A/HRC/43/CRP.7 Electric shocks Decrease from 32.4 to 0.0 Sexual violence Decrease from 14.7 to 0.0 Mock executions Decrease from 23.5 to 3.7 Threats of death Decrease from 20.6 to 14.8 Threats of harm to family Decrease from 38.2 to 11.1 Threats of violence Decrease from 26.5 to 18.5 Threats of sexual violence Decrease from 14.7 to 0.0 10. Amongst the interviewees who were subjected to arbitrary detention, torture and illtreatment, at least twenty-four reported having complained directly to a judge in a hearing or lodged a formal complaint to a prosecutor or a judge through their lawyer. OHCHR is not aware of any complaints that have resulted in redress. B. Arbitrary detention, torture and-ill-treatment of detainees in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ 11. By 15 February 2020, OHCHR interviewed 39 (31 men, including one military, and eight women) out of the 51 released detainees whom the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ had handed over to the Government on 29 December 2019. One had been in detention since 2015, nine since 2016, 21 since 2017, five since 2018, and three since 2019. 12. Their testimonies further confirmed OHCHR’s previous findings135 of a consistent pattern of arbitrary detention, often amounting to enforced disappearance, and torture and illtreatment of conflict-related detainees in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’. OHCHR found that torture and ill-treatment were widespread during the initial stage of detention, with torture and ill-treatment considerably decreasing after the completion of ‘pretrial investigations’. Apprehension 13. The majority of individuals interviewed had been apprehended by armed men wearing no insignia and in balaclavas who did not identify themselves. In most cases, they were not told why they were being detained. Many of them were blindfolded and handcuffed either immediately after the apprehension or on the way to the first place of detention. Nine reported being beaten immediately after the apprehension or while being transported to the first place of detention. For example, during his apprehension, one man was hit several times with brass knuckles to his chest and face, resulting in lasting bruises. While he was lying on the ground, the attacker pressed his head to the ground with his foot.136 Initial period of detention 14. Initial places of detention were mostly either the premises of the ‘ministry of state security’ (in Donetsk and other cities), or the ‘Izoliatsiia’ detention facility in Donetsk. OHCHR observed that in the vast majority of cases, detainees were unaware of, or seriously confused about, their ‘procedural’ status. Initially they were not informed of the reasons for their detention or of the ‘charges’ against them. OHCHR understands that the majority of individuals were initially detained under the ‘administrative arrest’ procedure.137 Detainees were denied access to a lawyer or contact with the outside world during this time. Relatives of those detained who inquired about their whereabouts with various ‘authorities’ were either 135 136 137 38 For more information on previous OHCHR findings on the treatment of conflict-related detainees in the self-proclaimed ‘republics’ in 2014-2017, see OHCHR, Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018, paras. 67-72, and paras. 17-38 of related Annex II. OHCHR interview, 15 January 2020. During ‘administrative arrest’, individuals are held incommunicado for a 30-day period, after which the ‘prosecutor’ often issues an ‘order’ with new grounds for further ‘administrative arrest’ and detention. See also OHCHR, Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018, para. 33.