Sirenko v Ukraine (third-party intervention)
Ukrainian national Igor Sirenko (Mr Sirenko) was assaulted by police during a violent dispersal of peaceful protesters and unlawfully detained following demonstrations in Kyiv in November 2013.
CASE BACKGROUND
On 30 November 2013, Mr Sirenko was attending a peaceful, round-the-clock vigil in Kyiv. At approximately 4 a.m., officers surrounded and assaulted the protestors, including Mr Sirenko.
Officers struck the protestors with rubber and plastic batons and used weapons such as tear gas and stun grenades to disperse them. Mr Sirenko sustained injuries to his torso and his limbs. Mr Sirenko was detained and questioned for more than three hours without cause.
Mr Sirenko lodged a complaint of ill-treatment by police officers on 30 November 2013 with the prosecutor’s office. The investigations into the events of 30 November 2013 became part of a larger investigation into the protests that took place between November 2013 and February 2014.
Mr Sirenko lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 28 January 2014, arguing that authorities’ response to the protest and his unlawful detention amounted to a violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), and 13 (right to effective remedy). Mr Sirenko’s case was joined with fourteen other applicants who took part in the ‘Maidan’ protests between November 2013 and February 2014 in Shmorgunov and Others v Ukraine.
INTERVENTION
REDRESS submitted a third-party intervention on 26 March 2014.
The intervention argued that any unnecessary or disproportionate use of force by a state agent constitutes an Article 3 violation. In their assessment, courts should consider the following factors: whether any force should have been used at all, whether the level of force used is justified, and finally, whether force is being deliberately used to discriminate against, punish, or intimidate specific groups.
The intervention also recognised the relationship between the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and freedom of assembly. States have a positive duty to ensure that peaceful demonstrations can take place without the fear of physical violence. When State authorities use unnecessary or disproportionate force against an individual participating in peaceful protest, this not only violates their right to be free from torture and ill-treatment – it also violates their right to freedom of assembly. Further, States should adopt an approach that affirms the right to peaceful assembly and facilitates protest.
OUTCOME
ECtHR (Former Fifth Section), 21 January 2021.
The Former Fifth Section declared Mr Sirenko’s application inadmissible on the grounds that Mr Sirenko had refused to take part in the investigations. However, REDRESS’s intervention was cited in the Shmorgunov decision.
In line with REDRESS’ intervention, the Court’s decision made a strong link between Article 3 and Article 11 violations. The Court noted that the ill-treatment had caused pain and suffering and in three cases had been sufficiently severe and cruel to amount to torture.
The Court, having noted that “there was no evidence or information indicating that the police’s recourse to physical force against these applicants during the dispersal at issue was made strictly necessary by their conduct”, emphasised that the police brutality and violations during the Maidan protests were not isolated incidents of individual police overreach, but rather part of a coordinated, state-backed strategy to suppress peaceful assembly. It concluded that there was a “deliberate strategy to stop initially peaceful Maidan protest through excessive force” and that the actions of authorities were “organised, concerted and arbitrary”.
The violence and repression, the Court concluded, was aimed at deterring the protesters and the public from participating in the protests and from participating in open political debate.
The decision can be found here and can be cited as follows: ECtHR, Shmorgunov and Others v Ukraine, Apps nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, 21 January 2021.
QUICK FACTS
Case name: Sirenko v Ukraine
Court/Body: European Court of Human Rights
Date intervention filed: 26 March 2014
Current status: Decision reached
Date of final decision: 21 January 2021