\nCASE OF POLISHCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 6648\/14 and 3 others \u2013 see appended table)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 September 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Polishchuk and Others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the applications (nos.\u00a06648\/14, 20066\/14, 71563\/14, and 50379\/15) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe\u00a0Convention\u201d) by five Ukrainian nationals, whose details are set out in the appended tables (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated in those tables;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) of the complaints concerning the alleged police ill-treatment and the lack of an effective domestic investigation into the\u00a0allegations in that regard (all applications) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications nos.\u00a020066\/14 and 50379\/15;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 26 August 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n 1. The applicants alleged, in particular, under Article 3 of the\u00a0Convention that they had been ill-treated by the police and that the\u00a0investigation into their respective complaints was ineffective.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The applicants\u2019 details and the relevant facts are set out in the\u00a0appended tables.<\/p>\n 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Lishchyna.<\/p>\n 4. Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Kitsenko (application no.\u00a050379\/15) died in 2018, while the case was pending before the Court. His mother, Mrs\u00a0Liliya Vasylivna Kitsenko, informed the Court of her wish to pursue the application.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION CONCERNING APPLICATION NO.\u00a050379\/15<\/p>\n 5. The Government alleged that Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Kitsenko\u2019s complaints of ill\u2011treatment and an ineffective investigation concerned non-transferable rights. The applicant\u2019s mother, Mrs\u00a0L.\u00a0Kitsenko, therefore had no standing to pursue the application in his stead.<\/p>\n 6. The Court finds that, while the applicant\u2019s mother has not been directly affected by the violations of the Convention complained of by the applicant, following his death she has standing to pursue the present proceedings on his behalf (see Kirpichenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a038833\/03, \u00a7\u00a055, 2\u00a0April\u00a02015, with further references). However, reference will still be made to Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Kitsenko as the applicant throughout the ensuing text.<\/p>\n II. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the\u00a0Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED POLICE ILL-TREATMENT AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION<\/p>\n 8. The applicants complained, under various Convention provisions, that they had been ill-treated by the police and that their respective complaints had not been properly investigated. The Court, which is master of the\u00a0characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see, among other authorities, Barysheva v. Ukraine, no.\u00a09505\/12, \u00a7\u00a045, 14\u00a0March\u00a02017), finds that the complaints in issue fall to be examined under Article 3 of the\u00a0Convention. It 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 9. The Court finds that the present complaints are neither manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. 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\u00a0Court considers that the applicants raised credible ill-treatment claims at the domestic level. Those claims triggered an obligation on the part of the\u00a0national authorities to carry out an effective and thorough investigation with a view to establishing the origin of the applicants\u2019 injuries, as well as identifying and punishing those responsible, should the ill-treatment allegations prove to be true.<\/p>\n 11. From the documents before the Court, it appears that the domestic investigations did not reflect a serious effort to determine the relevant facts (see appended tables for details).<\/p>\n 12. 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 for the purposes 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 applications constitute another such example of a failure to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation.<\/p>\n 13. The Court further finds that the applicants\u2019 accounts as to the\u00a0circumstances of their alleged ill-treatment are detailed and coherent. While some of the allegations are not corroborated by medical or other objective evidence, the results of the investigations, given their numerous shortcomings, did not disprove the applicants\u2019 allegations that they had been victims of police ill-treatment. In these 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\u00a02014; 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\u00a02015), the Court concludes that the State\u2019s responsibility for the applicants\u2019 ill-treatment is engaged.<\/p>\n 14. The above findings are sufficient for the Court to establish that the\u00a0applicants were subjected to ill-treatment which must be classified as inhuman and degrading.<\/p>\n 15. The Court therefore concludes that the present complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention in respect of the applicants\u2019 purported ill-treatment under both its procedural and substantive limbs.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 16. 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 17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums indicated in the appended tables. It dismisses the remainder of the\u00a0applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 18. 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. Holds that the mother of Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0Kitsenko, Mrs L.\u00a0Kitsenko, has standing to continue the present proceedings in his stead;<\/p>\n 2. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under both its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of the complaints concerning police ill-treatment;<\/p>\n 5. 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 6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 September 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Martina Keller \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n by Mr\u00a0Vadym Oleksandrovych Polishchuk<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukrainian national born in 1975 and residing in the United Kingdom<\/p>\n Represented by Ms\u00a0N.V.\u00a0Gurkovska, a lawyer practising in Vinnytsya<\/p>\n Lodged on 30\u00a0December\u00a02013<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n (i) 08-14\/06\/07 \u2013 report no.\u00a0343 (Expert O.Sh., Vinnytsya regional forensic medical expert bureau): abrasion (right thigh; according to applicant, dog bite of 31\/05\/07); four bruises (loin, chest, left thigh; according to applicant, he bumped against bunk bed in detention facility); applicant\u2019s explanations concerning causes of injuries are plausible;<\/p>\n (ii) Unspecified date before 12\/04\/12: testimony of expert O.Sh. in court during applicant\u2019s trial: aforementioned injuries could have also resulted from ill-treatment; that possibility had not been explored as no questions in that regard had been posed by investigator instructing O.Sh. to carry out assessment.<\/p>\n 2. Complaints lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 05\/06\/07, with Chief of Vinnytsya police, Kozyatyn inter-district and Vinnytsya regional prosecutor\u2019s office (by applicant\u2019s lawyer O.B.): police officers arbitrarily detain applicant, prevent O.B. from accompanying him and possibly subject him to duress;<\/p>\n (ii) 22\/06\/07, with Kozyatyn inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office (by applicant\u2019s mother);<\/p>\n (iii) 28\/09\/07, with investigator working on V.T.\u2019s murder case (by applicant): self-incriminating statements retracted as given under duress.<\/p>\n 3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 16\/06\/07 – decision not to institute criminal proceedings (Kozyatyn inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office, in response to lawyer\u2019s complaint): applicant questioned by investigator O.Br. denied having been ill-treated: no call to investigate;<\/p>\n (ii) 28\/08\/10 \u2013 fresh decision not to institute criminal proceedings (Kozyatyn inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office, in response to applicant\u2019s mother\u2019s complaint): claim not arguable;<\/p>\n (iii) 12\/04\/12 \u2013 separate ruling addressed to Prosecutor General and Minister of Interior (Pogrebyshche District Court): during applicant\u2019s trial, it became apparent that applicant had been detained from 02\/06\/07 until 08\/06\/07 on false pretext and ill-treated: action requested (ruling quashed on 01\/08\/12, Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal);<\/p>\n (iv) 13\/09\/12 \u2013 decision of 28\/08\/10 quashed (more senior prosecutor): shortcomings in inquiry – no statements taken from applicant and police officers;<\/p>\n (v) 04\/01\/13 \u2013 criminal proceedings instituted (Kozyatyn inter-district prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n (vi) 15\/04\/13 \u2013 criminal proceedings closed;<\/p>\n (vii) 01\/08\/13 and 13\/08\/13 \u2013 applicant\u2019s lawyer\u2019s appeals rejected (Kozyatyn District Court and Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal).<\/p>\n 4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) Statements taken from applicant, his mother and some police officers;<\/p>\n (ii) Forensic assessment of injuries ordered by investigator O.Br., who was also in charge of investigating V.T.\u2019s murder.<\/p>\n 5. Key findings:<\/em><\/p>\n No evidence of ill-treatment; injuries could have been caused by dog bite and bumping against bunk bed, as indicated by applicant to forensic expert on 08\/06\/07.<\/p>\n 6. Other relevant facts and documents:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 31\/05\/07 \u2013 criminal proceedings instituted to investigate V.T.\u2019s violent death;<\/p>\n (ii) 02\/06\/07 \u2013 applicant arrived in Kozyatyn police station for questioning in connection with investigating V.T.\u2019s apparent murder;<\/p>\n (iii) 03\/06\/07, 11.15\u00a0p.m. \u2013 applicant\u2019s detention formalised by arrest report (Kozyatyn police): suspected act of hooliganism in 2005;<\/p>\n (iv) 04\/06\/07 \u2013 applicant made written statement confessing to having murdered V.T.;<\/p>\n (v) 08\/06\/07 \u2013 applicant\u2019s detention formalised by arrest report (Kozyatyn police): charges of V.T.\u2019s murder;<\/p>\n (vi) 13\/06\/07 \u2013 decision to discontinue applicant\u2019s detention in connection with hooliganism charges (Kozyatyn police): insufficient evidence that applicant had committed that offence;<\/p>\n (vii) 12\/04\/12 \u2013 applicant acquitted of murder charges and released from custody (Pogrebyshche District Court): numerous gaps and inconsistencies in evidence;<\/p>\n (viii) unspecified date, applicant left Ukraine and moved into the U.K.;<\/p>\n (ix) 01\/08\/12 – judgment of 12\/04\/12 quashed on appeal by prosecutor; case remitted for retrial (Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal);<\/p>\n (x) 23\/12\/14 \u2013 request for applicant\u2019s extradition from U.K. rejected by London Magistrates\u2019 Court.<\/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.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a063, 7\u00a0November\u00a02013);<\/p>\n (iii) Significant delay in instituting criminal proceedings (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin <\/em>v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a01727\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201169, 24\u00a0June\u00a02010; and Savitskyy v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a038773\/05, \u00a7\u00a0105, 26\u00a0July\u00a02012);<\/p>\n (iv) No appearance of thorough effort to collect objective evidence: key witnesses (e.g., lawyer O.B., applicant\u2019s cellmates, not questioned; limited scope of forensic assessment; no confrontations or other measures aimed at reconciling conflicting accounts; no response to allegations of unlawful detention; hasty conclusion that injuries could be self-inflicted (for relevant examples, see Drozd v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a012174\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069-70, 30\u00a0July\u00a02009; Gordiyenko v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a027620\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a094-96, 16\u00a0October 2014; and Kapustyak v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a026230\/11, \u00a7\u00a080, 3\u00a0March\u00a02016);<\/p>\n (v) Initial inquiry lacked independence (for relevant examples, see Kirpichenko, <\/em>cited above, \u00a7\u00a087, and Zyakun v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a034006\/06, \u00a7\u00a044, 25\u00a0February\u00a02016).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em>: 10,000 euros (EUR).<\/p>\n Costs and expenses<\/em>: EUR\u00a0824 in legal fees (domestic and Convention proceedings).<\/p>\n Supporting documents<\/em>: legal representation contract dated 27\/11\/12; timesheet (103 hours at 200\u00a0hryvnias (UAH) per hour, equivalent to EUR\u00a0824 according to applicant).<\/p>\n Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Claims exorbitant and unsubstantiated.<\/td>\n EUR\u00a010,000, as claimed<\/p>\n Costs and expenses:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n EUR\u00a0824<\/p>\n plus any tax chargeable to applicant.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n by Messrs Vitaliy Volodymyrovych Levchenko <\/strong>and Andriy Petrovych Melnychenko<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukrainian nationals born in 1984 and 1986 and residing in Ladyzhyn<\/p>\n Represented by Ms\u00a0N.V.\u00a0Gurkovska, a lawyer practising in Vinnytsya<\/p>\n Lodged on 24\u00a0February\u00a02014<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n (i)<\/em> First applicant:<\/em><\/p>\n (a) 23\/11\/12 \u2013 report no.\u00a0355 (Ladyzhyn forensic medical expert bureau): moderately grave injuries (fractures (left arm, right index finger, left ring finger); multiple hematomas (face, limbs)) \u2013 possibly sustained on 20\/11\/12\u00a0;<\/p>\n (b) 12\/02\/13 \u2013 report no.\u00a023 (same bureau): first applicant was hit by hard blunt objects (e.g., legs, truncheons, furniture or fittings) at least eight to nine times;<\/p>\n (c) 25\/09\/13 \u2013 report no.\u00a0107 (Vinnytsya regional forensic medical expert bureau): first applicant was hit by hard blunt objects at least seven to eight times.<\/p>\n (ii) Second applicant:<\/em><\/p>\n (a) 30\/11\/12 \u2013 report no. 356 (Ladyzhyn forensic medical expert bureau): minor injuries (subconjunctival right-eye haemorrhage, hematomas (legs), chest and left ear contusions) \u2013 possibly sustained on 20\/11\/12;<\/p>\n (b) 11\/02\/13 \u2013 report no.\u00a022 (same bureau): second applicant was hit by hard blunt objects (e.g., booted legs, arms, truncheons) at least three to four times;<\/p>\n (c) 25\/09\/13 \u2013 report no.\u00a0108 (Vinnytsya regional forensic medical expert bureau): second applicant was hit by hard blunt objects at least six to seven times.<\/p>\n 2. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n 22\/11\/12, with Ladyzhyn prosecutor.<\/p>\n 3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 28\/11\/12 – criminal proceedings instituted (Ladyzhyn prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n (ii) 05\/12\/12, 20\/02\/13, 02\/10\/13, 02\/02\/15, 15\/06\/15, 30\/10\/15 – decisions to close proceedings (officers, assaulted by applicants, sustained minor injuries; they applied legitimate force to counter aggressive conduct and effect arrest) \u2013 decisions quashed on appeal (more senior prosecutors\/judicial authorities): shortcomings in inquiry and breaches of applicants\u2019 procedural rights.<\/p>\n 4. Key findings\/present status:<\/em><\/p>\n As of June 2016, proceedings were pending (last re-opening: 11\/05\/16).<\/td>\n (ii) Overall length of investigation and repeated remittals for reinvestigation in view of shortcomings recognised by domestic authorities (for relevant examples, see Belousov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a056, 28\u00a0November\u00a02013; and Adnaralov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a010493\/12, \u00a7\u00a050, 27\u00a0November\u00a02014).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em>: EUR\u00a010,000 to first and EUR\u00a05,000 to second applicant.<\/p>\n Costs and expenses<\/em>: EUR\u00a01,106 in legal fees (domestic and Convention proceedings).<\/p>\n Supporting documents<\/em>: legal representation contract with Ms\u00a0N.V.\u00a0Gurkovska dated 17\/12\/12; timesheet (126 hours at UAH\u00a0250 per hour, equivalent of EUR\u00a01,106, according to applicants).<\/p>\n Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Claims exorbitant.<\/td>\n EUR\u00a03,900 to each applicant<\/p>\n Costs and expenses:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n EUR\u00a01,106<\/p>\n plus any tax chargeable to applicants.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n by Mr Oleksandr Mykolayovych Klymenko<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukrainian national born in 1961, detained in Poltava at the moment of filing present application<\/p>\n Represented by Ms\u00a0O.M.\u00a0Ashchenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv<\/p>\n Lodged on 31\u00a0October\u00a02014<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n (i) 31\/12\/08 \u2013 journal entry (Poltava temporary detention facility (\u201cITT\u201d): wound on left eyebrow;<\/p>\n (ii) 05\/01\/09 \u2013 medical record (Poltava municipal hospital): endoscopic removal of metallic object (resembling teaspoon handle) from oesophagus;<\/p>\n (iii) 09\/02\/09 \u2013 medical record (Poltava pre-trial detention facility \u201cSIZO\u201d): yellow-green hematomas on left shoulder (5×5\u00a0cm) and right thigh (2×3\u00a0cm); according to applicant\u2019s explanation, they were inflicted by police officers on 29\/01\/09;<\/p>\n (iv) 13\/02\/09 \u2013 report no.\u00a0292 (Poltava regional forensic medical expert bureau): no fresh injuries and no complaints during examination on 12\/02\/09.<\/p>\n 2. Complaint lodged:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 09\/02\/09 \u2013 with Poltava SIZO medical staff;<\/p>\n (ii) 29\/10\/09 – with Leninskyy District Court in Poltava, during applicant\u2019s trial, by applicant and his co-defendant Y.L., also alleging that he had been ill-treated.<\/p>\n 3. Response by authorities:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 29\/10\/09 \u2013 Leninskyy District Court in Poltava requested Leninskyy district prosecutor\u2019s office to investigate alleged ill-treatment;<\/p>\n (ii) 26\/11\/09, 26\/03\/12, 23\/08\/12 and 08\/10\/12 \u2013 decisions not to institute criminal proceedings: no appearance of police ill-treatment; decisions quashed on appeal (more senior prosecutors\/judicial authorities): shortcomings in inquiry;<\/p>\n (iii) 10\/02\/14 \u2013 criminal proceedings instituted (Poltava regional prosecutor\u2019s office);<\/p>\n (iv) 31\/03\/14, 31\/09\/14 \u2013 criminal proceedings closed: no appearance of police ill-treatment; decisions quashed on appeal by Y.L. (judicial authorities): shortcomings in investigation;<\/p>\n (v) 23\/07\/15: criminal proceedings closed.<\/p>\n 4. Key actions:<\/em><\/p>\n Statements taken from applicant, his co-defendant Y.L. and several police officers; applicant\u2019s medical records reviewed.<\/p>\n 5. Key findings:<\/em><\/p>\n No arguable police ill-treatment case; no explanation concerning origin of documented injuries.<\/p>\n 6. Other relevant facts:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) 30\/12\/08 \u2013 applicant and his friend Y.L. arrested while attempting to sell weapon and subsequently remanded in custody;<\/p>\n (ii) 04\/03\/16 \u2013 applicant and Y.L. convicted of having committed a series of offences and sentenced to time served in pre-trial detention (Poltavskyy District Court).<\/td>\n (ii) For four years there was no full\u2011scale investigation, only repeated rounds of pre-investigation inquiry (for relevant examples, see, mutatis mutandis<\/em>, Davydov and Others v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/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.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a074768\/10, \u00a7\u00a0167, 18\u00a0June\u00a02019);<\/p>\n (iii) Overall length of investigation 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, 7\u00a0November\u00a02013; and Adnaralov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a010493\/12, \u00a7\u00a050, 27\u00a0November\u00a02014);<\/p>\n (iv) No appearance of thorough effort to collect objective evidence, notably, no face-to-face confrontations between applicant and police officers; no other steps to reconcile discrepancies between their accounts and verify probability of applicant\u2019s submissions; no attempt to establish origin of injuries documented in detention and reconcile relevant records with conclusions of forensic assessment (for relevant examples, see Drozd v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a012174\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069\u201170, 30\u00a0July\u00a02009; Danilov v. Ukraine,<\/em> no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a070, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014; and A.N. v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a013837\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a067-70, 29\u00a0January\u00a02015).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em> EUR\u00a030,000.<\/p>\n Costs and expenses: <\/em>EUR\u00a0720 in legal fees (Convention proceedings).<\/p>\n Supporting documents:<\/em>\u00a0contract for legal representation dated 05\/10\/14 and timesheet of 05\/10\/14 (twelve hours at EUR\u00a060 per hour for preparing application to Court).<\/p>\n Other relevant information<\/em>: applicant granted EUR\u00a0850 in legal aid.<\/p>\n Government:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em>: Claim exorbitant and unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n Costs and expenses<\/em>: at Court\u2019s discretion.<\/td>\n EUR\u00a015,000<\/p>\n plus any tax chargeable to applicant.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n by Mr\u00a0Igor Genadiyevych Kitsenko<\/strong><\/p>\n Ukrainian national born in 1973 and deceased in 2018<\/p>\n Represented by Ms\u00a0O.Y.\u00a0Sapozhnikova, a lawyer practising in Kyiv<\/p>\n Lodged on 25\u00a0September\u00a02015<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nGanna Yudkivska,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n![\"INTRODUCTION\"](\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/INTRODUCTION.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n 1. Application no.\u00a06648\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n At about 5\u00a0p.m. on 2\u00a0June\u00a02007 the applicant came to Kozyatyn police for questioning as a possible witness in a case concerning violent death of V.T., his business associate. The police officers did not allow O.B., the applicant\u2019s lawyer, to accompany him and pressurised the applicant to confess to having murdered V.T. In particular, the applicant was handcuffed, deprived of sleep and food; punched, kicked, shackled to a metal grid; electrocuted on genitals, suffocated (plastic bag was put on the applicant\u2019s head), and threatened that his relatives would be imprisoned.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) It has not been disputed that at least some injuries were sustained in police custody; explanation of self-infliction was reached following flawed investigation and is based on hasty conclusions (for relevant examples, see Kulik v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a010397\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a058-59, 19\u00a0March\u00a02015; and Kirpichenko v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a038833\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a076-80, 2\u00a0April\u00a02015);<\/p>\n \n B. 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:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \n\n
\n 2. Application no.\u00a020066\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicants\u2019 account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n At about 6\u00a0p.m. on 20 November 2012 the applicants arrived at a construction site, where they had previously been employed, demanding payment arrears, which, according to them, had been overdue for a long time. Having been told by a foreman that the management had already left, they refused to leave the site. The security personnel called the police and complained that the applicants behaved aggressively towards them. Three police officers \u2013 L.T., A.K. and O.K. – arrived and arrested the applicants, considering that they had committed petty hooliganism. According to the applicants, the officers first handcuffed and then repeatedly kicked, punched, and hit them with rubber truncheons both: at the construction site and in the police station. The applicants were released from the police station on the same day when their parents arrived.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) Having regard to nature, gravity and dispersed location of injuries, it has not been shown that degree of force used by police officers was justified by applicants\u2019 own conduct or that their injuries were wholly caused other than by ill\u2011treatment (for relevant examples, see Danilov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a02585\/06, \u00a7\u00a067, 13\u00a0March\u00a02014; and Chmil v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a020806\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a078-79, 29 October 2015);<\/p>\n \n B. Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\n Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicants:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \n\n
\n 3. Application no.\u00a071563\/14<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Applicant\u2019s account of alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Arrested on 30\u00a0December\u00a02008, the applicant was detained and ill-treated by officers of the Poltava police on numerous dates and occasions. The officers forced him to confess to having participated, together with Y.L., his friend, in numerous crimes. In particular, the officers resorted to psychological pressure, punched, kicked and verbally assaulted the applicant, deprived him of food and sleep, and held him several days shackled to a metal grid. In addition to that, on 5\u00a0January\u00a02009 police officer V.T. accompanied by two others repeatedly subjected the applicant to electric shocks through electrodes attached to his ears. In despair, on that date the applicant attempted to commit a suicide by swallowing a metal object.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Relevant facts and documents<\/strong><\/td>\n Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1. Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n (i) State provided no plausible satisfactory and convincing explanation as to origin of applicant\u2019s documented injuries and did not disprove that they had been caused by ill-treatment; there is no reason to doubt credibility of applicant\u2019s submissions that he had been ill\u2011treated (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a01727\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a061-62, 24\u00a0June\u00a02010; and Dushka v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a029175\/04, \u00a7\u00a048, 3\u00a0February\u00a02011);<\/p>\n \n B. 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:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \n\n
\n 4. Application no.\u00a050379\/15<\/strong><\/p>\n \n A. Complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n