Published on 30 October 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 9113/18
Sergiy Mykolayovych RYBIY against Ukraine
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 10 October 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern allegations of ill-treatment by law-enforcement authorities and the lack of effective domestic investigation in respect of the aforementioned allegations. The applicants invoke Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the above complaints. Some applicants additionally invoke Article 13.
Three applicants also raise further complaints.
More specifically, Mr O.O. Shepelev (application no. 18540/18) complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he has been deprived of requisite medical assistance in detention for his injuries sustained immediately before his arrest and for his chronic illnesses.
Mr Y.V. Neymak (application no. 33147/18) complains that Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) was breached in the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, the domestic courts allegedly arbitrarily refused to admit as evidence expert reports obtained by the defence with a view to challenging the findings in the reports ordered by the prosecution and performed by the experts who, like the person accused by the applicant of having committed the crime wrongly attributed to him, were affiliated with the local police. The courts also refused to hear the applicant’s experts by videoconference.
Mr S.V. Lyalikov (application no. 53693/18) complains that the criminal proceedings against him were inordinately lengthy.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions in respect of all applications
1. Regard being had to the applicant’s account of his encounter with law‑enforcement officers on the date(s) indicated in the Appendix, has the applicant been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 169-182, 15 May 2012), was the investigation of the applicant’s relevant complaints by the domestic authorities compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?Additional question in respect of the application lodged by Mr O.O. Shepelev (no. 18540/18)
Did the circumstances and manner of the treatment by the prison authorities of the applicant’s injuries sustained in 2018 and his chronic ailments amount to inhuman treatment? In particular, regard being had to the applicant’s health situation, can it be said that the unavailability of more comprehensive and swift therapeutic measures amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (see, for example, Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14 October 2010)?Additional question in respect of the application lodged by Mr Y.V. Neymak (no. 33147/18)
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?
The parties are invited, in particular, to comment on the observance of the principle of equality of arms in that the courts refused to admit as evidence expert reports proposed by the applicant in support of his allegation that he had been the passenger rather than the driver of the car, which had become involved in a traffic accident, and to hear his experts via a videoconference (see, for example, Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, §§ 168-69 and 207-08, 27 March 2014)Additional question in respect of the application lodged by Mr S.V. Lyalikov (no. 53693/18)
Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
List of applications
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Represented by
Alleged ill-treatment
Other relevant facts
9113/18
Rybiy v. Ukraine
07/02/2018
Sergiy Mykolayovych
RYBIY
1989
Dnipro
S.P. Bulkach
23/03/2012
Officers of the Dnipropetrovsk regional organised crime police
Multiple bruises and abrasions
18540/18
Shepelev v. Ukraine
19/04/2018
Oleksandr Oleksandrovych
SHEPELEV
1970
Kyiv
D.S. Anikin
07-08/02/2018
Military prosecutor Sh., and other unidentified law-enforcement officers
Fractures (nose bones, jaw); broken tooth; multiple bruises, haemorrhages, abrasions (face, limbs)
Following his arrest on 08/02/2018, the applicant was placed and still remains in custody in a temporary detention facility designed for short-term incarceration only and having no medical unit. While basic mostly palliative treatment had been made available to the applicant for his injuries sustained on 07‑08/02/2018, there was no appropriate strategic therapeutic follow-up either in respect of those injuries or as regards the applicant’s chronic diseases (i.e., hypertension, cardiac insufficiency, osteochondrosis, ischemic heart disease, encephalopathy, anxiety and asthenic states, and multiple sclerosis). As a result, on numerous occasions an ambulance had to be called to treat urgent situations and the applicant’s general health has significantly deteriorated.
33147/18
Neymak v. Ukraine
30/10/2018
Yevgen Vyacheslavovych NEYMAK
1992
Letychiv
O.Y. Sapozhnikova
At 3 a.m. on 02/08/2015 investigators Y.K. and S.G. of the Khmelnytskyy regional police arrested the applicant in a hospital where he was on in-patient treatment (multiple injuries suffered in a grave traffic accident several hours before arrest) and drove him around for some six hours, using his vulnerable state to force him to acknowledge that he had been the driver of the car that had caused the accident and to denounce his statement that he had been the passenger of that car, which had been driven by M., a local off-duty policeman
On 30/02/2017 Letychiv District Court found that the applicant had been the car driver guilty of having caused the traffic accident. It dismissed his allegation that he had been the passenger of the car driven by M. Relying, in particular, on several expert reports ordered by the investigation, the court refused to admit alternative expert reports proposed by the applicant or to organise a videoconference to examine the applicant’s experts. The applicant’s appeals in which he alleged, in particular, that the investigation’s experts were biased as they, like M., were affiliated with the local police, were dismissed at two higher instances (final decision: Supreme Court, 08/04/2021).
38885/18
Bilyy v. Ukraine
26/07/2018
Ivan Ivanovych
BILYY
1984
Pidgorodne
M.O. Sosyedko
15/03/2014
Officers of the Dnipropetrovskyy district police in the Dnipropetrovskyy region
Abrasions and bruises (face, torso, and limbs); contused wounds (lips)
33155/18
Dolynskyy v. Ukraine
06/07/2018
Denys Valentynovcyh
DOLYNSKYY
1984
Kyiv
19/05/2016
Officers of the Zhytomyr police
Multiple bruises (shoulder blade area, lumbar area, stomach, abdomen, and both legs)
53693/18
Lyalikov v. Ukraine
31/10/2018
Sergiy Volodymyrovych
LYALIKOV
1961
Kyiv
05-06/02/2006
Officers of the Shevchenkivskyy district police in Kyiv
Blood stains on self-incriminating statements concerning offences of which the applicant was subsequently acquitted
Criminal proceedings against the applicant instituted on 14/02/2006 lasted until 03/10/2018 at three levels of jurisdiction
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy