CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 juin 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s3CC4D07E { font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s3A3C6A56 { height:2.3pt } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)198 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Four cases against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 2017 at the 1289 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 41220/98 ALIEV 29/04/2003 29/07/2003 40679/98 DANKEVICH 29/04/2003 29/07/2003 41707/98 KHOKHLICH 29/04/2003 29/07/2003 39483/98 NAZARENKO 29/04/2003 29/07/2003   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see Appendix);   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)198   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the Aliev group of cases against Ukraine     Introductory case summary   These four cases concern poor conditions of detention in 1997-1998 for detainees on “death row” in four prisons in Ukraine, which were found by the Court to amount to degrading treatment, due in particular to the applicants’ prolonged confinement in a very restricted living space without natural light and the virtual impossibility of any activity or human contact (violations of Article 3).   The Court also found that the Ukrainian authorities’ interferences with the applicants’ right to private and family life and with their correspondence were not in accordance with the law until July 1999 as the regime of their detention had been governed principally by an internal instruction inaccessible to the public (violations of Article 8).   In the Dankevich case, the Court held that the applicant had not had an effective remedy in respect of the conditions of detention on death row and interference with his correspondence (violation of Article 13).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage (euros) Costs and expenses Total (euros) Aliev 41220/98 - 2,000 - 2,000 Dankevich 40679/98 - 2,000 - 2,000 Khokhlich 41707/98 - 2,000 - 2,000 Nazarenko 39483/98 - 2,000 - 2,000   The just satisfaction awarded by the Court was paid within the deadlines.   b) Individual measures   The Court’s findings in respect of the poor conditions of detention were limited to the period before May 1998. Following May 1998, when the Internal Instruction of 20 April 1998 on conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment (“the Instruction”) was circulated to prisons, the conditions of detention on death row, according to the Court, underwent “substantial and progressive improvements”, including removal of the coverings on the windows, introduction of outdoor walks and enhancement of the inmates’ right to receive visits and to correspond (see, for example, §   150 of the judgment in the Aliev case).   Furthermore, the applicants’ death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment in June 2000, following the abolition of the death penalty in Ukraine. The authorities submitted information that from 2012 the applicants were allocated 4 sq. m. of living space in their cells. The authorities submitted that the applicants’ cells were now equipped with windows providing natural light, and that the artificial light was sufficient to provide them with possibility to write, read and work. The applicants were also offered one hour of outdoor exercise per day.   As to the violations of Article 8, the period in respect of which the Court found a violation ended in July 1999, with the replacement of the unpublished Instruction by “Temporary provisions governing conditions of detention in isolation blocks of persons sentenced to death”, which became accessible to public and thus remedied the principal flaw observed by the Court. In addition, the new rules significantly extended the scope of the inmates’ rights, including the right to receive correspondence and visits from relatives. The restrictions foreseen were found by the Court to be “proportionate to the aim of preventing disorder or crime” (see, for example, § 183 of the judgment in the Aliev case). The authorities also submitted that the applicants were allowed to send and receive letters and parcels without any quantitative restrictions.   No other individual measure is therefore necessary in these cases.   II.   General measures   It is underlined, as acknowledged clearly by the European Court in these judgments, that these cases relate to conditions and circumstances in Ukrainian prisons prior to 1999. Since then a number of significant reforms have taken place and the overall Ukrainian penitentiary system has been changed.   1) Violations of Article 3:   The violations found by the Court concerned only the conditions of detention of persons on “death row”. Following the abolition of the death penalty in 2000, this detention regime ceased to exist. Therefore no similar violations can arise. Moreover the Court did not criticise the conditions under which the applicants were detained once their sentences had been commuted to life imprisonment (see above under individual measures).   General measures in respect of poor conditions of detention in other institutions and detention regimes in Ukraine are examined by the Committee of Ministers in the Yakovenko group of cases (police stations), the Nevmerzhitsky group (pre-trial detention centres) and the Melnik group of cases (prisons).   2) Violations of Article 8:   The violations of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, their right to correspondence concerned solely the period before 11 July 1999. On that date the internal instruction of the Department for Execution of Sentences was replaced by public regulations, in particular by Temporary Provisions governing conditions of detention in isolation blocks of persons sentenced to death. The Court found no violations of Article 8 after the temporary provisions came into force (see, for example, the Nazarenko , Dankevich , and Aliev judgments). Therefore no similar violations can arise.   General measures as regards other aspects of Article 8 in respect of disproportionate restrictions imposed on private, family life and correspondence in prisons are examined by the Committee of Ministers in the Trosin group of cases.   3) Violation of Article 13:   The Dankevich judgment raises a general issue of lack of an effective remedy for complaints about conditions of detention in prisons and the interference with correspondence. This issue is examined by the Committee in the context of the Melnik case.   4) Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgments:   All the judgments of the European Court have been translated into Ukrainian and published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no further individual measures are required, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Ukraine has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in the present cases.