Background
On 10 April 2022, Volodymyr Bulakh was allegedly assaulted by a private individual identified as “P.” in Ukraine. The attacker allegedly kicked Bulakh in the genital area, forced him to the ground, and punched him in the head. An expert report dated 11 April 2022 confirmed the injuries, documenting bruises and abrasions on his torso, neck, left upper limb, and head caused by blunt force trauma. These injuries were classified as minor bodily harm with insignificant temporary consequences.
A criminal investigation was opened on 16 April 2022. However, the domestic proceedings suffered from significant delays and procedural failures. The investigator attempted to terminate the case multiple times—first on 31 May 2022 for lack of witnesses, then again on 25 August 2022, claiming no criminal offense had been found. The prosecutor overturned the first termination, finding procedural violations. The investigator was subsequently disciplined for the violations. Between September 2024 and May 2025, the investigation continued with instructions given five times, witness questioning, and expert conclusions produced on 15 and 19 May 2025. The applicant went missing in action on 12 June 2025 in the Donetsk region during combat operations. His wife, Nataliya Sergiyivna Bulakh, pursued the application on his behalf after his disappearance.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Ukraine violated Article 3 of the Convention through its failure to conduct an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment inflicted by a private party. The Court reaffirmed that Article 3 requires states to conduct independent, impartial, and publicly scrutinized investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, even when inflicted by private individuals. The authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness, and the procedural obligations extend beyond the preliminary investigation stage through any subsequent trial.
The Court identified specific shortcomings in the Ukrainian authorities’ conduct, including repeated termination attempts, failure to establish facts promptly, and delays spanning over three years. The investigator’s initial decision to terminate proceedings due to lack of witnesses was especially problematic because the applicant had claimed witnesses existed. The overall protracted character of the proceedings and the applicant’s failure to participate effectively in the investigation further violated the procedural safeguards of Article 3. The Court noted that maintaining public confidence in the rule of law requires that physical and psychological suffering inflicted go unpunished and that authorities not appear tolerant of or complicit in unlawful acts.
Key Takeaways
- Article 3 of the Convention imposes a duty on states to conduct effective, independent, and prompt investigations into alleged ill-treatment by private parties.
- Procedural failures—including delays, repeated termination attempts, and failure to conduct proper investigative actions—constitute a violation of Article 3’s procedural limb.
- The right to an effective investigation extends throughout all proceedings, from preliminary investigation through trial, not merely at the investigation stage.
- States must enable victims to participate effectively in investigations and may not tolerate or appear complicit in unlawful violence.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces a critical protection for victims of private violence: states cannot escape their human rights obligations simply because an attacker was a private individual rather than a state agent. By requiring effective, timely investigations, the Court ensures that domestic legal systems provide meaningful accountability for assault and maintain public confidence in the rule of law. The decision establishes that protracted proceedings and procedural failures, even when the underlying criminal case eventually produces evidence, can themselves constitute a violation of fundamental rights.
For practitioners and policymakers, the ruling underscores that investigation inefficiency is not merely a matter of case management—it implicates human rights compliance. States must allocate sufficient resources and training to ensure investigations proceed with exemplary diligence, victims have meaningful participation, and ill-treatment does not go unpunished.