All Reports

20 February 2020 marks the sixth anniversary of the end of the most violent phase of the Maidan protests. Eighty-three protesters, a journalist, a bystander, and 13 law enforcement officers lost their lives between 21 January and 20 February 2014. Since February last year when the UN HRMMU released its briefing note on Accountability for killings and violent deaths during the Maidan protests, the cases have seen little progress.

This twenty-eighth report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the human rights situation in Ukraine covers the period of 16 August to 15 November 2019. It is based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU).

This twenty-seventh report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the human rights situation in Ukraine covers the period of 16 May to 15 August 2019. It is based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU).

The present report is submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution 73/263, in which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to report at its seventy-fourth session on the progress made in the implementation of that resolution, including options and recommendations to improve its implementation.

On 7 October 2014, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted a law amending, inter alia, article 176 “General provisions on measures of restraint” of the Criminal Procedure Code. Despite availability of a variety of other measures of restraint (i.e. personal recognizance, personal guarantee, bail and house arrest), the amendment prescribed that no other measure of restraint but pre-trial detention can be applied to individuals charged with crimes against national security and a number of crimes against public security. The way Ukrainian courts apply this provision contradicts the international human rights standards related to liberty of person and prohibition of arbitrary detention. In particular, judges dealing with conflict-related criminal cases do not duly assess the elements required to be met for application of a measure of restraint but instead apply pre-trial detention as the only available measure of restraint without giving due consideration to less intrusive alternatives that would effectively mitigate the risks of flight, interference with evidence or recurrence of the crime.