The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently rendered a decision asserting that Ukraine failed to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights by inadequately addressing violence during the 2014 Odesa Maidan protests. This decision reflects a significant evaluation of Ukraine’s responsibility during a critical event linked to the country’s complex socio-political landscape.
Back in late April 2014, Ukrainian authorities were informed of potential violence that could occur at the “For a United Ukraine” rally in Odesa. Despite this intelligence, when the rally took place on May 2, 2014, security measures were insufficient. As highlighted in footage from the incident, police forces remained passive amid confrontations between pro-Russian and Maidan activists, which involved the exchange of gunfire, stones, and Molotov cocktails. A delayed response from emergency services further exacerbated the situation when a fire broke out at the Trade Union Building, tragically resulting in the loss of 42 lives.
From June 2017 to October 2018, 28 individuals approached the ECHR, alleging the Ukrainian state’s negligence in safeguarding lives and its failure to conduct an adequate investigation post-incident. Their claims encompassed potential breaches of Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhumane or degrading treatment), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
The court determined unanimously that Ukraine violated its obligation to protect life by not implementing adequate preventive measures to curb the violence, failing to halt the violence swiftly, not facilitating prompt rescue from the fire, and not executing a thorough investigation into the events. Although some preventive measures were reportedly implemented, the court found a lack of sufficient evidence to evaluate their efficacy.
The investigation post-event was criticized for its inadequate evidence gathering and for not being pursued in a timely manner. Despite ample footage capturing the clashes and the fire, the court noted an insufficiency in exploring how this material was handled and utilized to identify the perpetrators.
In conformity with Article 41 of the Convention, the court mandated that the Ukrainian authorities compensate the plaintiffs for non-pecuniary damages, costs, and expenses.
For further insights and detailed analysis, see the complete report on JURIST.