The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found that detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine violated the rights of lawyer Oleksandr Sergienko. Now Ukraine must pay him 15 thousand euros in compensation. This was reported by the Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Advocates and Guarantees of Advocacy of the Ukrainian National Bar Association, UNN reports.
Details
Oleksandr Sergienko is a lawyer for former MP Oleksandr Onyshchenko and is a defendant along with him in the “gas” case being investigated by the NABU.
Sergiyenko stated that during his detention by NABU officers, he suffered injuries to his chest, arms and nose, which was recorded upon his arrival at the pre-trial detention center. The next day, the court ordered an investigation into these injuries. The NABU opened an investigation, but in March 2017 it was terminated on the grounds that there was no evidence of a crime. Sergienko tried to appeal this decision, but the court dismissed his appeal due to the violation of the appeal deadline.
The ECHR recognized numerous mistakes and violations of lawyers' rights by the NABU at the pre-trial investigation stage.
“In particular, the ECHR concluded that Sergienko was subjected to ill-treatment that was classified as inhuman and degrading,” the committee noted.
In addition, the court found that the investigation into the ill-treatment of the applicant did not meet the requirements of independence. The investigation was conducted by the same body that was directly involved in the incident, i.e. the NABU, which violates the principle of independence of the investigation.
Thus, the ECHR, having considered the case, found that Sergienko's rights had been violated and ordered Ukraine to pay him compensation in the amount of 15 thousand euros.
According to Onishchenko's lawyers, this decision could seriously affect the entire “gas case”, as the ECHR ruling found gross violations by detectives at the pre-trial investigation stage, as well as numerous abuses and violations of the rights of both the defendants and their lawyers.
After such rulings by international courts, which document human rights violations by Ukrainian anti-corruption bodies, the question arises as to whether the fight against corruption can be considered effective and whether it is worth the money
Add
Recently, the public has accumulated many questions about the work of NABU detectives . In particular, there are frequent statements about the loss of independence of anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine. This, among other things, was stated by the recently dismissed First Deputy Director of the Bureau Gizo Uglava. He has repeatedly hinted that decisions at the NABU are made under the influence of external factors, not on the basis of the law. Among the individuals and institutions that he believes exerted this pressure were activists of the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) and the head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, who, as Uglava noted, used to work at the AntAC.
Uglava has repeatedly emphasized that the actions against him indicate serious problems in the NABU investigation process, which is focused on achieving external goals rather than establishing the truth.
The same opinion is supported by lawyerswho also stated that the real goal of anti-corruption activists has turned from fighting corruption to putting pressure on certain public officials to achieve “external” goals.
In addition, human rights activists are sounding the alarm about systematic violations of the presumption of innocence by NABU detectives and SAPO prosecutors.
This was documented, in particular, in the Shadow Report to Chapter 23 “Justice and Fundamental Rights” of the European Commission's Report on Ukraine for 2023, prepared by a coalition of NGOs. According to the document, in a number of court cases, judges recorded violations of the principle of presumption of innocence by NABU detectives who, in public comments and interviews, actually “appointed” the defendants guilty.
Often, high-profile accusations of top officials by the NABU result in acquittals. An example is the case of former Minister Volodymyr Omelyan. He was accused of budget losses due to the reduction of port fees that he introduced. But in court, all the arguments of SAPO detectives and prosecutors were shattered as worthless. By the way, neither the NABU detectives nor the SAPO prosecutors have ever publicly apologized to Omelyan or been punished for illegally bringing him to criminal responsibility.
A similar story may happen to former Minister Mykola Solsky, who was accused in May of misappropriating landand in Sumy region in favor of ATO fighters. This story is already eight years old, and the reasonable timeframe of the investigation has been exhausted, but detectives decided to report it only this year. Moreover, at the time when Solsky achieved results in negotiations with the Poles on the export of agricultural products.
However, the publicly available materials indicate dubious evidence of the detectives, as evidenced by the expert opinion of manipulation with the examinations in this case. They tried to “leak” one of them and annul it through the court - probably because such an examination testified to the innocence of the former minister.