MENU

A brief description of the KHPG strategic litigations in the first half of 2021

30.07.2021
Tamila Bespala, Hanna Ovdienko, Maksym Reviakyn, Gennadiy Tokarev, Vladyslav Dolzhko, Tamara Horbachevska

19 сases of the SLC in which the European Court for Human Rights delivered judgements in the first half of 2021

Alekseev v. Ukraine

On 23 December 2016 Mr. A. was remanded in custody.

On 7 September 2017 Mr. A. was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky City District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 10 January 2018 the Court of Appeal in Khmelnytsky region upheld the judgment of the Khmelnytsky City District Court of the Khmelnytsky region and dismissed Mr. A.’s appeal. The sentence came into force.

On 6 June 2019 the Supreme Court granted Mr. A.’s appeal in part and dismissed MR. A’s defence counsel cassation appeal. His term of imprisonment from 23 December 2016 to 10 January 2018 was credited to the term of serving the sentence, including one day of pre-trial detention for two days of imprisonment. As for today, Mr. A. has been in penitentiaries and detention centres for more than three years.

On 8 November 2019 Mr. A. applied to the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 22 January 2020 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast denied Mr. A.’s application because in the court’s view early release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 5 February 2020 Mr. A’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention.

On 10 February 2020 Mr. A. lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 25 February 2020 Mr. A. sent additional data to the appeal to the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal.

On 12 March 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. A.’s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In April 2020 Mr. A. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 13, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On October 17, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the case with the Government of Ukraine.

On 15 April 2021 the ECtHR ruled the judgment concering the applicant and found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

On June 15, 2021, this decision came into force.

Chernov v. Ukraine

In June 2007 the Zarichny District Court of Sumy (hereinafter – the trial court) found Mr. CH. guilty of petty hooliganism (an administrative offense) and sentenced him to 3 days of arrest. Mr. CH. was arrested from June 21 to 23, 2007.

In July 2007 the Zarichny District Prosecutor of Sumy opened a criminal case against Mr. CH. on suspicion of hooliganism (a criminal offense). The prosecutor established that Mr. CH. had caused injuries to two citizens as a result of hooligan motives. The prosecutor filed a protest with the court.

On February 6, 2008, following the prosecutor’s protest, the trial court overturned its decision to impose an administrative penalty. Mr. CH. appealed against this decision to the Sumy Oblast Court of Appeal (hereinafter – the court of appeal), which upheld the decision.

On 14 July 2008 the trial court found Mr. CH. guilty of hooliganism (a criminal offense) and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.

Mr. CH., his representatives and the prosecutor appealed against this verdict to the court of appeal, which quashed the verdict and remanded the case for retrial.

The trial court later handed down a new verdict finding Mr. CH. guilty, not taking into account his previous three-day administrative arrest. The court of appeal upheld the trial court’s conviction, but reduced the term of imprisonment to two years.

Mr. CH. filed a cassation appeal, alleging that he had twice been prosecuted for the same offense.

In September 2009 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the court of appeal’s ruling, stating that the trial court upheld the prosecutor’s protest and closed the administrative case, concluding that Mr. CH. had not been prosecuted twice.

The SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. CH. with a complaint under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that Mr. CH. had been prosecuted for a criminal offense after he had previously been prosecuted for committing an administrative offense, in connection with which he served a three-day arrest.

On 10 December 2020, the ECtHR ruled that the domestic authorities had duplicated proceedings concerning the same facts, which had led to Mr. CH. being prosecuted twice for the same offense, in breach of the principle of ne bis in idem, and found a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, and awarded Mr. CH. EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 385 in respect of costs and expenses.

Chornenko v. Ukraine

Application No 59660/09

In 1996 the applicants were allocated a room in the dormitory of a former state-owned enterprise, Open Joint-Stock Company «Cherkasybudmaterialy» (hereinafter OJSC), where they lived with their family and were officially registered. In 2002, due to the reconstruction of the dormitory, the applicants temporarily moved to another place of residence.

Subsequently, the OJSC received a permit for the reconstruction of the dormitory for a residential building and began construction work. The applicants arbitrarily moved into the OJSC dormitory, which was under reconstruction at the time.

OJSC filed a civil lawsuit against the applicants in the Prydniprovsky District Court of Cherkasy (hereinafter – the court of first instance), demanding their eviction. The court of first instance upheld the claim of OJSC. The applicants lodged an appeal.

The Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ appeal and found that the applicants’ eviction was possible only if they were provided with other accommodation. The cassation appeal in this case was rejected.

OJSC filed a second civil lawsuit against the applicants, demanding their eviction from the renovated building, as they had moved in arbitrarily and had not entered into a lease agreement. The trial court upheld the claim and decided to evict the applicants. The applicants lodged an appeal, but it was rejected.

The opening of the cassation proceedings on the applicants’ and the prosecutor, who had joined the proceedings in favor of applicants, cassation appeals had been refused. In 2009 the applicants were evicted.

The SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. CH. with a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention that the eviction decision constituted an unlawful and unjust interference with their right to respect for their home, as well as Article 6 of the Convention due to the fact that the findings of the domestic courts during the second set of proceedings against them constituted a violation of the principle of legal certainty and the courts did not consider the applicants’ key arguments.

On 14 January 2021, the ECtHR ruled a judgment and found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded Mr. CH. EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 2,600 in respect of legal aid and EUR 200 in respect of costs and expenses.

Yuriy Chymak v. Ukraine

(Application no. 23897/10)

Mr. CH. was a journalist and a member of a non-governmental organisation, the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (“the NGO”); he was also a deputy editor of its bulletin Human Rights.

By letter of 5 May 2005 Mr. CH. submitted a written information request to the President of Ukraine in relation to the practice of unlawful restriction (by restrictive classifications which had not been prescribed by law, such as “not for publication”, “not for printing”) of access to normative legal acts.

As no answer was received, on 11 July 2005 Mr. CH. lodged an application with the Pecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv, seeking: (i) a declaration recognising that the President’s inactivity in answering his request of 5 May 2005 had been unlawful; and (ii) an order for the President to provide the applicant with a reasoned answer to his request.

On 21 December 2005 the case was transferred to the Chuguyivsky Local Court of Kharkiv Region, which had jurisdiction for the Mr. CH’s town of residence, Chuguyiv.

By letter of 1 June 2006 the Secretariat of the President of Ukraine, referring to the Mr. CH’s information request, apologised for the delay “caused by technical reasons” and replied about creating of the Unified State Register of Legal Acts.

On 5 June 2006 the Chuguyivsky Local Court of the Kharkiv Region, noting the reply of 1 June 2006, found in part for the Mr. CH. on account of the President’s failure to reply in due time. The court rejected the remainder of the Mr. CH.’s application without giving details.

By applications to the same court of 3 July and 5 September 2006, Mr. CH. sought: (i) a declaration recognising that the answer of 1 June 2006 amounted to a refusal to provide him with the information that he had requested on 5 May 2005; (ii) a finding that that refusal had been unlawful; (iii) an order for the President to provide him with the information requested. Mr. CH. referred to a number of legal provisions, including Article 10 of the Convention, and noted that as a journalist, he had a priority right to receive information.

On 30 March 2007 Mr. CH. requested the Ministry of Justice to provide him with information, namely the titles, numbers and dates of decrees of the President of Ukraine which had been labelled “not for publication” or similarly, and to inform him which decrees had been declassified. In its reply of 24 April 2007 the Ministry of Justice refused Mr. CH.’s request.

On 9 November 2007 the Chuguyivsky Local Court rejected Mr. CH.’s applications of 3 July 2006 and 5 September 2006. Mr. CH. appealed, stating that the first-instance court had erroneously interpreted the legal provisions in question and further reiterating in essence his arguments.

On 20 March 2008 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal rejected Mr. CH.’s appeal, reiterating the conclusion of the trial court. Mr. CH. lodged a cassation appeal on points of law.

On 14 October 2009 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine rejected Mr. CH.’s cassation appeal.

The SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. CH. with a complaint under Article 10 of the Convention about the refusal, upheld by the Ukrainian courts, to provide him with the information he had requested and a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the civil proceedings.

On 18 March 2021 the ECtHR ruled a judgment and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Dembo and others v. Ukraine

Application no. 2778/18 and 46 others

At the time of their application to the ECtHR, the applicants were serving life sentences in various penitentiary institutions.

The SLC lawyers lodged applications to the ECtHR in favor of three applicants with complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of prospects for release and the impossibility of replacing life imprisonment with a milder sentence.

On 11 March 2021 the ECtHR issued a decision, which confirmed its legal position set out in the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) and found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Dubovtsev and others v. Ukraine

Applications nos. 21429/14 and 9 others

On 26 January 2014, fourteen persons (hereinafter – the “applicants”) were detained in the city of Dnipro in connection with their participation in the Euromaidan protest.

On the same day the police officers took the applicants to the Babushkinsky and Kirovsky district police stations and informed them of their suspicion of rioting. The suspicion was based on the testimony of police officers who had been questioned as witnesses and had taken part in the applicants’ detention. Reports of suspicion contained similar wording.

The following day the Babushkin District Court of Dnipro (hereinafter – the trial court) remanded the applicants in custody for sixty days on suspicion of having committed a serious crime. The suspicion was confirmed by police reports, "witness statements" and "other materials". It was also stated that there was a threat of concealment of the applicants, obstruction of the administration of justice and re-commission of the crime without giving any details.

On various dates between 31 January and 12 February 2014 the trial court and the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal decided to release the applicants from custody. Some applicants were placed under house arrest, while others were released after a personal commitment to appear when summoned by an investigator. Subsequently, the criminal proceedings against the applicants were closed in the absence of a criminal offense.

Eleven applicants filed civil claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage they had suffered in connection with the unlawful prosecution and detention, which partially satisfied them. The courts of appeal and cassation upheld these decisions. Some of the applicants were paid in 2016. The issue of payment to the other applicants was "considered".

At the request of some applicants, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against two district court judges involved in the proceedings against those who had taken part in the demonstration. One district court judge was charged and another was reportedly suspected of committing crimes. Subsequently, as part of disciplinary proceedings, judges of the district court were dismissed for violating the oath.

The SLC lawyers applied to the ECtHR in favor of the applicants with a complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on the ground that the applicants’ detention had been arbitrary and unlawful.

The complaints of some of the applicants were declared inadmissible by the ECtHR in respect of the applicants’ loss of victim status in view of their complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

Having considered the complaints of the other applicants, the ECtHR noted that the decisions ordering the applicants to be remanded in custody provided only parts of the notifications of suspicion and did not state any other reasons why the suspicion was considered sufficiently substantiated than “testimony of unidentified witnesses” and undefined “other materials”. Moreover, the ECtHR noted that the trial court had considered the applicants’ detention in a concise form without conducting a thorough, objective and individual assessment of their cases.

On 21 January 2021 the ECtHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of those applicants whose applications had been declared admissible.

In its decision, also based on other decisions related to the events of the Maidan, the ECtHR pointed to the existence of a purposeful strategy of public authorities or their structures to prevent and stop protests.

Grankov v. Ukraine

Application no. 16800/16

In May 2012 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr. G. in relation to offences of robbery and attempted rape of a minor committed in Horlivka on 12 May 2012.

On 25 May 2012 Mr. G. was arrested.

On 1 June 2012 the Horlivka Tsentralno-Misky District Court (hereinafter – “the trial court”) remanded Mr. G. in custody. It noted the investigator’s arguments and stated that Mr. G. had four prior convictions, no occupation and no strong social connections, and therefore, if released, he could continue his criminal activity and abscond.

On 17 December 2013 the trial court convicted Mr. G. of theft and attempted aggravated rape, and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. The term of his imprisonment was to be counted from 25 May 2012, and he was to remain in detention pending an appeal.

On 14 May 2014 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a retrial by the same trial court, and it extended Mr. G.’s detention without indicating any grounds for the detention or a time-limit for it. The court held that the change of the charges from robbery to theft had not been presented to Mr. G. properly, and that the charges and assessment of the evidence in that regard were unclear.

As a result of events in spring and summer 2014, which are described in ECtHR judgments in other cases, the Government of Ukraine ceased to control Horlivka. At the time those events were unfolding Mr. G. was detained in Artemivsk Prison, located in a part of the Donetsk Region that remains under the control of the Ukrainian Government. He remained in that prison until his release.

In September 2014 the jurisdiction of the Horlivka Court was reassigned to the Slovyansk Court (hereinafter – “the new trial court”) under Law No. 1632-VII. However, the case-file material was not sent to the new trial court. The case file in Mr. G.’s criminal case remained at the original trial court’s building in Horlivka.

On 20 April 2015 Mr. G. lodged an application for release with the Artemivsk Court.

On 6 July 2015 the new trial court rejected an application by the prosecutor for the case to be scheduled for trial, reasoning that it was unable to do so in the absence of the case-file material and the bill of indictment in particular.

On 22 July 2015 the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights asked the Artemivsk Court why Mr. G.’s application for release had not been examined.

On 30 July 2015 Mr. G. lodged an application for release with the new trial court.

On 31 July 2015 the State Judicial Administration informed the new trial court that it was not possible to safely transfer the file from the Horlivka Court.

On 4 August 2015 the Artemivsk Court informed Mr. G. and the Parliamentary Commissioner that on 8 July 2015 it had asked the State Judicial Administration to provide information as to the possibility of transferring the file from the territory not under the Government’s control.

On 7 August 2015 the new trial court refused to examine Mr. G.’s application for release on the grounds that it had no case file.

On 16 September 2015 the Artemivsk Court held a habeas corpus hearing in the presence of Mr. G. and released him. The court noted that Mr. G. had been detained lawfully, on the basis of the order of the Horlivka Court of 1 June 2012. At the same time, the court noted the difficulties regarding the new trial court starting the trial and noted that on 16 July 2015 the new trial court had informed the Artemivsk Court that it had still not received the case file. The Artemivsk Court concluded that it was unclear when the proceedings against Mr. G. could continue. Owing to this uncertainty, he had to be released.

At some point thereafter the new trial court scheduled Mr. G.’s case for trial on 2 February 2016. It is unclear on what case-file material its decision to do so was based. It is possible that some case-file material was either transferred from the territory not under the Government’s control or otherwise recovered and submitted to the new trial court, or that the trial court decided to proceed on the basis of the limited material already available to it.

On 2 February 2016 the new trial court noted that Mr. G. had failed to appear for his trial when summoned and his whereabouts were unknown. The court accordingly put him on the wanted list and ordered his arrest. On 26 July 2016 Mr. G. was arrested.

On 5 October 2016 the new trial court convicted Mr. G. of the same charges and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. However, counting one day spent in pre-trial detention as two days of post-conviction imprisonment under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was then in force, Mr. G.’s term of imprisonment was considered served and he was released; he had previously been in pre-trial detention from 25 May 2012 to 16 September 2015, and from 26 July 2016 to 5 October 2016.

The SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. G. with a complaint under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention alleging that Mr. G.’s detention between 14 May 2014 and 16 September 2015 was contrary to the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, and under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, as Mr. G. did not have access to a procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of his detention, and under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention due to lack of enforceable right to compensation in respect of the breach of his rights under Article 5 §§ 1 to 4 of the Convention.

On 11 February 2021, the ECtHR ruled in violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 of the Convention and awarded Mr. G. EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Iglin no.1 v. Ukraine

On 22 August 2001 Mr. Ig-n (‘the applicant’) was remanded in custody.

On 6 January 2005 the applicant was sentenced by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. He has been in penitentiaries and remand centres for more than eighteen years.

On 2 July 2019 the applicant applied to the Izyaslav City District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 31 July 2019 the Khmelnytsky Court refused the applicant’s application because in the court’s view release on parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 12 August 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 13 September 2019 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal denied the applicant’s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In December 2019 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On March 10, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On July 2, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

On 11 March 2021 the ECtHR ruled the judgment concerning the applicant and found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

On May 11, 2021, this decision came into force.

Kolombai v. Ukraine

On 01 October 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal found K (‘the applicant’) guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in penitentiaries for almost nineteen years.

On 24 July 2019 the applicant applied for his parole to the Artemivskii City District Court of the Donetsk Region (‘the Artemivskii Court’). In his motion, he asked for the sentence to be commuted.

On 10 March 2020 the Artemivskii Court denied the applicant’s application because, in the court’s view, early release from parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 24 March 2020 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Donetsk Region Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 30 April 2020 the Donetsk Region Court of Appeal denied the applicant on his application.

In early September 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On 06 June, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for life.

On November 19, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the case with the Government of Ukraine.

On 10 June 2021 the ECtHR ruled the judgment concerning the applicant and found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

Koshik v. Ukraine

On 16 July 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal found Ko-ka (‘the applicant’) guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. He has been in penitentiaries for almost eighteen years.

On 22 July 2019 the applicant applied for his parole to the Romensky City District Court of the Sumy Region (‘the Romensky City District Court’). In his motion, he asked for the sentence to be commuted.

On 27 August 2019 the Romensky City District Court denied the applicant’s application because, in the court’s view, early release from parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 2 August 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Sumy Region Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 30 January 2020 the Sumy Region Court of Appeal denied the applicant on his application.

In early June 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On June 24, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for life.

On April 1, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Kotko v. Ukraine

In 2020, Mr K. challenged in the national courts of the first instance the impossibility of his parole as a person sentenced to life imprisonment. In both instances, he was denied.

At the end of August 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On September 8, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for convicts, who sentenced to life imprisonment.

On April 1, 2021, the ECtHR ruled a judgment in case of Farziev and Others v. Ukraine, where found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Labaznikov v. Ukraine

Application No. 7670/11

On 28 January 2004, Mr. L., who was a police officer at the time, was detained in a criminal case on suspicion of ill-treatment and later convicted of the charges and sentenced to imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation reviewed the case several times. As a result, the decision of the lower courts was overturned and the case was sent to the Sosnivsky District Court of Cherkasy (hereinafter – the court of first instance) for retrial. At the time the case was remanded, Mr. L. was under a written undertaking not to leave.

On 27 April 2010 the first-instance court changed Mr. L.’s remand in custody without providing additional details to substantiate that decision and without setting a time limit for the applicant’s detention.

On 1 April 2011 the first-instance court found Mr. L. guilty of abuse of office and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. Mr. L. lodged an appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence of Mr. L. to six years. Mr. L. lodged a cassation appeal.

The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment and the sentence imposed on Mr. L.

The SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. L. with a complaint under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that the district court’s decision of 27 April 2010 remanded him in custody and remanded him pending 01 April 2011 was arbitrary and unjustified, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention for violation of Mr. L.’s right to review the lawfulness of his detention.

On 25 March 2021, the ECtHR ruled a judgment and found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and awarded Mr. L. EUR 2,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Lozinskiy v. Ukraine

On 1 October 2004 Mr Lozkogo (‘the applicant’) was remanded in custody.

On 7 September 2006 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

 On 27 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal and upheld the judgment. For the time being, the applicant has been in penitentiaries and detention centres for more than 15 years.

On 21 May 2019 the applicant applied to the Iziaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 30 October 2019 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast denied the applicant’s application because in the court’s view release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 8 November 2019 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention.

On 14 November 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 2 March 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In April 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 26, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On July 16, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

On 1 April 2021 the ECtHR ruled the judgment concerning the applicant and found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

On June 1, 2021, this decision came into force.

Malyuk and others v. Ukraine

Application no. 16014/18 and 3 others (SLC case – Application no. 12606/20)

The SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. B. (one of the applicants in the case) with a complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of Mr. B.’s detention during the pre-trial investigation and under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention due to the lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

On 25 February 2021, the ECtHR ruled that the length of Mr. B.’s detention during the pre-trial investigation was excessive and found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and stated that there was lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, and awarded Mr. B. EUR 3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 in respect of costs and expenses.

Pedchenko v. Ukraine

On 26 May 2000 Mr. Ped-ko (‘the applicant’) was remanded in custody.

On 26 March 2001 the applicant was sentenced by the Cherkasy Regional Court to life imprisonment.

On 29 May 2001 the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine entered into force against the applicant. As for today, he has been in penitentiaries and detention centres for approximately twenty years.

On 6 August 2019 the applicant applied for his parole to the Prydniprovsky District Court of Cherkasy (‘the Cherkasy Court’). In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 21 August 2019 the Cherkasy Court denied the applicant’s application because in the court’s view release on parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 9 September 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Cherkasy Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 2 October 2019 the applicant sent an additional data to the appeal to the Cherkasy Court of Appeal.

On 9 December 2019 the Cherkasy Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In January 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 15, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On October 1, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the case with the Government of Ukraine.

On 10 June 2021 the ECtHR ruled the judgment сoncerning the applicant and found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

Pyatochenko v. Ukraine

On 23 December 2006 Mr Pyatochenko (‘the applicant’) was detained and remanded in custody.

On 20 April 2011 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant is still serving his sentence. For the time being, he has been in penitentiaries and detention centres for more than thirteen years.

On 19 February 2019 the applicant applied for his parole to the Prydniprovsky District Court of Cherkasy (‘the Cherkasy Court’). In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 31 May 2019 the Cherkasy Court denied the applicant’s application because in the court’s view release on parole was not possible for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

On 18 June 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Cherkasy Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 13 January 2020 the Cherkasy Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

On 20 February 2020 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the decision of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal.

On 2 March 2020 the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings on the applicant’s cassation appeal.

In March 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 18, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On September 10, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

On 15 April 2021 the ECtHR ruled the judgment concerning the applicant and found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

On June 15, 2021, this decision came into force.

Starishko v. Ukraine

Application no. 61839/12

Mr. S., who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2000, had only ten short-term meetings with relatives and a friend in fourteen years, which took place in the presence of staff of the State Institution "Vinnytsia Penitentiary Institution (№ 1)".

The SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. S. with a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention that the sentence of life imprisonment could not be reduced, and under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the restriction of his right to meetings with relatives during his detention in a penitentiary institution in 2000-2014.

On 15 October 2020 the ECtHR ruled that Mr. S., as a person sentenced to life imprisonment, currently had no real prospect of release and found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and stated that Mr. S. had severe restrictions on his contacts with his family and outside world, which he had suffered for fourteen years, were disproportionate and found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, and awarded Mr. S. EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Suprun v. Ukraine

On 5 December 1991 Mr Supruna (‘the applicant’) was remanded in custody.

On 14 April 1993 the applicant was sentenced to death by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of Yekaterinburg, Russia.

On 9 January 1999 the applicant was pardoned by Order of the President of the Russian Federation and his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

On 19 May 2010 the Orenburg Regional Court of the Russian Federation granted the applicant’s request to be transferred to a penitentiary institution in Ukraine.

On 20 July 2011 a judgment of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv brought the judgment of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of the Russian Federation of 14 April 1993 into conformity with the Ukrainian legislation.

Since 14 March 2012 the applicant has been serving his sentence in the Novgorod-Siversky Penitentiary Facility №31 in the city of Novgorod-Siversky, Ukraine. In 2016 and 2018, the applicant applied for clemency to the President of Ukraine. Both petitions were dismissed.

On 12 June 2019 the applicant applied to the Novgorod-Siversky District Court of the Chernihiv Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 3 October 2019 the Novhorod-Siverskyi District Court of Chernihiv Region denied the applicant’s application because in the court’s view release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 16 October 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Chernihiv Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention.

On 3 December 2019 the Chernihiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In May 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On June 25, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On October, 2020, the ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

On 20 May 2021 the ECtHR ruled the judgment the applicant and found a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

Vorontsov and others v. Ukraine

Applications nos. 58925/14 and 4 others

During the period between 19 and 22 February 2014 Mr. V. and others (hereinafter – the applicants) were detained in the context of administrative proceedings brought against them in connection with their actual or probable participation in the demonstration held on 19 February 2014 in Kharkiv in support of «Euromaidan» / «Maidan» protests.

On 20 February 2014, at around 3 am, the applicants were brought before a court, where they were found guilty of an administrative offense and sentenced to 15 days of arrest.

Decisions in cases of administrative offenses were based almost exclusively on reports and protocols of police officers, which were not formulated clearly enough and did not contain detailed information about the events.

The applicants alleged that it was only during these hearings that they learned of the charges of an administrative offense and the fact that they had not been provided with legal assistance during the hearings because they had not been able to contact the attorney of their choice.

On 22 February 2014 the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv decided to release the applicants from serving their sentences, and later decided to release them from administrative liability for committing the mentioned above administrative offense and closed the proceedings.

Between February 19 and March 6, 2014, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted several criminal proceedings against police officers in connection with allegations that they had committed various illegal acts against persons who participated or were suspected of participating in the demonstration on February 19, 2014, in including the alleged obstruction of the defenders’ access to the applicants.

In the period from 2014 to 2018, disciplinary proceedings were considered against judges of the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv in connection with cases of administrative offenses against the applicants. The High Council of Justice found that the judges had committed serious procedural violations and had not conducted a thorough and objective hearing of the cases, that their rulings were unfounded and that the case file did not contain any evidence of the applicants’ offenses.

The SLC lawyers lodged applications to the ECtHR in favor of the applicants complaining under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the applicants’ detention for four days between 19 and 22 February 2014 was arbitrary and unlawful, and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the applicants had not been able to prepare and challenge the imposition of administrative arrest on them on 20 February 2014.

On January 21, 2021, the ECtHR ruled the judgment, where stated that the Chervonozavodsky District Court had copied police protocols and reports in its rulings, unequivocally declaring them admissible evidence without attempting to verify the main facts of the cases, and noted that given the seriousness of the main shortcomings identified in connection with these proceedings, there are sufficient grounds to conclude that the applicants’ detention "after their partial conviction" was not "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, and awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

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

B. v. Ukraine

The applicant, Mrs. B., worked as a Deputy Minister of Justice from January 2016 to September 2018 and, in accordance with her functional responsibilities, supervised and coordinated the activities of the Government Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Government Commissioner).

In the summer of 2015, the Government Commissioner applied the amicable settlement procedure in the ECtHR case at the request of one of the legal entities of private law to the State of Ukraine for long-term non-enforcement of the final decision of the national court. Following the approval by the ECtHR of the amicable settlement agreement, the amount of the debt in the amount of UAH 54 million was paid to the legal entity at the request of the debt collector.

In May 2017, National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as NABU) launched a pre-trial investigation into the abuse of office, which caused damage to the state in a particularly large amount. At the same time, the pre-trial investigation body, in particular, considered it illegal to apply the amicable settlement procedure, despite the fact that it is provided for both by the ECtHR Rules and by the provisions of Ukrainian law.

In January 2020 the Office of the Prosecutor General informed the applicant of a suspicion of abuse of office and misappropriation of state budget funds in a particularly large amount. The NABU detective then applied to the investigating judge for bail in the amount of UAH 44 million, which was partially granted in the amount of UAH 7 million, despite the fact that the applicant had an impeccable reputation and had returned from an abroad business trip specifically to participate in the proceedings, and several persons, who deserve respect, offered to court to take her on personal bail.

The applicant appealed against the decision to use bail, but it had no result. Considering her prosecution and suspicion of committing criminal offenses to be completely unfounded, on August 21, 2020 the applicant complained to the ECtHR that there had been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, including a disproportionate amount of bail.

On 15 April 2021 the European Court of Human Rights informed the applicant that her application, together with other those from the group of joint applications sent for communication to the Government of Ukraine, raised questions concerning the applicant’s possible violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention.

M. v. Ukraine

On 31 July 2007 the Zaporizhia Regional Court of Appeal found Mr. M. (‘the applicant’) guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for almost fourteen years.

On 18 June 2019, the applicant applied to the Vilniansky District Court of Zaporizhia region for parole or commutation of the sentence

On 11 November 2019 the Vilniansky court denied the applicant’s application, as the possibility of parole provided for in an article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine could apply to persons serving a restraint of liberty or imprisonment for a determinate term.

On 27 November 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention.

 On 30 January 2020 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal denied the applicant’s application.

In early October 2020 the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On 19 October 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for lifers.

On 4 June 2021 the European court of human rights has communicated the case with the Ukrainian Government.

R. v. Ukraine

On 20 February 2006 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal found R. (‘the applicant’) guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for almost fourteen years.

 On 23 September 2019 the applicant applied to the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia region for parole or commutation of his life sentence to 15 years’ imprisonment.

On 3 March 2020 the Vinnytsia City Court denied the applicant’s application, as the applicant had not been sentenced to any of the types of sentences listed in the articles on parole of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

 On 12 March 2019 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 29 April 2020 the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal denied the applicant’s motion.

In early September 2020, the applicant sought legal assistance from a SLC lawyer.

On September 14, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisonment.

On 2 June 2021 the case was communicated with the Ukrainian government.

S. v. Ukraine

In 2020, Mr S. challenged in the national courts the impossibility of his parole as a person sentenced to life imprisonment. Both instances denied him.

In December 2020 the applicant asked the SLC lawyer to provide him with legal aid.

On December 23, 2020, the lawyer filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Aticle 3 of the Convention regarding the lack of a mechanism for release for life imprisonment.

In May 2021, the application was communicated with the Government of Ukraine.

V. v. Ukraine

On 11 March 2011 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal found V. (‘the applicant’) guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant is still serving his sentence. As of today, he has been in penitentiary institutions for more than eleven years.

On 9 March 2020 the applicant applied to the Kherson City Court of the Kherson Region for a change in his sentence to a term of imprisonment.

On 4 May 2020 the Kherson City Court denied the applicant’s application.

On 12 May 2020 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Kherson Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 30 June 2020 the Kherson Court of Appeal denied the applicant’s application.

At the end of September 2020, the applicant applied to a SLC lawyer for legal assistance.

On 19 October 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for lifers.

In May 2021, the case was communicated with the Government of Ukraine.

Ye. v. Ukraine

In 2020, Mr. Ye. appealed to the national courts of the first instance concerning the impossibility of his parole as a person sentenced to life imprisonment.

At the end of August 2020, Mr. Ye. turned to the lawyer of the SLC for legal assistance.

On 31 August 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the absence of a release mechanism for lifers.

On June 3, 2021, the case was communicated with the Government of Ukraine.

1 communication with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the implementation of ECtHR decisions

Group Іgnatov v. Ukraine

This group of cases brings together cases that concern an unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to liberty and security owing to drawbacks of legislation on detention matters in the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code and incompatible with Article 5 national authorities’ practice of application of those provisions.

In particular, the Court found that there was a complex problem of numerous breaches, namely, unregistered arrest and detention without following the right to defense as well as without court order, failure of reasoning of such detention, the lack of argumentation on extending the term of holding the person under custody, absence of effective remedy of review decisions on detention and procedure of compensation.

On June7, 2021, the lawyers of SLC prepared and sent a communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the action plan of the Government of Ukraine on the implementation of general measures in the group of cases Ignatov v. Ukraine.

In their comments, the lawyers noted the ineffectiveness of the Government’s actions to improve the actions of the Government of Ukraine to stop the malpractice of illegal arrest and detention and recommended that the Government take concrete actions.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe took into account the comments and recommendations of the KHPG lawyers.

20 cases in which the complaints lodged applications on alleged violations of the Convention

7 cases related events at the Eastern part of Ukraine

D. O. and D. A. v. Russia

On March 12, 2020, Mr. D. and Mrs. D., together with their young child, urgently left for the town of Yasynuvata to help their father.

On March 20, 2020, the Government of the so-called "DNR" issued an official order to terminate the operation of checkpoints with Ukraine until the "special order of the Government of the DNR".

The following month (the second half of March and the first half of April), Mr. D. and Mrs. D. tried to leave for the territory controlled by Ukraine but failed. However, every time they and other people who wanted to return to the territory of Ukraine arrived at the checkpoints, the representatives of the so-called "DNR" refused to cross the demarcation line.

The applicants were left without clothes, so they had to sell all the things (furniture, technical appliances) that their father had in order to have a livelihood.

From the second half of April 2020, Ms. D. wrote several appeals to the authorities of Ukraine, the so-called "DNR" and international organizations.

On June 21, 2020, the Chairman of the so-called "DNR" issued a decree on the possibility of leaving the territory of the so-called "DNR" to the territory controlled by Ukraine, but subject to "mandatory signing of a notification on the impossibility of returning to the DNR till the improvement the epidemiological situation."

On June 21, 2020, the Chairman of the so-called "DNR" issued a decree on the possibility of leaving the territory of the so-called "DNR" to the territory controlled by Ukraine, but subject to "mandatory signing of a notification on the impossibility of returning to the DNR to improve the epidemiological situation."

On June 26, 2020, Mr. D. and Ms. D. left for the territory controlled by Ukraine through the “Novotroitskoye (Bugas)” checkpoint. The applicants were forced to sign a statement on the impossibility of returning to the territory of the so-called "DNR". After that, the applicants did not return to their father in the territory of the so-called DNR.

In July 2020, Mr. D. and Ms. D. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On October 21, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC prepared a statement for Mr. D. about committing a crime to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (RF) in the context of violation of the right to freedom of movement.

On December 11, 2020, Mr. D. received a response from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation stating that his statement did not contain enough documents to open a criminal case.

On 11 May 2021, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Articles 8, 13 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 2 to the Convention by RF.

S. v. Russia

On March 9, 2020, Ms. S. left for city of Donetsk to help her husband’s mother. She planned to stay there for a few weeks, so she took the money only to cover the costs for this short period.

On March 20, 2020, the Government of the so-called "DNR" issued an official order to terminate the operation of checkpoints with Ukraine until a "special order of the Government of the “DNR”.

The following month (the second half of March and the first half of April), Ms. S. tried to leave for the territory controlled by Ukraine but failed. Every time they and other people who wanted to return to the territory of Ukraine arrived at the checkpoints, the representatives of the so-called "DNR" refused to cross the demarcation line.

Since April 25, 2020, Ms. S. has written several appeals to the authorities of Ukraine, the so-called "DNR" and international organizations.

 On June 21, 2020, the Chairman of the so-called "DNR" issued a decree on the possibility of leaving the territory of the so-called "DNR" to the territory controlled by Ukraine, but subject to "mandatory signing of a notification on the impossibility of returning to the DNR to improve the epidemiological situation."

 On June 24, 2020, Ms. S. left for the territory controlled by Ukraine through the “Novotroitskoye (Bugas)” checkpoint. After that, Ms. S. did not return to her relatives in the territory of the so-called "DNR".

In July 2020, Ms. S. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On October 9, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared for Ms. S., who sent a statement of commission of a crime to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (RF) in the context of violation of the right to freedom of movement.

On November 30, 2020, Ms. S. received a response from the Investigative Committee of the RF stating that his statement did not contain enough documents to open a criminal case.

On 26 May 2021, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Articles 8, 13 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 2 to the Convention by RF.

S. T. and S. S. v. Ukraine

On 23 October 2013 the applicants and members of their families were provided with permanent housing (apartment № 41) in the building at the following address: Avdiivka, vul. Vorobyova 15.

In the summer of 2014, a checkpoint of servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Armed Forces) was located near the house, and because of this the shelling was so strong that the residents of the house had to leave their property and move to another place of residence. In mid-summer 2014, servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine moved into the house and started living there. The entrance to the house was guarded by soldiers with weapons, who did not allow them to enter the house and from time to time selectively let in those persons whose passport indicated the address of the house as their place of residence. The military didn’t allowed applicants to take things out of the apartments. The applicants could not privatize the apartment due to lack of access to it, as well as due to the disruption of the normal operation of the privatization bodies.

Police could not enter the house to verify allegations of looting and residence by military personnel, as the military did not allow them to enter the building.

On September 21, 2015, Ms. T. discovered that household appliances had been damaged and furniture had disappeared from her apartment at 15 Vorobyova Street. Ms. T. filed a complaint about the crime with the Avdiivka Police Department.

On June 21, 2018, Mr. S. discovered that the property (refrigerator and washing machine) had disappeared from the apartment. Mr. S. applied to the Avdiivka Police Department.

During 2015-2019, the applicants unsuccessfully submitted several requests to the investigators of the Avdiivka Police Department to investigate crimes against their property.

 In August 2019, they applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

During 2019-2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed numerous requests for investigative actions, complaints against decisions and inaction of investigators, but without success. The SLC lawyer also repeatedly prepared documents for the applicants to initiate an appeal to local and state bodies for compensation of their property, but to no avail.

In March 2021, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the ECtHR alleging violations of the right to privacy and property rights in the context of illegal residence and use of property by Armed Forces servicemen, as well as ineffective investigation of these crimes by state law enforcement agencies.

T. v. Ukraine

On 23 October 2013 Ms. T. and members of her family were provided with permanent housing (apartment № 85) in the building at the following address: Avdiivka, vul. Vorobyova 15.

In the summer of 2014, a checkpoint of servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Armed Forces) was located near the house, and because of this the shelling was so strong that the residents of the house had to leave their property and move to another place of residence. In mid-summer 2014, servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine moved into the house and started living there. The entrance to the house was guarded by soldiers with weapons, who did not allow them to enter the house and from time to time selectively let in those persons whose passport indicated the address of the house as their place of residence. The military didn’t allowed applicants to take things out of the apartments. The applicants could not privatize the apartment due to lack of access to it, as well as due to the disruption of the normal operation of the privatization bodies.

Police could not enter the house to verify allegations of looting and residence by military personnel, as the military did not allow them to enter the building.

During 2015-2019, the applicants unsuccessfully submitted several requests to the investigators of the Avdiivka Police Department to investigate crimes against their property.

On April 15, 2015, Ms. T. discovered that her property had been stolen from her apartment at 15 Vorobyova Street. At the entrance to the house stood soldiers who were behaving very aggressively, constantly threatening to blow up the house, calling the applicant a "separatist" and intimidating her.

On January 27, 2016, the Military Commandant of Avdiivka provided Ms. T. with a certificate stating that 6 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine lived in her apartment.

 In August 2019, she applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

During 2019-2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed numerous requests for investigative actions, complaints against decisions and inaction of investigators, but without success. The SLC lawyer also repeatedly prepared documents for the applicants to initiate an appeal to local and state bodies for compensation of their property, but to no avail.

In March 2021, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the ECtHR alleging violations of the right to privacy and property rights in the context of illegal residence and use of property by Armed Forces servicemen, as well as ineffective investigation of these crimes by state law enforcement agencies.

T. v. Ukraine

On 23 October 2013 Ms. T. and members of her family were provided with permanent housing (apartment № 69) in the building at the following address: Avdiivka, vul. Vorobyova 15.

In the summer of 2014, a checkpoint of servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Armed Forces) was located near the house, and because of this the shelling was so strong that the residents of the house had to leave their property and move to another place of residence. In mid-summer 2014, servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine moved into the house and started living there. The entrance to the house was guarded by soldiers with weapons, who did not allow them to enter the house and from time to time selectively let in those persons whose passport indicated the address of the house as their place of residence. The military didn’t allowed applicants to take things out of the apartments. The applicants could not privatize the apartment due to lack of access to it, as well as due to the disruption of the normal operation of the privatization bodies.

Police could not enter the house to verify allegations of looting and residence by military personnel, as the military did not allow them to enter the building.

On 5 October 2015, during a visit to the apartment, the Ms. T. found that household items had disappeared from the apartment: a TV set, household tools, bed linen and cosmetic wall decoration.

On the same day the applicant lodged an application for the crime of theft of her property by Armed Forces servicemen.

During 2015-2019, the Ms. T. unsuccessfully submitted several requests to the investigators of the Avdiivka Police Department to investigate crimes against their property.

 In August 2019, she applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

During 2019-2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed numerous requests for investigative actions, complaints against decisions and inaction of investigators, but without success.

The SLC lawyer also repeatedly prepared documents for the applicants to initiate an appeal to local and state bodies for compensation of their property, but to no avail.

In March 2021, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the ECtHR alleging violations of the right to privacy and property rights in the context of illegal residence and use of property by Armed Forces servicemen, as well as ineffective investigation of these crimes by state law enforcement agencies.

T. v. Ukraine

On 23 October 2013 Ms. T. and members of her family were provided with permanent housing (apartment № 83) in the building at the following address: Avdiivka, vul. Vorobyova 15.

In the summer of 2014, a checkpoint of servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Armed Forces) was located near the house, and because of this the shelling was so strong that the residents of the house had to leave their property and move to another place of residence. In mid-summer 2014, servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine moved into the house and started living there. The entrance to the house was guarded by soldiers with weapons, who did not allow them to enter the house and from time to time selectively let in those persons whose passport indicated the address of the house as their place of residence. The military didn’t allowed applicants to take things out of the apartments. The applicants could not privatize the apartment due to lack of access to it, as well as due to the disruption of the normal operation of the privatization bodies.

Police could not enter the house to verify allegations of looting and residence by military personnel, as the military did not allow them to enter the building.

On May 30, 2017, while checking the condition of her apartment in the house, Ms. T. found that her property had been stolen (furniture, plumbing).

On the same day, Ms. T. asked the military commandant to check the house for the abduction, but the military commandant flatly refused. The commandant did not answer calls, refused to accept.

During 2017-2019, the applicants unsuccessfully submitted several requests to the investigators of the Avdiivka Police Department to investigate crimes against their property.

 In August 2019, she applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

During 2019-2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed numerous requests for investigative actions, complaints against decisions and inaction of investigators, but without success.

On June 16, 2020, the Selydivsky City Court of the Donetsk Region issued a court order to recover Ms. T.’s debt for payment from electricity used by the military.

The lawyer of the SLC prepared an appeal against the court order. On July 22, 2020, the Selydivsky City Court of the Donetsk Region revoked the court order.

The SLC lawyer also repeatedly prepared documents for the applicants to initiate an appeal to local and state bodies for compensation of their property, but to no avail.

In March 2021, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the ECtHR alleging violations of the right to privacy and property rights in the context of illegal residence and use of property by Armed Forces servicemen, as well as ineffective investigation of these crimes by state law enforcement agencies.

V. I., V. A. and K. M. v. Ukraine

On 23 October 2013 Mr. M. and members of her family were provided with permanent housing (apartment № 96) in the building at the following address: Avdiivka, vul. Vorobyova 15.

In the summer of 2014, a checkpoint of servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Armed Forces) was located near the house, and because of this the shelling was so strong that the residents of the house had to leave their property and move to another place of residence. In mid-summer 2014, servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine moved into the house and started living there. The entrance to the house was guarded by soldiers with weapons, who did not allow them to enter the house and from time to time selectively let in those persons whose passport indicated the address of the house as their place of residence. The military didn’t allowed applicants to take things out of the apartments. The applicants could not privatize the apartment due to lack of access to it, as well as due to the disruption of the normal operation of the privatization bodies.

Police could not enter the house to verify allegations of looting and residence by military personnel, as the military did not allow them to enter the building.

On December 17, 2018, Ms. A., along with other residents of the house, filed a collective statement with the Avdiivka Police Department about the mass settlement of the military in the house, and threats and insults to the residents of the house by the military.

On December 18, 2018, Ms. I. filed a complaint with the Avdiivka Police Department alleging illegal entry into her apartment 96 in the building.

During 2018-2019, the applicants unsuccessfully submitted several requests to the investigators of the Avdiivka Police Department to investigate crimes against their property.

 In August 2019, they applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

During 2019-2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed numerous requests for investigative actions, complaints against decisions and inaction of investigators, but without success. The SLC lawyer also repeatedly prepared documents for the applicants to initiate an appeal to local and state bodies for compensation of their property, but to no avail.

In March 2021, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the ECtHR alleging violations of the right to privacy and property rights in the context of illegal residence and use of property by Armed Forces servicemen, as well as ineffective investigation of these crimes by state law enforcement agencies

13 more cases in which applications have been lodged before the ECHR

B. v. Ukraine

On 14 December 2009 the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal found Mr. B. guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He has been in penitentiaries for more than eleven years.

On June 27, 2019, Mr. B. filed an application with the Ternivsky District Court. In his petition, he asked for the sentence to be commuted to a milder one.

On September 23, 2019, Mr. B. filed an addendum to the application dated June 27, 2019 of the Ternivsky District Court.

On August 10, 2020, the Ternivsky District Court denied Mr. B.’s request because, in the court’s view, the President’s pardon procedure fully complied with the requirements of the Convention.

On August 17, 2020, Mr. B. appealed against this decision to the Dniprovsky Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On November 2, 2020, the Dniprovsky Court of Appeal denied Mr. B.’s request. The decision is not subject to appeal. According to the general rules, an appeal against such a decision is not provided for in cassation proceedings.

In November 2020, Mr. B. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 22 January 2021, a SLC lawyer lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

K. v. Ukraine

On 23 December 2002 Mr. K. was remanded in custody.

On 7 September 2004 Mr. K. was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khersonskyy court of appeal

On 8 November 2020 Mr. K. applied to the Chortkiv District Court of the Ternopil Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 23 January 2021 the Chortkiv District Court of Ternopil Oblast denied Mr. K’s application because in the court’s view early release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 5 February 2021 K.  lodged an appeal with the Ternopil Court of Appeal against the decision of the Chortkiv District Court of the Ternopil Region, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the Convention.

On 12 March 2021 the Ternopil Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. A.’s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In April 2021 Mr. K. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 17, 2021, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

L. v. Ukraine

On 30 December 1998 the Kharkiv Regional Court found Mr. L. guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On May 26, 2020, Mr. L. filed an application with the Bohunsky District Court. In his motion, he asked for the sentence to be commuted to a milder one.

On July 21, 2020, the Bohunsky District Court denied Mr. L.’s request because, in the court’s opinion, life imprisonment was fair and proportionate.

On August 4, 2020, Mr. L. appealed against this decision to the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment was contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On September 29, 2020, Mr. L. filed an amendment with the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal, requesting an end to the inhuman treatment caused by the fact that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment is contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On October 6, 2020, the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal denied Mr. L’s request. The decision is not subject to appeal. According to the general rules, an appeal against such a decision in cassation proceedings is not provided.

In November 2020, Mr. B. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 28 December 2020, a SLC lawyer lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

M. case

On August 15, 2020, a group of convicts from the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” applied to the NGO KHPG for legal assistance, as the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” was being disbanded, and the colony applied for their parole or sentence mitigation.

At the same time, the local prosecutor’s office unreasonably delays the process, which means that convicts will be transferred to other regions, far from relatives. That is, convicts who, even in the opinion of the colony administration, are subject to release, are in fact deprived of even the right to relatives visits.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the colony has a minimum level of security with facilitated detention conditions. This means that convicts have already made their correction if they find themselves in an institution of this level, and now this happens again if the colony has supported their release and encouragement. After reviewing the materials, the organization’s lawyers made sure that the prosecutor’s office was really abusing its rights and ignoring the epidemiological situation in the country at that time. Firstly, lawyers turned to advocacy activities in the form of articles in the media.

Mr. M. was in the group of those who asked for help. At the time of the application, the court of first instance had already granted his application for parole. However, the prosecutor filed an appeal.

The lawyer, having studied the case file, filed an objection to the appeal. Mr. M. was nevertheless transferred to a colony in another region.

On December 3, 2020, at the court hearing, the prosecutor was denied her appeal. The court hearing was held in the form of a video conference with the State Institution “Mashivska VK (№ 9)”, where M. was at that time, in the presence of a representative of the colony.

Despite this, Mr M. complained that he had been released only two weeks after the appellate court’s decision.

On January 25, 2021, the lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. M. with a complaint under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention.

N. v. Ukraine

Since 1995, Mr. N. was the commander of the military unit.

On 23 May 2000 the Kharkiv Garrison Military Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal case against Mr. N. and applied a written undertaking not to abscond.

From 24 November 2000 to 1 February 2001 Mr. N. was detained in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention center.

In the case of Mr. N., the court handed down a guilty verdict, which was overturned by a higher court, and the case was repeatedly returned by the court for a pre-trial investigation (according to the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960). After the entry into force of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in 2012, criminal proceeding in Mr. N.’s case was registered according to the new rules. Mr. N. was not informed about the progress of the new criminal proceeding.

On September 18, 2017, the Chief of the Investigative Department of the Industrial Police Department of the Main Directorate of the National Police in Kharkiv Region issued a decision to close the criminal proceedings due to the absence of corpus delicti of the criminal offense.

Mr. N. was not aware of the decision, as it was sent to him only on June 26, 2018, together with a cover letter from the Prosecutor of the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Kharkiv Garrison.

On December 26, 2018, Mr. N. appealed to the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Kharkiv with a claim for compensation from the state budget of Ukraine for non-pecuniary damage caused to him by illegal decisions, actions or inaction of the body carrying out operational and investigative activities, pre-trial investigation, prosecutor’s office and court by collecting in his favor UAH 2,777,600.

On June 3, 2019, the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Kharkiv partially satisfied the claim, namely decided to collect from the State Treasury Service of Ukraine at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine in favor of Mr. N. UAH 870,000 to compensate for non-pecuniary damage caused by illegal actions of pre-trial investigation and prosecutor’s office. The rest of the claim was dismissed.

On November 20, 2019, the Kharkiv Court of Appeal changed the decision of the court of first instance and decided to collect from the State Budget of Ukraine in favor of Mr. N. another amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage – UAH 817,351.60. The rest of the trial court’s decision was upheld. The State Treasury Service of Ukraine has filed a cassation appeal.

On January 24, 2020, the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Kharkiv issued a writ of execution to Mr. N. to enforce the decision of June 3, 2019.

On February 15, 2020, Mr. N. sent an application to the State Treasury Service of Ukraine for execution of the decision of the Ordzhonikidze District Court of Kharkiv of June 3, 2019.

On March 4, 2020, the State Treasury Service of Ukraine sent Mr. N. a copy of the notice of sending his application together with the original writ of execution to the Main Directorate of the State Enforcement Service of Ukraine in Kharkiv Oblast.

As Mr. N. did not receive the amount of compensation awarded to him by the court, on June 2, 2020, he again sent an application to the State Treasury Service of Ukraine to obtain information on the status of consideration of the application dated February 15, 2020. No response was received.

On August 5, 2020, on a cassation appeal by the State Treasury Service of Ukraine, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the decision of the courts of first and appellate instances.

On January 12, 2021, Mr. N. filed a complaint with the State Treasury Service of Ukraine regarding non-compliance with the court decision. He did not receive a response to the complaint until he applied to the ECtHR; the court’s decision remains unenforced.

On January 14, 2021, Mr. N. applied to the Strategic Litigation Center (the SLC) of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group for legal assistance.

On 11 February 2021, a SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. N. with a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the State’s failure to comply with the final judgment of the national court ruled in Mr. N.’s favor and under Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective remedies against the mentioned above violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

O. v. Ukraine

On 17 March 2003 Mr O. was detained.

On 9 October 2003 Mr O. was sentenced by the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment.

On 17 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld Mr O.’s sentence of life imprisonment.

On May 14, 2019, Mr. O. filed a motion for his parole with the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region. In his motion, he asked to be released on parole or commuted.

On February 11, 2020, the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast denied Mr. O.’s request because, in the court’s opinion, parole for life imprisonments was not possible.

On April 27, 2020, Mr. O. filed an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment is contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On 15 June 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal denied Mr O.’s appeal. The decision is not subject to appeal.

In September, Mr. S. asked for legal assistance the SLC lawyer.

On December 1, 2020, the SLC lawyer filed an application with the European Court under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

On January 14, 2021, the ECtHR accepted the complaint for consideration.

On February 4, 2021, the ECtHR communicated the case with the Government of Ukraine.

P. v. Ukraine

On 04 August 2006 Mr. P. (‘the applicant’) was remanded in custody.

On 20 March 2007 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

On 11 July 2018 the applicant applied to the Iziaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 10 October 2019 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast denied the applicant’s application because in the court’s view release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 24 October 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 25 August 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In September 2020 the applicant applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 03 December 26, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On February 18, 2021, the ECtHR communicated the case with the Government of Ukraine.

Sh. v. Ukraine

Mr. Sh. Was serving his sentence in the Sofiivska Correctional Colony №45.

On April 28, 2020, Mr. Sh. filed a motion with the Sofiyivsky District Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region (hereinafter – the Sofiyivskyi Court) for his parole.

On 12 August 2020 the Sofiivskyi Court granted the applicant’s request, releasing him on parole from serving nine months’ imprisonment. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the decision of the Sofiivskyi Court.

On September 10, 2020, the Dniprovskyi Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Sofiivskyi Court. The decision of the Sofiivskyi Court came into force. Accordingly, the grounds for further detention of Mr. Sh. ceased to exist. However, Mr. Sh. was not released from the Sofiivska colony that day.

On October 1, 2020, when the monitoring group of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group was conducting a monitoring visit to the Sofiivska colony, Mr. Sh. managed to apply for legal assistance to the monitoring group.

On 6 October 2020 the SLC’s lawyer filed a motion with the Sofiivskyi Court for the immediate release of the applicant from the Sofiivska Colony.

On 8 October 2020 the applicant was released from the Sofiivska colony. He was detained without legal grounds for about a month.

On April 2, 2021, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Article 5 of the ECHR.

S. v. Ukraine

On 8 February 2009 Mr S. was detained.

On 14 August 2009 Mr S. was sentenced by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment.

On 1 June 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment against Mr S. To date, Mr. S. has been in penitentiary institutions and detention centers for almost 12 years.

On October 30, 2019, Mr. S. applied to the Romensky City District Court of the Sumy Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or commuted.

On 11 February 2020 the Romensky City District Court of the Sumy Region refused to grant Mr S.’s application because, in the Court’s view, early release for life imprisonment was not possible.

On February 27, 2020, Mr. S. filed an appeal with the Sumy Court of Appeal against the decision of the Romny City District Court of the Sumy Region, stating that the impossibility of release for life imprisonment is contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

On July 23, 2020, the Sumy Court of Appeal denied Mr. S.’s appeal. The decision is not subject to appeal.

In December 2020, Mr. S. Asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 13 January 2021, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the European Court under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

On February 18, 2021, the ECtHR communicated the case with the Government of Ukraine.

S. v. Ukraine

In 2001, Mr. S. was sentenced to life imprisonment. The verdict came into force in 2002. Mr. S. continues to serve his sentence; Mr. S. has already served more than 21 years in prison.

In 2020, Mr. S. challenged in national trial and appellate courts the impossibility of his parole as a person sentenced to life imprisonment and the impossibility of replacing the sentence with a milder one.

After receiving the decision of the appellate court, which denied Mr. S.’s request, he applied to the Strategic Litigation Center (the SLC) of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group for legal assistance.

On 28 May 2021, a SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. S. with a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention due to lack of an effective release mechanism for lifers and under Article 13 of the Convention due to lack of effective remedies against the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

S. v. Ukraine

On 27 January 2008 Mr. S. was remanded in custody.

On 03 August 2009 Mr. S was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Khmelnytsky Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

On 13 November 2019 Mr. S applied to the Iziaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region for his parole. In his petition, he asked to be released on parole or his punishment to be commuted.

On 21 May 2020 the Izyaslav District Court of Khmelnytsky Oblast denied the Mr. S`s application because in the court’s view release on parole for life imprisonment was not possible.

On 02 July 2020 Mr. S lodged an appeal with the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal against the decision of the Izyaslav District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region.

On 23 July 2020 the Khmelnytsky Court of Appeal dismissed the Mr. S ‘s appeal. The decision was not subject to appeal.

In August 2020 Mr. S applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On 01 December 2020, the lawyer of the SLC prepared and sent a complaint to the ECtHR regarding the violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the ECHR.

On 25 February 2021 ECtHR communicated the complaint with the Government of Ukraine.

T. v. Ukraine

T. is serving his sentence in Pokrovskaya Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital № 17. He suffers from tuberculosis and HIV 4 clinical stage, which are the grounds for his release due to illness. He asked the SLC lawyer to provide his with legal assistance on these grounds.

On 17 March 2020, the SLC lawyer sent a lawyer’s request to obtain T.’s medical documents to the Pokrovsky Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital.

On 12 April 2020, the Pokrovsky Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital responded by sending a letter in which it did not establish the full diagnosis of T. and did not provide copies of medical records.

Therefore, on 25 April 2020, the lawyer again sent a request to the Pokrovsky Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital № 17. To date, no response has been received.

The lawyer filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkiv region on the lack of answers to her lawyer’s requests.

At the same time, without even having medical documents, the lawyer sent a motion to the Balakliia District Court of the Kharkiv Region to release T. due to his illness.

The court hearing scheduled for July 3, 2020 but it did not take place.

On July 14, 2020, the Balakliia District Court denied the lawyer’s motion to release T. due to a serious illness, despite the fact that the medical advisory commission gave a positive opinion and the correctional colony doctor upheld the lawyer’s request.

The lawyer prepared a complaint and sent it to the appellate court.

On November 3, 2020, the Kharkiv Court of Appeal denied the lawyer’s appeal.

On 10 May 2021 the lawyer filed an application to the European court of human rights under Article 3 of the Convention.

T. v. Ukraine

On October 29, 2011, a traffic accident (hereinafter – the accident) took place in Kharkiv, in which a car driven by P.P. fatally injured the driver of the scooter, Mr. T., a son of Ms. T.

On November 1, 2011, the Investigative Department of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kharkiv Oblast (hereinafter – Investigative Department) instituted criminal proceedings under the rules of the CPC (1960). A number of investigative actions were carried out in the case, including the reproduction of the situation and circumstances of the event with the participation of various eyewitnesses of the accident, forensic examinations, including medical, transport and traceological, several motor vehicle examinations.

According to the results of the auto technical examination from 06.04.2012, it was concluded that in the actions of the driver Mr. P, there was non-compliance with the following requirements of the Traffic Rules (hereinafter – the Rules): exceeding the speed limit (89 instead of the allowed 60 km / h), the cross-roading at a forbidden traffic light signal, as well as failure to take measures to reduce the speed of the vehicle until its complete stop in case of danger to traffic. However the experts concluded that the driver had not have the technical ability to prevent accidents and, consequently, violations on his part, the traffic rules have not been t in causal connection with the accident.

Based on the conclusions of the examination, the investigator of the Investigative Department on April 18, 2012 issued a decision on discontinuance of the criminal case, but two months later the prosecutor’s office dismissed this decision and ordered to continue the pre-trial investigation. After that, some investigative actions were carried out, but the investigator refused the victim’s motion to reproduce the situation and circumstances of the event.

On July 8, 2013, the commission auto-technical examination was completed, which was ordered to the experts of the same expert institution in Kharkiv, the conclusion of which confirmed the conclusion of the initial auto-technical examination of April 6, 2012 regarding the existence of were not in causal connection with the accident.

On the basis of the conclusions of the examination, on July 18, 2013, the investigator issued a decision to discontinue the criminal case. Ms. P. appealed against this decision to the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv and on August 6, 2013, denied the victim’s complaint. Ms. P. lodged an appeal with the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, and on 5 September 2013 it quashed the first-instance court’s decision and decided to continue the pre-trial investigation.

After that, the information about the accident was registered according to the rules of the CPC (2012) in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, the case was transferred to a new investigator, and the investigation was continued.

Another auto technical examination was appointed, which was entrusted to another expert institution in Kharkiv. In his opinion of September 18, 2014, the expert could not answer the question whether the driver of Mr. P.’s car could have prevented the collision and whether his actions were inconsistent with the Rules, which are causally related to the accident due to unreliability, from a technical point of view, the initial data for examination provided by the investigator.

After that, another commission of motor transport examination was appointed and conducted, the joint conduct of which was ordered to the experts of both expert institutions in Kharkiv was continued. However this forensic examination (the conclusion of 27.02.2015) did not answer the same questions of the investigator again due to the inaccuracy, from a technical point of view, the initial data for the examination provided by the investigator.

On May 29, 2015, the investigator closed the criminal proceedings, but Ms. P. appealed against this decision, and on June 26, 2015, the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv qushed the investigator’s decision and remitted the case file to continue the pre-trial investigation.

On February 22, 2017, at a motion of the victim, the investigator appointed a new auto technical examination, which, at the request of Ms. P., instructed the experts of another expert institution, namely, the Institute of Forensic Examinations in Odessa.

On September 15, 2017, the conclusion of the auto technical examination was completed, based on the results of which the expert concluded that the driver of the car had a technical ability to prevent the accident, and the inconsistencies of his traffic actions are causally related to the accident and were the direct cause of the accident. In addition the expert determined the speed of Mr. P.’s car as 112-117 km/h.

After that, on November 21, 2018, the investigator appointed a commission auto technical examination, which he ordered to experts of both Kharkiv and Odessa institutes of forensic examinations.

On January 2, 2019, the conclusion of the commission auto technical examination was drawn up. The results of which the opinions of the experts were divided: the experts of the Odessa institution confirmed their conclusions that the actions of the driver Mr. P. were the direct cause of the accident, and experts from the Kharkiv institution again failed to answer this question.

On December 20, 2020, the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings again, without informing the victim.

Upon learning of this, the victim Ms. T. again appealed the investigator’s decision to the court, and on February 3, 2021, the investigating judge of the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv overturned the decision, noting that the investigator did not substantiate it with available evidence and did not make the conclusion which he reached that there was no corpus delicti in the actions of Mr. P, as it should be done in accordance with the requirements of the CPC of Ukraine.

As no action was taken after the court revocation of the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and resume the pre-trial investigation, on June 9, 2021 the victim’s representative appealed to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office with a complaint about the violation of reasonable duration of the pre-trial investigation with a motion ordering to the investigator to make assessment of the evidence and take a reasonable decision.

In response to the complaint, the prosecutor’s office said that no measures were taken to respond to the investigator, as the investigation was being conducted in full compliance with the law.

85 cases which were considered in national courts

1 foreigner who is in want of legal defence

A. 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

On April 1, 2021, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, after considering in writing the appeal against the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of December 24, 2020 to the State Migration Service of Ukraine, upheld the appeal and the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.

On June 14, 2021, a cassation appeal was filed with the Supreme Court of Ukraine together with a petition to suspend the decisions of lower courts.

10 cases related drug users

As. 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.

On January 23, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s employment. The next court hearing was scheduled for January 27, 2020.

On January 27, 2020, a witness of the accused was interrogated at the court hearing. The SLC lawyer filed a motion for questioning of witnesses. The next court hearing was scheduled for March 17, 2020.

On March 17, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. The next court hearing ws scheduled for April 1, 2020.

On April 1, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor’s business trip. The term of pre-trial detention in the form of house arrest has expired, the court has not received a request to extend the pre-trial detention. On July 1, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On November 17, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s stay in the deliberation room.

On December 8, 2020, the court hearing was postponed at the request of the prosecutor. The next court hearing is scheduled for March 2, 2021.

On March 2, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s illness. The next court hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2021.

On April 8, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the accused. The next court hearing is scheduled for May 31, 2021.

On May 31, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the accused. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 21, 2021.

The case continues.

B. case

On 12 June 2013, Mr. 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.

On January 22, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. The next court hearing was scheduled for March 12, 2020.

On March 12, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s illness. The next court hearing was scheduled for April 14, 2020.

On April 14, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the epidemic. The next court hearing was scheduled for May 27, 2020.

On May 27, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. The next court hearing was scheduled for June 19, 2020.

On June 19, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On August 19, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the lack of electricity in the courtroom.

On September 23, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On October 21, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On December 16, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On February 4, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s leave. The next court hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2021.

On March 16, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s stay in the deliberation room. The next court hearing is scheduled for May 12, 2021.

On May 12, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the employment of the judge. The next court hearing is scheduled for June 30, 2021.

On June 30, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses. The court ruled to bring prosecution witnesses. The next court hearing is scheduled for August 19, 2021.

It is planned to prepare a complaint to the ECtHR for the long duration of the case.

The case continues.

G. case

Mr. G is a minor. He used to be a drug addict. Mr. G. origined from a low-income family, his mother suffered from alcohol addiction for a long time, because of which Mr. G twice found himself in social rehabilitation centers. In October 2020, Mr. G and his friend committed two crimes – stealing a ladder and a screwdriver. Criminal proceedings were instituted on these facts. Mr. G admitted his guilt, but asked not to be sentenced to imprisonment.

The lawyer gathered information about Mr. G for the court hearings in the case – documents about the state of health, a personal description from the school, a description from the rehabilitation center, where Mr. G was undergoing treatment for drug addiction.

On April 8, 2021, a court hearing took place in the Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv, during which an indictment was announced. The next hearing was scheduled on 20 June 2021.

Mr.G did not appear at the next court hearing. Mr. G’s mother said she did not know where he was. It later became known that Mr. G had returned to drug use. To date, the issue of re-placement of Mr.G in the rehabilitation center for treatment is being resolved. The next court hearing is scheduled for September 7, 2021.

L. case

L. was in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre on charges of drug trafficking.

On June 30, 2020, L. appealed to the SLC with a request to provide him with legal assistance, as law enforcement agencies fabricated the proceedings and repeatedly provoked him to commit offenses.

On June 30, 2020, the lawyer sent a petition to the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv to replace the lawyer together with a package of documents confirming his authority.

On July 16, 2020, the lawyer filed a petition for familiarization with the case file to the prosecutor’s office and the court.

On August 5, 2020, a lawyer’s request was sent to the Kiev police department of the city of Kharkiv to provide information about L.

On August 13, 2020, a petition was filed to the court to provide copies of the discs of video recordings of previous court hearings and to the prosecutor’s office to provide video recordings from the production materials.

On August 17, 2020 a study of video materials was conducted.

A number of other petitions to the court and lawyer inquiries were submitted to various law enforcement and other bodies, interviews were held with several witnesses for the defence, who were declared in court for questioning.

On September 1, 2020, October 9, 2020, October, 21, 2020, October 26, 2020, November 5, 2020, December 4, 2020, December 9, 2020, December 17, 2020 court sessions, during which the materials were studied, a video of the search was watched, an interrogation of the witness (“buyer”) of accusation.

On 04.02.2021, 11.02.2021, the lawyer took part in court hearings at which video recordings of the search were studied.

25.02.2021, 25.03.2021, 01.04.2021, 07.04.2021 on these dates the lawyer came to the court, but the judge never appeared in court due to employment in other court hearings. The next court hearing is scheduled for April 28, 2021.

On 04.02.2021, 11.02.2021, the lawyer took part in court hearings at which video recordings of the search were studied.

On 25.02.2021, 25.03.2021, 01.04.2021, 07.04.2021 the lawyer came to the court, but the judge never appeared in court due to business in other court hearings. The next court hearing is scheduled for April 28, 2021.

On April 28, 2021, the court hearing was postponed to July 22, 2021.

M. case

On August 15, 2020, a group of convicts from the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” applied to the NGO KHPG for legal assistance, as the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” was being disbanded, and the colony applied for their parole or sentence mitigation.

At the same time, the local prosecutor’s office unreasonably delays the process, which means that convicts will be transferred to other regions, far from relatives. That is, convicts who, even in the opinion of the colony administration, are subject to release, are in fact deprived of even the right to relatives visits.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the colony has a minimum level of security with facilitated detention conditions. This means that convicts have already made their correction if they find themselves in an institution of this level, and now this happens again if the colony has supported their release and encouragement. After reviewing the materials, the organization’s lawyers made sure that the prosecutor’s office was really abusing its rights and ignoring the epidemiological situation in the country at that time. Firstly, lawyers turned to advocacy activities in the form of articles in the media.

Mr. M. was in the group of those who asked for help. At the time of the application, the court of first instance had already granted his application for parole. However, the prosecutor filed an appeal.

The lawyer, having studied the case file, filed an objection to the appeal. Mr. M. was nevertheless transferred to a colony in another region.

On December 3, 2020, at the court hearing, the prosecutor was denied her appeal. The court hearing was held in the form of a video conference with the State Institution “Mashivska VK (№ 9)”, where M. was at that time, in the presence of a representative of the colony.

Despite this, Mr M. complained that he had been released only two weeks after the appellate court’s decision.

The lawyer is preparing a complaint to the ECtHR in this regard.

The Kharkiv Court of Appeal overturned the verdict, according to which Maksymov was acquitted under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and convicted under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sent the case for retrial.

Judge of the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv Popras appointed to consider the case on July 14, 2021

P. case

On 28 May 2014 Mr. P. 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. P`s flat, where find nothing. After that he was taken to police office, where detention report of Mr. P. was draw up. Only after all such actions Mr. P. 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. P.was found guilty of drug trafficking with verdict of the district court.

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

After 1 year and 7 months of Mr. P. 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. P. 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 prosecution 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.

On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals held a court hearing and adjourned to prepare the last word of the accused. The Court of Appeal set the next date for the trial at 11 February 2020.

On 11 February 2020, the Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal of Mr. P.

The prosecutor filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, where he requested that the appeal be remanded for a new trial.

The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.

On July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of P.

R. case

Mr. R., who is a disabled person of the 3rd group on oncology due to an illness received in the military service and who was libelled by Mr. M. As a result of the torture used against him by supplying electricity with the help of a military dynamo machine, Mr. R. confessed to the crime and slandered Mr. M. and another person.

Since September 26, 2019, Mr. R. has been in custody.

In May 2020, Mr. R. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

On May 29, 2020, the lawyer of SLC filed a complaint with the October District Court of Kharkiv regarding the failure to provide medical care to Mr. R.

On June 23, 2020, the court upheld the complaint of the SLC lawyer and ordered the medical unit of the SIZO to conduct the necessary medical examination and medical treatment of Mr. R.

On November 4, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC filed a complaint about the crime with the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigations in Poltava, which consisted in the abduction and illegal detention of Mr. R.

On December 8, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC sent a complaint to the Zhovtnevy District Court of Poltava against the decision of the State Bureau of investigations and asked the court to oblige the State Bureau of investigations to enter information into the URPTI.

On December 14, 2020, the Zhovtnevy District Court of Poltava upheld the complaint of the lawyer of the SLC and ordered the DBR to provide information about the crime against Mr. R.

In June 2021 the Territorial Department of State Bureau of Investigations ordered to the prison officer of Kharkiv detention centre to fill in a blanket form that Mr. R did not agree to fill it in without lawyer but the prison officer of Kharkiv detention centre did not invite any lawyers.

The lawyer submitted to the Prosecutors’ office of Poltava city under the article 308 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine on need to the officer of the Territorial Department of State Bureau of Investigations to interrogate Mr. R in presents of a lawyer and recognise him as a victim.

T. case

Mr. T. lives in Kharkiv.

T. is a drug addict. T. 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 T.’s pocket without being noticed. On the same day T. was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing.

On 12 February 2015 an investigating judge chose detention in custody as a preventive measure for T..

T. applied for legal aid to the SLC lawyer.

On 27 May 2018 the SLC lawyer lodged a motion on changing of T.’s preventive measure.

The motion was granted by the court and T. was released. House arrest was chosen as a preventive measure in his case.

After his release, T. participated in a substitution therapy.

Court hearings in T.’s case are postponed on different reasons.

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

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

At the beginning of 2019 the criminal case was transmitted to another judge of the Moskovsky 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.

In 2020, court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to the inability of the prosecutor’s office to ensure the participation of prosecution witnesses in court.

From July to December 2020, court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to the constant change of prosecutors in the process and requests from new prosecutors to review the case materials.

In December 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the prosecutor.

During 2021, the prosecutor was unable to arrange the appearance of prosecution witnesses. The case is scheduled for consideration in the Moscow District Court of Kharkiv on July 5, 2021.

T. 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.

Since the beginning of 2021, 9 court hearings have been held. The procedure for examining evidence was changed from witness interrogation to examining written evidence. After examining the evidence, the defence filed a motion to declare all the evidence in the criminal proceedings inadmissible. After filing the above request, the prosecutor does not appear in court. The defence initiated the court to inform the regional prosecutor and the Prosecutor General about the prosecutor’s actions.

V. 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 deal).

From August to December 2020, court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to the constant change of prosecutors in the process and requests from new prosecutors to review the case materials.

In December 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to a request from the new prosecutor to review the case file.

On April 16, 2021, the prosecutor’s office dropped the charges under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

In June 2021, V. died

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

B. case

Mr B. asked for legal assistance from the lawyer. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including stage 4 HIV. Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence in Vinnytsia Correctional Colony № 81.

On August 5 and September 19, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Vinnytsia Correctional Facility for medical documents. However, she was not answered. Then, on October 13, 2020, the lawyer sent a complaint to the Vinnytsia Region Prosecutor’s Office. After that, the penal colony still provided medical documents.

On November 13, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Vinnytsia Correctional Colony № 81 with a request to organize a medical advisory commission for Mr. B. However, such a statement was denied.

On December 17, 2020, the lawyer sent a petition to the Vinnytsia City Court of the Vinnytsia Region to release B. due to illness. The court hearing was scheduled for December 23, 2020, but did not take place due to the failure to bring B. to court.

Several more court hearings were scheduled after that, but none of them took place for various reasons. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 21, 2021.

D. case

D. arrived at the Sofiyivska Correctional Colony (№ 55) to serve his sentence. In March 2021, the lawyer complained to the Central Health Institution about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of officials to file a lawsuit regarding his release from prison due to his health condition, despite his diagnoses of atherosclerosis of the arteries of the lower extremities. HNK 4 st. according to Fontaine (critical ischemia – a delay in blood circulation in the arteries of the lower extremities). He underwent amputation of the right lower limb at the level of the middle third of the thigh.

In addition, he is concerned about the condition of his left limb, as he feels unbearable pain and does not receive treatment despite his complaints, so it is likely to lose his left limb.

On March 9, 2021, a lawyer’s request was sent to the Branch of the Center of the Health Care in Zaporizhia region regarding the state of health and treatment of D.

On March 25, 2021, the lawyer filed a petition for early release of D. due to health reasons.

On March 30, 2021, the lawyer sent legal requests to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the Ministry of Health of Ukraine to clarify the concept of "high amputation of the lower extremity", in accordance with Annex 13 to the Procedure for providing medical care to convicts (paragraph VI of section VI) , List of diseases that are the basis for submission to the court of materials on the release of convicts from further serving of sentence, section XIV. Anatomical defects due to disease or injury.

On April 12, 2021, a court hearing was scheduled, but it did not take place due to the prosecutor’s limited time.

On April 29, 2021, June 10, 2021, court hearings were postponed due to the lack of an opinion of the medical-advisory commission and the colony’s failure to communicate with the court (lack of Internet in the colony). Date of the next court hearing is 02.08.2021

G. case

In May 2021, the lawyer was asked for legal assistance by Mr. G., who reported that he had suffered from inguinal hernia for a long time. He spent more than nine months in the Chernihiv detention center, where he was not receiving medical treatment. Moreover, he was refused hospitalization for a planned operation due to a coronavirus pandemic in Ukraine. The Borzniansky District Court of the Chernihiv Region ruled several times on the need for an urgent medical examination and treatment of Ms. G., but the detention center did not comply with them. The Borzniansky District Court later found that Ms G. right to medical treatment had been manifestly violated and that the court’s judgments had not been enforced.

Therefore, Mr. G. turned to a lawyer for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the detention center’s illegal actions. The lawyer has prepared a civil lawsuit against the Chernihiv pre-trial detention center and the Health Center of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine.

To date, the lawsuit is under consideration.

K. 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.

On 16 January 2020, 26 February 2020, 12 April 2020 and 10 May 2020 the court hearings were postponed due to the judge’s illness, the lack of electricity or other technical problems.

On 9 July 2020, the Vinnytsia City Court denied the lawyer’s motion to release Mr. K. due to a serious illness. At the same time, the court also refused to hold a medical advisory commission to establish the severity of the illness, because, in the court’s opinion, it was already clear that K. was not subject to dismissal.

The lawyer disagreed with the court’s decision and prepared an appeal.

On 25 September 2020, the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal also denied the complaint, stating that the lawyer should apply for a medical advisory commission not to the court, but directly to the colony.

The lawyer applied to the colony for a medical advisory commission, but the colony refused to do so. The lawyer plans to file a complaint against the actions of the institution to the administrative court.

However, K. later refused to file an administrative lawsuit.

Instead, he offered to apply to the court again for release due to ill health. Now the lawyer is waiting to receive medical documents

K. case

At the end of September 2020, during a monitoring visit, K. turned to the lawyer, who said that he was suffering from a number of serious diseases, including tuberculosis and HIV. He asked for help in being released due to illness.

On October 6, 2020, the lawyer sent her request to Northern Correctional Colony No. 90, in which she asked to provide her with all the necessary medical documents of the client. However, the lawyer did not receive an answer to her inquiry.

Then the lawyer sent a complaint to the prosecutor’s office of the Kherson region, in which she asked to take measures of the prosecutor’s response in connection with the situation that developed with her lawyer’s request.

The prosecutor’s office of the Kherson region sent a response on October 29, 2020, indicating that no violations were found.

Meanwhile, in November 2020, the lawyer sent a petition to the Kherson City Court of the Kherson Region to release K. for health reasons. In her petition, the lawyer indicated that she could not provide the court with documents confirming the client’s illness, since the colony did not provide her with such documents. She also asked the court to demand such documents and to conduct a medical advisory commission for the client, since the colony, on its own initiative, did not conduct such a commission.

The Kherson City Court opened proceedings, but until today it has not carried out any actions aimed at considering the case. Namely, the court allegedly appointed several sessions, to which K. was summoned, but about which the lawyer was not informed. As a result, the lawyer did not have a chance to appear at them.

The consideration of the case continues. After the lawyer’s complaints to the head of the court’s staff, the court finally sent a summons to summon the lawyer.

L. case

L. is serving his sentence in the Sofia Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital № 55, where he was sent from the State Institution "Vilnyansk Correctional Colony № 20".

L. appealed to a lawyer at the end of December 2020 with complaints about the failure to provide him with medical care and failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving a sentence due to health conditions, despite a number of indications for this (HIV, hepatitis C, tuberculosis and comorbidities).

On December 11, 2020, the lawyer sent a request to the Branch of the State Institution "Health Center of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine" in the Zaporizhia region and to the hospital.

On January 5, 2021, the lawyer filed a motion with the court to release L. from serving his sentence due to his health condition.

On February 11, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the lack of an opinion of the medical advisory commission on L.’s health.

On March 31, 2021 and April 20, 2021, the court hearings were postponed due to the absence of Mr. L. at the hearing – his appearance was not ensured by the responsible persons.

On April 29, 2021, the court denied the lawyer’s request, citing the conclusion of the medical advisory commission. Mr. L. refused  from legal assistance.

M. case

Mr. M. is serving his sentence in the Daryivska specialized hospital № 10 at the facility № 10.

At the end of December 2020, M. turned to KhPG with complaints of pain in his lower extremity, which lasted for more than a year, as he had two fractures of his right leg that had fused.

His right leg is 5 centimeters shorter than his left, he cannot move fully, his health is deteriorating, and his body aches are getting worse.

On May 26, 2017, M. was recommended surgical treatment, however, it was not performed.

Therefore, M. needs urgent treatment, in particular, surgery, to treat the lower extremity, which has grown incorrectly.

On December 11, 2020, the lawyer sent legal request regarding the state of health and treatment of M. to the Branch of the State Institution “Health Care Center” in the Kherson Region and to the Dariyivska Hospital № 10.

In response to a lawyer’s request dated 11 December 2020, the head of the Health Center branch of the State Institution provided the lawyer with only copies of M.’s inpatient medical record, but no other information on his health and treatment was provided.

On January 8, 2021, the lawyer re-submitted the request and filed a motion with the court for an urgent obligation of the responsible persons of the hospital to provide the necessary medical care to the convicted M. in the health care institution, and in case of impossibility, in a health care institution of state or communal system.

On January 18, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the failure to ensure Mr. M.’s participation in the court hearing.

On 4 February 2021, the lawyer’s request to provide treatment for M. was left without consideration, because, in the opinion of the court, it could not be resolved in accordance with Art. 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

On March 17, 2021, the Kherson Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance.

M. case

Mr. M. turned to a lawyer for failing to provide him with quality medical care at the Lviv Penitentiary Institution. Mr. M. noted that he had been suffering from diseases of the cardiovascular system for many years. He has had two heart attacks in recent years. After that, the cardiologist M. recommended surgery. However, the administration of the penitentiary institution, which refuses to take M-sky for treatment, became an obstacle.

On May 25, 2021, a lawyer sent a request to the Lviv Oblast Health Center to establish M.’s medical diagnosis. After that, the lawyer decided to send an application to the Darnytsia City Court of Lviv under Article 206 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine.

N. case

Mr. N. asked the SLC lawyer for legal assistance as he was failing to provide him with medical care. He noted that in recent months his health had deteriorated to such an extent level that Mr N. was almost completely paralyzed. However, he was not receiving medical treatment.

On July 23, 2020, August 17, 2020, and September 8, 2020, the lawyer sent legal requests to the Odessa detention center to establish the health of Mr. N. However, contrary to current legislation, she did not receive answers to her requests.

Therefore, on August 29, 2020 and October 14, 2020, the lawyer sent complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office of Odessa region, the Southern Interregional Department for Execution of Sentences and Probation and the Ministry of Justice. However, the authorities stated that the lawyer allegedly did not have the authority to access the applicant’s medical records.

Then, on December 3, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint under Art. 206 of the CPC of Ukraine to the Malynovsky District Court of Odessa with a requirement to immediately organize the treatment of Mr. N. Although the trial was to take place within a day (according to the current CPC of Ukraine), in practice the hearing has not taken place.

The court consideration took place only on 2 February 2021 while the Malynovskyy district court granted the lawyer’s motion and obliged the Odessa detention center to give Mr. N necassary medical treatment. However, the detention center has not performed the judgement, therefore the lawyer filed a statement of crime due to not-per-forming of such judgement. The criminal proceedings were started but no investigative actions were made.

On 10 March 2021 the SLC lawyer also sent several motions to the Ministry of justice, Ombudsperson and the Center of the Health Care on the lack of the medical assistance. On 1 April 2021 the Ministry of justice answered that the disciplinary proceedings on this fact were opened. The case is pending.

On 25 April 2021 the SLC lawyer lodged a criminal complaint on not-execution the court’s judgement on medical care for N-chyk. However, the court judgement had not been executed.

N. case

Mr. N. was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary Facility № 1. He asked the SLC lawyer to file a motion for his release from punishment due to his serious illness. He noted that he had stage 4 HIV and other deseases.

The lawyer sent N. all the necessary documents for signing, and after receiving them she filed a lawyer’s request to the Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary Institution. However, the SLC lawyer did not receive a response to her request within the time limit set by the law, so on 15 June 2020, the SLC lawyer had to re-apply to the institution with a lawyer’s request.

On July 10, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint about the inaction of the correctional colony to the Prosecutor’s Office of Ivano-Frankivsk Region and the Interregional Department for the Execution of Sentences. After that, about a week later, the lawyer finally received an answer to her request, although it was provided with medical documents not in full.

On July 20, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court of the Ivano-Frankivsk Region with a request to release Mr. N. due to illness. However, some time after such a motion, Mr N. was sent for treatment to the Stryzhava Correctional Colony № 86. Accordingly, the court ruled that Mr N. should be removed from his jurisdiction and sent a lawyer’s motion to the Vinnytsia District Court of Vinnytsia Oblast.

On August 15, 2020, the Vinnytsia District Court opened proceedings on a motion to release N. from serving his sentence due to illness. However, during this time Mr. N. had already been discharged from the hospital at the Stryzhavska Correctional Colony and sent back to the Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary.

Therefore, the Vinnytsia District Court of the Vinnytsia Region again ruled on the violation of jurisdiction and returned the case to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court.

On October 20, 2020, the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court reopened the proceedings at the motion of a lawyer to release N. from serving his sentence due to illness. The court hearing was scheduled for November 21, 2020, but did not take place.

The next court hearing is scheduled for January 17, 2021, but it did not take place due to the absence of H-ni in the penitentiary institution. After that, the next court hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2021.

On 16 February 2021, during a court hearing, it became known that being in the Stryzhava correctional colony for a medical-consultative comission, the applicant had refused to undergo any medical treatment, including diagnostics. Accordingly, it turned out to be impossible for him to hold a medical advisory commission. H himself could not explain anything during the meeting. Therefore, the court denied the lawyer’s request for N.’s release.

Later, during N.’s confidential conversation, it turned out that there was a misunderstanding. In particular, N. did not refuse to hold a medical advisory commission, but refused treatment. More precisely, he believed that he was refusing treatment. Upon learning of this, the lawyer decided to re-apply to the court to release N. due to a serious illness.

P. case

Mr. P. is in the State Institution “Ivano-Frankivsk Penitentiary Institution (№ 12). Mr P. complained to the SLC that he had not been provided with medical care despite diagnoses that interfered with his normal functioning and tended to worsen.

On December 24, 2020, the lawyer sent lawyer’s requests to the Branch of the State Institution "Healthcare Centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine" in Chernivtsi, Ivano-Frankivsk and Zakarpattia regions and to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Medical Unit № 12 regarding the state of health, examination and treatment of Mr. P.

On January 29, 2021, the lawyer submitted to the Ivano-Frankivsk prosecutors’ regional office to asked for contact supervision of no giving the answer of the lawyer’s requests of the Branch of the State Institution "Healthcare Centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine" in Chernivtsi, Ivano-Frankivsk and Zakarpattia oblasts and to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Medical Unit № 12 and initiate the criminal proceeding.

On February 03, 2021, the lawyer submitted to the investigative judge of Ivano-Frankivsk city court of Ivano-Frankivsk region to make the Ivano-Frankivsk City Medical Unit № 12 to treat Mr. P. If the Ivano-Frankivsk City Medical Unit № 12 do not provide a healthcare Mr. P. there they must transfer him to another medical institution for treatment.

The district court refused the application of the lawyer and the Court of Appeal returned to retrial. As a result of a new consideration the application was granted but it had not executed.

On April 23, 2021, the lawyer submitted a criminal complaint to the Ivano-Frankivsk prosecutors’ regional office on non-execution of the judgment. 

P. case

Mr. P. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including cancer (melanoma). Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence.

At the time of his appeal to his lawyer, Mr P. was in the Zamkova Correctional Facility. Therefore, the lawyer sent him all the necessary documents to the address of this institution. However, Mr P. never received a letter from his lawyer.

Therefore, on September 23, October 14, and November 11, 2020, the lawyer filed complaints about obstacles to communication with the client with the Khmelnytsky Oblast Prosecutor’s Office, the Central-Western Interregional Penitentiary Department, and the Ministry of Justice. In response, the authorities reported that no letters had allegedly been received from P.’s lawyer.

But in the end, the next letter dated December 1, 2020 was delivered to P.

After that, the lawyer sent a request to the Health Center of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine to remove P. for treatment. Such a request was granted. To date, P. continues to be in treatment.

P. case

Mr. P. is serving his sentence in the Vinnytsia Penitentiary Institution № 1 in the form of life imprisonment. On November 21, 2020, he turned to a lawyer for not providing him with medical care. He reported that he had a trophic ulcer on his leg, and doctors said he could amputate the leg, but did not provide any treatment.

On November 28, 2020, the lawyer submitted her request to the penitentiary institution to obtain Mr. P.’s medical records. In response, she was provided with medical records that did not mention a word about a leg ulcer.

To date, the lawyer has addressed the Representative of the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in Vinnytsia Oblast with a request to visit the institution for Mr. P.’s treatment. Complaints have also been filed with the Vinnytsia Oblast Prosecutor’s Office. In response, on January 10, 2021, the Vinnytsia Regional Prosecutor’s Office announced that it had no authority in such cases.

Also, on February 10, 2021, the lawyer sent a request to the Health Center of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine to take P-tya to a civilian hospital for diagnosis, as the administration of the penitentiary institution is hiding his illness.

The case is pending.

P. case

On July 31, 2020, P.’s mother filed a complaint with the SLC about non-provision of medical care and failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving a sentence due to his health condition, despite a number of indications: in early January 2020 the first symptoms of cancer began, but doctors of the Medical Department of the State Institution "Vinnytska Institution of the Execution of sentences № 12" did not take any action for examination and treatment, instead, he was diagnosed with pneumonia, which was treated with drips for three weeks in a row after which the condition of Mr. P. deteriorated: from shortness of breath to the inability to move independently, all this was accompanied by excruciating pain, first in the side and then all over the body. Nevertheless, no additional surveys were conducted. Only on July 29, 2020, on the initiative and at the expense of P.’s mother, he was taken to a private clinic, where he was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. For a long time his mother was refused even this. In addition, almost all medicines were paid for by P.’s mother herself.

On the same day, P. himself contacted the lawyer with a similar complaint.

On August 1, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion with the court for release from serving the sentence due to P.’s health, and the court hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2020.

On August 5, 2020, P. was transferred to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Lviv PI № 19/

On 05.08.2020, lawyer’s inquiries were sent to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Lviv PI № 19, to the Branch of the State Institution “The Centre of Health Care of the State Criminal Executive Service” in Vinnytska and Lvivska regions concerning the treatment and the condition of health.

On August 6, 2020, the lawyer sent applications for measures to treat P. to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Head of the Department for Supervision of Observance of Laws in Execution of Judgments in Criminal Proceedings, Other Coercive Measures in Places of Imprisonment, and Probation and to the Vinnytsia region Prosecutor’s Office.

On August 13, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion with the court to leave the motion for parole without consideration due to the death of the client.

On August 18, 2020, P.’s mother applied to the SLC with a request to represent her interests as a victim in the criminal proceedings over the death of her son as a result of failure to provide him with medical care.

On August 19, 2020, the lawyer sent a criminal complaint to the Vinnytsia region Prosecutor’s Office and the Vinnytsia Local Prosecutor’s Office.

On September 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a motion for procedural actions to the investigator and attachment of documents.

On 13.10.2020 and 17.12.2020 the lawyer sent motions for procedural actions within the framework of open criminal proceedings.

On 12.02.2021 and 23.04.2021 the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions in the framework of open criminal proceedings.

S. case

Mr. S. is serving a prison sentence in the Odessa correcitonal colony. He asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid because he was suffering from a serious illness, namely HIV-4. Mr. S. is entitled to be released from the punishment in accordance with Article 84 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On August 5, 2020, the lawyer applied to the correctional colony with a lawyer’s request for medical documentation.

On August 23, 2020, the lawyer received a response from the Odessa Correctional Facility with medical documents.

On September 8, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Malynovsky District Court of Odessa with a request to release S. from serving his sentence due to illness.

On October 17, 2020, the Malynovsky District Court of Odessa sent its decision to the lawyer, refusing to open proceedings at the motion of the lawyer. The court noted that the lawyer did not have the right to apply to the court, and this should be done by the penitentiary institution, or, as a last resort, the lawyer, if there is an opinion of the medical advisory commission.

On October 19, 2020, the lawyer filed an appeal with the Odessa Court of Appeal.

The court hearing is scheduled for January 4, 2021 but did not take place.

On 25 February 2021 the Odessa Court of Appeal sent to the SLC lawyer its judgement according to which her motion was granted and the case was returned to the trial court for new consideration.

The first court hearing in the court of first instance was scheduled for April 11, 2021, but did not take place due to the privilege of a judge in another case. The case is pending. To date, no meeting has taken place.

S. Case

On July 16, 2020, S. addressed the lawyer. He said that he was serving a sentence in the Odessa correctional colony. S. suffers from a number of serious illnesses, including stage 4 HIV and tuberculosis. Those illnesses give him the right to release from serving a sentence due to a serious illness.

On the same day, the attorney sent a request to the correctional colony to obtain medical documents. After receiving them, on August 18, 2020, the attorney sent a petition to release S. from serving the sentence to the Malinovsky District Court of Odessa. However, the date of the hearing has not been set yet.

In addition, the lawyer submitted an application to the Odessa correctional colony for S.’s medical advisory commission to establish the severity of his illness. The petition was granted. However, the medical advisory commission found that the severity of S.’s illness was insufficient for release.

On September 19, 2020, the attorney sent a request for medical conclusion mentioned above.

On September 19, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for the medical opinion mentioned above, but ше was never sent.

The court hearing in the case is scheduled for January 2021. However, it did not happen.

During a court hearing on April 23, 2021, Sh-ts was denied his request for release from serving a sentence due to illness. The lawyer filed an appeal. The case is pending.

S. case

On the night of May 31 to June 1, 2020, Mr. S was returning home from a birthday party. He was walking along the Kharkiv-Korotych highway to a gas station to call a taxi. Suddenly, around midnight, he was stopped by police officers who began behaving aggressively and threatening him with physical violence. They then attacked Mr. S and began beating him, indicating that he was a drunkard who threw himself under the wheels of cars. After that, Mr. S. was detained.

One month later, on July 2, 2020, Mr. S recognized that criminal proceedings had been opened against him for allegedly assaulting a police officer. He was informed of the suspicion the same day. At that moment, S turned to a lawyer for legal aid.

The lawyer lodged a complaint with the State Bureau of Investigation about the commission of a criminal offense by police officers, namely the beating of Mr S. As the information about the criminal offense had not been entered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations,

The indictment against Mr. S. was transferred to the Kharkiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region.

On January 9, February 10, 2021, preliminary court hearings did not take place, due to the absence of the injured police officer.

On March 9, 2021, the court hearing finally took place and the case was scheduled for consideration on the merits. The case is pending.

On April 16, 2021, the next court hearing in the case took place, during which an indictment was announced and the case was assigned on the merits.

There were several more court hearings after that, however, they did not take place for various reasons, in particular, most of them did not take place due to the victim’s absence.

The case is pending.

S. case

S. is serving his sentence in the Sofiyivska Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital (№ 55) at the State Institution “Sofiyivska Correctional Colony (№55)” S. turned to the SLC for legal assistance due to the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure to submit necessary documents to the court by officials responsible for his release for health reasons.

According to S., as of December 28, 2020, he suffered strokes, after which he learned to walk again with the help of a neighbor in the cell. However, on June 28, 2020, he fell in the middle of the cell. After the cast, the picture showed that the bone did not grow together (due to age and conditions). In addition, he began the process of bone decay. Also, the left upper limb from the forearm to the hand does not work in S. Thus, S. is a bedridden person, his life is counted in hours rather than days, and his condition only worsens with each passing day. Since S. cannot take care of himself, his cellmate does this. He does not even regain consciousness, pain and weakness are his constant companions when he is conscious. They tried to give him crutches, but he could not hold them.

Today, there is a real threat not to the health, but to the life of S. There is no hope to improve his condition.

Given the situation, on December 28, 2020, the lawyer immediately appealed to the court to release him on health grounds.

On 01.02.2021, 17.02.2021, 11.03.2021 court hearings were postponed due to S.’s medical treatment.

On April 14, 2021, the court meeting did not take place because the judge was hospitalized.

On April 29, 2021, the court hearing did not take place because the court did not know S.’s whereabouts, as it turned out that he was already in the hospital in Kherson.

On June 2, 2021, the court hearing did not take place, as Mr. S., on May 10, 2021, was already transferred to the Temnivska correctional facility no.100. The next court hearing was to take place on June 27, 2021, On June 27, 2021 in the Temnivska Hospital № 100 Mr. S. died. According to the conclusion of the medical advisory commission Mr. S. had no diagnoses for release from serving his sentence.

T. case

Mr. T. is serving a life sentence in the Dnipro Penitentiary Institution № 4. He asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid because he was suffering from a serious illness, namely HIV-4. Mr. T. is entitled to be released from further serving his sentence in accordance with Article 84 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On June 14, 2020, July 17, 2020 and September 8, 2020, the lawyer sent legal requests to the Dnipro Penitentiary Institution to establish the state of health of Mr. T. However, contrary to current legislation, she did not receive answers to her requests.

Therefore, on August 18, 2020 and October 14, 2020, the lawyer sent complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk region, the South-Eastern Interregional Department for Execution of Sentences and Probation and the Ministry of Justice. However, the authorities stated that the lawyer allegedly did not have the authority to access the applicant’s medical records.

Therefore, on 10 November 2020 the lawyer sent a motion for the T’s release from serving his sentence to the Krasnogvardeisky District Court of Dnipro, in which she stated that she could not substantiate her petition with medical documents.

The court hearing was scheduled for December 16, 2020, but did not take place due to the failure to bring T to the court hearing.

The next court hearing is scheduled for December 24, 2020.

On 24 December 2020 during the court hearing it was recognized that Mr. T was transported to the Bahmut penitentiary institution. According to this fact the Krasnogv daardisky court returned the motion to re-filling to another court.

On 18 January 2021 the lawyer filed a motion to the Bahmut town court in Donetsk region on releas Mr. T due to his gravious illness but the date of consideration has not been scheduled yet.

In April 2021 Mr. T refused from the legal assistance.

V. case

Mr. V. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including stage 4 HIV. Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence in the Raikiv Correctional Colony.

On October 27, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Raikiv Correctional Colony for medical documentation. However, the response to such a request was received only on December 6, 2020 and after complaints about the institution’s inaction.

On December 7, 2020, the lawyer applied to the Berdychiv City Court to release V. due to illness. However, a court hearing has not yet been scheduled.

In February 2021 V died.

V’s case

Mr. V is serving his sentence in the Kamianska correction facility # 101.

Mr. V has several diseases: mental and behavioural disorders due to the combined using of opioids, cannabioids and alcohol, addiction syndrome, episodic using of psychoactive substances, persistent residual effects of closed traumatic brain injury with cephalic syndrome, arachnoids cyst with frequent epileptic attacks, chronic hepatitis C (HCV+), hepatosis,  chronic pancreatitis, progressive loss of vision.

Under the law, the Kamianksa correction facility # 101 should have submitted the motion to a court on releasing Mr. V due to his grievous disease.

Mr. V asked for the SLC for legal assistance.

On February 02, 2021, and on February 26, 2021 the lawyer sent requests to the Branch of the State Institution "Healthcare Centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine" in Kyiv city and to the Kyiv detention centre on the treatment and health state of Mr. V. After that Mr. V transported to the Dniprovska specialise hospital # 4 of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine.

On March 30, 2021, the lawyer submitted the motion to a court on releasing Mr. V due to his grievous disease.

On April 07, 2021, April 29, 2021, May 19, 2021, June 01, 2021, June 14, 2021 the court meeting did not take place because of the lack of the resolution medical commission about health state of Mr. V. 

The next court meeting is scheduled for July 01, 2021.

V. case

On March 27, 2021, Mr. V.’s mother asked the Kharkiv Human Rights Group and reported that her son, who is serving a sentence in the Dnipro Correctional Colony № 89, does not feel half of his body, cannot move independently, practically does not speak. During V.’s stay in the Dnipro Correctional Facility, which has been going on for almost two weeks, his health is steadily deteriorating.

According to Mr. V., he felt unbearable pain all over his body and especially in his head. He received any treatment and examination only at his own expense (at the mother’s expense).

Therefore, Mr. V. needs urgent examination and treatment to prevent irreparable consequences.

On March 29, 2021, the lawyer sent a motion to the court for an urgent obligation of the responsible persons of the Dnieper Correctional Colony to provide the necessary medical care to V. in the health care institution of the State Penitentiary Service.

On April 10, 2021, Mr. V. died.

Y. case

Ya. arrived at the Selydivska Correctional Colony (№ 82) to serve his sentence. The latter complained to the SLC about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving his sentence due to his health condition, despite a number of indications (HIV and concomitant diseases).

On July 14, 2020, lawyer’s inquiries were sent to the Medical Unit of the State Institution "Selydivska VK-82" and to the Branch of the State Institution “The Centre of Health Care of the State Criminal Executive Service”.

On August 4, 2020, a petition was sent to the Selydiv City Court of the Donetsk Region for release from serving a sentence due to health conditions.

On August 20, 2020, a court hearing took place, in which the lawyer filed a motion to demand the opinion of the LCC.

On September 2, 2020, the court hearing was postponed because the Medical Unit of the State Institution “Selydivska VK-82” did not provide medical documentation to the court.

On September 7, 2020, the Selidovo court granted the request to release Ya. despite the absence of an opinion from the LKK, which, according to the colony’s representative, could not be submitted to the court, as there was no material possibility in the colony to transfer J. to the appropriate institution. At this time, Ya. began to provide the necessary medical care (ART therapy, hepatoprotectors), his condition began to improve.

On September 18, 2020, the lawyer submitted a lawyer’s request to the Selydiv Correctional Colony State Institution (№ 82) to provide documents characterizing Ya. for filing a petition for Ya.’s parole.

On September 28, 2020, the lawyer received a copy of the decision to initiate appeal proceedings together with a copy of the appeal against the decision of the Selydiv City Court of the Donetsk Region of September 7, 2020.

On October 7, 2020, the lawyer filed an objection to the prosecutor’s appeal.

On October 12, 2020, the court hearing in the Court of Appeal of Donetsk Region did not take place due to the lack of court composition.

On 10.27.2020 The Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor’s appeal and overturned the decision of the Selydiv City Court of the Donetsk Region of 7 September 2020.

On November 12, 2020, the court hearing on the parole of Ya. did not take place due to communication problems.

On November 23, 2020, on the court hearing on the parole of Ya., a lawyer and a prosecutor filed a motion to call witnesses and demand information.

 On December 16, 2020, the court hearing on the parole of Ya. took place and lawyer’s motion was denied.

The lawyer is preparing an application to the State Institution “The Centre of Health Care of the State Criminal Executive Service”for the transfer of Ya. to an institution where he would receive medical care and a medical advisory commission is functioning.

Mr. Ya later refused from legal assistance.

Z. case

In October 2020, the lawyer was asked by Mr. Z-h , who was serving his sentence in the Dnipropetrovsk Correctional Colony № 89 to provide him with legal assistance. Mr. Z-h notified that he suffered from a number of serious diseases, including HIV and related diseases.

On October 19, 2020, the lawyer sent his request to the colony in order to obtain medical documents confirming the client’s illness.

On October 28, 2020, the lawyer received a response with accompanying documents indicating Z.’s medical diagnoses.

In November 2020, the lawyer sent a petition for the release of Z to the Leninsky District Court of Dnipro. Along with the petition, the lawyer also asked to appoint a medical advisory commission for Z.

To date, the commission has been appointed. Consideration of the case continues.

1 case related to the conflict at the Eastern part of Ukraine

S. case

At the end of September, Mr. S. applied to the SLC for legal assistance due to leaving him in danger by employees of the State Institution “Slavyanoserbskaya VK (№ 60)”, where he was from January 12, 2008 to October 19, 2019. On April 7, 2014, the Anti-Terrorist Operation began in the Luhansk region.

And only in the fall of 2019 he arrived to serve his sentence at the State Institution "Romenska VK (№ 56)", where he is now.

On October 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a letter to S. with a form of application for recognition as his victim.

On October 20, 2020, the lawyer sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. S.

On November 4, 2020, the lawyer re-sent a statement to the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region about a criminal offense against Mr. S.

On November 17, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court about the inaction of the responsible persons the Main Department of National Police of Ukraine in the Luhansk region regarding the failure to enter the information provided in statements above to the URPTI.

On November 20, 2020, the lawyer’s complaint was upheld.

On 15 February 2021 and 17 May 2021 the lawyer submitted a motion on conducting procedural actionas and familiarizing with the case files.

7 cases of parole

F. case

F. is serving his sentence in Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony № 25. He appealed to the SLC lawyer for legal assistance in the case concerning his representations in the appellate court against the decision of the court of first instance on his parole. The contested decision states that F.’s characteristics of 31 August, 2020 states that he treats work honestly, performs his duties honestly and never refuses to work. However, the information specified in the description does not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case, given that from 30 August, 2018 (date of arrival to the colony) to 17 November, 2020, he worked only 7 months and 17 days out of 26 months of detention.

Thus, the main argument why the court of first instance denied Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony № 25 was the fact that F. "actually started working at the end of 2019 and in the first half of 2020, although he has actually been serving his sentence since 2018." However, this circumstance does not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case, as F. worked in the colony almost from the first days after his arrival, but there was abuse by the responsible persons of Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony № 25 not to register employment with F. since September 2018.

This fact was inspected by the Kharkiv local prosecutor’s office № 1, based on the results of which the prosecutor’s response measures were taken; the above is confirmed by the letter of the acting head of the Kharkiv local prosecutor’s office № 1.

Moreover, by the letter of the Kharkiv local prosecutor’s office № 1 dated 12 March, 2021 F. informed that based on the results of the prosecutor’s office’s inspection on the fact of non-payment of his salary for the period from September 2018. The materials were transferred to the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Poltava and opened criminal proceedings.

On March 11, 2021, the lawyer got acquainted with the materials of the proceedings in the appellate court.

On March 16, 2021, the lawyer sent a lawyer’s request to the Kharkiv local prosecutor’s office № 1 regarding the results of the inspection regarding the failure of the responsible persons of Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony № 25 to register their employment with F.

On March 23, 2021, the lawyer submitted additional explanations and documents to the appellate court to the appeal of F.

On March 23, 2021, the appellate court dismissed F.’s appeal.

K. case

On August 19, 2020, Mr. K. applied to the Derhachiv District Court of the Kharkiv Region with a request for his parole. However, the petition was denied.

K. independently filed a complaint with the Court of Appeal, after which he turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. The lawyer got acquainted with the case materials and prepared a legal position.

The court hearing in the appellate court is scheduled for March 2, 2021.

However, before the court meating K refused from the legal assistance as because he was released on the same date as the court meeting was scheduled

K. case

On August 10, 2020, K. turned to a lawyer. She said that she had the right to be released on parole, but the State Institution “Kachanovskaya correctional colony (No. 54)” refused to file such submission to the court.

After signing all the necessary documents by K., the attorney sent a request to the colony to obtain information about penalties and incentives, employment, as well as the K.’s characteristics.

On November 11, 2020, the lawyer filed a petition for the parole of K. with the Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv.

The hearing in the case was scheduled for December 11, 2020, but did not take place due to the failure of the correctional colony to provide personal case materials.

During a court hearing on January 29, 2021, K was denied parole. K. refused to file an appeal

L. case

On August 15, 2020, a group of convicts from the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” applied to the NGO KHPG for legal assistance, as the State Institution “Dergachivska VK (№ 109)” was being disbanded, and the colony applied for their parole or sentence mitigation.

At the same time, the local prosecutor’s office unreasonably delays the process, which means that convicts will be transferred to other regions, far from relatives. That is, convicts who, even in the opinion of the colony administration, are subject to release, are in fact deprived of even the right to relatives visits.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the colony has a minimum level of security with facilitated detention conditions. This means that convicts have already made their correction if they find themselves in an institution of this level, and now this happens again if the colony has supported their release and encouragement. After reviewing the materials, the organization’s lawyers made sure that the prosecutor’s office was really abusing its rights and ignoring the epidemiological situation in the country at that time. Firstly, lawyers turned to advocacy activities in the form of articles in the media.

Mr. L. was in the group of convicts who asked for legal assistance in the case of his parole, as on 6 August 2020 the court refused to grant his application.

On August 20, 2020, the attorney filed an application with the court to get acquainted with the case materials and to be involved as a representative.

The court hearing in the appellate instance is scheduled for April 8, 2020.

On March 15, 2021, the lawyer submitted a lawyer’s request to the State Institution "Mashivska correctional facility №9" to provide documents confirming the availability of incentives, employment while serving a sentence, health status, maintaining social ties, characteristics, commitment to sports and literature of Mr. L

On March 16, 2021, the lawyer filed an application for familiarization with the case files in the Kharkiv Court of Appea.

On April 5, 2021, the lawyer submitted to the Kharkiv Court of Appeal additional materials to Mr. L.’s appeal.

On April 8, 2021, the appeal was dismissed.

M. case

M. is serving his sentence in Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony № 25. He aksed the SLC lawyer for legal assistance in the case of his parole.

On 3 March 2020, the SLC lawyer sent a request to Oleksiyivska Correctional Colony № 25 regarding the characteristics of M-k, the availability of penalties and incentives, his employment.

On 19 March 2020, the SLC lawyer received all the necessary documents in response and on the same day sent a motion for M-k parole to the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv. However, to date, the meeting has not been scheduled or held. Consideration of the case is pending.

 Court hearings in the case were postponed more than ten times. The last time was due to the judge’s illness, and a little earlier – due to the failure to submit M.’s personal file to the court by the colony administration, the judge’s employment in another process, and so on. The next court hearing is scheduled for January 23, 2021.

On January 23, 2021, during a court hearing, it was found that M had recently been subject to several disciplinary sanctions. That is why the lawyer’s request for parole was denied. The lawyer decided that under such conditions, further appeal of the decision would be hopeless.

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 cancelled 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 cancelling Ms. S.’s rewards. The prosecutor’s offices in response, noted that rewards had been cancelled 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.

On 10 June 2020 the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s vocation.

On 30 June 2020 during the court meeting the term on appealing was restored for Mr. S. The next court hearing is scheduled on 13 February 2021.

However, before the trial, the lawyer discovered that St-nyuk had already been released, or rather, that the sentence of imprisonment had been reduced to correctional labour. Thus, the consideration of the appeal became inexpedient.

T. case

Mr. T. asked the lawyer to provide him with legal assistance in the case of replacing his sentence with a milder one. The case was considered by the Dergachiv District Court of Kharkiv Region.

On August 21, 2020, a court hearing took place, during which the prosecutor filed a motion to request additional documents from the Kholodnohirska Correctional Colony. The lawyer was against it, as such documents were excessive in T.’s case, and in addition, the Dergachiv Correctional Colony, where T-rev was serving his sentence, had to be liquidated. However, the court granted the prosecutor’s request and adjourned the hearing.

At the end of August 2020, T. was taken from the Dergachiv Correctional Colony to the village of Mashivka, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Dergachiv District Court.

On October 16, 2020, the Dergachiv District Court returned the motion to commute T.’s sentence with a milder one, as T. had been released from the Dergachiv Correctional Colony. However, the lawyer did not agree with the decision and considered that the court had already begun consideration of the case on the merits, and therefore had no right to return the petition for violation of territorial jurisdiction.

On December 24, 2020, during a court hearing in the appellate court, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned and the case was remanded for retrial. Despite the victory, T suddenly refused to continue to support the case in court.

6 cases related to the use special force came and ill-treatment of prisoners on 8 January 2020 in Oleksiyvska penal colony №25.

Concerning the events preceding the alleged violations of the convicts’ rights

During a lengthy period the information was being received from OPC-25, which at present is managed by North-Eastern Inter-regional Department for the Execution of Sentences and Probation of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (hereafter – Inter-regional Department) concerning the systematic use of tortures and other forms of ill-treatment of the inmates. This situation in OPC-25 is noted in the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture after its visit to the colony (https://rm.coe.int/168069844d, p.8; https://rm.coe.int/1680698465 –

 p.9, https://rm.coe.int/16806985fd – pp.4-5, 8-9, 17-18).

For many years the inmates had not complained about the torture because of intimidation. However, on 30 December 2019, on the occasion of the notice of suspicion to the colony officials for committing official crimes and another beating of one of the inmates, the convicted persons collectively complained to the head of the colony concerning the illegal actions of the administration, most notably – torture and ill-treatment.

On 3 January 2020 the journalists of KHPG accompanied by assistant consultant of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine conducted a monitoring visit to OPC-25. During the visit the human rights defenders were contacted by a large group of convicted persons, including the applicants, who voiced their complaints about the actions of the administration.

On 6 January 2020 the Head of the Inter-regional Department, Mr. Romanov, approved the plan of the general search, according to which OPC-25 should have undergone a general search on 8 January 2020 with the involvement of additional forces and means from other institutions, as well as territorial (Inter-regional) paramilitary formation – the so-called rapid response group (RRG).

As stated in the certificate by Acting Chief of OPC-25, Mr. Nekhayev-Oleksandrov, the general search in the colony was conducted on the basis of the instruction from the Inter-regional Department. The cause to accept Mr. Romanov’s instruction to conduct the general search was the application by Mr. Nekhayev-Oleksandrov and the plan of the general search. Meanwhile neither the aforementioned certificate nor the application (the letter of 6 January 2020) with the request for the permission to conduct the general search stated the causes for such search.

Also on 6 January 2020 the First Deputy Chief of Inter-regional Department Mr. Indyk sent to the Head of RRG a request for “subordinate personnel” from all institutions involved in the general search to arrive to OPC-25 at 06 am on 8 January 2020, i.e. before the reception of the permission to conduct the general search. Moreover, in the same letter Mr. Indyk requested the Head of RRG to provide the persons involved in the general search, in particular, with the portable DVRs.

The plan of the general search, compiled by then Acting Chief of OPC-25 and approved on 6 January 2020 by the Head of the Inter-regional Department, lacked the indication of time of start and completion of the search, as well as staff briefing time. The plan also stated that the search should involve 12 portable DVRs, one for every group of personnel from every institution whose personnel was involved in the general search in OPC-25.

Since between 4 and 7 January Ukraine had weekend and holidays (those were Christmas holidays), the plan of the general search in OPC-25 that was sent with a cover letter of 6 January 2020 to receive the permission to conduct it from the Head of the Department of State Prison Service of Ukraine (SPSU), the inter-regional Department, Mr. Mukha, to the administration of SPSU was received by the administration of SPSU in the first work day – on 8 January 2020. Accordingly, that permission could not have been given earlier than the start of the work day on 8 January 2020.

 In the letter to OPC-25 of 8 January 2020 Mr. Mukha has informed the colony that the administration of SPSU has granted permission (agreement) to conduct the general search in OPC-25, without stating the date of provision of that permission. That letter also contained the notification about the obligation to use the means of video recording during the search. However, there is no copy that contains the permission of the administration of SPSU to conduct the general search among the copies of documents sent to the prosecutor by Mr. Romanov in relation to the pre-trial investigation.

In any case, the permission of the administration of SPSU to conduct the general search in OPC-25, if it existed, was received by OPC-25 much later than the time of the alleged search.

According to para.1 of Section VI of Regulations on Territorial (Interregional) Paramilitary Formation of SPSU of Ukraine, the special measures in which the divisions of RRG are involved should be conducted under the orders of the Administration, and in cases of involvement in the objects of SPSU of Ukraine at the place of permanent deployment, under the orders of the Head of the corresponding inter-regional department. No copy of such order was provided by Mr. Romanov to the prosecutor, which casts doubts over the legitimacy of involvement of RRG during the general search in OPC-25.

Concerning the use of the territorial (interregional) paramilitary formation and the personnel of other institutions on OPC-25 and the introduction of the “special conditions regime” in the colony

Although the colony administration, the officials of OPC-25, the management of the South-Eastern Department and the Administration of SPSU provided several copies of the documents concerning the general search in the colony which took place immediately after the rise (06:00 am), the applicants state that the general search in the colony on 8 January was conducted during the night: at night the dormitories in the residential area of the colony were invaded by SPSU personnel equipped with special forces uniform (helmets, masks and other protective equipment), armed with rubber clubs, with the following use of force and special equipment (handcuffs, clubs etc).

According to the applicants’ account of the events, at night (approximately between 03 am and 04 am) during their sleep the convicted persons of the colony were dragged in the courtyard in their underwear, with their hands restrained behind their backs (using handcuffs or tying) discriminately, according to the lists, they were forced to lie down in the cold (about 3 Celsius degrees below zero), after that they were dragged into the “headquarters” where they were forced to crawl on their bellies to various floors of the building (ranging between the second and the forth) with their hands fixed behind their back. During those events the special forces personnel discriminately beat those convicted persons who could not crawl, attempted to rise or change their position, look around etc. After the inmates were placed lying on several floors they were forced to lie like that for about 9-12 hours. At the end of that execution the convicted persons under threat of physical violence were forced to write almost verbatim identical explanations that they allegedly resisted the search, displayed riot etc, and that they had no complaints against the actions of the administration. The convicted persons who were handcuffed were brought to the medical unit where their injuries were documented.

Other inmates who were not dragged from their dormitories outside, were forced to lie quietly and without movement with their hands behind their head till around 09 am, when they were allowed to get up and were brought for the breakfast. Those who had to use restroom during the time of sleep were brought there with their arms twisted behind their back, in many cases such inmates were also beaten.

Appendix 1 to this application contains particular circumstances of the applicants’ injuries and their treatment that was inhuman and degrading.

On 8 January 2020 the Head of interregional department, Mr. Romanov, introduced the “special conditions regime” in OPC-25 for the period starting on 08 am on 8 January 2020 until the “special order”, The aforementioned order by Mr. Romanov on the introduction of “special conditions regime” lacked the indication of such a decision. Moreover, the Minister of Justice of Ukraine was not notified about the introduction of such regime in violation of Art. 105 pt.3 of the Code of Criminal Enforcement (hereafter – CCE) of Ukraine, the documents provided by Mr. Romanov to the prosecutor lacked the copy of such notification.

Moreover, on 8 January 2020, the visits to the inmates were cancelled in OPC-25 for the period of “special conditions regime”, under the orders of the Acting Chief of the colony.

Concerning the beginning of the pre-trial investigation on the facts of abuse of power by the institutions of SPSU, putting pressure on the applicants and other convicted persons, non-provision to them the timely and adequate security measures, obstruction of contact of convicted persons with their lawyers and members of the public

On 10 January 2020 the criminal proceedings No.420200221090000002 were instituted on the facts of abuse of power by the officers of SPSU system during both the events of 8 January 2020 and during 2017-2019.

Not knowing about the institution of criminal proceedings by the investigation bodies, on 11 January 2020 the lawyers of KHPG filed several applications to the prosecution bodies and investigators concerning the criminal offences on the facts of abuse of power by the officers of SPSU system, those applications were added to the materials of the proceedings. In the aforementioned applications the lawyers, in particular, requested to provide the security measures, urgently conduct the forensic examination and seize the videos from the CCTV cameras, as well as from portable DVRs that were used during the events of 8 January 2020 in OPC-25.

Since the time of introduction of “special conditions regime” the assistant of People’s Deputy of Ukraine, Gluschenko V.V., was not allowed to enter the territory of OPC-25, although he was entitled to enter it according to the Art.24 of CCE of Ukraine, with the journalist representatives of KHPG who received complaints from the applicants on 3 January 2020 (see para. 6 of this Application), because of that the applications about criminal offences were filed. The administration of OPC-25 also did not allow to bring doctors to the territory of the colony for the examination of the inmates, including the psychiatrist, to conduct the survey of the applicants by the lawyers or the assistant of People’s Deputy of Ukraine under the regulations of Istanbul Protocol, although it was envisaged by Art.24 of CCE of Ukraine.

 The order to cancel the visits to the convicted persons was also interpreted by the colony administration as ban on the provision of legal assistance to the convicts which is provided during the confidential conversations with them according to Article 110 of CCE of Ukraine. Accordingly, between the introduction of “special conditions regime” and 21 January 2020 the lawyers were not allowed to enter the territory of the colony to provide the legal assistance to the convicted persons detained in OPC-25, including the applicants, except for one case of questioning of the sixth applicant on 16 January 2020, when the lawyer was allowed to enter under the request of the investigator to participate in the questioning of the applicant. Due to obstruction of legitimate professional activity the lawyers several times called the police, filed the applications about the criminal offences which resulted in the institution of the criminal investigations.

When the lawyers were finally allowed to conduct the visits to the convicted persons, the administration of OPC-25 continued to create obstructions by prolonging the “arrangement of documents” to several hours, letting only one lawyer enter at a time and limiting their time of conversation with their clients, and even giving the lawyers the visits to another convicted person who had the same last name as the lawyer’s client (who was not seen by the lawyer yet).

During the entire period after the introduction of ban on the visits to the convicts, the convicted persons were constantly pressured by the personnel of OPC-25 as well as the employees of the operational unit of the interregional department.

According to the information received from the convicted persons, on 4 February 2020 the administration of OPC-25 gathered all convicts who had filed the complaints, including the applicants, and informed them that they are given two days to waive their applications and lawyers, otherwise they will face brutal repercussions. The lawyers – representatives of the convicted persons on the criminal proceedings – filed the application about the criminal offence regarding the use of physical violence and intimidation of the victims and witnesses in the criminal proceedings.

On 5 February 2020 the applicants’ lawyers repeatedly sent petitions for the application of security measures to the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Poltava (hereafter – TD of SBI in Poltava) and the Prosecutor General’s Office. The lawyers requested to bring the convicted persons outside the territorial jurisdiction of the North-Eastern interregional department or provide the round-the-clock protection of the applicants.

Concerning the injuries of the applicants and their documenting

During the use of the special divisions on the territory of OPC-25 on 8 January 2020 all applicants were injured, the injuries were documented.

The medical unit located on the territory of OPC-25 registered the bodily injuries only concerning the convicted persons who were included in the lists of the persons against whom the special means and means of physical coercion were used during the search.

The details about the documentation of the injuries of the applicants and other convicts from OPC-25 are set out in the Appendix 2 to this Application.

Kh. case

Mr. Kh is severing his sentence in the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25.

On January 10, 2020, the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigations in Poltava initiated the criminal proceedings on the facts of abuse of the authority officials of the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25.

On June 03, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC visited Mr. Kh in the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25 because Mr. Kh tried to commit suicide as the authority officials of the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25 pressured to Mr. Kh.

On June 06, 2020, the lawyer came to Mr. Kh in the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25. The authority officials of the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25 took the opportunity to meet with Mr. Kh in the room for short-term appointments. But the authority official of the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25 was in the room. There was not able to communicate privately with Mr. Kh in the room. Because Mr. Kh was afraid of his communication with the lawyer could be overheard and written.

On June 16, 2020, the lawyer submitted a motion to the Dzerzhynskyi district court of Kharkiv on appealing the actions of the authority officials of the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25, according to the articles 537 and 539 of the Criminal procedure code of Ukraine.

On July 06, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s business. The next hearing was scheduled for July 28, 2020.

On July 28, 2020, during the court hearing the lawyer submitted a motion on the direct participation of Mr. Kh in the court hearing but the court refused it. Also, the court refused to grant the motion on abusing of the authority officials of the Oleksiivska correction facility # 25.

The Appeal court hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2021.

On January 26, 2021, the Kharkiv Appeal court granted the lawyer’s appeal complaint; the decision of the Dzerzhynskyi district court of Kharkiv was refused and remitted the case for a new trail.

On March 22, 2021, the lawyer submitted a request to the Dzerzhynskyi district court of Kharkiv on getting any information of initiating court proceeding because the lawyer did not receive any letters about it.

On March 25, 2021, the lawyer received the decision of the Dzerzhynskyi district court of Kharkiv on refusing to initiate court proceeding. The decision based on that case should have been considered under administrative proceeding. The lawyer submitted a complaint to Kharkiv Appeal court.

The Appeal court hearing was scheduled for July 12, 2021. The case is still pending.

K. case

Mr. K. arrived to Oleksiivska penal colony No, 25 in 2018. After his arrival he spent a long time in the medical unit because of his medical conditions. However, on 8 January 2020, when he was in the residential facility (dormitory), in the night the room was invaded by the armed enforcers of the special division. They dragged K. from his bed and ordered him to go to the so-called “headquarters”. He remained in the “headquarters” until evening. During that time in the “headquarters” K. was beaten with rubber batons and punched, threatened and forced to write the applications that he obstructed the search.

On the same day the injuries inflicted on him were documented by a doctor from the medical unit of the penal institution.

On 10 January 2020 K. was questioned by the investigator from the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigations in Poltava.

On 29 January 2020 during the meeting with a lawyer from SLC Mr. K. wrote an addition to his application about crime which was sent to the Territorial Department of SBI in Poltava.

On 30 January 2020 the lawyer from SLC filed a petition to the Territorial Department of SBI in Poltava to question Mr. K. only in her presence

Furthermore, the lawyer from SLC filed a petition to State Bureau of Investigations to familiarize herself with the criminal case file. Such petition was granted. During the familiarization with the case file on 10 February 2020 the lawyer from SLC established that Mr. K. underwent a forensic examination.

On 14 February 2020 Mr. K. was again questioned in the presence of the lawyer from SLC.

After that, other legally significant actions in the case of Col. did not happen. The lawyer sent inquiries to the State Bureau of Investigation several times, but the answers were formal.

To the Vilnyanska Correctional Colony № 20 Mr. K. was taken out several more times for psychological pressure on him and for causing moral violence. The lawyer informed the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation about each such removal.

Finally, in April 2021, K. was taken from the Oleksiyivka Correctional Facility to another penitentiary institution as part of security measures.

K. case

In October 2017 the applicant arrived at Oleksiyivska VK to serve his sentence, where he was placed in a special dividing section. During his stay in this section, an operative of the penal colony began to force the applicant to wash the toilets without gloves, and when he refused, he was dragged and beaten. However, the applicant still refused to wash the bathrooms, so he continued to be beaten. It was already evening, so the applicant was taken to the operative section, undressed, placed in a cage. He was left in this state until the evening. The applicant was subsequently beaten again, including when he tried to send a complaint of torture to the investigating authorities and handed it over to another convict who was being released. When such a complaint was found, the applicant was beaten and the complaint itself was burned on the applicant’s back.

On the night of 7 to 8 January 2020, soldiers of the Rapid Reaction Group (hereinafter – GSR) entered the territory of Oleksiyivska Correctional Colony № 25 (hereinafter – Oleksiyivska VK). They handcuffed the applicant, dragged him out into the yard and left naked lying on the asphalt for two hours. The applicant was then (approximately at 6 am) taken to the administrative building, where he was laid on the floor and humiliated in every possible way for the next twelve hours. In particular, he was forced to crawl up the stairs with his hands closed behind his back, beaten with feet and batons, forced to stand on a stretcher

On 29 January 2020, during a meeting with a lawyer, the applicant described the events that had taken place on 8 January 2020 and the torture in the institution during 2017-2019, and also wrote a statement to the DBR. In the evening of the same day, an officer of Oleksiyivska CF forced the applicant to withdraw his application and the assistance of a lawyer, and when the applicant continued to stand his ground, he took him to the third floor of the administrative building, where he struck him on the back and nose. Over the next few days, the applicant was intimidated by the massacre of the staff of the institution, as well as the operatives of the North-Eastern Interregional Department for the Execution of Sentences

During the next meeting with a lawyer, on 3 February 2020, the applicant reported about physical violence and threats and wrote another statement. The applicant also wrote a request for security measures in the form of taking him outside the competence of the North-East Administration.

For the next few days, the staff of Oleksiyivska CF exerted psychological pressure on the applicant during long conversations, which sometimes lasted up to ten consecutive hours. At that time the applicant was intimidated by future sexual and physical violence. As the applicant knew that the institution had repeatedly set precedents for such violence, including against himself, he considered such threats to be quite real.

On 6 February 2020 the Oleksiyivska CF administration drew up disciplinary offenses against the applicant, as he allegedly swore at another convict during telephone conversations. The applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell where he continued to be pressured. Another convict later wrote a statement alleging that he had been beaten by the applicant.

On 8 February 2020, as a result of the pressure exerted on the applicant, he suffered a hypertensive crisis and, as a result, a micro-stroke. For a day the applicant lost the ability to speak normally and his fingers on his left hand became numb. The applicant was transferred from DIZO to the medical unit of the institution, where he was given only magnesium sulphate, which did not lower his blood pressure. Instead, the applicant continued to be intimidated by the massacre, and a special man was placed next to him, who had been intimidating him all day and forcing him to withdraw his previous statements and lawyer. The applicant stated on it during his next meeting with a lawyer on 11 February 2020.

On 12 February 2020 the CS lawyer referred Rule 39 in the applicant’s interests to the European Court of Human Rights and requested security measures to be applied to the applicant. The court gave the government time to comment until February 28, 2020.

On 21 February 2020 the Office of the Prosecutor General informed the applicant’s representative that security measures had been applied to the applicant.

On 25 February 2020 the applicant stated that he was under psychological pressure and that he had been subjected to physical violence again in order to force him to withdraw his previous testimony and statements. Later, the monitoring team, which was visiting the institution, managed to record traces of the applicant’s injuries on his right forearm. However, the day after the confidential interview with the monitoring group, the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell, allegedly due to a conflict with the convict.

On 28 February 2020 the European Court of Human Rights refused to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the applicant’s case.

On 10 March 2020, CSS’s lawyer lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of Article 3 against the applicant.

On 21 March 2020 the applicant was taken from the Oleksiyivka Correctional Facility to the detention centre, where, according to the applicant, the pressure continued. He was twice put to the disciplinary isolator.

The lawyer systematically informed the Office of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine about the continuation of the pressure.

In June 2020, K. was finally transferred from the Poltava Penitentiary Institution to the Kamyanka Correctional Colony № 101. However, despite the lawyer’s and K.’s requests, no investigative actions did not take place during this time. In particular, K. was not interrogated. The reason for not conducting the interrogation was an epidemic of coronavirus disease, although it did not prevent the Territorial Department of the SBI from interrogating other victims in the criminal proceedings.

In September 2020, K. was interrogated, was declared a victim and a forensic examination was ordered.

M. case

The convicted Mr. M. was serving his sentence in OVK-25, during which time he was tortured and ill-treated several times.

In September 2017, after that, Mr. M. was hit by one of the employees of the colony. On this occasion, Mr. M. went on a hunger strike, for which he was placed in a separate room and tortured. His arms and legs were twisted, he was beaten, and strangled with a wet rag, during which he lost consciousness several times. After another refusal of the convict to stop complaining to the administration, a rubber truncheon was inserted into his anus and internal injuries were inflicted. One of the convicts from among the so-called "assistants to the administration" exposed his genitals and said that he would now defecate in the face of Mr. M, after which he, fearing to become "humiliated", withdrew his complaints. The entire process was filmed by the colony’s staff, threatening to spread it over the Internet.

On March 8, 2020, at approximately 4:30, people in bulletproof vests, helmets and masks broke into the sleeping lodgment of their unit, woke up all the convicts and ordered them to lie face down on a pillow with their arms crossed behind their heads. In this position they were forced to lie for about 5 hours. After breakfast, the convicts were searched one by one, and during the search one fighter from the special unit hit Mr. M. on the knee joint, from which in Mr. M. a hematoma was formed, and later a seal remained.

Since then Mr. M. he was periodically taken to the operative unit of the institution, where he was threatened that he would be prosecuted for disrupting the work of the colony for complaining about the administration, and other convicts to write statements about actions of Mr. M., which he did not actually commit.

In mid-February 2020 the applicant tried to complain about such pressure from the administration of the colony to the supervision prosecutor during the latter’s visit to OVK-25, for which he and other convicts booked a personal reception at the institution’s administration building. But the staff of the colony did not allow him to enter the room where the reception took place.

The prosecutor promised to visit the institution again in a few days and asked to prepare written complaints for him, which he should pick up during the next visit. But the prosecutor did not come to the colony again, and Mr. M., who continued to be pressured for his complaints, to be taken out of OVK-25, inflicted self-harm by piercing the wall of his abdomen with an awl. He was rushed to hospital, where he underwent surgery. The SLC’s lawyer tried to get to Mr. M. in the hospital twice, but he was not allowed by the guards. Four days later Mr. M. was taken to the prison hospital at the Temnovska Correctional Colony №100, where he was met by a lawyer.

On behalf of the applicant, the lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the SBI, but the police refused to open an investigation. Only after filing a complaint with the investigating judge, the SBI entered the information into the URPTI.

On October 19, 2020, the investigator questioned Mr. M. as a victim in the criminal proceedings, during which the applicant reported all the details of both the events of the use of special forces on January 8, 2020 and the applicant’s torture in 2017.

After Mr. M.’s interrogation, his lawyer requested an investigative experiment to be carried out with Mr. M. as a victim, as well as that his forensic examination be carried out.

The lawyer also re-filed a request for a number of investigative actions, this request was granted, but has not been fulfilled so far.

N. case

N. was serving his sentence in Oleksiyivska VK № 25. On January 14, 2020, N. turned to human rights activists for help, as he was one of the victims of illegal actions by employees of the colony and the GSHR on January 8, 2020. So, N. reported that on 08.01.2020 around 03:20 o’clock in the morning he was on his sleeping place in the fifth department of a residential zone OVK-25 where people in masks broke in and started breaking his arms and striking him in the kidneys and on back. Then he was taken out of the room and let on the asphalt surface. Thus, N. was taken to the second floor of the headquarters, where the other convicts were already lying. Thus, N., along with others, lay without clothes, shoes, food, water and the opportunity to go to the toilet from 03:40 to 19:00. All this time, GSHR officers approached him and asked him should they call human rights activists and if he still wanted to complain, and each time they hit him on the body. Later, N. was forced to write false information about the time and grounds for the application of special means to him.

N. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings on several statements, which is confirmed by a copy of the extract from the URPTI.

On January 10, 2020, during the interrogation of N. as a victim, he reported the torture used against him by GSHR officers.

On January 22, 2020, a request for familiarizing with the case-file of the criminal proceedings was submitted to the Second Investigation Department of the SBI in Poltava.

On January 23, 2020, the lawyer sent a request to the Second Investigation Department of the SBI TD in Poltava to conduct procedural actions and attach documents.

On January 25, 2020, N.’s statement of January 24, 2020 was sent to law enforcement agencies, in which he reported criminal offenses committed by employees of the administration of OVK-25 and the Northeastern Department, who constantly threatened him, promising to continue torture, forcing him to refuse the lawyer, as well as the fact that no one will help him.

On 31 January 2020, a request was made for urgent security measures in the form of transfer N. to another penitentiary institution outside the North-Eastern Department together with a package of statements of N. in which the latter reported threats and psychological pressure from administration staff to do so that N. refused the lawyer and previously submitted applications.

After numerous statements to law enforcement agencies and advocacy measures regarding the use of means of protection of N., he and other victims were taken to the Kharkiv SIZO.

In the first half of 2020, the lawyer sent numerous requests to law enforcement agencies to conduct investigative actions on the behalf of N.

In July 2020, N. was released from the State Institution “Kharkiv Pre-trial detention centre”, where he was being held as a part of security measures after numerous statements and requests from the attorney, due to expiration of the sentence term.

In the second half of 2020, the attorney also sent a request for re-interrogation of N. as a victim (to be held in attorney’s presence) and for other procedural actions. However, none of mentioned above was conducted.

In 2021, the lawyer twice, in February and June, filed complaints with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine regarding the failure to conduct investigative actions with Mr. M-ko, but no investigative actions were carried out.

M. case

The convicted Mr. M. was serving his sentence in OVK-25, during which time he was tortured and ill-treated several times.

In September 2017, after that, Mr. M. was hit by one of the employees of the colony. On this occasion, Mr. M. went on a hunger strike, for which he was placed in a separate room and tortured. His arms and legs were twisted, he was beaten, and strangled with a wet rag, during which he lost consciousness several times. After another refusal of the convict to stop complaining to the administration, a rubber truncheon was inserted into his anus and internal injuries were inflicted. One of the convicts from among the so-called "assistants to the administration" exposed his genitals and said that he would now defecate in the face of Mr. M, after which he, fearing to become "humiliated", withdrew his complaints. The entire process was filmed by the colony’s staff, threatening to spread it over the Internet.

On March 8, 2020, at approximately 4:30, people in bulletproof vests, helmets and masks broke into the sleeping lodgment of their unit, woke up all the convicts and ordered them to lie face down on a pillow with their arms crossed behind their heads. In this position they were forced to lie for about 5 hours. After breakfast, the convicts were searched one by one, and during the search one fighter from the special unit hit Mr. M. on the knee joint, from which in Mr. M. a hematoma was formed, and later a seal remained.

Since then Mr. M. he was periodically taken to the operative unit of the institution, where he was threatened that he would be prosecuted for disrupting the work of the colony for complaining about the administration, and other convicts to write statements about actions of Mr. M., which he did not actually commit.

In mid-February 2020 the applicant tried to complain about such pressure from the administration of the colony to the supervision prosecutor during the latter’s visit to OVK-25, for which he and other convicts booked a personal reception at the institution’s administration building. But the staff of the colony did not allow him to enter the room where the reception took place.

The prosecutor promised to visit the institution again in a few days and asked to prepare written complaints for him, which he should pick up during the next visit. But the prosecutor did not come to the colony again, and Mr. M., who continued to be pressured for his complaints, to be taken out of OVK-25, inflicted self-harm by piercing the wall of his abdomen with an awl. He was rushed to hospital, where he underwent surgery. The SLC’s lawyer tried to get to Mr. M. in the hospital twice, but he was not allowed by the guards. Four days later Mr. M. was taken to the prison hospital at the Temnovska Correctional Colony №100, where he was met by a lawyer.

On behalf of the applicant, the lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the SBI, but the police refused to open an investigation. Only after filing a complaint with the investigating judge, the SBI entered the information into the URPTI.

On October 1, 2020, the investigator questioned Mr. M. as a victim in the criminal proceedings, during which the applicant reported all the details of both the events of the use of special forces on January 8, 2020 and the applicant’s torture in 2017.

After Mr. M.’s interrogation, his lawyer requested an investigative experiment to be carried out with Mr. M. as a victim, as well as that his forensic examination be carried out.

The lawyer also re-filed a request for a number of investigative actions, this request was granted, but has not been fulfilled so far.

In 2021, the lawyer twice, in February and June, filed complaints with the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine regarding the failure to conduct investigative actions with Mr. M., but no investigative actions were carried out.

Z. case

Mr. Z has been serving his sentence in Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony № 25 since October 2020. From the moment he arrived at the institution, he was subjected to illegal means of physical influence because he refused to clean as he considered it humiliating. He was initially placed in a disciplinary cell for a disciplinary offense, where he remained for almost a month and a half. One day in late November 2019, Mr. Z was taken out of cell № 1 and dragged to the headquarters, where two men began beating him severely, put a bag on his head to block oxygen, wrapped him in duct tape and left him lying for several hours. After that, Mr. Z was released from the disciplinary isolator and allowed to stay in the residential area of the institution and work.

On 3 January 2020, Mr. Z wrote a statement alleging a criminal offense against him. At present, this statement is attached to the previously opened criminal proceedings.

On 16 January 2020, Mr. Z’s lawyer wrote a request to conduct all investigative actions with her client only in the presence of a lawyer. On 4 February 2020, the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Poltava granted this request.

On 21 January 2020, the SLC lawyer had a confidential meeting with Mr. Z., during which he wrote a more detailed statement about the commission of a criminal offense and provided other details about the events in the institution.

In addition, the SLC lawyer sent a request to the State Bureau of Investigation to get acquainted with the materials of the criminal proceedings. Such a request was granted on 28 January 2020, but during the review the lawyer found that no materials on the commission of a criminal offense against Mr. Z were collected.

On 5 Februart 2020, the SLC lawyer sent a request to the General Prosecutor’s Office and the State Bureau of Investigation for the application of security measures to Mr. Z. A response to this request has not yet been received.

On 25 February 2020, during a monitoring visit to the penitentiary institution, the SLC lawyer spoke again with Mr. Z. and also took a photo of Mr. Z.’s injuries.

During April-May 2020, Mr. Z was subjected to constant psychological pressure and disciplinary action. The lawyer repeatedly appealed to the Oleksiyivka Correctional Colony for information on such penalties, and also informed the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation about the pressure on her client

In June 2020, the lawyer recognized that Mr. Z. had refused from her legal aid due to constant pressure. Therefore, the interrogation of Mr. Z. took place without the participation of a lawyer. However, later, in November 2020, Mr. Z. contacted a lawyer again. He said that he had been taken to the Vilnyansk Correctional Colony №20 for a psychological examination. He assured that he was in good state today and asked the lawyer to represent him again. Mr. Z. wrote a statement to the SBI that he had refused the lawyer under pressure from the colony administration and sent such a statement to the SBI.

In February 2021, the lawyer organized several confidential meetings between Z. and the UN mission in Ukraine. After such meetings, as well as after the meeting with the People’s Deputy of Ukraine, the investigation in his case suddenly intensified. Z. was interrogated and security measures were applied to him.

1 case on human trafficking

Ya. case

Mr. Ya., born in 1991, is the only son and breadwinner of an elderly mother who is often ill. Ya’s older brother and father died. After receiving incomplete secondary education at a secondary school, he studied at the Okhtyrka Sumy National Agricultural University at the Faculty of Business Economics. After graduation, he continued his studies (by distance learning) at the place of residence in the Okhtyrka branch of Sumy State University, at the same time he was studing at the vocational school № 7 in the specialty "car mechanic-driver". He worked at the Kachanivsky GPZ "Public Joint Stock Company Ukrnafta" as a pump driver of a technical installation and a technical operator for the production of propane. In 2013 he graduated from Sumy State University, however, he did not work in the field of his specialization. Mr. Ya. is married, has a son.

In 2015, he went to work in the Russian Federation and was fraudulently recruited for work related to the distribution of drugs. During the investigation, Mr. Ya. did not want to plead guilty to the crime, so he was tortured. On April 12, 2016, he was sentenced by the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Ryazan (Russian Federation) to 9 years in prison under Article 30 § 3 "G" paragraph 4 of Article 228 of the Criminal Code paragraph 4 "g" (without the condition of non-application of pardon).

The substance which was allegedly traded by Mr. Ya. (was a delivery courier), is not in the list of narcotic and psychotropic drugs of the State Service of Ukraine for Medicines and Drug Control.

On August 23, 2018, the Okhtyrka interdistrict court of Sumy region brought his sentence in line with Ukrainian law and sentenced him to 9 years in prison without confiscation of property under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In Ukraine, based on the decision of the Ministry of Social Policy of March 21, 2018, he was recognized as a victim of human trafficking, and on February 18, 2020, it was extended until March 21, 2021.

At the same time Mr. Ya. was recognized as a victim in the criminal proceedings № 12016250000000100 under Article 149 item 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which was opened in the investigative department of the National Police of the city of Kyiv on March 25, 2016.

On May 25, 2020, the case-file on suspicion of four recruiters of people working in Russia were allocated to a separate criminal case № 12020100000000479, after which an indictment was drawn up, which was received on June 3, 2020 in Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv. In court, the materials of this proceeding were combined with criminal proceedings on charges of the same persons for committing other episodes of human trafficking, which is being considered by the court since July 1, 2017.

The trial in this case had being gone on for almost four years, as there are a large number of victims and defendants in the case.

On November 26, 2020, a next court hearing was scheduled.

The lawyer of the SLC wrote a petition for pardon to the President of Ukraine, but there is no information on the procedure and time of consideration of the petition.

On March 16, 2021, the lawyer, at the suggestion of the client’s mother, prepared a statement of refusal of legal services. Ya. was informed of the decision.

5 cases related to the LGBTQI+ community

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 attack 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 interrogation of victim and witnesses had been conducted.

13.03.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

18.06.2020 writing a request to the investigator to conduct investigative actions.

In the second half of 2020, petitions for procedural actions and re-qualification of criminal proceedings under Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine were filed.

The investigator do not respond to the request, so a complaint to the investigating judge concerning the investigator’s inaction is being prepared.

On 14 April 2021 the lawyer sent a motion on conduction of procedural acitons.

I. case

On May 28, 2020, I. applied to the SLC lawyer for legal assistance. During the first meeting, he stated that he identified himself as a woman with the name A.

A. said that she was the victim of an attack by three men who inflicted bodily injuries on her based on her gender identity.

On the same day, SLC’s lawyer and A. took part in her interrogation as a victim.

On June 11, 2020, the lawyer sent a lawyer’s request to the City Clinical Hospital № 30 in Kharkiv regarding A.’s treatment and state of health.

On June 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions to the Kyiv ID of the GDNP in the Kharkiv region.

On August 5, 2020 and October 16, 2020 the attorney sent motions to the investigator for procedural actions and re-qualification. The motions were granted, however, no action was taken for a long time. On November 2, 2020, the attorney sent a complaint about the inactivity of the investigator to the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights and to the Kharkiv Local Prosecutor’s Office №2.

On December 23, 2020, the attorney participated in the re-interrogation of A. (as A.’s attorney).

On 04.02.2021, 14.04.2021, 12.05.2021 the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions.

On May 28, 2021, the lawyer filed a complaint against the investigator’s inaction, which was satisfied by the court on June 30, 2021.

Sh. case

In May 2019 Ms. Sh. turned to SLC asking to provide legal assistance. She reported that on she became a victim of an attack 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 investigator has not appointed yet.

On January 9, 2020, a complaint was filed against the inaction of responsible persons, which consisted in not appointing a new investigator in the criminal proceedings to the head of the Shevchenkivskyi Police Department in Kharkiv of the GDNP in Kharkiv Oblast.

On February 24, 2020, a lawyer’s request was submitted to the head of the Shevchenkivskyi ID of the city of Kharkiv in the Kharkiv region regarding the stage of the pre-trial investigation.

12.03.2020 sending an application for recognition of Sha-oi as a victim.

14.05.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

18.06.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

On October 16, 2020, the lawyer filed a request for procedural actions with the investigator, to which she did not receive any response.

On October 30, 2020, the lawyer filed complaints about the inaction and delay of the pre-trial investigation by the responsible persons of the Shevchenkivsky ID of the GDNP in the Kharkiv region to the Kharkiv local prosecutor’s office 1 and to the Ombudsman.

On November 2, 2020, the lawyer filed another request for procedural actions with the investigator, to which she did not receive any response.

On November 17, 2020, the lawyer appealed to the investigating judge with a complaint about the investigator’s inaction.

On February 22, 2021 and May 10, 2021, the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions to the investigator.

Sh. case

On 22 May 2019 Mr. S. 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 interrogation of Mr. Sh had been conducted with a presence of a SLC attorney.

13.03.2020 writing a petition for investigative actions to the investigator.

15.05.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

18.06.2020 writing a petition for procedural actions to the investigator.

On November 2, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion for procedural actions with the investigator.

On December 7, 2020, the lawyer filed a motion for procedural actions with the investigator.

On December 23, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court concerning the investigator’s inaction. The court hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2021.

On January 14, 2021, the court granted the lawyer’s complaint about the investigator’s inaction and his obligation to respond to the lawyer’s request.

On April 14, 2021, the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions.

T. case

On May 28, 2021, Mr. T. asked a lawyer for legal aid and reported that on May 3, 2021, at about 8:30 pm, on the eighth floor of one of the buildings in the town of Toretsk, Donetsk Oblast, police officers abused and injured him. As a result, T. received the following injuries: neuritis of the right arm, as a result of which the arm did not perform its functions, multiple bruises on the arms, legs on the neck, and other injuries.

When T. told them that he is a member of the LGBT community, he was beaten even harder, sat on his shoulders, and policemen began to twist his arms, while T. was lying face down on the floor. He lost consciousness from pain two or three times.

As a result, Mr. T. was treated for almost a month at the Central City Hospital in Toretsk.

But due to threats and harassment of police officers, he was forced to move to the city of Kharkiv.

On June 1, 2021, the lawyer again sent Mr. T.’s statement about the crime to the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation, located in Kramatorsk.

21 other cases

D. case

In February 2019 Mr. D submitted before the Petrikivskyy district court in Kirovograd region a motion on enrollment of the term of preliminary detention to the term of his sentence.

On 22 March 2019 his motion was granted by the court, the decision has not been appealed by prosecution and if so it should have come in force on 29 March 2019 and the term of Mr.D’s punishment should have been ended on 8 April 2019. However Mr.D was not released.

On 27 March 2019 Mr.D asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

On 10 April 2019 the SLC lawyer made a request to the head of correctional colony and asked to release Mr.D because the term of his sentence had ended on 8 April 2019.

On 15 April 2019 the SLC lawyer sent a complaint to the Petrivskyy district court on illegal detention of Mr.D.

On 22 April 2019 Mr.D was released.

On July 22, 2019, the SLC lawyer lodged an application to the ECtHR in favor of Mr. Ye. with a complaint under  Article 5 of the Convention.

In January 2021, the case was communicated with the Government of Ukraine.

D. case

In December 2020, the lawyer was asked for legal assitance by Mr. D, who said that in 2017, his health was damaged by a criminal offense. So, in 2017, he got a job in production, where he had a conflict with one of the employees. In the middle of the working day, this employee hit D. in the eye. For several months, doctors promised to restore his sight, but later it became clear that his sight was lost forever. At the same time, the crime committed against D. was classified as light bodily harm. In addition, at the beginning of the pre-trial investigation, D. provided the investigation with all the necessary information about the guilty person and witnesses, but the witnesses refused to tell the truth, and the guilty person has not yet been brought to justice. Thus, the case has been under pre-trial investigation for almost four years.

In January 2021, the lawyer took part in court hearings in the Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv regarding the failure to respond to the victim’s motion. The complaint was filed with the investigating judge by a previous lawyer. During the trial, it was established that neither the previous lawyer nor the victim had a copy of the motion for investigative actions, the absence of a response to which is being challenged. Therefore, the court was asked to re-apply to the investigator.

In April 2021, the lawyer asked the investigator to conduct a number of investigative (search) actions, including the interrogation of witnesses. However, she did not receive an answer to her request.

On April 21, 2021, the lawyer appealed against the investigator’s inaction to the Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv.

The court hearing in the case is scheduled for July 13, 2021.

I. case

On 6 January 2005 Mr I. was sentenced by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. Since January 6, 2006, Mr. I. has been serving a life sentence in the state institution “Zamkova Correctional Colony (№ 58)”.

Since 2008, the cells in which Mr. I. is serving his sentence have been under constant surveillance by colony staff, including female staff. In the cells where Mr. I. was being held, a video surveillance camera was installed above the door, at ceiling level, so that almost the entire cell was clearly visible, including the bed. Video surveillance of cameras is carried out around the clock. In addition, Mr. I. is forced to change clothes and change his underwear under constant video surveillance.

In November 2020, Mr. I asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

In December 2020, the SLC lawyer sent to the Central-Western Interregional Department for the Execution of Criminal Punishments a request about the number of women in the Zamkova facility who have access to view the video recordings installed in Mr. I.’s cell.

The SLC lawyer received a response to a request stating that the access had 4 women.

On January 26, 2021, the SLC lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit with the District Administrative Court of Kyiv to declare illegal and invalid a separate provision of the Procedure for the use of technical means of supervision and control in correctional facilities which allows the systematic use of video surveillance in residential premises without proper justification.

SLC’s lawyer was notified of the court’s lawsuit, but has not yet received a response from the court. The lawyer repeatedly applied to the court for information on the outcome of the lawsuit, to which he also did not receive any response.

In the absence of a court response, the lawyer plans to apply to the ECtHR.

The case is pending.

I. case

On February 3, 2021, I-kov went to the supermarket to buy groceries. In the supermarket, he accidentally hit the product stand with his shoulder, as a result of which the latter fell to the ground and the goods fell apart. At the same moment, a security guard attacked I-kov. He, together with the cashier, knocked I-kova to the floor and started beating him hard on the body. The hood from his jacket was also pulled over his head, preventing him from breathing. He asked to be allowed to rise, but the guard refused and started insulting i-kov on national grounds (I-kov is a Jew). After that, about forty minutes later, a private security guard arrived at the store, who also started beating I-kov. Only after the police arrived at the scene did the beating end, and I-kov was allowed to sit down.

In the following days, I-kov turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. The lawyer made a statement about the commission of a criminal offense against the employee of the store.

The statement was entered into the unified register of pre-trial investigations, and I-kov was interrogated as a victim.

After that, the circumstances of the crime were also reproduced.

Investigators also tried to obtain footage from the store’s video cameras, but the supermarket’s management said that video surveillance did not work on the day of the incident.

Also, on May 5, 2021, i-kov received a report that the court was considering the issue of committing an administrative offense, which consisted of petty hooliganism. Arriving at the court, I-kov and the lawyer learned that the petty hooliganism consisted in the overthrow of the stand with products in the supermarket, which greatly outraged both the lawyer and the client. In addition, the materials of the proceedings did not contain the necessary evidence, were drawn up formally and sloppily. The Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv, after hearing the position of the defense, returned the materials of this case to the police for revision.

Both cases are pending.

K. case

K. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He noted that he had previously been convicted in Russia for alleged drug trafficking. Although, in fact, K. was completed to work in a Russian courier and does not know what he was carrying. Kh-Stenko was later transferred to the Holodnohirska Correctional Colony, where he was sentenced.

However, being in Russia, K. became a deeply religious man. In particular, he could pray for more than an hour a day, which of course did not approve by the administrations of the penal colony. As a result, disciplinary sanctions began to be widely applied to the K., and later criminal proceedings were opened on the fact of malicious disobedience of the administration of the penitentiary institution. K. was convicted of this crime.

Unfortunately, he turned to a lawyer after the consideration of all instances in this accusation. However, the lawyer was concerned about the mental state of K., and she expanded the administration’s action as a review of religious freedom. She submitted a corresponding appeal to the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine and the State Bureau of Investigation.

Consideration of the case continues.

K. 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.

In 2020, court hearings were repeatedly postponed due to various circumstances, including the absence of witnesses and the employment of judges in other trials.

At the request of the SLC lawyer, the court changed the procedure for examining the evidence and decided to examine 54 witnesses who had been questioned during the pre-trial investigation.

Since the beginning of 2021, the court has scheduled 13 court hearings, 6 of which did not involve a prosecutor or a victim.

The prosecutor was replaced, and the new prosecutor asked the court to give him time to review the materials of the criminal proceedings.

During the time provided to the prosecutor for acquaintance with the criminal proceedings, the defense and the accused, there was also a partial acquaintance with the materials, in order to identify possible "new evidence" from the prosecution because the court proposed to change the procedure for examining evidence from the examination of witnesses who do not appear in court to the examination of written evidence.

From the end of April 2021, the prosecutor do not appear in court.

K. case

On April 2, 2004, Mr. K. was sentenced by the Chernihiv Regional Court to life imprisonment. Since September 2, 2005, Mr. K. has been serving a life sentence in the state institution “Zamkova Correctional Colony (№ 58)”.

Since 2008, the cells in which Mr K. is serving his sentence have been under constant surveillance by colony staff, including female staff. In the cells where Mr. K. was being held, a video surveillance camera was installed above the door, at ceiling level, so that almost the entire cell was clearly visible, including the bed. Video surveillance of cameras is carried out around the clock. In addition, Mr. K. is forced to change his clothes and change his underwear under constant video surveillance.

In December 2020, Mr. K. Asked the SLC lawyer for legal aid.

In December 2020, the SLC lawyer sent to the Central-Western Interregional Department for the Execution of Criminal Punishments a request about the number of women in the Zamkova Colony who have access to view video recordings installed in Mr. K.’s cell.

The SLC lawyer received a response to a request stating that the access had 4 women.

On February 26, 2021, the SLC lawyer filed an administrative lawsuit with the District Administrative Court of Kyiv to declare illegal and invalid a separate provision of the Procedure for the use of technical means of supervision and control in correctional facility, which allows systematic use of video surveillance in residential premises without proper justification.

On March 9, 2021, the District Administrative Court of Kyiv left the statement of claim without movement and proposed to file an application for renewal of the term of appeal to the court to protect his rights.

On March 22, 2021, the lawyer received the decision from the court and filed an application to renew the term of appeal to the court to protect his rights. In response, the lawyer has not yet received anything. The lawyer repeatedly appealed to the court to provide information on the outcome of the application, to which he also did not receive any response.

In the absence of a court response, the lawyer plans to apply to the ECtHR.

The case is pending.

K. case

In December 2020, K. applied to a lawyer. He claimed that he was accused of committing murder, which he did not commit. He also noted that the investigation had no evidence of his involvement in the crime. In particular, on the day of the victim’s death, K. did have a conflict with him due to the theft of K.’s mobile phone, but this conflict occurred during the day and the murder was committed in the evening. In addition, K. name has an alibi at the time of the crime.

The lawyer familiaraized with the materials of the criminal proceedings and prepared written explanations on the merits of the case.

The hearing in the appellate court was scheduled for June 13, 2021, but did not take place due to the judge’s vacation. The date of the next court hearing is unknown.

K. case

On August 5, 2020, at about 9 a.m., two unknown men, who introduced themselves as police officers, tried to obtain an explanation from Mr. K. and provided him with a paper to do so. Mr. K. refused to give an explanation because the men did not show their IDs. Then these men attacked K. and began to use physical force, began to twist his arms, press their knees on his arms and neck, tighten the handcuffs and pull him to the car. During these actions, the police officers were visited by their chief, however, who did not find any illegal actions on the part of his subordinates.

Mr. K. was found a suspect in criminal proceedings for robbery.

Mr. K. appealed to the SLC for legal assistance.

On August 12, 2020, a lawyer from the SLC filed a complaint with the Territorial Department of the State Bureau of Investigation located in Poltava alleging that policemen had committed a crime against K., however the entering of complaint in the URPTI was denied and it was transferred to the Department of Internal Safety in Kharkiv region, where it is under consideration to date. No investigative action has been taken on Mr. K.’s statement so far.

On August 26, 2020, the court remanded Mr. K. in custody and ordered the prosecutor in charge of the case to verify the Mr. K. ‘s statement about the use of illegal methods by police officers. However, the prosecutor did not carry out any inspections.

From August 26, 2020, till now Mr. K. is still under arrest. During his detention, it was not interrogated any prosecution witness and any court meetings did not hold. The lawyer asked to contact supervision.

However, the prosecutor of the Khakiv prosecutors’ local office # 2 which provides procedural guidance on the prosecution, it had carried out any inspection.

The case is still pending

L. case

Mr. L. asked his lawyer for legal assistance. He noted that he was being held in the Kharkiv detention center. He has been illegally disciplined twice in the past few weeks. In particular, he was accused of illegally preparing alcoholic beverages (brewing) in a prison cell. In fact, the brew was prepared by another convict who confessed to doing so. However, disciplinary action was taken against L.

The lawyer sent a request to the Kharkiv detention center regarding the imposed fines. There is still no response to the request.

Consideration of the case continues

M. case

The Kharkiv Human Rights Group received a statement from Mr. M., who is serving his sentence in the Oleksiyivska Correctional Colony № 25, about a criminal offense committed against him on March 4, 2021.

In this regard, on April 1, 2021, the lawyer sent a copy of the statement on the committed criminal offense to M. dated March 19, 2021

On June 30, 2021, the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions in the framework of criminal proceedings on the fact of excess of power or official authority to the State Bureau of Investigation, located in the city of Poltava.

N. case

Ms. N., who is accused of fraud, asked the SLC lawer for legal assistance. Ms. N. reported that on 21 January 2020, the Dvorichansky District Court of the Kharkiv Region sentenced her to three years imprisonment with probation period of a maximum term of 3 years.

However, on 10 March 2020, the Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkiv region filed an appeal requesting that N. must be sent to a penitentiary institution to serve her sentence, as she had committed the crime again.

Ms. N. in her turn stated that she had four children and that her youngest daughter has encephalitis. The children do not have a father.

In view of these circumstances, on 24 June 2020, the SLC lawyer familiarized with the case-files of the criminal proceedings against N. and prepared written objections.

On 30 June, 2020, the court hearing in the Kharkiv Court of Appeal did not take place due to the fact that the judge was on leave.

On 15 December 2020 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor’s appeal and sent N. to serve his sentence in a correctional colony. However, the lawyer did not agree with the decision and is preparing a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

On April 25, 2021, the Supreme Court opened proceedings on the lawyer’s cassation appeal. The trial is scheduled for October 13, 2021.

P. case

On March 26, 2003, P. was sentenced by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. On September 30, 2003, P. was serving a life sentence in the Dniprovska Correctional Colony (№ 89).

Since 2003, the cells in which P. served his sentence in the Dniprovska correctional colony have been and are under constant surveillance by the colony’s staff, including female staff.

In the cells where P. was being held, a video surveillance camera was installed above the door, at ceiling level, so that almost the entire cell was clearly visible, including the bed. Video surveillance of the cameras is carried out around the clock, which in itself is an interference with P.’s right to respect for my private life. In addition, P. is forced to change clothes and change his underwear under constant video surveillance.

In December 2021, Sh. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

In February 2021, the lawyer of the SLC applied to the South-Eastern Interregional Department for the Execution of Criminal Punishments of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine with a request about the number of women in the Dniprovska correctional colony who have access to video recordings installed in cell Sh.

SLC’s lawyer received a response to a request stating 3 women have the access.

On April 1, 2021, the lawyer of SLC filed an administrative lawsuit with the District Administrative Court of Kyiv to declare illegal and invalid a separate provision of the Procedure for the use of technical means of supervision and control in correctional colonies for minors and correctional colonies, which allows systematic use of video surveillance in residential premises without proper justification.

On April 21, 2021, the court accepted the statement of claim for consideration and opened proceedings in the case.

On June 30, 2021, the court held a preparatory hearing and assigned the case for consideration on the merits.

The case continues.

P. 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 2019, informing that they were sent to the Shevchenko police department, in connection with the lawyer’s request for missing criminal proceedings.

After that, the lawyer of the SLC sent a request to the investigator to conduct forensic handwriting examinations, which the investigator refused to do.

Upon careful reading of the expert’s opinion (forensic medical examination), it became clear that his text contained information about the experts’ study of the medical history not of the victim’s deceased son, but of another elderly woman. These circumstances indicated that none of the experts took part in drawing up this opinion, and therefore, this document contains signs of official forgery. On these grounds, the victim Mr. P. filed a criminal complaint on the forgery of the forensic medical expertise with the police. As no action was taken on this complaint, the lawyer filed an appeal against the inaction of the investigative bodies to the investigating judge of the Leninsky district of Kharkiv.

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

At the same time, the SLC lawyer filed a motion for conducting the forensic examination in another expert institution, which was granted by the investigator. So far, the materials of the proceedings have not been sent to experts.

In January 2020, the lawyer addressed on a personal reception to the head of the investigative department of the Kholodnohirsky police department regarding the investigation into the allegation of official forgery by experts, but no investigative actions were carried out. After that, the lawyer twice applied to the investigator of this police department with a motion to include in the materials of the Kholodnohirsk police department part of the materials of the “main” investigation of the Shevchenkivsky police department, but did not receive a response. After the investigator did not respond to the repeated motion, the lawyer appealed to the Leninsky Court in Kharkiv against the investigator’s inactivity.

In 2020, the investigator carrying out the investigation in the "main" criminal proceedings stopped responding to the lawyer’s requests about the state of affairs in the investigation. In November 2020, the lawyer complained about the inactivity of the investigator.

After the lawyer applied to the court, the investigator provided the court with information that the materials of the pre-trial investigation had been sent to Kyiv for conducting the forensic examination. The investigator also said that the materials of the pre-trial investigation at the request of the victim for official forgery of experts had been previously sent to belong to the inquiry sector of the Shevchenko police department.

After that, in March 2021, the lawyer appealed to the inquiry department of the Shevchenkivskyi district police department, and did not receive a response to it – with a complaint about the inactivity of the investigator (inquirer) to the Shevchenkivskyi district court of Kharkiv.

In April 2021, the court issued a ruling ordering the inquiry body to consider and respond to the merits of the lawyer’s request, but no further investigative action was taken. In June 2021, the lawyer sent a request to the Investigation Department regarding the state of affairs with the investigation, but did not receive a response.

R. case

R. lives in MI "Zmiiv geriatric boarding house" due to congenital mental disorders – F70.

On May 21, 2020, R. turned to the SLC for help because he had been injured in the boarding house, the son of a saleswoman who was carrying out the outbound trade in the boarding house, and the staff of the boarding house did not take any legal action.

On May 22, 2020, the lawyer of the SLC went to the town of Zmiiv, where an examination of R.’s health was conducted and a request was made for procedural actions in criminal proceedings on the fact of inflicting bodily injuries on R.

On May 27, 2020, the lawyer participated in the interrogation of R. as a victim.

On June 5, 2020, an investigative experiment was conducted in R.’s room at the boarding house where he was injured.

On June 18, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for investigative actions.

On July 15, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for investigative actions.

On the same day, she sent letters to the Department of Social Protection and to the Zmiiv Geriatric Сare Home, requesting that R.’s application for the latter’s transfer to the Khoroshevsky Geriatric Сare Home be granted, as the latter complained of deteriorating treatment of the Zmiiv Сare Home staff. In response, formal replies were received.

On August 11, 2020, the lawyer sent another request for procedural actions and a complaint to the Chuhuiv local prosecutor’s office for the inaction of the investigator and the delay of the trial. The prosecutor’s office said that the investigator had changed to an investigator and the pre-trial investigation was ongoing.

 On November 2, 2020, the lawyer sent a request for investigative actions.

 On November 16, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint to the court against the investigator’s inaction. On November 20, 2020, the complaint was satisfied.

On February 10, 2021 and April 14, 2021, the lawyer sent a request for procedural actions, to which she did not receive any response.

S. case

Mrs. S. is a 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.

On January 17, 2020, a preliminary court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor’s business trip. The next court hearing was scheduled for February 12, 2020.

On February 12, 2020, the preliminary court hearing took place. The case was scheduled for consideration on March 18, 2020.

On March 18, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the employment of a judge. The next court hearing was scheduled for April 29, 2020.

On April 29, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the epidemic. The next court hearing was scheduled for June 12, 2020.

On June 12, 2020, the prosecutor announced the indictment, interrogated the accused and the victim’s representative. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 29, 2020.

On July 27, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the defendant’s hospitalization. The next court hearing is scheduled for October 12, 2020.

On October 12, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor’s business trip. The next court hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2020.

On November 16, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the employment of a judge. The next court hearing is scheduled for December 21, 2020.

On December 21, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses and the accused. The next court hearing is scheduled for February 3, 2021.

On February 03, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of the prosecution witness and victim’s representative.  The next court hearing is scheduled for February 16, 2021.

On February 16, 2021, the witness was interrogated at the court hearing.  The prosecutor submitted a motion on conducting additional investigative actions according to the article 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.  The court refused the prosecutor’s motion.   The case was scheduled for consideration on March 26, 2021.

On March 26, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the prosecutor’s application.  The next court hearing is scheduled for April 26, 2021.

On April 26, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge stayed in the deliberation room. The case was scheduled for consideration on June 03, 2021.

On June 03, 2021, during the court hearing the prosecutor submitted four motions on temporary access to things and documents according to the article 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court refused the prosecutor’s motions. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 09, 2021.

The case is still pending.

S. 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.

On March 4, 2020, the case was postponed due to the judge’s stay in the deliberation room. The next meeting was scheduled for March 31, 2020.

On March 31, 2020, the case was postponed due to the epidemic. The next meeting was scheduled for May 26, 2020.

On May 26, 2020, the trial was postponed due to the statement of the defendant’s defence counsel to adjourn the case. The next hearing is scheduled for July 3, 2020.

The court hearing is scheduled for March 17, 2021.

On March 17, 2021, the case was postponed due to the judge’s illness. The next meeting is scheduled for June 7, 2021.

On June 7, 2021, the consideration of the case was postponed due to the judge’s stay in the deliberation room. The next hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2021.

The case continues.

Sh. case

On 15 April 2002 Sh. was sentenced by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal to life imprisonment. Since 2003, Sh. has been serving a life sentence in the Dniprovska Correctional Colony (№ 89). ”

Since 2003, the cells in which Sh. was serving his sentence in the Dniprovska Correctional Colony (№ 89) have been and are under constant surveillance by the colony’s staff, including female staff. In the cells where Sh. was being held, a video surveillance camera was installed above the door, at ceiling level, so that almost the entire cell was clearly visible, including the bed. Video surveillance of cameras is carried out around the clock. In addition, Sh. is forced to change his clothes and change his underwear under constant video surveillance.

In December 2021, Sh. applied to the SLC for legal assistance.

In February 2021, the lawyer of the SLC applied the South-Eastern Interregional Department for the Execution of Criminal Punishments of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine with a request about the number of women in the Dniprovska Correctional Colony (№ 89) who have access to video recordings installed in cell of the Sh.

SLC’s lawyer received a response to a request stating that 3 women have the access.

On March 23, 2021, the lawyer of SLC filed an administrative lawsuit with the District Administrative Court of Kyiv to declare illegal and invalid a separate provision of the Procedure for the use of technical means of supervision and control in correctional colonies and correctional colonies for minors, which allows systematic use of video surveillance in residential premises without proper justification.

On April 9, 2021, the court accepted the statement of claim for consideration, opened proceedings in the case on May 12, 2021.

On May 12, 2021, the court postponed the preparatory hearing to June 16, 2021.

On June 16, 2021, the court postponed the preparatory hearing to July 7, 2021.

The case continues.

T. case

Mr. T., a resident of the city of Izuym in Kharkiv region has been serving a sentence in SI “Oleksiivska correctional colony №25”.

On January 10, 2020, TD SBI in the city of Poltava entered criminal proceedings on fact of exceeding the powers by officials of SI “Oleksiivska correctional colony №25”.

On January 27, 2020, the SLC lawyer was provided to Mr. T. on his application.

On January 27, 2020 the lawyer was informed about the facts of forcing T. and other convicts to work without registration of labour relations and remuneration, and also submitted a statement in this regard to the TD SBI in Poltava during a meeting with Tuytuyn D. L.

The lawyer filed a motion with the TD SBI in Poltava to enter information on T.’s application into the URPTI and to conduct a pre-trial investigation on the preliminary qualification of a criminal offense under Part 2 of Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, interrogation of the victim T. with the participation of a lawyer, application of appropriate security measures to the victim T., providing the lawyer with the opportunity to familiarize with the case-file of the pre-trial investigation, to inform about the time and place for such familiarizing.

Without receiving notification on the results of the motion or a decision to deny the motion, the lawyer addressed an attorney’s request to the Director of the SBI in Poltava regarding the results of the motion. After that, on March 2, 2020, a notification was received about the refusal to enter information on T.’s application to the URPTI, which was motivated by the fact that investigators of the TD SBI in Poltava have been caring out a pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings from 11.01.2020 on the grounds of criminal Part 2 of Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

An extract from the ERDR was not attached to the report, so it is not known whether T. is a victim in the specified criminal proceedings. In addition, T. had not even been questioned as a victim for two months.

On March 7, 2020, the lawyer filed a complaint against the refusal to enter data to the URPTI to the investigating judge.

By the decision of the investigating judge of the Oktyabrsky district court of Poltava from 12.03.2020 the complaint is left without consideration.

On March 30, 2020, an appeal was filed against the decision of the investigating judge. By the decision of the Poltava Court of Appeal of April 23, 2020, the appeal was dismissed.

On May 13, 2020, a request for a pre-trial investigation on the preliminary qualification of a criminal offense under Part 2 of Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, interrogation of the victim T. with the participation of a lawyer, application of appropriate security measures to the victim T., providing the lawyer with an opportunity to familiarize with the case-file of the pre-trial investigation had been sent.

10.06.2020р. notification was received that the motion was attached to the case-file of the criminal proceedings and verification of the facts during the pre-trial investigation.

A third motion has been prepared to the TD SBIin Poltava, for information to be entered into the URPTI and a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkiv region.

On November 5, 2020, T. was interrogated as a victim.

A request for investigative actions has been prepared.

On June 22, 2021, an appellate hearing was held. By the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of April 27, 2021, the lawyer’s appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv of October 30, 2020 was left unchanged. The decision of the Kharkiv court of appeal is motivated by the fact that the dispute must be resolved in administrative proceedings in an administrative court.

It is planned to file a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court with a request to transfer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on the basis of Part 5 of Art. 434-1 of the CPC of Ukraine, as there are inconsistencies between the CPC of Ukraine and the Code of administrative proceedings regarding the jurisdiction of this category.

It is planned to file a complaint to the ECtHR under Art. 6 of the Convention, as the discrepancy between domestic law deprives T. of the right to a fair trial.

U. 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 has seen Mr. U.’s multiple injuries and he refused to approve the investigator’s request and released Mr. U.

Four angry police officers broke into the Prosecutor’s Office, take out the spouse from the office of the Deputy District Prosecutor who questioned the spouse and brought them to the police station located nearby. On the way, one of the officers kicked Mr. U.

After the District Prosecutor having come to the station, the police officers pulled Mr. U. out from the station through the window. In course of the search of the station, Mrs. U. has been found I one of its rooms.

In course of criminal proceedings against Mr. U., the SLC lawyer many times challenged the unlawfulness of the police actions but the prosecutor’s offices and domestic courts did not pay much attention to that.

The Kharkiv Court of Appeal twice tried Mr. U.’s case and on 4 July 2012 found him guilty and sentenced him for 14 years imprisonment.

At the end of 2012 SLC lawyer lodged the complaint to the ECtHR on the violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

On 22 January 2013 the Higher Specialized Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment. After that the SLC lawyer appended the application before the ECtHR with the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention in the aspect of use by the national courts Mr. U.’s testimonies obtained by means of ill-treatment.

On June 18, 2015 the European court of human rights holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive land procedural limbs in respect of both Mr. and Mrs. U. and a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in respect of the Mr. U.

In October 2015 the CSL lawyer submitted a motion to the Supreme court of Ukraine to retrial the case because of declared violation of Article 6 of the Convention

On 22 December 2015 the Supreme court of Ukraine cancelled all previous decisions and sent the case to the trial court. At the same time the Supreme court of Ukraine has not considered a question of the preliminary measure, accordingly Mr. Us. has not been released from custody He was transferred to the Kharkiv detention 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 neighbour 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.

After that, the court hearings in late 2019 – early 2020 were not held, and later it was due to quarantine over the coronavirus epidemic.

On July 10, 2020, an investigator was interrogated, who began a pre-trial investigation into the case, including conducting an inspection of the scene, an investigative experiment, and ordering examinations. During interrogation, the former investigator, who is now a senior member of the Main Directorate of the Regional Police, found in his memory even small details of the events of 12 years ago, the circumstances of his investigative actions and testifying to suspects (at that time) defendants. The main thesis of his testimony was that his investigation was carried out in strict compliance with the norms of the CPC of Ukraine.

The court decided on a plan for further consideration of the case, granting the lawyer’s request to call experts. The hearing is due to continue at the end of August 2020.

After that, the court hearings in late 2019 – early 2020 were not held, and later it was due to quarantine over the coronavirus epidemic.

On July 10, 2020, an investigator was interrogated, who began a pre-trial investigation into the case, including conducting an inspection of the scene, an investigative experiment, and ordering examinations. During interrogation, the former investigator, who is now a senior member of the Main Directorate of the Regional Police, found in his memory even small details of the events of 12 years ago, the circumstances of his investigative actions and testifying to suspects (at that time) defendants. The main thesis of his testimony was that his investigation was carried out in strict compliance with the norms of the CPC of Ukraine.

The court decided on a plan for further consideration of the case, granting the lawyer’s request to call experts. The hearing is due to continue at the end of August 2020.

In the first half of 2021, 4 forensic experts were questioned in court.

The first of them in 2008 made a forensic report about the possibility of obtaining Mr.U. bodily injuries (scratches) while crawling through a window in the victim’s house. At the hearing, the expert could not explain on the basis of what special knowledge she made her conclusion, but simply referred to her many years of her own professional experience.

Another forensic expert, whose signature is in the report of the initial forensic examination, said that she was present during the examination by another expert, did in fact not participate in the examination, and the signatures in the conclusion of the examination were not made by her.

The third expert, who conducted the initial forensic examination, was unable to explain and show in the photos where the front and back ends of the cut wounds on the victim’s neck were, which caused the latter’s death. Thus, the expert was not able to substantiate scientifically the direction of the traumatic effort (from right to left or from left to right), which could answer the question of which hand inflicted these injuries.

In this regard, the lawyer requested an additional forensic examination to determine the direction of the traumatic effort in causing cuts to the neck, but the court denied the motion.

The last of the experts questioned in court, who took part in the commission forensic examination, which was intended to clarify, including the statute of limitations for the death of the victim, said that the initial forensic examination did not record all the necessary parameters, including the weight of the victim, which deprived him of the opportunity. more accurately establish the age of death.

Another two experts, who conducted the dactyloscopic examinations in the case no longer work in expert institutions, so the lawyer filed a motion for questioning at the court hearing as a specialist of another expert of the expert institution, but the court denied this motion.

The court also refused to demand the materials of the pre-trial investigation on the application of Mr. U. to torture by officers of the Frunzensky department of internal affairs.

The trial is completed on June 30, 2021, and a debate is scheduled for early September 2021.

V. case

Mr. V. Asked the SLC lawyer for legal assistance in the criminal proceedings. Mr. V. stated that he was accused of robbery, which he did not actually commit. In particular, he is accused of taking the victim’s phone and threatening her with a knife. In fact, he did not threaten the victim, and the phone was going to return to the victim. However, the trial court did not listen to his arguments and sentenced him to seven years in prison.

The lawyer prepared a position in the appellate court and written explanations, as she entered the case when the appeal was filed directly.

On November 17, 2020, the Kharkiv Court of Appeal overturned the verdict of the court of first instance and remanded the case for retrial.

The trial in the court of first instance was scheduled for January 21, February 25, March 15, March 25, June 16, 2021, but did not take place for various reasons. The last court hearing did not take place because the judge resigned and a new court was appointed

9 cases ended in success

A. case

Ms. A., 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 defence 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 filed an appeal against the court’s acquittal.

The SLC lawyer received and examined the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal and filed written objections.

During 2020, the trial was postponed several times. The next court hearing in the Court of Appeal is scheduled for July 1, 2020.

In another criminal case against Ms. A., on February 24, 2020, after numerous court hearings, the court acquitted Mr. A.

The prosecutor filed an appeal against the court’s acquittal.

The SLC lawyer received and examined the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal and filed written objections.

2 court hearings were held. The next court hearing in the Court of Appeal was scheduled for 13.08.2020.

18.08.2020 by a decision of the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal, the acquittal was overturned and the proceedings were remanded for a new trial.

Due to the obvious illegality of such a decision (absence of grounds provided by law) and the lack of legislative control over the possibility of appealing such a decision a statement was made to clarify the court decision, and a cassation appeal was filed. The explanation of the court decision was denied, as well as the opening of cassation proceedings.

Due to the presence of the High Council of Justice decision in a similar situation with regard to the judges of the Sumy oblast panel of judges, the issue of sending a complaint to the High Council of Justice is being agreed upon.

However, the proceedings were transferred for a new trial to the Samara District Court of Dnipro, where 3 court hearings have already taken place. The next court hearing is scheduled for January 25, 2020.

The proceedings were remanded to the Samara District Court of Dnipro.

SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the High Council of Justice.

Consideration of the case has not yet begun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 10.07.18, 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.

On February 4, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s stay in the deliberation room. The next court hearing was scheduled for March 10, 2020.

On March 10, 2020, the accused was interrogated at the court hearing and the court investigation was ended. The next court hearing was scheduled for April 15, 2020.

On April 15, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the epidemic. The next court hearing was scheduled for May 18, 2020.

On May 18, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the hospitalization of the accused. The next court hearing was scheduled for June 12, 2020.

On June 12, 2020, the court hearing was postponed due to the judge’s employment. The next court hearing is scheduled for July 27, 2020.

On July 27, 2020, a court debate took place. The Court moved to the deliberation room. The verdict was scheduled for August 10, 2020.

On August 10, 2020, the court acquitted him.

The prosecutor filed an appeal against the sentence.

The appeal hearing is scheduled for April 27, 2021.

An objection was lodged against the prosecutor’s appeal.

On April 27, 2021, an appellate hearing was held. By the decision of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal of April 27, 2021, the prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the Moscowskyy District Court of Kharkiv of August 10, 2020 was upheld.

The case is closed.

K. case

In early January 2021, Mr. K.’s mother turned to a lawyer. She said that K. was detained in the Russian Federation and convicted of alleged drug trafficking. In fact, he was recruited to work as a courier and did not know what he was carrying. After that, in 2020, K. was transferred to the Kholodnohirsk Correctional Colony to serve his sentence. However, the so-called Savchenko Law was not applied to him, according to which one day of detention is equal to two days of imprisonment. If such a mechanism had been applied to K., he would have been released in two weeks.

The lawyer familiaraized with the case materials and prepared a motion.

On January 5, 2021, the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv considered such a petition and granted it. Two weeks later, Koz-ka was released from the colony.

K. case

Mr. arrived at the Kryvyi Rih Correctional colony № 80 to serve his sentence. The latter complained to the SLC about the failure to provide him with medical care and the failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving his sentence due to his health condition, despite the list of indications for this (stage 4 HIV, visual disability group 3, chronic hepatitis C, chronic gastroduodenitis, obliterating atherosclerosis of the vessels of the lower extremities, impaired stool and urination, lack of the thumb on the left limb, numbness of the other fingers of the same limb, constant malaise, weight loss and others).

On June 16, 2020, attorneys’ inquiries were sent to the Medical Unit of the Kryvyi Rih Correctional Colony № 80 and to the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions regarding information about K.’s health and the provision of his medical documentation.

On July 9, 2020, K. was transferred to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Dniprovske PI № 4.

On August 14, 2020, a lawyer’s request was again sent to the branch of the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions regarding information about K.’s health and the provision of his medical documentation.

A lawyer’s request was also sent to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Dniprovska PI-4 State Institution in order to obtain information about K.’s treatment and state of health.

On September 4, 2020, lawyers’ inquiries about K.’s health were sent for the second time to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Dniprovske PI- 4 State Institution and the third to the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions.

On September 7, 2020, a statement was sent to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk region about the crimes of the responsible persons of the Medical Unit of Kryvyi Rih Correctional Colony № 80, interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the State Institution "Dniprovska PI № 4" and the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions together with the motion of conducting inspections of the activities of the leaders of the above bodies.

On September 16, 2020, lawyers’ inquiries about the state of health and treatment provided to him were sent to the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine, interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the State Institution "Dniprovska PI № 4" and the the branch of the Health Care Centre of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions.

On October 7, 2020, a lawyer of the SLC filed a petition with the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city of Kryvyi Rih for release from further imprisonment due to K.’s illness.

On October 23, 2020, Mr. informed the lawyer about the sudden deterioration of his health and the failure to provide him with medical care despite his diagnoses and even the risk of amputation of limbs (a finger on one of them has already been amputated). Thus, the lawyer applied to the court with a corresponding request for the obligation of the responsible persons of the State Institution “Kryvyi Rih PI-80” to provide K. with the necessary treatment.

Prior to the court hearing, Mr. K. was taken to the interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the Dniprovska PI – 4 (although he had recently been treated there and was told that “no one would treat you here for free and that you should not be taken to a hospital outside the DKVS».) Moreover, K. told the lawyer that the doctors had started the treatment process, made injections, put in drips, as if preparing for an operation, which would still be performed outside the medical facilities of the DKVS system, at the Mechnikov Dnipropetrovsk Regional Clinical Hospital of the Dnipropetrovsk regional council (further – Mechnikov hospital).

The lawyer filed an application with the court to leave without consideration the application on the obligation of the responsible persons of Kryvyi Rih PI-80 to provide K. with the necessary treatment.

On October 18, 2020, K. informed the lawyer that his doctor had informed him that "his treatment was over with the injections, but don’t play, because you will be left without legs." The treatment ended because in the Mechnikov hospital, as if twice already refused to accept K. for surgery due to lack of free places.

Moreover, K. is forced to write a refusal of treatment due to inability to provide him with medical care. He refused to do so.

On December 28, 2020, a court hearing was to take place on K.’s release from serving a sentence due to his health condition, but it did not take place due to the fact that the conclusion of the commission was not ready yet, and his examination continued. The date of the next court hearing is still unknown.

On January 25, 2021, K.’s fingers began to turn black on his right lower limb, which he reported to his lawyer on February 2, 2021. On the same day, a second request for treatment in the form of surgery was submitted by the lawyer.

On 3 February 2021 and 19 February 2021 court hearings were postponed due to lack of video communication with K.

On February 15, 2021, the lawyer sent a request to the Branch of the Center of health care in the Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions for providing medical treatment for K.

On February 26, 2021, the judge granted the lawyer’s request to provide the court with an opinion of the medical advisory commission on the possibility of submitting documents on K.’s release to the court.

On April 20, 2021, the lawyer was denied her request to release K. from serving his sentence due to his health condition. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision.

Following a lawyer’s request for medical treatment for Mr K. dated 2 February 2002, surgery was performed and Mr K.’s lower right limb was amputated.

M. case

M. is a citizen of the Russian Federation who moved to Ukraine on April 1, 2015 due to political preferences and persecution. Immediately after moving, he entered to the training unit of the Azov Volunteer Battalion. On May 18, 2015, among solders of the Azov Volunteer Battalion, he left for the city of Urzuf, where he remained as a volunteer instructor until May 2016. Personally, M. did not commit any aggressive actions and did not have the right to bear arms, but he actively helped other soldiers and comrades to defend Ukraine’s independence as an assistant and volunteer instructor. During this time he became a forced receiver of information with limited access to his commanders, the location of the unit, the number of fighters, their names and call signs. Among them were also foreigners and servicemen from other countries.

Later, M. unexpectedly received a notice of the opening of criminal proceedings for mercenary, which was sent to his mother.

To date, as well as at the time of the opening of the proceedings, he continued to serve.

In 2018, M. applied for refugee status or subsidiary protection.

By the decision of the State Migration Service of November 27, 2020, M. received refugee status in Ukraine, and on February 12, 2021, the relevant documents

M. case

On 5 June 2020, Ms M. applied to KРPG for legal assistance in the following cases: (1) light bodily injuries to her caused by her ex-husband and the father of her two daughters, (2) deprivation of her ex-husband’s parental rights in connection with statement of claim of the latter on the establishment of a schedule of meetings with children. Ms. M. noted that her ex-husband had systematically committed and continues to commit violence against her and her children, and that her appeals to the police had failed.

The Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv is considering a case of inflicting light bodily injuries on Ms. M.’s ex-husband. According to the case file, between January 6 and 13, 2021, the ex-husband came to Ms. M. and damaged her property, and on January 8, 2021, he pushed his eldest daughter, causing her a closed head injury and a kneecap.

Until January 12, 2021, Ms. M.’s interests were represented by a lawyer of the KHPG Public Reception, and from January 12, 2021, the case was referred to a lawyer of the KHPG Strategic Litigation Center (SLC).

Regarding deprivation of parental rights

January 12, 2021 the lawyer submitted a motion on granting permission to review the case materials and to postpone the court hearing, which was scheduled for January 14, 2021, due to poor health of Ms. M.

On January 25, 2021, the lawyer reviewed the case.

On February 24, 2021, a psychologist who worked with Ms. M.’s family was interrogated in court.

On March 25, 2021, the court session did not take place due to the judge’s employment.

On April 27, 2021, the court session did not take place due to the judge’s employment.

On June 8, 2021, the court denied Ms. M.’s ex-husband time to meet with the children and granted Ms. M.’s claim for deprivation of his parental rights.

Regarding the infliction of bodily injuries on Ms. M. by her ex-husband

On January 24, 2021, the lawyer filed a motion to review the case file.

On January 25, 2021, the lawyer reviewed the case.

On January 27, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the absence of witnesses.

On March 26, 2021, the patrol police was interrogated in court.

On April 14, 2021, the lawyer filed a motion with the court to question Ms. M.’s minor children as witnesses, which she requested to be conducted in a separate room.

On April 27, 2021, the court session did not take place due to the judge’s employment.

On June 9, 2021, the court passed a verdict finding Ms. M.’s ex-husband guilty of committing a criminal offense (criminal offense) under Part 1 of Art. 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – infliction of light bodily injuries, and sentenced him to 180 (one hundred and eighty) hours of community service.

Regarding the infliction of bodily injuries on Ms. M.’s daughter by her ex-husband

On January 8, 2021, the ex-husband and father of Ms. M.’s daughter inflicted bodily injuries on a 9-year-old child, which resulted in a compression fracture of the spine, a bruised patella and a closed craniocerebral injury. On the same day, Ms. M. called the police and filed a criminal complaint. However, no action was taken by the police to indicate that the information had been entered into the Unified Register of Criminal Proceedings, so on January 17, 2021, the SLC lawyer filed a complaint with the investigating judge regarding the inaction of the police officers.

On February 21, 2021, the court upheld the lawyer’s complaint regarding the obligation of the responsible persons of the police to submit the information set forth in the application of January 8, 2021 to the URCP.

On January 28, 2021, the lawyer sent a statement to the police, enclosing a copy of the court decision and asking to execute the decision of the Kominternivsky District Court of Kharkiv of January 21, 2021 in the case of entering information into the URCP on M.’s statement of a criminal offense of January 8, 2021. .

On February 2, 2021, the lawyer sent a lawyer’s request to the police regarding the results of the consideration of her application dated January 28, 2021.

On February 15, 2021, the lawyer again sent inquiries to the police and to the prosecutor’s office regarding the results of the consideration of her application of January 28, 2021.

On March 12, 2021, the lawyer sent a request to the investigator for procedural actions, a complaint to the prosecutor’s office for police inaction.

On March 22, 2021, the lawyer was preparing the victim’s daughter M. for interrogation.

On March 23, 2021, the lawyer participated in the interrogation of the girl at the police department.

Regarding the restrictive prescription

On January 21, 2021, the lawyer filed an application with the court for a restraining order against Ms. M.’s ex-husband.

On January 28, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to a motion to adjourn the court hearing of M.’s ex-husband.

On February 15, 2021, the court session did not take place again due to the judge’s employment. On the same day, the lawyer added additional explanations and documents to the court concerning the infliction of bodily injuries on M.’s daughter by her ex-husband.

On February 25, 2021, the lawyer’s application was granted.

P. case

Mr. P. turned to a lawyer for legal assistance. He said he was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, including eye disease that had led to blindness. Based on his illness, he is entitled to release from serving his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence in the Sofia Correctional Colony № 45.

On November 1, 2020, the lawyer addressed her request to the Sofia Correctional Colony to obtain P-ka’s medical documents. However, she did not receive an answer to her request.

On November 14 and November 17, 2020, the lawyer filed complaints about the failure to get response to the request to the Prosecutor’s Office of Dnipropetrovsk region and the South-Eastern Interregional Department. However, in response, she was informed that she allegedly had no right to receive the client’s medical data

Then, on December 4, 2020, the lawyer filed a petition with the Sofiyivsky District Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region to release P. due to illness. In her application, the lawyer stated that she could not provide the court with the client’s medical records because the colony had not responded to her requests.

The court hearing was scheduled for December 28, 2020.

However, the court hearing took place only on January 13, 2021. During this meeting, P. was appointed to hold a medical advisory commission at the Stryzhavska Correctional Colony. The medical advisory commission was held for more than three months, but was eventually told that he was on the list of persons who could be released from serving a sentence due to a serious illness.

On June 16, 2021, the Sofiyivsky District Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region ruled to release Mr. P. due to illness.

T. case

T. was serving his sentence in the Sofia Specialized Tuberculosis Hospital № 55.

T appealed to a lawyer in early February 2021 with complaints about the failure to provide him with medical care and failure of the responsible persons to submit documents to the court regarding his release from serving a sentence due to health conditions, despite a number of indications for this (HIV, hepatitis C, tuberculosis and comorbidities).

On February 8, 2020, the lawyer sent a request to the Branch of the State Institution "Health Center of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine" in Zaporizhia region and to the interregional hospital at the colony regarding the state of health and treatment of T.

On February 26, 2021, the lawyer filed a motion with the court to release T. from serving his sentence due to his health condition.

On March 24, 2021, the court hearing was postponed due to the fact that the assistant of judge was hospitalized.

On April 14, 2021, the court session did not take place due to the lack of light in the colony.

It turned out that on April 5, 2021, T. was released from serving a suspended sentence.

Ye. case

Ye. arrived at the the Interregional multidisciplinary hospital at the at the State Institution “Dnieper penitentiary institution (№ 4)” from the State Institution “Bakhmut SIZO (№ 6)” for treatment of hemorrhoids.

In December 2020, Ye. complained to the SLC about the lack of treatment for the existing disease, which had recently worsened and caused him excruciating pain and discomfort, as it was accompanied by hemorrhages.

On December 24, 2020, the lawyer sent a lawyer’s request to the the Branch of the State Institution "Healthcare Centre of the State Criminal and Executive Service of Ukraine" in Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions regarding Ye.’s state of health and treatment.

On December 30, 2020, Mr. Ye. announced that he had been transferred to Odessa without any explanation and the place, where he would be taken next, is unknown.

On January 5, 2021, the SLC lawyer sent a motion to the Belozersky District Court of the Kherson Region for the treatment of Mr. Ye.

On January 28, 2021, the SLC lawyer sent lawyer’s requests to the Branch of the State Institution "Health Center of the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine" in the Kherson region and to the Daryiv Multidisciplinary Hospital № 10 at the State Institution “Daryiv Correctional Colony (№ 10)”.

As a result, Mr. Ye. was given surgical treatment and, after rehabilitation, transferred to the Bakhmut Pre-trial detention center № 6.

 Share this