A/HRC/43/CRP.7 unconditional access to all detained persons.”34 First-hand information received by OHCHR about grave human rights violations in places of detention make access for international monitors to places of detention and detainees in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’ an urgent priority. B. Arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment 49. Cases of arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment continued to be documented by OHCHR, both in Government-controlled territory and in territory controlled by the selfproclaimed ‘republics’. 50. For example, OHCHR documented the case of a man who sought to avail himself of the ‘Come back home’ programme35 intended for members of armed groups. He contacted the SBU, which assured him that he was free to return to Ukraine from the Russian Federation without any repercussions if he cooperated with authorities. However, after crossing the Marinka EECP on 3 October 2019, he was immediately abducted by unidentified persons, reportedly because he had been named on the Myrotvorets website. He was driven to an unknown facility, thought to be close to Mariupol and handcuffed overnight to a railing. He was hit in the stomach and threatened with violence until he confessed to being a member of armed groups. Over the following few days, he was held in unofficial places of detention. On 8 October 2019, he was taken to Sievierodonetsk SBU and questioned without a lawyer. On 10 October, the Sievierodonetsk court remanded him to 60 days in detention. On 25 October, the prosecutor told him he could not use the SBU programme and his only chance of being released was to agree to a plea bargain and then consent to be ‘exchanged’. On 4 December, two SBU officers attempted to pressure him into agreeing to participate in the simultaneous release. He refused and on 11 December 2019 after his period of remand in custody expired, he was released. A criminal case against the man is ongoing, while he awaits the outcome of his complaint to the SBI for unlawful detention.36 51. In territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’, OHCHR continued to document cases of arbitrary detention during the reporting period, allegedly by the ‘department to combat organised crime’ and ‘ministry of state security’. During their ‘administrative detention’, victims were denied access to their lawyers and relatives, sometimes for months, which amounts to incommunicado detention. 52. In territory controlled by ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, the ‘ministry of interior’ and ‘ministry of state security’ detained individuals under ‘preventive arrest’ 37 and held them incommunicado, contrary to international human rights standards. 53. For example, on 16 January 2020, an officer of the ‘ministry of state security’ detained a woman at Stanytsia Luhanska EECP. She was taken with a bag on her head to the premises of ‘ministry of state security’ in Luhansk, where she spent a night handcuffed to a chair. Her captors threatened to harm her family, interrogated her about cooperation with the SBU and submitted her to a polygraph test. On 21 January, after signing papers acknowledging the risks of spying on ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, she was released.38 34 35 36 37 38 14 The full text of the summit’s communique is available at The Presidency of France, https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2019/12/09/paris-normandie-summit. This programme, launched in August 2015 by the SBU, allows those who voluntarily leave armed groups to avoid criminal prosecution for their membership in the armed groups, so long as they have not participated in murder, torture, rape, attacks on businesses, institutions, organisations and other grave crimes, are willing to disclosure information on crimes related to the creation or activities of armed groups, and are prepared to assist in ending these activities. OHCHR interview, 17 December 2019. In accordance with the ‘law’ “on martial law” of the ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, ‘preventive arrest’ can be initiated and stopped based on a “motivated decision” of the ‘minister of state security’ or the ‘minister of internal affairs’ agreed with the ‘prosecutor general’ and can long up to 30 days, and can be extended to up 60 days in total. See also OHCHR, Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018, para. 35, available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/ReportUkraineNov2017-Feb2018_EN.pdf. OHCHR interview, 4 February 2020.