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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .sCF7129D5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAAB2E408 { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1A94BD05 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3B58B718 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5711BAC { width:6.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s91A62531 { width:11.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD608F18A { width:9.22pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC3C39E84 { width:5.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s45F441D8 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase; color:#0069d6 } .sDF290AB { width:6.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8F14C0C0 { width:0.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD9370BF0 { width:14.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s71CB6725 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2058AE06 { font-variant:small-caps; text-transform:none } .sB08485A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#212121 } .sB9541D82 { font-family:Arial; color:#212121 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s48A9093C { margin-left:4.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s3C875DAE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB723FA34 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s399ED93 { margin-left:5.67pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.83pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF46BB404 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.17pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71EF2772 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.89pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.61pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sA3262D01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.28pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.22pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sBBCF618B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.11pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.39pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s1DA82FE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.61pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.89pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s1872B464 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; background-color:#ffffff } .sF9ABB051 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s711C6FA3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:22.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7C2088F3 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .sD7932BC6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s6430D388 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sEF0D0845 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s76A8ECA6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7A7B69A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2AC22BCF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#212121 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC295E44D { border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E1F8B46 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3B2F4E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .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 } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF267204E { width:5.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sD85BBB70 { width:24.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sD204F531 { height:116.45pt } .s69AD57A4 { width:19.88pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA373E4BD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }     FIFTH SECTION           CASE OF SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE   (Applications nos. 15367/14 and 13 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT     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 and multiple abuses by non-State agents hired by police • Ill-treatment, arbitrary detentions and unjustified dispersal of Maidan protestors and 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. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION THE FACTS I.   PRELIMINARY REMARKS CONCERNING THE PRESENT CASE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS RELATING TO THE MAIDAN EVENTS II.   GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAIDAN EVENTS AND ENSUING DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS A.   Overview of the protests in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 21   February 2014 B.   Overview of the official investigations into these events III.   DETAILS OF THE RELEVANT EVENTS IN KYIV IV.   SPECIFIC FACTS RELATING TO THE APPLICANTS IN THE PRESENT CASE A.   Events in Kyiv on 30 November 2013 concerning Mr   I.   Sirenko, Mr   P.   Shmorgunov, Mr   B.   Yegiazaryan, Mr   Y.   Lepyavko, Mr   O.   Grabets, Mr   O.   Bala, Mr   F.   Lapiy, Mr   R.   Ratushnyy, Mr   A.   Rudchyk, Ms   O.   Kovalska and Mr   A.   Sokolenko (applications nos. 9078/14, 15367/14, 16280/14, 18118/14, 20546/14, 24405/14, 42271/14 and 19954/15) and their aftermath B.   Events in Kyiv on 1 December 2013 concerning Mr V. Zagorovka (application no. 42180/14) and their aftermath C.   Events in Kyiv on 1 December 2013 concerning Mr   G.   Cherevko (application no. 31174/14) and their aftermath D.   Events in Kyiv on 11 December 2013 concerning Mr   S.   Dymenko and Mr   R.   Ratushnyy (applications nos. 33767/14 and 54315/14) and their aftermath E.   Events in Kyiv on 23   January   2014 concerning Mr   D.   Poltavets (application no.   36299/14) and their aftermath F.   Events in Kyiv on 18 February 2014 concerning Mr   O.   Zadoyanchuk (application no. 36845/14) and their aftermath G.   Disciplinary proceedings against the judges who dealt with the cases concerning the detention of Mr   G.   Cherevko, Mr   D.   Poltavets, Mr   O.   Zadoyanchuk and Mr   V.   Zagorovka (applications nos. 31174/14, 36299/14, 36845/14 and 42180/14) H.   Disciplinary proceedings against the judge of the Pecherskyy District Court who dealt with the application for an injunction by the Kyiv City Council (applications nos. 33767/14 and 54315/14 (Mr   S.   Dymenko and Mr   R.   Ratushnyy)) I.   Payments under the Act on State Support for the Victim Participants in Mass Actions of Civil Protest and their Family Members of 21   February 2014 RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND MATERIALS A.   The Constitution of Ukraine B.   Domestic regulations and practice pertaining to the exercise of the constitutional right to assemble peacefully C.   The Code of Administrative Offences of 1984 D.   The Criminal Code of 2001 E.   The Civil Code of 2003 F.   The Code of Civil Procedure of 2004 G.   The Code of Administrative Justice of 2005 H.   The Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012 (“the CCP”) I.   The Police Act of 1990 (repealed on 2 July 2015) and the Statute of the Police Patrol and Guard Service of Ukraine of 1994 (repealed on 5   March 2019) J.   The Compensation Act of 1994 K.   The Act on the Application of Amnesty in Ukraine of 2011 L.   Amnesty laws M.   Social protection regulations N.   The Restoration of Trust in the Judiciary in Ukraine Act of 8   April 2014 O.   Domestic court decisions concerning awards in connection with criminal proceedings II.   SPECIAL REPORT OF THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT Commissioner for Human Rights III.   MATERIAL FROM COUNCIL OF EUROPE BODIES A.   Resolution of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly of 30   January 2014 (1974) B.   Report of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights of 4   March 2014 C.   Report of the International Advisory Panel (IAP) D.   Reports on visits to Ukraine carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) IV.   MATERIAL FROM THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (OHCHR) V.   REPORTS OF OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS A.   Amnesty International B.   Human Rights Watch C.   Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court THE LAW I.   JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS II.   MR I. SIRENKO’S APPLICATION (NO. 9078/14) III.   ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Alleged ill-treatment of Mr   P.   Shmorgunov, Mr   B.   Yegiazaryan, Mr   Y.   Lepyavko, Mr   O.   Grabets, Mr   O.   Bala, Mr   G.   Cherevko, Mr   S.   Dymenko, Mr   D.   Poltavets, Mr   V.   Zagorovka, Mr   F.   Lapiy, Mr   A.   Rudchyk, Ms   O.   Kovalska, Mr   R.   Ratushnyy, Mr   O.   Zadoyanchuk and Mr   A.   Sokolenko and failure to conduct effective official investigations (applications nos.   15367/14, 16280/14, 18118/14, 20546/14, 24405/14, 31174/14, 33767/14, 36299/14, 36845/14, 42180/14, 42271/14, 54315/14 and 19954/15) B.   Alleged failure to provide Mr   V.   Zagorovka with adequate medical treatment in the days following his arrest (application no. 42180/14) IV.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Admissibility B.   Merits V.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Admissibility B.   Merits VI.   THE APPLICANTS’ OTHER COMPLAINTS A.   Complaints not requiring a separate examination B.   Other inadmissible complaints VII.   CONCLUDING REMARKS VIII.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applications, in which applicants submitted no claim for just satisfaction B.   Applications, in which applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, APPENDIX   In the case of Shmorgunov and Others 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, judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: fourteen applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by sixteen individuals - fifteen Ukrainian nationals and Mr B. Yegiazaryan, an Armenian national - (“the applicants”, whose personal information and other details are set out in the appended table); 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the Armenian Government’s decision not to make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention), in so far as application no. 16280/14 concerned an Armenian national (Mr   B.   Yegiazaryan); the comments submitted by the Redress Trust (REDRESS), an international human rights non-governmental organisation based in London, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section, in so far as application no.   9078/14 (Mr   I.   Sirenko) is concerned; 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.     The applications concern allegations of police ill-treatment, including instances of police brutality, arbitrary detentions, unjustified dispersal of demonstrators and the lack of an effective investigation in connection with the series of mass protests which took place in Ukraine between 21   November 2013 and 21 February 2014; protests commonly referred to as “Euromaidan” and/or “Maidan”. The applicants relied mainly on Articles   3,   5 §§ 1, 3 and 5, and 11 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were represented by various lawyers, whose details are set out in the appendix. 3.     The Ukrainian Government were represented by their Agent, most recently Mr   I.   Lishchyna, of the Ministry of Justice. PRELIMINARY REMARKS CONCERNING THE PRESENT CASE AND O THER APPLICATIONS RELATING TO THE MAIDAN EVENTS 4.     The fourteen applications in this case are amongst thirty-three applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention by thirty-eight Ukrainian nationals and one Armenian national in relation to the Maidan protests. 5 .     While all thirty-three applications share a common general factual background, the applications which compose the present case have been grouped in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the relevant background to the Maidan protests and the ensuing investigations. The remaining applications are dealt with in four separate judgments, and have been organised, where possible, into groups. In those judgments, also adopted on the same day, there is extensive cross-referencing to the background material, facts, domestic and international law and materials and general case-law principles set out in the present judgment. The Court stresses that an underlying complaint common to all thirty-three applications is that the actions in which the authorities of the respondent State are said to have engaged in order to suppress the Maidan protests were organised, concerted and arbitrary. Therefore, all five judgments handed down on the same day, to the extent that they all relate to the Maidan protests and concern complaints underpinned by this common allegation, should be read as a whole ( see, in addition to this judgment, Lutsenko and Verbytskyy v. Ukraine , nos. 12482/14 and 39800/14, 21 January 2021 , not final; Kadura and Smaliy v.   Ukraine , nos.   42753/14 and 43860/14, 21   January 2021 , not final; Dubovtsev and Others v.   Ukraine , nos.   21429/14 and 9 others, 21   January 2021 , not final; and Vorontsov and   Others v.   Ukraine , nos. 58925/14 and 4 others, 21 January 2021 , not final ). 6.     The fourteen applications under examination concern events relating to the dispersal of protests in central Kyiv on 30   November and 1 and 11   December   2013, 23   January and 18   February   2014. The remaining nineteen applications concern other alleged abuses in connection with the Maidan protests in Kyiv and related protests in other Ukrainian cities on different dates during the same period. 7.     The relevant facts are described mainly in chronological order. The description is based on the parties’ submissions, various documents from relevant domestic decisions and case files, and the information contained in the domestic and international reports reproduced or summarised in this judgment. Where there is no discernible disagreement between the parties as to the relevant facts, no reference to the source of the information is made. Where there is actually or potentially such a disagreement, this has been indicated in the text to the extent possible. 8 .     While the parties’ most recent submissions concerning the events described below date back to the first quarter of 2017, the Court has also used, where it has been necessary to verify further developments in and/or the outcome of the relevant domestic proceedings, more updated information from publicly available sources, notably the Ukrainian official electronic database of court decisions ( http://reyestr.court.gov.ua ), the official website of the Prosecutor General’s Office (“PGO”) specifically dedicated to the proceedings concerning the Maidan protests ( https://rrg.gp.gov.ua/ , “the PGO’s dedicated website”) [1] , and a number of domestic and international reports reproduced or summarised in this judgment. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAIDAN EVENTS AND ENSUING DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS Overview of the protests in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 21   February 2014 9 .     Between 21   November 2013 and 21 February 2014 a series of protests took place in Ukraine, reportedly in response to the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers to suspend preparations for the signing of the Ukraine ‑ European Union Association Agreement. As noted above, these protests are commonly referred to as “Euromaidan” and/or “Maidan”. The protests ultimately led to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution (also known as the Revolution of Dignity) and culminated in the ousting of Ukraine’s fourth President, Mr   V. Yanukovych, in late February 2014. This was followed by a series of changes in Ukraine’s political system, including the formation of a new interim government, the restoration of the previous Constitution and impromptu presidential elections. 10 .     While there were clashes between the police and protesters as early as 24   November 2013, when the first major pro-European and anti ‑ government demonstration took place, with the number of participants being estimated by various sources to be between 50,000 and 100,000 persons, the situation deteriorated significantly and became more violent after the forceful dispersal of protesters by the “Berkut” special police force in central Kyiv on 30   November 2013 (see paragraphs 24-41 below). In particular, the number of people involved in the protests rose, with between 400,000 and 800,000 protesters demonstrating in Kyiv on 1 and 8 December 2013 and many more protesters joining subsequently. The protests involved a number of violent clashes between the police and protesters and, as time passed, the involvement of so-called “titushky” ( тітушки ), private individuals who, with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of State officials, were reported to have apprehended and ill-treated protesters (see paragraph 15 below with further references). 11 .     On different dates similar protests took place in almost all other large cities across Ukraine, including Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Ivano ‑ Frankivsk, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Lviv, Vinnytsia, Uzhhorod and Zaporizhzhya. The majority of those protests were dispersed by the police, with many protesters being arrested and/or prosecuted on charges of mass disorder. 12 .     The Maidan protests are reported to have been initially organised in a leaderless, non-hierarchical fashion, even though between November and December 2013 several political parties and politicians submitted written notices to the Kyiv City Council and/or the Kyiv State Administration informing them of their intention to organise rallies in central Kyiv, including the round-the-clock vigil on Maidan Nezalezhnosti on 30   November 2013 and the gatherings on later dates in December 2013. Eventually, informal leaders emerged and various political figures joined the protests. On 22 December 2013 a political alliance called the Maidan People’s Union ( Народне об’єднання "Майдан" ) was created by several political parties, non-partisan public organisations and individuals taking part in the Maidan protests with the aim of coordinating the protest movement, among other things. At that time, about fifty individuals were the members of the council of the alliance, including Mr I. Lutsenko, whose application is the subject of one of the five judgments handed down on the same day as the present judgment (see Lutsenko and Verbytskyy , cited above ). 13 .     During the Maidan protests in central Kyiv, the protesters erected barricades and set up tents and platforms for public performances and presentations. At different times they occupied several administrative buildings, including the Kyiv Council and State Administration building and the Trade Unions building. These buildings were used, inter alia , as places where the protesters could get warm, receive food and medical assistance, sleep and rest. Those premises also contained the headquarters of the leaders of the Maidan protests and their press centre. While the area or buildings they occupied varied at different times and violent events took place in different parts of Kyiv, for most of the time the protesters essentially controlled the central square – Maidan Nezalezhnosti ( Майдан Незалежності ) – and parts of several adjacent streets. 14 .     In response to the protests, the authorities deployed about 11,000 police officers to Kyiv during the Maidan protests, including: the Berkut special police force, a special police unit for the protection of public order and for fighting organised crime, subordinate to the Department for the Protection of Public Order, itself a part of the Ministry of the Interior (“the MoI”); the “Sokil” special unit of the Department for Fighting Organised Crime of the MoI; internal troops under the command of the Minister of the Interior, as well as their special subdivisions (“Bars”, “Gepard”, “Jaguar”, “Leopard” and “Tygr”) and a special anti-terrorist unit called “Omega”. In addition to those, the authorities deployed a special anti-terrorist unit of the Security Service of Ukraine called “Alpha” and units of the Department of the State Guard. 15 .     According to relevant investigation files and different national and international reports (see, notably, paragraphs 20, 21, 235, 242, 246, 248, 250, 251, 252, 254 and 260 below), in order to suppress the protests, the authorities engaged hundreds of titushky , who are alleged to have carried out numerous assaults, kidnappings and murders of protesters (see, in particular, paragraph 11 of the CPT’s report of 13 January 2015, reproduced at paragraph 250 below). 16.     Reportedly, during the Maidan protests there were over 100   protest ‑ related deaths, including over seventy protesters shot dead, often referred to in Ukraine as the “Heaven’s Hundred”, and about 1,000 protesters injured. Additionally, at least thirteen police officers were killed and about 1,000 were injured during those events (see, inter alia , the 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel (“the IAP”), an international body constituted by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in April 2014, which is partly summarised and partly reproduced in this judgment at paragraphs 237-249 below). 17.     The protests were given extensive media coverage in Ukraine and abroad, and almost all the relevant events were recorded and documented by the authorities, the national and international media, the protesters and/or numerous witnesses. Overview of the official investigations into these events 18 .     During and after the Maidan protests the authorities launched various investigations into the events at issue, including those relating to the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment and other abuses on account of their actual or perceived involvement in the Maidan protests. Currently, numerous criminal proceedings are pending relating to the treatment of Maidan protesters, including proceedings against the former highest government officials – President Yanukovych, Prime Minister Azarov, the Prosecutor General Mr   V.   Pshonka, the Minister of the Interior Mr   V.   Zakharchenko, and the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council Mr   A.   Klyuev, who are suspected of having designed and orchestrated a deliberate strategy to put an end to and further hinder the Maidan protests, using disproportionate force against the protesters, as well as subjecting them to arbitrary arrests and abusive prosecution. Related proceedings have been brought against numerous police officers, investigators, prosecutors and judges who were involved in the proceedings against the protesters. 19.     According to information published by the PGO on its dedicated website, many of those suspects fled Ukraine for Russia and were out of the Ukrainian authorities’ reach. For that reason, special in absentia proceedings were being pursued against those suspects at the time of the adoption of this judgment. 20 .     On 21 November 2018 the Head of the Special Investigations Department of the PGO (“the SID”), which was created on 8   December 2014 and oversaw some of the Maidan-related investigations prior to 20   November 2019, provided certain details about those proceedings in his press briefing, which was summarised by the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre (“the UCMC”) [2] as follows (emphasis added by the UCMC): “Key figures: thousands crimes, hundreds charged and nine found guilty 4700 crimes, 442 suspects .   The overall number of offences during Maidan reaches 4700. The majority of them are already being investigated ... 442 persons have been charged. Indictments concerning 279 persons have been sent to courts. ‘We have identified the circumstances in which these crimes were committed. At best we have identified executors, organizers, masterminds and accomplices including the so-called mid part of the chain through which the orders were passed,’ the official said. ... over 15 thousand persons are being currently checked upon for their involvement into the crimes in question, this number includes law enforcement staff. ... 52 persons have been found guilty... Nine persons have been sentenced to prison... Thirteen persons are under arrest... Nine acquittals have been issued ... Murder cases . ... 56 persons have been charged in murder cases of 73 protesters, ‘starting from the former head of the state and ending up with junior-level law enforcement staff charged with the use of weapons or beating of the protesters that caused their death.’ Berkut officers in the new police.   Five years after the crimes were committed about 30 per cent of the then Berkut (riot) policemen are still serving ... among them are 20 indictees, nine of whom are on high-level positions... 33 persons – suspects in the Maidan cases continue their service with law enforcement agencies. The Ministry of Interior however does not see grounds for their dismissal until conviction. Why is it going so slowly? ...   Lack of personnel at the special directorate within the Office of the Prosecutor General.   [out of 4700 investigations] over 4100 are within the responsibility of [46   investigators and 33 prosecutors] of the Prosecutor General’s Office ... Slow examination.   Institutes for forensic examination in Kyiv and Kharkiv are employing just one ballistic expert each. It causes serious delays with ballistic tests ... Resistance of the law enforcement system .   ... the cases against law enforcement staff ... [are] being protracted due to [such] resistance ... the majority of those who were sentenced to jail in Maidan crimes are ‘titushky’ thugs. ‘It so happens that the investigation against “titushky” concerned a particular episode, it makes it possible to finalize (the investigation – edit.) and get to the sentence quicker,’ the official explained. ... the majority of the crimes during the Revolution of Dignity were committed by law enforcement [staff]. ...” 21.     On 19 February 2019 the SID published its analytical paper on “systemic obstacles to the investigation of crimes committed during the Maidan protests” [3] . The relevant extracts from the analytical paper read as follows (emphasis added by the SID): “...During [the period 2014-2019] investigators from the SID conducted investigations regarding over 4,100 criminal acts ([while] other law-enforcement bodies [conducted investigations regarding] more than 700 additional criminal acts) ... In all, when dealing with this category of cases, the Ukrainian law-enforcement bodies informed 442 individuals – including 48 senior government officials, 226 law ‑ enforcement officials (including 27 investigators), 20 prosecutors and 23 judges [and 58 ‘titushky’] – that they were suspected of having committed [different] crimes. 186   indictments regarding 288 individuals were referred to courts [for trial]. The court proceedings led to 52 individuals being found guilty of [different] crimes ... At the same time, in practice, ... the investigations [have been] obstructed over the course of those years, obstruction which took different forms and appearances. The lack of reaction [to that issue] over an extended period demonstrates that the Ukrainian leadership, law-enforcement bodies and judicial branch of power were not interested in achieving prompt, comprehensive and high-quality results in the investigations and punishing the individuals involved in those crimes. Moreover, there are ... indications that there was intentional systemic obstruction of the investigations . This situation can be explained only by the unwillingness of the political forces to put an end to the existing system of [personal control and management] ( ручне управління ) of the law-enforcement bodies. [... if there had been no hindrance ..., the results would have been more significant, particularly as regards the number of convicted individuals.   All existing obstacles to the investigations can , in principle, be grouped into the following categories , each of which will be examined in this analytical paper: 1.     [Obstacles involving] the leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office providing inadequate support for the investigations and creating obstacles [to the investigations]. 2.     [Obstacles involving] the Ministry of the Interior and the Security Service of Ukraine creating obstacles to the investigations into the crimes committed by law ‑ enforcement officials. 3.     Obstacles resulting from the decisions and actions of investigating judges, and from decisions and actions taken in the course of judicial proceedings. 4.     [Obstacles involving] recurring legislative ‘novelties’, which complicate the investigations and call their legitimacy into question. 5.     [Obstacles involving] the lack of high-quality and necessary support for forensic expert facilities, and the lack of support from other government bodies involved. ...” 22 .     From December 2019 the PGO started transferring the relevant investigation files to the State Bureau of Investigations. The latter was created by the State Bureau of Investigations Act of 12 November 2015 and was empowered, inter alia , to conduct investigations into the crimes committed by high-ranking governmental officials. It is unknown whether the transfer was completed at the time of the adoption of this judgment. DETAILS OF THE RELEVANT EVENTS IN KYIV 23 .     On 21   November 2013, reportedly further to calls on social networks (see, inter alia , paragraph 4 of the 2015 report of the IAP, which is partly summarised and partly reproduced in this judgment at paragraphs 237-249 below), several thousand protesters gathered on Maidan Nezalezhnosti to protest against the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers to suspend preparations for the signing of the Ukraine European Union Association Agreement, which was adopted earlier on that date. At around 2 p.m. on that date the Kyiv City Circuit Administrative Court issued a decision inter alia banning installation of tents and similar objects during demonstrations on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, Khreshchatyk Street and European Square in central Kyiv. [4] Much later, on 23 January 2014 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal quashed that decision mainly for the reasons that no evidence had been provided to show that installation of tents or similar objects during the demonstrations might have created a real danger to the health or rights of others or for the public order, that the authorities had been notified of planned demonstrations in central Kyiv in advance, and that the ban had been unlawfully extended to an unlimited number of persons. Between 21 and 30   November   2013 similar rallies were organised in central Kyiv with a certain number of protesters maintaining the round ‑ the ‑ clock vigil on Maidan Nezalezhnosti and, for some time, on European Square. To that end, the protesters installed several tents there. During the protest on 24   November 2013 there were clashes between the protesters and the police. Particularly violent clashes took place in Kyiv in the early morning of 30   November 2013, on 1 December and on the night of 10-11 December 2013, from 19 to 22 January 2014, and from 18 to 20 February 2014. 24 .   In the early morning of 30 November 2013, the police used force to disperse several hundred protesters, who were taking part in the round ‑ the ‑ clock vigil on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, occupying a part of its pedestrian zone. Between sixty and ninety persons were injured. Over thirty persons were arrested by the police. 25.     On 30 November 2013 the Kyiv City State Administration initiated proceedings against the Batkivshchyna Party and UDAR Party and several individuals, for an order banning demonstrations between 1 and 7 December 2013 on Bankova, Hrushevskoho and Bohomoltsia Streets, European Square and Maidan Nezalezhnosti and in a nearby park. The application was granted by the Kyiv City Circuit Administrative Court which examined the case at around midnight on the same day. In its decision, the court noted that there had been information that “the Maidan protesters had called [for people] to rally on the streets, organise a revolution and topple the current regime”, and that “unknown individuals had launched smoke grenades”, but provided no further details. It also noted that the defendants had given the Kyiv City State Administration notice of their rally, planned for 1   December 2013, on 30 November 2013, and thus had failed to comply with the requirement laid down by the decision of the Kyiv City Council that ten days’ notice should be given of any planned demonstration. This decision was upheld on 23 January 2014 by the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal. On 17 April 2014 the Higher Administrative Court (“the HAC”) quashed those decisions as unfounded. The HAC held that the lower courts had failed to take into account that no legitimate grounds had been put forward for the restriction of the right of peaceful assembly nor had any evidence been submitted to demonstrate that the defendants in the proceedings or the participants in the rallies had had violent intentions, that the rallies had posed a real risk of disruption or increased the likelihood of crimes being committed, or that they had endangered the health or rights of others. 26.     On 1   December   2013, reportedly in reaction to the dispersal of 30   November 2013, several hundred thousand people participated in a march in central Kyiv. At around 2 p.m. on the former date several hundred protesters gathered near the Presidential Administration on Bankova Street. Several individuals present there started behaving violently and, inter alia, threw stones and sticks at the police officers who were blocking the passage to the Presidential Administration. Some of those individuals also seized a loader and reportedly tried to break through the police cordon. At around 4.30 p.m. the police officers used force to disperse the protesters on Bankova Street. Over 200 persons were injured during those events. Nine persons were arrested by the police in that connection (see, inter alia , paragraphs 24-32 of the 2015 report of the IAP, which is partly summarised and partly reproduced in this judgment at paragraphs 237-249 below). 27. &#xa0