FIFTH SECTION       CASE OF MUSHYNSKYY v. UKRAINE (Application no. 3547/06)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 September 2016   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Mushynskyy v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: André Potocki, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Síofra O’Leary, judges,and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 23 August 2016,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 3547/06) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Ivan Mykhaylovych Mushynskyy (“the applicant”), on 24 December 2005.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented most recently by their Acting Agent, Ms O. Davydchuk, of the Ministry of Justice.3. On 29 March 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE4. The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Ukraine.A. The applicant’s arrest and detention5. On 29 October 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, robbery and attempted murder. He remained in police custody until 17 January 2005.6. The applicant alleged that during his stay in police custody between 29 and 31 October 2004 he had been tortured by unspecified police officers, as a result of which he had confessed to having committed the crimes of which he was suspected. In the course of a medical examination on 1 November 2004 the doctors noted a number of bruises and lesions on the applicant’s limbs, chest and back The applicant alleges that no medical treatment was given to him for his injuries.7. The applicant stated that he had subsequently brought his allegation of ill-treatment by the police before the trial courts but the courts had not responded to it. He provided no copy of his complaints.8. On 1 November 2004 the applicant was taken to court; the court ordered his remand in custody pending completion of the criminal investigation against him.9. On 17 January 2005 the applicant was placed in a cell in Kyiv Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit (“SIZO”) no. 13.10. On 24 March 2005, following his conviction (see paragraph 21 below), he was transferred to a high-level security cell within the same SIZO for detainees sentenced to life imprisonment by a final judicial decision. From that day onwards the rules applicable to this latter category of detainees had also been applied to the applicant. In particular, his clothes were taken away from him and instead he was given special orange clothes bearing the words “life imprisonment” in large print on the front and back; when leaving his cell the applicant had at all times been escorted by a special unit of guards in black uniforms with masks covering their faces.11. The applicant complained to the courts about the allegedly unlawful execution of his sentence. On 24 March 2006 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court refused to consider his complaint for lack of substantiation and failure to pay the court fee. The applicant did not appeal against that ruling.12. On 14 December 2005 the applicant was placed in Sokalska Correctional Colony no. 47 (the “Sokalska Colony”). In March 2012 the applicant was transferred to the SIZO in Lviv, which was later reorganised as a detention centre for convicted prisoners.13. According to the applicant, the conditions of his detention in the colony were debasing. In particular, he alleged that the drinking water and food had been of poor quality, that he had not received adequate medical assistance and that he had been subjected to psychological pressure by the colony staff.14. The applicant raised those allegations before the prosecutors. On 23 June 2006, the deputy prosecutor responsible for supervising prison authorities’ compliance with the law informed him by letter that an inquiry had been carried out into his allegations but that it had not revealed any irregularities in his conditions of detention. According to the medical information submitted by the applicant, while in detention he had been medically examined and had been given the necessary treatment.B. Restrictions on the applicant’s contact with his family and counsel15. The applicant alleged that in the course of the investigations and the trial he had been prohibited from corresponding by ordinary mail with his relatives and his counsel and from making telephone calls. The applicant did not raise those allegations before the authorities.16. Between 24 March and 4 August 2005 the applicant had four one‑hour visits from his mother and father.17. The applicant stated, in general terms, that following his conviction on 24 March 2005 he had not been allowed to have long meetings with his relatives and that the duration and frequency of the short visits they had been permitted to make had been considerably limited. He provided no further details in that regard.C. The criminal investigation against the applicant and his trial18. During his first interrogation, on 30 October 2004, the applicant had the assistance of a lawyer of his own choosing. The next day, due to the latter’s failure to appear, the applicant was assisted by a lawyer appointed for him by the authorities. On an unspecified date the applicant hired a new lawyer, who continued to defend him during the investigation and trial. The applicant’s mother also took part in the proceedings as the applicant’s representative.19. In the course of the investigation and trial, the applicant admitted that he had committed the murders and the attempted murder of which he was suspected.20. The criminal investigation of the applicant’s case was completed in January 2005. Subsequently, the criminal case was referred to the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal for trial.21. On 24 March 2005 the court found the applicant guilty of the aggravated murder of two persons ‒ one of whom was a minor ‒ and of the attempted murder of another person, with the aim of stealing the victims’ property. The court based its judgment on statements made by the applicant during the investigation and at the trial, the testimonies of one of the victims and six witnesses – one of whom had caught the applicant at the scene of the crime − and the conclusions of several forensic examinations, including a psychiatric examination which found that the applicant had been aware and in control of his actions at the time of the offences. The applicant was held to be exceptionally dangerous to society and was sentenced to life imprisonment, together with the confiscation of all his property.22. The same judgment ordered his continuing detention in the Kyiv SIZO.23. The applicant lodged an appeal. He contended that he had committed the crimes whilst of unsound mind and requested an additional psychiatric examination.24. In his appeal, the applicant’s lawyer contested the first-instance court’s finding that the applicant had committed the murders with the aim of stealing the victims’ property.25.

Outcome for Article 34: violation