FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF MAKARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 53747/09 and 4 others – see appended table)     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG16 September 2021This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Makarenko and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Lado Chanturia, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the applications (nos. 53747/09, 41415/13, 45940/13, 46982/13 and 50463/13) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Ukrainian nationals, whose details are set out in the appended tables (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in those tables;the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning police ill-treatment and the lack of an effective investigation into the allegations in that regard (all applications) and allegedly unlawful and unreasonable deprivation of liberty (application no. 41415/13) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of applications nos. 53747/09, 45940/13, and 50463/13;the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 26 August 2021,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:INTRODUCTION1. The applicants alleged, in particular, under Article 3 of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into their respective complaints was ineffective. In addition, one applicant (Mr S. Oliynyk, application no. 41415/13) raised complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.THE FACTS2. The applicants’ details and the relevant facts are set out in the appended tables.3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.SCOPE OF THE CASE5. Mr S. Oliynyk (application no. 41415/13) raised additional complaints after his application was communicated to the Government. He complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonable and the way in which the grounds for discontinuing them had been formulated had cast doubt on his innocence.6. In the Court’s view, these are new complaints that were not included in the original complaints on which the parties have been invited to submit observations. The Court will therefore not take them up in the context of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005 and, as a more recent example, Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, § 64, 2 October 2018).ALLEGED POLICE ILL-TREATMENT AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION7. The applicants complained, under various Convention provisions, that they had been ill-treated by the police and that there had not been an effective investigation into their ill-treatment allegations.8. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see, among other authorities, Barysheva v. Ukraine, no. 9505/12, § 45, 14 March 2017), finds that the complaints in issue fall to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads as follows:“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”Admissibility9. The Court finds that the present complaints are neither manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.Merits10. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of the general principles established in its case-law (see, as a recent authority, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), the Court considers that the applicants raised credible ill-treatment claims at the domestic level. Those claims triggered an obligation on the part of the national authorities to carry out an effective and thorough investigation with a view to establishing the origin of the applicants’ alleged injuries as well as identifying and punishing those responsible, should the ill-treatment allegations prove to be true.11. Regard being had to the evidential gaps and contradictions in the domestic case files and in the factual submissions by the parties (see appended tables for details), the Court finds it impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicants had sustained injuries under the control of the police, as alleged. The Court considers that the difficulty in determining the substance of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment stems from the authorities’ failure to investigate their complaints effectively (see, in particular, Popa v. Moldova, no. 29772/05, §§ 39 and 45, 21 September 2010; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, §§ 109 and 119, 25 June 2013; and Barysheva v. Ukraine, no. 9505/12, § 55, 14 March 2017).12. From the documents before the Court, it appears that the domestic investigations did not reflect a serious effort to determine the relevant facts.13. The Court notes that in the case of Kaverzin (no. 23893/03, §§ 173‑80, judgment of 15 May 2012) it found that the reluctance of the authorities to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation of ill-treatment complaints lodged against police authorities constituted a systemic problem within the meaning of Article 46 of the Convention. In view of the circumstances of the present applications and its earlier case-law, the Court considers that they constitute another example of such a failure to ensure prompt and thorough investigation.14.

Outcome for Article 5: violation