CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 } .s81EF3014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 50156/21 and 12432/23 Olesya Volodymyrivna PEREVERTAYLO against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 12 October 2021 and 3 September 2022 communicated on 9 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications emanate from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. The applicant and her husband, Mr Pavlo Perevertaylo, are civilians and were residing in Donetsk, in non ‑ government controlled territory of Ukraine. On 30 July 2019 they were apprehended by representatives of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”). According to the most recent information available to the Court, the applicant’s husband remains in detention in the “DPR”, allegedly with no meaningful contact with the outside world. In view of that, the present applications were introduced by the applicant, both on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband (further details are listed in the table below).      The applicant’s detention at “Izolyatsiya” penal facility in Donetsk On 30 July 2019 representatives of the “DPR” put a plastic bag on the applicant’s head and took her to the detention facility Izolyatsiya operated by the “Ministry of State Security” (“MGB”) of the “DPR”. The applicant was interrogated and threatened with fifteen years of imprisonment and with her son “becoming an orphan”. She was placed in an overcrowded cell with sanitary facilities inside, which allowed for no privacy. The cell was constantly monitored through a video camera. The applicant did not have hygiene products and bedding. Nutrition at Izolyatsiya was poor. The applicant was repeatedly forced to sing the anthem of the “DPR”. The applicant was released on 14 August 2019 in exchange of signing a written undertaking not to leave the territory of the “DPR”. This measure was lifted on or around 29 July 2021. In August 2021 the applicant and her son relocated to the government-controlled territory of Ukraine. Following her release, the applicant developed a number of documented physical and mental health problems, which she attributes to the stress and suffering she had encountered in detention.      “Criminal proceedings” against the applicant’s husband and his alleged ill ‑ treatment The applicant’s husband, apprehended at the same time as her, remained detained at Izolyatsiya. He was charged with the offence of espionage under the “Criminal Code of the ‘DPR’”. In December 2019 he was transferred to Makiivka penal colony no. 97. According to the applicant, her husband had a lawyer appointed to him by the “DPR”. All meetings between her husband and the lawyer took place in the presence of the “DPR”, which precluded confidential communication. According to the most recent information available to the Court, the “criminal proceedings” against the applicant’s husband is still pending. The applicant claims that her husband is at risk of being ill-treated by the “officials of the ‘DPR’” to extract a confession from him. He also has a number of chronic health problems which cause him physical pain and allegedly, if not treated, may put his life at risk. Those health problems are exacerbated by the lack of proper nutrition and poor conditions of detention in Makiivka penal colony no. 97, including low temperatures, high humidity as well as the lack of natural light and fresh air. The applicant was able to send her husband parcels containing food and medication. On 30 August 2021 the mother of the applicant’s husband was able to see him in the office and presence of an “MGB” investigator.      The suffering of the applicant in relation to her husband’s detention The applicant claims that her husband’s apprehension in her presence as well as his alleged ill-treatment and prolonged detention, which is not accompanied with any procedural guarantees, cause her severe mental anguish and suffering.      Interim measure indicated by the Court in respect of the applicant’s husband (application no. 50156/21) On 9 November 2021, at the request of the applicant, the Court indicated an interim measure, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the respondent Governments and asked them to ensure respect for the applicant’s husband’s Convention rights. In their response the Russian Government argued that the applicant’s husband was not within their jurisdiction. The Government of Ukraine stated that all possible measures were being taken to establish the circumstances of the applicant’s husband’s unlawful deprivation of liberty and to secure his release. The interim measure indicated by the Court is still in force.      Domestic remedies attempted in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation With regard to the applicant’s husband’s apprehension, she made official complaints to the National Police of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine. She also submitted criminal complaints to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. With regard to her own apprehension, on 9 September 2021 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Ukrainian authorities, which instituted criminal proceedings on the same day. According to the most recent information available to the Court, these proceedings are ongoing. On 14 September 2021 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. On 5 October 2021 she received a response stating that a request for mutual legal assistance had been sent to the competent bodies of Ukraine in order to verify the information provided by the applicant. COMPLAINTS Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the ill ‑ treatment that she was subjected to while in detention as well as of inadequate material conditions of her detention. The applicant also claims that the prolonged detention of her husband, whose apprehension took place before her eyes, and his alleged ill-treatment caused her severe mental anguish and suffering. In this regard, she invokes Article 3 on her own behalf. On behalf of her husband, the applicant also invokes Article 3 of the Convention and states that he is at risk of ill-treatment by the “DPR” to extract a confession from him. She also alleges that her husband is being detained in inadequate material conditions and that he is not provided with the medical care necessary for his numerous chronic health problems. The applicant also invokes the procedural limb of Article 3 on behalf of herself and her husband, stating that Russia failed to initiate an investigation into her criminal complaints. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention on behalf of herself and her husband, the applicant complains of their arbitrary and incommunicado detention, which was not accompanied by any procedural safeguards. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant claims on behalf of herself and her husband 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 applicant argues, on behalf of herself and her husband, that Ukraine has failed to comply with its positive obligations to investigate their detention and alleged ill-treatment. QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     With regard to the application no. 50156/21, are there any exceptional circumstances justifying the applicant’s standing to lodge the application on behalf of her husband 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.     Has the applicant complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of her applications? In particular, has she complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing her cases to the Court ( Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2   others, §§   263-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Melnichuk and Others v.   Romania , nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§   80 ‑ 83, 5   May 2015)? 3.     Have the applicant and her husband been subjected to ill ‑ treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? 4.     Have the Russian Government breached their obligation by failing to provide the applicant’s husband with medical assistance, as required by Article   3 of the Convention? 5.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of her suffering stemming from her husband’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment ( Orhan v. Turkey , no.   25656/94, §§   359-60, 18 June 2002)? 6.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, has an effective investigation been conducted by the Russian authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant and her husband, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania , cited above, §§ 315-26)? 7.     Was there a violation of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention on account of the deprivation of liberty of the applicant and her husband ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1122, 9 July 2025)? 8.     Did the applicant and her husband have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for the above complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     With regard to the application no. 50156/21, are there any exceptional circumstances justifying the applicant’s standing to lodge the application on behalf of her husband 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.     Has the applicant complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35   § 1 of the Convention as in force on the dates of introduction of her applications? In particular, has she complied with the requirements of diligence and expedition in pursuing domestic remedies in the Respondent States and in bringing her cases to the Court ( Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2   others, §§   263-69, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Melnichuk and Others v.   Romania , nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§   80 ‑ 83, 5   May 2015)? 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 applicant and her husband ( 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 applicant and her husband have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT The applicant and the Government of the Russian Federation are requested to provide updated information, supported by documentary evidence, with regard to the following questions: 1.     Is the applicant’s husband 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 the applicant’s husband’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” introduced against the applicant’s husband in the “DPR”. 4.     The parties are requested to provide a detailed clarification of whether the applicant’s husband 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.     APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of birth Place of birth Nationality Applicant’s husband Year of birth Place of birth Nationality The nature of complaints Represented by 1. 50156/21 Perevertaylo v. Russia and Ukraine 12/10/2021 Olesya Volodymyrivna PEREVERTAYLO 1990 Brovary Ukrainian   Pavlo Viktorovych PEREVERTAYLO 1989 Donetsk Ukrainian On behalf of her husband AND On her own behalf on account of severe mental anguish and suffering caused to her by her husband’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 2. 12432/23 Perevertaylo v. Russia and Ukraine 03/09/2022 Olesya Volodymyrivna PEREVERTAYLO 1990 Brovary Ukrainian   On her own behalf       Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO