CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 21 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3E7C777 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF97A2041 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB08485A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#212121 } .sB9541D82 { font-family:Arial; color:#212121 } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s9D69DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s22BBE609 { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3E326BD9 { width:12.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s53CE0290 { width:176.96pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF LUTSENKO AND VERBYTSKYY v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 12482/14 and 39800/14)       JUDGMENT   Art 2 and Art 3 (procedural and substantive) • Art 5 § 1 • Art 11 • Deliberate strategy to stop initially peaceful Maidan protest through excessive force resulting in escalation of violence • Abductions, ill-treatment and torture to death of Maidan protestors at hands of non-State agents hired by police • Lack of effective and independent investigation   STRASBOURG 21 January 2021   FINAL   21/04/2021   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lutsenko and Verbytskyy v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Former Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Yonko Grozev,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lado Chanturia,   Angelika Nußberger, and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   12482/14 and 39800/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Ukrainian nationals, Mr Igor Viktorovych Lutsenko (“the first applicant”) and Mr Sergiy Tarasovych Verbytskyy (“the second applicant”), on 4   February and 8   April 2014 respectively; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”); the decision to give priority to the applications (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 7   May 2019 and 9 December 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     These two applications are part of thirty-three applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention by thirty ‑ nine individuals in relation to the Maidan protests. They concern principally the abduction and ill-treatment of two individuals, the first applicant and the second applicant’s brother, in connection with the series of mass protests which took place in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 23 February 2014; protests commonly referred to as “Euromaidan” and/or “Maidan”. The second applicant’s brother was allegedly murdered in the course of those events. The applicants rely on Articles 2, 3, 5   §   1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 34 of the Convention and on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. For the reasons stated in Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 15367/14 and 13   others, §   5, 21 January 2021, not final ), all thirty-three applications could not be joined and examined in a single judgment. The judgments in response to these applications should, however, be read as one whole. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1978 and 1958 and live in Kyiv and Lviv respectively. The applicants were represented by Ms   Y.   Zakrevska , a lawyer practising in Kyiv. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr   I.   Lishchyna, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Principle events at issue 5.     At the material time, the first applicant, Mr I. Lutsenko was a well ‑ known journalist and the leader of a civic organisation called Protect the Old Kyiv, whose aim was to preserve the historical architecture of Kyiv. He took an active part in the Maidan protests. Notably, on 22 December 2013 the council of the Maidan People’s Union (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §   12) gave him the position of deputy chief supervisor in charge of order within the protesters’ camp on Maidan Nezalezhnosti. In that capacity, he helped to take care of wounded protesters by transporting them to various medical facilities. 6.     The second applicant’s brother, Mr Y. Verbytskyy, was originally from Lviv and worked as a seismologist at the Karpatske Department of the Institute of Geophysics in Lviv at the material time. In January 2014 he came to Kyiv and took part in the Maidan protests. 7 .     According to the parties’ submissions and the information contained in the investigation files concerning the relevant events (see, in particular, paragraphs 19-20 below), in the early hours of 21 January 2014, Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s eye was injured during a clash between protesters and the police. At about 3.45   a.m. Mr I. Lutsenko took him to a hospital. According to a copy of a police record submitted by the Government, at 4.33 a.m. a doctor from that hospital informed the police that Mr   I.   Lutsenko and Mr Y. Verbytskyy had been abducted from the hospital by several persons in plain clothes. In the relevant investigation files it was also stated that the abductors had used force against the applicants. In particular, the first applicant was kicked in the face, and consequently two of his teeth were broken. He and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy were placed in a vehicle and taken to a remote area, where they were beaten and ill-treated by the abductors (see, in particular, paragraphs 19-20 below). On that day the outside temperature in Kyiv was around -10˚C. 8 .     Subsequently, according to the information provided by the first applicant and the information contained in the investigation files concerning the relevant events (see, in particular, paragraphs 19-20 below), they were taken to a garage, where they were questioned by unidentified Russian ‑ speaking individuals about their involvement in the Maidan protests. The first applicant answered those questions in Russian, while Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy answered them in Ukrainian.   During the questioning both men were subjected to repeated beatings and other forms of ill ‑ treatment over the course of several hours. 9 .     In particular, the abductors put a plastic bag over the first applicant’s head and tied it with duct tape. A small hole was made in the bag so that he could breathe. They also tied his hands and legs with duct tape and put him on the floor. While he was lying on his left side, they repeatedly kicked and punched him in the face, head, back, thighs, ankles and hands, particularly aiming to hit his joints. He was also beaten with wooden and metal sticks. During the beating Mr   I.   Lutsenko was threatened with death on a number of occasions. According to a forensic medical report established by an expert hired by the State and dated 20   February 2014, he had numerous haematomas and contusions on the trunk of his body, limbs, head and face. His injuries were, however, classified in that report as being minor. 10.     In the meantime, at about 4.30 a.m. on 21 January 2014 a doctor from the hospital informed the police of the two men’s abduction. At about 9.30 a.m. Mr I. Lutsenko’s partner lodged a complaint with the police as regards his disappearance. 11.     At about 6 p.m. on the same day Mr I. Lutsenko was taken to a public road near a village in the Boryspil District, about 50 kilometres away from central Kyiv, and was left there. From there he managed to get help. Subsequently, he was questioned by a police officer concerning the events. 12 .     In the meantime, Mr Y. Verbytskyy’s wife lodged a complaint with the police as regards his abduction. On 21 January 2014 a criminal investigation was launched into that complaint. 13.     On 22   January   2014 Mr Y. Verbytskyy’s body was found in a forest in the Boryspil District. A preliminary medical report recorded that he had died of hypothermia. Multiple injuries were found on the trunk of his body, limbs, head and face. 14.     According to a forensic medical report of 12 March 2014, a copy of which was submitted to the Court, Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s injuries included numerous haematomas all over the trunk of his body, limbs, head and face, fractured bones and ribs, and internal bleeding. It was considered that he had been hit by “blunt objects” at least thirty times. It was confirmed that he had died of hypothermia. Official investigations and related proceedings 15 .     On 22 January 2014 the police started a criminal investigation into the death of Mr Y. Verbytskyy which was classified as murder [1] . The investigation into his abduction (see paragraph 12 above) was joined to that investigation. The second applicant took part in the proceedings as a victim. He was questioned as regards the relevant events and also took part in other investigative actions. 16 .     On 22   January   2014 the police also started a criminal investigation into the first applicant’s abduction [2] . Eventually, that investigation was merged with the investigation into the murder of Mr. Y. Verbytskyy. 17 .     On 27   January 2014 Mr   I. Lutsenko was questioned by the police about the events. He stated, inter alia , that while he had been in the hands of his abductors he had heard Mr Y. Verbytskyy being beaten more severely after the abductors had found out that he was originally from Lviv. Those beating Mr Y. Verbytskyy had repeatedly called him “ banderovets ” ( бандеровець ) [3] . Mr   I.   Lutsenko also heard the abductors discussing the possibility of taking him and Mr Y. Verbytskyy to a police station. 18.     According to the case material, including the PGO’s and the MoI’s letters of 4   February, 19 May, 15   June and 29   November 2016, between February and April 2014 thirteen individuals were identified as suspects in the investigation. Two of them, T. and M., were suspected of having taken part in the abduction of Mr   I. Lutsenko and Mr Y. Verbytskyy. T. and M.   were alleged to have been the drivers of the vehicles used. 19 .     According to the official notifications of suspicion ( повідомлення про підозру ), issued by the investigators from the Chief Investigative Department of the MoI on 24 and 28   July 2014, informing T. and M.   respectively that they were under suspicion, Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s abduction and ill-treatment were part of the authorities’ attempt to suppress the Maidan protests. In particular, it was noted that different private individuals, including those with a criminal background, had been hired by unidentified law-enforcement officials to attack and intimidate the Maidan protesters. The group of suspects who had allegedly abducted and “tortured” Mr   I. Lutsenko and Mr Y. Verbytskyy had been organised and directed by N., Ch. and Z., who had acted on the instructions of unidentified representatives of State bodies. Also, a number of other unidentified individuals were said to have participated in the ill-treatment of Mr   I.   Lutsenko and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy. 20 .     It was also noted in those official documents that, having “tortured” Mr Y. Verbytskyy in the garage and discovered that he was from Lviv, the suspects and other unknown individuals had taken him to an isolated forest, where they had beaten him with the aim of killing him. They had considered him to be “a representative of the most radical part of Western Ukraine, rallying against the ruling party and senior government officials.” Eventually, they had left him in the forest, exposed to freezing temperatures, without any outer clothing. They had known that he could not leave that area by himself because of his injuries. Consequently, it was concluded that the suspects had assumed that Mr Y. Verbytskyy would die in those conditions and that they had wanted him to die in this way. His death had to be classified as murder. In that regard, in the official notifications of suspicion it was stated that, according to a forensic medical report of 3   February 2014, because of his injuries, Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy had not been able to move freely, which had increased the negative consequences of his exposure to freezing temperatures, ultimately resulting in his death. No copy of the report of 3   February 2014 has been submitted to the Court. 21 .     According to the information available to the Court, the trial of M.   has been ongoing before the Pecherskyy District Court in Kyiv since June 2015, whereas proceedings concerning the remaining twelve suspects, including T., were suspended, as their whereabouts were unknown. Those suspects were put on a wanted list. According to the MoI’s letter of 29   November 2016, one of the suspects was located in Russia, but his extradition was refused by the Russian authorities. The whereabouts of the other suspects, who absconded, were unknown. 22 .     According to the Government, in the course of the investigations into Mr   I. Lutsenko’s and Mr Y. Verbytskyy’s abduction and the latter’s murder, a number of investigative actions were performed, including the questioning of over 100 witnesses, suspects and victims, searches and forensic examinations. In addition, the first applicant took an active part in the investigations and made no complaints at domestic level regarding their effectiveness. The Government stated that no further details could be provided because this could harm the investigations which were still ongoing, without giving any further information or explanation in that regard. 23 .     In the course of the investigations into the abduction and ill ‑ treatment of Mr   I. Lutsenko and Mr Y. Verbytskyy and the latter’s murder, it was established that between 12 and 28 January 2014 Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s telephone conversations had been intercepted by the police as part of an investigation in another case relating to the Maidan protests. Also, according to a copy of the extract from the official Ukrainian electronic database of criminal proceedings provided by the applicants, the investigators also found evidence demonstrating that “during the commission of the crimes against Mr   I. Lutsenko and Mr Y. Verbytskyy the organisers of those crimes maintained permanent contact with the leadership of the MoI” and that unidentified police officers “shared with the organisers of the abduction of the protesters information concerning Mr   I. Lutsenko’s telephone conversations and location, which had been obtained in the course of police surveillance operations”. 24 .     In that connection, on 20   August 2014, the police launched a separate investigation into the possible involvement of agents of the police in the crimes committed against Mr   I. Lutsenko and Mr Y. Verbytskyy [4] . According to a letter from the PGO of 25   November 2016, on an unspecified date two police officers were charged with the unlawful interception of Mr   I. Lutsenko’s telephone conversations and falsification of official documents (Article   163 and Article 366   §   1 of the Criminal Code). Eventually, the case was referred to the Shevchenkivskyy District Court for trial. According to the information published on the PGO’s dedicated website, the proceedings before that court were not concluded at the time of the adoption of this judgment. 25.     According to the information published PGO’s dedicated website, the relevant proceedings were ongoing at the time of the adoption of this judgment. Payments to the relatives of Mr Y. Verbytskyy 26 .     In March 2014 and February 2015, under the Act on State Support for the Victim Participants in Mass Actions of Civil Protest and their Family Members of 21 February 2014 (“the Civil Protest Victims Aid Act” summarised in Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§   214-15 ), the State Treasury paid the relatives of Mr Y. Verbytskyy a total of UAH   243,600, the equivalent of about EUR   13,300 at the material time, on account of his death. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 27.     Summaries of and extracts from the domestic legal framework and international reports of relevance for the examination of all applications lodged in relation to the Maidan protests and their aftermath, including the present two applications, are to be found in Shmorgunov and Others (cited above, §§   194-269 ) . 28.     Some of those international reports also contain information relating specifically to the events at issue in the present case. 29 .     In particular, in its 2015 report, which is summarised and partly reproduced in Shmorgunov and Others (cited above, §§   237-49) , the International Advisory Panel (IAP) made the following observations concerning the investigations relating to Mr I. Lutsenko and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy (references omitted): “... 338. 13 suspects, most of them titushky, as well as Messrs Zubrytskyi and Chebotariov, have been served with notices of suspicion on various charges related to these incidents [involving Mr I. Lutsenko and Mr Y. Verbytskyy]. 339. Two suspects were arrested, notified of suspicion and detained. On 20 August 2014 the indictments were submitted to the court. However, on 16 October 2014 the trial court returned the indictments citing certain shortcomings in them. The prosecutor’s appeal was due to be heard on 12 December 2014. The Panel has not been informed of the outcome of the appeal. 340. The proceedings concerning the remaining 11 suspects have been suspended: ten suspects are on the wanted list and the eleventh is being pursued through international co-operation arrangements. ...” 30 .     Further information concerning the relevant investigations is also contained in the Briefing Note on Accountability for Killings and Violent Deaths During the Maidan Protest , published in February 2019 by the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). The relevant extracts from the briefing note, a short summary of which is to be found in Shmorgunov and Others (cited above, §   256 ) read as follows (emphasis added by the HRMMU, with several exceptions, references omitted): “I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... 3. All victims from the Maidan protests died or sustained lethal injuries in January-February 2014, when the protests turned violent following the adoption by Parliament of a series of laws that limited freedom of peaceful assembly and expression, and introduced criminal responsibility for extremism and the seizure of administrative buildings. The internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (disbanded since and reformed into the National Guard) and Berkut special riot police units (disbanded shortly after the end of the Maidan protests and reformed into special units within regional police departments), who had been dispatched to restrain the protestors, were reinforced with civilian counter-protestors, so-called ‘titushky’ 4 [4. ‘Titushky’ is a term used to refer to athletically-built civilians recruited and equipped by law enforcement to oppose protestors; their harassment and attacks against protestors enabled police to intervene and use force to disperse the protestors.] allegedly upon coordination with the former senior police officials. 4. Five years after the end of the Maidan protests accountability for the killings and violent deaths of 84 protestors, a man who did not participate in the protests, and 13   law enforcement officers is yet to be achieved. The investigation into the killing of 17 protestors and 13 law enforcement officers has still to identify individual perpetrators. Only one person has been found guilty of unintentional killing of a protestor. Two others were found guilty of hooliganism in relation to an incident that resulted in the killing of another protestor. ... Prosecution for the killing of Yurii Verbytskyi 19. The SID identified 14 members of a ‘titushky’ group as being involved in the abduction, torture and killing of Yurii Verbytskyi. As of February 2019, 12 of them have absconded. 20. On 23 April 2014, police detained two male members of the ‘titushky’ group. The first man owned a garage in the outskirts of Kyiv where both abducted protestors were tortured and interrogated. He absconded shortly after being indicted on charges of abduction, torture and intentional killing. 21. The second man who acted as a lookout is currently on trial facing abduction charges. On 17 July 2018, after almost three years of hearings on the merits of the case, the judge recused herself from the case. As of February 2019, the new judge has still to be appointed. 22. On 28 July 2017, SID investigators detained another member of the ‘titushky’ group on charges of the creation of a criminal organization, interference with public assemblies, abduction, torture and intentional killing of Yurii Verbytskyi. On 24 July 2018, he was indicted and his case was sent for trial. As of February 2019, the defendant remains in detention while the court hears testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including other members of ‘titushky’ groups. 23. HRMMU is concerned that not all aspects of the killing of Yurii Verbytskyi were fully investigated. For instance, in a separate case, the Department for Organized Crime Investigation indicted two police officers for unlawful surveillance over the man abducted together with Verbytskyi during Maidan protests. Given that the circumstances and the purpose of the abduction suggest coordination between the police and ‘titushky’ groups, 18 [18. A number of facts suggest that ‘titushky’ coordinated the abduction of actions with the police. The abductors knew the protestor whom they abducted together with Yurii Verbytskyi and came after him very fast. The police tracking his movement knew of his whereabouts and resorted to ‘titushky’ groups to unlawfully detain and interrogate him as an active protestor.] the criminal proceeding into the organization of unlawful surveillance is merged with the case of abduction, torture and killing of Yurii Verbytskyi. 24. The prosecution for the killing of Yurii Verbytskyi was marred by the failure of the Government to ensure the appearance at court of one of the key defendants. Failure to ensure the trial without undue delay of the second member of the group is also concerning. ...” THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 31.     Having regard to the common factual and legal background of the two applications under examination, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION 32.     The applicants complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s abduction and ill-treatment on 21   January 2014, which they alleged amounted to torture (see paragraphs 7-9 above). Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, Mr   S. Verbytskyy further complained that his brother, Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy, had been murdered. The applicants also complained that no effective official investigation had been conducted into those events. 33 .     Relying on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles   2 and 3, Mr   S. Verbytskyy complained that his brother, Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy, had been tortured and murdered because he was from Lviv and had spoken Ukrainian. 34.     The applicants argued that the perpetrators had been either agents of the State or had acted on the instructions of the authorities, with a view to persecuting Mr   I.   Lutsenko and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy on account of their involvement in the Maidan protests. 35.     Articles 2, 3 and 14 of the Convention read as follows: Article 2 “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2.     Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)     in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)     in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)     in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 14 “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” Admissibility Exhaustion of domestic remedies (a)    The parties’ submissions 36 .     The Government argued that the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 of the Convention and Mr   S. Verbytskyy’s related complaints under Article 2 were inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 37 .     In particular, the Government stated that the applicants’ complaints were premature, as the relevant investigations and related court proceedings were still ongoing. Those investigations were effective for the purposes of the Convention, as they had been launched promptly after the events at issue, had not been protracted, involved a number of investigative actions, including the questioning of a number of witnesses, suspects and applicants, searches and forensic examinations, and the applicants were actively participating in the relevant proceedings. The relevant circumstances had been established, the suspects had been identified, and one of them was being tried by a first-instance court. Also, the authorities were investigating whether agents of the police had been involved in the crimes at issue. 38 .     The Government further argued that the applicants had not raised their complaints of ineffective investigation at domestic level. 39.     The applicants disagreed. 40 .     They argued that the investigations launched by the Ukrainian authorities into the relevant events had not been effective. According to them, the investigations and the court proceedings had been protracted, those who had ordered the crimes had not been identified, almost all suspects had left Ukraine, and the authorities had failed to establish their whereabouts and seek their extradition. According to Mr   I. Lutsenko, eleven of those suspects had left Ukraine for Russia. 41 .     Furthermore, although there was sufficient information that police officers had been involved in the crimes and Mr   I.   Lutsenko had been under police surveillance at the time the crimes had been committed, no police officer linked to the actions of the so-called “titushky” had been identified (see paragraphs 19-24 above). The investigators had refused to take into consideration the applicants’ submissions based on findings in similar criminal cases concerning the abduction and ill-treatment of protesters by titushky, which demonstrated that those investigators had been under police control and acting under their instructions. The applicants considered that this was because the investigations in their case had been conducted by the police. (b)    The Court’s assessment 42.     The Court notes that the Government raised objections as to the non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies that were similar to those raised in other Maidan-related applications. The applicable general principles and a detailed assessment of the Government’s objections are to be found in Shmorgunov and Others (cited above, §§   283-85 and 291-303) . 43.     In particular, in so far as the Government’s objections concerned those applicants’ compliance with the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court pointed to numerous domestic and international reports which identified various shortcomings in the investigations undertaken. It found that because the complaints of ineffective investigations into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment did not appear completely unfounded, they did not have to wait for those investigations to be completed before lodging their complaints under Article   3 with the Court (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§   301-302 ). 44.     The Court considers that those findings are equally relevant for the complaints relating to Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s abduction and ill-treatment and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s murder, having regard to the fact that the relevant domestic proceedings have been ongoing for more than six   years and so far there has been no final and comprehensive domestic assessment of all the relevant circumstances (see paragraphs 15-25 above). 45.     As to the Government’s argument that the applicants in this case lodged no complaint with the domestic authorities concerning specific investigative actions or inactivity on the part of the investigators, the Court finds nothing in the Government’s submissions or generally in the file which would demonstrate that such a complaint might have led to any improvement in the proceedings, either by expediting them or rectifying the shortcomings of which the applicants concerned complained (see Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§   285 and 303 ). 46 .     Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objections as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as regards the applicants’ complaints under Articles 2 and   3 of the Convention. Victim status (Mr   S. Verbytskyy) (a)    The parties’ submissions 47 .     The Government argued that Mr   S. Verbytskyy had been paid compensation on account of the alleged violation of Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 26 above) and that he had not challenged the amount of compensation. Thus, he could no longer be considered a victim in that regard. 48.     The second applicant disagreed. In particular, he contended that neither he nor his brother’s other relatives had been paid the full amount of UAH   1,000,000 – the equivalent of about EUR   55,000 at the material time – to which they were entitled under the Civil Protest Victims Aid Act of 2014 (see the summary of the Act in Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§   214-15 ). The Government did not contest this. (b)    The Court’s assessment 49 .     The Court notes that the domestic investigations in question have so far not led to the establishment of all the relevant circumstances pertaining to Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s abduction, ill-treatment and death . Therefore, the relevant payment of financial assistance to the latter’s relatives cannot be regarded as sufficient redress for the related complaints under Article   2 and/or Article 3 of the Convention (see the Court’s findings regarding the Government’s similar objections in other Maidan-related applications ( Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§   313-14 and 397-401) ). 50 .     Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the regulations pursuant to which the payment was made contained no provision acknowledging that injuries had been inflicted on Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy or on any other protester in violation of the guarantees protecting against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see paragraph 26 above and Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§   399-400 ). Thus, contrary to what the Government argued, that payment can hardly be considered sufficient “compensation” on account of the alleged violation of Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention. 51 .     Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s objections as to Mr   S. Verbytskyy’s victim status. Submissions regarding the admissibility of Mr   S. Verbytskyy’s complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and   3 (a)    The parties’ submissions 52.     The Government contended that Mr   S. Verbytskyy had not raised that complaint at domestic level, and in any event the circumstances of his brother’s abduction, ill-treatment and murder were being investigated by the authorities. For those reasons, the Government stated that it should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 53 .     The Government further argued that there was little or no evidence demonstrating that his brother’s language or origins had had any bearing on his attackers’ perception of him. Even if Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s testimony in that regard was true, Mr   Y. Verbytskyy’s abduction and ill-treatment was the subject of an ongoing investigation, and since the perpetrators were private individuals, Ukraine had discharged its obligations in that regard. 54.     Mr   S. Verbytskyy disagreed. (b)    The Court’s assessment 55.     Having regard to Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s testimony and the information contained in the domestic investigation material, the Court considers it plausible that Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy might have been subjected to violence motivated by hatred because of his origins or language, an issue which was duly raised before the authorities (see paragraphs 17 and 20 above). The Court leaves, in any event, to an examination of the merits whether this question falls to be determined under Articles   2 and 3 or separately under Article   14 of the Convention in conjunction with those articles (see paragraphs 60, 72 and 74 below). 56.     Thus, the Government’s objections to the admissibility of this part of the case should be rejected. Conclusion as to the admissibility 57.     In sum, the Court finds that this part of the applicants’ applications is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It should therefore be declared admissible. Merits Alleged violation of the procedural limb of Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention (a)    General principles 58 .   Having regard to the applicants’ allegation that those responsible for the abduction and ill-treatment of Mr   I.   Lutsenko and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy had been under the control of the authorities or had acted on the authorities’ instructions, in the present case regard must be had to the Court’s well ‑ established case-law setting out the obligation to carry out an effective official investigation into arguable allegations of treatment infringing Article 3 suffered at the hands of State agents. The relevant general principles are to be found in Shmorgunov and Others (cited above, §§   327 ‑ 36) . 59 .     In so far as this part of the case also concerns Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s death, for which the State was also allegedly responsible, the Court reiterates that the principles regarding the procedural obligation to investigate under Article 3 of the Convention apply similarly to the procedural obligation to investigate under Article 2 (see, among many other authorities, Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 314, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Jeronovičs v.   Latvia [GC], no.   44898/10, § 107, 5   July 2016 ). 60 .     The Court also reiterates that the authorities’ duty to investigate the existence of a possible link between racist attitudes and an act of violence is an aspect of their procedural obligations arising under Article 2 of the Convention, but may also be seen as implicit in their responsibilities under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 to secure the enjoyment of the right to life without discrimination (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 161, ECHR   2005 ‑ VII). The same is true regarding investigation of possible racist attitudes in cases of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3. Owing to the interplay of those provisions, such issues may fall to be examined under one of them only, with no separate issue arising under the other relevant provision, or may require examination under Articles 2 or 3 and, separately, also under Article   14. This is a question to be decided in each case on its facts and depending on the nature of the allegations made ( ibid ., see also and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece , no. 15250/02, § 70, ECHR   2005 ‑ XIII (extracts)). (b)    Application of those principles to the present case 61.     The Court finds it justified to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention and Mr   S.   Verbytskyy’s complaint under Article   2 together, in so far as they concern the allegedly ineffective investigation. 62.     The Court notes that the authorities launched several criminal investigations into Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s abduction and ill-treatment and the latter’s death straight after the incidents, on 22 January 2014 (see paragraphs 15-16 above). 63 .     Several important steps in the investigations in question, including the questioning of Mr   I. Lutsenko and the securing of forensic medical evidence, took place within days of the incidents. By April 2014 thirteen individuals had been identified as suspects, and three months later two of them were officially notified that they were suspects (see   paragraphs 9-20 above). 64.     However, only one of those suspects has stood trial (from June 2015 onwards), while the other twelve absconded (see paragraph 21 above). 65.     This inevitably slowed down the pace of the investigations, which had initially been progressing relatively quickly. 66 .     Although the material with which the Court has been provided indicates that the authorities found one of the suspects in Russia and tried, unsuccessfully, to have him extradited, it remains unclear whether they took any further steps to establish the whereabouts of all the other suspects who had absconded and ensure their availability for the investigations. 67.     The Court is also aware that another suspected member of the titushky who had been allegedly involved in the incidents at issue was arrested in July 2017 and his case was committed for trial in July 2018, but it notes that as of February 2019 his trial was still ongoing and there is no information that it has been concluded (see paragraph 30 above). Likewise, the Court notes that the court proceedings concerning the suspect who was committed for trial in June 2015 (see paragraphs 21, 25 and 30 above) are also still ongoing at first instance. 68.     More importantly, although the investigating authorities acknowledged in the relevant official notifications of suspicion that the suspects had been hired by law-enforcement officials and the crimes against Mr   I.   Lutsenko and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy had been part of the authorities’ attempt to suppress the Maidan protests (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above), there is no information that any meaningful efforts were made to identify the law-enforcement officials concerned. Nor was it suggested that this had been impossible, in particular having regard to the fact that the police officers who had intercepted Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s telephone conversations were identified (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above). In this connection, the Court reiterates that the procedural obligation under Article   3 of the Convention requires authorities to investigate both those with command responsibility and those who are direct perpetrators (see Jelić v. Croatia , no. 57856/11, §   94, 12 June 2014). 69.     On the whole, there is no information that any other substantial progress has been made in the investigations in order to shed light on all the circumstances of Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s abduction and ill-treatment and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s death. The Government’s submissions regarding the investigative actions lack important details and are mostly couched in general terms (see paragraph 22 above). 70.     The Court also notes that the Government provided no sufficiently reasoned justification for withholding any information as regards the investigations in question (see paragraph 22 above, and, for instance, Amuyeva and Others v. Russia , no. 17321/06, §§ 81-82, 25 November 2010). 71.     It is to be noted that those investigations, along with various other investigations into incidents of ill-treatment, deaths and serious injuries during the Maidan protests, were also referenced by the IAP, which considered that they had fallen short of the requirements of promptness, reasonable expedition, effectiveness, independence, public scrutiny and involvement of victims (see, principally, paragraphs 416-418 and 434 (in so far as the investigations into the alleged engagement of titushky by law ‑ enforcement officials are concerned) and paragraphs 399, 420, 431, 436, 445, 451, 465, 489, 502, 508 and 536-540 (regarding the investigations as a whole into the incidents of ill-treatment, death and serious injury during the Maidan protests) of the IAP report partly reproduced and summarised in Shmorgunov and Others , cited above, §§   237-49 ). The Court pays particular attention to the IAP’s findings in so far as they concern the investigations into Mr   I.   Lutsenko’s and Mr   Y.   Verbytskyy’s abduction and ill-treatment and the latter’s death, up until 23   February 2015. It also notes that in the present case the Government did not demonstrate that the deficiencies in those investigations which were identified by the IAP had been resolved or remedied after that date. 72 .     Finally, the second app