Published on 20 July 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos. 25807/22 and 51196/22
Ganna Sergiyivna VEPRYTSKA and Sergiy Sergiyovych MAKYEYEV against Russia
and Mariya SAVCHUK and Andriy Romanovych SAVCHUK against Russia
lodged on 12 May 2022 and 29 October 2022 respectively
communicated on 2 July 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful detention of two Ukrainian servicemen currently held in Russian captivity. These applications were lodged by the servicemen’s close relatives, as the servicemen remain detained and are therefore unable to submit the applications themselves. The applications were submitted on different dates, reflecting the ongoing and individual nature of the detentions.
The applicants’ relatives, who are servicemen attached to battalions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, were captured by Russian forces in April and July 2022 in the Donetsk region (details of the dates and specific locations of capture are outlined in the Annex). Following their capture, the applicants’ relatives have allegedly been held in incommunicado detention at undisclosed locations, the whereabouts of which remain unknown to their families and legal representatives. The applicants have not heard from their relatives since their capture.
On 12 May and 29 October 2022 respectively, the applicants requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court accepted the requests and decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to ensure respect for the Convention rights of the applicant’s brother and provide him with any necessary medical assistance and medication in application no. 25807/22, and to ensure that applicant’s brother was able to have access to his family and/or legal representatives with a view to enabling him to exercise effectively his right to individual application in application no. 51196/22. The interim measures remain in force.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in both applications allege that their detained relatives have been subjected to ill-treatment, detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, consistently denied medical assistance, and subjected to severe moral pressure due to their identity as Ukrainian military personnel. The applicants further contend that such treatment amounts to a violation of the absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under the Convention.
In application no. 25807/22, the applicant additionally claims that the uncertainty surrounding the whereabouts of her brother has caused her profound moral suffering and, invoking the procedural limb of Article 3, she complains of the failure of the Russian Federation to carry out an effective investigation into her brother’s ill-treatment.
In both applications, the applicants invoke Article 5 of the Convention, alleging that their relatives have been detained unlawfully. They contend that they were detained without a legal basis, in the absence of any formal charges, judicial oversight, and without access to legal representation.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 51196/22 claims that her brother has been held in conditions of complete isolation, without any contact or communication with his family members or the outside world.
In application no. 25807/22, the applicant alleges a lack of effective remedies for the violations complained of, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, claiming a lack of effective domestic remedies to challenge the alleged violations or obtain information about her brother. Lastly, she complains that the Russian Federation failed to implement the interim measures indicated by the Court on 25 May 2022.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Were the applicants’ relatives subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1076, 9 July 2025)? Have any investigations been carried out in respect of the allegations of the applicant in application no. 25807/22 of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as required by that provision?
3. Has the mental suffering of the applicant in application no. 25807/22, in connection with the capture of her brother, the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect, and the alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation, been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, § 1081)?
4. Were the applicants’ relatives 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)?
5. Has there been a breach of the right of the applicant’s brother in application no. 51196/22 under Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the allegedly absolute ban on his contact with his family (see El-Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 236, 248‑250, 13 December 2012, and Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, 30 June 2015, with further references)?
6. Did the applicant in application no. 25807/22 have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 3 and 5 as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], cited above, §§ 1617-21)?
7. Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measures indicated on 25 May 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in application no. 25807/22? 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)?
APPENDIX
List of cases
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Applicant’s relative
Year of Birth
Kinship
Nationality
Represented by
Date and place of capture
1.
25807/22
Veprytska v. Russia
12/05/2022
Ganna Sergiyivna VEPRYTSKA
1986
Zaporizhzhia
Ukrainian
Sergiy Sergiyovych MAKYEYEV
1997
brother
Ukrainian
Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO
13/04/2022
Mariupol, Donetsk region
2.
51196/22
Savchuk v. Russia
29/10/2022
Mariya SAVCHUK
1991
ST GALLEN
Ukrainian
Andriy Romanovych SAVCHUK
1997
brother
Ukrainian
14/07/2022
Exact location unknown, Donetsk region