CASE OF ODARENKO v. UKRAINE

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ODARENKO v. UKRAINE

(Application no. 23906/15)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

23 October 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Odarenko v. Ukraine,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 María Elósegui, President,
 Andreas Zünd,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 23906/15) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 May 2015 by a Ukrainian national, Ms Kristina Yuryevna Odarenko (“the applicant”), who was born in 1987, is currently serving a life sentence in Kharkiv Prison no. 54, and was represented by Mr V. Glushchenko and Ms A. Nikiforova, lawyers practising in Kharkiv;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko, from the Ministry of Justice, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police officers, the lack of an effective investigation and the use by a trial court of statements by the applicant allegedly obtained under duress. The applicant relied on Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2.  On 1 August 2013 a woman and her 6-year-old son were found dead in their apartment in Khmelnytskyi. On the same day the police opened a criminal investigation into a suspected double murder.

3.  According to the applicant, after her boyfriend T.’s arrest on 8 August 2013 on suspicion of the above murder, she was arrested on 11 August 2013 in connection with the same crime and detained in a police station without any official record of her detention. She was deprived of sleep and food and was subjected to repeated beatings to the head, face, torso and limbs, in order to extort a confession from her. On 13 August 2013, unable to withstand the ill‑treatment, the applicant confessed to the double murder committed together with T.

4.  At 4.20 p.m. on 13 August 2013 the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor who found haematomas on her cheekbone and the outer part of her shoulder, as well as an abrasion on her left shin. The doctor concluded that the haematomas could have been inflicted by blunt objects within the previous six to twenty-four hours, while the abrasion was one to two days old. In addition, multiple haematomas were documented on the applicant’s forearm, shoulder, elbow, chest and shoulder blade; these could have been inflicted by blunt objects two to seven days previously. The applicant informed the doctor that she had been taken to the Khmelnytskyi police station on 12 August 2013, after having spent “nearly two days” in another police station, and that she had sustained injuries at both locations “by bumping into doorposts”.

5.  Still on 13 August 2013 a video-recorded reconstruction of the crime was conducted in the presence of the applicant’s State-appointed lawyer, during which the applicant was invited to elaborate on the statements she had made during her earlier interrogation. According to the reconstruction record, the applicant agreed and provided a detailed account of her participation in the double murder.

6.  At 9.10 p.m. on 13 August 2013 the investigator prepared a report on the applicant’s detention.

7.  On 27 August 2013 T. complained to the prosecutor’s office about his and the applicant’s ill-treatment by the police. An investigation was launched on 2 December 2013.

8.  On 18 December 2013, in the course of questioning in the ensuing investigation, the applicant provided details of her unrecorded detention and ill-treatment, as summarised above (see paragraph 3 above). She submitted that she had not previously reported the ill-treatment for fear of reprisals.

9.  On 7 April 2014 the investigator questioned police officer D., who stated that he, together with officer V., had arrested the applicant on 11 August 2013 on suspicion of murder and had taken her to the police station.

10.  On 22 April 2014 the prosecutor’s office discontinued the criminal investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment, concluding that there was no indication that the police officers concerned had committed any crime as the applicant’s injuries had been sustained prior to her arrest. The investigator relied, inter alia, on statements from the police officers, in which they denied any coercion, and the applicant’s own statement, made during her questioning as a witness on 12 August 2013 in which she also denied having been subjected to any ill-treatment. The allegations of unrecorded detention remained unaddressed.

11.  The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation. By a final ruling of 25 November 2014, the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal upheld the decision to discontinue the investigation. It did not examine the applicant’s allegations of unrecorded detention, stating that all of her injuries had been inflicted before the official date of her arrest.

12.  On 24 September 2014 the Khmelnytskyi City District Court convicted the applicant and T. of murder and robbery[1], and sentenced them to life imprisonment with confiscation of property. The applicant and T. had both pleaded not guilty. The conviction was based, inter alia, on the applicant’s statements during the crime reconstruction, forensic evidence linking fragments of the applicant’s blood and clothing fibres to the crime scene and witness testimony indicating that the applicant had been with T. on the day of the murder. Referring to the results of the criminal investigation, the court dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as unfounded (see paragraph 10 above).

13.  The applicant appealed against that judgment, alleging that there was insufficient proof of her guilt, that forensic evidence had been tampered with and that self-incriminatory statements during the crime reconstruction had been obtained as a result of police ill-treatment. The verdict was upheld by the Khmelnytskyi Appeal Court and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court on 23 January 2015 and 26 April 2016 respectively. They found the evidence to be sufficient, the applicant’s statements during the reconstruction sincere and the complaints of ill‑treatment unsubstantiated. In dismissing the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints, the courts relied, in particular, on the results of the relevant domestic investigation (see paragraph 10 above).

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

14.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that police officers had ill-treated her during her unrecorded detention and that her allegations in that regard had not been properly investigated.

15.  The Government argued that those complaints were manifestly ill‑founded. Referring to the results of the domestic investigation, they insisted that the applicant had been arrested on 13 August 2013 and maintained that the applicant’s injuries had been sustained prior to her arrest.

16.  On the basis of the parties’ submissions and the available material, the Court concludes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

17.  Considering the case in the light of the general principles developed in its case-law (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114‑23, ECHR 2015), the Court notes that it is uncontested that the applicant sustained injuries that were sufficiently serious to fall within the ambit of Article 3. Although the applicant herself made no formal complaints, the competent authorities had been aware of her allegations of ill-treatment since at least 18 December 2013, when she was questioned (see paragraph 8 above). They were accordingly required to carry out an effective investigation.

18.  In the Court’s view, that obligation was not met. The investigation lacked thoroughness to the extent that the allegations of ill-treatment were rejected, in essence, on the basis of statements made by the police officers concerned. No serious effort was made to establish the actual date of the applicant’s arrest, to reconcile that date with the timing of the applicant’s injuries (see paragraph 4 above), or to ascertain the cause of those injuries. In that regard, the Court further notes that the applicant’s initial explanation that she had sustained her injuries by “bumping into doorposts” (see paragraph 4 above) was not credible and, under the circumstances, should have prompted concerns about possible ill‑treatment. Those findings are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the domestic authorities did not fulfil their obligation to conduct an effective investigation (see Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 173-80, 15 May 2012).

19.  As to the substance of the applicant’s allegations, the Court observes that police officer D. clearly stated that he had arrested the applicant and taken her into police custody on 11 August 2013 (see paragraph 9 above), which corresponds to the date indicated by the applicant during questioning (see paragraph 8 above). The Court also attaches weight to the applicant’s statement to the forensic doctor regarding the unrecorded detention prior to her formal arrest on 13 August 2013 (see paragraph 3 above), and to evidence that the applicant had been questioned during that period (see paragraph 10 above). In the absence of any alternative coherent account of events, the Court finds it established that the applicant was held in de facto police custody from 11 August to 13 August 2013 (see Zyakun v. Ukraine, no. 34006/06, § 48, 25 February 2016) and that some of her injuries were sustained while under the control of the authorities.

20.  Although it is for the State to provide a plausible explanation for injuries sustained by a person under its control, the authorities have not satisfactorily established that the applicant’s injuries were caused otherwise than by ill-treatment while in police custody, as alleged by her (see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 63-64, 7 November 2013).

21.  The Court therefore considers that it has been sufficiently established that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment which must be classified as inhuman and degrading.

22.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs.

23.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the statements given by her during the reconstruction of the crime on 13 August 2013 had been used to substantiate her conviction.

24.  The Government reiterated their argument about the absence of any evidence that the applicant had been coerced into making a confession while in police custody and that, in any event, there had been other extensive evidence proving her guilt.

25.  The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

26.  The Court reiterates that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings renders the proceedings as a whole unfair. This finding applies irrespective of the probative value of the statements and irrespective of whether their use was decisive in securing the defendant’s conviction (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 166, ECHR 2010, with further references, and Zamferesko v. Ukraine, no. 30075/06, §§ 70-72, 15 November 2012).

27.  In the present case, the applicant’s initial confession was made after she had been held in undocumented detention and ill-treated. Soon afterwards police officers took the applicant to a reconstruction of events at the crime scene, where she repeated that confession. The domestic courts later referred to the applicant’s statements made during the reconstruction, along with other evidence, as proof of her guilt, without seriously addressing her allegations that she had confessed under duress (see paragraph 13 above).

28.  In these circumstances, the Court considers that, as the applicant remained under police control, the continuing effects of her earlier ill‑treatment could have influenced her behaviour in the immediate aftermath (see Nalbandyan v. Armenia, nos. 9935/06 and 23339/06, § 102, 31 March 2015). Therefore, the restatement by the applicant of her confession at the crime scene was equally tainted by her prior ill-treatment and could not constitute valid evidence (see Mindadze and Nemsitsveridze v. Georgia, no. 21571/05, § 141, 1 June 2017). In the light of the above findings, the Court considers that although the applicant’s conviction was not based on her initial confession, the failure of the domestic courts to exclude the applicant’s statements made during the reconstruction from the body of evidence rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.

29.  It follows that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

30.  The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 2,400 in respect of legal fees incurred before the Court.

31.  The Government argued that the applicant’s claims were unsubstantiated.

32.  The Court awards the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

33.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses in the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, to be paid directly into the bank account of her representative, Mr Glushchenko.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be transferred directly to the account of the applicant’s representative, Mr Glushchenko;

(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;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 {signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}

 Martina Keller María Elósegui
 Deputy Registrar President

[1] According to this judgment, T. and the applicant killed the woman and her son and then stole 1,700 hryvnias (UAH) (equivalent to approximately 150 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) from the adult victim.