Ukrainians will pay €15,000 for violations by NABU detectives, according to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has determined that detectives from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine violated the rights of lawyer Alexander Sergienko. As a result, Ukraine is required to pay him 15,000 euros in compensation. This was reported by the Committee for the Protection of Lawyers' Rights and Guarantees of Legal Activity of the NAAU, as stated by UNN.

Details

Alexander Sergienko represents former MP Alexander Onishchenko and is accused alongside him in the "gas" case currently under investigation by NABU.

Sergienko claimed that during his detention by NABU officers, he sustained injuries - bruises to his chest, arms, and nose, which were documented upon his arrival at the detention center. The next day, the court ordered an investigation into these injuries. NABU initiated the investigation, but in March 2017, it was closed due to the absence of a crime. Sergienko attempted to appeal this decision, but the court rejected his appeal due to a violation of the appeal submission deadline.

The ECHR recognized numerous errors and violations of lawyers' rights by NABU during the pre-trial investigation.

"In particular, the ECHR concluded that Sergienko was subjected to ill-treatment, which was classified as inhumane and degrading," noted the committee.

Furthermore, the court established that the investigation into the 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, namely NABU, which violates the principle of independent investigation.

Thus, the ECHR, after reviewing the case, found that Sergienko's rights were violated and mandated Ukraine to pay him compensation of 15,000 euros.

According to Onishchenko's lawyers, this ruling could significantly impact the entire "gas case," as the ECHR's decision highlights serious violations by detectives during the pre-trial investigation, as well as numerous abuses and violations of rights for both the accused and their lawyers.

Following such decisions from international courts that document human rights violations by Ukrainian anti-corruption bodies, questions arise about the effectiveness of the fight against corruption and whether this struggle is worth such costs.

Additionally

Recently, there have been many public questions regarding the work of NABU detectives. In particular, statements about the loss of independence of anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine have frequently emerged. This was also stated by the recently dismissed first deputy director of the bureau, Gizo Uglava. He repeatedly hinted that decisions in NABU are influenced by external factors rather than based on the law. Among the individuals and institutions he identified as exerting this pressure were activists from the Center for Combating Corruption (CCC) and the chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, who, as Uglava noted, previously worked at the CCC.

Uglava has repeatedly emphasized that actions taken against him indicate serious problems in NABU's investigative process, which are aimed at achieving external objectives rather than establishing the truth.

This sentiment is echoed by lawyers, who have also claimed that the true goal of the anti-corruption fighters has shifted from combating corruption to exerting pressure on certain public officials to achieve "external" objectives.

Moreover, human rights defenders are sounding the alarm over systematic violations by NABU detectives and SAP prosecutors of the presumption of innocence.

This was also noted in the Shadow Report to Section 23 "Justice and Fundamental Rights" of the 2023 European Commission Report on Ukraine, prepared by a coalition of public organizations. According to the document, in several court cases, judges identified violations of the presumption of innocence principle by NABU detectives, who in public comments and interviews effectively "declared" the accused guilty.

Often, high-profile accusations against top officials from NABU ultimately result in acquittals. An example is the case of former minister Volodymyr Omelyan, who was accused of budget losses due to reduced port fees that he implemented. However, in court, all arguments presented by the detectives and SAP prosecutors were completely dismantled as baseless. Notably, neither NABU detectives nor SAP prosecutors have issued any public apologies to Omelyan or faced consequences for unlawfully bringing him to criminal responsibility.

A similar situation may unfold with former minister Mykola Solskyi, who was accused in May of misappropriating land in the Sumy region for the benefit of ATO fighters. This case is already eight years old, the reasonable timeframe for investigation has expired, yet detectives chose to announce this only this year. Moreover, this occurred at the moment when Solskyi achieved results in negotiations with Poland regarding the export of agricultural products.

However, publicly available materials indicate dubious evidence from the detectives, as shown by expert evaluations revealing manipulation with the expertise in this case. One of these evaluations was attempted to be "leaked" and annulled through the court—likely because such an evaluation indicated the ex-minister's innocence.