The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
\nLatif H\u00fcseynov,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to:<\/p>\n
the applications (nos.\u00a059356\/10, 61038\/10 and 59824\/12) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by three Ukrainian nationals, Mr\u00a0Anatoliy Anatolyevich Minyaylo, Mr\u00a0Igor\u00a0Aleksandrovich Kindra and Mr\u00a0Leonid Oleksiyovych Kharchenko (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated in the appended tables;<\/p>\n
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d);<\/p>\n
the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 1 September 2020,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
![\"INTRODUCTION\"](\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/INTRODUCTION.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
1. The present case concerns alleged ill-treatment of the applicants by police and the allegedly ineffective investigation of their respective complaints. In addition, it also concerns other complaints under the Court\u2019s well-established case-law (Articles 5 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 5 and 6 \u00a7\u00a01).<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The applicants\u2019 details and the relevant facts are set out in the appended tables.<\/p>\n 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Lishchyna.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 5. The applicants complained that they had been ill-treated by the police and that their respective complaints had not been properly investigated. They referred to Articles\u00a03 and 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 6. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, finds that the complaints at issue fall to be examined under Article\u00a03 of the Convention only (see, among other authorities, Barysheva v. Ukraine, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a045, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017). That provision reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Application no.\u00a059356\/10 by Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Minyaylo<\/em><\/p>\n 7. The Government alleged that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies, as he had not appealed against his conviction of 24\u00a0December\u00a02010. They also submitted that, should the Court consider that such an appeal did not qualify as an effective remedy, the present complaint should be considered as having been lodged outside the six\u2011month time-limit, to be calculated from the date of the last decision of the prosecutor\u2019s office not to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment allegations, that is, from 15\u00a0November\u00a02007. Finally, they submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaint was in any event manifestly ill\u2011founded.<\/p>\n 8. The applicant disagreed.<\/p>\n 9. The Court notes, firstly, that as regards the Government\u2019s objections concerning non-exhaustion and filing the application outside the six-month period, similar objections have already been dismissed in other cases against Ukraine (see, for example, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no.\u00a023893\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a090-99, 15\u00a0May 2012; Buglov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a028825\/02, \u00a7\u00a063, 10\u00a0July\u00a02014; and Zyakun v. Ukraine, no.\u00a034006\/06, \u00a7\u00a035, 25\u00a0February\u00a02016). The Court sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case and therefore considers that this complaint cannot be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies or for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit.<\/p>\n 10. In so far as the Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s complaints were manifestly ill-founded, having regard to all the material in the case file, and in particular the medical documents confirming the applicant\u2019s injuries, the Court does not consider them to be entirely without basis. It further notes that they raise issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits of the case. The Court therefore dismisses the Government\u2019s objection in this connection.<\/p>\n 2. Application no.\u00a061038\/10 by Mr\u00a0Kindra and application no.\u00a059824\/12 by Mr\u00a0Kharchenko<\/em><\/p>\n 11. The Government filed no objections concerning the admissibility of the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article\u00a03.<\/p>\n 3. Court\u2019s overall conclusion concerning all applications<\/em><\/p>\n 12. The Court notes that the applicants\u2019 complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. The applicants alleged that there had been violations of Article\u00a03 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs in each of their respective cases.<\/p>\n 14. The Government filed no comments in respect of application no.\u00a061038\/10, lodged by Mr\u00a0Kindra. As regards the remaining applications, they contested that view.<\/p>\n 15. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of the general principles established in its case-law (see, as a recent authority, Bouyid v.\u00a0Belgium [GC], no.\u00a023380\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a081-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), the Court considers that the applicants raised arguable ill-treatment claims at the domestic level. Those claims triggered an obligation on the part of the national authorities to carry out an effective official investigation with a view to establishing the origin of the applicants\u2019 injuries and identifying and punishing those responsible, should the allegations concerning ill-treatment have proved to be true.<\/p>\n 16. From the documents before the Court, it appears that the domestic investigations did not reflect any serious effort to determine the relevant facts (see the appended tables for individual details).<\/p>\n 17. The Court notes that in the case of Kaverzin (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0173-80) it found that the reluctance of the authorities to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation of ill-treatment complaints lodged against police authorities constituted a systemic problem within the meaning of Article\u00a046 of the Convention. In view of the circumstances of the present applications and its earlier case-law, the Court considers that the present facts constitute another example of such a failure to ensure prompt and thorough investigation.<\/p>\n 18. The Court further finds that the applicants\u2019 accounts as to the circumstances of their alleged ill-treatment are detailed and coherent, and that the results of the investigations \u2013 given their numerous shortcomings \u2013 did not disprove those allegations. In those circumstances, and given the onus on the State to provide a plausible explanation for injuries sustained by persons under the control of the police (see Bouyid, cited above, \u00a7\u00a083 and also, by way of example, Adnaralov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a010493\/12, \u00a7\u00a045, 27\u00a0November 2014; Kulik v. Ukraine, no.\u00a010397\/10, \u00a7\u00a059, 19\u00a0March\u00a02015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos.\u00a074820\/10 and 4 others, \u00a7\u00a085, 3\u00a0December 2015), the Court concludes that the State\u2019s responsibility for the applicants\u2019 injuries has been engaged.<\/p>\n 19. The Court\u2019s findings in the preceding paragraph are sufficient to enable it to conclude that the applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.<\/p>\n 20. There has, accordingly, been a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs.<\/p>\n III. Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/p>\n A. Application no.\u00a059356\/10 by Mr\u00a0Minyaylo<\/strong><\/p>\n 21. Mr\u00a0Minyaylo also complained, under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonable. He relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 22. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, P\u00e9lissier and Sassi v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a025444\/94, \u00a7\u00a067, ECHR\u00a01999\u2011II, and Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR\u00a02000\u2011VII).<\/p>\n 23. In the leading case of Merit v. Ukraine (no.\u00a066561\/01, 30\u00a0March\u00a02004), the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 24. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of the present complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case, in so far as it concerns Mr Minyaylo, the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 25. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B. Application no.\u00a061038\/10 by Mr\u00a0Kindra<\/strong><\/p>\n 26. Mr\u00a0Kindra also complained, under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, that on 23\u00a0August\u00a02008 he had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty from about 11\u00a0a.m. until about\u00a011-11.50\u00a0p.m. He also complained, under Article\u00a013 of the Convention, that the investigation of his complaint in that regard, which had been lodged together with his ill-treatment complaint, had been ineffective.<\/p>\n 27. The Court considers that the above complaint falls to be examined under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 only (see Lopatin and Medvedskiy v. Ukraine, nos.\u00a02278\/03 and 6222\/03, \u00a7\u00a090, 20\u00a0May\u00a02010).<\/p>\n 28. Mr\u00a0Kindra also complained under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a05 of the Convention that he had been unable to obtain an award of compensation for having been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty.<\/p>\n 29. The relevant Convention provisions read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.\u201d<\/p>\n 30. Having examined Mr\u00a0Kindra\u2019s complaints in light of the principles developed in its case-law (see, among other authorities, Creang\u0103 v.\u00a0Romania [GC], no.\u00a029226\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a084 and 88-93, 23\u00a0February\u00a02012), the Court takes note of the applicant\u2019s description of the facts, which has not been contested by the Government, and of the police officers\u2019 testimony in the domestic proceedings (see appended table 2.A (2,4) and 2.C below). It considers that the file contains sufficient material for it to conclude that on 23\u00a0August 2008 the applicant was detained in police custody as a suspect in a case concerning arson and that this detention constituted a deprivation of liberty. No records were drawn up in relation to this detention.<\/p>\n 31. The Court reiterates that, as established in its extensive case-law, unacknowledged detention of an individual is a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article\u00a05 of the Convention, and discloses a serious violation of that provision (see, among other authorities, Smolik v. Ukraine, no.\u00a011778\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a045-48, 19\u00a0January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a033627\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a074-78, 15\u00a0November 2012; and Beley v. Ukraine [Committee], no.\u00a034199\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a046 and 59-61, 20\u00a0June 2019). The Court finds no reason to depart from the aforementioned case-law in the present case.<\/p>\n 32. In light of its well-established case-law (see, as the most recent example, Sinkova v. Ukraine, no.\u00a039496\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 79-84, 27\u00a0February 2018) the Court also finds that, in contravention of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a05, Mr\u00a0Kindra did not have an enforceable right to compensation for having been deprived of liberty on 23\u00a0August 2008.<\/p>\n 33. In light of the above, the Court finds that Mr\u00a0Kindra\u2019s complaints under Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 5 of the Convention are admissible and disclose breaches of these provisions.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 34. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 35. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums indicated in the appended tables. It dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 36. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all of the applicants;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention in respect of the complaint raised in application no.\u00a059356\/10 concerning the length of the proceedings;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 5 of the Convention in respect of the complaints raised in application no.\u00a061038\/10;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended tables, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 September 2020, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Anne-Marie Dougin \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n by Mr Anatoliy Anatolyevich Minyaylo<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukrainian national born in 1976 and residing in Berdiansk<\/p>\n Lodged on 30\u00a0September\u00a02010<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 13\/02\/05-15\/02\/05 \u2013 Mukacheve and Lviv railway police stations<\/p>\n 2. Applicant\u2019s description of alleged ill-treatment:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) Mukacheve: three police officers hit him on head and torso with water-filled plastic bottles; punched and kicked him; had him lie on floor undressed; handcuffed his left foot to his right hand; twisted his handcuffed arms behind back forcing him to confess that he had stolen belongings from train passengers<\/p>\n (ii) Lviv: applicant was handcuffed to radiator for numerous hours and had no food or drink<\/p>\n 3. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 14\/02\/05-16\/02\/05 – three ambulance-visit reports: applicant received urgent treatment for hypertensive crises<\/p>\n (ii) 15\/02\/05 – certificate (Lviv police temporary detention facility \u2013 \u201cITT\u201d): no injuries or complaints on arrival at facility<\/p>\n (iii) 21\/02\/05 – certificate (Lviv pre-trial detention facility \u2013 \u201cSIZO\u201d): abrasions on left calf (5 cm by 0.2\u00a0cm), on right knee joint (2 cm by 3\u00a0cm), on chin (0.5\u00a0cm by 1\u00a0cm)<\/p>\n (iv) 12\/04\/05 – report (Lviv regional forensic medical expert bureau): injuries recorded on 21\/02\/05 were \u201cminor\u201d; not possible to establish their timing<\/p>\n 4. Other relevant facts:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 12\/02\/05 – applicant and three others suspected of robbing passenger X were arrested on train en route<\/em> to Mukacheve<\/p>\n (ii) 13\/02\/05-14\/02\/05 – applicant was questioned without access to lawyer<\/p>\n (iii) 14\/02\/05 – applicant was placed in ITT<\/p>\n (iv) 15\/02\/05 – applicant was transferred to Lviv SIZO and gave self-incriminating statements<\/p>\n (v) 17\/02\/05 – applicant was remanded in custody following court order<\/p>\n (vi) 24\/12\/05 – after several rounds of proceedings, Stryy Court convicted applicant of several counts of robberies and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment (almost entirely served in pre-trial detention by that time); applicant did not appeal against that judgment<\/td>\n (ii) Applicant confessed to crime in setting lacking procedural guarantees such as access to lawyer (for relevant examples, see Kovalchuk v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>,\u00a0no.\u00a021958\/05,\u00a0\u00a7\u00a060,\u00a04\u00a0November\u00a02010 and Belousov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a063, 7\u00a0November\u00a02013)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 18\/02\/05, with investigator in charge of applicant\u2019s case<\/p>\n 2. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 21\/03\/05, 31\/03\/05, 12\/04\/05, 16\/05\/05 and 15\/11\/07 \u2013 decisions not to institute criminal proceedings: no appearance of ill-treatment (Lviv regional prosecutor\u2019s office). 1st 4 decisions were quashed on appeal (shortcomings in investigation)<\/p>\n (ii) 11\/06\/10 – General Prosecutor\u2019s Office rejected applicant\u2019s complaint against decision of 15\/11\/07<\/p>\n (iii) 24\/12\/10 – Stryy Court examined applicant\u2019s ill-treatment complaint in light of findings by prosecutor\u2019s office and considered it without merit<\/p>\n (iv) 23\/06\/11 – further complaint by applicant to General Prosecutor\u2019s Office: no response<\/p>\n 3. Findings:<\/em><\/p>\n applicant was not subjected to ill-treatment: he could possibly have sustained minor injuries on 12\/02\/05 during arrest<\/p>\n 4. Evidence collected:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 12\/04\/05 – applicant was examined by forensic expert<\/p>\n (ii) various dates – statements were taken from applicant and several police officers<\/td>\n (ii) Delays in procedural steps resulting in loss of evidence; notably, forensic assessment of injuries was scheduled two months after complaint had been lodged (for relevant examples, see Drozd v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a012174\/03, \u00a7\u00a068, 30\u00a0July\u00a02009 and Voykin and Others v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a047889\/08, \u00a7\u00a0114, 27\u00a0March\u00a02018)<\/p>\n (iii) Hasty conclusions that applicant was injured during arrest: medical records indicate that injuries were sustained after arrest; no account of arrest operation given (for relevant examples, see Davydov and Others<\/em> v. Ukraine,<\/em> cited above, \u00a7\u00a0286 and Gordiyenko v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a027620\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a094-96, 16 October 2014)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Period:<\/em> 12\/02\/05-24\/12\/10<\/p>\n Total length:<\/em> 5 years, 10 months<\/p>\n Levels of jurisdiction:<\/em> several rounds at 2 levels of jurisdiction; ultimate decision taken at first-instance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/p>\n Ukrainian national born in 1955 and residing in Rudakov, the Russian Federation<\/p>\n represented by Mr\u00a0A.A.\u00a0Kristenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv<\/p>\n Lodged on 14\u00a0October\u00a02010<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 23\/08\/08 \u2013 Krasnoarmiysk city police station<\/p>\n 2. Applicant\u2019s description of ill-treatment:<\/em><\/p>\n Plain-clothes police officers requested applicant step into their car to discuss possible hire for window replacement. There they handcuffed and took him to police station, demanding confession to having committed arson together with A.K. (applicant\u2019s son). Several officers repeatedly punched and kicked applicant for more than one hour, including in presence of his son. No access to lawyer was given. Between 11\u00a0p.m. and 12\u00a0a.m. on same day applicant was released after his son had confessed to arson<\/p>\n 3. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 24\/08\/08-15\/09\/08 – series of certificates (Krasnoarmiysk central district hospital): applicant arrived at hospital on 24\/08\/08, about 2.50\u00a0a.m.; diagnosis: displaced left cheekbone fracture, hematomas around left eye and haemorrhage into that eye; surgery performed; post-surgery inpatient treatment until 15\/09\/08<\/p>\n (ii) 26\/09\/08 – report no.\u00a0378 (unspecified forensic medical expert bureau): injuries are \u201cintermediately serious\u201d; timing given by applicant possible; inflicted either by impact of blunt objects or by falling on rigid surface<\/p>\n 4. Other relevant facts:<\/em><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s questioning was documented as questioning of witness in case concerning arson<\/td>\n 24\/08\/08, with Krasnoarmiysk city police and Donetsk regional prosecutor\u2019s office<\/p>\n 2. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 14\/09\/08, 29\/09\/08, 21\/10\/10 and 17\/11\/10 – decisions not to institute criminal proceedings: no appearance of police ill-treatment (Krasnoarmiysk prosecutor\u2019s office); these decisions were quashed on appeal (shortcomings in investigation)<\/p>\n (ii) 04\/01\/11 – criminal proceedings started (Krasnoarmiysk inter-district prosecutor)<\/p>\n (iii) 13\/12\/11 – criminal proceedings suspended: no perpetrator identified<\/p>\n 3. Present status:<\/em><\/p>\n Proceedings suspended, perpetrator not identified<\/p>\n 4. Evidence collected:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 26\/09\/08 – applicant examined by forensic expert<\/p>\n (ii) various dates – statements taken from applicant and police officers<\/p>\n 5. Other relevant facts:<\/em><\/p>\n Very limited extent of applicant\u2019s involvement: no notification of major procedural steps; notifications of decisions not to institute criminal proceedings by letters only \u2013 (no copies of decisions attached)<\/td>\n (ii) Length of investigation without any tangible progress and repeated remittals for reinvestigation in view of shortcomings recognised by domestic authorities (for relevant examples, see Belousov v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a056, 28\u00a0November\u00a02013 and Adnaralov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a010493\/12, \u00a7\u00a050, 27\u00a0November\u00a02014)<\/p>\n (iii) Delays in apprising applicant of procedural developments and limited access to documents (for relevant examples, see Danilov v. Ukraine, <\/em>no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014 and Barysheva v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a061, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1. Period of alleged deprivation of liberty\/arresting authority:<\/em><\/p>\n 23\/08\/08 from about 11\u00a0a.m. until about\u00a011-11.50\u00a0p.m. \u2013 Krasnoarmiysk police<\/p>\n 2. Official grounds:<\/em><\/p>\n Need to question applicant in connection with investigation of arson<\/p>\n 3. Documents regularising alleged deprivation of liberty:<\/em><\/p>\n No documents<\/p>\n 4. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n Prosecutor\u2019s office\u2019s decision of 29\/09\/08 (see above) indicates that police officers acknowledged that they had brought applicant in for questioning concerning arson on 23\/09\/08. They also indicated that on that date they fingerprinted him and had him participate in \u201creconstruction of crime scene\u201d together with his son<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em>\u00a050,000 euros (EUR)<\/p>\n Costs and expenses: <\/em>6,075 dollars (USD) in legal fees to be transferred directly to Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Kristenko, applicant\u2019s lawyer (representation from first date of filing application)<\/p>\n Supporting documents:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) Legal representation contract dated 23\/08\/10<\/p>\n (ii) Certificate of acceptance of lawyer\u2019s services by applicant, indicating that lawyer spent 40.5 hours on present case and applicant\u2019s son\u2019s case lodged against Russia<\/p>\n Other relevant information:<\/em> applicant was granted legal aid (EUR\u00a0850)<\/p>\n Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n No comments received<\/td>\n EUR\u00a015,000<\/p>\n Costs and expenses:<\/strong><\/p>\n EUR\u00a02,000<\/p>\n <\/p>\n To be transferred to applicant\u2019s lawyer directly, as requested<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Plus any tax chargeable to applicant<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Ukrainian national born in 1982 and residing in Rokytne<\/p>\n represented by Mr\u00a0S.M.\u00a0Miroshnichenko, a lawyer practising in Oleksandriya<\/p>\n Lodged on 1\u00a0September\u00a02012<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 05\/01\/10 \u2013 Kremenchuk district police station<\/p>\n 2. Applicant\u2019s description of alleged ill-treatment:<\/em><\/p>\n Police officers forced applicant to confess that he had stolen X\u2019s belongings; they repeatedly punched and kicked him; handcuffed him to chair, and electrocuted his thighs using black device containing two electrodes<\/p>\n 3. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 06\/01\/10 – report no.\u00a031 (Kremenchuk inter-district forensic medical expert bureau): multiple small burn marks (ranging from 0.6\u00a0cm by 0.5\u00a0cm to 1.5\u00a0cm by 1\u00a0cm) on both thighs covering approximately 1-1.5% of body; could have dated to 05\/01\/10; qualified as \u201cminor\u201d injuries<\/p>\n (ii) 07\/12\/11 – report no.\u00a0178 (unspecified forensic medical expert bureau): probable cause of burns – electric current; causation by contact with cigarette\/match not probable<\/p>\n (iii) 03\/06\/13 – report no.\u00a039 (Poltava regional forensic medical expert bureau): causation by stun gun of model stocked in Kremenchuk police arsenal not probable<\/p>\n 4. Other relevant facts:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 05\/01\/10 – police brought applicant for questioning on suspicion of theft at 5\u00a0p.m.; released by 8\u00a0p.m.; applicant questioned without lawyer gave self-incriminating statements (subsequently retracted)<\/p>\n (ii) 13\/01\/10 – Kremenchuk district police decided not to institute criminal proceedings against applicant: no evidence that item purportedly stolen belonged to X (complainant)<\/td>\n (ii) Applicant confessed to crime in setting lacking procedural guarantees such as access to lawyer (for relevant examples, see Kovalchuk v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a021958\/05, \u00a7\u00a060, 4\u00a0November\u00a02010 and Belousov v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a063, 7\u00a0November\u00a02013)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 06\/01\/10, with Kremenchuk district prosecutor<\/p>\n 2. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 21\/01\/10, 27\/10\/10, 08\/09\/11, 29\/12\/11, 04\/05\/12, 01\/08\/12, 16\/10\/12 – decisions not to institute criminal proceedings: no appearance of police ill-treatment (Kremenchuk district prosecutor\u2019s office); decisions were quashed on appeal (shortcomings in investigation)<\/p>\n (ii) 22\/06\/10 – conclusion (Kremenchuk police, internal investigation): presence of irregularities in applicant\u2019s questioning, i.e., his presence in police station not documented, self-incriminating statements obtained but no corroborating evidence to start criminal proceedings<\/p>\n (iii) 29\/03\/13 – criminal proceedings for police misconduct were instituted (Kremenchuk district prosecutor\u2019s office); subsequently they were closed and reopened several times;<\/p>\n (iv) 28\/12\/13 – criminal proceedings were closed: no evidence of police ill-treatment<\/p>\n 3. Findings:<\/em><\/p>\n origin of injuries cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt; possibly self-inflicted<\/p>\n 4. Evidence collected:<\/em><\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n 1. Application no.\u00a059356\/10<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03: substantive limb<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Date\/places:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) State provided no satisfactory and convincing explanation as to origin of applicant\u2019s documented injuries and did not disprove that they were sustained in custody and there is no reason to doubt credibility of applicant\u2019s ill-treatment account (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a01727\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 61-62, 24\u00a0June\u00a02010 and Yaroshovets and Others, cited above, <\/em>\u00a7\u00a085)<\/p>\n \n B. Complaint under Article\u00a03: procedural limb<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Domestic investigation<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) No full-scale investigation, only repeated pre-investigation inquiries (for relevant examples, see, mutatis mutandis<\/em>, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, nos.\u00a017674\/02 and 39081\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0310-12, 1\u00a0July\u00a02010; Lyapin v. Russia<\/em>, no.\u00a046956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 129 and 132-36, 24\u00a0July\u00a02014; and Chernega and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a074768\/10, \u00a7\u00a0167, 18\u00a0June\u00a02019)<\/p>\n \n C. Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 \u2013\u00a0length of criminal proceedings against applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n \n D. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\n Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n No claim for damages or costs\/expenses was lodged within established time-limit after communication of application to Government<\/td>\n No award<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n 2. Application no.\u00a061038\/10<\/strong>by Mr\u00a0Igor Aleksandrovich\u00a0Kindra<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03: substantive limb<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Date\/place:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) State provided no satisfactory and convincing explanation as to origin of applicant\u2019s documented injuries and did not disprove that they were sustained in custody and there is no reason to doubt credibility of applicant\u2019s ill-treatment account (for relevant examples, see Serikov v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a042164\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a065-73, 23\u00a0July\u00a02015; and Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a01727\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a061-62, 24 June 2010)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n B. Complaint under Article\u00a03: procedural limb<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Domestic investigation<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) More than two years: no full-scale investigation, only repeated pre-investigation inquiries (for relevant examples, see, mutatis mutandis<\/em>, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, nos.\u00a017674\/02 and 39081\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0310-12, 1\u00a0July\u00a02010; Lyapin v. Russia<\/em>, no.\u00a046956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0129 and 132-36, 24 July\u00a02014; and Chernega and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a074768\/10, \u00a7\u00a0167, 18\u00a0June\u00a02019)<\/p>\n \n C. Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and\u00a05 \u2013 alleged unrecorded deprivation of liberty and impossibility of obtaining compensation<\/strong><\/p>\n \n D. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\n Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 3. Application no.\u00a059824\/12<\/strong>by Mr Leonid Oleksiyovych Kharchenko<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03: substantive limb<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Date\/place:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) State provided no satisfactory and convincing explanation as to origin of applicant\u2019s documented injuries and did not disprove that they were sustained in custody and there is no reason to doubt credibility of applicant\u2019s ill-treatment account (for relevant examples, see Serikov v. Ukraine<\/em>, no. 42164\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 65-73, 23 July 2015; and Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a01727\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 61-62, 24 June 2010)<\/p>\n \n B. Complaint under Article\u00a03: procedural limb<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Domestic investigation<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n