CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 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 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Published on 23 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57288/22 Oksana Volodymyrivna NAYDEN and Olena Oleksiyivna PEDAK against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 16 December 2022 communicated on 4 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful detention of two Ukrainian prisoners of war – the applicants’ close relatives – who were captured by Russian forces during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The applicants are represented by Mr M. Tarakhkalo, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. FACTS The applicants’ relatives, who are servicemen of the “Azov” Regiment, were captured by Russian forces at the Azovstal Iron and Steel Works in Mariupol, Donetsk region, on 18 May 2022 (see, for the context, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, §§   69 and 742, 9   July 2025). Subsequently, they were taken to the Volnovakha penal colony in Olenivka, Donetsk region. The first applicant’s relative On an unspecified date between 20 and 25 June 2022, the first applicant’s son Mr Nayden called her from an unknown phone number. He told her that he was in captivity and that he was held in Olenivka. On 15 September 2022 he contacted her again via a video call. He informed her that he had been transferred from Olenivka to Donetsk. He added that he was repeatedly taken to Melekino for interrogations and subjected to physical and psychological torture to compel him to sign a number of documents. According to the first applicant, her son’s physical condition was “terrible”, and he showed signs of severe exhaustion. Subsequently, the first applicant has had no contact with her son and has been unable to establish his whereabouts. The second applicant’s relative On 18 May 2022 the second applicant’s husband Mr Pedak messaged her that he was being detained in Olenivka. She also states that, according to the information provided to her by a released prisoner of war, her husband had been detained in Olenivka until 27   July 2022. On that date he was transferred to the Donetsk pre-trial detention facility. The conditions of his detention in Donetsk were allegedly inadequate, including overcrowding and lack of food. Subsequently, the second applicant has had no contact with her husband and has been unable to establish his whereabouts. By letters dated 13 and 14 December 2022, the Ukrainian National Center for Peacebuilding (acting as an Information Bureau under the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) confirmed that the applicants’ relatives were in Russian captivity. The Russian Federation had not provided any information regarding their whereabouts or state of heath. Attack in Olenivka On the night of 28-29 July 2022, explosions occurred at the Volnovakha penal colony in Olenivka, destroying a military barracks where approximately 200 Ukrainian prisoners of war were held. 53 Ukrainian prisoners of war were killed, and an unknown number were injured as a result. The Russian authorities claimed that the explosions had been caused by HIMARS rockets launched by Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainian authorities refuted this claim, arguing that the strike had been a false flag operation carried out by Russia (see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia , cited above, §§ 978-79 and 994). The applicants do not have any information about whether their relatives were harmed during that attack. Request for interim measures On 16 December 2022 the applicants requested the Court to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On 19 December 2022 the Court decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, that they should (i) ensure that the applicants’ relatives are able to have access to their families and/or legal representatives with a view to enabling them to exercise effectively their right of individual application, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, in respect of their Convention complaints, and (ii) reply to a number of questions put by the Court. In addition, the Court decided to indicate to the Government of Ukraine (i) to ensure, insofar as possible, respect for the Convention rights of the applicants’ relatives and (ii) to submit any information which they considered relevant for the examination of the request. No replies have been provided by the Government of the Russian Federation. The interim measures indicated by the Court on 19 December 2022 remain in force. COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Relying on Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, the applicants complain that the Russian Federation failed to carry out an effective investigation into the attack at the Volnovakha penal colony on 28 ‑ 29 July 2022, during which their relatives, who were allegedly detained there, may have been killed. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants further complain that they have been suffering severe mental distress due to the uncertainty surrounding the fate of their relatives following their capture, the inability to establish contact with them or to ascertain their whereabouts, and the indifference displayed by Russian authorities which was manifested in their failure to provide information about their relatives upon the Court’s request. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants further complain that their relatives were detained in inadequate conditions and subjected to torture, other ill-treatment and an absolute ban on contact with their families by Russian authorities. Invoking the procedural limb of Article 3, they also complain of the Russian Federation’s alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation in respect of their allegations. Referring to Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants further complain that their relatives were detained in violation of the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law, rendering their detention unlawful. Furthermore, invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that there were no effective domestic remedies in the Russian Federation in respect of their complaints on behalf of their relatives under Articles 2, 3 and 5. Lastly, relying on Article 34 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the Russian Federation failed to comply with the interim measures indicated by the Court on 19 December 2022. COMPLAINTS AGAINST UKRAINE Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain that Ukraine did not fulfil its positive obligation under that Article to release their relatives from Russian captivity by using all possible legal and diplomatic means. In support of their allegations directed against Russia and Ukraine above, the applicants rely on testimonies provided by former prisoners of war, reports from Ukrainian authorities, as well as Ukrainian and foreign media reports. QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), have any investigations been carried out by the Russian Federation in respect of the applicants’ allegation of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by that provision? The parties are requested to submit all the evidence in their possession concerning the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives at the time of the attack at the Volnovakha penal colony on 28-29 July 2022. 3.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the Russian Federation, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in respect of their suffering due to the uncertainty surrounding the fate of their relatives, the alleged inability to establish contact with them, to ascertain their whereabouts, and the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia   [GC], cited above, § 1081)? 4.     Have the applicants’ relatives been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia   [GC], cited above, § 1076)? Have any investigations been carried out into the applicants’ allegation of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as required by that provision? 5.     Have the applicants’ relatives been deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see   Hassan v. the United Kingdom   [GC], no.   29750/09, §§ 100-07, 16 September 2014)? 6.     Has there been a breach of the right of the applicants’ relatives under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the alleged absolute ban on their contact with their families (see   Khoroshenko v. Russia   [GC], no.   41418/04, §   106, ECHR 2015, with further references)? 7.     Did the applicants   have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints on behalf of their relatives under   Articles 2, 3 and 5, as required by Article 13 of the Convention ( Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia   [GC], cited above, §§ 1617-21)? 8.     Have the Government of the Russian Federation complied with the interim measures indicated on 19 December 2022 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court? If the answer is in the negative, was there a hindrance by the Russian Government with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application, as ensured by Article 34 of the Convention (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§   128-29, ECHR 2005-I)? QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     What is the scope of Ukraine’s positive obligations under Article 5 of the Convention in the present case? Have these obligations been fulfilled (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia   [GC], no.   11138/10, §   151, 23   February 2016)?