search  
Human Rights in Ukraine. Website of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
print
15.01.2019 | Gennadiy Tokarev

A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations in July – December 2018

   

Four cases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgments in 2018

Malov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Yevgeniy Ivanovich Malov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1950 and is currently detained in Torez, Ukraine.

On 27 July 2007 the Kerch trial court found the applicant guilty of rape of his stepdaughter, A. (born in 1999), over the period between March 2006 and April 2007and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.

The judgment was based, in particular, on

(i) the victim’s statements made at the pre-trial stage;

(ii) the statements of a number of witnesses (comprising nannies, a classmate and a psychologist) made during the court hearings, who had reported incriminating statements that A. had made to them. Witness K. had testified that, in the relevant period, she had had sexual relations with the applicant;

(iii) the conclusions of experts who had examined the applicant and the victim.

On 11 September 2007, the Crimea Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction.

On 9 June 2008, the Supreme Court refused to consider the case in cassation and upheld the lower courts’ findings.

On 27 November 2008 the Court’s Registry asked the applicant to provide copies of his appeal, his appeal in cassation and the decision of the Supreme Court in his case, to supplement his application.

He accordingly requested those documents from the trial court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

On 26 January 2009, the trial court informed the applicant that it was not empowered to send him the requested copies.

On 28 January 2009, the Supreme Court informed the applicant that it was not the court’s practice to issue copies of appeals in cassation or of its decisions.

On 18 December 2018, the European Court has found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention.

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

Smirnov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. S. is a Ukrainian national, having divorced with his former wife litigated with her on the matter of that who of them their daughter would be living with.

On 3 April 2008, the applicant shot at a wife’s lawyer on the premises of the Dzerzhynskyy District Court. The lawyer was seriously injured. The applicant was arrested at the scene of the crime. He remained in detention throughout the criminal proceedings against him. On 14 April 2009, the Kharkiv Court of Appeal sentenced him to ten years and six months’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his property. That judgment was eventually confirmed on the cassation appeal.

In April 2008, the applicant was taken to the temporary detention center (SIZO) in Kharkiv. According to him, during his detention in the SIZO some of his letters did not reach the intended recipients, including the Court, and the SIZO administration opened letters sent to the applicant. In the latter regard, the applicant refers to an incident, which allegedly took place in September 2009 and concerned a letter sent to the applicant by the Court. The applicant also states that he contracted various diseases, including chronic pancreatitis, hepatitis and cardio sclerosis, owing to the lack of food in the SIZO and its poor quality as well as poor sanitary and hygiene conditions. The applicant submits that he was not provided with adequate medical assistance in the SIZO and that his state of health worsened. In 2009, the applicant was informed by the SIZO authorities that his medical file had been lost.

On 14 June 2009, the applicant lodged his initial application of the ECtHR. Later he complemented the application with additional complaints.

On 11 May 2010, the applicant was transferred to Slovyanoserbsk Correctional Colony. The applicant states that he was subjected to inhuman conditions in that prison (overcrowded cells, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, poor quality food and a lack of food, a lack of adequate medical treatment, and solitary confinement in disciplinary cells).

The applicant states that prior to 12 October 2010 all letters sent to him by the Court were opened and read by the guards. They allegedly withheld unspecified documents sent to him by the Court. The applicant refers to such incidents happening in September 2009 and in May and August 2010.

In May 2011, the applicant was transferred to Kharkiv Correctional Colony. The applicant stated that he is not being provided with adequate medical assistance in that prison.

Since 2012, the applicant continuously complained on spinal pains. In May 2012, he underwent to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and was diagnosed with osteochondrosis and protrusion of the intervertebral disk. During three years, there had been no proper treatment, and in September 2015, he was undergoing to a spinal surgery, and consequently, in November 2015, he was recognized with a second disability group.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention at Slovyanoserbsk Correctional Colony and of inadequate medical assistance while in detention.

Relying on Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention, the applicant complained of the interception and monitoring of his correspondence in detention.

The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he has not had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3.

The SLC lawyers prepared the reply on violations of Articles 3, 8, 13 and 34 of the Convention and on 8 September 2017 submitted it to the European Court.

On 18 December 2018, The ECtHR found violations of Articles 3, 8 and 13 on the part of Ukraine.

The applicant’s representatives before the European Court –Mr. Gennadiy Tokarev and Ms. Olena Ashchenko, lawyers of SLC who are practicing in Kharkiv.

Tikhak v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Roman Petrovych Tikhak, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962 and is currently living in Chernigiv Region, Ukraine.

On 1 March 2007, the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of having shot Y. On the same date, they searched the applicant and found on him a black revolver with a white stripe on its grip. A subsequent expert examination revealed that that was a flare gun and that it would be impossible to injure someone by firing it.

On 3 March 2007, the police searched the applicant’s flat in the presence of the applicant and attesting witnesses.

On 13 March 2007, the police carried out a face-to-face confrontation between Y. and the applicant. The victim confirmed that the applicant had shot him.

On 16 November 2007, the trial court convicted the applicant of grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The conviction was based, in particular, on:

(i) the victim’s statements given during the pre-trial investigation, including in the course of the face-to-face confrontation with the applicant;

(ii the results of the identification parade;

(iii) the results of the examination and forensic expert analysis of the pistol and the revolver;

(iv) the statements of Ty., K. (the café employee), of the participants in the identification parade, and the victim’s girlfriend and mother.

In a judgment of 17 January 2008, the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s guilt had been sufficiently established on the basis of the victim’s statements and the forensic examinations.

On 4 June 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in cassation.

In February 2009 the applicant’s sister, who was representing the applicant before the Court at that time, asked the trial court to give her the police records of the questioning of Y. and his girlfriend, documents concerning the applicant’s search after his arrest, the minutes of the court hearings, and the police report concerning the identification parade. On 6 March 2009, the trial court replied that it was not legally empowered to give copies of documents after the termination of criminal proceedings.

On 13 May 2009, the Court asked the applicant’s sister to provide copies of the applicant’s appeals, stamped by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, to prove that they had been received by both courts.

On 16 June 2009, the applicant’s sister requested the Mena Court, the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court to send her those documents.

On 24 June 2009, the Supreme Court replied that it was not empowered to give copies of documents. The trial court replied that the applicant’s sister had already received a copy of the appeal lodged with the Court of Appeal and the trial court was not empowered to send her another copy. The trial court did not give her any information about the cassation appeals lodged with the Supreme Court.

On 22 February 2012, the applicant was taken to the trial court and allowed to study the case file. For unknown reasons, it did not contain the appeals in cassation lodged by the applicant and his lawyer or the decision of the Supreme Court.

On 28 February 2012 Mr. Tarakhkalo, the applicant’s new representative asked the Supreme Court for a copy of the appeals in cassation lodged by the applicant and his lawyer. He received those copies and submitted them to the Court on 27 March 2012.

On 18 December 2018, the European Court has found a violation of Article 34 of the Convention.

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

Shcherbakov v. Ukraine

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

On 11 July 2010 the applicant broke a window in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Ma. (“the victims”) and threw a jar of petrol with a burning fuse into the room where Mrs. Ma. was sleeping.

On 19 July 2010 the applicant was arrested. From 19 to 22 July 2010 police officers ill-treated him in order to force him to confess to attempted murder of the victims.

On 22 July 2010 an arrest report was drawn up documenting the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of attempted murder. O., a legal aid lawyer, was appointed for the applicant. Later on the same day the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the presence of lawyer O. He repeated his confession in essentially the same terms.

On 24 July 2010 the applicant refused the services of lawyer O. and asked that S. be admitted as his lawyer instead.

On 26 July 2010 the applicant’s lawyer asked that the applicant be directed to a forensic medical expert to determine whether he had any injuries and, if so, how they had been inflicted. A report drawn up by a forensic medical expert stated that, other than bruises on the wrists, which could be explained by handcuffing, the applicant had a hematoma on his back, and red spots on the back of his thighs. The applicant explained the injuries by saying that he had been ill-treated at the police station after his arrest on 19 July 2010.

On 29 July 2010 the applicant was charged with attempted murder and the investigator attempted to question him. He refused to give evidence.

On 3 November 2010 an investigator of the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment for lack of a corpus delicti in their actions. In the course of the pre-trial investigation against the applicant witness Mi. was questioned. He testified that the applicant had had in his bag a jar of petrol, which he had equipped with a fuse in Mi.’s presence.

At his trial, the applicant testified that he had intended to set on fire what he thought to be an empty summer cottage, without endangering the victims’ lives. Contrary to his statement made during the pre-trial investigation, Mi. testified at trial that he had not seen the bag’s contents. When asked about the contradiction in his statements made during the pre-trial investigation and during the trial, Mi. said that he had been subjected to “psychological and physical influence” by the police during the pre-trial investigation.

On 23 February 2012 the Slovyansk Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder, intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm and arson which had had grievous consequences. It sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. In convicting the applicant the court relied, in particular, on the applicant’s statements made during the pre-trial investigation, which the trial court interpreted to mean that the applicant had realised that the house he had set on fire had been the victims’ home. The trial court also relied on Mi.’s statements made during the pre-trial investigation, finding them more credible than his testimony during the trial.

On 29 May 2012 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) requested the Slovyansk prosecutor to investigate the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations.

On 5 June 2012 the Slovyansk prosecutor quashed the investigator’s decision of 3 November 2010 and conducted a new round of pre‑investigation enquiries.

On 15 July 2012 the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of a corpus delicti in their actions. By way of reasoning, the prosecutor stated, in particular, that the records of the police station where the applicant had allegedly been ill‑treated did not show that he had entered the station during the relevant period. The prosecutor referred to the police officers’, lawyer O.’s and the expert’s statements.

On 12 July 2012 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction.

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

On 20 September 2018 the European Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural and substantive aspects, and a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

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

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

Zatolokhin v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Roman Zatolokin, is a Ukrainian national, who is living in Kharkiv region, Ukraine.

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

On 27 January 2015, the applicant was called to the Shevchenkivskyy District Police Station (hereinafter – Police Station) to be examined on stealing a car.

About 6 p. m., the applicant arrived to the Police Station. The police officers started to examine the applicant. When the applicant told that he knew nothing about stealing the car, the police officers started beating the applicant, to exercise psychological pressure and threatening physical harm. They wanted the applicant to admit his guilt in stealing the car. When the applicant admitted his guilt he was let to go.

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

On 29 January 2015, the applicant requested the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor that criminal proceedings be instituted against the police officers.

On 12 February 2015, the information was entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and the criminal proceedings on the fact of the abuse of power by police officers was opened.

On 29 May 2015, on 14 August 2015, on 27 November 2015 and on 13 May 2016 an investigator of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office issued the decisions on closure of the criminal proceedings because of the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. These decisions were appealed to the investigating judge.

On 26 May 2016, a lawyer of SLC complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

In October 2018, the ECtHR sent to the applicant’s lawyer the Observations of the Government of Ukraine to his complaint before the ECtHR, and on 18 November 2018, the SC lawyer lodged to the Court the reply to the Government.

Metolkiena v. Ukraine

Mrs. M. is a Ukrainian national and was born in 1939 (hereinafter – applicant). She retired in 1993.

At the end of 2005, the law was adopted based on which, since 01.01.2006, all persons born during the Second World War (so-called "children of the war") had to get a supplement to the pension, however, the law on the State Budget of Ukraine had postponed these payments. Therefore, such payments, including the payment of the applicant, were not carried out.

In June 2008, the applicant filed a lawsuit to the Lugansk District Administrative Court against the Pension Fund Office of Ukraine in Severodonetsk, which in November 2008 partially granted her claim and dismissed the claim for the alleged pecuniary damage.

The applicant submitted an appeal to the decision of the court of first instance to the Donetsk Appellate Administrative Court, and on 04.03.2009, the latter upheld the decision of the court of first instance. Due to the lack of funds to arrive in Donetsk, the applicant did not attend the hearing personally. The applicant’s appeal was postponed several times, so she did not know that the decision had already been passed, neither did she know the substance of the decision. The applicant was trying to obtain information from the court for several months, but in vain. As a result of such the inaction, she received a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeal only on 22.05.2009.

On 28.05.2009 the applicant filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the decisions of the courts of the first and appellate instances.

As a result of the changes in the rules of jurisdiction, on 22.04.2010, the High Specialized Court of Ukraine transferred the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

On 27.05.2010, the judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine refused to open the cassation proceedings on the applicant’s complaint, having concluded that there was no a motion for renewal of the term of the cassation appeal on justifiable reasons.

In 2011, the applicant lodged a complaint to the ECtHR on violation of Article 6 of the Convention as to the violation of the right of access to a court of cassation.

After that, the applicant tried to get enforcement of the decision of the administrative court together with an additional payment to the pension as a "child of the war" for several years, but it was fruitless.

In August 2018, the ECtHR sent the applicant a letter in which the applicant was offered to get a representative for the stage of communication in the Court. The lawyer of SLC took the applicant’s case, prepared a response to the Government’s objection and sent it to the Court on 10.12.2018.

Karpenko v. Ukraine

The applicant Mr. Karpenko is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981. Since 2004 he has been serving life sentences in correctional colonies in Ukraine.

On 11 July 2003 the Ukrainian parliament adopted the 2003 Code on the Execution of Sentences of Ukraine (“the Code”). Article 150 of the Code (“Place of serving life imprisonment”) provided that life prisoners (irrespective of their gender) were to serve their sentences in correctional colonies of the maximum security level. Article 151 (“Procedure for, and conditions of, the execution and serving of life sentences”) further provided, inter alia, that life prisoners were entitled to one short visit every six months. At the same time, Article 18 § 2 (3) (“Correctional colonies”) provided that female life prisoners were to serve their sentences in colonies of the medium security level. In turn, Article 139 (“Correctional colonies of the medium security level”) provided that prisoners serving their sentences in such colonies were entitled, inter alia, to have one short visit every month and one long visit every three months.

On 21 January 2010 the Code was amended. Article 150 now stated that persons sentenced to life imprisonment were to serve their sentences as follows: male prisoners – in maximum-security sectors of correctional colonies of the medium security level and in correctional colonies of the maximum security level; and female prisoners – in medium-security sectors of correctional colonies of the minimum security level with general conditions of detention and in correctional colonies of the medium security level. Article 151 now stated that life prisoners were entitled to one short visit every three months. A newly introduced Article 151² (“Specifics regarding the serving of sentences by female life prisoners”) provided that female life prisoners were to be placed, as a rule, in medium-security sectors of colonies of the minimum security level with general conditions of detention. It also provided that female life prisoners were to be subject to the regime prescribed for prisoners held in colonies of the medium security level (that is, the regime provided for in Article 139 of the Code).

On 8 April 2014 the Code was amended again. Article 151 was amended to entitle all life prisoners to one short visit every month and one long visit every three months from their close relatives. The 2014 amendments thus put male and female life prisoners on an equal footing in respect of visits-related rights.

The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, about discrimination due to different visits-related rights which were envisaged by the Code for male and female life prisoners.

The application was communicated with the Government on 16 May 2018. The Government has submitted their Observations in September 2018.

The applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On 12 November 2018 the SLC lawyer prepared and sent the reply on the Government’s observations

Popuriy 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 pre-trial 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.

In October 2018, the ECtHR sent to the applicant’s lawyer the Observations of the Government of Ukraine to his complaint before the ECtHR, and on 18 November 2018, the SC lawyer lodged to the Court the reply to the Government

S. v. Ukraine

Ms. S. is a 20-year-old Ukrainian national (hereinafter – applicant). She has been HIV positive since the birth; her parents had asocial way of life and abandoned her after the birth. She was raised by her aunt. As a result of HIV infection, she has had a status of person with disabilities since her childhood. Since January 2009, she has been receiving high-level antiretroviral therapy (hereinafter - ART). In 2014, she was diagnosed with tuberculosis of peripheral lymph nodes and twice changed the ART pattern. Since 2015, the applicant has a low adherence to ART and in 2015 she was diagnosed with the AIDS III clinical stage. From March 2017, the applicant experienced irregular hyperthermia and an increase in lymph nodes up to 3-4 cm

On 04.07.2017, the applicant was detained on suspicion of robbery, on the same day, a computer tomography (hereinafter - CT) found that the applicant had enlarged lymph nodes. The next day the applicant was subjected to a preventive measure in the form of detention, and since that time she was detained at the Dnipro pre-trial detention center.

Since the end of August 2017, the temperature of the applicant began to raise, there was pain in lymph nodes. A month later, she started to be treated for tuberculosis, but her health did not improve.

On 12.01.2018, the applicant was undergoing a biopsy of the right subclavian lymph node, and on the same day, she was diagnosed with lymphoma.

On 1.02.2018, the pre-trial detention center informed the judge, which was hearing the criminal case of the applicant that the applicant had suffered a significant deterioration of her health condition, clinical signs of oncological illness appeared. It required additional examinations and courses of chemotherapy in an oncological dispensary hospital that could not be conducted in conditions of the Penal Institution No.4, but the applicant has been remained in detention.

After additional examinations, on 2.03.2018, doctors of the oncology clinic stated the exact diagnosis - Hodgkin’s lymphoma II-B cl. stage and prescribed treatment: cyclic polychemotherapy; radiation therapy, continuation of ART. Doctors also recommended that the applicant submitted documents for recognition of disability status.

On 12.04.2018, the lawyer of the SLC, after a meeting with the applicant in the pre-trial detention center, sent to the ECtHR the request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requesting the Government of Ukraine to provide the urgent treatment of the applicant. On the same day, the applicant had a first session of chemotherapy. Under the treatment scheme, therapy should consist of four drugs, but only one was given to the applicant, others were not available.

On 27.04.2018, the ECtHR indicated to the Government of Ukraine the necessity of immediate medical treatment of the applicant according to doctor’s prescriptions and the treatment regimens.

Subsequently, the applicant had two more sessions of chemotherapy (again with one drug), after which she was immediately returned to the pre-trial detention center, where she was not provided with medical aid for recovery after chemotherapy.

The lawyer of SLC prepared a complete application form on violation of Article 3 of the Convention and sent it to the ECtHR on 11.05.2018.

In June 2018, the applicant was transferred to a prison hospital at the Lviv pre-trial detention center, where she underwent a chemotherapy session under the new scheme, although the previous appointments of the oncology dispensary were neither completed nor changed.

In August, the Government of Ukraine sent an objection to the applicant’s application to the Court, and on 10.09.2018, the lawyer of the SLC sent a response to them.

The lawyer has repeatedly addressed the Ombudsman and asked to take action to reinstate the treatment of the applicant, but it has not been renewed yet.

Serzhantov v. Ukraine

Ukrainian citizen Mr. Serzhantov (hereinafter – the applicant) is drug addicted, HIV-infected, a carrier viral hepatitis C. He is registered as drug user with a diagnosis of "addiction from opioids."

Since 2009 the applicant has been a member of substitution therapy program, he has received antiretroviral therapy.

On 4 August 2014 the applicant was arrested by Nikolayev Regional Department for Combating Organized Crime for suspicion on extortion (Article 189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), and was kept in the police detention center.

While applicant was being kept in the detention center, he was brought for taking substitution therapy in accordance with the doctor’s prescription. When the applicant was transferred to the detention center, the narcologist started his detoxication abruptly reducing the dose of substitution drugs (within 20 days).

Given the simultaneous refuse of the applicant. from taking other illegal drugs, which he occasionally received along with substitution therapy, such a method of his withdrawal from the therapy has had a negatively impact on his health condition.

Starting from August 12, 2014 S. could not independently get out of the convoy vehicle in which he was taken to the program of substitution therapy. Taking the drug and medical examination of S. was carried out directly in the convoy vehicle.

On August 13 state of the S.’s health worsened. The attending narcologist prescribed him drugs that could ease his physical condition and recommended urgent hospitalization for undergoing detoxification in a hospital.

On August 14 S. not only remained in the vehicle, but was physically unable to take a sitting position.

On August 15 S. was not brought to the room of receiving of replacement therapy at all.

 Since the placement of S. into SIZO on August 9, 2014 he has not been provided with any medical assistance.

On August 15, 2014 the lawyer of the SLC prepared an application to the ECtHR in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, in which he asked to apply urgent measures in order to ensure proper medical care of S. and renew taking by him of the replacement therapy.

On 21 August 2014, the applicant was placed in hospital for inpatient treatment and gradually was being reduced the dose of the substitute drug to the level when he could to live without it.

In October 2018, the ECtHR sent to the applicant’s lawyer the Observations of the Government of Ukraine to his complaint before the ECtHR, and on 21 November 2018, the SC lawyer lodged to the Court the reply to the Government.

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 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 than a year and nothing changed at the case-files. Prosecutors only interrogated the applicant and police officers. No applicant’s motion was granted.

On 4 April 2018 the ECHR communicated the case with the Government and in September 2018 the Government submitted it’s observations.

On 16 November 2018 the SLC lawyer sent a reply to the government observations.

As to breach the right to fair trial

The applicant also stated that during criminal proceedings the investigator mentally abused witnesses in particular, the applicant’s nephew. Moreover part of the investigative actions were conducted in the absence of the lawyer.

On 9 February 2010 the appeal court in Zaporizka region started the consideration of the case.

On 21 December 2010 the court of appeal in Zaporizka region returned case for additional investigation.

On 14 April 2011 the High specialized court of Ukraine cancelled the decision of returning of the case and returned the case to the trial court.

On 20 June 2012 the Zaporizkyy district court in Zaporizka region returned the case to additional investigation again.

On 29 October 2012 the court of appeal in Zaporizka region cancelled the decision of trial court.

On 16 April 2015 the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed.

On 4 May 2016 the court of appeal in Zaporizka region changed the sentenced for another co-executor but the verdict related the applicant did not change.

On 7 September 2017 the Higher specialized court uphold the verdict.

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

In April 2018 the SLC lawyer also lodged before the ECHR an application under Article 6 of the Convention.

To-r v. Ukraine

The applicant, Ms. Irina Viktorivna Tokar, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and is detained in Uman.

On 26 March 2009 a search was carried out of the applicant’s house in the context of criminal proceedings instituted upon charges of burglary and theft of 480,000 United States dollars and 40,000 euros from P., the applicant’s ex-partner.

On the same day the applicant was questioned as a witness and had a face-to-face confrontation with P.

On Friday 27 March 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having stolen a safe with money in it from P’s house. On the same date, in the afternoon, a lawyer engaged by the applicant’s mother came to the police station where the applicant was being held and requested an interview with her. He was told that she had waived her right to counsel. At 6 pm. the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the absence of a lawyer. She alleges before the Court to have been forced to sign a waiver of her right to counsel before the questioning, as she was told that the lawyer would be available on Monday only. The applicant denied her guilt in the crime during the questioning.

On 30 March 2009, in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant was questioned as a suspect and confessed to the crime. Following that, according to the applicant, the police officers ordered her to set out her testimony in the form of a “voluntary surrender to the police”. She obeyed the officers’ demand, as they had threated members of her family.

On 31 March 2009 a reconstruction of the crime was carried out in the absence of a lawyer. Again under threats from police officers, the applicant agreed to participate in the reconstruction and in her testimony followed the instructions given by the investigator in advance.

On the same day the applicant was taken to the bank and ordered to withdraw USD 200,000 from her bank account. As soon as it was noted that the police officers did not have a seizure order, they were not allowed to enter the bank. The applicant, now in the presence of the bank manager and two witnesses and not being observed by the police, drafted a statement that she had been forced to confess to the crime and that P. and the police officers had extorted money from her. Later, the applicant was taken to the police station where a record of the seizure of the money was drawn up.

On 3 April 2009 the applicant was questioned as an accused in the absence of a lawyer. She confirmed her confession made on 30 March 2009.

On the same day the applicant was questioned by a prosecutor following her complaint of ill-treatment and extortion by the police. No lawyer was present as, allegedly, the applicant had decided to give evidence in his absence. The applicant informed the prosecutor that her confession and other statements during the investigation had been made of her own free will and that since her arrest she had not wished to be legally represented. The applicant alleges before the Court that she was afraid of testifying against the police officers while in detention.

On 4 April 2009 the applicant was released from custody.

According to the applicant on 6 April 2009 she hired a lawyer to represent her in the criminal proceedings.

On 22 April 2009 the lawyer was admitted to the proceedings.

On 28 July 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in respect of another incident of theft from P.

On 17 August 2009, in the presence of her lawyer, the applicant retracted her self-incriminating statements given earlier, stating that they had been made under police duress.

On 14 April 2010 the Kyivo-Svyatoshynskiy District Court of Kyiv convicted the applicant on both counts of theft and sentenced her to nine years’ imprisonment. The court referred, along with other evidence, to the applicant’s confession.

On 23 June 2010 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegations that her defense rights had been breach, stating that the applicant had waived her right to a lawyer each time she had given evidence and also referring to her statement to the prosecutor on 3 April 2009.

On 9 December 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine amended the judgment, excluding the second count of theft from the applicant’s charges and reducing her sentence to five years’ imprisonment.

In 2010 The SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

In 2018 the application was communicated to the Government of Ukraine.

In 11 July 2018 the SLC lawyer prepared the reply to the Government’s submissions to the application.

Farziyev v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Farziyev Rustam Zakirovych ,is a Ukrainian citizen that was born in 1983 and now is serving life sentence in Nivhorod-Severskyy penalty colony.

On 21 January 2010 the on the Execution of Sentences of Ukraine (“the Code”) was amended. Article 150 now stated that persons sentenced to life imprisonment were to serve their sentences as follows: male prisoners – in maximum-security sectors of correctional colonies of the medium security level and in correctional colonies of the maximum security level; and female prisoners – in medium-security sectors of correctional colonies of the minimum security level with general conditions of detention and in correctional colonies of the medium security level. Article 151 now stated that life prisoners were entitled to one short visit every three months. A newly introduced Article 151² (“Specifics regarding the serving of sentences by female life prisoners”) provided that female life prisoners were to be placed, as a rule, in medium-security sectors of colonies of the minimum security level with general conditions of detention. It also provided that female life prisoners were to be subject to the regime prescribed for prisoners held in colonies of the medium security level (that is, the regime provided for in Article 139 of the Code).

On 8 April 2014 the Code was amended again. Article 151 was amended to entitle all life prisoners to one short visit every month and one long visit every three months from their close relatives. The 2014 amendments thus put male and female life prisoners on an equal footing in respect of visits-related rights.

In 2013 the applicant complained to the ECHR that he had subjected to a difference in treatment based on sex, in view of the provisions of the 2003 Code on the Execution of Sentences of Ukraine, which envisaged different visits-related rights for male and female life prisoners.

On 13 November 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a response on the Government’s Observation to the ECHR.

Smilyanskaya v. Ukraine

The applicant, Ms. Viktoriya Gennadiyevna Smilyanskaya, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Kharkiv.

On 17 January 2011 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody on suspicion of involvement in the illegal purchase, storage, and trafficking of drugs.

On 20 January 2011 the Kyivskyi District Court of Kharkiv extended the applicant’s police custody to ten days with a view to obtaining an assessment of her personality.

On 27 January 2011 it ordered her detention for two months. The decision stated that she had been accused of a serious crime and could otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with her criminal activity. No further details about those reasons were provided by the court.

On 16 March, 27 April, and 16 May 2011 the applicant applied for release. The court further extended her detention for three, four, and five months respectively. Its decisions stated that she had been accused of a serious crime and that no other reasons which could justify changing the preventive measure had been presented to the court.

On 16 March and 27 April 2011 the court, when considering whether to extend the applicant’s detention, dismissed her requests for release. No explanation was provided in its decisions.

According to the results of the forensic examination of 6 April 2011, the applicant suffered from step 4 asthma (the most severe form), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, pulmonary insufficiency, pneumonosclerosis and chronic cor pulmonale. The forensic expert concluded that she should be examined at a specialist pulmonary medical institution outside the SIZO.

On 4 and 10 August and 5, 8, 15, 18 and 28 October 2011 the applicant asked the SIZO administration to provide her with asthma treatment. On 1 November 2011 the court, having regard to the applicant’s state of health, released her on an undertaking not to abscond.

In 2011 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the ECHR under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of the Applicant’s detention in the Kharkiv SIZO were poor. She was not provided with adequate medical treatment and assistance while in detention. The lawyer also complained on arbitrary arrest, and that the Applicant’s continued detention were arbitrary and lacked reasoning and she had no enforceable right to compensation for her allegedly arbitrary detention.

On 25 October 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a response on the Government’s Observation to the ECHR.

Siyanko v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr. Mykola Fedorovych Siyanko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and is currently detained in Cherkasy.

In March 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with robbery of K.

On 7 July 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of having murdered Kl.

At 10 a.m. on that day the applicant was arrested. The arrest record refers to unspecified statements of eye-witnesses as grounds for the arrest without a court decision. It further suggests that, being apprised of his rights as a suspect, the applicant waived his right to a lawyer.

On 8 July 2009 a reconstruction of the crime was organized at Kl.’s house in the absence of a lawyer. As he was under pressure from the investigator, the applicant gave evidence as instructed by the former.

On 10 July 2009 the applicant was charged with the premeditated murder of Kl. Between 9.30 and 10.30 a.m. on 10 July 2009 he was questioned as an accused in the absence of a lawyer and he provided details related to the murder.

On the same date, from 11 until 11.20 a.m. the applicant wrote his voluntary surrender to the police in which he confessed to the robbery of K.; from midday until 12.20 p.m. – to the murder of Z.; from 1 until 1.20 p.m. – to the murder of Tso.; from 2 until 2.20 p.m. – to the murder and robbery of Ye.; and from 3 to 3.20 p.m. to the murder of a woman from his village named Maria whose last name he did not remember but who was later identified as Each confession was set out on a separate application form provided by the investigator. According to the applicant, his request for a lawyer had been rejected before he confessed, and he was forced to waive his right to legal assistance and make self-incriminating statements to crimes as dictated by the investigator.

On 11 July 2009 the police searched the applicant’s house and found seventy-six bullets for different weapons. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in this connection on 20 July 2009.

Between 14 and 22 July 2009 a number of investigative measures were taken following the applicant’s confessions, which included questioning of witnesses, and exhumation and examination of the victims’ corpses.

On 3 August 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with the aggravated murder of Tso., S., Z. and Ye.

On 26 April 2010 the investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer were granted access to the case file.

On 19 October 2010 the Court of Appeal of Cherkasy Region found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His conviction was based, among other evidence, on his voluntary surrender and his self-incriminating statements given between 7 and 31 July 2009, including those made in the absence of a lawyer.

On 15 February 2011 the Higher Specialized Court on Civil and Criminal Matters, acting as the second-instance court, upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence in his presence. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer during the hearing.

In 2011 the applicant filed a complaint to the ECHR that he had been subjected to psychological ill-treatment in police custody with a view to extracting his confession. He further complains, under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and 13 of the Convention, that he had been denied access to legal assistance at the initial stage of the proceedings and had been forced to waive his right to a lawyer; that his lawyers had not represented him properly; that he had not been represented before the appeal court; and that the confession he had made in the absence of a lawyer and under police duress had been used for his conviction.

In December 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a response on the Government’s Observation to the ECHR.

11 cases in which the complaints lodged 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

 

7 cases related to the events in the Eastern Ukraine

1 case related to captive, causing deaths and injuries of individuals in course of the armed conflict in the East of Ukraine

Ti-feyeva v. Ukraine and Russia

On 26 December 2017, at the check point Yelenovka on the way to Donetsk around noon, the applicant’s husband was asked to leave the bus at the passport control. Two questions was asked by a man in uniform: "Why do you cross the check point so often? What is the Purpose of the trip?"

The applicant’s husband replied that he works in Kiev at a company which left Donetsk in early 2015. He and the applicant were obliged to sign a voluntary search in their flat.

On the same day unknown militiamen came to their flat and inspected their apartment. They did not touch anything, but they recorded all the contents of the applicant’s apartment, indicating the brand of the furniture, what was in it, where it was placed, what color it had, even down to the toilet, and also indicated the temperature of the apartment. Then the applicant’s husband was accused of a crime and detained.

After the applicant’s husband was detained, she called 102, to the police, at about 21:00. Around 23:00 the same day, two operatives from the Leninsky district police department arrived. In the presence of a witness, the officers of the presented their documentation.

On 29 December 2017 the applicant applied to the MGB, that her husband was illegally detained by unknown people, and she asked him to find out the reason for his detention, and to give me the opportunity to see my husband. The application was accepted and registered in the chancellery of the MGB.

The applicant also lodged before the UN nation’s mission a claim on illegally detention of her husband. She also spent more than 50 day to find him.

Finally, in Febryary 2018 the applicant came again to the MGB in Donetsk. Here she spoke with the investigator who earlier detained her husband. Unexpectedly he confirmed that the applicant’s husband stayed in Donetsk SIZO and suspected him on spying.

On the same day the investigator came to the applicant’s apartment with her husband who was obliged to show how he made photo of militiamen in 2014. He was scared and, in the applicant’s opinion, ill-treated.

On 26 February 2018 the applicant had to leave occupied territory because of real danger for her life. She might be detained any time because of the same crime as her husband.

Since 2018 the applicant has lodged several requests to the Ombudsman, the UN mission, the Security service of Ukraine. She also initiated a criminal proceeding on her husband disappearance and illegal detention.

In September 2018 she asked the SLC lawyer to provide her with legal assistance.

On 6 September 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged before the ECHR an application on urgent measures under Article 39 of the Rule of the Court because the applicant’s husband disappearance.

On 7 September 2018 the application was granted and the ECHR indicated Ukraine and Russia to protect the applicant’s husband rights.

In October 2018 the SLC lawyer also lodged before the ECHR full application which was found admissible.

The case is pending

6 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 started 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. A part of the inmates has been killed during the shelling, even more were injured.

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 because of organizational matters. No attempts were conducted later.

On 27 November 2014 the Ukrainian post service ceased to deliver and send mails in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Thus, prisoners have had no chance to make appeals or criminal complaints 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.

Terrorists did not provide prisoners with appropriate medical treatment, nutrition and living 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 Ombudsman evacuated near 300 of them, negotiations are pending.

Buh-tirov v. Ukraine and Russia

In April 2017 Mr. Buh-tirov (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that the court sentenced him to imprisonment Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Yanakiyevska 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’s relatives submitted numerous requests to the Ombudsperson and other state bodies. The applicant’s name was entered to the list of people who will be evacuated.

In February 2018 the applicant was evacuated from the occupied territory.

On 25 March 2018 the applicant made a statement of crime to the prosecutor’s office of Donetsk region in Mariupol

As the applicant did not receive notice on entering of his statement to the Unified register of pre-trial investigation, he submitted to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol a complaint on the investigator’s inactivity. Only on 11 April 2017 the court granted this complaint and obliged the prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region to enter information about the crime to the URPI.

On 19 April 2018 the first investigative department of the prosecutor’s office in the city of Kramatorsk noticed the applicant about opening of the criminal proceedings.

On 1 May 2018 the applicant sent to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region a motion on conducting of investigative actions.

The applicant did not receive a response on his motion so on 11 May 2018 he sent a complaint on inactivity of the investigator to the court in Kramatorsk (as the investigative department was situated in this city).

On 2 June 2018 the Kramatorsk city court returned the complaint to the applicant because he lodged it with a violation of territory jurisdiction. He should have lodged it in Mariupol

On 21 July 2018 the applicant filed a complaint to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol

On 27 July 2018 the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol refused the applicant on his complaint.

In September 2018 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, illegitimate court conviction, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as violation the Convention.

K. v. Ukraine and Russia

On 19 December 2000 Mr. K. was sentenced by the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk region to the life imprisonment.

From 31 July 2004 he has serving his sentence in the Yenakiyevska penal colony № 52 (temporary occupied from 2014).

Yenakiyevska penal colony № 52 is situated directly on the line of shelling that causes almost on the day basis, despite the declared ceasefire.

In March 2018 Mr. K. sent a request to the colony’s administration on transferring him to the territory of Ukraine, but received a refusal.

In 2018, Mr. K’s father sent an application on transferring of the Applicant to the territory controlled by Ukraine to the Ombudsperson. He received a response that her application sent to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

In 2018 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, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

K-tin v. Ukraine and Russia

In April 2017 Mr. K-tin (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that the court sentenced him to imprisonment Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Yanakiyevska 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’s relatives submitted numerous requests to the Ombudsperson and other state bodies. The applicant’s name was entered to the list of people who will be evacuated.

On 21 July 2017 the applicant was evacuated from the occupied territory.

On 17 January 2018 the applicant made a statement of crime to the prosecutor’s office of Donetsk region in Mariupol

As the applicant did not receive notice on entering of his statement to the Unified register of pre-trial investigation, he submitted to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol a complaint on the investigator’s inactivity. Only on 11 April 2017 the court granted this complaint and obliged the prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region to enter information about the crime to the URPI.

On 3 February 2018 the first investigative department of the prosecutor’s office in the city of Kramatorsk noticed the applicant about opening of the criminal proceedings.

On 1 March 2018 the applicant sent to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region a motion on conducting of investigative actions.

The applicant did not receive a response on his motion so on 9 March 2017 he sent a complaint on inactivity of the investigator to the court in Kramatorsk (as the investigative department was situated in this city).

On 13 March 2018 the Kramatorsk city court returned the complaint to the applicant because he lodged it with a violation of territory jurisdiction. He should have lodged it in Mariupol

On 15 March 2018 the applicant filed a complaint to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol

On 27 June 2018 the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol refused the applicant on his complaint.

In September 2018 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, illegitimate court conviction, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as violation the Convention.

 

Pa-hin v. Ukraine and Russia

In April 2017 Mr. Pa-hin (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that the court sentenced him to imprisonment Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Yanakiyevska 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’s relatives submitted numerous requests to the Ombudsperson and other state bodies. The applicant’s name was entered to the list of people who will be evacuated.

In January 2018 the applicant was evacuated from the occupied territory.

On 22 March 2018 the applicant made a statement of crime to the prosecutor’s office of Donetsk region in Mariupol

As the applicant did not receive notice on entering of his statement to the Unified register of pre-trial investigation, he submitted to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol a complaint on the investigator’s inactivity. Only on 11 April 2017 the court granted this complaint and obliged the prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region to enter information about the crime to the URPI.

On 3 April 2018 the first investigative department of the prosecutor’s office in the city of Kramatorsk noticed the applicant about opening of the criminal proceedings.

On 1 May 2018 the applicant sent to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region a motion on conducting of investigative actions.

The applicant did not receive a response on his motion so on 29 May 2018 he sent a complaint on inactivity of the investigator to the court in Kramatorsk (as the investigative department was situated in this city).

On 18 June 2018 the Kramatorsk city court returned the complaint to the applicant because he lodged it with a violation of territory jurisdiction. He should have lodged it in Mariupol

On 15 July 2018 the applicant filed a complaint to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol

On 27 July 2018 the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol refused the applicant on his complaint.

In September 2018 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, illegitimate court conviction, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as violation the Convention.

Tka-v v. Ukraine and Russia

In April 2017 Mr. Tka-v (hereafter - the applicant) asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. The applicant noted that the court sentenced him to imprisonment Since that date he permanently served his punishment in the Yanakiyevska 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’s relatives submitted numerous requests to the Ombudsperson and other state bodies. The applicant’s name was entered to the list of people who will be evacuated.

In January 2018 the applicant was evacuated from the occupied territory.

On 22 March 2018 the applicant made a statement of crime to the prosecutor’s office of Donetsk region in Mariupol

As the applicant did not receive notice on entering of his statement to the Unified register of pretrial investigation, he submitted to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol a complaint on the investigator’s inactivity. Only on 11 April 2017 the court granted this complaint and obliged the prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region to enter information about the crime to the URPI.

On 3 April 2018 the first investigative department of the prosecutor’s office in the city of Kramatorsk noticed the applicant about opening of the criminal proceedings.

On 1 May 2018 the applicant sent to the Prosecutor’s office in Donetsk region a motion on conducting of investigative actions.

The applicant did not receive a response on his motion so on 29 May 2018 he sent a complaint on inactivity of the investigator to the court in Kramatorsk (as the investigative department was situated in this city).

On 18 June 2018 the Kramatorsk city court returned the complaint to the applicant because he lodged it with a violation of territory jurisdiction. He should have lodged it in Mariupol

On 15 July 2018 the applicant filed a complaint to the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol

On 27 July 2018 the Zhovtnevyy district court in Mariupol refused the applicant on his complaint.

In September 2018 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, illegitimate court conviction, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as violation the Convention.

Sh. v. Ukraine and Russia

In May 2018 Mr. Sh. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On 28 January 2002, Mr. Sh was sentenced to life imprisonment by a verdict of the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk region.

From 10 July 2004 he has serving his sentence in the Yenakiyevska penal colony № 52 which was captured by terrorists in February 2015. Mr. Sh. would like to be evacuated from occupied territory to another region.

Mr. Sh’s relatives submitted numerous requests to the Ombudsperson and other state bodies. Mr. Sh’s name was entered to the list of people who will be evacuated but he has been staying at the occupied territory.

Mr. Sh`s relatives also lodged applications to the so-called state bodies of the DPR which informed that he serves his punishment under their control.

In March 2018 Mr. Sh. sent a request to the colony’s administration on transferring him to the territory of Ukraine, but received a refusal.

In November 2018 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, lack of opportunities to submit complaints can be considered as such violation.

4 other cases in which applications have been lodged before the ECtHR

Hor-ko v. Ukraine

On 7 March 2015 Hor-ko (hereinafter - the applicant) with his friends smoked drugs at the cemetery in Dnipro. After drug using the applicant lost consciousness. When he came to life he saw that three out of four friends lied unconscious and only the fourth - Mr. Kostyantynov - stayed near them. The applicant picked fight with him and only after that left the cemetery.

On the same day Mr. Konstantinov was found dead.

The applicant’s friends accused him of the murder of Mr. Konstyantynov and forced him to plead a guilt by physical violence. While they beat him somebody called the police. The applicant was detained and transfered to the Industrial police department in Dnipro. The police officers also forced the applicant to plead his guilt of a murder. The applicant refused.

Then policemen took him to the cemetery where earlier body of Mr. Kostyantynov was found. The applicant was beaten there again. Police officers stopped to torture him only when the head of investigative department came to the cemetery.

The applicant was noticed on suspicion of a murder and the preliminary measure for him was chosen in the form of detention.

On 12 March 2015 the applicant’s mother filed a criminal complaint before the Prosecutor’s office in Dnepropetrovsk. However, the criminal complaint was not entered to the Unified register of pre-trial investigations. The applicant’s mother did not complain against such inactivity because the applicant asked her not to do it. The policemen recognized that she made a criminal complaint and started to threatened the applicant.

After his detention the applicant was several times brought to the hospital because he suffered from crucial pain. He was diagnosis with closed craniocerebral injury, livid spots and bruises.

On 16 March 2015 the Dnipropetrovsk regional bureau of medical certifications conducted a forensic medical examination. The expert found 5 livid spots, 4 bruises, fractures of the 10th and 11th ribs.

On 27 June 2016 the applicant repeatedly conducted the forensic medical examination. The expert found livid spots.

In November 2015 during the court meeting at the Babushkinskyy district court the applicant complained on physical violence made by policemen against him. Therefore, on 28 December 2016 the Babushkinskyy district court obliged the prosecutor’s office to initiate criminal proceedings on this fact.

The applicant also made several criminal complaints under which some cases were started. However, every criminal proceeding was several times terminated. The applicant complained on such resolutions to the investigative judges.

Recognizing ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

On 28 December 2018 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged before the ECHR an application under Article 3 of the Convention.

 

Demi-vich v. Ukraine

Convicted D. was imprisoned at Dnipro Penal Institution No.4 since January 2015.

In August 2018, he felt severe pain in the lower limbs, had problems with walking. Mr. D. was diagnosed with the phlegmon of the left foot and on 31.08.2018, the operation was performed. However, it did not improve his health condition.

During September-October of 2018, the patient was taken from the prison to a civilian health facility several times. According to the results of research in these institutions, Mr. D. was diagnosed with cardiovascular insufficiency, ischemia of the lower limbs with complete absence of blood flow in one of the limbs, and a large thrombus in the ventricle of the heart was detected. With the progression of the disease, the gangrene of the fingers of the left lower limb formed, which threatened to spread to the limb causing total blood contamination and death.

In the period from 07.09.18 to 26.09.18, the patient was not given a consultation of a vascular surgeon, which was necessary for this type of illness. According to medical recommendations, Mr. D. needed in-patient treatment, including surgery - amputation of the left lower limb, whereas in September-early October 2018, no action was taken to comply with the prescriptions of doctors.

On 26.09.2018, the surgeon concluded that the patient urgently needed an operation, therefore, on 27.09.2018, the lawyer of the SLC sent the request to the ECtHR on the basis of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requesting the Government of Ukraine to urgently provide the necessary in-patient treatment for Mr. D., but the Court rejected this request.

On 2.10.2018, the condition of Mr. D. became critical, and Mr. D. was immediately taken to a civilian hospital.

On 4.10.2018 Mr. D. died of sepsis (infection of blood), the operation was not performed. On 6.10.2018, the lawyer of SLC submitted a motion to open criminal proceedings.

At the end of October, the lawyer filed a complaint to the ECtHR on the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and, after the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the lawyer plans to file a complaint on violation of Article 2 of the Convention on behalf of the widow of the deceased Mr. D.

M vs Ukraine

On 29 March 2014, Mr. M. was arrested on suspicion of preparing the murder of his ex-wife. Mr. M. was applied preventive measure in the form of a detention. After this, detention as a preventive measure for the Mr. M. was chosen 11 more times. The court mainly justified its decisions about Mr. M`s detention referring to the public danger and gravity of the crimes in commitment of which the Mr. M. was accused. The court has not taken into account the facts that Mr. M. is an elderly man and that he had never been subjected to the criminal liability before this.

On 16 November 2015, the District Court found Mr. M. guilty and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment.

On 18 July 2017, the Court of Appeal cancelled the verdict of the District Court. The case was sent to the District Court for retrial.

During the retrialing detention as a preventive measure for the Mr. M. was chosen 4 times for a term of 60 days. The judgment of the District Court contained the repeating references to the public danger and gravity of the crimes in commitment of which the Mr. M. was accused and ignored Mr. M.’s argument that he had never been subjected to the criminal liability before this.

In April 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged a motion to the Court on changing of Mr. M`s preventive measure

On 12 April 2018 the motion was granted by the court and Mr. M. was released. A 24 hours home arrest was chosen as a preventive measure in his case.

In June 2018, the SLC lawyer lodged a motion to the Court on changing of Mr. M`s preventive measure from a 24 hours home arrest to home arrest at night.

On 11 June 2018, the Court granted this motion.

On 11 August 2018, the term of home arrest expired and no preliminary measures were chosen instead.

The total term of the pre-trial detention of Mr. M. during the criminal proceedings was more than 4 years.

At present, the case of Mr. M. awaits of examination by the Kominternovskyy District Court.

On 12 October 2018, the 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 Mr. M’s right enshrined by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The application was registered in the ECtHR.

Yako-lev vs. Ukraine

Mr. Yako-lev (hereinafter - the Applicant), born in 1983, is serving a sentence at Zamkova Penitentiary Colony No.58.

On 19 January 2018, the prison administration was sentenced him to 14 days of detention in a DIZO for expressing his personal position.

On 24 January 2018, protesting against the systematic violation of his rights by the Administration of Public Procurement # 58, the Applicant declared a hunger strike, he informed on it the Head of the colony in writing.

On 30 January 2018, the Head of the Colony send to the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region a motion for appointing the Applicant for coercive feeding by pouring the food mixture through the probe.

On 31 January 2018, a court session was held with the participation of the Applicant, who requested the court to refuse to comply with the application for forced feeding.

The court satisfied the motion of the Head of the colony and ordered to use forced feeding by pouring the food mixture through the probe.

From 31 January to 6 February 2018, the applicant was forced to coercive measures. It took place as follows: several officers of the colony used the measures of physical influence on the applicant, namely: under the force of force, put his hands behind his back, tightly fastening them with handcuffs, forcefully planting a chair, and holding the force behind his head and body, blocking the hands of the applicant. Personally, the head of the medical unit, using physical force, injected into the applicant’s throat a hose that curled and bent in the throat of the applicant, causing him physical suffering. The applicant experienced severe pain in the throat, chills and chest pain. The whole process of coercive feeding in such a cruel way lasted from 30 to 90 minutes, and each time the colony employees filmed the whole procedure on video.

On 5 February 2018, the Applicant appealed.

On 26 February 2018, the Court of Appeal of the Khmelnytsky Region reviewed the applicant’s appeal in video conferencing mode and refused to comply with the appeal.

On 26 August 2018, a SLC lawyer filed a complaint on violation of Article 3 of the Convention as to the fact of forceful feeding of the Applicant to the EHCR.

90 cases which were considered in national courts

 

20 foreigners who are in want of legal defense

Abas-dze case

Mr. A is a Georgian national.

In November 2017 he was illegally deprived of liberty by officers in uniform of the Security service of Ukraine and deported from Ukraine.

On 2 January 2018 the SLC lawyer submitted a statement of crime on kidnapping. The statement was not entered to the Unified register of pre-trial investigations. So on 12 January 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the court on inactivity of the prosecutor.

On 30 January 2018 the investigative judge refused to open court proceedings in the case. The SLC lawyer appealed and on 6 April 2018 the court returned the case for new trial.

On 14 June 2018 the complaint was considered in the absence of the lawyer. The court refused.

The decision has not been delivered yet.

The SLC lawyer also got copies of documents on the base of which A was deported. In particular, the SLC lawyer got the decision on exclusion and prohibition to enter Ukrainian territory.

On 20 March 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint against such decision to the circle administrative court.

On 27 March 2018 the court refused to open proceedings in this case because the SLC lawyer breached the rules of jurisdiction.

On 6 April 2018 the decision was appealed. On 19 April 2018 the court of appeal quashed the decision of the trial court and sent the case for new consideration

On 15 May 2018, the trial court opened the proceedings in the case. The case is pending.

Also, the SLC lawyer received by his request the copy of decision on termination of the applicant’s residence permit and refusal to prolong. Such decisions were brought in the absence of A-sh.

On 3 February 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged a complaint before the court on termination of the applicant’s residence permit. On 21 May 2018 the court delivered a judgement on cancelation of such decisions and obliged the State migration service to consider again the applicant’s request to prolong his residence permit.

The state migration service appealed. On 24 July 2018 the court of appeal opened consideration.

On 17 September 2018 the court of appeal quashed the decision of trial court and refused the complaint.

On 3 October 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged the cassation complaint but it refused to open proceedings.

 

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 organization 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. Asu-bekov, 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 Asu-bekov 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. Asu-bekov went to Kharkiv with the aim to gain money for his depart.

On 14.07.2016 r Asu-bekov and for other people were detained at the place of their temporary residence of their friend Mr. Asu-bekov 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. Asu-bekov was twice subjected to ill-treatment – the first time for finding out the location of escaped Mr. A-rov, the second time – in order to force his to confess in his involvement in the activities of a terrorist organization “ISIS”. Also, the officers took photos of Mr. Asu-bekov against the “ISIS” flag and threatened him that if he complained about ill-treatment these photos would be sent to Tajikistan.

Mr. Asu-bekov 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. Asu-bekov 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. Asu-bekov from Ukraine.

Due to the court’s decision Mr. Asu-bekov was taken to the Chernigiv temporary detention center 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. Asu-bekov 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. Asu-bekov. The same day Mr. Asu-bekov was detained by the court order and placed into the TDC till 20.03.2016.

On 30.08.2016 Mr. Asu-bekov 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. Asu-bekov 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. Asu-bekov

Due to the cancellation of the decision about deportation of Mr. Asu-bekov, 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 lodged an application about review under the new circumstances the court decision about detention of Mr. Asu-bekov of 21.09.2016.

In this proceeding, the SLC lawyer lodged a motion on extracting evidence.

The application for review under the new circumstances was considered 15.03.2017. The court quashed the order about detention of Mr. Asu-bekov and he was released in the court room.

In April 2017, Mr. Asu-bekov had an interview in the SMS, where he was informed that his case was closed and SMS. removed his certificate of seeking an asylum in Ukraine, which was his only document that confirmed the legality of his living in the country.

On 11 July 2017, a SLC lawyer lodged a claim on annulation of the decision to suspend the consideration of Mr. Asu-bekov case and an application on securing a claim by issuing a certificate of the status of asylum seeker to the applicant by SMS. for the trial period.

On 12 July 2017, the claim on securing a claim had refused. On 20 July 2017, the administrative court made a decision in favor of the Mr. Asu-bekov, the decision of the SMS. was cancelled. The SMS. filed an appeal.

On 28 September 2017, the Court of Appeal refused the SMS’S appeal, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. The SMS. filed a cassation appeal. The consideration of the applicant’s case has been renewed.

On 20 October 2017 the Cassation Court refused to open the proceedings due to the fact that the cassation appeal of the SMS. was unfounded.

On 12 January 2018 the SLC lawyer made a motion on exception of the court fee which was dismissed. The SLC lawyer appealed to the court of appeal which also refused on 22 February 2018.

Mr. Asu-bekov refused from legal aid due to changing his permanent residence.

Ba-net case

Ba-net is a Jordan national who lives in Ukraine

On 9 August 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint on illegal detention of Ba-net without court’s decision in the pre-trial detention facility for foreigners and asked to immediately release him.

On 10 September 2018 the Circle administrative court refused the complaint. On 17 September 2018 the decision was appealed to the court of appeal. On 27 November 2018 the court of appeal refused the appeal.

Ba-net refused to lodge cassation claim.

The case is terminated.

Also, on 30 July 2018 the court refused the State migration service to prolong the term of Ba-net’s detention. The State migration service appealed.

During appeal consideration Ba-net asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in this case too.

On 23 August 2018 the SLC lawyer familiarized with appeal, on 27 August 2018 he lodged the objections against.

On 29 August 2018 the SLC lawyer also objected against the State migration service’s motion on applying new evidence.

On 3 September 2018 the court of appeal granted the appeal claim and delivered new decision on granting of the State migration service’s complaint.

Ba-net refused to appeal to the cassation court.

The case is terminated.

 

Case of Cameroon citizen

Mr. A., a national of Cameroon, was a student of Kharkiv National Automobile and Highway University (hereinafter – the university) and has resided in Ukraine since 2012.

In 2014, he for the first time applied to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (hereinafter – the KHPG) regarding the illegal actions of police officers and the problem issues on continuing his studies at the university.

Cameroon has been facing political instability in the relations between the "French" and "English" parts of the country’s population since the death of the former President of the country due to the transition of power to the new President. Violence, arrests, massacres and exile often take place in the country. They are ordered and directed by the government in order to intimidate "English" Cameroonians. Moreover, peaceful protests of this part of the population are often considered terrorist acts. The homeland of Mr. A. belongs to the territory of "English" minority population. During these conflicts, his mother died under unclear circumstances, and his father disappeared while traveling in official affairs to Nigeria. Under these circumstances, it became clear to Mr. A. that it was dangerous to return to his homeland.

In 2016, Mr. A. was diagnosed with a spine tuberculosis. He came to the KHPG for help in obtaining the necessary medical assistance. With the help of the lawyers of the organization, he managed to get necessary assistance and he was operated in a hospital in Kharkiv, after which he was directed to Odessa for rehabilitation.

After he recovered, in 2018, Mr. A. requested assistance in granting him refugee status or a person that needs additional protection in Ukraine.

In August of 2018, police officers seized the passport and other documents of Mr. A. in Odessa. Mr. A. filed a complaint to the Malinov District Police Station in Odessa and the Central Office of the National Police in Kyiv.

The lawyer lodged a request to the District Police Station in Odessa on the outcome of his complaint regarding the actions of the police.

The lawyer also advised Mr. A. on the documents he should obtain in his homeland in order to fill an application for refugee status to the State Migration Service of Ukraine.

Ke-jayev case

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

Because of criminal persecutions of this organization 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 Center 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.

On 01.09.2017 the court passed a decision and fully satisfied the claim of the border guard service, the Mr. K was detained for three months until 04.12.2017.

On 01.12. 2017, the district court the court passed a decision and fully satisfied the claim of the border guard service, Mr. K was detained for three months until 04.03.2018. The SLC lawyer appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.

On 4 January 2018, the Court of Appeal refused an appeal.

On 11 February 2018, the SLC lawyer appealed against decisions brought by the Court of appeal and trial court. The Supreme court refused to open the proceedings.

Refugee procedure

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.

Mr. K. was not brought to court for the consideration of the case, Therefore, he appealed to the court and to the TDC on this issue, these appeals were ignored by the court.

On 20 July 2017, the court left Mr. K.’s claim without consideration, due to his failure to appear in the court, but Mr. K couldn’t leave the TDC on his own will.

On 31 July 2017 Mr. K. appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 14 August 2017, the Court of Appeal left without consideration his appeal, because it was sent by the employees of the TDC on 01.08.2017.

Mr. K obtained a certificate from the TDC that he provided for sending an appeal on 31.07. 2017, the TDC employee send it only on 01.08.2017.

On 28 August 2017, this certificate with a request for renewal of the deadline was sent to the Court of Appeal.

On 19.09.2017, the Court of Appeal refused to reopen that proceeding.

On 02.10.2017, the decision of the Court of Appeal was appealed to the court of cassation.

On 10.12.2017, the cassation proceedings were opened, court consideration is pending.

On 10.12.2018, the cassation proceedings were opened, court consideration is pending.

 

Muhammed A-baba case

In June 2018 an asylum seeker A-baba repeatedly came to the office of the State migration service to get refugee status. His application was entered but the public officer did not provide him with confirmation documents. In July 2018 when he came on the migration service invitation he was detained and brought to the court. On 13 July 2018 the court decided to detain the applicant and expulse.

In the absence of lawyer, A-baba failed to appeal in time.

On 22 August 2018 the SLC lawyer appealed. On 3 September 2018 the court of appeal refused to renew the term for appeal. On 16 October 2018 the SLC lawyer made a cassation claim which on 22 October 2018 uphold it.

The case is terminated.

Case of M.I.

Russian citizen M.I. resides in Ukraine since 2013. Before he left Russia in 2012, he was systematically persecuted by state authorities due to his religion, as he is Muslim (Sunni) and ethnicity (as he is Chechen).

In 2014, after Crimea annexation, M.I. had to relocate firstly to Vinnitsa, then to Zaporizhya region. Here, M.I. actively participated in Voluntary movement of Ukrainian defenders, in particularly acted as a volunteer in the International Peacekeeping Battalion named after Isa Munayev and militia organization «Asker» in 2014-2016.

In 2015 Russian law enforcement agencies started a criminal case against M.I., accusing him under Article 208 Para 21 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation (participation in armed formations in foreign country), he was named in the search list inside Russia and as well in the Interpol search list.

On 14Jan2016 he was arrested in Zaporizhya region by Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) officers. Until 17Feb2017 M.I. was detained in Zaporizhya pre-trial detention facility (SIZO) under extradition arrest.

While been detained and being afraid for his life as well as of tortures and ill-treatment in case of his extradition to Russia, M.I. applied to State Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS) in order to be recognized as a refugee or a person in need of complimentary protection. SMS. rejected him in recognition in October 2016, then this rejection was appealed to the Circuit Administrative Court of Kyiv city (CACK) by previous attorney. CACK in its decision dated 04Dec2017 fully rejected the claim of R.M. Previous attorney submitted appeal on 20Feb2018 after she received full text of the decision.

Strategic Litigation Center (SLC) attorney was involved on the stage of appellate consideration.

The case was appointed for appellate review initially on 21Mar2018. During the meeting, which on its own initiative was visited by Member of Parliament of Ukraine (MP) R. Chubarov and journalists of several TV channels and editions, among them «Espresso» and «ATR», the Kyiv Appellate Administrative Court (KAAC) required the obligatory participation of Russian-Ukrainian despite of the fact that during consideration of M.I.’s application in the SMS. and consideration of his case in the 1st instance court, the plaintiff was not provided with an interpreter because he understands Ukrainian. Because of this matter, the case was postponed until 17.04.2018.

On 17Apr2018 SLC attorney provided Russian-Ukrainian interpreter, and MP R. Chubarov and journalists of the «Espresso» and «ATR» TV channels, as well as other journalists again visited the trial. The presiding judge interrupted the SLC attorney half-word at the time of his explanations and announced a break until 24Apr2014. without any explanation.

On 24Apr2018, in a trial, where the MP and journalists were again present, the presiding judge after some dispute allowed SLC attorney to finish his explanations, grounded firstly on necessity to consider the case in view of M.I. been a refugee sur place and secondly on comparison of this case with case of R.M. mentioned in another report. As a result of the appeal, KAAC issued its own decision that quashed the ruling of the court of first instance and satisfied M.I.’s claim partially acknowledging SMS. rejection as arbitrary and quashing it, obliging the SMS. to reconsider his application.

Then, SMS. submitted cassation appeal to Cassation Administrative Court of Supreme Court (CACSC), but it was declined on the ground that it was signed by not authorized person.

At the same time SMS. Department in Dnipropetrovsk region started to reconsider the case in June 2018.

On 18June2018 SLC attorney sent an attorney request in order to clear up the stage of reconsideration procedure.

On 20 September 2018 Mr. M.I. received the decision on refusal to give him refugee status.

On 5 October 2018 this decision was appealed to the circle court. On 10 October 2018 the circle court returned the complaint because of the lack of contract between M.I. and SLC lawyer. On 25 October 2018 the SLC lawyer appealed.

On 19 November 2018 the court of appeal temporary terminated the appeal claim because of the lack of contract.

On 30 November 2018 the SLC lawyer explained to the court that it is enough to have warrant of attorney to represent a client at the court.

Case of M.

Mr. M. is a national of the Republic of Tajikistan which has been put on international wanted list on suspicion of committing a crime envisaged by Article 105 § 1 (murder) of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation.

On 21.10.2018 police officers of the Kyiv District Police Station in Kharkiv region arrested M., on the basis of Articles 208, 582 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine in order to secure his extradition to Russian Federation.

On 22.10.2018 Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv put M. under temporary arrest.

On 13.11.2018 the lawyer of SLC visited M. at the pre-trial detention center and concluded an agreement on the provision of free legal aid.

On 15.11.2018 the lawyer of SLC submitted a motion to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region to conduct the investigation actions with M. only with the participation of the lawyer due to the conclusion of an agreement on the provision of legal aid.

On 21.11.2018 the prosecutor of International Division of the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region submitted a motion of the extradition arrest of M. to Zhovtneviy District Court of Kharkiv in order to surrender him to the Russian Federation and to bring criminal charges against him as envisaged by Article 105 § 2 (murder) and Article 162 § 4 (robbery) of the CC of the Russian Federation.

On 27.11.2018 the Zhovtneviy District Court of Kharkiv ruled to put M. under extradition arrest for the term of 12 months until the extradition to competent authorities of the Russian Federation is resolved.

On 30.11.2018 a lawyer of SLC filed the appeal to the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region to revoke the ruling of Zhovtneviy District Court.

On 4.12.2018 the lawyer of SLC visited a pre-trial detention center and helped M. to file a claim-form to recognize him as a refugee or a person that needs an additional protection. This form was sent to the State Migration Service of Ukraine.

Suddenly M. refused to continue the appellate procedure and agreed with the decision of the Zhovtneviy District Court of Kharkiv, and refused from continuance of legal aid from the SLC lawyer. M.

Na-ze case

Mr. N is a Georgian national who claimed to the court on refuse to get him migrant’s states in Ukraine and deportation him from its territory.

On 17 November 2017 Mr. N was illegal detained in a restaurant and deported from Ukraine.

The SLC lawyer got video records of illegal detention. On 20 December 2017 he withdrew statement of crime on kidnapping Mr. N to the prosecutor’s office.

On 5 January 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a complained before the investigative judge on not-entering the statement of crime to the Unified register of pre-trial investigations.

On 2 July 2018 the investigative judge refused on a complaint. The decision has not been received yet.

However, the criminal proceedings were opened by the prosecutor’s office with a delay. The N’s civil partner asked the investigator to give her a victim status. The investigator refused. On 4 June 2018 the SLC lawyer appealed against such decision.

The SLC lawyer also got documents according to which Mr. N was deported. In particular it was the resolution on explosion and deportation from Ukraine.

On 15 February 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the circle administrative court on the decision.

On 25 February 2018 the court opened proceedings. The investigative judge refused on complaint.

Case of No-rov

     Mr. No-rov, who was born in 1984 and has 5 children, is a citizen of Tajikistan. He graduated in Saudi Arabia. Mr. No-rov as a descendant of religious elite and famous person systematically took part in different public actions.

     Till the end of 2017 Mr. No-rov systematically travelled to Tajikistan. However, since 2016 the Tajikistan’s government started punitive measures against members of some political parties. In the end of 2017 and in 2018 the officers of the State committee of national security in Tadzhikistan repeatedly suggested No-rov to cooperate and became their spy. However, he denied. Then unknown people started to threaten him. In Saudi Arabia that people persecuted him as well, in particular the consul came to his home, asked to became a spy and then threatened.

     Mr. No-rov decided to leave this country and move to Ukraine. Coming to Ukraine in October 2014 he prepared some documents on permanent residence. However, on 14 December 2018 the State migration service refused him. No-rov was arrested in the office of the State migration service.

     On 15 December 2018 the Dzerzhynskyy district court started to consider applying to No-rov of the temporary arrest However, the court meeting was postponed till 21 December 2018 and No-rov was released during this period of time.

     However, near the court building an officer of the Security service of Ukraine pulled out No-rov’s passport and forced him to visit the department of the Security service. In the office of the SSU these officers started to demand No-rov to sign a vulnerable agreement to extradition in Tajikistan without any extraditional examination. No-rov refused and was transferred to the Novobovarskyy police station. There he was detained under the fake protocol of administrative offence.

     On 18 December 2018, recognizing that No-rov was detained, the SLC lawyer came to Novobovarskyy police station and demanded to have a meeting with an investigator. Firstly, he refused but after some complaints informed that No-rov stayed at the Oktyabrskyy temporary detention facility.

     On 19 December 2018 the SLC lawyer visited No-rov in the TDF and signed the contract on legal aid.

     On the same day No-rov during the court’s meeting gave the court signed contract but the judge stated that such contract was invalid and did not summon the SLC lawyer to appear before the court. The Oktyabrskyy district court detained the applicant on temporary arrest.

     On the same day the SLC lawyer made a request to the Dzerzhynskyy district court to get video records by the cameras near court building. The court refused.

     On the same day the SLC lawyer made a request to the Security service of Ukraine to conduct disciplinary proceedings against officers who detained No-rov.

     On 21 December 2018 the Dzerzhynskyy district court terminated the case due to the prosecutor’s motion.

     On 21 December 2018 the SLC lawyer made a criminal complaint on illegal detention of Mr. No-rov.

     On 22 December 2018 the SLC lawyer appeal against the decision of the Oktyabrskyy district court.

Sa-yev case

The citizen of Tajikistan Mr. Sa-yev is a member of political party, which is prosecuted criminally by the state bodies. He asked for refugee status in Ukraine.

On 12 November 2018 the State migration service refused on his application for refugee status. In such circumstances, he asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 27 December 2018, the SLC lawyer made a complaint against refusal.

 

Case of R.M.

Russian citizen R.M. resides in Ukraine since 20136, he is married to Ukrainian citizen, they have 2 children and thus he was documented with permanent residence permit. Before he left Russia in 2012 he was systematically persecuted by state authorities due to his religion, as he is Muslim (Sunni) and ethnicity (as he is Ingush).

In 2014, after Crimea annexation, R.M. and his family had to relocated firstly to Vinnitsa, then to Zaporizhya region. Here, R.M. actively participated in Voluntary movement of Ukrainian defenders, in particularly acted as a volunteer in the International Peacekeeping Battalion named after Isa Munayev and militia organization «Asker» in 2014-2016.

In 2015 Russian law enforcement agencies started a criminal case against R.M., accusing him under Article 205.1 Para 1 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation (promotion of terrorist organization) and Article 205.5 Para 2 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation (participation in terrorist organization), he was named in the search list inside Russia and as well in the Interpol search list.

On 14Jan2016 he was arrested in Zaporizhya region by Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) officers. Until 17Feb2017 R.M. was detained in Zaporizhya pre-trial detention facility (SIZO) under extradition arrest. Being in detention R.M. not only suffered from complication of his skeleton disease, but also became ill on stomach oncological illness. This disease led to several surgeries.

While been detained and being afraid for his life as well as of tortures and ill-treatment in case of his extradition to Russia, R.M. applied to State Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS) in order to be recognized as a refugee or a person in need of complimentary protection. SMS. rejected him in recognition in October 2016, then this rejection was appealed to the Circuit Administrative Court of Kyiv city (CACK) by previous attorney. CACK in its decision dated 08.11.2017 partially satisfied the claim of R.M., considered as arbitrary and quashed SMS. rejection and obliged SMS. to reconsider the case.

Strategic Litigation Center (SLC) attorney was involved on the stage of SMS. appeal against 1st instance court decision, mentioned previously.

SLC Attorney prepared response to appeal, and on 13Feb2018 Kyiv Appellate Administrative Court (KAAC) in written procedure left SMS. appeal without satisfaction and 1st instance court decision without changes.

Then, SMS. submitted cassation appeal to Cassation Administrative Court of Supreme Court (CACSC), attorney lodged his response against it.

At the moment of reporting the case was on consideration by CACSC.

Also, attorney initiated inclusion of R.M. to the program of social assistance for refugees financed by UNHCR Kyiv, as a result UNHCR Kyiv and it’s social partner CF «Rokada» paid for medical treatment of R.M. and some allowance in order to support his family.

At the same time SMS. Department in Dnipropetrovsk region started to reconsider the case in April 2018.

On 18June2018 SLC attorney sent an attorney request in order to clear up the stage of reconsideration procedure. On 11July2018 SLC attorney received response stating that reconsideration of R.M,’s asylum application is in progress.

On 17Aug2018 R.M. again received notification on rejection in consideration as a refugee or person in need of complimentary protection.

On 23Aug2018 SLC attorney appealed this rejection to CACK. Trial was appointed on 02Oct2018, but SMS. did not provide copy of R.M.’s case in time.

Court hearings were reappointed on 06Nov2018, but judge left on vacation.

Next trial is appointed on 04Dec2018.

Case of Pyr-ov

Mr. P was born on 11 august 1992. He is accused in committing crimes, prescribed by Part 3 Art.332, Part 1 Art 258-3, Part 5 Art.27, Part 1 Art.14, Part 2 Art.258, Part 3 Art 358, Part 5 Art 27, Part 3 Art.358, Part 3 Art.332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In the end of 2018 the case was transmitted to Leninskyi District Court in the city of Dnipro from the city of Kyiv. For the time being to Mr. P is under detention.

A SLC lawyer signed a contract about legal assistance and made consent about strategy of defense with Mr. P. The wife of Mr. P gave a number of characteristic documents of Mr. P according to the Sharia Law.

The indictment and data from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations were examined by SLC lawyer. The case files were observed in the part which wasn’t added to general case.

The defense strategy was agreed with a defense lawyer of second accused in this case.

The preliminary position of the Prosecutor Office about preconditions of transmitting the case was observed.

The number of violations of Criminal Procedure Code was found and the motion about returning the indictment to the prosecutor was prepared.

The next court hearing is scheduled on 14 January 2019. The SLC lawyer is preparing a number of motions and pleas.

Sher-ev case

Mr. Sh., an Tajikistan citizen, when living in Tajikistan was a member of a political-religious organization «PIVT» , participants of which had been persecuted in this country and then this organization was declared as an extremist.

Because of criminal persecutions of this organization in Tajikistan, Mr. Sh. had to leave Tajikistan and in 2015 he moved to Turkey. There he organized web-site on which he shows the problems with corruption and unlawful action of the acting authorities of Tajikistan. For his activity acting authorities of Tajikistan threatened with extortion.

In December 2016 the Turkey policemen and Tajikistan council came to the Mr. Sh. office, unlawfully closed his office. As for Mr. Sh. he was departing from the country. Mr. Sh. moved to Ukraine where on May 2017 asked to provide him with a refugee status. On 24 of October 2017 State Migration Service refused to give this status to Mr. Sh.

A decision about a refusal to provide him with a refugee status was appealed to the court. Consideration of the case is pending.

 On 28 December 2017, the decision was dismissed in satisfaction of the claim and cancellation.

This decision was appealed to the court of appeal.

On 6 March 2018, the court of appeal refused. The SLC lawyer appealed

On 2 April 2018, the Supreme court opened the proceedings.

Mykha-lov case

Russian citizen, Mr. M moved to Ukraine due to the threat to his freedom and political views, because in Russia he participated in many activities of the opposition, including single pickets, mass protests, rallies, etc (protest on the Bolotnaya Square, protest for defense of the Khimki forest, etc).

Mr. M multiple was brought to responsibility for the human rights and oppositional activity. He was registered in the center «E», which oversees the «unreliable citizens».

After moving to Ukraine, Mr. M. continued to cooperate with the independent organization Conflict Intelligence Team, which exposed the actions of the Russian authorities in the East of Ukraine and Syria.

In fact, Mr. M’s activity is aimed at combating the Russian aggression and exposing the lies of the Russian authorities about the absence of Russian intervention in Ukraine.

7 May 2014. Mr. M first time applied for refugee status to the Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS), he was refused. Mr. M did not appeal against the decision of the SMS. He applied to a lawyer and it was decided to re-apply for the refugee status.

On 25 May of 2018 a response was received about the rejection of the complaint about the refusal of execution of the document to the refugee status in Ukraine.

The SMS. refused to execution of the document for the further procedure of refugee status. Layer field a complain about the decision of SMS. to the District Administrative Court of Kyiv.

On 18 June of 2018 the court opened the proceeding. According to decision of the court, this proceeding will be conduct under the simplified procedure without notifying trial participants (written proceeding).

The decision has not been received yet.

Mi-kayev case

Mr. M, a citizen of the Russian Federation, was born in 1988, and is currently detained in Kyiv’s pre-trial detention center No. 13.

On September 17, 2018, he was detained when coming to Ukraine at the Boryspil airport by representatives of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine as a wanted person in the Russian Federation for committing an offense established in accordance with Article 208 of the Criminal Code (participation in the territory of a foreign state in armed formation )

Procedures for appealing against Mr. M’s arrest

On 20 September 2018, by the decision of the Solomyansky District Court in Kyiv Mr. M was subjected to a temporary arrest of 40 days.

On 17 October 2018, the Kyiv prosecutor’s office began an extradition check on Mr. M, which is currently ongoing.

On 18 October 2018, the SLC lawyer joined the case.

On 26 October 2018 Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kiev extended the extradition arrest of Mr. M until 14 November 2018. The prosecutor’s office appealed this ruling to the Kyiv Court of Appeal, demanding the use of extrajudicial arrest for a term of 12 months.

On 12 November 2018, the Kyiv Court of Appeal refused to comply with the prosecutor’s appeal.

On 13 November 2018 Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kiev extended the extradition arrest of Mr. M until 11 January 2019. The SLC lawyer filed an appeal, the trial is ongoing.

Procedures for granting refugee status or additional protection

On 21 September 2018 Mr. M sent an application to the State Migration Service of Ukraine to send him an application for refugee status or additional protection.

On 12 November 2018, the closed envelope with the application returned to the SIZO as such that was not taken away by the addressee - the State Migration Center of Ukraine. On the same day, Mr. M sent his application again. Any responses had not received.

Case of Y Mo-tari

Mr. Mo. was born in Algeria in 1983.

In 2012 he came to Ukraine for study, where he later entered into a civil partnership and lived with a family with a woman, citizen of Ukraine, in 2017 their son had been delivered in Ukraine.

In 2017, Mr. Mo. was placed in the Chernihiv point of temporary stay of foreigners and stateless persons, and applied for protection in Ukraine because of the risk of being subjected to political persecution in Algeria in case of forced removal.

On 06 November 2018, Mr. Mo. received a notification of the refusal on the registration of documents to resolve the issue of his recognition as a refugee or a person in need of additional protection.

On 22 November 2018, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Chernihiv District Administrative Court, the procedure is ongoing.

Case of Sheve-va

In the end of March 2015 Mrs. Sh arrived from Russian Federation (RF) to Ukraine because of her political opinion. She was participating in the Antiterrorist Operation (ATO) in Eastern Ukraine on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. She defended Ukraine interests in the forefront and was a secret cooperator of Ministry of Defense General Department.

On 09 December 2015 due to political intrigues in Ukrainian security agencies she was arrested and accused by Security Service of Ukraine in different crimes. Head Mr. M «Lisnyk» who was one of the most famous, authoritative and honest defenders of Ukraine - was killed during his detaining in Kyiv (he was also accused in the crimes that he seemed to have done).

Long enough (more than one year) Mrs. Sh was in custody. For the time being criminal cases are transferred to the court but their hearing is being delayed for almost one year by both prosecutors and judges who under various circumstances made decisions to postpone the process.

In the spring 2016, Mrs. Sh lodged an application to State Migration Service (SMS) in which she asked to grant her refugee status or a status of person in need of additional protection. On 19 April 2017 Mrs. Sh received a notification from State Migration Service of Ukraine General Department of Kyiv (SMS. KGD) about a decision № 24-17 from 04 April 2017 which stated the dismissal without prejudice her complaint on State Migration Service of Ukraine decision to refuse in official registration of papers for the decision on the issue of recognition her as a refugee or a person who needs additional protection, because she missed a time to appeal that decision.

She has justified fears of becoming the victim of discrimination and persecution both from RF state bodies (as taking criminal proceedings, unlawful conviction, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) and from the non-governmental nationalistic groups and that’s why she can’t return to the country of origin.

Moreover, she substantiated the fact that she couldn’t appeal on SMS. KGD decision on time because she was in pre-trial detention center (SIZO) thereby she was limited in communication with translator, lawyer and her general emotional condition was oppressed.

According to the decision of SMS. Mrs. Sh has no ground to become the victim of discrimination and persecution (as taking criminal proceedings, unlawful conviction, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in the case of her returning to the country of origin.

 On 23 April 2017, Mrs. SH applied to the Administrative District Court of Kyiv with an administrative suit for the purpose of appealing the decision of SMS.

On 12 December 2017 in the court hearing a decision was made about taking a written administrative proceeding in the case of Mrs. Sh (refusal in official registration of papers for the decision on the issue of recognition her as a refugee or a person who needs additional protection).

During 2018 the judge has not brought a judgement. The trial is pending.

Ts-ze case

Mr. Ts is a Georgian national who was detained in Ukraine for the request made by Russia. After his detention Mr. Ts filed an application to get a refugee status. However, the State migration service refused on 17 July 2017.

In February 2018 the SLC lawyer appealed against such refusal. On 19 February 2018 the SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-file.

On 12 April 2018 the SLC lawyer prepared to the court a reply on objections made by the State migration service.

The applicant refused from the court proceedings due to his illness.

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 lodged 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 lodged 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.

In March 2017, the SMS. refused to provide the applicant refugee status or asylum seeker.

On 9 March 2017, a SLC lawyer submitted a claim for the cancelling of the above-mentioned Order of the SMS. to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court

 On 15 May 2017, the Kharkiv District Administrative Court dismissed Mr. T.’s complaint on refusal of the SMS. to grant him refugee status or asylum seeker. The SLC lawyer lodged an appeal.

On 5 July 2017, the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal cancelled the decision of the District Administrative Court, ordered to the SMS. to re-examine Mr. T.’s application for refugee status or asylum seeker.

On 4 August 2017, the SMS. sent to the Applicant a message that contained a refusal to start procedure for resolving the issue of refugee status or asylum seeker.

That decision was appealed to the Department of SMS. of Ukraine.

Procedures for keeping Mr. T. in custody

On 19 June 2017, a SLC lawyer lodged to the Zhovtnevyy district court a motion on control the existence of grounds for dismissing the applicant from the custody and supplemented documents.

On 22 June 2017, the investigating judge of the Zhovtnevyy district court passed a decision and declined such a motion.

On 18 July 2017 a SLC lawyer lodged to the Zhovtnevyy district court a motion on changing the preventive measure in connection with the expiration of the 12-month period of detention.

On 20 July 2017, the Zhovtnevyy district court satisfied the motion and changed the applicant’s preventive measure from detention (extradition arrest) to a personal obligation.

In 2018 the SLC lawyer took part in at least four court trials in case of prolongation of preventive measure.

On 22 November 2017 a SLC lawyer lodged a complaint to the ECHR on a violation of Article 5-1 of the Convention during the period of detention from 22, June 2017 to 20 July 2017.

Procedures before the UN Committee on Human Rights

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.

On 11 September 2018 near midnight during the trip from Kyiv to Kharkiv Mr. T. was unexpectedly arrested by policemen. He was delivered to Kholodnogirsk police office in Kharkiv, where an investigator made a protocol of Mr. T`s detention in accordance to art. 208, 582 CPC of Ukraine. Mr. T was arrested despite the fact that after he had been released from custody more than a year ago, he has been faithfully performing all the duties assigned to him by a court.

The SLC lawyer met Mr. T in Police office. After that he must have been transferred to TDF. On the next day the SLC lawyer realized that Mr. T was secretly taken to a checkpoint from the Russian Federation and handed over to the authorities of the Russian Federation.

Subsequently, it became clear that the Deputy Prosecutor of General Prosecution of Ukraine issued an order for the actual transfer to the authorities of the Russian Federation, and the police and the SSU officers fulfilled this order.

Thus, the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine rejected the UN’s Human Rights Committee’s direct instructions not to deport Mr. T to the Russian Federation before the completion of consideration of his case by the Committee. This was done with the fact that the expulsion or forced return of a person who may be recognized as a refugee to a country where his life or freedom is threatened is prohibited by Art. 3 of the Law of Ukraine "On refugees and persons requiring additional or temporary protection", as well as the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

On the initiative of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group on the fact of Mr. T`s extradition, criminal procedure against the Deputy Prosecutor of General Prosecution of Ukraine, who issued the order for extradition was opened. Moreover, the Deputy Prosecutor of General Prosecution of Ukraine was suspended from office.

At present, information about the fate of Mr. T in the RF after its issuance is unknown.

3 cases related to the conflict in the East of Ukraine

Gu-nova case

Mrs. G is a Ukrainian citizen who lives in Horlivka, Donetskyy region. She has a 5-years old daughter.

In October 2012 Mrs. G decided to live with her civil partner in Kharkiv but when her child was born, Mrs. G returned to Horlivka. Time by time she came to Kharkiv to ger allowance for young mothers. All the time her permanent residence was registered in Horlivka.

When the Antiterrorist operation was started, Mrs. G came to Kharkiv.

In August 2015 Mrs. G asked the Department of social care to give her a certificate of IDP. Her application was granted. Also she was informed that might get a monthly targeted allowance. Mrs. G submitted an application on such allowance. From 4 November 2015 to 3 February 2016, from 22 February 2016 to 21 August 2018 she got it.

Since August 2017 the department of social care cut off payments and canceled the IDP’s certificate without any reasons. Only on 9 November 2017 Mrs. G was informed about that decision and was proposed to return the monthly targeted allowance in the amount of 22113 hryvna. Mrs. G did not agree.

27 March 2018 she was noticed on suspicion of fraud under Article 190 of the CC of Ukraine. The preliminary measure was not chosen for her.

On the same day Mrs. G asked the SLC lawyer to provide her with legal assistance.

The criminal proceedings were sent to the Moskovskyy district court in Kharkiv on consideration.

On 15 May 2018 the pre-trial court meeting took place. The SLC lawyer filed an oral motion on returning the indictment to the investigation because it was in consistent with the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine. The Judge noticed that such motion had to be written. So the court meeting was postponed on 11 June 2018

On 11 June 2018 the SLC lawyer made a written motion on returning the indictment.

On 10.07.10, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s business. The next court hearing was scheduled for 24.09.2018.

On 24.09.2018, the court determined the order of examination of evidence. The next court hearing was scheduled for 25.10.2018.

On 10.25.2018, representative of the victim and part of prosecution witnesses were questioned during the hearing. The next court hearing was scheduled for 30.11.2018.

On 30.11.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of prosecution witnesses. The next court hearing is scheduled for 18.01.2019.

The case is pending.

Salni-va case

Mrs. S. ia resident of Amvrossiyivka in Donetsk region, has a child, who was born on 18.08.

From 2008 to 2012 she studied at the Kharkiv Humanitarian Pedagogical Academy (Kharkiv Humanitarian and Pedagogical Institute), Faculty "Preschool Education" in Kharkiv, on a full-time training course, at a budget cost. She received a bachelor’s degree. During studying, she lived and was registered at the hostel. Upon admission to an educational institution, the administration of the academy concluded an agreement with her, according to which S. was obliged, after graduation to work at least three years in a specialty in the public sector of the national economy, that is, from 2012 through 2015, or to reimburse the funds for studying.

After graduation, since there were no vacancies in her hometown, S. according to the agreement was employed in the "Pre-school educational institution" of the communal property in Kharkiv. By that time and to date, she is registered in the city of Amvrosievka, Donetsk region.

From 2013 to June 30, 2014, S. studied under a contract at the Kharkiv National Pedagogical University named G.S. Skovorody, specialty "Preschool education". Where she received a master’s degree.

According to the order of the Antiterrorist Center under the SSU of Ukraine of 07.10.2014, No. 33/6 / a, an anti-terrorist operation in the Donetsk region was started on 07.04.2014, that is when S. was registered in the city of Amvrosievka, Donetsk region. S. was not able to return to the residence therefore, was forced to stay in Kharkov.

In 2015, S. married and gave birth to a child.

In the maternity hospital, she was asked to provide a certificate, why does she give birth not at the place of registration. In this regard, she appealed to the Office of Labor and Social Protection of the People (UPPCU) for the certificate of registration of internally displaced persons. She was refused the issuance of the certificate on the grounds that she has lived in Kharkiv since 2008

Due to the lack of registration in the city of Kharkiv and due to the lack of a certificate of registration of an internally displaced person, with an indication of the address of the actual place of residence after the transfer, she could not normally serve in health care institutions and institutions, to hand over a minor son to a pre-school institution in Kharkiv, and so on. Therefore, in order to protect her rights and rights of her child, on 06.12.2016, S. again appealed to the UPPUU for issuing a certificate of taking on the account of the internally displaced person. Such a certificate was issued to her. Upon issuance of the certificate, the UPPCU employee informed her that she was entitled to monthly targeted assistance. Therefore, S. was applied for such assistance. During the period from January 19, 2017 to July 18, 2017, she was paid such assistance.

On July 19, 2017, the UPPUU stopped paying and cancelled the certificate of taking internally displaced persons without explanation. Only on January 2, 2018, a letter was sent from the notice of the decision to cancel the certificate and termination of payments.

On January 26, 2018, S. was brought to suspicion under Part 1 of Art. 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The preventive measures to S were not chosen.

On January 31, 2018 at the request of S. the case was joined by the lawyer of the USSR.

The criminal proceedings were directed to the Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of Kharkiv with an indictment.

February 16, 2018, a preliminary court session was appointed. The trial was postponed due to the absence of a representative of the victim. On March 13, 2018, the court session was postponed due to the employment of a judge.

On April 13, 2018, a preparatory meeting took place.

The SLC lawyer sent motion to the places of study and work of S. Requested the Agreement on work outs, and so on. Answers received for requests.

On May 21, 2018, a representative of the victim and the accused was questioned in the court. The court session was postponed for the summoning of witnesses.

On 16.07.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s business. The next hearing was scheduled for 06.08.2018.

On 06.08.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the witness. The next hearing was scheduled for 27.09.2018.

On 27.09.2018, the court hearing was postponed because the judge had been in a deliberation room.

The next hearing was scheduled for 25.10.2018.

On 25.10.2018, the court hearing was postponed because the judge had been in a deliberation room.

The next hearing was scheduled for 26.11.2018.

On 26.11.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the witness. The next hearing was scheduled for 10.12.2018.

On 10.12.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the illness of the judge. The next hearing was scheduled for 14.01.2019.

The case is pending.

 

Tka-k case

Mr. T-k is a citizen of Ukraine, who is accused of insubordination (another deliberately failure by the order of the commander in a military situation)

On January 31, 2015 the leader of the sector "C" in the area of counter-terrorism operations gave a battle order for preventing illegal military formations breakthrough and maintenance operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. According to the order, anti-tank battery of the military unit had to perform a combat mission, namely to prevent breakthrough of the enemy and lead him to fire damage, and to support assault groups of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Applicant did not perform this order.

Subsequently, T-k was arrested and the police opened a criminal proceeding under three articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On February 3, 2015 for T-k was chosen a preliminary measure in the form of detention. The lawyer appealed against this decision.

During consideration the appeal court found that the battle order had been secret and the case had not contained this document. According to the prosecutor’s explanation in the same court hearing the order must have been in verbally form, while the suspicion report had told about written notice.

On March 2, 2015 the Zaporozhye region Court of Appeal changed the preventive measure of detention on personal surety. Also, in this judgment the Court noted that since March 3, 2015 Mr. T-k would be located in the territory of headquarters in Kramatorsk city.

After his release, T-k was again appointed as a commander and sent for performing his military functions in the Luhansk region. In October 2015 the applicant was promoted to captain position.

Nowadays, the case was referred to the Pechersk district court of Kyiv for consideration.

In 2016 - 2018 there were 12 court hearings at the trial court and 2 court hearings at the court of appeal in the city of Kiev. In 2016 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on returning of the indictment to prosecutor. The motion was granted.

After some time the indictment was sent to the Pecherskyy district court again. The judge who earlier returned the indictment recused.

From 2016 to 2018, 12 trials and 2 court hearings were held in the Kyiv Court of Appeal. In 2016, the lawyer of the SLC filed a motion for the return of the indictment to the prosecutor. The request was granted. The new composition of court started to considerate the case. There were 4 court meetings in 2018. The last one was on 27 December 2018, which was also postponed due to the absence of prosecutor.

Nowadays T-k was not interrogated, more then 50 witnesses were not questioned, case-files have not been examined. The next court meeting is appointed in February 2019.

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

Ag-va case

Mrs. A was born on 18 October 1987, she has a preteen daughter. There are two criminal proceedings that were taken concerning criminal offence prescribed by Part 2 Art. 307 the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The case is under consideration of Samarskyi District Court in the city of Dnipro.

During 2018 year there were 14 court hearings appointed and led, 2 witnesses of accusation were examined. The court hearings were adjourned a lot of times due to absence of witnesses.

An SLC lawyer has initiated a procedure of granting a Bill of Oblivion regarding previous pre-condemnation of Mrs. A. The court hearing which had been appointed on 17 December 2018 didn’t take place.

The next court hearing is scheduled on 17 January 2018.

The second case is also under consideration of Samarskyi District Court in the city of Dnipro.

 A preliminary court hearing took a place, at which the SLC lawyer filed a motion about returning an indictment to a prosecutor which was granted by District Court.

A Court of Appeal revoked the decision and transmitted for a new court examination. The lawyer filed a motion about an explanation of the judgment.

After the case had been transmitted to the new court consideration a preliminary court hearing took place. The lawyer filed a number of motions and pleas.

On 17 December 2018 the first court hearing concerning took place.

The next court hearing is scheduled on 15 January 2019.

 

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 requests to the narcologist and special medical rehabilitation center on willingness of Mr. A’s participation in medical program. The SLC lawyer received all replies 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.

On 16 June 2017 Mr. A was invited to the probation department in Moskovskiy district, where he took part in preparing pre-trial report.

On 5 July 2017 the court meeting was postponed due to the prosecutor’s business.

On 21 August 2017 the SLC lawyer again submitted a motion to release Mr. A from criminal responsibility as a person who voluntary asked of rehabilitation program. The Court refused to satisfy the SLC lawyer`s motion and sentenced Mr. A to pay fine in the amount of 50 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens for drug dealing.

On 13 September 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged an appeal. On 7 December 2017 the Appeal Court of Kharkiv region cancelled the verdict. The case was sent to the district court for retrial.

On 16 January 2018 during the pre-trial court meeting a court’s consideration was appointed on 7 February 2018

On 7 February 2018 the prosecutor announced an indictment, the court issued an order of evidences’ consideration and interrogated the accused. After that, the court meeting was postponed on 14 March 2018 because the prosecutor was not able to present evidence at the criminal proceeding.

On 14 March 2018 the court examined evidences. The SLC lawyer filed a motion on release A. from criminal responsibility under Article 309, part 4 of the CC of Ukraine (due to his successful medical treatment from his addiction). On the same day A. was released from criminal responsibility.

The prosecutor appealed.

On 3.07.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the leave of a member of the panel. The next court hearing was scheduled for 09.10.2018.

On 9.10.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to illness of a member of the panel. The next court hearing is scheduled for 10.01.2019.

The court proceedings are pending.

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. Additionally, the lawyer is collecting data on Mr. Botsman’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 court hearing on 15.06.2017 and 29.06.2017 were postponed because the witnesses did not come and the presiding judge was fired.

After determining the new composition of the court, during July-November, the indictment was read out and written evidence was drawn up, witnesses were examined several times.

On 14 February 2018 the court examined records of phone calls. The case was postponed till 20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018 the court meeting was postponed because of the absence of witnesses.

On 20 April 2018 the court meeting was postponed on 17 May 2018 according to the accused’s motion

On 17 May 2018 the court meeting was postponed till 25 July due to the absence of the prosecutor

On 25 July 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to the judge illness.

On 05 September 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to judge presents in other trial.

On 16 November 2018 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to other case was heard.

On 18 December 2018 during trial written evidence were investigated/

The next court meeting is appointed on 05 February 2018

The case is pending.

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 (selling 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 him to six years imprisonment.

Mr. B and the lawyer lodged appeals.

On 14 April 2015, the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region quashed 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 form of asking B’ to produce drugs. He hesitated which one of two brothers B. gave him drugs because they were quite similar (Mr. B/’s brother previously was sentenced).

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 in the wanted list.

On 18 July 2016 and 6 September 2016 defense witnesses were interrogated.

On 28 October 2016 the witness did not come to the court.

On 19 December 2016 the court hearing was postponed because of several reasons.

On 11 January 2017 and 28 February 2017, the court hearing 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 evidence and did not have any other material evidence of the crime.

On 26 April 2017 the Kharkiv District Court found Mr. B guilty of drug trafficking 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 of Appeal opened a procedure. The hearings often postponed because of several reasons such as the prosecutor had not familiarized with an appeal yet.

The court meeting was scheduled on 21 June 2018 but has not taken place due to not-informing of the SLC lawyer

On 5.09.2018, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s business. The next court hearing was scheduled for 4.10.2018.

On 04.10.2018, the court hearing was postponed because the judge had been in the deliberation room. The next court hearing was scheduled for 22.11.2018.   

On 22.11.2018, Mr. B. at the court session filed a motion for a judge to be dismissed because the judge previously considered the case against Mr. B. and the conviction was revoked by the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region as unlawful and unfounded.

On 10.12.2018, the lawyer was informed about the appointment of consideration of the motion for 10.12.2018. The court hearing was postponed due to the late notification of the lawyer about the date and time of the court hearing and the lawyer’s business in another court hearing. The next court hearing was scheduled for 27.12.2018.

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 Center 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 defense 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 defense 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 defense counsel as well as illness of the accused. In 2017 there was no court meetings related merits of the case.

In 2018, due to the absence of witnesses, the prosecutor refused to listen such witnesses. Only six witnesses were interviewed. Also, the trial has postponed due to the presence of a judge in the consultative room in another court hearings.

Since June 2018 the court hearings several times postponed due to the absence of witnesses. Also the judge did not pass the qualification test and was dismissed. Due to that another judge was appointed.

The trial is pending.

 

Voy-nko case

Mr. V., is Ukrainian citizen, who is currently living in Kharkiv. He is a patient of substitution maintenance therapy, he has used drugs for more than 15 years.

In April 2014, Mr. V, together with Mrs. F. were detained by policemen and delivered to Frunzensky police station, where Mr. V was tortured, and Ms. F. was beaten because policeman wanted to find out who has money and use drugs, as well as to give them the consent to be their secret agent.

Moreover, on 09 January, 2015, near the Moscow Police Station, Mr. V. was kicked in the right wing of the hip by a police officer in a civilian form, which was recorded on the video camera near police station.

On 12 March 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a statement of crime made by police officers against B and F.

On 16 March 2015 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the court in fact that policeman refused to enter information in case of Mr. V torturing to URPI.

On 10 June 2015, the judge refused to satisfy the SLC lawyer complaint.

Mr. V. was accused of drug dealing. The court chose a detention as a preventive measure for Mr. V, which was systematically continued every two months. The lawyer participated in these court hearings.

During the 2015-2017 years, the court trials were periodically postponed for various reasons, including the absence of witnesses, the employment of a judge in other court hearings, and the removal of judges.

In 2018, the prosecutor’s witnesses have not come to the court. In June 2018, the judge of the Frunzensky District Court satisfied the SLC lawyer motion on change the order of the investigation of evidence and decided to investigate the evidence in connection with the fact that prosecution witnesses was absent.

However, the next court hearings were also postponed due to the absence of prosecution.

Dro-dov case (criminal proceeding on Article 307)

On 26 October 2017 according to the decision of the investigating judge it was provided a search in the flat of Mr. D. Policemen seizured three polymer bundles with fasteners in the middle with a white substance were removed, cash in the amount of 1641 UAH, electronic scales with layers of blue matter, a hat. On the same day Mr. D. was informed of the suspicion of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and was detained.

On 27 October 2018 an investigative judge of the Chuguivskyi city court of the Kharkiv region decided to apply to Mr. D. a preventive measure in the form of a detention for a term of 60 days.

On 23 November 2017 it was provided a forensic examination of materials of substances and products of total weight of 0.933 grams.

On 22 January 2018 a pre-trial investigation was ended. An indictment act was sent to the Chuguivskyi city court of the Kharkiv region.

 In June 2018 a preliminary court hearing has been held, the case is scheduled for trial on 9 September 2018.

On 13 September 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s detention for one month.

On 11 October 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s detention for 60 days.

On 19 November 2018 the lawyer of SLC submitted a motion on a changing of the preventive measure from the detention to a home arrest to the Court. The Court refused to satisfy this motion.

On 07 December 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s detention for 60 days.

Trial is pending.

Zadoro-niy case

Mr. Z., born in 1966, is a resident of the city of Bogodukhiv, Bogodukhivskiy district, Kharkiv region. He has previously been convicted; currently he is unemployed and lives together with his mother of retirement age. Mr. Z. has a third group of disability. He was diagnosed with: effects of a transmitted ischemic stroke; dyscirculatory mixed encephalopathy of 3 stage with lacrimal hypertension, slight vestibular atactic syndrome, mnemonic disorders; toxic polyneuropathy; organic disorder of personality and behaviour due to ischemic stroke and brain dysfunction, toxic encephalopathy, intellectual mnemonic decline, asthenic syndrome; hypertension of 3 stage, 4 degree of risk.

On 23.09.2016, Bogodukhivsky District Court of Kharkiv region sentenced Mr. Z. to 3 years of imprisonment under Article 309 § 2, Article 310 §2 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter- CC) of Ukraine with application of the requirements of Article 75 of the CC of Ukraine for 2 years.

The public prosecutor who participated in the trial lodged an appeal. He requested to revoke the sentence, to re-qualify the actions of Mr. Z. under Article 309 § 2, Article 310 §1 of the CC of Ukraine, to sentence him to 3 years of imprisonment with the application of the requirements of Article 75 of the CC of Ukraine for 3 years.

The Deputy Prosecutor of Kharkiv region also lodged an appeal, in which he requested to revoke the sentence, to re-qualify the actions of Mr. Z. under Article 309 § 2, Article 310 §1 of the CC of Ukraine, to sentence him to 3 years of imprisonment without the application of the requirements of Article 75 of the CC of Ukraine.

Complaints of the prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutor of Kharkiv region were dismissed and the sentence was upheld by the judgement of the Court of Appeals of Kharkiv region of 09.03.2017.

The prosecutor has lodged a cassation appeal, which concerns the wrong qualification of actions of Mr. Z. and unreasonable application of the requirements of Article 75 of the CC of Ukraine by the court.

The decision of the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region was revoked and a new trial was scheduled in the Court of Appeals.

On 09.10.2018, the lawyer entered the case.

New trial in the Court of Appeal was scheduled on 10.10.2018.

On 10.10.2018, the hearing was postponed to 15.01.2019 due to the leave of the judges.

The case is pending.

La-v case

On 19.06. 2017 citizen Tol-ova has turned to a lawyer with request to provide the legal aid her cohabitant La-v, who is suspected in commission of crimes according to art. 307 ( par.2) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

At the same time regarding him the preventive measure has been chosen in the form of detention. He was at the Kherson pre-trial detention center.

During the jail visitation, La-v explained that he was suspected in the Methadone (MTD) possession with intend to sell.

According to La-v, he was buying and possessing this drug for personal consumption.

The SLC lawyer has familiarized with the case-file at the stage of examination. On 22.06.2017 the court was hearing the motion from the investigator concerning the fixation of terms to examine a case. The lawyer lodged an objection and investigator’s motion was dismissed.

On 27.06.2017 the court has extended the preventive measure to La-v for 30 days. Concerning this decision an appeal was lodged.

On 04.07.2017 the court again was hearing the motion from the investigator concerning the fixation of terms to examine a case. The lawyer lodged an objection and investigator’s motion was dismissed.

It was established during examination, that La-v is charged with “possession with intention to sell” merely on the grounds of judge and investigator’s consideration that drug amount and package La-v has had was intended for selling.

On 17.07.2017 the Kherson court of appeal dismissed the appeal concerning the reversal of the court decision to extend the preliminary measure.

After case examination, the motion to dismiss the case was filed to the investigator due to lack of proof of the guilt upon “possession with intention to sell”. This motion was unreasonably withheld.

On 11.07.2017 an initial assessment of the case was held. The lawyer’s motion to change the preventive measure to the less restrictive has been dismissed by the court.

On 05.09.2017 witnesses for the defense failed to appear in court. The La-v’s preventive measure has been extended, the case hearing has been postponed.

On 12.11.2017 witnesses for the defense haven’t appeared again. The La-v’s custody has been extended, the case hearing has been postponed.

On 02 August 2018 the SLC lawyer’s motion to change the preventive measure to the less restrictive has been dismissed by the court again.

On 14 September 2018 the La-v’s preventive measure has been extended for the formal reason, ane procedural action did not conducted.

On 12 November 2018 during trial the written evidences were investigated, the video was watched, the audio was listened. SLC lawyer’s motion to change the preventive measure to the less restrictive has been dismissed by the court, Mr. La-v’s preventive measure has been extended again

Lazo-nko case

Mr. L, lives in Kharkiv with his elderly mother, the patient of substitution therapy, don`t work, has not been convicted person yet. Mr. L. suffers from several diseases such as chronic hepatitis C with transition to cirrhosis of the liver, hepatosplenomegaly, varicose veins of the esophagus: metabolic cardiopathy of CH 2 st.; chronic vascular-venous insufficiency 3-4; post-thrombo-fibotic syndrome of both legs, edema and ulcer, mental and behavioral disorders as a result of the use of opioids.

On 3 October 2017 Mr. L was found guilty of committing crimes related with drugs and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.

Mr. L thought that such punishment was too much strict because it prevented further treatment in the substitution therapy. Moreover, the cirrhosis of the liver is included in the List of diseases which could be a reason of release the person from the further serving a punishment.

On 9 October 2017, The SLC lawyer entered to the criminal proceedings. On 26 October 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged an appeal on the decision.

On 24 May 2018 the court of appeal did not change a verdict.

On 23.08.2018, a cassation appeal was lodged.

On 05.11.2018, the judgment of the Criminal Cassation Court of 03.09.2018 was received. The complaint was dismissed and the court granted a term to correct it

On 19.01.2018, a cassation appeal was lodged with amendments and additions.

On 29.11.2018, the Cassation Criminal Court ruled to open the cassation proceedings and to request the case file.

The case is pending.

P-v case

On 28 May 2014 Mr. Pa-v was arrested by policemen in the private taxy. He was delivered to the supermarket, where police unwarranted searched him and took to the flat, where he lived. Policemen also searched Mr. Pa-v`s flat, where find nothing. After that he was taken to police office, where detention report of Mr. Pa-v was draw up. Only after all such actions Mr. Pa-v was provided with a lawyer.

On 24 July 2014 case files was sent to the Moskovskiy district court in Kharkiv region. On 12 January 2015 Mr. Pa-v was found guilty of drug trafficking with verdict of the district court.

On 07 May 2015 Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region closed the verdict of district court and sent the case to a new trial. The prosecution witnesses are not delivered to the court by the prosecutor.

After 1 year and 7 months of Mr. Pa-v being detention, on 20 January 2016 he was released from detention. Home arrest was chosen for him as a preventive measure.

In the end of 2016 a judge, who considered the case, resigned and the case was transferred to another judge who started hearing the case from the beginning.

On 2017 during trial an investigator and expert was questioned as witnesses. The investigator told that she did not remember the circumstances of Mr. Pa-v detention, and the expert explained that the unreliable information written in his expert opinion is a technical mistake. Other witnesses were not questioned.

Moreover, during trial prosecutors has changed several times, and none of them has not provided prosecutions witnesses delivering.

During 2018 year the prosecutor did not provide witnesses and the judge repeatedly approved the decisions on the appearance of witnesses.

In June 2018, the judge satisfied the lawyer’s motion on change the order of study evidence and decided to investigate the evidence in connection with the fact that the prosecution witnesses has not been delivered.

Since 2018, there was no court hearings on merits due to the absence of witnesses.

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 lodged 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 substitution therapy.

Court hearings in Tel-ov’s case are postponed on different reasons.

In 2017, no court hearings were conducted and no witnesses were questioned. They were postponed due to the fact that there were no witnesses or because of participation of a judge or a lawyer in other cases.

In 2018 court hearings were postponed due to the fact that there were no witnesses or because of participation of a judge in other cases.

Terniv-kyi case

On 08 October 2017 District Court in the city of Kyiv made a conviction in which Mr. T was found guilty in committing crimes prescribed by Part 1Art.307 with imposing a punishment of 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment and by Part 2 of Art.307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine   with imposing a punishment of 6 years of imprisonment and confiscation of all his personal property. A finite punishment of 6 (six) years’ imprisonment in a criminal institution with the confiscation of all his personal property was imposed in accordance with Part 1 of Art.70 of the Criminal Code.

On 01 October 2018 a contract with a SLC lawyer about providing legal assistance was signed.

On 06 October 2018 an appeal complaint was filed to Kharkiv Court of Appeal on basis of the lack of argumentation and motivation in judgement.

For the time being the court hearing in the Court of Appeal isn’t appointed.

T-nko 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 Center.        On 12 August 2015 the lawyer joined the pre-trial 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 other 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 pre-trial 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 lawyer submitted an appeal.

Also in October 2016 the Prosecutor’s Office in Kherson region sent a letter to the lawyer according to which his statement of crime was entered to the United register of pre-trial investigations. Nowadays the investigator questions witness of T’s ill-treatment.

On 21 November 2016 the lawyer lodged 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.

On 29 June 2017 the court of appeal in Kherson region ordered the prosecution to give all documents.

On 19 July 2017 the case was sent back to the trial court.

On 16 August 2017 Gornostayskyy District Court in Kherson region during preliminary consideration and according to the lawyer’s motion changed the preventive measure for T-enko from detention to home arrest and release him at the court room. Also, the court turned back to the prosecution an indictment.

Prosecution appealed, However, on 17 October 2017 the court of appeal in Kherson region dismissed the appeal.

On 16 November 2017 the SLC lawyer received a new indictment.

The pre-trial court meeting was appointed on 1 December 2017 but did not take place due to the absence of accused person

On 19 December 2017 the pre-trial court meeting was took place where the court decided to schedule the case to court consideration. The preliminary measure for the accused was not b chosen

On 12 January 2018 during the court meeting a witness was interrogated.

On 22 January 2018 and 12 February 2018 witnesses did not come so the court meeting was postponed.

On 27 February 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of witnesses and the accused.

On 21 March 2018, 6 April 2018, 25 April 2018, 22 May 2018, 19 June 2018, 10 July 2018, 03 August 2018, 30 August 2018 prosecution witnesses did not come so trial was postponed.

On 15 November 2018 2018 prosecution witnesses did not come again, the Court decided to bring these witnesses to the court.

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 tried 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.

On 15 August 2017 the pre-trial court meeting took place.

On 12 September 2017, 28 September 2017, 15 November 2017 due to the absence of witnesses the court meeting was postponed.

On 18 Dcember 2017, 31 January, 28 March, 13 June, 20 June 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. During the last meeting the prosecutor asked the court to change an order of examination of the evidences. The court refused.

On 31 August 2018 during trial a prosecutor witness was interrogated, other prosecutor witnesses did not appeared.

On 10 October 2018 the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses

The court hearing is pending.

29 other cases

 

Case of Anti-Ukrainian Newspapers

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

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

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

- “The Great Donetsk revolution and Novorossia”;

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

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

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

On 26 July 2017 the investigator brought a resolution on termination of criminal proceedings in the lack of corpus delicti. This resolution was appealed to the investigative judge.

In October 2018 the investigative judge refused on the complaint. The case is closed.

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 neighbors 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 proceeding only ten days after event, namely on the 1st of January 2014. The criminal case was instituted under Article 125 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (light bodily injury). In fact, the investigation of this crime was not conducted.

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

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

On 28th of March 2014 the lawyer lodged 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 lodged 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 lodged 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 inappropriate 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 lodged 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.

In 2017, court hearing was appointed on 11 May, 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).

In 2018, the procurator was changed. New prosecutor asked to give him time to familiarized with the casefile and gather evidence base, that is why court hearings was not conducted.

In February 2018, the judge satisfied the SLC lawyer motion on the appointment of a re-examination of bodily injuries.

The forensic medical examination was conducted. There were 3 court hearings for a half of year. One of them was postponed due to the absence of the accused.

 

Da-skin case

Gr. Da-skin was detained at the Kharkiv pre-trial detention center (no 27) (further – detention center) as a person, who was accused of group kidnapping.

On 19 June 2016 Mr. Da-skin asked medical staff of the colony provide him with medical help because of pain in his stomach, weakness, dizziness and nausea. He was examined by doctor and transfer to medical facility in detention center. He suffers from chronic gastritis in the stage of aggravation and not confirmed peptic ulcer. The doctor made a list of medicines and gave it to Mr. Da-skin relatives.

On 22 June 2016 medicines were given to Mr. Da-skin by his relatives.

On 22 June 2016 Mr. Da-skin` s health deteriorated sharply. Mr. Da-skin was transferred to hospital by the emergency.

On 26 June 2016 Mr. Da-skin` s died in the hospital. The reason of his death was internal bleeding due to ulcers of the 12-digestive gut. (Medicine in doctor` receipt were contraindicated in the ulcer of the 12th-digestive tract).

On 28 February 2017 criminal proceeding in fact of improper performance by health workers of their duties were opened. The circumstances of the death of Mr. Da-skin and five more detained persons who died in detention center during the second half of 2016 are investigated as part of this proceeding.

Investigative actions have not conducted in normal way during long period of time. Only after the SLC lawyer became a representative of Mr. Da-skin widow, she was recognized as a victim. Some of investigations actions were initiated by the lawyer. The prosecutor office is currently conduct investigation in this criminal proceeding.

On 22 December 2017, the SLS lawyer filed a motion to the investigator on temporary access to medical documentation from the detention center, Ambulance Station, Hospital, and the appointment of a commission expertize.

 On 23 December 2017 the Investigator told that the case was requested by the prosecutor, and after the case will be returned, the lawyer`s motion will be satisfied. But on 24 January 2018 the case was transferred to the Investigative Department of the State Criminal Execution Service for further pre-trial investigation.

 In June, when CPC was chanced, the case was returned to the Shevchenkivskyi district police station.

On June 2018, in connection with the changes in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the investigative jurisdiction, the criminal proceeding was transferred to the Shevchenko District Police Office of Kharkiv region.

On July 2018, the SLS lawyer filed a motion to the investigator on temporary access to Mr. Da-skin`s medical documentation from the Kharkiv penal colony №27.

On 12 July 2018, the investigator sent to approval to the prosecutor the motion of the SLC lawyer.

On 3 August 2018, the prosecutor returned without approval to the investigator the motion. The prosecutor explained the return by having to make sure that there were the medical documents in the the Kharkiv penal colony №27.

On 8 August 2018, the investigator sent a request to the Kharkiv penal colony №27 on presence of Mr. Da-skin`s medical documents there.

On October 2018, the investigator resigned from the police and the pre-trial investigation was assigned to another investigator.

Diordi-ko 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.’s 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 offence 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 lodged 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 lodged 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 above mentioned prosecutor’s rulings were not fulfilled, so the lawyer lodged 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.

The investigative also conducted face-to-face interrogation between Mr. D and armed soldiers who illegally detained and transported him at the car for prisoners.

On 17 January 2018, the SLC lawyer filed a motion on providing him with the case files but he was not provided with documents.

On 23 February 2018, the SLC lawyer submitted a complaint on not-providing him with the case-files.

On 28 February 2018 the SLC lawyer finally familiarized with the case-files. There he found a resolution on termination of the investigation from 27 December 2017. The SLC lawyer submitted a claim on this resolution to an investigative judge.

The prosecutor by its own desire quashed the resolution on termination of criminal proceedings and the investigative judge has terminated the proceeding. The pre-trial investigation is pending.

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 called 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 lodged 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 lodged 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.

The SLC lawyer lodged to the court evidences, filed a motion on subpoena a witness and interrogation them. On 13 December 2017 during the court meeting, five witnesses were questioned.

The new trial court was appointed and the case consideration was started.

Ka-lus case

Ka-lus was detained in April 2018 on suspicion of committing illegal production of weapon. The preliminary measure for Ka-lus prolonged several times.

On 24 June 2018 Ka-lus asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal aid.

On 2 August 2018 the prosecutor lodged a motion to the investigative judge on prolonging the preliminary measure for the applicant. On 3 March 2014 the SLC lawyer filed an objection against such motion. On 3 March 2018 the investigative judge granted the motion.

On 10 August 2018 the SLC lawyer appealed. On 28 August 2018 the court of appeal partly granted his appeal, quashed the court’s decision and release Mr. Ka-lus on bail. On 4 September 2018 the applicant was released factually.

On 17 July 2018 the SLC lawyer made a motion on familiarization with the case-files but the investigator ignored it. On 24 July 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged a complaint against such inactivity.

The investigative judge granted the complaint and obliged to provide the SLC lawyer with the case-files. On 8 August 2018 the investigative gave the SLC lawyer only a part of the case-file on familiarization.

On 20 July 2018 the SLC lawyer made a complaint on illegal detention of the applicant in the pre-trial detention facility of the Security service. On 23 July 2018 the investigative judge returned the complaint without consideration. On 30 July 2018 this decision was appealed as a decision out of the rules prescribed by the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine. On 3 August 2018 the court of appeal refused on opening the proceedings. The court noted that such decision could not be appealed by the law. On 14 September 2018 the SLC lawyer made a claim to the Supreme court which opened the proceedings and appointed the court hearings in April 2019.

Klo-ko case

Criminal proceedings regarding accusation in murder

On April 2017 the Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region established court jurisdiction and submitted a case to Kominternivskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

Eight court hearings appointed by Kominternivskyi District Court didn’t take place due to an absence of prosecutor.

On December 2017 Kominternivskyi District Court made a decision to file the motion to Court of Appeal in Kharkiv region for the purpose of the establishing the court jurisdiction because at that moment a scene of the crime was in Frunzenskyi district in the city of Kharkiv.

The precautionary measures were not taken to the accused. There were no measures to ensure criminal proceedings.

The case was appointed to court examination. Twelve court hearings were held. At the first court hearing the motion about determination the procedure of evidence examination and inexpediency of the examination of evidence that was the subject of the court hearing of appellate instance was filed.

The next court hearing is scheduled for 11 January 2019.                    

Criminal proceedings regarding torture applied to Klo-ko

A request with demand to provide a familiarization with the case file and notification of the progress of pre-trial investigation was filed.

Prosecutor provided for a familiarization the case file of criminal proceedings from which it was seen that it was closed by the decision of the prosecutor.

A complaint was filed to an investigator judge of Chervonozavodskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

Within five months the investigator judge couldn’t examine the criminal proceedings because prosecutor didn’t provide case file.

An SLC lawyer filed a number of motions regarding the reasonable time of court hearing in relation to the complaint on the decision to close the criminal proceedings including the motion about the prosecutor’s obligation to provide case file.

On 23 July 2018 the complaint on the decision to close the criminal proceedings was upheld by the investigator judge, the prosecutor’s decision was revoked and the case was submitted to Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office for pending of pre-trial investigation.

There was no reply from Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office to the requests with demand to provide a report about the progress of pre-trial investigation. Thus, a complaint about the omissions of the prosecutor was filed to Chervonozavodskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

Kozakov case

Mr. K, was born on 05 March 1947.

On 07 July 2018 he went by bus from city of Krasnodon, Luhansk region (the occupied territory) to city of Kharkiv.

By bus driver’s testimony the bus arrived to Kharkiv in the evening on 07 July 2018, by testimony of bus passenger – on 08 July 2018. After that Mr. K hasn’t gone in touch.

On 07 July 2018 a son of Mr. K notified Zhytomyrskyi District Police Office by phone about Mr. K disappearance.

Zhytomyrskyi District Police Office registered an application about Mr. K disappearance and entered the data to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. The criminal proceeding was taken on preliminary qualification as a murder.

On 08 July 2018 a brother of Mr. K filed an application №13406 to Osnovianskyi Police Office in the city of Kharkiv.

On 12 July 2018 a daughter of Mr. K filed an application about Mr. K disappearance to Donetsk Police Office in Rostovska region in Russian Federation.

On 17 July 2018 she was notified by Donetsk Police Office that Mr. K entered the Russian territory but didn’t leave it. In ten days there was a notification delivered about closing a case without any explanation.

On 16 August 2018 a daughter of Mr. K Mrs. P filed a criminal complaint to Kholodnohirskyi District Police Office in the city of Kharkiv. She was notified by phone that the complaint was transferred to line division of station "Kharkiv- Pasazhyrskyi".

For the time being the replies to numerous SLC lawyer’s requests and the case file testify that Mr. K is located on the territory of Russian Federation in the city of Rostov-na-Donu, but the exact location of his stay hasn’t been established yet.

 

Ko-yevskyy case

Mr. Ko-evskyy took part at the military actions in the zone of Antiterrorist operation. In June 2018 he was detained on suspicion of illegal keeping of weapon in Odesa city. Later the case-files were transferred to Kiev and investigation was continued by the Security service of Ukraine. It was the direct violation of jurisdiction prescribed by the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine.

On 21 June 2018 Mr. Ko-evskyy’s mother asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

Approximately at the same time Ko-yevskyy was transferred to Kiev and then kept without any contacts with relatives and lawyer.

On 22 June 2018 the SLC lawyer met with Mr. Ko-vskyy. After the meeting he filed a motion on familiarization with the case-files.

After the SLC lawyer took part in several court meeting in the appeal court of Odessa which were several times postponed.

During one of the meeting Mr. Ko-vskyy complained on deterioration of his health state. So on 3 July 2018 after the SLC lawyer’s requests he was examined by a neurologist.

On 9 July 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged a motion on changing of the preliminary measure.

On 16 August the contract between the SLC lawyer and Ko-vskyy was terminated.

The case is closed.

Star-nko case

On 12 March 2012 a complaint of Private Joint Stock Company “PUMB” (the Company) was upheld and there was a foreclosure of a mortgage loan - an apartment of Mrs. S.

On 05 June 2013 an act on realization of the subject of mortgage at public tenders for 159 300 UAH was drawn up by state executor of Kominternivskyi District Office of State Executive Service of Justice City Department in the city of Kharkiv.

On 03 October 2013 Kominternivskyi District Court revoked a decision from 12 March 2012.

On 07 October 2013 the same Court left a lawsuit of the Company without consideration.

On 05 April 2016 Kominternivskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv upheld the complaint of Mrs. S in part and obligated the Company to return unjustifiably recovered funds that was taken from the money of realization the apartment of Mrs. S.

On 15 June 2016 Court of Appeal of Kharkiv made the decision of rejection of Company’s appeal.

The Court of Cassation revoked the decisions of Kominternivskyi District Court from 05 April 2016 and Court of Appeal of Kharkiv from 15 June 2016.

For the time being the application to the European Court of Human Rights is being prepared.

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 proceeding 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 office 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 lodged 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 lodged 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.

The SLC lawyer prepared a motion on return the indictment act to prosecutor.

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.

On 09 July 2017 the trial was postponed because of judge vocation.

On 19 October 2017 in preparatory court hearing the SLC lawyer lodged a motion on return the indictment act to prosecutor. But the Court decided to assign the case to trial.

The first court hearing is going to be on 19 December 2017.

The SLC lawyer was changed to another SLC lawyer. The SLC lawyer familiarized with the casefiles agreed on the position on the case.

On 11 April 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on provision of video broadcasting of court sessions on the website of the Judiciary of Ukraine in connection with the urgency of the case, and request to the Prosecutor General’s Office in order to clarify the actual location and legal status of the Mrs. L passport

On 16 April 2018 one of the victims, who filed a motion for consideration in his absence, was absent at the court hearing. For the first time in the last 2 years the court trial was held, a jury was formed, the SLC lawyer appeal for video broadcasting was considered and rejected (the reasons for the lack of relevance of the case for the public), the prosecutor announced the indictment, the court determined the order of the examination of evidence (written proofs, material evidence, questioning witnesses, questioning the victims, interrogating the accused) and announced a break until 5 June 2018. Together with technical interruptions, the court session lasted for 3 hours.

Before the trial, on 10 April 2018 SLC lawyer (second) also submitted the motion to procure video-streaming of the trial by technical equipment of the court at official web-portal «Court Authority of Ukraine» in view of great interest to this case in society. Court postponed trial until 05 June 2018.

Before the next trial SLC lawyer (second) submitted:

- On 08 May 2018 lawyer’s request to Prosecutor Office of Kyiv city, which had to conduct pre-trial investigation in the case regarding to arbitrary actions of General Prosecutor Office against A.L., started by the previous SLC lawyer;

- On 23 May 2018 note to ECtHR about new representative and new mail address in case of «Leonova v. Ukraine» (application No 3649/16);

- On 04 June 2018 motion to oblige prosecutor to return national ID to L., quoting there ECtHR approach in case of «Smirnov v. Russia»;

- On 04 June 2018 motion to add to the case and examine written evidences of the defending side on 246 pages;

On 05 June 2-18 court hearing was postponed until 04 July 2018 due to absence of interpreter.

After receiving answer from Prosecutor Office of Kyiv city about the closure of criminal case under L.’s complaint in April 2017, SLC lawyer (second) appealed it to investigatory judge of Pechersky District Court of Kyiv city.

Investigatory judge, which was chosen to consider the appeal, felt ill the very next day after this and still is on sick-leave, that’s why the trial is still not appointed.

On 4 July 2018 the court hearing did not take place due to the absence of two jurors and an interpreter.

Lesno-kiy case

On November 2017, policemen of the Chuguev Police Office beat and tortured Mr. L. to get confessions on committing a Brigandism.

On 22 November 2017, the policemen of the Chuguev Police Office detained Mr. L. on suspicion of committing a crime under Art. 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Brigandism) and he was transferred to a police detention facility.

On 22 November 2017, Mr. L. was examined by a doctor in the police detention facility. During the examination, numerous injuries and a burn of a hit were found on Mr. L`s body. Mr. L explained that he was injured by police officers of the Chuguev Police office.

On 20 April 2018 after, Mr. L.`s appeal to the ombudsman, an investigator of the Prosecutor Office of the Kharkiv region opened criminal proceedings on a fact of the abuse of power by police officers of the Chuguev Police Office under Art. 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On 6 July 2018 the investigator of the Prosecutor Office denied recognizing Mr. L. as a victim of the crime.

The SLC lawyer filed a lawyer`s request to a medical center of the detention center on obtaining copies of medical documents concerning the injuries of Mr. L.

On 24 October 2018, after obtaining the medical documents SLC lawyer lodged a motion to the investigator of the Prosecutor Office on admitting as evidence these medical documents in the criminal proceedings and on a recognition of Mr. L. as a victim of the crime.

On 30 October 2018 the investigator of the Prosecutor Office denied recognizing Mr. L. as a victim of the crime.

The SLC lawyer appealed against the order of the investigator of the Prosecutor Office to the Court.

 On 12 December the Chervonozavodsky Court quashed the order on a refusal to Mr. D. recognition of a victim of the crime.

Case of Me-hov

Mr. M, was sentenced to imprisonment and served a sentence at Sinelnikovskaya Correctional Colony No.94 in the Dnipropetrovsk region.

On 15.12.2017, Medical Advisory Commission (hereinafter - MAC) diagnosed Mr. M. with: "Cirrhosis of the liver, obscure genesis, stage of decompensation. Hepatic-cellular insufficiency of II st. Varicose-veins of the esophagus of the II-III st. Ascites. Post-hemorrhagic anemia II st. Chronic gastroduodenitis, exacerbation st.", which are included in the List of Diseases that are the basis for submitting a motion on the release from further serving a sentence due to a serious illness.

The administration of the Correctional Colony No. 94 filed a motion to release Mr. M. from serving a sentence, but the Synelnikovsky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region dismissed it in January of 2018.

On 22.10.2018, the lawyer of the SLC filed an appeal to the court for the release of Mr. M from further serving of the sentence due to serious illness. On 9.11.2018, the same court ordered to deliver Mr. M. to the prison hospital at the pre-trial detention center in Dnipro, to hold MAC repeatedly and to submit the conclusion of the MAC to the court immediately. However, there was almost no treatment for Mr. M. in the hospital.

On 12.12.2018, Mr. M. was reported on the impossibility of forming a commission because of the changes in the providing of medical care for prisoners due to the reform of the organization of provision of medical aid to the State Criminal Execution Service of Ukraine, and on the same day, he was transferred to the colony.

The lawyer of the SLC lodged the requests to the medical division of the colony and to the Center of Healthcare at the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine and a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office, but so far, this has not given any results.

 

Maksy-nko case

Mrs. M is a victim in criminal proceedings which is taken regarding the doctor F. who is charged with criminal offence prescribed by Part 1 Art.140 of Criminal Code of Ukraine by the fact of the death of Mrs. M husband and medicine experiments that were applied to him. The case is under the consideration of Krasnohvardyiskyi District Court in the city of Dnipro.

Occurrence happened in 2016 thus it’s hard to gather all the data and file the necessary documents. There is no incontestable evidence of Mr. F guilt because of unlawfulness of forensic expertise made concerning the fact of death.

During 2018 year there were approximately 20 court hearings appointed and led, 14 witnesses were examined. Interrogation of witnesses is going on.

The next court hearing is scheduled on 26 December 2018.

Ni-tyna case

On 16 January 2018 an SLC lawyer signed a contract about legal assistance with Mrs. L who is a daughter of deceased Mr. N.

Mrs. L has lodged an application to City Court in the city of Rubizhansk for the purpose of pending the previous trial regarding her father with an aim of Mr. N exoneration.

On 19 January 2018 at the court hearing the above application was added to criminal proceedings regarding Mr. N. That same day prosecutor filed a motion about termination of the proceedings.

On 02 March 2018 the board of City Court made a decision about an appointment of trial from the beginning for the purpose of Mr. N exoneration.

On 24 March 2018 the SLC lawyer send a report about changes in the above proceedings on the request from European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on a complaint № 13623/15 Nikitin v. Ukraine.

On 23 May 2018 a victim Mrs. M filed an application to the court in which she stated that she had doubts about Mr. N guilt in murder of Mr. M and supported the application of Mrs. L about Mr. N exoneration.

During the following court hearings four witnesses were examined. Eyewitnesses testimony neither corroborated nor denied the charge. Also, the fifth witness Mr. P was examined. He stated that he was a direct witness of murder committed by Mr. N. but his testimony was taken as contradictious.

On 18 December 2018 an examined witness Mr. L gave a testimony that was opposite to Mr. P one and in favor of Mr. N.

The next court hearing is appointed to 23 January 2019 and 19 February 2019.

Po-renko case

In the evening on 7 April 2016 Mr. Po-renko (hereinafter - the applicant) was arrested by police officers and transported to the Podilsk district police station in Kiev. There he was beaten on his hand and other parts of his body, strangled, handcuffed, frightened and forced the applicant to plead his guilt on committing the rape and attempted rape. Such abuse were continuing around three hours. Then the applicant was conducted to the advocate who called the ambulance and made a photo of the applicant’s injuries. Doctors fixed injuries and refused to hospitalize the applicant.

On 8 April 2016 the investigative judge of Podilsk district court in Kiev considered the SLC lawyer’s complaint on tortures and brought a decision on urgent forensic medical examination.

On 8 April 2016 the applicant was noticed on suspicion and the Podilsk district court chose him a preliminary measure in the form of detention till 5 June 2016. The term of preventive measure was permanently prolonged.

On 10 May 2016 the applicant was transferred to the Kiev detention center and registered at the list of HIV+ people.

In October 2016 the applicant complained that his health state deteriorated, the body temperature was more then 41 Celsius degree, he lost consciousness. Doctors made an X-ray as a result of which the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis. On 26 October 2016 the applicant was put to the medical unit of the detention center where he had medical prescriptions. On 19 November 2016 his state of the health deteriorated a bit more due to flu.

On 27 March 2017 the applicant’s health state deteriorated again and he was transported to the Kyiv city medical center by the ambulance to stay in hospital. On 3 April 2017 the applicant was discharged from the medical center to detention center. After that he lost ability to talk, move, swallow, control the defecation

On 4 May 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged a motion to the court on changing of the preliminary measure for the applicant due to his pure health state.

On 5 May 2017 the Podilsk district court refused of the motion on changing of the preliminary measure, providing the applicant with appropriate medical assistance, and prolonged the term of his preventive measure to 19 July 2017

On 20 July 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged before the ECHR an application under Rule 39 of Rules of the Court. On 21 July 2017 the ECHR urgently decided to apply the Rule 39 and obliged the Government to provide the applicant with appropriate medical assistance and if it would be necessary - to hospitalize him to the special medical facility.

On 27 July 2017 the temporary detention center noticed the Podilsk district court that the applicant stayed in critical condition and he could die, he had to be hospitalized and treated in the specialized medical unit.

On 31 July 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged a motion on changing of the preliminary measure but it was refused.

On 7 August 2017 the applicant died at the civil hospital.

On 15 August 2018 the applicant asked the expert commission to assess the medical treatment given to her son during his detention. On 18 September 2017 she received a reply that it was impossible because all medical documents were extracted during pre-trial investigation.

On 17 November 2017 and 2 June 2018 the applicant asked the investigator to give her a victim status. She did not receive any reply. On 6 April 2018 the SLC lawyer asked the police to give answers and familiarized him with the case-files. He did not receive any answer too.

On 17 August 2017 the Court the SLC lawyer lodged an application before the ECHR under Article 3 of the Convention due to the lack of appropriate medical treatment in conjunction with Article 34 of the Convention due to non-performing obligations under Rule 39 and under para 3 Article 5 of the Convention as preventive measure was inappropriate.

On 4 June 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on familiarization with the case-files. The investigative ignored.

On 4 July 2018 the SLC lawyer filed the same motion but it was ignored too. The SLC lawyer made a complaint on this.

On 17 July 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a complaint before the investigative judge. On 27 August 2018 the investigative judge obliged the investigator to familiarize the SLC lawyer with the case files. However, the investigative did not perform decision and on 11 October 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a criminal complaint on non-enforcing of the court’s decision.

As to the ill-treatment of the applican, on 16 March 2018 the SLC lawyer finally received a resolution on termination of the criminal proceedings.

The ECHR asked the Government to prepare their observations till 28 February 2018

On 16 July 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged a request on familiarization with the case-files in the criminal proceedings. The prosecutor ignored.

On 26 July 2018 the SLC lawyer also lodged a complaint on non-providing him with the case-files to the investigative judge.

On 13 November 2018 the investigative judge quashed a resolution on termination of the criminal proceedings and continued the pre-trial investigation

On 13 December 2018 the SLC lawyer again made a request on familiarization with the case-files.

Poryan-ska case

Before being arrested, Poryadynska - an applicant - was registered as a mental patient and was undergoing a course of periodical treatment.

On 24.11.2016 the investigative authorities has put her on the wanted list.

On 26.02.2017 the applicant has born a son.

On 11.04.2017 the applicant was detained and brought before the court by the investigative judge decision, as a wanted person for the robbery and fraud. After that, investigative judge of the Novograd-Volynskii district court in the Zhytomyr region (the district court) has chosen the preventive measure - taking into the custody for 11 days.

On 24.04.2017 the investigative judge of the district court has extended the custody for 44 days.

On 06.06.2017 the district court has extended the preventive measure for 60 days till August,4 2017.

On 19.06.2017 the government facility “Zhytomyr pre-trial detention center (“SIZO”) №8” has notified the applicant’s lawyer: “Applicant’s mental health has changed on 15.06.2017 and currently there are signs of the delusional affective disorder. The applicant’s psychiatric hospitalization is advisable. ”

After the lawyer has received this notification, he appealed to the court seeking the change of the preventive measure but on 02.08.2017 the court dismissed this appeal and extended the custody for 60 days till September, 30 2017.

On 07.08.2017 the district court has ordered to the applicant the primary outpatient forensic psychiatric evaluation.

On 08.09.2017 SIZO has notified the applicant’s lawyer: “ … At the present moment her (Applicant’s) mental health defines as severe mental illness, which is also endangering her life (catatony, refusing to eat and drink). Providing with specialized medical care in terMs. of the present medical center for such condition is impossible. … In view of the aforesaid, it is appropriate to request the court for the decision according to the art. 508 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) to place the Applicant to the mental establishment for the fixed term.”

After the lawyer has received this notification, he appealed to the court seeking the change of the preventive measure according to the art. 508 of the CCP and transferring the applicant under her parents’ surveillance with compulsory treatment at the mental facility.

On 18.09.2017 the application to the European Court of Human Rights has been made, requesting the enforcement of the preventive measure and obliging the Government to provide her with necessary medical care.

On 19.09.2017 the ECHR requested from the Government of Ukraine the information about Raisa’s medical condition, medical care she receiving and requiring, her safety under the custody.

On 28.09.2017 the district court dismissed the lawyer’s motion concerning the change of the preventive measure and extended the preventive measure for 45 days and ordered the outpatient forensic psychiatric evaluation at the Kyiv center of psychiatric forensic.

On 10.03.2017 the ECHR enforced the preventive measures and obliged the Government to provide her with required medical care.

On 11.11.2017 the applicant has been released from the custody. She receives now the psychiatric treatment.

On 19.01.2018 the SLC lawyer lodged before the ECHR an application.

The SLC lawyer also got several documents on response of his requests.

On 07.02.2018 the SLC lawyer sent an additional application to the ECHR.

The SLC lawyer also realized that after the applicant’s release from custody she was ill-treated by the state agents. So on 14 November 2017 the SLC lawyer made a statement of crime to the prosecutor’s office in Kiev.

On 16 November 2017 the SLC lawyer asked the forensic expert bureau to write down the physical violence. On 23 November 2017 the expert made his resolution

On 16 November 2017 the SLC lawyer made a request to the ambulance. On 11 November and 2 December 2017 the SLC lawyer received a reply.

On 4 December 2017 the prosecutor’s office transmitted the statement of crime to the district police office.

On 15 December 2017 the police opened the criminal proceedings.

On 29 December 2017 the SLC lawyer submitted a motion on familiarization with the case-file.

On 27 January 2018 the SLC lawyer made a claim to the prosecutor’s office.

On 2 July 2018 the applicant’s mother lodged a motion on give her a victim status and a motion on familiarization with the case-files.

On 27 July 2018 the SLC lawyer again lodged a motion on familiarization with the case-files.

On 7 August 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged before the investigative judge a complaint on non-familiarization with the case-files. On 15 August 2018 the investigative judge returned the complaint without consideration. On 27 August 2018 the SLC lawyer appealed against such decision to the Court of appeal which granted claim and returned the case for new trial.

On 24 September 2018 the investigative judge granted the complaint and obliged the prosecutor to familiarize with the case-files.

Se-nov case

Mr. S. is a 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 center. 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 defense).

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 trials are currently pending.

During judicial investigation the court questioned almost all witnesses, an accused person and the victim.

An accused person fired.

On 6 October 2016 the judicial investigation terminated.

On 21 October 2016 the court meeting was postponed due to judge’s being busy.

On 16 December 2016 the court meeting was postponed.

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 meeting was appointed by the new trial on 29 August 2017

On 29 August 2017 the court meeting was not taken place due to the absence of the lawyer.

On 28 September 2017 the court meeting was not taken place due to the prosecutor’s participation in another trials.

On 1 November and 6 December 2017 and 29 January, 7 March, 19 April, 12 June 2018 the court meeting was postponed due to judges’ business.

On 11.07.2018, the case was postponed due to the absence of the defense counsel. The next hearing was scheduled for 26.09.2018.

On 26.09.2018 the motion of the defense counsel for the disqualification of the prosecutor. The next hearing was scheduled for 08.10.2018.

On 08.10.2018, the hearing was postponed due to the motion of the defendant. The next hearing was scheduled for 20.11.2018.

On 20.11.2018, the hearing was postponed due to the absence of the defendant.

The case is pending.

U-kov case

On 27 June 2008 several police officers came to apartment of spouse Mr, and Mrs. U., and took the latter to Frunzenskyy District Police Station in Kharkiv for being questioned concerning to the murder of Mr. L. whose dead body had been found in a courtyard nearby the U’s apartment.

In the station Mr. U. was tortured by difficult ways, namely was being cruelty beaten, suffocated with a gas mask with a smoke inside, twisted with his handcuffed arms behind his back etc., and he confessed in the murder of Mr. L that he allegedly had not committed. At the same time, the police have compelled Mrs. U. to give statement incriminating his husband in the crime, using physical abuse and threatening with exercising more physical abuse. Both Mr. and. Mrs. U. have not been provided with a lawyer at that time.

On 1 July 2008 Mr. U. was escorted to the Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor’s Office for questioning by the prosecutor in course of consideration of the investigator’s request to the court on Mr. U.’s pre-trial detention. The prosecutor has seen Mr. U.’s multiple injuries and he refused to approve the investigator’s request and released Mr. U.

Four angry police officers broke into the Prosecutor’s Office, take out the spouse from the office of the Deputy District Prosecutor who questioned the spouse and brought them to the police station located nearby. On the way, one of the officers kicked Mr. U.

After the District Prosecutor having come to the station, the police officers pulled Mr. U. out from the station through the window. In course of the search of the station, Mrs. U. has been found I one of its rooms.

In course of criminal proceedings against Mr. U., the SLC lawyer many times challenged the unlawfulness of the police actions but the prosecutor’s offices and domestic courts did not pay much attention to that.

The Kharkiv Court of Appeal twice tried Mr. U.’s case and on 4 July 2012 found him guilty and sentenced him for 14 years imprisonment.

At the end of 2012 SLC lawyer lodged the complaint to the ECtHR on the violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

On 22 January 2013 the Higher Specialized Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment. After that the SLC lawyer appended the application before the ECtHR with the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention in the aspect of use by the national courts Mr. U.’s testimonies obtained by means of ill-treatment.

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 land procedural limbs in respect of both Mr. and Mrs. U. and a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of the Mr. U.

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, accordingly Mr. Us. has not been released from custody He was transferred to the Kharkiv detention center although there was no court decision of his detention, and the complaint of the lawyer on Mr. U.’s detention was unsuccessful/

On 18 February 2016 Frunzenskyy district court of Kharkiv started a new trial and changed Mr. U.’s pre-trial detention to obligation to appear to court, upon the request of the defense.

In August 2016, the SLC lawyer lodged the 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, and the trial was started from the beginning.

In 2017, more than 10 hearings of the case were appointed, but in fact there were only four. In October 2017, the next change happened in the judicial panel, and the case began to hear for the third time first. After this, before the year of the year, no hearing was actually held.

In 2018, the hearings were scheduled around 20 times but really there were only three ones. Several court hearings are scheduled to the beginning of 2019.

V.O. and V.V. case

On 08 July 2017 Kropyvnytskiy police office opened a criminal proceeding in fact on improper performance of professional duties by healthcare worker. Mrs. V. O., who was born in 1988 and Mrs. V.V., who was born in 1971 are victiMs. in this criminal proceeding. This criminal proceeding was opened in fact of death of Mrs. V.O. new-born children: boy named XTAA and girl, named XCAA. Another child, who was born that day, was alive. Victims were interrogated by the policeman.

The SLC lawyer sent a motion on demanding all medical documentation related with death of children and Mrs. V.O. health.

Moreover, the SLC lawyer as a client’s representative, sent to the ombudsman an application where describe a situation and asked to renovate Mrs. V.O. and Mrs. V.V. rights.

In addition, the SLC lawyer sent a motion on the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination. The policemen took a resolution of the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination and sent the case file to forensic examination center.

BKA case

Kropyvnytskiy police office opened a criminal proceeding in fact on improper performance of professional duties by healthcare worker. Mrs. BKA who was born in 1993 is a victim in this criminal proceeding. This criminal proceeding was opened in fact of death of Mrs. BKA new-born child. She was interrogated by the policeman.

On 12 April 2018 The SLC lawyer sent a motion on demanding all medical documentation related with death of child and Mrs. BKA health status/

On 02 April 20182018 The SLC lawyer sent a motion on interrogation witnesses (doctors)

On 03 April 20182018 The SLC lawyer sent an application to Perinatal center of the Kirovohrad Regional Hospital of demanding all medical documentation.

On 04 April 2018 the SLC lawyer participated in the interrogation by an investigator of the witness.

On13 April 2018 the SLC lawyer familiarized with BKA‘s medical documentation in a medical institution.

On 13 Jun 2018 the SLC lawyer sent a motion on the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination.

According to the latest information, the investigators sent the case file for forensic medical examination. The SLC lawyer sent a lawyer request to confirm the information.

 

ІАV case

Kropyvnytskiy police office opened a criminal proceeding in fact on improper performance of professional duties by healthcare worker. Mrs. IAV is a victim in this criminal proceeding. This criminal proceeding was opened in fact of IAV injuring during the surgery. She was interrogated by the policeman.

On 19 April 2018 The SLC lawyer sent a motion on demanding all medical documentation related with Mrs. IAV health status.

On 12 April 2018 The SLC lawyer sent a motion on interrogation witnesses (doctors)

On 16 April 2018 the SLC lawyer participated in the interrogation by an investigator of the witness.

On 20 April 2018 the SLC lawyer sent a motion on the appointment of a comprehensive forensic medical examination.

On 16 May 2018, the SLC lawyer filed a motion on request a record of a court session (a civil case in which doctors who participated in the surgery were interrogated)

Because of investigator inaction, on 09 November 2018 the SLC lawyer filled a motion on removal of the investigator and the appointment of another investigator.

On 13 November 2018 the investigation judge satisfied the SLC lawyer`s motion on removal of the investigator.

On 26 December 2018 the SLC lawyer sent a lawyer`s request on inform about appointment of another investigator.

Dro-dov case (torture case)

On 26 October 2017 according to the decision of the investigating judge it was provided a search in the flat of Mr. D.

On the same day Mr. D. was informed of the suspicion of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and was detained and tortured by police officers with the purpose of obtaining a confession from Mr. D. in the sale of drugs.

In 27 October 2017 Mr. D. was transferred to the Temporary detention center with injury of a tongue, nose, and hematomas on the forehead. He was scared and said that he had no complaints on his health.

In the morning on 27 October 2017 Mr. D. felt badly and he was transferred by ambulance car to Hospital of urgent medical aid in Kharkiv.

On 16 May 2018 it was opened a criminal proceeding on a fact of the abuse of power by police officers of Chuguivskyi district police department of the Kharkiv region

On 26 June 2018 the criminal proceeding was closed by an investigator of Prosecutor Office of the Kharkiv region.

On 27 June 2018 a SLC lawyer challenged such a closure to the court. The court consideration is pending.

In June 2018 a SLC lawyer send requests to the Temporary detention center, Hospital of urgent medical aid in Kharkiv, the medical unit of Kharkiv SIZO on the presence of injuries of Mr. D.

On 19 September 2018 the Chervonozavodsky Court quashed the order on termination of the criminal proceedings.

On 24 October 2018 the SLC lawyer filed a motion on the recognition of Mr. D. as a victim of the crime to the Prosecutor’s office.

On 26 October 2016 the investigator of the Prosecutor Office of the Kharkiv region sent a copy of an order on the refusal to Mr. D. recognition of a victim of the crime from 13 June 2018 to the SLC lawyer.

The SLC lawyer appealed against the order of the investigator of the Prosecutor Office to the Court.

On 9 November 2018 the Chervonozavodsky Court quashed the order on a refusal to Mr. D. of the recognition of a victim of the crime.

On 18 December 2018 the investigator of the Prosecutor Office sent a copy of the order on a refusal to Mr. D. of the recognition of a victim of the crime from 19 November 2018 and a copy of the order on a termination of the criminal proceedings to the SLC lawyer. At present, the SLC lawyer is preparing a complaint against the order on a termination of the criminal proceedings.

Sa-n case

On 07 November 2018 Mrs. Me-hova in interest of her husband Mr. Sa-n asked the SLC lawyer for legal assistance.

According to Mrs. Me-hova, Mr. Sa-n was born on 06 November 1956, he is currently pensioner.

On 06 November 2018 Mr. Sa-n was arrested in his living place by the Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) officers in suspicion of committing encroachment on territorial integrity.

On 08 November 2018 in SSU detention facility during confidential meeting Mr. Sa-n told the SLC lawyer, that he (Mr. Sa-n) has never done any unlawful actions. Many people had access to the computer that had been removed from him, and confiscated notes had planted.

According to the motion on a preventive measure and annexes to it, Mr. Sa-n "mounted, voiced and posted" on the Internet video clips with public calls (slogans) expressing the approval of the so-called "Novorossiia" and joining it to Russia, and also contain the implicit prompting of the recipients to the physical destruction of those who do not support the creation of this state formation and restoration of the "united Orthodox motherland".

On 08 November 2018 Kherson city court chose a detention as a preventive measure to Mr. Sa-n and did not determine the size of pledge. The SLC lawyer filled an appeal.

On 27 November 2018 Mr. Sa-n was delivered to SSU for interrogation. He denied to tell any information in accordance to art. 63 Constitution of Ukraine.

On 19 December 2018 the appeal trial was postponed due to the first instance court had not gave the casefile.

On 21 December 2018 Mr. Sa-n was giver a motion on detention prolongation and the decision to extend the term of pre-trial investigation.

On 26 December 2018 the first instance court postponed a trial on prolongation the detention until the court of appeal would consider the SLC lawyers complaint. On the Same day the court of appeal did not satisfy the SLC lawyer complaint, detention was found lawful.

On 27 December 2018 the Mr. Sa-n`s detention was prolonged to 24 February 2019.

Gnez-lov case

Mr. Gnez-lov was born in 1973. He is currently serving his punishment in Kropyvnitsk correctional colony (no 6)

Mr. Gnez-lov suffers from several diseases such as HIV with clinical stage 4 and concomitant diseases, severe immunosuppression, hepatitis C, MZZTB. Above mentioned diseases are included in the List of diseases which could be a reason of release the person on probation. Nevertheless, prison administration refused to prepare a motion to the court as well as starts any special proceedings to make medical reports

On 27 December 2018 the SLC lawyer prepared a motion of release the person on probation related with his health status. The SLC lawyer sent this motion to the Leninskiy district court in Kirivograd.

Ku-sh case

Mr. Ku-sh was born in 1983. He is currently serving his punishment in Kropyvnitsk correctional colony (no 6)

Mr. Gnez-lov suffers from several diseases such as HIV with clinical stage 4 and concomitant diseases. The latest study on CD showed 52cc / MLC. Nevertheless, prison administration refused to prepare a motion to the court as well as starts any special proceedings to make medical reports. Nevertheless, prison administration refused to prepare a motion to the court as well as starts any special proceedings to make medical reports

The SLC lawyer filed a request to the medical facilities on the health status of the convicted person and accordance of the medical treatment (on 21 March to 25 September 2018) to medical standards.

In December 2018 Mr. Ku-sh by his own prepared a motion of release him on probation related with his health status. The Leninskiy district court in Kirovograd is going to consider the motion on 04 January 2019.

The SLC lawyer prepared medical documentation and written explanation to the Mr. Ku-sh motion.

Case of Mr. K.

On 5 May 2017, criminal proceedings №12017050150001121 under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (murder) were commenced.

During the pre-trial investigation Mr. K was illegally arrested and deprived of his liberty. He was subjected to abuse of force by police officers of the Bakhmut Police Station of Donetsk region. As a result, Mr. K. was forced to confess in having committed a crime under Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The Investigator of the Bakhmut Police Station of Donetsk region filed a motion on arrest of a car in the criminal proceedings №12017050150001121 to the Artemivsk Distrikt Court of Donetsk region.

On 10 April 2018, Artemivsk District Court considered the motion of the investigator.

During the hearing of the motion, the court found that Mr. K was illegally arrested and deprived of liberty. He was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers of the Bakhmut Police Station of Donetsk region and as a result, Mr. K. was forced to confession in the murder.

The court also instructed the Prosecutor`s Office of Donetsk region to register the information about the crime to the Unified Register of pre-trial investigation.

In April 2018, the criminal proceeding №12018050150000801 under Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (excess of authority or official powers) were initiated.

Ra-chenko case

Mrs. R was working a lot of years at a factory and got room for living in a factory dormitory. Due to factory administration omissions which didn’t filled demands of Ukrainian law about privatization she couldn’t privatize it.

Mrs. R lodged a complaint to City Court in the city of Chuhuiv in Kharkiv region against Chuhuiv City Council in Kharkiv region, Private Joint Stock Company “Kharkiv cycle factory” on obligation to act.

The complaint is based on a statement that the room in a dormitory that was given to Mrs. R almost 10 years ago is not a subject to privatization because it wasn’t given from the stock company to the property balance of the City Council in the process of the stock company privatization in accordance to procedure prescribed by Law of Ukraine "About the Transfer of Objects of the Right of State and Communal Property" and delegated legislation.
The case is under judge consideration and for the time being the next hearing of case isn’t appointed.

O D Sh case

On 14 December 2017 Mrs. Sh lodged an application to Shevchenkivskyi District Office of State Migration Service of Ukraine (District Office) in the city of Kharkiv for the purpose of registration of a passport of a citizen of Ukraine in the form of a plastic ID-1 card for the first time. After a verification of documents an authorized worker of District Office had formed an official enquiry (including taking a biometric data and the photo of Mrs. Sh who was in hijab) and gave the enquiry for signature to Mrs. Sh. When she had arrived to District Office she was reported that the documents of enquiry were returned because of a need to remake the photo without hijab. A demand of Mrs. Sh to give her a written refusal in a consideration of enquiry was rejected thus disobeying a national law. Mrs. Sh has filed numerous applications to District Office Kharkiv for the purpose of registration of a passport of a citizen of Ukraine which every time were rejected because of her unwilling to remove the hijab.

04 April 2018 Mrs. Sh lodged a complaint to District Administrative Court of Kharkiv in which she asked to determine the actions of District Office as unlawful. During the court hearing a SLC lawyer filed a motion to District Office for the purpose of providing him the documents of enquiry (including the photo of Mrs. Sh) from 14 December 2017.

Representative of State Migration Service General Department in Kharkiv region stated untrue information that Mrs. Sh rejected to remove the hijab and leaved the building of District office without finishing the enquiry. The above actions of State Migration service had features of crimes prescribed by Articles 356 and 357 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Under the basis of these data there is a criminal proceeding opened by the investigator.

Moreover, the SLC lawyer made a request to the Ombudsman, Verkhovna Rada Commitee on Human Rights, National Minorities and International Relations, People’s Deputies of Ukraine about the problem of the delivery of biometric passports of a citizen of Ukraine and a foreign passport of a citizen of Ukraine, which consists in the refusal of photographing persons who practice Islam to remove the hijab. The request also addressed a problem regarding the prohibition of photographing people in hats on the basis of medical, religious or cultural circumstances and asked the above state bodies to respond appropriately, eliminate legislative shortcomings by developing draft laws or amendments to existing laws by introducing exceptional grounds for taking photographs in the hats.

No replies have been received at this time.

 For the time being a problem that has been raised by Mrs. Sh is being heard in Shevchenkivskyi District Police Office of General National Police Department in Kharkiv region. It was taken proceedings.

Lystov-chyiy case

Mr. L has previously been convicted several times. On 31.08.2017 he was sentenced by Volodymyr-Volynskiy City Court to 6 months of arrest under Article 185 §2 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter – CC) of Ukraine and was transferred to Lutsk pre-trial detention center where he died on 22.10.2017.

Upon the death of Mr. L., the information was submitted to the State Register of pre-trial investigation case No. 12017030010004906 dated 22.10.2017 on the grounds of a criminal offense under Article 115 §1, Article 140 §1, Article 366 of the CC of Ukraine. It consists in the inadequate provision of medical assistance and falsification of medical records by the officials of the pre-trial detention center and Volodymyr-Volynskiy local medical facility.

On 18.10.2017 Mr. L. was detained in order to enforce the sentence of the Volodymyr-Volynskiy City Court. On the same day, Mr. L. underwent a medical examination at the division of professional examination of the Volodymyr-Volynskiy local medical facility. According to the conclusion of the commission of doctors on the health condition of Mr. L., he was able to work and may have been held in the conditions of a prison. In addition, in the same conclusion the narcologist indicated the diagnosis of Mr. L: "Mental and behavioural disorders as a result of the use of alcohol. Syndrome of dependence of continuous usage ". Mr. L. was transferred to the temporary detention facility.

On 19.10.2017, Mr. L. had an epileptic seizure in the premises of the temporary detention facility. The ambulance team of the Kovel local medical facility was called. On the same day, Mr. L. was transferred to the Lutsk pre-trial detention center.

On 19.10.2017, when Mr. L. was transferred to the pre-trial detention center, he was examined by a doctor and a medical card was issued. The doctor prescribed aminazine 2.5% 2 ml, dimedrol 1% 1 ml twice a day.

On 20.10.2017, Mr. L. was transferred to another cell due to an inadequate state (according to the case file), namely, he called people, raved, conflicted with the cellmates, had been saying something incomprehensible. According to the case file, inadequate behaviour and delusions continued on 21.10.2017.

On 22.10.2017, at about 16:45, the employees of the pre-trail detention center found that Mr. L. had been lying on the floor unconscious. The officers of the pre-trial detention center conducted intensive reanimation care and called an ambulance. The death of Mr. L. was stated at around 17:30.

According to the expert’s conclusion No.450 dated 16.11.2017, numerous ante mortem plumes were found on the body. The injuries were inflicted in different periods. According to the conclusion, it was the result of contact with dull objects. These injuries are classified as light bodily injuries and have no causal connection with the cause of death.

According to expert’s conclusion №450, the cause of death of Mr. L. is a disease - toxic hepatitis, the progression of which has led to necrosis, dystrophy and fatty degeneration of hepatic cells (hepatocytes). As a result, the disorder of disintoxication, hematopoietic, enzyme-forming and many other liver functions led to the development of liver failure with a gross violation of the electrolyte and acid-base balance. The accumulation of toxic decay products in the blood had toxic effects on the central nervous system, which caused the oppression of the respiratory and vascular motor centers in the brain stem, cerebral edema. It led to the stop of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems.

A number of official investigations have been conducted and the officials of the pre-trial detention center were brought to disciplinary liability.

On 07.02.2018, the lawyer of SLC lodged a motion in the interests of the victim of the Mrs. LM. (The mother of Mr. L.) to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Volyn region in order to familiarize with the case file.

On 21.03.2018, the prosecutor has handed a part of the case file to the lawyer of SLC at the Prosecutor’s Office of Volyn region.

On. 05.04.2018, the lawyer lodged a request to the Bureau of Forensic Examination of Volyn region on the provision of expert conclusion No. 120 to the pre-trial investigation officers. The conclusion was not given to the lawyer when he was familiarizing himself with the case file.

On 18.05.2018, the lawyer of SLC again lodged a motion to familiarize with the case file, the expert’s conclusion No. 120 and medical documentation.

On 5.06.2018, the lawyer familiarized with the case file and medical documentation.

As of today, investigation actions are being carried out. On 30.08.2018, an additional questioning of the victim was carried out. According to the information received from the senior group of prosecutors and the investigator, additional questioning of witnesses is being carried out. No suspicion has been announced to anyone.

23 cases ended in success

By-v case

In 2014 Russian citizen, Mr. B served in the volunteer battalion "Holy Mary". He defended territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine in the armed conflict with Russia, the citizen of which he is.

Mr. B. with his wife Ms. S. mowed to Ukraine.

On 5 May 2016, Mr. B applied for refugee status to the Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS).

He informed the SMS. that he could not return to Russia because he took part in the military actions against Russian aggression as a part of the volunteer battalion "Holy Mary", consequently, physical pressure could be applied to him and he could be prosecuted by government of Russia.

At the time of appeal for refugee status to SMS, Mr. B, stayed on the territory of Ukraine on the legal basis

On 02 December 2016, SMS. refused Mr. B. for refugee status. Preliminary, on 16 September 2015 and 16 October 2015, The Desnyanskiy District Court of Chernigov and the Kiev Administrative Court of Appeal delivered decisions where established threat of further residence of Mr. B in Russia.

On 16 November 2015 The Height Administrative Court refused to open the proceedings.

 The Migration Service of Chernihiv region tried to expel Mr. B to Russia. After that, he became very ill and needs constant medical care.

On 10 January 2018, Mr. B filed a motion to Kyiv District Administrative Court in which he asked the court to cancel the decision of the SMS. on the refusal him to refugee status and oblige the SMS. to give him that status.

On 15 August 2018, the Court conducted of the proceeding. Relying on SLC lawyer’s arguments, the court completely granted claims of Mr. B. Court reversed the decision of the SMS. and obliged the SMS. to give Mr. B. refugee status.

Vdovy-nko case

There was taken criminal proceedings regarding actions of Mr. V that were accompanied by aggravations of crimes prescribed by paragraph 3 of Article 368 and paragraph 1 of Article 393 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

During a consideration of indictment the judge of City Court in the city of Chuhuiv determined that money on the front seat in the car which was driven by Mr. V were planted on during his apprehension because it was done without attesting witnesses and there was a pressure made on suspected Mr. V by Security Service of Ukraine agents.

Furthermore, they didn’t allow him to communicate with defenders and were implementing physical force after the detention of the accused. After a while Mr. V began feel bad and asked investigator to call for emergency medical assistance but this request was rejected. The emergency medical assistance was called by someone of the staff. Medical assistant recommended transfer Mr. V to hospital because of deterioration of health but the recommendation was rejected. Eventually Mr. V was delivered to hospital where he heard that he would be treated by regular doctor of Security Service of Ukraine. He escaped from hospital because of a fear of wrong treatment.

On the basis of all above evidence Mr. V was recognized not guilty due to lack of arguments of his guilt in committing crimes prescribed by paragraph 3 of Article 368 and paragraph 1 of Article 393 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

G-ov case

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

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

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

On 24 June 2015 the applicant was arrested by the police officers in Kharkiv

On 25 June 2015 the applicant was taken into custody by the ruling of the Pechersk District court of Kyiv, since he was suspected in commitment of an aggravated armed robbery.

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

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

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

By the ruling of 5 August 2015 the Court of Appeal of Kyiv City issued a decision about replacing of a preventive measure for the applicant from detention in custody to the obligation to appear to court.

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

Since other suspects were absconding from justice, in the end of August 2015 materials of the criminal proceedings relating to the applicant were extracted, and in September 2015 the prosecutor’s office submitted the indictment against the applicant for consideration to the Troytsky District Court of Lugansk Region (hereinafter - the Troitsk Court).

In October 2015 the SLC lawyer lodged the application to the ECtHR on violation of Article 5 § 1 (a), (c) and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

After two self-disqualifications of judges in the Trinity Court, there were no judges left for the formation of a new composition of the judicial panel, and the HSCU directed the case for consideration in essence to the Svatovsky District Court of Lugansk Oblast (hereafter, the Svatovsky Court).

The preparatory hearing in the case in the Svatovsky court was postponed many times, including because of the fact that the two accomplices of the crime were found and arrested in turn, and the criminal charges were joined in the court.

Only on August 31, 2018, the Svatovsky court t last carry out the preparatory hearing and, at the request of the party of defense, decided to remit the indictment back to the prosecutor for correction of its deficiencies.

On September 17, 2018, the prosecutor sent a complaint to this ruling, together with a request to renew the time limit for appeals, but on 12 November 2018 the Luhansk Court of Appeal refused to renew the term.

On 6 December 2018, the prosecutor lodged a cassation appeal against the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court opened the cassation proceedings.

Case of Mr. Z.

On 4 November 2003, a criminal proceeding was opened against Mr. Z on suspicion of hooliganism by the Chuguev Police Station.

On 30 March 2004, the prosecutor transferred the indictment to the Chuguev District Court of Kharkivska oblast.

On 16 April 2004, the court remitted the indictment to the prosecutor.

On 19 April 2004, the prosecutor remitted the case file to Chuguev Police Station for the additional pre-trial investigation.

According to the statement of the Chief of the Investigation Department of the Chuguev Police Station of 3 September 2012, the criminal proceeding has been terminated. However, on April of 2012 when he tried to make a foreign passport he learned, that he was not exonerated from blame.

In 2015, the Chuguev Police Station informed Mr. Z. that the case was not available in the archives.

Mr. Z. repeatedly appealed to the Chuguev Prosecutor’s Office and to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Kharkiv Region regarding the clarifications of these circumstances.

On 19 August 2015, it was decided to close the criminal proceedings regarding Mr. Z.

In total, Mr. Z. was being under investigation for 12 years, due to the inactivity of law enforcement authorities.

In September 2016, Mr. Z lodged a claim to the Chuguev District court against the Chuguev Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of interior, the State Treasury on reimbursement of the damages.

On 29 June of 2017, the Chuguev District Court awarded the compensation to Mr. Z. in the amount of 454,400 UAH.

On 22 November 2017, the Court of Appeal of the Kharkiv Region reduced the amount of compensation to 8,800 UAH.

On 26 September 2018, the Supreme court of Ukraine reversed the judgment of the Appeal Court and uphold the judgment of Chuguev District court. Mr. Z received a writ of execution..

Now Mr. Z waits for compulsory execution of the judgment and expects to get from the State 454,400 UAH. (around 15,000 Euros).

I-him case

  1. him is a citizen of Sudan who was detained at the preliminary detention facility for foreigners without court’s decision

On 30 October 2018 the SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-files on prolonging of the term of detention of I-him and got the decision of appeal court on refusal to grant the complaint of the State border control service on prolonging the term of his detention.

On 31 October 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged a request to the temporary detention center on I-him’s immediately release. At the same time the client was released.

The client refused to lodge the complaint on compensation of non-pecuniary damage on his illegal detention.

The case is terminated.

Ka-nko case

On 2018 Mr. K lodged an administrative complaint against the Military Unit А0501, Military Unit А0536 on the recognition of unlawful omission, obligation to act, compensation for non-pecuniary damage

The complaint is based on a statement that he have been passed enlistment by contract in the Armed Forces of Ukraine since 07 March 2015. Mr. K was transferred from Military Unit A0536 to Military Unit A0501 in May 2016. During his transfer from one military unit to another, he wasn’t given a certificate of food, and this certificate wasn’t sent from the Military Unit A0536 to the Military Unit A0501. As a result Mr. K wasn’t receiving a proper nutrition in the Military Unit A0501. Concerning on the lack of proper nutrition his health was gotten worse which is a base for the compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

At the end of 2018 Regional Administrative Court of Kharkiv upheld the complaint and assessed the compensation for the cost of non-delivered meals for the period of stay at the point of permanent deployment of the Military Unit A0501 for the period from 11 May 2016 to 01 December 2017 and the non-pecuniary damage from both Units in the amount of 25 000UAH from each of them.

Ev-nov case

On 12 July 2018 convicted Ev-nov asked the SLC lawyer for a legal assistance. He told that the term of his detention had ended on 05 July 2018, but he was not released from Kherson pre-trial detention center.

After meeting with Mr. Ev-nov, the SLC lawyer sent complaints to the Kherson city and region prosecutor`s office and sent an application to Kherson pre-trial detention center.

After complaints were received the region prosecutor conducted examination, Mr. Ev-nov was released from custody.

Deme-ko case

On 19 October 2018 Mr. Deme-ko asked the SLC lawyer for a legal assistance. Mr. Deme-ko told that on 12 October 2018 during his building had been searched, the police officers found and confiscated 30 patrons.

According to expert conclusion patrons recognizes as firearms.

On 25 October 2018 Mr. Deme-ko was invited to Bilozersk police office in Kherson region to be given a suspicion of committing crime (unlawful saving firearms).

The SLC lawyer sent a complaint to chief of Bilozersk police office in Kherson region, where told that confiscated patrons were found in place, where many people have access. Moreover, Mr. De-ko have never sow these patrons before.

As a result of the SLC lawyer actions, Mr. Deme-ko was recognized as witness in this criminal proceeding.

Dro-d case

Mrs. D was born on 13 September 1976.

On 28 April 2016 she was convicted for committing a crime, prescribed by Part1 Art.115 of Criminal Code of Ukraine (murder) by the indictment of Dzergzinskyi District Court of Kryvyi Rih in Dnipro region with imposing a punishment of 8 years of imprisonment. At the moment of signing a contract about legal assistance she was serving her sentence in the Chernihivska Correction Colony №44. Mrs. D has two children and one of them was born and lived with her in the Colony.

According the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine the decision of the Court of Appeal was revoked and the judgment of the District Court was remanded without changed. The case was transmitted to a new court examination in the Court of Appeal.

For the time being an SLC lawyer signed a contract about legal assistance and made consent about strategy of defense with Mrs. D. The SLC lawyer made a request about number of important documents and added them to the case. The lawyer made an amendment to the appeal that was lodged by Mrs. D in 2016. The SLC lawyer has prepared numerous procedural documents regarding different violations of Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

On 09 November 2018 the Court of Appeal in the city of Dnipro made a decision which revoked the indictment and transmitted to the District Court for a new court examination.

The next court hearing in the Dictrict Court of Kryvyi Rih is scheduled on 27 December 2018.

L-nko case

Mr. L was charged with criminal offence prescribed by Part 2 Art.307, Part 2 Art.309, Part 2 Art.310, Part 3 Art.311 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The case was under consideration of Samarskyi District Court in the city of Dnipro. During 2016-2017 years the number of procedural actions were taken regarding the case.

On 2018 the criminal proceedings were re-qualified from Part 3 Art.307 to Part 3 Art.309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. There was an agreement offered to Mr. L but he rejected the signing of that agreement.

An SLC lawyer submitted a motion about fixing the terms of providing evidence by prosecutor which was granted by District Court. During 2018 year there were 15 court hearings appointed and led. Several court hearings were adjourned due to absence of witnesses.

On 16 October 2018 Samarskyi District Court acquitted Mr. L from all the charges except Part. 1 Art.309 of the Criminal Code and imposed a punishment of 6 months of arrest. The SLC lawyer explained the necessity of application to the medical care institution for the purpose of further treatment and exemption from criminal liability on the basis of Part 4 Art.309 of Criminal Code. Also the possibility of appeal was explained to Mr. L. After that communication Mr. L hasn’t got in touch and the prolongation of the contract about providing legal assistance wasn’t made.

Case of Mr. Luk.

Mr. Luk. is a Ukrainian citizen who lives in Kharkiv region. He was accused of committing several crimes under article 185 (theft and burglary taking together) and 307 (drug dealing) of the CC of Ukraine.

Mr. Luk. pleaded his guilt of committing thefts and burglaries simultaneously reimbursed pecuniary damage to inflicted victims. However, he objected during court meetings against accusation of committing of the drug dealing.

The SLC lawyer familiarized with case-files and made some conclusions which might be described as follow.

The SLC lawyer noticed that drug dealing was provoked by police officers and collected evidences were inadmissible. Indeed Mr. Luk. was a drug addict, convicted several times of drug collecting without aim to sell them. Even so previous guilty verdicts could not be considered as a proof of the actually guilt.

Two controlled purchases of drugs were conducted by the same under-covered police agent and the same witnesses. There were no additional proofs of selling drugs to other people by Mr. Luk. except selling to the police agent. The SLC lawyer also got to know that people mentioned in this case participated in controlled purchases in other criminal proceedings (including witnesses). Moreover, the police agent was not questioned in the court meetings though she was asked to come for several times. Also, she was found guilty for different reasons seven times and was on probation during controlled purchase. Finally, she died so her interrogation now is impossible.

The first controlled purchase was provided while the prosecutor’s resolution of committed the controlled crime expired. The case files also has not included any data about court decisions which allowed providing audio and video recording.

The SLC lawyer prepared several motions including the motion of changing preliminary measure from detention to house arrest. Nowadays the term of home arrest expired and no preliminary measures were chosen instead.

In September 2016, the trial court passed the verdict and found Mr. Luk. guilty of theft and illegal selling drugs.

The SLC lawyer lodged a complaint against the verdict of the trial court, as he believed the sentence in recognition of Mr. Luk. guilty in selling drugs under par.2 Article 307 of the Criminal Code unsubstantiated. Now Mr. Luk. waits the appeal hearing.

On 16 January 2018, the Court of Appeal did not changed the verdict (1 episode justified), removing the reference to inadmissible evidence from the verdict.

On 12 March 2018 the SLC lawyer filled a cassation appeal.

On 7 June 2018 the SLC lawyer filed an application for recounting term of pre-trial detention to the term of the sentence (from 21.06.2017 to 16.01.2018).

On 4 October 2018, the Kharkiv District Court of Kharkiv region dismissed the application for recounting term of pre-trial detention to the term of the sentence (from 21.06.2017 to 16.01.2018).

On October 2018 the, SLC lawyer appealed the judgment of the District Court.

6 November 2018, the Kharkiv Court of Appeal revoked a judgment of the District Court and granted the motion of the SLC lawyer.

On 9 November 2018 Mr. Luk was released from penitentiary.

On 22 October 2018, The Supreme Court of Ukraine opened proceedings.

On 10 December The Supreme Court of Ukraine appointed the case to the hearing on 18 April 2019.

M-yy case

A prisoner Mr. M-yy filed to the Circle administrative court in Kiev city a claim against the Central regional department of execution of punishment on cancellation of refusal to transfer his from another correctional colony for execution of punishment. M-yy wanted to execute punishment closer to his parents’ permanent residence.

On 19 June 2017 the Circle administrative court in Kiev dismissed the applicant to open proceedings. The court analyzed para 1,2, of Article 538 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine and Article 93 of the Penal code. The court noted that such claim had been related with execution of punishment and if so it should have been considered in criminal proceedings. M-yy appealed.

On 18 September 2017 the Kiev administrative court of appeal cancelled the decision of the trial court and returned the claim back.

In December 2017 the trial court started consideration but the hearing was postponed.

The court proceedings are pending.

In June 2018 the court decided to change type of proceedings on written.

On 19 October 2018 the trial court granted the applicant’s complaint and obliged the Ministry of justice of Ukraine to re-consider the applicant request.

N-go case

Mr. Ne-go is a Russian citizen who serves his life imprisonment in the Zamkov correctional colony no.58 (Ukraine).

On 28 April 2018 Ne-go with his civil partner lodged an application of marriage to the Register’s Office in Khmelnytskyy region.

On 15 May 2018 the Register’s Office refused Mr. Ne-go on registration of his marriage explained that he was a foreigner and did not have a residence permit or any other document which could prove the legal character of his being in Ukraine.

Ne-go asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-files and prepared the administrative claim on the resolution of Register’s Office. The SLC lawyer mentioned that Ne-go’s guilty verdict was a certain legal basis for his permanent staying in Ukraine.

On 18 July 2018 the Circle administrative court in Khmelnytska region granted Ne-go’s claim and quashed the resolution of the Register’s Office.

The Register’s Office did not appeal.

In August 2014 Ne’go got married.

Pya –kov case

At the end of 2015 Russian citizen, Mr. P moved to Ukraine due to his political views. He participated in the anti-terrorist operation in the East of Ukraine on the side of the Ukrainian government forces. Since June 2015, he defended territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine in the armed conflict with Russia as an undercover agent of the intelligence service of the Ministry of Defense.

On 9 December 2015 Mr. P was detained by the Security Office of Ukraine and charged of various crimes. These detention and charge were caused by political and various intrigues in the security agencies of Ukraine.

Oleg Muzhchil "Lisnik" was the leader of Mr. P. He was one of the most famous, authoritative and honest defenders of Ukraine. He was killed during his detention. He was also charged of crimes, which he allegedly committed.

Over a year ago, Mr. P was arrested. At present, criminal cases were transferred to a trial. The trial has been delayed for more than a year by prosecutors and courts. Courts under various pretences constantly postpone the proceedings.

In the spring of 2017, Mr. B applied for a refugee status to the Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS).

On 13 September 2017, SMS. refused Mr. P. for the refugee status.

On 4 October of 2017, Mr. P. received the decision of the SMS. from 13 September 2017.

Mr. P has reasonable fear of becoming a victim of discrimination and harassment by the authorities of Russian Federation and non-governmental nationalist organizations (in the form of prosecution, illegal judgment, torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). Consequently, he cannot return to Russia.

Under the decision of the SMS. Mr. P has not reasonable fear of becoming a victim of discrimination and harassment by the authorities of Russian Federation

On 10 October 2017, Mr. P. filed a motion to the Kyiv District Administrative Court in which he asked the court to cancel the decision of the SMS. on the refusal him to the refugee status and oblige the SMS. to give him that status.

On 8 September 2018 the District Court quashed the decision of the SMS. from 13 September 2018.

The SMS. appealed against the judgment of the District Court.

On 29 November 2018, The Administrative Court of Appeal conducted of the proceeding.

Tupo-nko case

At the beginning of June 2018 Mr. Tupo-nko asked the SLC lawyer for a legal assistance. He told that he had been accused of drug dealing and currently serving his punishment in Kherson correctional colony (no 90). The administration of colony denied to replace the unpunished part of the sentence for more lenient.

The SLC lawyer sent a motion on replace the unpunished part of the sentence to Kherson city court.

On 18 July 2018 the SLC`s lawyer motion was satisfied: Mr. Tupo-nko personal characteristic was demanded from colony.

On 25 July 2018 the court satisfied the SLC lawyer’s motion, unpunished part of the sentence was replaced for more lenient.

So-kina case

Mrs. S is a citizen of the Russian Federation. She moved to Ukraine with her husband Mr. B who in 2014 was passing a military service in the volunteer battalion "Sviata Maria" and defended the integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine from the Russian Federation (RF).

05 May 2016 Mrs. S filed a motion to State Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS) on granting her refugee status or a status of person in need of additional protection. She’s noticed that she can’t return to the country of origin due to the probability of being subjected to physical pressure, criminal and political persecution for her husband’s participation in hostilities against Russian aggression as a member of Ukrainian volunteer battalion "Sviata Maria". At the moment of filing the motion she was legally in the territory of Ukraine.

02 December 2016 SMS. dismissed the motion of Mrs. S.

Earlier, the danger for further residence of Mrs. S in RF was established by Desnianskiy District Court in city of Chernihiv and Administrative Court of Appeal of Kyiv decisions.

Mrs. S lodged a complaint on decision of SMS. to the Court but the District Court denied the complaint. The Court argued that the documents of passing the service by Mr. B are doubtful because of a report of SMS. that stated about contraries in dates and authorities that provided these documents. However, in the court a lawyer of the SLC has provided all the documents which negated the above argumentation (new confirmation of the service and instructions from the command battalion of a technical mistake at the first certificate of service). The lawyer of the SLC prepared an appeal complaint against court decision.

On 20 March 2018 Administrative Court of Appeal of Kyiv revoked the decision of District Court. The Court of Appeal obligated SMS. to make a decision on the granting of refugee status or additional protection to Mrs. S.

Case of Mrs. Rasche-kyna

Mrs. Rasche-kyna is an Ukrainian citizen who is accused of committing several crimes under Article 186 (robbery), 190 (fraud) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, at the beginning of 2015. She was not under preliminary detention, and at the end of 2015 she was arrested under Article 307 (selling drugs).

Mrs. Rasche-kyna pleaded her guilt of committing robbery and fraud but objected against the accusation of selling them. Later she asked the SLC lawyer to provide her with legal assistance.

Having familiarized with case-files the SLC lawyer recognized that drug dealing had been provoked by police officers. The accusation was based on inadmissible evidence and interrogation of the police agent who participated in two controlled purchases. There was no information about selling drugs to other people except the police agent. The SLC lawyer did not have access to prosecutor’s resolutions of controlled purchases as well as court decisions according to which police officers interfered to the private life. The police agent was questioned as an anonymous witness though Mrs. Rasche-kyna knew him for a long time. Also the prosecution lost money used as the evidence of selling drugs.

The SLC lawyer thinks that the court which considers case does not impartial. Prolonging the term of preliminary detention, the presiding judge noticed that “Mrs. Rasche-kyna committed the crime” though there was no judgment in this case. The presumption of innocence was broken totally. Earlier the same judge considered the criminal case where prosecution’s witnesses were accused of committing crimes. They were found guilty and sentenced but the Court of Appeal quashed the decision because of too low punishment for this people.

The SLC lawyer submitted a motion on recusation of the judge. The court refuse lawyer of holding fingerprint examination, but the trial judge after this event started to appear prejudice against the lawyer declining all motions of the lawyer without any reasonable grounds. Although the tension relations with the judge the lawyer believes that that position of the prosecution is weak for reasoning the charges.

Ms. R. after the replacement of a judge, contrary to the advice of the SLC lawyer, found herself guilty and on 12 June 2017 she was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years 1 month of imprisonment.

 On 26 February 2018, the Court of Appeal cancelled this verdict and ordered a new sentence that imposed the same punishment, but with the confiscation of property.

On September 2018, the SLC lawyer filed a motion for recounting term of pre-trial detention to the term of the sentence.

On 28 September 2018 the Kominternovski District Court of Kharkiv region granted the motion of the SLC lawyer.

8 October 2018, Mrs. Rashe-kyna was released from penitentiary.

She-man case

Mr. Sh is a citizen of Russian Federation (RF). He was born in Moscow. He is a famous political activist and has taken part in a lot of protest campaigns.

On 29 July 2015 and on 27 October 2016 he was twice rejected by State Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS) on granting him refugee status or a status of person in need of additional protection. In the motion he alleged to his Russian citizenship and impossibility of returning to the country of origin due to a fear of being a victim of discrimination and persecution because of his political opinion.

On 15 August 2014 in the social network Facebook on his own page he shared the
journalist’s material and added an emotional comment to it. On 30 September 2014 a senior investigator of Kuntsevskyi District Police Station of West Administrative District of General Investigation Department in took criminal proceedings what became the reason for leaving the territory of RF.

The SMS. didn’t check the consequences of returning to RF for Mr. Sh who is one of the most famous Russian opposition bloggers and pro-Ukrainian activists.

An SLC lawyer independently submitted numerous documents for confirmation of non-compliance of human rights by RF, human rights violation during the pre-trial investigation, inhuman treatment of law enforcement authorities to Russian citizens and foreigners. However, neither at the first examination nor in the second the above documents weren’t taken into account.

With the help of SLC lawyer Mr. Sh applied to the Administrative District Court of Kyiv with an administrative suit in which he asked to recall the SMS. refusal on granting him refugee status or a status of person in need of additional protection and obligate SMS. to grant him the above status.

On 31 October 2018 Administrative District Court of Kyiv granted Mr. Sh’s claim, recalled the SMS. decision to refuse on granting the refugee status and obligated SMS. to grant the refugee status to Mr. Sh.

Fe-sov case

Mr. F lodged a complaint to the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv against the Military Unit A 1352, Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in Kharkiv region, Main Department of the State Treasury Service in Kharkiv region for the purpose of reparation.

The complaint is based on a statement that on 23 March 2017 a fire began with further explosions of ammunition on the territory of the 65th artillery arsenal of ammunition (Military Unit A 1352 of the Security Service of Ukraine) in the city of Balaklia in Kharkiv region. Mr. F’s car, garage and the property that was in the garage were destroyed due to these events.

On 09 August 2018 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv upheld the complaint of Fedosov in part.

According to the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv decision there should be the reparation made by military unit A 1352 of the Security Service of Ukraine in favour of Mr. F for corporeal damage in the amount of 152 000 UAH and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 20,000 UAH.

The State Treasury Service hadn’t agreed with the court decision and lodged an appeal complaint.

Examination of the appeal by the Kharkiv Court of Appeal is scheduled on 12 December 2018.

Case of Mrs. F.

Mrs. F. served the punishment in the Odessa Correction Colony (No. 74). Mrs. F. has oothecoma. During the first half of 2018, Mrs. F. repeatedly complained to the management of the Odessa Correction Colony (No. 74) for ill health and declared the need to provide her with proper medical treatment in a hospital environment by gynaecologist. Mrs. F.`s complains about her health were ignored.

On 23 October 2018, the SLC lawyer filed a lawyer`s request to the chief of the Odessa Correction Colony (No. 74) on provision of Mrs. F.`s medical documentation and transferring of Mrs. F. to the hospital.

 On 5 November 2018, Mrs. F. was transferred from the Odessa Correction Colony (No. 74) to the hospital of the Darivska Correction Colony (No. 10).

Iv-ko case

An Ukrainian citizen Mr. I, who is currently living in Kharkiv. On 16 September 2015 he was detained after two episodes of controlled drugs purchase.

During pre-trial investigation and court hearings of the case Mr. I did not plead guilty 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. The free legal aid lawyer took part in the case hearing.

On 18 March 2016, the Kominternivskiy district court in Kharkiv region found Mr. I guilty in selling drugs and sentenced to seven years imprisonment with confiscation of property.

Mr. I filed an appeal on verdict. On 20 September 2016 The court of appeal on Kharkiv region did not satisfy an appeal and did not change a verdict.

Mr. I filed a cassation appeal on verdict and decision of Court of Appeal.

In June 2017 the SLC lawyer several times consulted Mr. I in case of cassation appeal.

On 4 July 2017 the Highest Specialized Court quashed the judgement of the Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to Appeal Court.

On 7 August 2017 the SLC lawyer entered to the case.

The appellate hearing of the case is pending. The hearings several times were postponed due to different reasons.

On August 17, 2017, the Court of Appeal ordered to the prosecutor, to give for the court the prosecutor’s decisions on the control of the crime in the form of drug testing purchase as well as the investigating judge’s permission to conduct an audio, video monitoring of the person.

On 2 4 October 2017, the prosecutor submitted to the court the requested documents. The court gave for the defense time for learning the materials.

During the proceedings the Court of Appeal did not consider the matter of Mr. I. detention. The SLC lawyer prepared a request to the Pre-trial detention center about legal grounds of Mr. I detention.

At a new trial, the court did not consider Mr. I. custody.

On 30.11.2017the court ordered the lawyer to receive materials provided by the prosecutor.

25.01.2018, 15.02.2018, 31.05.2018 the court session was postponed in connection with the resignation of one of the members of the college.

On 14.08.2018, the sentence of Kominternivsky Disctrict Court from 18.03.2016 was revoked and the case was sent for new trial in the court of first instance by the judgement of the Court of Appeal of Kharkiv region.

On 09.10.2018, Mr. I. signed a guilty plea offered by the prosecutor during the preliminary court hearing at the Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv. The court sentenced Mr. I. to 6 years 2 months of imprisonment on the basis of the plea. The sentence includes the period of detention of Mr. I. Therefore, he was released in the courtroom since he has already served his sentence.

The case is closed.

Case of Ra-n

On 27 December 2017 to the room where Mr. Ra-n lived came his acquainted. He accused Mr. Ra-n of providing him unsatisfactory services. Then the acquainted repeatedly beat Mr. Run, and the last one, protecting himself punched the acquainted in return.

Committing action the Prosecutor’s Office has qualified as an attempted murder.

Mr. Ra-n disagreed and mentioned that he only protected himself from physical attack of the victim. To prepare his defense Mr. Ra-n asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-files. At court meetings he stood on position that Mr. Ra-n did not have a purpose to kill his acquainted and just went beyond reasonable self-defense to protect his life.

Finally, agreed with the SLC lawyer. On 7 November 2018 the Kyyvskyy district court in Kharkiv by his verdict found Mr. Ra-n guilty, mentioned that his actions should be qualified as actions beyond reasonable self-defense and sentenced him to 1 year 8 months imprisonment. Due to the fact that Mr. Ra-n has executed full term of his imprisonment during pre-trial investigation he was immediately released.

Case of Su-k

Mr. Oleksandr Sugak was born in 1959 and currently lives in Kyiv.

In 2010, he was detained as a criminal suspect in relation to fraud.

On 15 April 2010, the investigator of the Main Investigation Department in Kyiv presented Mr. Sugak with a final charge of committing crimes on 855 pages in 4 volumes of the criminal case.

According to the report on the announcement of the charges, it was commenced at 13.40 pm, and at 14.00 a different procedural action was initiated – Mr. Sugak’s interrogation as a suspected person.

In addition, before the criminal proceedings were initiated and the final prosecution was filed, the pre-trial investigation authority sent the victims a notice of the end of the pre-trial investigation, that had violated the rights of the defendants.

Between 2010 and 2018, the case has repeatedly returned to pre-trial investigation. In September 2018, the SLC lawyer joined the case as a defender of Mr. Sugak.

On 3 December 2018, the Desniansky District Court of Kyiv upheld the SLC lawyer`s motion and returned the indictment act to the prosecutor. The case is pending.

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password