FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF LOPATA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 84210/17 and 23 others -see appended list)     JUDGMENT STRASBOURG10 December 2020    This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lopata 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, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,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 about their life sentence with no prospect of release. Some applicants also raised other complaints under other the provisions of the Convention.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 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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS10.  Some applicants 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 applications 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 the applications inadmissible;Holds that these complaints 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 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Ivana JelićActing Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIXList 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   84210/1709/12/2017Stepan Anatolyevich LOPATA1984Bespala Tamila SergiyivnaKharkivCherkasy Regional Court of Appeal12/12/2006-   9511/1803/05/2018Volodymyr Mykolayovych BALA1976Boykova Iryna AnatoliyivnaKyivChernigiv Regional Court of Appeal08/08/2003Supreme Court of Ukraine18/11/2003   21183/1825/04/2018Oleksiy Ivanovych ROMANENKO1976Ovdiyenko Ganna VolodymyrivnaKharkivKherson Regional Court19/09/1997-   26008/1821/04/2018Nikolay Yevdokimovich SILI1958Tarakhkalo Mykhaylo OleksandrovychKyivDnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal28/03/2007-   38904/1807/07/2018Sergey Petrovich KHUKALENKO1971  Sumy Court of Appeal23/06/2005-   41765/1806/08/2018Volodymyr Ivanovych PANASENKO1959  Lviv Regional Court of Appeal19/09/2008-   43373/1801/09/2018Pakhrudin Mukhtarovich ALIEV1968Saypudinova Saykha OmarpashayevnaSaratovSupreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea10/02/1997Supreme Court of Ukraine15/05/1997   58225/1805/12/2018Aleksandr Anatolyevich ROMANENKO1972Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgKirovsk Regional Court of Dnipropetrovsk23/02/2017Supreme Court of Ukraine05/06/2018   58644/1810/12/2018Valeriy Petrovich VODOTOVKA1960Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgKyiv City Court01/07/1997Supreme Court of Ukraine16/07/1998 59102/1810/12/2018Dmitriy Lvovich SILIN1975Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgKyiv City Court08/08/2000Supreme Court of Ukraine26/04/2001 59271/1810/12/2018Sergey Stepanovich MARTSYNKEVICH1967Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgTernopil Regional Court21/09/2000Supreme Court of Ukraine12/12/2000 26708/1924/10/2019Aleksandr Viktorovich IVANOV1956Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgOdesa Regional Court19/02/1997- 35936/1927/06/2019Volodymyr Volodymyrovych KOSTIN1979Ovdiyenko Ganna VolodymyrivnaKharkivDonetsk Regional Court of Appeal17/05/2002- 42966/1917/07/2019Demyan Ivanovych STARENKYY1968  Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea 26/01/2004Supreme Court of Ukraine21/07/2005 44910/1913/08/2019Oleksandr Stepanovych MELNYCHENKO1972Gaydamachenko Tamara PetrivnaKyivLviv Regional Court19/02/2001Supreme Court of Ukraine30/10/2001 47458/1906/09/2019Aleksandr Ivanovich ZHUCHENKO1959Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgDonetsk Regional Court04/09/1998Supreme Court of Ukraine21/10/1999 47468/1906/09/2019Aleksandr Levkovich VASALATYY1962Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourg Zaporizhzhya Regional Court22/01/1999- 48975/1916/09/2019Pavel Andreyevich GARKAVENKO1979Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgDonetsk Regional Court20/06/2000Supreme Court of Ukraine11/01/2001 48985/1913/09/2019Valeriy Nikolayevich TISHCHENKO1968Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgKharkiv Regional Court26/05/2000Supreme Court of Ukraine06/11/2001 59160/1903/11/2019Aleksandr Aleksandrovych PASHCHENKO1975  Rubezhanskiy Town Court of Luhansk Region29/05/2012Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal16/11/2012;High Specialised Court on Civil and Criminal Cases 23/09/2014 59413/1930/10/2019Mykola Oleksandrovych KHOKHLICH1976  Khmelnytsk Regional Court09/02/1996Supreme Court of Ukraine21/06/2000 60591/1919/11/2019Yevgeniy Viktorovich KHLOPONIN1975Preobrazhenskaya Oksana VladimirovnaStrasbourgDonetsk Regional Court30/12/1998- 61374/1912/11/2019Yelchin Burkhan Ogly AGABALAYEV1974  Kherson Regional Court of Appeal10/06/2008Supreme Court of Ukraine02/12/2008 63910/1918/11/2019Valeriy Viktorovich VASILENKO1980Ovdiyenko Ganna VolodymyrivnaKharkivKharkiv Regional Court of Appeal24/11/2003Supreme Court of Ukraine22/06/2004