Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Galytskyy v. Ukraine:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the ill-treatment of the applicant, Mr. Galytskyy, while he was held in a pre-trial detention center (SIZO) and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaints. The Court determined that Mr. Galytskyy sustained a hip injury while under State control, for which no plausible explanation was provided other than the alleged ill-treatment. The investigation into his complaints was delayed significantly, and essential documents were lost or destroyed, indicating a lack of will to establish the truth. Consequently, the Court ruled violations under both the procedural and substantive limbs of Article 3.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** The case addresses allegations of ill-treatment by staff members at the Kryvyi Rih SIZO and the ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation into related complaints.
* **Factual Background:** Mr. Galytskyy was detained in December 2007. He alleged severe beating by officers at the Kryvyi Rih SIZO, resulting in a hip fracture. He claimed he received no assistance for three days and was warned against complaining.
* **Domestic Investigation:** Despite numerous complaints, a criminal investigation was repeatedly refused until a court order in 2014. The investigation was later discontinued due to lost records and conflicting statements.
* **Court’s Assessment:** The ECtHR found the Government’s objection regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies closely linked to the merits of the complaint. The Court highlighted the significant delay in launching a full-fledged investigation and the loss of essential documents. It also emphasized that the applicant’s request for victim status was rejected without justification.
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court found a violation of Article 3 under both its procedural limb (failure to conduct an effective investigation) and its substantive limb (ill-treatment).
* **Article 13 Complaint:** The Court determined that there was no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, as the main legal questions had already been addressed under Article 3.
* **Article 41 Application:** The applicant claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. The Court rejected the claim for pecuniary damage but awarded EUR 16,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for legal representation costs.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Burden of Proof:** The decision reinforces that the State bears the burden of providing a plausible explanation for injuries sustained while an individual is in their custody, especially when the individual had no reported injuries upon entering detention.
* **Effective Investigation:** The decision underscores the importance of prompt and thorough investigations into allegations of ill-treatment by State authorities. Delays and loss of essential documents can be indicative of a lack of will to establish the truth.
* **Medical Examination:** The judgment reiterates that a medical examination is a crucial safeguard against ill-treatment of detained persons from the outset of their deprivation of liberty.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
