Communicated on 10 April 2018

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 7014/15 Viktoriya Anatoliyivna PANTYUSHENKO against Ukraine and Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, are set forth in the appended table.

COMPLAINTS

As regards applications nos. 7014/15 and 13330/15 the applicants complain under Article 2 that their relatives might no longer be alive as they disappeared under life-threatening circumstances and all the attempts to establish contact with them failed.

In application no. 13330/15 the applicant also complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to take measures necessary for carrying out an effective investigation into her husband ’ s disappearance.

In all the applications, except for application no. 13330/15, the applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention, relying on information received from soldiers released from captivity, that there is a high probability that their relatives captured in 2014 are ill-treated and held in poor conditions.

As regards applications nos. 7014/15 and 21510/15 the applicants complain that the continuing unlawful captivity of their relatives is tantamount to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

As regards applications nos. 7014/15, 13330/15 and 21510/15 the applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that long-lasting uncertainty about their relatives ’ fate causes them serious mental suffering.

In applications nos. 13330/15, 3069/16 and 3075/16 the applicants also complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to take measures necessary for carrying out an effective investigation into the alleged ill ‑ treatment.

As regards applications nos. 3069/16 and 3075/16 the applicants complain under Article 4 of the Convention that they were obliged to do forced labour.

In all the applications the applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their relatives ’ continuous deprivation of liberty is unlawful.

In all the applications the applicants complain that the respondent Governments failed to take measures necessary to secure their Convention rights as required by Article 13 of the Convention. They therefore did not have effective remedies in that respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Do the alleged violations of the Convention fall within the “jurisdiction” of the respondent States within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention?

2. As regards applications nos. 7014/15 and 13330/15, is there any evidence available to the effect that the applicants ’ relatives are still alive?

3. As regards application no. 13330/15, have investigations been carried out in respect of the applicant ’ s allegations of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by that provision?

4. As regards all the applications, except application no. 13330/15, have the applicants ’ relatives been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

5. As regards applications nos. 7014/15 and 21510/15, can the captivity of the applicants ’ relatives and the alleged treatment during that captivity be regarded as torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?

6. As regards applications nos. 7014/15, 13330/15 and 21510/15, can long-lasting uncertainty about their relatives ’ fate cause mental sufferings to the applicants sufficient to reach the threshold of inhuman treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention?

7. As regards applications nos. 13330/15, 3069/16 and 3075/16, have investigations been carried out in respect of the applicants ’ allegations of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as required by that provision?

8. As regards applications nos. 3069/16 and 3075/16, do the facts complained of amount to a violation of Article 4 of the Convention ?

9. As regards all the applications, are the applicants ’ relatives deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

10. As regards all the applications, did the applicants have effective remedies at their disposal in respect of their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Case title

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Name/ date of birth of d isappeared person

Represented by

Notes

Investigation into the applicants ’ complaints by Ukrainian/ Russian authorities

7014/15

Pantyushenko v. Ukraine and Russia

05/02/2015

Viktoriya Anatoliyivna PANTYUSHENKO

06/03/1991

Bila Tserkva

Bogdan Valeriyovych PANTYUSHENKO

18/04/1984

Bila Tserkva

Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK

On 18 January 2015 the applicant ’ s husband, Mr Bogdan Valeriyovych Pantyushenko , born on 18 April 1984, who served in the Ukrainian Army in the area of the anti-terrorist operation in the Eastern Ukraine, was taken captive by the separatist militants of the so-called “Donetsk People ’ s Republic” (DPR) during a combat mission near the Donetsk airport.

On the same day the applicant received a call from so-called “Donetsk Kozaks ” who informed her that her husband was held in captivity in Donetsk and allowed her to have a short conversation with him. That was the last time when the applicant spoke with her husband.

Several released soldiers, who had been detained with the applicant ’ s husband, confirmed that the latter was still in captivity.

In August 2016 the head of the UN Monitoring Mission Ms Fiona Frazer visited Makiivka Penitentiary Facility No. 97, where Ukrainian prisoners of war were detained, and confirmed that the applicant ’ s husband was among them at that time.

Instituted on 21 January 2015 by the Chief Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine in Kyiv.

13330/15

Solovyova v. Ukraine and Russia

17/03/2015

Yuliya Grygorivna SOLOVYOVA

08/10/1989

Taborivka

Sergiy Oleksandrovych SOLOVYOV

10/03/1988

Taborivka

Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO

On 28 August 2014 the applicant ’ s husband, Mr Sergiy Oleksandrovych Solovyov , born on 10 March 1988, who served in the Ukrainian Army in the area of the anti-terrorist operation in the Eastern Ukraine, disappeared during combat near Ilovaysk , Donetsk region.

The applicant found her husband ’ s name on the list of the Ukrainian soldiers transferred to Russia, posted in November 2014 in a blog of a Russian human rights activist, a member of an NGO Gruz 200 (http://ru.tsn.ua/politika/rossiyskaya-pravozaschitnica-opublikovala-spisok-vyvezennyh-v-rf-ukrainskih-silovikov-397975.html).

Other than that there has been no information about the applicant ’ s husband ’ s fate.

Instituted on 26 September 2014 by the Chief Directorate of the National Police in Mykolaiv region.

21510/15

Mykhalchuk v. Ukraine and Russia

06/05/2015

Nataliya Mykolayivna MYKHALCHUK

11/06/1989

Borokhiv

Viktor Oleksiyovych MYKHALCHUK

09/06/1982

Borokhiv

Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO

On 25 August 2014 the applicant ’ s husband, Mr Viktor Oleksiyovych Mykhalchuk , born on 9 June 1982, who served in the Ukrainian Army in the area of the anti-terrorist operation in the Eastern Ukraine, disappeared during combat near Ilovaysk , Donetsk region. According to Mr Mykhalchuk ’ s comrades-in-arms, he was seriously wounded and captured by representatives of the DPR.

In October 2014 the applicant had a phone conversation with a DPR representative Ms Dasha Morosova ; the latter notified the applicant that Mr Mykhalchuk was held in captivity and would be exchanged for DPR militants.

By letters from the Ministry of Defence of 17 October 2014 and from the Security Service of Ukraine of 5 November 2014 the applicant was informed that Mr Mykhalchuk was held in captivity by the DPR militants.

According to information provided by a volunteer Mr Mykola Zolotarenko , in January 2015 Mr Mykhalchuk was operated on by a DPR doctor.

There has been no information about the applicant ’ s husband since then.

Instituted on 22 October 2014 by the Directorate

of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine in Volyn region.

3069/16

Glondar v. Ukraine and Russia

14/01/2016

Kateryna Ivanivna GLONDAR

06/12/1988

Kropyvnytskyy

Sergiy Viktorovych GLONDAR

18/07/1988

Kropyvnytskyy

Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO

On 16 February 2015 the applicant ’ s husband, Mr Sergiy Viktorovych Glondar , born on 18 July 19 88 , who served in the Ukrainian Army in the area of the anti-terrorist operation in the Eastern Ukraine, was taken captive by the separatist militants of the so-called “Donetsk People ’ s Republic” (DPR) during a combat mission near the village of Perevalske of Lugansk region. On the same day the applicant spoke with her husband on the phone and the latter informed her that he was held captive.

Captivity of the applicant ’ s husband was subsequently confirmed by several released soldiers (Mr V.O. Kravets , Mr O.A. Sazonov and Mr O.V. Mykhailuk ).

The applicant stated that Mr Glondar occasionally called her and other family members informing them that he was detained in the former Security Service of Ukraine building.

The Ministry of Defence Military Station no. A1314 and Military Station no. B2336, replying to the applicant ’ s inquiries, confirmed that her husband was held captive at the material time (letters of 19 June 2015 and of 30 June 2015).

The applicant recognised her husband on a number of videos:

1) “Ukrainian Special Forces in captivity: we are just meat!” of 3 March 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTGn6I6d9JU);

2) “Political information under mines” of 18 August 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKVDNUzmwbc);

3) “Russia-1” channel news broadcasted on 8 December 2015 (http://russia.tv/video/show/episode_id/1257024/video_id/1417427/brand_id/58500) and

4) “Ukraine Armed Forces prisoners of war participate in renovation and restauration of Donetsk church” of 11 April 2015 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbwcMerEswU ).

On 6 August 2016 the representatives of the UN Monitoring Mission visited Makiivka Penitentiary Facility No. 97. They found that the applicant ’ s husband was detained there at that time.

Instituted on 7 August 2015 by the Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine in Kirovograd region.

On 13 January 2015 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged a complaint with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. There has been no response to her complaint.

3075/16

Korinkova v. Ukraine and Russia

14/01/2016

Yuliya Oleksandrivna KORINKOVA

28/04/1985

Kropyvnytskyy

Oleksandr Oleksandrovych KORINKOV

15/10/1991

Kropyvnytskyy

Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO

On 16 February 2015 the applicant ’ s husband, Mr Oleksandr Oleksandrovych Korinkov , born on 15 October 1991, who served in the Ukrainian Army in the area of the anti-terrorist operation in the Eastern Ukraine, was taken captive by the separatist militants of the so-called “Donetsk People ’ s Republic” (DPR) during a combat mission near the village of Perevalske of Lugansk region. On the same day the applicant received a phone call from her husband who informed her that he had been taken captive.

Subsequently, several released soldiers (Mr V.O. Kravets and Mr O.A. Sazonov ), who had been detained with the applicant ’ s husband, confirmed that the latter was still in captivity in the former building of the Security Service of Ukraine in Donetsk. Another former captive, Mr Oleksandr Volodymyrovych Mykhailuk , testified that as of the moment of his liberation on 29 October 2015 the applicant ’ s husband was still held captive in that building.

The applicant stated that Mr Korinkov sometimes called her and told her that he was detained in the former Security Service of Ukraine building.

The Ministry of Defence Military Station no. B2336 by replying to the applicant ’ s inquiries confirmed that her husband was held captive at the material time (letter of 4 July 2015).

The applicant recognised her husband on a number of videos:

1) “Russia-1” channel news broadcasted on 8 December 2015 (http://russia.tv/video/show/episode_id/1257024/video_id/1417427/brand_id/58500) and

2) “Ukrainian captives and a temple” of 11 April 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mgTnjBalEI)

On 6 August 2016 the representatives of the UN Monitoring Mission visited Makiivka Penitentiary Facility No. 97. They found that the applicant ’ s husband was detained there.

By letter of 15 November 2017 the applicant ’ s lawyer notified the Court that the applicant recognized her husband on video placed on Facebook page of Ms. Helen Solonyna - anchorwoman of the Russian First National Channel:

https://www.facebook.com/helena.solonyna/videos/1455182771269199.

Instituted on 2 October 2015 by the Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine in Kirovograd region.

On 13 January 2015 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged a complaint with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. There has been no response to her complaint.