FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 53152/16 and 8 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG22 July 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Krupko and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Jovan Ilievski, Mattias Guyomar, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2021,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 table2.  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 applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention of their life sentence with no prospect of release.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5.  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 ARTICLE 3 of the Convention6.  The applicants complained principally of the life sentence with no prospect of release. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:Article 3“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”7.  The Court reiterates that the Convention does not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on those convicted of especially serious crimes, such as murder. Yet to be compatible with Article 3 such a sentence must be reducible de jure and de facto, meaning that there must be both a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review. The basis of such review must extend to assessing whether there are legitimate penological grounds for the continuing incarceration of the prisoner. These grounds include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. The balance between them is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of a sentence, so that the primary justification for detention at the outset may not be so after a lengthy period of service of sentence. The importance of the ground of rehabilitation is underlined, since it is here that the emphasis of European penal policy now lies, as reflected in the practice of the Contracting States, in the relevant standards adopted by the Council of Europe, and in the relevant international materials (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others,§§ 59-81, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).8.  In the leading case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. They are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS10.  In application no. 53152/16, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.11.  The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Petukhov (no. 2), cited above, § 201), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release admissible and the remainder of application no. 53152/16 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the life sentence with no prospect of release;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 July 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-VikströmActing Deputy Registrar PresidentAPPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention(life sentence with no prospect of release)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birthRepresentative’s name and locationName of the trial courtDate of the life sentenceJudicial decision upholding the conviction   53152/1622/08/2016Dmytro Volodymyrovych KRUPKO1985 Ovdiyenko Ganna VolodymyrivnaKharkivPecherskyy Local Court of Kyiv, 21/11/2014Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters, 13/04/2016   15038/2011/03/2020Mykola Mykolayovych SAVCHUK1968   Vinnytsya Regional Court, 10/11/1999Supreme Court of Ukraine,01/06/2000   18704/2013/04/2020Volodymyr Mykolayovych NAGORNYY1981   Kovpakivskyy Local Court of Sumy,25/08/2015Supreme Court of Ukraine,01/10/2019   20048/2018/04/2020Andriy Andriyovych ZHENCHAK1968 Ovdiyenko Ganna VolodymyrivnaKharkivCourt of Appeal of Donetsk Region, 02/04/2007N/A   21328/2019/03/2020Yevgen Valeriyovych BAKLINSKYY1964   Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region, 13/08/2001Supreme Court of Ukraine, 22/01/2002   22697/2018/05/2020Ruslan Volodymyrovych OLIYNYK1978   Belgorod Regional Court of the Russian Federation, 12/05//1998Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 04/08/1998Kharkiv Zhovtnevyy Local Court, 15/06/2012Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters, 17/12/2013   42238/2025/08/2020Igor Yevgenovych TRUBITSIN1960   Kirovograd Regional Court04/12/1995Supreme Court of Ukraine28/03/1996   42269/2015/09/2020Valeriy Ivanovych RYABININ1965 Bespala Tamila SergiyivnaKharkivCourt of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region, 20/02/2006Supreme Court of Ukraine,15/08/2006   42299/2015/09/2020Vitaliy Viktorovych MARCHENKO1971 Ovdiyenko Ganna VolodymyrivnaKharkivCourt of Appeal of Zaporizhzhya Region,28/10/2004Supreme Court of Ukraine,24/02/2005