CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sEC176AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s9C3E97BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s19365324 { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sFB48221D { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .s77D491C3 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s67EF6F4D { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000 } .s30612871 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s63DE7A05 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .sBB86AD60 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s6590E94B { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sF5B60BAC { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s9D09E579 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s99683A33 { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s5822B218 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s3111C198 { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s8128D712 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s80769392 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sE03A6BB5 { width:6.61pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s2B2DD707 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 102.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sC911D127 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s6C3C4E73 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s6003C493 { width:3.67pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sE65948B1 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 119.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s812DBC9D { width:4.56pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s760764FD { width:4.59pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s8E9EC3CD { width:4.77pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s1D7ABBF2 { width:5.88pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sE91D41C2 { width:0.22pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5C7BDFE7 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s70A22B7 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sB62D78AB { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s345071AF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5D1791A9 { margin-left:32.2pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFB30C84 { width:4.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB8146D86 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:55.89pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sBAD083C4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:55.33pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:5.22pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s5B13CDFF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:53.11pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.44pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s21CADDBE { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s562475CC { width:17.97pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s1B1D10B4 { 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 } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .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 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; 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 } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s14AC500A { width:3.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9119587A { width:8.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s52D30713 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:61.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-25.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAD05B12B { width:13.2pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sB5B0CEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .s508C6528 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:63.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt; text-align:justify } .s62C9077C { width:10.15pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD27F934 { margin-left:51.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sE1003A67 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:63.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF913DDB9 { width:10.2pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B65A808 { margin-left:34pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; 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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB4BC8881 { width:33.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s93604E3F { width:144.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4E2E8B1 { height:46.8pt } .s10A45C3E { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; vertical-align:top } .s41CEE2EF { border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; vertical-align:top } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s693B3CF2 { width:28.5pt } .s62167B22 { width:120.1pt } .s50380C66 { width:191.35pt } .sB2147B03 { width:49.65pt } .s65C8B9D3 { width:119.7pt } .s8E6950B8 { width:0.75pt } .sAEE85C5D { width:130.8pt } .s7B43D7B5 { width:0.6pt } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF VYACHESLAVOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 39553/16 and 6 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 19 • Ensure observance of engagements • Mass disorder in Odesa in May 2014 and a fire in the Trade Union Building resulting in loss of life and injuries • Court’s role limited to the examination of the Respondent State’s international responsibility albeit some wrongdoings being attributable to its former local officials who fled Ukraine to the Russian Federation • Consideration given to general context, in particular, the Russian Federation’s established involvement in the events in Crimea and the east of Ukraine Art 2 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Life • Death of some of the applicants’ relatives from firearm injuries during street clashes or the fire and injuries of some of the applicants from that fire • Respondent State’s failure to do everything that could be reasonably expected of it to prevent, and then stop, the violence • Real and immediate risk to life • Negligence attributable to State officials and authorities went beyond an error of judgment or carelessness of individuals involved • Police’s passivity rendered them partly responsible for violence resulting in the loss of lives • Failure to ensure timely rescue measures for persons trapped in the fire Art 2 (procedural) • Positive obligations • Domestic authorities’ failure to institute and carry out an effective investigation into the events • Investigation neither promptly opened nor pursued with reasonable expedition • Prohibitive delays, significant periods of unexplained inactivity and stagnation • Resulting expiry of the applicable limitation period stripped continuing investigations of any possible usefulness and thus of any potential effectiveness • Lack of independence • Failure to ensure sufficient involvement of the victims and public scrutiny • Allegation of lack of impartiality not substantiated Art 8 • Private and family life • Inability of one of the applicants to recover her father’s body for burial for at least four months • Retention of the body by the authorities devoid of any legitimate aim   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 13 March 2025   FINAL   13/06/2025     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   INTRODUCTION THE FACTS I.   Background A.   General context B.   Background events in Odesa II.   Events on 2 May 2014 A.   Introductory remarks B.   Events prior to the clashes C.   Clashes in the city centre D.   Fire in the Trade Union Building III.   Events on 4 May 2014 IV.   Domestic investigations A.   Evidence securing and handling 1.   As regards the deaths of the applicants’ relatives from firearm injuries (a)   Material evidence (b)   Forensic evidence (c)   Photographic and video evidence 2.   As regards the deaths of the applicants’ relatives and the injuries of other applicants as a result of the fire in the Trade Union Building (a)   Material evidence (b)   Forensic evidence (c)   Photographic and video evidence B.   Investigations in respect of private individuals 1.   Authorities in charge 2.   Case no. 3700 3.   Cases nos. 0451 and 0494 4.   Case no. 0450 5.   Case no. 0456 6.   Case no. 0380 7.   Case no. 0613 8.   Other cases C.   Investigations in respect of the police 1.   Authorities in charge 2.   Case no. 0186 3.   Cases nos. 1126, 1219 and 0500 4.   Case no. 2821 5.   Case no. 1165 6.   Case no. 0363 7.   Case no. 0713 8.   Case no. 0441 D.   Investigations in respect of the SES officials 1.   Internal inquiry 2.   Criminal investigations (a)   Authorities in charge (b)   Case no. 0154 (c)   Case no. 0119 (d)   Case no. 1428 V.   Facts relating to the identification of the body of Ms   Vyacheslavova’s father and its retention by the investigating authorities (application no.   39553/16) VI.   Subsequent events RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   Relevant domestic law (as worded at the material time) A.   Criminal Code of 2001 B.   Code of Criminal Procedure of 2012 C.   Police Act of 1990 (in force until 2   July 2015) D.   Order no. 1345 of the Ministry of the Interior of 11 November 2003 on quelling mass riots II.   Other relevant domestic material A.   Findings by the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights (“the Ombudsperson”) B.   Report of the Parliament Temporary Investigation Commission on its inquiry into the deaths in Odesa (approved on 2 September 2014) C.   Findings by the “2 May Group” NGO concerning the fire in the   Trade Union Building III.   Material from Council of Europe bodies A.   Resolution 1988 (2014) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the   Council of Europe (PACE) on recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning of democratic institutions, adopted on 9   April 2014 B.   Information note published by the PACE Committee on the   Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe on 25 August 2014, following their fact-finding visit to Kyiv and Odesa (7 to 11   July 2014) C.   Report by the International Advisory Panel (IAP) IV.   Material from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) V.   European Parliament resolutions THE LAW I.   JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS II.   Role of the Court III.   Alleged violations of Article 2 of the Convention A.   Admissibility 1.   The parties’ submissions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Preliminary remark (b)   General case-law principles (c)   Application of the above principles to the present cases (i)   Failure to apply for procedural status of victim in all sets of proceedings (ii)   Failure to lodge a civil claim in criminal proceedings (iii)   Ongoing criminal proceedings B.   Merits 1.   Substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention (a)   The parties’ submissions (i)   The applicants (ii)   The Government (b)   The Court’s assessment (i)   General case-law principles (ii)   Application of the above principles to the present cases (α)   Introductory remarks (β)   Failure to prevent violence (γ)   Failure to stop violence (δ)   Failure to ensure timely rescue measures (ε)   Conclusion 2.   Procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention (a)   The parties’ submissions (i)   The applicants (ii)   The Government (b)   The Court’s assessment (i)   General case-law principles (ii)   Application of the above principles to the circumstances of the present cases (α)   Adequacy of the investigation (β)   Promptness and reasonable expedition (γ)   Involvement of the victims or their next of kin and public scrutiny (δ)   Independence (ε)   Impartiality (στ)   Conclusion   IV.   Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of Ms   Vyacheslavova (application no.   39553/16) A.   Admissibility B.   Merits V.   Other alleged violations of the Convention A.   Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention B.   Complaint under Article 6 of the Convention VI.   Application of Article 41 of the Convention A.   Damage B.   Costs and expenses APPENDIX I APPENDIX II       In the case of Vyacheslavova and Others v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar , President ,   María Elósegui,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Gilberto Felici,   Andreas Zünd,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the seven 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 twenty-eight individuals (“the   applicants”), whose personal information and other details are set out in Appendix I to this judgment; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) and the decision to request further observations from the parties, pursuant   to Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court, in application no.   59339/17; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 11 February 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern the mass disorder and fire in Odesa [1] on 2   May   2014, which involved heavy casualties. The applicants are the next of kin of some of those who lost their lives, as well as three survivors of the fire (see the table in Appendix I to this judgment). They complained under Article   2 of the Convention that the State had failed to protect their lives or those of their relatives and that there had been no effective domestic investigation into the matter. Ms Vyacheslavova (application no.   39553/16) also complained, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the delay in handing over her father’s body for burial. THE FACTS 2 .     Ms Vyacheslavova (application no. 39553/16), who had been granted   legal aid, was represented by Mr   M. Tarakhkalo, Ms O. Chilutyan and Ms Y. Lisova, lawyers from the Ukrainian Helsinki   Human Rights Union based in Kyiv. Ms   Berezovska (application no. 52632/16) and Ms   Olena Brygar (application no.   53467/16) were represented by Mr   A.   Popov, a   lawyer practising in Kyiv. The remaining applicants (applications nos.   59339/17, 59531/17, 76896/17 and 47092/18) were represented by Mr   E. Wesselink of the Stichting Justice Initiative, a non-governmental organisation based in Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   M.   Sokorenko. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. I.         Background A.    General context 5 .     In late November 2013 a wave of mass protests began, first in Kyiv and then throughout the country, in response to the then Ukrainian government’s decision to suspend preparations for signing an Association Agreement with the European Union and instead strengthen economic ties with Russia. The   protests, which became commonly referred to as “Maidan” [2] , were marked by violent clashes between protesters and the police, with the   involvement of hundreds of so-called “titushky” ( тітушки ), private individuals reported to have carried out numerous assaults, kidnappings and murders of protesters with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of State officials (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos.   15367/14 and 13   others, §§ 10-11 and 14-15, 21   January 2021). 6.     The Maidan protests culminated on 22 February 2014, when President Yanukovych left for the Russian Federation and was removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament for failing to perform his constitutional duties (ibid.,   § 9). 7 .     A series of changes in Ukraine’s political system then took place, including the formation of a new interim government, followed by the   replacement of the leadership of, in particular, the Security Service of Ukraine (“the SSU” [3] ) and the Prosecutor General’s Office (“the PGO”), as well as the heads of regional State administrations. 8 .     In late February 2014 the Russian Federation, which by that time had considerably increased its military presence in Crimea, started to exercise effective control over the peninsula through the active involvement of its military personnel in the following events. Unidentified armed men in green military uniforms without insignia took over strategic infrastructure and the   building of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of   Crimea. At gunpoint, the Supreme Council dismissed the government of   Crimea, appointed a new “Prime Minister” and decided to hold a “referendum” on the   future status of   Crimea. That “referendum” took place on 16   March 2014 and, according to the published results, there was overwhelming support for Crimea’s integration into the Russian Federation.   On 18 March 2014 Crimea purported to join Russia on that basis. On 27 March 2014 the United Nations General Assembly underscored the invalidity of the   above-mentioned “referendum” [4] . On 9 April 2014 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe held that the “outcome of this referendum and the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation [had] no legal effect and [were] not recognised by the Council of Europe” [5] (see Ukraine v. Russia ( re   Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   211 and 214 and 315-35, 16   December 2020, and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 2   others, §   46, 30   November 2022). 9 .     In early March 2014 pro-Russian protests began across eastern regions of Ukraine. In early April 2014 they deteriorated into widespread violence. Some of the   protesters formed armed groups, which started to forcibly take control of administrative buildings across the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions. They announced the creation of self-proclaimed entities known as the   “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the “Lugansk People’s Republic”. The   separatist entities in question enjoyed military, economic and political support from the Russian Federation (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia , cited above, §§ 611-21, 628-39, 649-54, 670-75 and 684-97). B.    Background events in Odesa 10 .     Like in Kyiv, starting from late November 2013, the Maidan protests also took place in Odesa. They were dispersed by the police, reportedly with the involvement of “titushky” (see paragraph 5 above). 11 .     On 19 February 2014 a group of Maidan supporters gathered near the   Odesa Regional State Administration building. According to numerous media reports, they, along with journalists present at the event were attacked by at least a hundred people dressed in similar civilian clothes, wearing helmets and masks, and armed with baseball bats. The law-enforcement authorities did not intervene. 12.     Tensions in the city considerably increased thereafter. 13 .     As observed, in particular, by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) 2 May Group [6] , on 21   February 2014 Maidan activists announced the   creation of the “self-defence of the Odesa Euromaidan” to ensure the   safety of pro-Maidan and Euro-integration supporters’ public events. 14 .     On 23 February 2014 anti-Maidan activists made a similar announcement. They called for volunteers willing to undergo special training and subsequently patrol the city. 15 .     On 1 March 2014 a pro-Russian rally with some seven thousand participants took place in Odesa. Subsequently, pro-Russian activists set up a   tent camp at Kulykove Pole Square accommodating about two hundred people. It appears that the regional police, notably, its then Deputy Head (заступник начальника ГУ МВС України в Одеській області) Mr   Fuchedzhy [7] manifested various support to the Kulykove Pole movement [8] . 16 .     As seen in publicly available video footage of the tent camp at Kulykove Pole and various events organised by its activists, supporters of the   movement often displayed Russian and former Soviet Union flags and chanted or displayed slogans denouncing the new government as a “fascist junta” and calling for a referendum and federalisation of Ukraine into semi ‑ autonomous regions. Some people were seen holding placards expressing hope for a repeat of the Crimean scenario in Odesa and calling for the Russian Federation to embrace their city. Popular songs about the “Great Patriotic War” (the term used for the Second World War in the Soviet Union) containing calls to fight fascism were broadcast over loudspeakers. A large screen was installed at Kulykove Pole, showing programmes from Russian State-run news channels. 17.     While an idea of creation of the so-called “Odesa People’s Republic” and “Novorossia” started circulating at some point on the internet, the   Kulykove Pole activists apparently publicly denied their involvement. 18.     On 2 March 2014 a pro-unity rally took place in Odesa, with seven to ten thousand participants, according to media reports. The participants called for preserving a united Ukraine. They mainly protested against the Russian military presence in Crimea (see paragraph 8 above) and emphasised that they would not tolerate a similar scenario in Odesa. 19 .     On 3 March 2014, while the Odesa Regional Council was holding an   extraordinary session devoted to the situation in the region and Ukraine as a whole, pro-Russian protesters stormed the building and tried, without success, to force the Council to adopt decisions in favour of federalisation and a local referendum. They also took down the Ukrainian flag from the   flagpole and raised a Russian flag in its place. Serious clashes with pro ‑ unity activists, who had also arrived at the scene, were avoided owing to a   police cordon between the two sides. 20.     As reported in the mass media, on 17 March 2014 the law ‑ enforcement authorities arrested one of the leaders of the pro-Russian protesters in connection with the incident of 3 March 2014. 21 .     Subsequently, during March and April 2014, both Maidan and anti-Maidan rallies took place in Odesa on a weekly basis without any major incidents. 22.     In early April 2014 an operational headquarters was established within the Odesa Regional Police Department to ensure coordination of operational measures at the regional level in response to national security challenges and threats. A special working group was established to carry out regular monitoring of social media [9] . 23 .     Furthermore, on 17 April 2014 the Head of the Odesa Regional Police Department (начальник ГУ МВС України в Одеській області) , Mr   Lutsyuk, issued an order entitled “On organisational and practical measures to prevent the aggravation of the socio-political and criminal situation in the region”. The case file before the Court does not contain a copy of that order. According to its summary in the bill of indictment of 4   June   2021 in case no.   0363 (see paragraph 174 below), the heads of all police structural units were to immediately organise various “organisational and preventive measures aimed at: detecting any armed formations and criminal groups and organisations, including extremist, separatist and other radical ones; identifying their leaders and participants; documenting and putting an end to their illegal activities; dismantling their financial infrastructure; searching for and seizing any illegally circulating weapons and means of restraint; [and] preventing any provocations and breaches of order during public events in the region”. 24 .     At some point in late April 2014 fans of the Odesa Chornomorets and Kharkiv Metalist football clubs announced their intention to hold a joint rally in the form of a march “For a United Ukraine”, together with Maidan activists and anybody wishing to join them, on 2 May 2014 in Odesa. The rally was to start at 3 p.m. at Soborna Square, after which its participants were to walk by Derybasivska Street to the football stadium (about 2.5 km east of the   departure point) [10] , before the beginning of the football match scheduled for 5   p.m. that day. It appears that the Odesa Regional State Administration was notified of the plan [11] . 25.     The announcement triggered negative reactions from some organisations and individuals with anti-Maidan views. Posts appeared on social media describing the planned rally as a Nazi march and calling for people to gather to prevent it from taking place [12] . 26 .     On 28 April 2014 the SSU local office obtained intelligence indicating a risk of possible incitement to violence, clashes and disorder during the   football fans’ rally scheduled for 2 May 2014 [13] . On the same day an inter ‑ agency meeting was held between the heads of the local offices of the SSU and the Ministry of the Interior (“the MoI”), the PGO and the head of the   Odesa Regional State Administration, during which the intelligence was shared. On 30 April 2014 the Odesa regional office of the SSU sent a letter to Mr   Lutsyuk, the Head of the Odesa Regional Police Department (see   paragraph 23 above), informing him of the above. 27 .     According to the case-file materials in the Court’s possession [14] , on 29   April 2014 the then Deputy Head of the Odesa Regional Police Department Mr   Fuchedzhy (see paragraph 15 above), approved a “Plan of organisational and practical measures by [the regional police] to ensure public order” in relation to the football match scheduled for 2 May 2014. The   document in question was a standard contingency plan for such a   sporting event and provided for the deployment of a total of 594 policemen. 28 .     The case file before the Court also contains a “Plan to ensure public order and traffic safety during the football match [in question]”, approved by Mr Lutsyuk on 30 April 2014 [15] . That document, too, appeared to be a   standard contingency plan for a football match. It provided for involvement of about 800 policemen in total, to be deployed mainly in the stadium and the   surrounding areas, and did not mention anything about the planned pro ‑ unity rally. 29 .     On 30 April 2014 the Public Relations Unit of the MoI Main Department informed the operational headquarters of that Department that it had become aware of some plans by “sabotage groups” to destabilise the   situation in the Odesa Region during the upcoming May holidays. At   around the same time, the Cybercrime Unit of the MoI Main Department alerted the chief of the Police Headquarters, the Organised Crime Department, the Criminal Investigation Department and the Public Security Unit about social media publications that had appeared at some anti-Maidan activists’ pages suggesting the possibility of mass riots in Odesa on 2   May   2014 [16] . It is not known whether there was any follow-up to that information. II.       Events on 2 May 2014 A.    Introductory remarks 30 .     A detailed chronology of the events in Odesa on 2 May 2014 was established by the domestic investigation authorities [17] and by the   “2   MayGroup” NGO [18] . Furthermore, those events were summarised in the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (“the   OHCHR”) on the human rights situation in Ukraine of 15   June   2014, with the reference to the first-hand information from the   United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (“the UN Monitoring Mission”), whose staff members had witnessed the situation with their own eyes (see paragraphs 271-279 below). Also, a detailed summary was provided, on the basis of a variety of sources, by the IAP in its report of 4   November 2015 (see paragraphs 255-270 below). 31 .     The Government and Ms Vyacheslavova (application no. 39553/16) provided the Court with a summary of the 2 May 2014 events, relying on the   information available to them, which was consistent with that in the   aforementioned sources. The remaining applicants, including the   survivors who had directly participated in the events (Mr Didenko, Mr   Dmitriyev and Mr Gerasymov – application no. 59339/17), neither provided their factual summaries nor contested the accuracy of the reports in question. Ms   Berezovska (application no. 52632/16) submitted, in particular, that, as a   layperson with no access to official documents or power to conduct an independent investigation into the events in question, she was not in a   position to confirm or refute the Government’s version of the facts. She therefore invited the Court to take into consideration all the information available from the various public sources. 32 .     The Court will base its summary of the facts below on the parties’ submissions, the documents of relevance in the case file before it, all the   sources cited above, the pertinent information from the publicly accessible Unified State register of judicial decisions (Єдиний державний реєстр судових рішень) and the extensive publicly available photographic and video footage. 33.     The Court also considers it important to note the following. Among the relatives of the applicants in the present cases, who lost their lives on that day, there were Maidan supporters and opponents, and, possibly, simple passers-by. The applicants often preferred not to mention their relatives’ political views. The Court respects their choice and will only indicate the   political views of the individuals concerned where that is essential for establishing and understanding the events or where, in any event, the   applicants themselves made that information public. The same applies to the three applicants who were personally involved in the events under examination, namely Mr   Didenko, Mr   Dmitriyev and Mr Gerasymov (application no. 59339/17). B.    Events prior to the clashes 34 .     In the morning a patrol service regiment of 133 officers, organised into five companies, was deployed to several different locations in the city centre [19] . 35 .     At 12 noon the then Deputy Prosecutor General held a meeting with local prosecutors, law enforcement and military officers at the Odesa Regional Prosecutor’s Office to discuss public order challenges in the region. According to the information published on the MoI’s website, the meeting lasted until 4 p.m. with the participants’ telephones being switched off. However, according to the findings by the Parliamentary Temporary Investigation Commission (see paragraphs 249-250 below), the meeting had ended by 2.50 p.m. and certain officers had been contacted from outside during the meeting. 36 .     From 1 p.m. twenty policemen were deployed to Soborna Square, the   place of gathering of pro-unity protesters (see paragraph 24 above). In addition, a ten-strong Public Security Unit of the City Police Department, headed by Mr   Tashmatov (начальник відділу громадської безпеки ОМУ ГУ МВС України в Одеській області) , was deployed to the city centre area nearby. 37 .     At around 1.30 p.m., anti-Maidan protesters started to gather on Oleksandrviskyy Avenue, about 450 metres from the meeting point of the   pro-unity activists. Many of them had their faces covered with balaclavas or scarves and were wearing helmets or masks. They carried shields, axes, or wooden or metal sticks. Some had firearms [20] . When Mr Tashmatov asked the   anti-Maidan protesters why they were gathering, they replied that they were there to prevent pro-unity activists and football fans from trying to destroy the tent camp at Kulykove Pole [21] . He subsequently informed thereabout Mr   Netrebskyy, the Head of the Odesa City Police Department (начальник ОМУ ГУ МВС України в Одеській області) . 38 .     At 2 p.m. Mr   Vdovychenko, the Deputy Head of the Odesa City Police Department ( заступник начальника ОМУ ГУМС України в Одеській області ), who was at the football stadium, held a briefing for his subordinates. It appears from the available case-file materials [22] that 225 to 250 policemen were involved in ensuring order in and around the stadium. 39 .     At one point, Mr Netrebskyy instructed his deputy to deploy as many policemen as possible from the stadium to the city centre. As a result, Mr   Vdovychenko sent 120 policemen. However, they had no protective equipment. Some of them also had no means of restraint [23] . 40.     At around 3 p.m. about thirty pro-Russian activists tried to break into the headquarters of a local pro-unity NGO in the city centre. Some pro-unity activists blocked their access at the entrance. The pro-Russian supporters damaged a car parked nearby while reportedly searching for weapons, but did not find any. 41 .     Following a telephone call to the police about the events described above, one of the companies of the patrol service regiment (see paragraph 34 above), consisting of thirty officers, was deployed to the scene [24] . They set up a cordon near the entrance to the building without taking any further action. 42 .     At around the same time, Mr Fuchedzhy (see paragraphs 15 and 27 above), together with Mr   Knyshov, the commander of the patrol service regiment (командир полку патрульної служби ОМУ ГУ МВС України в Одеській області) (see paragraph 34 above), arrived in the city centre, at the   place where the pro-Russian activists were gathering. By that time, their number had grown to about 300 people. 43 .     At around 3.15 p.m. the anti-Maidan activists started moving in the   direction of the pro-unity march. They were accompanied by thirty officers of the patrol service regiment company (see paragraph 41 above) and ten policemen of the city police (see paragraph 36 above). Furthermore, Mr   Fuchedzhy and Mr Knyshov walked at the head of the column, alongside the activists’ leaders. 44 .     The number of pro-unity protesters at Soborna Square had grown, according to various data, to about 1,000 [25] to 2,000 [26] persons by then. Some of them, notably, members of the Maidan self-defence units (see   paragraph   13 above), were wearing helmets, shields and masks and carrying axes or wooden or metal sticks. Some were seen carrying firearms. C.    Clashes in the city centre 45 .     At around 3.30 p.m. the clashes started. According to all the sources available to the Court (see paragraphs 30-32 above), anti-Maidan activists approached and attacked the pro-unity supporters after those had just started their march along the planned route (that is, eastwards, in the direction of the   stadium and without manifesting any attempt to move towards the south, in the direction of Kulykove Pole (see paragraph 24 above)). The   2   May   Group observed some pro-Russian activists open fire in the   direction of pro-unity protesters using short-barrelled weapons. Both sides used pyrotechnic devices and airguns, and threw stones, stun grenades and Molotov cocktails. 46.     The only applicant directly involved in the clashes was Mr   Didenko (application no. 59339/17). As the Court has already noted (see paragraph   31 above), he did not provide any first-hand information as to what he had seen and experienced. Nor did he comment on or challenge the version of events before the Court (ibid.). That said, the Court takes note of the following document submitted by Mr   Didenko. 47 .     The case file contains a “witness statement” by Mr Didenko dated 10   July 2015, which he gave to a Russian advocate in an unknown context. Mr   Didenko, who described himself as an anti-Maidan activist, stated that he had actively participated in the clashes in the Odesa city centre. According to him, anti-Maidan activists had feared that pro-unity protesters would destroy the tent camp at Kulykove Pole and had therefore approached the pro-unity march. He submitted, without providing further details, that the law ‑ enforcement officers present in the city centre at the time had appeared to favour the pro-unity supporters. Mr   Didenko noted that the first shots had been fired in the direction of the pro-unity march, in his view – by some law ‑ enforcement officials, which had provoked the clashes. 48 .     By 3.50 p.m. law-enforcement officers had formed a cordon separating the two sides, with their backs turned on the pro-Russian activists. The latter tried to build barricades using rubbish bins. As pointed out by the   2   May Group, with reference to publicly available photographic and video footage, some police officers and certain anti-Maidan protesters were wearing similar red adhesive tape on their arms. 49 .     At 4.10 p.m. the first victim, Mr Ivanov