Communicated on 3 April 2019<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 26738\/12
\nAleksey Vladimirovich TARASOV against Ukraine
\nand 8 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The circumstances of the cases<\/p>\n On various dates the applicants complained to the national authorities of Ukraine that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by law-enforcement authorities, which were seeking to coerce them to give self-incriminating statements. Facts relative to individual cases are summarised in the table appended below.<\/p>\n In most cases, the domestic courts repeatedly quashed the decisions of the investigative authority not to institute\/to terminate criminal proceedings with a view to investigating the applicants\u2019 complaints, referring to various mistakes and omissions in the inquiry.<\/p>\n In none of the cases the circumstances in which the applicants suffered the injuries complained about have been clearly and unequivocally established.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0All applications<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complain under Article\u00a03 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by law-enforcement authorities, who sought to coerce them to give self-incriminating statements.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0They further complain that their relative complaints have not been effectively investigated by the domestic authorities. They invoke Article\u00a03 and\/or Article\u00a013 of the Convention in this respect.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a026738\/12 – Tarasov v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n The applicant also invokes Articles\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 and 13 of the Convention complaining that he was arrested on 31\u00a0March 2011, while an arrest report was drawn only on 1\u00a0April\u00a02011. In addition, he complains under the same provision that his arrest remained unlawful until 4\u00a0April\u00a02011, when the judge ordered him to be remanded in custody, because this decision was taken after the expiry of the seventy-two-hour period maximally allowed by the domestic law for police detention.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a039701\/12 – Rud v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also complains that the conditions of his detention in the Kharkiv SIZO were in breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention and that he had no effective remedies for the relevant complaint within the meaning of Article\u00a013 of the Convention. He submits, notably, that his cell was overcrowded so that detainees needed to take turns to sleep; that there was mold and fungi on the walls; and that ventilation and thermic isolation in the cell were lacking.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In addition, the applicant complains that since\u00a01\u00a0September\u00a02012 he has been detained on the basis of the fact that his case has been remitted to the court for consideration. He alleges that this situation is in breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention and that he has no effective remedies for this complaint within the meaning of Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 51935\/12 – Bazheryan v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n The applicant also complains that the length of his detention pending investigation and trial, which lasted, in total, from 9\u00a0October 2007 until 4\u00a0April 2015 (during three rounds of proceedings) and the length of the criminal proceedings themselves (ending on 8\u00a0June 2015) were excessive for the purposes of Articles\u00a05 and 6 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a0\u00a016495\/13 – Kulayev and Others v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants also invoke Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention complaining that on 21\u00a0April 2012 they were arrested without any legal basis and held in undocumented detention for about twelve hours. They also allege that their detention was unlawful in view that they were brought before a judge only in the afternoon on 24\u00a0April 2012, that is, after the expiry of the seventy-two-hour period maximally allowed by the domestic law for police detention.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In addition, the applicants invoke Article\u00a08 of the Convention complaining that early in the morning on 21\u00a0April 2012, while they were sleeping, the police stormed their flat, entered it by breaking the door and conducted an unlawful search.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the applicants complain under the same provision that their correspondence with the domestic authorities was perlustrated at the Kharkiv pre-trial detention facility (SIZO). They submit copies of official letters addressed to them personally, which contain a SIZO \u201centering correspondence\u201d stamp.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a068237\/13 – Amirli v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also complains that the conditions of his detention in the Donetsk SIZO no.\u00a05 between November 2013 and August 2015 were in breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention. He notes, in particular, that the cell was very cold and humid, particularly as there was no glass in the window; that sanitary equipment was broken and that sewage waters from the upper floor constantly infiltrated through the walls creating intolerable smell and sanitary risks.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also complains under Article 6\u00a0of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case, which were initiated in July 2010 and still pending as of May 2018, is excessive.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a041893\/14 \u2013 Maslennikov v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n The applicant also complains that the length of his detention pending investigation and trial, which has lasted since 2\u00a0December 2011 and until present (during several rounds of proceedings) and the same length of the criminal proceedings are excessive for the purposes of Articles 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 and 6 of the Convention respectively.<\/p>\n COMMON QUESTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0With respect to circumstances, listed in the appended table, have the applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, (see paragraph\u00a0131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no.\u00a026772\/95, ECHR 2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0169-182, 15\u00a0May2012), was the investigation of the applicants\u2019 relevant complaints by the domestic authorities in breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention?<\/p>\n The parties are requested to provide copies of all pertinent medical records and procedural documents concerning the investigation of ill\u2011treatment complaints raised by the applicants.<\/p>\n CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a026738\/12 – Tarasov v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n Was the applicant deprived of his liberty between 31\u00a0March and 4\u00a0April 2011 in breach of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention? (see, for example, Grinenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a033627\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a074-78 and 81-84, 15\u00a0November2012 and Belousov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a079\u201185, 7\u00a0November 2013).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a039701\/12 – Rud v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Did the material conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the Kharkiv SIZO amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Is the applicant\u2019s detention starting from 1\u00a0September 2012 in breach of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention? (seeKharchenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a040107\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a073-76, 10\u00a0February\u00a02011).<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have an effective remedy for his complaint under Article\u00a03 concerning the conditions of his detention, as required by Article\u00a013 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 51935\/12 – Bazheryan v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Was the length of the applicant\u2019s detention pending investigation and trial in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a016495\/13 – Kulayev and Others v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Were the applicants deprived of their liberty between 21 and 24\u00a0April\u00a02012 in breach of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention? (see, for example, Grinenko v. Ukraine, no.\u00a033627\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a074-78 and 81-84, 15\u00a0November2012 and Belousov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a079\u201185, 7\u00a0November 2013).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been a violation of the applicants\u2019 rights guaranteed by Article\u00a08 of the Convention?<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0on account of the police conduct on 21\u00a0April 2012 (compare with Belousov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a04494\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0103-108, 7\u00a0November 2013; Koval and Others v. Ukraine, no. 22429\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0110-113, 15\u00a0November 2012; and Zosymov v. Ukraine, no.\u00a04322\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a061-62, 7\u00a0July 2016);<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0on account of alleged perlustration by the SIZO authorities of the applicants\u2019 correspondence with the Ukrainian authorities (see Sergey Volosyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1291\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a083-86, 12 March 2009).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a068237\/13 – Amirli v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Did the material conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in the Donetsk SIZO amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Application no.\u00a041893\/14 \u2013 Maslennikov v. Ukraine<\/em><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Was the length of the applicant\u2019s detention pending investigation and trial in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Was the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention?<\/p>\n