ADRUG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Published on 7 April 2026

 

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 44139/22
Tamara Yuriyivna ADRUG and Others
against Russia
lodged on 16 September 2022
communicated on 16 March 2026

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful detention of four Ukrainian prisoners of war – the applicants’ close relatives – who were captured by Russian forces during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

A list of applicants, their relatives and the respective degree of kinship is set out in the appended table.

   FACTS

The applicants’ relatives, who are servicemen of the National Guard of Ukraine, were captured by Russian forces at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (hereinafter “Chornobyl NPP”) in the Kyiv region on 24 February 2022 (see, for the context, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 67, 9 July 2025).

     Detention at the Chornobyl NPP   Conditions of detention

According to statements provided by two Chornobyl NPP employees, the captured servicemen were detained in a basement on the premises of the NPP, under the custody of Russian forces, with their movements restricted and their access to food limited. A military doctor present at the NPP reported that their physical and psychological condition had been adversely affected by inadequate conditions of detention, excessive exposure to radiation, stress and insufficient nutrition.

   Exposure to radiation

On 28 February 2022 Ukraine’s State Agency on Exclusion Zone Management reported significantly elevated levels of radiation near the Chornobyl NPP, suggesting possible violations of the nuclear safety regulations by Russian forces. Subsequently, the Security Service of Ukraine documented multiple breaches of the nuclear safety standards at the NPP by Russian personnel. After the Chornobyl NPP was taken back by Ukrainian armed forces, an investigation team led by Greenpeace experts announced in July 2022 that radiation levels in the areas previously under Russian control were comparable to those associated with nuclear waste.

According to a letter from the Ministry of Health dated 29 July 2022, a medical assessment of the effects of radiation on the health of the captured servicemen could only be conducted through physical examination upon their release.

     Further developments

On 31 March 2022 the applicants’ relatives were taken by a truck to an unidentified location. On 3 April 2022 the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights stated that the captured servicemen were reportedly being held in Smolensk in the Russian Federation and in Brahin in the Republic of Belarus. She also claimed that they were being deprived of food and potable water.

   The first applicant’s relative

According to the first applicant, on 1 July 2022 she received a confirmation from the International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter “ICRC”) that her son, Mr Adrug, was being held in the Russian Federation. She also stated that on 24 August 2022 the Ukrainian National Center for Peacebuilding (acting as an Information Bureau under the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; hereinafter “National Information Bureau”) had informed her that it had received a letter from Mr Adrug through the ICRC. She did not specify the contents of the letter. Subsequently, she has had no contact with her son and has been unable to establish his whereabouts.

   The second applicant’s relative

On 4 April 2022 the Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine confirmed that the second applicant’s husband, Mr Artamonov, was in captivity. The second applicant claimed that she had received another confirmation of her husband’s captivity from the ICRC on 29 June 2022. She has had no contact with her husband and has been unable to establish his whereabouts.

   The third applicant’s relative

On 6 April 2022 the military unit in which the applicants’ relatives had served confirmed that the third applicant’s husband, Mr Pindak, was in captivity. His captivity was further confirmed by the ICRC and the National Information Bureau. On an unspecified date the third applicant received a letter from her husband sent through the Russian postal service. The letter read as follows: “Alive, in good health, everything is fine.” Subsequently, she has had no contact with her husband and has been unable to establish his whereabouts.

   The fourth applicant’s relative

On 6 April 2022 the military unit confirmed that the fourth applicant’s husband, Mr Yakymenko, was in captivity. His captivity was further confirmed by the ICRC, the Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and the National Information Bureau. The fourth applicant further stated that on 15 May 2022 she had been contacted by a former prisoner of war who alleged that he had previously been detained with Mr Pindak. The latter had allegedly informed him that Mr Yakymenko, along with other servicemen from the military unit, had been detained at the Novozybkov pre-trial detention facility no. 2 in the Bryansk region of the Russian Federation. The fourth applicant added that on 9 August 2022 the Commander of the National Guard of Ukraine had informed her that her husband, along with other servicemen from the military unit, was being held in Smolensk in the Russian Federation. On 26 August 2022 the National Information Bureau informed her that it had received a letter from Mr Yakymenko through the ICRC. The letter was dated 14 April 2022 and was sent through the Russian postal service. It read as follows: “Everything is fine, alive, in good health.” Subsequently, she has had no contact with her husband and has been unable to establish his whereabouts.

     Request for interim measures

On 16 September 2022 the applicants requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On the same date the Court decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, that they should (i) ensure respect for the Convention rights of the applicants’ relatives, notably as concerned Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, (ii) ensure the appropriate conditions of their detention, and (iii) provide them with necessary medical assistance and medication, if needed.

The interim measures indicated by the Court on 16 September 2022 remain in force.

   COMPLAINTS

Referring to Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a practice by Russian authorities of extra-judicial killings and deaths due to torture and lack of medical care to which their relatives may have fallen victims.

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants further complain that their relatives have been subjected to torture and other forms of ill‑treatment, which was also in violation of relevant provisions of international humanitarian law. They further complain that their relatives have been detained in inadequate conditions, initially at the Chornobyl NPP and subsequently in Russia and/or Belarus. In this regard, they specifically allege a lack of access to daylight, insufficient food and potable water, and detention in isolation. Furthermore, they claim that their relatives have been treated as convicts rather than prisoners of war, insofar as they have been held in ordinary detention facilities instead of internment camps, as required under international humanitarian law. Lastly, they complain that the health of their relatives has deteriorated due to their exposure to significantly elevated radiation levels at the Chornobyl NPP, allegedly caused by breaches of safety regulations by Russian forces. In this regard, they further contend that their relatives have been denied medical examinations and treatment necessary to address the consequences of such radiation exposure.

Invoking Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention under their procedural limb, the applicants further submit that the Russian Federation failed to carry out effective investigations in respect of their allegations listed above.

Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants further complain that they have been suffering severe mental distress due to the uncertainty surrounding the fate of their relatives following their capture. In particular, they refer to the inability to establish contact with them and to ascertain their whereabouts, state of health and the conditions of their detention. In this regard they state that, beyond confirming the fact of the captivity, Russia has not provided any information about their relatives to the ICRC or Ukrainian authorities.

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants further complain that their relatives have been subjected to an absolute ban on contact with their families and the outside world.

Furthermore, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that there are no effective remedies in the Russian Federation in respect of their complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 8.

Lastly, relying on Article 34 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the Russian Federation failed to comply with the interim measures indicated by the Court on 16 September 2022.

In support of their allegations, the applicants rely on testimonies provided by former prisoners of war, statements issued by employees of the Chornobyl NPP, as well as media reports and reports from Ukrainian authorities. They further rely on the OHCHR report entitled “Human Rights situation in Ukraine between 1 February and 31 July 2022” of 27 September 2022 and Resolution no. 2463 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 13 October 2022.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

 

2.  Has the right to life of the applicants’ relatives, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated? In particular, did the Russian Federation fail to comply with its positive obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of the applicants’ relatives? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), have any investigations been carried out in respect of the applicants’ allegation of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by that provision?

 

3.  Have the applicants’ relatives been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1076, 9 July 2025)? Have any investigations been carried out into the applicants’ allegation of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as required by that provision?

 

4.  Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the Russian Federation, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in respect of their suffering due to the uncertainty surrounding the fate of their relatives and their alleged inability to establish contact with them and to ascertain their whereabouts, state of health and the conditions of their detention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, § 1081)?

 

5.  Have the applicants’ relatives been deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§ 100-07, 16 September 2014)?

 

6.  Has there been a breach of the right of the applicants’ relatives under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the alleged absolute ban on their contact with their families and the outside world (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015, with further references)?

 

7.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 1617-21)?

 

8.  Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measures indicated on 16 September 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court? If the answer is in the negative, was there a hindrance by the Russian Government with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application, as ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 128-29, ECHR 2005-I)?

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

List of applicants:

 

No.

Applicant

Applicant’s Kinship

Year of Birth

Place of Residence

Nationality

Applicant’s Relative

Year of Birth

Nationality

Represented by

1.

Tamara Yuriyivna

ADRUG

Mother

1958

Chernihiv

Ukrainian

Sergiy Mykhaylovych

ADRUG

1986

Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

Anna Grygorivna KOZMENKO

2.

Yuliya Gennadiyivna ARTAMONOVA

Wife

1979

Kyiv

Ukrainian

Vitaliy Viktorovych ARTAMONOV

1979

Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

Anna Grygorivna KOZMENKO

3.

Angelina Ivanivna

PINDAK

Wife

1987

Slavutych

Ukrainian

Yuriy Volodymyrovych

PINDAK

1980

Ukrainian

 

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

Anna Grygorivna KOZMENKO

4.

Olesya Mykhaylivna YAKYMENKO

Wife

1986

Slavutych

Ukrainian

Vladyslav Viktorovych YAKYMENKO

1981

Ukrainian

 

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

Anna Grygorivna KOZMENKO

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy