BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SELESH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE - 432/20 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Fifth Section Committee) [2022] ECHR 137 (10 February 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2022/137.html
Cite as: [2022] ECHR 137

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF SELESH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

(Applications nos. 432/20 and 3 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 February 2022

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Selesh and Others v. Ukraine,


The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Lətif Hüseynov, President,
          Lado Chanturia,
          Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,


Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2022,


Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE


1.  The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.


2.  The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS


3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.


4.  The applicants complained of the life sentence with no prospect of release. In application no. 432/20, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS


5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention


6.  The applicants complained principally of the life sentence with no prospect of release. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”


7.  The Court reiterates that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on those convicted of especially serious crimes, such as murder. Yet to be compatible with Article 3 such a sentence must be reducible de jure and de facto, meaning that there must be both a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review. The basis of such review must extend to assessing whether there are legitimate penological grounds for the continuing incarceration of the prisoner. These grounds include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. The balance between them is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of a sentence, so that the primary justification for detention at the outset may not be so after a lengthy period of service of sentence. The importance of the ground of rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the practice of the Contracting States, in the relevant standards adopted by the Council of Europe, and in the relevant international materials (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, §§ 59-81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).


8.  In the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.


9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.


10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS


11.  In application no. 432/20, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.


12.  The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.


It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION


13.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”


14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Petukhov (no. 2), cited above), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaints concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release admissible and the remainder of application no. 432/20 inadmissible;

3.      Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release;

4.      Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                             Lətif Hüseynov

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 


APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(life sentence with no prospect of release)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Name of the trial court

Date of the life sentence

Judicial decision upholding the conviction

 

432/20

27/11/2019

Arpad Arpadovych SELESH

1977

Ovdiyenko Ganna Volodymyrivna

Kharkiv

Budapest City Court, 02/04/2003

Budapest Court of Appeal, 22/04/2004

 

17827/21

01/04/2021

Oleksiy Oleksandrovych BEREZA

1994

Starosta Ivan Ivanovych

Kyiv

Luhansk Regional Court of Appeal, 14/03/2018

Supreme Court of Ukraine, 26/03/2019

 

22272/21

12/04/2021

Nikifor Aleksandrovich BANDRABURA

1964

 

 

Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal, 29/07/2002

Supreme Court of Ukraine, 21/11/2002

 

24200/21

29/04/2021

Ruslan Vasilyevich TIMCHUK

1985

 

 

Ivano-Frankivsk Local Court, 15/01/2015

Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal, 24/09/2015;

Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Matters, 29/11/2016

 

 


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2022/137.html