In the case of Khrus and others v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\nThe European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nSt\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President,
\nLado Chanturia,
\nMykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
\nand Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to:<\/p>\n
the applications 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 the applicants listed in the appended table (\u201cthe applicants\u201d) on the various dates indicated therein;<\/p>\n
the decision to give notice of the complaints summarised in paragraphs 1 and 2 below to the Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), represented most recently by their Agent, Ms M.\u00a0Sokorenko, and to declare the remainder of applications nos.\u00a038328\/14 and 28546\/16 inadmissible;<\/p>\n
the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 2 February 2023,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n1. The applicants complained, in particular, under Article\u00a03 of the Convention, that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by law-enforcement authorities and that their related complaints had not been effectively investigated. Some applicants also relied on Article\u00a03 and\/or Articles 6 and\u00a013 of the Convention in respect of the same complaints.<\/p>\n
2. Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus (application no.\u00a038328\/14) additionally relied on Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, complaining that he had been arrested at about 6.25\u00a0p.m. on 2 September 2011, whereas an arrest report had only been drawn up at 2\u00a0a.m. on 3\u00a0September\u00a02011. In addition, he complained under Article\u00a06 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings initiated against him had been excessive and that his freedom of movement had been restricted for an unreasonably lengthy period in view of an undertaking not to abscond which he had been obliged to give to the national authorities in September 2011.<\/p>\n
3. The facts relevant to the individual applications are set out in detail in the appended tables.<\/p>\n
THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\nI. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n4. 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 ILL-TREATMENT AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION<\/strong><\/p>\n5. 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 characterisation 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 Convention only.<\/p>\n
6. The Government contended that the complaints raised by Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus (application no.\u00a038328\/14) were manifestly ill-founded. They further argued that Mr\u00a0M.M.\u00a0Gryshchuk (application no.\u00a028546\/16) had raised his complaints outside the six-month time-limit, calculated from 26\u00a0December 2014, the day when his appeal against the last decision to discontinue criminal proceedings concerning his allegations of ill-treatment had been rejected by the Khmelnytskyi District Court (see appended table 2 for details). The Government also submitted that Mr\u00a0R.S.\u00a0Zatolokin (application no.\u00a031750\/16) had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not appealed against the decision of 21\u00a0December\u00a02016 to discontinue criminal proceedings in respect of his allegations of ill-treatment. Lastly, they contended that the complaints by Mr\u00a0O.P.\u00a0Striletskyy (application no.\u00a016810\/17) and Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Popuriy (application no.\u00a038328\/17) were premature, as the relevant domestic investigations were still ongoing.<\/p>\n
7. Reviewing those objections in the light of the available documents and the principles developed in its case-law (see, in particular, Kaverzin v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a023893\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a091-99 and 172-80, 15\u00a0May\u00a02012, and Belousov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a048-49 and 56-58, 7\u00a0November\u00a02013), the Court considers that they should be dismissed. In particular, it finds that Mr\u00a0M.M.\u00a0Gryshchuk, who lodged his application on 12 May 2016, that is, within six months of having been notified of the final decision in respect of his criminal case (13 November 2015), cannot be faulted for awaiting the completion of his trial before raising his complaints before the Court. The Court further finds that the remaining applicants provided the domestic authorities with appropriate opportunities to deal with their allegations, thus discharging their obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court further considers that the complaints raised by all of the applicants are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
8. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of the general principles established in its case-law (see Bouyid v.\u00a0Belgium [GC], no.\u00a023380\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a081-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), the Court considers that the applicants raised credible allegations of ill-treatment at the domestic level. Those claims triggered an obligation on the part of the national authorities to carry out effective and thorough investigations with a view to establishing the origin of the applicants\u2019 injuries as well as identifying and punishing those responsible, should the allegations of ill-treatment have proven to be true.<\/p>\n
9. From the documents before the Court, it appears that the domestic investigations did not reflect a serious effort to determine the relevant facts (see the appended tables for details).<\/p>\n
10. The Court notes that in Kaverzin (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0173-80) it found that the reluctance of the authorities to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation into complaints of ill-treatment 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 previous case-law, the Court considers that each of the present applications constitutes another example of a failure to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation.<\/p>\n
11. The Court further finds that the applicants\u2019 accounts as to the circumstances of their alleged ill-treatment are detailed and coherent. Even though 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 ill-treatment by law-enforcement officers. 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; see 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 2015; 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 ill-treatment is engaged.<\/p>\n
12. The above findings are sufficient for the Court to establish that the applicants were subjected to ill-treatment which must be classified as inhuman and degrading.<\/p>\n
13. 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
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n14. Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus (application no.\u00a038328\/14) lodged further complaints which also raised issues under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 and Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case\u2011law of the Court (see appended table 1 for details).<\/p>\n
15. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints are admissible and disclose the following violations:<\/p>\n
(a) a violation of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention as regards the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the delay in regularising his detention on 2\u00a0September 2011, in the light of the Court\u2019s findings in Smolik v.\u00a0Ukraine (no.\u00a011778\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a045-48, 19 January 2012), Grinenko v.\u00a0Ukraine (no.\u00a033627\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a074-78, 15\u00a0November 2012) and Belousov (cited above, \u00a7\u00a085); and<\/p>\n
(b) a violation of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against him, in the light of the Court\u2019s findings in P\u00e9lissier and Sassi v.\u00a0France ([GC], no.\u00a025444\/94, \u00a7\u00a067, ECHR\u00a01999\u2011II), Frydlender v.\u00a0France ([GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR\u00a02000\u2011VII) and Merit v.\u00a0Ukraine (no.\u00a066561\/01, 30\u00a0March\u00a02004).<\/p>\n
IV. OTHER COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n16. As regards the remaining complaint raised by Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus under Article 2 of Protocol No.\u00a04, having regard to the applicant\u2019s failure to rebut, with appropriate documents, the Government\u2019s explanation that the disputed undertaking not to abscond had been lifted in 2016, and also to its extensive case-law on the subject (see Ivanov v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a015007\/02, 7 December 2006; Nikiforenko v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a014613\/03, 18 February 2010; and, as a recent example, Kopytets and Shtopko v.\u00a0Ukraine [Committee], nos.\u00a09706\/19 and 9709\/19, 17\u00a0October\u00a02019) and the fact that the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings, which is linked to the present complaint, has already been examined under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 above, the Court considers that there is no need to address the present complaint as raised by Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.\u00a047848\/08, \u00a7 156, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n17. The applicants lodged just satisfaction claims under Article\u00a041 of the Convention (see the appended tables for details).<\/p>\n
18. 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 applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
19. 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>\n1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n
2. Declares the complaints concerning alleged ill-treatment by law\u2011enforcement officers and ineffective investigations in that regard, raised by all the applicants, as well as the complaints concerning unlawful detention and length of the criminal proceedings raised by Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus in application no.\u00a038238\/14, 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 the complaints concerning ill-treatment raised in all the applications;<\/p>\n
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article\u00a02 of Protocol No.\u00a04 of the Convention raised by Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus in application no.\u00a038328\/14;<\/p>\n
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention in respect of the complaint raised by Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus in application no.\u00a038328\/14;<\/p>\n
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention in respect of the complaint raised by Mr\u00a0O.V.\u00a0Khrus in application no.\u00a038328\/14;<\/p>\n
7. 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
8. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 March 2023, 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 St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
__________<\/p>\n
APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n1. Application no.\u00a038328\/14<\/strong>
\nby <\/strong>Mr\u00a0Oleksandr Viktorovych Khrus<\/strong>
\nUkrainian national born in 1983 and residing in Zhytomyr
\nRepresented by Mr\u00a0T.I.\u00a0Kotsur, a lawyer practising in Zhytomyr
\nLodged on 13\u00a0May\u00a02014<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFacts and documents relevant to alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| (i) Applicant\u2019s account<\/em><\/p>\n At about 6.25 p.m. on 2 September 2011 the applicant was arrested by agents of the Security Service of Ukraine (\u201cSBU\u201d) at the entry to his residence in Zhytomyr. Once the applicant, immobilised, was lying on the floor, an SBU officer kicked him in the head. Having been brought to the SBU quarters, the applicant was kept in unrecorded detention and subjected to psychological pressure in order to force him to confess to having taken a bribe. At 2\u00a0a.m. on 3 September 2011, after the applicant had given self-incriminating statements, an arrest report was drawn up and criminal proceedings against him were launched.<\/p>\n (ii) Medical and other evidence<\/em><\/p>\n(a) 3-5 September 2011, report no.\u00a03120 (Zhytomyr regional forensic expert bureau): bruise under the left eye (2.5 cm x 1.5\u00a0cm) possibly sustained on the date and in the circumstances indicated by the applicant;<\/p>\n (b) 7-13 September 2011, inpatient treatment records (Zhytomyr no.\u00a01 and 2 city hospitals): cerebral concussion.<\/p>\n (iii) Domestic findings<\/em><\/p>\n28 March 2014 (decision to close criminal proceedings, Zhytomyr prosecutor\u2019s office, military sphere department): no evidence that the applicant was kicked in the head or otherwise ill-treated during his arrest, which took place at about 6 p.m. on 2 September 2011; likewise no evidence that any psychological duress was suffered afterwards. No explanation as to the origin of documented injuries proposed.<\/p>\n (iv)<\/em> Other relevant information<\/em><\/p>\nAccording to the arrest report (Zhytomyr regional prosecutor\u2019s office), the applicant was arrested on 3 September 2011, at 2\u00a0a.m.<\/p>\n On 23 September 2011 the applicant was obliged to give an undertaking not to abscond, which included an obligation not to leave his town without the authorisation of the law-enforcement authorities. According to the applicant, this undertaking still stands. According to the Government, it automatically lost its validity on 29\u00a0February\u00a02016, when the applicant\u2019s prison sentence (subsequently quashed by the Higher Specialised Court on 6 October\u00a02016) was upheld on appeal.<\/p>\n As of October 2021, after several rounds of remittals, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending.<\/td>\n (i) The State provided no plausible satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant\u2019s documented injuries and did not disprove that they had been caused by ill-treatment; there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the 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 (ii) Delay in instituting criminal proceedings: complaint lodged on 3\u00a0September\u00a02011, Korolyovskyi district police in Zhytomyr; proceedings opened on 22\u00a0April\u00a02013 (Zhytomyr prosecutor\u2019s office, military sphere department) and repeated remittals for reinvestigation (at least four times) in view of the shortcomings recognised by the domestic authorities (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin<\/em>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201169; Belousov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a056, 7\u00a0November\u00a02013; and Adnaralov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a010493\/12, \u00a7\u00a050, 27\u00a0November\u00a02014).<\/p>\n(iii) The applicant was not accorded \u201cvictim\u201d status (for relevant examples, see Yatsenko\u00a0v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a075345\/01, \u00a7\u00a047, 16\u00a0February\u00a02012, and Zhyzitskyy\u00a0v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a057980\/11, \u00a7\u00a050, 19\u00a0February\u00a02015).<\/p>\n(iv) Inquiry limited in scope and without genuine effort to elucidate the origin of the documented injuries (for relevant examples, see Grinenko v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a033627\/06, \u00a7\u00a062, 15 November 2012, and Kleutin v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a05911\/05, \u00a7\u00a068, 23\u00a0June\u00a02016).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\u00a0Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nParties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nThe Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em> 13,000 euros (EUR)<\/p>\nGovernment:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nClaims exorbitant and unsubstantiated<\/td>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em><\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n EUR\u00a013,000<\/p>\n as claimed, plus any tax chargeable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n2. Application no.\u00a028546\/16<\/strong>
\nby <\/strong>Mr\u00a0Mykhaylo Mykhaylovych Gryshchuk<\/strong>
\nUkrainian national born in 1979 and residing in Yarmolyntsi
\nRepresented by Mr\u00a0A.S.\u00a0Kychenok, a lawyer practising in Kyiv
\nLodged on 12\u00a0May\u00a02016<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFacts and documents relevant to alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| (i) Applicant\u2019s account<\/em><\/p>\n On 27 September\u00a02013, first in a car and then in the Pivdenno-Zakhidnyi district police station in Khmelnytskyi, police officers repeatedly punched, kicked and hit the applicant (detained on 26 September 2013) with truncheons, forcing him to confess that he had hijacked the car.<\/p>\n (ii) Medical and other evidence<\/em><\/p>\n(a) 27 September 2013, record no. 280 (Khmelnytskyi police detention centre (\u201cITT\u201d)): no complaints or visible injuries on arrival (10.50 p.m.);<\/p>\n (b) 28\u00a0September\u00a02013, record no.\u00a048051 (Khmelnytskyi ambulance): spinal cord contusion;<\/p>\n (c) 25 October 2013, report no.\u00a01300 (Khmelnytskyi regional forensic expert bureau): bruises on left shoulder and right arm that could have been inflicted two to four days prior to the examination on 28 September 2013;<\/p>\n (d) 12 August 2014, report no. 980 (same entity): ambulance record lacks credibility, as no further objective evidence of a spinal injury has been provided.<\/p>\n (iii) Domestic findings<\/em><\/p>\nInjuries could have pre-dated the applicant\u2019s placement in custody. No explanation of their origin has been advanced (final decision to discontinue proceedings: 4 December 2014, applicant\u2019s appeals dismissed on 26 December 2014 and 16 January 2015 by the Khmelnytskyi District Court and Khmelnyskyi Regional Court of Appeal respectively).<\/p>\n (iv) Other relevant information<\/em><\/p>\nOn 29 October 2015 the Higher Specialised Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal against his conviction for hijacking a car, having also rejected his ill-treatment allegations as ill-founded. The decision was notified to the applicant, who was detained, no earlier than on 13 November 2015 (entry correspondence stamp of the detention facility).<\/td>\n (i) The State provided no plausible satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant\u2019s documented injuries and did not disprove that they had been caused by ill-treatment; there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the 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 (ii) Delay in instituting criminal proceedings: complaint lodged: 28 September 2013, Khmelnytskyi District Court; formal proceedings opened: 4\u00a0December 2013, Khmelnytskyi regional prosecutor\u2019s office (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin<\/em>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201169, and Savitskyy v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a038773\/05, \u00a7 105, 26\u00a0July 2012).<\/p>\n(iii) Hasty conclusion that the injuries could have pre-dated the encounter with the police; no attempt to determine the origin of the documented injuries or provide an explanation for the discrepancies between various medical documents: the conclusions of the forensic expert reports, the ITT files, and the records made by the ambulance team, who had not been interviewed (for relevant examples, see Gordiyenko v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a027620\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a094-96, 16\u00a0October\u00a02014, and Sadkov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a021987\/05, \u00a7\u00a096, 6 July 2017).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nJust satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nParties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nThe Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em> 100,000 euros (EUR)<\/p>\nGovernment:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nNo comments within the allocated time-limit<\/td>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em><\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n EUR\u00a015,000<\/p>\n plus any tax chargeable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n\n3.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a031750\/16<\/strong>
\nby <\/strong>Mr\u00a0Roman Sergiyovych Zatolokin<\/strong>
\nUkrainian national born in 1976 and residing in Khoroshego
\nRepresented by Ms\u00a0A.Y.\u00a0Nikiforova, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv
\nLodged on 26\u00a0May\u00a02016<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFacts and documents relevant to alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| (i)\u00a0\u00a0Applicant\u2019s account<\/em><\/p>\n On 27\u00a0January\u00a02015, in the Shevchenkivskyi District Police station in Kharkiv, several police officers punched the applicant on the head and stomach, threatened him and pressed him against them, forcing him to confess to having hijacked a car.<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n(a)\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>29\u00a0January-3\u00a0February\u00a02015, inpatient hospital record (Meshchaninov hospital): head injury; cerebral concussion, soft cranial tissue and abdominal wall contusion;<\/p>\n(b)\u00a0\u00a012 March 2015, depositions by A.B. and V.D., the applicant\u2019s acquaintances, who were also questioned by the police on the same floor, indicating that they had heard him cry and that he was feeling unwell immediately after their joint release (on 27 January 2015);<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a024 April-22 May 2015, report no. 1581 (Kharkiv regional forensic bureau): injuries diagnosed in the hospital were sustained no later than on 29 January 2015, possibly in the circumstances indicated by the applicant;<\/p>\n (d)\u00a0\u00a06\u00a0June\u00a02016, report no.\u00a0326-KE\/2016 (same entity): applicant\u2019s hospitalisation records do not include some of the tests and examinations necessary to confirm accuracy of his initial diagnosis and determine gravity of his injuries.<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0Domestic findings<\/em><\/p>\n21 December 2016, last decision to close criminal proceedings initiated on 12 February 2015 (Kharkiv regional prosecutor\u2019s office): No evidence that the applicant was ill-treated by the police. Origin of the injuries not established.<\/td>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0The State provided no plausible satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant\u2019s documented injuries and did not disprove that they had been caused by ill-treatment; there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the applicant\u2019s submissions, corroborated also by witness statements 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.\u00a0Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a029175\/04, \u00a7\u00a048, 3\u00a0February\u00a02011).<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Repeated remittals for reinvestigation in view of the shortcomings recognised by the domestic courts (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(iii)\u00a0\u00a0No appearance of a thorough effort to collect objective evidence, in particular: no face-to-face confrontations between the applicant and the officers implicated by him in the ill-treatment; no other steps to reconcile discrepancies between their accounts and verify the probability of the applicant\u2019s submissions; no attempt to establish the origin of the documented injuries (for relevant examples, see Danilov v.\u00a0Ukraine<\/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\n\u00a0<\/strong>Just satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nParties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nThe Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em> 100,000 euros (EUR)<\/p>\nGovernment:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nClaims exorbitant<\/td>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em><\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n EUR\u00a015,000<\/p>\n plus any tax chargeable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n \n\n\n4.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a016810\/17<\/strong>
\nby <\/strong>Mr\u00a0Oleksandr Pavlovych Striletskyy<\/strong>
\nUkrainian national born in 1966 and residing in Nikopol
\nRepresented by Ms\u00a0G.V. Ovdiyenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv
\nLodged on 21 February 2017<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFacts and documents relevant to alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\nKey issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| (i)\u00a0\u00a0Applicant\u2019s account<\/em><\/p>\n Between 28\u00a0October and 9\u00a0December 2008, on numerous occasions the applicant (arrested on 24\u00a0October 2008) was tortured and ill-treated in various police departments in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Regions by several police officers, forcing him to confess to having committed multiple murders as a member of a criminal association. In particular, the applicant was punched, kicked, strangled with a cord, subjected to \u201cPalestinian hanging\u201d; his fingers were twisted and pinched. He was also repeatedly threatened that his niece would also be tortured.<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Medical and other evidence:<\/em><\/p>\n(a)\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>4-5\u00a0November\u00a02008, x-ray (Zaporizhzhia hospital): fresh fractures of 7th and 8th ribs;<\/p>\n(b)\u00a0\u00a02-18\u00a0September\u00a02015, report no.\u00a0135\/k (Zaporizhzhia regional forensic bureau): the fractures were inflicted no more than ten days before the x-ray scan;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>12-13 September 2016, report no. 3659 (same entity): injuries of intermediate gravity (fractures of 7th and 8th ribs) possibly sustained in the circumstances and during the period indicated by the applicant.<\/p>\n(iii)\u00a0\u00a0Domestic findings<\/em><\/p>\n(preliminarily, investigation pending, last update 14 January 2019): no evidence has been collected indicating that the applicant suffered police ill-treatment. No information concerning origin of the fractured ribs.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0The State provided no satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant\u2019s injuries, which, according to the available medical documents, were sustained in custody, and did not disprove that they had been sustained at the hands of the law-enforcement authorities (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 (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Delay in opening a full\u2011scale investigation (complaint lodged on 25 November 2008, Zaporizhzhia prosecutor\u2019s office; investigation launched on 25 May 2016), preceded by repeated rounds of pre-investigation inquiry (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, and Chernega and Others v. Ukraine<\/em>, no.\u00a074768\/10, \u00a7\u00a0167, 18\u00a0June\u00a02019).<\/p>\n(iii)\u00a0\u00a0Overall length of investigation and repeated remittals for reinvestigation in view of the shortcomings recognised by the domestic courts (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)\u00a0\u00a0No appearance of a thorough effort to collect objective evidence, in particular: no face-to-face confrontations between the applicant and the officers implicated by him in the ill-treatment; no other steps to reconcile discrepancies between their accounts and verify the probability of the applicant\u2019s submissions; no attempt to establish the origin of the documented injuries (for relevant examples, see Danilov v.\u00a0Ukraine,<\/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\nJust satisfaction<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nParties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/td>\nThe Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Applicant:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Non-pecuniary damage:<\/em> 50,000 euros (EUR)<\/p>\nGovernment:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nClaims exorbitant<\/td>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/em><\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n EUR\u00a015,000<\/p>\n plus any tax chargeable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n \n\n\n5.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a038238\/17<\/strong>
\nby <\/strong>Mr\u00a0Oleksandr Volodymyrovych Popuriy<\/strong>
\nUkrainian national born in 1980 and residing in Kramatorsk
\nRepresented by Ms\u00a0A.Y. Nikiforova, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv
\nLodged on 22 May 2017<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nFacts and documents relevant to alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n| Key issues<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |