LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF KOCHURA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 7925/20;54163/20;303/21;860/21;1652/21;1767/21;1826/21;2104/21;2807/21;4149/21 • ECHR ID: 001-211806
Document date: September 16, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
CASE OF KOCHURA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Doc ref: 7925/20;54163/20;303/21;860/21;1652/21;1767/21;1826/21;2104/21;2807/21;4149/21 • ECHR ID: 001-211806
Document date: September 16, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KOCHURA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 7925/20 and 9 others ‑
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 September 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kochura and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Jovan Ilievski, Mattias Guyomar, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 August 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the life sentence with no prospect of release.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
6. The applicants complained of the life sentence with no prospect of release. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. The Court reiterates that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on those convicted of especially serious crimes, such as murder. Yet to be compatible with Article 3 such a sentence must be reducible de jure and de facto , meaning that there must be both a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review. The basis of such review must extend to assessing whether there are legitimate penological grounds for the continuing incarceration of the prisoner. These grounds include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. The balance between them is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of a sentence, so that the primary justification for detention at the outset may not be so after a lengthy period of service of sentence. The importance of the ground of rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the practice of the Contracting States, in the relevant standards adopted by the Council of Europe, and in the relevant international materials (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, §§ 59-81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
8. In the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. They are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Petukhov (no. 2), cited above, § 201 ) , the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 September 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(life sentence with no prospect of release)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the trial court
Date of the life sentence
Judicial decision upholding the conviction
7925/20
28/01/2020
Oleksandr Mykolayovych KOCHURA
1979Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, 05/08/2005
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 21/03/2006
54163/20
09/11/2020
Anatoliy Ivanovich SKLEZ
1973Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal, 15/09/2003
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 20/01/2004
303/21
01/12/2020
Sergiy Anatoliyovych RADCHENKO
1993Myronivka District Court of Kyiv Region, 19/01/2016
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 11/04/2017
860/21
02/12/2020
Oleksandr Volodymyrovych STASHUK
1985Revyakin Maksym Oleksandrovych
Kharkiv
Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, 03/08/2009
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 08/12/2009
1652/21
01/12/2020
Andriy Mykolayovych OBORZHYTSKYY
1980Revyakin Maksym Oleksandrovych
Kharkiv
Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal, 09/10/2003
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 17/02/2004
1767/21
01/12/2020
Oleg Anatoliyovych PALIYENKO
1977Revyakin Maksym Oleksandrovych
Kharkiv
Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal, 20/03/2007
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 13/11/2007
1826/21
29/12/2020
Igor Oleksiyovych LUNYOV
1975Gorbachevska Tamara Igorivna
Kharkiv
Kharkiv Regional Court, 30/12/1998
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 25/05/2000
2104/21
10/12/2020
Vitaliy Viktorovych DYATKIN
1974Gorbachevska Tamara Igorivna
Kharkiv
Kyiv City Court of Appeal, 16/07/2004
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 05/04/2005
2807/21
31/12/2020
Yevgen Valentynovych PEREVYAZKO
1969Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych
Kyiv
Novopskovskyy Local Court of Luhansk Region, 18/04/2013
Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine, 12/06/2014
4149/21
05/01/2021
Oleksandr Mykolayovych PYKHTIN
1977Kychenok Andriy Sergiyovych
Kyiv
Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, 25/06/2007
Supreme Court of Ukraine, 30/10/2007
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
