children’s rights

The man was accused of intentionally pouring sulfuric acid on his minor daughter, causing her severe bodily harm in the form of chemical burns to her head, face and other parts of her body. In addition, during the trial, it was found out that when the girl was 13-14 years old, her father committed lewd acts of a sexual nature with her over a long period of time. During the trial, the man did not admit his guilt.

In this report from JurFem, experts analyze the impact of martial law introduced in response to Russia’s full-scale military aggression against Ukraine on access to justice for domestic violence victims, as well as the nuances of court examination for cases involving domestic violence amid the war. In January-June 2022, in 83% of cases, victims of domestic violence were women.

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.

Article 155 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine states that an adult who commits acts of sexual nature associated with the vaginal, anal, or oral penetration into the body of a person under the age of 16, using genitals, another body part, or any item, shall be punished by restriction of liberty for a term of up to five years, or imprisonment for the same term.

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.

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.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, his ex-wife, to exclude him from the child's birth certificate and to terminate his child support payments. According to the plaintiff, there was no blood relationship between him and the child. The court ordered a genetic examination was ordered to establish paternity. However, the defendant refused to conduct it and evaded taking biological samples from the child.

Articles 49, 50 of the Family Code of Ukraine refer the right to maternity and the right to parentage to the personal non-property rights of spouses. The term “maternity” means women’s legally guaranteed right to reproductive opportunity on (i.e., to give birth to children, raise them). The core of this personal non-property right is the wife's authority to decide whether or not to have a child. In addition, these articles establish that a woman's reluctance to have a child or her inability to conceive a child can be grounds for the dissolution of marriage.

The ex-husband (the defendant) systematically committed domestic violence against the complainant – his ex-wife: beating her, threatening to kill her and the children and to burn down the building where she was living with the children). For his illegal behavior (systematic domestic violence), he was jailed for four months (this type of punishment involves keeping a person in isolation for 1-6 months).

The appellant went to court to deprive the defendant, her husband, of parental rights of their children. According to her, the defendant was not paying sufficient attention to the upbringing, health, and development of their child as well as failed to pay child support. Furthermore, there were conflicts between the spouses that had a negative impact on the child.