12.07.2015 Views

TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN UKRAINE

TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN UKRAINE

TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT OF CHILDREN IN UKRAINE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Torture and ill-treatment of children in Ukrainealleging that her detention was unlawful. Pursuant to the Code of CriminalProcedure of Ukraine (CCP) such complaint had to be considered by the courtin conjunction with the investigator’s request. The defense lawyer objectedto taking the girl into custody. He relied to the provisions of CCP according towhich the preliminary detention of minors are permitted only in exceptionalcircumstances, which were absent in this case. He also pointed out that herhealth and well-being was likely to be seriously endangered by detention inan ordinary pre-trial detention facility.The agent of the boarding school which was the legal representative ofthe girl and administration of which could take the girl into their custody askedthe court to remand her in custody in a pre-trial detention facility. The investigatordidn’t provide the court with the medical documents of the girl accordingto which she was suffering from the tuberculosis and had a history of inpatienttreatment for psychiatric disorders as she was deprived of the parentscare. The agent of the boarding school at the trial said nothing about the risksfor the girl’s health during her detention in the pre-trial detention facility foradult persons.The court chose the preventive measure for the girl in the form of takinginto custody in the pre-trial detention facility, not only failed to take into accountthe problems with her health, but did not mention them in his detentionorder. The court also failed to take into account the 14-year age of girland the extremely poor conditions of her upbringing because her parents hadimmoral lifestyle, were alcohol addicts and did not give her proper care. Moreoverthe court’s order didn’t contain any reasoning of the court on the legalityof the detention of the girl. Neither the court nor the investigator provideda copy of the order about taking the girl into custody to the defense lawyerof the girl.The defense lawyer of the girl appealed against the court’s order abouttaking the girl into custody. Among other documents he referred to the UnitedNations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice(“The Beijing Rules”). At the court hearing of the appeal the representative ofthe boarding school asked the court of appeal don’t amend the order of thefirst instance. Thus, he again acted against the interests of a child who wasunder the guardianship of a boarding school. The Court of Appeal upheld thefirst instance court’s order about taking of the girl into custody, mentionedthat the girl’s state of health was irrelevant to the finding that she might abscond,obstruct the investigation or commit another crime.178

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!