Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Grygorchuk and Others v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found Ukraine in violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention in the Zhytomyr Detention Facility No. 8 and the lack of effective remedies for these conditions. The applicants experienced issues such as overcrowding, poor hygiene, lack of privacy, and inadequate access to basic necessities. Additionally, some applicants’ criminal proceedings were excessively long, without effective remedies, violating Article 6(1) and Article 13 of the Convention. The Court ordered Ukraine to pay compensation to each applicant for the violations suffered.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications filed against Ukraine concerning detention conditions.
* **Facts:** The facts section refers to an appended table detailing each applicant, the duration of their detention, specific grievances, and other complaints.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Articles 3 and 13:** The core of the judgment focuses on the inadequate detention conditions and the absence of effective remedies. The Court referenced its established case-law, including *Muršić v. Croatia* and *Ananyev and Others v. Russia*, emphasizing the importance of sufficient personal space and adequate detention conditions. The Court noted that the Ukrainian government failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the applicants’ claims.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Some applicants raised additional complaints, such as the excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of effective remedies, which the Court also found to be violations based on its established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** One applicant raised additional complaints under Article 3, which the Court deemed inadmissible.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court determined the amounts of compensation to be awarded to each applicant, considering the specific circumstances of their cases and referencing its case-law, particularly *Sukachov v. Ukraine*.
* **Decision:** The Court declared the complaints regarding detention conditions, lack of remedies, and other violations admissible, finding breaches of Articles 3, 13, and, where applicable, 6(1) of the Convention. It ordered Ukraine to pay the specified amounts in damages to the applicants.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Inadequate Detention Conditions:** The decision reinforces the ECHR’s stance on what constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3, particularly concerning prison overcrowding and poor conditions.
* **Lack of Effective Remedy:** The judgment highlights the importance of accessible and effective remedies for individuals who experience inadequate detention conditions.
* **Standard of Evidence:** The decision reiterates the standard of proof required in detention condition cases, emphasizing the government’s responsibility to provide primary evidence to refute claims of ill-treatment.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded provide a benchmark for compensation in similar cases involving inadequate detention conditions and related violations in Ukraine.
* **Reference to Previous Case Law:** The decision references key cases such as *Muršić v. Croatia*, *Ananyev and Others v. Russia*, *Melnik v. Ukraine*, and *Sukachov v. Ukraine*, which are crucial for understanding the ECHR’s established principles on detention conditions and remedies.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it addresses systemic issues within its detention facilities and the judicial system. It serves as a reminder of Ukraine’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure humane treatment of prisoners and provide effective remedies for violations.
