Published on 7 April 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 28944/22 and 31217/22
Brahim SAADOUNE against Russia
and Shaun PINNER against Russia
lodged on 14 June 2022 and 27 June 2022 respectively
communicated on 16 March 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged risk to life and the ill-treatment of the applicants, both serving members of the Ukrainian armed forces (UAF), who were captured and detained by the armed forces of the Russian Federation and those of the “Donetsk People’s Republic’s” (“DPR”) in Mariupol, the Donetsk region, in April 2022.
The applicant in application no. 28944/22 is a Moroccan national who joined the UAF in October 2021. The applicant in application no. 31217/22 is a British national who joined the UAF in 2018. The applicants were deployed in Mariupol in the Donetsk region and were captured by the armed forces of the Russian Federation and those of the “DPR” on 12 and 13 April 2022, respectively (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 69 and 71, 9 July 2025). Following their capture, the applicants were allegedly subjected to interrogation, threats, acts of torture and physical assault, and were held in solitary confinement in conditions described as inhuman and degrading.
On 7 June 2022 the applicants were tried by the “Appeal’s Chamber of the Supreme Court of the DPR”. On 9 June 2022 the applicants were convicted of terrorism-related offences, violent usurpation of power and mercenary activity under Articles 232, 323, and 430 of the “Criminal Code of the DPR”, and sentenced to death penalty.
On 14 June and 27 June 2022 respectively, the applicants requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. The Court accepted the requests and decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation that they should ensure that the death penalty imposed on the applicants was not carried out, secure respect for the applicants’ rights under the Convention, in particular, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, to guarantee appropriate conditions of detention, and provide any necessary medical assistance and medication. The Government of the Russian Federation have not submitted any responses to the Court’s decisions.
On 20 and 21 September 2022 the applicants were released as part of a prisoner exchange.
Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and with reference to Protocol No. 6 and Protocol No. 13, the applicants complain that, by sentencing them to death, the “DPR authorities” put their lives at risk and subjected them to treatment reaching the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
Relying further on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were subjected to torture and detained in conditions amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Invoking the procedural limb of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 28944/22 complains that the Russian Federation failed to carry out an effective investigation. He further alleges that he was unlawfully detained, in breach of Article 5 of the Convention.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants argue that the “Appeal’s Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Donetsk People’s Republic” could not be regarded as “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. They further allege various procedural defects in the conduct of their “trial”, in breach of Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention, such as presumption of innocence, rights to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence, to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of their own choosing, to examine witnesses against them and to have the free assistance of an interpreter.
Relying on Article 7 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 28944/22 complains that he was put on “trial” despite enjoying combatant privilege and immunity due to his involvement in an international armed conflict.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the Russian authorities subjected them to an absolute ban on contact with their family members and the outside world, in breach of their rights under that provision. The applicant in application no. 31217/22 further alleges that his correspondence with his lawyer was not protected, as he had only been afforded legal advice in the presence of State agents and other persons.
The applicant in application no. 28944/22 also alleges a lack of effective remedies in respect of the violations complained of, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, taken together with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
With regard to Article 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 8, the applicant in application no. 28944/22 alleges that the violations in relation to him pursued an ulterior purpose, namely, to discourage Ukrainian and foreign citizens from participating in armed actions on the side of Ukraine.
Lastly, relying on Article 34 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 28944/22 complains that the Russian Federation failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court on 15 June 2022.
COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. In so far as the applicants complain of an alleged risk to their lives and of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment on account of the death penalty imposed on them by the “DPR court”, has there been a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 64, 29 October 2015)?
3. Were the applicants subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment on account of the conditions of their detention, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, § 1076)?
4. Were the applicants’ criminal cases adjudicated by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/28, § 1265, 25 June 2024, and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 123-32, 20 February 2024)?
Has there been a violation of Article 6 §§ 2 and/or 3 of the Convention in view of the various procedural defects alleged by the applicants in relation to the conduct of their “trial”?
5. Has there been a breach of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the alleged absolute ban on their contact with their families (see El-Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 236, 248-50, 13 December 2012, and Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, 30 June 2015, with further references)?
CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Application no. 28944/22
1. 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 applicant’s allegations of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by that provision?
2. Have any investigations been carried out in respect of the applicant’s allegations under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by that provision?
3. Was the applicant deprived of his 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)?
4. Was the applicant’s conviction compatible with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 1617-21)?
6. Were the restrictions imposed by the respondent State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5, 6, and 8 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/28, §§ 1328-38, 25 June 2024)?
7. Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measures indicated on 15 June 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court?
If the answer is in the negative, was there a hindrance by the Russian Government with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual application, 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)?
Application no. 31217/22
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
List of applications:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicants
Date of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
28944/22
Saadoune v. Russia
14/06/2022
Brahim
SAADOUNE
2000
Casablanca
Maroccan
Anna Grygorivna
KOZMENKO
2.
31217/22
Pinner v. Russia
27/06/2022
Shaun
PINNER
1973
British
Angela
DIMSDALE GILL