Interpol and was suspected in commitment a crime under to Article 205.5 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation.

The law-enforcement bodies of the RF accused Mr Mey. that having been at the territory of the Crimea he had persuaded other persons for terrorist activities and carried out preparation for a terrorist act.

On 19.01.2016 having considered the motion of the Prosecutor’s Office of Zapirizhya region an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court of Zaporizhya issued a ruling about temporary detention of Mr Mey. till 26.02.2016.

The lawyer of Mr Mey. collected information that in the case of his extradition to the RF there were reals risks of subjecting him to tortures and ill-treatment. The information was also collected about cases of tortures, forced disappearances and murders of civil population in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia (the place of extradition). At these reasons the lawyer lodged a motion to the Prosecutor’s Office about termination of the extradition.

On 25.02.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office filed a motion to the court about application to Mr Mey. of the extradition arrest.   

At the same date the lawyer lodged a protest against the above motion of the prosecutor.

On 25.02.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court applied extradition arrest to Mr Iliyev for the term of two months.

In April 2016 Mr Mey. applied to the State Migration Service with an asylum request.

The lawyer collected and lodged within the Prosecutor’s Office additional information which made the extradition of Mr Mey. impossible due to the risk of tortures and ill-treatment in the RF.

On 24.04.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Mey..  

At the same date the lawyer lodged a protest against the above motion of the prosecutor.

On 24.04.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court applied extradition arrest to Mr Mey. for the term of two months.

On 23.06.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Mey.. 

On 23.06.2016 the lawyer lodged a protest to the above motion. She referred, among other circumstances, to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning cases of extradition and deportation.  

On 23.06.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court applied extradition arrest to Mr Mey. for the term of two months.

On 29.06.2016 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the ruling of 23.06.2016.

On 08.07.2016 the Court of Appeal of Zaporizhya region refused to satisfy the appeal.

On 22.08.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Mey.. 

At the same date the lawyer lodged a protest against the above motion of the prosecutor.

On 22.08.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court applied extradition arrest to Mr Mey. for the term of two months.

On 21.10.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr Mey.. 

At the same date the lawyer lodged a protest against the above motion of the prosecutor. She provided substantive arguments concerning the possibility to apply to Mr Mey. a personal guarantee, which could be provided by a MP R. Chubarov.

 On 21.10.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court applied extradition arrest to Mr Mey. for the term of two months.

On 18.11.2016 the Court of Appeal of Zaporizhya region refused to satisfy the appeal. 

The decision on consideration of the asylum request has not been made yet.

 

Case of Mr. Tum.

The Extradition Procedures

On 17.06.2016 Mr Tum. (hereinafter – the applicant), a Russian national of Ingush origin, was arrested on the territory of the International Airport “Kharkiv”, Ukraine. After the arrest the applicant was placed into the Kharkiv temporary detention facility no. 27 (hereinafter – the Kharkiv SIZO). The reason for his detention was the extradition request from the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation.

According to the documents, provided by the authorities of the RF, the applicant was accused in participation in a terrorist group on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.

On 22.07.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnivyy district court of Kharkiv ordered the administrative arrest of the applicant for twelve months.

On 21.09.2016 an investigating judge issued a ruling in which he found that there were reasons for further detention of the applicant.

On 13.10.2016 the Genera Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine ordered extradition of the applicant to the RF.  

On 21.10.2016 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the Prosecutor’s order of 13.10.2016 in the Zhovtnevyy district court.  

On 31.10.2016 the lawyer of the SLC lodged the addendum to the application of 21.10.2016.    On 31.10.2016 the Zhovtnevyy district court issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy the lawyers’ claims and to quash the order of 13.10.2016. The court did not take into consideration the fact that the procedures on the applicant’s asylum request to the State Migration Service of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SMS) had not been finished at that time. 

On 04.11.2016 the lawyer of the SLC appealed against the ruling of 16.09.2016 to the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region.  

On 10.11.2016 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy the lawyer’s claims.  

On 23.11.2016 the Zhovtnivyy district court issued a ruling in which it satisfied the Prosecutor’s motion about further detention of the applicant in custody.

The procedures under the asylum request.

The applicant applied twice to the Department of the SMS in Kharkiv region with an asylum request.

 On 4 July and 5 August he received replies of the SMS in which it was mentioned that he had not complied with the procedure for applying with an asylum request.

On 28.09.2016 the SMS issued an order in which it refused to give the applicant a refugee status, having motivated this refuse by the fact that the applicant had not provided all necessary documents.    

On 29.10.2016 the applicant, with the aid of the lawyer of the SLC , filled in  the application form for asylum seeker, added all required documents and photos, and sent in the Department of the SMS.

On 04.11.2016 the SMS issued the order in which it refused to consider the above application form.  

On 09.11.2016 the lawyer applied on behalf of the applicant with an administrative suit to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court.   

On 10.11.2016 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court initiated the trial proceedings under the above mentioned suit.

The consideration of this issue is pending.

      On 11.11.2016 a lawyer of the SLC lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) about applying temporary measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and suspention of the extradition of the applicant to the RF.

      The ECtHR refused to apply temporary measures due to the fact that the procedures under the asylum request had not been completed yet.

      On 15.12.2016 the lawyer of the SLC lodged to the ECtHR a fully completed application form about violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

4.2.  10 cases related to the conflict in the East of Ukraine

 

Case of Mr. B.

The applicant, Mr. B., was born in 1952.

The applicant lives in Stanytsya Luhanska since 2008.

Since June 2014 hostilities between the Armed forces of Ukraine and combatants of the so-called "LNR" take place in Stanytsya Luhanska.

On 18 November 2014 and on 19 January 2015 the applicant’s house was seriously damaged by shelling.

On 15 June 2016 the applicant filed a criminal complaint to local police department. The complaint was registered and an investigator started criminal proceedings: he conducted a view of place of occurrence, interrogations of the victim and two witnesses - neighbors of Mr. B (criminal proceedings №12016130570000482).

Later investigator verbally informed the applicant that the criminal investigation of the offense (terrorist attack) belongs to the jurisdiction of the Security Service of Ukraine.

The applicant understood that in the way that he must re-apply with his criminal complaint to the Luhansk department of the Security Service of Ukraine (currently situated in Severodonetsk). He did so in July 2016.

In July 2016 the applicant filed a criminal complaint concerning damages to his property to the Investigative Committee of Russia.

Mr. B. was not informed about any actions, conducted by the investigator after the receiving of his complaint.

In August 2016the applicantfiled an appeal to investigating judge on the investigator’s failure to act. The investigating judge obliged the investigator to initiate criminal proceedings. The investigator obeyed (criminal proceedings №22016130000000207).

In October 2016 the investigator informed Mr B. about registering of his application, lodged in July 2016 (criminal proceedings №12014130570000506).

All three criminal proceedings were initiated over the same attacks on the applicant’s household and in all three he had a procedural status of victim.

Mr. B. filed a motion of case materials’ consolidation to a prosecutor.This motionwas recently granted.

In October 2016 the SLC lawyer fileda motion to the investigator on conducting additional investigative actions.

The motion was granted and the investigatorgave orders concerning conducting of investigative actions.

In November2016 the SLC lawyer sent a request on investigation’s progress to the investigator.

In October 2016the applicant received a reply from the Investigative committee in which he was informed that investigator had prepared a request on legal assistance to competent Ukrainian authorities.

 

Case of Mr. Bogor.

On 05.05.2014 a soldier Mr. Oleg Bogor. 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. On 21 March 2016 the appeal was granted and the case-file was handed to the Prosecutor’s Office for investigation. On 31 October 2016 the investigation was terminated by the investigator on the lack of corpus delicti.

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 30 December 2015 the investigation was terminated for the second time. On 10 January 2016 the prosecutor cancelled his own previous decision and continued the investigation. On 15 December 2016 the investigation was terminated. On 27 December 2016 the abovementioned decision was appealed to the court.

      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. Guk.

Mr Yuriy Guk. (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 Guk., 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 Guk.’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 Guk., 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 Guk. 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. Guk. as the future course of the criminal proceedings are uncertain.

 

Case of a murder of traffic police officers

Mr. Hor. 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. On 30 May 2016 the SLC lawyer received an answer, according to which the Prosecutor General of Ukraine found no grounds to abolish the abovementioned resolution of continuation of investigation.

On 8 June the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ombudsman on conducting pre-trial investigation over set time limits.

On 15 June 2016 the Deputy Prosecutor General issued a resolution on continuation of the investigation’s term to 12 months.

On 27 October 2016 the ombudsman received a response of the Prosecutor’s Office. It stated that the pre-trial investigation was stopped on the ground of finding wanted Mr. H.

On 4 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a request to police department on receiving a copy of decision to put Mr. H. to the wanted list. On 7 November 2016 he received an answer: Mr. H. was not put to the wanted list by the Holosiivskyy police office.

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 Mr. H’s 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 February 2016, SLC lawyer lodged a request on progress of the pre-trial investigation. According to the reply the criminal proceedings was terminated.

On 25 March 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the court on unlawfulness of the abovementioned prosecutor’s resolution on termination.

On 27 July 2016 the prosecutor abolished his own resolution and renewed the pre-trial investigation.

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.

On 8 June 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the ombudsman on failure to investigate tortures of Mr. H.

On 29 August 2016 the investigator terminated the investigation for the second time.

On 4 November 2016 the abovementioned investigator’s resolution was quashed by the prosecutor.

On 4 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on familiarization with the case-file. On 17 November 2016 he received denial and a copy of investigator’s resolution of 31 October 2016 on termination of the investigation.

On 17 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the court on the abovementioned resolution. Consideration is pending.

 

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

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

Mr. D. 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.

On 5 July 2016 the lawyer received an answer, according to which prosecutor had planned additional investigative actions and had changed the squad of an investigative group. The abovementioned prosecutor’s rulings were not fulfilled, so the lawyer filed second complaint about inactivity to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine.

24 March 2016 a forensic medical examination of the applicant was conducted. According to the examination, he had minor bodily injuries.

On 15 September 2016 examination of vehicle (on which Mr. D. was forcedly transported from his military unit) was conducted.

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. The consideration is pending.

 

Case of Mrs. K.

The applicant, Mrs K. was born in 1969, citizen of Ukraine.

From 1998 to 2015 the applicant, together with her husband, two sons, daughter and grandson lived in a large private house in Debaltseve, Donetsk region.

In winter 2015 the applicant and her family were forced to move to Kharkiv in connection with the beginning of active hostilities in the area of residence and seizure of Debaltseve by combatants of so-called "LNR". In February 2015 the applicant’shouse in Debaltseve was completely destroyed with all property of the applicant’s family by a direct shell hit during the fighting.

On 12 November 2015 the applicant submitted a written appeal to the Donetsk Regional State Administration on the issue of compensation for the destroyed house.

On 20 November 2015 the applicant received a reply in which it was stated that the state administration is not empowered to indemnify people’s lossesoccurred during the antiterrorist operation.

The applicant filed a criminal complaint (destruction of her house) to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (the IC).

On 18 March 2016, investigator sent the notification that her application had been received and a written request to competent authorities of Ukraine was prepared.

On 16 April 2016, the applicant was informed that her complaint was handed to the Artemivsk Police Department. The investigator started criminal proceedings.

On 3 August 2016, the SLC lawyer sent a request on investigation’s progressto the investigator of the Investigative Committee of Russia (the IC).

In November 2016, the IC investigator gave the answer, where he repeated the information about a request for legal assistance to the competent authorities of Ukraine.

On 11 October 2016the SLC lawyer sent a request on familiarization with the case-file to the Artemivsk Police Department.

 

Case of traffic accident of military vehicles

On 5th 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 14th 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 3rd 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 9th December 2015 the court of first instance rejected.

The SLC lawyer filed an appeal on the above mentioned decision and on 21st 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 12th 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 a separatist in a “secret prison” of the SSU

The applicant is an elderly woman, lives in Kharkiv.

On 7 May 2015 the applicant’s son went missing. According to eyewitnesses, he had been arrested on the street by officers of the Security Service of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SSU). However, his mother was not informed about the fact of his arrest, reasons of the arrest and place of detention. Also she had had no information about her son’s health; there had been no communication with him.

The applicant applied to the SLC for legal aid. The SLC lawyer drafted written applications to the Kharkiv department of the SSU, ombudsman, two deputies of the Verkhovna Rada about the applicant’s missed son.

Only after numerous complaints the applicant was informed that her son had been arrested. Later she found out that he had being kept in a “secret prison” of the SSU in Kharkiv for almost a year without any recording.

The SLC lawyer drafted a complaint to the investigating judge concerning unlawful detention of the applicant’s son (according to Article 206 of the CCP of Ukraine).

As it turned out, the applicant’s son was accused of encroachment upon state integrity (allegedly, he had enlisted to military units of so-called “DPR”). According to the case-file, the applicant’s son had been a deputy head of operative part of “DPR” battalion. His obligations included filing written requests for spare parts to military equipment, technical liquids and other technical things.

On 10 December 2015 a plea-bargaining arrangement was signed by the sides of the criminal procedure. On 16 January 2016, the arrangement was confirmed by the court sentence. According to the sentence, the applicant’s son was released with a three-year probation period.

 

Prosecution of hero of war

Mr St. 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 at Ilovaysk where he saved lives a lot of soldiers, has been injured and became a disabled person. Nowadays he has several disease which are significantly deteriorating his health. Nevertheless, he is detained in Starobelsk detention center without any properly medical care.

In accordance with official duries 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 has been found in the car. Mr S. suspected Mr. K. in terrorist activities and detained him and bring 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 another 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. According to the indictment, the crime was committed under the following circumstances.

Also the SLC lawyer submitted a motion to the court with the request of examination of new witnesses, which has been granted.

 

Case of Mr. Pan.

Mr. Andrii Pan. was mobilized to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He underwent initial training and was sent to the military unit to serve. When Mr. Pan. 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. Pan. was sent to the composite infantry platoon which had been locating in another territory.

On 7 September 2015, Mr. Pan. 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. Pan. 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. Pan. 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.

 

Case of Mrs. Y. (the applicant - Mrs. S.)

The applicant, Mrs. Y., was born in 1977, Ukrainian citizen.

The applicant’s parents and she had been living in Stanytsya Luhanska till summer 2014.

Since June 2014 hostilities between the Armed forces of Ukraine and combatants of the so-called "LNR" take place in Stanytsya Luhanska.

Since 2014 the applicant and her husband live in Russia.

On 2 August 2014 the applicant’s house was destroyed during the shelling.

On 18 August 2014 the applicant’s father was wounded by shrapnel. He died on the same day because of injuries.

On 30 June 2015 the applicant father’s garage and car within was destroyed.

In August 2016 the applicant filed criminal complaints concerning abovementioned facts to the Investigative Committee of Russia and the Security Service of Ukraine.

Mrs. Y. was not informed about any actions, conducted by the Security Service’s investigator after the receiving of her complaint.

The applicant filed an appeal to investigating judge on the investigator’s failure to act. The investigating judge obliged the investigator to initiate criminal proceedings. The investigator obeyed (criminal proceedings №22016130000000266).

In October 2016 the investigator informed Mrs Y. about registering of her application, lodged in August 2016 (criminal proceedings №12014130570000506).

The both criminal proceedings were initiated over the same attacks (destroying of her house, killing of her father and destroying of his garage and car).

Mrs. Y. filed a motion of case materials’ consolidation to a prosecutor.

On 10 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a motion to the investigator on conducting additional investigative actions.The motion was granted and the investigator gave orders concerning conducting of investigative actions.

On 17 November the prosecutor refused to consider the applicant’s motion of case materials’ consolidation. In his answer he stated that Mrs. Y. has not a procedure status of victim and, according to it, she has no right to file motions.

In November 2016 the applicant received a reply from the Investigative committee in which she was informed that investigator had prepared a request on legal assistance to competent Ukrainian authorities.

 

4.3. Seven cases of the victims in the events of Revolution of Dignity in Kyiv, including 7 cases of “Hundred Haven” heroes

 

Case of Mr. Ch. and L.

On 19 February 2014, during peaceful protests in Kyiv called “Revolutsia gidnosti” Mr. Ch. 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” Ch. 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 Ch. 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. K., Mr. H., Mr. P..

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 K/ and H. P. was placed under home arrest.

L. 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.

On 5 July 2016, the case hearing was postponed.

On 19 July 2016, the preliminary measure was prolonged for the accused.

On 28 September, 5 and 12 October 2016, during the case hearings the prosecutor’s officer added the materials of the criminal proceedings.

On 12 October 2016, the preliminary measure was prolonged for the accused.

On 21 and 29 December 2016, the case hearings were postponed.

The next case hearing is appointed on 3 February 2017.

 

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 for two times.

On 25 February, 27 March, 21 April and 14 June 2016, the case hearings were provided.

Corrected indictment was sent to the Shevchenkiv district court in Ukraine.

On 9 August 2016, the defender submitted a motion on returning the indictment to the prosecutor’s officer again. The motion was granted. The prosecutor’s officer filled an appeal. On 4 October 2016, the Court of Appeal granted the appeal. The criminal proceedings was returned to the Shevchenkiv district court in Ukraine for hearing in the other panel of judges. Schegolev’s defender submitted a motion on closure the criminal proceedings under the Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (excess of power). The motion was not granted.

One of the panel of judges declared a rejection. It was granted. The criminal proceedings was sent to the automated distribution to determine the new judge. The judge was not chosen. Therefore the court chairman filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on determination of the jurisdiction of another court on the grounds of absence of judge who has access to state secrets in the Shevchenkiv District Court. On 20 December 2016, the Court of Appeal determined the jurisdiction after the Shevchenkiv District Court.

On 29 December 2016, during the case hearing the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged to the accused.

The next case hearing is appointed on 26 January 2017.

 

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.

On 21 January 2016, the case hearing was postponed.

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

On 26 February 2016, the case hearing was postponed again.

On 17 March 2016, during the case hearing an anonymous witness was examined.

On 6 April 2016, one more witness was examined.

On 15 April 2016, the case hearing was postponed.

On 2 June 2016, during the case hearing one witness was examined.

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 16 June, 26 July, 18 and 25 October, 3 November, 13 and 22 December 2016, the case hearings were postponed because of the different reasons.

On 16 August 2016, one of the accused was taken into a custody in other criminal proceedings.

On 23 December 2016, Court of Appeal released him from the custody and he was taken into  twenty-four-hourhome arrest. Quards did not deliver the accused in court for several times because of different reasons.

The court  at the prosecutor’s officer’s request sent a request on the reasons of not delivering the accused in court hearings. Since the answer was not received, on 22 December 2016, the court sent the request again.

The next case hearing is appointed on 19 January 2017.

 

Cases of Igor Kostenko, Leonid Polyanskyi and Vladyslav Zubenko

This is a 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. 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.

After completing the pre-trial investigation, the trial has been started, and the case is tried by a jury.

In March 2016 the cases against “Berkut” servicemen Mr. T., Mr. M, Mr. Y. (they have allegedly committed similar crimes on 20 February 2014) was joined with the criminal proceeding against Mr. Z. and Mr. A. Consideration of the joint case by the court was started from the beginning. In the joint case the murder of 48 persons and inguring of 80 victims is considered.

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.

During the case hearings written evidence, medical examinations, phone conversations of the accused, videos and victims are examined. The preliminary measure in the form of detention is being prolonged for the accused.

The defender of the accused submitted a motion on examination of two witnesses that are in Russian Federation via videoconferencing. The motion was granted and, on 28 November and 2 December 2016, the witnesses were examined.

During the next two hearings experts were examined and ballistic examination was appointed.

The next case hearing is appointed on 17 January 2017.

 

4.4. 33 cases related drug users, people suffered from grievous illness and other vulnerable group of prisoners

 

Case of Mr. M. B.

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

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.

On 19 May 2016 the Kharkiv district court questioned a police agent so called “Petrov”. He informed that he met with police officers earlier, used drugs and cooperated with police officers in the case of asking Baylovs’ to produce drugs. He hesitated which one of two brothers gave him drugs because they were quite similar.

Also the Kharkiv district court maintained that witnesses had been convicted earlier, one of them was a drug dealer. The last witness was absent, now he is wanted.

On 18 July 2016 and 6 September 2016 defence witnesses were interrogated.

On 28 October 2016 the witness did not come to the court.

On 19 December 2016 the court meeting was postponed because of several reasons.

The court hearing is pending.

 

Case of Ms. B-sh

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-sh.’s medical record.

On 2 June 2016, an independent infectious diseases specialist conducted examination of Ms. B-sh. 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-sh. 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-sh.’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-sh. was held in correctional colony #63 in Ternopil region.

On 20 June 2016, the lawyer filed a motion to the Ternopil Regional Court (hereinafter - the Ternopil Court) on releasing of Ms. B-sh. 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-sh. with adequate medical treatment.

The Ternopil Court obliged the SPS to conduct a medical examination of the Mr. B-sh. by the special medical commission. On 15 July 2016 the commission issued a medical certificate.

The lawyer filed a motion to the Ternopil Court on recognition of the abovementioned medical certificate as inadmissible evidence.

The Ternopil Court obliged the SPS to conduct a re-examination of Mr. B-sh. Medical certificate was issued on 26 December 2016.

On 29 December 2016 the Court refused to release Mr. B-sh.  from serving punishment on the basis of his illness.

 

Case of Mr. Boch.

Mr. Boch., 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 Mr. Boch. 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 Mr. Boch. about a death of her son.

Only having received the information from the SLC lawyer, Mr. Boch.’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 Mr. 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. Boch. 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 Boch.’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 Mr. Boch.’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 has not completed yet because of non-appearance of the prosecutor and the defence counsel as well as illness of the accused to court.

 

Case of Mr. Bots.

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Bots. I. is a drug user, the patient of substitution therapy, he has the third disability group from childhood and heart diseases.

He was arrested on suspicion in committing a crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking).

On 1 April 2015, a lawyer of SLC entered the criminal proceedings. The same day a notification about changed notified suspicion was hand-delivered to Mr. Bots..

On 3 April 2015, an indictment was handed to Mr. Bots. and the criminal proceedings was taken to court.

A lawyer of SLC lodged a lawyer’s request to Kirovograd drug dependence clinic on stopping to give substitution therapy to Mr. Bots.. The problem was solved in his favor and Mr. Bots.’s broken right was restored.

Preparatory case hearing was postponed at the lawyer’s request because of the deterioration on Mr. Bots.’s health and his stay in hospitals.

During the next case hearings only some evidence was examined, prosecution witnesses and the case file were not examined.

The lawyer prepared the motions on admitting some evidence inadequate and inadmissible because of the violations of pre-trial investigation bodies. Additionaly the lawyer is collecting data on Mr. Bots.’s diseases.

Subsequently, the court examined the written evidence and identified the need to examine the witnesses.

The court hearings are often postponed because of Mr. Bots.’s stays in hospitals and necessity to pass medical examinations of his heart diseases.

The next case hearing is appointed on 19 January 2017.

 

Case of Mr. D.

S. D. 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. Gr.

Mr Gr., is a Ukrainian national, who lives in Lviv, Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

The first instance court found Mr. Grishpon guilty in drug-dealing.

The lawyer filed an appeal which was partly satisfied – the court decision was abolished and the case was directed for a new trial.

Since the judge of the court of the first instance did not fulfilled the requirements of the Court of Appeal, in September 2015, the court decision was abolished and the case was directed for a new trial.

The preparatory case hearing was provided. The next case hearing was postponed because of the absence of the witnesses.

In September 2016, the lawyer filed the complaints on canceling the preliminary measure because of the mistake made in the court decision.

The court decision was abolished again and the case was directed for a new trial, the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged.

 

Case of Mr. Kab.

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Kab. V., born in 1976, sentenced to 6 years imprisonment under Articles 307 and 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking). He is serving his sentence in Buchanska correctional colony №85.

During serving the sentence the state of Mr. Kab.’s health continuously  deteriorated and he repeatedly sought for medical treatment to the medical unit.

On 19 August 2016, he was hospitalized for medical treatment with diagnosis HIV AIDS the IV clinical group, expressed immunosuppression, oropharyngeal candidiasis, chronic toxic hepatitis, chronic venous insufficiency, acute thrombophlebitis of the lower leg.

A lawyer of SLC submitted a motion to Irpinsk City Court of Kyiv region on Mr. Kab.’s relief from the further punishment because of the illness. The case hearing on the motion started. The responsible persons of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine were obligated to draw-up and to give a conclusion of the special medical commission, to provide Kab.’s personal characteristic and medical documents for all time of his sentence to the court.

On 10 January 2017, the case hearing on the motion was postponed because of not giving the conclusion of the special medical commission to the court.

The next case hearing is appointed on 10 January 2016.

 

Case of Mr. Kr.

On 9 June 2008 the Court of Appeal of Rovne region found Mr. Kr. guilty of the crime under Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the murder) and sentenced him to fourteen years  imprisonment. Mr. Kr. 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. Kr. 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. Kr.'s health and treatment.

On 20 May 2015 the Sofiyivska correctional colony no. 45 replied that Mr. Kr. 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. Kr. 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. Kr. 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. Kr. from punishment due to his several diseases. Simultaneously the special medical commission concluded that Mr. Kr. 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. Kr.. 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. Kr. had disease which could be the base to release him from punishment.

On 15 March 2016 the Sofiyivskyy district court released Kr. 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.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.

On 10 September 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a cassation on two abovementioned decisions.

On 22 November 2016 the cassation court rejected to initiate cassational proceedings.

 

      Case of Mr. L.

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 Mr. Les.

Applicant, Mr. Les., lives in Dnipro. In June 2016, a search was conducted in the applicant’s housing estate. During the search, the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment (he was severely beaten and police officers had no choice but to call an emergency). As incriminatea result of the search, 65 bushes of Cannabis and 10 kilos of Papaver were found. Mr. Leschischarged with unlawful growing of drugs (Article 310 fo the Criminal Code(CC) of Ukraine) and unlawful storing of drugs in extremely large amounts (part 3 of Article 307 of the CC), as well for illegal producrion of precursors (Article 311 of the CC).

An investigative judge Home arrest was chosen as a preventive measure for the applicant.

The SLC lawyer is going to use unlawful actions of the police in cource of the search, having got the medical edidence of disorder of his halth from the ambulance station.

The SLC lawyer entered to the case after it was sent to Samara District Court in the Dnipro city and familiar with the case. The case is considered by panel of judges. Four hearings were appointed, of which there was only two.

The court chose a house arrest as a preventive measure for Mr. D. On 1 December 2016 the Court at the request of the lawyer changed a preventive measure for Mr. Les. to house arrest from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m.

In December 2016 two hearings was held. The hearindg is appointed to 3 January 2017 during which the court will examine the indictment.

 

Case of Mr. Luk.

Mr. Luk. is an Ukrainian citizen who lives in Kharkiv region. He was accused of committing several crimes under article 185 (theft and burglary taking together) and 307 (drug dealing) of the CC of Ukraine.

      Mr. Luk. pleaded his guilt of committing thefts and burglaries simultaneously reimbursed pecuniary damage to inflicted victims. However he objected during court meetings against accusation of committing of the drug dealing.

      The SLC lawyer familiarized with case-files and made some conclusions which might be described as follow.

      The SLC lawyer noticed that drug dealing was provoked by police officers and collected evidences were inadmissible. Indeed Mr. Luk. was a drug addict, convicted several times of drug collecting without aim to sell them. Even so previous guilty verdicts could not be considered as a proof of the actually guilt.

      Two controlled purchases of drugs were conducted by the same under-covered police agent and the same witnesses. There was no additional proofs of selling drugs to other people by Mr. Luk. except selling to the police agent. The SLC lawyer also got to know that people mentioned in this case participated in controlled purchases in other criminal proceedings (including witnesses). Moreover the police agent was not questioned in the court meetings though she was asked to come for several times. Also she was found guilty for different reasons seven times and was on probation during controlled purchase. Finally she died so her interrogation now is impossible.

      The first controlled purchase was provided while the prosecutor's resolution of committed the controlled crime expired. The case files also has not included any data about court decisions which allowed providing audio and video recording.

      The SLC lawyer prepared several motions including the motion of changing  preliminary measure from detention to house arrest. Nowadays the term of home arrest expired and no preliminary measures were chosen instead.

In September 2016, the trial court passed the verdict and found Mr. Luk. guilty of theft and illegal selling drugs.

The SLC lawyer lodged a complaint against the verdict of the trial court, as he believed the sentence in recognition of Mr. Luk. guilty in selling drugs under par.2 Article 307 of the Criminal Codeunsubstantiated. Now Mr. Luk. waits the appeal hearing.

 

Case of Mr. Lys.

During the visit to the Berdychiv correctional colony no.70 (“BCC no.70”) the lawyers of SLC learned that Mr. Lys. 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 Lys. 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 Lys. 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 Lys.’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 Lys.’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 Lys.’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 Lys. 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 Lys. 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. M.

Mr. M., lives in Dnipro. Hewas accused of a few episodes of drug dealing and storing of drugs. A search was conducted in his premises.

The SLC lawyer entered the case on the stage of court consideration.

On 18 December 2015 Mr. M. was found guilty by the Samarskyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk. He was sentenced to 8-year imprisonment.

On 29 April 2016 the Court of Appeal changed the abovementioned sentence. In the part of drug dealing the accusation was dropped due to the lack of evidence. In the part of drugs storing Mr. M. was sentenced to 3-year imprisonment.

In the abovementioned decision of the Court of Appeal it was mentioned that the search, conducted in the premises of Mr. M., is unlawful. Nevertheless, drugs, seized during the unlawful search, were used as proper and admissible evidence of committing drug storing by the applicant. This shows that so-called “fruit of the poisonous tree” was used in the present case. On this basis, the SLC lawyer filed a cassation appeal to the еру High specialized court of Ukraine.

On 30 November 2016, the cassation appeal was considered. The cassation appeal was granted partially. The case was remanded for a new trial to the Court of Appeal.

According to direction of High specialized court of Ukraine the Court of Appeal should fully research evidence and question witnesses at the stage of retrial. The next Court hearing is going to be at 14th of February 2017.

 

 

Case of Mr. Myh.

On 9 January 2014 Mr. Myh. who lived in Kharkiv and previously convicted was detained by police officers on suspicion of committed unlawful producing, purchasing, saving or transporting of drugs without the aim to sell them.

On 10 January 2015 the statement of crime was put to the United register of preliminary investigations.

On 31 January 2015 the criminal proceedings were terminated and sent to the court.

In February - March 2015 Mr. Myh. had a drug dependence treatment.

Mr. Myh. filed a motion on release him from criminal responsibility due to his willingness treatment from drug addiction. Prosecutor lodged an objections because documents about medical treatment were made with numerous violations.

Defence also collected information about his employment, marital status, personal characteristic.

On 13 September 2016 the SLC lawyer submitted all collected documents before the court.

Kharkiv district court found Mr. Myh. guilty and sentenced him to the fine of 50 non-taxable minimum of citizens’ incomes (850 UAH)

 

Case of Mr. N.

Mr. N. is an Ukrainian citizen who currently has been serving his sentence in the correctional colony since 17 September 2015. The term of his imprisonment is going to end up through two years and a half.

Mr. N. suffers from several disease such as HIV with clinical stage 4, lymphadenopathy, chronic hepatitis toxic origin in acute, viral hepatitis C, deficiency of body weight more than 10%. Mr. N. points out that he does not take any appropriate medical treatment in the correctional colony and his health status obstructs serving of his punishment. His blood has not been examined on CD-4 cells and viral load, the lack of ART which is necessary in this stage of HIV.

Above mentioned diseases are included in the List of diseases which could be a reason of release the person on probation. Nevertheless prison officers refuse to prepare a motion to the court as well as starts any special proceedings to make medical reports.

On 25 August 2016 the SLC lawyer met with Mr. N.,got a permission to have an access to his medical information and then familiarized herself with the medical card.

On 1 September 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a request to the correctional colony on the health status of the convicted person and accordance of the medical treatment to medical standards. The SLC lawyer is going to send a motion to the court.

 

Case of Mr. Nat.

Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Nat. O. had been kept in Kyiv pre-trial detention centre number 13 till his sentence came into force.

Since 2010, he is suffering from HIV infection.

In 2013 he was registered in AIDS center.

On 14 December 2014, during the last examination the fourth clinical stage of HIV AIDS was established. Besides tuberculosis of the lungs was diagnosed. Repeatedly different antiretroviral therapies were prescribed but the state of Mr. Nat.’s health deteriorated.

Mr. Nat. said that in pre-trial detention centre antiretroviral therapy had not been provided at all. This is motivated by the lack of medicines.

During the meeting with the lawyer he was complaining on unwellness and bad drug acceptability to treat tuberculosis.

The lawyer prepared the lawyer’s requests to Kyiv pre-trial detention centre and AIDS center on the full information about Mr. Nat.’s diagnoses and prescribed treatment.

It was decided to submit a motion to the court on release on medical grounds.

The lawyer submitted a motion to Kyiv pre-trial detention centre on providing Mr. Nat. special medical commission. The motion was granted and he was sent to Kharkiv region for providing the commission.

Mr. Nat. informed that some examinations and analysis were provided to him. The other examinations and analysis will be provided in the nearest future.

 

Case of Mr. Nes.

During the visit to the Berdychiv correctional colony no.70 (“BCC no.70”) the lawyers of the SLC found out that Mr. Nes. 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 Nes. 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 Nes. 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 Nes.’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 Nes.’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 Nes.’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 Nes. health became worse. The Colony regularly refers patients for elective treatment. The denied stated that previously Mr. Nes. 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.

 

Case of Mr. Ned.

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Nedostyp O. serves his sentence in Kharkiv penal institution №27.

During Mr. Ned.. was treated at a hospital in Kharkiv penal institution officials used handcuffs.

On 12 October 2016, a criminal complaint was lodged to prosecutor’s officer of Kharkiv region.

Since the information was not entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, on 21 October 2016, a lawyer of SLC filed a complaint to the investigating judge.

The investigating judge returned the complaint to the lawyer. He mistakenly concluded that the lawyer had had no right to file the complaint.

On 4 November 2016, the lawyer lodged the appeal on the investigating judge’s decision.

The appeal is not considered yet.

 

Case of Mr. Pah.

Mr. P. who currently lives in Chuguyiv (Kharkiv region), was previously convicted.

On 12 May 2015 the trial court found him guilty and sentenced to five years imprisonment simulteniously was release from punishment on probation of three years. Actually the case is cinsidered by the trial court, the verdict did not come into force.

On 25 September 2016 during the search police officers found chopped vegitable substance which was later recognized as a canabis.

Mr. Pah. was noticed on suspicion of unlawful producing, purchasing, saving or transporting of drugs without the aim to sell them. A prevention measure was not chosen for Mr. Pah.

Nowadays Mr. Pah. was sent to treatment from drug addiction.  The SLC lawyer collected necessary documents about his family life and characteristic of personality.

Mr. Pah. got over medical treatment, the SLC lawyer prepared a motion on release him from criminal responsibility due to his willingness treatment from drug addiction which will be filed during a preparatory court meeting.

On 16 December 2016 the court meeting was postponed due to judge’s bussiness. The next court meeting is appointed on 11 January 2017

 

Case of Mr. Pon.

Mr. Pon. is a disabled person who was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. The term of punishment lasts on 18 October 2019.

Mr. Pon. suffers from several diseases and his health becomes worse permanently. His diagnosis might be described such as (HIV) with clinical stage 4, oropharyngealcandidacies, chronic hepatitis toxic origin in the acute stage, tuberculosis,hepatitis B + C in the acute stage, body mass deficit of more than 10%..

Mr. Pon. noticed that he does not take any appropriate medical assistance and his diseases prevent his further serving punishment. His blood has not been examined on CD-4 cells and viral load, the lack of ART which is necessary in this stage of HIV.

Above mentioned diseases are included in the List of diseases which could be a reason of release the person on probation. Nevertheless prison officers refuse to prepare a motion to the court as well as starts any special proceedings to make medical reports.

On 25 August 2016 the SLC lawyer met with Mr. Pon. to provide him with legal assistance. Examining his medical card later he found several grounds for preparing the motion to the court and raising the question about release him from punishment.

The SLC lawyer filed a request to the correctional colony on the health status of the convicted person and accordance of the medical treatment to medical standards. On 30 September 2016 the SLC lawyer got an answer about Mr. Pon.’s health. On 19 October 2016 the SLC lawyer sent a motion for raising the question about release him from punishment to the Court.

On 4 November 2016 the Court filled a lawyer’s motion ordered the prison officers (special medical commission) to examine Mr. Pon.’s health.

On 5 December 2016 the court hearing was existed without lawyer’s presence. The SLS lawyer did not know about this hearing. Despite that Mr. Pon. asked for delaying the court hearing due to the lawyer’s absence, the Court did not granted this motion and took a decision.

 

Case of Mr. Rad.

Mr. Rad. was born in 1981. He is a disabled person who was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The term of punishment lasts on 21January 2019.

Mr. Rad. suffers from several diseases such as HIV with clinical stage 4, oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis, chronic hepatitis of mixed origin (toxic virus + B + C) in acute, chronic obstructive bronchitis in remission stage, HIV neuropathy of the lower extremities sensual form, Osteochondrosis of the cervical and lumbar.

Mr. Rad. points out that he does not take any appropriate medical treatment in the correctional colony and his health status obstructs serving of his punishment.

Above mentioned diseases are included in the List of diseases which could be a reason of release the person on probation. Nevertheless, prison administration refuse to prepare a motion to the court as well as starts any special proceedings to make medical reports

On 9 February 2016 the SLC lawyer met with Mr. Rad., got a permission to have an access to his medical information and then familiarized with the medical card.

On 21 October 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a request to the correctional colony on the health status of the convicted person and accordance of the medical treatment to medical standards. The SLC lawyer got an answer that Mr. Rad. had not been treated at the hospital and hadbeen sent to the place of punishment. In carrying out the commission was denied.

On 3 and 29 October 2016 the trialat a motion for dismissal did not held due to technical problems the conference connection.

On 29 November 2016 the Court ordered the penitentiary authory to carry out medical examination of Mr Rad. to make a conclusion on presence of health grounds for his release form future serving of punishment.

 

Case of Mr. Rud.

On 20 October 2016 Mr. Rud. asked the SlC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. Mr. Rudnyy was a prisoner who suffered from several diseases.

The SLC lawyer submitted a motion to the court on release Mr. Rud. from serving punishment because of his hard disease.

The trial court refused and Mr. Rud. appealed to the higher court.

On 24 November 2016 the SLC lawyer familiarized with case-files and made copies.

The SLC lawyer also took part at the court-meeting but on 30 November 2016 the Court of appeal in Kherson region refused to the motion.

 

Case of Mrs. Ras.

      Mrs. Ras. is an Ukrainian citizen who is accused of committing several crimes under Article 186 (robbery), 190 (fraud) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, at the beginning of 2015. She was not under preliminary detention, and at the end of 2015 she was arrested under Article 307 (selling drugs).

      Mrs. Ras. pleaded her guilt of committing robbery and fraud but objected against the accusation of selling them. Later she asked the SLC lawyer to provide her with legal assistance.

      Having familiarized with case-files the SLC lawyer recognized that drug dealing had been provoked by police officers. The accusation was based on inadmissible evidence and interrogation of the police agent who participated in two controlled purchases. There was no information about selling drugs to other people except the police agent. The SLC lawyer did not have access to prosecutor's resolutions of controlled purchases as well as court decisions according to which police officers interfered to the private life. The police agent was questioned as an anonymous witness though Mrs. Ras. knew him for a long time. Also the prosecution lost money used as the evidence of selling drugs.

      The SLC lawyer thinks that the court which considers case does not impartial. Prolonging the term of preliminary detention the presiding judge noticed that “Mrs. Ras. committed the crime” though there was no judgment in this case. The presumption of innocence was broken totally. Earlier the same judge considered the criminal case where prosecution's witnesses were accused of committing crimes. They were found guilty and sentenced but the Court of Appeal quashed the decision because of too low punishment for this people.

      The SLC lawyer submitted a motion on recusation of the judge. The court refuse lawyer of helding fingerprint examination, but the trial judge after this event started to appear prejudice against the lawyer declining all motions of the lawyer without any reasonable grounds.  Although the tension relations with the judge the lawyer believes that that position of the prosecution is weak for reasoning the charges.

 

Case of Mr. Sav.

Mr. Sav., currently lives in Dnipro.

On 15 May 2015 Mr. Sav. was arrested under a suspicion of obtaining drugs and drug dealing under part 2 Article 307 of the CC of Ukraine. The controlled purchase had been conducted.In May 2015 a search was conducted in Mr. Sav.’s premises. During the search of his premise the same kind of drugs have been found.

Hewas sentenced to 8-year imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal canceled the abovementioned sentence on the grounds of “right to defense” violation.

In August 2016 the SLC lawyer entered the case. He familiarized with the case-file and talked with witnesses.

The accused and one of the attesting witnesses of the controlled purchase have been interrogated. The accused denies accusation and states that the money was given him due to payback from a person, who borrowed it previously.

Later, the ‘byer’ in test purchasing operation has been questioned by the court. Since the identity of the witness had been hidden by the prosecution, the judge questioned the from outside of the courtroom during the questioning. But the court did not only disclose a name of the witness to the public, but even did not know his name itself. The SLC lawyer submitted the complaint to the actions of the judge, and asked to recognize the witness’s testimonies as inadmissible as given by an unknown person.

In two hearings, which took place in December 2016 four prosecution witnesses of and two defense witnesses were questioned. The hearing is currently pending.

 

Case of Mr. Sch.

      Ukrainian citizen Mr. Sch. is a drug user.

During search operations, without entering the information to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, controlled buy was provided. The controlled buy was provocative and during it drugs were not transferred to the client, he just took the money and left.

In two weeks a search was provided. The drugs were found.

On 10 June 2015, Mr. Sch. O. was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Mr. Sch. O. and his lawyer appealed. The verdict was quashed and the case was remitted for fresh examination.

The preparatory hearing and one case hearing were provided (the indictment was read and the order of examination of evidence was established).

The next case hearing is appointed on 9 February 2017.

 

      Case of Mr. S.

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. S. 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. S.’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. Sid.

Mr Sid. 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 Mr. Sid., 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 Mr. Sid. was released. The preliminary measure was changed to the house arrest.

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

On 19 December 2016 the court by its own will returned the indictment for revision.

On 26 December 2016 he SLC lawyer appealed aginst the court decision.

The court hearing was not appointed yet.

Simultaneously the SLC lawyer collected several documents and prepared a motion on clearing Mr. Sid. of criminal record on the base of the Amnesty law in 2014.

On 17 October 2016 the court granted this motion.

 

Case of Mr. Sl.

On 2 December 2013 Mr. Sl. who lived in Pokotylovka, Kharkiv region was datained after two controlled purchases.

Mr. Sl. was noticed of suspicion on committing drug dealing.

During pretrial investigation and court proceedings Mr. Sl. did not plead his guil and informed that police officers acted illegally and provoked crimes.

On 22 June 2016 Kharkiv district court in Kharkiv region found Mr. Sl. guilty and sentenced him to six years imprisonment with deprivation of property.

Mr. Sl. and his lawyer appealed.

On 27 September 2016 the court of appeal in Kharkiv region upheld the judgment.

On 7 November 2016 Mr. Sl. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

The SLC lawyer made an appeal to the Higher specialized court.

The Higher specialized court abandoned the appeal and appointed a term to avoid all grounds to rejection.

The court proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Mr. Tish.

      At the beginning of July 2015 Mr Tish. asked the lawyer to provide him legal assistance. During July the lawyer held two meetings with Mr Tish. 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 Mr. Tish. 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 he 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 Mr. Tish. sold him drug – acetylated opium. There was no more reason to detain Mr. Tish. 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 CC 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 Mr. Tish. was unnecessary injured by police officers. His traumas were confirmed and registered by a doctor of pretrial detention center. Ht also pointed that he had not signed any proceedings documents during first hours in the police office. According to him, his signituresin the police protocol have 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 Tish. submitted the motion about examination of witnesses. The court granted his motion as his last will.

      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.

      There were two court meetings in the Court of Appeal.

      On 18 July 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of a trial court.

      On 17 August 2016 the SLC lawyer met with Mr. Tish. to discussthe future complaint to the Higher Specialized court of Ukraine.

On 17 October 2016, the SLC lawyer filed a cassation appeal to the High specialized court of Ukraine.

On 21 November 2016, the lawyer submitted a motion on participation in the case hearing. The date of the case hearing is not scheduled. 

At the same time, the lawyer continued to represent Mr. Tish. in complaining of policemisconduct. In October 2016, Mr. Tish received a letter from the Kherson Prosecutor's Office. It was said that an information on his statement of the unlawful nature of detention procedure was entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. According to the information received from the investigator  the examination of the witnesses is being conducted now.

 

Case of Mr.T.

Criminal proceedings were opened on the matter of unlawful trafficking drugs in accordance with par.2 Article307 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine. On 25 July 2016 Babushkinskyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk allowed a search at Mr. T’s house. The court insisted that Mr. T with a group of people illegally purchased and sold drugs “opium”. The proceedings has been instantiated on the basis of a search in a dwelling of MR T.

The SLC lawyer started to act as a legal counsel of Mr. T. after having committed the search, and he has a position to challenge its legality.

The criminal proceedings consider under par. 2 Article 307 but Mr. T was not informed on suspicion due to his timely out-patient treatment. Because of that, the proceeding are postponed and the investigator does not apply measures to finish the investigation as soon as possible.

 

Case of Mr. Y.

Mr Sergiy Y., is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

On February 2014, Mr Y. was was arrested for suspicion in selling drugs.

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

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

On 22 January 201, the Court of Appeal overturned the verdict on the ground of violation of the right to defence and referred the case to the trial court for further consideration.

During the re-trial the SLC lawyer filed a lot of motions on disqualification of a judge, recognition an evidence as inadmissible, changing the preventive measure and questioning witnesses etc.

Having retrialed the case, on 18 December 2015 the court acquiited Mr Y. in seliing drugs, but found him guilty in possession of drugs and applayed to him the amnesty law.

The lawyer apeealed this judgment as well, but in February, 2016 Mr Y died. On 24 03 2016, the Appellate Court of Kharkiv region quashed the conviction, and remad the case for retrial, because the SLC lawyer insisted on continuance of the proceeding in the case for rehabilitation of Mr Y. on the grounds of his innocence.

In course of that, during the second trial, the court examined case file and viorecording of the test buying of drugs. Certifying witnesses and the witness- a ‘buyer’ in the test buying operation many times failed to appear to court, and an attorney of the prosecution has been exchanged four times.

In late February, Mr. Y. died. The SLC lawyer, aiming to prove the innocence of Mr. Y. concluded an agreement with the family of Mr. Y., continued his defense in the criminal case for rehabilitation, and filed a motion to the court not to terminate the case

After that, the trial continued again in the trial court.

The prosecution can’t provide the attendance of the witnesses, therefore the hearings are not really conducted. The next case hearing is appointed on 15 February 2017.

 

      Case of Mr. Ya.

Mr. Ya. 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. Ya. 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. Ya. 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. Ya. guilty and sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment. Mr. Ya. has already served the term of imprisonment and was released in the court room.

 

      Case of Mr. Yev.

Mr Yev. is a Ukrainian national, who lives in Kherson, Ukraine.

Mr Yev. 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 Yev. he was provoked on commitment the crime by a special police buying agent who induced Mr Yev. 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, Yev. was a patient of opioid substitution therapy for six years. After the detention the therapy was discontinued. According to oral information provided by Yev. 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.

Mr. Yev. was questioned in the court.

In 2016 there were totally six court hearings.

Particularly on 14 March 2016 Mr. Yev. 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 Mr. Zh.

Mr. Zh. suffered from number diseases of his excretory organs such as: kidney stones, chronic polio, urolithiasis. Few years ago he was carried out with special surgery — the percutaneous nephrostomy.

On 7 August 2013, Mr. Zh was detained by police officers on suspicion of theft. Later the district court chose him a preliminary measure in the form of detention. He was kept in custody at the preliminary detention center and the correction colony.

During his detention Mr. Zh. was repeatedly hospitalized to public and special penitentiary medical centers. He was provided with medical care but it was not apporopriate enough. So after some time his health started permanent deterioration. The medical prognosis was adverse because of advanced chronic renal failure and damage to the nervous system, and therefore he had to been provided with constant medical supervision and correction treatment. Since February 2016 Mr. Zh. was hospitalized in the surgical department of multidisciplinary hospital in the colony but conditions in prison could not provide adequate medical care and treatment.

Mr. Zh asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

The SLC lawyer fill a motion to the Irpin district court of Kyyv region on release Mr. Zh. from punishment due to his several diseases.

On 5 August 2016, special medical commission issued their conclusions and recommended to release Mr. Zh from serving punishment.

On 8 August 2016, the head of Buchanska district colony № 85 also submitted to the Irpin district court of Kyyv region a motion on release from serving punishment due to his severe disease.

On 22 August 2016, Irpin district court refused a motion on the ground that Mr. Zh. convicted of a felony, join the straight way, repeatedly committed criminal offences including grave crimes and crimes against life and health of individuals, according to the personal characteristic had several penalties and no encouragements. Therefore taking into account the specific type of disease and medical treatment the court refused.

On 19 September 2016, lost hope of humanism of national courts and faced the real danger to die Mr. Zh. asked the SLC lawyer to represent him in the European court of human rights. The SLC lawyer sent an application with a request to the Court to take urgent intern measures because of the lack of medical care and existence of real danger to Mr. Zh. Health and even for his life.

On 21 September 2016, the ECHR taking into consideration circumstances of the particular case decided to apply Rule 39 and demanded the government of Ukraine to take measures and provide the applicant with access to adequate specialized medical care which he needed including transfer him to a specialized medical institution.

On 26 September 2016, the Court of appeal in Kyiv region quashed the previous decision and released mr. Zh from serving punishment.

After that the SLC lawyer prepared a full application to the ECHR under article 3 and 34 of the Convention.

4.5.  Five cases related to unlawfull discharge of pregnant women and women who recently gave a birth

 

      Case of Ms. Al. and others.

The applicant, Ms Al. 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 Al. 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 Al. to her former position.

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

     

      Case of Mrs. Buz.

The applicant, Mrs Buz., 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  Mrs Buz. 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 Mrs Buz. to her former position.

On 22 March  2016 Mrs Buz. was  reinstated to the former position, but on the same day she was fired again from 6 November 2015 because of staff reduction. Mrs Buz. 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, Mrs Buz. 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 Mrs. Med.

The applicant, Mrs Med., 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  Mrs Med. 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 Mrs Med. to her former position.

On 23 March 2016 Mrs Med. was reinstated to the former position, but on the same day she was fired again from 6 November  2015 because of staff reduction. Mrs Med. 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, Mrs Med. 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.

 

4.6. 34 other cases

 

Case of Mr. A.

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.

On 20 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a cassation to the Court of Appeal’s decision of 9 June 2016. Consideration is still in progress.

 

Case of Mr. Ak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2016, after long corresponding with the different investigating authorities the lawyer got the information that the case file had been passed from the regional prosecutor’s office to one district police department of Kharkiv, notwithstanding that Mr Ak. complained on the actions of police officers, and it is the venue of the prosecutor’s office. Until present time, the investigator of the police department did not give the case file for familiarizing to the lawyer under different reasons.

 

Case of Mrs. B.

Ukrainian citizen Mrs B. is a journalist. She is engaged in formalizing memories of the relatives of the Heroes of Heaven Hundreds.

In the beginning of 2014, on her own initiative and at her own expense she started to collect information about the heroes of so-called Carpathian heroes of Heaven Hundreds. Mrs B. started visits to their relatives.

Gathered information she published on the website of online newspaper “Vikna” and on community "Heaven Hundred" of the social network "Facebook".

On 1 March 2016, Mrs B. accidentally saw the printed edition "Book of Sorrow, Remembrance and Honor of Ukraine. Ivano-Frankivsk region. Heroes of the Revolution of Dignity ", where her articles were published without giving her authorization.

Moreover, one of the articles was published under the authorship of another person.

On 3 March 2016, Mrs B. appealed to the Community organization with the requirements to bring her a public apology and to stop distribution of this publication. Becides she required to remove the copies that had already been distributed. The Community organization did not done any requirements.

In June 2016, a lawyer of SLC filed a claim with the court on copyright protection.

One case hearing was successfully provided. The second case hearing was postponed because of the hospitalization of defendants.

The next case hearing is appointed on February 2017. Since that time, the hearings in the case appointed but the hearings were not commenced under different pretext.

 

Case of Mr. Bond.

At the beginning of July 2015 Bond. asked the lawyer to provide him legal assistance. During July the lawyer held two meetings with Bond. 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 Mr. Bond. 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 Bond. as illegal and unlawful.

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

The lawyer pointed that Bond. 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 Bond. 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 Mr. Bond. sold him drug – acetylated opium. There was no more reason to detain Bond. 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 Bond. 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 Bond.’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 Bond. 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, Mr. Bond. has been released from custody at the courtroom.

 

Case of Mr. Fed.

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Fed. was arrested by the police officers on suspicion of robbery. Protocol viewing the scene of a crime was drawn up.

The same day Mr. Fed. was taken to the Police Station where he was tourtured and forced to admit guilt in a number of crimes. He was badly beaten and the police officers could no longer hold him in the Police Station. Mr. Fed. was taken home be the police officers and was told not to appear in Kharkiv and forget about all the events. On the threshold of the house Mr. Fed. lost consciousness and his family called an ambulance. He was hospitalized. The doctors informed the police about the criminal nature of Mr. Fed.’s injuries. Later the police officers who tortured Mr. Fed. arrived and took him to Kharkiv. During the days Mr. Fed. was kept in the Police Station and during the nights in the basement.

On 3 March 2015, Mr. Fed. was taken to the investigator where the identification was provided and the indictment was handed in. Then he was taken to the court where the preventive measure in the form of detention was chosen.

Mr. Fed. lodged a criminal complaint to the prosecutor’s officer of Kharkiv region. The criminal proceedings was opened. Formally the police officers who tortured Fed. were questioned.

On 28 December 2015, the criminal proceedings was closed. This decision was appealed and the investigating judge canceled the decision to close the criminal proceedings.

On 8 June 2016, prosecutor’s office’s investagator closed the criminal proceedings again. This decision was appealed and the investigating judge canceled the decision on closure the criminal proceedings.

Then SLC lawyer applied for his familiarization with the case file but the investigator refused the motion, since Mr. Fed. was not recognized as a victim. Issuing from this, Mr. by means of the lawyer sent to the investigator an applicationof recognition his as a victim, which the investigator refused.

At the end of 2016, the lawyer filed a complaint against the decision of the investigator refusing to recognize Mr Fed. as a victim in the criminal proceedings. This complaint will be considered by an investigating judge in early 2017.

 

Case of Mr. Gor.

Mr. Gor. was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment but the verdict was changed by the Higher specialized court of Ukraine which sentenced him to fifteen 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. Gor. 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. Gor. 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. Gor. 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. Gor. 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. Gor. 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.

On 13 July 2016 the first-instance court after a fresh consideration refused to satisfy a motion on recalculation.

On 19 July 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an appeal on the abovementioned court decision. On 7 September 2016 the Court of Appeal refused to satisfy the lawyers appeal.

On 30 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a cassation. On 16 December 2016 the cassation court refused to consider the cassation.

On the grounds of court’s refusal to recalculate the applicant’s term of imprisonment, the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR.

 

Case of Mrs. I.

On 8 August 2014 Mrs. I. being at work in the mine "Novopavlivsk automatic workshop" situated in Krasny Luch city, in Luhansk region, get a gunshot wound of the lower third left thigh and upper third shaved.

The company, in which Mrs. I. worked, situated on the uncontrolled territories. It has not paid payments of a medical certificate to Mrs. I. yet. Chuhuiv District Department of Ukrainian Social Insurance Fund from Occupational Accidents and Diseases (hereinafter – Department) refused to pay for the medical certificate due to the fact that the company in which the accident occurred situated in the temporarily occupied territory and has not currently registered on the territory controlled by Ukrainian authorities.

This refusal contradicted to the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law "On the rights and freedoms of internally displaced persons", the Law "On obligatory state social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases that caused disability." In this connection, Mrs. L applied to the SLC lawyer.

Five hearings on the case have already been appointed. The court hearing has been postponed for various reasons, mostly at the request of the Department since July 2016. So the trial terms for those kinds of cases were violated.

At the last court hearing the Department initiated the issue about calculating aid for temporary disability. For this reason the SLC lawyer filed revised complaint with regard to the new certificate on the average wage.

The next hearing is going to be on 17 February 2017.

 

Case of Mr. J.

Mr. J. is Iran citizen who is currently living in Ukraine. On 18 August 2016 a protocol on an administrative offense against Mr. J was drawn up by policemen. According to this protocol Mr. J was accused of traffic violations.

On 30 August 2016 this protocol was sent to the Dzerzhinsky District Court in Kharkiv city.

Om 30 September 2016 the SLC lawyer entered in the case as Mr. J’s defender September. The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case, interviewed witnesses.

On 13 October 2016 the Dzerzhinsky District Court began the trial in this case. There were several hearings in which witnesses were questioned and the requests were declared during October-November 2016. The SLC lawyer gave the evidences of numerous violations during protocol formulation to the court.

On 15 November 2016 the SLC lawyer submitted a motion on closing the proceedings because of events and administrative offenses absence.

On 16 November 2016 Mr. J was found guilty of committing an administrative offense.

He has been revoked a driver's license for a year and had to pay 10200 UAN as a fine.

      On 25 November 2016 the SLC Lawyer had filed an appeal, which was partially satisfied by the Administrative Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region on 21 December 2016. Judgment from 16 November 2016 year was canceled, according to new decision the proceedings in the case was closed due to deadlines.

Case of K.

Mrs. K. is a Ukrainian citizen who is currently lives in Kharkiv. She is accused of murder of her cousin. In 2013 she was detained by police officers and ill-treated, in particular policemen beat, kicked her and used electric current to get confession of the crime.

In five years, the case was heard at first in the Kharkiv district court of Kharkiv region, then in the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region. This court finally released Mrs. K from custody and sent the case back for further investigation, because there was no evidence except confessions.

Three years later the criminal proceedings against her were terminated.

Also, in 2016 information about Mrs. K’ torture was entered to the Unified Register of pre-trial investigation, but she was not recognized as a victim in this criminal proceedings. Chervonozavodskyi District Court quashed the decision of the investigator

The SLC lawyer entered to the case during preliminary investigation.

The SLC lawyer sent the request to the Kharkiv Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination and got certified copies of the medical examination. According to which Mrs. K had been injured because of tortures.

And in 2016 Mrs. K was noticed on suspicion again. The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-file at the stage of pretrial investigation and took part in the notice of suspicion. Prosecution filed a motion on choosing the preliminary measure in the form of house arrest. Although the Kharkiv district court in Kharkiv region taken into consideration the personality of suspect and the lack of evidence at the case-file and finally rejected.

The trial is pending.

 

Case of Mr. Kan.

Mr. Kan. 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 Mr Kan. 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 Mr Kan.'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 Mr Kan. 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. Kan. actions are qualified as disturbance of public order without any aggravating circumstances.

 

Case of Mr. Kru.

Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Kru. U. is accused of committing the crimes under Articles 187 (robbery), 189 (extortion), 289 (misappropriation of vehicle) and  146 (unlawful imprisonment or kidnapping) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Kru. U. Does not acknowledge his guilt.

On 9 September 2014, a criminal proceedings was opened. Pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings was provided by the Main Military Prosecutor’s office of General Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine.

On 7 December 2014, Kru. U. was taken into custody.

On 16 May 2016, a lawyer of SLC entered the criminal proceedings.

On 30 May 2016, the court extended the detention on remand of Kru. U..

On 1 July 2016, the criminal proceedings was taken to Holosiivskyi District court of Kyiv region.

During court proceedings composition of court was changed, prosecutor’s officer submitted a motion on determination of jurisdiction, only one victim was examined, one of eight volumes of written evidence was read out. The case hearings are postponed often because of the different reasons.

On 1 August 2016, the lawyer submitted a motion on changing preventive measure of detention to twenty-four-hour home arrest. The motion was granted.

On 11 October 2016, the case hearing was postponed.

On 14 November 2016, the lawyer submitted a motion on changing Mr Kru.’s place of residence. The motion was granted.

The same day the lawyer submitted a motion on termination of preventive measure because of expiring two months and no continuation of home arrest by the court. This motion was not granted.

The next case hearing is appointed on 1 February 2017.

 

Case of Mr. Kryv.

Mr. Kryv. R., is a Ukrainian national, lives in Lviv region, Ukraine.

10 April 2009 the Applicant was detained by police as a suspected criminal. Over a one and half day the applicant was detained in the police department without providing any food and adequate conditions for sleep. During his detention, police officers forced the Applicant to sign a voluntary admission that he committed a crime.

The detention of Mr Kryv. was not registered. In a register book there was a sign about a voluntary attendance of the applicant to the police department.

When Mr Kryv. was in the police department, police officers conducted a search in his apartment without the permission of the court.

The SLC lawyer filed a complaint on actions of the police officers to a court. The court found those actions illegal. After consideration in court, the case was returned to the pre-trial investigation.

In 2013 criminal proceeding against Mr Kryv. was terminated due to lack of the corpus delicti in the his actions. Now the lawyer helps the applicant to seek for a compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages inflicted by unlawful criminal persecution.

In January 2014 a lawsuit on compensation of damages caused by unlawful actions of pre-trial investigation bodies and prosecutor was lodged to the District court. After obtaining the conclusion of the expert about the amount of non-pecuniary damage it was clarified in the lawsuit.

In February 2014 the forensic expert examination on determination of amount of non-pecuniary damage was conducted under the motion of the lawyer by Forensic Examination Institute.

There were held 15 court hearings in the case in 2015.

 

Case of Mr. Kryl.

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

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

On 10 February 2016, Selydivskyy City Court of Donetsk region sentenced A. Kryl. 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. Kryl.’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 Mr. Kryl. 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 Mr Kryl.’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 Mr Kryl.’s releasing from custody.

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

Artemivska penal institution number 6 sent a letter in which it refused to refer Mr Kryl. for healthcare to the penitentiary service because he is not a prisoner and refused to provide healthcare to Mr Kryl. 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 Mr Kryl. 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 Mr Kryl. After filling the complaint Mr Kryl. 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 Mr Kryl.’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 Mr Kryl.

 

Case of Mr. Kuk.

Mr. Kuk. 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. Kuk. 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. Kuk. 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 Kuk.'s hair.

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

Mr. Lap. 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, Mr Lap. 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 Mr Lap.'s house while he was not even noticed about suspicion.

On 29 December 2009, Mr Lap. 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 Mr Lap. 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.

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 against Mr. Lap. is under preliminary examination.

In July 2016, the venue was changed because of the resign of one of the panel of judges.

On 12 August 2016, the lawyer submitted a motion on returning the criminal proceedings for fresh examination and on changing the preventive measure.

On 9 September 2016, the agreement between Mr. Lap. and the lawyer was terminated and Mr. Lap. refused from the lawyer in during the court hearing.

     

Case of Mrs. Leon.

Russian citizen, Mrs. Leon. was accused of preparing for forming terrorist group or organization, committing a terrorist attack by organized group and of illegal weapon handling.

On 9 December 2015 a criminal proceedings was opened. Pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings was provided by the Main Investigation Department of the State Security Service of Ukraine.

A lawyer of SLC filed a criminal complaint on abuse of power of prosecutor officer of General Prosecutor’s offiice of Ukraine and applied for his disqualification.

Since the information on lawyer’s criminal complaint was not entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations the lawyer filed a complaint to the investigating judge.

Also the lawyer lodged a lawyer’s request to General Prosecutor’s offiice of Ukraine on unauthorized interference in private communication of Mrs. Leon. and her defender.

Currently the criminal proceedings is taken to Holosiivskyi District court of Kyiv region.

On 10 November 2016 the case hearing was postponed because of the translator’s and victims’ failures to appear in the court.

On 5 December 2016 the case hearing was postponed again because of the translator’s and victims’ failures to appear in the court.

The preparatory case hearing is postponed on 16 January 2017.

 

Case of Mrs. L.

On 22 March, 2016 according to decision of the extraordinary session of Kegichevsk District Council Mrs. L was dismissed from the post of director-editor of small information-publishing company "Our Land", due to the early termination of a contract for the systematic failure without reasonable excuse duties.

This dismissal occurred with numerous violations of the current labor legislation. In this connection, Mrs. L applied to the SLC lawyer.

More than 10 hearings on the case have already been appointed, but some of them have not carried out due to absence of representatives of District Administration and District Councils. Moreover they submitted a motion to postpone consideration of the case, asking not to not to hear the case in their absence. So the trial terms for those kinds of cases were violated.

During the trial Mrs. L. and representatives of District Administration and District Councils gave an explanation, witnesses were questioned. Moreover it appeared that there had been a protocol of staff meeting dated March 22, 2016 although in fact the staff meeting had not taken place which was also confirmed by witnesses.

Furthermore explanation of Head of the District Council and a new editor as to when the meeting had taken place and the protocol had been drafted were different.

Defendants in no way denied the fact that Mrs. L. was dismissed during her vacation, in what appears systematic breach of contract and why she was not warned about the future dismissal as it provided by law.

Currently the court has moved to the examination of evidence in the case.

 

Case of Mr. Lyt.

On 28 May 2014, Shevchenko District Court of Lviv found the police officers guilty of abuse of power and illegal deprivation of liberty and appointed them real punishments (see Drug user’s case’ below).

In August 2014, the Lviv Court of Appeal quashed the sentence and directed the case for the further investigation.

In September 2014, the case was directed for the further investigation.

During the further investigation six volumes of evidence were gathered.

All investigative actions were conducted repeatedly. Such as: accident’s reconstruction, viewing the scene of a crime, interrogations of the suspects, questioning new/additional witnesses, examination of the victim that was conducted three times, his mother’s examination, that was provided two times and his brother’s examination that also was provided two times, information retrieval from communications links, witnesses’ search. Also additional forensic medical examination was conducted.

The analysis of the suspects’ location place by their mobile phones was conducted. Such analysis refuted their examinations and alibi.

A lawyer of the SLC uploaded the documents, which confirm the fact of illegal keeping of Mr. Lyt. in police custody for more than three days

The investigator was going to bring the defendants to official charges.

In December 2014, the investigator brought the defendants to official charges.

On 4 February 2015, the preliminary hearing was held.

During the case hearings, some witnesses were examined. The prosecution asked to examine 20 witnesses. The examination of the witness lasts for 2-3 hours, so it takes a lot of time in total.

Documents, which prove that the Applicant was wanted by the police since 05 December 2011 (a day before he was released from the unlawful detention), were provided by the defender.

There were 30 court hearings in 2015.

During 2016, the proceedings are pending. The case hearings are often postponed. During the case hearings the witnesses are questioned. Only a few witnesses are not questioned yet.

 

Case of Ms. M-L.

Ms. M-L. 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. M. and Ms. G.

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.

 

Case of Mr. M.

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.

On 10 October 2016 an application was filed to the ECtHR 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.).

On 23 March 2016 prosecutor filed a motion on change of preventive measure (allegedly, the applicant violated rules of house arrest). The court rejected the motion.

Court consideration is pending.

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.

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, trying to get evidence in this mysterious murder.

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.

 

Case of Mr. N.

The applicant, Mr. N. was a Russian national, who lived in Ukraine.

On 31 August 2014, Mr. M. 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. N. 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 N. 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 N. 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 N.’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 N. 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. N. preliminary detention.

On 10 December 2014, a motion on release in N.’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 N.’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. N. 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 N.’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 N.’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 G.’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. N.. The Court refused to change Mr. N.’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. N. 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.

On 16 June 2016 Starobelsk District Police Department entered the information about Mr. N’s death to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URPI). On the next day Prosecutor’s Office in Lugansk region started preliminary investigation in fact improper performance of professional duties by medical workers and negligence of Starobilsk pre-trial detention centre workers connected with Mr. N’s death.

On 28 December 2016 a comprehensive forensic medical and ballistic examination was ended. Expert conclusion was sent to the Svatovo District Court. The trial in this regard is currently pending.

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

 

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.

Court hearings were appointed on 24 May 2016, 6 June 2016, 3 August 2016, 15 November 2016, 26 December 2016. However, these hearings did not take a place on technical reasons.

 

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 woman’s shouting and called to police. The woman’s body and her head were all bruised.

After beating the woman the policeman started to rummage in her cabinets. A police patrol that arrived on the scene arrested the hooligan, who tried to attack the woman’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 victim 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 woman. 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 passed the acquittal verdict on the grounds that according to the CCP of Ukraine the pre-trial investigation in the case had to be conducted by the prosecutor’s office, not by the police department.

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. During 2016 year the hearings in the case were assigned many times but in fact they did not conducted, so the trial was not completed yet.

 

Case of Ms. P.

The United Arab Emirates citizen Mrs. P. E. on 13 September 2016 with her family arrived in Ukraine at the airport “Boryspil”. It was her and hers family first visit to Ukraine. She had never crossed the border of Ukraine and had never received Ukrainian visa before that.

Ms. P. had a one-time visa to Ukraine. Let's period of stay on the territory of Ukraine for her was 15 days. There were no grounds for refusing her Ukrainian visa.

When she was passing the checkpoint she was stopped. The employees of the checkpoint informed her that there had been a decision of authorized state body on refusal on crossing the border of Ukraine and prohibition of entry into the territory of Ukraine.

The decision was appealed to Kyiv District Administrative Court.

On 31 October and 11 November 2016, the case hearings were held.

On 21 November 2016, the last case hearing was held. The defendant did not appeared. During the case hearing lawyer’s additional written arguments were heard and the judge left for consultation room.

On 24 November 2016, the lawyer sent to the court’s email address a statement on receiving a copy of judgement. Since he had received no answer, on 11 December 2016, he sent the statement again. The lawyer appeared for two times before the court office to receive the copy of the judgement. However, the copy was not received, because it had not been ready.

In court the lawyer heard about some decision of 13 March 2013, concerned to Ms. P. The lawyer lodged a lawyer’s request to the Security Service of Ukraine. It was answered that there was no decision concerned to Ms. P.

 

Case of killled student

In early October 2014, a student of the National Law University  Viсtor P. was killed in a fight with a knife near the bar-restaurant in Kharkov. Victor’s parents addressed to SLC as they feared that the criminal who fled the scene of a crime is going to be able to avoid the criminal liability. They asked to represent their interests in a criminal proceedings as the representatives of the victim.  A lawyer was given.

Identity of the person who committed the crime, has been established. He was detained and notified about the suspicion of the deliberate murder. The man who killed the student did not deny the fact of the murder. This fact was confirmed by several witnesses and the record of CCTV cameras which are installed near the scene of a crime. But the man claimed that he had committed the murder accidentally as he was just waving a knife from attacking him by the student.

Initial qualification of the offense was a "simple" murder. Due to the strong position of the lawyer about the fact that the murder was committed absolutely without any reasons, in the fight and out of hooligan motives, actions of the accused were reclassified on the aggravated deliberate murder - out of hooligan motives.

Victor’s parents as the victims in the criminal proceedings submitted a civil suit. They asked about the reimbursement for harm caused to them, including moral harm that was caused by loss of son.

In the end of 2014, Kyiv District Police Department finished the pre-trial investigation of this crime and sent the case to the court with indictment in deliaggravating murder.

Since early February 2015, the Kiev District Court of Kharkiv began hearing the case, while at the end of 2015 more than 20 hearings were conducted, some of which did not really take place because of the non-appearance of witnesses. The proof of the guilt of the accused in the commission of murder is complicated by the fact that the witnesses during testimony referredk to forgetting the events, during which they were under the alcohol intoxication. One of the victims, which could give detailed evidence to go live in the Crimea and after that his appearance in court became impossible.

However, in the case of crime is a video record produced by the bank surveillance camera in front of the scene that at the request of the lawyer submitted to experts for treatment and improving the records of breakdowns on frames etc., for further research at the hearing. At the end of the year 2015, the court at the motion of the defence appointed the forensic psychological examination of the question whether the applicant’s former head injury could affect on his adequate perception of the events during a fight that led to the death of the student. For this reason, the proceedings were postponed for several months.

According to the conclusion of the forensic psychological examination, the accused’s past head injury has not affected his perception of events during the crime. In December 2016, Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv completed the proceedings and passed the verdict, convicting the accused Mr L. in premeditated murder of Mr P. on the basis of hooliganism and imposed him theconviction of 13 years imprisonment.

 

Case of Mr. P.

      In October 2009 after the consistent two-weeks treatment in three hospitals of Kharkiv 27-year-old P. died with the high temperature. According to the report of forensic medical examination the cause of death was acute pancreatitis with transition to pancreas necrosis.

The district Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv city refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the fact of death of P., but further their ruling was quashed by the prosecutor of higher lever and transferred to the district police department for conduction of additional verification. In January 2010 the new ruling about refuse to initiate criminal proceedings was issued. This ruling was quashed by the district court in May 2010. 

In 2010 the materials of verification were transferred to the Main Bureau of the forensic medical examinations of Kyiv city for conduction of commission forensic examination, the report of which was received only in October 2012.

After taking into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (of 2012) the information about sudden death of Mr. P. was registered in the URPTI, but no new investigative actions were conducted in the present proceedings. At the end of 2013, the criminal proceedings were closed, while the father of P. who is the victim in the proceedings, was not informed about its closing.

After applying of the victim to the SLC, the lawyer of the SLC involved the specialist in the sphere of forensic medical examination, and a doctor of the relevant specialization, for obtaining of consultation and medical conclusion. The lawyer prepared the appeal against the decision about closing of criminal proceedings, however the investigation body had not provided the lawyer with the copy of this decision, despite the complaints to the district and city Prosecutor’s Offices. In the absence of evidence of obtaining the decision much later than the date of its issuance, there is no real chances that the complaint against the decision will be considered by the court. Now the lawyer initiates the complaining proceedings for obtaining this decision by means of court order.

In October 2014, the lawyer complaint to the investigator’s refusal to give a copy of the investigator’s decision on termination of the criminal proceedings, and the District court granted this complaint.

Having obtained the copy of the decision, the lawyer complaint the decision itself to the investigative judge of the District court, and in November, 2014, the court granted the complaint and ordered to the investigator to continue the investigation.

No one investigative action was carried out after the revocation of the resolution to close the criminal proceedings. Because of this the SLC lawyer lodged to the investigator the motion to carry out additional investigatory actions, particularly, a complex forensic medical examination.

After reversal of the investigator’s resolution, the case file was passed for the investigation to another District Police Department, but this has not been informed neither to the lawyer, no to the victim’s father. In October, 2015 the lawyer was informed about the disposition of the case, and he addressed to the new (Dzerzhinskyi) Police Department. At the end of December, 2015 the on the request of the lawyer the new investigator questioned the victim’s father in detail, to define necessary investigation actions.

In 2016 it was another change of investigator in the case. For certain time, the case file was passed to the investigation department of the regional department of the National Police. After returning the case file, the SLC lawyer submitted the motion for a forensic medical examination (to determine whether the treatment of the victim Mr P.’s dead son was in accordance with the medical protocols) and the forensic handwriting examination to determine the issue of falsification of medical records.

In December 2016 the investigator granted all the requests and prepares materials for sending experts.

     

Case of Mr. S.

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

In relation to accused 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 accused 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.

During trial the court questioned almost all witnesses, an accused person and the victim.

An accused person was dismissed form the post.

On 6 October 2016 the trial was postponed.

On 21 October 2016 the court meeting was postponed due to judge’s being bussy.

On 16 December 2016 the court meeting was postponed. The next court hearing is appointed on 11 January 2017

The court proceedings are pending.

 

Case of Mr. S.

On 3 April 2016 in Kharkov, the police apprehended Mr S. and took him to one of the district police department, where he was beaten with the goal to get a confession in the crime he did not commit. As a result of that, he got numerous injuries including a fracture of ribs. He decided to complain on the police and asked for legal assistance to Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

The SLC lawyer managed the forensic examination of Mr S., on the results of which he was found with injuries from mild to moderate severity.

On 16 May 2016 Mr S. filed the criminal complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of of Kharkiv oblast, upon which the next day criminal proceedings were initiated. During the preliminary investigation questioning of Mr S. as a victim was conducted, in course of which he was provided for viewing of records from the CCTV cameras of the police station, during which he recognized the policemen, who exercised  physical violence to him. Thus, the investigation has grounds for official notification on suspicion of the policemen involved in beating Mr S. on, but after a while the investigator who collected evidence of the police guilt, was replaced with another one by their supervising prosecutor.

Since then, Mr S., who had many previous convictions, suffering from tuberculosis, drug and alcohol addiction, started to be subjected the pressure of the police coming for him home, threatening him with violence and criminal prosecution for anyone pretext, offered him money, etc. Because of that pressure on 8 February 2016, he applied to the prosecutor’s office with the application for protection measures.

Then due to the police influence, at the end of July, 2016 Mr S. refused form legal aid of the SLC lawyer.

On 6 August 2016, Mr S. and his brother, who also testified against the police, were called by phone, with the request to refuse from their pervious accusing testimonies.. Mr S. and his brother came to the prosecutor's office and abandoned their testimony. Then brother of Mr S. returned home, while the latter was remaining with the police officers "to celebrate the reconciliation." In the evening, Mr S. came home and went to bed, but in the morning he was found dead.

The SLC lawyer’s criminal complaints to the prosecutor’s office on illegal pressure to Mr S. from the police, lodged to the prosecutor of the Kharkiv oblast, which led to the death of a person as well as the application to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has been unsuccessful.

 

Case of Mr. Sh.

Mr. Sh. was factually apprehended on 27 September 2014 on suspicion of murder of his parents but 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 testified that Mr. Sh. confessed to the murder of his parents and pointed a place where he had buried 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 guilty 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 High Specialized Court of Ukraine. The court proceedings were 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 familiarize with case file and prepare an addendum to the appeal.

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

The court consideration is pending.

 

Case of Mr. Shm.

In August 2012 the police officers of one of the district of Kharkiv detained Mr. Shm. who was going to a work in the café. Mr Shm. 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 Mr Shm. 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 Mr Shm. were broken. He was delivered to the hospital and then operated. Mr Shm. 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 Mr Shm. 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 Mr Shm..

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 is not really carried out because of the prosecutor absence or trial ignorance by the judge.

     

Case of Mr. T.

At the beginning of July 2015 Mr T. asked the lawyer to provide him legal assistance. During July the lawyer held two meetings with Mr T. 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 T. 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 Mr. T. as illegal and unlawful.

On 27 June 2015 Mr. T. was arrested under Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The main reason of his detention was  testimonies of witness who said thatMr. T. sold him drug – acetylated opium. There was no more reason to detain Mr. T. 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 Mr. T. was unnecessary injured by police officers. His traumas were confirmed and registered by a doctor of pretrial detention center. Mr. T. 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 Mr. T. 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 Mr. T. 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 Mr. T. 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. There were only two court hearings in 2016.

On 18 July 2016 the Court of Appeal uphold previous verdict despite of several violations during the trial. After a month the SLC lawyer arranged a meeting with Mr. T. to discuss consequential steps in the Higher specialized court. On 17 October 2016 the SLC lawyer submitted an appeal.

Also in October 2016 the Prosecutor’s Office in Kherson region sent a letter to the SLC lawyer according to which his statement of crime was entered to the United register of pretrial investigations. Nowadays the investigtor questions witnesses of Mr. T’s ill-treatment.

On 21 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on taking part in the court hearing.

The Higher specialized court appointed hearing on 21 February 2017.

 

Case of Mr. Ush.

The applicants are Mr Sergey Viktorovich Ush. (“the first applicant”), who is detained and Ms Anna Mikhaylovna Ush.a (“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. Ush. 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. Ush.. 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.  Ush. submitted motions on changing of the preliminary measure. The motions were granted and Mr. Ush. was released from custody.

In August 2016, the SLC lawyer lodgedthe  application to the European court of human rights under Article 5 of the Convention on the matter of his holding in custody without the authorizing judicial decision after revocation the judgements by the Supreme Court and until changing of the measure of restraint.

In 2016, there were several court hearings in a case in which the accused Mr Ush. and several prosecution witnesses were questioned. In November 2016, due to a long illness of one judge of the judicial panel he was replaced by another one. After beginning the re-trial of the case by the new composition of the panel, actually the hearing has not been conducted  due to engagement of the judges in other trials, witnesses’ non-appearance to court etc.

 

Case of Mr. Ver.

Mr. Ver. 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. Ver. a preliminary measure in the form of termless detention according to the old Criminal procedure code of Ukraine. Mr. Ver. 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. Ver. 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. Ver. from custody at the court room.

 

      Case of Mr. Z.

Mr Z. 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 Mr Z. committed the same crime during his imprisonment and was repeatedly convicted.

The lawyer pointed the lack of appropriate evidence in the case. As Mr Z. 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.

Finally the preliminary court hearing was appointed on 20 September 2016 but it did not take place. Only after two months - on 22 November 2016 the court conducted the preliminary hearing and called witnesses for trial on 29 November 2016. However witnesses did not come to this court meeting as well as to the meeting on 24 December 2016 when the court also tired to start consideration of the case-files.

The next court meeting is appointed on 14 February 2017.

 

Case of Mr. Zal.

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. Investigation was initiated and forensic medical examination was conducted.

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.

Any other preventive measure was not applied to the applicant, so criminal prosecution of Mr. M. was terminated.

On 5 September 2016 the lawyer filed a request to the police office on investigation. Any answer was not received. 

 

 

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top