TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): She asked me to address you asking help because, as I've said, there is no fair judiciary in Ukraine and the only help of Mrs. Tymoshenko is you.
AP2 (Applicant): Only the decision of the European Court could help the former prime minister, the leader of Ukrainian opposition in that situation.
AP2 (Applicant): Sorry for such a long introduction, but Mrs. Tymoshenko asked me to tell you so, and I did.
AP2 (Applicant): About the violations of the Article 18 of the Convention, I could specifically mention that, first of all, the absence of legal grounds or evidence for detaining the applicant in decision of the Pechersk and Shevchenkovsky District Courts prove the political purpose of that decisions.
AP2 (Applicant): These decisions are not typical for Ukrainian judiciary practice.
AP2 (Applicant): I also could say that there were no case in Ukraine's independent history which was held in the cell of the jail, specifically or in particularly when the person was immobilized and seriously ill.
AP2 (Applicant): That was the first case in Ukrainian independent history.
AP2 (Applicant): All that violation of law during the court hearings and during the detention of Mrs. Tymoshenko
AP2 (Applicant): were supervised by the independent observers who were directly present in the courtroom.
AP2 (Applicant): You have in the case files the research done by the Danish Helsinki Committee, which absolutely and strictly says that the detention of Mrs. Tymoshenko was not legal.
AP2 (Applicant): It was politically motivated.
AP2 (Applicant): There were no criminal prosecution.
AP2 (Applicant): There was a political prosecution of the main political opponent of the nowadays Ukrainian regime.
AP2 (Applicant): I also should mention that every day in the court were present the independent legal experts from the embassies of the countries of the European Union on the everyday basis.
AP2 (Applicant): And all that countries made their statements that that case was a politically motivated case and that had nothing to do with a fair trial, with a fair detention, with a fair judiciary.
AP2 (Applicant): Also, I should mention that the detention of Mrs. Tymoshenko
AP2 (Applicant): restricted her ability to communicate with Ukrainian and foreign politicians, journalists, and voters, though she nominally remained the head of the political party, Batkivshchina, the main oppositional political party, but she was not able to perform her duties.
AP2 (Applicant): In Kiev, Sezov, 13, she was able only to communicate with her lawyers.
AP2 (Applicant): I should also say that the high-ranking officials in Ukraine, like President, Prime Minister, Prosecutor General, all his deputies, the Minister of Health, the Ministry of Justice, all vice prime ministers, among others, made numerous statements about the detention of Mrs. Tymoshenko,
AP2 (Applicant): that it was legal, that it was OK, and that it was absolutely criminally prosecuted.
AP2 (Applicant): Also, I should mention such a brilliant quote, which was made by the member of the parliament, Mr. Chechetov, who is the head of the party,
AP2 (Applicant): the fraction of the party of region in the Ukrainian parliament.
AP2 (Applicant): He said, if she would be silent, she would be free.
AP2 (Applicant): So that's the consequences of what is going on in the case of Tymoshenko.
AP2 (Applicant): If she would be silent, she would be free.
AP2 (Applicant): Also, I should say that the political sense of her detention was shown in the verdict, in the verdict of Pechersky District Court.
AP2 (Applicant): In that verdict, the only motive for so-called criminal activity was mentioned by the judge as the creation of the personal political image as of prime minister.
AP2 (Applicant): So what's that?
AP2 (Applicant): That's a direct violation of Article 18 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
AP2 (Applicant): I also should say that...
AP2 (Applicant): ..the government high-ranking officials,
AP2 (Applicant): for example, such a Minister of Justice, Mr. Alexander Lavrinovich,
AP2 (Applicant): stated to press that if Mrs. Tymoshenko had admitted her crimes
AP2 (Applicant): and had asked to be pardoned, she would have been released.
AP2 (Applicant): As we know from the case of the former Minister of Defence, Mr. Ivashchenko, who actually declared himself guilty,
AP2 (Applicant): and he was immediately released in the courtroom.
AP2 (Applicant): So in this way, the government just managed the courts in Ukraine.
AP2 (Applicant): I also should mention that during the hearings in the High Specialized Court of Civil and Criminal Cases in Kiev, the representative of the prosecutor office, Mrs. Drogobetskaya,
AP2 (Applicant): she said that Mrs. Tymoshenko was arrested
AP2 (Applicant): because she don't want to stand up in the courtroom, and she was saying the political slogans.
AP2 (Applicant): So that are the real things what for Mrs. Tymoshenko was detained.
AP2 (Applicant): I should end my speech and I should just say once more that your court is the only hope of Mrs. Tymoshenko in Ukraine.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Vlasenko.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Yes, please, I have some questions.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): The first set of questions concerns the reasons for the applicant's detention.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So the reasons given for the applicant's detention on 5th August 2011 were that she might attempt to abscond, and I quote now, to abscond from trial, evade the execution of procedural decisions, abstract the establishment of the truth in the criminal case.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): It was further argued that she failed to show respect for the court and participants of the trial and breached the order of consideration of the case.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): In particular, she had failed to comply with instructions of the court and obstructed the process of interrogation of witnesses.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So my questions are the following.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Are there other cases in Ukraine in which courts have ordered pretrial detention for contempt of court?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Is this a legal practice in Ukraine?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And second, what is meant by the reproach she obstructed the process of interrogation of witnesses?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): If she just asked questions or contradicted witnesses, isn't that her procedural right on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): The second set of questions concerns the transport to the hospital and thus the incident on 20th of April 2012.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So my question first go to the government.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Was the video surveillance of the applicant's cell never recording or was it only not properly functioning the day when the applicant was brought to the hospital?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Next question, why was the prison inmate who shared the applicant's cell brought to another cell immediately before the applicant was removed?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Third question, why has she been transferred to the hospital during the night after she had already gone to bed?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So it was at 9.30, I think they arrived,
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): and she was brought to the hospital at 10.40 in the night.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And fourth question, in which way was the evidence obtained by the Ombudsman used by the general prosecutor when deciding about opening or not opening a criminal investigation into the incident?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Then I want to know, the state authorities have given two possibilities, possible reasons for the hematomes found on the applicant's body.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): First, that they were self-inflicted, and second, that there were symptoms of the illness the applicant had had before already in August 2011.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I just want to know concerning self-infliction, how could the applicant have self-inflicted the hematoma in prison as she was surveyed 24 hours by the video surveillance and it was never claimed that anybody has seen herself applying blunt objects against her body?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And the question concerning this incident to the applicant, why has the applicant not complained about the use of force immediately when she arrived in the hospital Friday night?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And why did she show the hematoma only on 24th of April, that is four days afterwards and not before?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And why did she not accept a blood test to be taken after that?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And just one further question concerning the lack or the denial of provision of painkillers during the court hearings.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I would like to know, the applicant said that the painkillers were only given to her when she cooperated.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I want to know which sort of cooperation was demanded and for how long was she denied the medicine she thought she needed?
Mark Villiger (Judge): I have a group of questions to begin with on the conditions of detention.
Mark Villiger (Judge): And here I would begin with questions to the applicant's representatives, in particular concerning the applicant's allegations as to inhuman treatment in Kiev Detention Center Number 13.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I note that the description of the detention conditions given by the applicant in the original complaint dated 5 October 2011 differs from the description given by the applicant later on received by the registry on 8th, 25th June and 6th July 2012.
Mark Villiger (Judge): The descriptions differ in important aspects, for example, as the size of the cell, 16, 14 square meters, the amount of showers allowed, one shower per week, two showers per week, the necessity to ask for permission for an extra shower.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I would like to ask the applicant's representatives why do these descriptions differ?
Mark Villiger (Judge): Then still on the conditions of detention, I have questions both to the applicant's representatives and to the government.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I would wish to know was the applicant granted privileges which other detainees were not granted, for example, concerning food parcels, parcels with bed linen, parcels with fresh drinking water and so on.
Mark Villiger (Judge): Were all prisoners provided?
Mark Villiger (Judge): In fact, could all prisoners be provided with food, bed linen and drinking water in a sufficient quality?
Mark Villiger (Judge): And if the applicant received special treatment, why was this necessary?
Mark Villiger (Judge): The next group of questions concerns the applicant's medical treatment, and here I would begin with questions to the applicant's representatives.
Mark Villiger (Judge): What was the reason for the applicant not to trust the medical treatment and examination offered by the authorities?
Mark Villiger (Judge): On the other hand, why did she at times accept to take the medicaments prescribed and to undergo examinations?
Mark Villiger (Judge): Why did she refuse to be examined when Dr. P and her nurse were present, even though
Mark Villiger (Judge): previously she had wished that this happened, for example, 3rd September and 15th September 2011?
Mark Villiger (Judge): To the government, I have a final question as to the medical treatment.
Mark Villiger (Judge): I note that a different assessment of the health status of the applicant was made by the prison doctors on the one hand and by the foreign doctors on the other.
Mark Villiger (Judge): How can such a different assessment be explained, particularly as regards the evaluation of the seriousness of the applicant's condition?
Mark Villiger (Judge): The question was, how can this assessment be explained, particularly as regards the evaluation of the seriousness of the applicant's condition?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you Judge Villiger, Judge Yudkivska please.
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): Thank you. I have a question to the government concerning the applicant's complaint under
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): Article 8 of the Convention. You have stated in your submission that video surveillance
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): of the applicant in the hospital had a legal basis and pursued legitimate aim. I would
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): like to ask you to comment on proportionality and necessity of this measure. Also, had the
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): applicant complained to the administrative court as the government suggested she had to do? Would the administrative court examine not only legality but proportionality of the
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): impugned measure according to relevant legislation and domestic case law? And was this remedy
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): effective in the applicant's situation? And on this latter point, I would like to ask
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): the applicant to comment as well. Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much. Are there any other questions?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): This doesn't seem to be the case.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So there will be a break now for 20 minutes, and we will resume the hearing in 20 minutes.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Kulchytskyy, please. You have the floor.
GR1 (Government): As to the first question, I would like to know that, as it was mentioned before, the reason for the applicant's detention was clearly mentioned in the national court's decision, and it was mentioned that the applicant may attempt to abscond from trial, await execution of the procedural decision, and obstruct establishment of truth in criminal case.
GR1 (Government): With respect of the applicant to the court, cannot be reason for her pretrial detention, and it never was in this case also.
GR1 (Government): It was just mentioned by the court as one of characterized issues of the applicant.
GR1 (Government): So it never was a reason for her conviction.
GR1 (Government): And of course, we cannot submit any examples of any decisions in which a person was jailed for disrespect to the courts, since it cannot be reason for held person in custody.
GR1 (Government): According to video surveillance, in day when applicant was transferred to the clinic, there was never videotaping, as there was video surveillance in real-time regime.
GR1 (Government): And persons who were responsible for video surveillance also were interrogated, and their testimonies were included into conclusion of general prosecutor's office.
GR1 (Government): As to her cellmate, it's necessary to tell that she felt worse, and after this, she was transferred to medical unit of Kachanivskaya colony.
GR1 (Government): It's also necessary to note that applicant's consent for transfer to Okruzhelyaznitsya hospital just in 5 o'clock in the evening, and she gives this consent to members of medical commission, and it took some time to organize her transfer from Kachanivskaya colony to Okruzhelyaznitsya hospital, and it was just time which was needed to organize everything, and it was done to avoid worsening of the applicant's health of state.
GR1 (Government): It's also necessary to point out that according to national legislation, testimonies of other person or photos which wasn't done by medical expert cannot serve as basic for conclusion in forensic examination.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, although statement of ombudsman couldn't be taken as evidence of existing of some bruises on the applicant's body, and also it wasn't possible to understand character of this alleged bruises.
GR1 (Government): As concerning widow surveillance and self-injury, it's necessary to point out that widow surveillance is absent in bathroom which was in the applicant's cell, and according to expert conclusion, they were located in areas in which a person could make self-injuries.
GR1 (Government): Pain relief, it's also necessary to point out that applicant was, she never had pain relief medicines.
GR1 (Government): All the time she was prescribed medicines against anti-inflammatory medicines.
GR1 (Government): They were prescribed to the applicant, and she was provided with all necessary medicaments according to her sickness.
GR1 (Government): So all the statements are not true.
GR1 (Government): According to privileges allegedly submitted to the applicant, according to national legislation, any person who is in custody can receive parcels from his relative or friends, and the number of such parcels are not limited.
GR1 (Government): So if someone's relatives or friends can make those parcels, person can receive this, and it's not some privileges to the applicant.
GR1 (Government): It's also necessary to point out that there was no difference in conclusion of German and Ukrainian doctors.
GR1 (Government): There were just some misunderstandings in terms, since German doctors use term rupture, while Ukrainian doctors use protrusions.
GR1 (Government): Both these terms mean almost the same, and the fact that they were on the same opinion as to applicant's state of health is confirmed by the fact that medical treatment was appointed almost the same by German doctors and by Ukrainian doctors, and it's not possible if they were different opinion as to her state of health.
GR1 (Government): And if I'm right, the last question is concerning video surveillance and her possibility to claim this video surveillance.
GR1 (Government): According to Code of Administrative Jurisdiction, any person can lodge claim on any action or inactivity of state authorities.
GR1 (Government): So for this reason, applicant can challenge video surveillance, and any state authority should act in manner prescribed in law and can take just action or decision which are necessary for its functioning and to execute its obligation.
GR1 (Government): So if applicant would be able to prove that it was not necessary, it couldn't be taken as argument, and such activity could be found illegal.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr Kulchytskyy.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call now Ms Telychenko, please.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Oh, Mr Vlasenko.
AP2 (Applicant): Yeah, thank you very much.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): You want to respond to the question?
AP2 (Applicant): You you you want to respond to the question? I will start to respond to some questions and Mrs.
AP2 (Applicant): Sulejanka will add a little bit to another questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. So, Mr. Vlasenko, please.
AP2 (Applicant): Honorable judges, I should say thank you to the representative of the state who said absolutely directly and strictly that according to Ukrainian law, disrespect to the court is not the basis for the person to be detained.
AP2 (Applicant): That's true.
AP2 (Applicant): And there is no case in Ukrainian history that the person was detained because of disrespect to the court, because that is illegal.
AP2 (Applicant): That is not according to the law.
AP2 (Applicant): Also, I should tell the court about the situation which had happened on the April 20th, because I was the participant of that event.
AP2 (Applicant): I personally saw the bruises on Mrs. Timoshenko's body.
AP2 (Applicant): I am her defense lawyer in several criminal cases.
AP2 (Applicant): I should just correct a little bit the court, because Mrs. Timoshenko just firstly said about that bruises
AP2 (Applicant): not on the 24th of April, but on the 23rd of April.
AP2 (Applicant): That was Monday, as far as I remember, because the 20th, that was Friday.
AP2 (Applicant): And I saw Mrs. Timoshenko in her jail.
AP2 (Applicant): I have the meeting with her as her defense lawyer.
AP2 (Applicant): I was with her in the meeting room until 3 PM, because there was announcement in the court.
AP2 (Applicant): So I leave to the court.
AP2 (Applicant): And we never discussed at that moment with Mrs. Timoshenko
AP2 (Applicant): any her transference to any hospitals.
AP2 (Applicant): So on Friday at 3 PM, she was not informed that she would be transferred to any hospital.
AP2 (Applicant): Yet we expect at that moment the conclusion of the German doctors whether the Kharkiv Railway Clinic will be satisfactory for the treatment of Mrs. Timoshenko.
AP2 (Applicant): And when I leave the Kachanovskaya colony, I received a copy of that report in which it was strictly said that Kharkiv Railway Clinic will not provide an effective treatment to Mrs. Timoshenko.
AP2 (Applicant): That's why when I have heard on TV on Saturday that Mrs. Timoshenko was transferred to the colony,
AP2 (Applicant): I was shocked.
AP2 (Applicant): Because I saw my client just half a day ago.
AP2 (Applicant): She's telling me nothing about any transference.
AP2 (Applicant): I saw the report of the German doctors which said that that clinic is not satisfactory.
AP2 (Applicant): And I've heard that Mrs. Timoshenko was transferred.
AP2 (Applicant): On Monday morning, I tried to reach my client.
AP2 (Applicant): I wasn't allowed to.
AP2 (Applicant): I asked the administration with the penitentiary system why.
AP2 (Applicant): They said, we have the cleaning day in the jail, the sanitary day.
AP2 (Applicant): They were cleaning the jail.
AP2 (Applicant): And that's why they didn't allow me, as the defense lawyer of Mrs. Timoshenko,
AP2 (Applicant): to visit my client.
AP2 (Applicant): The same situation occurred on the next day, on the 24th.
AP2 (Applicant): Only because I am the member of the parliament and the parliamentary fraction of the bloc of Yulia Timoshenko made a political demarche in the Ukrainian parliament, I was allowed to visit Mrs. Timoshenko on the second part of the day,
AP2 (Applicant): of the 24th of April, Tuesday.
AP2 (Applicant): When I reached Mrs. Timoshenko, I saw her lying
AP2 (Applicant): on the special bed, because our meeting room with the defense lawyers is equipped with a special medical bed in which Mrs. Timoshenko is lying every time
AP2 (Applicant): when I am meeting her.
AP2 (Applicant): And she showed me that bruises.
AP2 (Applicant): One of the honorable judges asked about the version of the prosecutor's office that they were caused by herself.
AP2 (Applicant): I don't know how I could cause that.
AP2 (Applicant): That couldn't be done.
AP2 (Applicant): There were three video cameras on the way from the cell of Mrs. Timoshenko to the way
AP2 (Applicant): where the ambulance car stood.
AP2 (Applicant): We received no tapes.
AP2 (Applicant): No tapes.
AP2 (Applicant): They said, yeah, this is a video surveillance, but we are not recording.
AP2 (Applicant): We are just supervising.
AP2 (Applicant): What for?
AP2 (Applicant): I don't know.
AP2 (Applicant): The honorable judge asked the question why she didn't say at the moment that she was injured.
AP2 (Applicant): Please, imagine the lady, which was the prime minister, which was severely beaten by two big guys in the night, crying all over the colony, help me, help me.
AP2 (Applicant): And no one helped.
AP2 (Applicant): And her neighbor lady was transferred from the cell.
AP2 (Applicant): Just not to hear what, not to see what is going on.
AP2 (Applicant): With the only purpose, not to see what will be going on.
AP2 (Applicant): She was really shocked.
AP2 (Applicant): The first thing that she did, she asked to see her defense lawyers, any one of them.
AP2 (Applicant): She was not provided.
AP2 (Applicant): She was tried to show that bruises to the medical personnel of the Kharkiv Railway Clinic.
AP2 (Applicant): They say, we don't want to deal with that.
AP2 (Applicant): We don't want to deal with that.
AP2 (Applicant): And that was the answer.
AP2 (Applicant): Mrs. Timoshenko was transferred back
AP2 (Applicant): because one of the ladies present here, the first vice deputy minister of health, said that the hospital, that's not the hotel.
AP2 (Applicant): And we'll throw you back to the prison, even giving you no treatment at all.
AP2 (Applicant): We'll throw you back.
AP2 (Applicant): After that, in the midday of Sunday, Mrs. Timoshenko was transferred back.
AP2 (Applicant): And in the beginning of Monday, she wrote the request in written to the prosecutor's office of Kharkiv region.
AP2 (Applicant): At the same moment, she showed her bruises because she understood, she was informed that her defense lawyers will not be allowed to visit her.