This judgment, **** for the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, addresses the procedural obligations of the State under Article 3 of the Convention. The case of *Bulakh v. Ukraine* (no. 1380/25) concerns the failure of Ukrainian authorities to conduct an effective investigation into an incident of ill-treatment inflicted upon the applicant by a private party in 2022. Following the applicant’s disappearance in action in June 2025, the Court permitted his wife to pursue the application, affirming her *locus standi*. The Court found that the domestic investigation was plagued by significant delays, procedural shortcomings, and a failure to secure the applicant’s effective participation. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the State failed to meet the requirements of Article 3, as the investigation remained pending and ineffective for years. This decision serves as a reminder that even in cases of private violence, the State bears a positive obligation to act with diligence and promptness.
### Structure and Main Provisions
The decision follows the standard structure of a Committee-level judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. It begins with the procedural history, followed by the Court’s ruling on the *locus standi* of the applicant’s wife, which is a crucial procedural step given the applicant’s status as missing in action. The core of the judgment is the analysis of the procedural limb of Article 3, where the Court evaluates the effectiveness of the domestic investigation. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, awarding non-pecuniary damages. Compared to previous versions of such judgments, this decision explicitly incorporates an appended table that details the specific shortcomings of the domestic investigation, aligning it with established case-law such as *Muta v. Ukraine*.
### Main Provisions for Practical Use
For legal practitioners and observers, the following aspects are of primary importance:
* **Procedural *Locus Standi*:** The Court’s decision to allow the spouse of a missing-in-action soldier to continue the proceedings is a vital precedent. It confirms that the right to seek justice for human rights violations is not extinguished by the disappearance of the victim in life-threatening circumstances.
* **Positive Obligations under Article 3:** The judgment reinforces that the State’s duty to investigate is not limited to acts committed by State agents. It explicitly states that authorities must conduct an effective investigation into ill-treatment by private individuals, requiring independence, impartiality, and public scrutiny.
* **Criteria for “Effectiveness”:** The Court highlights that the investigation must be prompt and thorough. It specifically identifies that the “overall protracted character” of proceedings and the “failure to secure the applicant’s right to participate effectively” constitute clear breaches of the Convention.
* **Reliance on Precedents:** By citing *Muta v. Ukraine* and *Chernega and Others v. Ukraine*, the Court underscores that the failure to conduct timely investigative actions and the repeated termination of proceedings due to alleged lack of evidence—despite the availability of witnesses—are systemic issues that the State must address to maintain the rule of law.
This judgment is **** as it underscores the continued necessity for the Ukrainian judicial and investigative systems to maintain high standards of procedural diligence, even under the extreme pressures of the current war, ensuring that victims of violence are not denied their right to an effective remedy.
