TARASENKO v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

Published on 17 November 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 16484/23
Ivan Fedorovych TARASENKO against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 31 October 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful detention of four Ukrainian nationals who were arrested by Russian forces on Zmiinyi island on 25 February 2022 (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 962, 9 July 2025).

The applicant in application no. 16484/23 is a doctor, while the remaining three are members of the clergy. The applicant in application no. 20692/24 serves as a chaplain in a Ukrainian military unit, and the other two perform chaplain duties on a voluntary basis.

On 25 February 2022 the applicants joined a rescue mission on board the Sapfir vessel, flying the flag of Ukraine, with the aim of retrieving the bodies of Ukrainian soldiers allegedly killed on Zmiinyi island.

Upon reaching the island on 26 February 2022, the applicants and members of the Sapfir crew were arrested by Russian forces and detained on board the vessel.

On 27 February 2022 the applicants were taken to Sevastopol, where they were detained in military custody.

On 11 March 2022 they were transferred by military aircraft to Kursk in the Russian Federation, together with approximately 200 Ukrainian prisoners of war. Upon arrival, the applicants were transported in prison vans to a military camp near Shebekino in the Belgorod region of Russia and detained there.

On 16 and 18 March 2022 the applicants were transferred to pre-trial detention facility no. 2 in Staryy Oskol (“Staryy Oskol SIZO no. 2”) in the Belgorod region. The applicants in applications nos. 16484/23, 20583/24 and 20692/24 were held in custody in the Staryy Oskol SIZO no. 2 until their release in a prisoner exchange on 9 April 2022, while the applicant in application no. 34928/24 remained there until his release on 5 May 2022.

1.  The following Articles of the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (“the Third Geneva Convention”) and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (“the Fourth Geneva Convention”), are relevant to the present cases:

Article 33 – Rights and privileges of retained personnel (Third Geneva Convention)

Members of the medical personnel and chaplains while retained by the Detaining Power with a view to assisting prisoners of war, shall not be considered as prisoners of war. They shall, however, receive as a minimum the benefits and protection of the present Convention, and shall also be granted all facilities necessary to provide for the medical care of, and religious ministration to prisoners of war. ...

Article 36 – Prisoners who are ministers of religion (Third Geneva Convention)

Prisoners of war who are ministers of religion, without having officiated as chaplains to their own forces, shall be at liberty, whatever their denomination, to minister freely to the members of their community. For this purpose, they shall receive the same treatment as the chaplains retained by the Detaining Power. They shall not be obliged to do any other work.

Article 42 – Grounds for internment or assigned residence of protected persons. Voluntary internment (Fourth Geneva Convention)

The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary ...

Article 78 – Internment and assigned residence in occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention)

If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.

Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the parties concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible delay. In the event of the decision being upheld, it shall be subject to periodical review, if possible every six months, by a competent body set up by the said Power.

Protected persons made subject to assigned residence and thus required to leave their homes shall enjoy the full benefit of Article 39 of the present Convention.

2.  The Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 1 February to 31 July 2022, adopted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on 27 September 2022, stated at § 53:

“OHCHR also documented the torture and ill-treatment of a group of four civilians, including two priests who had volunteered to retrieve the bodies of Ukrainian soldiers believed to have been killed on Zmiinyi island on 25 February. Once on the island, the men were arrested by Russian armed forces together with the 17 crewmembers of the rescue ship. Russian forces took the group to Sevastopol (Crimea), and then to Shibekine and Staryi Oskol in Belgorod Region (Russian Federation). In Shibekine, the men were held for six days in unheated military tents, where they were denied medical care and some suffered frostbite. In Staryi Oskol, Russian penitentiary staff repeatedly beat the detainees and frequently subjected them to body searches, including cavity searches, and electric shocks to their genitals. The Russian staff recorded these acts of torture and ill-treatment on video, and threatened to upload the videos online or to send them to the victims’ relatives, creating additional psychological distress. The victims were released from detention during an ‘exchange of prisoners of war’ in May 2022.”

Relying on Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were unlawfully deprived of their liberty and detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, and that they were subjected to torture by the Russian authorities, without having any effective remedy in that regard.

They further complain under Article 8 of the Convention that they were subjected by the Russian authorities to an absolute ban on contact with their family members and with the outside world.

The applicants further complain under Article 9 of the Convention that the prison authorities of the Staryy Oskol SIZO no. 2 did not allow them to practice their non-Russian Orthodox religions, which were regarded as “schismatic”. The applicants in applications nos. 20583/24, 20692/24 and 34928/24 also complain that they were not permitted to minister their religions to other prisoners and that their religious symbols, including the Bible and crosses, were confiscated.

Lastly, referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain that their personal belongings (a camera, mobile phones, cash, documents, keys) seized during their arrest on 26 February 2022 were never returned to them.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 1068, 1072, 1075-76 and 1082, 9 July 2025)?

Did the material conditions of their detention and transportation amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., § 1080)?

2.  Were the applicants 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; see also Ukraine and the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 1119-23)?

3.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3 and 5, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands, cited above, § 1622)?

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

5.  Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention (see Moroz v. Ukraine, no. 5187/07, § 105, 2 March 2017, and Korostelev v. Russia, no. 29290/10, § 59, 12 May 2020)?

6.  Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ukraine and the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 1447-49 and 1451-53)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality

Represented by

1.

16484/23

Tarasenko v. Russia

08/08/2022

Ivan Fedorovych TARASENKO
1977
Odesa
Ukrainian

Yevgen Volodymyrovych CHEKARYOV

2.

20583/24

Bolgarov v. Russia

08/08/2022

Leonid Volodymyrovych BOLGAROV
1958
Odesa
Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

3.

20692/24

Chokov v. Russia

08/08/2022

Oleksandr Venedyktovych CHOKOV
1967
Pivdenne
Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO

4.

34928/24

Vyrozub v. Russia

19/08/2022

Vasyl Demyanovych VYROZUB
1970
Odesa
Ukrainian

Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO