1. Essence of the decision:
\nThe European Court of Human Rights found Ukraine violated Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention regarding the death of a young man in police custody in 2010. The Court determined that Ukraine failed to conduct an effective investigation into the death and ill-treatment of the victim, and failed to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries and death that occurred while he was in police custody. The Court awarded \u20ac40,000 in non-pecuniary damages and \u20ac3,000 for costs and expenses to the victim’s parents.<\/p>\n
2. Structure and main provisions:
\nThe decision is structured around examining both procedural and substantive aspects of Articles 2 and 3 violations:
\n– The Court found the investigation was ineffective due to significant delays (over 8.5 years), failure to establish crucial circumstances of death, and inadequate investigative measures
\n– The Court emphasized the State’s duty to protect persons in custody and provide plausible explanations for injuries sustained while in custody
\n– The decision established that the burden of proof rests with authorities to explain injuries and death occurring during detention
\n– The Court rejected the government’s non-exhaustion of domestic remedies objection due to the investigation’s ineffectiveness<\/p>\n
3. Key provisions for use:
\n– The Court reaffirmed that investigations must be prompt and expeditious to maintain public confidence
\n– The decision emphasizes that authorities have a particularly stringent obligation to account for the treatment of individuals who die in custody
\n– The Court established that strong presumptions of fact arise when events occur within the exclusive knowledge of authorities during custody
\n– The failure to provide explanations for injuries and death in custody indicates a failure of the State to discharge its burden of proof
\n– The Court confirmed that investigation effectiveness is measured by adequacy of investigative measures, promptness, family involvement, and independence<\/p>\n