search  
print
| Gennadiy Tokarev

A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations in January - June 2017

   

A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations in January - June 2017

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 8 сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgments in 2017

Barysheva v. Ukraine

Dolganin v. Ukraine

Kiyashko v. Ukraine

Kulik v. Ukraine

Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 2)

Shust and Sidorenko v. Ukraine

Shylo and others v. Ukraine

Soyma v. the Republic of Moldova, Russia and Ukraine

2. 5 cases in which the SLC lawyers represented applicants before the ECtHR on the stage of communication with the Government of Ukraine

Kh-sha v. Ukraine

Kl-enko v. Ukraine

Lu-nko v. Ukraine

Ma-renko v, Ukraine

Pu-nev and G-iya v. Ukraine

3. 87 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. 69 cases related to the events in the Eastern Ukraine

3.1.1. 47 cases related to destroyed property of individuals in course of the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine

Be-chenko v. Ukraine and Russia

Be-da v. Ukraine and Russia

Bre-nova v. Ukraine and Russia

Che-hin v. Ukraine and Russia

E-nko v. Ukraine and Russia

Ge-mova v. Ukraine and Russia

Go-nova v. Ukraine and Russia

Ho-kina versus Ukraine and Russia

Ha-rza v. Ukraine and Russia

I-chenko v. Ukraine and Russia

K-inko v. Ukraine and Russia

Kala-kova v. Ukraine and Russia

Ka-nina G. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ka-nin V. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ka-ryan L. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ka-ryan S. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ko-nko v. Ukraine and Russia

Ko-min v. Ukraine and Russia

Kon-kina v. Ukraine and Russia

Ku-rdina v.Ukraine and Russia

Mye-hina v. Ukraine and Russia

Me-shko v. Ukraine and Russia

Mi-tenko v. Ukraine and Russia

Na-va v. Ukraine and Russia

Ne-ran V. v. Ukraine and Russia

No-kova v. Ukraine and Russia

Pro-pova G. v. Ukraine and Russia

Pro-pov S. v. Ukraine and Russia

Pro-pova T. v. Ukraine and Russia

Pro-pov V. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ru-nko M. v. Ukraine and Russia

Ru-nko O. v. Ukraine and Russia

Rye-vova v. Ukraine and Russia

Sav-ko v. Ukraine and Russia

Se-zhenko v. Ukraine and Russia

Sh-s v. Ukraine and Russia

Sh-ts v. Ukraine and Russia

Sh-ak v. Ukraine and Russia

Si-nenko v. Ukraine and Russia

Sle-va v. Ukraine and Russia

Su-vata v. Ukraine and Russia

To-chova v. Ukraine

U-chov versus Ukraine and Russia

U-denko v. Ukraine and Russia

Vo-va v. Ukraine and Russia

Yu-dina versus Ukraine

Z-ov v. Ukraine and Russia

3.1.2. 13 cases related to causing deaths and injuries of individuals in course of the armed conflict in the East of     Ukraine

De-sova v. Ukraine and Russia

Ga-mon v. Ukraine and Russia

Ho-vikov versus Ukraine and Russia

Iv-chyna v. Ukraine and Russia

Ka-gina v. Ukraine and Russia

Ka-nko versus Ukraine and Russia

Kra-kova v. Ukraine and Russia

Krya-tseva v. Ukraine and Russia

Li-vinova v. Ukraine and Russia

Lu-ska v. Ukraine and Russia

My-nko v. Ukraine and Russia

Sy-rovych and Sy-rovych v. Ukraine and Russia

Tu-ev v.Ukraine and Russia

3.1.3. 10 cases related to prisoners left at the occupied territory

Bo-v v. Ukraine

D-ev v. Ukraine

Ko-lenko v. Ukraine

Li-vin v. Ukraine

No-dran v. Ukraine

O-pov versus Ukraine

Pa-r v. Ukraine

Pshe-chnyy v. Ukraine

Vdo-nko v. Ukraine

Za-rozhnyy v. Ukraine

3.2. 17 cases in which applications have been lodged before the ECHR

3.2.1. 5 cases related to Savchenko’s Law

Bla-diorov v. Ukraine

Nez-min v. Ukraine

Pet-ak v. Ukraine

S-ev v. Ukraine

S-on v. Ukraine

3.2.2. 12 other cases in which applications have been lodged before the ECtHR

Bla-nska and Bo-enko v. Ukraine

Ga-yev v. Ukraine

Gu-na v, Ukraine

Horanin v. Ukraine

Kr-ov v. Ukraine

K-s v. Ukraine

Os-kov v. Ukraine

Po-riy v. Ukraine

Scho-kov case

Stri-tskyy v. Ukraine

Su-chov v, Ukraine (no. 2)

Su-nin v. Ukraine

4. 90 cases which were considered in national courts

4.1. Three foreigners who are in want of legal defense

A-na Ba-va case

A-T case

Ke-jayev case

4.2. 15 cases related to the conflict in the East of Ukraine

Bo-dytskiy case

Bo-ko case

Bo-nko case

D-sh case

Dio-yashenko case

I-shchenko case

Ka-skyy case

K-y case

Kh-ko case

Ko-va case

L-kh-1 case

Ru-n case

Sa-va case

Ye-mov case

Zhy-nko case

4.3. 7 cases of “Hundred Haven” heroes

Ch-skyy and Lu-skyy case

Ka-s case

Ko-tenko, Pol-skyi and Zu-ko cases..

Ve-miy case

4.4. Case on abuse of force against protesting people in Kharkiv on 19 February, 2014

4.5. 17 cases related drug users, people suffered from grievous illness and other vulnerable group of prisoners

A-ra case

B-ash case.

Bo-man case

B-ov case

Bo-rov case

By-r case

Gr-dov case

K-an case

Ka-lyk case

L-chenko case

Ma-mov case

S-chov case

Se-mko case

Si-rov case

Sli-nko case

Tel-ov case

Z-as case

4.6. 25 other cases

A-sh case

B-da case

Case of Anti-Ukrainian Newspapers

Case of beating and murder of representatives of Roma

Case of beating of LGBT-activists

Old lady’s abuse case

I-ev case

Case of K-ko

Kr-skyy case

Ku-ksin case

Le-nova case

Li-enko case

Ma-vin case

Me-ev case

Me-ntsev case

N. case

P-ov case

P-nov case

Se-nov case

Sta-nko case

Tu-nko case

U-kov case

Za-hta case

Zgo-kov case

Z-kyycase

4.7. 22 cases ended in success

A-rov v. Ukraine

Asu-bekov case

Bi-pytnyy case

Di-a case

Da-ev case

Go-venko case

My-lov case

Na-nyy case

Na-ov case

P. case

Pa-mov case

Pa-tov case

Pe-lova case

Pe-ruga case

Ru-ev case

Ru-nyy case

S-nko case

Shma-lov case

T-enko case

T-nyak case

Tu-goyev case

Ya-n N-h case

 

 

1.     8 сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgments in 2017

Barysheva v. Ukraine

The applicant, Ms Marina Vladimirovna Barysheva, is a Ukrainian national who is currently living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

According to the applicant, on 31 January 2009 she was arrested by a group of police officers in a café, K., and detained without record at a police station until 2 February 2009. She further alleged that during her detention, she was beaten and threatened by the police officers, notably A.A., who tried to obtain false confessions from her concerning her and other persons’ involvement in drug dealing. According to the applicant, she did not seek any medical assistance upon her release because she intended to file an ill‑treatment complaint and expected to be instructed by the prosecutor’s office on how to document the injuries properly.

On 10 February 2009 the applicant complained about the incident to the prosecutor’s office.

On 17 April 2009 this complaint was rejected as unsubstantiated.

On 31 March 2010 Kyivskyy District Court in Kharkiv, which examined the criminal case against the applicant, ordered the prosecutor’s office to inquire into her ill-treatment complaint lodged again during the trial.

On 23 April 2010 the Kyivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkiv decided not to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations. As appears from that document, the applicant had stated to the prosecutorial authority that she and V.J. (her partner) had been arrested on 29 January 2009 and that she had been ill‑treated by police officers and detained without record until 31 January 2009. V.J., questioned by the prosecutor’s office in connection with the inquiry into the applicant’s complaints, had likewise alleged that both of them had been arrested on 29 January 2009 and that the applicant had been subsequently detained until 31 January 2009.

The applicant appealed against this decision to the General Prosecutor’s Office, which forwarded the case-file materials back to the local prosecutor’s office with a view for them to be joined to the criminal investigation of the applicant’s complaint concerning the second ill‑treatment episode.

According to the applicant, on 18 June 2010 the Kyivskyy District Court in Kharkiv, to which the criminal case against her had been referred for examination, returned it for additional investigation.

On 25 June 2009 the applicant sought medical aid at Kharkiv City Clinical Hospital no. 4.

At 10 p.m. on the same date she was examined by a medical professional in that hospital and diagnosed as suffering from concussion and chest, stomach, and knee-joint contusions. She refused to be admitted as an inpatient for treatment, which was recommended to her, and left the hospital.

On 26 June 2009 a new set of criminal proceedings was instituted against the applicant on suspicion of selling opium to three men on 24 June 2009 and of storing a jar of opium in her house (“the second set of criminal proceedings”).

On the same date the applicant complained to the Kharkiv Regional Department of the Interior that she had been ill-treated by the police. She submitted, in particular, that on 24 June 2009 four police officers had forced their way into her house without a court order, searching for drugs. Officer A.A. had hit the applicant on the head with the grip of his gun and had struck her several times in the face with his hand in the presence of the applicant’s two-year-old son, her partner, brother, and two guests. The police officers had then taken the applicant to the police station, where she had been held from about 2 p.m. on 24 June until 5.30 p.m. on 25 June 2009 without a formal arrest record being drawn up. During that period, officer A.A. had demanded that she confess to dealing drugs under the protection of another police officer, Y.B. As the applicant had protested, he had threatened and punched her on various parts of her body. She had been released at about 5.30 p.m. on 25 June 2009 after confessing to drug-related offences and signing various documents at the demand of A.A.

According to the applicant, during her visit to the Department of the Interior, she had felt so unwell that an ambulance had been called and she had been admitted as an urgent case to Hospital no. 4.

In July 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Department of the Interior carried out an internal investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints.

On 18 September 2009 the Kharkiv city prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against “a group of unidentified police officers” suspected of abuse of authority accompanied by violence and the use of arms against the applicant on 24 June 2009. On 22 September 2009 the applicant joined those proceedings as an aggrieved party.

On 8 December 2010 A.A. was indicted within the framework of the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The three other police officers implicated by the applicant in assisting him on 24 June 2009 were referenced in the bill of indictment by name.

On 9 December 2010 the investigator S. discontinued the second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant for want of any evidence that she had stored opium in her house or had sold it to anyone on 24 June 2009.

On 26 November 2011 the Kharkiv prosecutor’s office refused to reopen the criminal investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints for want of any evidence that the police officers had committed a crime. They referred, in particular, to the retraction of several witness statements and to the re-classification of the applicant’s injuries as minor in the latest medical report. They further pointed out that, according to the experts’ findings, all of the applicant’s external injuries could technically have been self-inflicted. Accordingly, she could have lied to the police about her ill‑treatment to avoid charges of drug dealing.

On 14 March 2017 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court – the SLC lawyer Ms Yana Zaikina.

Dolganin v. Ukraine

The applicant, Valeriy Nikolayevich Dolganin, is a Ukrainian national who is currently living in Kharkiv, Ukraine.

According to the applicant, at 2 p.m. on 3 May 2005 he was arrested at his home, without any reason being given, and taken to the Ordzhonikidzevskyy district police station where he was handcuffed to a radiator. At around 10 p.m. he was brought before an investigator. There he was put on the floor with his hands handcuffed behind his back and was beaten by five or six police officers in his stomach and his liver. The officers then put on a gas mask on him with the air passage blocked and cigarette smoke was blown into it. The officers demanded that he confess “to crimes he had committed”. This treatment continued for one hour and the applicant was then placed in a cell. The next morning, the applicant experienced severe abdominal pain and requested medical assistance.

On 4 May 2005 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and two other persons for a robbery which had taken place on 12 April 2005.

On the same date the applicant complained to the duty officer that he was experiencing acute abdominal pain. At 10 p.m. an ambulance was called and he was transferred to Kharkiv City Hospital no. 17 (“hospital no. 17”). Upon admission, the applicant stated that he had fallen onto a concrete floor on 3 May 2005. His state of health had been classified as being of medium gravity. His initial medical examination revealed no visible bodily injuries. The applicant had an abdominal distention, felt moderate pain in the left part of his midabdomen and kidney region (“positive” Pasternatsky symptom) and had “negative” peritoneal signs. He was transferred to the surgical ward in order to verify if he had an abdominal trauma and retroperitoneal hematoma. The relevant treatment was prescribed to the applicant.

On 5 May 2005, according to the medical records, the applicant had no longer experienced pain and his health ameliorated. He was discharged from hospital in a satisfactory condition, after being given the relevant recommendations as to further medical treatment. The applicant alleged that the police forced the hospital officials to discharge him despite his poor state of health.

He was taken for a forensic medical examination, which was conducted in the presence of a police officer. The relevant report suggests that no bodily injuries were noted by the forensic expert and no complaint was raised by the applicant. According to the applicant, the examination was only superficial and he was forced by the police to keep silent about his ill‑treatment.

On 6 May 2005 the applicant was charged with robbery and questioned in the absence of a lawyer. He confirmed the statements he had given earlier.

On 13 April 2007 the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment on one count of robbery. The operative part of the judgment provided that the term of the applicant’s imprisonment should be calculated from 3 May 2005, the day of his actual arrest.

On 12 February 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

On 9 June and 29 July 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to lodge an appeal on points of law.

From 16 May 2005 to 19 June 2009 the applicant was detained in the Kharkiv SIZO. On 19 June 2009 he was transferred to another pre-trial detention facility and, later on, to a prison. The applicant’s complaint about inadequate medical treatment raised before the Court concerns the Kharkiv SIZO only.

During the trial in his criminal case the applicant complained that his confession had been obtained from him by the police under duress. In the judgment of 13 April 2007, by which the applicant was convicted, his ill‑treatment complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated mainly on the basis of the forensic medical report of 5 May 2005 and the results of the inquiries conducted by prosecutors in respect of the applicant’s complaints. The court also observed that during the whole pre-trial investigation the applicant had acknowledged his guilt and had never complained about any ill-treatment, and that he had not retracted his statements until the trial (which the court considered that he did simply as part of his defence strategy). In the appeals against his conviction before the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the applicant referred to a medical certificate issued by hospital no. 17 in which it was noted that he had sustained an abdominal injury. He stated, in particular, that this evidence of his ill-treatment had been completely disregarded by the trial court. In their judgments, the higher courts dismissed the applicant’s allegation of ill‑treatment on the same grounds as the first-instance court.

On 16 February 2017 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb and a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court – the SLC lawyer Ms Lilia Ibadova.

Kiyashko v. Ukraine

       The applicant, Mr Valeriy Vasilyevich Kiyashko, is a Ukrainian national who is currently living in Poltava, Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       On February 23, 2017 the ECtHR issued a judgment in which it found violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning inadequate conditions of detention and lack of medical assistance for the applicant in the places of detention.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court – the SLC lawyers Ms Elena Aschenko and Nataliia Okhotnikova.

Kulik v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr Sergey Anatolyevich Kulik, is a Ukrainian national who is currently serving a prison sentence.

A. The circumstances of the case

Criminal proceedings, detention and alleged ill-treatment of the applicant

On 30 January 2003 the Desnyansky District Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv opened a criminal case against the applicant, declared him wanted on suspicion of having murdered Kh. and V., and ordered his arrest.

In the evening of the same day the police arrested him in Kharkiv. During the following night, in order to extract his confession to the murder, they beat him up, humiliated him, put a plastic bag on his head and cut off his air supply, and threatened to kill him when he was taken to Kyiv. He was detained at the Leninsky District Police Station of Kharkiv, on the basis of information provided by the Desnyansky District Police of Kyiv (“the district police”), from 9.50 p.m. on 31 January 2003 to 10.20 a.m. on 1 February 2003, when he was handed over to detective K.

On 4 February 2003 the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention in Kyiv Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit no. 13 (“the Kyiv SIZO”). On the same day a medical expert found scratches on both sides of the applicant’s hands; the applicant has given no explanation as to the cause of these injuries.

The pre-trial detention of the applicant was extended by the court several times.

On 6 February 2003 the television channel “Kyiv” received a video‑recording of the crime reconstruction from the prosecutors and broadcast it on a number of occasions during 2003.

On 3 October 2003 the Court of Appeal, convicted the applicant of murder and other offences and sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of all his property.

On 25 March 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 3 October 2003.

On 14 July 2004 it forwarded the applicant’s complaints about how his confession had been extracted to the prosecutors for consideration. The applicant did not receive any reply in this regard.

In a judgment of 18 March 2005,the Court of Appeal convicted the applicant on two counts of murder and theft and sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of all his property.

During the hearings held before the Court of Appeal the applicant could not speak confidentially with his representatives because the guards did not allow them to come closer than a one metre to each other.

The applicant appealed against the judgment of 18 March 2005. On 26 July 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, in the applicant’s presence, upheld his conviction and sentence as given by the Court of Appeal. While deciding on the applicant’s guilt, the court relied on the case‑file evidence, including the applicant’s confession and his subsequent interviews during the preliminary investigation..

Before the hearing, the Court of Appeal had not allowed the applicant to study volume 10 of the case file, the audio-recordings of some of the hearings, all the material evidence, or the video-recording of the reconstruction of the crime.

The conditions of the applicant’s detention and transportation (period from 30 January 2003 to 14 December 2005)

From 30 January to 14 February 2003 the applicant was not able to shave, wash or sleep properly. He was being held in cells measuring 7 sq. m without sleeping places and where more than ten detainees were kept at a time.

The physical conditions of the applicant’s imprisonment (period from 14 December 2005 to 27 October 2008)

On 14 December 2005 the applicant was transferred from the Kyiv SIZO to prison no. 47.

On 13 April 2006 he was diagnosed with hypertension.

During the early part of his imprisonment, the applicant was held with other inmates suffering from a latent form of tuberculosis (“TB”) in cells no. 17, 15, 8, and 7.

On 13 January 2008 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 7, which had not been disinfected after a prisoner with the active form of TB had left it. The central heating in the cell did not function and the window was partly covered with plastic instead of glass. Fifteen out of the sixty-four prisoners in the same sector of the prison had various forms of TB.

On 21 January 2008, after a periodic X-ray, and on 24 January 2008, after having consulted a phthisiatrician, the applicant was diagnosed with and assigned therapy (anti-TB medication, vitamins and diet) for category 3 infiltrative TB of the upper part of the right lung.

From 24 April to 13 May 2008, with short stays in two SIZOs, the applicant was transported to Kherson Prison no. 61 (“prison no. 61”), which specialised in TB treatment. During his transportation the applicant received no medication for TB and from 4 to 13 May 2008 he was held with another prisoner who was suffering from the active form of TB.

The applicant received inadequate food, his cell was never disinfected, and rats in the cells damaged his belongings and food. From 13 to 31 May and from 25 June to 25 July 2008 he was held with prisoners suffering from the active form of TB in cells no. 1 and no. 4 of section no. 4. In those cells the windows were kept closed, substantially limiting the supply of fresh air.

On 12 October 2008 the applicant left prison 61 having recovered from the disease, with the diagnosis “TB with residual changes (a few nidals) to the left lung and pulmonary fibrosis on the left and right”.

On his return to prison no. 47 on 27 October 2008, the applicant was registered with the same diagnosis as he had had on leaving prison no. 61.

Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant on 17 November 2007

On 17 November 2007 the prison special force, in masks and armed with truncheons, entered the applicant’s cell in prison no. 47 and ordered him and other prisoners to lie face down on the floor with their hands behind their heads. Once when he tried to take a more comfortable position, the applicant was hit with a baton in the back. Then he was forced out into a cold corridor where he was ordered to strip naked and to squat in the presence of others and then to go to the prison yard, where he spent two hours half-dressed. During his absence from the cell, his legal and religious literature, letters and photographs of his relatives and all the food received from them were seized. Apparently, this was done in order to deter him and other prisoners from escaping from prison. He complained about the incident to the General Prosecutor’s Office.

Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant on 13 May 2008

On 13 May 2008 officer B. of prison 61 wrung the applicant’s handcuffed hands and forced him to walk faster. No further details were given in connection with this event.

       On 14 September 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights about violation of Articles 3, 5 § 1, 6 § 1, 6 § 3 (c), 8 and 13 of the Conventions.

       On 24 February 2012 and 19 March 2013 the complaint was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

       On 26 February 2014 a lawyer of the SLC lodged to the ECTHR reply to the Government’s Observations.

On 2 February 2017 the ECtHR issued a judgment in which it found violations of Article 3 (concerning inadequate conditions of detention and placing the applicant into the metal cage during the hearing in the Supreme Court of Ukraine), Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.

The applicant’s representative before the European Court – the SLC lawyer Ms Yelena Ashchenko.

Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 2)

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Grigoryevich Shabelnik, is a Ukrainian national is currently in detention in Zhytomyr, Ukraine.

On 2 April 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, alleging that his conviction for the murder of K. had been based on incriminating evidence that had been obtained in violation of his right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination and that he had been hindered in the effective exercise of his right to defence when questioned at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings.

On 19 February 2009 the Court declared the application partly admissible and found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.

The SLC lawyer lodged an application with the Supreme Court for a review of the applicant’s criminal case in view of the first Shabelnik judgment. He asked the Supreme Court to quash the trial court’s judgment and its own 2002 decision upholding the original conviction. He asked that he and the applicant be present during the examination of the request.

The prosecutor’s office also applied to the Supreme Court for a review. They asked the court to amend the trial court’s judgment and the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision by striking out references to the records of the questioning of the applicant as a witness about K.’s murder and the result of the on-site reconstruction of that murder.

On 30 April 2010 the Supreme Court, sitting in a formation composed of all the judges of the criminal and military chambers of the court, allowed the above applications in part, quashed its own 2002 decision and remitted the case for fresh examination in cassation proceedings by a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court.

Hearings before the Supreme Court panel were scheduled and rescheduled several times and the applicant was informed of this accordingly. The case was finally scheduled for hearing on 9 September 2010 and the applicant and his lawyer  were informed of this by letter on 30 July 2010. Neither the applicant nor Mr Bushchenko requested that the applicant be escorted from his prison to the hearing before the Supreme Court panel.

On 9 September 2010 the Supreme Court examined the case in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his lawyer and a prosecutor. The lawyer made submissions to the court and a written summary of his remarks was submitted to the Supreme Court.

According to the summary, after reiterating that the applicant’s confessions and the reconstruction reports should be ruled inadmissible, the lawyer presented his analysis of the remaining evidence in the file. He dealt with the question of the evidence of the applicant’s involvement in the attack on K.

On the same day the Supreme Court delivered its decision. It excluded the applicant’s original confessions from the body of evidence. However, it found that the rest of the evidence in the case file was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the applicant had murdered K. while trying to cover up an attempted robbery.

In particular, the Supreme Court approved of the trial court’s reliance on: (i) evidence from the expert that it could not be ruled out that the victim’s injuries had been caused by the knife found at the applicant’s home, and (ii) the statements of the witnesses O.K., V.S. and “others” concerning the applicant’s supposed motive for the murder.

In support of its findings the Supreme Court also referred to material and circumstances on which the trial court had not explicitly relied: (i) the fact that “in the course of psychiatric assessment [the applicant], told the experts about [K.’s murder] under the circumstances established by the [trial] court”; (ii) the applicant’s admission in court that he had visited the victim’s flat; and (iii) the testimony of Ms G., the victim’s neighbour, that she had seen the applicant in the victim’s block of flats.

The Supreme Court concluded that, other than the breaches which led to the exclusion of the applicant’s original confessions, there had been no other breaches of the rules of criminal procedure which would put in doubt the correctness of the conclusions of the trial court (the Court of Appeal) concerning his guilt or legal qualification of his actions. The investigation authorities and the trial court examined all the circumstances of the case which could be relevant to correctly decide the case. The trial court’s conclusions were based on admissible and sufficient evidence.

The applicant’s was represented before the European Court – a lawyer Mr A. Bushchenko

Shust and Sidorenko v. Ukraine

The applicant, Vladislav Viktorovich Sidorenko, is a Ukrainian national who is currently living in Dnipro, Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 23 March 2017 the European Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 3,  and also Article 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention; Article 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention; Article 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings between 19/12/2005 and 05/03/2013 of the Convention.

The applicant’s representatives before the European Court – the SL lawyers Mr Vladimir Gluschenko and Ms Nataliia Okhotnikova.

Shylo and others v. Ukraine

The first applicant is Ms Svetlana Nikolayevna Krupko, who is currently serving her sentence. The second applicant is Ms Nataliia Mykhaylivna Korin, who is currently serving her sentence.

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

       On June 11, 2010 the applicants were taken into custody by the ruling of thr Industrialnyy district court of Dnipropetrovsk city.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 22 June 2017 the ECtHR issued a judgment in which it found violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicants’ representative before the European Court – the SLC lawyer Ms Yelena Ashchenko.

Soyma v. the Republic of Moldova, Russia and Ukraine

The applicant was Mr Sergiy Volodymyrovych Soyma (“the applicant”). After his death in 2006 his mother, Ms Pavlina Petrivna Soyma, who expressed her wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.

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

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

After his conviction the applicant’s mother made many requests to various Ukrainian official bodies to obtain the transfer of her son to a Ukrainian prison. The case file before the Court contains approximately forty replies received by her from various Ukrainian authorities. However, her efforts were not successful. In particular, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine informed the applicant that it had contacted its counterpart in Moldova, which had informed it that Moldova could not secure the applicant’s transfer to a Ukrainian prison because it did not have control over the territory of the “MRT”. The Ukrainian authorities also contacted the “MRT” authorities, but to no avail. In a letter to the applicant’s mother, the “MRT” authorities stated that they would only transfer the applicant to a Ukrainian prison after the conclusion of a treaty between Ukraine and the “MRT” which would make the transfer of prisoners possible. Since Ukraine refused to sign such a treaty with it, the transfer was not possible. The applicant’s mother went so far as to initiate court proceedings against the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, denouncing its lack of action, but she was not successful.

On several occasions the applicant’s representative also contacted the Moldovan authorities, enquiring about the status of the Transdniestrian region and, on at least two occasions, asking them for assistance with the question of the applicant’s transfer to a Ukrainian prison. It does not appear from the material submitted by the applicant and his mother that he complained to the Moldovan authorities about alleged breaches of his Convention rights by the “MRT” authorities. In a letter of 25 April 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Moldova informed the applicant’s representative that it had contacted the prosecuting authorities of the “MRT” and requested the necessary documents to have the applicant transferred to a Ukrainian prison. It is not clear from the case file whether the “MRT” authorities reacted to that letter. In another letter sent to the applicant’s representative by the office of the President of the Republic of Moldova, the lawyer was informed that the Moldovan authorities were unable to bring about the applicant’s transfer to a Ukrainian prison while the Transdniestrian conflict remained unsettled.

The applicant’s mother also wrote to the OSCE mission in Moldova, which informed her that her letter had been forwarded to the Ukrainian Embassy in Chisinau.

In around March 2006 the applicant broke his leg and was admitted to hospital. It appears from his mother’s statements that she was able to spend time with him during his stay in hospital.

On 24 May 2006 the applicant was found hanged in the gym of the prison in which he was being detained. It does not appear that the applicant’s mother requested or obtained a medical forensic report concerning the circumstances of his death. However, it appears from her statements that the applicant did not have any signs of violence on his body.

On 30  May 2017 the European Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention by the Russian Federation

The applicant’s representatives before the European Court – lawyers Ms Yana Zaikina and Mr Levan Gulua.

2.     5 cases in which the SLC lawyers represented applicants before the ECtHR on the stage of communication with the Government of Ukraine

Kh-sha v. Ukraine

Kh-sha (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 Administrive 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 Administrive 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. 

In December 2016 the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

On 2 June 2017 a lawyer of the SLC sent to the ECtHR written reply to the Government’s observations.

Kl-enko v. Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On December 3, 2015 the case was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

On March 2, 2017 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant sent to the ECtHR reply to the Government’s Observations.

Lu-nko v. Ukraine

Mr Lu-nko (hereinafter – the applicant) was arrested on 30 December 2008 by the officers of the Poltava city police station.

On 31 December 2008 an arrest report was drawn up according to which the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of the murder of Mr N. The applicant was placed in the temporary detention centre at the Poltava city police station.

On the same day criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of weapons.

On 5 January 2009 the applicant was questioned in the ITT: at that time he was subjected to torture by electric shocks by Officer T. and two other officers of the Poltava Leninskyy district police station in order to force him to confess to the murder of N. According to him, they laid him face down on the floor with his hands handcuffed behind his back and applied electricity to his ears using a machine resembling a field phone. One of the police officers pinned him down by standing on his legs and back. This treatment caused him to suffocate and to bang his head on the floor.

On 8 January 2009 the applicant was transferred to the SIZO.

On 29 October 2009 the Poltava Leninskyy District Court (“the Leninskyy Court”) asked the Leninskyy district prosecutor’s office (“the DPO”) to investigate the second applicant’s allegations.

On 26 November 2009 the DPO, having interviewed the investigator who had been in charge of the applicants’ case and who had denied all allegations of ill-treatment, refused to institute criminal proceedings finding no corpus delicti in the police officers’ actions.

On 28 September 2011 the Leninskyy Court upheld the DPO’s decision of 26 November 2009.

On 13 February 2012 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the ruling of the Leninskyy Court of 28 September 2011 and the DPO’s decision of 26 November 2009. The Court of Appeal remitted the case to the Poltava regional prosecutor’s office for further examination. By way of reasoning, the Court of Appeal held that the regional prosecutor’s office had not conducted a meaningful investigation into the applicants’ allegations. In particular, neither the applicants nor the officers they had accused of ill-treatment had been interviewed and no medical examination had been conducted. The court also concluded that the DPO had not been independent for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention, since it had previously supervised the investigation in the criminal case against the applicants. The court concluded that the pre-investigation inquiries had not met the requirements of Article 3.

On 26 March 2012 the DPO again refused to institute criminal proceedings. By way of reasoning, the DPO noted that after the first applicant had been admitted to the SIZO, he had been examined by a doctor on 19 January 2009 but no injuries had been recorded. The DPO also referred to the results of the second applicant’s medical examination at the ITT and the SIZO on 31 December 2008 and 19 January 2009 respectively. The DPO further noted the written statements of a police investigator and another police officer who had denied the allegations of ill-treatment.

On 6 July 2012 the Leninskyy Court quashed the decision of 26 March 2012, noting that, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s previous ruling, the applicants had not been questioned, no medical examination had been conducted, and the pre-investigation inquiries had again been carried out by the DPO.

On 23 August 2012 a prosecutor of the Poltava city prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings. According to the decision, in the course of the new round of pre-investigation inquiries the applicants had been interviewed. They had stated that they had been ill-treated by Officer T. on 5 January 2009 at the ITT. Officer T. and several officers of the ITT had also been interviewed and had denied any allegations of ill-treatment. Noting that a long period of time had passed since the events in question, the prosecutor found that there were no objective data which would corroborate the applicants’ allegations.

On 28 September 2012 the Poltava city prosecutor quashed the decision of 23 August 2012.

On 8 October 2012 another prosecutor of the Poltava city prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings.

On 13 November 2012 the Poltava Oktyabrskyy District Court (“the Oktyabrskyy Court”) rejected the second applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 8 October 2012. Having rejected the second applicant’s appeals, on 13 March 2013 the Court of Appeal and on 5 June 2014 the Higher Specialized Civil and Criminal Court upheld the ruling of 13 November 2012.

On 17 December 2012 the Oktyabrskyy Court rejected the first applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8 October 2012. The first applicant appealed. On 21 June 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 17 December 2012 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination, noting in particular that the first-instance court had failed to examine the material gathered during the pre-investigation inquiries and had failed to respond to the first applicant’s arguments.

Ma-renko v, Ukraine

On 23 March 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery. He maintains that police officers beat him after his arrest to coerce him into confessing.

On 25 March 2008 the applicant was examined by a doctor who diagnosed him with concussion, and chest and abdomen injuries. The applicant told the doctor that he had been beaten by unknown persons.

On 9 June 2008 a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant had suffered a concussion and had had chest, neck and abdomen injuries, bruises and scratches of the left side of his face. Those injuries were classified as light.

On 19 September 2008 a prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant’s complaints.

On 20 February 2010 the decision of 19 September 2008 was quashed by the Kirovskyy District prosecutor’s office.

On 1 March, 30 August and 9 September 2010, respectively, a prosecutor again refused to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant’s complaints. In particular, it was noted that three police officers had testified that they had not ill-treated the applicant and, while examining the criminal case against the applicant, the national courts had not established any breaches of law.

On 6 February 2010 the applicant lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights about violation of Article 3 of the Convention in material and procedural aspect.

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

On 28 February 2017 lawyers of the SLC on behalf of the applicant sent to the ECtHR reply to the Government’s Observations.

Pu-nev and G-iya v. Ukraine

On 5 April 2012 the first applicant was arrested, handcuffed and allegedly beaten by police officers at a petrol station in Kherson. He was taken to the regional police station in Kherson and on the next day was transported around 800 km to the police station in Volodymyr-Volynskyy, where, according to him, he was asked to testify against an acquaintance who was suspected of murder.

On 7 April 2012 a police officer based at Volodymyr-Volynskyy police station issued a detention report which stated that the first applicant had been arrested at the police station at around 4.40 a.m. on that day on suspicion of acquiring and selling a stolen car. On the same day he had been examined in the presence of witnesses at the police station in the district of Turiyskyy, and it had been noted that he had had a black eye and scratches on his wrists.

On 9 April 2012 the first applicant was transported back to Kherson where he was placed in a temporary detention facility in Bilozerskyy.

After several refusals to institute criminal proceedings, which were subsequently quashed by a court, criminal proceedings were finally instituted on 28 December 2012 following complaints by the first applicant of ill-treatment. On 13 April 2013 the Suvorovskyy district prosecutor’s office in Kherson terminated those proceedings for absence of evidence of a crime. It was concluded that the first applicant had sustained the black eye from falling down.

The second applicant, who is the first applicant’s civil wife, stated that in May 2011 she had bought a Chevrolet Lacetti car. 

The first applicant was driving that car at the moment of his arrest on 5 April 2012. The car was seized by the police on the same date together with 15,000 United States dollars (USD) and various items of property.

By a letter of 6 August 2012 the Suvorovskyy district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the car had been seized as “an instrument of a crime”.

On 10 September 2012 the same prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings following complaints by the second applicant that the police officers had unlawfully seized her car, money and items of property.

On 21 November 2012 a court quashed that decision and remitted the case for additional investigation. On the same day criminal proceedings were instituted.

On 24 April 2013 the Suvorovskyy district prosecutor’s office terminated those proceedings for absence of evidence of a crime. The car was returned to a third party, who was its owner. The criminal proceedings in respect of the car theft were stayed because of impossibility to find the thief.

On 14 October 2014 the applicants lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) in which they pointed at violation of Articles 3, 5 and 13 concerning the first applicant and Article 1 of the Protocol 1 as regard to the second applicant.

On 3 March 2016 the case was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

On 17 January 2017 lawyers of the SLC sent to the ECtHR the reply to the Government’s Observations.

3. 87 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. 69 cases related to the events in the Eastern Ukraine

 

3.1.1. 47 cases related to 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.

Be-chenko v. Ukraine and Russia

Mr B. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian national. The applicant lives in Stanytsia Luhanska.

On 18 November 2014 and 18 January 2015 his house in Stanytsia Luhanska was damaged as a result of shellings.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

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

Be-da v. Ukraine and Russia

In the period from 2 May 2015 to 3 August 2015 as a result of shelling of Stanitsia Luganska the house of applicant, Mr. Be-da was significantly damaged. Moreover greenhouses were destroyed too.

On 11 June 2015 during the shelling the household of the applicant was damaged again

On 02 February 2017 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

Bre-nova v. Ukraine and Russia

On 1 February 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs. B-va causing significant damage to the house.

On 02 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Che-hin v. Ukraine and Russia

On 2 September 2014 during a shelling the house of Mr. Che-hin (hereinafter - the applicant) caught fire and was totally destroyed. Since the last date she has lived in the destroyed house without money for rewards of his own property. His children and other relatives have left Stanytsia Luhanska and currently live in Russia

In February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

E-nko v. Ukraine and Russia

Mr E. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant and his family currently live in Poltava as IDPs.

On 1 September 2014 the applicant’s house in Stanytsia Luhanska was seriously damaged as a result of another shelling.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied the SLC lawyer for legal aid

On 25 April 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 8, 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

Ge-mova v. Ukraine and Russia

On 2 September 2014  the house of Ms Ge-mova (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 2 March 2017 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.

Go-nova v. Ukraine and Russia

On 4 September during another shelling the house of Mrs. Go-nova (hereinafter - the applicant) was significantly damaged. The applicant did not restore her house because she did not have enough money for that. Her relatives left the town and went to Russia. The applicant did not come to them and communicate for years.

In February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

Ho-kina versus Ukraine and Russia

On the night from 13 to 14 February 2015 during shelling of Stanytsia Luganska, one of the shells hit the yard of the applicant’s household, resulting in broken windows, heavily damaged walls of the house and destroyed furniture.

For today the house and farm buildings of the applicant have not been fully restored. The house is in uninhabitable condition. Therefore the applicant lives in the house of her son/

On 15 March 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention. 

Ha-rza v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant has lived in the village. Stanitsa Luganskaya since 1970.He had greenhouses and subsistence crops, which was the main source of income of the applicant.

On 2 September 2014 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, causing significant damage the house and destroying household outbuilding. Applicants house suffered 2 more times during the shelling on 9 February  and 27 August 2015.

On 23 March 2017 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

I-chenko v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs Iv. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant lives in Stanytsia Luhanska.

On 2 July 2014 her house in Stanytsia Luhanska was seriously damaged as a result of an air-strike.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 22 February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 2, 8, 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

K-inko v. Ukraine and Russia

On 4 July 2014 during a shelling the house of Mrs. K-inko (hereinafter - the applicant) was significantly damaged. That day the applicant stayed at home and only by way of luck has survived. Later she tried to restore her house but did not have enough money for that.

In February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

Kala-kova 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. Kal-va, causing significant damage the house.

On 17 August 2014 during the shelling the household of the applicant was damaged again, the roof, house foundation and plastic windows were completely destroyed.

On 08 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Ka-nina G. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 5 July 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs K-na, causing significant damage the house and destroying household outbuilding.

On 15 February 2017 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

Ka-nin V. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 5 December 2014 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mr K-n, causing significant damage the house and destroying household outbuilding.

On 17 February 2017 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

Ka-ryan L. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 10 August 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs Ka-n, causing significant damage the house area of 65 m2 and summer kitchen area of 32 m2.

On 26 January 2017 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.

Ka-ryan S. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 5 December 2014 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mr K-n, causing significant damage the house and destroying household outbuilding.

On 23 February 2017 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

Ko-nko v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs. K. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant and her family currently live in Kharkiv as IDPs.

In February 2015 the applicant’s house in Debaltseve (territory of Donetsk region, controlled by so-called “DPR”) was seriously damaged as a result of another shelling.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 6 April 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 8, 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

Ko-min v. Ukraine and Russia

On 15 January 2015 the shelling of Lomonosov Street, Stanytsia Luhanska where the private house of the applicant is situated took place, during which shells hit the applicant’s having damaged the roof and broken windows of the house.

On 20 January 2015 a shell exploded on the yard of the applicant’s household having broken fence and destroyed fruit trees.

On 3 June 2015 around 10 pm a mine exploded on the yard of the households, having  broken four windows and damaged slate on the roof.

On 22 November 2015 a bullet hit the applicant’s house having passed through the glass window and stuck in the wall.

To date, the applicant and his wife still live in the damaged house.

On 9 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention. 

Kon-kina v. Ukraine and Russia

On 29 August 2014 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs Kono-na, causing significant damage the house.

On 14 August 2015 there was a new shelling, which caused a fire in households applicant, which resulted in completely burned house.

On 13 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Ku-rdina v.Ukraine and Russia

On 2 September 2014 during the shelling of  Stanytsia Luhanska a shell hit the applicant’s household having strongly damaged the foundation, walls and roof of the house and having completely broken three windows. Moreover, fruit trees that grew in the garden of the household were burned.

The applicant and her husband continue to live in the damaged house and have to adapt it to normal life.

On 8 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

Mye-hina v. Ukraine and Russia

On 28 August 2014 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs Mye-na, causing significant damage the house.

On 10 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Me-shko v. Ukraine and Russia

Mr. M. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant currently lives in Kharkiv as an IDP.

In 2014-2015 his house in Donetsk was seriously damaged as a result of shellings.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC’s lawyer for legal aid

On 15 February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 8, 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

Mi-tenko v. Ukraine and Russia

On 19 January 2015 during another shelling the house of Mrs. Mi-tenko (hereinafter - the applicant) was seriously damaged. That time the applicant stayed at her neighborhoods’ house and survived. She did not restore her house because she had no money for that. She had to live in the damaged house without any chance to remove. Her relatives live too far from the town and could not help her.

In February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

Na-va v. Ukraine and Russia

On 2 September 2014  the house of Ms Na-va (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 6 March 2017 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.

Ne-ran V. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 18 August 2014 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mr N-n, causing significant damage the house and glass greenhouse.

On 19 November 2014 during the shelling the household of the applicant was damaged again, plastic windows and toilet were completely destroyed.

On 10 March  2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

No-kova v. Ukraine and Russia

On 10 April 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs N-va, causing significant damage the house and destroying household outbuilding.

On the beginning of July 2015 during the shelling the household of the applicant was damaged again and household outbuildings were destroyed. The applicant’s dog was also killed.

On 4 July 2015 during a new shelling, shell hit the bedroom in applicant’s house.

On 23 March 2017 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

Pro-pova G. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 29 July 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mr P-va G., causing significant damage the house.

On 22 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Pro-pov S. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 28 July 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, which caused a fire in households applicant, which resulted in completely burned house.

On 27 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Pro-pova T. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 08 July 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, which caused a fire in households applicant, which resulted in completely burned house.

On 24 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of  Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Pro-pov V. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 08 June 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, which caused a fire in households applicant, which resulted in completely burned house.

On 28 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Ru-nko M. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 01 July 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, which caused a fire in households applicant, which resulted in completely burned house.

On 16 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of  Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Ru-nko O. 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 R-ko O., causing significant damage the house.

On 16 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Rye-vova v. Ukraine and Russia

On the beginning of February 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs R-va, causing significant damage the house.

On 27 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.

Sav-ko v. Ukraine and Russia

During the period from 18 August 2014 till 1 September 2015 the house of Mr Sav-ko (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 13 March 2017 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.

Se-zhenko v. Ukraine and Russia

On 9 January 2015 during a shelling the house of Mrs. Se-zhenko (hereinafter - the applicant) was significantly damaged. The applicant has restored her property but on 24 July 2015 a new shelling started as a result of which her house caught fire and totally burnt away. Subsequently the applicant lived in a summer kitchen because nothing else was undamaged. She has no household goods and had to buy everything. Her relatives left Stanitsya Luhanska and went to another Ukrainian regions. They did not communicate with the applicant enough.

In February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

Sh-s v. Ukraine and Russia

On 21 and 24 August 2014 as a result of mine explosion the house of Mrs. Sh-s (hereinafter - the applicant) was significantly damaged.

On 10 February 2015 during a shelling her house caught fire and was almost destroyed. However the applicant did not have money to restore the house or to rend another one. During years she has been surviving with the lack of water-supply, electricity supply and so on.

In March 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

Sh-ts v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs. Sh. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant currently lives with her family in Kharkiv as an IDP.

On 1 August 2014 her flat in Pervomaysk (Luhansk region, territory, controlled by so-called “LPR”) was seriously damaged as a result of another shelling.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 30 March 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 8, 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

Sh-ak v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant and his wife are pensioners.

On 12 February 2015 during a regular shelling of Stanytsia Luhanska a shell hit the house where the applicant’s apartment is located, at the result of which the roof was badly damaged and the ceiling collapsed. In the yard of the apartment building the barn, he outside shower, the toilet and the fence belonging to the applicant on the right joint ownership were also broken.

To date the applicant and his wife still live in the damaged apartment.

On 6 March 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention. 

Si-nenko v. Ukraine and Russia

The applicant was born and has lived in the Stanitsa Luganska for all his life. Before the anti-terrorist operation had started applicant had greenhouses, in particular, he had greenhouses with a total area of 650 m2. Annual production was grown by an average of 12-15 tons.

On 15 June 2015 there was the shelling of Stanitsia Luganska, during which a shell hit the household of the applicant, Mrs Ka-n, causing significant damage the house and greenhouses. The applicant lost not only house, but also the main source of income – greenhouses.

On 13 February 2017 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

Sle-va v. Ukraine and Russia

On 21 January 2015  the house of Ms Slesareva (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 6 March 2017 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.

Su-vata v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs. S. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant lives in Stanytsia Luhanska.

On 4 December 2014 her house in Stanytsia Luhanska was seriously damaged as a result of another shelling.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 14 April 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 8, 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

To-chova v. Ukraine

On 2 September 2014 during the shelling of Stanytsia Luhanska a shell hit the applicant’s household. The applicant, together with her sister at that time were in the yard of the household. At the result of hitting of a shell, the garage and the summer kitchen were destroyed, the fence was heavily damaged.

To date the house and farm buildings af the applicant have not been fully restored. The house is in uninhabitable condition. As because of the shelling the house was almost completely destroyed the applicant had to move and for today she lives in her relatives’ house.

On 9 March 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

 

U-chov versus Ukraine and Russia

On 20 and 28 January 2014 during a shelling the house of Mr. U-chov (hereinafter - the applicant) caught fire. Immediately the applicant called the fire emergency service but it did not work because of military danger. Thus in five hours the applicant who was 77 years old and his wife who was 73 put out a fire by their own hands. Nobody helped them - even neighborhoods were afraid of a continued shelling and stayed at basements. The applicant now lives at his destroyed house, he has no money to restore it.

In March 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 2, 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

U-denko v. Ukraine and Russia

On 2 September 2014 during the shelling of Stanytsia Luhanska a shell hit the applicant’s household. As a result of hitting of a shell the facade of the residential house was damaged and two windows were broken.

On 10 February 2015 during the regular shelling shells hit the applicant’ house and therefore the kitchen was completely destroyed, three windows were broken, the roof was badly damaged, furniture and appliances were burned.

On 20 July 2015, 25 August 2015 and 26 April 2016 during the shelling the roof, windows and ceilings of the residential building of the applicant were badly damaged,  personal belongings were destroyed.

On 5 June 2016 a bullet hit the roof the house. 

On 14 March 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention. 

Vo-va v. Ukraine and Russia

On 2 September 2014 the shelling of Shevchenko Street, Stanytsia Luhanska on which the applicant’s household is situated took place.

During the shelling of five shells hit the applicant’s household, at the the result of  that fire broke, which almost completely destroyed the house, destroyed furniture, appliances and personal belongings of the applicant and her husband.

As because of hitting of shells the applicant’s house had become unfit for habitation, the applicant and her husband were forced to leave it and today they live in a rented house.

On 28 March 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention. 

Yu-dina versus Ukraine

The applicant lives together with their two children, one of whom has a disability of childhood of the first group and the second is a minor.

On 9 January 2015 the shelling of Stanytsia Luhanska took place. As a result of hit of shells into the applicant’s household the roof and walls of the house were severely damaged, windows were broken and the fence was crashed

In mid February 2015 during a regular shelling the shells repeatedly fell on the territory of the applicant’s households, having broken three windows and damaged a wall.

On 13 March 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention. 

Z-ov 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, Mr Z-v, causing significant damage the house and destroying farm buildings.

On the night of 24 to 15 May 2015 during the shellingthe household of the applicant was damaged again.

On 22 July 2015 there was a new shelling, which caused a fire in households applicant, which resulted in completely burned house.

On 13 February 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

3.1.2. 13 cases related to causing deaths and injuries of individuals in course of the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine

De-sova v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs D. (hereinafter – the applicant) herself was wounded by undermining a mine on 12 September 2015 in Stanytsia Luhanska.

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

On 9 February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of articles 2, 3, 8 of the Convention.

Ga-mon v. Ukraine and Russia

On July 2, 2014, the village of Stanitsa Luhansk in the Luhansk region was shelling, two of them hit the courtyard of the applicant. At the time, the applicant’s wife and his mother-in-law were in the courtyard.

The applicant’s wife detached the applicant’s explosion and, although the neighbors took her to the district hospital in their car, she later died of bleeding as a result of the injury (she was torn off her leg).

The applicant’s mother-in-law was wounded in the explosion, including in head. In the hospital, this old woman has been operated several times, including in course of her brain injury. She died on her way to his relatives after discharge from the maternity hospital.

As a result of the bombs falling into the applicant’s home, virtually everything was destroyed, as well as the courtyard buildings, and his car has been also damaged, and to repair t became useless.. According to the fire certificate, the sum of all damages was more than 500 thousand UAH.

The applicant filed a statement of the crime committed to the investigation authorities of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. In Russia, the statement was simply redirected to the Ukrainian authorities, and in Ukraine, the investigation was virtually non-existent. Consequently, the applicant applied the SLC to seek help from the ECtHR.

The SLC lawyer has filed a complaint with regard of violations of Articles 2, 3, 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, and on January 18, 2017, on behalf of the applicant, sent it to the ECtHR

Ho-vikov versus Ukraine and Russia

On 5 September 2014 the shelling of Stanytsia Luhanska took place. One of the shells exploded near the applicant, who at that time was on Lomonosova street. 

At the result of explosion the applicant had mine-explosive injury in the form of blind shrapnel injury to the left leg with the presence of a foreign body; a shrapnel wound of the left elbow.

On 23 September 2015 the applicant pastored a cow on the field near the village Stanytsia Luhanska and accidentally stumbled upon a "grenade-stretch" that led to its detonation.

As a result, the applicant got trauma in the form of a wound of the left thigh and occipital region of the head. Several grenades debris stuck in the soft tissues of the thigh.

Related to damaged property

On 5 December 2014 during the shelling of Stanytsia Luganska the applicant’s household was hit by a shell, resulting in a damaged roof and broken windows of the house. 

On 22 May 2015, a regular shelling of Stanytsia Lugansk took place, during which the applicant’s household got some shells that damaged the roof of a house, household buildings (a summer kitchen, a barn) and a car of his son.

For today the applicant continues to live in a damaged house.

The applicant filed complaints about commitment against him a crime in connection with received wounds, to the national investigation bodies of Ukraine and Russia.

As the national investigations had not been effective, the applicant decided apply for protection of their rights to the European Court of Human Rights.

On 24 March 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention. 

On 27 March 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article, 2, Article 3 of the Convention. 

Iv-chyna v. Ukraine and Russia

Ms I. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant lives in Stanytsia Luhanska.

On 2 July 2014 her partner was murdered and her house in Stanytsia Luhanska was seriously damaged as a result of an air-strike.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 22 February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 2, 8, 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

Ka-gina v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs K. (hereinafter – the applicant) herself was wounded in the course of shelling on 2 July 2014 in Stanytsia Luhanska. Her husband was killed. Their  house in Stanytsia Luhanska was damaged as a result of another shelling.

Realizing the inefficiency of investigation of the facts of the killing of her husband, 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 28 February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of articles 2, 3, 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

Ka-nko versus Ukraine and Russia

Mr. Ka-nko (hereinafter - the applicant) lived in Stanytsia Luhanska with his mother and wife.

On 29 August 2014 the applicant’s mother was gardening near the house while a shooting attack was started. The applicant stayed at home. Occasionally he has heard a cry and ran out. He immediately realized that his mother lied down in a pool of blood. She lost consciousness because of several grievous injuries. The applicant tried to call an ambulance but it did not work because of the war threat. So the applicant had to drive his mother to a hospital by his own car. Nevertheless his mother died five days later.

In January 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 2 and 13 of the Convention.

Kra-kova v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs K. (hereinafter – the applicant) herself was wounded by shelling on 29 August 2014 in Stanytsia Luhanska. Her  house in Stanytsia Luhanska was damaged as a result of another shelling.

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

On 2 March 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of articles 2, 3, 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1, Article 13 of the Convention.

Krya-tseva v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs K. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant lives in Kryakivka – a small village in Luhansk region.

On 6 December 2014 her husband was murdered as a result of another shelling in Kryakivka.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 20 April 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 2 and 13 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

Li-vinova v. Ukraine and Russia

Applicant was born and has lived in village Nyzhnye. On 16 January 2015 during the shelling the household of the applicant was damaged and she was injured.

On 04 April 2017 a SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 2, Article 3, Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

Lu-ska v. Ukraine and Russia

Mrs. L. (hereinafter – the applicant) is Ukrainian citizen. The applicant lives in Stanytsia Luhanska.

On 2 September 2014 the applicant’s husband was murdered as a result of another shelling.

On 5-6 July 2015 her house in Stanytsia Luhanska was seriously damaged as a result of another shelling.

The applicant has found the investigation which is declared to be conducted by the authorities of Ukraine and Russia ineffective. The applicant applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid

On 15 March 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application on violation of articles 2, 8, 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the ECtHR.

My-nko v. Ukraine and Russia

Mr M. (hereinafter – the applicant) himself was wounded in the course of shelling on 2 July 2014 in Stanytsia Luhanska. His wife was killed. Their  house in Stanytsia Luhanska was damaged as a result of shelling.

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

On 28 February 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of articles 2, 3, 8, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, Article 13 of the Convention.

Sy-rovych and Sy-rovych v. Ukraine and Russia

Mr. Anatoliy Sy-rovych (hereinafter - first applicant) and Mrs. Nadiya Sy-rovych (hereinafter - second applicant) lived in a small village Zhelobock in Luhansk region.

On 20 January 2015 terrorists captured and occupied village where applicants lived. Terrorist grabbed jewels, money, cars from local community and kick out them from houses. People hold at basements. Nobody could leave the village because no public transport worked.

On 28 January 2015 terrorists allowed the first applicant to take his car and go away. However they instructed applicants to talk with terrorists all way by a mobile phone. They promised the first applicant - nobody would shoot until he came in safety. On the same day applicants got into the car, called the terrorists and started to talk with them. Near Ukrainian block post the first applicant hang up his phone. Immediately the car exploded and fired. Applicants were saved by a lucky chance - Ukrainian military officers put them away from the burning car. Applicants were hospitalized with serious injuries and spent more than a year in the different medical facilities. Doctors ablated the first applicant’s leg. He had more then three surgeries, the second applicant was surged five times. Nevertheless she did not get well and nowadays she is not able to even seat.

Tu-ev v.Ukraine and Russia

On 18 August 2014 at 6 a.m. Mr. Tu-yev (hereinafter - the applicant) was walking down the street while a shelling started. One of the shells exploded very close to the applicant in a result of which he was injured. He was hospitalized and stayed at the special medical center from 18 August to 25 August 2014. He did not finish the medical treatment but was sent home from medical center because of increasing of the war threat.

On 2 September 2014 during another shelling the house of the applicant was damaged.

On 20 July 2015 at 4 p.m as a result of another shelling the house of the applicant was destroyed again and the applicant was injured.

On 3 August 2015 the house of the applicant was damaged again.

 In April 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of article 8 and article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

3.1.3. 10 cases related to prisoners left at the occupied territory

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 in spite 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 detainees 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. The Ombudman evacuated near 60 of them, negotiations are pending

Bo-v v. Ukraine

In the end of September 2016 Mr. B-v (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 14 July 201e the Proletarskiy District Court in Donetsk sentenced him to imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Zakhidna correction colony which was captured by terrorists in December 2014. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

On 03 October 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a statement of crime to the Prosecutor’s Office in Donetsk region due to leaving in danger several prisoners. The Prosecutor’s Office did not enter the statement to the Unified register of pretrial investigations therefore the SLC lawyer submitted a complaint to an investigative judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol.

On 28 November 2016 the investigative judge granted the complaint and obliged the authorized prosecutor to enter information about the crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations. At the same time the applicant could not participate in such investigation because there was no physical access to him. Also he had no chance to authorized another person to represent him in criminal proceedings. So the applicant found out that criminal proceedings in Ukraine were ineffective.

In April 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5  and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

D-ev v. Ukraine

In December 2016 Mr. D-ev (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide his with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 12 March 2010 the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol sentenced him to imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served the punishment in the Yenakiyevska correction colony and the Donetsk correctional colony which were captured by terrorists in February 2015. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

On 15 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a statement of crime to the Prosecutor’s Office in Donetsk region due to leaving in danger several prisoners. The Prosecutor’s Office did not enter the statement to the Unified register of pretrial investigations therefore the SLC lawyer submitted a complaint to an investigative judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol.

On 28 November 2016 the investigative judge granted the complaint and obliged the authorized prosecutor to enter information about the crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations. At the same time the applicant could not participate in such investigation because there was no physical access to him. Also he had no chance to authorized any other person to represent him in criminal proceedings. So the applicant found out that criminal proceedings in Ukraine were ineffective.

In February 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violations.

Ko-lenko v. Ukraine

In December 2016 Mr. Ko-lenko (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 18 January 2012 the Chervonogvardiyskyy district court in Makiyivka sentenced him to imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Donetsk correction colony which was captured by terrorists in February 2015. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

The applicant made several requests to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region, the General prosecutor’s office, Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and to the Ombudsman by e-mail. However the Prosecutor’s Office did not enter information about committed crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations and the applicant could not complain against this inactivity because he had no physical access to the court and there was no way to send the complaint by e-mail.

Therefore in March 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

Li-vin v. Ukraine

In December 2016 Mr. L-n (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 4 April 2010 Pavlogradskyy distict court sentenced him to imprisonment – 8years and 6 motnhs and confiscation of his property. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Makiivka correction colony which was captured by terrorists in December 2014. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

The applicant made several requests to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region, the General prosecutor’s office, Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and to the Ombudsman by e-mail. However the  Prosecutor’s Office did not enter information about committed crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations and the applicant could not complain against this inactivity because  he had no physical access to the court and there was no way to send the complaint bye-mail. 

Therefore on 29 May 2017 SLC lawyer alleged three application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

No-dran v. Ukraine

In December 2016 Mr. No-dran (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 15 January 2013 the Novoazovskyy district court in Donetsk sentenced him to imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Donetsk correction colony which was captured by terrorists in December 2014. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

The applicant made several requests to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region, the General prosecutor’s office, Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and to the Ombudsman by e-mail. However the Prosecutor’s Office did not enter information about committed crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations and the applicant could not complain against this inactivity because he had no physical access to the court and there was no way to send the complaint by e-mail.

Therefore in April 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

 

O-pov versus Ukraine

In December 2016 Mr. O-pov (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 16 October 2012 the Kirovsk district court in Makiyivka sentenced him to imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Donetsk correction colony which was captured by terrorists in December 2014. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

The applicant made several requests to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region, the General prosecutor’s office, Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and to the Ombudsman by e-mail. However the Prosecutor’s Office did not enter information about committed crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations and the applicant could not complain against this inactivity because he had no physical access to the court and there was no way to send the complaint by e-mail.

Therefore in May 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

Pa-r v. Ukraine

In December 2016 Mr. P-r (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 13 February 2003 the Court of Appeal in Autonomous Republic of Crimea sentenced him to life imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Yenakiyevska correction colony which was captured by terrorists in February 2015. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

The applicant made several requests to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region, the General prosecutor’s office, Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and to the Ombudsman by e-mail. However the Prosecutor’s Office did not enter information about committed crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations and the applicant could not complain against this inactivity because he had no physical access to the court and there was no way to send the complaint by e-mail.

The applicant lost contact with his relatives. The Applicant’s relatives appealed to public officials on the restoration of social ties with the applicant, but the issue has not been resolved.

Therefore in may 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

Pshe-chnyy v. Ukraine

In November 2016 Mr. Pse-chnyy (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 1 June 2011 the Court of Appeal in Donetsk region sentenced him to life imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Yenakiyevska correction colony which was captured by terrorists in February 2015. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

On 11 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a statement of crime to the Prosecutor’s Office in Donetsk region due to leaving in danger several prisoners. The Prosecutor’s Office did not enter the statement to the Unified register of pretrial investigations therefore the SLC lawyer submitted a complaint to an investigative judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol.

On 30 November 2016 the investigative judge granted the complaint and obliged the authorized prosecutor to enter information about the crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations. At the same time the applicant could not participate in such investigation because there was no physical access to him. Also he had no chance to authorized another person to represent him in criminal proceedings. So the applicant found out that criminal proceedings in Ukraine were ineffective.

In February 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

Vdo-nko v. Ukraine

In January 2017 Mr. Vd. (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 23 June 2010 the Court of Appeal in Donetsk region sentenced him to 15-years imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Yenakiyevska correction colony which was captured by terrorists in February 2015. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

On 11 January 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the Donetsk department of the State Penitentiary Service. She asked whether the applicant had been evacuated from Yenakiyevska correction colony or he still stayed there.

On 22 February 2017 the deputy Minister of Justice responded. He stated that the applicant is not mentioned in any records of penitentiary institutions, which are situated on the territory controlled by the Government of Ukraine.

On 15 February 2017 the applicant’s sister applied to the ombudsperson asking to evacuate her brother form the occupied territory.

On 28 February 2017 she received a response. It stated the ombudsperson conducts all the necessary actions to evacuate the applicant and other prisoners from the occupied territories.

The Government had lost communication with the Yenakiyevska correction colony. There is no opportunity to communicate from the institution either. So the applicant  has no effective remedy.

In May 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. He pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

Za-rozhnyy v. Ukraine

In December 2016 Mr. Za-rozhnyy (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that on 26 November 2009 the Court of appeal in Donetsk region sentenced him to imprisonment. Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Yenakiyevska correction colony which was captured by terrorists in February 2015. The applicant would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

On 13 January 2017 the SLC lawyer filed a statement of crime to the Prosecutor’s Office in Donetsk region due to leaving in danger several prisoners. The Prosecutor’s Office did not enter the statement to the Unified register of pretrial investigation therefore the SLC lawyer submitted a complaint to an investigative judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol.

On 1 February 2017 the investigative judge granted the complaint and obliged the authorized prosecutor to enter information about the crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigations. At the same time the applicant could not participate in such investigation because there were no physical access to him. Also he had no chance to authorized another person to represent him in criminal proceedings. So the applicant found out that criminal proceedings in Ukraine was ineffective.

In April 2017 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention before the European court of human rights. She pointed out that conditions in the correctional colonies and psychological pressure, impossibility to communicate with relatives, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

3.2. 17 cases in which applications have been lodged before the ECHR

 

3.2.1. 5 cases related to Savchenko’s Law

Bla-diorov v. Ukraine

Mr. Bla-diorov is a Ukrainian national who currently serves his life imprisonment.

On 6 July 2004 the court of appeal in Donetsk region found Bla-diorov guilty of committing several crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 26 November 2015 the Verkhovna Rada 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 Bla-diorov submitted a motion to the Artemivsk city 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 22 February 2016 the Artemivsk city court in Donetsk region refused to the motion. The judge thought that Bla-diorov served life imprisonment and the specific amendment did not extend on this category of prisoners.

On 10 March 2016 Bla-diorov appealed against the decision made by the Aetemivsk city court in the Donetsk region.

On 12 April 2016 the Court of appeal in Donetsk region uphold decision of the pretrial court.

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

Bla-diorov 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 principle of fair trial and the Rules of Law were broken. The lawyer also considered that Bla-diorov was illegally discriminated on the base of the type of his punishment.

Nez-min v. Ukraine

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Nez-min serves his life imprisonment.

On 27  September 2002, the Court of Appeal of Mykolaiv region found the applicant guilty and sentenced him 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 2 July 2016 the applicant 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 7 September 2016, the Court of Appeal did not satisfied the complaint.

On 7 November 2016, the applicant appealed to the Higher Specialized Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Ukraine.

On 15 November 2016, it was refused to open the cassation proceedings.

On 5 May 2017, 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.

Pet-ak v. Ukraine

Mr. Pet-ak is a Ukrainian national who currently serves his life imprisonment.

On 25 January 2002 the court of appeal in Ivno-Frankivsk region found Pet-ak guilty of committing grievous crimes ans sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 26 November 2015 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted amendments 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 1 June 2016 Pet-ak submitted a motion to the Ivano-Frankivsk city court in the Ivano-Frankivsk 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 14 September 2016 the Ivano-Frankivsk city court in the Ivano-Frankivsk region refused to the motion. The judge thought that Pet-ak served life imprisonment and the specific amendment did not extend on this category of prisoners. Pet-ak appealed

On 31 October 2016 the Court of appeal in Ivano-Frankivsk region uphold decision of the pretrial court.

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

Pet-ak 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 principle of fair trial and the Rules of Law were broken. The lawyer also considered that Pet-ak was illegally discriminated on the base of the type of his punishment.

S-ev v. Ukraine

Mr. S-ev is a Ukrainian national who currently serves his life imprisonment.

On 30 October 2008 the court of appeal in Ivano-Frankivsk region found S-ev guilty of committing several crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 26 November 2015 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted amendments 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 April 2016 S-ev submitted a motion to the Ivano-Frankivsk city court in the Ivano-Frankivsk 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 20 September 2016 the Ivano-Frankivsk city court in the Ivano-Frankivsk region refused to the motion. The judge thought that S-ev served life imprisonment and the specific amendment did not extend on this category of prisoners.

On 26 September 2016 S-ev appealed

On 21 October 2016 the Court of appeal in Ivano-Frankivsk region uphold decision of the pretrial court.

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

S-ev 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 principle of fair trial and the Rules of Law were broken. The lawyer also considered that S-ev was illegally discriminated on the base of the type of his punishment.

S-on v. Ukraine

Mr. S-on is a Ukrainian national who currently serves his life imprisonment.

On 14 August 2009 the court of appeal in Kharkiv region found S-on guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 26 November 2015 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted amendments 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.

22 January 2017 S-on submitted a motion to the Romensk district court in Sumska 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 2 February 2016 the Romensk district court in Sumska region refused to the motion. The judge thought that S-on served life imprisonment and the specific amendment did not extend on this category of prisoners.

S-on appealed and the Court of appeal in Sumy region quashed previous decision and return case to the trial court.

On 12 August 2016 the Romensk district court in Sumska region partly granted the appeal recounting part of the preliminary detention according to Zakon Savchenko. The prosecutor appealed. S-on appeal too because he thought that all term of preliminary detention should be counted on this law.

On 11 October 2016 the Court of appeal quashed the decision of trial court and brought a new decision according to which the Court of appeal in Sumy region dismissed his appeal and granted prosecutor’s appeal. So the court rejected to recount term of S-on’s preliminary detention.

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

S-on 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 principle of fair trial and the Rules of Law were broken. The lawyer also considered that S-on was illegally discriminated on the base of the type of his punishment.

3.2.2. 12 other cases in which applications have been lodged before the ECtHR

Bla-nska and Bo-enko v. Ukraine

On 20 November 2004 Mrs. Bla-nska (hereinafter - the first applicant) and Mrs. Bo-senko (hereinafter - the second applicant) applied to the medical center “Eximer” for a cataract therapy. They signed a contract on phacoemulsification of inrraocular lens - surgical operation which included extraction of crystalline lens and implantation of elastic lens. Totally on the same day doctors conducted 23 surgeon for 22 patients. After medical procedure their state of health significantly deteriorated. After an hour they complained on tumor of eaves and reddening of corneas. However doctors did not treat patients enough. Because that medical negligence all patient have gone blind.

On 30 December 2004 the prosecutor’s office in Kharkiv region started a criminal investigation under improper medical treatment.

On 27 July 2007 prosecutor’s office in Kharkiv region directed the criminal case to the police department in Kharkiv region.

In 2007 - 2016 applicants submitted numerous requests on informing her about criminal proceedings. Police systematically noted that criminal proceedings were pending.

At the end of July 2016 applicants lodged a complaint to the General prosecutor’s office on breach of reasonable time of pretrial investigation.

On 2 August 2016 the General prosecutor’s office of Ukraine directed the complaint to prosecutor’s office in Kharkiv region.

On 5 September 2016 the prosecutor’s office in Kharkiv region informed applicants that on 30 July 2008 the investigator had brought a decree on stay of pretrial investigation until the time when a guilty person would be recognized. Earlier policemen repetitively pointed out that pretrial investigation did not finish and thereby misled applicants.

In November 2016 each applicant familiarized with the case-file and maintained that there has been no investigative actions since 2008.

So in April 2017 applicants asked the SLC lawyer to provide them with legal assistance. The SLC lawyer lodged application for each applicant under Article 3 and 13 of the Convention.

Ga-yev v. Ukraine

Mr. G. (hereinafter – the applicant) on 06 April 2014 was detained by the police officers on suspicion of having committed a crime of officials.

A preventive measure in the form detention in custody was chosen for the applicant. Bailment of more than 100 000 euro was chosen for the applicant as an alternative preventive measure. After this, detention as a preventive measure for the applicant was chosen 11 more times until sentencing. 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.

Since April 2014 the applicant has been detained in the pre-trial detention centres.

On 18 August 2015 the criminal case on accusation of the applicant and two other persons were transferred for consideration on the merits to the Kramatorsk city court of Doneck region and then to another jurisdiction to Izyumsk district court of Kharkiv region. 

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

On 21 December 2016 Izyumsk district court reached a verdict, according to which the Applicant was found guilty and preventive measure was not change.

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

On 25 April 2017 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.

Gu-na v, Ukraine

Gu-na Natalia Grugoryivna (hereinafter – he applicant) is an Ukrainian national who holds the position of the Chief of Staff in the Kominternovsky District Court of Kharkiv. 

On 12 February 2015, the Law of Ukraine "On ensuring the right to a fair trial" was adopted, and came into force on 28 March 2015, under which the amount of the salary of the employee of a court, whose post belongs to the sixth category of civil servants is established in the amount of  30 percent of the salary of a judge of a local court.

On 30 June 2015 the applicant, together with other court staff members applied to the territorial department of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine in Kharkiv region (hereinafter – the Department of the Judicial Administration), and asked to recalculate her salary in accordance with § 1 of Article 147 of the Law of Ukraine "On the judicial System and status of judges".

On 2 July 2015 the Department of Judicial Administration refused to satisfy the applicant’s claims.

On 16 July 2015 the applicant lodges an administrative suit against the Department of Judicial Administration to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court

30 July 2015 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court issued a resolution by which it refused to satisfy the applicant’s claims.

The applicant appealed to the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal.

On 17 September 2015 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal issued a ruling by which upheld the decision of the trial court.

The applicant challenged the aforementioned decision by filing a cassation appeal with the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine.

On 18 August 2016 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine (hereinafter – the HACU) issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the lower courts.

After exhaustion of domestic remedies the applicant decided to file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights ( the ECtHR).

On 3 February 2017 a lawyer of the SLC on behalf of the applicant prepared a complaint to the ECtHR on violation of her rights provided by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Horanin v. Ukraine

Mr. Ho-nin 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.

As the result of consideration of the complaint on 07.02.2017 the court quashed the order  about termination of the criminal proceedings.

On 17.02.2017 a lawyers of the SLC submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights concerning the violation of Art. 3 European Convention on Human Rights because of the use of torture to Mr H. at the pre-trial investigation.

Kr-ov v. Ukraine

On 9 June 2008 the Court of Appeal of Rovne region found Mr. Kr-ov guilty of the crime under Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the murder) and sentenced him to fourteen years  imprisonment. Mr. Kr-ov 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-ov 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-ov’s health and treatment.

On 20 May 2015 the Sofiyivska correctional colony no. 45 replied that Mr. Kr-ov 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-ov 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-ov 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-ov from punishment due to his several diseases. Simultaneously the special medical commission concluded that Mr. Kr-ov 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-ov. The motion was granted but there was no difference schepkinaprevious 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-ov had disease which could be the base to release him from punishment.

On 15 March 2016 the Sofiyivskyy district court released Kr-ov 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.

Taking into account the fact that the applicant’s state of health deteriorated tirelessly, on May 2, 2017, the lawyer of the SLC appealed to the Irpin City Court of the Kyiv region to release the applicant from further serving a sentence because of his serious illness. Consideration of the motion was postponed until July 1, 2017.

On June 19, 2017, the lawyer received a medical certificate from the colony in response to his request, in which it was expressly stated that the forecast for the development of his illness was unfavorable, and the further serving of the sentence threatened the applicant’s life.

On 20 June 2017, the applicant’s lawyer prepared and lodged to the ECtHR a statement under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requesting the application of interim measures, namely the urgent transfer of the applicant to a specialized health care institution.

On June 22, 2017, the Court sent a request to the Government of Ukraine regarding the applicant’s health, the possibility of its transfer to health care facilities, the reasons for postponing the trial for such a long period of time and the possibility of its consideration in advance.

On June 26, 2017, the colony had  submitted a motion for release of the applicant to the same court, whose disposal was assigned to another judge.

K-s v. Ukraine

On 11 February 2001 Mr. K-s (hereinafter - the applicant) was detained on suspicion of a murder. Before his detention the applicant had lived in Krogultsi village, Husyatynskyy district, Ternopil region, Ukraine.

On 12 June 2002 the Court of appeal in Kherson region found the applicant guilty of committing a murder and sentence him to life imprisonment. On the same day the verdict came into force. However until September 2004 the applicant had served his punishment in the Kherson pretrial detention center.

On 9 September 2004 the applicant was transported to the Yeankiyevska correctional colony near Yenakiyevo-town, Donetsk region which was 1166 kilometers away of his relatives’ permanent residence in Ternopilskyy region. His mother visited the applicant once - on 29 April 2005, father and brother did not come at all.

In 2004 - 2014 the applicant several times asked the State department on execution of punishments to transport him to another correctional colony which would be closer to his relatives’ residence. However all his request were not granted because prisoners had to serve all their punishment in the same correctional colony and, moreover, there was no vacant place in colonies situated in the West of Ukraine.

In December 2014 the Yenakiyevska correctional colony was captured by unlawful military groups of so-called the Donetsk people republic. The applicant had been under their control till 8 December 2015 when he was evacuated to the Artemivska (nowadays - Bahmutska) penitentiary institution which was 1126 kilometers away of his relatives in Ternopilskyy region. The applicant filed a request to the State penitentiary service of Ukraine on transporting him to another penitentiary institution again.

On 24 December 2015 the appeal committee of the State penitentiary service of Ukraine on sorting and direction of prisoners left the applicant in the Artemivsk penitentiary institution for serving punishment.

The applicant complained against this decision.

Related to the proceeding in courts of general jurisdiction

On 1 June 2017 the SLC lawyer made a motion to the court of appeal in Kherson region on founding illegal the decision of the appeal committee.

On 16 August 2017 the applicant’s lawyer received a letter from the court of appeal in Kherson region according to which the court dismissed. The lawyer did not agree with the court’s decision but he could not appeal against it because Ukrainian legislation did not prescribe such type of procedural documents.

Related to the proceeding in administrative courts

On 5 June 2016 the applicant filed an administrative complaint to the Circle administrative court in Kiev city on founding illegal the decision of the appeal committee.

On 8 June 2016 the Circle administrative court in Kiev city received the applicant’s complaint and should have brought a decision on entering or not-entering of proceedings in three days. However the applicant did not receive any documents from the Circle administrative court for months. Thus the applicant sent numerous motions on informing about his case but there was no reply too.

On 25 January 2017 (after six months) the applicant received a refusal of the Circle administrative court on entering of proceedings. The applicant lodged an appeal

On 9 February 2017 the Circle administrative court in Kiev city received the applicant’s appeal which should have directed to the Administrative appeal court in a day according to Article 188 of the Code of administrative justice of Ukraine. However the court did not perform its obligatory yet.

In April 2017 the applicant asked SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The lawyer familiarized with the case file and lodged an application to the European court of human rights under Article 8 and 13 of the Convention.

Os-kov v. Ukraine

On 5 July 2016 the applicant was detained by officers of the Kozeletsky Police Department of the Chernihiv Oblast and placed in a temporary detention facility, and from July 22, 2016, to the Chernihiv SIZO. At that time, he already had a positive HIV status, stage IV, and also had such chronic diseases as hepatitis C, a severe condition after a multivariable tuberculosis of both lungs and the bladder (26.09.2013), recurrent candidiasis, herpetic infection, cysts in the left kidney, urolithiasis, chronic pyelonephritis, other diseases.

On 8 September 2016, the applicant suffered an acute myocardial infarction in the anterior part of the left ventricle associated with essential hypertension of grade III, risk 4. He was resuscitated by the cardiology department of the Kozeletsky Central District Hospital in Chernihiv region from 8 September till 19 September 2016.

The state of health of the Applicant continuously deteriorated, only in 2017 he 20 times applied for emergency medical aid in the medical part of the SIZO (03.01, 04.01., 06.01., 11.01., 18.01., 23.01., 24.01., 01.01., 10.02., 14.02, 20.02, 22.02, 1.03, 17.03, 21.03, 22.03, 27.03, 29.03, 18.04, 25.04. 2017).

On 18 April 2017, during the preliminary court hearing, the applicant’s health deteriorated and he called urgent medical care. Applicant’s pressure rose to 160/90, he felt chest in his pain, weakness. He was diagnosed with “Stable stenocardy, a post-infarction state, a hypertonic disease of 3 degrees, an aneurysm invasion”.

On 27 April 2017, a SLC lawyer drafted and sent a motion to the ECHR to apply emergency measures regarding the treatment of Mr. O.

On 11 May 2017 a SLC lawyer drafted and sent an application to the ECHR for a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because of the applicant’s inappropriate treatment.

On 23May 2017, the ECtHR decided to apply urgent measures to Mr. O. and to oblige the Government of Ukraine to transfer him to a medical institution.

As the Government of Ukraine did not provide the applicant with in-patient treatment at a specialized health institution, on June 22, 2017, the applicant had a heart attack of the myocardium.

On June 27, 2017, the SLC lawyer repeatedly requested the ECtHR to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to oblige the Government of Ukraine to take urgent measures for proper treatment of Mr. O.

Po-riy v. Ukraine

Mr.P (hereinafter – Applicant) works as Deputy Chief of the Main Kramatorsk City Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in Donetsk region (hereinafter – Department)

On 20 January 2016, about 17:00, when the applicant had been at his workplace, three unknown people (as applicant became known later - the prosecutor and two police officers) came to his office. They said about the search in criminal proceedings on the fact of systematically obtaining illegitimate benefits by workers of Department in the Department facilities.

They took an applicant’s mobile phone and did not let him go out from the room. The applicant asked to tell him the reason of his detention and give him copy of protocol of his detention. This people answered that there were an investigator’s order and applicant had to do it, otherwise they would use force. Also, they ignored the applicant’s request to provide him medical and legal assistance.

Around 00:30 hours a group of people came to the office. The prosecutor began a search in the office using video. The applicant was not been given the resolution of the search and his rights attraction. During the search the video was stopped, attesting witnesses were taken away and the prosecutor required testifying against then chief of Department. In these moments unknown person in the mask beat the applicant and threatened «conversation» elsewhere. Applicant learned that unknown person in the mask was staff of Security Service of Ukraine. During the search the prosecutor excluded cash from the applicant which have not been returned.

       Around 03:00 the prosecutor ordered the applicant sign a full record of the search, which he had not read before. Being under compulsion he signed it. The applicant and his staff Mrs S. Were delivered to facilities of the Security Service of Ukraine. He was beaten there.

Around 05:00 policemen delivered the applicant to the Kramatorsk city Prosecutor’s Office. There applicant was questioned.

Around 09:30the applicant was delivered to the Department and taken out.

On 22 January 2016 the applicant asked Kramatorsk city hospital no. 3 to provide him medical assistance. He was diagnosed with contusion of soft tissue of head and ears.

On 25 January 2016 the applicant was hospitalized to Kramatorsk city hospital no. 3 and diagnosed with a closed head injury, concussion complications, acute bilateral sensorineural deafness.

On 27 January 2016 the applicant made a statement of crime committed by policemen. On the same day the police entered the information to URPI in fact of the applicant intentional minor injuries and investigator ordered an examination.

On 1 February 2016 the applicant made a complaint to the Kramatorsk district court in the case entering to the URPI wrong data.

On 3 February 2016 the investigative judge granted a complaint and obliged the police to enter the right information about the crime to the United register of pretrial investigation. The police entered the information to URPI in fact of abuse of power or official authority.

Up 2 to 17 February 2016 the applicant was in outpatient treatment in Kramatorsk city hospital no. 3 with a closed head injury, concussion complications.

On 12 April 2016 forensic experts gave an opinion on the applicant identified in slight injuries

On 29 June 2016 an investigator closed the criminal proceedings because of the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. Such the decision was appealed to the investigating judge.

On 24 September 2016 and 23 December 2016 an investigator closed the criminal proceedings again. Such the decisions were also appealed to the investigating judge.

The applicant was not involved to criminal proceedings on the fact of systematically obtaining illegitimate benefits by Department workers.

On 22 May 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Scho-kov case

Mr. Sch. (hereinafter – the applicant) lives in Kharkiv.

On 22 April 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug-dealing. According to the notice on suspicion the applicant had received money from the purchaser by lifting it up to his premises (situated on the 2nd floor) with a thread. Afterwards the applicant allegedly threw drugs from his window to the purchaser. Video tape of these actions was provided to the court.

However, prosecutor did not provide the court with his decision on controlled purchase’s conducting.

On 11 March 2015 the applicant was found guilty by the Ordjonikidzevskyy district court. He was sentenced to 6.5-year imprisonment.

On 11 June 2015 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region reversed the sentence and appointed the case for a new trial.

On 24 December 2015 the applicant was found guilty by the Ordjonikidzevskyy district court. He was sentenced to 6 year 1 month imprisonment.

On 31 May 2016 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region upheld the abovementioned sentence.

The applicant had been detained in custody for 2 years 39 days till his sentence came into force.

While in custody, the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment because he did not want to give self-incriminating testimony in the court. As a result of this, the applicant tried to commit a suicide. He was hospitalized by the ambulance with his veins opened.

After returning to the detention facility, the applicant, as a result of non-professional actions of medical personnel, lost consciousness. As a result, he was hospitalized by the ambulance for the second time.

The applicant’s leg is paralyzed after the abovementioned events.

The SLC lawyer entered the case on stage of cassation.

He filed to the court a motion on recalculation of term of detention in accordance with the “Savchenko legal act”.

The SLC lawyer filed a cassational appeal.

On 7 September 2016 the High specialized court of Ukraine decided to abandon the SLC lawyer’s appeal due to alleged imperfections.

On 6 October 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a new cassational appeal with demanded alterations. However, the court abandoned the appeal.

In 2017 the SLC lawyer filed an application to the ECtHR.

Stri-tskyy v. Ukraine

Related to ill-treatment

On 24 October 2008 Mr. Stri-tskyy (hereinafter - the applicant) participated at the court meeting as a witness. After his interrogation the applicant was on the way out of the court’s building while police officers came up and stopped the applicant. They accused him of being drunken at the court room. On the same day a judge of the Nikopolskyy district court applied fifteen-day term of administrative arrest for him. The applicant was taken to the Temporary detention facility (hereinafter - TDF)

During the arrest on 26 October 2008 the applicant was hospitalized to the psychoneurosis dispensary with  a provisional diagnosis - partial mental disorder. According to the medical prescription the applicant obliged to stay at the hospital for ten days but no longer than after two days police officers returned the applicant to the TDF

At night on 28 October 2008 the police officers conducted the applicant from the TDF to Nikopol city police office to interrogate him. During questioning police officers accused him of committing a murder. The applicant objected because he did not kill anybody. He refused to give testimonies in the absence of a lawyer. After that police officers covered applicant’s had by a polythene bag in such way as the applicant could not breathe and beat him for a long period of time. However the applicant did not plead his guilt.

On 31 October 2008 the applicant was conducted to the Nikopolskyy police office again. He was punched and kicked in his ribs and stomach, his fingers were broken. Being in a poor state of health the applicant was pushed to write the text of his interrogation with a confession of committing a murder.

On 4 November 2008 the applicant was driven to the Zaporizhya district police office where he was beaten by the same police officers. Police officers wanted him to write testimonies about other person’s guilt.

At the end of the November 2008 the applicant was taken to the empty homeless placement center. He was drawn out a car by handcuffs and was thrown to an empty cell. There police officers immediately started to beat him. The applicant could not protect his head and face because nobody took off handcuffs.

On 9 December 2008 the applicant was driven to the Novo-Voroshilivske village in Kherson region. In the district police office he was beaten and strangled. The applicant several times fall down on road metal - there was no floor at the cabinet.

Related to the applicant’s medical examination

Because of ill-treatment on 31 October and 4 - 5 November 2008 the applicant was transported to the hospital. There doctors made x-ray of his thoracic cage but after some time x-ray escaped. The applicant found its only in 2016. However on 12 December 2008 the investigator conducted a medical examination of the applicant without x-rays. The expert did not find any bodily harms while the applicant showed him several bruises and the broken finger.

On 18 September 2015 another expert pointed out that according to the applicant’s x-ray 7th and 8th ribs were broken.

Related to investigation of committed crimes

During his preliminary detention the applicant sent more then 200 statements of crime to the prosecutor’s office in Zaporizkyy region in which specifically described events. However prosecutors had not started pretrial investigation until 9 February 2016 while the Ordzhenekidzevskyy district court in Zaporizhya granted applicant’s complaint on non-entering information about the crime to the Unified register of pretrial investigation. The criminal proceedings last more then a year and nothing changed at the case-files. Prosecutors only interrogated the applicant and police officers. No applicant’s motion was granted.

In February 2017 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-file and prepared an application to the European court of human rights under Article 3 and 13 of the Convention.

Su-chov v, Ukraine (no. 2).

Su-chov Viktor Valeriyovych (hereinafter – the applicant) was arrested on 31 May 2012 under suspicion in commitment crimes provided by Article 258 (terrorism) and Article 263  (manufacture and storage of explosives) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Regarding conditions of detention in the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO

From October 2012 to date the applicant is held in Dnipropetrovsk pre-trial detention facility no. 3 (Dnipropetrovsk SIZO). 

The cells are not equipped with forced ventilation systems. In winter the windows are closed so that they cannot be opened for ventilating a cell.  Therefore, in winter in the cells there is no normal access to fresh air. From May to October frames of the windows are removed and the air is cleaner. However, due to the partial lack of glass in the windows, insects fly into cells attracted by the light that is not turned off overnight.

Toilets are not separated by a solid wall from living space and are not equipped with a trap, Because of this, permanently odor remains in the cells.

Regarding conditions of transportation from the Dipropetrovsk SIZO no. 3 to court

Since April 2014 the applicant is regularly delivered to the court for consideration of his criminal case at special vehicles of the Convoy Service.

The vehicles do not have inadequate lighting and ventilation. In winter they cool in the summer the temperature inside rises to 35-40 Celsius degrees. There are no special rooms for smokers so prisoners who do not smoke are forced to inhale tobacco smoke.

Regarding conditions of detention in the premises of the Industrial District Court

Upon arrival to the Industrial Court prisoners are held in cells of convoy rooms (three cameras measuring 2.6 x 1.2 meters, 2.6 x 1.2. meters, 1 x 1 meter).

The cells are equipped with only a small window in the door that is closed by solid metal sheets. The cells do not have access to natural light and fresh air, there is no forced ventilation.

The cells are only equipped with benches, there are no tables at which prisoners can put their documents and prepare for trial.

Since in Ukraine there are no effective remedies concerning improper detention conditions in places of detention, the applicant decided to file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR).

On 9 February 2017 a  lawyer o the ECtHR on behalf of the applicant sent to the ECtHR a complaint about violation of the applicant’s rights enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention.

Su-nin v. Ukraine

Mr. S. (hereinafter – the applicant) on 06 April 2014 was detained by the police officers on suspicion of having committed a crime of officials.

A preventive measure in the form detention in custody was chosen for the applicant. Bailment of more than 100 000 euro was chosen for the applicant as an alternative preventive measure. After this, detention as a preventive measure for the applicant was chosen 11 more times until sentencing. 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.

Since April 2014 the applicant has been detained in the pre-trial detention centers.

On 18 August 2015 the criminal case on accusation of the applicant and two other persons were transferred for consideration on the merits to the Kramatorsk city court of Doneck region and then to another jurisdiction to Izyumsk district court of Kharkiv region. 

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

On 21 December 2016 Izyumsk district court reached a verdict, according to which the Applicant was found guilty and preventive measure was not change.

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

On 24  April 2017 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.

4. 90 cases which were considered in national courts

4.1. Three foreigners who are in want of legal defense

A-na Ba-va case

On 09.09.2016 Ms A-na Ba-va, 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 Ba-va was passing through the passport  control she was suggested going to the office of the state border guard service. In the office Ms Ba-va 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 Ba-va was waiting for her at the airport. Having found out that Ms Ba-va 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 Ba-va, 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 Ba-va, 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 Ba-va stayed at the transit zone and was under supervision of the board guard officers.

During her detention at the airport Ms Ba-va 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 allowed to talk with Ms Ba-va.

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 Ba-va was released. However, the board guard officers refused to return her foreign passport.

The lawyer called the police and finally the passport was returned to Ms Ba-va.

On 12.09.2016 Ms Ba-va went to the Department of the State Migration Service in Kharkiv where she applied for a refugee status. The migration officers informed Ms Ba-va 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 Ba-va recognised one of them as one of the persons who had visited her at the airport. This man told Ms Ba-va 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 Ba-va and using the force took her outside through the exit opening. On the street they put Ms Ba-va into a car and ran into unknown direction. The friend of Ms Ba-va 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 Ba-va.

Then, the lawyer came to the building of the State Security Service in Kharkiv and demanded to provide him a confidential meeting with Ms Ba-va. 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 Ba-va was not hold in the building of the Security Service.

The lawyer lodge an application about providing him of a meeting with Ms Ba-va, 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 Ba-va. After arrival of the police officers questioned the lawyer and Ms Ba-va’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 were involved in the crime.

After this the lawyer received a message from the telephone of Ms Ba-va 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 Ba-va had voluntarily left the territory of Ukraine, which indirectly confirms their involvement in the disappearance Ms Ba-va.

Some time later it became known that Ms Ba-va was transferred by the officers of the Security Service to one of the road border crossing points with Russia in Kharkiv region and she 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.

The lawyer’s appeal was rejected by the Administrative Court of Appeal.

The lawyer filed a cassation to the High Administrative Court of Ukraine. He have already received confirmation of his cassation’s registration, but the complaint did not examined yet.

A-T case

On November 22, 2016 A-T was not passed to the territory of Ukraine by the State Border Service (hereinafter - DPrS) 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. A-T 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 A-T, but officers of the DPrS 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 A-T, and the lawyer had filed a second application on the crime of Border officers.

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

Since 7 December the SLC lawyer supports A-T’s case to the State Migration Service, as well as the complaining of illegal actions of Border offers.

On 2 February 2017 Kominternivskyy district court rejected a complaint of the SLC lawyer of inaction of Slobidskyy  police district. The lawyer appealed it.

On 16 February 2017 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region rejected the SLC’s lawyer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Kominternivskyy district court.A-T is a citizen of Sierra Leone Mr Alie Turay.

On November 22, 2016 he was not  passed to the territory of Ukraine by the State Border Service (hereinafter - DPrS) 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. A-T 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 A-T, but officers of the DPrS 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 A-T, and the lawyer had filed a second application on the crime of Border officers.

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

Since 7 December the SLC lawyer supports A-T’s case to the State Migration Service, as well as the complaining of illegal actions of Border offers.

On 2 February 2017 Kominternivskyy district court rejected a complaint of the SLC lawyer of inaction of Slobidskyy  police district. The lawyer appealed it.

On 16 February 2017 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region rejected the SLC’s lawyer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Kominternivskyy district court.

Ke-jayev case

Mr K., an Uzbekistan citizen, when living in Uzbekistan was a member of a political-religious organisation “KhTI” , participants of which had been persecuted in this country and then this organisation was declared as a terrorist.

Because of criminal persecutions of this organisation in Uzbekistan Mr K. had to leave Uzbekistan and in 2013 he moved to Ukraine.

In Ukraine Mr K. also took part in the activity of the “KhTI”. In 2012 Mr K. Lost his passport but was not able to restore it having been afraid of persecutions in Uzbekistan. In September 2016 Mr K. tried to leave Ukraine with a passport of another person and was arrested by the officers of the Border guard service of Ukraine.

Later, on 10.09.2016 the court passed a decision about deportation of Mr K. from Ukraine and his detention in the Temporary Detention Centre for foreigners (hereinafter – the TDC) for six months. On 02.06.2017 the term of detention of Mr D. was continued for more three months.

While being held in the TDC Mr K. applied to the State Migration Service of Ukraine for obtaining a refugee statue due to persecution of him in Uzbekistan.

On 17.02.2017 the SMS issued a decision about a refusal to provide him with a refugee status.

On behalf of Mr K. a lawyer of the SLC challenged this refusal in court.

Consideration of the case is pending.

4.2. 15 cases related to the conflict in the East of Ukraine

Bo-dytskiy case

On 05.05.2014 a soldier Mr. Oleg Bo-dytskiy 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 pre-trial 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.

       The court satisfied the complaint and the investigation was renewed.

       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

       The participants of the process were given access to the state secrets. A request was filed for appointing an offside court hearing in order to study the documents containing the state secrets, that  was dismissed. On 23.03.2017 the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to one year of service restrictions. This judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Bo-ko case

Mr. B., born in 1955, is the citizen of Ukraine, who is currently living in Avdeevka, Donetsk region.

27 July 2014 during an artillery shelling of the city of Avdeevka (Donetsk region) the wife of Mr B. – Ms B. was shot dead  on a public transport stop.

On 23 September 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application on the crime to the national law enforcement agencies of Ukraine and Russia. An investigation was initiated.

In March 2017, a SLC lawyer filed several motions on proving investigative actions.

On 22 May 2017, a SLC lawyer filed second motion to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation with a request to inform which investigative actions were taken in the case.

Bo-nko case

Ms B., that was born in 1975, is the citizen of Ukraine, who is currently living in Avdeevka, Donetsk region.

19 July 2016 during an artillery shelling of the city of Avdeevka (Donetsk region) the son of Ms B. – Mr B. was shot dead by an unknown sniper.

On 23  September 2016  a SLC lawyer filed an application on the crime to the national law enforcement agencies of Ukraine and Russia. An investigation was initiated.

In March 2017, a SLC lawyer filed several motions on proving investigative actions.

On 22 May 2017, a SLC lawyer filed second motion to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation with a request to inform which investigative actions were taken in the case.

D-sh case

The husband of Mrs D. L., a Ukrainian citizen, took part in the Anti-terrorist operation (ATO) in the East of Ukraine as a member of a voluntary battalion. In February 2015 Mrs D. L. was informed that her husband had been killed in a car accident when performing his combat mission.

After receiving this notification Mrs D. L. applied to the local government body for providing her a status of “A military depended person”, however, she received an oral refuse in submitting the documents, with motivation of lack of reasons for providing Mrs. D. L. with such a status.

After this Mrs. D. L. applied to the SLC of the KHPG to legal aid.

In September 2016 a lawyer of the SLC sent requests to the Anti-terrorist centre of the Security Service of Ukraine, the Ministry of Interior, General Staff of the Armed Forces about participation of Mrs. D. L.’s husband in the ATO. All the above bodies replied that there was no data concerning his participation in military actions. 

Further, an application was filed to the court about handing a decision establishing the fact of the death during military operation of Mr. P. who was killed together with the husband of Mrs. D. L. as a member of a voluntary battalion. The court refused to hand such a decision.

The personal statements of the commander and a soldier of the voluntary battalion were received concerning participation of participation of Mrs. D. L.’s husband in the ATO. Also the information from the Internet resources was collected as regard to his participation in the military operations.

In November 2016 all the documents were sent to the local government body for conferment the post-mortem status of a combatant. In their replies from January and February the local government body did not provide any information concerning the decision made of this request. Only in April 2017 Mrs D. L. received the refuse about providing her with the status of military depended person. The reason of refuse was failure to prove the fact of the death of her husband during the military operation.

In April 2017 the lawyer filed an application to the court on establishing the fact of participation of Mrs. D. L. husband in the ATO and his death during performing military operation.

The first hearing is appointed for 30 June 2017.

Dio-yashenko case

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

Mr. Dio-yashenko 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 2 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 2 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 November 2015, the request about Mr D.’s examination was sent to the Medical Forensic Examination Office. On 26 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 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.

On 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.

At the request of the victim, a series of simultaneous interrogations, including the one of 28.05.2017, were conducted with video recording interrogation of the commander. The request for conducting expertise regarding belonging the voice in the audio with threats to murder the commander was filed.

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 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 November 2015 the request about examination Mr. D. was sent to the Medical Forensic Examination Office. On 26 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 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 11 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.

I-shchenko case

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.

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.

On 23 March 2017 Chuguiv City Court granted the Mrs. I lawsuit  and ordered the Department to pay assistance for temporary disability in the amount of 24 thousand UAH.

The Department lodged the appeal on Chuguiv City Court decision,  which on 24 April 2017 was rejected by  Appeal Court.

Ka-skyy case

Mr. K., born in 1977, is a citizen of Ukraine living in the city of Konstantinovka, Donetsk region.

From  23 June to 3 August 2014, he was held captive in the so-called "DPR", where he was subjected to torture, ill-treatment.

On June 15, 2017, the SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr. K. was filed a motion on conduction of investigative actions in Druzhkovsky police department of the Donetsk region.

On 20 June 2017, the SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr. K. filed an application on the crime to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

K-y case

Mrs. K-y, born in 1960, is the citizen of Ukraine, who is currently living in Avdeevka, Donetsk region.

On 7 August 2014 during an artillery shelling of the city of Avdeevka (Donetsk region) the house of Mrs. K. was completely destroyed.

The husband of Mrs. K. - Mr K. got injuries that incompatible with life, from which he died on the same day. According to the information on the cause of death, he had traumatic shock, combined body trauma, multiple shrapnel wounds of the body, head, upper and lower extremities, blind wound of the abdomen, penetrating the abdominal cavity.

On 23 September 2016, a SLC lawyer filed an application on the crime to the national law enforcement agencies of Ukraine and Russia. An investigation was initiated.

In March 2017, a SLC lawyer filed several motions on proving investigative actions.

On 22 May 2017, a SLC lawyer filed second motion to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation with a request to inform which investigative actions were taken in the case.

Kh-ko case

Mr. Kh., born in 1978, is a citizen of Ukraine who is living in the city of Konstantinovka, Donetsk region.

From June 21 to October 8, 2014, he was held captive in the so-called "DPR", where he was subjected to torture, ill-treatment. In the day of his illegal detention, his car “Chevrolet” was seizured by terrorists.

On 22 March 2017, the SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr. Kh. Filed a motion for his recognition as a victim from the crime. The investigator did not respond to this motion, therefore, on 11 April 2017, a SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Konstantinovsky court in the Donetsk region.

Ko-va case

Ms K., that was born in 1975, is the citizen of Ukraine, who is currently living in Avdeevka, Donetsk region

8 April 2016 during an artillery shelling of the city of Avdeevka (Donetsk region) the mother of Ms K. – Ms G. was shot dead near her house.

On 23 September 2016 a SLC lawyer filed an application on the crime to the national law enforcement agencies of Ukraine and Russia. An investigation was initiated.

In March 2017, a SLC lawyer filed several motions on proving investigative actions.

On 22 May 2017, a SLC lawyer filed second motion to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation with a request to inform which investigative actions were taken in the case.

L-kh-1 case

On 13 October 2015 Mr. L. was found guilty by the Volnovakha district court of Donetsk region. L. was accused of participation in a terrorist organization so-called “Donetsk people’s republic”. L. was sentenced to 8-years imprisonment.

On 22 December 2015 the Court of Appeal of Donetsk region changed the abovementioned sentence. L.’s actions were qualified as participation in an unlawful paramilitary group. L. was sentenced to 5-years imprisonment.

In March 2015 L. applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid. As it turned out, L. had stated for many times during the preliminary investigation that he had been subjected to beating by the Security Service of Ukraine’s officers while staying under detention. Also he had stated that his arrest and detention were unlawful.

The SLC lawyer drafted a cassational appeal and filed it to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on 22 March 2017. In the appeal the SLC lawyer stated that L. had been unlawfully arrested and held under detention in a place which is not prescribed by the law to be a place of detention. In addition, the SLC lawyer stated that L. had been subjected to ill-treatment, his right to protection was violated, and the courts grounded their sentences with inadmissible evidences (among other, they used his alleged partial confession of guilt).

On 24 May 2017 the High Specialized Court of Ukraine made a decision on initiating the court procedure in L.’s case. The court provided the Prosecutor’s Office with an opportunity to file written objections to the cassational appeal. No court hearings have been appointed yet.On 13 October 2015 Mr. L. was found guilty by the Volnovakha district court of Donetsk region. L. was accused of participation in a terrorist organization so-called “Donetsk people’s republic”. L. was sentenced to 8-years imprisonment.

On 22 December 2015 the Court of Appeal of Donetsk region changed the abovementioned sentence. L.’s actions were qualified as participation in an unlawful paramilitary group. L. was sentenced to 5-years imprisonment.

In March 2015 L. applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid. As it turned out, L. had stated for many times during the preliminary investigation that he had been subjected to beating by the Security Service of Ukraine’s officers while staying under detention. Also he had stated that his arrest and detention were unlawful.

The SLC lawyer drafted a cassational appeal and filed it to the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on 22 March 2017. In the appeal the SLC lawyer stated that L. had been unlawfully arrested and held under detention in a place which is not prescribed by the law to be a place of detention. In addition, the SLC lawyer stated that L. had been subjected to ill-treatment, his right to protection was violated, and the courts grounded their sentences with inadmissible evidences (among other, they used his alleged partial confession of guilt).

On 24 May 2017 the High Specialized Court of Ukraine made a decision on initiating the court procedure in L.’s case. The court provided the Prosecutor’s Office with an opportunity to file written objections to the cassational appeal. No court hearings have been appointed yet.

Ru-n case

       On 16 January 2015, a bomb exploded at the checkpoint of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in a township Stanitcia Luhanska, with one soldier killed and two wounded.

On 12 February 2015, at another checkpoint in Stanitcia Luhanska after crossing the cease-fire from the side of the territory controlled by terrorist armed groups, was arrested a resident of the area, Mr R. At once after his arrest, he was questioned on suspicion of committing the terrorist act, and also other investigative actions were conducted in absence of a defence counsel, after which he was taken by the Secret Service of Ukraine (SSU) and placed him to an unknown place, doing the physical and mental pressure on him. Subsequently, detention on remand as a preventive measure was applied to him, however a lawyer was involved in the case only a few days after notification of Mr R. with the official  suspicion. During the criminal proceedings motions of the defence on alibi of the defendant were not satisfied have not been granted.

 On 30 March 2016, Svatovsky District Court of Luhansk oblast found Mr R. guilty of a terrorist act caused the death of a person under  par.3 Article 258 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposed him the sentence of fifteen years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.

On 30 August 2016, the Appellate Court of Luhansk oblast considered the appeal Mr R. and his lawyer and sustained the judgment of the trial court. Given the numerous serious violations of the rights of Mr R. on during the pre-trial proceedings, the SLC lawyer entered to the case as the second lawyer to prepare the appeal against the court judgments.

       At the end of November, 2016 the SLC lawyer lodged the appeal to the High Specialized  Court of Ukraine, but the appeal has been sent back to the lawyer under the pretext of the lack of its argumentation. In fact, the appeal contained detailed arguments for each of the alleged violations, with separating the appeal according to the arguments, with the reference to the relevant legal norms.

Since the beginning of serving sentence by Mr R., who believes the verdict unjust, he tried several times to commit suicide, and at present he is held in a psychiatric institution.

The SLC lawyer prepared a cassation appeal against the verdict of the trial court and the judgment of the Court of Appeals and submitted it to the High Specialized Court on December 30, 2016. The grounds for abolishing the court judgments were the use of unlawful violence, the use of evidence obtained illegally, violation of the right to defence and the privilidge from self-incrimination.

On January 18, 2017, the High Specialized Court of Ukraine finally refused to open the cassation proceedings.

Since such a conclusion of the court apparently did not correspond to the content of the complaint, the lawyer filed a criminal complaint against the judges of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine - a knowingly unjust judicial decision. After the refusal of the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office to file information on this application to the URPI, the SLC lawyer appealed to the investigating judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. In April 2017, the investigating judge ordered the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office to file information at the request of the lawyer to the URPI and to start the investigation.

Since then, the SLC lawyer has begun preparing a complaint to the ECHR namely, more than 20 requests have been sent to the police, detention facility and detention centre where the applicant was detained, to the military unit in which the explosion took place, and to the military administration and the national police and prosecutor’s office, where an investigation into the beating of Mr R., as well as to the office of the Ombudsman and the correctional colonies where he was serving his sentence.

A witness was found to be the applicant’s unlawful detention in an unforeseen place after his detention. In the near future, it is planned to submit a complaint to the ECtHR concerning violations of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.

Sa-va case

Education Department of Chuguev district administration filed a claim about eviction of IDPs: Ms. Ch., Mrs. M., Mrs. E., Mrs. Sav. Ms. Sam., Mr. A., Mrs. P, Mrs. H, Ms. K. Ms. Min., Ms Pok. Ms. N.O., the third person: Chuguivsk district council.

This claim was returned due to defects. Disagreeing Department filed an appeal. Appeal Court decided to open a procedure and transfer the case to the court of first instance.

On 28 April 2017 case hearings began in the court of first instance. The trial is currently pending.

Ye-mov case

Ye-mov is a Ukrainian national who was mobilized to tha Antiterrorist operation zone and was injured during his serving.

After medical treatment Ye-mov wanted to continue his military service under a contract. He returned to zone of the Antiterorrist operation but as he did not get a wage Ye-mov decided left service and came home. There he was noticed on suspicion of desertion and detained. The SLC lawyer several times filed a motion on changing of the preliminary measure but the court refused.

On 15 July 2016 Chuguyiv district court in Kharkiv region found Ye-mov guilty and sentenced to four years imprisonment. The SLC lawyer appealed against the verdict.

On 27 October 2016 the court of appeal in Kharkiv region dismissed the appeal.

Up to this day Ye-himov has been detaining in the preliminary detention center. The SLC lawyer submitted an appeal to the High specialized court in criminal and civil cases of Ukraine but it has not been considered yet.

Zhy-nko case

Mr. Zh., born in 1978 Is a citizen of Ukraine, who lives in Kharkiv.

On 30 October 2014, he undermining on the field. As a result, he had injuries: amputation of the left leg, wounds of the right leg and both hands, he lost his hearing.

On 16 March 2017, the SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr. Zh. filed a statement about the crime to the SSU in Donetsk Oblast. The investigation was started and continued.

On 6 April 2017, the SLC lawyer, on behalf of Mr. Zh., filed a statement about the crime to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

4.3. 7 cases of “Hundred Haven” heroes

 

Ch-skyy and Lu-skyy case

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.

On 3 February 2017 the preliminary measure was prolonged for the accused.

On 13 February 2017 during the case hearing prosecutors were changed and the last two volumes of case files were added. The next hearing did not take place because of jury absence.

On 6 March 2017 the prosecutor filed a motion on adding to the case file interrogation of witnesses. The Court rejected this motion because witnesses had been questioned in court earlier. The Court examined the case file. At the next hearing, on 15 March 2017 the Court continued to investigate the case file.

During case hearings on 13 April 2017 and 1 June 2017 the preliminary measure was prolonged for the accused. On 18 April 2017 the case hearing did not take place due to the absence of one jury.

The next case hearing is appointed on 08 June 2017.

Ka-s case

The applicant, Sergiy Anatoliyovych Ka-s, 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 Ka-s 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 Ka-s on the Independence Square. These persons were questioned in the lawyer’s office on those events. Also Mr Ka-s‘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.

On 26 January 2017 case hearing did not take place because of the absence of the accused defense.

On 10 February 2017, during the case hearing the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged to the accused.

On 28 February 2017 accused defender announced challenge to two judges on the panel. The Court left it without consideration because such challenge has already been announced and discussed. Also, accused defender lodged a motion to change the preventive measure to the accused, which also was not satisfied. The prosecutor went on to announce the indictment.

On 13 March 2017 accused defender announced challenge to all judges on the panel, which was left without consideration by court. In addition, accused’ defender lodged a motion to change the preventive measure to the accused and announced challenge to the prosecutor. Both motions were not satisfied by the court. Then the prosecutor went on to announce the indictment.

On 23 March 2017 the case hearing did not take place due to illness of the judge.

On 6 April 2017 during the case hearing the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged to the accused, prosecutors continued to announce the indictment.

On 15 May 2017 prosecutor continued to announce the indictment.

On 25 May 2017 during the case hearing prosecutors were changed. Then prosecutor continued to announce the indictment.

On 1 June 2017 prosecutor continued to announce the indictment, the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged to the accused

The next case hearing is appointed on 21 June 2017.

Ko-tenko, Pol-skyi and Zu-ko cases

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 injuring 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.

On 17 January 2017 during the case hearing materials related with one of the victim were investigated. The Victim’s representative opened new video from the scene to the defense and prosecutors.

On 24 January 2017 during the case hearing the other victim was questioned and the case file on it were investigated.

On 26 January 2017 during the case hearing one more victim was questioned and the case file on it were investigated. Video provided by victim’s representative was attached to the case file. Prosecutors lodged a motion on doing investigative experiments.

On 14 February 2017 the included video was shown in court and another victim was questioned. At the next hearing, which took place on 16 February 2017 the Court continued to examine evidence and one more victim was questioned.

On February 2017 The Court questioned another victim and investigated the case file, related to him.

On 3March 2017 the Court granted the prosecutor and a victim’s representative motion on prolongation investigative experiment and granted the defense motion on investigate water cannons.

On 29 March 2017 the investigation experiment to reproduce the events of killings and injuries of the victims began.

On 18 April 2017 the defense lodged several motions which were not satisfied by Court. In particular, he announced challenge to experts involved in the investigation experiment and the prosecutor. Moreover, the defender lodged a motion on accused participation in the investigative experiment. On the same day the court granted the prosecutor’s motion on investigative experiment prolongation.

On 25April 2017 the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged for the accused.

At the court hearings on 16 and 23 May 2017 and 6 June 2017 six more victims were interviewed and the case file on them were examined. The preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged for the accused.

The case hearing and investigative experiment take place at the same time.

Ve-miy case

On 19.02.2012 approximately at 04.30 am at the department of poly-trauma of the Kyiv clinical medical emergency hospital Ve-miy 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.Ve-miy (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. Ve-miy (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. Ve-miy and was the eyewitness of the attack, as well as the victim; 2) the co-worker of Ve-miy, who also rode in the taxi, was the eyewitness of the attack on Ve-miy 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. Ve-miy (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. Ve-miy 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-hour home arrest. Guards 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.

On 19 January 2017 during the case hearing the prosecutor lodged a motion to change the preventive measure one of the accused from personal liability at detention. According to the motion, accused during the consideration of the case has already committed two crimes of one of which he has suspended sentence. The Court did not grant the motion based on the fact that the accused has come to court hearings. The prosecutor filed a complaint against a judge to the High Qualification Commission of Judges.

On 2 February 2017, during the case hearing another witness was examined, but his testimony was rather contradictory.

On 28 March 2017 the case hearing did not take place because of the absence of the accused, who was busy in another case hearing in another criminal case, where he is also accused person.

The next case hearing is appointed on 16 June 2017.

4.4. Case on abuse of force against protesting people in Kharkiv on 19 February, 2014

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 Office of Kharkiv region. The lawyers of the SLC, who were not allowed to enter the police unit and the courthouse, filed the complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office on obstruction to the legal activities of the lawyers, as well as violations of the right to the defence of detainees.

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

After falling of V. Yanukovych 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 indicates 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 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.

In the first half of 2017 several court hearings took place, in which all the victims and several witnesses of the prosecution were questioned. At a trial on June 15, 2017, one of the witnesses testified about the presence on the scene of a crime of police officers who controlled special police forces at the scene of scattering of the protesters. The following day, the SL lawyer filed a criminal offense to the prosecutor’s office of the Kharkiv region, on the part of the police chiefs named by the witness.

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.

4.5. 17 cases related drug users, people suffered from grievous illness and other vulnerable group of prisoners

A-ra case

Mr. A-ra is a Ukrainian national currently lives in Kharkiv.

On 2 February 2017 Mr. A visited a narcologist who prescribed a special medical treatment for him. According to the medical note from 13 February 2017 made by the Regional drug abuse clinic Mr. A stayed at hospital and was released upon completion of the rehabilitation program in satisfactory condition.

On 13 March 2017 Mr. A was noted on suspicion of Article 309 of the Criminal code of Ukraine as a person who produced or distribute drugs without the aim to sale.

On 6 April 2017 Mr. A asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

The preliminary court meeting had been appointed on 7 April 2017 but was postponed due to a judge’s business. The next court meeting was appointed on 19 May 2015.

On 19 May 2017 the court conducted the preliminary court meeting during which the SLC lawyer submitted a request to release Mr. A from criminal responsibility under Part. 4 Article 309 of Criminal code of Ukraine as a person who voluntary asked of rehabilitation program. The prosecutor did not object in general but the court dismissed the motion on the lack of evidence. The court pointed out that there was no evidence of willingness of medical treatment. The next court meeting was appointed on 2 June 2017.

The SLC lawyer made several request to the narcologist and special medical rehabilitation center on willingness of Mr. A’s participation in medical program. The SLC lawyer received all replied on his requests. He prepared a repetitive motion on release Mr. A from criminal responsibility on the same grounds.

On 2 June 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to the judge’s business. The next court meeting has not been appointed yet.

The court proceedings are pending.

B-ash case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 20 June 2016, the lawyer filed a motion to the Ternopil Regional Court (hereinafter - the Ternopil Court) on releasing of Ms. B. because of her serious illnesses which create obstacles to further serving of her sentence.

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

The Ternopil Court obliged the SPS to conduct a medical examination of the applicant 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 the applicant. Medical certificate was issued on 26 December 2016.

On 29 December 2016 the Court refused to release the applicant from serving punishment on the basis of his illness.

       The decision to refuse the release of Ms B-gsh was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which on 05.04.2017. upheld the decision the trial court.

Bo-man case

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Bo-man 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. Bo-man.

On 3 April 2015, an indictment was handed to Mr. Bo-man 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. Bo-man. The problem was solved in his favor and Mr. Bo-man’s broken right was restored.

Preparatory case hearing was postponed at the lawyer’s request because of the deterioration on Mr. Bo-man’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. Bo-man’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. Bo-man’s stays in hospitals and necessity to pass medical examinations of his heart diseases.

The next case hearing is appointed on 15 June 2017.

B-ov case

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

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 purchased 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.

On 11 January 2017 and 28 February 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to several reasons.

On 28 March 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to a bomb threat at the Kharkiv district court.

On 25 April 2017 the Kharkiv district court terminated consideration of the case. During following legal debates the prosecutor asked the court to find Mr. B guilty and sentenced him to six years and six months imprisonment with deprivation of property. The SLC lawyer insisted on acquittal because the prosecutor failed to prove the charge in this criminal proceeding, used provocation of crime as an evidence and did not have any other material evidence of crime.

On 26 April 2017 the Kharkiv district court found Mr. B guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to six years of imprisonment with deprivation of property.

On 25 May 2017 the SLC lawyer submitted an appeal to the Court of appeal in Kharkiv region.

The court hearing is pending.

Bo-rov case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At present, there is a complaint in the Chervonozavodskyi District Court of Kharkiv on the matter of  the refuse to include information about the commission of the following crimes against B.: leaving in a danger, abuse of power, negligence, violation of the right to defence Also, an application about involvement the mother of Mr. Bo-rov 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 Bo-rov’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 Bo-rov’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.

The next court hearing is appointed to be held on 29 June 2017.

By-r case

In April 2017 By-r who was a prisoner asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. That time he appeal against a refusal of the trial court on release from punishment due to his grave illness.

The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case files and noted that By-r had a midleg amputation which could be considered as a reason for release him from punishment.

On 6 April 2017 the court of appeal in Kherson region granted the SLC lawyer’s motion and called a representative of the correctional colony to give testimonies about conditions for disabled persons.

On 25 April 2017 the court dismissed a motion because disabled person with such grievous disease could serve punishment.

Gr-dov case

Mr. Gr. (hereinafter – the applicant) is a Ukrainian citizen. The applicant serves punishment in the Kharkiv correction colony #27.

On 4 May 2017 he applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid. He stated that he had been infected with the hepatitis C virus during dentistry in the colony’s premises.

On the same day the SLC lawyer, having previously received the applicant’s consent on access to his medical file, asked the head of medical unit to provide him with the applicant’s medical file. She asked to wait and in 1,5 hour she provided the applicant’s medical file. The file had traces of forgery. It contained a medical record on the applicant’s anti-hepatitis treatment in September-October 2016. However, the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C only on 28 March 2017.

On 1 May 2017 the SLC lawyer filed a notification about crime (forgery) to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region.

The applicant is not provided with anti-hepatitis C treatment. The SLC lawyer filed applications to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region.

K-an case

Mr. K-an used to live in Kharkiv with his elderly parents.

On 15 April 2014 K-an was arrested on suspicion of drug-dealing.

K-an applied to the SLC lawyer.

The first-instance court judge did not allow the SLC lawyer to be K-an’s defender in the case. She stated that contract between K-an and the SLC lawyer was signed in the court room without her permission.

The Court of Appeal satisfied the SLC lawyer’s appeal and appointed the case for a new trial.

The SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the High qualification commission of judges. He stated that the firs-instance court judge acted in breach of the law when she did not allow him to be a defender in K-an’s case.

After a number of challenges to judges, the case was passed to the judge Mayst.

In 2017 K-an was released after the SLC lawyer’s motion. K-an had been being held in detention for more than 2 years.

In May 2017 K-an died.

Ka-lyk case

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Ka-lyk 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 Ka-lyk’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 Ka-lyk’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 Ka-lyk’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 SLC lawyer sent a motion on Mr. Ka-lyk examination. The trial is currently pending because special medical commission at the colony has not been created and the opinion of a special medical commission to Mr. Ka-lyka has not been prepared yet.

L-chenko case

L-chenko, lives in Dnipro. In June 2016, a search was conducted in L-chenko’s housing estate. During the search, L-chenko 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 production of precursors (Article 311 of the CC).

Home arrest was chosen as a preventive measure for L-chenko.

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 haeth 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 L. to house arrest from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m.

In December 2016 two hearings was held. The hearing is appointed to 3 January 2017 during which the court will examine the indictment.

There were several court hearings in 2017 – on 3 January, 1 February, 6 March, 24 April, 13 May 2017. The case examines by a panel of judges. The prosecution part is very passive, and therefore the case is almost not examined. The SLC lawyer filed a motion on establishing terms to provide evidence (including the provision of witnesses for questioning) for the prosecutors. The preventive measure for Mr L. wasn’t extended, so it was expired. Next court’s hearing is scheduled on 21 July 2017.

Ma-mov case

Mr. Ma-mov lives in Kharkiv.

On 13 May 2015 Ma-mov was arrested on suspicion of drug-dealing. Two controlled purchases had been conducted in his case previously.

On 15 May 2015 an investigating judge chose a preventive measure in Ma-mov’s case – detention in custody.

Ma-mov applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

The SLC lawyer many times filed grounded motions on changing of the preventive measure. However, they were not granted by the court.

The SLC lawyer filed motions on questioning of the purchaser in the court room. The court granted those motions, however they were not carried out by the police. At the same time, the court refused to add the purchaser’s name in the wanted list.

The SLC lawyer filed motion on reclamation of secret documents. The court refused to grant it.

On 19 July 2016 Ma-mov was found guilty in drug-dealing.

The SLC lawyer filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region canceled the sentence due to absence of the purchaser’s interrogation tape. The case was passed for a new trial to the Kyiv district court.

The term of Ma-mov’s detention was prolonged for many times.

The SLC lawyer filed a motion on changing of preventive measure. He grounded the motion with the ECtHR’s practice. However, it was not granted by the court.

At the present moment, Ma-mov has been held in custody for more than 2 years.

Court hearings are postponed due to prosecution witnesses’ absence.

S-chov case

Mr. S is a disabled person who was sentenced to imprisonment in Kirovograd correctional colony no 6.

Mr. S. suffers from several diseases such as post-traumatic osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine, thoracic spine separation, pain, cartilage hub body.

When Mr. S was delivered to the correctional colony he might move only using a stick. Since May 2015 Mr. S’s health has become worthier and now he may move only using a wheelchair. He had been treated in medical facilities for more than 10 month than he was returned to the cell.

Mr. S. points out that he does not take any appropriate medical treatment in the correctional colony until august 2016.

Above mentioned diseases are included in the List of diseases which could be a reason of release the person on probation. Nevertheless, prison administration refuses to prepare a motion to the court as well as starts any special proceedings to make medical reports

The SLC lawyer met with Mr. R., got a permission to have an access to his medical information and then familiarized with the medical card.

The SLC lawyer sent motions to the administration of correctional colony and to Lenin District Court in Kirovograd city on Mr. S release from further punishment.

At present, Mr S. was delivered for examination to the interregional preventive hospital no. 4 in Dnipro city.

The SLC lawyer sent a request to the hospital to obtain information about the Mr. S’s examinations results.

Se-mko case

Mr. S. is an Ukrainian citizen, who is currently studying in the college and living in Krasnograd, Kharkiv region. He has not previously been convicted. On 26 March 2014 Mr. was arrested by police officers after two controlled purchases of drugs.

On 27 March 2014 Mr. S. was noticed on suspicion of drugs trafficking and storing.

On 28 March 2014, the prosecutor filed a motion to choose a detention as a preventive measure. The Court chose a house arrest as a preventive measure for Mr. S.

On 12 May 2014, Mr. S. was noticed on suspicion of burglary.

On 27 May 2014, the Court chose a detention as a preventive measure for Mr. S.

During investigation and trial Mr. B. admitted his guilt of drugs storing and burglary although he did not admit his guilt of drugs trafficking and said that he had not committed these crimes and police officers had provoked them. The Court did not take Mr. B.’s complaints into account and did not consider them.

On 22 December 2014, Krasnograd District Court award a conviction, Mr. S. was found guilty of drug trafficking, storing and burglary. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for committed crimes.

Mr. S. and his lawyer filled the appeals against the verdict.

On 19 February 2015, the SLC lawyer entered to the case. The SLC lawyer sent to the Court of Appeal the addition comments to the appeal, which included an analysis case files and reference to the practice of the ECHR.

On 30 June 2015, the Court of Appeal reversed the conviction in the part conviction with drags trafficking and sent the case for the retrial. In accordance with new verdict Mr. S. was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

During retrial the SLC lawyer sent numerous requests to know the specification of witnesses. According to reply they had permanent connection with police officers and previously had taken part in the different criminal proceedings. Also the lawyer reclaimed information about the controlled purchase and then initiated the judicial investigation on this fact. According to documents two controlled purchases of drugs were held illegally, with provocation of crime.

On 27 January 2016, the Krasnograd District Court delivered judgment of acquittal and cancelled the detention as a preventive measure, referring to a number of judgment of the ECtHR.

On 22 April 2016, Mr. S. was released from custody. The prosecutor submitted an appeal. The SLC lawyer could prove that the acquittal was fully substantiated by the trial court, and on 08 June 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the not guilty judgment.

On 17 March 2017 the High specialized court of Ukraine upheld not-guilty verdict of Krasnograd district court of Kharkiv region and decision of the Court of Appeal.

Si-rov case

Mr Si-rov 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 Si-rov, 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 Si-rov 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 against the court decision.

The court hearing was not appointed yet.

Simultaneously the SLC lawyer collected several documents and prepared a motion on clearing Mr. Si-rov of criminal record on the base of the Amnesty law in 2014.

On 17 October 2016 the court granted this motion.

On 2 February 2017 the Court of appeal in Kherson region granted the SLC lawyer’s appeal on verdict and returned case to the trial court.

On 24 February 2017 during preliminary consideration the trial court directed the indictment to prosecution on follow up revision. The prosecutor appealed.

The Court of appeal in Kherson region quashed a decision and returned case to the trial court.

On 25 April 2017 a new composition of judges started preliminary consideration.

On 19 May 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of witnesses for prosecution.

On 7 June 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of witnesses for prosecution.

Sli-nko case

On 2 December 2013 Mr. Slipenko who lived in Pokotylovka, Kharkiv region was detained after two controlled purchases.

Mr. Slipenko was noticed of suspicion on committing drug dealing.

During pretrial investigation and court proceedings Mr. Slipenko 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. Slipenko guilty and sentenced him to six years imprisonment with deprivation of property.

Mr. Slipenko and his lawyer appealed.

On 27 September 2016 the court of appeal in Kharkiv region upheld the judgment.

On 7 November 2016 Mr. Slipenko 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.

On 3 March 2017 the SLC lawyer submitted a complaint on reconsideration of courts’ decisions.

The court proceedings are pending.

Tel-ov case

Mr. Tel-ov lives in Kharkiv.

Tel-ov is a drug addict. Tel-ov together with Mr. Bar. used to buy poppy seeds for producing of drugs. Produced drugs they took themselves.

On 10 February 2015 after another buying of poppy seeds and producing drugs, Mr. Bar. took only half of his part. He said that he would take the rest later and left. When he returned, he took the rest and put money in Tel-ov’s pocket without being noticed. On the same day Tel-ov was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing.

On 12 February 2015 an investigating judge chose detention in custody as a preventive measure for Tel-ov.

Tel-ov applied for legal aid to the SLC lawyer.

On 27 May 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on changing of Tel-ov’s preventive measure.

The motion was granted by the court and Tel-ov was released. House arrest was chosen as a preventive measure in his case.

After his release, Tel-ov participated in a substitutive therapy.

Court hearing in Tel-ov’s case are postponed on different reasons.

Z-as case

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 Z. committed the same crime during his imprisonment and was repeatedly convicted.

The lawyer pointed the lack of appropriate evidence in the case. As 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.

On 14 February 2017 and 11 April 2017 the trial was postponed due to witnesses and prosecutor absence.

The trial is currently pending.

4.6. 25 other cases

A-sh case

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.

B-da case

On 24 March 2012 Mr. B-da was detained on suspicion of the perversion of minors. The most important evidence were testemonies of witnesses on events happened five years ago as well as videorecords made by a disguised camera in his flat. Police officers have failled to prove legimatility of undetected watching. The trial court chose the preliminary measure for B-da in the form of detention.

On 10 March 2014 the trial court found B-da guilty and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment. The verdict was appealed by the SLC lawyer on termination of the criminal proceedings due to the lack of corpus delicti. Familiarizing with case-files the SLC lawyer pointed out that there were several contradictions between the registry journal and the audio record of court meetings. The SLC lawyer made about 120 objection on such disaccordance which mostly were granted by the court. On 23 and 26 June the court made some changes to the registry journal.

The SLC lawyer submitted some additions to the her appeal because during pretrial investigation and consideration in the trial court several violation were committed and the case was totally framed up. The Shevchenkivska police station illegally opened the case without any specific ground with breach of investigative jurisdiction, conducted investigative actions without authority for that, brought illegal orders on searches, illegally changed jurisdiction without prosecutor’s participation, illegally ordered forensic examinations, repetitive examinations. During consideration at the court there were also several violations. Court’s conclusions did not correspond with the crime event, the trial court did not assess evidence on their admissibility. Some evidences were found inadmissible but the trial court reffered on them in its verdict.

In September 2015 the SLC lawyer made a motion on partially renovation of the preliminary investigation for examination of the evidence and interrogation of witnesses. The trial court refused while the same motion of the prosecutor was granted.

In December 2015 the SLC lawyer made a motion on maintaining of the term of the preliminary measure for B-da in accordance with the ECHR’ case-law. The motion was granted and Br-da was detained for two months.

In December 2015 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine amended the Criminal Code of Ukraine. According to this amedment a day of preliminary detention counted as two days of imprisonment. Upon this Br-da was detained 3,5 years, the trial court sentenced him to 7 years imprisonment. Br-da was released from punishment on 11 January 2016 by the SLC lawyer’s motion.

On 20 April 2016 the Court of appeal quashed the verdict and the case was returned to the trial court.

The SLC lawyer also started to provide another person - Mr. Z who also was an accused in this case - with legal assistance.

In January - June 2017 the trial court appointed several court meetings but no of them was taken place. The trial court postponed court meetings due to the absence of witnesses and victims.

The court proceedings are pending.

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 these 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.

       On 4 April 2017 the complaint was satisfied by the court, the order on termination of criminal proceedings was quashed and the investigation renewed.

Case of beating and murder of representatives of Roma

Mr. K. is a citizen of Ukraine, a Roma national, who lives in village Olshany of the Kharkiv region.

On 16 May 2017 in the village of Olshany of the Kharkiv region, there was an ethnic conflict between the local population and the Roma living in this territory. The conflict ended with the use of weapons, as a  result Mr K. (father of Mr K.) was killed. 8 Roma peoples were injured with various degrees of severity.

The SLC lawyers entered into a case as advocate of the victim - Mr K., and requested  for information on the case files, also they were present at the questioning  of the victims.

On 6 June 2017, the case was transferred for investigation to the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. The investigation is carried out.

Case of beating of LGBT-activists

On 17 May 2017, at around 18.00, near the Central Registry Office of the city of Kharkiv, there an attack of a group of sportive men to the peaceful action in support of the World Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia on the grounds of hate and intolerance for representatives of the LGBT community. They beat participants of the action by batons and other staff and demonstratively burned the flag of the LGBT community.

As a result, more than 10 people were injured, two policemen were injured as well. The action was ended.

On 25 May 2017, five LGBT activists (Ms. B., P., Sha., Sh., and Mr. T.) applied to SLC lawyers, who made statements on hate crimes and sent them to the Shevchenko Police Department of Kharkiv.

Since the responses to the statements about the crime were not received, on 16 June 2017, SLC lawyer sent  complaints o the police inactivity to the Dzerzhinsky court in Kharkiv. The trial is pending.

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 or 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 take place, so the trial was not completed yet.

Court hearing was appointed on 11 May 2017. However, it was postponed to 9 June 2017 according to the prosecutor’s motion (a new prosecutor asked the court to give him an opportunity to familiarize with the case-file).

I-ev case

On 17.01.2016 the officers of the Zaporizhya Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SSU) arrested Mr I-ev, 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 I-ev till 26.02.2016.

The lawyer of Mr I-ev collected information that in the case of his extradition to the RF the rewere 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 MrI-ev 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 courtapplied extradition arrest to Mr I-ev for the term of two months.

In April 2016 Mr I-ev 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 I-ev.

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 I-ev 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 MrI-ev.

On 23.06.2016 an investigating judge issued a ruling about continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr I-ev 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 MrI-ev.

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 I-ev 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 MrI-ev.

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 I-ev 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.

On 19.12.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition request of Mr I.

On 19.12.2016 the lawyer lodged a protest to the above motion and gave to the Court evidence of possibility to use another preventive measure to Mr. I.

On 24.12.2016 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the ruling of 19.12.2016.

On 11.01.2017 the Court of Appeal of Zaporizhya region refused to satisfy an SLC lawyer appeal.

On 15.02.2017 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for using home arrest to Mr. I. as a preventive measure.

On 17.02.2017 an investigating judge issued a ruling about using home arrest to Mr. I. for the term of two months. 

On 12.04.2017 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the home arrest of Mr I.

On 18.04.2017 an investigating judge issued a ruling about using home arrest to Mr. I. for the term of two months. 

On 12.06.2017 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the home arrest of Mr I.

On 16.06.2017 an investigating judge issued a ruling about using home arrest to Mr. I. for the term of two months. 

Procedures concerning an asylum request

Mr I-ev 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 I-ev 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 SLC lawyer 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.

On 25 May 2017 during the case hearing the SLC lawyer submitted additional explanation to the claim. The court ordered the defendant to provide personal file materials and assigned the case to hearing.

Case of K-ko

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.

After additional investigation the case was directed to the court again.

According to the SLC lawyer’s motion the court of appeal in Kharkiv region changed jurisdiction of the case to the Komminternivskyy district court in Kharkiv. Since that moment the preliminary court meeting was not conducted due to the absence of victims and a prosecutor. Until this moment the case was not appointed to consideration.

Familiarizing with case files the SLC lawyer made several requests, in particular, on Mrs. K’s physical damage.

Related to criminal proceedings in the case of Mrs. K’s statement of crime on unlawful physical abuse the case is formally pending but in fact investigativ actions were not conducted. So the SLC lawyer currently prepares an application to the European court of human rights under Article 3 of the Convention..

 

Kr-skyy case

Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Kry-skyy 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. Kry-skyy 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, Kry-skyy 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 Kry-skyy 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 Kry-skyy’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.

On 1 February 2017 the case hearing did not take place because one of the judges was involved in another hearing.

On the same day six months preventive measure term in the form of house arrest ended. The lawyer sent to the court application according to which the accused don’t have to follow house arrest.

On 3 April 2017 the prosecutor filed a motion to question witnesses in video conference. On 16 May 2017 during the case the hearing this witnesses were questioned.

The next case hearing is appointed on 20 June 2017.

Ku-ksin case

On 13 April 2017 the October district court in Kharkov opened proceedings on a Mr K. claim to faculty of military training behalf of the Parliament of Ukraine in National Technical University ’Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute "to increase the size of the damages caused by the injury.

The trial is currently pending.

Le-nova case

Russian citizen, Mrs. L. 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 Office of Ukraine on unauthorized interference in private communication of Mrs. L. and her defender.

Moreover the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to unauthorized interference in private communication Mrs L with her defender to the Court.

The SLS lawyer lodged to the Court a motion on return Mrs L. her passport.

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.

On 16 January 2017, 13 February 2017, 15 March 2017, 19 April 2017 and 11 May 2017 the case hearings were postponed again because of several reasons like victims’ failures to appear in the court, judge take part in another court hearing, providing medical treatment to accused.

On 12 May 2017 the Court adjourned the case hearing to give time for the prosecutor for making indictment act translation.

On 08 June 2017 the prosecutor has not made translation yet, the case hearing was postponed again.

Li-enko case

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.

On 12 January 2017 Kegichevsk district court rejected Mrs. L. claim. Mrs.L. lodged an appeal on Kegichevsk district court decision but on 24 April 2017 the Appeal Court of Kharkiv region rejected the appeal.

Ma-vin case

On 09 February 2013 according to verdict of Chuguevsk City Court, Mr M. was found guilty of intentionally causing bodily harm and theft and sentenced to 3 years suspended sentence with obligation not to permanent travel outside Ukraine without the consent of the penal system, report a change of residence and periodically appear to register in the criminal executive inspection.

Mr. M. asked the SLC lawyer to provide ham legal assistance. The SLC lawyer sent an appeal on verdict.

The Court of Appeal decided to cancel the verdict in part related with committing theft and send to the city court for a new trial.

The trial is currently pending.

Me-ev case

On 16.01.2016 the officers of the Zaporizhya Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SSU) arrested Mr Me-ev, 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 Me-evthat 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 Me-ev till 26.02.2016.

The lawyer of Mr Me-ev collected information that in the case of his extradition to the RF the rewere 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 Me-ev 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 Me-ev 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 Me-ev 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 Me-ev.

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 Me-ev 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 Me-ev. 

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

On 23.06.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district courtapplied extradition arrest to Mr Me-ev 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 CourtofAppealofZaporizhyaregionrefusedtosatisfytheappeal.

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

On 22.08.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court applied extradition arrest to Mr Me-ev 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 Me-ev. 

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

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

 On 19.12.2016 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for continuation of the extradition arrest of Mr M.  At the same date the lawyer lodged a protest against the above motion of the prosecutor.

On 19.12.2016 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court applied extradition arrest to Mr M. for the term of two months

On 24.12.2016 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the ruling of 19.12.2016.

On 23.01.2017 the Court of Appeal of Zaporizhya region refused to satisfy the appeal. 

On 07.02.2017 the lawyer sent to the court an application for return of original documents (the IDPs documents)

On 15.02.2017 the Prosecutor’s Office applied to the court for changing of the extradition arrest of Mr M.  to personal guarantee.

On 17.02.2017 an investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court satisfied application of the Prosecutor’s Office.

On 19.03.2017 the lawyer filed a complaint to the Ordzhonikidze district court of Zaporizhya city about the inactivity of the prosecutor who did not returned temporarily seized property.

On 23.03.2017 the Ordzhonikidze district court did not satisfied the lawyer’s complaint.

On 05.04.2017 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the ruling of 23.03.2017.

On 07.04.2017 the Court of Appeal of Zaporizhya region refused to open a procedure.

On 12.04.2017 the lawyer sent to the SSU an application for return of original personal documents.

On 24.04.2017 the SSU sent to the lawyer a letter according to which the SSU did not have any legal reasons to return documents.

On 03.05.2017 the lawyer sent an agreement about renting a house of Mr M. due to changing his living place.

On 04.05.2017 the lawyer filed a complaint to the General Prosecutors office of Ukraine(GPO) about the inactivity of the prosecutor who did not returned temporarily seized property.

On 19.05.2017 the GPO sent to the lawyer a letter according to which the GPO would consider this complaint after a court decision.

On 11.05.2017 it was case hearing in the Kyiv Administrative Court.

The court heard the SLS lawyer arguments and request and decided to continue trial as a writing procedure.

The SLC lawyer asked the Court to give him a court decision, but up to now the SLC lawyer hasn’t received it.

Me-ntsev case

Me-ntsov is a Ukrainian national who was born and permanently lived in Kirovogradska region.

In January 2017 Me-ntsov stole a mobile phone from a man. After that he believed that above-mentioned man could file a statement of theft to police and beat him for that. The victim called policemen who detained Me-ntsov, noticed him on suspicion of robbery. For a month the investigator systematically asked Me-ntsov to interrogate.

After some time the investigator re-determined crime as a brigandage and submitted a motion on changing of the preliminary measure.

On 27 February 2017 Moskovskyy district court in Kharkiv chose the preliminary measure for Me-ntsov in the form of detention without possibility to pay a bail. The SLC lawyer complained against this decision.

On 9 March 2017 the appeal court in Kharkiv region refused on the SLC lawyer’s appeal.

Nowadays the Moskovskyy district court in Kharkiv has been continuing the case consideration. Moskovskyy district court did not grant motions on changing of the preliminary measure and determination of a bail.

N. case

On 13 January 2016 Mr. Chep. filed a notification about crime to the Oktyabrskyy district police station. He stated that an unknown person had perverted his young daughter via social net “Vkontakte”. On the same day criminal proceedings #1 was initiated.

On 18 January 2016 at 3 p.m. three police officers in civilian clothes committed an attack on Mr. Ne-nyy near the church on Sinna street in Poltava. N. was brought down on the ground and handcuffed. The fourth police officer was filming all the actions on video.

N., with his hands handcuffed behind the back, was sat on a car’s backseat. Other police officers got into the car and started beating N.. The beating continued for 20 minutes.

At 4 p.m. N. was brought to the Poltava regional police department.

N.’s interrogation continued for about 1,5 hour. N. was beaten. Police officers suggested that N. should make a confession on committing a crime (perversion of minors). Otherwise he would be killed and buried.

Being posed under such a pressure, N. admitted his guilt and signed written confession. According to the confession, he had made a number of fake “Vkontakte” accounts to communicate with minor girls on sexual subjects.

By the same means police officers obtained N.’s written consent to conduct an inspection of his premises and examination of the abovementioned fake accounts.

On the same day at 5.50 p.m. N. and police officers were at N.’s flat. Police officers executed a document – “inspection record”, and obtained N.’s written consent on inspection of his mobile phone and notification of voluntary giving out of his PC.

During the unauthorized search, police officers also seized applicant’s monitor, mouse, keyboard, web-cam, acoustic system and rubber phallus (the last one, according to N., was dropped in his flat by police officers themselves).

On the same day in the evening N. was released from the police department.

On 19 January 2016 N. visited a doctor. He was diagnosed with closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, paraorbital haematoma and cervical spine bruise.

On 19 January 2016 N. filed a written notification about crime to the Prosecutor’s office of Poltava region. He stated that he was illegally arrested and then beaten by the police officers. Also N. insisted that his property was unlawfully seized.

On 22 January 2016 N. provided to prosecutor detailed written statement concerning his arrest and beating. He asked the prosecutor to conduct interrogation of priest of church on Sinna street, who witnessed N.’s arrest. Also he asked to add medical documents concerning his bodily injuries to the case-file.

On the same day criminal proceedings #2 was initiated. Mr. Nuzh. had only status of applicant in the criminal proceedings #2.

Later the investigator informed Mr. Nuzh. that on 27 January 2016 he had issued a resolution on non-recognition of Mr. Nuzh. as a victim in c.p. #2. N. was not provided with a copy of this resolution.

On 15 February 2016 N. argued the abovementioned resolution to the Oktyabrskyy district court.

On 17 February 2016 the investigating judge canceled the prosecutor’s resolution. The copy of judge’s decision was delivered to the prosecutor on 23 February 2016.

On 26 February 2016 the prosecutor Mr. Sor. issued another resolution on non-recognition of Mr. Nuzh. as a victim in c.p. #2. The resolution was grounded with statements of police officers who said that N. had no visible bodily injuries at the moment of his flat’s inspection.

On 29 February 2016 N. argued this resolution to the investigating judge.

On 29 February the prosecutor Mr. Sor. issued a resolution on termination of the c.p. #2 due to lack of corpus delicti in police officers’ actions.

On 3 March 2016 the investigating judge refused to satisfy N.’s complaint on the prosecutor’s resolution of 26 February 2016 due to termination of criminal proceedings.

On 9 March 2016 N. filed to investigating judge a complaint on the prosecutor’s resolution on termination of criminal proceedings.

On 15 March 2016 the investigating judge satisfied N.’s complaint and canceled the prosecutor’s resolution.

On 6 May 2016 the prosecutor issued the second resolution on termination of criminal proceeding. However, N. had already been taken under custody (criminal procedure #1) and he did not receive a copy of the resolution.

On 13 March 2017 the Oktyabrskyy district court found N. guilty and sentenced him to 10-years imprisonment.

In April 2017 N.’s relatives applied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

The SLC lawyer drafted an appeal on the sentence. He stated, among other facts, that physical evidence of N.’s guilt were obtained in breach of criminal procedure and the first-instance court should not have grounded its sentence with them.

Consideration of the appeal is appointed on August 2017.

P-ov case

On 20 March 2017 the Administrative Court of Kyiv city at the claim of Mr P. considered illegal inaction of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. This inactivity was related with construction loan which was provided by Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine" On the status of war veterans, guarantees of their social protection "The Court obligated the Cabinet to do some action to implement this law.

The Cabinet filed an appeal on decision of the Administrative Court of Kyiv city.

The trial is currently pending.

P-nov case

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

On 7 September 2015, Mr. P-nov received an oral order from the commander. He was obliged to make reconciliation of personal weapons platoon. He conducted such examination on the street. However he refused to examine the weapon which belonged to Mr. Zemlyachenko because he had been walking with a drunk person.

On 8 September 2015, Mr. P-nov was sitting on the bed. At this time Mr. Zinchenko came to him with the submachine gun and the arsenal. The gun had been shotted but Mr. Zinchenko did not warn about it. Mr. P-nov 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 requests 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 file.

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.

The court consideration is pending. Court hearings have been postponed on a number of reasons (prosecutor’s motions and others). The next court hearing takes place on 19 June 2017.

Se-nov case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During judical investigation the court questioned almost all witnesses, an accused person and the victim.

An accused person fired.

On 6 October 2016 the judical investigation terminated.

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

On 21 March 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to absence of accused person.

On 24 May 2017 the court meeting did not take place because of termination of authority of judge.

The court proceedings are pending.

Sta-nko case

On 5 March 2008 Ms. S. at the request of her cohabitant, Mr. T. entered into a mortgage agreement of her two-room apartment, and Mr. T. received a loan of $ 30,000 from the bank.

Mr. T. did not return a loan to the bank and disappeared. Moreover hi did not have an intention to return this loan so he committed a fraud.

On 24 October 2011 the bank, which give a loan, claimed to the court and asked Ms. S. to pay the debt in the amount of 36,722,77 dollars.

Ms. S asked a lawyer V. to provide her legal assistance. Lawyer V. promised to win the case. After a year of trial, due to absence of representative of the claimant and not informing the defendant about time and place of court hearing, the Court took the decision in absentia. The court granted a claim and decided to put the Ms S’s apartment, which was the only living place for Ms. S, on sale from the public auction.

Lawyer V. explained to Ms. S. that she could buy back an apartment and it was the only way to return her property. Lawyer V. received money from Ms S. for buying back an apartment and gave a document of this fact. However, the public auction had already happened and lawyer V. had not taken place in the public auction, which was told in the court hearing by lawyer V.

Lawyer V. instead of defending Mrs. S.’s rights in court, acted exclusively in her own interests and enriched herself by deception

Ms. S. appealed to the police and Lawyer’s self-government, but all her applications were ignored.

Later, Ms. S. asked the SLC lawyer to provide her legal assistance. Unfortunately, there is currently no opportunity to return a lost housing.

The SLC lawyer managed to cancel the decision in absentia on which the mortgage was levied. The bank’s representatives filed a cassation appeal to the Higher Specialized Court of Ukraine.

The case hearing has been pending in the Supreme Court for more than a year, but at the moment it is not even intended to be considered. Mrs. S., due to absence of the case, cannot even obtain an enforcement order on the basis of which the bank must return her money that were unreasonably received from the sale of her apartment.

Tu-nko case

Mr. T.  is convicted person who was born on 26 September 1981. He is currently serving punishment in Bila Tserkva correctional colony (№35).

He is accused of having committed the crime of disobedience requirements penitentiary administration. Mr. T. does not recognize his guilt.

Mr T. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistance. The SLC lawyer met and got from Mr. T all the necessary documents, familiarized with case file and has already participated in two case hearings in the court.

The next case hearing is appointed on 10 July 2017.

       U-kov case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In October 2015 the CSL lawyer submitted a motion to the Supreme court of Ukraine to retrial the case because of declared violation of Article 6 of the Convention

On 22 December 2015 the Supreme court of Ukraine cancelled all previous decisions and sent the case to the trial court. At the same time the Supreme court of Ukraine has not considered a question of the preliminary measure.

Mr. Ushakov has not been released from custody and was transferred to the Kharkiv detention centre although there was no court decision of his detention.

At the end of January 2016 the lawyer submitted a claim to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Kharkiv according to the territory jurisdiction. However on 6 February 2016 the investigative judge refused to release Mr. Ushakov. The Judge noticed that during pretrial detention the trial court chose a preliminary measure for him in the form of detention which was continued by several times.

On 18 February 2016 Frunzenskyy district court of Kharkiv started a new trial. The SLC lawyer and Mr.  Ushakov submitted motions on changing of the preliminary measure. The motions were granted and Mr. Ushakov was released from custody.

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 U. 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 the judge was replaced, the trial was started from the beginning. More than 10 hearings were appointed in the case, but in fact there were only four. Some witnesses were questioned, but questioning the experts and studying written and physical evidence has not yet taken place. The next hearing is scheduled for mid-July.

Za-hta case

On 3 December 2015, at 19:30 Mr M. and his juvenile brother Mr A. without court order were illegally detained near their house by the police officers of the District Police Station, allegedly, to provide explanations about a theft of a bicycle, committed by M. During the arrest, the report has not been made up, and special tools - handcuffs have been used in relation to M and A.

At approximately 20:30 on the same day, on different vehicles, Mr M. and Mr A. were brought to the Police Station and were questioned. At the time of being kept in the station, the incident happened, the police officers beat M. Near for a day they kept him in the station, then the detention report was made up, and they provided M. with the official notification on suspicion in committing of the serious crime – inflicting bodily injuries to the police officers. Then he was transported to the police temporary detention centre.

On 5 December 2015, the District Court applied for Mr M. a home arrest as a preventive measure. At the same time, the court upon a motion of the lawyer ordered to the prosecutor to carry out a forensic medical examination on the matter of his injuries inflicted by the police officers.

On 8 December 2015, the lawyer lodged the complaint on the unlawful detention of Mr M. and Mr A. to the District Prosecutor’s Office. 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. 

Zgo-kov case

On 5 September 2016 Chuguevsk City Court of Kharkiv region opened proceedings in the case on Mr. Z. claim to the Chuguev prosecutor’s office, Chuguev Plice Department, the State Treasury Service of Ukraine to compensate moral damages. Mr. Z. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him legal assistance.

The trial is currently pending.

Z-kyycase

Mr. Z-kyy 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. Z-kyy 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 appartment and approximately at 22:40 detained Mr. Z-kyy.

On 26 March 2012 Shevchenkivskyy district court in Kyyv chose him a preliminary measure in the form of detention. Mr. Z-kyy appealed.

On 29 March 2012 the police officers brought a charge against Mr. Z-kyy 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 masure 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. Z-kyy 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. Z-kyy from custody. In decisions the courts also did not assess the fact of his ill health. Mr. Z-kyy 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. Z-kyy guilty.

       On 18 July 2014 Mr. Z-kyy 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. Z-kyy from custody on bailment.

       On 30 June 2016 the SLC lawyer lodged an additional application to the European court of human rights.

       In January - June 2017 the trial court appointed several court meetings but no of them was taken place. The trial court postponed court meetings due to the absence of witnesses and victims.

      

4.7. 22 cases ended in success

A-rov v. Ukraine

Mr A-rov, 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 A-rov 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 A-rov, 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 A-rov 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 A-rov against the “ISIS” flag and threatened him that if he complained about ill-treatment these photos would be sent to Tajikistan. 

Mr A-rov 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 A-rov 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 A-rov from Ukraine.

Due to the court’s decision Mr A-rov 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 A-rov 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 A-rov. The same day Mr A-rov was detained by the court order and placed into the TDC till 20.03.2016.

On 30.08.2016 Mr A-rov 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 A-rov lodged an appeal against the above mentioned court decision to the Court of Appeal. The case is pending. 

Judicial review the order about expulsion of Mr. A.

Also, the lawyer appealed against the decision about deportation of Mr A-rov.

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 A-rov.

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

       Challenging the order about reduction of term of stay of Mr A. in Ukraine

       From the case file it became known that on 15.0./2016 the Migration Service reduced the term of staying Mr A. in Ukraine, but the decision was not handed to him. Several requests were sent to the Migration Service with the requirement to submit this decision, but it has not been provided.

On 15.03.2017 Mr  A. this decision. On 18.03.2017 the lawyer challenged it in the District Administrative Court. The court refused to satisfy the complaint.

On 24.05.2017 the decision of the trial court was appealed to the Court of Appeal. Consideration is pending.

Continuation of the term of detention of Mr A.

On 21.03.2017 an application was filed to court about continuation of detention of Mr A. The court refused to satisfy the application due to the fact that there were no legal grounds for his detention after 20.03.2017.

Unlawful detention of Mr A. in the TDC after 21.03.2017

Despite the lack of legal grounds for detention of Mr A. after 21.03.2017 he was kept in the TDC. The lawyer filed an application about immediate release of Mr A. that was ignored by the administration of the TDC.  The same day the lawyer filed a complaint to an investigative judge on unlawful detention of Mr A., however, the judge refused to open the proceedings.

On 22.03.2017 the lawyer filed complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office, the State Migration Service and the Ministry of Interior about unlawful detention of Mr A. Simultaneously the lawyer lodged an administrative suit.

24.03.2017 Mr A. was released from the TDC. On 28.03.2017 the court satisfied the administrative suit and recognised unlawful detention of Mr A. after  21.03.2017.

Due to this on 22.05.2017 the lawyer filed a civil suit about compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused to Mr A.

The consideration of the suit is pending. 

Asu-bekov case

Mr Asu-bekov, 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 Asadullobekov 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 Asadullobekov went to Kharkiv with the aim to gain money for his depart. 

On 14.07.2016 r Asadullobekov  and for 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 Asadullobekov 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 Asadullobekov against the “ISIS” flag and threatened him that if he complained about ill-treatment these photos would be sent to Tajikistan. 

Mr Asadullobekov 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 Asadullobekov 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 Asadullobekov

 from Ukraine.

Due to the court’s decision Mr Asadullobekov 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 Asadullobekov 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 Asadullobekov. The same day Mr Asadullobekov was detained by the court order and placed into the TDC till 20.03.2016.

On 30.08.2016 Mr Asadullobekov 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 Asadullobekov lodged an appeal against the above mentioned court decision to the Court of Appeal.

On 22 February 2017 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision about deportation of Mr Asadullobekov.

Due to the cancellation of the decision about deportation of Mr Asadullobekov, there were no grounds for his further detention in the TDC. On 23.02.2017 the requests were sent to the Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Interior, the Migration Service and the TDC. Also, on 23.02.2017 the lawyer filed an application about review under the new circumstances the court decision about detention of Mr Asadullobekov of  21.09.2016.

The application for review under the new circumstances was considered 15.03.2017. The court quashed the order about detention of Mr Asadullobekov and he was released in the court room. 

Bi-pytnyy case

Mr B. is currently detained in Correctional Colony #89 in Dnipro. The SLC lawyer in 2016 visited the colony and held a meeting with Mr B. during that provided him a legal aid on circumstances of the conviction, the presence of diseases and their treatment, the availability of medical records etc.

The SLC lawyer also met with Head of medical services of the Colony and with doctor in charge.

In 2016 Mr B. obtained first group of disability (the hardest). It confirms the negative tendency of his health’s state and non-providing to him a proper medical assistance.

In 2017 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on release of Mr B. concerning his grave disease despite the fact that this decease isn’t in the List of deceases that provide the right to apply to a court for the consideration of the issue of release.

The court’s hearing was appointed in the Colony’s Hospital. On 21 March the Leninskyy distict court of Dnipro rejected the SLC’s lawyer motion on release. The SLC lawyer filed an appeal.

On 3 May 2017 the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovskyy region canceled that decision and returned the case for the second examination.

29 May 2017 the Leninskyy distict court of Dnipro rejected the SLC’s lawyer motion on release again. The SLC lawyer filed the second appeal.

The SLC lawyer filed several complaints to the Ombudsperson and to the General Prosecutor’s Office. As e result of that criminal proceedings was opened.

Di-a case

On 15.04.2016 a Moroccan citizen, Mr D. was placed into the temporary detention centre of foreigners and stateless persons that are illegally staying in Ukraine (hereinafter - the TDC).

On 25.10.2016 the district court satisfied the application of the Migration Service about continuing detention of Mr D. for three months

On 10.01.2017 the court continued detention of Mr D. till 15.04.2017.

Not agreeing with this decision Mr D. appealed against it. On 09.03.2017 the Administrative Court of Appeal issued a ruling in which it refused satisfy the application of the Migration service about continuation of detention of Mr D. till 15.04.2017 and quashed the order of 10.01.2017.

Thus, since 09.03.2017 there has not been any court decision allowing detention of Mr D. 

On 21.03.2017 the lawyer filed complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Interior, the Migration Service and the ombudsperson about immediate release of Mr D. from the TDC. 

On 22.03.2017 the lawyer lodged an application to the court about considering detention of Mr D. unlawful and his immediate release form the TDC.

On 24.03.2017 Mr D. was released.

On 28.03.2017 the district court released the lawyer’s suit and recognised unlawful detention of Mr D. in the TDC.

Da-ev case

On June 26, 2017, a Russian citizen arrived at the Boryspil international airport to get for medical treatment in Ukraine. While undergoing passport control after the arrival, he was detained by officers of the state border guard authorities.

Mr. D-v had a certificate of temporary residence in Ukraine, a copy of which he had with him. In accordance with the legislation of Ukraine, his passport was marked with the stamp on the issuance of this certificate, but he had no the original of his certificate, due to that he has been refused to go to the territory of Ukraine. Officers of the state border guard authorities planned to put him on the plane the same day and return him with the first flight to the airport from which he arrived in Ukraine.

The SLC lawyer promptly contacted by telephone to Mr. D-v, arrived at the airport, communicated with the supervisors of the airport’s state border guard unit, and initiated their request to the State Migration Service authorities to confirm the validity of the Mr. D-v’s certificate. As a result of the active actions of the lawyer Mr. D-v was released and permitted to come to the territory of Ukraine.

Go-venko case

Mr. Go-venko lives in Kharkiv.

On 26 February 2014 Go-venko was arrested on suspicion of drug-dealing. The arrest took place long time after conducting of controlled purchase.

On 29 May 2014 a prosecutor filed to the Moskovskyy district court an indictment. During the court consideration, Go-venko stated that the financial department of the police had not provided police officers with money for conducting of controlled purchase in Go-venko’s case. This fact was confirmed. However, on 11 March 2015 Go-venko was found guilty.

The SLC lawyer entered the case on the stage of appeal. He added some new reasoning to Go-venko’s appeal.

The Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region satisfied the appeal and addressed the case for a new trial.

Prosecutor did not brought to the court any witnesses of prosecution (including the purchaser).

On 4 November 2016 Go-venkowas found guilty in drug dealing by the Moskovskyy district court.

Go-venkoapplied to the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

In November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed an appeal on the abovementioned sentence. The lawyer stated that evidence in the case were inadmissible due to violations of criminal procedure during performing of controlled purchase.

Also the SLC lawyer found out that Go-venkohad been held in detention for a period of time, which exceeds the sentence itself (taking into account so-called “Savchenko legal act”). Therefore Go-venko should have been considered as a person who had already served his punishment.

On 16 December 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a written statement concerning the applicant’s release to the Moskovskyy district court. The statement was passed to the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region.

On 30 December 2016 investigating judge rejected the SLC lawyer’s complaint on the applicant’s unlawful detention.

On 2 February 2017 the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region considered the SLC lawyer’s appeal on the sentence. The appeal was rejected. However, period of time of the applicant’s detention was reckoned into the sentence (according to “Savchenko legal act”). Go-venkowas declared to be a person, who had fully served his sentence.

Go-venkowas released in the court room.

My-lov case

Mr. M., lives in Dnipro. He was 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 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.

On 23 February 2017 as a result of reconsideration of the appeal of the SLC lawyer the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovskyy region closed the case, Mr M. was released from custody immediately.

The SLC lawyer on behalf of Mr. M. is preparing a complaint on reparation to the State of Ukraine.

Na-nyy case

Ukrainian citizen, Mr. Natoptanyy 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. Natoptanyy’s health deteriorated.

Mr. Natoptanyy 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. Natoptanyy’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. Natoptanyy special medical commission. The motion was granted and he was sent to Kharkiv region for providing the commission.

Mr. Natoptanyy informed that some examinations and analysis were provided to him. The other examinations and analysis will be provided in the nearest future.

On 15 February 2017 Balakliysky District Court of Kharkiv region granted the SLC lawyer motion,  Mr N. was released from serving punishment. This Court decision became final.

Na-ov case

Na-ov is a Ukrainian national who previously committed a crime.

The court applied to Mr. N. the Amnisty law in 2014 and on 25 June 2016 he was released from punishment. After his release Mr. N started a new life, found a job but on 9 November 2016 he was detained near his own house by police officers who pointed out that Mr. N did not serve whall the term of his punishment. They returned N. to the correctional colony.

The SLC lawyer made a request to the investigative judge  of the Leninsk district court in Kirovograd under Article 206 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine with a demand to immediately made free Mr. N from unlawfully detention. Upon consideration the investigative judge granted the motion and released Mr. N from the punishment at the court room.

P. case

Mr. P. is a Ukrainian citizen.

On 7 November 2013 P. was found guilty by the Enakievskyy district court in committing a robbery. He was sentenced to 5-years imprisonment but he was released on probation.

On 5 August 2015 P.’s probation was canceled by the Dykanskyy district court. P. was transferred to the Sofiyyvska penitentiary institution for serving his sentence.

P. filed an appeal on the abovementioned decision to the Court of Appeal of Poltava region.

On 9 February 2017 the Court of Appeal of Poltava region satisfied P.’s appeal. P. must have been released on the same day according to the court decision.

However, the court’s decision was not executed. P. still was held in the Sofiyyvska penitentiary institution.

On 1 March 2017 P. applied for legal aid to the SLC lawyer.

On the next day, the SLC lawyer went by car to Sofyyvka (small town in Dnipropetrovsk region) to file a complaint to the court on P.’s unlawful detention. Court hearing of the SLC lawyer’s complaint took place on the same day (at 9 p.m.). As a result of court consideration, P. was prescribed to be released from the Sofiyyvska penitentiary institution.

On 3 March 2017 P. was released.

Pa-mov case

Mr. Pa-mov 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.

Pahomov 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 Pahomov.

Nowadays Pahomov was sent to treatment from drug addiction.  The SLC lawyer collected necessary documents about his family life and characteristic of personality.

Pahomov 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 was appointed on 11 January 2017

On 10 Jannuary 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to judge’s bussiness. The next court meeting was appointed on 15 March 2017

On 15 February 2017 the court sent a request to the medical center.

On 15 March 2017 the court meeting was postponed bueause the medical center failured to submit reply on the court’s request. The next court meeting was appointed on 30 March 2017

On 30 March 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to accused person’s illness.

On 3 April 2017 the Chuguyiv town court in Kharkiv region terminated the criminal proceeding, Mr. P was released from criminal prosecution.

The prosecutor appealed against the court’s decision.

The court proceeding is pending.

Pa-tov case

Mr. Pa-tov (hereinafter – the applicant) was accused of refusing to comply with legal requirements of penitentiary administration by a person who was serving a sentence of imprisonment.

On March 12, 2015 officers of the colony administration performed intensive control sector bypass to verify compliance the order of convicts serving sentence. They opened the camera no.7 where the applicant was sleeping on bunks. Officers ordered him to stand up, introduce himself, report about the number of convicts in the cell, but the applicant responded negatively and categorically refused to comply.

On 29 May 2015 the applicant was notified of suspicion. The police stated that during serving his sentence in Ladyzhinsk penalty colony no.39 the applicant had imposed three penalties in the form of transfer to cell-type rooms.

On July 27, 2015 the indictment was submitted before the court.

On August 5, 2015 the lawyer filed a motion to Lysychansk city court against the decision on imposition of penalty for violation of the established order of punishment.

On August 14, 2015 Lisichanskiy city court turned the motion due to the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine did not regulate these relations.

On September 1, 2015 the lawyer filed an appeal

On October 23, 2015 The Court of Appeal upheld the previous decision.

On December 11, 2015 the lawyer filed a complaint to Ladyzhyn City Court against the decision on imposition of penalty for violation of the established order of punishment.

On 18 April 2016 the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia region granted a request for admission the period of pre-trial detention into the term of serving a sentence. 

On 16 November 2016 the trial court passed a sentence in which it recognized Mr. P guilty in willful disobedience to the prison administration and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of 1 year 4 months which was partly joined to unserved term of punishment and finally assigned a penalty of 1 year 5 months of deprivation.

The defense lawyer appealed against the sentence to the Court of Appeal.

On 17 March 2017 the appeal was partially granted, the term of pre-trial detention was counted as one day in SIZO for two day imprisonment in the correctional colony. Mr P. was released in the court room. 

Pe-lova case

The United Arab Emirates citizen Mrs. Pe-lova 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.

Pe-lova E. 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 Pe-lova E.. The lawyer lodged a lawyer’s request to the Security Service of Ukraine. It was answered that there was no decision concerned to Pe-lova E..

On 03 January 2017 Kyiv District Administrative Court granted an administrative lawsuit. The decision not to crossing the state border of Ukraine by Mrs. P. was recognized as illegal.

The respondent appealed against this decision. The SLC lawyer prepared an objection on appeal.

26. 04. 2017 Kyiv Appeal Administrative Court upheld the respondent’s appeal and despite the arguments SLC lawyer, the previous Court decision was overturned.

       Pe-ruga case

In November 2016 a prisoner Mr. Pe-ruga asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. He pointed out that public officers at the correctional colony unreasonably refused to send his motion on enlistment of the term of pretrial detention to the term of punishment.

The SLC lawyer collected information about places where Pe-ruga had been kept during pretrial detention.

On 16 January 2017 the SLC lawyer sent a motion to Kherson city court in Kherson region on enlistment of the term of pretrial detention to the term of punishment.

On 1 February 2017 the Kherson city court postponed a court meeting and also demanded information on causes of non-enlistment of the term of pretrial detention by the penitentiary public officers.

 On 22 February 2017 the court meeting was postponed again. The court also called a representatives of the correctional colony to give testimonies about cause on non-enlistment.

On 23 February 2017 the Kherson city court in Kherson region granted the SLC lawyer’s motion and enlisted the term of pretrial detention from 16 March 2010 to 9 November 2010 and from 14 October 2006 to 21 June 2007 to the term of punishment.

       Ru-ev case

Mr R., an Uzbekistan citizen, was held in the temporary detention centre of foreigners and stateless persons that are illegally staying in Ukraine (hereinafter - the TDC) due to the order of the district court of Kyiv of 24.11.2016 according to which he was supposed to be deported.

On 21.02.2017 the Administrative Court of Appeal partially quashed the order of 24.11.2016 in the part of satisfying the SMS’s requirements concerning unlawful stay of Mr R. In Ukraine and his detention in the TDC. The Court of Appeal issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy these claims, however from 21.02.2017 Mr R. was illegally held in the TDC.

Therefore, since 21.02.2017 there was no court decision that could have allowed detaining Mr R. in the TDC. Regarding this a lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint on unlawful actions of public officials concerning detention of Mr R.

On 05.04.2017 the district court issued an order in which it recognised unlawful detention of Mr R. from 21.02.2017 to 05.04.2017 with placement into the TDC and ordered to release him after this decision has come into force.

This decision was appealed by the SMS. On 18.05.2017 the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of the SMS and left the decision of the trial court unchanged.

Ru-nyy case

Ru-nyy is a Ukrainian national who some time ago served his punishment.

On 17 October 2016 the Kherson city court of Kherson region refused to a motion on release Ru-nyy from serving punishment due to his grievous disease. Ru-nyy appealed but the Court of appeal in Kherson region upheld the decision.

Ru-nyy asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The SLC lawyer received all necessary documents and submitted a new motion to the Kherson city court in Kherson region on release Ru-nyy from serving punishment due to his grievous disease.

On 15 March 2017 the Kherson city court in kherson region granted a motion.

The court’s decision came into force.

S-nko case

Mr. S., currently lives in Dnipro.

On 15 May 2015 the applicant 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.

There were 8 court’s hearings in 2017 concerning this case.  On 1 March 2017 after 2 years of detention Mr.S.  was released, he has a house arrest as a preventive measure.

During the last hearing the prosecution announced its intention to change qualification of the crime on softer one.

The hearing is currently pending.

Shma-lov case

In August 2012 the police officers of one of the district of Kharkiv detained Mr. Shma-lov who was going to a work in the café. Shma-lov was forced to go to the police department. On the morning and in the 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, Shma-lov 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 fell on the ground. At the result of the fall both arms and both legs of Shma-lov were broken. He was delivered to the hospital and then operated. Shma-lov 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 Shma-lov 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.

These 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 Investigations. On August 15, 2014 the court ordered the prosecutor to put this information to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and to start 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 Shma-lov.

In April 2015 the indictment was drafted relatively the criminal search officer P. 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 lawsuit 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 of the State as a second defendant. The hearings are pending.

Since then, the case was considered by the Ordzhonikidze district court of Kharkiv. The trial was repeatedly postponed as a result of the non-appearance of the accused, his lawyer, prosecutor for reasons of illness, employment in other processes, illness of a judge, etc.

At last on June 27, 2017, the court recognized the criminal search officer of the Ordzhonikidze district police station P. guilty of all charges and sentenced him to five years imprisonment with probation.

T-enko case

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 Mr.T. was accused of drugs sailing committed twice on 13 May and 25 June 2015. The lawyer was assured that prosecutor had not had any proofs of guilty. Moreover he considered detention of Mr. T. as illegal and unlawful.

On 27 June 2015 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 that 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 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 T’s ill-treatment.

On 21 November 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on taking part in the court hearing.

On 21 February 2017 the Higher specialized court postponed the trial to a later date.

On 28 March 2017 the Higher specialized court partially satisfied the cassation appeal the case was sent for retrial to the Appeal Court.

T-nyak case

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.

In 2017 an investigative authority appealed to the court and received a permission for searching of the residence of Mr T. As a confirmation of the need of such searching it was noted that “during the preliminary investigation it was found that Mr T. was involved to the commission of the criminal offense - sale and possession for sale of especially dangerous substances as “opium” and psychotropic substances “methamphetamine”.

After the start of acting SLC lawyer as a legal counsel of Mr T., actions of Mr T. were immediately reclassified by Part 2 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

After that it was signed the agreement on a conditional sentence between Mr T. and Prosecutor Office. The verdict of 17 May 2017 by Samarskiy district court of Dnipro was grounded on that agreement.

Tu-goyev case

The Extradition Procedures

On 17.06.2016 Mr Tu-goev (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.

       On 23.12.2016 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court passed a ruling by which it refused to satisfy  the applicant’s  complaints on the decision of the State Migration Service on refusing to grant the applicant a refugee status.    

On 04.01.2017 the applicant’s lawyer filed an appeal of the above court decision.

On 15.02.2017 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal issued a ruling by which it rejected the appeal.

On 27.02.2017 the lawyer filed cassation appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine (hereinafter – the SACU).

On  03.03.2017 the SACU refused to satisfy the cassation appeal.

       On 21 April 2017 a lawyer of the SLC sent an application to the UN Human Rights Committee about violation of the rights of Mr. T. provided by Article 7 (prohibition of torture and ill-treatment) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

       On 31 May 2017 the Committee informed the lawyer that the communication had been transmitted to the Government of Ukraine for commenting on.

       The Committee further informed that Mr. T. must not be deported to Russia while his case is under consideration of the Committee. 

Ya-n N-h case

Mr Ya., a Moroccan citizen, was held in the temporary detention centre of foreigners and stateless persons that are illegally staying in Ukraine (hereinafter - the TDC) due to the order of the district court of Kyiv of 23.11.2016 according to which he was supposed to be deported.

On 22.12.2016 the Administrative Court of Appeal partially quashed the order of 23.11.2016 in the part of satisfying the SMS’s requirements concerning unlawful stay of Mr R. In Ukraine and his detention in the TDC. The Court of Appeal issued a ruling in which it refused to satisfy these claims, however from illegal detention of Mr R. the TDC continued.

 Therefore, since 22.12.2016 there was no court decision that could have allowed detaining Mr R. in the TDC. Regarding this on 28.03.2017 a lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint on unlawful actions of public officials concerning detention of Mr R to the court.

On 03.04.2017 the district court issued an order in which it recognised unlawful detention of Mr R. from 22.12.2017 to 03.04.2017 with placement into the TDC. The decision has come into force and ordered to release him after coming this decision into force.

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top