63747/14;43270/15;1212/16;3676/16;4942/16;45265/16;50668/16;56273/16;58897/16;58985/16;38459/17;44620/17;64484/17;74946/17;77389/17;78615/17;78638/17;78644/17;81641/17;82615/17;84505/17;38805/18;16992/20;22467/20

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FARZIYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE (Applications nos. 63747/14 and 23 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 1 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: PROCEDURE 1.  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 FACTS 3.  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 LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  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 Convention 6.  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 CONVENTION 10.  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 President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (life sentence with no prospect of release) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name of the trial court Date of the life sentence Judicial decision upholding the conviction     63747/14 29/08/2014 Rustam Zakirovich FARZIYEV Avramenko Gennadiy Mykolayovych Chernigiv Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal 09/08/2004 Supreme Court of Ukraine 16/11/2004     43270/15 20/10/2015 Vasyl Mykolayovych IVASHCHENKO     Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal 28/01/2002 Supreme Court of Ukraine 09/07/2002     1212/16 11/12/2015 Viktor Ivanovych GOGIN Kapalkina Yevgeniya Olegivna Kyiv Court of Appeal of Crimea 30/11/2004 Supreme Court of Ukraine 28/05/2005     3676/16 04/01/2016 Daniel Boleslavovych SUKHARSKYY     Khmelnytskyy Regional Court of Appeal 21/03/2002 Supreme Court of Ukraine 17/09/2002     4942/16 15/12/2015 Volodymyr Sergiyovych PEREGUDOV Zayets Sergiy Anatoliyovych Irpin Zolotoniskyy Local Court of Cherkasy Region 15/08/2012 High Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters 17/12/2013     45265/16 20/07/2016 Vitaliy Yevgenovych BARANENKO     Odessa Regional Court 10/11/2000 Supreme Court of Ukraine 21/06/2001     50668/16 26/09/2016 Mykola Pavlovych SERVETNYK     Volyn Regional Court 23/02/1998 Supreme Court of Ukraine 31/03/1998     56273/16 21/09/2016 Yevgen Mykolayovych AN Poznyak Oleksandr Mykolayovych Kyiv Court of Appeal of Crimea 22/02/2006 Supreme Court of Ukraine 04/05/2006     58897/16 01/10/2015 Viktor Pavlovych LAVRENYUK     Rivne Regional Court of Appeal 01/04/2005 Supreme Court of Ukraine 22/09/2005   58985/16 22/09/2016 Anatoliy Oleksandrovych LUZHYNETSKYY     Ternopil Regional Court 21/09/2000 Supreme Court of Ukraine 12/12/2000   38459/17 26/06/2017 Nikolay Vladimirovich SUZKO     Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal 17/07/2006 Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal 09/03/2010 Supreme Court of Ukraine 30/01/2007   Supreme Court of Ukraine 01/07/2010   44620/17 02/06/2017 Mikhail Igorevich BELYAYEV     Sumy Regional Court of Appeal 14/04/2003 Supreme Court of Ukraine 02/09/2003   64484/17 07/11/2017 Vadim Valeryevich MESTROPYAN     Moskovskyy Local Court of Kharkiv 28/02/2013 Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine 10/06/2014   74946/17 13/10/2017 Oleg Mykhaylovych KAZAK Kapalkina Yevgeniya Olegivna Kyiv Odesa Regional Court of Appeal 13/04/2005 Supreme Court of Ukraine 05/07/2005   77389/17 01/11/2017 Sergey Petrovich KUNITSKIY     Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal 01/08/2002 Supreme Court of Ukraine 08/04/2003   78615/17 26/10/2017 Anatoliy Anatolyevich KOTKO Bespala Tamila Sergiyivna Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal 03/08/2004 Supreme Court of Ukraine 07/12/2004   78638/17 26/10/2017 Viktor Petrovych SKRYNNYK     Sumy Regional Court of Appeal 06/07/2004 Supreme Court of Ukraine 19/10/2004   78644/17 26/10/2017 Albert Ivanovich AGUREYEV     Luhansk Regional Court of 29/05/1998 Supreme Court of Ukraine 25/08/1998   81641/17 29/11/2017 Gennadiy Mykhaylovych NOGTYEV     Kyiv Local Court 02/06/1997 Supreme Court of Ukraine 31/07/1997   82615/17 02/02/2018 Ruslan Mikhaylovich PETRENKO     Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal 05/03/2010 Supreme Court of Ukraine 06/07/2010   84505/17 09/12/2017 Vitaliy Vasilyevich KOSHIK Bespala Tamila Sergiyivna Kharkiv Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal 16/07/2004 Supreme Court of Ukraine 14/12/2004   38805/18 01/08/2018 Oleksandr Mykolayovych GUBARYEV     Sumy Regional Court of Appeal 30/08/2002 Supreme Court of Ukraine 18/03/2003   16992/20 17/03/2020 Anatoliy Anatoliyovych BALYK Khaytov Pavlo Vyacheslavovych Chernigiv Kotovskyy City Court of Odessa Region, 18/02/2011 N/A   22467/20 19/05/2020 Vladyslav Yaroslavovych LOZINSKYY Revyakin Maksym Oleksandrovych Kharkiv Kmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal 07/09/2006 Supreme Court of Ukraine 27/02/2007