CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 5 décembre 2024

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9B8A0E71 { padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:11.35pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { 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 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2024)337 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Eight cases against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 December 2024 at the 1514 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 10543/03 LEONOV 26/01/2017 26/01/2017 38683/06 ALEKSANDR SMIRNOV 15/07/2010 15/10/2010 30075/06 ZAMFERESKO 15/11/2012 15/02/2013 38833/03 KIRPICHENKO 02/04/2015 02/07/2015 43109/05 SAMARDAK 04/11/2010 04/02/2011 29175/04 DUSHKA 03/02/2011 03/05/2011 17323/04 ISMAILOV 27/11/2008 27/02/2009 34331/03 SPINOV 27/11/2008 06/07/2009   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 on account of torture and/or ill-treatment by the police, mostly in order to obtain confessions, and/or lack of effective investigations into such complaints (substantive and procedural violations of Article 3), as well as lack of speedy and thorough review of the lawfulness of detention on remand (violation of Article 5, paragraph 4), the absence of legal assistance as from the first questioning and use of evidence obtained through ill-treatment for the applicants’ conviction (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (c));   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 consolidated and updated action plans provided by the Government indicating the individual measures adopted to execute the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see documents DH-DD(2024)492 and DH-DD(2024)1134 );     Noting with regret that no further individual measures are possible in the cases of Aleksandr Smirnov, Zamferesko, Kirpichenko, Samardak, Dushka, Ismailov in the light of the decisions of the domestic courts to terminate criminal proceedings as time-barred and in the cases of Leonov and Spinov , in which, despite the measures taken by the renewed investigations, it was impossible to rectify some key shortcomings identified by the Court; noting also that no further individual measures are necessary in the Leonov case in respect of the lack of speedy and thorough review of the lawfulness of detention on remand, and in the Zamferesko case given that the evidence obtained in breach of the Convention was declared inadmissible in the judicial proceedings reopened after the Court’s judgment;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Kaverzin/ Afanasyev/ Belousov groups of cases, also in the light of the Court’s findings in these cases, and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required;   Noting also that the outstanding questions related to lack of speedy and thorough review of the lawfulness of detention on remand, the absence of legal assistance as from the first questioning and use of evidence obtained through ill-treatment for the applicant’s conviction, raised in the cases of Leonov and Zamferesko are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Ignatov and Balitskiy groups of cases, respectively,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases;   CONCLUDES that the necessary individual measures have been adopted;   DECIDES to continue to supervise the adoption of the necessary general measures concerning torture and/or ill-treatment in police custody and lack of effective investigation in this respect in the Kaverzin / Afanasyev/Belousov groups of cases; lack of speedy and thorough review of the lawfulness of detention on remand in the Ignatov group of cases; the absence of legal assistance as from the first questioning and use of evidence obtained through ill-treatment for the applicant’s conviction in the Balitskiy group of cases;   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.