TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN UKRAINE

Torture and ill-treatment of children in Ukraine• Force in the context of juvenile justiceForce when being detained was mentioned by 12 out of 60 respondents,with that including two from the 20 female respondents. Moreover legislativenorms on the use of force were infringed: in some cases the respondents saidthat the force had not been aimed at stopping unlawful acts, but was of anunjustifiably brutal and degrading nature. In four cases the respondents agreethat the force against them by police officers was justified (their inebriation,aggressive behaviour).A considerable number of the respondents serving sentences (23 outof 60) were forced to give evidence at detective inquiry stage [diznannya]through physical force combined with psychological pressure by policeofficers. This was particularly frequent during the first day after being detained,however in several cases physical force and / or ill-treatment lastedlonger, from several days to several months and took the form of torture. 33respondents spoke only of psychological pressure while 12 gave evidencevoluntarily.Very bad conditions are often mentioned in temporary holding facilities(ITT). Almost all the respondents who mention the ITT and describe the conditionsas “inhuman” or simply bad. Less often they mention insufficient foodand restrictions on hygiene-related needs, (too seldom allowed out to the toilet,not given the opportunity to wash, the lack of their own sleeping place).Infringements are also mentioned of the maximum time period for being heldin ITT, from four to 14 days. Being held in such conditions s should be consideredas ill-treatment even in the absence of psychological coercion. Threerespondents spent several days and nights in offices or rooms for detainees,sleeping on chairs. Despite this being prohibited, minors are often held in ITTtogether with adults.Physical force aimed at extracting testimony is somewhat more often usedagainst juvenile males, while in the women’s colony “only” 4 out of 20 spokeof physical force during the investigation. In two cases the force was of anongoing nature and applied during several interrogations (a signed undertakingnot to leave rather than detention). In both cases the officials took moneyfrom relatives of the suspects but did not keep their promises. In one case, theperson mentioned the investigator’s demand that he retract previously giventestimony regarding one of his accomplices, and not mention him at all asinvolved in the case. The reason was probably corruption by the investigator.136