CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6088A1B { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115%; font-size:14pt } .sB5688C0F { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115% } .sF1D4B637 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115% } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB042F7C6 { width:162.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2A7ABF39 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1227/06 Tetiana Kostyantynivna GAVRYLOVA and Denys Oleksandrovych GAVRYLOV against Ukraine and 10 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19   December 2017 as a Chamber composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki,   Yonko Grozev,   Síofra O’Leary,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants, who lodged the present applications between 23   December   2005 and 31   August   2006, is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, most recently, Mr   I.   Lishchyna. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Facts common for all applicants 4.     On 27   July   2002 the Air Force of Ukraine staged a military aviation show at the Sknyliv aerodrome in Lviv. During the aerobatics performance, an SU-27 military aircraft crashed into a crowd of spectators and exploded. Both pilots had successfully ejected before the explosion. As a result of the crash, seventy-seven people were killed and over 290   people, including the applicants, sustained damage to their health (see details in paragraphs 17-50 below). 5 .     On the date of the accident criminal proceedings were instituted to establish the cause of the crash. 6 .     On various dates the applicants were admitted in these proceedings as injured parties and civil claimants. Following individualised assessments of the applicants’ injuries by forensic experts within the framework of those proceedings, they were divided in three categories: “minor injuries”, “injuries of intermediate seriousness” and “grave injuries” depending on their impact on the applicants’ health and well-being, the reversibility or irreversibility of their nature, the length of recovery and the intensity of the medical intervention required. The seriousness of both the physical and the emotional trauma were taken into account in the process of attribution to a category. 7.     On 27   August   2004 the criminal proceedings against four officers of the rank of general (hereinafter “the organisers’ case”) were disjoined from the criminal proceedings against the pilots and the supporting ground crew (hereinafter “the performers’ case”). 8.     On 23   June   2005 the Central Region Military Court of Appeal examined the performers’ case and found the two pilots of the crashed aircraft and three supporting crew members guilty of negligence. These officers were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. 9.     On the same date the court also ruled on the applicants’ civil claims, awarding them various amounts in respect of pecuniary damage (mostly medical expenses) and non-pecuniary damage in connection with physical injuries and emotional distress, to be paid by the Ministry of Defence (see   details in the appended table below). 10.     The applicants appealed, seeking, in particular, an increase in the compensation payments. 11 .     On 2   March   2006 the Military Panel of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicants’ appeals and the judgment in the performers’ case became final. 12 .     Between   June   2006 and March   2007 all the judgment awards due to the applicants were paid out. 13.     Some applicants lodged further civil claims within the framework of the organisers’ case, which was still ongoing at the material time. 14.     On 11   June   2008 the Central Region Military Court of Appeal examined the organisers’ case and acquitted the four officers charged in these proceedings. 15 .     On 22   October   2008 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Military Panel of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and all the civil claims lodged within the framework of the organisers’ case were left unexamined in view of the acquittal. 16 .     On various dates starting from 2002, in addition to the compensation awarded by the court, almost all of the applicants also obtained payments in State and municipal aid from the Sknyliv accident victim relief funds (see   details in the appended table below). Every applicant also obtained further payments ranging from 2,620   hryvnias (UAH) (Ms   Liliya Belinska; minor emotional injury) to UAH   41,000 (Mr   Denis Gavrylov; grave injury) from charitable funds set up and managed by the authorities to attract private donations in aid to the Sknyliv accident victims. On various occasions some of the applicants were also provided with vacation vouchers and recreational treatment vouchers to facilitate their mental and physical recovery. For more details concerning the accident, the ensuing investigation and State and municipal aid to the victims see Mikhno v.   Ukraine, no.   32514/12, §§   12-58 and 67-71, 1   September   2016 and Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others v. Ukraine , nos.   36314/06 and 3   others, §§   17-64 and   71-75, 1   September   2016). 2.     Facts specific to individual applicants (a)     Application no.   1227/06 ( Gavrylova and Gavrylov v. Ukraine ) 17 .     The present application was lodged by two Ukrainian nationals who are resident in Lviv: Mrs   Tetiana   Kostyantynivna   Gavrylova, born in   1949 and Mr   Denis Oleksandrovych Gavrylov, born in   1987. Mrs   Tetiana   Gavrylova is the mother of Mr   Denis Gavrylov. The applicants were represented by Mr   T.R.   Sendega, a lawyer practising in Lviv. 18.     As a result of the Sknyliv air show accident, Mrs   Tetiana Gavrylova sustained a blunt soft tissues leg injury with haemorrhage and multiple abrasions cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as injuries of “intermediate seriousness”. 19 .     Mr   Denis Gavrylov had his popliteal artery and right leg muscles crushed. He also sustained multiple abrasions, contusions and other injuries cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as a “grave injury”. Following the accident, he underwent treatment in the hospital rehabilitation unit followed by lengthy inpatient and outpatient treatment. 20 .     By the time the present application was lodged in December 2005, Mr   Gavrylov had been classified as suffering from “second (intermediate) degree” disability under domestic classification and was in receipt of a disability pension. (b)     Application no.   36032/06 ( Chorna and Others v. Ukraine ) 21.     The present application was lodged by three Ukrainian nationals resident in Lviv:   Mrs   Natalya Yaroslavivna Chorna, born in 1971, Mr   Anton Bogdanovych Chornyy born in 1977 and Mr   Bogdan Antonovych Chornyy, born in 1999. The first two applicants are spouses and the third applicant is their son. They were represented by Mr   D.A.   Gudyma and Ms   S.V.   Khyliuk, lawyers practising in Lviv. 22 .     According to the applicants, they were so close to the site of the SU ‑ 27   aircraft crash that their clothes were stained with the blood and body parts of people injured and dying around them. In order to reach safety, they had to make their way past numerous mutilated corpses and disfigured screaming people along the aerodrome runway. 23.     Mrs   Natalya Chorna sustained an ankle injury with a ligament rupture, contusion and haematoma. Subsequently she was also diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which transformed into asthenic-depressive neurosis. Her injuries were classified as injuries of “intermediate seriousness” by domestic forensic experts. 24.     Mr   Anton Chornyy was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. His psychological trauma was classified by domestic forensic experts as a “minor injury”. 25.     Mr   Bogdan Chornyy, a three-year old minor at the date of the accident, sustained a contused cerebral wound, concussion and a haematoma. He also developed post-traumatic stress disorder, which included symptoms such as fear of crowds and sleep disturbance. He also suffered from various forms of physiological dysfunction, including a stutter and disruption of his speech development. Mr   Bogdan   Chornyy’s injuries were classified by the domestic forensic experts as ones of “intermediate seriousness”. On several occasions in the years that followed, Mr   Bogdan Chornyy was placed on inpatient treatment programmes in psycho ‑ neurological institutions. 26.     According to the applicants, at the date of the exchange of observations in 2013, they were still suffering from the after-effects of the accident. They provided numerous medical documents as evidence that they had continued to be under on-going medical supervision in connection with the psychological trauma sustained at the accident site. (c)     Application no.   35857/06 ( Yudin v. Ukraine ) 27.     The present application was lodged by Mr   Boris Borisovich Yudin, a Ukrainian national born in   1946 and resident in Lviv. The applicant was represented by Ms   Y.V.   Kulbiy-Kukhar, a lawyer practising in Lviv. 28 .     As a result of the Sknyliv air show accident, Boris Yudin sustained a heavy cerebral contusion with subarachnoid haemorrhage and a fracture of the clavicular bone. For six days after the accident he was in a coma. Upon regaining consciousness, he suffered from partial amnesia, temporary speech loss, hallucinations and was unable to walk. Following intensive inpatient neurological treatment, Boris Yudin regained some cerebral functions. However, he never attained full recovery and by 2006 he had been classified as suffering from disability of “the first degree” in need of outside assistance for meeting basic daily needs. According to classification by domestic forensic experts, Boris Yudin’s trauma was classified as a “grave injury”. (d)     Application no.   36727/06 ( Reshetilova and Others v. Ukraine ) 29.     The present application was lodged by two Ukrainian nationals ‒ Mrs   Iryna Grygorivna Reshetilova, born in 1950, and Mr   Viktor Mykhaylovych Yegorov, born in 1957, and a US national ‒ Mr   Nikita Sergejevich Bastrakov, born in 1998. The first two applicants are the grandparents of the third applicant. All three applicants are resident in Lviv. They were represented by Mr   A.P.   Syvyk, a lawyer practising in Lviv. 30 .     According to the applicants, on the date of the accident, moments before the SU-27 hit the ground, Mr Bastrakov − a four-year-old minor at that time − was watching it with his mouth open, while Mrs   Reshetilova said to him in amusement: “Wow, look how low can this airplane fly!” The next moment, Mr   Yegorov, having suddenly realised that the aircraft was falling, pushed his grandson to the ground and covered him with his body, urging his wife to likewise lie on the ground. Moments later, the applicants were hit by the heat wave from the aircraft’s turbines, which burnt their clothes and skin. The soles of Mr   Yegorov’s shoes were also completely burned. When the applicants finally got onto their feet, they were covered with other people’s blood and with soot from the aircraft, which had exploded some distance from them. 31.     As a result of the accident, Mrs   Reshetilova suffered multiple burns to her face, limbs and eyes. The heat wave from the aircraft’s turbines also entered her respiratory system and burned her larynx, trachea, bronchi and lungs. In addition, Mrs   Reshetilova suffered an acute neurological reaction to stress. Domestic forensic experts classified her injuries as “minor”. According to the applicant, this classification was incorrect, as she had never fully recovered from her injuries. She provided extensive medical documentation as evidence to prove that the after-effects of her injuries included chronic obstructive bronchitis, pulmonary emphysema, encephalopathy, and various other medical complications. By 2006 Mrs   Reshetilova had been classified as suffering from general disability of the “third (mildest) degree” according to the domestic classification system. 32.     Mr Viktor   Yegorov sustained contusion of the chest area, fractures of the fifth and seventh vertebra and multiple abrasions cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as “injuries of intermediate seriousness”. He also developed complications, including frequent headaches, back pain and a number of other neurological symptoms. 33.     Mr   Nikita Bastrakov sustained a hand wound, face abrasions and post-traumatic stress disorder manifested most markedly, through phobias, asthenic symptoms and bed-wetting. His injuries were classified by domestic forensic experts as being of “intermediate seriousness”. (e)     Application no.   37227/06 ( Kurylka v. Ukraine ) 34.     The present application was lodged by Mrs   Galyna Ivanivna Kurylka, a Ukrainian national born in 1958 and resident in Lviv. The applicant was represented by Mr   D.   A.   Gudyma and Mrs   S.   V.   Khyliuk, lawyers practising in Lviv. 35.     As a result of the accident, the applicant suffered contusion of her foot and developed post-traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic forensic experts as a “minor injury”. According to the applicant, this classification was incorrect, as her mental state had in fact deteriorated to a point that she was forced to quit her employment as a kindergarten mentor. After a series of inpatient and outpatient treatment programmes, in 2006 Mrs   Kurylka was classified as suffering from “second-degree” (moderately serious) disability and unfit for work, excluding the performance of domestic tasks. At the time of the exchange of observations in 2013, Mrs   Kurylka was unemployed on a disability pension and was under permanent outpatient psychiatric supervision. In addition, several times per year she participated in courses of inpatient rehabilitative treatment in psycho-neurological institutions. (f)     Application no.   32581/12 ( Koshulap v. Ukraine ) 36.     The present application was lodged by Ms   Khrystyna Viktorivna Koshulap (married name Dzyunka), a Ukrainian national born in   1989 and resident in Lviv. She was represented by Mr   D.A.   Gudyma and Ms   S.V.   Khyliuk, lawyers practising in Lviv. 37 .     As a result of the Sknyliv air show accident, Ms   Koshulap, a thirteen-year-old minor at that time, sustained a complicated hand injury with damage to the extensor tendons classified by domestic forensic experts as an “injury of intermediate seriousness”. She underwent a series of reconstructive operations followed by inpatient and outpatient treatment programmes. It is not clear from the case file whether the applicant has fully recovered. (g)     Application no.   32821/12 ( Garasymiv v. Ukraine ) 38.     The present application was lodged by two Ukrainian nationals resident in Lviv: Mr   Anatoliy   Romanovych Garasymiv, born in   1964, and Mr   Volodymyr Anatoliyovych Garasymiv, born in   1991. Mr   Anatoliy Garasymiv is the father of Mr   Volodymyr Garasymiv. The applicants were represented by Mr   D.A.   Gudyma and Ms   S.V.   Khyliuk, lawyers practising in Lviv. 39.     As a result of the Sknyliv air show accident, Mr   Anatoliy Garasymiv sustained cerebral concussion, multiple facial and head burns, as well abrasions to the fingers and knees, cumulatively classified by domestic experts as “minor injuries”. According to him, this classification was incorrect, as he had never regained his health and continued to suffer from the after-effects of the accident at the date of the exchange of observations in 2013. As a result of his physical injuries and stress, Mr   Anatoliy   Garasymiv started suffering, in particular, from frequent headaches, hypertonic disease, and other complications. Within a few months of the accident he was forced to abandon his career as a military wind instrument player and was eventually dismissed from the military forces on health grounds. By 2006, Mr   Anatoliy Garasymiv was classified as suffering from disability entailing 40% loss of capacity to work. 40.     Mr   Volodymyr Garasymiv, an eleven-year-old minor at the date of the accident, developed post-traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic experts as “minor injury”. (h)     Application no.   32982/12 ( Belinska v. Ukraine ) 41.     The present application was lodged by Ms   Liliya Bogdanivna Belinska (married name Salo), a Ukrainian national born in   1985 and resident in Lviv. She was represented by Mr   D.A.   Gudyma and Ms   S.V.   Khyliuk, lawyers practising in Lviv. 42 .     As a result of the Sknyliv air show accident, Ms   Liliya Belinska, a seventeen-year-old minor on the date of the accident, developed post ‑ traumatic stress disorder, which was treated on an outpatient basis. Her trauma was classified by domestic forensic experts as a “minor injury”. (i)     Application no.   33094/12 ( Stupets v. Ukraine ) 43.     The present application was lodged by Ms   Liubov Grygorivna Stupets, a Ukrainian national born in   1961 and resident in Lviv. She was represented by Mr   D.A.   Gudyma and Ms   S.V.   Khyliuk, lawyers practising in Lviv. 44.     Ms   Liubov Stupets sustained rupture of the acromio-clavicular ligament, her injury having been classified by domestic experts as one of “intermediate seriousness”. According to the medical documents presented by Ms   Stupets, treatment of this trauma required several surgical interventions and extensive inpatient rehabilitation treatment. The applicant had to abandon her career in sports and as a school physical education teacher. In November   2002 she was classified as suffering from disability of the “third degree”. By 2006 her state of health was still deteriorating: she developed post-traumatic arthritis, pain syndrome, and a number of neurological and other conditions. At the date of the exchange of observations in 2013, the applicant was receiving a disability pension. (j)     Application no.   33103/12 ( Sivanych v. Ukraine ) 45.     The present application was lodged by Ms   Nataliya Yaroslavivna Sivanych (married name Buntseva), a Ukrainian national born in   1985 and residing in Lviv. She was represented by Mr   D.A.   Gudyma and Ms   S.V.   Khyliuk, lawyers practising in Lviv. 46 .     As a result of the Sknyliv air show accident, Ms   Nataliya Sivanych sustained cerebral concussion, numerous wounds and fractures of several foot bones, which required inpatient treatment followed by an outpatient rehabilitation programme. The applicant’s injuries were cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as ones of “intermediate seriousness.” (k)     Application no.   33145/12 ( Shevchuk v. Ukraine ) 47.     The present application was lodged by two Ukrainian nationals residing in Lviv: Mr   Anatoliy Mykolayovych Shevchuk, born in1967 and Mr   Andriy Anatoliyovych Shevchuk, born in 1991. Mr   Anatoliy Shevchuk is Mr   Andriy Shevchuk’s father. The applicants were represented by Mr   D.A.   Gudyma and Ms   S.V.   Khyliuk, lawyers practising in Lviv. 48 .     According to the applicants, as the fallen aircraft exploded, parts of it flew their way. Both of them would have probably been killed, had it not been for Mr   Anatoliy Shevchuk’s quick reaction: he managed to push his son to the ground and cover him with his body just before the moment they would have otherwise been hit by these flying parts. When the applicants got up, they saw numerous mutilated bodies of dead, burnt and wounded people around them. Whilst attempting to provide first aid to accident survivors, Mr   Anatoliy Shevchuk lost view of his son, who wandered off in the midst of the mutilated bodies and screaming people. After having looked for his son for about an hour, Mr   Anatoliy Shevchuk found him uninjured physically, but in a state of deep mental shock, unable to speak or make productive contact with others. Mr   Andriy Shevchuk was immediately placed in a psycho-neurological hospital for inpatient treatment. 49.     On 28   July   2002 Mr   Anatoliy Shevchuk went back to work and attempted to resume his normal duties. However, after suddenly developing a stutter, he applied for psychiatric assistance. 50 .     Subsequently, both applicants underwent several sessions of inpatient psychiatric treatment followed by outpatient treatment and regular supervision. They were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic experts as an “injury of intermediate seriousness”. B.     Relevant domestic law 51 .     Article   49 of the Constitution of Ukraine (1996) provides, in particular, as follows: “   Everyone has the right to health protection, medical care and medical insurance. Health protection is ensured through state funding of the relevant socio-economic, medical and sanitary health improvement and prophylactic programmes. The State creates conditions for effective medical service accessible to all citizens. State and communal health protection facilities provide medical care free of charge; the existing network of such institutions shall not be reduced. The State promotes the development of medical facilities of all forms of ownership. ...” 52.     Other relevant provisions of domestic law are cited in the Court’s judgment in the case of Mikhno (cited above, §§   76-105). COMPLAINTS 53.     The applicants complained under Article   2 of the Convention that the State authorities had failed to take reasonable measures to protect their lives during the air show and that they had been directly responsible for the imminent risk to which their lives had been subjected and the damage they had sustained to their health. 54.     All applicants except those filing applications nos.   1227/06 and 36032/06 additionally complained under the same provision that the investigation into the accident had been ineffective. 55.     All applicants also complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings, in which they had participated as injured parties and civil claimants, had been inordinately lengthy. 56.     All applicants also complained under the same provision that the proceedings had been unfair. They raised various procedural complaints, noting, in particular, that the military courts which examined their claims had been neither independent of the Ministry of Defence nor impartial, which factor resulted in incorrect determination of the compensation payable to them for their injuries. 57.     The applicants also complained under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of any means to accelerate the consideration of their compensation claims. 58.     Finally, the applicants filing applications nos.   36032/06, 37227/06, 32581/12, 32821/12, 32982/12, 33094/12, 33103/12 and 33145/12 additionally invoked Articles   3 and 14 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 with regard to the facts of the present case. These applicants complained, in particular, that their injuries had caused them immense sufferings, which were further exacerbated by the fact that the State authorities had refused to conclude a friendly settlement agreement with them. The compensation awarded to them in courts had been calculated arbitrarily and had been much lower than that paid by Ukraine for the deaths of Russian and Israeli nationals in an aeroplane crash of 4   October   2001 pursuant to a friendly settlement agreement concluded in that case between the Governments of Russia, Ukraine, and Israel. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 59.     In view of their similar factual and legal background, the applications should be joined pursuant to Rule   42   §   1 of the Rules of Court. B.     Alleged violations of Article   2 of the Convention 60.     The applicants complained that the State authorities had failed to put in place the requisite legislative, administrative and practical safeguards to protect their lives during the Sknyliv air show and that they had been directly responsible for the aeroplane crash and for their injuries. In addition, all the applicants except those filing applications nos.   1227/06 and 36032/06 complained that the investigation into the circumstances of the crash had not been adequate, prompt or independent. The applicants referred to Article   2 of the Convention which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows: “1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. ....” 1.     Submissions by the parties 61 .     Referring to the Court’s judgment in the case of Makaratzis v.   Greece ([GC], no.   50385/99, §§   52-55, ECHR   2004 ‑ XI), the Government took the view that the accident at the Sknyliv air show had exposed the applicants’ lives to danger serious enough to attract applicability of Article   2 of the Convention. 62.     At the same time, however, they were of the view that the applicants had lost victim status in respect of their complaints insofar as they concerned the alleged failure of the State to protect their lives from danger during the air show. In this connection the Government noted, in particular, that the domestic authorities had conducted a prompt and effective investigation, which had resulted in the establishment of the circumstances of the accident and the punishment of those responsible. In addition, the applicants had been paid compensation for their physical and psychological trauma. In view of the above, the Government invited the Court to reject the applicants’ complaints under the substantive limb of Article   2 of the Convention in connection with the fact that the situation had been resolved at the domestic level and the applicants had lost victim status. 63.     They also argued that, insofar as the applicants complained under the procedural limb of Article   2 that the investigation had been ineffective, this complaint should, in turn, be rejected as manifestly ill-founded. 64 .     The applicants disagreed, alleging, in particular, that the relief obtained by them domestically had been neither adequate nor prompt and that the prosecutorial and judicial authorities handling the case were closely connected to the Ministry of Defence. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     Applicability of Article 2 65.     The Court notes that Article   2 of the Convention protects right to life. In the present case, the applicants sustained health damage as a result of the airplane crash at the Sknyliv air show - their complaints do not relate to the loss of life. The respondent Government have taken the view that Article   2 was nevertheless applicable in the cases at issue (see paragraph   61 above). 66.     The Court notes that it has found Article   2 applicable in a number of other cases where the complaints were raised by individuals, who happened to be fortuitous survivors of life-threatening incidents (see,   for instance, Krivova v. Ukraine , no.   25732/05, §   45, 9   November   2010; Budayeva and Others v. Russia , nos.   15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, §   146, ECHR   2008 (extracts); Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia , nos.   17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, §§   151-155, 28   February   2012) or Tagayeva and Others v. Russia , nos.   26562/07 and 6   others, §§   482, 493 and Appendix , ECHR   2017   (extracts)). 67.     In the present case, some applicants have provided detailed accounts of their personal experience during the air show, from which it appears that the danger to their lives was serious, as they were in the immediate proximity of the site of the crash (see, in particular, paragraphs 22, 30 and 48 above). At the same time, the accounts of some others are so concise that it is not possible to ascertain their personal location at the critical moment. However, the Court considers that for the purposes of the present case it is not necessary to examine in detail each applicant’s individual circumstances. 68.     Leaving aside questions relating to the applicability of Article   2 which might arise in relation to each individual case (see also Khramkovy and Others v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no.   32604/12, §   53, 29   August   2017), the Court considers that in any event, for the reasons described below, the redress provided to the applicants at the domestic level has been sufficient to address any complaints, which may have arisen under the above provision. (b)     Objection concerning loss of victim status in respect of the complaints raised under the substantive limb of Article 2 69.     The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, for instance, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria , no.   7888/03, §   49, 20   December   2007). 70.     The Court has previously established that in circumstances such as those in the instant case two measures are necessary to remedy a breach of Article   2 of the Convention at the national level. Firstly, the State authorities must have conducted a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Secondly, an award of compensation to the applicant is required where appropriate (see, among other authorities, Nikolova and Velichkova, cited above, §§   49, 50, 52 and 56; Budayeva and Others v. Russia , cited above, §   191; and Mosendz v. Ukraine, no.   52013/08, §   121, 17   January   2013). 71.     Turning to the facts of the present cases, the Court notes that in its aforementioned judgments in the cases of Mikhno and Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others it has arrived at the conclusion that the domestic investigation of the circumstances of the Sknyliv air show accident was effective for the purposes of Article   2 of the Convention. More specifically, it was sufficiently independent and prompt and resulted in the meticulous establishment of the relevant circumstances, as well as in the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Mikhno , cited above, §§   151-152 and Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others , cited above, §§   155-156). The Court finds that the allegations raised by the applicants in the present cases as to the ineffectiveness of the same investigation are very similar to those already dismissed in the aforementioned Mikhno and Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others judgments. The Court therefore finds no grounds to depart from its previous findings. 72.     It remains to be determined whether the compensatory and other redress offered to each individual applicant in the present case was sufficient to conclude that the matter has been resolved, as argued by the Government. 73.     The approach which the Court has followed in determining the “reasonableness” of compensation paid by a State for a breach of the Convention has been that of equity, which requires that the amount awarded be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of each individual case. Those considerations include the domestic legal system and legal traditions in the respondent State, the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned, and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than one sought through an application to the Court (see Scordino v. Italy (no.   1) [GC], no.   36813/97, §§   206 and 268, CEDH 2006 ‑ V; Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no.   67299/01, 19   October   2004; Firstov, Firstov v. Russia , no.   42119/04, §   31, 20   February   2014; and Simanovičs v. Latvia , no.   55047/12, (dec.), 18   November   2014). 74.     Article   2, which is aimed at the protection of the right to life, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention (see, as a recent authority, Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no.   46043/14, §   117, 5   June   2015). In general, there can be no sum large enough to constitute an equivalent to the sorrow, pain and distress suffered by a person whose life has been subjected to a mortal risk or who has lost a family member in tragic circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis , Oyal v. Turkey , no.   4864/05, §   106, 23   March   2010). 75.     In determining whether domestic redress could nevertheless be considered “equitable”, the Court has assessed, in particular, whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article   41 of the Convention (see, for example, Firstov , cited above, §   31). At the same time, the Court has also held on a number of occasions that a wider margin of appreciation should be left to the domestic courts when assessing the level of compensation (see   Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no.   64886/01, §   80, ECHR 2006 ‑ V, and Firstov , cited above, §   36). Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award could be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts was consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and was speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see   Scordino , cited above, §§   189 and 206; Sizarev v.   Ukraine , no.   17116/04, §§   93-94, 17   January   2013; and Zgonnik v.   Ukraine , no.   5976/08 (dec.), 18   December   2012). 76.     The Court notes that the compensatory payments awarded to the applicants in the present cases were generally lower − and, in most cases, considerably so − than the awards to other Sknyliv accident victims whose cases have already been decided and in whose respect the domestic redress has been found equitable (see Mikhno, cited above, §§   60, 65, 72-73 and 118; Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others , cited above, §§   121-124; Mindrova v.   Ukraine (dec.), no.   32454/06, §   25, 31   January   2017; Makarovy and Others v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no.   32545/12, §   27 and Appendix , 29   August   2017; and Khramkovy and Others, cited above, §§   18-19, 22, 26 ‑ 28, 31-32 and 49, 29   August   2017). However, the factual circumstances in the cases at issue are also materially different from those examined in the aforementioned cases. Each of the previous cases (except that of Mr   Khamyk, see Khramkovy and Others , cited above, §§   21-22) concerned, wholly or in part, the death of a relative, whereas the complaints in the cases at issue have been lodged by individuals who did not lose any close family member in the accident and were fortunate to survive themselves. The Court observes that it has not previously been called on to determine a just satisfaction award under Article   41 of the Convention in any case against Ukraine brought by a fortuitous survivor of an accident, the domestic investigation of whose circumstances had been deemed effective. 77.     In assessing fairness of the approach taken by the domestic judicial authorities in order to determine the amount of individual non-pecuniary damage awards, the Court observes that the applicants were divided into three categories depending on the gravity of the injuries sustained as a result of the accident: minor injuries, injuries of intermediate seriousness, and grave injuries. In addition to the physical injuries, the gravity of the psychological distress suffered by each individual applicant was also taken into account in determining the relevant category (see   paragraph   6 above). The initial determination of the gravity of the applicants’ injuries was made by forensic experts in the course of individualised assessments. Final determination of the non-pecuniary damage awards was made by the courts in contentious proceedings, during which the applicants had an opportunity to present their individual claims, documents and explanations as well as to lodge appeals. Applicants belonging to the same category received comparable − but not always identical − awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage. This fact, in the Court’s view, demonstrates that the method chosen by the judicial authorities allowed room for the individual assessment of particular circumstances depending on the material presented (see details in the appended table). In addition to claiming compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage, the applicants were also able to claim back medical and other expenses by filing pecuniary damage claims, which were awarded by the courts insofar as they were found to be substantiated (see details in the appended table). 78.     While some applicants in the present cases argue that the degree of actual health damage suffered by them was underestimated, the Court is mindful of its subsidiary role in addressing these arguments. Taking into account the aforementioned procedural safeguards in domestic proceedings leading to the determination of the awards, the Court considers that it is not itself in a position to re-examine the factual conclusions reached by the competent domestic authorities as to the seriousness of damage suffered by individual applicants. 79.     In view of all the foregoing, the Court concludes that the approach taken by the domestic judicial authorities in determining the individual awards was not arbitrary (see also, mutatis mutandis , Tagayeva and Others , cited above, Appendix ). 80.     The Court furthermore considers it of relevance that the applicants in the present cases received their court awards with sufficient promptness: between June   2006 and March   2007 (see paragraph 12 above), that is to say, within some four and a half years from the date of the accident. In addition, the applicants received various other payments in State and municipal aid specifically allocated to the Sknyliv accident victims, some funds having been allocated from the State budget within days of the accident (see   paragraph   16 above; the appended table; Mikhno , cited above, §§   67 ‑ 71). 81.     The Court also notes that, in addition to providing the applicants with compensatory redress via the court proceedings and other State-aid programmes, the authorities took a number of other steps aimed at supporting the applicants’ recovery. Special charitable funds were set up and administered by them with the intention of attracting private donations (see paragraph   16 above and Mikhno , cited above, §   70); various additional services, such as free recreational treatment vouchers and vacation vouchers were also provided in some cases (see paragraph   16 above). 82.     Most importantly, all applicants were provided with medical assistance for their injuries, largely at the State’s expense. The Ukrainian Constitution generally guarantees free access to medical care in State-owned facilities (see paragraph   51 above) and there are no documents indicating that the applicants were, in fact, obliged to cover the cost of the essential medical services provided to them. On the contrary, in the aftermath of the accident, substantial additional funds were allocated to the local medical facilities from the State and municipal budgets to reinforce their ability to cope with influx of injured persons (see Mikhno , cited above, §§   68 and 71). Additionally, those of the applicants who chose to undergo some treatment programmes or purchased medical supplies not covered by the State budget obtained compensation from the Ministry of Defence via the pecuniary damage claims lodged within the framework of the performers’ case (see appended table for details). 83.     The Court is mindful that, notwithstanding the efforts made by the State authorities to support the applicants’ treatment, full recovery has not always been attained. It appears from the case file that some injuries had very grave consequences of a lasting and even irreversible nature. It cannot be ruled out that, with the passage of time, some traumas may have triggered emergence of other health problems which could not be diagnosed during the initial expert assessments or taken into account in determining the level of compensation in the aforementioned court proceedings. However, for the purposes of Article   2, it has neither been shown, nor suggested that any of the applicants developed a potentially life-threatening disease or condition as a result of the accident (compare, for instance, with G.N. and Others v. Italy , no.   43134/05, 1   December   2009; Oyal v. Turkey , cited above; and De Santis and Olanda v. Italy ((dec.), no.   35887/11, 9   July   2013). The applicants’ relevant submissions are fragmentary, selective and lacking information concerning the availability of further causes of action in the domestic legal system to ventilate their complaints concerning lasting aftereffects of the accident. The Court can therefore not address them in the present proceedings. 84.     Regard being had to the non-pecuniary damage awards paid to the applicants in the light of other pertinent elements – in particular the following: the fact that the method of calculating these awards was not arbitrary; that substantiated medical expenses and other pecuniary damage claims were also granted; that all the payments were made with sufficient promptness; that the investigation into the circumstances of the accident was effective; and that, in addition to providing direct monetary redress, the State authorities took a number of other steps to facilitate the applicants’ recovery − the Court considers that the Government’s objection as regards loss of victim status under the substantive limb of Article   2 must be upheld. 85.     It follows that the relevant complaints raised by the applicants in the present cases are manifestly ill-founded. 86.     These complaints must therefore be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. (c)     Complaints raised under the procedural limb of Article   2 (all applicants except those filing applications nos.   1227/06 and 36032/06) 87.     In the light of its findings in the aforementioned judgments in Mikhno and Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others (see Mikhno , cited above, §§   151-152 and Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others , cited above, §§   155-156), the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints under the procedural limb of Article   2 do not raise an issue under the Convention and should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. C.     Alleged violations of Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention 88.     The applicants also complained that the proceedings concerning their claims for damages lodged within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the military officers had been in breach of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. They complained that these proceedings had been inordinately lengthy and unfair, in particular because the military courts, which had been neither independent nor impartial, had not correctly assessed the damage suffered by them. In respect of the above complaints the applicants referred to Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows: Article 6 “1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... e