European Court of Human Rights (Європейський суд з прав людини)

On five occasions from 2007 to 2013, the applicant's ex-husband inflicted injuries on the applicant, which the domestic authorities classified as minor bodily injuries. The police and the prosecutor's office repeatedly refused to open criminal proceedings due to the lack of evidence. In 2012, the offender was convicted of committing a crime under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional minor bodily injury) because criminal liability for domestic violence (Article 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) was not legislated until 2017 in Ukraine.

The case was initiated by three male applicants, who complained that the Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine, which regulates the procedure and conditions for the executing and serving criminal sentences, contained contradictory provisions and differing visitation rights  for male and female life prisoners. The Code provided that life prisoners were to serve their sentences in maximum-security correctional colonies and that life prisoners were entitled to one short visit every six months. No reference to prisoners’ gender was made in the relevant Articles.

The applicant was a single mother of two children. As part of a social program, she was provided a flat. Later, the prosecutor applied to the courts to terminate the applicant's right to the flat, due to the applicant's conviction and sentence in Russia, which prevented her from using the housing for about a year. The court of first instance found against the applicant, who then appealed on the basis that she had paid all the necessary payments and had nowhere else to live.

The applicant intended to change her patronymic (this term means a part of a personal name was traditionally derived from the name of the father of the person concerned) to disassociate herself from her biological father and associate herself more closely with her stepfather and half-brother. Despite the fact that the woman successfully changed her surname to the surname of her stepfather, she was not allowed to change her patronymic.

The applicant, a 16-year-old boy, was held in handcuffs and underwear in a police station for 2.5 hours and subsequently placed in a cell with adults. He was interviewed at a police station concerning a murder, rape, and robbery investigation. According to the applicant, under this pressure, he confessed to murder. Domestic courts convicted the applicant of robbery and aggravated murder, and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. The court rejected the applicant’s argument that his confessions were inadmissible because they had been obtained under duress.

The first applicant, who was in the fifth month of pregnancy, was detained by the police on suspicion of robbery. The national court ordered her pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial. During her detention, the applicant gave birth to her son, the second applicant. Later, the woman appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) to obtain just satisfaction, as she argued that her right under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture) was violated during detention.

The applicant lived in social housing provided by the local authorities because she was disabled and had four children with her husband. Gradually, the relationship between the applicant and her husband began to deteriorate as he abused alcohol and threatened her and the children. He sometimes subjected her to physical and psychological violence. Over several years, the applicant repeatedly appealed to the police with complaints about her husband’s abuse and ill-treatment of her. In response, law enforcement agencies only visited the residence and conducted preventive talks.

The first applicant and her husband divorced in 2017. Their children lived with the first applicant. The applicant claimed that her ex-husband had tried to force her to resume their relationship and behaved aggressively towards her and their sons. Then he took away their son (the second applicant) without the first applicant’s consent, refused to return him for about four months, and tried to kidnap their second son. The first applicant immediately contacted the police.

The applicant and his wife were in a registered marriage and had a child. Over time, their relationship began to deteriorate. The applicant’s wife took the child and left without the applicant's consent. A few months later, the applicant independently found the child in another location where his wife lived with the child and her uncle. Later, the applicant’s mother contacted the police because she believed that the child could have been a victim of debauchery during the period of living with the applicant’s wife and her uncle, based on information from the child.

This case was initiated by nine citizens of Somalia, Eritrea, and Guinea, who for various reasons left their countries of origin and were detained by border guards of Ukraine while trying to cross Ukraine’s border with Hungary and Slovakia. Among the applicants was a pregnant underage girl (the eighth applicant) who had been repeatedly abused, humiliated, and beaten by her husband in Guinea. As a result, she had suffered a miscarriage during a previous pregnancy while in Guinea.