CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 avril 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 } .s98FF0DB { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7ED0E884 { height:86.45pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 18 May 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39134/18 Olena Ivanivna CHMIL against Russia and Ukraine and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 30 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications emanate from the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine. The applicants are family members of five servicemen of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who, while performing their official duties, were captured by representatives of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) at various dates between May 2018 and May 2019. Since then, they have been held in various penitentiary facilities in the non ‑ government controlled territory of Ukraine (“NGCT”), including Donetsk pre-trial detention centre (“SIZO”), the guardhouse of the “military commandant’s office of the ‘DPR’”, and Makiivka prisons nos. 32 and 97. The applicants alleged that their detained relatives had very limited or no contact with the outside world. As such, the present applications were introduced by the applicants on behalf of their relatives as well as on their own behalf. The full list of applicants and their relatives is provided in the table below. According to the most recent information available to the Court, the applicants’ relatives are still being detained in the “DPR”. The applicants’ relatives’ ill-treatment and the lack of medical care in detention The relatives of the applicants in applications nos. 39134/18, 60067/19 and 22747/20 were recorded on video by the “DPR” while being told to provide explanations regarding the activities they had performed while serving in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. These videos were subsequently published online. The applicant’s relative in application no. 39134/18 is seen on the video with a wounded lip, being allowed to make a phone call to his mother and crying while speaking with her. The applicant’s relative in application no.   60067/19 is also seen on the video calling his mother and crying. On a separate occasion, relatives of the applicants in applications nos.   39134/18, 60067/19 and 22747/20 were video-recorded in front of a crowd (presented as the “local population” of Donetsk), being called obscene names, accused of “bombing peaceful cities in Donbas”, psychologically abused and beaten. The applicant’s relative in application no. 39134/18 can be seen crying in the video. In addition to the above, the relative of the applicant in application no.   60067/19 was also forced to participate in a “DPR” propaganda documentary, in which he is being shamed for serving in the Ukrainian Armed Forces and accused of being a “Nazi”. In that video, he can be seen with fresh wounds on his arms. The applicants in all applications claim that their relatives have either been ill-treated or are at serious risk of ill-treatment while in detention. It is also claimed that the prolonged detention of the applicants’ relatives in poor material conditions causes them severe psychological and physical harm. The applicant’s relative in application no. 22747/20 has chronic health problems requiring continuous treatment which, however, was not being provided by the “DPR”. The other applicants claim that their relatives may also be in need of medical treatment, but in the absence of meaningful contact with them, they have not been able to provide the Court with relevant information at the current stage of the proceedings in support of their claim. “Criminal proceedings” against the applicants’ relatives In November 2019 the relative of the applicant in application no.   39134/18 was sentenced by “DPR courts” to 17 years of imprisonment for “sabotage”. In June 2019 the relative of the applicant in application no. 8269/20 was sentenced by “DPR courts” to 17 years of imprisonment for a “violent coup d’etat”. On an unknown date, the relative of the applicant in application no.   60067/19 was sentenced by “DPR courts” to 17 years of imprisonment for the same “crime”. The Court has not been informed about any criminal proceedings in the “DPR” brought against the relatives of the applicants in applications nos.   8325/20 and 22747/20. The suffering of the applicants The applicants claim that the prolonged detention of their relatives, which is not accompanied by any procedural guarantees, as well as the uncertainty surrounding their fates in detention and their prospects for release, cause them severe mental anguish and suffering. The applicants’ relatives’ contact with the outside world The applicants claim that none of their relatives have had any face ‑ to ‑ face contact or written correspondence with their families or the outside world since the day of their capture. Most applicants are apparently able to transfer parcels containing food, clothing or medication to their relatives. Most of the applicants are also able to receive irregular phone calls from their relatives, during which their relatives avoid providing any details about their health or the conditions of their detention in the “DPR”. Domestic remedies attempted in Ukraine and the Russian Federation The applicants made official complaints to the National Police of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine, and criminal proceedings into their relatives’ capture were initiated. The applicants also submitted their criminal complaints to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. Interim measures granted by the Court Between August 2018 and June 2020, 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. 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 complain that their relatives have been ill-treated or are at risk of being ill-treated while in detention in the “DPR”. They also claim that their relatives have been subjected to severe psychological trauma caused by their prolonged detention in poor material conditions with no meaningful contacts with their families. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   22747/20 claims that his relative has not been provided with the medical care that he required while in detention. The applicants in applications nos. 39134/18, 60067/19 and 22747/20 complain that their relatives’ video-recording by the “DPR” against their will, and spreading the recordings on the internet constituted degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Additionally, all applicants claim on behalf of their relatives that Russia failed to initiate an investigation into their criminal complaints. All applicants also invoke Article 3 of the Convention on their own behalf, stating that their relatives’ prolonged and unlawful detention causes them severe mental anguish and suffering that amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants claim that their relatives’ detention under the control of the “DPR” has been arbitrary and devoid of any procedural safeguards guaranteed by Article 5. Lastly, under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants claim that their relatives have no effective legal remedies 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.     Have the applicants’ relatives been subjected to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? 4.     As regards the application no. 22747/20, have the Russian Government breached their obligation to provide the applicant’s relative with medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention? 5.     Have the applicants’ relatives in applications nos. 39134/18, 60067/19 and 22747/20 been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention on account of them being recorded against their will and of the subsequent placement of those recordings on the internet? 6.     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)? 7.     Have the applicants themselves been subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of their suffering stemming from their relatives’ apprehension and prolonged detention ( Orhan v. Turkey , no.   25656/94, § 359-60, 18 June 2002)? 8.     Were or are 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, §§   427-30, 602, 9 July 2025; Hassan v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§   105-07, ECHR 2014; Saadi v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 69, ECHR 2008)? 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 , cited above, §§ 71-81)? 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 detention 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 cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant   The applicant’s relative and the degree of kinship Represented by 1. 39134/18 Chmil v. Russia and Ukraine 18/08/2018 Olena Ivanivna CHMIL 1962 Mykolaiv Ukrainian The applicant’s son Vitaliy Anatoliyovych CHMIL 1983 Mykolaiv Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 2. 60067/19 Panchenko v.   Russia and Ukraine 20/11/2019 Valentyna Ivanivna PANCHENKO 1968 Zavodske Poltava region Ukrainian The applicant’s son Stanislav Myroslavovych PANCHENKO 1999 Donetsk Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 3. 8269/20 Korsun v.   Russia and Ukraine 10/02/2020 Yuriy Oleksandrovych KORSUN 1958 Markivka Ukrainian The applicant’s son Pavlo Yuriyovych KORSUN 1982 Markivka Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 4. 8325/20 Gordiychuk v.   Russia and Ukraine 10/02/2020 Nataliya Volodymyrivna GORDIYCHUK 1957 Oleksandrivka Ukrainian The applicant’s son Yuriy Mykolayovych GORDIYCHUK 1982 Oleksandrivka Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO 5. 22747/20 Myronchuk v.   Russia and Ukraine 11/06/2020 Mariya Dmytrivna MYRONCHUK 1950 Mykhailivka Ukrainian   The applicant’s son Igor Vasylyovych MYRONCHUK 1976 Mykhailivka Ukrainian Vitaliy Mykhaylovych KHEKALO