Background
Oleksandr Strashunskyy, who had paranoid schizophrenia and had been declared legally incapacitated, lived in a State-run boarding house for disabled and elderly people. On 23 November 2016, staff transferred him against his wishes to a psychiatric hospital. Medical examinations shortly after the transfer documented a concussion and multiple bruises and haematomas on his face, trunk and limbs.
His mother alleged that staff had beaten him while forcing him to leave. Staff members questioned during the domestic investigation said that he had resisted, behaved aggressively and bitten one employee, requiring them to restrain him. The police investigator later concluded that the injuries resulted from repeated falls as he tried to break free. The boarding house separately disciplined several employees for negligence and rough handling of Strashunskyy.
Police investigations into bodily harm and professional negligence were repeatedly closed for lack of evidence of a crime. Domestic courts quashed earlier closure decisions because investigators had not obtained expert evidence concerning how the injuries could have occurred and had not established the functions or relevant competence of the staff involved. The investigations were ultimately terminated in 2021 and 2024.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a procedural violation of Article 3. Strashunskyy was particularly vulnerable and under the State’s full control, yet the authorities did not conduct a medical expert examination, clarify whether the participating staff were qualified or trained to handle such a situation, or meaningfully assess whether force had been avoided where possible and was justified and absolutely necessary. The investigation also failed to address the disciplinary sanctions imposed for rough handling.
The Court also unanimously found a substantive violation of Article 3. Although the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Strashunskyy had been beaten exactly as alleged, his documented injuries while under institutional control required the Government to give a satisfactory and convincing explanation and show that any force was strictly necessary and proportionate. It failed to do so.
The Court further held that Ukraine had not fulfilled its positive obligation to protect Strashunskyy’s physical integrity and dignity. His resistance to a planned hospital transfer was not shown to have been unforeseeable, the transfer was not shown to have required urgent force, and the authorities did not establish that appropriately prepared staff handled it. The Court awarded EUR 7,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.
Key Takeaways
- When a vulnerable person suffers documented injuries under the control of State institutional staff, the State must convincingly explain the injuries and justify any force as strictly necessary and proportionate.
- An effective Article 3 investigation must examine material competing explanations, obtain relevant forensic evidence, and assess the qualifications and conduct of the personnel who used restraint.
- State institutions must plan foreseeable coercive situations with safeguards, trained personnel and particular respect for residents’ dignity and personal autonomy.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that Article 3 protects people with psychosocial disabilities through both a prohibition on unjustified force and an affirmative duty to safeguard them in institutional care. Their vulnerability and dependence on staff demand heightened care when restraint or involuntary transfer is contemplated.
It also shows that inconclusive evidence about precisely how injuries were inflicted does not end the Article 3 inquiry. Investigative deficiencies and the State’s failure to establish the necessity of force can support findings of both procedural and substantive violations.