FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF BOLDYRYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 19957/21 and 8 others –see appended list)    JUDGMENT STRASBOURG6 October 2022     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Boldyryev and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lətif Hüseynov, President, Lado Chanturia, Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 24 February 2022,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 of the 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 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.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.  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 applications admissible;Holds that these applications 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 6 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov Acting 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   19957/2116/03/2021Valeriy Volodymyrovych BOLDYRYEV1973 Gorbachevska Tamara IgorivnaKharkivCourt of Appeal of Odesa Region, 14/12/2009 Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine in Civil and Criminal Matters, 10/07/2012 and 01/10/2013   20534/2108/04/2021Vitaliy Mykolayovych LUKASHUK1979 Kychenok Andriy SergiyovychKyivCourt of Appeal of Kyiv Region, 03/11/2003Supreme Court of Ukraine, 04/03/2004   28310/2127/05/2021Oleksandr Anatoliyovych ROGULYOV1965 Kychenok Andriy SergiyovychKyivKharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, 15/11/2002Supreme Court of Ukraine, 06/05/2003   28762/2128/05/2021Ruslan Grygorovych SOTNYKOV1977 Dolzhko Vladyslav VitaliyovychKharkivCourt of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region,22/11/2001Supreme Court of Ukraine,14/05/2002   29368/2127/05/2021Sergiy IvanovychDERKACH1968 Lushpenko Dmytro SergiyovychKryvyy RigDnipropetrovsk Regional Court,14/11/2000Supreme Court of Ukraine,16/01/2001   29585/2114/05/2021Oleksandr Yevgeniyovych MAKSYMYKHIN1985   Chernihiv Court of Appeal, 09/08/2004Supreme Court of Ukraine, 16/11/2004   30459/2105/06/2021Vadim Vladimirovich TROKHIMCHUK1990   Kupiansk Local Court of Kharkiv Region, 04/12/2017Kharkiv Court of Appeal, 08/11/2018Supreme Court of Ukraine,17/03/2020    32369/2111/06/2021Viktor IgorovychSAYENKO1988   Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal, 10/02/2009Supreme Court of Ukraine, 24/11/2009   36609/2107/07/2021Vasyl PetrovychGAYDAY1962   Kyiv Court of Appeal, 25/01/2012Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court, 23/04/2013