CASE OF RUSLAN YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of conviction;Review of sentence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano
5. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Korolivka, in the Kyiv Region. 6. On 12 July 2010 the Bila Tserkva Town Court (“the Bila Tserkva Court”) found the applicant guilty of inflicting grievous bodily injuries on a certain Mr N. on 12 May 2006. Although this type of crime was punishable with five to eight years’ imprisonment, the court considered it possible to apply a more lenient sanction to the applicant. It had regard, in particular, to the fact that he had pleaded guilty and had shown remorse. Accordingly, the court sentenced the applicant to four years and seven months’ imprisonment. It also decided to include in the served part of the applicant’s sentence the period from 20 October 2005 to 3 May 2006 (six months and fourteen days), during which he had been detained in the context of another criminal case. Lastly, in fixing the applicant’s sentence the court had regard to the fact that he “had spent more than four years in [pre-trial] detention facilities in which the detention conditions were considerably harsher than in a post-conviction prison, and the previous judgments in respect of him had been quashed”. No further information is available about the earlier detention of the applicant, the other criminal cases involving him, or the judgments that had been quashed. 7. In the operative part of its judgment, the Bila Tserkva Court also ruled that during his pre-trial detention the applicant should remain in a pre-trial detention centre (SIZO) as a preventive measure until the judgment became final. It further noted that the judgment was amenable to appeal within fifteen days of the date of its delivery. 8. On 15 July 2010 the term of the applicant’s sentence expired, and he asked the SIZO administration to release him. His request was rejected. On the same day the SIZO administration, however, applied to the Bila Tserkva Court for permission to release the applicant subject to an undertaking not to abscond, given that he had served his prison sentence in full. No reply was received. 9. On 19 July 2010 the applicant’s lawyer applied once again to the SIZO administration for the applicant’s immediate release. He submitted, in particular, that there were no grounds for his client’s continued detention. A copy of that letter was also sent to the Kyiv Region Prosecutor’s Office. 10. On 27 July 2010 the fifteen-day time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 12 July 2010 expired and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final. 11. On the same day the SIZO administration wrote to the applicant’s lawyer stating that it could not release the applicant until either the preventive measure in respect of him was changed or the judgment became final. It was noted in the letter that, in any event, it was for the Bila Tserkva Court to authorise the applicant’s release. 12. On 29 July 2010 the SIZO received the court’s order to enforce the final judgment and the applicant was released. 13. On 5 August 2010 the State Prisons Department wrote to the applicant’s lawyer in reply to his complaints about the delayed release of the applicant, stating that there had been no violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure.