The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of *Tunik and Others v. Ukraine*, concerning inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of effective remedies in Ukrainian prisons. The Court found that the conditions of the applicants’ detention were indeed inadequate, violating Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The ECtHR also addressed other complaints raised by some applicants under the Convention, finding violations based on its well-established case-law. The Court ordered Ukraine to pay the applicants sums ranging from EUR 6,200 to EUR 9,800 for non-pecuniary damage, as well as EUR 250 to some applicants for costs and expenses.
The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s initiation and notification to the Ukrainian Government. It then presents the facts, including a list of applicants and details of their applications, followed by the legal analysis. The Court decided to join the applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the judgment addresses the alleged violation of Articles 3 and 13, referencing previous case-law such as *Melnik v. Ukraine* and *Sukachov v. Ukraine*, which had similar findings. The Court also considered other alleged violations under its established case-law. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and outlines the compensation to be paid to the applicants. The judgment includes an appendix with a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of birth, the facilities where they were detained, duration of detention, specific grievances, other complaints, and the amounts awarded.
The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Articles 3 and 13 due to inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies. The Court’s reliance on its established case-law and its detailed assessment of the applicants’ grievances, including overcrowding, poor hygiene, and lack of access to basic necessities, highlight the systemic issues within Ukrainian detention facilities. The order for Ukraine to pay compensation to the applicants underscores the State’s responsibility to ensure humane detention conditions and provide effective remedies for violations of human rights. **** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it highlights ongoing issues within its penitentiary system and the need for comprehensive reforms to align with European human rights standards.
