search  
Human Rights in Ukraine. Website of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group
print
21.03.2020 | Gennadiy Tokarev
The right to a fair trial

A brief description of KHPG strategic litigations in July–December 2019

   

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Five сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgements in 2018

Burlakov and Lysenko v. Ukraine

Chen-k v. Ukraine

Radyukin v. Ukraine

Ser-v v. Ukraine

Smilyanskaya v. Ukraine

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

Chernov v. Ukraine

Ilchenko v. Ukraine0

Ki-sh v. Ukraine

Lynnyk v. Ukraine

Mazanko v. Ukraine and Russia

Panchuk v. Ukraine

Pa-rov v. Ukraine

Romanov v. Ukraine

Severin v. Ukraine

Starishko v. Ukraine

Sv-ts v. Ukraine

15 cases related 59 applicants 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

4 cases related to prisoners left at the occupied territory

D-ga v. Ukraine and Russia

Or-iy v. Ukraine and Russia

S-ov v. Ukraine and Russia

Te-rin v. Ukraine and Russia

8 more cases related 49 applicants in which applications have been lodged before the ECHR

Case of conditions of detention in Zhovtovodsk correctional colony No. 26 related 42 convicted persons

Kh-v case

K-r v. Ukraine

Max-n v. Ukraine0

Mykh-s v. Ukraine0

P-h v. Ukraine

Selesh v. Ukraine

V-lenko v. Ukraine

3 cases related events in the Eastern part of Ukraine

P-rev v. Ukraine and Russia

Sam-v v. Ukraine and Russia

Zh-va v. Ukraine

77 cases which were considered in national courts

7 foreigners who are in want of legal defense

A-s case

Loshk-v case

Mykha-lov case

Na-ze case

Pyrno-rov case

P-v case

Sheve-va case

12 cases related drug users,

As-v case

B-ov case

Bo-man case0

Bo-rov case

Drozdov case (criminal proceeding on Article 307)

La-v case

Tel-ov case

Terniv-kyi case

T-nko case

Voy-nko case

Zh-n case

Z-as case

12 cases related people suffered from grievous illness and other vulnerable group of prisoners

B-ko case

B-ov case

K-ets’s case0

Ko-ko case0

Ly-chy case

M-k case

P-n case

R-ak’s case

So-pova case

S-ov’s case

S’s case

Tem-ko case

2 cases related to the conflict at the Eastern part of Ukraine

Gu-nova case

Tk-ko case

33 other cases

An-va case

As-v case

Ch-na case

Dam-n case

D-tsky’s case

D-ov case

Dro-d case

G-ov case

Hol-nya case0

H-ko case0

Hur-v case

I-n case

Klo-ko case

K-ko’s case

K-h’s case

Kr-ts case

K-tsev’s case

L-v case

Le-nova case

Lesno-kiy case

L-kh case

Maksy-nko case

Mal-n case

Mal-yi case

P’s case

P-r. case

R-ka’s case0

Se-nov case0

Sen-ko case

Sh-ko case

Sh-na case

S-niuk’s case

U-kov case

11 cases ended in success

Ah-va’s case

D’va case

K’t case

Ma-mov case

Mykhaylov case

P-v case

Pot-va case

Salni-va case

Sh-n case0

Yer-nko cse

Zadoro-niy case

Five сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgements in 2018

Burlakov and Lysenko v. Ukraine

On 25 June 2010 the Mr. B and Mr. S were arrested by officers of the State Security Service on suspicion of drug trafficking. In the course of their arrest they were allegedly beaten and subjected to different forms of ill-treatment. The officers continued to beat and threaten them after they had been arrested.

The ambulance doctors noted that both of them had different injuries.

On 21 August 2010 an investigator of the Kharkiv regional prosecutor’s office, having conducted a pre-investigation inquiry, refused to open criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr. B.

On 10 September 2010 the investigator of the Kharkiv regional prosecutor’s office refused to open criminal proceedings into the alleged ill treatment of the Mr. L.

Mr. L appealed against that decision. On 8 December 2010 the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv upheld the investigator’s decision of 10 September 2010 as lawful and substantiated.

In the February 2011, Mr. B and Mr. L turned to the SLC asking to provide them legal assistance.

 On 14 April 2011 the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv upheld the investigator’s decision of 21 August 2010 as lawful and substantiated.

On 4 July 2011 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 14 April 2011 taken by the first-instance court.

On 25 July 2011 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court, emphasising the expert’s finding that the injuries had been sustained five to eight days before the examination.

Following the Mr. B and Mr. L’s arrests they were brought before the Chervonozavodskyy District Court, which authorised their detention. Subsequently, that court and the Kharkiv Court of Appeal issued a number of rulings extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention. During pre-trial governance, the SIZO administration did not provide meetings with representatives and limit their availability to all issues.

During their pre-trial detention the transport to and from court hearings they had been detained in prison vans and transit cells of the local court with insufficient access to fresh air and no ventilation. They had thus been exposed to high summer temperatures for long periods of time. Moreover, they had been exposed to tobacco smoke, because some detainees had smoked while being transported. Food had not been provided. There had also been occasions on which they had been transported in vans together with inmates suffering from tuberculosis.

Complaints to law enforcement agencies about improper transportation conditions have proved ineffective.

 On 15 August 2014 the Kominternovskyy District Court found Mr. B and Mr. L guilty of, inter alia, drug trafficking, and sentenced them to more than nine years’ imprisonment.

An SLC lawyer drafted and lodged application to the ECHR on Articles 3, 13 of the Convention claiming the degrading treatment of the State Security Service officials to Mr. B and Mr. L,         ineffective investigation of torture and improper conditions of detention, the non - reasonable terms of pre-trial investigation and the effective access to the court and to the case-file.

On 17 December 2019 ECHR found a violation of the Article 3 of the Convention concerning the degrading treatment applied to both Mr. B and Mr. L. Also, a violation of Article 13 of the Convention was found in the course of their transportation to the court hearing, Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention.

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

Chen-k v. Ukraine

Mr. CH was born in 1975 and was detained in Kharkiv. He had had a number of criminal convictions in the past, including for drugs-related offences, and at the time of the events had been released on probation.

At about 2.30 p.m. on 31 March 2010 on the basis of information that Mr. Ch had still been engaged in criminal activity, the police conducted a sting operation. In the course of the purchase, Mr.Ch sold a psychotropic drug to a police agent. Following that, according to Mr. Ch, he was approached by police officers and “invited” to follow them to the Zhovtnevy district police station in Kharkiv (“the police station”).

 Following Mr. Ch’s arrival at the police station a visual examination was performed in the presence of attesting witnesses, from 3 to3.15 p.m. according to the relevant records. The relevant records do not contain any entry suggesting that Mr. Ch had any visible injuries at the time.

At about 4.30 p.m., according to the applicant, he was caught by the police near his place of residence and forcefully taken back to the police station. The relevant entry in the police station logbook, as referred to in the court’s decision of 23 April 2010 (see paragraph 24 below), suggests that Mr. Ch arrived back to the police station at 7.30 p.m. On the same day “explanations” were obtained from him in which he confessed to several episodes of drug trafficking and provided the details.

Due to numerous tortures, as he had been unable to bear the pain, Mr. Ch had signed documents attesting to his involvement in drug trafficking, including the “explanations”.

 At an unspecified time on the same day criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr. Ch in connection with the manufacture and sale of drugs.

At an unspecified time on the same day criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr. Ch in connection with the manufacture and sale of drugs.

From 12.25 to 12.45 a.m. on 1 April 2010 the police drew up an arrest report according to which Mr.Ch had been arrested by an investigator at 12.25 a.m. on 1 April 2010.

Following that, Mr. Ch was transferred to a temporary detention facility (“the ITT”) but his admission was refused by the ITT administration and he was returned to the police station. According to the Mr. CH, his admission was refused because of his injuries. The authorities suggested that this had been because the Mr. Ch had complained about his state of health.

At about 5 a.m. on 1 April 2010 police officers on duty called an ambulance, and at around 6 a.m. Mr. Ch was taken to the Kharkiv emergency hospital (“the hospital”). His medical examination at the hospital established that he had a fracture of his ninth and tenth ribs on the left side, chest trauma, and a head injury.

 On 9 April 2010, while Mr. Ch was still in hospital, he was questioned by the investigator as an accused. Mr. Ch denied his guilt and refused to give any evidence unless represented by a lawyer. Later on the same date, in the presence of the prosecutor and his lawyer, the District Court decided not to apply a preventive measure but extended the term of Mr. Ch’s police custody to fifteen days.

On 15 April 2010, in the presence of the prosecutor, Mr. Ch and his lawyer, the District Court ordered Mr. Ch’s detention on the grounds that he posed a danger to society and was liable to reoffend.

On 17 April 2010 Mr. Ch was taken to the temporary detention centre (“the SIZO”) in Kharkiv.

On 19 April 2010 Mr. Ch’s lawyer complained to the District Court that Mr. Ch’s detention from the moment of his actual arrest until the drawing up the arrest report by the investigator had been unlawful.

On 23 April 2010 the District Court rejected the above complaint as unsubstantiated.

Since 27 August 2010 Mr. Ch has been represented by the SLC attorney.

On 18 October 2011 Mr. Ch was released from detention under an undertaking not to abscond.

 On 4 November 2013, after Mr. Ch’s criminal case had been returned to the investigator several times for additional investigation, the proceedings against him were terminated. Investigation into the complaints of the applicant’s ill-treatment

On 12 April 2010 Mr. Ch’s lawyer, complained to the Kharkiv regional police force of the unlawful detention of the Mr. Ch on 31 March 2010 and his ill-treatment by the police on the same date.

On 14 April 2010 the investigator granted the lawyer’s request in the part which concerned ordering the forensic medical examination

On 15 and 16 April 2010 the Mr. Ch’s mother and his lawyer, acting on his behalf, lodged a criminal complaint with the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in respect of the Mr. Ch’s ill-treatment by the police on 31 March 2010.

The forensic medical examination under the above-mentioned investigator’s and prosecutor’s orders was performed by the expert on the basis of the case file and lasted from 25 to 28 May 2010.

On 14 May 2010 the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in view of the lack of constituent elements of a crime in their actions.

On 28 May 2010 the expert D. delivered two reports in which he submitted that he had not been in a position to answer the investigator’s and prosecutor’s questions on the basis of the available material.

On 30 September 2010, concerning numerous refuses in effective investigation of the fact of Mr. Ch’s ill-treatment, the SLC attorney lodged an application to ECtHR.

On 29 March 2011, following Mr. Ch’s complaint, the prosecutor’s decision of 14 May 2010 not to institute criminal proceedings was annulled by a senior prosecutor as premature and incomplete.

On 5 April 2011 the prosecutor again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers.

On 2 September 2011, the District Court annulled the above decision of the prosecutor as premature and ordered that an additional forensic medical examination be conducted, which had to include an examination of Mr. Ch in person and a control X-ray being performed.

06 жовтня 2011 року за вказівками районного суду прокурор призначив додаткову судово-медичну експертизу.

On 6 October 2011, following the District Court’s instructions, the prosecutor ordered an additional forensic medical examination.

 In the meantime, on 7 October 2011, the prosecutor again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on similar grounds to those in his decision of 5 April 2011.

On 19 October 2011 an additional forensic medical report was delivered by the expert D., which to a major extent reiterated the conclusions of the report of 6 July 2010.

On 19 December 2011 the supervising prosecutor quashed the prosecutor’s decision of 7 October 2011 as premature and unlawful.

In the meantime, on 29 December 2011, the prosecutor again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on the same grounds as before.

On 30 January 2012 the forensic expert D. issued an additional report (no. 6688-ая/11) in which he reiterated his previous conclusion that Mr. Ch had suffered a fracture on the left-side ninth rib and that this injury could have been caused by a blunt firm object at the time indicated in the prosecutor’s request for additional examination.

On 2 March 2012 the prosecutor’s refusal of 29 December 2011 to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers was quashed by the supervising prosecutor.

On 12 March 2012 having noted that it appeared impossible to question witnesses because of their failure to appear, the prosecutor delivered another refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. This decision was quashed on 28 May 2012 as premature and ill founded.

On 7 June 2012, having additionally questioned several police officers and having noted that it appeared impossible to question other witnesses, the prosecutor refused to institute the criminal proceedings against the police officers.

On 7 Deceber 2016 the Government of Ukraine was notified on matter of fact of Mr. Ch’s application lodged to ECtHR.

On 18 July 2019 ECtHR found a violation of substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention regarding ill-treatment of Mr. Ch, para. 1 of Article 5 of the Convention in relation with delay in drawing up the arrest report.

Radyukin v. Ukraine

The applicant Mr R. has been held in the “SIZO” from 24 April 2015 to 05 June 2018 in two different sells (no. 905 and no. 939) which he shared with four other detained.

The applicant asserts that conditions of his detention in the Dnipropetrovsk Pre-Trial Detention Facility (the “SIZO”) were incompatible with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention.

In particular, the cells were overcrowded, there was lack of access to fresh air and daylight in the cells, lack of essential hygiene means and bath procedures, sanitary conditions were poor, the nutrition was poor and made by tainted food products.

To prove the fact that the cells in the “SIZO” were overcrowded the applicant refers to the Government’s submissions provided in § 7 of their Observations according to which the area of the SIZO’s cells was 14,5 m2 (cell no 905) and 13,6 m2 (cell no 939), which the applicant shared with 4 (four) more detainees.

Despite the fact that such size of the cell is provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Pre-Trial Detention” the applicant refers to the Reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (hereinafter – the CPT) made on the results of its visits to Ukraine in which the Committee repeatedly emphasized on the necessarily to increase the size of the living area for one detainee from 2,5 m2 to 4 m2.

In 2018 the applicant lodged an application under Article 3 before the ECtHR

In April 2019, the ECtHR sent to the applicant’s lawyer the Observations of the Government of Ukraine to his complaint before the ECtHR, and on 14 March 2019, the SC lawyer lodged to the Court the reply to the Government.

On 12 July 2019 the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of article 3 Conventoin.

Ser-v v. Ukraine

On August 04, 2014 at 20:20 Mr. S. was detained by the staff of the Nikolyiv regional department on fight against organized crime on the charge of extortion (part 2 of Art.189 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and placed in a temporary detention centre (TDC).

Mr. S. is a drug addicted, HIV-infected, carrier of viral hepatitis C. He is a drug addict with a diagnosis of opioid dependence.

From June 19, 2009 to July 21, 2011, Mr. S. was undergoing voluntary treatment with methadone replacement therapy at the Mykolayiv Regional Central Hospital (MRCH).

The applicant received antiretroviral therapy, which included the drug Efavirenz.

According to Mr. S. and his close associates, he took several types of drugs at large doses.

At the time of detention, the dose of the substitute drug prescribed for Mr. S. was 280 mg (75 mg average dose in Ukraine).

 On 7 August 2014 a court hearing on the selection of a preventive measure for Mr. S. took place. The Central District Court of Mykolaiv issued a detention order for 2 months and placed him in the Mykolaiv Detention Centre (SIZO).

By the time Mr. S. was arrested by the court, he was in custody in a temporary detention facility (ITT), from where he was taken to a substitution maintenance therapy program in accordance with a medical prescription.

By the time Mr. S. was arrested by the court, he was in custody in a temporary detention facility (ITT), from where he was taken to a substitution maintenance therapy program in accordance with a medical prescription.

Mr. S’s therapeutic dose of methadone was almost in for times more than an average one for patients in Ukraine – 75 mg. The dose of the methadone was so high due to that Mr. S received antiretroviral therapy including drug Enfavirenzum which reduces the concentration of methadone (by 6 percent), which required the doctor to significantly increase the dose of methadone (on average by 50 percent).

The speed of reducing of a daily dose of methadone for Mr. S was more than in two and a half times that is foreseen by the domestic health regulations and this fact was mentioned by the head of the hospital.

According to the reply of the hospital of 11 August 2014 to the request of Mr. S’s lawyer, the sharp reduction of a dose of the drug (methadone) could lead to severe consequences for the Mr. S who needed in-patient detoxification in the Mykolayiv Drug Rehabilitation Clinic for period no less than 3 months.

On 12 August 2014, the head of the hospital informed the chief of the SIZO that sharp withdrawal of the drug (methadone) might lead to grave consequence to the applicant, accordingly the latter needed in the in-patient treatment.

One of the reasons for the Mr. S’s hospitalization was that his addiction specialist prescribed him the supportive psychotropic drugs which were unavailable in the SIZO that had not been licenced for medical operations with drugs.

On August 14, Mr. S. in a convoy car physically could no longer accept the position of sitting and lying on the metal floor. Mr. S. was taken to the office of substitution therapy, lying on the metal floor of the convoy car, at a temperature of +38 C. In the same position, Mr. S. was examined by a physician and took substitution therapy. This fact was confirmed by the MDRC response of 14 August 2014.

On 14 August 2014, the head of the hospital informed the investigator that Mr. S’s health state is grave, insisting on his hospitalization.

On 15 August 2014, the SLC lawyer lodged with the Court a request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court asked the Government to submit the relevant information relating to the applicant’s request by 1 September 2014.

As Mr. S since 21 August 2014 was provided with the in-patient treatment in the clinic, the following procedures under Rule 39 have been discontinued as unnecessary.

After hospitalization to the clinic, Mr. S was being under the treatment until 03.10.2014. Having been reduced the methadone dosage to 10 mg, Mr. S decided to discontinue further detoxification since he reach the dose of the drug after which he could live without the treatment.

On July 11, 2019, the ECtHR found a violation of Art. 3 of the Convention in the context of the ill-treatment of Mr S. during being in custody.

Smilyanskaya v. Ukraine

In January 2011, police detained Ms. S shortly after she was discharged from hospital for carrying out an asthma attack. She was placed in a pre-trial detention centre (SIZO). A preventive measure in the form of custody concerning Ms. S was repeatedly prolongated by the District Court.

While being in custody, Ms. S. appealed to the SIZO administration and the prosecutor’s office with numerous claims on inappropriate conditions of detention and failure to receive treatment for her asthma disease, and asking to transfer her to another non-smoking cell.

In March 2011, Ms. S was assigned a forensic medical examination, which revealed a number of illnesses but there was no treatment given Ms. S.’s request on her release from detention was dismissed by the District Court.

Ms. S.’s criminal case was referred to court for a trial. In view of Ms. S.’s health, in November 2011, the court opted for her on personal commitment not to leave a, stating that Ms. S needed medical treatment at a special medical facility.

Ms. S. turned for legal assistance to the SLC.

At the end of 2011, the SLC lawyer drafted and filed a complaint with the ECHR on Article 3 of the Convention on the improper conditions of Ms. S.’s detention and failure to provide her with adequate medical treatment, as well as on Article 5 of the Convention on her arbitrary detention during pre-trial investigations, and the lack of an effective procedure to challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as well as the lack of compensation in this regard.

On 21 November 2019, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the conditions of Ms. S.’s detention in a pre-trial detention centre and a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention in connection with her unjustified detention.

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

Chernov v. Ukraine

Administrative proceedings against the applicant

On 20 June 2007 the applicant was arrested for an administrative offence.

On 21 June 2007 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy established that at about 10 p.m. on 20 June 2007 the applicant, being drunk outdoors on P. Street in Sumy, had uttered obscenities, reacted aggressively to remarks made by police officers, cursed them in obscene language, and attempted to start a fight, and that he had thus breached public order and the peace and offended human dignity and morals. The court found the applicant guilty of “minor disorderly acts”, an offence under Article 173 of the Code on Administrative Offences and sentenced him to three days’ administrative detention.

This decision became final and could not be appealed against.

The applicant served his sentence from 21 June to 23 June 2007.

On 28 January 2008 the prosecutor lodged a protest against the above decision on the basis that additional investigation into the facts had revealed that they had the features of the criminal offence of “disorderly acts” within the meaning of Article 296 of the Criminal Code, and that accordingly a criminal case had been opened against the applicant, who had been indicted under Article 296 § 3 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor referred to Article 9 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which provided that administrative responsibility must be triggered only when in substance the facts did not give rise to criminal responsibility.

On 6 February 2008 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy quashed its decision of 21 June 2007.

The applicant appealed against that decision to the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal.

On 25 February 2008 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy of 6 February 2008.

2. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 16 July 2007 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of having committed the above-mentioned criminal offence of disorderly acts within the meaning of Article 296 of the Criminal Code on 20 June 2007.

On 29 January 2008 the applicant was indicted for disorderly acts under Article 296 § 3 of the Criminal Code.

On 14 July 2008 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy convicted the applicant of disorderly acts under Article 296 § 3 and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The court made no mention of the administrative offence proceedings or his three-day administrative detention. The applicant, his two representatives and a prosecutor appealed against that decision to the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal.

On 10 March 2009 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court as far as it concerned the applicant’s guilt but reduced the sentence from a term of two years and one month’s imprisonment to a term of two years, on the grounds that in its decision of 7 October 2008 the panel of the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal had not made reference to the term of imprisonment, and that the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy had no right to worsen the applicant’s position by extending the sentence to two years and one month from the previous first-instance decision which had sentenced the applicant to only two years’ imprisonment, notwithstanding any arguments about the leniency of the sentence. The prosecutor, the applicant and his representative all lodged cassation appeals. The applicant complained, among other complaints, that he had been tried twice for the same offence.

On 24 September 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the appellate court. In response to the applicants’ complaint that he had been tried twice for the same offence, the court explained that the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy had allowed the prosecutor’s protest seeking to quash the decision of 21 June 2007 and had “closed” the administrative-offence case. The court concluded that for that reason the applicant had not been tried twice for the same offence.

In 2010 the applicant lodged an application before the European court of human rights due to his sentencing twice by national authorities.

On 13 March 2019 the case was communicated wit the Government.

On 26 October 2019 the SLC lawyer prepared and lodged observations.

Ilchenko v. Ukraine

The applicant is a Ukrainian national who served his imprisonment in the Zhovtneva correctional colony but in different periods of time he was transferred to the Kharkivskyy detention centre. The applicant suffered from tuberculosis and other grievous diseases. During his detention in Kharkivskyy detention centre he was not treated by appropriate way. He did not get prescribed therapy due to that his health state significantly deteriorated and he got more grevious problem with his health.

The applicant points that his medical treatment for tuberculosis was inappropriate due to four long breaks during his therapy: from 3 January 2015 to 2 February 2015 (30 days), from 28 March 2015 to 26 April 2015 (for 28 days), from 8 August 2015 to 7 November 2015 (60 days) and from 25 February 2016 to 23 June 2016 (for 120 days). Totally the applicant did not get medical therapy for 238 days.

As the applicant was transported to the Dnipropetrovsk detention facility on 23 January 2015 he did not get any treatment for a month just because there was no specific Cabinet for the controlled treatment of tuberculosis at the outpatient stage patients (hereinafter – the Cabinet) which had been solely authorized to provide patients with the therapy according to para. 3.7.4. of the Clinical protocol «Tuberculosis» (hereinafter – the Clinical protocol) (Annex **).

In accordance to para. 3.7.4 of the Clinical protocol, medical treatment at intensive stage of the therapy should have been for 2 or 3 months constantly but it was unexpectedly interrupted less than a month after beginning. During the first break the applicant’s health state significantly deteriorated (he was in «the condition of moderate severity due to moderate intoxication syndrome on the background tuberculosis and immunodeficiency» as a doctor wrote after his return to the Zhovtneva correctional colony no.17) (Annex **)

Later the applicant was transported to the Kharkiv detention facility from 27 March to 12 April 2015 and from 7 August 2015 to 8 November 2015 where he did not receive any medicine. Еhe Commission pointed out that «the scheme of the applicant’s medical treatment was in accordance with established standards of medical treatment but there were several breaks in the therapy. The main reason for breaks was transportation of the applicant to detention facilities».

According to para. 4.6.9 of the Clinical protocol, after long breaks, the applicant’s treatment should have been begun again from the start, however it was continued. Because of that and because of significant interruptions in his treatment the applicant health state deteriorated even more than earlier, the resistance to medical therapy has developed,. Consequently, the Central medical commission on 25 February 2016 has decided not to prescribe the applicant therapy against TB any more, canceled existence therapy and prescribed instead palliative care. In other words, the main reasons for the fourth break were previous long breaks in treatment and unwillingness of the Commission to choose another therapy. The applicant objected against cancellation of the therapy asking to change him the scheme but only on 29 June 2016 the Central medical commission decided to renew him medical treatment for tuberculosis canceling the palliative care (Annexes **). This fact and the fact that the applicant still alive proves that the Commission should have not prescribed the applicant palliative car..

Throughout his period of detention, the applicant had never undergone a course of full-blown TB treatment without interruption. The course of treatment should last 6-8 months, depending on the category of the patient.

In 2016 the applicant made an application before the European court of human rights which was communicated with the Government in 2019. On 10 December 2019 the SLC lawyer made her own comments to the Government’s observations.

Ki-sh v. Ukraine

Ki-sh is a Ukrainian citizen who was found guilty on violation of traffic safety rules and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The applicant served his penalty at the Mashyvska correctional colony № 9.

In June 2017 the Mashyvska correctional colony submitted a motion to the Mashyvskyy district court of release the applicant on parole. Such motion was granted. The decision came in force on 30 June 2017 but the applicant has not been released.

According to para. 5 Article 152 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine release on parole is provided in the day while the court’s decision gets by the correctional institution. The decision of Mashyvskyy district court was received by the correctional colony only on 6 July 2017 - in 6 days after coming its in force. Over such period there was no extraordinary reasons which could explain delays with the applicant’s release.

On 6 July 2017 - the applicant finally was released from the Mashyvska correctional colony.

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

In December 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged an application before the ECHR under Article 5 of the Convention due to illegal deprivation of liberty.

In December 2019 ECHR communicated the case regarding the violation of Article 5.1 of the Convention concerning being in custody from 30 June till 06 July in Mashyvska correctional colony after decision of Mashyvskyy District Court.

The SLC lawyer prepared and submitted communication to ECHR.

Lynnyk v. Ukraine

On 24 June 2017 the applicant was released on pardon by the Mashyvskyy district court in Poltavska region. On 30 June 2017 the decision came in force however the applicant was not released from the correctional colony. The applicant was released only after 7 days on 7 July 2017.

The applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. On 30 December 2017 the lawyer lodged an application before the European court of human rights.

On 3 April 2019 the case was communicated with the Government.

On 15 November 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted reply on the Government’s observations.

Mazanko v. Ukraine and Russia

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

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

Since then about the fate of the applicant’s husband nothing has known, his name was not found either among the list of live persons, not among the list of the dead civilians.

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

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

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

On 25 April 2019 the case was communicated with the Government. In November 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted her reply to the Government’s observations.

Panchuk v. Ukraine

On 12 March 2014 the Armenian City Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Armenian City Court”) found Mr. P. (hereinafter - the Applicant) guilty of theft and sentenced him to 1 (one) year 6 (six) months of imprisonment

The Armenian Court also changed the applicant’s preventive measure to detention. The Verdict of the Armenian City Court states that the term of the applicant’s sentence is calculated from 12 March 2014, ie from the moment of his detention.

On 24 October 2014 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Kyiv against the judgment of the Armenian City Court.

On 29 October 2014 the Court of Appeal of Kyiv by its decision returned the appeal, since the appeal was filed after the appeal period expired and the applicant’s lawyer did not raise the issue of renewal of this time limit.

On 12 August 2015 the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of Kyiv on missed terms of appeal against the sentence. On 25 August 2015 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the Armenian City Court.

On 11 September 2015 the Court of Appeal of Kyiv denied the Applicant the renewal of the appeal period of the judgment of the Armenian City Court of 12 March 2014. In its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the grounds stated in the Applicant’s request for the renewal of the missed appeal period were doubtful and did not indicate the validity of the missed appeal period of the sentence.

On 12 September 2015 the applicant’s sentence had ended. Accordingly, the grounds for the applicant’s detention had ceased to exist. However, the Applicant was not released from the Mykolaiv pre-trial detention centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in the Mykolayiv Oblast (hereinafter referred to as the SIZO) within the prescribed period. Instead, the applicant’s release occurred only on 18 September 2015.

On 30 March 2016, the SLC lawyer lodged an application to ECtHR in the interests of the applicant under Article 5 EC.

On 27 September 2019 the Government of Ukraine submitted an observation.

On 5 December 2019 the SLC lawyer responded to the Government’s observations.

Pa-rov v. Ukraine

Pa-rov is a Ukrainian citizen who was found guilty on violation of traffic safety rules and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The applicant served his penalty at the Mashyvska correctional colony № 9.

In June 2017 the Mashyvska correctional colony submitted a motion to the Mashyvskyy district court of release the applicant on parole. Such motion was granted. The decision came in force on 30 June 2017 but the applicant has not been released.

According to para. 5 Article 152 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine release on parole is provided in the day while the court’s decision gets by the correctional institution. The decision of Mashyvskyy district court was received by the correctional colony only on 6 July 2017 - in 6 days after coming its in force. Over such period there was no extraordinary reasons which could explain delays with the applicant’s release.

On 6 July 2017 - the applicant finally was released from the Mashyvska correctional colony.

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

In December 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged an application before the ECHR under Article 5 of the Convention due to illegal deprivation of liberty.

In December 2019 ECHR communicated the case “Pon-v v. Ukraine” regarding the violation of Article 5.1 of the Convention concerning being in custody from 30 June till 06 July in Mashyvska correctional colony after decision of Mashyvskyy District Court.

The SLC lawyer prepared and submitted communication to ECHR.

Romanov v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mr R, was a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1984 and died in 2015.

On 16 June 2011 a criminal case of infliction of grievous bodily harm was instituted against the applicant.

On 25 June 2011 the investigators reclassified the charges against the applicant as attempted murder.

On 21 July 2011 the applicant appeared before the investigator within the framework of the criminal investigation into attempted murder and gave an undertaking not to abscond.

On 25 July 2011 the investigator arrested the applicant and placed him in police custody on suspicion of attempted murder. The investigator drew up a report on his arrest, making a general reference to Article 106 § 2 and Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

According to the official report, the applicant had been arrested on the grounds that

“1. [he] was caught on the scene of the crime immediately after an offence had been committed, and

2. eyewitnesses, including the victim, directly identified [him] as the one who had committed the offence”.

It stated that his arrest was justified by the necessity of preventing him from evading justice or obstructing the establishment of the truth, and to ensure that any eventual court judgment could be executed.

On 26 July 2011 a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant was carried out. The experts provided the following conclusions:

“1. Mr R is currently showing signs of chronic mental illness in the form of paranoid schizophrenia. The present psychiatric condition of [Mr R] is such that he is unaware of and cannot control his actions.

2. At the time of the offence with which he has been charged, Mr R was affected by the above-mentioned mental illness and could not have been aware of or controlled his actions.

3. In view of his mental health Mr R requires involuntary medical treatment by way of admission to a psychiatric hospital under strict supervision”.

On 28 July 2011 the Kharkiv Kyivskyi District Court extended the applicant’s detention in police custody to ten days with a view to obtaining an assessment of his personality. No further reasons were provided by the court.

On 4 August 2011 the Kharkiv Kyivskyi District Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention without specifying any time-limits. The court referred in its decision to the conclusions of the psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011 and stated that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence and might otherwise escape and hinder the investigation or continue with his criminal activity. No further reasons were provided by the court, which further ruled that the applicant was to be detained in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre (“the Kharkiv SIZO”).

On 11 August 2011 that decision was upheld on appeal.

On 12 September 2011 the investigator requested compulsory psychiatric treatment for the applicant. On 19 September 2011 the investigator’s request and the case file were transferred to the Kharkiv Kyivskyi District Court.

On 2 December 2011 the Kharkiv Kyivskyi District Court committed the applicant for compulsory psychiatric treatment at a special psychiatric facility under strict supervision. In substantiating its decision the court referred to the conclusions of the forensic psychiatric examination of 26 July 2011. The court also specified that the applicant was to be held in the Kharkiv SIZO pending his transfer to a special psychiatric facility.

The applicant and his defence lawyer appealed against this decision on 9 and 8 December 2011 respectively.

On 8 December 2011the application under article 5 of Convention was lodged to ECtHR

On 15 December 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals without examination, on the ground that the applicant and his defence lawyer had both missed the time-limit for lodging their appeals without having requested an extension of that time-limit.

On 7 February 2012 the applicant was placed at the psychiatric hospital under strict supervision pursuant to the court decision of 2 December 2011.

Eventually, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal gave leave for an appeal against the court decision of 2 December 2011, but dismissed it on 6 August 2012.

On 15 October 2013 the Higher Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Matters quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court.

On 14 November 2013 the Dnipropetrovsk Krasnogvardiyskyi District Court refused a request from the doctor at the psychiatric hospital for an extension of the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment. On 21 November 2013 that decision became final.

On 23 November 2013 the applicant was discharged from the psychiatric hospital. He died on 8 November 2015.

On Junet 2019 the ECtHR sent to the applicant’s lawyer the Observations of the Government of Ukraine to his complaint before the ECtHR, and on August 2019, the SC lawyer lodged to the Court the reply to the Government.

Severin v. Ukraine

On 24 June 2017 the applicant was released on pardon by the Mashyvskyy district court in Poltavska region. On 30 June 2017 the decision came in force however the applicant was not released from the correctional colony. The applicant was released only after 7 days on 7 July 2017.

The applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. On 30 December 2017 the lawyer lodged an application before the European court of human rights.

On 3 April 2019 the case was communicated with the Government.

On 15 November 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted reply on the Government’s observations.

Starishko v. Ukraine

The applicant is an Ukrainian national who serves punishment in Dnipro pre-trial facility

The application concerns: firstly, the alleged lack of any genuine prospect of the applicant’s release in view of his life-imprisonment sentence; and, secondly, various restrictions on his right to family visits during his post-conviction detention (low frequency of authorised visits, as well as various rules on the modalities of prison visits, such as the ban on direct physical contact, separation by a glass wall or metal bars, the continuous presence of prison guards during visits, and the limit on a maximum number of adult visitors).

On 18 July 2019 the application was communicated with the Government with request for observations.

In September the Government replied on the questions made by the Court. On 10 October 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged her observations before the Court.

Sv-ts v. Ukraine

On 06 March 2000 Ms S-uk sold 28/100 of a shop “Podolianka” to the applicant on the basis of the sales contract.

On 14 May 2002 the senior investigator of the Shepetivskyi Inter-district Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant into the crime punishable by Article 27 § 5 ("Types of accomplices") and Article 368 § 3 ("Taking a bribe") of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (“CC of Ukraine”).

The general length of criminal proceedings was from 14 May 2002 to 28 January 2012. The criminal proceedings included five circles of pre-trial investigations which were the result of the appeals to the court decisions.

The first circle of proceedings was from 14 May 2002 till 16 September 2004. From 30 August 2002 to 08 July 2003 were taken 13 court hearings in Slavytskyi district court (hereinafter – "District Court"). 6 court hearings were postponed due to the absence of witnesses and 1 due to the absence of prosecutor.

During the second circle of the criminal proceedings in the trial (from 03 June 2005 to 24 July 2006) there were 25 court hearings, 12 hearings from which were postponed due to absence of victim and witnesses or judge or technical problems.

During the third circle of the court hearings in the first instance, there were 16 court hearings, 5 hearings from which were postponed due to the absence of victim, witnesses or judge or a lawyer of another convicted person.

During the fourth round of court hearings in the trial, there were 10 court hearings, 4 from which were postponed due to the absence of witnesses or judge.

On 06 December 2011 the Shepetivskyi Court quashed the resolution of 29 December 2009 and directed the applicant’s criminal case-file to the Shepetivskyi Inter-district Prosecutor’s Office for reopening of investigation. It was the fifth round of criminal investigations.

On 28 January 2012 the Shepetivskyi Inter-district Prosecutor’s Office terminated the criminal proceedings due to failure to prove a guilt of the applicant and withdrew an arrest imposed on property.

During the whole length of criminal proceedings regarding the applicant’s case there were numerous delays and based on no reason adjournments. Several periods of State authorities’ inactivity; decisions of re-sending the case-file to additional investigation due to procedural mistakes made by state bodies; use of ineffective tools within the situation, when there is the repetitive and constant absence of witnesses and unwilling to do the forensic expertise caused insurmountable obstacles which failed to provide the reasonable time of proceedings concerning the applicant’s case.

Based on the judgment of the SlavutskyiCourt dated 17 July 2003 the ownership of 28/100 of a shop “Podolianka” was registered under the United State Tax Inspectorate in Shepetivka. On 11 March 2004 the United State Tax Inspectorate in Shepetivka transferred28/100 of a shop “Podolianka” to private enterprise "Promtekhresurs" for sale at public auction.

From 07 February 2008 till June 2019 Mrs Sv-ts has tried to return her property through administrative and civil procedures. 5 times she lodged requests to the different States authorities (the Prosecutor’s Office, the State Treasury Service of Ukraine, Unified Tax Inspectorate), bank "Nadra" on returning her property, they all were refused.

Mrs Sv-ts instituted three civil proceedings regarding the returning of her property. All of them went through three court instances. The third applicant’s claim was filed to the District Court in June 2016. The cassation appeal in the third circle of proceedings was filed by the applicant on 18 April 2017. The trial in the third instance is still pending.

In June 2010 Mrs Sv-ts lodged an application before the European Court on Human Rights regarding the breach of Article 6.1 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol 1 to the Convention in the context of the unlawful confiscation of her property.

In January 2019 Mrs Sv-ts turned to the SLC lawyer and asked for legal assistance at stage of communication before the Court.

On 20 June 2019 the SLC lawyer provided the communication before the Court concerning the violations of the Convention made by Ukrainian authorities during the whole length of abovementioned proceedings.

On 05 July 2019 the judgment of the Supreme Court was published from 12 June 2019. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial. Thereby, the fourth circle of civil proceedings concerning Mrs. Sv-ts’s case started.

For the time being, Mrs. Sv-ts’s is waiting for the ECHR decision.

15 cases related 59 applicants 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

4 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 600 of them, negotiations are pending.

 

D-ga v. Ukraine and Russia

Mr. D-ga is a Ukrainian national who serves punishment in the Yenakiyivska correctional colony. He asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance as because he stayed at the occupied territory but would like to be transported to government controlled territory. As there was no effective measures in the applicant’s case the SLC lawyer lodged before the ECHR and application under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

Or-iy v. Ukraine and Russia

On 9 August 2005, Mr. O. has been serving his sentence in the Yenakiyevska correctional colony № 52, which has been out of control of the Ukrainian authorities for 5 years.

 He had got a contusion due to shelling of the colony. Mr. O. also has chronic hepatitis. The representatives of illegal armed groups had been constantly using physical force against Mr.O During the 2014-2016 period,.

 Mr. O.’s proper treatment is not provided. Received diseases are exacerbating.

Due to the lack of communication with the outside world, relatives cannot transfer medicine to him.

The conditions of detention of prisoners remain inadequate today.

Mr O.’s repeated complaints and appeals to the administration of the colony did not bring positive results, but only worsened his condition.

The CCS lawyers turned to the Ombudsman Ukraine asking to a promotion in the evacuating the Mr.O to the territories controlled by Ukraine. He was included in the list of persons who apply to the Ombudsman for transfer to the Government controlled territory.

For the time being, Mr. A. continues to be detained in Ukraine’s non-controlled territories.

In September 2019, a CSS lawyer filed a complaint to ECHR in the context of a violation of Art. 3 and 5 of the Convention.

S-ov v. Ukraine and Russia

Mr. S-ov is a Ukrainian national who serves punishment in the Yenakiyivska correctional colony. He asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance as because he stayed at the occupied territory but would like to be transported to government controlled territory. As there was no effective measures in the applicant’s case the SLC lawyer lodged before the ECHR and application under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

Te-rin v. Ukraine and Russia

From 31 July 2005 till today Mr. T. has been serving the sentence in Enakievska correctional colony №52 in Donetsk region which had been captured by terrorists in February 2015.

Mr. T’s relatives have turned to the Ombudsman and other authorities. Mr. T was included into the list of persons who should be evacuated but he is still in the occupied territory.

Mr. T has also lodged motions to the bodies of self-proclaimed “DPR” and was informed that he is serving his sentence under their control.

In June 2019 Mr. T turned to the SLC centre asking for legal assistance.

On 10 September 2019 a SLC lawyer prepared and submitted an application to ECtHR concerning violations of Articles 3, 5, 13 of the Convention.

8 more cases related 49 applicants in which applications have been lodged before the ECHR

 

 

Case of conditions of detention in Zhovtovodsk correctional colony No. 26 related 42 convicted persons

The prisoners held in Zhovtavodska correctional colony No. 26 during serving their punishment stayed in conditions which offended their human dignity and lead to serious discomfort. Convicts suffer from cold, excessive humidity, fungus, mold, total unhygienic sanitation, lack of heat supply in winter, limited supply of electricity during the dark period only, limited supply of cold water for several hours of a day, lack of hot water supply, poor quality of tap water, contamination insect wards, lack of drinking water, poor food quality, lack of ability to wash and do laundry more than once a week, lack of personal belongings and personal protective equipment hygiene and inability to buy them, the state of emergency water pipes and toilets, ignoring the complaints of poor health by medical staff in Zhovtovods’ka correctional colony.

In April 2019, lawyers from the Kharkiv Human Rights Group visited the Zhovtovodsk colony on a monitoring visit, where they were contacted legal assistance for 42 convicts served in the penitentiary facility.

In September 2019, the SLC lawyers prepared and filed a complaint with the ECtHR against a violation of Articles 3, 8, 13 of the Convention related 42 convicted persons.

 

Kh-v case

Mr. Kh-v is a citizen of Tajikistan who have been chasing by Tajikistan law enforcement agencies. An extradition request was sent from Tajikistan authorities to the Ukrainian ones. Mr. Kh-v was detained and the extradition arrest was imposed on him.

On 09 February 2017 the General Department of the State Migration Service in the city of Kyiv refused Mr. Kh-v’s application on getting the asylum in Ukraine.

On 17 February 2017 Mr. Kh-v’s wife turned to the SLC centre asking to represent Mr. Kh-v’s and her interests concerning the fear of possible refoulement and unlawful detention of Mr. Kh-v.

On 22 February 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine on reconsideration the decision about extradition of Mr. Kh-v.

On 22 February the SLC lawyer sent a complaint to the State Migration Service of Ukraine concerning the decision of General Department of the State Migration Service in the city of Kyiv on refusal in accepting the Mr. Kh-v documents.

On 04 April 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged a complaint to the Pecherskyi District Court in the city of Kyiv concerning the refusal of the Prosecutor’s Office on reconsideration the decision about the extradition.

On 26 June 2017 State Migration Service of Ukraine rejected in granting the complaint concerning the decision of General Department of the State Migration Service in the city of Kyiv.

On 27 June 2017 the SLC lawyer lodged a complaint to the Circle Administrative Court in the city of Kyiv concerning the rejection of State Migration Service of Ukraine in granting the complaint concerning the decision of General Department of the State Migration Service in the city of Kyiv.

On 03 July 2017 the Circle Administrative Court in the city of Kyiv opened proceedings of the Mr. Kh-v case and appointed court hearings.

On 06 March 2018 the Circle Administrative Court in the city of Kyiv announced a break in the consideration of a case until 24 April 2018.

On 24 April 2018 the Circle Administrative Court in the city of Kyiv started the examination on merits the case-file, involved the General Department of the State Migration Service in the city of Kyiv as a litigant and postponed the consideration of the case-file.

On 09 August 2018 the Circle Administrative Court in the city of Kyiv held to start the case consideration by written procedure.

In the end of August 2018 Pecherskyi District Court in the city of Kyiv refused the motion of Prosecutor’s Office concerning choosing a preventive measure and Mr. Kh-v got out of custody.

On 19 December 2018 Circle Administrative Court in the city of Kyiv fully refused in granting the claims.

In January 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged an appeal concerning the decision of the Circle Administrative Court in the city of Kyiv. The Court of Appeal refused to grant a complaint.

In May 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged a cassation claim concerning the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court refused in opening the cassation proceedings.

On 22 May the law enforcement authorities of Ukraine kidnapped Mr. Kh-v.

On 23 May 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the European Court on Human Rights regarding suspension of the extradition of Mr. Kh-v.

ECtHR implied an urgent measure in the form of the termination of extradition. However, the law enforcement agencies have already handed Mr. Kh-v to the law enforcement agencies of Tajikistan.

For the time being the SLC lawyer is preparing an application to the ECtHR concerning the breaches of Articles 3, 5 of the Convention.

In July 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged before the ECHR an application under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

On 20 September 2019 the SLC lawyer sent to the General prosecutor’s office a request on informing of conditions of detention and execution of guarantees by the Tajikistan.

On 2 October 2019 the SLC lawyer got a reply that the General prosecutor’s office is going to review information through Ministry of international affairs of Ukraine and the Polish embassy in Ukraine. Moreover, the office informed that guarantees are not established by the international conventions.

K-r v. Ukraine

Mr K (hereinafter – the applicant) intended to bring before the European Court of Human Rights an application related violation of Article 6 of the Convention due to unfair proceedings before him by the courts of first instance, appeal and cassation, in particular he was restricted in his rights of defense, the principle of impartiality was breached and the courts’ decisions were not properly motivated.

As the applicant was constantly in detention during the proceedings, he could not independently make copies of all the relevant documents for submission to the Court together with the application.

Therefore, from 2018 to the present day the applicant asked the Zavodskyy City Court of Mykolaiv, the Court of Appeal of the Mykolaiv Oblast and to the Supreme Court to provide him with copies of relevant materials. The applicant was unable to provide copies of such requests as he was in custody and could not make a copy of the applications submitted. However, the fact of sending such applications can be confirmed by the certificate provided by the Vilnyansk penitentiary institution.

The applicant alleges that he did not receive the requested copies of the documents. In particular, on 29 November 2018 and 19 December 2019, the applicant received a notice from the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court did not have the materials which he requested.

The applicant repeatedly appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Mykolaiv Oblast to obtain such documents. However, on 19 October 2019 the court informed that it did not have the materials requested by the applicant and instructed the court of first instance to provide them to the applicant.

However, actually the applicant has not received copies of materials from the court of first instance - the Zavodskyy District Court of the Nikolaev city. This fact is confirmed by the absence of any incoming letters from the court of first instance from 19 October 2019 to the present time, according to the certificate provided by the Vilnyansk penitentiary institution.

The applicant asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid, and the lawyer prepared and lodged before the European Court of Human Rights an application under Article 34 of the Convention.

Max-n v. Ukraine

Mr. M is serving sentence in Zamkova correctional colony № 58. Zamkova colony is one of the most remote correctional colonies from the applicant’s home (Chernihiv city, Chernihiv region) where his family still resides (480 km away).

During the period 2015-2017 Mr. M and his relatives repeatedly appealed to the State Prison Service of Ukraine (hereinafter - STSU) and of the Ombudsman for facilitating his transfer to a colony closest to the place of residence of his family.

On 16 September 2015 STSU rejected Mr. M in transferring him to the any closer colony to his family residence due to overwhelming of all of the colonies.

During the autumn of 2015 Ombudsman and General Prosecutor Office asked STSU to facilitate Mr. M’s transferring but both were rejected by STSU because of overwhelming of the colonies.

On 29 April 2016 Ombudsman sent a notification to the Mr. M about impossibility of his transferring due to overwhelming number of prisoners in all closer colonies.

On 23 August 2016 an Appeal Commission of STSU which is responsible of the distribution, referral and transfer of the persons sentenced to imprisonment denied Mr. M’s request for transfer from the Zamkova colony to the Novgorod – Siverska correctional colony № 31 in Chernihiv region.

On 21 April 2017 Mr. M turned to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine asking to transfer him to Romenska correctional colony № 56. On 2 June 2017 a Central Commission of Ministry of Justice of Ukraine rejected in granting of his application.

Mr. M appealed to the Circuit Administrative Court. On 17 October 2018 refused in granting his claims.

Mr. M appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 22 January 2019 Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal refused in granting the appeal of Mr. M.

On 11 April 2019 the Supreme Court rejected in opening the proceedings concerning the case of Mr. M.

In June 2019 Mr. M turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

In September 2019 SLC lawyer lodged an application to ECHR concerning violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

Mykh-s v. Ukraine

During the period from 04 May 2017 to 12 June 2019 Ms. M was under custody in pre-trial detention centre of Kachanivska correctional colony №54. During this period of time there was in force law “About pre-trail detention” and “Rules of inner order of detention centres of State Criminal Executive Service of Ukraine’’ which didn’t prescribe the right of detained to phone calls.

The husband of M. M lives in the village Protopopivka of Derhachivskyi district in Kharkiv region which is 45 km far from the Kachanivska colony. He is also suffering from eye defects due to which he can almost see nothing. So, he isn’t able to go on meeting with his wife and keep the family contact with Ms. M in other way then by telephone.

On 05 May 2018 Ms. M lodged a motion to the Zhovtnevyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv asking to adopt an allowance to her husband to have a possibility to call her.

On 12 October 2018 Zhovtnevyi District Court granted Ms. M’s motion gave her permission to make phone calls to her husband. Despite the Court decision the administration of the colony was not allowing Ms. M to make phone calls to her husband. All the Ms. M’s written and oral appeals were ignored by the administration.

On 17 September 2018 Ms. M filed a complaint to Kominternivskyi District Court in the city of Kharkiv concerning the colony’s administration ban to make the phone calls to her husband.

On 11 March 2019 Kominternivskyi District Court didn’t grant the complaint of Ms. M. The Court decision stated that the current legislation of Ukraine does not give prisoners the right to make phone calls.

On 08 April 2019 Ms. M filed an appeal to Kharkiv Court of Appeal.

On 16 April 2019 Kharkiv Court of Appeal rejected in opening the proceedings.

On 20 May 2019 Ms. M filed a cassation to the Supreme Court concering the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal.

On 31 May 2019 the Supreme Court rejected in opening the cassation proceedings.

In September 2019 Ms. M turned to SLC asking to provide her legal assistance.

On 31 November 2019 a SLC lawyer sent an application to ECHR concerning violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

P-h v. Ukraine

On 26 March 2003 Mr P-uh- (hereinafter - the applicant) was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. The applicant has been serving his sentence from 23 February 2002 to the present. Currently he stays in penitentiary institutions for more than sixteen years.

On 17 April 2018 the applicant requested the release on parole to the Lenin District Court of Dnipro. In his motion, he requested that he would be released on parole or changes his sentence to another

On 19 October 2018 the Leninsky District Court denied the applicant’s request, since, according to the court, it would not be possible to release a life imprisoned on parole.

On 10 December 2018 the applicant appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention

On 6 February 2019 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal denied the applicant’s request. The decision came in force.

On 11 February 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court

On 4 March 2019 the Supreme Court refused the applicant to open the proceedings. The applicant therefore asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance, who prepared and filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights regarding such a violation.

Selesh v. Ukraine

On 24 October 2002 the Budapest City Court found Mr Ssh (hereinafter - the applicant) guilty of a particularly serious crime and sentenced him to life in prison for up to twenty-five years. The sentence against the applicant was handed over for execution in Ukraine, and the applicant himself was extradited and transferred to the Zamkova Correctional Colony No. 58

Subsequently, the term of the applicant’s sentence was listed under the so-called Savchenko Law, according to which one day of pre-trial detention equals two days of serving his sentence. Thus, the total sentence he served exceeded twenty-five years, and he was eligible for parole in accordance with Hungarian law.

On 10 December 2018 the applicant applied to the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytskyi region for his release on the grounds that he had actually served 25 years in prison and was entitled to parole under Hungarian law, pursuant to which a verdict was issued against him.

On 4 April 2019 the Izyaslav District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, stating that Ukrainian law prohibits the release of life imprisonment. In his turn, the applicant noted that after his sentence had been enforced in Ukraine, his legal position had significantly deteriorated since he had lost the right to prior parole.

On 18 April 2019 the applicant appealed against the decision of the court of first instance to the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal. In his appeal, he stated that he was entitled to parole in accordance with Hungarian law and international human rights standards.

On 3 June 2019 the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal denied the applicant’s motion, stating that the sentence (life imprisonment) imposed on the applicant in Ukraine by his type and size was similar to the sentence imposed on him in Hungary. And since there is no parole procedure for life imprisonment in Ukraine, the applicant cannot be released in this order. This decision of the court of appeal is final and is not subject to appeal in the court of cassation.

The applicant therefore asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal aid, who prepared and submitted a statement to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

V-lenko v. Ukraine

On 24 November 2003 Mr. V-enko (hereinafter – the applicant) was found guilty by the appeal court of Kharkiv region and sentenced to life imprisonment. Actually the applicant still serves his punishment for more than 16 years.

On 22 November 2018 the applicant submitted a motion on parole to the Vinnytskyy town court in Vinnytsy region. In his motion the applicant asked the court to release him or change his punishment for another.

On 28 January 2019 the Vinnytskyy court refused the applicant because, for the court’s opinion, it was no possibility to release life imprisoned person by parole in Ukraine.

On 1 February 2019 the applicant appealed to the court of appeal in Vinnytskyy region pointed that impossibility to be released was in a contrary with the rules of the Convention.

On 21 May 2019 the court of appeal refused the applicant. The decision could not be appealed.

Therefore the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance who lodged an application before the European court of human rights.

3 cases related events in the Eastern part of Ukraine

P-rev v. Ukraine and Russia

On 16 October 2016 Mr. P’s house was damaged due to shelling in the city of Avdiivka.

On 24 March 2017 as a result of the next shelling Mr. P was injured and got bullet wound of the right shoulder. Mr. P was transferred to the hospital. For the time being, Mr. P has health issues related to the injury.

On 25 March 2017 law enforcement bodies of Ukraine opened criminal proceedings concerning Mr. P’s injure. During 2 two years Mr. P was submitting motions asking to condact investigative actions. However, no conducted investigative action was effective, no person was accused.

Mr. P also sent a criminal complaint to Investigative Committee of Russian Federation. Mr. P received a notification from Committee that the formal request to the Ukrainian authorities had been sent. After that no information was sent from Committee to Mr. P.

Mr. P turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

In December 2019 SLC lawyer lodged an application to ECHR concerning violation of Articles 3, 13 of the Convention against Ukraine and Russia.

Sam-v v. Ukraine and Russia

On 22 June 2015 a house of Mr. S was damaged due to shelling in the city of Avdiivka during ATO.

On 25 June Mr. S initiated criminal proceedings concerning his damaged house in the Police office of Avdiivka.

In the August of 2017 Mr. S turned to the SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

On 14 August 2017 SLC lawyer sent a request to the Police Office concerning the status of the investigation as Mr. S did not receive any information regarding the progress of the criminal investigation.

On 28 August 2017 the Police office responded and stated that the case was transferred under the jurisdiction of the Main Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in Donetsk region (hereinafter – GU SBU).

On 6 September 2017 SLC lawyer sent a request to the GU SBU concerning the progress of the criminal investigation. On 20 September 2017 he received a response which stated that the criminal investigation of Mr. S’s case was transferred to the First Department of GU SBU.

On 6 October 2017 SLC lawyer sent a request to the First Department GU SBU concerning the progress of the criminal investigation. On 2 November 2017 he received a response which stated that interrogation of one witness and inspection of the area of the crime were conducted. The conducting of other investigative actions was entrusted to the Police office but no results were provided.

On 21 November 2018 SLC lawyer sent a re-request to the First Department GU SBU concerning the progress of the criminal investigation. The response was received only on 5 March of 2019 with a formal reference to the possibility of a victim to familiarize with the case file.

On 19 April 2019 Mr. S familiarized with the case file which contained only formal information without any substantial investigative actions conducted.

On 25 April 2019 Mr. S lodged a statement about a crime concerning shelling of his house to the Investigative Committee of Russian Federation.

On 20 June 2019 Mr. S received a notification from Committee that the formal request to the Ukrainian authorities had been sent.

In the August 2019 SLC lawyer lodged an application to ECHR concerning violation of Articles 2, 8, 13 and 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention against Ukraine and Russia.

 

Zh-va v. Ukraine

On 21 November 2014 the husband of Ms. Zh died due to shelling in the city of Zolote – 1. Also, Ms. Zh’s house was damaged due to the same shelling.

On 22 November 2014 Ms. Zh was recognized as a victim.

On 25 December 2014 there was conducted a forensic medical examination of corpse of Ms. Zh’s husband.

During five years Ms. Zh was submitting motions asking to conduct investigative actions. However, no conducted investigative action was effective, no person was accused.

Ms Zh. also sent a crime statement to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation informed the applicant that, according to her statement, investigators had prepared and sent a request for legal aid to the competent authorities of Ukraine in order to verify the information stated in the application. The applicant did not receive any further information from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.

On 15 October 2019 SLC lawyer lodged an application to ECHR concerning violation of Articles 2, 8, 13 and 1 Protocol 1 of the Convention against Ukraine and Russia.

77 cases which were considered in national courts

7 foreigners who are in want of legal defense

A-s case

Mr A., who is a citizen of Tajikistan, is being persecuted by Tajik law enforcement agencies because of his political position.

At the end of September 2019, Mr A. applied for additional protection in Ukraine and simulteniously asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in relation to this case.

On 10 October 2019, the court granted the prosecutor’s request and applied to Mr A. an extradition arrest for 60 days.

On 11 October 2019, the SLC lawyer filed an appeal against the decision of the trial court.

Appeals were adjourned by the court several times.

On 5 December 2019, the court granted the prosecutor’s request and extended Mr A.’s extradition arrest for 60 days. The SLC lawyer appealed against the decision.

On 23 December 2019, the court of appeal postponed consideration of the appeal claim against decision from 5 December 2019 to 14 January 2020 due to the lack of the case-files in the court.

On 26 December 2019 the court of appeal postponed consideration of the appeal claim against decision from 10 October 2019 to 11 February 2020

Loshk-v case

Mr. L, a citizen of Russian Federation, was taking part in the Revolution of Dignity during 2013-2014. Mr. L was sentenced for 2 years of imprisonment in RF for unlawful holding of weapon.

On 14 July 2015 Mr. L was released from custody in accordance with the RF law on amnesty. Then, Mr. L was chased by law enforcement agencies of RF because of his political beliefs.

In the beginning of 2017 Mr. L arrived to Ukraine.

In 2018 Mr. L turned to the SLC lawyers asking for legal assistance in getting a refugee status. The SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an application with supplementing documents to State Migration Service of Ukraine (SMS) concerning the getting the refugee status by Mr. L.

SMS held a decision about implementation of a full procedure of consideration an application and documents for getting a refugee status.

In the end of 2018 SMS conducted 3 interviews with Mr. L. In 2019 SMS conducted 2 interviews with Mr. L.

For the time being, the consideration of the application is still pending. The final decision hadn’t been held.

On 10 October 2019 the SMS conducted interview with Mr.L.

Currently the personal case file is prepared for sending to the Central department of the SMS for consideration.

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 centre «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.

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.

In April 2019 Mr. N turned to the SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

On 25 April 2019 the SLC lawyer entered into case and started trying to get access to the national security information to have a possibility to familiarize with the case files.

In the August 2019 the SLC lawyer got an access to state secret and familiarized with the case-file. The SLC lawyer is preparing a motion on demanding additional documents.

From July to December 2019 none of the court hearing hadn’t been conducted due to the defendant’s failure to appear or by initiative of the court.

Pyrno-rov case

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 defence with Mr.P. The wife of Mr.P gave a number of characteristic documents of Mr.P according to the Sheriat Law.

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

The defence strategy was agreed with a defence 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.

On 14 January 2019 the pre-trial court meeting of the Leninskyi district court in Dnipro took place. The indictment was sent back to the prosecution, the preliminary measure in the form of detention was prolonged.

In the end of January 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted an appeal claim on prolonging of the preliminary measure.

The appeal court refused the claim.

Then the prosecutor did not submit a motion on prolonging the term of Pyrna-rov’s arrest and applied to him the extradition arrest.

In March 2019 the prosecutor sent an indictment related to Perna-rov to the court again.

The SLC lawyer has examined the indictment and found several deficiencies and prepared the motion on returning of the indictment to the prosecution.

On 13 May 2019 the appointed pre-trial court meeting did not take place.

On 25 June 2019 the Leninskyi district court in Dnipro during the pre-trial court meeting granted the SLC lawyer’s motion and sent back the indictment to the prosecutor. The preliminary measure for Pyr-rov has not been chosen.

As to the 31 December 2019 the prosecutor didn’t submit an indictment.

As to the extradition arrest.

On 13 March 2019 the SLC lawyer and Mr. P let a contract on legal aid.

On 13 March 2019 an investigative judge of the Krasnogvardiyskyy district court in Dnipro granted the prosecutor’s motion on choosing of a preliminary measure in the form of extradition arrest.

The SLC lawyer submitted an appeal claim to the Supreme Court on the preliminary measure in the form of extradition arrest.

On 13 April 2019 the Dniprovskyi appeal court upheld the decision of the Krasnogvardiyskyi district court in Dnipro.

On 10 May 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted to the trial court a motion on cancellation of the extradition arrest.

On 10 May 2019 the Krasnogvardiyskyi district court prolonged the extradition arrest.

The SLC lawyer appealed.

On 7 June 2019 the Dniprovskyi appeal court upheld the decision of the Krasnogvardiyskyi district court in Dnipro.

The SLC lawyer made a statement to the SMS on behalf of Mr P. about granting refugee status or a person in need of additional protection - which Mr P. had sent several times from the pre-trial detention centre but had never received. Therefore, the statement, signed by Mr P., was submitted by the SLC lawyer personally to the SMS office.

From July to December 2019, 8 court hearings were held in the Krasnogvardiyskiy District Court concerning a review of the grounds for further extradition arrest to Mr P. The SLC lawyer was filling motions on Mr. P’s release from custody at each hearing to release Mr P. from custody and declaring challenging of prosecute judges who was considering this issue for the second or third time. However, each time the judge denied the requests of the SLC lawyer, rendering decisions which did not contain references to the evidence and arguments of the defense party.

The SLC lawyer filed appeals against each decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeal held 12 court hearings. At each hearing, the SLC lawyer stated its challenges and objections.

The Court of Appeal refused in granting all of the lawyer’s appeals without properly examining the evidence and arguments of the defense party.

P-v 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 Défence.

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 pretenses 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 the proceeding.

The Administrative Court of Appeal obliged State Migration Service to check the application of Mr. P on recognition him as the refugee or the person who needs an additional protection.

On 24 and 26 April 2019 there were two interview conducted within the framework of procedure of determination of refugee status or additional protection in accordance to the court decision.

For the time being, after passing several interviews his case-file was directed to the State Migration Service of Ukraine with order to hold a decision.

Sheve-va case

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 centre (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).

On 21 November 2019 the court refused Mrs. Sh on her claim

The SLC lawyer lodged before the SMS an application on the new consideration of her application on protection in Ukraine.

Till nowadays the SMS received an application and conducted interview with Mrs. Sh, than it decided to consider her document on asylum status or protection in Ukraine.

12 cases related drug users,

As-v case

On 27 November 2017 Mr. A., a citizen of the city of Kharkiv, was was detained after conducting two controlled drug purchases by police.

On 29 November 2017 a court adjudicated Mr. A to a preventive criminal procedure measure in the form of custody.

During a pre-trial investigation Mr. A didn’t accept an accusation and stated that police officials provoked a crime. A lawyer of a Centre of free secondary legal aid was participated in the case.

During two years the court was prolongating the custody term.

On 03 October 2019 a SLC lawyer entered into case.

Due to absence of any real investigative actions the lawyer submitted a number of requests concerning conditions of Mr. A’s detention.

On 07 October 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a motion on changing the preventive measure from the custody to less strict measures. Despite only formalistic reasons the court prolongated the custody term again.

The SLC lawyer lodged an appeal concerning the court decision.

On 07 November 2019 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal refused to grant a motion.          

On 03 December 2019 the SLC lawyer repeatedly submitted the motion concerning the change of preventive measure to a house arrest.

A following court consideration is appointed on 23 January 2020.

 

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 defence 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.

On 19 March 2019 the pre-trial court meeting has taken place. The case was appointed to consideration.

On 7 May 2019 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of prosecutor.

On 5 June 2019 the court maintained the order of examination of evidences. It decided to consider the testimonies of witnesses at first then examine the accused person. At the same time the prosecutor denied to examine material evidences because they were broken.

The next court meeting is appointed on 16 July 2019.7.4

The court hearing is pending.

On 16 July 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to an absence of witnesses. An order on compelled appearance of witnesses was adopted.

On 10 October 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to an absence of witnesses.

On 05 December 2019 there were three witnesses interrogated.

The next court hearing is appointed on 22 January 2020.

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 witnesss.

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.

On 05 February 2019 the court hearing was postponed on 18.03.19 due to participation of the lawyer in other court hearing.

On 18 March 2019 continued the examination of evidence of the case (the listening of the audio records) and pronounced a break till 22 April 2019.

On 22 April 2019 the Court postponed the court hearing till 14 June 2019.

On 14 June 2019 the Court continued the examination of evidence.

On 22 July 2019 the Court started the procedure of examination of covert investigative (detective) actions. The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-file after the court hearing.

During 3 court hearings (on 18.09, 16.10, 25.11.2019) the Court had been analyzing an audio files of covert investigative (detective) actions.

On 18 December 2019 the Court started examine a video of of covert investigative (detective) actions.

 

Bo-rov case

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

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

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

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

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

On 1 September 2014 B.’s mother filed the criminal complaint on the officers of the Frunze District Police Station under the following corpus delicti: leaving in a danger, abuse of power, negligence, violation of the right to 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.

In 2018 there was no court hearing due to absence of witnesses. Besides, the judge who was t examining the case was dismissed because he did not pass the qualifying examination. Thus, the judge was changed.

In 2019 the court hearings have been postponing due to presence of a judge in a counseling room, absence of the prosecutor and non-execution of bringing orders of witnesses.

On 16 December 2019 the Frunzenskyy district court terminated the criminal proceedings because the term of limitation of conviction has expired.

Drozdov 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.

On 13 September 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s pre-trial detention by one month.

On 11 October 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s pre-trial detention by 60 days.

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

07 December 2018 the Court extended the term of the Mr. D`s pre-trial detention by 60 days.

On 29 January 2019 the court has prolonged the term of detention related D to 60 days.

On 22 March 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a motion on changing of the preliminary measure from detention to house arrest.

On 28 March 2019 the court has prolonged the term of detention in 60 days.

On 16 May 2019 the court had changed the preliminary measure from detention to house arrest.

Then, during June – December 2019 there were six court hearings that were postponed.

The case is still pending.

     La-v case

On 19.06.2017 citizen Tol-ova 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 ( para. 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 centre.

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

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 an aim 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 an aim 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 defence 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 defence 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 and 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.

On 03 January 2019 the written evidence was repeatedly examined, the video- and audio- evidence were examined. Mr. L was rejected in changing the preventive measure to less strict, the term of custody was prolongated.

On 25 February 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to unreadiness of the prosecutor party to the court pleadings, the motion on changing the preventive measure to less strict was dismissed, the term of custody was prolongated.

On 15 April 2019 the court pleadings were conducted, the court consideration was postponed with the aim to give the last plea of the accused.

On 23 April 2019 the lawyer’s motion on changing the preventive measure to less strict was dismissed, the term of custody was prolongated.

On 13 June 2019 the lawyer’s motion on changing the preventive measure to less strict was dismissed, the term of custody was prolongated.

Due to absence of the text of the final Court judgement the court hearing was postponed on the later date.

On 16 July 2019 the Court proclaimed an indictment. The Court found the innocence of accused under Art. 307 of CC and sentenced him under Art. 309 of CC. The SLC lawyer appealed.

On 26 November 2019 the appeal was appointed to consideration at Mykolayivskyy Court of Appeal due to absence a number of judges needed in Khersonskyy Court of Appeal.

On 17 December 2019 the Court postponed the consideration on the later date due to absence of accused and prosecutor.

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 was 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.

At the beginning of 2019 the criminal case was transmitted to another judge of the Moskovskyy district court in Kharkiv city.

In 2019 all court meetings were postponed due to the absence of witnesses or busyness of the judge in other court meetings. The prosecutor’s office did not provide the presence of prosecution witnesses in court.

The next court hearing is scheduled on 13 February 2019.

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.

On 30 July 2019 Kharkiv Court of Appeal quashed the indictment of Kyivskyy District Court and remanded the case for a new trial to Kyivskyy District Court.

On 23 August 2019 the case was appointed to consideration in Kyivskyy District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

The SLC lawyer was repeatedly lodging solid objections against prolongation of Mr. T’s custody.

The SLC lawyer lodged a motion on changing the preventive measure on the less severe.

On 19 September 2019 the Court didn’t grant the SLC lawyer’s motion. However, the Court changed the amount of bail to the minimal one.

At the start of court proceedings the Court decided to examine the evidence fully and chose the procedure of its examination according to the position of the SLC lawyer.

For the time being there are 3 witnesses interrogated from 7 alleged from the accusation party.

     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 Centre.         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 another proofs of his guilty.

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

Also the lawyer noticed that Mr. T was unnecessary injured by police officers. His traumas were confirmed and registered by a doctor of pre-trial detention centre 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 witnesses 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.

9 times (09.01.2019 , 24.01.2019, 27.02.2019, 18.03.2019, 08.04.2019, 24.04.2019, 23.05.2019 , 04.06.2019 , 27.06.2019 ) the court hearings were postponed due to numerous obstacles (absence of the prosecutor, accused etc).

On 19 July 2019 the court postponed the court hearing due to the absence of accused and non-establishment of his location.

On 15 August 2019 the court terminated the case because of death of accused.

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 were absent.

In 2019 the judge repeatedly ordered to bring the witnesses which hadn’t being executed.

In June 2019 the court started an examination of evidence in the case.

In November 2019 the prosecutor changed indictment from Article 307 (Illegal drug dealing) to Article 309 (Illegal using of drugs without the aim to deal0.

The court meeting was appointed on 27 February 2020.

Zh-n case

In the beginning of June 2019 Mrs. Zh turned to the SLC asking to provide her with legal assistance.

According to her, police officers rigged for her proceedings under art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Illegal production, making, purchasing, storage, transportation, sending or sale of narcotics, psychotropic substances or their analogues).

Mrs. Zh doesn’t have any of documents concerning the proceeding of her case. The policemen didn’t familiarize her with case file. Mrs. Zh is sure about her innocence.

Mrs. Zh lodged a motion about involving the SLC lawyer as her defendant in the trial.

On 24 June 2019 the court hearing concerning the motion was supposed to be but it was postponed due to illness of a judge.

The SLC lawyer lodged a motion to familiarize with the case-file.

On 03 September 2019 the court decided the question concerning an interrogation of witnesses and obligated the prosecutor to provide the case-file for familiarizing.

On 07 November 2019 the court postponed the haring on the later date due to an absence of the prosecution witnesses.

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 hearings 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 December 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 appear.

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

The court hearing is pending.

On 23 January 2019 the preliminary court hearing was appointed due to changing the presiding judge. The consideration was postponed in conjunction with absence of the prosecutor.

On 20 May 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to participation of the judge in the other court hearing.

On 25 June 2019 the preliminary court hearing had been conducted, a preventive measure hadn’t been chosen, the case file was appointed to the court consideration on the merits.

On 24 September 2019 the prosecutor announced the indictment, the court decided the procedure of evidence examination.

On 03 December 2019 the court postponed the court hearing due to absence of prosecution witnesses.

12 cases related people suffered from grievous illness and other vulnerable group of prisoners

B-ko case

In the July 2019 Mr. B turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance concerning the absence of medical assistance concerning his illness.

 During his stay in the Dniprovska Institution of execution of punishments, despite Mr. B’s numerous illnesses, he was not medicaly examined and did not receive the necessary treatment wich reualted in his death.

On 15 Jule 2019 Mr. B and the attorney of SLC signed an agreement on legal aid.

On the same day, the SLC sent a request to the Medical Unit of the State Institution «Dniprovska IEP № 4» about the state of health and treatment of Mr. B.

On 15 August 2019 during the meeting with a SLC lawyer, explanations and documents regarding Mr. B’s health were obtained.

In the August 2019 numerous written and video appeals and complaints were sent to the Branch of the State Institution of Public Health of the State Commission for Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovska and Donetska oblasts, the Ombudsman and to the media by the heads of KHPG and the SLC lawyer.

Despite the threats from the administration of the institution made to Mr. P, a number of medical examinations had been conducted and the treatment course with diet were appointed.

B-ov case

On 15 October 2019, B. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in connection with the non-provision him of medical care which should be carried out in case of his illnesses and failure of the colony staff to submit to court a motion on his release from serving sentences due to his grievous diseases

B. is serving a sentence in Kamyanska correctional colony (No. 101) according to the verdict from 01.11.2016 in which the court found him guilty and sentenced to 4 (four) years of imprisonment.

On 8 February 2019, B. arrived at the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (No. 101) to serve his sentence. During the first medical examination after arriving in the colony, the client told the head of medical about his diseases: stage IV HIV, hepatitis B and C, chronic anemia of severe degree, chronic hearing and pain in his stomach).

On 17 October 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a request to the Centre of medical care in Zaporizhya region and to the Medical unit of Kamyanska correctional colony regarding B’s diagnoses, recommendations, and copies of medical documentation. On 19 November 2019 the SLC lawyer received copies of medical documentation.

According to the received documents, B. received ART-therapy form February to August 2017 and in June 2019 which is indicated in his medical certification.

On 11 December 2019, the lawyer filed a motion for release from further serving of the sentence due to grievous illnesses.

The court hearing was scheduled on 24 December 2019, however, due to the fact that B. was still on the way from one penitentiary institution to another, the court hearing was postponed.

The date of the next court hearing is unknown. 

K-ets’s case

Mr K asked the SLC lawyer to provide his with legal assistance because he was suffering from a severe desease - stage 4 HIV. He noted that he was not being given proper medical treatment because he could not get adequate anti-retroviral therapy.

On 28 October 2019, the lawyer requested the Strizhavskaya penal colony No. 86 regarding the available medical documents. On 6 November 2019, the colony reported that K was suffering from HIV but indicated the first stage of the disease. At the same time, according to the copies of the submitted laboratory studies, the level of CD4 cells i was 46 cells, which corresponds to 4 stages of the disease.

On 19 November 2019, a lawyer filed a motion to the Vinnytsia City Court on the K’s release from punishment related with a serious illness. In doing so, she also requested a medical advisory panel to determine Mr K.’s health state.

The hearing of the case is scheduled for 16 January 2019.

Ko-ko case

On 19 September 2019, Ko-ko asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in connection with failure to provide him with medical care, non-examintion of his existing illnesses and failure of the prison officers to submit a motion on his release due to deterioration of the health state..

Ko-ko was serving a sentence at the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (# 101) under the verdict of the Khmelnytsky’s district court of Khmelnytsky region from 01.03.2017 according to which he was sentenced to 6 (six) years of imprisonment.

On 20 Sepbember 2019 the SLC lawyer sent a request on Ko-ko’s health stte and prescribed medical treatment to the heads of the colony and the medical part of the colony.

On 9 October 2019 the SLC lawyer together with a doctor visited Ko-ko. The lawyer received written and verbal explanations of his health status, signed consent for further legal assistance, the doctor collected an anamnesis, recorded recommendations, and made some examinations.

On 15 November 2019 the SLC lawyer sent a petition on Ko-ko’s parole to the Vinnytsia District Court of Vinnytsia region.

By the decision of Vinnytsia court of 12.12.2019 the lawyer’s motion was granted.

On 23 December 2019 The Vinnytsia Court of Appeal opened the appeal proceedings on the appeal of the prosecutor to the Vinnytsia Court’s decision of 12.12.2019 and scheduled a court hearing on 15.01.2020.

Ly-chy case

Mr. L was sentenceв to six months of arrest on 31 August 2017 by the Volodymyr-Volynsky city court. On 18 October 2017 Mr. L was transported to the Lutsky detention centre (hereinafter - SIZO).

Mr. L was taken to the city hospital before being placed in SIZO, where Mr. L. has been reported as a person with mental illness and other illnesses, including the illness of liver. Doctors found him in a state of mental disorder, but agreed to his placement in SIZO.

During admission to SIZO, a mental disorder in Mr. L. intensified, he had an onset of epilepsy, didn’t behave adequately, showed rage, so he was left in a single cell of the general unit of 1.4 square meters. On the third day of placement in SIZO, October 22, 2017, he died of liver insufficiency, which led to intoxication of the organism and dysfunction of its internal organs.

The criminal proceedings were opened due to medical negligence and falsification of medical documents.

On 23 April 2019 the investigator delivered a resolution and terminated the criminal proceedings.

On 24 June 2019 the SLC lawyer complained against such resolution Lutsky City District Court in Volynska region.

On 26 November 2019 an investigative judge granted a complaint of the attorney and quashed the decision of investigator on terminating the criminal proceedings.

M-k case

At the beginning of September 2019, Mr. M’s mother asked for a legal assistance on his behalf in connection with the non-provision of medical care, absence of examinations, which should be carried out in case of his illness and failure of the colony’s staff to submit to a court documents on Mr. M’s release from serving a sentence for health reasons.

 Mr. M is serving a sentence in the State Institution «Vinnytska Correctional Colony» (No. 86).

 On September 17, 2019, an SLC lawyer signed an agreement to provide legal assistance to Mr. M.

On September 17, 2019 The SLC lawyer sent a request concerning the health and treatment of Mr. M to the heads of the colony and the medical part of the colony, as well as the request for the doctor’s admission to him.

On September 23, 2019 Mr. M also submitted to the medical part of the colony a request for admission to his doctor.

On October 09, 2019 the doctor was not allowed by the administration of the colony to Mr. M, but the lawyer was able to communicate with M-m and receive written statements and explanations from him.

On October 15, 2019 a motion was filed to the investigating judge of the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytska Oblast on exemption from Mr. M’s further serving of sentence due to illness.

In addition, a second request was made to the Head of the Medical Unit of the colony and to the Branch of the State Institution of Health of the DCWS of Ukraine in Vinnitska region regarding the health and treatment of Mr. M.

The court session was appointed on 31.10.2019 - at the hearing the petition of the lawyer was partially satisfied and the decision on carrying out medical examination of M-ka medical-advisory commission was made. The date of the next court hearing was not announced.

On 01.11.2019 a request was sent to the Branch of the State Institution “CHP of the DCWS” in Vinnytsia region regarding the stage of execution of the court decision on conducting medical examination of Mr. M.

On December 17, 2019, a court hearing was held, at which the lawyer’s motion on summon the chairman of the medical advisory commission hadn’t been granted and didn’t grant the Mr. M’s release from serving sentence.

The court hearing was appointed on October 31, 2019. At the hearing the motion of the lawyer was partially satisfied and the decision on carrying out medical examination of Mr. M by medical-advisory commission had been appointed. The date of the next court hearing was not announced.

 On November 1, 2019 a request was sent to the Branch of the State Institution “CHP of DCVS” in Vinnytska region regarding the stage of execution of the court decision on conducting medical examination of Mr. M.

 On December 17, 2019, a court hearing was held, at which the lawyer’s motion on summon the chairman of the medical advisory commission hadn’t been granted and didn’t grant the Mr. M’s release from serving sentence.

P-n case

In the July 2019 Mr. P turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance concerning the absence of medical assistance concerning his illness.

 During his stay in the Dniprovska Institution of execution of punishments, surgery to remove the titanium plate wasn’t conducted, which resulted in two holes in the leg that were visible without any additional equipment.

On 15 Jule 2019 Mr. P and the attorney of SLC signed an agreement on legal aid.

On the same day, the SLC sent a request to the Medical Unit of the State Institution «Dniprovska IEP № 4» about the state of health and treatment of Mr. P.

On 15 August 2019 during the meeting with SLC lawyer, the holes in Pi-na’s foot were fixed, as a result of which a corresponding act was drawn up and a complaint for non-treatment, which they refused to accept at the office of the institution.

In the August 2019 numerous written and video appeals and complaints were sent to the Branch of the State Institution of Public Health of the State Commission for Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovska and Donetska oblasts, the Ombudsman and to the media by the heads of KHPG and the SLC lawyer.

Despite the threats from the administration of the institution made to Mr. P, a surgery to remove the titanium plate had been conducted to Mr. P.

R-ak’s case

Ms R’s asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid due to not providing her with medical care. She noted that she was in the Kharkiv detention centre on suspicion of drug trafficking. However, at the time of her detention in August 2019, she already had an ovarian tumour, but did not manage to get all the medical care she needed. She also provided all the medical records.

On 28 October 2019 the SLC lawyer sent a request to the Kharkiv Detention Centre about Ms. R.’s health condition. As the lawyer did not receive her answer, she filed complaints with the Kharkiv Prosecutor’s Office and the Health Care Centre in Kharkiv and Luhansk regions. She noted that Ms R’s health state was deteriorating and no medical assistance was being provided.

On 12 November 2019, the Kharkiv region prosecutor’s office announced that a check would be conducted under the SLC lawyer’s application.

On 12 December 2019, the Health Care Centre in Luhansk and Kharkiv Oblasts reported that Ms. R’s health state was normal, she had undergone a medical examination and required medical treatment. During the interview with the SLC lawyer, Ms R confirmed that she had got medical assistance. In doing so, she also noted that she was HIV-positive but had not received appropriate treatment.

On 20 December 2019, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv Oblast, the Health Care Centre in Kharkiv and Luhansk Oblasts, as well as the AIDS Centre, about her failure to provide the ART therapy.

So-pova case

On 27 June 2019, the European Court of Human Rights brought a judgement in case of Solopova v. Ukraine (Application No. 17278/18), finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in connection with the inadequate medical care of a sick 20-year-old prisoner, who suffers from cancer while being held in detention at the Dinpro Detention Centre.

During the course of the case in April 2018, the ECtHR indicated to the Government of Ukraine the need for urgent diagnosis and treatment of S-pova by the following medical recommendations and appropriate treatment methods. During this period, due to the fact that the case of the sick girl received significant publicity, the detention centre repeatedly visited commissions from different state authorities, as well as representatives of the media. The problematic situation of the sick prisoner caused a great deal of concern and caused dissatisfaction with the SIZO administration.

On 30 August 2019 suddenly, without warning, S-pova was transferred to serve a sentence to the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (# 34) (hereinafter - the colony). Before being escorted to a convoy car to be sent to the colony, she was attacked by several members of the prison staf. When Anna was brought to the colony, her injuries were recorded in the medical unit and an appropriate report was drawn up upon their identification. In addition, in the medical unit at the colony doctor reported that her medical card was not transferred to them from the Dnipro detention centre, and her oncological disease and accordingly the need to continue her treatment to doctors was unknown, so she was not treated until receiving her card. Of course, the health of a cancer patient has deteriorated significantly without treatment.

According to S-pova, the pre-trial detention centre and its medical unit thus avenged her for refusing to complain to them before the European Court of Justice, after which the decision undoubtedly had negative consequences for certain members of the administration. And even if bruises and bruises disappeared after some time, then the termination of her treatment for a deadly disease threatened her very life, and there was a sign of deliberate deprivation of life, as her treatment was deliberately stopped due to the remand prison.

Upon learning of these circumstances, the SLC lawyer submitted to the state authorities of Ukraine, including the President complaints on illegal treatment and physical violence. Afterwards, So-pova’s medical card was finally handed to the colony and her treatment was started. At the beginning of October 2019, the central office of the State Bureau of Investigation opened criminal proceedings on the facts of the beating of So-oova and termination of her medical care. The interrogations of So-pova and the prison staff and medical staff of the colony were conducted. The pre-trial investigation into the case is ongoing

S-ov’s case

Mr S is serving his sentence in the Buchanska correctional facility. He asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid due to inappropriate medical care at the facility. In particular, he noted that he suffers from severe headache, dizziness, often loses consciousness.

On 27 November 2019, the SLC lawyer made a request to the Buchanska correctional colony related Mr. S’s health state

On 9 December 2019, the Buchanska correctional colony informed the lawyer that the prisoner’s health was normal. He is possibly to be diagnosed with neurocerculatory dystonia.

 S’s case

Mr. S. asked the Kharkiv Human Rights Group to provide him with legal assistance with medical care. He is serving a sentence in the Vinnytsia region in the form of life imprisonment. Recently, he has exacerbated a serious disease - inflammation of the vessels of the lower extremities, due to which their patency is disrupted. The applicant has ulcers on the leg, doctors suspect that he has gangrene

On 28 October 2019, the SLC lawyer filed a request to the Stryzhavsk correctional colony related Mr. S.’s health

On 9 November 2019, the Stryzhavsk correctional colony reported that the prisoner had obliteration of the lower extremity vessels, trophic ulcer of the left leg.

Currently the convict is being treated at a medical facility at Shepetivska Correctional Colony No. 98. Depending on the diagnoses, tactics of further work will be planned.

Tem-ko case

T. arrived at the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (No. 101) to serve his sentence. During the first medical examination after arriving at the colony, T. informed the head of the medical unit of his disease: HIV infection, hepatitis C, pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic allergy, liver cirrhosis. However, during the four months after T.’s arrival in the colony, no measures were taken to treat him.

In April 2019, the colony was visited by an infectious disease doctor who diagnosed T. with stage IV HIV, hepatitis B + C, tuberculosis and polyallergy.

Within two days of prescribing the therapy (04/13/2019 and 04/14/2019), T. began an allergic reaction to the drug, which was accompanied by rashes on the body and pain in the side. After that, medical staff stopped giving T. therapy and instead started stabbing the painkillers in the kidneys and injected an anti-allergic drug.

On 20 May 2019, T. was taken from the Kamyansk Correctional Colony (No. 101) to the Stryzhavskaya correctional colony No. 81. There T. was placed in the ward for the examination, after a week of examinations, therapy was prescribed, after three days of receiving the latter, the patient began an allergic reaction, accompanied by rashes on the skin, itching, and itching. after the injection of Dexamethasone. After these events, T. was sent to the Kamyansk correctional colony (No. 101), where he is still serving his sentence.

 On 19 July 2019, the SLC lawyer filed a motion on release T. from serving a sentence for health reasons in the Vilnyansk district court of Zaporizhzhya region. The court ordered a forensic medical examination, however later the court meetings were postponed due to the absence of the judge and the expert institution did not send the lawyer documents. That is, court hearings were delayed and T.’s health state who received no treatment was worsening. Moreover, he was even transferred from the medical part of the colony to the living area.

 Currently, proceedings are pending.

 On 10.12.2019 the court obliged medical unit to provide the SLC lawyer with medical documentation and conduct urgent medical examination of T’s health state.

 The date of the next court hearing is unknown.

2 cases related to the conflict at the Eastern part 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 thet 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 socil care cut off payments and canceled the IDP’s certificate witout 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 10.07.18, 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.

On 18.01.2019 the court meeting was postponed due to the absence of witnesses of prosecution and Mrs.G’s illness. The next court meeting was appointed on 15 March2019

On 15 March 2019 the court meeting was postponed due to the lawyer’s business. The next court meeting was scheduled on 15 May 2019

On 15 May 2019 the court has interrogated a witness. Other witnesses did not come.

On 12 June 2019 the court meeting was postponed due to Mrs. G’s illness. The next court meeting was scheduled on 16 July 2019.

On 16 July 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of defender.

On 13 August 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of the judge.

On 22 October 2019 the witness didn’t attend the court hearing. The accusation party refused to interrogate the witness. The prosecutor asked for a break with an aim to prepare to examination evidence and interrogation of accused.

On 22 November 2019 there were additional written evidence including the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal.

On 20 December 2020 the court hearing was postponed due to the being the accused at the hospital.

The case is still pending.

Tk-ko case

On July 26, 2016, Ms. T.’s home in Avdiivka was damaged due to a shelling in city of Avdiivka. A pre-trial investigation into criminal proceedings was opened in the Avdiivka Police Department.

In the said criminal proceedings Ms. T was recognized as a victim. Then the case was transferred to investigators of General Department of State Security Service in Donetsk and Lugansk region (GU SBU).

On July 2, 2017, Ms. T. applied to the CSS for legal assistance.

The SLC lawyer has repeatedly asked to be informed of the progress of the investigation and the investigative measures taken, but no response has been received.

From the answer of 2 GU SBU of the SBU of October 09, 2017 it became known that the criminal proceedings were merged into the other criminal proceedings.

During 2019 Ms. T. repeatedly filed complaints about investigator’s inaction due to the absence of any following information.

On 24 January 2019 2 GU SBU notified Ms. T. that she could familiarize with the case-file of the pre-trial investigation.

 In September, Ms. T applied for the familiarizing with the case file.

On 9 October 2019, she was informed by the 1st GU SBU on investigative activities, namely, the one victim’s interrogation, the inspection of the scene of a crime and the photo table of the destroyed house.

On 26 November 2019 Ms. T filed criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of Russian Federation.

On 20 December 2019, a SLC lawyer submitted a motion on investigate. However, no response was received.

On 8 January 2020, a SLC lawyer filed a complaint about the investigator’s inaction.

33 other cases

An-va case

Ms. A is accused in a crime prescribed in Art. 187, Part. 2 of CC. According to prosecution version she upon prior conspiracy with unidentified persons, poisoned victims with three high-dose of the drug “Azaleptol” and seized the property of the victims.

Ms. A arrived to Kyiv in her personal affairs. In one of bars she got acquainted with a company of young people. Then they got acquainted with another company. When the bar got closed the whole company went to a lake beach with the aim to continue a rest. They were drinking alcohol and communicating. Through some time three victims lost consciousness. The girl from the first company immediately began to remove gold jewelry, searched bags, took money and mobile phones. After that, she and the two men disappeared from the scene together.

Simultaneously, Mr. A was talking on the phone. She had a birthday last day and was continuing to receive greetings. When she had returned, she saw that part of the company was gone and three people were lying unconscious on the ground. Mrs. A. immediately called police and ambulance. Waiting on the spot, Ms. A. helped to hospitalize the victims, and gave explanations to the patrol police.

As a result of the investigation, witnesses were identified who saw the girl from the first campaign robbing the victims. However, the witnesses of the events didn’t indicate the unlawful actions of Mrs. A. According to the medical examinations, no toxic substances, psychotropic drugs were found in the liquids which were removed at the scene and in the body of the victims.

In the May 2019 Ms. A was notified of suspicion and the preventive measure in the form of custody had been chosen. A prosecutor transferred an indictment to a court.

During June 2019 the witnesses and victims didn’t appear to the court hearings, the prosecutor is hiding evidences that could be used in the favor of Ms. A. There are no documents in the stitched and numbered tom of the criminal proceedings.

In the end of June 2019 Ms. A turned to the SLC asking to provide her legal assistance.

A court of the first instance prolongated the custody several times – on 19 July, 16 September, 13 November and 27 December 2019. All adjudications were appealed by the SLC lawyer but the Court of Appeal dismissed all claims.

Despite the procedural irregularities on the part of the court, the refusal to require the prosecutor to provide available evidence in the case, the refusal to accept and investigate the evidence of the defense party, the SLC lawyer was able to obtain copies of the findings of the court expertise and examine them in court. These examinations are crucial because they indicate the absence of toxic substances at the crime scene.

The SLC lawyer was able to make possible the appearance of a witness who could not be brought to the court for more than eight months. The witness fully affirmed the defense party’s version on the circumstances of Ms. A.’s arrest, the absence of a lawyer during the arrest, and the examination of the unsealed physical evidence.

The court refused to in examination of evidences which were received from a familiarizing with the case-file and testify the violation of Ms. A.’s procedural rights to defense during her arrest, search and interrogation.

For the time being, the Court is preparing to examine Ms. A and additional evidence of the prosecution party which were at the disposal of the prosecutor, but was not open to the defense party before the case was brought to court.

As-v case

On 16 September 2019 a wife of Mr. A turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance concerning imposing torture on him by workers of Kharkiv SIZO.

On 16 September 2019 during the meeting with Mr. A he prepared complaints concerning his torture to SBI in the city of Poltava, Prosecutor Office in Kharkiv region, Ombudsman which were lodged on 17 September 2019 and 19 September 2019 had been sent.

On 17 September 2019 at the personal admission the applications were submitted to the Chief of the Medical Unit of the Kharkiv Detention Centre and the Chief of the Kharkov Detention Centre about urgent examination of injuries of the Mr. A.

On 17 September 2019a request was made to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv region for its actions regarding the revealed bodily injuries in Mr. A.

On 18 September 2019 inquiries were made to the Chief of the Medical Unit of the Kharkiv Detention Centre and the Chief of the Kharkiv Detention Centre regarding the actions they had taken concerning a medical examination of Mr. A.

On 25 September 2019 Mr. A was recognized as a victim.         

On 28 October 2019 a motion on conducting investigative measures had been lodged.

Ch-na case

In September 2019 the president of NGO “Kharkiv woman union “Sphera”” turned to SLC asking to provide legal assistance. She reported that on 28 March 2019 there was an attak on the “Sphera” conducted by member of organization “Tradition and order” In the form of penetration to the apartment that had being rented by “Sphera”.

From September till December there were numerous criminal complaints lodged and complaints to the court on inactivity of police officials which consisted of failure to enter to URPTI the information set out in the statement.

On 18 December 2019 the application on adding new data was filed.

On 30 December 2019 an interogation of victim and witnesses had been conducted.

Dam-n case

On 6 August 2019 an SLC attorney started represent Mr. D’s interests.

On 14 August 2019 the SLC attorney found out that the last investigative action had been conducted in 2017 while she was familiarizing with the case file. Then, the attorney filed complaints to the Kharkiv Prosecutor Office №1 and sent a letter to the Ombudsman concerning inactivity of investigative bodies and noncompliance with reasonable time of pre-trial investigation.

On 16 August 2019 a motion had been sent to the investigator concerning conduction of procedural actions.

On 29 August 2019 a request had been filed to Shevchenkivsky Police Office in Kharkiv region regarding the progress of pre-trial investigation.

On 10 September 2019    a second complaint on inactivity of law-enforcement and noncompliance with reasonable time of pre-trial investigation had been filed.

On 31 September 2019 the letter had been sent to the head of Shevchnkivsky Police Office in Kharkiv region with ask to clarify reasons for no respond to motions.

On 22 October 2019 a motion had been sent to investigator regarding conduction of procedural actions.

On 13 November 2019 a motion had been sent to investigator regarding conduction of procedural actions.

On 3 December 2019 a motion had been sent to investigator regarding conduction of procedural actions.

On 9 December 2019 a complaint regarding inactivity of investigator was sent to Dzerzhinsky District Court in the city of Kharkiv.

On 13 December 2019 the first court hearing had been conducted but due to absence of investigator was postponed to 13 January 2020.

D-tsky’s case

Mr. D asked the Kharkiv Human Rights Group for legal assistance. He noted that in 2009 he had lodged before the European Court of Human Rights an application. In 2016, the application was communicated with the Government, but since then the Government has not raised any objections.

After reviewing the case file, on 11 September 2019, the lawyer filed a letter to the European Court of Human Rights on the case. On 30 October 2019, the European Court of Human Rights sent a reply, stating that the Government had requested that the case should be adjourn due to the fact that its materials were in the temporarily occupied territory. The court decided to suspend the case for uncertain time on 20 April 2016.

However, on 15 June 2016 the case-files in the applicant’s case were recovered by the domestic court. However, the government did not report this to the European Court of Human Rights, and therefore the case has not been considered in the court for two years. The lawyer informed the Court and added copies of the relevant documents

On 5 December 2019 the Court informed the applicant that his letter, together with the annexes, had been sent to the Government, which had to reply by 17 December 2019.

D-ov case

On 18 October 18 2017, a traffic accident occurred at one of the intersections in the central part of Kharkiv city, in which as a result of the collision of two cars, six people died and several others were seriously injured.

Both cars were premium-class cars, were in good technical condition. The driver of one of the cars, a young woman, rode at a speed that was almost twice more the permissible speed in a city and cross the intersection on the red traffic light; another driver began to move before the signal of the traffic light, which allows movement. The examination on alcohol or drug intoxication of the female driver just after the accident showed that her body contained psychoactive substances, but during the trial the court found this evidence to be unreliable. Another participant in the accident, Mr. D. was recognized as sober by the expertise.

In the case there were many complex forensic technical expertise, which established violations of the Traffic Rules (hereinafter - TR) by both drivers.

On 26 March 2019, the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv found both drivers guilty of committing a crime, stipulated by par.3 of Article 276 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - violation of the TR, which caused the death of several persons.

The obvious injustice of the sentence, in particular, in terms of the equivalency of the punishment imposed, in the presence of the obvious, even for the non-specialist, difference in the degree of guilt of the drivers involved in the road accident caused such a resonance in society that people began to collect signatures in defence of Mr D.

After pronouncing the verdict of the trial court, the lawyer of the SCR conducted a confidential meetings with the PD. in the pre-trial detention centre, after which the lawyer made copies of materials of a voluminous criminal case.

For a long time, the attorney met and analyzed the case materials while preparing for the examination of the case by the Court of Appeal, that scheduled for mid-August 2019.

On August 14, 2019, the Kharkiv Court of Appeals reviewed the appeal of the attorney in one sitting without examining the evidence available in the case and upheld the sentence, in part of the punishment imposed, without modification, and in the part of civil actions changed a joint compensation for the compensation of each of the drivers in 50% of the total amount of claims.

The attorney prepared a cassation appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the court of appeal. At the end of December 2019, the Supreme Court of Cassation, in the Supreme Court, decided to open the cassation proceedings and demanded criminal proceedings from the court of first instance.

The date of the cassation hearing is still unknown.

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 defence 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.

In 2019, there were 5 court hearings held in the court of first instance. The next court session is scheduled for 15 January 2020.

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 Troitsky 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 Svativsky District Court of Lugansk Oblast (hereafter, the Svatoivsky Court).

The preparatory hearing in the case in the Svativsky 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 Svativsky court t last carry out the preparatory hearing and, at the request of the party of defenсe, 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.

On May 27, 2019, after the previous postponement of the case, the Supreme Court examined the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, revoked the decision of the Lugansk Court of Appeal and sent the case back for a new consideration.

In July 2019, the Lugansk Court of Appeal considered the merits of the prosecutor’s appeal, quashed the decision of the Svativskyi District Court and remanded the case for consideration from the preparatory hearing stage. Since then, no hearing has taken place in the case.

Hol-nya case

On 5 December 2019 a wife of Mr. H turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance. The wife said that the latter could not apply to court to replace the part of the sentence with a milder sentence, since his colony did not sent his correspondence.

On 9 December 2019 during the meeting with Mr. H a necessary information was gathered and an agreement to use personal data was signed.

On 20 December 2019 an application was made to replace the term of serving a sentence on the less one to the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv.

H-ko case

Mr G. was subjected to physical violence by law enforcement officials during his detention in the criminal investigation.

On 20 February 2015 a criminal proceedings regarding torture was opened. Mr G. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings.

On 10 March 2017 proceedings were closed. The decision to close the criminal proceedings was challenged by Mr G. in the court.

On 14 June 2017, the decision of the Artemivskyi District Court in Donetsk region found the criminal proceeding been ineffective in investigate the fact of the violence against Mr G. and ordered the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine to conduct a forensic medical examination. However, no action has been taken.

28.06.2017 Mr G. again filed a criminal complaint alleging that he had been tortured by law enforcement officials.

On 29 September 2017 the Pecherskyi District Court in the city of Kyiv obliged General Prosecutor’s Office to enter information to Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations on the request of Mr. G. dated on 28 June 2017, about the fact of the use of physical violence by law enforcement officers.

For two years, Mr G. unsuccessfully was trying to find out about the results of the investigation into the torture against him.

In August 2019, Mr G. turned to SLC lawyer asking to provide him legal assistance.

On 4 November 2019, at the request of a SLC lawyer, the administration of General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine announced that, based on the decision of the Pecherskyi District Court in the city of Kyiv dated on 29 September 2017, the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine opened criminal proceedings from June 18, 2018 and transferred it to the General Department of the National Police in Donetsk region.

In December 2019 SLC lawyer submitted a motion for information on the progress of the investigation to the General Department of the National Police in Donetsk region.

On 21 December 2019, according to the reply received from the General Department of the National Police in Donetsk region the criminal proceedings were closed. However, there was no information on how Mr G. can familiarize with the case file and where it is located.

Hur-v case

Mr. H is an orphan. On 1 January 2018, at 2:25 am, Mr. H was on the threshold covered by a floor tile near the entrance to the “Big House” shopping mall, in the course of a sudden conflict with the left hand punched one blow to the right area of the victim’s head, then the victim fell to the above surface of the floor on his back, losing consciousness from 20 to 25 minutes. Thus, the victim was injured in the form of a traumatic brain injury. The victim was then taken to the hospital for medical assistance. At the hospital, the victim was diagnosed with severe head injuries.

On 7 January 2018, despite the range of conducted medical measures the victim died.

On 9 January 2018 Mr. H was notified about suspicion in committing a crime prescribed by part 2 Art.2 of the CC (Intended grievous bodily injury).

On 9 January 2018, an investigator submitted a motion to the court asking to adopt a preventive measure to Mr. H in the form of custody.

On 11 January 2018, the court partially granted the motion and chose a preventive measure in the form of house arrest.

In January 2018 Mr. H turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

The SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-file and realized the there are grounds for changing the qualification of the crime to misuse and untimely medical care provided to the victim.

On 22 March 2018, the court appointed a complex forensic examination.

On 9 July 2018 the SLC lawyer received the results of the examination which established that the treatment of the victim included numerous mistakes of doctors. In particular, it was stated that, if the proper treatment had been provided, the death of the victim could not have occurred.

On 25 July 2018, criminal proceedings were registered on the grounds of a criminal offense - a crime under Part 1 of Art. 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Inadequate performance of professional duties by a medical or pharmaceutical worker). The pre-trial investigation established that during the pre-trial investigation of the criminal proceedings concerning Mr. H’s case investigators were found in particular, that the actions of medical professionals contained visible signs of a criminal offense under Part 1 of Art. 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

For the time being the trial concerning accusation of Mr. H still pending, the interrogations of witnesses are being conducted.

I-n case

Mr. I is serving a sentence in Zamkova correctional colony № 58. Zamkova colony is one of the most remote correctional colonies from home of Mr. I (the city of Mariupol, which is 1100 km away) and where his mother lives.

On 15 May 2017 Mr. I submitted a motion to Ministry of Justice of Ukraine asking to transfer him to another penitentiary facility.

On 30 August 2017 Ministry of Justice of Ukraine rejected to transfer Mr. I.

On 30 October 2017 Mr. I filed an administrative complaint to the Circuit Administrative Court asking to abolish a decision of Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

On 14 December 2017 the Court granted the complaint. Ministry of Justice lodged an appeal.

On 20 February the Court of Appeal refused to grant the appeal of Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice lodged a cassation appeal.

On 16 May 2019 the Supreme Court rejected to grant the cassation.

On 10 July 2019 the Court obligated Ministry of Justice to reconsider Mr. I.’s application.

Despite obligation, Ministry of Justice didn’t do anything and was ignoring all the applications of Mr. I.

In the August 2019 Mr. I turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

On 06 November 2019 SLC lawyer submitted an application to the enforcement department for opening enforcement proceedings regarding the obligation of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to reconsider Mr I.’s application.

On 21 November 2019 the enforcement department issued a resolution opening the enforcement proceedings, stating the need for the Ministry of Justice to execute the decision within 10 working days.

The Ministry of Justice did not comply with the decision of the executor, however, the executor did not use any means of influence required by law to enforce the court decision.

On 27 December 2019 SLC lawyer appealed to the district administrative court with an administrative claim for recognition of the inactivity of the executor and the obligation of the executor to take the actions provided by law.

The case is still pending.

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 Court has established the order of evidence examination. The victim didn’t appear to 10 court hearings.

As to motion of the LSC lawyer the Court changed the order of evidence examination and held to go to the examination of 52 witnesses who were examined during the pre-trial examination.

On 7 August 2019 the court changed the procedure of evidence examination due to victim’s failure to appear to the court hearing.

The next court hearing is appointed on 31 January 2020, the interrogation of witnesses is planned.

K-ko’s case

Mr. K. asked the Kharkiv Human Rights Group to provide him legal assistance in transferring him from one penitentiary institution to another. In particular, he noted that he was serving a sentence in the Sinelnikov correctional colony, which is more than 400 kilometers from his relatives’ residence.

At present, the lawyer familiarized with the case file and prepared a request for transfer of the sentenced person from one penitentiary institution to another and sent it to the South-East Interregional Department on the execution of criminal punishment.

K-h’s case

In June 2019, Mr K. requested a lawyer to provide him with legal aid. He noted that he was serving a sentence in the Sinelnikovska correctional colony, located more than 400 kilometers from his relatives’ residence. His parents are elderly people who do not have enough money to make often visits to the colony which is situated so far from their home.

In September 2019, the SLV lawyer prepared a motion to the South-East Interregional Department on the Execution of criminal punishment for the transfer of Mr R. from the Sinelnykovska Correcitonal Colony to the Selydivska correctional colony.

On 22 October 2019, the Southeastern Interregional department on execution of criminal punishment denied this request. In particular, the reason for this refusal was the absence of vacancies in the Selidovska correctional colony where Mr K. wanted to be transferred.

On December 3, 2019, a lawyer sent a request to the South-East Interregional Department on Execution of Punishment for vacancies in the Selidov correcitonal colony. In response, the department noted that there were 96 vacancies in the institution.

In addition, on 17 December 2019, the SLC lawyer sent a request to the Sinelnikovska correctional colony for cash on Mr. K.’s account

Actually the lawyer has prepared an administrative claim to the District Administrative Court of Dnipropetrovsk region.

Kr-ts case

On 20 August 2019 Mr. K turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance. Mr. K is serving a sentence in Khrolivsky Correctional Centre. Mr. K reported that on August 14, 2019, Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv region issued a decision refusing to satisfy a complaint on the head of the State Institution «Khrolovsky CC № 40» and the chairman of the supervisory commission at the Kharkiv Regional State Administration of the Kharkiv region on the application of parole in respect of Mr. K.

On 23 August 2019 the SLC lawyer appeled to Kharkiv Court of Appeal.

On 14 November 2019 the first court hearing had been conducted.

The next court hearing is appointed on 19 March 2020.

K-tsev’s case

Mr K asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in the case on his parole. K serves a life sentence. He based his claim on the fact that, although the current legislation did not provide for the possibility of parole for life imprisoned, it was in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, the judgement of Petukhov v. Ukraine No. 2 stated that the only release mechanism for such persons was a pardon, but in practice this mechanism does not work.

On 12 September 2019, the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court of the Ivano-Frankivsk region denied K’s request, stating that there was no mechanism of parole for life imprisoned. Mr K appealed against this refusal

On 13 November 2019 the Court of Appeal of the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast upheld the applicant’s appeal, stating that, in the absence of national legal regulation, the trial court had to follow the rules of the Convention and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The lawyer prepared written explanations to the first-instance court, stating that the applicant had proved his correction by proper behavior and work. However, on 26 December 2019, the trial court denied the applicant, stating that the ECHR decision did not explicitly indicate the possibility of parole, and furthermore, the convicted person did not prove his correction.

Today, the lawyer is preparing an appeal.

L-v case

In the end of June 2019 mr. L turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance concerning the situation in State Institution “South CC № 61”, where he was serving a sentence.

At the moment of applying to SLC Mr. L was in Kharkiv SIZO and then was transferred to SI “Kholodnohirska CC № 18“.

On 26 June 2019 Mr. L and the attorney of SLC signed an agreement on legal aid.

On 2 August and 12 September 2019 criminal complaints were lodged to State Investigative Bureau in the city of Mykolayiv.

On 18 November 2019 the motion had been lodged on conduction of procedural actions in criminal proceedings concerning Mr. L as a victim.

On 27 December 2019 the motion had been lodged on conduction of procedural actions in criminal proceedings concerning Mr. L as a victim.

 Le-nova case

Russian citizen, Mrs. L. was accused of preparing for forming terrorist group or organization, committing a terrorist attack by organized group and of illegal weapon handling.

On 9 December 2015 a criminal proceedings was opened. Pre-trial investigation in the criminal proceedings was provided by the Main Investigation Department of the State Security Service of Ukraine.

A lawyer of SLC filed a criminal complaint on abuse of power of prosecutor officer of General Prosecutor’s offiice of Ukraine and applied for his disqualification.

Since the information on lawyer’s criminal complaint was not entered to the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations the lawyer 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.

In the end of June 2019 the case was considered by the court. The indictment was announced.

From July to December 2019 none of court hearings hadn’t been conducted due to systematic non-attendance of the prosecutor and jury.

Lesno-kiy case

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

On 22 November 2017, the policemen of the Chuguev Police Station 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 Station.

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 Station 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 centre of the detention centre 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 Chervonozavodskyi Court quashed the order on a refusal to Mr. D. recognition of a victim of the crime.

On 8 January 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a request on informing him about results of consideration of L’s request on victim status.

On 13 January 2019 the investigator has delivered a resolution on termination of the criminal proceedings. The SLC lawyer got it on 25 January 2019

On 5 February 2019 the SLC lawyer lodged a complaint to the court on such resolution.

On 12 March 2019 the court has granted the complaint and cancelled a resolution.

On 16 May 2019 an investigator of the Prosecutor Office in Kharkiv region terminated the criminal proceedings.

On 03 July 2019 the lawyer of Mr. L lodged an appeal concerning the termination of the case.

The case is still pending.

L-kh case

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

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

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

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

On 24 May 2017 the High Specialized Court of Ukraine made a decision on initiating the court procedure in the applicant’s case. The court provided the Prosecutor’s Office with an opportunity to file written objections to the cassational appeal.

No court hearings have been appointed yet.

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.

Occurence 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.

20 court hearings were appointed and conducted in 2019, witnesses were questioned, case files and evidence were examined. The trial is coming to an end.

The next court hearing is scheduled on 22 January 2020.

Mal-n case

Mr. M has two minor children and is retired.

On September 2, 2013, Chuhuyiv City Court held an indictment by which convicted him of committing crimes under Part 1 of Article 122 and Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and to sentence him: under Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the form of 2 years in prison; Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the form of 5 years of imprisonment and was discharged from serving a sentence on probation.

Mr. M appealed and turned to the SLC asking to provide him legal assistance.

The Court of Appeal reversed the indictment of Chuhuyiv City Court in the part of conviction under Art. 185, Part 2 of CC and returned the case for a new trial.

On 12 May 2016, Chuhuyiv City Court sent the case to the additional pre-trial investigation. A Prosecutor’s Office appealed.

On 7 July 2016 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of Chuhuyiv City Court concerning the returning the case for additional investigation.

On 21 August 2017 Chuhuyiv City Court sentenced Mr. M under Part 2 Art. 185 CC to 3 years of imprisonment with a probation period of three years.

On 20 February 2018 the Court of Appeal quashed the indictment of Chuhyiv City Court.

From 19 April 2018 the case is considering by Chuhuyiv City Court in Kharkiv region.

The trial is still pending.

Mal-yi case

On 11 April 2019, the ECtHR found a violation of paragraphs 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in the case of “Mr. M. v. Ukraine”, which was convicted in 2006 of committing multiple robberies, one of which was combined with the killing of two persons.

In connection with the establishment of the ECtHR as an internationally recognized court of Ukraine, Mr. M submitted to the Supreme Court a request for review of court decisions in his case in the exclusive proceedings, namely the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk region, as a court of first instance, and The Supreme Court of Ukraine as a court of cassation.

The first hearing of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (“the Grand Chamber”) was held in September 2019, but the case was adjourned, including a providing the discussion of Mr. M a legal position with his lawyer that he was given by the SLC of KHPG.

In September 2019, the SLC’s lawyer made a confidential meeting with Mr. M in the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre, during which they reconciled their position on the case.

On November 13, 2019, in a similar case against others, the Grand Chamber declared part of the evidence inadmissible but upheld the rest of the sentence, including the sentence of life imprisonment. In doing so, several judges expressed a dissenting opinion with a view contrary to that of most Grand Chamber judges.

The trial concerning Mr. M’s case was adjourned once more as a result of M. M’s illness, and finally on December 19, his motion was considered on the merits. Also, the lawyer filed a motion on the election to M. M’s. a preventive measure not related to taking into custody, in case of cancellation of court decisions the referral of the case for a new trial.

After hearing the arguments of the defense party, the Grand Chamber decided to adjourn the hearing until February 12, 2020.

On February 12, 2020 the Grand Chamber released Mr. M from the court room and remitted the case to a new trial.

P’s case

Mr. P’s asked the Kharkiv Human Rights Group to provide him with legal assistance related criminal case against him under Article 391 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine because of the malicious disobedience of the administration. In particular, he stated that he pleaded guilty and agreed to the sentence. However, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the case, in which he asked to increase the rate of sentence.

After familiarize with the case file, the SLC lawyer found that there was a mistake in the sentence of 8 August 2019. In particular, according to Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court had to attach fully or partially the missing part of the sentence under the old verdict to the new verdict. However, instead, the court partially added the sentence by the new verdict to the sentence by the previous verdict. Thus, instead of a final sentence of two years and six months, the court received a sentence of 15 years 6 months.

The prosecutor based his appeal on this incorrect recalculation, but at the same time requested the unsealed part of the sentence under the old verdict to be fully attached. He did not give any other motivation for increasing punishment.

Finding this out, on 5 December 2019, the lawyer filed a statement of clarification of the sentence and elimination of obvious arithmetical errors to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv city. However, on 17 December 2019, the October District Court announced that it could not consider these statements because the case was in the court of appeal.

The lawyer plans to file a supplement to an appeal of similar content.

The next hearing is scheduled for 31 March 2020.

P-r. case

In October 2009 after the consistent two-weeks treatment in three hospitals of Kharkiv 27-year-old P. died with the high temperature. According to the report of forensic medical examination the cause of death was acute pancreatitis with transition to pancreas necrosis.

The district Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv city refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the fact of death of P., but further their ruling was quashed by the prosecutor of higher lever and transferred to the district police department for conduction of additional verification. In January 2010 the new ruling about refuse to initiate criminal proceedings was issued. This ruling was quashed by the district court in May 2010.

In 2010 the materials of verification were transferred to the Main Bureau of the forensic medical examinations of Kyiv city for conduction of commission forensic examination, the report of which was received only in October 2012.

After taking into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (of 2012) the information about sudden death of P. was registered in the URPTI, but no new investigative actions were conducted in the present proceedings. At the end of 2013, the criminal proceedings were closed, while the father of P. who is the victim in the proceedings, was not informed about its closing.

After applying of the victim to the SLC, the lawyer of the SLC involved the specialist in the sphere of forensic medical examination, and a doctor of the relevant specialization, for obtaining of consultation and medical conclusion. The lawyer prepared the appeal against the decision about closing of criminal proceedings, however the investigation body had not provided the lawyer with the copy of this decision, despite the complaints to the district and city Prosecutor’s Offices. In the absence of evidence of obtaining the decision much later than the date of its issuance, there is no real chances that the complaint against the decision will be considered by the court. Now the lawyer initiates the complaining proceedings for obtaining this decision by means of court order.

In October 2014, the lawyer complaint to the investigator’s refusal to give a copy of the investigator’s decision on termination of the criminal proceedings, and the District court granted this complaint.

Having obtained the copy of the decision, the lawyer complaint the decision itself to the investigative judge of the District court, and in November, 2014, the court granted the complaint and ordered to the investigator to continue the investigation.

No one investigative action was carried out after the revocation of the resolution to close the criminal proceedings. Because of this the SLC lawyer lodged to the investigator the motion to carry out additional investigatory actions, particularly, a complex forensic medical examination.

After reversal of the investigator’s resolution, the case file was passed for the investigation to another District Police Department, but this has not been informed neither to the lawyer, no to the victim’s father. In October, 2015 the lawyer was informed about the disposition of the case, and he addressed to the new (Dzerzhinskyi) Police Department. At the end of December, 2015 the on the request of the lawyer the new investigator questioned the victim’s father in detail, to define necessary investigation actions.

In 2016 it was another change of investigator in the case. For certain time, the case file was passed to the investigation department of the regional department of the National Police. After returning the case file, the SLC lawyer submitted the motion for a forensic medical examination (to determine whether the treatment of the victim Mr P.’s dead son was in accordance with the medical protocols) and the forensic handwriting examination to determine the issue of falsification of medical records.

In December 2016 the investigator granted all the requests and prepares materials for sending experts.

In January 2018, the investigator directed the case-file to the Kharkiv Bureau of Forensic Examinations for the examination, which was finished only on June 20, 2018, but neither the victim nor his lawyer was informed about its completion.

In September 2018, the lawyer got acquainted with the case-file, in particular, with the medical forensic examination report which did not establish violations of medical rules during the treatment of the deceased son of Mr. P. P. in al of the hospitals. It turned out that the examination was not carried out on the originals of documents but on their copies, since the originals, together with other medical evidence, were not transferred when the materials were handed over from one investigative body to another one. The graphological examination was not conducted because, according to its rules, it can be carried out using only the original documents, but they were given copies of such.

Having known this, in October 2018 the lawyer filed a request to the former Kominternivsky Police Department of Kharkiv city about who, when and to whom the materials of the proceedings were handed over, but did not receive the reply.

Having repeatedly requested and again did not receive an answer, in December 2018 the lawyer lodgeda request to the Kharkiv Regional Bar to bring the officers of the police department who were guilty of failing to his lawyer’s request, to administrative liability. The head of the Bar refused to draw up a report on such an administrative offense, referring to that this should be resolved within the framework of criminal proceedings.

Having exhausted his own possibilities to find the missing materials of criminal proceedings, the lawyer on January 4, 2019 addressed the Poltava Department of the State Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter - the Poltava SBI Office) with a criminal complaint on the official negligence of the investigator, which led to the loss of evidence.

Having no received a response to his criminal complaint, on January 23, 2019 the lawyer lodged a complaint to the Oktyabrsky District Court of Poltava for inactivity of the investigators of the Poltava SBI Office, which the investigator judge granted on January 31, 2019.

Upon satisfaction of the said complaint, the lawyer sent a statement to the Poltava SBI Office to provide him with an extract from the URPI, as well as a motion for the involvement of Mr P. as a victim in the case and his interrogation as a victim.

On 16 May 2019, the Poltava SBI Office sent a letter informing Mr. P. that he was recognized as a victim in the case.

On June 3, 2019, the lawyer again got acquainted with the case-file in the investigation division of the Shevchenko Police Department of Kharkiv, during which he suddenly found among them a cover letter from the investigator Slobidsky (formerly Kominternivsky) Police Department of Kharkiv city, dated of 22 October 2018, informing that they were sent to the Shevchenko police department together with biological materials taken from the corpse of the victim’s deceased son, in connection with the lawyer’s request for missing criminal proceedings.

At present, the lawyer works to ensure that, upon commissioning the originals of medical documents, to get carrying out the handwriting and graphological (for establishing the membership of the signatures contained in medical documents, certain persons) examinations.

CLS’s lawyer sent a request to the investigator for forensic-writing examinations, which the investigator refused.

Upon careful reading of the expert’s report (forensic examination), it was found out that his text contained information about the examination of the medical history some old women but not deceased son’s one. These circumstances indicate that none of the experts participated in drawing that conclusion and, therefore, this document contains signs of official forgery.

On these grounds, the Mr.P lodged a criminal complaint to the police concerning an officil forgery. As no action was taken on this statement, the lawyer filed a complaint about the inactivity of the investigative bodies to the investigating judge of the Leninsky district court of Kharkiv.

On October 28, 2019, the investigating judge ordered the investigating authorities to enter the complaint into URPTI, but no investigative actions were taken.

At the same time, the SLC lawyer filed a request for a re-forensic examination at another expert institution, which was satisfied by the investigator. Insofar, the proceedings have not been forwarded to experts.

R-ka’s case

In June 2019, Mr R. Asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance. He noted that he was serving a punishment at the Vilnyansk Penal Facility No. 11, which is more than 300 kilometers away from the place of residence of his relatives. His mother is a cancer patient and his wife is a disabled person and cannot move without assistance. Therefore, they are deprived of the opportunity to visit him.

On 25 June 2019, the SLC lawyer prepared a motion to the South-East Interregional Department for the Execution of Sentences and Probation for the transfer of Mr. R. from the Vilnyansk Penitentiary Facility to the Dnipropetrovsk Penitentiary Facility.

On 2 November 2019, the South-East Interregional Office for Eexecution of sentences and Probation denied this request.

Nowadays the SLC lawyer has prepared a claim to the Circle Administrative Court of Dnipropetrovsk region.

Se-nov case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During 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 defence counsel. The next hearing was scheduled for 26.09.2018.

On 26.09.2018 the motion of the defence 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.

On 16 January 2019 the consideration of the case was postponed due to absence and his representative. The next court hearing was appointed on 19.03.19.

On 19 March 2019 the court consideration of the case was postponed due to absence of the victim. The next court hearing was appointed on 16.04.19.

On 16 April 2019 the court consideration was postponed due to inability of the representative to attend the court hearing. The next court hearing was appointed on 24.06.19.

On 24 June 2019 the court consideration was postponed due to presence of the judge in a counseling room.

On 18 July 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of the judge.

On 11 September 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of the defender.

On 04 November 2019 the court hearing was postponed in conjunction with judge’s being in a deliberation room.

On 16 December 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to judge’s preoccupation.

The next court hearing is appointed on o4 March 2020.

Sen-ko case

Sen-ko serves life imprisonment in a Romenska correctional colony. The administration of this institution, through its unlawful actions, brought Mr. Sen-ko to a cardiac arrest.

On 04.09.2019 during the search, a prison officer demanded that Sen-ko go out into the corridor and remove his clothes. Sent-ko had not ben undressed yet when an officer began to pull his pants off himself with the use of physical violence and threats. After that in the presence of the other convicts and staff members, the prison officer began threatening Sen-ko to conduct a search with penetration into the anal opening, using a metal detector, which the officer waved in front of the Sen-ko’s face.

Later, Sen-ko lost consciousness, doctors recorded a cardiac arrest.

After that, S-ko asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal aid. On 17 September 2019 the SLC lawyer sent to the correctional colony a lawyer’s request and request for admission of a psychiatrist to S-ka.

On 25 September 2019 the lawyer together with the psychiatrist visited S-ka. During the visit, the doctor examined him and recommended the treatment, and the lawyer took explanations and statements.

On 27 September 2019, the lawyer sent to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine and the State Bureau of investigation in Poltava the statement of crime, but the information stated in his claim was not entered in the Unified register of pre-trial investigations. In addition, a request was made to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sumy Region for the actions taken by the Prosecutor’s Office regarding Sen-ko’s health state.

On 16.10.2019 the lawyer again sent a statement of crime to the State Bureau of investigation in Poltava city. However no action was taken

On 25 October 2019 the Zhovtnevyy district court in Poltava had granted the lawyer’s complaint about the inactivity of the State Bureau of investigation in the city of Poltava and obliged the authorized person to enter in the Unified Register of pre-trial investigations the information stated in the lawyer’s complaint dated 16.10.2019.

On 30 October 2019 the SLC lawyer submitted a request to the Temnovsk Correctional Colony to receive information about medical treatment for S-ka.

On 13 November 2019, a request was sent to the State Bureau of investigation in Poltava regarding the stage of execution of the court decision by 25.10.2019; however on 27.12.2019 the State Bureau responded that there was no reason to enter information to the Unified register of the pre-trial investigation.

On 06.12.2019 the SLC lawyer sent a request to the Prosecutor’s Offices of Sumy Region and Romensk Local Prosecution regarding actions taken to verify the illegal activity of the prisoner’s officers.

Sh-ko case

On 22 May 2019 Mr. Sh B turned to SLC asking to provide him legal assistance. He stated that on 28 March 2018 he became a victim of an attack of members of “Tradition and Order organization” on the basis of sexual orientation.

On 7 June 2019 he lodged a criminal complaint.

On 14 June 2019 he lodged a complaint to investigative judge concerning non-entering the complaint in URPTI.

On 23 Jule 2019 an SLC lawyer filed an application to provide information on the execution of the court’s decision to enter information in the URPTI upon the criminal complaint.

On 12 August 2019 a motion on procedural action had been lodged to an investigator.

On 6 September 2019 a request on the progress of criminal proceedings had been sent.

On 18 November 2019 a request concerning the stage of criminal proceedings and a motion on conduction of procedural actions were filed.

On 15 December 2019 a second interogation of Mr. Sh had been conducted with a presence of a SLC attorney.

Sh-na case

In May 2019 Ms. SH turned to SLC asking to provide legal assistance. She reported that on she became a victim of an attak conducted by member of organization “Tradition and order” who thwarted an event involving members of the LGBT community, in particular Ms. Sh.

On 4 October 2019 Ms. Sh and the attorney of SLC signed an agreement on legal aid.

On 22 October 2019 a request was made to the Chief of the Shevchenkivsky District Police Station in Kharkiv region with a request to provide information on the stage of pre-trial investigation.

On 18 November 2019 a second request was sent to the chief of Shevchenkivskyi district police department in Kharkiv region with a request to provide information on the stage of pre-trial investigation of criminal proceedings.

During the admission to the Chief of the Shevchenkivsky District Police Station in the Kharkiv region a new information was find out that the investigator who conducted the pre-trial investigation on November 1, 2019 was released, and the new investogator has not appointed yet.

S-niuk’s case

Ms. S asked the SLC lawyer to provide her with legal assistance in connection with her parole.

She noted that on 25 October 2019, she had been denied the application for parole because, according to the court, she had not taken the path of correction, several of her rewards had been canceled by the prosecutor’s office over time; she did not pay a civil claim, etc.

In fact, Ms. S noted that she had paid more than 6,000 pecuniary damages in a civil claim,, works, has rewards (and canceled rewards were not her fault).

After reading the case file, the lawyer filed several requests.

In particular, the lawyer submitted a request to the Kachanivska correctional colony on the existence of enforcement letter, the voluntary payment of sums due a civil claim and, finally, the specific amount of money paid. In response, the penitentiary institution informed that there was no enforcement letter in the case file, as well as no information on voluntary execution on the civil claim.

In addition, the lawyer appealed to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office No. 5 and the Uman City Prosecutor’s Office about the reasons for canceling Ms. S.’s rewards. The prosecutor’s offices in response, noted that rewards had been canceled due to incorrect mechanism of their delivering.

The SLC lawyer also appealed to the Supervisory Board of the Executive Committee of the Uman City Council for non-compliance with the parole of Mrs. S. In response, the committee provided a minutes of the meeting, which did not contain any references to the reasons, but only indicated the result of the meeting.

Nowadays, the case is in the court of appeal. A trial date has not been scheduled.

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 has 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 have 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, takeт 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 centre 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 defence.

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.

The prosecutor submitted the appeal against the aforementioned decision, and on 5 June 2019, the Dnipro Court of Appeal, after repeated adjournment of the case, reversed the decision of the trial court and passed the new decision, which refused Mr M. to release, given the severity of te crimes committed by him, and the fact that he has disciplinary penalty while serving his sentence.

After exhausting national remedies, the SLC lawyer contemplates the possibility of applying to the European Court of Human Rights.

In July 2019, the court questioned a forensic expert who was involved in the inspection of the scene. In September 2019, one of the witnesses, a neighbor who was called by police to the crime scene, was interrogated, but the witness did not see the victim’s corpse there.

There were several more hearings after that, but they hadn’t been conducted due to the absence of witnesses / experts or the employment of judges in other cases.

The case is ongoing.

11 cases ended in success

Ah-va’s case

Mrs. Ah-va, October 18, 1987 is accused of several counts under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illicit trafficking in narcotic substances). The prosecution supports the prosecutor’s office of Dnipro region. She committed the crime in the period of serving the sentence under Art. 321 the Criminal Code with the probation. The defense applied on amnesty concerning this sentence.

There are two criminal proceedings which had been considering in Samarskyi District Court related to Ms. A charge on Art. 307, part 2 of CC. As to the first proceedings there were 15 hearings held during 2018. Only two witnesses were interrogated. An SLC lawyer initiated an amnesty process with the aim to avoid a real sentence in the case of convince verdict.

As to the second case, preliminary court hearings took place during 2018 - at which the SLC lawyer filed a motion to return the prosecutor’s indictment. The court granted the motion. The Prosecutor’s Office appealed against this decision. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and referred the case for reconsideration. Following the return of the proceedings, a preparatory hearing was held. The case is appointed to be considered on the merits.

During 2019 there were 12 court hearings held concerning the first case. On 15 November 2019, the court issued a judgment of acquittal. The prosecutor’s office appealed the sentence. The Court of Appeal is scheduled to sit on 30 January 2020.

During 2019, eight court hearings were held on the second criminal proceedings. The court debate is scheduled for 31 January 2020

Pleadings are scheduled on 31 January 2020.

D’va case

On 30 December 2017, around 00:20, being drunk Mr. Z. was driving a car in violation of the requirements of section 2.9-a of the Road Traffic Rules of Ukraine. He was driving along the Kyiv-Kharkiv-Dovzhansky highway (Lozovenkivskyi avenue, Kharkiv) about 100 km / h. Mr Z. violated the requirements of PP. 12.1, 12.4, 12.9 (b) of the Traffic Rules of Ukraine, lost control of the vehicle and drove into the oncoming lane where bumped into a car driven by Mrs. D.’s father, who was riding in the opposite direction. Mrs. D.’s father suffered grievous bodily harm in the form of a life-incompatible traumatic injury that caused the immediately death at the scene of crime.

On 1 October 2018, the Lenin District Court in Kharkiv city found Mr. Z. guilty of the crimie under Part 3 of Article 288 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and sentenced him to 9 years’ imprisonment, with the prohibition to drive vehicles for 3 years.

Ms. D. filed a civil compaint against Mr. Z. and the TAS Insurance Group for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The court partly granted the civil claim and ordered Mr. Z to pay UAH 100,000 of non-pecuniary damage

Ms. D. asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal assistance.

The SLC lawyer appealed against the decision of the trial court regarding compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage.

On 9 April 2019, the Court of Appeal granted the appeal, queshed the judgement of trial court and returned the case for new trial.

On 9 August 2019 the trial court granted Mr.D’s claim and ordered that TAS Insurance Company must pay Mr. D 7 104 UAH of pecuniary damage and 38 400 UAH of non-pecuniary damage.

K’t case

Mr. K was born on 21 May 2000.

On 31 May 2016 a theft incriminated Mr. K has been committed. At this time the client has not reached the age of 16.

On 28 June 2016 another theft has been also committed. At this time the client also has not reached the age of 16.

On 29 March 2017 the Lutsk city court in Volyn region found K. guilty on commission of the first theft. On 5 October 2017 the Lutsk city court in Volynsk region found Mr. K. guilty of commission the second crime.

On 6 November 2017 a legal representative of Mr.K. appealed the verdict. The legal representative asked to quashed a judgement and return the case for new trial because the trial court did not take into account Mr K’s age and also that he had been involved to the crime.

On 20 February 2018 the court of appeal in Volynska region changed the sentence for Mr.K.

Nowadays the case is considered by the Supreme Court.

The SLC lawyer has analyzed the case-file and made an addition to the cassassion appeal.

On 19 September 2019 the Supreme Court canceled the verdict of appeal court and returned the case to the new trial. Due to the absence of authority of judges of the court of appeal in Volynska region the case was transmitted to the Court of appeal in Rivnenska region.

Immediately after appeal consideration Mr. K was transported to the Dniprovska penitentiary facility no.4 for the following return to the Berdyanska correctional colony no.77. Despite of the resolution of the investigator on security measures related Mr.K in the form of transporting to another correctional colony, the SLC lawyer failed to stop transportation to Berdyanska correctional colony no.77.

The SLC lawyer submitted a request to the Kiyv detention facility related the place where Mr.K was transported and reasons why he was transported.

The Kyiv detention facility did not reply on his request.

Because of advocacy the SLC lawyer has connected with the head of the State executive service of Ukraine and returned his client to the Kiev detention centre.

Ma-mov case

Mr. Ma-mov lives in Kharkiv.

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

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

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

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

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

The SLC lawyer lodged motion on requesting of secret documents. The court refused to grant it.

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

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

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

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

On 12 January 2019 the court changed the preliminary measure for Ma-mov from detention to house arrest with electronic control.

On 16 April 2019 Kyiv district court in Kharkiv delivered a verdict and found his innocent in drug purchasing but found guilty in Illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale.

The SLC lawyer appealed against the verdict in the part of finding Ma-mova guilty. Prosecution also submitted an appeal on cancellation of the verdict and sentencing of Ma-mov to seven years of imprisonment.

The appeal consideration is scheduled on 27 February 2020.

Mykhaylov case

During the pre-trial investigation, Mr. M had been illegally conducted a number of investigative actions. In particular, Mr. M was carried out an unlawful investigation, raised unlawful suspicions and accusations, conducted without the grounds for covert investigative (detective) actions, a search warrant was also granted by the court without proper grounds, an illegal search was carried out in the apartment at Mr. M.’s place of residence, unlawfully attached things, illegally appointed custody, prolongated detention and rejected motions of Mr. M and his defense lawyer, deprived Mr. M. of his right to a fair trial, illegally kept in a metal cell, which is established by ECHR as derogation of human dignity.

Mr M. turned to the SLC asking for a legal assistance.

In August 2017, the SLC lawyer filed a lawsuit against State Treasury Service of Ukraine as to the finance representative of the State of Ukraine, to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovska region, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine about compensation for damage caused to a citizen by unlawful acts of a body of inquiry, pre-trial investigation, prosecution and court.

On 12 December 2017 the court postponed the proceedings concerning civil case of Mr. M till the prosecutor’s cassation will be considered in the criminal proceeding concerning accusation of Mr. M.

On 22 July 2019 the court renewed the proceedings in the civil case and appointed a preliminary court hearing.

On 22 August 2019 the court closed the preliminary court hearing and appointed a trial.

On 6 September 2019 The Court granted the claims of the SLC lawyer partially and held to recover from the State of Ukraine non-pecuniary damage in the amount.

The Prosecutor Office filed an appeal concerning the decision of the Court.

On 18 December 2019 the Court of Appeal refused in granting the claims of the Prosecutor Office.

The case is ended

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 month 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.

In 2019 the court examined all the documents of criminal proceedings that were submitted by prosecutor, and conducted an examination of an expert. The case is at the stage of preparation for court debates.

The prosecutor’s office did not provide the presence of prosecution’s witnesses and open all case files for the SLC lawyer.

On 22 July 2019 the court found Mr. P innocent because of not-approval of his guilt.

The prosecutor lodged an appeal claim.

The appeal consideration is scheduled on 21 January 2020.

Pot-va case

On 26 November 2010 Joint-Stock Company Commercial Bank “Privatbank” (hereinafter – the Bank) signed a loan agreement with Ms. P.

On 3 June 2019 the Bank suited Ms. P concerning indebtedness under the loan agreement claiming the she failed to fulfill her obligations which resulted in a large amount of debt.

Ms. P turned to SLC lawyer asking to provide her legal assistance.

The SLC lawyer prepared and lodged an objection to the claims of the Bank. The objection stated that the Bank didn’t provide reliable evidence to prove the awareness of Ms. P of conditions of agreement and the Bank missed the statute of limitations because the bank counts the debt as of May 7, 2013, and went to court only in June 2019. In addition, according to the calculation provided to Mrs. P., the last payment under the said loan agreement was made by the defendant on 16.09.2015.

On 1 November 2019 Chuhuyiv City Court in Kharkiv region dismissed the claims of the Bank and agreed with the SLC lawyer’s position.

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 Centre 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 Ordzhonikidzevskyi 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.

On 14 January 2019 the witness was examined in the court hearing, the written evidence was examined. The court rejected to add the judgment of Kharkivskyi Circuit Administrative Court to the case-file because it didn’t come into force.

On 21 February 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to the illness of lawyer.

On 20 March 2019 the court consideration was postponed due to presence of the judge in a counseling room.

On 22 April 2019 the Court granted a motion and held to add the Kharkivskyi Circuit Administrative Court’s judgment and adjudication of Second Court of Appeal to the case-file. A prosecution party was given a time to familiarize with the case-file. The next court hearing was appointed on 29.05.19.

On 29 May 2019 an indictment was pronounced in which Mrs. S was found guilty in committing a fraud and was sentenced to a fine which was paid in the income of the country. The pecuniary damage was also levied.

The appeal was lodged to Kharkiv Court of Appeal concerning the judgment of Ordzhonikidzevskyi District Court from 29 May 2019.

On 19 September 2019 Kharkiv Court of Appeal dismissed the indictment of Ordzhonikidzevskyi District Court in the city of Court and remanded the case for a new trial.

On 22 November 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to the judge being in a deliberation room.

The next court hearing is appointed on 17 January 2020.

 Sh-n case

Mr. S. is a citizen of Russian Federation (RF). He was born in Moscow. 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 referred 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. He is a famous political activist and has taken part in a lot of protest campaigns. 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 RF Kryvovyi A.M. 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.

A lawyer of the SLC independently submitted numerous documents for confirmation of non-compliance of human rights in 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.

On 30 November 2016, with the help of SLC lawyer Mr. Sh applied to the Kyiv Administrative District Court with an administrative suit in which he asked to cancel 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.

31 October 2018, Kyiv Administrative District Court granted Mr. Sh-n’s claim, canceled the SMS decision to refuse on granting th refugee status and obligated SMS to grant the refugee status to Mr. Sh.

On 19 March 2019 Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal held a decision to reject the appeal of SMS.

For the time being, SMS is deciding which exact kind of protection Mr. Sh needs – the refugee status or the status of a person who needs an additional protection.

SMS didn’t lodged a cassation appeal.

On 22 June 2019 the SMS provided Mr. Sh with additional protection.

At the end of October 2019 the SMS gave Mr.Sh all necessary documents.

Yer-nko cse

Mr. Ye is accused of committing of intentional destruction or damage to property of citizens.

In accordance with prosecution’s version, while on 14 January 2019 mr.Ye. was in the territory of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra he burnt the paper in a room. As a result, a fire in the Lavra occurred. Mr.Ye was detained by police near the scene of crime.

Mr.Ye is a drug user who also suffered from the epilepsy.

In accordance with Mr. Ye’s version, around 14 o-clock he drank about 200 ml. of alcohol and took several pills "Methadone"

Being drunk Mr.Ye was going around the Lavra and speaking with acquaintances. Then he saw a crowd and some fire trucks. When he came closer he determined that in a building near the Lavra was fire.

Being drunk Mr. Ye. had a huge desire to become a part of the events. He decided to tell strangers that he burnt the Lavra. He even gave an interview, When police finally came strangers pointed on Mr. Ye and retold his commitment. Mr. Ye was detained and transported to the Pecherskyy police station.

Mr. Ye recovered consciousness in police. He was handcuffed. Mr. Ye did not understand where and for what reasons he stayed. Talking with a policeman he determined that he has already pleaded his guilt on committing a crime. Mr.Ye started to explain that he could not do that because he was religious, worked in the Lavra. When policemen understood that he refused to plead his guilt further they started to threaten him by physical violence. Then Mr. Ye. was tortured for a long period of time.

On 15 January 2019 Mr. Ye was noticed of suspicion in committing a crime and on 17 January 2019 the preliminary measure in the form of detention was applied to him.

In the first three days after Mr. Ye’s detention there were conducted more than 40 investigative actions. In particular an investigator conducted a crime-scene examination, interrogated witnesses and conducted identification.

On 15 April 2019 Mr. Ye was released.

The SLC lawyer used weaknesses in the criminal proceedings and disrupted a court meeting. In the lack of court decision Mr. Ye was released.

On 02 July 2019 Mr. Ye passed ambulant forensic psychiatric examination.

With the assistance of the SLC lawyer, Mr. Ye started a drug treatment course, recovered lost documents and sought for psychiatric help.

With the assistance of the SLC lawyer, Mr. Ye has twice restored the lost passport document. Following the advice of a lawyer, Mr. YE got an official job as a chef at the fast food network “Puzata hata” in Kyiv and receives the help of a physician-narcologist and psychiatrist.

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.

On 15.01.2019 the Kharkiv appeal court partly granted the prosecutor’s appeal. The verdict of the Bogoduhivskyy district court in Kharkiv region from 23.09.2016 was cancelled and the criminal proceeding was sent for the new trial.

The pre-trial court meeting was scheduled on 17.04.2019.

On 17.04.2019 the pre-trial court meeting was postponed.

On 30.05.2019 the pre-trial court meeting took place. The indictment was scheduled for consideration on 05.06.2019.

On 05.06.2019 the court meeting was postponed due to the judge’s business.

On 26 June 2019 during the court meeting the prosecutor changed accusation. The court provided the SLC lawyer with time to preparation.

On 20 August 2019 the court hearing was postponed due to preoccupation of the judge.

On 19 September 2019 there was the accused interrogated and the written evidences were examined.

On 07 November 2019 Mr. Z conducted the last plea of the accused. The court retired in deliberation room to pass a judgment.

On 08 November 2019 the Bohodukhivskyi District Court in Kharkiv region convicted Mr. Z for two years of imprisonment. On the basis of Article 75 of Criminal Code of Ukraine he was released from serving a sentence with 2 years of probation.

The case is pending.

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password