CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 13 avril 2023

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCEF2C954 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2023)86 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Eight cases against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 April 2023 at the 1463 rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 38718/16 ALEKSANDROVSKAYA 25/03/2021 25/03/2021 64973/19+ BIDASHKO AND SAGAYDAK 10/06/2021 10/06/2021 64054/19 GONCHAR 15/04/2021 15/04/2021 23312/15 ISTOMINA 13/01/2022 13/04/2022 43374/14 KONOPLYOV 28/01/2021 28/01/2021 7670/11 LABAZNIKOV 25/03/2021 25/03/2021 82724/17+ MINAYEV AND KORZH 16/12/2021 16/12/2021 7220/19 POVAROV 20/02/2020 20/02/2020   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”,   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established mainly on account of unlawful detention and excessive length of detention on remand as well as the lack of judicial review compatible with the standards laid down in the Court’s case-law and an enforceable right to compensation (violations of Articles 5, paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5);   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action plan provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2023)38-add );   Considering that the question of individual measures has been resolved in these cases, given that the applicants are no longer in detention on remand and that all required individual measures have also been taken in respect of the other violations found by the Court; noting in that respect that the criminal proceedings have concluded in the cases of Bidashko and Sagaydak, and Labaznikov, ;   Recalling that the Committee will continue to supervise the general measures and the outstanding questions related to the application of detention on remand under the 2012 Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of the Ignatov group of cases and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required;   Noting that questions related to excessive length of criminal proceedings, raised by the of Bidashko and Sagaydak, and Labaznikov cases, are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Merit group of cases;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these judgments in relation, in particular, to the confinement in a metal cage during the criminal hearings were examined within the framework of the Lutsenko (No. 2) group of cases closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)139 ;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.