You're reading: Rights judge: Torture common in Ukraine

Many Ukrainians view the European Court of Human Rights as the only place to seek justice and redress of rights’ violation. Thousands of Ukrainians apply to the court every year for help.

Ganna Yudkivska, a judge of the European Court of Human Rights from Ukraine, told the Kyiv Post about the most outrageous cases, the failure of law enforcement to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and what should be done in order to improve the legal system of Ukraine.

Kyiv Post: Have you ever examined cases of human rights violations in Ukraine?

Ganna Yudkivska: The national judge is always a member of the chamber that examines the case. That’s written in the convention. So I do participate in all the cases lodged against Ukraine except for those cases that are examined by a single judge, namely inadmissible applications.

KP: Could you name a couple of the most outstanding cases concerning violation of human rights in Ukraine?

GY: Most of the cases impress by their blatant violation of fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, the cases on torture of detainees have become common practice.

One of the most shocking cases was Davydov and others v. Ukraine (2010). It revealed that special police forces were training their fighting skills on detainees in jail. The European Court of Human Rights even sent a special delegation to Ukraine on a fact-finding mission, which happens only in extraordinary situations.

Speaking of recent cases, I can mention Mikhalkova v. Ukraine – the applicant’s son was brought to a detoxication center, where he was [so] ill-treated by police officers [that he died]. A very recent case – Nechyporuk and Yonkalo [v. Ukraine] — is also worth mentioning.

The court found 14 violations of the convention in the criminal proceedings against the applicant, among which were torture and unreasoned judgment. Of course, torture in custody is not the only type of violation of human rights in Ukraine, but these are the cases that are striking by their medieval cruelty.

KP: The data of the European arbitrary chamber say that Ukraine as a defendant loses almost 97 percent of cases submitted by its citizens. Why is this number so high? Does it mean that Ukraine can’t protect the rights of its citizens?

GY: It’s not quite right. More than 80 percent of cases against Ukraine are inadmissible – they either lack substantiation or do not meet formal admissibility criteria. As for the admissible cases – indeed, the court usually finds violations.

Well, yes, it means that people can’t protect their rights on a domestic level. But there is no country that can boast of a perfect legal system. Ukraine ratified the convention 14 years ago so it didn’t have enough time to reform its legal system according to European standards.

The rulings of the court that recognize violation of human rights by Ukraine should not be considered as punishment. On the contrary, they help to identify some gaps in the legislation and show ways to improve.

KP: Do you think that Ukraine has done everything possible within the framework of judicial reform in order to ensure protection of human rights on a domestic level?

GY: I think Ukraine is making its first steps in judicial reform. The priority task is to ensure real, not declarative, independence for the judicial branch. We desperately need a new code of criminal procedure and reform of the public prosecutor’s office and to pass a new bar law.

I am sure that Ukraine desperately needs to introduce trial by jury.

KP: How would you evaluate the job of Ministry of Justice lawyers who represent Ukraine in trials in Strasbourg? If they are really good, why does Ukraine lose the cases so often?

GY: I don’t think it will be appropriate to evaluate the quality of their performance. But I always say that this department has a very noble job – these lawyers protect the state, so they are the most experienced and qualified ones.

But often the violations of human rights are so obvious that they face trouble in choosing a proper defense line and finding proper arguments.

KP: Do you monitor the execution of the court’s rulings by Ukraine?

GY: No, the court doesn’t do that. This is a task for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. According to amendments introduced by Protocol No. 14 to the convention, if the Committee of Ministers considers that a state refuses to abide by a final judgment, it may refer this issue to the court.

KP: What does the court do if Ukraine doesn’t execute the judgment? Are there any tools to make Ukraine follow the recommendations and rulings issued by the court?

GY: Those tools do exist – up to the termination of a country’s membership in the Council of Europe, but I hope the situation won’t go as far as that. Now Ukraine chairs the Committee of Ministers so it has to be a model for the other member countries in fulfilling its international obligations.

KP: How do other judges react to the specifics of cases coming from Ukraine?

GY: Unfortunately, we still deal with cases that the Western world has already forgotten about – failure to execute court rulings, poor conditions in jails, excessive and illegal detention.

Western applicants are mostly concerned with issues that our citizens don’t even think about – like religious freedoms, euthanasia, same-sex marriages, issues like respecting some religious traditions in cooking food for inmates [of different faith].

At the same time, some cases coming from Ukraine raise very important issues for Europe. Like one of the recent cases – Editorial Board Pravoe Delo v. Ukraine, that concerned lack of adequate safeguards in the domestic law for journalists using information obtained from the Internet.

Ukrainian lawyers are getting more and more familiar with the tools of the convention, so the quality of applications submitted to the court is improving.

About The European Court Of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959. It rules on individual or State applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1998, it has sat as a full-time court and individuals can apply to it directly.

In almost 50 years, the court has delivered more than 10,000 judgments. These are binding on the countries concerned and have led governments to alter their legislation and administrative practice in a wide range of areas.

The Court’s case law makes the convention a powerful living instrument for meeting new challenges and consolidating the rule of law and democracy in Europe.

The court is based in Strasbourg, in the Human Rights Building designed by the British architect Richard Rogers in 1994, a building whose image is known worldwide. From here, the court monitors respect for the human rights of 800 million Europeans in the 47 Council of Europe-member states that have ratified the convention.