Background
Marina Anatolyevna Kovtun was arrested in November 2014 on suspicion of involvement in Russian-linked clandestine groups operating against Ukraine. Prosecutors alleged that she had trained in sabotage activities, obtained and stored weapons and explosives, and orchestrated, among other incidents, the November 2014 bombing of the Stena Bar in Kharkiv, in which thirteen people were injured.
She was remanded in custody and her detention was extended roughly every two months until her conviction on 7 October 2019, a period of almost four years and eleven months. The domestic courts cited risks of absconding and reoffending, her alleged links to pro-Russian and Russian individuals involved in subversive activities, and the need for further investigation. Some decisions also referred to a statutory provision then excluding bail or other non-custodial measures for certain terrorism and national-security charges.
While criminal proceedings were pending, the regional head of the Security Service of Ukraine stated publicly that Kovtun was the “orchestrator” of the Stena Bar explosion, had numerous weapons, and had “real blood on her hands.” Ukrainian courts dismissed her civil claim challenging those remarks.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Ukraine violated Article 5 § 3. Although the domestic courts had supplied relevant and sufficient, non-general reasons for detention at the outset, including the seriousness and cross-border nature of the alleged terrorist activity, they had not demonstrated the requisite special diligence over nearly five years of custody. The case was complex, but the extraordinary length of detention required very weighty reasons, and the record did not establish them.
The Court also unanimously found a violation of Article 6 § 2. The public had a legitimate interest in information about prisoner exchanges, but the official’s remarks were not confined to that subject. They addressed the terrorism investigation and presented Kovtun, by name, as the explosion’s orchestrator and as possessing weapons and having blood on her hands. Made before conviction and without qualifications, the statements encouraged the public to believe she was guilty.
The Court held that its findings of violations constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and rejected the claims for costs and expenses.
Key Takeaways
- A complex terrorism investigation can justify continued pre-trial detention only where authorities maintain special diligence throughout the proceedings.
- Nearly five years of pre-trial detention required particularly weighty justification, which Ukraine did not show.
- Officials may inform the public about criminal matters, but cannot state or imply an accused person’s guilt as an established fact before conviction.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes between reasons sufficient to support detention in a serious terrorism case and the separate requirement to pursue the proceedings with sustained diligence as detention becomes prolonged. Serious allegations and cross-border investigative complexity do not indefinitely relieve authorities of that burden.
It also underscores that a public statement may breach the presumption of innocence even if there is no proof that it influenced the trial judges. The decisive concern was the official’s unqualified public attribution of guilt before a conviction.