CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s53E9AB06 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42050/19 Kostyantyn Yevgeniyovych DIORDIYASHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 29 July 2019 communicated on 20 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention regarding his alleged ill-treatment by the military and the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective official investigation into the matter. These events took place during the series of protests in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 21 February 2014, commonly referred to as “Euromaidan” and/or “Maidan” (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9-17, 21 January 2021). On 24 February 2014 the applicant, a military officer, reported to his military unit, where he was accused of having participated in the Anti-Maidan movement by his colleagues, beaten and threaten with death by the head of the military unit Mr L. Later, Mr L. intruded into the applicant’s apartment, threw away his belongings and brought the applicant to the office of Major General Mr M., where the applicant’s colleagues sought his resignation. After his refusal the applicant was handcuffed and transferred in prison bus to the Kyiv City State Administration, which at the material time was controlled by the Euromaidan protestors. In the Administration building the applicant was beaten again by unknown persons under the control of the military. On the same day Mr A., who was an MP at the material time, posted on his Facebook page the applicant’s photo and stated that the later was a defector and instead of serving in the military he had joined the Anti-Maidan movement to beat the Euromaidan protestors and gain some money. Still on the same day, the applicant was brought to a mental institution by his colleagues. He was kept there against his will until 25 February 2014. On 27 March 2014 the applicant was again beaten by Mr L. On 19 May and 17 June 2016 he was threatened with death. The above incidents were investigated as part of several criminal proceedings initiated on 28 February and 29 April 2014 and on 15 April, 25   April and 23 June 2016. In August 2016 and August 2017 the Military Prosecutor’s Office criticized the investigation, having underlined numerous shortcomings. As of January 2025, the criminal proceedings were still pending at the pre-trial stage. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to his allegations that he was ill-treated while performing military service (see Chember v. Russia , no. 7188/03, § 50, ECHR 2008, and Mosendz v. Ukraine , no. 52013/08, §§ 91-92, 17 January 2013)?   2.     Have the domestic authorities conducted an effective official investigation into the above complaint, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v.   Italy   [GC], no.   26772/95, §   131, ECHR 2000-IV, Baklanov v. Ukraine , no.   44425/08, §§   67-68, 24 October 2013, and Lyalyakin v. Russia , no. 31305/09, §§ 83-92, 12 March 2015)?