1
3
In 2019, the ECtHR delivered its judgment in the case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2), finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Unfortunately, at that time, national legislation did not provide for the possibility for those sentenced to life imprisonment to have their applications for review of their life sentences satisfied.
On 18 October 2022, pursuant to this decision, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted Laws of Ukraine No. 2690-IX and No. 2689-IX, which amended the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine and provided for the possibility of commuting a life sentence to a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 15 to 20 years if the convicted person has served at least 15 years of the sentence imposed by the court.
Following the entry into force of the relevant amendments and the gradual introduction of such a mechanism in Ukraine, there was an active expert discussion about its actual effectiveness.
Subsequently, the ECHR has expressed its opinion on whether such a mechanism would be effective in practice and meet the requirements of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, especially in relation to those sentenced to life imprisonment who have already served their sentence for more than 15 years.
This refers to the ECHR judgment in Medvid v. Ukraine, which concerned the applicant’s complaints concerning an alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the impossibility of commuting such a sentence to a fixed term. After the introduction of such a mechanism in 2022, that, subject to a positive review of life imprisonment, the minimum term of imprisonment will be more than 26 years, especially for those who have already served more than 15 years.
The ECtHR, having considered this case, stated that:
(a) the mechanism of review of life imprisonment can be considered to have been put into practice from 3 March 2023, when the supplementary legislation implementing it entered into force and came into effect;
(b) in the period between the final sentence of life imprisonment (2 October 2003) and the date of entry into force of the review mechanism (3 March 2023) the applicant was in a situation of uncertainty and there were no clear and realistic prospects of early release, and therefore there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention during that period;
(c) after 3 March 2023 the mechanism introduced offered the applicant a realistic possibility of reviewing his life sentence under clear conditions and within a clearly defined time-limit and pointed to no violation of Article 3 of the Convention after that date.
The European Court stated directly and unequivocally that
‘it could not be said that the system is not efficient in theory or in practice.
Subsequently, an application was filed to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court. However, on 17 March 2025, the ECHR rejected this application and the judgment in Medvid v. Ukraine became final.
Thus, today we have another important confirmation that the efforts of the Government of Ukraine to implement the judgment of the ECHR in Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) and reform the system are having gradual positive results.
This case is a positive example of the introduction of a legal mechanism in response to the violations identified by the ECtHR. At the same time, this case is the result of significant joint efforts of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and other state bodies.
Average Rating