FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF KLIMOV AND SLYVOTSKYY v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 51100/17 and 69370/17)    JUDGMENT STRASBOURG2 March 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Klimov and Slyvotskyy v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Lado Chanturia, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the individuals listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated therein;the decision to give notice of the complaints expounded in paragraph 1 below to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented most recently by their acting Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko;the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 2 February 2023,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The applicants alleged, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, that they had been ill-treated by the police with a view to extracting false self‑incriminating statements from them and that the investigation into their respective complaints had been ineffective. The facts relevant to the individual applications are set out in detail in the appended tables.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS2. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED POLICE ILL-TREATMENT AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION3. The applicants complained that they had been ill-treated by the police and that their respective complaints had not been properly investigated. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.4. 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 only.5. The Government argued that the first applicant, Mr P.V. Klimov (application no. 51100/17), had lodged his complaint prematurely, as the domestic investigation was still under way. They lodged no objections to the admissibility of the complaint lodged by the second applicant, Mr M.V. Slyvotskyy (application no. 69370/17).6. Reviewing the available documents and the parties’ submissions in the light of the principles developed its case-law (see, in particular, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 91-98 and 172-80, 15 May 2012, and Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 48-49 and 56-58, 7 November 2013), the Court finds that Mr Klimov provided the domestic authorities with appropriate opportunities to deal with his allegations and that the Government’s objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should therefore be dismissed.7. The Court further finds that the applicants’ allegations are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.8. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of the general principles established in its case-law (see 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 allegations of ill-treatment have proven to be true.9. 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 reasonable doubt that the applicants sustained their injuries while 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, cited above, § 55).10. From the documents before the Court, it appears that the domestic investigations did not constitute a serious effort to determine the relevant facts.11. The Court notes that in the case of Kaverzin (cited above, §§ 173‑80) 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. The Court considers that the present applications, in view of their circumstances and its previous case-law, constitute another example of such a failure to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation.12.

Outcome for Article 3: violation