CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 May 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7453/23 Maksym Mykolayovych MEDVID against Ukraine lodged on 26 January 2023 communicated on 24 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the irreducibility of the applicant’s life sentence and the recent Ukrainian legislative reform of 18 October 2022 aimed at introducing the possibility of release for life sentence prisoners. The applicant refers to Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article   3 of the Convention on account of his allegedly irreducible life sentence ( Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2   others, ECHR   2013 (extracts), László Magyar v. Hungary , no. 73593/10, 20   May 2014, Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 57592/08, 17   January 2017)? 2.     Have the legislative amendments of 18 October 2022 introduced a mechanism of review of the whole-life sentence as required by Article   3 of the Convention ( Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) , cited above, § 194)? If so, on what date this mechanism became operational? Your Government are requested to submit all relevant materials and documents related to the amendments of 18 October 2022, as well as examples of their application in practice. 3.     Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article   3 of the Convention? If not, from what date could he no longer claim to be a victim of the above alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis , Zhivko Gospodinov and Others v. Bulgaria [Committee], nos.   34639/07 and   9   others, §§   39 to 42, 26 October 2017)?