FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF KARABET AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos 38906/07 and 52025/07)      JUDGMENT    STRASBOURG 17 January 2013 FINAL 17/04/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Karabet and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ganna Yudkivska, André Potocki, Paul Lemmens, Aleš Pejchal, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2012,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in two applications (nos 38906/07 and 52025/07) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eighteen Ukrainian nationals on 27 August 2007 (the first eight applicants, no. 38906/07) and on 21 November 2007 (the remaining ten applicants, no. 52025/07):-  Mr Vitaliy Nikolayevich Karabet, the first applicant (born in 1981 and died in 2011),-  Mr Artyom Valeriyevich Beksyak, the second applicant (born in 1986),-  Mr Igor Vladimirovich Shorban, the third applicant (born in 1987),-  Mr Konstantin Georgiyevich Knyshev, the fourth applicant (born in 1981),-  Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Kolesnikov, the fifth applicant (born in 1988),-  Mr Yuriy Yevgenyevich Shmyglenko, the sixth applicant (born in 1975),-  Mr Denis Nikolayevich Lebedev, the seventh applicant (born in 1986),-  Mr Igor Yaroslavovich Shalamay, the eighth applicant (born in 1984),-  Mr Aleksey Vladimirovich Danylyuk, the ninth applicant (born in 1974),-  Mr Anzor Umarkhanovich Tovsultanov, the tenth applicant (born in 1986),-  Mr Konstantin Aleksandrovich Khodakovskiy, the eleventh applicant (born in 1988),-  Mr Mikhail Yuryevich Krasovskiy, the twelfth applicant (born in 1984),-  Mr Dmitriy Sergeyevich Globenko, the thirteenth applicant (born in 1986),-  Mr Nikolay Dmitriyevich Klimashenko, the fourteenth applicant (born in 1972),-  Mr Yevgeniy Leonidovich Plokhov, the fifteenth applicant (born in 1968),-  Mr Aleksandr Stanislavovich Ivanov, the sixteenth applicant (born in 1986),-  Mr Valeriy Valeryevich Gotskovskiy, the seventeenth applicant (born in 1986), and-  Mr Maksim Sergeyevich Batashev, the eighteenth applicant (born in 1986).2. The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr A.P. Bushchenko, a lawyer practising in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were most recently represented by their Agent, Mr Nazar Kulchytskyy.3. The applicants alleged that they had been severely ill-treated during and following a search and security operation conducted in the Izyaslav Prison on 22 January 2007 with the involvement of a special forces unit. They also alleged that this incident had remained without adequate investigation. Lastly, the applicants complained about the loss of some of their property by the prison administration.4. On 21 February 2011 the Court decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It also decided to give priority to the applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.5. On 19 September 2011 the mother of the first applicant, Ms Elena Ivanovna Karabet, informed the Court that her son had died. She expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf and authorised Mr Bushchenko to represent her interests in the proceedings before the Court.6. On 20 June 2011 the Government submitted their observations on the applications, which were confined to admissibility issues (see paragraphs 238-239, 241, 243, 258 and 337 below). On 3 November 2011 they supplemented them in the light of the factual developments in the case (see paragraphs 240 and 242-243 below).THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE7. At the time of the events the applicants were serving sentences at Izyaslav Prison no. 31 (further referred to as “Izyaslav Prison” or “the prison”), a minimum security prison, in the Khmelnytskyy region.A. Background facts1. The prisoners’ hunger strike8. On 14 January 2007 practically all the inmates of Izyaslav Prison, namely, one thousand one hundred and twenty-one prisoners, including the applicants, went on hunger strike in protest at the conditions of their detention, the poor quality of food and drinking water, inadequate medical assistance, arbitrary punishments by and impunity of officials of the administration, and the absence of any remuneration for their work. They sought the dismissal of some prison officials.9. On the same date the Deputy Head of the State Department for the Enforcement of Sentences (“the Prisons Department”) visited the prison. A special commission was established upon his order to conduct an investigation into the prisoners’ allegations. The hunger strike was ended.10. On 16 January 2007, however, the prisoners resumed it on the grounds that the administration had made false statements to the media denying that there had been any protests in the prison. They demanded that journalists be given access to the prison and that the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights (“the Ombudsman”) be notified.11. Following further negotiations with the Prisons Department’s commission and a visit by the Ombudsman’s representatives to the prison on 17 January 2007, the hunger strike was called off.2. Preparations for the search and security operation12. On 20 January 2007 the Deputy Head of the Prisons Department directed the heads of the Zhytomyr and Khmelnytskyy Regional Offices of the Prisons Department to second special forces and rapid reaction units to Izyaslav Prison with a view to providing practical assistance to its administration for “stabilising the operational situation and carrying out searches”.13. On the same date the requested human resources were deployed to Zamkova Prison (neighbouring Izyaslav Prison), where they remained on standby.14. On 21 January 2007 the Head of the Khmelnytskyy Regional Office of the Prisons Department approved a plan of the operation, which was scheduled for the following day. It was aimed, in particular, at “detecting and seizing prohibited items ..., and detecting any preparations for escape or other illegal actions”.15. More specifically, the tasks of the search were set out as follows:“1. To examine the residential wings and workshop ... [and] prisoners with a view to detecting and seizing prohibited items or goods, as well as identifying any preparations for escape.2. To undertake preventive security measures for enhancing order, and the study – on the part of the prison administration and the rapid reaction units’ staff – of the technical features of risk-prone areas, premises and objects potentially usable for committing large-scale offences.3. To carry out practical drills with the [prison] administration [staff] in cooperation with the rapid reaction and special forces units by conducting a search of the prison premises, prisoners, and the residential wings.4. To check:-  knowledge of the general search procedures by the [prison] staff;-  the equipment of the search groups;-  the organisation of the [prison’s] management and communication; and-  the procedures applied by the administration for organising and conducting a general search.”16. The search was scheduled to take place from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The last thirty minutes were allocated for “conversations with the prisoners regarding their grievances and complaints against the administration, taking measures in response, and resolution of the prisoners’ lawful demands”.17. On the same date, 21 January 2007, the Head of the Khmelnytskyy Regional Office of the Prisons Department made the acting governor of Izyaslav Prison responsible for the management of the planned operation. Command over the joint squadron of the rapid reaction groups and general control over “the legality and the conduct of special measures for stabilising the operational situation” in the prison were entrusted to the Prisons Department’s officials.B. Events in Izyaslav Prison on 22 January 20071. As per official reports18. According to a report of 22 January 2007 signed by twelve officials of the Prisons Department and Izyaslav Prison, the search and security operation was conducted from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. by eighty-six staff members of Izyaslav Prison, eleven officers of a rapid reaction group from Zamkova Prison, eleven officers of a rapid reaction group from Shepetivka Prison, ten staff members of Khmelnytskyy Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“SIZO”) and nineteen officers of the Prisons Department’s interregional special forces unit.19. The search resulted in the detection and seizure of two mobile phones, a handmade implement for piercing, a pair of scissors, seven razor blades, thirty-four metal bars (found in a toilet), a bottle of glue, a tattooing device, some keys (found in the yard), two packs of playing cards, twelve water boilers, three lighters, and some medicine.20. As noted in the search report, “measures of physical influence”, including handcuffing, were applied to eight prisoners, including the fourth and the eighteenth applicants. No complaints from prisoners were reported.21. Following the search, separate reports were drawn up in respect of every case in which the use of force and handcuffing had been resorted to. All those eight reports were worded identically. According to them, the aforementioned measures had been necessitated by the “physical resistance [of the relevant prisoner] to the officers on duty during the search”.22. As per the medical examination reports signed by the chief of Izyaslav Prison’s medical unit, seven of those eight prisoners had bruises on their buttocks and/or hips. One of them had a wound on his eyebrow and a bruise on his shoulder blade.23. The fourth applicant had the following injuries documented: bruises on both buttocks measuring 3 x 7 cm and 3 x 6 cm respectively, and another bruise of 3 x 6 cm on the left hip.24. According to a similar report regarding the eighteenth applicant, he had two bruises on his left shoulder blade and on his left buttock, measuring 4 x 8 cm and 3 x 7 cm respectively.2. The applicants’ account25. The applications contained a summary of events based on individual statements by the first, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the tenth, the fifteenth, the sixteenth and the eighteenth applicants (see paragraphs 26-108 below). The applicants’ lawyer noted the following in both applications:“All the applicants suffered the described treatment in one way or another. The absence of references to the names of specific applicants does not mean that the events did not touch them personally”.(a)  The first applicant26. On the morning of 22 January 2007 the first applicant was in the high security wing (дільниця підвищеного контролю – ДПК). At 10 a.m. the prison governor and several staff members, together with some officials from the Prisons Department, opened cells nos. 2 and 3 and announced to the inmates that they wanted to talk to them in the room normally used for social and psychological work. The prisoners followed as they were, wearing t-shirts and slippers. Once they took their seats, one of the officials started a speech. A minute later a group of about fifty officers with their faces covered by masks stormed into the room. They knocked the prisoners to the floor and started beating them with truncheons, punching and kicking them. There were three to four officers per prisoner. The beating continued for about fifteen minutes. The first applicant had his front teeth kicked out with the first blow.27. The inmates were then handcuffed with their hands behind their backs. Those who cried out had their mouths scotch-taped shut. They were taken out to the yard, where they were put along the wall with their legs widely spread. A prison van arrived, and the inmates were loaded into it. Many of them had head injuries and were bleeding. Being handcuffed, they could not even wipe the blood away.28. The van stopped near the disciplinary cell (дисциплінарний ізолятор), its door was opened and some more prisoners, also severely beaten and handcuffed, were thrown inside.29. The van drove further and stopped near the checkpoint between the residential wing and the workshop, where the prisoners were taken out to the shower area. They had to walk through a corridor about fifty metres long, between two lines of officers who were kicking and beating them with truncheons.30. In the shower area the prisoners were ordered to strip naked, after which they were beaten again and verbally humiliated. Three to four masked officers searched every prisoner. Many of the inmates preferred to leave their clothes behind in order to avoid continuous beating. Half-naked, barefoot (having lost their slippers by then) and tightly handcuffed, the prisoners were again loaded into the prison van.31. Some time later an order was given to them to get out of the van one by one. The inmates were made to kneel along the wall. An official from the Prisons Department came forward with the files of the twenty-one prisoners who were present and announced that they would be transferred to Rivne SIZO. The handcuffs belonging to the special forces unit were taken off, and the applicants were handcuffed with the handcuffs belonging to the prisoner transport service. The handcuffing was so tight that it impeded the circulation of blood and caused severe pain.32. The prison van was filled much beyond its capacity. Even before its departure, many inmates fainted. A medical attendant made them regain consciousness with the help of smelling salts.33. The convoy had only a two-litre bottle of water for all the inmates. Although suffering from thirst, they could only take one or two sips through the bars.34. The journey continued for over three hours.35. On arrival at Rivne SIZO, the inmates were beaten again: first by officers near the van and later in the office to which they were taken. The handcuffs were taken off, and the first applicant saw that his hands were swollen and bluish. He was beaten by about six to eight officers present in the room. As if tired of hitting and kicking him, the officers put him on the floor face down, painfully stretching his arms and legs apart, with one officer pressing each limb against the floor. Others were beating him with truncheons. The first applicant’s skin on his legs and buttocks split from the blows. A medical attendant present poured some water on those injuries.36. According to the first applicant, the level of cruelty inflicted on the prisoners in Rivne SIZO even exceeded that of their earlier ill-treatment in Izyaslav Prison.37. The medical attendant gave him a blank waiver of any complaints to sign, which he did.38. The aforementioned took place in the presence of Rivne SIZO’s governor and the Head of the Rivne Regional Office of the Prisons Department.39. The inmates were placed in four cells each holding five of them.40. Prisoner O., who had initially been taken with them to Rivne SIZO, was taken back to Izyaslav Prison, as he was to be released five days later (see also paragraph 111 below).41. The cell was very cold, and the inmates had no warm clothes or even any hot water to drink.42. Several days later they received an insignificant part of their belongings from Izyaslav Prison.43. The first applicant, as well as the other inmates, was questioned by the Rivne Prosecutor. Before the questioning, the SIZO administration warned them against raising any complaints.44. Although seeing the prisoners’ injuries, the prosecutor asked them whether they had been beaten and contented himself with their answers in the negative.45. The inmates were also made to sign a request for their transfer from Izyaslav Prison to any other penal institution backdated 21 January 2007.46. During the week after their arrival at the SIZO, they were subjected to beatings for the slightest wrongdoing or without any reason.47. Thereafter, they were provided with intensive medical care with a view to eliminating any traces of ill-treatment.48. The prisoners were transferred to different penal institutions across Ukraine.(b)  The second applicant49. The second applicant was in block no. 7. At 10 a.m. he, together with the eighth applicant, was called to the prison’s main block.50. His description of the subsequent events prior to the prisoners’ transfers to the SIZO is concordant with the account of the first applicant (see paragraphs 26-48 above).51. In addition, the second applicant specified that they had been put naked against the wall with their legs widely spread.52. He also submitted having witnessed the following: the fourth, the thirteenth and the eighteenth applicants (together with another prisoner), who were in the medical unit, were dragged from their wards and beaten. Then the officers threw them, one by one, into a sanitation vehicle, covered them with a blanket and started kicking and beating them with rubber truncheons. Then the inmates were taken to the shower area.53. At about 5 p.m. the second applicant, together with some other prisoners, was taken to Khmelnytskyy SIZO. On their arrival there, they were beaten again and placed in a cold underground cell.54. The prisoners were afraid to tell the truth to the prosecutor who questioned them on 1 February 2007, as their questioning took place in the presence of SIZO administration officers who had been ill-treating them. They also signed papers stating that they had no complaints.(c)  The third applicant55. The third applicant was in the high security wing at the time of the events in question. Together with the first applicant and some other prisoners, he was taken to a separate room.56. His description of the events is similar to that of the first applicant. Additionally, he noted that after the group of masked officers stormed into the room, he received several blows with truncheons. Then several officers started kicking and punching him, and he fainted. Once he regained consciousness, he found himself being held by some officers in masks and being kicked by the prison governor.57. The third applicant emphasised that, being handcuffed with their hands behind their backs, the prisoners were literally thrown into and out of the prison van. Unable to protect their heads, many of them were injured.58. He refused to comply with the order to kneel (see paragraph 31 above). This triggered beating until he fainted again. During a subsequent body search he was lying on the floor, unable to get up.59. When the inmates were being loaded into the van, they were surrounded by armed officers with dogs.60. Given the lack of space and fresh air in the van, the third applicant had problems breathing and asked to be let out. This provoked a new round of beating.61. The third applicant was in the group of prisoners taken to Rivne SIZO. His account of the events in the SIZO is concordant with that of the first applicant (see paragraphs 35-46 above).62. He also submitted having been severely beaten there to the point of fainting. The officers present poured some water on him to make him come around.63. At the SIZO he noticed that the first applicant had had his front teeth knocked out.64. At Rivne SIZO the inmates had to sleep on a concrete floor for two nights before they were provided with mattresses.65. Four days after their arrival they received some of their property from Izyaslav Prison. The third applicant provided a detailed list of his belongings which he had not received. It included, in particular, his shoes and clothes, towels, linen and underwear, as well as some books and cigarettes.66. According to him, he had numerous bruises and sores on his face, a broken nose and a split lip. Although his injuries were visible, the prosecutor ignored them during his questioning and discouraged him from raising any complaints (see also paragraph 133 below).67. Being scared for his life and health, the third applicant also signed a waiver of any complaints.(d)  The fourth applicant68. The fourth applicant had been an active organiser of the prisoners’ hunger strike.69. During the night on 13 January 2007 he was called to the main block of the prison where the governor, together with some other members of the administration, threatened him by saying that, if there was a hunger strike, he would risk severe beating or rape by a group of prisoners.70. On the morning of 22 January 2007 the fourth applicant, together with the thirteenth and the eighteenth applicants and another prisoner, was in the medical unit. The four of them were called to the head of the medical unit’s office, where there were about twenty administration employees present.71. A few minutes later a group of about ten officers wearing masks stormed into the office, knocked the prisoners down onto the floor, handcuffed them and started hitting them with their faces pressed against the floor. Then the officers threw the inmates, one on top of another, into a van, where they kicked them for about twenty minutes. Thereafter the prisoners were taken to the residential wing where they had to pass between two lines of officers beating them with truncheons. The fourth applicant fainted.72. He regained consciousness during the body search, which was also accompanied by severe beating. According to the fourth applicant, his beating resulted, in particular, in a permanent scar on his chin.73. In Khmelnytskyy SIZO, where the fourth applicant was taken together with the other prisoners, there was a rapid reaction group under the leadership of an official from the Khmelnytskyy Regional Office of the Prisons Department (the fourth applicant indicated his name) waiting for them.74. The prisoners had to “run the gauntlet” through a “corridor” of officers, once again being subjected to constant beating from the officers on either side of them. They were placed in a holding cell.75. During the first week of their detention there, three to four times every day they were taken, one by one, to an office in the SIZO where the rapid reaction group beat them. Officers put wet towels on the prisoners’ faces and hit them with truncheons on various parts of their bodies. According to the fourth applicant, he fainted on many occasions.76. The administration also threatened to plant drugs on his parents during their next visit to him and told him that they would also be thrown in jail.77. Feeling physically and emotionally broken, the fourth applicant denied having any complaints.78. During his questioning by the prosecutor on 30 January 2007 he started to describe the facts, but was interrupted by a SIZO administration officer present, taken out to the corridor and threatened with more beating. The prosecutor allegedly ignored the fourth applicant’s request to continue their conversation without the presence of the SIZO officials (see also paragraphs 133-134 below).79. As of end of March 2007 the fourth applicant had not yet received any of his personal belongings from Izyaslav Prison.(e)  The fifth applicant80. The fifth applicant was among the prisoners taken from the high security wing to the room used for social and psychological work on the morning of 22 January 2007. His account of the events is similar to that of the first and the third applicants (see paragraphs 26-48 and 55-65 above).81. He emphasised the cruelty of the prisoners’ beating. According to him, many of them had their teeth knocked out and their ribs broken.(f)  The sixth applicant82. At about 9 a.m. on 22 January 2007 the sixth applicant was taken out of cell no. 10 in the high security wing where he was being detained. Around twenty officers wearing masks beat him, along with some other prisoners, in the corridor. His further account is similar to that of the first, the third and the fifth applicants (see paragraphs 26-48, 55-65 and 80-81 above).(g)  The tenth applicant83. The tenth applicant described the events of 22 January 2007 as follows:“On 22 January 2007 special forces unit officers wearing masks entered the prison. They brutally beat the prisoners and force-fed them”.84. He was transferred to Rivne SIZO. His description of the conditions of detention and their treatment there is similar to that given by the first and the third applicants (see paragraphs 35-46, 61 and 64-65 above).85. According to the tenth applicant, the prosecutor saw their injuries, but ignored them.(h)  The fifteenth applicant86. On the morning of 22 January 2007 the fifteenth applicant was in the high security wing. He supplemented the description of the events of that day given by the first, the third, the fifth and the sixth applicants with the following details.87. After the special forces unit stormed into the room where the inmates were gathered, the fifteenth applicant was beaten by three officers. One officer stepped on his neck, while he was lying handcuffed on the floor, and beat him with a rubber truncheon on his head and face. Two other officers were kicking him in the kidneys. The fifteenth applicant fainted.88. He regained consciousness when he was being dragged to the van. He could hardly see anything, as his face was bleeding and he could not wipe the blood away as his hands were handcuffed behind his back.89. The beating continued before, during and after the body search of the prisoners. The prison governor hit the fifteenth applicant to the back of his head with such force that the applicant fell against a concrete fence, injuring his chin and having a tooth knocked out.90. For the transfer, the prisoners were handcuffed so tightly that the blood could no longer circulate to their hands.91. Their transportation to Rivne SIZO lasted for almost four hours.92. The inmates suffered extremely cruel ill-treatment at the SIZO. Its description is similar to that given by the first applicant (see paragraphs 35‑48 above).93. The fifteenth applicant fainted three times and was brought around by cold water being poured on him.94. During the initial four days of their detention in the SIZO, the former Izyaslav Prison inmates were subjected to regular beatings. They were all forced to sign backdated requests for their transfer to a different penal institution and waivers of complaints.95. According to the fifteenth applicant, his health seriously deteriorated as a result of the ill-treatment suffered. There was blood in his urine for about a month. He had also suffered several broken ribs on the left side, a tooth had been knocked out and he had suffered cuts on the chin and an eye-brow.96. As of November 2007 he had not received any of his personal belongings from Izyaslav Prison.(i)  The sixteenth applicant97. As of 22 January 2007 the sixteenth applicant was held in the disciplinary cell in the high security wing.98. His description of the events of that day is brief, but concordant with that given by the first, the third, the fifth, the sixth and the fifteenth applicants (see paragraphs 26-48, 56-67, 80-82 and 86-94 above).99. The sixteenth applicant submitted, in particular, that together with some other prisoners he had been taken to the administrative premises, where they were subjected to cruel beatings by a group of masked officers.100. The inmates were then handcuffed and thrown into a van.101. At the prison check-point they were searched and beaten again.102. The sixteenth applicant fainted at some point and only came around later in the van.103. The inmates were taken to Rivne SIZO, where their ill-treatment continued. They were forced into waiving any complaints.(j)  The eighteenth applicant104. On the morning of 22 January 2007 the eighteenth applicant was in the prison’s medical unit because of a heart condition.105. Like the other applicants whose accounts are provided above, he alleged having witnessed and suffered severe beatings.106. As to him personally, he stated that his nose had been broken, his face seriously wounded, his jaw displaced, and his back bruised.107. The eighteenth applicant was in the group of prisoners transferred to Khmelnytskyy SIZO.108. According to him, their ill-treatment there continued for a week, until they signed waivers of any complaints and backdated requests for their transfer from Izyaslav Prison elsewhere.3. Witnesses’ statements109. The applicants submitted to the Court the transcript of an interview conducted by the 1+1 national television channel (towards the end of January or the beginning of February 2007) with two former prisoners who had been serving sentences in Izyaslav Prison as of 22 January 2007 and had been released shortly thereafter.110. Mr T. stated that at the time of the events he had been in block no. 7 together with some other inmates including the second and the eighth applicants. On the morning of 22 January 2007 the second and the eighth applicants were taken to the main block. Thereafter, the prison governor and an official from the Prisons Department entered the block and told the inmates that what was about to happen did not concern them and that they were not to pay attention to it. As to the inmates who had been taken to the main block, according to the officials, they had incited the hunger strike and would not be detained in that prison any longer. The remaining prisoners from block no. 7 were then taken to work in the workshop, from where they could see the entrance to the high security wing. They saw around fifty officers wearing masks running inside. The officers’ appearance and equipment suggested that they belonged to a special forces unit. Some time later the officers were pushing the inmates out or carrying them in blankets, constantly kicking them and beating them with truncheons. Then the prisoners were thrown into a prison van as they were, some of them with very little clothing on and barefoot, and afterwards the van left.111. Mr O. described the events of 22 January 2007 as follows. He had been held in the high security wing. At about 11 a.m. the prison governor entered and told Mr O. and some other inmates to go to the room normally used for social and psychological work. In that room an official from the Prisons Department started a speech in general terms. About two minutes later special forces unit officers wearing masks stormed into the room and commanded everybody to lie on the floor with their faces down and with their hands behind their heads. Mass beating followed. According to Mr O., he witnessed the officers knock the ninth applicant’s teeth out. The floor and the walls of the room were covered with blood. The inmates were handcuffed and dragged out to the corridor, where they had to pass between two lines of officers constantly hitting and kicking them. The prisoners were then loaded into a van and taken to the checkpoint. Once there they were taken to the shower premises and strip-searched. The beating continued. After a body search, the prisoners were again thrown into the van, with their hands still handcuffed, and taken to Rivne SIZO. Upon their arrival there, they were beaten again and forced to sign waivers of any complaints. Mr O. was released three days later, having served his sentence in full.C. Prisoners’ transfers to Khmelnytskyy and Rivne SIZOs and subsequent events112. Twenty-one prisoners (including the second, the fourth, the seventh, the eighth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth and the eighteenth applicants) were transported to Khmelnytskyy SIZO; while twenty prisoners (including the first, the third, the fifth, the sixth, the ninth, the tenth, the eleventh, the twelfth, the fifteenth and the sixteenth applicants) were transported to Rivne SIZO. None of the prisoners was allowed to collect any warm clothes or other personal belongings. The seventeenth applicant remained in Izyaslav Prison.113. On 22 January 2007 Khmelnytskyy SIZO’s doctor examined the group of new arrivals. The examination reports documented the absence of any injuries on the second, the seventh, the eighth, the thirteenth and the fourteenth applicants. As to the fourth and the eighteenth applicants, the doctor reported the same injuries as those previously documented in Izyaslav Prison (see paragraphs 23-24 above).114. There are no documents in the case file concerning any medical examinations of the applicants who were taken to Rivne SIZO.115. On 30 January 2007 the Prisons Department informed the administrations of Mykolayiv Prison no. 50 and Derzhiv Prison no. 110 that the first, the fifth and the sixth applicants would be transferred to one of these two prisons from Rivne SIZO (along with some other prisoners). According to the letter, they had been actively involved in the organisation of the mass hunger strike in Izyaslav Prison. The administrations were therefore requested “to ensure adequate individual preventive work” was undertaken with those prisoners and “to establish open and concealed control over their behaviour with a view to preventing any breaches of the prison rules” on their part.116. In early February 2007 the applicants were transferred to different penal institutions across Ukraine (with the exception of the seventeenth applicant, who continued to serve his sentence in Izyaslav Prison).D. Official inquiry by the Prisons Department in respect of the prisoners’ hunger strike117. On 24 January 2007 the Prisons Department completed its report following an official inquiry into the prisoners’ hunger strike in Izyaslav Prison on 14 and 16 January 2007. It concluded that the incident had become possible owing to the following shortcomings or omissions on the part of the prison administration (the names and posts of the relevant officers were specified in the report, but are omitted from the translation below):“1. The failure of the prison administration to take comprehensive measures for complying with the requirements of the Department and its Regional Office as regards ensuring proper control over prisoners’ behaviour, their respect for procedure and the conditions of serving sentences, as well as [measures] for the coordination of the law-enforcement activities of different services.2. Low awareness of the operational officials of the prison concerning the ways in which prisoners coalesce into a group of insubordinate prisoners (засуджені негативної спрямованості).3. Reduced control over the performance of the guard shifts on duty, inadequate supervision of prisoners’ behaviour, poor organisation and conduct of searches of prisoners and premises, and inadequate isolation of prisoners.4. Unsatisfactory educational and explanatory work with prisoners and inadequate familiarisation with their personalities, unbalanced application of incentives to prisoners [the increase of disciplinary measures by fifty-five percent in 2006 as compared to 2005; and the failure to apply legally envisaged incentives to sixty-seven percent of eligible prisoners: on only ten occasions had incentives been applied in 2006].5. Inadequate organisation of the workshop activities, lack of control over the compliance with the requirements regarding the safety of and remuneration for prisoners’ labour.6. Inadequate medical and sanitary [facilities] and material conditions of detention.7. Loosened requirements towards the subordinate services within the prison as regards prevention of unlawful preparations by groups of prisoners, and inadequate organisation of supervision over their behaviour.8. Inadequate coordination of and cooperation among various prison services as regards preventive measures with prisoners.9. Inadequate control and lowered requirements from the Department’s Regional Office towards the prison administration in so far as law enforcement in the prison is concerned.”118. Overall, the Prisons Department concluded that the activities of the administration of Izyaslav Prison had been aimed at ensuring law and order in the prison, but that the measures undertaken had proved insufficient.119. On the same date, 24 January 2007, the Prisons Department delivered an order “On significant shortcomings in the activity of Izyaslav Prison no. 31 and the disciplinary liability of those responsible”, by which twenty-four officials were disciplined. In particular, two officials were given warnings about their incompetence in service, two others received severe reprimands and thirteen received ordinary reprimands, two were subjected to disciplinary sanctions which had previously been imposed on them but suspended, and two were not disciplined given their short period of service.120. The case file also contains a copy of an “Extract from the conclusions of the internal investigation into the hunger strike by a group of prisoners in [Izyaslav Prison] on 14 January 2007” issued on an unspecified date after 24 January 2007 by the Prisons Department commission following its visit to the prison “with a view to studying the operational and financial situation in the prison, the conditions of detention therein, and the reasons for the refusal of prison food by a group of prisoners” (see also paragraph 9 above). The commission established that the prisoners explained their refusal to eat in the prison canteen (while they ate their own food received from outside) as resulting from their reaction to the allegedly biased attitude of the administration, the poor quality of the drinking water, inadequate welfare and sanitary facilities, unjustified disciplinary measures having been taken against certain prisoners, the absence of any remuneration for their work, and the unsatisfactory practices of the prison shop, which allegedly sold expired foodstuffs.121. The Prisons Department commission concluded that the main reason that some prisoners, which it classed as insubordinate, had organised the refusal of prison food was their intention to have the new management of Izyaslav Prison dismissed. The commission stated that the prison’s new management had attempted to restore the order and discipline loosened by the previous administration.122. The commission reported, in particular, that the measures taken had stabilised the security situation and that forty organisers of the hunger strike had been transferred to different penal institutions.123. On 5 February, 10 April and 2 May 2007 the Donetsk Memorial NGO asked the Deputy Head of the Prisons Department, who had visited Izyaslav Prison in January 2007, to provide a complete report on the investigation into the events there. The NGO enquired, in particular, whether the prisoners’ complaints had been investigated at all and, if so, what the results of that investigation had been, and how the substance of their complaints (regarding the allegedly inadequate drinking water and food in prison, the sale of expired goods by the prison shop, and so on) could have justified the search and security operation undertaken. It also requested information on any specific incidents of prisoners’ disobedience or resistance to the administration.124. By letters of 21 May and 6 June 2007, the Deputy Head of the Prisons Department replied to Donetsk Memorial stating that all the prisoners’ complaints had been duly looked into, with no further details provided. The main reason for some prisoners having encouraged others to refuse prison food had been an attempt to establish illegal trafficking channels in the prison and to undermine the lawful prison regime. The search and security operation had been thoroughly prepared and conducted, without any unjustified resort to force. As to the involvement of civil society and the media in the investigation process, no NGOs had requested this, whereas some journalists had been allowed access to the prison.E. Investigation into the prisoners’ alleged ill-treatment125. Following the events of 22 January 2007, the applicants’ relatives had no information about the applicants’ whereabouts and were not allowed to visit them.126. Many of their relatives complained to various authorities – the Ombudsman, the Khmelnytskyy and Rivne Regional Prosecutor’s Offices, the administration of Izyaslav Prison and the Prisons Department – about the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants, their arbitrary transfer to different penal institutions and the loss of the applicants’ personal belongings. In particular, relatives of the second, the third, the fourth, the sixth, the eighth and the ninth applicants raised such complaints before the prosecution authorities.127. On 26 January 2007 the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (“the KHRPG”) NGO wrote to the GPO, stating that it had become aware of the alleged beating of prisoners in Izyaslav Prison by masked special forces officers and requested an independent investigation without the involvement of the local prosecution authorities. The GPO forwarded this complaint to the Khmelnytskyy Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which, in turn, referred it to the Shepetivka (a town in the Khmelnytskyy Region) Prosecutor in charge of supervision of compliance with the law in penal institutions (“the Shepetivka Prosecutor”).128. On 29 January 2007 some mass-media outlets (in particular, the 1+1 national TV channel and the Segodnia newspaper) disseminated information about the mass beating of inmates in Izyaslav Prison on 22 January 2007 (see also paragraphs 109-111 above).129. On 30 January 2007 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Prosecutor’s Office questioned the second, the fourth, the seventh, the eighth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth and the eighteenth applicants, who were detained at the time in Khmelnytskyy SIZO. Their statements are summarised in paragraphs 133-135 below.130. On the same date the Khmelnytskyy Prosecutor asked the Khmelnytskyy Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations to carry out forensic medical examinations of the seven applicants detained in the Khmelnytskyy SIZO (see paragraph 112 above). As noted in the request, the examination was required “in connection with the investigation”. The questions to the expert read as follows:“Does the convict have any bodily injuries? If so, what are they, what is their nature, location, seriousness, means [by which they were inflicted] and time of infliction?”131. On 1 February 2007 the Khmelnytskyy Prosecutor’s Office asked the Rivne Regional Prosecutor’s Office, in charge of supervision of compliance with the law in penal institutions, to question the twenty former inmates of Izyaslav Prison (including the first, the third, the fifth, the sixth, the ninth, the tenth, the eleventh, the twelfth, the fifteenth and the sixteenth applicants) about the events of 22 January 2007 with a view to verifying the allegations of ill-treatment of prisoners.132. On 2 February 2007 the Rivne Prosecutor’s Office complied with this request.133. The written explanations given by the applicants (with the exception of the seventeenth applicant, who was detained in Izyaslav Prison) to the Khmelnytskyy or Rivne Prosecutor can be summarised as follows:-  The first applicant stated that, although he had been disciplined several times in Izyaslav Prison, he considered the sanctions fair and justified. According to him, he had not personally refused to eat in the prison canteen and he did not know why the other prisoners had done so. The first applicant denied having seen or experienced any ill-treatment during the search operation on 22 January 2007. He stated that he had no complaints against the prison administration.-  The second applicant explained his refusal to eat canteen food as solidarity with the others and stated that he had no complaints to raise.-  The third applicant submitted that the disciplinary measures which had been applied to him on several occasions in Izyaslav Prison had been justified and that he had nothing to complain about either.-  The fourth applicant explained his refusal to eat in the canteen as a protest against the inappropriate treatment of prisoners by the administration, frequent beatings and arbitrary disciplinary sanctions. In reply to a question as to whether the officers conducting the search had been wearing masks, he replied that he had been made to lie on the floor with his face down and therefore had not been able to see anything. The fourth applicant denied having been subjected to or having witnessed any beatings or other ill-treatment during the operation in question. He stated that he had no complaints. When asked about the medical examination report of 22 January 2007 stating that he had some injuries (see paragraphs 23 and 113 above), the fourth applicant submitted that he could not give any explanations in that regard.-  The fifth applicant also considered the disciplinary measures against him in Izyaslav Prison to have been merited. He explained his refusal to eat in the canteen as reflecting the fact that he had just received a food parcel from relatives. The fifth applicant denied any knowledge of the reasons for the prisoners’ hunger strike or his involvement in its organisation. Likewise, he denied any allegations of ill-treatment or having seen officers wearing masks.-  The sixth applicant refused to give any explanations, making reference to Article 63 of the Constitution (see paragraph 196 below). At the same time, he noted that he had no injuries or complaints. He also refused to undergo a medical examination. The ninth, the eleventh, the twelfth and the fifteenth applicants took a similar position.-  The seventh applicant submitted that he had been hit (or kicked – it is not clear from the wording used) during the search, with no trace having been left. He denied having witnessed any ill-treatment.-  The eighth applicant explained his refusal to eat canteen food as solidarity with other prisoners and stated that he had no complaints. A similar statement was made by the eighteenth applicant.-  The tenth and the fourteenth applicants denied any allegations of ill‑treatment of prisoners and stated that they had no complaints.-  The thirteenth applicant submitted that he had refused to eat in the canteen in protest at searches in the prison’s living areas and the inadequate quality of the drinking water. He also denied having any complaints.-  The sixteenth applicant referred to some problems with correspondence and parcels in Izyaslav Prison as the reasons for his participation in the hunger strike. Like the other applicants, he stated that he had no complaints to report. He refused to undergo a medical examination.134. According to the applicants’ submissions before the Court, the aforementioned questioning sessions took place in the presence of SIZO administration officers and following threats of ill-treatment. Their visible injuries were allegedly disregarded (see also paragraphs 44, 66 and 85 above).135. In addition to a written waiver of any complaints, the applicants submit that they were made to sign requests for their transfer from Izyaslav Prison to any other penal institution backdated 21 January 2007.136. On 2 February 2007 an expert from the Khmelnytskyy Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations issued identically worded reports in respect of the second, the seventh, the eighth, the thirteenth and the fourteenth applicants, which read as follows:“Circumstances of the case: not indicated in the assignment.The examinee has not indicated the circumstances of the case.ExaminationComplaints: none.Objectively: no external bodily injuries discovered.Conclusion: As of 30 January 2007 no bodily injuries have been discovered on [the name of the relevant applicant].”The expert noted that the chief of the SIZO medical unit had been present during the examinations.137. According to the examination report regarding the fourth applicant, he had a bruise of 5 x 4 cm on the left buttock, which could have been inflicted by a blunt hard object with a small surface area, that had developed as a result of a blow some eight or nine days prior to the examination (carried out on 30 January 2007). The expert concluded that the nature and the age of the bruise were in conformity with the fourth applicant’s submission that he had been hit with a rubber truncheon on 22 January 2007. No other injuries were reported.138. A similar report in respect of the eighteenth applicant stated that the only injury he had was a bruise of 4 x 3.5 cm on his left buttock. It could have been inflicted at the time and in the circumstances described by the eighteenth applicant (a blow by a rubber truncheon on 22 January 2007).139. There is no information in the case file as to whether the applicants held in Rivne SIZO were also examined by forensic medical experts.140. In the end of January and in early February 2007 the prosecution authorities also questioned the officials involved in the search and security operation on 22 January 2007.141. The acting governor of Izyaslav Prison and several special forces and rapid reaction unit officers stated that the operation had been conducted according to the duly approved plan and in compliance with the law, without any resort to violence (with the exception of physical force having been applied to eight prisoners following their resistance).142. The chief of the interregional special forces unit submitted that his subordinates had been instructed not to take, and had not taken, any special means of restraint with them to the prison. According to him, the search had been orderly and had been conducted without any resort to coercion.143. The chiefs of the rapid reaction groups made a similar statement.144. The Izyaslav Prison guards who had participated in or witnessed the use of force against the fourth and the eighteenth applicants stated that those applicants had been using obscene language regarding the prison administration. As a result, a rubber truncheon and handcuffing had been used against them.145. On 5 February 2007 the Shepetivka Prosecutor initiated disciplinary proceedings against the acting governor of Izyaslav Prison, who had been required (under paragraph 58 of the Internal Regulations of Penal Institutions approved by Order no. 275 of 25 December 2003 – see paragraph 200 below) to inform the prosecutor in charge of supervision of compliance with the law in penal institutions about the search of 22 January 2007 in advance, but who had failed to do so. As a result, the due prosecutorial supervision had not been in place with a view to ensuring the legality of the search operation and to investigate the use of force and special means of restraint on the eight prisoners (see paragraphs 20-24 above), as well as to assess the legality of the transfer of the forty-one prisoners to Khmelnytskyy and Rivne SIZOs (see paragraph 112 above). The ruling was referred to the Khmelnytskyy Regional Office of the Prisons Department for it to impose disciplinary liability on the acting governor of Izyaslav Prison.146. On 7 February 2007 the Shepetivka Prosecutor delivered a ruling refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the prison administration and the other authorities concerned regarding the events in Izyaslav Prison on 22 January 2007. As noted in the ruling, the investigation had been triggered by information disseminated by the media (in particular, on 29 January 2007 by the 1+1 TV channel and in the Segodnia newspaper – see paragraphs 109-111 and 128 above) about the mass beating of inmates in Izyaslav Prison during the search and security operation on 22 January 2007. The prosecutor concluded that physical force had only been used against eight prisoners (with the fourth and the eighteenth applicants being among them) in response to their resistance. As confirmed by the explanations given by the prison administration, the special forces and rapid reaction units’ officers, and by the prisoners themselves, the allegations of a mass beating had proved unsubstantiated.147. According to the applicants, they were not notified of this ruling.148. By letter of 13 March 2007, the GPO informed the KHRPG (see paragraph 127 above) that a thorough investigation had been undertaken and that no violations had been found. As noted in that letter, the involvement of the special forces unit and the rapid reaction groups had been necessitated by the complicated security situation in Izyaslav Prison, unruly prisoners inciting other inmates to refuse prison food, displays of disobedience, insolent behaviour, and resistance to the administration’s attempts to seize prohibited items. The general search had resulted in the identification and seizure of sixty-four prohibited items. The use of force had been limited to eight prisoners and had been legitimate. Given overcrowding in Izyaslav Prison, some prisoners had been transferred, via Khmelnytskyy and Rivne SIZOs, to other penal institutions.149. On 10 April 2007 the Prisons Department wrote to the mother of the second applicant, in reply to her complaints about his alleged ill‑treatment and his transfer to a different prison, stating that these complaints had been found to be unsubstantiated. The official noted that the second applicant had had a bad reputation and had been inciting other prisoners to take part in a hunger strike. He had himself denied having any complaints. As for his transfer to a different prison, it had been in compliance with the law.150. On 12 April 2007 the KHRPG asked the Ombudsman to provide information about the visit of her representatives to Izyaslav Prison in January 2007.151. On 17 April 2007 the mother of the second applicant complained to the Izyaslav Prison’s governor that her son’s belongings had been left behind in that prison after his transfer. As she found out, his cellmates had packed them, but the belongings had probably been expropriated by the prison staff members. She submitted a detailed list of the missing items.152. On 27 April 2007 the governor of Izyaslav Prison replied that the second applicant had been transferred to another prison at his own request and that all his belongings had been collected and sent on to him. The allegation that his property had been taken by prison staff members was dismissed as unsubstantiated.153. On 27 April 2007 the Ombudsman’s office replied to the KHRPG that it was under no obligation to report on investigations in progress.154. According to an information note issued by the Prisons Department on an unspecified date, starting from 3 January 2007 the following complaints had been registered by the Khmelnytskyy Regional Office of the Prisons Department in respect of the loss of personal belongings by prisoners in Izyaslav Prison: complaints from the relatives of the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth and the sixth applicants. No other complaints had been received.155. According to an information note issued by the house-keeping unit of Izyaslav Prison on an unspecified date, as of 22 January 2007 there was no property in the prison warehouse belonging to the first, the third, the fifth, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the sixteenth, the seventeenth and the eighteenth applicants.156. On 30 April, 4 and 11 May 2007 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Office of the Prisons Department announced that it had completed its inquiry into the complaints made by the sixth, the second and the third applicants, respectively (introduced on unspecified dates), regarding the events of 22 January 2007. These reports relied on the prosecutor’s decision of 7 February 2007 (see paragraph 146 above) and were approved by the Prisons Department’s officials directly involved in the organisation and implementation of the operation in question (see paragraph 17 above).157. On 4 May 2007 the Rivne Prosecutor wrote to the mother of the ninth applicant in reply to her complaints that her son had been transferred to Rivne SIZO together with twenty other prisoners, stating that this had occurred following his resistance to lawful requirements of the prison administration and the mass hunger strike. The prosecutor pointed out that the ninth applicant had himself refused to give any statements, making reference to Article 63 of the Constitution. He and the other new arrivals had been examined by a doctor at the SIZO, with no injuries or health‑related complaints having been documented.158. On 7 May 2007 the mothers of the second and the third applicants complained to the GPO once again about the alleged beating of their sons and the loss of their property. They also noted that their earlier complaints had been forwarded to the Prisons Department and dismissed by officials who had been directly involved in the events complained of.159. On 17 May 2007 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Office of the Prisons Department delivered a report completing its inquiry into the complaints made by the mother of the fourth applicant about the alleged loss of his property and money. It held that he had received his personal belongings in full following his transfer to a different prison and that he had himself withdrawn the money he had in his personal account (200 Ukrainian hryvnias, the equivalent of about 30 euros).

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation