Published on 8 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 25763/23
Oleksandr Viktorovych TARASOV
against Russia
lodged on 12 June 2023
communicated on 21 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s alleged abduction, ill‑treatment, including torture, and arbitrary detention by Russian forces in Kherson and Crimea between March 2022 and February 2023 during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The applicant, a Ukrainian journalist and activist, alleges that he was apprehended on 7 March 2022 following the organisation of pro‑Ukrainian protests in Kherson.
According to the applicant, he was subjected to severe ill‑treatment, including the application of electric shocks and suspension by his wrists, and interrogated about his contacts with Ukrainian authorities. He further alleges that, under threats against his family, he was forced to record a video stating that the protests in Kherson had been organised by the Security Service of Ukraine.
The applicant submits that he was transferred to Crimea on 16 March 2022, where he was subjected to further torture and detained in inhuman conditions.
He was released on 14 February 2023 and relocated to Germany on 18 March 2023.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was subjected to torture while under the control of Russian forces, including beatings, electric shocks, threats of execution and harm to his family, prolonged handcuffing, hooding, psychological abuse and deprivation of food, water and heating. He further alleges that no effective investigation was carried out in that regard.
Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was arbitrarily detained from 7 March 2022 to 14 February 2023, without a legal basis, judicial oversight or any realistic prospect of release, and that no investigation was conducted into his alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty.
Relying on Articles 10 and Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant submits that his detention and ill‑treatment were motivated by his pro‑Ukrainian activism and his involvement in organising demonstrations in Kherson.
Finally, the applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 3, 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has the applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, in particular torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§ 1076, 1079-80, and 1082-83, 9 July 2025)?
Has an effective investigation been carried out into the applicant’s allegations of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, as required by that provision?
3. Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, §§ 910, 913, 1111-13, 1117, 1121 and 1123-24)?
Has an effective investigation been carried out into the applicant’s allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 of the Convention (see El-Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 242-43, 13 December 2012)?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and his right to freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Articles 10 § 1 and 11 § 1 of the Convention, on account of his alleged detention, coercion and ill‑treatment linked to his participation in pro‑Ukrainian protests (see, mutatis mutandis, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, § 1336)?
If so, was that interference justified under Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaints under Articles 3, 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, cited above, § 1622)?