FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SYOMAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 1691/21 and 5 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG2 December 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Syomak 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 10 November 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 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 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 2 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif HüseynovActing 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   1691/2124/12/2020Vasyl Ivanovych SYOMAK1977 Bespala Tamila SergiyivnaKharkivMoscow Regional Court, 13/06/2001Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 09/10/2001   1724/2130/12/2020Maksym Vitesovych VOLUZHYS1989 Bespala Tamila SergiyivnaKharkivKherson Regional Court of Appeal,11/03/2011High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters, 11/12/2012   2918/2123/12/2020Oleksandr Anatoliyovych YESAULOV1981   Kyiv Court of Appeal21/06/2006Supreme Court of Ukraine26/09/2006   3753/2105/01/2021Rashydbek Ibragimovych ISAKOV1959 Gnatenko Oleksiy AnatoliyovychKyivSevastopol Court of Appeal,28/03/2005Supreme Court of Ukraine, 03/08/2006   13538/2118/02/2021Sergey Anatolyevich BOROVIK1984   Crimea Court of Appeal, 17/09/2003Supreme Court of Ukraine, 19/02/2004   17745/2123/03/2021Vitaliy Mykolayovych KOZACHENKO1980 Kychenok Andriy SergiyovychKyivKharkiv Regional Court of Appeal,31/03/2003Supreme Court of Ukraine, 14/10/2003