This decision concerns two applications against Ukraine regarding inadequate detention conditions and the lack of effective remedies. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has decided to join the applications and found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants, Vladyslav Skrypnyk and Pavlo Andreyev, complained about the conditions in the Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Facility, including overcrowding, poor hygiene, and restricted access to basic amenities. The Court rejected the Government’s argument regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, emphasizing that compensatory remedies are only effective after the unsatisfactory conditions have ended. The ECtHR also found violations related to the excessive length of criminal proceedings and pre-trial detention, as well as the lack of effective remedies for these issues.
The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, a summary of the facts, a legal analysis, and the application of Article 41 regarding compensation. The decision addresses the complaints of inadequate detention conditions, referencing previous case-law such as *Muršić v. Croatia* and *Sukachov v. Ukraine*. It emphasizes the importance of providing primary evidence, such as cell floor plans and inmate numbers, to counter allegations of ill-treatment. The Court found that the applicants’ detention conditions were indeed inadequate and that they lacked effective remedies, leading to a finding of violations under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Additionally, the decision addresses other complaints related to the length of proceedings and detention, referencing established case-law and finding further violations.
The main provisions of this decision highlight the ECtHR’s consistent stance on inadequate detention conditions and the necessity of effective remedies. **** For Ukraine, this decision underscores the need to improve detention facilities and provide effective legal avenues for detainees to seek redress for violations of their rights. The decision also emphasizes the importance of addressing issues such as excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings, as well as ensuring access to remedies for these violations. The awarded sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage reflect the severity of the violations and serve as a reminder of the State’s obligations under the Convention.
