Okay, here is the analysis of the decision in the case of Remez 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 an ineffective investigation into the ill-treatment of a minor, the applicant, by her father during an attempted kidnapping. The Court determined that the investigation was lengthy and lacked diligence, leading to a breach of the procedural aspect of Article 3, which requires states to conduct thorough investigations into allegations of ill-treatment. Despite the initial prompt response, the investigation stalled, and the authorities’ actions were deemed insufficient to address the severity of the incident. The Court awarded the applicant 4,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court also dismissed the Government’s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:** The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s complaint and the factual circumstances surrounding the attempted kidnapping in 2017. It details the initial police response, the opening and closing of the criminal case, and the subsequent court decisions. The Court then assesses the scope of the case, addressing a belated complaint raised by the applicant’s mother. The main provision of the decision is the finding of a violation of Article 3 due to the ineffective investigation. The Court dismisses the Government’s argument regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, emphasizing that a civil claim for damages would not adequately address the failure to conduct a proper investigation. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage. There were no previous versions of this decision.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:** The most important provision is the Court’s emphasis on the state’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment, particularly when children are involved. This decision reinforces the principle that investigations must be prompt, thorough, and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. The Court’s rejection of the argument that a civil claim for damages is a sufficient remedy highlights the importance of criminal investigations in addressing serious allegations of ill-treatment. This decision can be used to support arguments in similar cases where investigations into violence, especially against children, are deemed inadequate or ineffective.
