CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 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 } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3B4DFD6B { margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; text-transform:none } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s3F7F894F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-35.4pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 44942/18 Galyna Mykhaylivna DZYTSYUK against Russia and Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications emanate from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. On various dates between October 2017 and April 2020 the applicants’ relatives, all civilians (listed in the table below), were apprehended by representatives of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) in non ‑ government controlled territory of Ukraine. Since then they have been held in various penitentiary facilities in the Donetsk region, allegedly with very limited or no contact with the outside world. In view of that, the present applications were introduced by the applicants on behalf of their relatives.      “Criminal proceedings” against the applicants’ relatives Following the apprehension of the applicants’ relatives, “investigative bodies” of the “DPR” opened “criminal cases” against them, charging them with the offences of espionage, terrorist activities and/or illegal possessions of explosives. The applicants’ relatives were placed in detention pending “trial” by the “DPR courts”. On 10 September 2020 the relative of the applicant in application no.   44942/18 was “found guilty” and “sentenced” to 16 years of imprisonment. According to the most recent information available to the Court, he is currently serving his “sentence” in the “DPR”. As concerns the relatives of the applicants in applications nos. 24559/20 and 13/22, it follows from the most recent information available to the Court that they are currently in detention pending “trial” in the “DPR”.      The applicants’ relatives’ ill-treatment and the lack of medical care in detention The applicants in applications nos. 44942/18 and 13/22 state that the representatives of the “DPR” subjected their relatives to electric shocks, beatings, threats and humiliation aimed at obtaining a confession from them. The relative of the applicant in application no. 13/22 is alleged to have been subjected to systematic rape and sexual abuse by the “administration” of the detention facility. The applicant in application no. 24559/20 claims that his relative is at risk of being ill-treated by the “officials of the ‘DPR’” to extract a confession from him. The applicants’ relatives in applications nos. 24559/20 and 13/22 have a number of chronic health problems which cause them physical pain and, if not treated, may allegedly put their lives at risk. These health issues were exacerbated by the lack of proper nutrition and poor conditions of the applicants’ relatives’ detention. All applicants claim the prolonged detention causes their relatives severe psychological and physical harm.      The suffering of the applicant in application no. 13/22 The applicant in application no. 13/22 claims that the prolonged detention of his wife, which is not accompanied by any procedural guarantees, and the information about the sexual abuse that she is undergoing in detention causes him severe mental anguish and suffering.      The applicants’ relatives’ contact with the outside world The applicant in application no. 44942/18 was able to visit her detained relative at least three times. The visits took place in the presence of the representatives of the “DPR”. The subjects that they discussed during the visit were heavily moderated, and the applicant’s relative was not allowed to sign a paper authorising his child to cross the “state border of the ‘DPR’”. As concerns the applicant in application no. 24559/20, his relative has not had any contact with his family or the outside world since the day of his apprehension. Soon after the apprehension, a person who introduced himself as an “officer of the Ministry of State Security of the ‘DPR’” called and requested warm clothing, food and hygiene products as well as medication for the applicant’s relative. His mother brought a parcel with the required items to Makiivka penal colony no. 97 and handed it over to an employee. However, she was not able to see her son. The applicant in application no. 13/22 has not been able to see his relative after the latter’s apprehension.      Domestic remedies attempted in Ukraine and the Russian Federation The applicants’ relatives made official complaints to the National Police of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine. They also submitted criminal complaints to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.      Interim measures granted by the Court Between September 2018 and January 2022, at the requests of the applicants, the Court indicated interim measures, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the respondent Governments and asked them to ensure respect for the applicants’ relatives’ Convention rights including, where appropriate, respect for the security of person and/or provision of medical care. In their responses the Russian Government argued that the applicants’ relatives were not within their jurisdiction. The Government of Ukraine stated that all possible measures were being taken to establish the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ unlawful deprivation of liberty and to secure their release. The interim measures indicated by the Court are still in force. COMPLAINTS      Complaints against the Russian Federation All applicants claim under Article 3 that their relatives were ill ‑ treated and/or are at real risk of ill-treatment while in detention. They also claim that the prolonged detention cannot but cause their relatives severe psychological and physical harm. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention on behalf of their relatives, the applicants in applications nos. 24559/20 and 13/22 claim that the lack of medical care in detention, combined with the lack of proper nutrition and poor conditions of detention, exacerbated their relatives’ health problems and put their lives and health at risk. All applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that Russia failed to initiate an investigation into their criminal complaints, contrary to the requirements of Article 3. The applicant in application no. 13/22 also invokes Article 3 in his own name, claiming that the prolonged detention of his wife, which is not accompanied by any procedural guarantees, and the information about the sexual abuse that she has been undergoing in detention causes him severe mental anguish and suffering. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, all applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that the latter’s detention under the control of the “DPR” has been arbitrary and devoid of any procedural safeguards guaranteed by Article   5. The applicant in application no. 24559/20 invokes Article 8 of the Convention, stating that his relative has been deprived of any contact with his family, starting from the date of his apprehension. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, all applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that no effective legal remedies existed in the Russian Federation in respect of the above violations of the Convention.      Complaints against Ukraine Invoking the procedural aspect of Article 3 in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention, the applicants argue, on behalf of their relatives, that Ukraine has failed to comply with its positive obligations to investigate their relatives’ detention and alleged ill-treatment. QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Are there any exceptional circumstances in the present cases justifying the applicants’ standing to lodge applications on behalf of their relatives 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.     As regards the applications nos. 24559/20 and 13/22, have the Russian Government breached their obligation to provide the applicants’ relatives with medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? 4.     Have the applicants’ relatives been subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? 5.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, have effective investigations been conducted by the Russian authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants’ relatives, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v.   Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 315-26, ECHR 2014 (extracts)? 6.     Has the applicant in application no. 13/22 himself been subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of his suffering stemming from his wife’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment ( Orhan v. Turkey , no.   25656/94, §§ 359-60, 18 June 2002)? 7.     Are or were the applicants’ relatives deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1122, 9 July 2025)? 8.     Has there been a violation of the right to respect for family life of the relative of the applicant in application no. 24559/20, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? 9.     Did the applicants’ relatives have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for the above complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Are there any exceptional circumstances in the present cases justifying the applicants’ standing to lodge applications on behalf of their relatives 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.     Did the Ukrainian Government have a positive obligation under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention to investigate the alleged abduction and ill-treatment of the applicants’ relatives ( Hanan v. Germany [GC], no. 4871/16, §§ 198-210, 16 February 2021; Abdulaal Naser and Others v. Denmark , no. 46571/22, §§ 112-31, 21 October 2025)? If so, has the Ukrainian Government complied with their respective obligations? If not, did the applicants’ relatives have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, 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 Government of the Russian Federation are requested to provide updated information, supported by documentary evidence, with regard to the following questions: 1.     Are the applicants’ relatives still being detained? If so, the parties are requested to clarify where they are being detained and what are the material conditions of their detention. 2.     What is the current state of the applicants’ relatives’ health? The parties are requested to inform the Court about the medical examination and care, if any, that they have received while in detention. 3.     The parties are requested to inform the Court about any developments with regard to the “criminal proceedings” introduced against the applicants’ relatives in the “DPR”. 4.     The parties are requested to provide a detailed clarification of whether the applicants’ relatives have 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 them.       APPENDIX List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality   The applicant’s relative and the degree of kinship Represented by 1. 44942/18 Dzytsyuk v. Russia and Ukraine 24/09/2018 Galyna Mykhaylivna DZYTSYUK 1961 Shepetivka Ukrainian   The applicant’s son Viktor Mykolayovych DZYTSYUK 1988 Novgorodske Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO 2. 24559/20 Kukhtyk v. Russia and Ukraine 23/06/2020 Mykola Mykhaylovych KUKHTYK Year of birth unknown Kramatorsk Ukrainian The applicant’s nephew Oleksandr Volodymyrovych LOBUR 1983 Amvrosiyivka Donetsk region Ukrainian Mykhaylo Oleksandrovych TARAKHKALO 3. 13/22 Mozolevskyy v. Russia and Ukraine 29/12/2021 Vitaliy Grygorovych MOZOLEVSKYY 1978 Kostyantynivka Ukrainian   The applicant’s wife Olga Volodymyrivna MOZOLEVSKA 1985 Kostyantynivka Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO