Fair, Independent and Accountable Judiciary in Ukraine: Analysis of the Practice of Custodial Measures Enforcement During the “Revolution of Dignity” Period

The events were characterized by a struggle for a better standard of living and a better attitude towards citizens. The European Court of Human Rights views human dignity as a value equal to the right to life, emphasizing that dignity is the realization of one's importance and moral equality with others. The concept of dignity is often linked to freedom and personal immunity. Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated that refusing one's freedom means rejecting human dignity, rights, and duties. Ensuring individual freedom involves obeying legislative requirements for enforcing measures of restraint. However, during the Revolution of Dignity period, law-enforcement officers ignored European values, and wrong trends emerged in enforcing current legislation regarding the right to freedom and personal immunity. Analysis of judicial practice during this period (December 21, 2013, to February 22, 2014) shows that violations in the sphere of enforcing measures of restraint were caused by the abuse of power and manipulation with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in force. Judges failed to take into account the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Investigating judges and courts of appeal passed several hundred decisions on enforcing a measure of restraint in the form of keeping in custody in cases related to criminal offenses against participants of the resistance movement to the Yanukovych regime. The most typical and gross violation of the rights of participants of the Revolution of Dignity to freedom and personal immunity was the use of evidence obtained by the prosecution contrary to the procedure envisaged by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. This evidence was inadmissible under articles 86, 87, and 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The absence of proper reaction from courts to such violations in the majority of cases became a precondition for further illegitimate decisions restricting the freedom of related participants of criminal proceedings. Detention protocols of some suspects did not contain the actual time and/or place of their detention. For instance, the detention protocol of S. V. Zahvozkin showed that detention took place in the premises of Desnianskyy Rayon Department of the Main Administration of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv on January 20, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. However, the report of the militiaman-driver of an armored vehicle of the specialized designation company of special designation militia unit "Berkut" of the Main Administration of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv showed that S. V. Zahvozkin was detained on January 20, 2014, at about 6 a.m. during public order maintenance in Hrushevskyy St. in the city of Kyiv. The most serious violations of the procedure of getting evidence and other procedural violations over the analyzed period excluded the possibility of stating a reasonable suspicion of criminal offense commission. These violations included the absence of actual time and/or place of detention in detention protocols, and the use of inadmissible evidence obtained by the prosecution contrary to the procedure envisaged by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.