CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3D61E043 { margin-top:20pt; margin-bottom:8pt; 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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E9356B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sF057D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:6pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { 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-weight:bold } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s8012088D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:57.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s4D0E9171 { width:8.97pt; 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 } .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 } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; 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 } .sE56532DA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:57.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sC0983CF { width:6.75pt; 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 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB017664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s39CA0E62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sF5C1637F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s35008A5F { width:18.55pt; display:inline-block } .s90B2F37D { width:135.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sC16889D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SUSLOV AND BATIKYAN v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 56540/14 and 57252/14)   JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 16 December 2022 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Inhuman and degrading treatment • Allegations of physical ill-treatment and psychological pressure in pre-trial detention not proved beyond reasonable doubt • Ineffective investigation stemming from systemic problem to ensure prompt and through investigations into ill-treatment complaints against the police Art 3 (substantive) • Degrading treatment • Inadequate conditions of detention in pre-trial detention centre Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Public hearing • Exclusion of public • Holding trial in camera not justified by a reasoned judicial ruling • Appellate review not sufficient to remedy the situation Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (b) and (c) • Inadequate facilities for preparing defence undermining fair trial and equality of arms requirement Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (c) and (d) • Fair hearing • Removal from courtroom until end of trial due to persistent reprehensible conduct, despite warnings, constituting a waiver of the right to be present at trial • Waiver attended by minimum safeguards given defence through legal assistance Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (d) • Failure to justify protection of witnesses’ identities and not hearing anonymous witnesses during trial • Insufficient counterbalancing factors for non-attendance of witness whose evidence carried significant weight in conviction Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (c) • Cumulative restrictions on right to legal assistance impacting overall fairness of proceedings Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Admission of incriminating witness statements with significant weight in conviction without investigating allegations of duress • Treatment of continued changes in statements risked undermining overall fairness of the trial   STRASBOURG 6 October 2022 FINAL   06/01/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Suslov and Batikyan v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary , President,   Mārtiņš Mits ,   Lətif Hüseynov ,   Lado Chanturia ,   Arnfinn Bårdsen ,   Kateřina Šimáčková ,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , Judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   56540/14 and 57252/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian and Russian national, Mr Merabi Otarovich Suslov (“the first applicant”) and an Armenian national, Mr David Batikovich Batikyan (“the second applicant”), on 7 and 10 August 2014 respectively; the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) of several complaints under Article   6   §§   1 and 3 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ trial, the second applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning his alleged ill ‑ treatment in police custody, the effectiveness of the relevant investigation and the allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention in the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre, as well as the decision to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Armenian Government, who made use of their right to   intervene   in the proceedings as a   third party   under Article   36   §   1 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant, as well as the absence of any such wish from them in respect of the second applicant; the decision of the Russian Government not to   intervene   in the case concerning the first applicant; Having deliberated in private on 6 September 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicants, as a result of which they were sentenced to life imprisonment for aggravated murder: the first applicant for ordering a contract killing and acquiring the means to carry it out and the second applicant for its execution. The applicants alleged that their trial had fallen short of many of the requirements of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. In particular, they complained that the exclusion of the public from the hearings had not been justified, that they had endured exhausting conditions on hearing days and that they had been prevented from communicating in private with their lawyers owing to inadequate arrangements in the courtroom. Furthermore, they complained that they had been unable to examine many important witnesses and that the witness evidence by R.N., the second applicant’s common-law wife, had been obtained by duress. The first applicant additionally complained about his exclusion from the courtroom for a substantial part of the trial. The second applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in police custody and that there had been no effective domestic investigation into the matter. Lastly, he complained of inadequate conditions of detention in the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre (“the Kyiv SIZO”). THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1963 and 1965 respectively. The first applicant was represented by Mr A. Ghazaryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan, and Ms   O.   Sapozhnikova, a lawyer practising in Kyiv [1] . The second applicant was represented by Mr M. Tarakhkalo, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. 3.     The Government were represented by their then Agent, Mr   I.   Lishchyna, and subsequently by their Acting Agent, Ms O.   Davydchuk. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows [2] . Background information regarding the second applicant’s identity 5.     In certain case material the second applicant is referred to as “Levin David Borisovich”, a Russian national. Until December 2009 he identified himself by that name, in accordance with his ID   documents. However, a check of his fingerprints through the Russian automated centralised fingerprint identification system, which was undertaken on 14   December 2009, showed a complete match with those of Batikyan David Batikovich, an Armenian national who had been convicted of double murder and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in Armenia in 1990 and who had escaped from prison in 1992. The   investigation established that subsequently the second applicant had unlawfully obtained a Russian passport and had been living in Russia and the United Kingdom. In 2002 he had been convicted of financial fraud and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in the United Kingdom. Events of 2 October 2009 6.     On 2 October 2009, at about 2.30 p.m., a shooting broke out at the entrance to the F. shopping centre in Kyiv, during which its co-owner Sh.A. and his two bodyguards were shot dead and one of its employees was wounded. 7 .     On the same date a criminal investigation was opened into the shooting. According to eyewitnesses, the victims had been shot by two men who had approached the entrance to the shopping centre in a blue car. One of them, wounded by Sh.A.’s bodyguards, had fled in the same car. The other had pursued and kept shooting at Sh.A as he ran inside the shopping centre. Afterwards, he had also fled in a passing car, after threatening the driver, S.M., with a pistol. S.M. reported the incident to the police as soon as he had left the gunman at the location indicated by him (close to the second applicant’s address). One of the cartridges found in the shopping centre was eventually found to bear the second applicant’s fingerprints. 8 .     Later that day a blue Chevrolet with gunshot marks was involved in an accident. The driver, A.O., an Armenian national, had several gunshot wounds, from which he died without regaining consciousness. The police established that A.O. had been sharing a rented flat with the second applicant and the latter’s common-law wife, R.N. A pistol and a number of bullets and cartridge cases were seized from the car. Subsequently, ballistic experts traced some of the bullets fired at the entrance to the shopping centre to the gun seized from the car. The gunshot marks in the car and the bullets found in A.O.’s body, in turn, were traced to the gun seized by the police from one of Sh.A.’s killed bodyguards. Furthermore, one of the cartridge cases in the Chevrolet, as eventually established, bore the second applicant’s fingerprints. 9.     Late on the evening of 2 October 2009, the second applicant and R.N. visited a relative of the latter in Zhytomyr Region, about 100   km from Kyiv. Alleged ill-treatment of the second applicant and his common-law wife and the relevant investigation 10 .     On the night of 3 to 4 October 2009 the police arrested the second applicant and R.N. and took them to the Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy temporary detention facility (“the Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy ITT”) in Boyarka. They both alleged having been subjected to ill-treatment and threats with a view to extracting a confession from the second applicant to the triple murder and coercing R.N. into incriminating him. As regards the second applicant 11.     The second applicant was detained in the Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy ITT for about a month. According to him, throughout his detention, he was subjected to continuous ill-treatment consisting of blows to the head and kidneys, as well as strangulation with a plastic bag. He also alleged that the investigator had threatened him with R.N.’s ill-treatment and criminal prosecution as an accomplice. The Government contested the above allegations as untruthful. 12 .     On 5 October 2009 the second applicant underwent a forensic medical examination at the Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations, with a view to establishing whether he had any injuries and, if so, when and how they had been inflicted. He told the expert that he had not been ill-treated. It was noted in the report that the second applicant had no injuries apart from some old ulcers on his legs and a fresh scar on his left hand from surgery for a finger infection. 13 .     On 7 October 2009 an ambulance was called for the second applicant, allegedly after he had fainted from being strangled with a plastic bag. According to the ambulance records, the second applicant was diagnosed with drug withdrawal syndrome and provided with assistance. 14.     On 15 October 2009 the second applicant confessed to the murder of Sh.A. and his bodyguards (see paragraph 31 below). 15 .     On 2 November 2009, once transferred from the Kyyevo ‑ Svyatoshynskyy ITT to the Kyiv ITT, the second applicant retracted his initial confession and complained that it had been extracted from him by physical ill-treatment and psychological pressure (see also paragraph 36 below). 16.     From 8 to 17 November 2009 he was again detained in the Kyyevo ‑ Svyatoshynskyy ITT, where he was allegedly subjected to further ill ‑ treatment and threats. 17 .     On 16 March 2010 the investigator in charge of the case separated the second applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment from his case file and sent them to the Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) for investigation. On 23 April 2010 the district prosecutor’s office issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned, mainly referring to their denial of any coercion of the second applicant. The prosecutor also noted that the Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy ITT’s logbook did not contain any records on the second applicant’s complaints or injuries upon his arrival there on 4   October 2009. 18.     According to the second applicant, he was not notified of that decision. He reiterated his allegations of ill-treatment in the course of his trial and thereafter, but they were dismissed on the grounds that the matter had already been investigated (see also paragraph 61 below). As regards R.N. 19 .     R.N. did not lodge any formal complaints of ill-treatment by the police. That said, although R.N. changed her statements many times, alleging pressure either from the second applicant to exculpate him or from the investigator to incriminate the second applicant, she repeatedly submitted that she had been held in unrecorded detention for about a week at the Kyyevo ‑ Svyatoshynskyy police station, where the police had kept her seated on a chair while shackled to a radiator, beaten her to the point of dislocating her jaw, pulled her hair and prevented her from resting or eating until she agreed to give the statements expected of her (see paragraphs 48, 50-51, 60 and 69 below). For about two weeks thereafter, R.N. was allegedly held against her will under police guard in some unspecified premises in Bila Tserkva. After that, the investigator allegedly gave her some money and put her on a train to St   Petersburg. That was allegedly part of an arrangement between the investigator and the second applicant. Even though R.N. repeatedly stressed that she did not wish to pursue any complaints against the police, the trial court forwarded her allegations to the prosecution authorities for investigation. 20 .     On 1 July 2012 the district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police in that regard, referring to the investigator’s statements denying any coercion of R.N., as well as the absence of any complaints from the latter. Criminal proceedings against the applicants Pre-trial investigation 21 .     Shortly after the arrest of the second applicant and R.N. on the night of 3 to 4 October 2009, from 4 a.m. to 6 a.m., a search was carried out at his home, in the presence of R.N., on the basis of an urgent search warrant issued by the head of the Kyyevo-Svyatoshynskyy police earlier that night. The police seized, in particular, some documents belonging to A.O., numerous packets of SIM cards, several bags and a GPS device. 22 .     Later on 4 October 2009, at about 5.30 p.m., the police conducted “an inspection of the scene of the events” at the second applicant’s home, after making him sign, allegedly under duress, a written permission to that effect. This time, the police found and seized a metal pipe-shaped object (later identified as a pistol silencer) and several items of men’s clothing (later identified as worn by the person who had killed Sh.A. and his bodyguards). The inspection was carried out by the investigator in the presence of two   “specialists”, with no further details being available. 23 .     The police conducted a personal search on the second applicant the same day, as a result of which it seized seven mobile telephones and thirteen SIM cards. Furthermore, swabs were taken from his hands, face, ears, hair and nails. As stated in a report of 19 October 2009, a forensic laboratory examination revealed that they contained gunshot residue. 24 .     The case file contains several conflicting statements made by R.N. on 4 October 2009. When questioned as a witness that morning, she stated that she and the second applicant had moved to Kyiv for his treatment for drug addiction, that his acquaintance A.O., who had stayed with them for some time, had had two occasional visitors, A. and E., with whom he had left on 2   October 2009. R.N. also submitted that the second applicant had come home on the afternoon of 2 October 2009 looking worried and had told her that A.O. had had a car accident and that they had to leave. However, during further questioning as a witness on the evening on 4   October 2009, R.N. submitted that the second applicant and A.O. had been gathering information about Sh.A., that she had seen two pistols in the flat and that, after returning home on the afternoon of 2   October 2009, the second applicant, appearing anxious, had washed his clothes and told her that he had killed Sh.A. and that they had to leave urgently. She also submitted that he had telephoned “Merab from Moscow” (the first applicant) and said: “Everything is fine. The only problem is that the secretary has stayed behind. I’ve got the papers signed and sealed.” R.N. also said that A. and E., whom she had previously mentioned, did not exist and that she had only referred to them upon the second applicant’s instructions. Furthermore, on 4 October 2009 (apparently between the above-mentioned two interviews), R.N. also wrote “a statement of voluntary surrender to the police”, the content of which was similar to that in the second interview mentioned. 25 .     On the evening of 4 October 2009 a report on the second applicant’s arrest was drawn up. It stated that he was suspected of the murder of three persons, including two police officers [3] . He wrote that he wished to be represented by a lawyer and that he had not shot anybody. He also reiterated his wish to be legally represented when signing, on 5   October 2009, a report stating that his procedural rights as a suspect had been explained to him. 26 .     During further questioning as a witness on 6 October 2009, R.N. submitted that the second applicant had told her that the first applicant [4] had hired him “to do some job”. She also stated that when the second applicant had returned home on the afternoon on 2   October 2009, she had heard some noise which, according to him, had been caused by him throwing the pistol in the waste disposal unit. 27 .     On 6 October 2009 the investigator, referring to the fact that the criminal offence imputed to the second applicant was potentially punishable by a life sentence, appointed a lawyer, O.V., for him [1] . According to the second applicant, he had no confidential meetings with that lawyer without the police being present. During his questioning that day in the lawyer’s presence, the second applicant refused to give evidence or answer any questions. 28 .     On 7 October 2009 an employee of the local public utilities service in charge of cleaning the communal areas of the building in which the second applicant was renting a flat handed over a pistol to the police which, according to her, she had found in the waste disposal unit on 3   October 2009. She explained the delay by the fact that she had initially given the pistol to one of the residents, who was supposed to have taken it to the police but had not had time. Ballistic experts traced numerous bullets fired in the shopping centre to the pistol. Furthermore, an expert conclusion was issued stating that its trigger had contained skin epithelial cells, the genetic characteristics of which matched those of the second applicant. One of the bullets in the magazine bore his fingerprints. 29 .     On 8 October 2009 an identification parade was carried out, during which S.M. recognised the second applicant as the person who had threatened him with a pistol and to whom he had given a lift (see also paragraph 7 above). According to the second applicant, S.M. was not conclusive in his statements. The case file also contains the identification parade reports of 8   October 2009 stating that two eyewitnesses recognised the second applicant as the person who had shot at Sh.A., whereas another witness recognised him as the person who had been enquiring about Sh.A. and his security arrangements. 30 .     On 12 October 2009 the second applicant expressed his wish to be represented by L.B., a lawyer hired by his relatives. The following day, however, the investigator rejected that request on the grounds that L.B. was aware of certain information of relevance to the investigation and was to be questioned as a witness. L.B. was, however, never questioned as a witness. Nor was there any indication of how she could be linked to the events under investigation. She was admitted in the proceedings as the second applicant’s lawyer more than three months later (see paragraph 39 below). 31 .     On 15 October 2009 the second applicant was questioned as an accused in the presence of lawyer O.V. He confessed that he and his friend A.O. had shot Sh.A. and his bodyguards. He submitted that the killings had not been premeditated. According to him, A.O. had only intended to scare Sh.A. or even kidnap him [5] with a view to making him repay a considerable debt to some people in Moscow, and he had agreed to help his friend. The shooting had allegedly been started by Sh.A.’s bodyguards, when he and A.O. had approached them at the entrance to the shopping centre and he had ordered Sh.A. and the bodyguards not to move. He explained that he and A.O. had not expected any armed resistance. However, once the bodyguards had reached for their weapons, he and A.O. had had to shoot. The first applicant’s name was not mentioned in the above-mentioned statement. 32 .     On 16 October 2009 the second applicant reiterated the same version of events during a reconstruction of the crime, which was conducted in the presence of lawyer O.V. This time, he added that he had thrown the gun into the waste disposal unit of his building. 33.     On various dates Sh.A.’s relatives informed the police that they suspected the first applicant, who was also their relative, of ordering the murder. They submitted that the first applicant had been in conflict with Sh.A. concerning their joint business and that the former had repeatedly threatened to kill the latter unless he transferred part of his share in the shopping centre to him. After Sh.A.’s death, the first applicant had allegedly reiterated that demand to the family. 34.     On 20 October 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against the first applicant on suspicion of ordering the murder, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. 35 .     On 22 October 2009 an additional lawyer, O.S., was appointed for the second applicant, with his agreement, because there were numerous investigative measures to be carried out. 36 .     On 2 November 2009 the investigator conducted further questioning of the second applicant as an accused, in the presence of his new lawyer O.S. This time, he denied his involvement in the shooting and claimed to have only helped his friend A.O. to gather information about Sh.A., since the latter had supposedly had a considerable debt to repay. He replied in the negative to questions asking whether he knew or had ever met the first applicant. He complained that his initial confession (see paragraph 31 above) had been extracted from him through physical ill-treatment and psychological pressure. 37 .     On 12 November 2009 a forensic psychiatric examination report was issued concerning the second applicant, which had been ordered to assess his mental fitness to stand trial. It stated that he had refused to communicate on the record with the experts on the grounds that he had not been provided with a lawyer of his choice. Likewise, he had refused to state whether he had any complaints. At the same time, he had specified that that should not be interpreted as suggesting that he had none. The expert report found the second applicant fit to stand trial. It contained, inter alia , the following remark: “No clinical signs of drug addiction or alcoholism were detected during the pre-trial investigation.” 38.     On 10 December 2009 an additional lawyer started representing the second applicant at his request. 39 .     On 24 February 2010 lawyer L.B. (see paragraph 30 above) was also admitted as his representative [6] [2] . 40 .     On 25 January 2011 the second applicant refused the services of lawyers O.V. and O.S. (see paragraphs 27 and 35 above). 41 .     As confirmed by the visitors’ logbooks of the Kyiv and Zhytomyr SIZOs, the investigator visited the second applicant in detention, without his lawyers being present, on at least twenty occasions between November 2009 and April 2011. According to the second applicant, those visits were undocumented and used to put pressure on him. 42.     On 12 July 2010 the first applicant was arrested in Russia, and on 18   March 2011 he was extradited to Ukraine. He refused to give evidence, alleging that his arrest, detention and prosecution had been unlawful. 43 .     The case file contains a written statement by the second applicant of 12   April 2011, in which he submitted that once he found out about the first applicant’s extradition to Ukraine, he wished to give statements about the latter’s involvement in Sh.A.’s murder and that he did not need his lawyer to be present. According to him, he wrote the statement under pressure from the investigator while he was in solitary confinement. During his questioning as a witness on that date, he submitted that he had contacted the first applicant in July 2009 to seek assistance in recovering a debt from some people. The latter had allegedly asked him in exchange to kidnap Sh.A.’s son with a view to forcing Sh.A. to pay him some money. According to the second applicant, he and A.O. were supposed to collect all the required information in Kyiv and prepare an action plan, after which the first applicant was to send his people there. When everything was ready, two men, A. and E., arrived in Kyiv. About a week before the shooting, the first applicant allegedly told the second applicant that Sh.A. had agreed to pay the money and that the kidnapping was no longer necessary. The second applicant further submitted that, having accidentally picked up A.O.’s telephone on 1   October 2009, he had heard the first applicant shout that Sh.A. had lied and that the first applicant would kill him for it. As regards the events on 2 October 2009, he alleged that A.O., together with A. and E., had left in his car. After the shooting A. and E. had allegedly informed him of what had happened and left. 44 .     On 29 July 2011 the second applicant, with procedural status as a witness, identified, in particular, the first applicant, A.O. and Sh.A. on the photographs presented by the investigator. Proceedings before the District Court 45.     In October 2011 the applicants’ criminal cases were joined into one, and the District Court started the trial. It decided to hold the hearings in Russian for the applicants’ convenience. 46 .     On 9 November 2011 Sh.A.’s relatives requested the court to hold the trial in camera , “having regard to the fact that [the first applicant’s] relatives present in the court [were] constantly threatening [them] with reprisals and that they perceive[d] those threats as real, as well as given that the public hearing could encroach upon [their] commercial secrets and private life”. Referring to Article 20 § 2 and Article 52-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), as well the Law   “On Ensuring the   Safety of Persons Participating in Criminal Trials” (see paragraph 89 below), the court allowed that request and continued the trial in camera . This was recorded in the minutes of the hearing, with no written decision having been issued. 47 .     During the trial, the first applicant denied all the accusations against him while the second applicant only admitted to having participated in the preparations for kidnapping Sh.A.’s son. The second applicant’s statements in court were similar to those he had made on 12   April 2011 (see paragraph   43 above). 48 .     On 22 February 2012 R.N. gave evidence at the hearing. She requested to testify either from a different room, by video camera, or without the second applicant being present. R.N. explained that request by “fears for her life and health”. The trial court decided to examine her without the second applicant being present. Nor was the first applicant present. By that time he had been removed from the courtroom, until the end of the hearing, for improper behaviour (see paragraph 58 below). R.N. submitted that the second applicant, together with A.O., had appeared to be monitoring Sh.A.’s son. As regards the events of 2   October 2009, her only submission was that the second applicant had come home looking anxious and told her that A.O. had had a car accident and that they had to leave. According to R.N., she only found out about the shooting from the media. She retracted her earlier statements inculpating the defendants as false and extorted by the investigative authorities by ill-treatment. 49.     At 7 p.m. on 22 February 2012 a short break was announced for technical reasons, after which R.N.’s examination continued, apparently in the presence of at least one lawyer from each defendant. 50 .     R.N. also appeared in court on 23 February 2012. This time, she complained that the second applicant and his lawyer had been putting pressure on her with a view to making her retract the statements incriminating him which she had given during the pre-trial investigation. R.N   alleged that in January 2012 the second applicant had threatened her by telephone that he would find her anywhere if she did not agree to make statements favourable for him. Supposedly, he had dictated her the expected testimonies. R.N. provided their handwritten text to the court. While submitting that she had given those statements of her free will, she mentioned that she had been ill ‑ treated by the police after her apprehension in October 2009 (see paragraph 19 above). 51 .     On 14 March 2012 R.N. submitted a written statement to the trial court that she wished to “give truthful testimony” in the case, which she had been prevented from doing so until then because of police pressure. More specifically, she alleged that police officers had threatened to change her procedural status from a witness to an accused if she did not cooperate. R.N. requested the court to consider her earlier submissions incriminating the applicants as invalid. She stated that she would not be opposed to testifying in their presence. 52.     On the same day, in the course of the hearing, R.N. felt unwell and said that she was unable to testify. An ambulance was called at her request, and she was taken to the Central Hospital of the Ministry of the Interior. She stayed there until 21 March 2012 for inpatient treatment for hypertension. 53 .     Also on 14 March 2012 the trial court instructed the district prosecutor’s office to investigate R.N.’s allegations of pressure by the police and the second applicant. The outcome of the investigation into the alleged pressure by the investigator is unknown. As regards the investigation into the alleged pressure on R.N. by the second applicant, the relevant information, which is available in the case file, is mentioned in paragraph 56 below). 54 .     On 16 March 2012 R.N. submitted another written statement to the court suggesting that she had been under pressure from the second applicant to give false exculpatory evidence and that her evidence given at the pre-trial stage had been correct. She alleged that from 10 to 14 March 2012, a friend of the second applicant had held her in a rented flat, taken her mobile telephone and hired two bodyguards to accompany her at all times. R.N. also claimed that the second applicant had telephoned her from the SIZO and threatened her. She asked if her future testimony could be given from different premises. 55.     On 21 March 2012 the District Court considered the above-mentioned statement and allowed R.N.’s request to be examined from a different room. It was decided that she would testify by telephone on loudspeaker. The second applicant strongly objected to that arrangement and announced his wish to leave. Although his request was rejected, the trial court eventually decided to remove him from the courtroom for disturbing order (he had been trying to leave the courtroom in spite of the convoy ). One of his lawyers also left and another was removed for disobeying the presiding judge’s orders. Given the second applicant’s absence, R.N. agreed to testify in the courtroom. She made statements incriminating the applicants similar to those of 4 [7] and 6   October 2009 (see paragraphs 24 and 26 above). R.N. also mentioned that she had been ill-treated in police custody. Her allegation was sent to the prosecution authorities for investigation. 56 .     On 9 April 2012 the Kyiv Regional Prisons Department informed the trial court, apparently in the context of the investigation into possible pressure by the second applicant on R.N. (see paragraph 54 above), that there was no evidence that he had been able to make telephone calls from the SIZO. 57.     On 4 May 2012 R.N.’s statements were read out to the second applicant, who was provided with the opportunity to comment on them. 58 .     On 24 May 2012 the District Court ordered the first applicant to be removed from the courtroom until the end of the trial for repeatedly disrupting order. Prior to that decision, the presiding judge had reprimanded him at least twenty-five times for improper conduct, including shouting, interrupting speakers, making obscene gestures and disrespectful comments, ignoring the presiding judge’s orders and addressing witnesses in the Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish. The first applicant had been repeatedly warned that he might be removed from the courtroom until the end of the proceedings. On two   occasions, on 22 February and 21   March 2012, he had been removed temporarily, until the end of the hearing session. In its decision on the first applicant’s removal from the courtroom on 24 May 2012, the trial court noted that, despite numerous remarks and warnings, he had made no effort to change his behaviour. It was also noted that during his absence, his defence interests would be assured by the obligatory presence of his lawyer in the courtroom. 59 .     From 30 July to 30 August 2012 an expert of the Main Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations of the Ministry of Public Health analysed the video recordings of the shooting and those of various investigation measures involving the second applicant. The expert also examined the second applicant in person, with a view to establishing, on the trial court’s instructions, whether the man armed with a pistol pursuing and killing Sh.A. on the video recordings could have been him. In his conclusion of 30   August 2012, the expert held that the quality of the video recordings from the shopping centre was too poor to allow clear identification of the perpetrator’s face. The overall facial and body proportions were, however, identifiable. The expert was also able to establish the height of the perpetrator and the length of his limbs. A visual inspection of the second applicant confirmed that his height, facial and body proportions corresponded to those of the person on the video recording of the shooting. Furthermore, they had the same receding hairline and same hairstyle. It was deemed highly plausible that the person on the video recording from the shopping centre was the second applicant. The expert noted that a more precise conclusion was not possible because of the low resolution of the video. 60 .     In August 2012 R.N. filed two further statements with the trial court indicating that her statements inculpating the second applicant in the shooting were false and had been extorted from her as a result of police ill-treatment and pressure. The statements had been written in the territory of the Russian Federation, one in the presence of a lawyer and the other in the presence of a notary. R.N. explained that she had moved to Russia in order to avoid unlawful influence from the investigative authorities and Sh.A.’s family and that she was ready to provide further testimony, but only on Russian territory. She stated that, in order to extort her first statement in October 2009, the police authorities had held her in unrecorded detention for several weeks and ill-treated her. She further submitted that, when on 14 March 2012 she had wished to give truthful testimony, the investigator and his colleagues had met her in the corridor of the court building and pressured her not to do so. According to R.N., even when she was in hospital, the investigator visited her and continued to put pressure on her to oblige her to maintain her previous submissions. 61 .     On 8 November 2012 the District Court found the first applicant guilty of ordering a contract killing and acquiring the means to carry it out and the second applicant, in particular, of its execution. The applicants were sentenced to life imprisonment.   In establishing the second applicant’s guilt, the trial court referred to his confession statements of 15 and 16   October 2009 (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above), even though he had later retracted them (see paragraph 36 above). While the judgment contained a summary of the second applicant’s statements made in court, in which he had incriminated the first applicant and denied his own involvement in the shooting (see paragraph 47 above), it is not clear to what extent the trial court referred to those statements in establishing the first applicant’s guilt. The District Court referred, in particular, to R.N.’s statements incriminating the second applicant and, indirectly, the first applicant. It dismissed as unfounded the allegations of ill-treatment of R.N. and the second applicant in police custody, referring to the investigation of the matter by the prosecution authorities. 62 .     The trial court also referred to statements by Sh.A.’s relatives, who submitted that he had told them many times about receiving threats from the first applicant, as well as statements of Sh.A.’s numerous friends, associates and employees on the existence of a conflict between him and the first applicant. The court also referred, inter alia , to pr