CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } Published on 23 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 11378/20 O.P.M. and D.O.M. against Russia lodged on 28 February 2020 communicated on 3 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application emanates from the conflict in the east of Ukraine. The applicants are the wife and son of O.I.M., who was apprehended at his house in Makiivka, Donetsk region, by militants of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) on 3 September 2018. O.I.M. was a former colonel of the Security Service of Ukraine. Since his apprehension, O.I.M. has been detained incommunicado at the detention facility Izolyatsiya operated by the “Ministry of State Security of the DPR” in Donetsk. In view of the alleged inability of O.I.M. to have any contact with the outside world, the present application was introduced on O.I.M.’s behalf by his wife, O.P.M., and their son, D.O.M. The risk of death penalty to O.I.M. On 20 September 2018 “criminal proceedings” were instituted against O.I.M. under Article 321 of the “DPR Criminal Code” for espionage, an offence that is punishable by death in the “DPR”. The only lawyers who have access to O.I.M. are those appointed by and controlled by the “DPR”. O.I.M.’s ill-treatment and the lack of medical care Witness X. – a former detainee held at Izolyatsiya together with O.I.M. – informed O.P.M. that O.I.M. had been subjected to stress positions and given electric shocks using wires tied to his arms and legs. The ill-treatment was allegedly intended to force O.I.M. to confess to being a spy of the Security Service of Ukraine. O.I.M. was also held in conditions that included overcrowding, poor ventilation, inadequate and insufficient food, lack of sanitary facilities, and absence of windows in cells. Witness X. further stated that O.I.M.’s state of health, which had already been unstable before his abduction, had significantly deteriorated while in detention: he lost 35 kilograms and was at risk of kidney failure. Family life of the applicants O.P.M. made repeated requests to the “DPR Ministry of State Security” and asked them to grant her permission to visit O.I.M. in detention. These requests were denied on the basis of the “risk of unauthorised disclosure of investigative information”. O.I.M.’s pension On 1 November 2018 the “DPR” stopped paying O.I.M.’s pension because he had not used his bank account since the beginning of his detention. The “DPR law” required O.I.M. to appear in person at the social security agency to renew the payments. Suspension remained in force due to his inability to comply with the above-mentioned “law”. Interim measure granted by the Court On 3 March 2020, at the request of O.P.M., the Court indicated an interim measure, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, and asked the respondent Government to ensure respect for the Convention rights of O.I.M., immediately ensure his examination by medical professionals, and transfer him to a hospital for proper medical examination and treatment if his medical condition so required. The Court also decided that the public should not have access to the documents deposited with the Registry (Rule 33 § 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court). In their responses dated 17 March 2020 and 9 March 2022, the respondent Government argued that O.I.M. was not within their jurisdiction. The interim measure indicated by the Court is still in force. COMPLAINTS Under Article 2 of the Convention the applicants allege on behalf of O.I.M. that he faces a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty should he be found guilty of espionage under the “DPR Criminal Code”. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention the applicants allege on behalf of O.I.M. that he was subjected to torture at the hands of the “DPR authorities” and denied medical assessment and treatment that he urgently required. They also contend that the conditions of O.I.M.’s detention were inhuman and degrading. Under Article   5   § 1 of the Convention, the applicants allege on behalf of O.I.M. that he was held in unacknowledged and incommunicado detention in the “black site” Izolyatsiya which is outside the formal penitentiary system, and with no procedural safeguards guaranteed by Article 5. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of their own right to family life as well as that of O.I.M. on account of the “DPR authorities’” prohibition of any contact or communication between them. Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain on behalf of O.I.M. of a lack of effective legal remedies in respect of the above violations of the Convention. On behalf of O.I.M. the applicants also rely on Articles 34 and 38 of the Convention and complain that the Russian Government failed to comply with the interim measures and the Court’s request of 3 March 2020 for information. Lastly, the applicants submit that the suspension of O.I.M.’s pension, which was their main source of income, amounted to a violation of their own rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as well as those of O.I.M. QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Are there exceptional circumstances in the present case justifying the applicants’ standing to lodge an application on behalf of O.I.M. in the absence of any written authority to do so (see Ghazaryan and Bayramyan v.   Azerbaijan , no. 33050/18, §§ 71-81, 5 October 2023)? 2.     Have the applicants complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35 §1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of their applications? 3.     In the light of the applicants’ allegations of O.I.M. being prosecuted for “espionage” under the “DPR law”, would he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention if the “criminal proceedings” against him were to culminate in a death sentence ( A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia , no. 44095/14, § 64, 29 October 2015)? 4.     Has O.I.M. been subjected to treatment contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? 5.     Has the respondent Government breached their obligation to provide O.I.M. with medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? 6.     Are or were the conditions of O.I.M.’s detention compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? 7.     Was or is O.I.M. deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention? 8.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ and O.I.M.’s right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? 9.     Has O.I.M. had a legitimate expectation to obtain the pension that has allegedly been suspended by the “authorities” of the “DPR”? If so, does the suspension of his pension constitute an interference with his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In the light of the applicants’ allegation that that pension was their main source of income, can they also be considered victims of a breach under this provision? 10.     Did the Russian authorities comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court on 3 March 2020 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court? If not, did the respondent Government thereby hinder the effective exercise of the applicants’ and O.I.M.’s right of individual application, as guaranteed by   Article 34   of the Convention (see   Mamatkulov and Askarov v.   Turkey   [GC], nos.   46827/99   and   46951/99, §§   128-29, ECHR 2005-I)? 11.     As regards the Court’s request to the respondent Government of 3   March 2020 to provide an update on the criminal proceedings against O.I.M., does the Government’s failure to comply with the said request amount to a failure to cooperate with the Court, as required by Article   38 of the Convention? 12.     Did O.I.M. have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT The applicants and the respondent Government are requested to provide updated information, supported by documentary evidence, with regard to the following questions.   1.     Is O.I.M. still being detained? If so, the parties are requested to clarify where he is being detained and what are the material conditions of his detention. 2.     What is the current state of O.I.M.’s health? The parties are requested to inform the Court about the medical examination and care, if any, that he has received while in detention. 3.     The parties are requested to inform the Court about any developments with regard to the “criminal proceedings” pending against O.I.M. in the “DPR”. 4.     The parties are requested to clarify whether O.I.M. has been visited in detention by any family members, legal representatives, or medical professionals, and whether any letters or other means of communication have been received from him. 5.     The parties are requested to provide updated information concerning the suspension of O.I.M.’s pension, including the attempts, by O.I.M. or the applicants, to recover the outstanding sums.   APPENDIX List of applicants   Application no. Case name Information about applicants The applicants’ relative Represented by 11378/20 O.P.M. and D.O.M. against Russia O.P.M. Ukrainian   D.O.M. Ukrainian O.I.M. Ukrainian   Wesselink Egbert