FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SPARYSH AND KUTSMAND v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 49709/18 and 49870/18)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG12 September 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Sparysh and Kutsmand v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lado Chanturia, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2024,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The parties disagreed on the conditions of the applicants’ detention.5. According to the applicants, they were held in overcrowded cells. In particular, in Kharkiv Detention Facility no. 27 the first applicant was held from 10 April to 21 November 2017 in cell no. 536, measuring 18 square metres (sq. m) with six beds, yet housing seven inmates who took turns sleeping. The second applicant stayed, during the same period of time, in cell no. 651, with an area of 30.75 sq. m and which accommodated twelve people. Later, as of September 2017, he was transferred to cell no. 628, approximately 18 sq. m in size and designed for six sleeping places, but housing eight inmates who took turns sleeping. In Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4, the applicants were held, from 22 November 2017 to 23 September 2019, in cells nos. 625, 624 and 619, measuring 7.3 sq. m and which were designed for two detainees each. Further, in both facilities the toilets were not separated, located 1 metre from the kitchen area, and 1.5 metres from the sleeping area. Except for mattresses, bedding and towels were not provided. Showering was allowed once a week. The applicants had to wash clothes and bedding in their cells with cold water, leading to increased humidity, mould, and fungus on the walls. Both applicants suffered constant bedbug bites. Lighting was insufficient, with only one 60-watt bulb, and ventilation was poor, with barred windows hindering airflow and natural light. The food provided was poor, consisting of low-quality and often rotten products, cooked in violation of sanitary requirements. These claims were substantiated by photographs of cells nos. 625 and 624 in Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4 and written statements from the applicants’ co-detainees K., S., V. and D. who shared their cells nos. 651, 536, 628 and 619 respectively.6. In their observations, the Government referred to a number of certificates issued by the facilities’ officials in December 2023, concerning various aspects of the applicants’ detention. According to these certificates, the applicants’ cells at Kharkiv Detention Facility no. 27 measured 18.2, 15.9, and 30.6 sq. m, originally designated for six, five, and eleven detainees respectively, thereby providing them with 2.7 to 3.2 sq. m of personal space. Regarding Dnipro Detention Facility no. 4, it was mentioned that the applicants’ paper logbooks had been burned on 22 December 2022, following the expiration of the statutory one-year storage period. Consequently, the certificates provided only current data regarding the cells referenced by the applicants, indicating that all cells measured 7.3 sq. m and accommodated two inmates. Apart from overcrowding, the certificates broadly addressed other complaints raised by the applicants, asserting that their conditions of detention had been adequate and compliant with relevant domestic regulations. Specifically, it was stated that periodic cosmetic repairs were carried out in the cells, all prisoners were provided with the necessary set of bed linen, clothes, and shoes, the sanitary facility was separated from the sleeping area by a brick wall and equipped with doors, the temperature never dropped below 18 degrees, all cells had artificial lighting, and the quality of the food was regularly monitored. Additionally, two contracts dated 3 November 2023 on the provision of water and food quality testing and disinfection services were adduced, as well as air and water quality control results and a report for provided disinfection services, all issued in August, November and December 2023. Finally, five photographs were attached, showing a freshly refurbished uninhabited cell with decent conditions, however containing no captions allowing to indicate the cell number or any other pertinence to the applicants.7. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They also complained of the inadequate conditions of their transportation and the use of metal cages in courtrooms, unlawful arrest without a court order, the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention, excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in these regards.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION9. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and the absence of any effective remedies in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.10. The general principles concerning inadequate conditions of detention have been summarised in Muršić v. Croatia [GC] (no. 7334/13, § 96‑101, 20 October 2016), and as regards Ukraine, in the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006), and Sukachov v. Ukraine (no. 14057/17, 30 January 2020). The Muršić judgment also establishes the standard of proof and methods for assessment of evidence in conditions-of‑detention cases (ibid. § 127-128).11.

Outcome for Article 6: violation