A/HRC/45/CRP.9 Annex Pokrovsk (formerly Krasnoarmiisk) 1. On 24 March 2015, unidentified armed men in military uniforms broke into Mr. P.’s house in Kurakhove (Government-controlled territory). After searching the house, the intruders tied and blindfolded Mr. P. and his friend Mr. B. (55 and 33 years old, respectively), and held them incommunicado in a basement in Pokrovsk for eight days. During this time, the captors interrogated them and demanded they confess to planning a terrorist act or the abduction of a Ukrainian soldier. The two men were kept separately, and regularly punched and beaten with batons and a wooden hammer (which the perpetrators called the “hammer of truth”). The captors also dislocated the men’s arms, suffocated them, and subjected them to electric shocks. They also subjected Mr. B. to at least three mock executions by firing a gun above his head, and threatened to abduct and harm Mr. P.’s son-in-law. The victims were forced to write self-incriminating statements about their membership in the armed groups of the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s republic’. 2. On 25 March, an advisor to the Head of the SBU posted on Facebook that two saboteurs were being detained.204 Having no information on Mr. P.’s whereabouts, his wife reported his abduction to police. She also approached the SBU and military forces, who denied involvement in her husband’s abduction. 3. On 31 March when the abductors transferred the detainees to Mariupol and handed them over to the SBU, where their arrest was eventually officially registered, seven days late. The SBU officers showed both men their confessions and told them to repeat them to the investigator. In the absence of their state-appointed lawyers, and under threat of further torture, the victims signed formal self-incriminating statements and arrest protocols with falsified dates of apprehension.205 On 3 April, a court placed them in pre-trial detention. 4. In December 2015 and June 2016, Mr. B. submitted two complaints to the prosecutor’s office of unlawful detention and ill-treatment by abductors whom he believed were SBU. The Military Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation, which, however, did not produce any results. The investigator allegedly only questioned both victims, and repeatedly attempted to close the investigation. Mr. B. successfully challenged these attempts and the court cancelled the investigator’s decisions to close the investigation. This however, did not result in any progress as the prosecutors reportedly did not undertake any further steps to investigate Mr. B.’s complaint. The court also, dismissed as unfounded Mr. B.’s numerous motions requesting the prosecutor to conduct specific investigative action. 206 5. Both victims complained about the quality of legal assistance from their stateappointed lawyers. Not only did both lawyers insist that they plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence, they also refused to support the defendants’ complaints about the abduction and torture. Mr. B. had to draft his own complaint, and to challenge the investigator’s decision to close the case on his own. 6. For over two years, the court only held hearings once a month, during which, it continually extended pre-trial detention for both defendants, despite the prosecutors’ failure to show that it was reasonable and necessary.207 On 14 September 2017, the court released Mr. P. under a personal commitment not to leave Ukraine and to appear in court.208 Following 204 205 206 207 208 The post contains blurred pictures of two men, who can still be recognized as the two men abducted on 23 March 2015. Available at www.facebook.com/markian.lubkivskyi/posts/1553467821582510. According to the ruling of Zhovtnevyi district court of Mariupol of 3 April 2015, both men were arrested under article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the evening of 31 March 2015. The ruling is available at reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/48971204. See, e.g., rulings of the Artemivskyi town-district court of Donetsk region of 13 July 2016 (available at reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/59467989) and of 5 August 2016 (available at reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/59467884). The prosecution maintained that the defendants could flee once released; the court in return referred to article 176.5 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ruling of Krasnoarmiiskyi town-district court of Donetsk region of 14 September 2017, available at reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/68855569. 39