I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in LABAZNIKOV v. UKRAINE.

Information

• Judgment date: 2021-03-25
• Communication date: 2015-09-07
• Application number(s): 7670/11
• Country:   UKR
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 5-4, 6, 6-1
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
  Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.689831
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Petro Petrovych Labaznikov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Cherkasy.
On 28 January 2004 the applicant, at the material time a police officer at the Sosnivskiy District Police Department of Cherkasy, was arrested on suspicion of having ill-treated K. with a view to induce her to collaborate with the police and report on the purported criminal activity of her partner.
In April 2004 the applicant and two other officers, B. and S., also implicated by K. in her ill-treatment, were committed to stand trial at the Sosnivskiy District Court of Cherkasy (“District Court”).
On 26 May 2005 the applicant and his co-defendants were found guilty of having abused their office and having caused K. bodily injuries.
They were further sentenced to terms of imprisonment and released from custody on probation.
On 19 October 2005 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal) quashed this judgment and remitted the case for re-trial.
On 23 June 2006 the District Court remanded the applicant and his co-defendants in custody.
On 29 June 2006 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending forensic expert assessment.
On 29 March 2007 the proceedings were resumed.
On 6 June 2007 the District Court found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of office abuse and sentenced them to terms of imprisonment.
The applicant, unlike his co-defendants, appealed against this judgment.
On 9 November 2007 the Court of Appeal, having endorsed the District Court’s factual findings, reduced the applicant’s prison term and released him and his co-defendants from custody on probation.
On 16 December 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the above judgments upon appeals by the applicant and the prosecution and remitted the case for a fresh trial.
On 1 April 2009 the District Court opened the trial proceedings.
On 27 April 2010 the prosecution filed a request to remand the applicant (but not his co-defendants) in custody pending trial.
On the same date the District Court allowed this request, the relevant part of the court’s order reading as follows: “...The court considers that the [prosecution’s] request should be allowed, as the defendant has been accused of having committed grave offences entailing [a potential] imprisonment for a term exceeding three years; special security measures have been applied to certain witnesses upon their requests in accordance with the law; the defendant has been accused of having inflicted bodily injuries with a view to intimidating the victim, which fact makes it possible that the applicant would repeat these actions; in addition, being at liberty, the defendant may obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case as well as to abscond and continue his criminal activity...” The District Court also noted that the aforementioned decision was not subject to appeal.
On 28 April 2010 the applicant’s relatives acting as his lay defenders in the proceedings requested B., the prosecutor in charge of the case, to notify them why he had decided that the applicant might intimidate the witnesses if he remained at liberty.
On 5 May 2010 B. informed the applicant’s relatives that they must have misinterpreted his submissions.
While he had mentioned that security measures had been applied to certain witnesses, it had not been stated that these measures had been applied in view of the applicant having intimidated them.
On 11 May 2010 the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that a decision to remand him in custody could not be subject to appellate review.
On 18 May, 4 and 8 June 2010 the applicant and his lay defenders requested the District Court to release him from custody.
They noted that the relevant prosecutor’s request had been biased and unfounded.
In particular, there had been no instances of the applicant attempting to abscond, intimidate witnesses or obstruct the investigation in any other ways during the period when he had remained at liberty in the course of the proceedings.
The assumptions that he might do so in future had been devoid of any factual basis.
They also noted that the applicant had had no prior criminal record, had a home and a family in Cherkasy, including ailing parents in his charge and that his neighbours had given him positive character references.
Finally, they submitted that the applicant suffered from numerous health conditions, which had already resulted in him being sixteen kilograms underweight.
The applicant’s health problems could deteriorate in detention, as there was no proper medical monitoring and diet in place.
On 22 June 2010 the District Court rejected the applicant’s and his lay defenders’ requests to release him from custody, having noted that the reasons for remanding him in detention had been duly stated in the decision of 27 April 2010, that these reasons persisted and that there was no evidence that the applicant’s health condition was incompatible with detention.
On 5 August 2010 the prosecutor’s office notified the applicant’s relatives in a letter, in response to their enquiries, that the request to detain the applicant had been prompted, in particular, by his tactics of delaying the proceedings.
For instance, he took inordinately lengthy time to study the case-file materials.
On 18 August 2010 the applicant’s relatives again requested the court to release him from custody referring to absence of any evidence that he would abscond, obstruct the proceedings or engage in criminal activity upon his release.
They further mentioned that the applicant’s co-defendants, who had pleaded guilty and had not appealed against the previous judgment, remained at liberty, while the applicant’s detention was in fact a revenge for his active attempts to prove his innocence.
In addition, the applicant’s relatives listed a number of chronic gastroenterological and vascular conditions the applicant suffered from and alleged that he needed a special diet, periodic medical interventions and constant monitoring not available in the detention facility.
Finally, they submitted that the prosecution’s allegations that the applicant had been delaying the proceedings had been unfounded, as no hearings had ever been postponed or adjourned on account of his conduct.
On 22 October 2010 the applicant reiterated his earlier request for release, alleging, in particular, that he had continued to lose weight.
He submitted that at the moment, being 175 centimetres tall, his weight had dropped down to 57 kilograms.
On 28 October, 6 and 8 December 2010 the District Court held hearings, in the course of which the requests for the applicant’s release were not addressed.
On 10 December 2010 the applicant’s and his relatives’ requests for the applicant’s release were rejected by the District Court, which noted that the reasons for detaining him listed in the decision of 27 April 2010 persisted and there were no circumstances justifying the applicant’s release.
On several occasions after 27 April 2010 the applicant’s relatives requested the court to remand his co-defendants in custody to ensure equal treatment of all the defendants, these requests having been rejected as unfounded.
On 1 April 2011 the District Court, having referred to an ample array of evidence, including the confessional statements of the applicant’s co-defendants, statements by the victim, forensic and corporeal evidence and numerous witness testimonies, convicted the applicant and his co-defendants of office abuse and sentenced them to various punishments.
The applicant was sentenced to seven years’ six months’ prison term and deprived of his police rank as a captain.
In addition, all defendants were banned from occupying posts of authority in the law-enforcement bodies for a three-year term.
On 2 August 2011 the Court of Appeal upheld the factual findings of the District Court in the case, but reduced the applicant’s prison sentence to six years.
On 12 June 2012 the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that the decision of 27 April 2010 to remand him in custody was arbitrary and unreasonable and that he had been deprived of a meaningful possibility to bring proceedings whereby the lawfulness of this decision would be reviewed in a timely manner.
The applicant referred to Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 of the Convention in respect of the above complaints.
The applicant additionally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were inordinately lengthy.