The judgment in *Kravchenko and Slabetskyy v. Ukraine* addresses systemic issues regarding the right to liberty and security under Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined two joined applications concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the failure of domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient justifications for such measures. The Court concluded that the Ukrainian authorities failed to demonstrate “special diligence” in the proceedings and relied on repetitive, fragile reasoning that did not adequately justify the continued deprivation of liberty. By failing to consider alternative measures of restraint, the domestic courts breached the applicants’ rights. Consequently, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
The structure of the decision follows the standard format for a Committee-level judgment: it begins with the joinder of the applications, moves to the assessment of the merits under Article 5 § 3, and concludes with the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The decision does not introduce new legal standards but reinforces the established jurisprudence set out in landmark cases such as *Kharchenko v. Ukraine* and *Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova*. It maintains the Court’s consistent position that the persistence of a “reasonable suspicion” is a necessary but insufficient condition for prolonged detention. The judgment serves as a reiteration of the requirement for national authorities to provide concrete, case-specific justifications for detention rather than relying on standard, repetitive formulas.
The most important provisions for legal practitioners and observers are:
1. **The “Relevant and Sufficient” Standard:** The Court reaffirms that judicial authorities must provide specific, non-repetitive reasons for detention from the very first hearing. The use of generic or “fragile” reasoning, as noted in the case of Mr. Slabetskyy, is insufficient to meet the Convention’s requirements.
2. **The Duty of “Special Diligence”:** The Court emphasizes that the State must act with particular speed and diligence in cases involving pre-trial detention. Any lack of progress in the proceedings, as seen in Mr. Kravchenko’s case, renders the continued detention excessive.
3. **Mandatory Consideration of Alternatives:** The judgment underscores that authorities are legally obligated to actively consider alternative, less restrictive measures to ensure a defendant’s appearance at trial. A failure to examine these alternatives, even when the initial detention might have been justified, constitutes a violation.
4. **Systemic Implications:** By citing *Kharchenko*, *Ignatov*, and *Korban*, the Court signals that these violations remain a recurring issue in the Ukrainian judicial system, reinforcing the need for domestic courts to align their practice with the “special diligence” and “reasoning” standards established by the ECtHR.
