TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): Cell 300 had no heating.
AP1 (Applicant): And the applicant was forced to stay in that cell fully dressed, including her overcoat and gloves, even when she went to sleep.
AP1 (Applicant): There was a toilet in the cell and no hot water, as in previous.
AP1 (Applicant): On November 28, just prior to the CPT ad hoc mission visit to Kiev CISO, late at night, the applicant was transferred to cell 260 in the medical unit of the Kiev CISO.
AP1 (Applicant): This cell fully corresponded to the description provided by the government in its observation dated March 20, 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): While being detained in Kiev CISO, the applicant was not given a chance to use her rugs because of her almost daily court sessions.
AP1 (Applicant): During the first 30 days of the detention, she spent 25 days in court at the court sessions.
AP1 (Applicant): Each court session lasted until late evening.
AP1 (Applicant): On the days when the applicant had to go to court, she was woken up at around 5 o'clock in the morning to be transported to the court around 8 AM.
AP1 (Applicant): And then she spent sometimes 14 hours at the court session.
AP1 (Applicant): Nina Karpachyova, the ombudsman of Ukraine, confirmed these facts by her document.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, despite existence of daily walks in the detainee's routine schedule, the applicant was deprived of them.
AP1 (Applicant): The detention authorities failed to provide the applicant with the food or water supply during the court sessions.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the national legislation, no parcel of deliveries can be made to detainees in court.
AP1 (Applicant): Water or food can be delivered to detainees by anybody except the penitentiary service.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the applicant did not receive anything from her relatives during the court session days.
AP1 (Applicant): Question three.
AP1 (Applicant): The fact that the decision to deprive the applicant of liberty had been made by a court did not guarantee the complaints of the decision with the national law or international obligations of the government.
AP1 (Applicant): The Shevchenko District Court violated the national legislation by conducting hearings on the applicant's detention in the medical unit of Kiev CISO, since no secured court is allowed by the national legislation.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, the applicant and her lawyer were neither properly informed about the time of the hearing, nor given enough time to prepare to that hearing.
AP1 (Applicant): They were informed an hour before the beginning of the hearing, which indicates the arbitrariness of the whole process of the applicant's detention by the Shevchenko District Court.
AP1 (Applicant): Taken into consideration that the applicant is a public figure in Ukraine, and that there is a huge public interest in her case, the decision of having closed hearing on her detention violates the principle of non-arbitrary deprivation of the liberty, and violates Article 5, Paragraph 1.
AP1 (Applicant): During the court hearing in the medical unit of the Kiev CISO, a significant group of journalists were waiting at the entrance to the CISO, since they were not allowed to get in.
AP1 (Applicant): The Article 20 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine also provides that all court hearings shall be public in Ukraine.
AP1 (Applicant): The protocol of the Shevchenko District Court on the applicant's detention stated that the hearing had been public, while it had taken place in Kiev CISO.
AP1 (Applicant): The access to Kiev CISO is regulated by strict rules, and nobody without a special permit can enter it.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite high public interest to the court hearing, no journalists were allowed to attend it.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the court hearing on the applicant's detention was not public, what constitute a violation of the national legislation of Ukraine, and the principle of the Article 5, Paragraph 1.
AP1 (Applicant): The Pechersky Court justified the applicant's detention by her being suspected in committing a serious crime, and that she could have absconded the due course of justice.
AP1 (Applicant): At the same time, the trial court failed to provide any evidences on the attempt abscond of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): Additionally, the applicant had never committed any violent crime, and had no criminal record.
AP1 (Applicant): She made no attempt to avoid inquiry during the pretrial investigation, or a trial that lasted more than a year before the applicant's detention.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant could not have continuing activities she was charged with, because she had not been Prime Minister for more than a year by the time when she was detained.
AP1 (Applicant): As a defendant, she complied with all procedural decisions, and came to all investigation questions and court sessions on time, with the exception of the court session on August 5, 2011, when she arrived with a seven-minute delay.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, we believe that the court decision to detain the applicant was not proportional.
AP1 (Applicant): The Shevchenko District Court, in its decision, explained the applicant's detention by her possibility of absconding the influence upon witnesses.
AP1 (Applicant): The Shevchenko District Court ignored the fact that the applicant could not have had any influence on anybody from Kiev's season, where she was already detained and held the weight in the appeal hearing in the gas agreement case, and she could not escape justice in that situation as well.
AP1 (Applicant): There were two court decisions on detention of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): One is made by the Pechersky Court on August 5, and another is by Shevchenko Court on December 8, 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): Both decisions were to detain the applicant for unlimited period of time, and this is in breach of the Article 5, Paragraph 1.
AP1 (Applicant): Even though the order of the Pechersky Court was in accordance with the national law on detention during trials, it contradicted the court's interpretation of Article 5, Paragraph 1, per the court's decisions, in particular, Kharchenko against Ukraine.
AP1 (Applicant): The Shevchenko Court also held the decision to detain the applicant in the United Energy System of Ukraine case for unspecified time.
AP1 (Applicant): The national legislation of Ukraine limits the detention during any pretrial investigation to two months.
AP1 (Applicant): However, Judge Trubnikov ignored the national legislation and held decision to deprive the applicant of liberty for unlimited period of time.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant believed that there is a violation of impartiality of the Pechersky District Court since it failed to provide confirmation of the computerized random appointment of Judge Kireev.
AP1 (Applicant): In the explanatory part of the court decision on the applicant's detention from August 5, Kireev referred to the following evidences of the applicant's noncompliance with the lawful order.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's absence in court on August 5, seven minutes delay, in fact.
AP1 (Applicant): Disrespect for him personally by not getting up when addressing the judge, and the applicant's refusal to answer a question on her permanent and current address.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was present at all court sessions and arrived on time each time.
AP1 (Applicant): Her current and permanent address were written in her case file and on a relevant page of a copy of her passport, which she submitted to court in accordance with the national law.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, it was not clear why Judge Kireev stated, as one of the reasons of the applicant's misconduct in court, her refusal to answer the question regarding her current address during the public hearing.
AP1 (Applicant): Beside, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized information about the place of residence of any person as confidential, and therefore allowed not make it public.
AP1 (Applicant): With regard to disrespect for Judge Kireev, the applicant made a statement in court that she considered the appointment of an unexperienced young judge who had not been confirmed by Parliament for permanent acting in breach of the national legislation.
AP1 (Applicant): And therefore, she did not recognize the court as independent and impartial.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant declared that therefore, she would not address Judge Kireev as your owner, but Mr. Kireev,
AP1 (Applicant): and would not arise from her seat to address him.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant referred to Article 39 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which allowed to express individual protest in any form which is not dangerous for public order.
AP1 (Applicant): The national legislation of Ukraine does not foresee detention for violating discipline in court.
AP1 (Applicant): As it was mentioned in answer to the question three, the Shevchenko District Court in its decision on the applicant's detention made in December 2011 explained the applicant's detention by her possible abscond and influence upon witnesses.
AP1 (Applicant): The court ignored the fact that the applicant could not have had any influence on anybody from CISO where she was held awaiting the appeal hearing in the gas agreement case, and she could not escape justice.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the national legislation, decisions on detention held on the basis of Article 274 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine.
AP1 (Applicant): The decisions in the detention during the trial cannot be a subject of judicial review.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, the lack of the legal procedure to challenge the decision of detention for unlimited period of time, which is the violation of Article 5, paragraph 4.
AP1 (Applicant): The decision of the Shevchenko District Court to detain the applicant for unlimited period of time was appealed in the Kiev City Court Appeal and upheld by it.
AP1 (Applicant): With regards to the applicant's effective and enforceable right to compensation for her detention, I would like to mention that according to the national law Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, anticipates compensation for damage in case of unlawful usage of the preventive measure.
AP1 (Applicant): There is no legal procedure for applicants' detention to be recognized as illegal if the decision to detain has been held by a court.
AP1 (Applicant): And there is no appellation procedure to challenge the decision on detention by the Pechersk District Court, as has been shown above.
AP1 (Applicant): The Shevchenko District Court has been shown above the Shevchenko District Court decision was appealed, but the Kiev City Court of Appeal upheld it.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the applicant cannot use Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as government indicated.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was transferred to Kachanivka colony on December 31, 2011, straight from the medical unit of the Kiev CISO.
AP1 (Applicant): And was placed in the ordinary cell despite her immobilized condition and permanent acute pain in her back.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite applicants' numerous requests to allow her to use rockets to assist her moving in that cell, Kachanivka colony authorities rejected her request, and she was condemned to staying in bed and was not able to enjoy daily walks outdoors.
AP1 (Applicant): After three months of the applicant's loss of mobility in February 2011, she was examined by the group of German and Canadian doctors who confirmed her serious illness and requested her immediate hospitalization.
AP1 (Applicant): On 15 March 2011, the court indicated to the government of Ukraine under Rule 39 to ensure that Ms. Temushenko receives
AP1 (Applicant): treatment appropriate to her complaints in an appropriate institutionalized setting.
AP1 (Applicant): The government of Ukraine consistently tried to avoid transferring the applicant outside of Kachanivka colony, though it was ever aware of her critical state of health and her urgent need to be treated in the specialized medical institution.
AP1 (Applicant): On March 16, 2011, the government bought medical equipment from nearby hospitals to Kachanivka prison.
AP1 (Applicant): On the same day, the applicant was offered to undergo a procedure known as a lumbar puncture in the Kachanivka prison medical ward, which had no proper conditions or sterility and lacked appropriate medical equipment.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant refused to accept the lumbar puncture procedure in the general medical ward in the Kachanivka colony.
AP1 (Applicant): On 15, 22, 24, 25 March 2011, the applicant submitted a written request for medical treatment and complained about the lack of such to the administration of the Kachanivka colony.
AP1 (Applicant): On April 4, 2011, the applicant was offered a transfer to the Ugrzaliznitsa hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): German doctors did a research on conditions at this hospital, and they indicated a number of problems with the applicant undergoing treatment in the Ugrzaliznitsa hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): And consequently, the applicant refused to go to the Ugrzaliznitsa hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): On Friday, April 20, 2011, after 11 PM, the applicant was transferred by force to Ugrzaliznitsa hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): As a result, on the prison ward's applying physical force to the applicant, her hands and stomach were abrasive.
AP1 (Applicant): Article 106 of the Penitentiary Law of Ukraine allows the use of force against the prisoner if it was made strictly necessary by the conduct of the prisoner herself and if the degree of force used was at the minimum possible level.
AP1 (Applicant): In the applicant's case, there was no treat to life or health to any prison ward or other person.
AP1 (Applicant): And there could not have been any violence or aggression in the applicant's behavior since she has been immobilized for the last several months.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the use of force was unjustified.
AP1 (Applicant): In protest of physical abuse and humiliation, the applicant went to hunger strike on April 20 this year.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant was humiliated and threatened by the time she was transported to the Ugrzaliznitsa hospital late at night on Friday.
AP1 (Applicant): And she asked to see her lawyer.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant's lawyer arrived in Kharkiv on Monday, April 23 and was allowed to see her only after 6 PM.
AP1 (Applicant): So for whole day, he had to wait for the meeting.
AP1 (Applicant): We believe the government of Ukraine failed to conduct an effective fact-finding and refused to initiate a criminal investigation on physical abuse of the applicant in breach of its duty under Article 3.
AP1 (Applicant): On 27 April 2011, the ombudsman Nina Karpacheva announced to the national media about the applicant's physical abuse by the prison guards on April 20 during the transportation.
AP1 (Applicant): The ombudsman's office was searched by the KU prosecutor office soon after that.
AP1 (Applicant): And some of the members of the ombudsman's secretary staff were called to be questioned by the KU prosecutor office, though no criminal investigation was opened against the ombudsman.
AP1 (Applicant): Thereafter, the government declared that Nina Karpacheva forced her staff to make a failed statement about the process on Mr. Moshenko's
AP1 (Applicant): body without mentioning any names or sources of that statement.
AP1 (Applicant): The prosecutor general of Ukraine declared this process a result of self-harm by the former prime minister.
AP1 (Applicant): With regards to the applicant's right under Article 8, the applicant was under surveillance in the KFC zone by secret cameras while in the Kachanukha colony and Uxaleznitsya hospital, she could at least see some of the installed cameras.
AP1 (Applicant): In the breach of Article 103, Part 2 of the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine, the applicant was not informed about the surveillance in the KFC zone and has never signed any documents informing her about the around-the-clock surveillance.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant refused to undergo the medical procedure which required her getting undressed or discuss any intimate issues on the cameras.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant finds it humiliating to be under around-the-clock surveillance by three video cameras in her ward, in particular when she is undergoing medical treatment in the hospital.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite numerous requests of the applicant and her treating doctors to respect the applicant's privacy and to cover the cameras during medical procedure and consultations with her treating doctors, the representatives of the surveillance and security unit of the Kachanukha prison often forget or refuse to do so.
AP1 (Applicant): The government insisted that the applicant was under 24-hour surveillance according to the national law, Article 103 of the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine, which allowed the around-the-clock surveillance for preventive escapes and other crimes, violations, or the order of serving sentence, the obtaining necessary information about the convicted prison's behavior.
AP1 (Applicant): The government never specified particular reasons for Kachanukha administration to use 24-hour surveillance of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): The government does not mention any suspicious with regard to the applicant's preparation of escape or other crime or violations of the established by the legislation order.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, we assume that the only reason for the government to authorize around-the-clock surveillance over the applicant was to obtain information about the applicant's behavior.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the government failed to set out in a form accessible for the public any indication of the procedure to be followed for examining, sharing, storing, and destroying the recorded materials.
AP1 (Applicant): The government also did not make any specific recommendations for the use of 24-hour surveillance
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Litschenko, if I may interrupt you, I just want to draw your attention to the fact that you have already exhausted your allocated time.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Since you indicated that Ms. Flasenko will also take the floor, I would ask you to conclude your submissions, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you, Mr. President. Last paragraph.
AP1 (Applicant): Since the applicant's detention, she has been refused the right to use a pay phone to call her family except for May 24, when she was allowed to call to her mother-in-law with regard to the death of her father-in-law.
AP1 (Applicant): The Penitentiary Service of Ukraine made a statement that the applicant's rights to call her family after the death of her father-in-law was a luxury except for the applicant due to her political status.
AP1 (Applicant): As a person with special needs due to her immobilization, the applicant could not walk to the pay phone.
AP1 (Applicant): The Kachanivka prison administration was under a positive obligation to ensure that the applicant could have enjoyed her right to family life by talking to her relatives.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the Article 110 of the Penitentiary Code of Ukraine, the applicant, as a convict, has a right to unlimited phone calls from a pay phone.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, a fellow of the Kachanivka colony administration to ensure this right to the applicant is in breach of the national law, as well as Ukraine's obligation under Article 8 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Telychenko.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call now Mr. Vlasenko, please.
AP2 (Applicant): Thank you very much, Mr. President, honorable judges.
AP2 (Applicant): First of all, I want to say that Mrs. Tymoshenko believes
AP2 (Applicant): that the purpose of her detention was absolutely contrary to the Article 18 of the European Convention, and that actually serves her exclusion from political life in Ukraine and from participation in the upcoming parliamentary elections, which will be held on the 28th of October this year.
AP2 (Applicant): I'm sure that in some two years, that case of Mrs. Tymoshenko will be studied
AP2 (Applicant): by the law students in Ukraine, in Europe, and in the United States of America.
AP2 (Applicant): I also think that that unprecedented legal and human cynicism, which is used by the Ukrainian nowadays government towards the leader of Ukrainian opposition, should be evaluated by that court.
AP2 (Applicant): I will also ask that very high court to evaluate that juridical ingenuity of Ukrainian authorities towards Mrs. Tymoshenko.
AP2 (Applicant): The Ukrainian authorities, the Ukrainian government, think that they find out the mechanism, the possibility how to in jail Mrs. Tymoshenko for life.
AP2 (Applicant): For that purpose, they are uprising the new and new absolutely absurd accusations against her, renewing the cases which were closed seven years ago by the Supreme Courts, because they understand that now in Ukraine, they could do it every five minutes.
AP2 (Applicant): And only after that, Mrs. Tymoshenko would be obliged
AP2 (Applicant): to fight against the old state machine, which includes the judiciary system, the prosecutor office, the state doctors, the penitentiary system, which coordinate their activity every day against Mrs. Tymoshenko.
AP2 (Applicant): Because the main purpose of that is to take off the main political opponent of the nowadays president from the political life of Ukraine.
AP2 (Applicant): I should say that there is no judiciary, there is no fair judiciary in Ukraine at all, and there is no fair judiciary for Mrs. Tymoshenko specifically.
AP2 (Applicant): And that's not my personal position.
AP2 (Applicant): That is not also the position of Mrs. Tymoshenko.
AP2 (Applicant): That is the position of a very high-rank European institution, such as European Parliament, Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe, OSCE, NATO General Assembly, et cetera.
AP2 (Applicant): For example, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in its resolution 1862, dated January 26th of this year, reiterated its condemnation of the numerous shortcomings noted in the trial against the former government officials and the lack of a fair trial in Ukraine.
AP2 (Applicant): The Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe criticized Articles 364 and 365 of the Criminal Code as overly broad in application and such that effectively allowed ex post facto criminalization of normal political decisions.
AP2 (Applicant): The Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe recognized that practice as counter of the principle of rule of law and called that absolutely unacceptable.
AP2 (Applicant): That's also not the position of the governmental institution.
AP2 (Applicant): Such an independent experts, like Amnesty International, also stated their position on that issue.
AP2 (Applicant): For example, Amnesty International, in its statement dated October 11th of 2011, it was the day of the verdict of Mrs. Tymoshenko case,
AP2 (Applicant): stated the following.
AP2 (Applicant): The prosecution against Yulia Tymoshenko is politically motivated.
AP2 (Applicant): The charges against her are not internationally recognizable offenses.
AP2 (Applicant): They are attempts to criminalize decision that she made in the course of her work.
AP2 (Applicant): Her conviction and her detention on these charges is illegitimate and she should be immediately released.
AP2 (Applicant): But at that moment, the Ukrainian government hopes that the European Court of Human Rights will revise all that files for years and years and years and years and all that long time, Mrs. Tymoshenko will be in jail for nothing.
AP2 (Applicant): I saw Mrs. Tymoshenko yesterday as her defense lawyer.
AP2 (Applicant): She still couldn't work without the working aids.
AP2 (Applicant): She couldn't sit for a long time.
AP2 (Applicant): She is lying in bed.
AP2 (Applicant): She couldn't use all her powers and all her rights, even as an imprisoned person.
AP2 (Applicant): She couldn't use her rights that have any imprisoned person in Ukraine.
AP2 (Applicant): She is absolutely isolated from any communication with her relatives and with the press.
AP2 (Applicant): And now I'm addressing you in the name of Mrs. Tymoshenko.