Pre-trial detention proceedings of individuals with espionage or other ‘charged’ conflict-related crimes by tribunals’ in territory controlled by people’s ‘military ‘Donetsk republic’ appear to have followed a pro-forma basis. Furthermore, even such perfunctory review of legality of detention was delayed. Time spent in detention, to incommunicado which many were reportedly subjected prior to acknowledged seems not to have ‘arrest’, been taken into account by a tribunal’ when calculating the Such ‘military ‘sentence’. practice contributed to unacknowledged detention during which individuals were exposed to torture, including with a view to force self-incriminating statements which served as basis for their subsequent In at least two cases, disregarded ‘prosecution’. ‘courts’ detainees’ complaints regarding such human rights violations they had suffered. Accounts by conflict-related detainees suggest that their degree of culpability in the imputed was already considered established at the time of their amounting ‘crime’ ‘arrest’, to a presumption of guilt. Subsequent and seem to serve merely to ‘investigations’ ‘trials’ create a veneer of legality to the of individuals believed to be associated with ‘prosecution’ Ukrainian military or security forces. Released detainees informed that some appointed lawyers did not make any real effort to present their case. The account of at least one victim suggests that he was intimidated by of people’s republic’ in the presence of the appointed ‘MGB’ ‘Donetsk lawyer, with no reaction from the latter. Some lawyers assigned to detainees advised that only were eligible for the simultaneous release under the Minsk agreements, ‘convicts’ leading many detainees to plead guilty even though they had never admitted to committing the charged offences. At the same time, detainees released from people’s ‘Donetsk republic’ who had been noted that lawyers facilitated contacts with their ‘prosecuted’ families. Deprived of access to the Ukrainian judiciary and of effective representation’ ‘legal in proceedings before in armed-group-controlled territory, and fearing ‘courts’ repercussions for withdrawing statements given under duress, conflict-related detainees have stood with no chance of presenting their defence. Conflict-related were ‘trials’ ‘trials’ heard by a tribunal’ as a chamber of the court’ of people’s ‘military ‘supreme ‘Donetsk republic’, whose entered into force immediately with limited opportunities to ‘verdicts’ ‘appeal’.
Pre-trial detention proceedings of individuals ‘charged’ with espionage or other conflict-related crimes by ‘military tribunals’ in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ appear to have followed a pro-forma basis. Furthermore, even such perfunctory review of legality of detention was delayed. Time spent in incommunicado detention, to which many were reportedly subjected prior to acknowledged ‘arrest’, seems not to have been taken into account by a ‘military tribunal’ when calculating the ‘sentence’. Such practice contributed to unacknowledged detention during which individuals were exposed to torture, including with a view to force self-incriminating statements which served as basis for their subsequent ‘prosecution’. In at least two cases, ‘courts’ disregarded detainees’ complaints regarding such human rights violations they had suffered. Accounts by conflict-related detainees suggest that their degree of culpability in the imputed ‘crime’ was already considered established at the time of their ‘arrest’, amounting to a presumption of guilt. Subsequent ‘investigations’ and ‘trials’ seem to serve merely to create a veneer of legality to the ‘prosecution’ of individuals believed to be associated with Ukrainian military or security forces. Released detainees informed that some appointed lawyers did not make any real effort to present their case. The account of at least one victim suggests that he was intimidated by ‘MGB’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ in the presence of the appointed lawyer, with no reaction from the latter. Some lawyers assigned to detainees advised that only ‘convicts’ were eligible for the simultaneous release under the Minsk agreements, leading many detainees to plead guilty even though they had never admitted to committing the charged offences. At the same time, detainees released from ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ who had been ‘prosecuted’ noted that lawyers facilitated contacts with their families. Deprived of access to the Ukrainian judiciary and of effective ‘legal representation’ in proceedings before ‘courts’ in armed-group-controlled territory, and fearing repercussions for withdrawing statements given under duress, conflict-related detainees have stood ‘trials’ with no chance of presenting their defence. Conflict-related ‘trials’ were heard by a ‘military tribunal’ as a chamber of the ‘supreme court’ of ‘Donetsk people’s republic’, whose ‘verdicts’ entered into force immediately with limited opportunities to ‘appeal’.
A_HRC_37_CRP_1.docx