FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF FARZIYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 63747/14 and 23 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG1 April 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Farziyev and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Ivana Jelić, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 11 March 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 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 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 of their 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.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION10.  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.”11.  Having regard 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 applications admissible;Holds that they disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Ivana Jelić 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   63747/1429/08/2014Rustam Zakirovich FARZIYEV1984Avramenko Gennadiy MykolayovychChernigivChernigiv Regional Court of Appeal09/08/2004Supreme Court of Ukraine 16/11/2004   43270/1520/10/2015Vasyl Mykolayovych IVASHCHENKO1961  Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal28/01/2002Supreme Court of Ukraine 09/07/2002   1212/1611/12/2015Viktor Ivanovych GOGIN1949Kapalkina Yevgeniya OlegivnaKyivCourt of Appeal of Crimea 30/11/2004Supreme Court of Ukraine 28/05/2005   3676/1604/01/2016Daniel Boleslavovych SUKHARSKYY1981  Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal21/03/2002Supreme Court of Ukraine 17/09/2002   4942/1615/12/2015Volodymyr Sergiyovych PEREGUDOV1989Zayets Sergiy AnatoliyovychIrpinZolotoniskyy Local Court of Cherkasy Region15/08/2012High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters 17/12/2013   45265/1620/07/2016Vitaliy Yevgenovych BARANENKO1976  Odessa Regional Court 10/11/2000Supreme Court of Ukraine 21/06/2001   50668/1626/09/2016Mykola Pavlovych SERVETNYK1967  Volyn Regional Court23/02/1998Supreme Court of Ukraine 31/03/1998   56273/1621/09/2016Yevgen Mykolayovych AN1967Poznyak Oleksandr MykolayovychKyivCourt of Appeal of Crimea 22/02/2006Supreme Court of Ukraine 04/05/2006   58897/1601/10/2015Viktor Pavlovych LAVRENYUK1977  Rivne Regional Court of Appeal 01/04/2005Supreme Court of Ukraine 22/09/2005 58985/1622/09/2016Anatoliy Oleksandrovych LUZHYNETSKYY1972  Ternopil Regional Court21/09/2000Supreme Court of Ukraine 12/12/2000 38459/1726/06/2017Nikolay Vladimirovich SUZKO1978  Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal17/07/2006Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal09/03/2010Supreme Court of Ukraine 30/01/2007 Supreme Court of Ukraine 01/07/2010 44620/1702/06/2017Mikhail Igorevich BELYAYEV1981  Sumy Regional Court of Appeal 14/04/2003Supreme Court of Ukraine 02/09/2003 64484/1707/11/2017Vadim Valeryevich MESTROPYAN1971  Moskovskyy Local Court of Kharkiv28/02/2013Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine 10/06/2014 74946/1713/10/2017Oleg Mykhaylovych KAZAK1981Kapalkina Yevgeniya OlegivnaKyivOdesa Regional Court of Appeal 13/04/2005Supreme Court of Ukraine 05/07/2005 77389/1701/11/2017Sergey Petrovich KUNITSKIY1968  Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal01/08/2002Supreme Court of Ukraine 08/04/2003 78615/1726/10/2017Anatoliy Anatolyevich KOTKO1973Bespala Tamila SergiyivnaKharkivDnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal03/08/2004Supreme Court of Ukraine 07/12/2004 78638/1726/10/2017Viktor Petrovych SKRYNNYK1957  Sumy Regional Court of Appeal 06/07/2004Supreme Court of Ukraine 19/10/2004 78644/1726/10/2017Albert Ivanovich AGUREYEV1963  Luhansk Regional Court of 29/05/1998Supreme Court of Ukraine 25/08/1998 81641/1729/11/2017Gennadiy Mykhaylovych NOGTYEV1975  Kyiv Local Court02/06/1997Supreme Court of Ukraine 31/07/1997 82615/1702/02/2018Ruslan Mikhaylovich PETRENKO1978  Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal05/03/2010Supreme Court of Ukraine 06/07/2010 84505/1709/12/2017Vitaliy Vasilyevich KOSHIK1981Bespala Tamila SergiyivnaKharkivDnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal16/07/2004Supreme Court of Ukraine 14/12/2004 38805/1801/08/2018Oleksandr Mykolayovych GUBARYEV1979  Sumy Regional Court of Appeal 30/08/2002Supreme Court of Ukraine 18/03/2003 16992/2017/03/2020Anatoliy Anatoliyovych BALYK1969Khaytov Pavlo VyacheslavovychChernigivKotovskyy City Court of Odessa Region,18/02/2011N/A 22467/2019/05/2020Vladyslav Yaroslavovych LOZINSKYY1974Revyakin Maksym OleksandrovychKharkivKmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal07/09/2006Supreme Court of Ukraine 27/02/2007