призначення покарання

The appellant was convicted by the court of first instance for the murder and rape of one woman and the murder and attempted of rape of a second woman. Taking into account the fact that the man had previously been convicted of similar crimes, the first instance court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellate court left the judgment unchanged. The appellant’s attorney filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, in which he asked the Court to revoke the sentence and close the criminal proceedings due to insufficient evidence.

The defendant physically attacked and raped the victim. The court of the first instance found the defendant guilty of rape (part 1 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - after this The Criminal Code) and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. However, the appellate court released the defendant from serving the sentence and instead imposed a three-year probationary period (Article 75 of the Criminal Code).

The two defendants were charged with raping the complainant. The court of first instance sentenced the first defendant to four years of imprisonment, but discharged him from punishment on probation. The court acquitted the second defendant due to lack of evidence. The prosecutor appealed, arguing that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the acquitted defendant.  The prosecutor argued that discharging the first man from punishment on probation did not correspond to the gravity of the crime.

The appellant attacked the victim in the park in an attempt to rape her, but he was noticed by other people and fled the scene of the crime before committing rape. The court of first instance sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for three years. However, the court discharged the appellant from imprisonment and instead put him on probation, with the imposition of certain duties. The appellate court overturned this decision and reinstituted the prison sentence of three years, cancelling the discharge from punishment on probation.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in human beings because he intentionally, for financial purposes, recruited financially vulnerable Ukrainian women for sex trafficking in Russia. The court of first instance sentenced him to five years of imprisonment with confiscation of property for an “accumulation of crimes” (in Ukraine, this term means commission of two or more crimes by one person stipulated by different Articles or different parts of one Article of the Special Part of this Code, where that person has not been convicted of any of these crimes).

The appellant was convicted of debauchery for committing lewd acts against the victim, a girl under 14 years old. The first-instance court sentenced the defendant to five years of imprisonment and banned him for three years from continuing to volunteer at a children’s home. The appellate court left this decision unchanged. However, the Supreme Court changed the additional punishment, stating that courts may only impose such additional punishment if the commission of the crime was related to the perpetrator’s position or to engagement in certain activities.

The appellant was convicted of committing systematic physical and psychological violence against his ex-wife. The eyewitnesses to their fights were minor children. Despite the seriousness of the alleged crime, the first-instance court sentenced the appellant to a three-year restriction of liberty, which means holding a person in an open penal institution (“correctional center”) without isolation from society but under supervision and with compulsory engagement in socially useful paid work under a fixed-term labour contract for a term of one to five years.

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 study from JurFem is dedicated to the analysis of women serving prison sentences. According to experts, Ukrainian legislation on serving prison terms is mostly gender-neutral regarding women and men.

Article 301² states that involving a minor in: (i) conducting an entertainment show of a sexual nature (i.e., public display in any form of products of sexual nature or stage actions including acts of sexual nature), including with the use of information and telecommunication systems or technologies, or (ii) attending such a show, shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to seven years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.