CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 avril 2025

.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 } Published on 12 May 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31582/20 Tamara Arkhypivna BARSUK and Vira Ivanivna GYL against Ukraine lodged on 20 July 2020 communicated on 25 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants complain, under Articles 3, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention, about an alleged failure of domestic authorities to investigate effectively an attack against them by Mr S., allegedly motivated by prejudice against Jehovah’s Witnesses, which occurred on 15 March 2016 and during which the applicants suffered, in particular, head injuries. They mainly complain that Mr S. was only prosecuted for infliction of minor injuries, that alleged religious motives for the attack were not taken account and investigated and that there was a considerable delay in the proceedings which are still pending. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the domestic authorities carried out an effective investigation into the alleged attacks on the applicants and the alleged motives of religious animosity behind them, in particular having regard to the requirements of Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention (see, for example and   mutatis mutandis , Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and   Others v. Georgia , no.   71156/01, 3 May 2007; Milanović v.   Serbia , no.   44614/07, 14 December 2010;   Begheluri v. Georgia , no.   28490/02, 7   October 2014)?   2.     In respect of the remainder of the applicants’ complaints, do they disclose a violation of the Convention, as claimed by the applicants?