A/HRC/45/CRP.9 the national police or SBU. In private interviews, detainees told OHCHR that they made these self-incriminating statements as a result of torture, ill-treatment or intimidation by SBU officers. 89. In one such case, a woman whose video confession of being linked to the armed groups of the self-proclaimed ‘republics’ was published by the SBU114 told OHCHR she was beaten until she agreed to “confess” on camera. OHCHR notes that in her video confession, the woman has abrasions on her face and was visibly reading a prepared text.115 90. In addition to violating the prohibitions against torture and ill-treatment and against compelling one to testify against oneself, by publishing the video confessions, the Government may also be violating the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed by article 14.2 of the ICCPR and Ukrainian law.116 The publishing of video confessions of persons detained in relation to the armed conflict may also amount to humiliating and degrading treatment under international humanitarian law, in violation of the prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity. 91. OHCHR is concerned that, where torture and ill-treatment complaints were lodged by the victims, these were not effectively investigated. Conflict-related detainees told OHCHR that the Government’s lack of effort to duly address allegations of forced confessions contributed to their state of duress. 92. OHCHR notes that the armed conflict has presented a number of challenges for the judicial system, which has not adopted a uniform approach to the status of the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. Individuals linked with the self-proclaimed ‘republics’ have thus been prosecuted on charges of membership in a terrorist organisation or in an unlawful armed formation, crimes which carry different punishments. The prosecution used its discretion to classify the crime to pressure defendants to confess; those who cooperated with the investigation were prosecuted for the more lenient crime of membership in an unlawful armed formation rather than facing terrorism charges.117 OHCHR recalls that the Special Rapporteur on Terrorism and Human Rights recommended that States ensure their national counter-terrorism legislation defines terrorist groups with sufficient clarity to distinguish them from ordinary criminal groups, and that there is no undue investigative or prosecutorial advantage in criminal cases due to confusion with terrorist cases. 118 93. OHCHR observed that the automatic pre-trial detention of persons charged with conflict-related crimes and the protracted nature of their trials as outlined above often resulted in defendants’ guilty pleas. Some defendants complained to OHCHR that the prosecutor threatened further delays and continued pre-trial detention if they did not plead guilty,119 114 115 116 117 118 119 20 The video confession was published on 19 December 2014. Video confession on SBU website available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ad8r4X_2TY&feature=emb_logo. See Opinion No. 83/2017 concerning Mahmoud Hussein Gommaa Ali (Egypt) adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eightieth session, 20-24 November 2017, para. 79. Lack of statutory regulation on classification of crimes and guidance by the Supreme Court on the legal status of self-proclaimed ‘republics’ results in them being either classified as criminal organisations (article 256 Criminal Code - possible punishment from three to five years in prison, e.g. verdict of Krasnoarmiiskyi town-district court of Donetsk region of 12 September 2018, available at reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76422313); unlawful armed formations (article 260 of the Criminal Code - possible punishment from three to eight years in prison, e.g. verdict of Oktiabrskyi district court of Poltava of 28 November 2014, available at reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/42209113); or terrorist groups (article 2583 Criminal Code - possible punishment from eight to fifteen years in prison; e.g. verdict of Kostiantynivskyi town-district court of Donetsk region of 6 September 2018, available at reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76272295). In these cases, those convicted were prosecuted for collecting information regarding the movement of Ukrainian armed forces and sharing it with selfproclaimed ‘republics’. The Supreme Court failed to ensure the consistency of case law, instead advising first-instance courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the armed group in question is terrorist or not, and classify the crime of membership or links with them accordingly. Final report of the Special Rapporteur on Terrorism and human rights Kalliopi K. Koufa - Specific Human Rights Issues: New Priorities, in Particular Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/40), para. 74. OHCHR interviews, 26 April 2015, 28 August 2019.