CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD8F5C0B { width:6.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDDF3F815 { width:19.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE60AC552 { width:23.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFA47E2D4 { width:16.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF33261A4 { width:16.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCDFAFC34 { width:6.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC681714 { width:19.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA43A47F5 { width:23.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s529385BB { width:16.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s894AA5EE { width:16.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 21 February 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 61080/14 Mykyta Mykolayovych LISIN and Maryna Vadymivna LISINA against Ukraine lodged on 2 September 2014 communicated on 31 January 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 5 December 2013 Mr   M. Lisin (“the first applicant”) was abducted by several persons , who detained and threatened to murder him. The next day the police started criminal investigation into that matter following a complaint of his mother, Ms   M. Lisina (“the second applicant”). On 12   December 2013 she paid a ransom to the abductors who then released the first applicant. In January 2014 the police arrested four suspected abductors, found part of the ransom at their place of residence and eventually returned the money thus found to the applicants. By the Act of 27   February 2014, the Verkhovna Rada (the Parliament of Ukraine) granted individual amnesty to the suspected abductors in response to the “political repressions” during the series of protests in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 21 February 2014 (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9 and 211, 21 January 2021). By four decisions of 14   March 2014, the Shevchenkivskyy District Court in Kyiv released the suspected abductors from detention and terminated the criminal proceedings against them on the basis of the Act of 27 February 2014. The first applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the authorities did not fully investigate his abduction and detention by the suspected abductors, during which he was subjected to mental suffering due to the threats to his life.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the first applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, regarding his complaints under Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Was the first applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     If so, has Ukraine complied with its positive obligations under Article   3 of the Convention (see   M.C. v. Bulgaria , no.   39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII; Denis Vasilyev v. Russia , no.   32704/04, §§ 98-99, 17   December 2009; Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine , no. 54755/08, §§ 42-44, 14   November 2013; Abdu v. Bulgaria , no.   26827/08, § 51, 11 March 2014; and Sabalić v.   Croatia , no. 50231/13, §§ 97-98, 14   January 2021)?   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence   1. Mykyta Mykolayovych LISIN 1992 Ukrainian Kyiv “The first applicant” 2. Maryna Vadymivna LISINA 1966 Ukrainian Kyiv “The second applicant”