The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine violated the rights of lawyer Oleksandr Sergienko during the detention. As a result, Ukraine must pay 15,000 euros in compensation for ill-treatment and improper investigation of the incident.
Oleksandr Sergienko is the lawyer of the former people's deputy Oleksandr Onyshchenko and is accused together with him in the "gas" case, which is being investigated by NABU.
Sergiyenko stated that during his detention by NABU officers, he suffered injuries – bruises on his chest, hands and nose, which were recorded upon his arrival at the pre-trial detention center. The next day, the court ordered an investigation into the fact of these injuries. NABU started an investigation, but in March 2017 it was stopped on the grounds that there was no crime. Sergiyenko tried to appeal this decision, but the court rejected his appeal due to violation of the deadline for filing an appeal.
The ECtHR recognized numerous mistakes and violations of the rights of lawyers by NABU at the stage of the pre-trial investigation.
"In particular, the ECtHR concluded that Sergiyenko was subjected to cruel treatment, which was classified as inhuman and degrading," the committee noted.
In addition, the court found that the investigation into the fact of 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. NABU, which violates the principle of independence of the investigation.
Thus, the ECtHR, having considered the case, established that Sergiyenko's rights were violated, and obliged Ukraine to pay him compensation in the amount of 15 thousand euros.
According to Onyshchenko's lawyers, this decision can have a serious impact on the entire "gas case", because the ECtHR's decision established gross violations by detectives at the stage of the pre-trial investigation, as well as numerous abuses and violations of the rights of both the defendants and lawyers.
After such decisions of international courts, which record violations of human rights by Ukrainian anti-corruption bodies, questions arise about whether the fight against corruption can be considered effective and whether this fight is worth such money?
Recently, the public has gathered many questions about the work of NABU detectives. In particular, statements about the loss of independence of anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine are often heard. This was stated, among other things, by the recently dismissed first deputy director of the bureau, Gizo Uhlava. He repeatedly hinted that decisions at NABU are made under the influence of external factors, and not on the basis of the law. Among the persons and institutions that, in his opinion, exerted this pressure were the activists of the Anti-Corruption Center (CPC) and the head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-corruption Policy, who, as Uglava noted, previously worked in the CPC.
Uglava has repeatedly emphasized that the actions against him testify to serious problems in the NABU investigation process, which are focused on achieving external goals, and not on establishing the truth.
The same opinion is supported by lawyers, who also stated that the real goal of anti-corruption activists has changed from fighting corruption to putting pressure on certain public officials to achieve "external" goals.
In addition, human rights defenders sound the alarm because of systematic violations of the presumption of innocence by NABU detectives and SAP prosecutors.
This was recorded, 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 public organizations. 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 as guilty.
Not infrequently, high-profile accusations of top officials by NABU result in acquittals. An example is the case of ex-minister Volodymyr Omelyan. He was accused of budget losses due to the reduction of port dues that he introduced. But in court, all the arguments of the detectives and prosecutors of the SAP were completely dismissed as worthless. By the way, neither NABU detectives nor SAP prosecutors have incurred any public apology to Omelyan and punishment for illegally bringing him to criminal responsibility.
A similar story may repeat itself with ex-minister Mykola Solsky, who in May was accused of appropriating land in the Sumy region for the benefit of ATO fighters. This story is already eight years old, the reasonable time limit for the investigation has been exhausted, but the detectives decided to announce it only this year. In addition, at the moment when Solsky achieved results in negotiations with the Poles regarding the export of agricultural products.
However, publicly available materials testify to the dubious evidence of the detectives, as evidenced by the expert opinion of the manipulation of expertise in this case. One of them they tried to "confuse" and cancel through the court - probably because such an examination testified to the innocence of the ex-minister.
