CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 15 January 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 68849/14 Kateryna Oleksandrivna ADAMETS against Ukraine and Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, are set forth in the appended table. COMPLAINTS In application no. 71819/14 the applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to take the measures necessary for carrying out an effective investigation into their relative’s death. In all the applications the applicants also complain under Article 3 of the Convention, relying on the testimony of other soldiers who had been captive, that it is probable that their relatives were ill-treated in captivity. In all the applications the applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that long-lasting uncertainty about their relatives’ fate caused them serious mental suffering. In all the applications the applicants also complain under Article   5   § 1 of the Convention that their relatives were unlawfully deprived of their liberty. In all the applications the applicants complain that the respondent Governments failed to take measures necessary to secure their Convention rights as required by Article 13 of the Convention. They therefore did not have effective remedies in that connection. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the alleged violations of the Convention fall within the jurisdiction of the respondent States within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention? 2.     As regards application no. 71819/14, have investigations been carried out in respect of the applicant’s allegations of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by that provision? 3.     As regards all the applications, were the applicants’ relatives subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 4.     As regards all the applications, has there been inhuman treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention in that the applicants have been left in long-lasting uncertainty about their relatives’ fate so as to cause mental suffering to the applicants? 5.     As regards all the applications, were the applicants’ relatives deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? 6.     As regards all the applications, did the applicants have effective remedies at their disposal in respect of their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 7.     The parties are invited to inform the Court in detail of the circumstances of the death of the applicants’ relatives. APPENDIX No. Application no. Case title Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Notes Investigation into the applicants’ complaints by Ukrainian / Russian authorities   68849/14 Adamets v. Ukraine and Russia 22/10/2014 Kateryna Oleksandrivna ADAMETS 24/05/1995 Novoselytsya Oleg Igorovych VEREMIYENKO On 28 July 2014 the applicant’s fiancé, Mr   Vasyl Vasylyovych Shestak, born on 19 June 1992, who served in the Ukrainian Army in the area of the anti-terrorist operation in eastern Ukraine, disappeared during combat near the village of Marynivka, Donetsk Region. By letter of 10 September 2014 the Security Service of Ukraine informed Mr Shestak’s mother that Mr Shestak was included into the list of captives and that authorities were taking measures to ensure his release. By letter of 18 November 2015 the applicant’s lawyer notified the court that Mr Shestak was dead. Date and cause of death are unknown.   Instituted on 31   October   2014 by the Investigation Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyy Region.   71819/14 Shepetko and Sapiga v. Ukraine and Russia 13/11/2014 Mariya Mykolayivna SHEPETKO 10/09/1961 Sushchany   Liliya Petrivna SAPIGA 28/11/1981 Popilnya Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK On 9 August 2014 the applicants’ relative (son and brother), Mr   Shepetko Sergiy Petrovych, born on 16 February 1986, who served in the Ukrainian Army in the area of the anti-terrorist operation in eastern Ukraine, disappeared during combat near the village of Marynivka, Donetsk Region. On 9 February 2015 the first applicant identified her son’s body in the morgue. On 16 March 2015 a death certificate in respect of Mr   Shepetko Sergiy Petrovych was issued, indicating the period between 25 July and 7 August 2014 as the time of death. The applicants lodged complaints under Article 2 of the Convention and the complaint under Article 3 that the reaction of the authorities to their inquiries about their relative’s fate was tantamount to ill-treatment on 16 December 2015, which is outside of the six-month period.   Instituted on 22   August   2014 by the Popilnya District Department of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine in Zhytomyr region. On 26   November   2015 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. There has been no response to the complaint.   7426/15 Vakhnyuk v. Ukraine and Russia 09/02/2015 Mykola Antonovych VAKHNYUK 06/10/1954 Pyskivka Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK On 31 August 2014 the applicant’s son, Mr   Vakhnyuk Oleksandr Mykolayovych, born 11 May 1981, who served in the Ukrainian Army in the area of the anti-terrorist operation in eastern Ukraine, disappeared near village Chernukhino, Lugansk region. By letter of 24 February 2015 the Ukrainian Government notified the Court that on 11 February 2015 Mr Vakhnyuk’s dead body was identified. Date and cause of death are unknown.   Instituted on 11   November   2014 by the Chief Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior of Ukraine in Kyiv region.