****
### 1. Essence of the Decision
The judgment in *Kulish and Others v. Ukraine* addresses the critical failure of Ukrainian authorities to conduct effective investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives resulting from alleged medical negligence. Examining four joined applications under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court identified systemic domestic shortcomings, including lost evidence, uncooperative medical institutions, and extreme delays. In all four cases, criminal proceedings dragged on for years, often resulting in the expiration of statutes of limitations or the loss of crucial medical samples, which effectively shielded potential wrongdoers from accountability. The Court reiterated its established case-law, noting that the domestic authorities failed to meet the criteria of a thorough, diligent, and prompt examination of the facts. Consequently, the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 2 and ordered Ukraine to pay non-pecuniary damages of EUR 6,000 to each applicant, along with specified costs and expenses.
—
### 2. Structure of the Decision, Main Provisions, and Comparison with Previous Case-Law
The decision is structured in a consolidated format typical of Committee judgments, designed to resolve repetitive cases efficiently:
* **Introductory Section:** Identifies the composition of the Committee (Fifth Section) and outlines the procedural history of the applications lodged under Article 34 of the Convention.
* **The Law Section:**
* *Joinder of the Applications (Paragraph 4):* Unifies the four applications due to their common subject matter.
* *Alleged Violation of Article 2 (Paragraphs 5–10):* Establishes the legal basis of the complaints, focusing strictly on the State’s procedural obligations in the healthcare context.
* *Application of Article 41 (Paragraph 11):* Addresses just satisfaction, awarding non-pecuniary damages and costs.
* **Operative Provisions:** Unanimously declares the applications admissible, holds that there has been a procedural breach of Article 2, and sets out the specific financial awards and default interest rates.
* **The Appendix (The Analytical Core):** A highly detailed table that serves as the substantive heart of the judgment. It outlines the specific factual background, domestic proceedings, and key procedural flaws for each of the four applicants (Sergiy Mykolayovych Kulish, Oleg Oleksandrovych Tsmokalov, Lyudmyla Vasylivna Pereta, and Anatoliy Grygorovych Broznytskyy).
**Changes and Evolution compared to Previous Versions:**
As a Committee judgment, this text does not alter the substantive standards of the Convention. Instead, it applies the established Grand Chamber principles from *Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal* and reinforces the specific domestic precedents set in *Arskaya v. Ukraine* and *Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine*. The structural significance of this judgment lies in the Court’s continued use of a streamlined, tabular format to group multiple distinct medical negligence cases against Ukraine. This highlights that the systemic failure of Ukrainian law enforcement to conduct timely medical malpractice investigations remains an ongoing, unresolved issue.
—
### 3. Main Provisions of the Decision Important for Practical Use
For legal professionals and journalists analyzing domestic accountability, the text of the decision highlights several critical procedural failures that constitute a violation of Article 2:
* **Failure to Preserve and Secure Vital Evidence:** In the *Kulish* case, the text highlights that the hospital allegedly destroyed crucial histological samples before the investigator obtained them, preventing experts from conducting a full assessment of the medical treatment.
* **Severe Delays in Basic Investigative Actions:** The text reveals extreme delays in gathering testimony. In the *Pereta* case, attending doctors were questioned for the first time seven years after the events, resulting in them being unable to recall the delivery or the alleged use of the prohibited Kristeller manoeuvre.
* **Expiration of Statutes of Limitations:** The text emphasizes that investigative inactivity directly leads to impunity. In the *Pereta* and *Broznytskyy* cases, the domestic proceedings exceeded the statutory limitation periods (which expired in 2022 for *Pereta* and led to termination by the Supreme Court in 2023 for *Broznytskyy*), preventing any possibility of holding responsible individuals accountable.
* **Disregard of Judicial and Prosecutorial Orders:** The text documents instances where investigators ignored binding instructions. In the *Kulish* case, the investigator failed to act on a court order quashing the discontinuation of the case, later claiming to be unaware of the decision. In the *Tsmokalov* case, the investigator ignored prosecutorial instructions regarding questions to be posed to forensic experts.
* **Institutional Obstruction and Refusal to Cooperate:** The text notes that the State Bureau of Forensic Medicine refused to perform a court-ordered examination in the *Tsmokalov* case, citing “pressure” arising from separate criminal proceedings against its officials, which stalled the investigation.
