Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence in prison .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered the applicant to be placed in pre - trial detention for DATE . The applicant was placed in the GPE no . CARDINAL ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention to CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

On DATE and DATE the NORP Regional Court of Appeal ( “ the ORG of Appeal ” ) extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention to DATE respectively .

The applicant was not present at those hearings and he was allegedly not given the investigator ’s submissions so that he could prepare his objections .

According to the applicant , in the course of investigation he was illtreated , with the purpose of making him confess to the murder .

On DATE the case was referred to ORG for trial .

On DATE ORG , acting as a court of first instance , found , inter alia , that the applicant and CARDINAL co - defendants had committed murder with particular cruelty and for financial gain . The court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment . The judgment was based on various pieces of evidence including an acknowledgment of guilt by the applicant and other defendants during the trial .

After the hearing the applicant was handcuffed and escorted to the high security wing of the Odessa GPE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , following which it was made final . For the period of consideration of the case by ORG the applicant was detained in GPE no . CARDINAL ORG , where he was allegedly not provided with sufficient facilities , such as a table and chair , to prepare his defence .

Following ORG decision of DATE the applicant repeatedly submitted applications to have his case reviewed on grounds of exceptional circumstances . He also asked the authorities to provide him with a lawyer to assist him with the preparation of these applications . All his applications were rejected as unsubstantiated ; a lawyer was not provided because the criminal proceedings were already finished .

On several occasions the applicant requested copies of certain material from his criminal case file . The requests were granted , but with delays .

In DATE the applicant instituted CARDINAL separate sets of court proceedings against , respectively , the judge who had presided over his criminal case before the first - instance court , the ORG chamber on criminal cases , and ORG , claiming that he had been unfairly convicted and that his applications for review of his case on grounds of exceptional circumstances had been arbitrarily rejected . All these proceedings are pending .

According to the applicant , he was not allowed family visits during his pre - trial detention .

During his post - conviction detention until DATE the applicant was allowed to see his relatives no more than once DATE . Subsequently , he was granted family visits once DATE .

The visits lasted no longer than TIME . CARDINAL adult visitors could be present at once . The applicant maintains relations with his wife , mother , adult brother , and his son born in DATE .

In DATE , upon arrival for the visit , CARDINAL of his CARDINAL relatives was not admitted to see the applicant because of the limitation on the maximum number of adults per visit . Since then , CARDINAL person out of the CARDINAL has had to be excluded when planning a visit to the applicant .

During the meetings the applicant communicated with the visitors via glass partition . The applicant ’s conversations with the visitors were listened to by a prison officer .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG , the first page of which had been stamped by the detention facility .

Up to DATE the applicant ’s letters to ORG were accompanied by covering letters from the detention facility briefly stating the nature of the applicant ’s submissions .

In accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code , short visits from relatives and other persons may last no longer than TIME . Such meetings must be held in the presence of a prison officer . Until the amendment of CARDINAL DATE ( which came into effect on DATE ) , life prisoners were entitled to short visits from their relatives and other persons DATE . Since that amendment , life prisoners have been entitled to such visits once DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the Code , following amendments made to it on DATE , stipulated that ORG correspondence was to be subject to automatic monitoring by the prison staff except for proposals , applications and complaints addressed to ORG , ORG , other relevant international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant , authorised persons of those international organisations , or prosecution authorities .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The role of the administrative justice system shall be the protection of the rights , freedoms and interests of physical persons , and the rights and interests of legal entities in the field of public - law relations , from violations by public authorities ...

Any decisions , actions or inaction on the part of public authorities may be appealed against to administrative courts , except for cases in which the LAW and laws of GPE provide for a different procedure of judicial appeal against such decisions , actions or inactivity ...

NORP In cases where the decisions , acts or inactivity of a public authority are being challenged , the courts shall review whether [ the impugned decisions and acts ] have been adopted or taken :

CARDINAL ) NORP reasonably ;

CARDINAL) proportionately , in particular , by ensuring a necessary balance between any possible unfavourable outcome for an individual ’s rights , freedoms and interests and the aims the impugned decision or action seeks to achieve ;

“ CARDINAL . When considering a case , a court shall be governed by the principle of the rule of law , which provides , in particular , that a human being and his or her rights and freedoms shall be the highest social value and shall determine the essence and orientation of the activity of the ORG .

A court shall apply the principle of the rule of law by taking into account the caselaw of ORG . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The jurisdiction of the administrative courts shall cover legal relationships arising in the course of the exercise of public administrative powers by ... public authorities and [ legal relationships arising ] in the course of the public formation of a ... public authority by way of an election or referendum .

The jurisdiction of the administrative courts shall cover public - law disputes , in particular :

CARDINAL ) NORP disputes between physical persons or legal entities and ... public authorities concerning the decisions of the latter ( normative legal acts or legal acts of individual effect ) , or their actions or inactivity ; ... ”

In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of the above - mentioned rules , prisoners are entitled to visits from CARDINAL adults at once , who may also be accompanied by the prisoner ’s under - age children .

Annex CARDINAL of the Prison Rules provides for CARDINAL options of equipping a room for short meetings between prisoners and visitors . According to the first option the meeting room is to be equipped with tables along the room separated by free space of QUANTITY in width . The chairs for visitors are not to exceed CARDINAL items ; stools for the prisoners are to be fixed to the floor .

According to the second option , a meeting room is to be equipped with booths QUANTITY in width and QUANTITY in length . CARDINAL or CARDINAL booths are to be of QUANTITY to accommodate CARDINAL visitors or visitors with children coming to see the same prisoner . The NORP booths and the ORG booths are to be separated by glass partitions . The booths are to be equipped with a loudspeaker and a telephone handset . The table of the supervising officer is to be equipped with a device for listening to the conversations in the booths .

On DATE ORG , having reviewed the lawfulness of the Prison Rules , included them in the unified register of normative legal acts .

The relevant extract from the Recommendation read as follows :

“ Part II Conditions of imprisonment

Contact with the outside world

Prisoners shall be allowed to communicate as often as possible by letter , telephone or other forms of communication with their families , other persons and representatives of outside organisations and to receive visits from these persons .

Communication and visits may be subject to restrictions and monitoring necessary for the requirements of continuing criminal investigations , maintenance of good order , safety and security , prevention of criminal offences and protection of victims of crime , but such restrictions , including specific restrictions ordered by a judicial authority , shall nevertheless allow an acceptable minimum level of contact .

National law shall specify national and international bodies and officials with whom communication by prisoners shall not be restricted .

NORP The arrangements for visits shall be such as to allow prisoners to maintain and develop family relationships in as normal a manner as possible .

Prison authorities shall assist prisoners in maintaining adequate contact with the outside world and provide them with the appropriate welfare support to do so . ”

The relevant extract from the Report read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In many NORP countries the number of life - sentenced and other long - term prisoners is on the increase . During some of its visits , the ORG has found that the situation of such prisoners left much to be desired in terms of material conditions , activities and possibilities for human contact . Further , many such prisoners were subject to special restrictions likely to exacerbate the deleterious effects inherent in long - term imprisonment ; examples of such restrictions are permanent separation from the rest of the prison population , handcuffing whenever the prisoner is taken out of his cell , prohibition of communication with other prisoners , and limited visit entitlements . The ORG can see no justification for indiscriminately applying restrictions to all prisoners subject to a specific type of sentence , without giving due consideration to the individual risk they may ( or may not ) present .

Long - term imprisonment can have a number of desocialising effects upon inmates . In addition to becoming institutionalised , long - term prisoners may experience a range of psychological problems ( including loss of self - esteem and impairment of social skills ) and have a tendency to become increasingly detached from society ; to which almost all of them will eventually return . In the view of the ORG , the regimes which are offered to prisoners serving long sentences should seek to compensate for these effects in a positive and proactive way .

The prisoners concerned should have access to a wide range of purposeful activities of a varied nature ( work , preferably with vocational value ; education ; sport ; recreation / association ) . Moreover , they should be able to exercise a degree of choice over the manner in which their time is spent , thus fostering a sense of autonomy and personal responsibility . Additional steps should be taken to lend meaning to their period of imprisonment ; in particular , the provision of individualised custody plans and appropriate psycho - social support are important elements in assisting such prisoners to come to terms with their period of incarceration and , when the time comes , to prepare for release . Further , the negative effects of institutionalisation upon prisoners serving long sentences will be less pronounced , and they will be better equipped for release , if they are able effectively to maintain contact with the outside world . ”


Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE . She lives in the village of ORG , in GPE . The applicant is the mother of PERSON , born in DATE .

The applicant , with her husband and CARDINAL daughters , PERSON and GPE , lived at CARDINAL FAC in the village of GPE , in FAC ( in the submitted documents the district is also referred to as ORG district ) , in GPE . Their house was located near a local hospital . At the material time the village was under the firm control of the federal forces , which maintained manned checkpoints at the entry and exit points to and from the village .

In TIME DATE ( in the submitted documents the date is also referred to as DATE ) the family was sleeping in their house at the above address .

At TIME on DATE the applicant and her family members were woken up by someone knocking at the entrance door . The applicant approached the door and asked in NORP : “ Who is it ? ” The answer was given in NORP : “ Passport check ” . When the applicant wondered why the passport check was being conducted so late at night , she was told : “ You better open the door ; we have an order ! ” The applicant opened the door and CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms without insignia entered the house . All but CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the intruders were wearing masks . The applicant and her relatives noticed that the men without masks were of NORP appearance . The intruders spoke unaccented NORP . The applicant inferred that they were NORP servicemen .

The servicemen asked the applicant whether there were any men in the house . The only man in the household was the applicant 's husband , a disabled person with one leg . The servicemen checked the family 's passports and returned them to the applicant . Then the unmasked servicemen said to their colleagues that they should leave the applicant 's house as no men were to be found there . However , CARDINAL of the masked servicemen told them that they should search the house . The servicemen searched the house , turning everything upside down . It appears that they did not find anything of interest to them other than a few video cassettes which they took away .

Having searched the house , the servicemen ordered the applicant 's daughters , PERSON and GPE , to put on warm clothing as they were being taken to the vehicles for questioning . The applicant 's younger daughter , DATE GPE , started crying . CARDINAL of the masked servicemen told her : “ Do not be afraid ; we will just question you and will let you go . I promise that nothing will happen to you . ” Before leaving the house , PERSON insisted that she should be the only one to go for questioning . The servicemen let GPE stay in the house ; they took PERSON outside to the vehicles .

The applicant managed to run outside and saw that PERSON was handcuffed and was standing next to a white GAZ minivan . Beside the minivan the applicant saw a white VAZ-CARDINAL , CARDINAL grey ORG vehicles , CARDINAL military all - terrain UAZ vehicles ( “ таблетка ” ) and a grey VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle , which were all parked around the applicant 's house . The vehicles did not have number plates . According to the applicant , further vehicles belonging to the intruders were parked near her house but she was unable to recall their models or their colour . The applicant shouted at the servicemen and asked them to take her for questioning with her daughter . In response they pushed her away . PERSON was put into the GAZ minivan and the intruders drove away .

A number of people witnessed the abduction of PERSON . In particular , PERSON , who was a patient in the hospital across the street , was woken up by shouting coming from the applicant 's courtyard and rushed outside . She saw that the applicant 's house was surrounded by armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms . The men did not allow her to approach and pushed her back into the hospital . While they were doing so , she saw them take PERSON away .

At TIME on DATE the applicant 's neighbours , PERSON and PERSON , were woken up by the noise of armoured vehicles and the applicant 's shouting and saw armoured and other vehicles stationed at the street . PERSON and PERSON were afraid to approach the persons in camouflage uniforms and masks because they were armed . Another neighbour , PERSON . NORP , who was woken up by a woman 's shouting at TIME on DATE , got outside and saw armoured and other vehicles parked on the street at the applicant 's house ; women at the entry gate to the applicant 's house were shouting at several men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks . Afraid of the camouflaged men because of their weapons , PERSON . NORP returned home . When it was quiet he went to see the applicant and learnt from her that PERSON had been kidnapped .

The applicant has had no news of PERSON since DATE .

The description of the events above is based on the applicant 's application form and written statements by GPE , ORG PERSON . NORP , made on DATE .

The Government submitted that on DATE PERSON had been abducted by unidentified persons .

On TIME the applicant complained about her daughter 's abduction to a number of law - enforcement agencies in LOC . In particular , she complained to ORG of the Interior ( the ROVD ) , to a local department of ORG ( the ORG ) and the security service of the NORP President . The authorities denied having any information about the whereabouts of the applicant 's daughter . However , unspecified officers from the security service of the NORP President suggested to the applicant that her daughter had most likely been abducted by officers of ORG from GPE , GPE .

The applicant also complained about the abduction of PERSON GPE to GPE , head of the local administration . The latter also suggested that her daughter had been probably taken to GPE .

DATE the applicant went in person to a number of ORG authorities in ORG , trying to obtain information concerning her daughter 's whereabouts . It appears that her attempts produced no results .

The applicant also contacted , both in person and in writing , various official bodies , such as the NORP administration , military commanders ' offices and prosecutors ' offices at different levels , describing in detail the circumstances of PERSON abduction and asking for help in establishing her whereabouts . The applicant retained copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to ORG . An official investigation was opened by the local prosecutor 's office . The relevant information is summarised below .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of ORG ( “ the district prosecutor 's office ” ) instituted an investigation into the abduction of PERSON under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given number DATE . It does not appear that the applicant was informed about the decision .

By a decision of DATE the district prosecutor 's office granted the applicant victim status in connection with criminal case no . DATE . The decision stated , among other things , that at TIME on DATE TIME unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had arrived at the applicant 's home at CARDINAL FAC in a GAZ minivan , a UAZ vehicle , CARDINAL military all - terrain UAZ vehicles ( “ таблетка ” ) , a VAZ-CARDINAL and a VAZ-CARDINAL and had taken PERSON to an unknown destination . The applicant was accordingly provided with a copy of the decision .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that on that date the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators ; the operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way .

On DATE the applicant 's representatives from PERSON wrote to the district prosecutor 's office , complaining about the lack of information concerning the investigation . They requested to be informed about its progress ; the specific actions taken to solve the crime since the opening of the criminal case and during DATE after the decision to suspend the investigation ; the reasons for the suspension of the investigation , and the reasons for PERSON arrest . They further requested to be informed whether the investigating authority had interviewed the witnesses of the abduction and had requested information from various remand centres on PERSON eventual detention . Lastly , they submitted that the applicant had not been provided with the decision to open the investigation and requested that she be provided with a copy .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE ( “ the NORP prosecutor 's office ” ) replied to the applicant 's representatives that the district prosecutor 's office had instituted an investigation into the abduction of PERSON and the applicant had been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings ; the operational and search measures aimed at solving the crime were under way . The letter also stated that pursuant to LAW any information about the investigation was confidential and was not to be disclosed .

On DATE the applicant 's representatives wrote to the NORP prosecutor 's office and to ORG office . Referring to the case - law of ORG , they pointed out that the authorities ' letter of DATE had failed to provide the requested information or any plausible explanations for the authorities ' failure to provide the applicant with copies of basic investigative decisions . The applicant 's representatives repeated their request for information about the progress of the investigation and copies of those decisions .

On DATE the Prosecutor General 's office informed the applicant 's representatives that their request of DATE had been forwarded to the NORP prosecutor 's office for examination .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor 's office . In her letter she described the circumstances of her daughter 's abduction by armed persons in camouflage uniforms and masks , who had arrived in “ ordinary ” and armoured vehicles and complained that she had had no information concerning the investigation . She pointed out that her numerous requests to various ORG authorities had failed to produce any results and requested , among other things , to be provided with the following information : the number of the criminal case opened in connection with the abduction of PERSON ; the prosecutor 's office and the name of the person in charge of the investigation ; the investigative measures taken by the authorities ; whether witnesses to the abduction had been questioned by the investigation ; whether the investigation had been suspended ; whether the investigation had established how a convoy of military and civil vehicles with the abducted PERSON had managed to drive through the numerous NORP federal forces checkpoints located in LOC and , in particular , on the road to and from the village of ORG ; whether the investigation had examined the theory of possible implication of NORP servicemen or representatives of NORP special forces in the abduction of PERSON and whether the authorities had obtained information from various detention centres in GPE concerning her eventual detention . Lastly , she requested to be provided with the decision to suspend the investigation , which the authorities had not sent to her .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office replied to the applicant . The letter stated that on DATE the district prosecutor 's office had opened criminal case no . DATE into the abduction of PERSON PERSON and that the investigation had undertaken the following measures : examination of the crime scene ; the applicant had been granted victim status ; an unspecified number of the applicant 's relatives , acquaintances and neighbours had been interviewed ; unspecified investigative measures had been undertaken in collaboration with a number of other law - enforcement agencies ; instructions had been given to the ROVD to conduct operational and search measures ; the district prosecutor had issued instructions aimed at solving the crime . According to the letter , the investigation had been examining the thesis of possible involvement of servicemen or members of special forces in the crime . In addition , the investigation was examining the theory that PERSON had been kidnapped for ransom . Finally , the letter stated that the above measures had failed to produce any results and on DATE the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators .

On DATE the applicant 's representatives wrote to the NORP prosecutor 's office . Referring to the case - law of the ORG , they complained about the lack of information concerning the investigation into the abduction of the applicant 's daughter and pointed out that the applicant had not received copies of the decisions to open the criminal case and to grant her the victim status in the criminal proceedings . The letter requested the authorities to provide the applicant with the following information : the status of the criminal investigation ; the reasons for PERSON abduction ; whether witnesses to the abduction had been questioned by the authorities ; measures undertaken by the investigation DATE and DATE and whether the authorities had carried out an examination of detention centres in the region to establish the whereabouts of the applicant 's daughter . Finally , the letter requested that the applicant be provided with copies of basic investigative decisions , including the CARDINAL granting the applicant victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office forwarded the request of the applicant 's representatives to the district prosecutor 's office for examination .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office informed the applicant 's representatives that they had examined their request . According to the letter , the investigation had been undertaking measures aimed at solving the crime . Referring to unspecified provisions of NORP legislation the letter stated that copies of basic investigative decisions could not be provided to the applicant 's representatives ; under LAW only the applicant was entitled to receive in person copies of the decisions concerning opening of the criminal proceedings , grant of the victim status and suspension of the investigation .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office received from the ORG information concerning the abduction of PERSON .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office launched an investigation into the abduction of PERSON under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office requested prosecutor 's offices of various levels , departments of the interior in GPE and FAC and Departments of ORG of GPE in LOC ( “ PERSON милиции ORG Временной оперативной группировки органов и подразделений ORG в DATE регионе ” , “ the ORG ” ) to provide information on whether PERSON had been arrested . From the replies of those ORG authorities it appeared that the applicant 's daughter was not being held in the ROVDs of GPE ; she had not applied to medical institutions for assistance ; there were no compromising materials ( “ компрометирующий материал ” ) on her .

According to a reply from the deputy head of ORG , that authority had not carried out any special operations in ORG on DATE ; PERSON had not been taken to any penal institutions in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no . DATE and her procedural rights and obligations were explained to her .

Being interviewed as a victim on DATE , the applicant submitted , among other things , that on DATE unidentified persons had told her to open the door for an identity check . Subsequently , several armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks burst into the house . They had asked the applicant in NORP where the men were . The applicant had pointed at her husband , explaining that he was the only man in the household . The intruders had checked the family members ' identity papers and told the applicant 's daughters to get dressed . Meanwhile the intruders had turned everything in the house upside down . They had told PERSON GPE to follow them to their vehicle for questioning . When the applicant protested the armed men replied that they would question PERSON GPE and then let her go . The applicant had wanted to follow her daughter outside but had been held in the house . Having nonetheless managed to get outside , she had seen PERSON , handcuffed , near a white GAZ minivan without number plates . The applicant had also seen CARDINAL vehicles , including an UAZ vehicle , CARDINAL ORG military all - terrain vehicles ( “ таблетка ” ) , a VAZ-CARDINAL and a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle . Despite the applicant 's attempts to stop them , the abductors had left with her daughter . The applicant also submitted that in DATE , according to local custom , PERSON had been abducted for marriage by a man from ORG . She had only stayed with that man for DATE . When the elders had come to the applicant to pay the bride - price and the family had learnt about PERSON 's whereabouts , they had taken her back home .

The applicant 's husband and daughter GPE , questioned on DATE , gave similar descriptions of the circumstances of PERSON PERSON 's abduction .

B.A. , the applicant 's neighbour , interviewed as a witness on DATE , submitted that he had learnt from the applicant that at QUANTITY on DATE TIME armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms had abducted PERSON from her parents ' house in GPE . The intruders had arrived in a convoy of vehicles , including a PERSON minivan , several ORG and ORG and VAZ-CARDINAL vehicles .

The applicant 's neighbour , GPE , interviewed as a witness on an unspecified date , stated that during TIME DATE she had heard several vehicles in the street . On DATE she had learnt from the applicant about the abduction of PERSON by armed men in camouflage uniforms .

PERSON , interviewed as a witness on an unspecified date , submitted that she had learnt from fellow residents in GPE that on DATE PERSON had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms , who had arrived in a GAZ minivan and several ORG and ORG vehicles without number plates . Similar submissions had been made by the applicant 's neighbours and acquaintances ORG , PERSON , Kh . PERSON , ORG , DATE , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE . , ORG . PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON . , GPE , GPE . , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG . NORP , GPE , GPE . , PERSON . , PERSON . PERSON , GPE , ORG GPE , GPE , GPE . , GPE . , PERSON , Sh . A. , GPE . , GPE , GPE . , who were interviewed as witnesses on unspecified dates .

According to replies from the Operational and Search Bureau of the LOC operational department of ORG of GPE in ORG ( “ LOC управления PERSON управления МВД РФ по ORG федеральному округу ” ) and the ORG department in GPE , those authorities had not arrested PERSON and had no compromising materials on her .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL was instructed to verify the following information : whether federal troops had carried out a special operation in GPE on DATE ; whether they had arrested PERSON , and whether the military units stationed in ORG and the GPE settlement were equipped with GAZ minivans , ORG , PERSON and ORG vehicles . According to the military prosecutor 's reply dated DATE , federal forces had not carried out any special operations in the village of GPE on DATE and had not arrested PERSON . The military forces in question were equipped with GAZ minivans , ORG and ORG and VAZ-CARDINAL vehicles . However , in the absence of information about their number plates it was impossible to establish which military unit owned the vehicles mentioned in the district prosecutor 's office ' request for information .

On DATE heads of unspecified remand prisons in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE were requested to provide information as to whether PERSON had been detained in those facilities . No relevant information was provided by those persons .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office requested the military commander 's office of ORG , ORG of GPE , ORG internal troops office in ORG , ORG departments in GPE , Ingushetiya , GPE - GPE and PERSON , and the ROVD and police offices of the ORG and ORG , to find out whether those ORG authorities had carried out special operations in ORG on DATE and had arrested PERSON . No relevant information had been received from those ORG bodies .

The investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been suspended on numerous occasions for failure to identify the culprits and reopened to check the information obtained as a result of operational and search measures .

The investigation in case no . DATE is pending .

Despite a specific request by ORG did not disclose most of the contents of criminal file no . DATE , providing only copies of the following documents :

letter of DATE by ORG deputy prosecutor , addressed to the head of the ROVD and requesting the latter to verify the information on the abduction of PERSON , submitted by ORG on an unspecified date ;

a report by a police officer of the ROVD , dated DATE to the effect that there were indications that a crime had been committed against PERSON ;

records of interviews with the applicant , her husband and her daughter GPE , dated DATE and a record of an interview with ORG , dated DATE ;

a reply from the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . DATE dated DATE ;

replies from various ORG authorities to the effect they had not carried out special operations in ORG on DATE , had not arrested PERSON , had not held her in detention and had no compromising materials on her or information on her whereabouts .

The Government submitted that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information on personal data concerning witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see PERSON and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 8 with regard to initial period;No violation of Art. 8 with regard to later period;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the militia and detained on remand in ORG of ORG of ORG of GPE ( слідчui ізолятор GPE міністерства внутрішніх справ PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( судoва колегія з кримінальних справ ORG суду ORG ) convicted the applicant of the murder of CARDINAL persons and sentenced him to death .

On DATE the Administration of the Isolation Block of ORG of ORG of GPE ( адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ PERSON ) decided to move the applicant to a separate cell to await his execution , in accordance with the DATE ORG - trial LAW ( hereinafter “ the Act ” ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( судoва колегія з кримінальних справ ORG суду ORG ) upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE the applicant 's mother was permitted to visit her son . On DATE she was again allowed to visit the applicant , together with the latter 's brother .

On DATE the Vice - President of ORG rejected an application for leave to lodge an extraordinary appeal , introduced by the applicant 's lawyer .

On DATE the applicant 's mother visited her son again . Her next visit took place on DATE , when she was accompanied by the applicant 's brother .

A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of GPE on DATE . In judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG held that the provisions of LAW concerning the death penalty were contrary to LAW . The death penalty was abolished and replaced by life imprisonment by Act no . CARDINAL of DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE commuted the applicant 's death sentence to life imprisonment .

Evidence from the applicant was taken by ORG in FAC on DATE . ORG was composed of Judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The evidence taken may be summarised as follows :

The applicant was admitted to ORG on DATE . On DATE of ORG visit , he confirmed that he had been informed about his rights and obligations . Actually , DATE , he signed a sheet of paper containing these rights and obligations .

He stated that he had been allowed to have a hot shower every DATE and could shave with an individual razor blade . At the same time , his hair was cut . Until DATE , he could wash himself only once DATE . Since DATE he could use an individual razor . According to him , the death row inmates started having soap and cold water in their cells in DATE . Previously , there had been water taps , but the inmates could not switch them on or off , this being done by a guard for all the prisoners . Small windows had been installed in the cells which the inmates could open to let fresh air in .

According to the applicant , an iron sheet covered the window in his cell until DATE . He confirmed that , at present , the light was enough to read or write , his cell being equipped by CARDINAL lamps - a normal one and a dimmed one . He said that as far as his cell was concerned , the installation of the lamps , water taps , mirrors , new iron beds and windows had started DATE before the Delegates ' visit .

The applicant did not have any contacts with other prisoners . When he shared his cell with another inmate , they were taken together to the shower or for a walk . To ORG question : “ What was the longest period for which you did not have any contacts with other prisoners ? ” , he answered : “ That was during the investigation , for DATE . ” He also said that during the investigation , which had lasted DATE , he had been kept in solitary confinement following a ORG 's decision , based on a written complaint about his allegedly inappropriate behaviour towards another inmate . According to him , the prisoners had a choice between being detained in double or single cells . He confirmed that , until DATE , he had been in the double cell .

He confirmed that since DATE inmates could buy books in the prison shop and since DATE they were allowed to get CARDINAL newspapers . In prison there was a public radio - a loudspeaker , which was switched off at TIME

To ORG question : “ Do you have any complaints about the food ? ” , the applicant answered : “ How can we complain about the food when people who work do not get their salaries ? ”

According to the applicant , inmates had been examined by a medical assistant ( фельдшеp ) on a DATE basis , and once DATE by the prison doctor who could also be called in case of emergency .

The applicant confirmed that when he broke the rules , he was punished by being barred from having visits and receiving parcels . Since the investigation period , he had not broken any rules . As regards the general situation , he had not heard about other inmates being subjected to such treatment .

He also confirmed that he saw the prison governor on DATE . If he had some questions or complaints , he could lodge an application .

When the applicant wished to see his lawyer , he sent an application to the lawyer through the prison governor . Prison guards were present during the visits of the applicant 's lawyer . The applicant did not write any detailed complaints or requests , discussing all those issues with his lawyer during their meetings in prison .

The applicant was allowed to send and receive letters at DATE . During his stay in ORG , he had received CARDINAL letters . He had written to his mother DATE . He did not receive his mother 's letter sent in DATE , but he did not know whether it was due to the prison censorship control .

The applicant started to receive packages in DATE . He stated that he had been allowed to get CARDINAL parcels ( посилка , передaча ) and CARDINAL small packets ( бандероль ) per year . He considered this number satisfactory even though he would have preferred to receive CARDINAL parcel DATE . He confirmed that his relatives were permitted to send him food .

The applicant was not allowed to wear any other type of clothes than those provided by the prison officials , except for underwear and socks . In DATE the prisoners had to wear jackets and in DATE they were given a warm coat and fur hats . According to him , the DATE clothes were sufficient for DATE .

The applicant confirmed that he had started having DATE TIME outdoor walks in DATE . The prison guards had not required the wearing of handcuffs since DATE or DATE .

The witness was the governor of ORG during the time of the applicant 's detention there .

The witness said that on DATE of ORG visit , CARDINAL prisoners were serving a sentence in the prison , of whom CARDINAL were on death row .

According to him , every death row prisoner was aware of his rights and duties . A copy of the list of rights and duties was posted in every cell . He confirmed that there was no secrecy as to the rights and obligations of prisoners and that after the decree about rights and obligations had been published , the prisoners were fully aware of them .

He also confirmed that he saw the applicant once DATE which was , according to him , regular practice . He said that the applicant had never complained of the conditions of his detention , but disagreed with his sentence to death . He also said that the applicant had been informed about the new instructions and about the new decree concerning the rights and duties of death row inmates .

The witness considered the heating conditions sufficient . The prison had its own boiler and there was a fresh - air ventilation system in the cells . According to him , the prisoners had a hot shower once DATE , when the bed linen was also changed . He denied the applicant 's allegation that all death row prisoners were using the same razor , which would have created health problems on account of the risk of infection . He said that the prisoners shaved separately with blades given to them by the prison administration .

He stated that in the daytime there were CARDINAL lamps lit plus natural light from windows in the cells , which he considered sufficient . At TIME , they had CARDINAL lamp lit . He said that every death row inmate had a cell of not QUANTITY . There was a possibility of reading books and literature using both natural and artificial light .

NORP The witness said that the inmates underwent an X - ray examination twice a year . Once a week the head of the medical division visited them , and every day a medical assistant conducted an inspection .

The witness said that death row prisoners had the right to communicate with the outside world without any limitation , both to send and receive letters . He further said that this situation had improved since DATE . He admitted that under the existing procedure , inmates ' correspondence was censored , but he did not remember any case when an incoming letter had been stopped without being given to its addressee , including letters from ORG . He confirmed that the applicant 's correspondence had been registered in the journal . Moreover , any death row prisoner could complain of any violation of the right to exchange letters to the governor , to the Prosecutor who supervised the prison , or to any other official in this department .

According to the witness , the possibilities for receiving parcels improved in DATE . Since then , the prisoners were allowed to receive CARDINAL food parcels ( посилка , передача ) and CARDINAL small packets ( бандероль ) per year . Previously , they had not been allowed to receive any parcel until the judgment in their criminal case had become final . Moreover , the prisoners could buy food in the prison shop . They could spend GPE hryvnas CARDINAL ( ORG ) per month at prices which were the same as in state - owned shops from which the prison bought the food .

According to the witness , prior to DATE the inmates had not been not allowed to go for DATE outdoor walks . Since then , they had been taken out for TIME without handcuffs .

The witness was the doctor in ORG , where he had been working since DATE .

He said that the prison medical staff included CARDINAL doctors ( CARDINAL general practitioners , CARDINAL psychiatrist and CARDINAL radiologist ) , medical assistants ( фельдшер ) , an X - ray laboratory assistant , a pharmacist and a clinical assistant . According to him , medical services were provided TIME a day . Any inmate could apply at any time and get urgent medical assistance . The death row prisoners were seen by a medical assistant every day during their DATE walk . They could ask him for any medical assistance and , if his help was not sufficient , they could request to see the doctor . Besides , they could apply directly to the doctor . Every inmate had a medical file compiled upon his arrival where all details and results of medical examinations were recorded and which was kept during the period of his imprisonment .

The witness said that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant , upon his arrival at the prison , had complained about having been beaten . In DATE he had requested help because he suffered from a respiratory virus infection .

He also said that HIV testing of inmates was not obligatory and was only conducted upon individual request . The test was preceded by a confidential interview between the doctor and the prisoner . The witness did not confirm whether there were inmates infected with the HIV virus , claiming that this was confidential information . The only other person who knew about inmates infected by HIV was the doctor responsible for the testing and the preceding consultations .

As far as complaints about hygienic conditions in the prison were concerned , the witness had received no such complaints . He considered that the changes in regime for the death row prisoners , especially the possibility of having outdoor walks and natural light in their cells , had improved their health conditions .

The witness was a medical assistant having been working in ORG for DATE . He was responsible for the DATE control of the inmates ' health conditions , while the doctor made visits and attended emergency situations . He considered that there were particular problems with death row inmates and , in fact , he worked mostly with them . He accompanied these prisoners during their DATE outdoor walks .

He confirmed that the improvement of living conditions in the death row prisoners ' cells had had a positive influence on their health . Since then he had not received any further complaints from them regarding health and hygiene .

The witness stated that he had never seen any signs of guards ' brutality against the death row inmates or any bodily injuries . He had never heard about such complaints made to other staff in the prison . He examined the inmates on a DATE basis and he reported to his superiors . According to him , the applicant had not complained more than other inmates . He confirmed that he had been observing the applicant for DATE without noticing any changes in his mental state . He had not witnessed any strong symptoms of depression of the applicant .

The witness was the applicant 's mother . In her letter of CARDINAL DATE to the ORG she complained that her son had been beaten . She confirmed that during his detention in custody , the applicant had been beaten and had not been provided with any medical assistance . He had been interrogated for TIME and , after TIME , he had been taken to hospital . She could still see traces of the beatings on his face during her meeting with him DATE . She had been allowed to meet her son for the first time DATE after the sentence had been pronounced . In this meeting , she had asked her son about the beatings and he confirmed that he had been beaten .

She did not have any complaints about the administration regarding receiving and sending letters . She rather complained generally about the prison system . She started to correspond with her son in DATE . However , she was unable to give any details in this regard . She had written her last letter to her son in DATE but to date , he had not received it . On the other hand , she confirmed that letters had never been lost .

To the ORG representative 's questions : “ During DATE , how often did you send letters to your son ? Can you send them DATE ? ” , the witness answered : “ If there is a need , I write him a letter . ” To the Government representative 's questions : “ And how often do you get letters from him ? Can he write to you more than once DATE ? ” , the witness answered : “ DATE we were allowed to send CARDINAL letter DATE , and now there are no limitations , we can write letters as often as we want . ”

The witness confirmed that she started to send parcels ( посилка ) to her son in DATE . Since then , she had had no complaints against the prison administration in this regard .

The witness saw the applicant once a month during a visit lasting for TIME at the most . She had not complained about the duration of her visits or that they had been suddenly interrupted by a prison guard who was always present , being happy to have even these short visits . She spoke with her son over the telephone , seeing him through the glass . She could not see whether he was handcuffed .

To the Government representative 's question : “ And what do you think about the duration of the meetings ? Could you tell , judging by the atmosphere , whether if you had asked for the meeting to be extended to TIME or longer , you would have been allowed ? ” , the witness answered : “ I have never asked to prolong the meetings . I think if the administration says it is over , then it is over . ” To the Government representative 's information : “ You have the right to TIME meetings now ” , the witness answered : “ It is difficult to talk through glass for TIME . ”

The witness said that the applicant had never complained in his letters about ill - treatment , beatings or about the prison administration . He had complained about parcels , letters and visits . She admitted that the situation was improving , and that the prison administration understood that inmates sentenced to the death penalty were like other inmates .

On DATE the Delegates visited the prison . The size of the applicant 's cell area was QUANTITY . The cell was in order and clean . There was an open toilet , a washbasin with CARDINAL tap with cold water only , CARDINAL beds fixed on the floor , central heating and a window with bars . There were some books , a newspaper , a stock of soap and toilet paper . The cell was sufficiently heated and ventilated .

The Delegates were shown the prison shower area , which was reasonably clean . They also visited an exercise yard .

According to the prison shop records , the applicant bought goods on the following occasions :

On DATE he bought foodstuffs for CARDINAL ( ORG ) , on DATE he purchased foodstuffs and matches for UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL , on DATE he bought foodstuffs for UAH CARDINAL , on CARDINAL DATE he purchased foodstuffs paying UAH MONEY , on DATE the applicant bought toiletries and foodstuffs UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and on DATE he bought foodstuffs for UAH CARDINAL , on DATE the applicant purchased different items for UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant purchased foodstuffs and matches spending UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL , on CARDINAL DATE he bought foodstuffs for UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and on DATE he bought foodstuffs and matches paying UAH CARDINAL .

From the applicant 's medical file which was created on DATE it appears inter alia that the applicant underwent an X - ray examination on CARDINAL DATE , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , on DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL May and DATE .

Under LAW and DATE , the LAW is directly applicable . There is a guaranteed right to lodge an action in defence of the constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual and of the citizen directly on the basis of LAW .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that international treaties , which are in force and agreed on as binding by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , are part of the national legislation of GPE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL prohibits censorship .

Under LAW the legal order in GPE is based on the principles according to which no one may be forced to do what is not envisaged by the legislation . State authorities and local self - government bodies and their officials are obliged to act only according to these principles , within the limits of their authority , and in the manner envisaged by the LAW and the laws of GPE .

Article CARDINAL provides that human and citizens ' rights and freedoms are guaranteed and may not be diminished by the adoption of new laws or the amendment of laws that are in force .

DATE . Under LAW and CARDINAL no one may be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision and only on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by law . Everyone arrested or detained must be informed without delay of the reasons for his arrest or detention , apprised of his rights , and from the moment of detention must be given the opportunity to defend himself in person , or to have the assistance of a defence lawyer .

Under LAW § CARDINAL and CARDINAL everyone is guaranteed the right to challenge the decisions , actions or omissions of ORG authorities , local self - government bodies , officials and officers of a court of law . After exhausting all domestic legal remedies everyone has the right to appeal for the protection of his or her rights and freedoms to the relevant international judicial institutions or to the relevant authorities of international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant .

Under LAW everyone has the right to legal assistance . Such assistance is provided free of charge in cases envisaged by law . Everyone is free to choose the defender of his rights . In GPE the Bar ( адвокатура ) ensures the right to a defence against charges and the provision of legal assistance in deciding cases in courts and before other ORG authorities .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a convicted person enjoys all human and citizens ' rights , subject only to restrictions determined by law and established by a court ruling .

Under LAW human and citizens ' rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW may not be restricted , except in cases envisaged by LAW .

Conditions on death row in the NORP prison system were successively governed by an ORG of DATE on conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment ( hereinafter “ the Instruction ” ) and by Temporary Provisions of DATE on the conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment in the isolation blocks ( hereinafter “ the Temporary Provisions ” ) .

The Instruction provided that after the sentence had become final , persons sentenced to death had to be kept in isolation from other prisoners in specially designed cells . Save in exceptional cases , CARDINAL such prisoners were to be detained in one cell . The cell area allocated to CARDINAL prisoner in a single cell had to be not QUANTITY , and in a double cell not QUANTITY . They were provided with an individual sleeping - place and with bed linen . The inmates wore a uniform designed for the category of especially dangerous recidivists . Reference was also made to their legal status and obligations . This determined the frequency of meetings with relatives and the number of letters inmates could send and receive : they were allowed CARDINAL visit per month and could send CARDINAL letter per month . There was no limitation on the mail they could receive . The inmates could receive CARDINAL small packets a year . They were allowed to have a DATE TIME walk in the fresh air . Outside their cells , inmates were handcuffed . They were not allowed to work .

Prisoners were also allowed to read books , magazines and newspapers borrowed from the prison library and/or bought through the prison distribution network ; they could receive money transfers ; they could keep personal objects and food in their cells , and buy food and toiletries in the prison shop DATE ( up to the value of the statutory minimum wage ) , and play board games . They could meet lawyers . The inmates were also allowed to have visits from lawyers . Medical treatment was provided in accordance with national legislation .

The prisoners could lodge complaints with state authorities . Such complaints had to be dispatched within DATE . Complaints to ORG were not censored .

The Temporary Provisions extended the rights of persons sentenced to capital punishment in comparison with the ORG . In particular , prisoners were allowed to have TIME of sleep during TIME , they could receive CARDINAL parcels and CARDINAL small packets per year , buy food and toiletries in the prison shop ( up to the value of PERCENT of the statutory minimum wage ) , pray and read religious literature and have visits from a priest , and write complaints to ORG authorities . They were allowed to send and receive letters without any limits and to have DATE visits of TIME from their relatives . A prison official had to be present during visits .

DATE . According to LAW , pre - trial detention is a preventive measure in respect of an accused , a defendant or a person suspected of having committed a crime punishable with imprisonment , or a convicted person whose sentence has not yet been enforced .

In accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , persons sentenced to capital punishment whose sentence had not become final were held separately from all other detained persons .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides inter alia that detainees have the right ( a ) to be defended in accordance with the rules of criminal law , ( b ) to be acquainted with the rules of detention , ( c ) to take a TIME DATE walk , ( d ) to receive DATE a parcel weighing QUANTITY and to receive unlimited money transfers and amounts of money by way of remittance or personal delivery , ( e ) to buy foodstuffs and toiletries to the value of DATE statutory minimum wage , paying by written order , as well as unlimited amounts of stationery , newspapers and books in prison shops , ( f ) to use their own clothing and footwear and to have with them documents and notes related to their criminal case , ( g ) to use TV sets received from relatives or other persons and board games , newspapers and books borrowed from the library in their previous place of imprisonment or bought at shops , ( h ) individually to perform religious rituals and use religious literature and objects made of semi - precious materials pertaining to their beliefs , provided that this does not lead to a breach of the rules applicable to places of pre - trial detention or restrict the rights of other persons , ( i ) to sleep TIME a night , during which time they are not required to participate in proceedings or to do anything else except in cases of extreme emergency and ( j ) to lodge complaints and petitions and send letters to ORG authorities and officials in accordance with the procedure prescribed by LAW .

Under LAW , detainees are required to be provided with everyday conditions that meet sanitary and hygiene requirements . The cell area for CARDINAL person may not be QUANTITY . Detainees are to be supplied with meals , an individual sleeping - place , bedclothes and other types of materials and everyday provisions free of charge and according to the norms laid down by the Government . In case of need , they are to be supplied with clothes and footwear of a standard form .

In accordance with section CARDINAL ) , permission for relatives or other persons to visit a detainee ( in principle , once a month for TIME ) can be given by the administrative authorities of the place of detention , but only with the written approval of an investigator , an investigative authority or a court dealing with the case . Under paragraph CARDINAL , detainees have the right to be visited by defence counsel , whom they may see alone with no restrictions on the number of visits or their length , from the moment the lawyer in question is authorised to act on their behalf , such authorisation being confirmed in writing by the person or body dealing with the case .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , detainees can exchange letters with their relatives and other persons and enterprises , establishments and organisations with the written permission of an authority dealing with the case . Once a sentence starts to run , correspondence is no longer subject to any limitations .

According to LAW ( Main requirements of the regime in detention institutions ) , the main features of the regime in detention establishments are : the compulsory isolation and permanent supervision of sentenced persons , so as to exclude any possibility of the commission of new crimes or other acts against public order ; strict and continuous observance of obligations by these persons ; and various detention conditions dependent on the character and gravity of the offence and the personality and behaviour of the sentenced person .

Sentenced persons must wear a uniform . They must also be searched ; body searches must be conducted by persons of the same sex as the person searched . Correspondence is subject to censorship , and parcels and packages subject to opening and checking . A strict internal routine and rules must be established in corrective labour establishments .

Sentenced persons are prohibited from keeping money and valuables , or other specified objects , in corrective labour establishments . Any money and valuables found are to be confiscated and , as a rule , transferred to the ORG in accordance with a reasoned decision of the governor of the institution , sanctioned by a prosecutor .

A list of objects which sentenced persons are allowed to possess , showing the number or quantity of each item and the procedure for confiscating objects whose use is prohibited in corrective labour establishments , must be established by the internal regulations of such establishments .

Under the procedure established by the Code , sentenced persons are allowed to buy food and toiletries , paying by written order , to be visited , to receive parcels , postal parcels , packages and money by remittance , to correspond and to send money to relatives by remittance .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( Purchase of food and toiletries by sentenced persons ) provides that sentenced persons are allowed to buy food and toiletries , paying by written order , from the money received by remittance .

Article CARDINAL provides inter alia that a lawyer may be given permission to meet his client on presentation of his licence and identity card . Visits are not limited as to their number and length and , at the lawyer 's request , may be carried out without a prison warder being present .

Under LAW ( Receipt of parcels and small packets by persons sentenced to imprisonment ) sentenced persons held in corrective labour GPE ( виправнo-тpудова колонія ) are allowed to receive , per year : CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the general regime ( колонія загального режиму ) , CARDINAL parcels in colonies subject to the strengthened regime ( колонія посиленого режиму ) and CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the strict and special regime ( колонія суворого режиму ) . Sentenced persons held in educational labour GPE ( колонія виховно-трудова ) are allowed to receive per year : CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the general regime and CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the strengthened regime .

Convicted offenders serving their sentence in a prison are not allowed to receive parcels .

Irrespective of the type of regime under which they are held , sentenced persons are allowed to receive not CARDINAL small packets per year , and to buy literature through the sales distribution network without any restrictions .

The quantity of parcels and small packets of all types is not restricted for sentenced persons held in corrective labour colony camps ( виправнo-тpудова колонія-поселення ) .

A list of foodstuffs and toiletries which sentenced persons are allowed to receive in postal parcels and small packets , as well as the procedure for their receipt by and delivery to the sentenced persons , is to be established in the internal regulations of corrective labour establishments .

Under LAW ( Receipt and sending of money by sentenced persons by remittance ) sentenced persons are allowed to receive unlimited amounts of money by remittance , as well as to send money to their relatives and , if this is permitted by the authorities of the corrective labour establishments , to other persons . The money received by remittance is transferred to the personal account of the sentenced person .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( Correspondence of persons sentenced to imprisonment ) provides that sentenced persons held in prisons may receive unlimited mail and may send letters as follows : CARDINAL letter per DATE for those held under the general regime and CARDINAL letter DATE for those held under the strengthened regime .

According to section ORG ) the public prosecutor deals with petitions and complaints concerning breaches of the rights of citizens and legal entities , except complaints that are within the jurisdiction of the courts . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that an appeal lies from the prosecutor 's decision to the supervising prosecutor and , in certain cases , to the court . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that the decision of ORG is final .

NORP Under section CARDINAL the prosecutor or his deputy has the power to make a request to a court for any materials in a case where a judgment or another decision has come into force . If there are any grounds for reopening the proceedings , the prosecutor challenges the court judgment or any other decision .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) the matters subject to the public prosecutor 's supervision are : adherence to the legal rules on pre - trial detention , and corrective labour or other establishments for the execution of sentences or coercive measures ordered by a court , adherence to the procedures and conditions for holding or punishing persons in such establishments ; the rights of such persons and the manner of carrying out by the relevant authorities of their duties under the criminal law and legislation on the enforcement of sentences . The public prosecutor may at any time visit places of pre - trial detention , establishments where convicted persons are serving sentences or establishments for compulsory treatment or reform , in order to conduct interviews or peruse documents on the basis of which persons have been detained , arrested or sentenced or subject to compulsory measures ; he may also examine the legality of orders , resolutions and decrees issued by the administrative authorities of such establishments , terminate the implementation of such acts , appeal against them or annul them where they do not comply with the law , and request officials to give explanations concerning breaches which have occurred .

In its ORG , the ORG deplored the executions which , reportedly , had been carried out recently in GPE , GPE and GPE . In particular , it condemned GPE for apparently violating its commitments to introduce a moratorium on executions of the death penalty upon its accession to ORG . It called upon this country to honour its commitments regarding the introduction of a moratorium on executions and the immediate abolition of capital punishment warning it that further violation of its commitments , especially the carrying out of executions , would have consequences under Order No . CARDINAL ( DATE ) .

The ORG confirmed in this ORG that it had received official information that , in DATE , CARDINAL executions had been carried out in GPE , and regretted that the NORP authorities had failed to inform it of the number of executions carried out in DATE . The ORG was particularly shocked that executions in GPE had been shrouded in secrecy , with apparently not even the families of the prisoners having been informed , and that the executed had been reportedly buried in unmarked graves . It condemned GPE for having violated its commitment to put into place a moratorium on executions , deplored the executions that had taken place , and demanded that it immediately honour its commitments and halt any executions still pending .

In these texts , the ORG noted that GPE had clearly failed to honour its commitments ( CARDINAL persons had been executed DATE and DATE , according to official sources ) . At the same time , it noted that since DATE a de facto moratorium on executions had been in effect in GPE . The ORG insisted that the moratorium be reconfirmed de jure and that the PERSON Rada ratify LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . It stressed the importance of the de facto moratorium on executions and firmly declared that , if any further executions took place , the credentials of the NORP parliamentary delegation would be annulled at the following part - session of the ORG , in accordance with Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Procedure .

Delegates of the ORG visited places of detention in GPE in DATE , and DATE . Reports on each of the visits were published on DATE , together with the Responses to the Reports of ORG .

The visit of the delegation , which took place from CARDINAL to DATE , was the ORG 's first periodic visit to GPE . In the course of the visit the delegation inspected , inter alia , the pre - trial prison ( GPE ) ( “ investigation isolation ” establishment ) No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in ORG . On the ground floor of building No . CARDINAL of GPE No . CARDINAL were housed at the time of the visit CARDINAL prisoners who had been sentenced to death , although as was recorded in a footnote to the ORG , the delegation had received assurances that since DATE a de facto moratorium on executions had been observed .

In its ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , the ORG expressed at the outset its serious concern about the conditions under which these prisoners were being held and about the regime applied to them . It was noted that prisoners sentenced to death were usually accommodated CARDINAL to a cell , the cell measuring CARDINAL - CARDINAL m² . The cells had no access to natural light , the windows being obscured by metal plates . The artificial lighting , which was permanently on , was not always sufficiently strong with the result that some cells were dim . To ventilate the cells , prisoners could pull a cord that opened a flap ; despite this the cells were very humid and quite cold ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The equipment in the cells was described in the ORG as being rudimentary , consisting of a metal bed and/or sloping platform ( equipped with a thin mattress , sheets of dubious cleanliness and a blanket which was manifestly insufficient to keep out the cold ) , a shelf and CARDINAL narrow stools . Prisoners were supposed to be able to listen to radio programmes via a speaker built into the wall of the cell , but it had been reported to the delegation that the radio only functioned sporadically ( ibid . ) .

All the cells had un - partitioned toilets which faced the living - area ; as a result , a prisoner using the toilet had to do so in full view of his cellmate . As regards toiletries , prisoners sentenced to death were in a similarly difficult situation as many of the other inmates ; items such as soap and toothpaste were rarities ( ibid . ) .

It was further recorded that prisoners sentenced to death had no form of activity outside their cells , not even an hour of outdoor exercise . At best they could leave their cells once DATE to use the shower in the cell - block , and for TIME a month , if they were authorised to receive family visits . In - cell activities consisted of reading and listening to the radio when it worked . Apart from the DATE visits which some inmates received , human contact was limited essentially to the occasional visit by an NORP priest or a member of the health - care staff , who spoke to the prisoners through a grill in the cell - door ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The ORG summarised its findings in this regard as follows :

“ In short , prisoners sentenced to death were locked up for TIME a day in cells which offered only a very restricted amount of living space and had no access to natural light and sometimes very meagre artificial lighting , with virtually no activities to occupy their time and very little opportunity for human contact . Most of them had been kept in such deleterious conditions for considerable periods of time ( ranging from DATE to over DATE ) . Such a situation may be fully consistent with the legal provisions in force in GPE concerning the treatment of prisoners sentenced to death . However , this does not alter the fact that , in the ORG 's opinion , it amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment . ” ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

It was further recorded that the delegation had received numerous complaints from prisoners sentenced to death about the fact that they lacked information with regard to their legal situation , the progress of their cases , follow - up to applications for cases to be reviewed , examination of their complaints etc . ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In its ORG to the DATE Report , ORG recorded that a number of organisational and practical steps had been taken to resolve the problems identified by the ORG . In particular , LAW had been introduced to guarantee to prisoners sentenced to death the right to be visited once DATE by relatives , to be visited by a lawyer to get legal assistance , to be visited by a priest and to receive and send correspondence without limitation . It was further noted

( i ) that prisoners sentenced to death would have DATE walks in the open air and that for this purpose QUANTITY of the pre - trial prisons had been rebuilt or re - equipped ;

( ii ) that , in order to improve natural lighting and air of all cells , the blinds and metal peakes over cell windows had been removed ; and

( iii ) that , for the purposes of informing inmates sentenced to death of their rights and legal status , extracts from LAW had been placed on the walls of each cell .

A ORG delegation visited GPE from DATE in the course of which they again inspected GPE No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE where , at the time of the visit , there were detained CARDINAL prisoners who had been sentenced to death . The ORG noted that certain changes had occurred since the previous visit . In particular , the cells had natural light and were better furnished and the prisoners had an hour of exercise per day in the open air , although it was observed that there was insufficient space for real physical exercise ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG further recorded that important progress had been made in the right of prisoners to receive visits from relatives and to correspond ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . However , the ORG noted certain unacceptable conditions of detention including the fact that prisoners continued to spend CARDINAL out of TIME a day in their cells and that opportunities for human contact remained very limited ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

A third visit to GPE took place from DATE , in the course of which the delegation inspected , inter alia , the pre - trial prison ( GPE PERSON ) in PERSON . The ORG welcomed the decision of the NORP authorities to abolish the death penalty and noted that most of the CARDINAL prisoners subject to the death sentence had had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment .

NORP Despite these welcome steps , the ORG recorded that the treatment of this category of prisoner was a major source of concern to ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . It was noted that , further to a provisional instruction issued in DATE and pending the establishment of CARDINAL high - security units specifically intended for life prisoners , such prisoners were subjected to a strict confinement regime ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . While living space in the cells was generally satisfactory and while work had started on refurbishing cells in all the establishments visited , there were major deficiencies in terms of access to natural light and the quality of artificial light and ventilation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Moreover , life - sentence prisoners were confined in their cells for TIME a day with no form of organized activities and , by way of activities outside their cells , were entitled to TIME outdoor exercise , which took place in unacceptable conditions . There was virtually no human contact : since the entry into force of the DATE instruction , visits from relatives had been forbidden and prisoners were only allowed to send CARDINAL letter DATE , although there were no restrictions on receiving letters ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In their Response to the Report the Ukrainian Government noted further legal amendments which ensured that life prisoners had TIME of exercise per day and CARDINAL family visits of TIME . Further , to ensure adequate access to light , metal shutters had been removed from windows in all cells .