****
Here’s a breakdown of the ECHR’s judgment in the case of *Dabyka and Others v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Ukraine violated Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of effective remedies for these conditions. The applicants, who were detained in various pre-trial detention facilities, complained about issues such as overcrowding, poor quality of food and water, lack of access to showers, and inadequate bedding. The Court found that these conditions, combined with the absence of an effective domestic remedy, constituted degrading treatment. Additionally, the Court found violations regarding the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that regard, awarding each applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Government’s Objection:** The Court rejected the Government’s argument that some applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, noting that a compensatory remedy is only effective once the unsatisfactory conditions have ended.
* **Violation of Articles 3 and 13:** The Court found that the conditions of detention were inadequate and that the applicants lacked an effective remedy, leading to a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also addressed other complaints related to the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies, finding additional violations based on established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** Some complaints under Article 5 were rejected for failing to meet admissibility criteria or not disclosing a violation.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, with specific amounts detailed in the appended table.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Inadequate Detention Conditions:** The decision reinforces the ECHR’s stance on what constitutes degrading treatment in detention, particularly concerning overcrowding, hygiene, and basic necessities.
* **Effective Remedy:** The judgment highlights the importance of providing effective domestic remedies for complaints about detention conditions. A compensatory remedy is deemed effective only after the unsatisfactory conditions have ceased.
* **Standard of Proof:** The Court refers to its standard of proof and methods for assessment of evidence in conditions-of-detention cases. The Government is expected to provide primary evidence showing cell floor plans and the actual number of inmates during the specific periods of the applicants’ detention.
* **Compensation:** The amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage serve as a benchmark for similar cases involving inadequate detention conditions in Ukraine.
* **Excessive Length of Proceedings:** The decision underscores the need for timely criminal proceedings and effective remedies for delays.
This decision serves as a clear condemnation of inadequate detention conditions in Ukraine and emphasizes the state’s obligation to provide remedies for human rights violations.
