Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Under Article 15 of the ECHR, this right is absolute and is not subject to derogation even in times of war.

Text as of March 2026

Based on research and human rights practice, the following problems in the exercise of this right in Ukraine can be distinguished:

  1. Torture and other forms of ill-treatment remain systemic issues in Ukraine, with little progress made on key problematic areas over the past several decades. Courts in other countries have consistently declined to extradite individuals wanted by Ukraine, citing concerns about the risk of torture or other ill-treatment. The case law of the Court of Justice of the EU acknowledges that systemic deficiencies in detention conditions within a Member State can serve as grounds for refusing to execute a European arrest warrant or a European investigation order.
  2. The main issues mentioned in complaints to the ECtHR against Ukraine concern detention conditions in detention facilities, particularly:
    • overcrowding;
    • inhuman and/or degrading conditions of detention;
    • inadequate nutrition and transportation;
    • unsanitary conditions;
    • unavailability of medical care;
    • the presence of internal procedures that systematically fail to meet general standards of treatment;
    • inadequate artificial lighting (dim and unstable), lack of daylight;
    • insufficient heating and ventilation problems, which lead to dampness in the premises;
    • lack of access to drinking water;
    • lack of bed linen and underwear, and the ability to wash them outside the cell, and worn mattresses;
    • inadequate condition of the sanitary area and privacy issues (partially separated toilets), limited access to showers, etc.;
    • lack of out-of-cell activities;
    • lack of an effective system of national legal remedies (preventive and compensatory).
  3. In accordance with the case law of the ECtHR (Kaverzin) and the EU Directive 2013/48/EU, guarantee immediate access to a lawyer from the moment of actual detention as a key measure to prevent torture. Mandatory video recording of interrogations should serve as a supplement, not a replacement of this right.
  4. Lack of adequate material and technical support both in places of pre-trial detention and in penal institutions. In 2025, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) emphasized that fundamental rights of detained persons must be upheld during armed conflicts. This includes ensuring that convicted persons are held in decent conditions. An acute shortage of electronic monitoring devices, or electronic bracelets, for supervising suspects and accused persons makes it difficult to reduce overcrowding in detention facilities.
  5. Overcrowding in the cells and poor living conditions. Ukrainian legislation sets a standard of 2.5 m² of cell space, which is difficult to equate with the 4 m² per person guaranteed in the EU. In addition to the lower minimum guaranteed space per person, cells in Ukraine are overcrowded. Authorities have not implemented the ECtHR recommendation in Sukachov v. Ukraine to minimize custodial detentions by using non-custodial measures more often and reducing pre-trial detention, especially when the state cannot meet the minimum detention standards under Article 3 of the Convention.
  6. There is a lack of consistent individual risk assessments and consideration of the accused’s identity when determining or extending detention. In grave crime cases, Ukraine has an established practice of applying or continuing detention, with minimal likelihood of selecting milder preventive measures. A systemic issue is that court decisions on preventive measures often lack sound reasoning and fail to adequately assess the facts.
  7. Service dogs are used to escort individuals serving life sentences when they leave their cells, such as for outdoor walks or medical visits.
  8. Allowing paid cells in pre-trial detention centers has further deepened divisions among prisoners, turning access to adequate conditions into a matter of financial means rather than the minimum standards that the state is required to ensure for all. At the same time, there was no public reporting on how funds received to improve detention conditions were distributed.
  9. Medical staff in these institutions report directly to the State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine (SPSU), which may compromise the documentation of torture and bodily harm within the facility. The CPT has recommended transferring responsibility for penitentiary healthcare from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Health, but this has been ignored since at least 2017. There is a systemic shortage of qualified medical personnel, equipment, and medicines.
  10. Insufficient shelters in penitentiary institutions and the absence of effective mechanisms for prompt evacuation. This also applies to the measures to evacuate the files of criminal proceedings. If these files are lost, a person may be detained without a legally binding court verdict.
  11. The compensation mechanism for harm caused by state representatives due to inadequate detention conditions, which is a systemic issue, is poorly implemented. National case law on this matter is inconsistent, and the compensation awarded by national courts does not closely align with the awards in similar ECtHR cases. No compensation is provided if a person was kept in poor conditions without a criminal conviction. Additionally, the state primarily compensates by reducing the term of Conditional Release (CR) or by granting exemptions from expense reimbursement, neither of which constitutes true compensation. Under these circumstances, the state doesn’t lose budget money, so there’s no motivation to enhance detention conditions. Instead, it benefits by shortening the time a person is kept isolated from society.
  12. The human rights inspectors overseeing places of detention require further enhancement of their mechanisms, especially regarding their independence and impartiality. Currently, since these inspectors are employees reporting to the institution’s head, this setup undermines both trust in the inspectors and their overall effectiveness.
  13. The national preventive mechanism does not have access to military facilities to carry out monitoring for torture and ill-treatment by officials. Additionally, there are issues with conducting timely, independent, and effective investigations of such incidents within these facilities. (For more details, see the section on the National Preventive Mechanism against Torture (NPM).)
  14. Ukraine maintains informal prison hierarchies inherited from the Soviet penitentiary system, which negatively impact the human rights and protection of some prisoner groups.
  15. A specific issue concerns prisoners who stayed in the temporarily occupied territories or were illegally moved to Russia, totaling several thousand people since 2014. Unfortunately, authorities have not made any systematic decisions about the return of these prisoners to date.

What Ukraine needs to do during its accession to the EU to improve the situation:

For a comprehensive overview of these issues and the rationale behind our recommendations, please refer to the research section, specifically the document available in Ukrainian: Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment section. If you have any feedback or comments about this material, please send them to: hrmap@ccl.org.ua.

Published materials may be used provided that a mandatory link to the original source is included. @ 2026 Center for Civil Liberties.

Experts

Picture of Olena Kuvaieva

Olena Kuvaieva

Legal Counsel at the Center for Strategic Affairs of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union

Author picture

The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU)