Miss A. contacted the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU) for help in May 2018 because she was separated from her five-month-old son after both contracted tuberculosis while in places of detention. The guardianship authorities justified their intervention by claiming that the sick client posed a threat to the child’s health and filed a lawsuit to take the child away for one year. The client was sent for treatment to a specialized colony in the Ternopil region, while the child was taken to childcare institutions. However, Miss A.’s son was not returned to her even after she had successfully overcome tuberculosis. 

Initially, an attempt was made to release Miss A. at the place of her punishment—in the court of the city of Zbarazh. However, the judges were not convinced by arguments regarding the child’s numerous illnesses and the need for specialized care and maternal support. Courts of the first and appellate instances denied the request for release, citing the client’s criminal record. Since this clearly contradicted the facts of the case, UHHRU lawyers decided to try appealing to the court once again, this time in Kyiv, where the client had been transferred. 

The lawyers managed to gather evidence that Miss A. had completed the active phase of tuberculosis treatment and did not pose a threat to the child. After these proofs were submitted to the court, the guardianship authorities withdrew their lawsuit and issued an opinion supporting the return of the child to the mother. Then the lawyers prepared a new appeal to the court for Miss A.’s release. On March 1, 2019, the client and her son left the walls of Kyiv pre-trial detention center. 

On May 16, 2019, the Strategic Litigation Centre (SLC) of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU) won a precedent-setting case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) — Logvinenko v. Ukraine. 

Mr. Logvinenko is a life-sentenced prisoner serving his term in Dnipropetrovsk Correctional Colony No. 89. He has HIV and tuberculosis, and in 2011, the ECtHR already found that Ukraine failed to provide him with adequate treatment for these diseases. While the situation regarding antiretroviral therapy for HIV-positive prisoners has improved in recent years, treatment for tuberculosis and hepatitis remains extremely inadequate. 

The state does not deny the systemic nature of the problem but is reluctant to address it, as clearly illustrated by the Logvinenko case. In 2001, he had a low-intensity tuberculosis infection in a part of his right lung, but due to improper treatment in the colonies, the infectious process spread to both lungs, became chronic, led to tissue destruction and the formation of tuberculomas, as well as development of chronic bronchitis and hepatitis C. 

The ECtHR decision was made very quickly — the UHHRU lawyers only responded to the Ukrainian government’s position in September 2018. Normally, consideration of such cases could take another 2-3 years. 

Special attention in the case was given to the inadequate conditions of the applicant’s detention in the colony — overcrowding, dampness and cold in the cells, insufficient outdoor walks and hygiene measures, poor lighting and nutrition. This is the first ECtHR decision concerning Correctional Colony No. 89 in Dnipropetrovsk. 

The ECtHR ruled that there was a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention due to unsuitable conditions of detention and the absence of an effective national remedy in this respect, and ordered the state of Ukraine to pay the applicant the equivalent of 13,500 Euros within three months, in the currency of the respondent state. 

The ECtHR also noted that Mr. Logvinenko lacks effective legal remedies inside the country — neither the courts nor the prosecutor’s office are able to resolve his issue. Ensuring prisoners receive treatment and undergo necessary examinations will only be possible with a qualitative, not formal, reform of healthcare in the penitentiary system. 

Mister A. was driving a vehicle, which was the only source of income for his family, when he was stopped by police officers. They informed him that they knew he was on OST. They offered to “settle the matter amicably” and asked for 8,000 hryvnias to avoid going with them for a medical examination at the narcology clinic. 

Mister A. refused to pay a bribe and went for the examination, as he was only taking methadone and no other drugs. 

At the narcology clinic, only a drug test was performed; no one examined him physically. The doctor told the police that the drug test showed no results, after which the police whispered with the doctor for a long time and agreed to perform an extended test. The police did not draw up any documents for Mister A., returned his driver’s license, and he was confident that everything was fine. 

By chance, when consulting a lawyer, he mentioned this case as a curious incident. However, the lawyer conducted a review and found out from the narcology clinic that the doctor had issued a report to the police stating that Mister A. was in a state of drug intoxication. The UHHRU lawyer took on this case to help the OST patient and to create a legal precedent regarding the driving of vehicles by clients of OST programs, aiming to reduce discrimination against OST patients by the courts. 

The lawyer filed a complaint with the chief doctor of the regional narcological dispensary regarding the illegal actions of the toxicology laboratory doctor, requested the medical examination report and the intoxication conclusion, and provided legal assistance during the court proceedings. As a result, on February 28, 2020, a court decision was received to close the proceedings in the case against Mister A. for administrative liability under Part 1 of Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (Article 130: Driving vehicles or vessels by persons under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants or medications that reduce their attention and reaction speed), due to the absence of any administrative offense in his actions. 

A client, Ms. O., living with HIV, approached the lawyer at the reception with a complaint about unlawful actions by a medical worker at the city hospital who disclosed the client’s status (told her relatives, who in turn spread the information about the client’s status throughout the city). 

The lawyer provided legal support in the case involving bringing the medical worker to criminal responsibility for committing a criminal offense under Article 132 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Specifically, the lawyer assisted in drafting a statement about the commission of the criminal offense under Article 132 of the Criminal Code, advised the client on initial steps when filing a crime report to the police, and explained the client’s rights during the pre-trial investigation. 

The statement regarding the commission of the criminal offense under Article 132 of the Criminal Code was submitted to the local police department. 

In November 2018, as part of a criminal proceeding, investigators from the prosecutor’s office began demanding through the court that the Center’s staff hand over a number of documents. Among them was a register of requests containing lists of people infected with HIV. 

The chief physician of the Luhansk Regional AIDS Center sought legal assistance from a lawyer at the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU) to protect the medical confidentiality of patients. The lawyers concluded that the lists of HIV-positive people were absolutely unnecessary for that particular criminal proceeding, which concerned the misuse of budget funds. 

UHHRU then began a legal battle against the prosecutor’s office. At first, the lawyers tried to appeal the court order for providing the lists, but they failed because, by law, the investigator judge’s ruling is not subject to appeal. Then the lawyer submitted a request for clarification of the court’s decision. In it, she asked to clarify exactly what data needed to be provided for the investigation and whether the lists of HIV-infected people who applied to the Luhansk Regional AIDS Center were truly necessary. The human rights defender insisted that information about people living with HIV was not needed in the criminal proceeding. 

The judge reviewed this request and agreed that medical confidentiality protected by law must be preserved. On January 14, 2019, the Sievierodonetsk City Court of Luhansk Region clarified its earlier ruling on granting temporary access to legally protected secrets and stated that the court had granted permission to access documents but not to the patients’ names; accordingly, medical confidentiality was protected. 

The mother of a Ukrainian citizen, Mr. V., who is held in a penitentiary institution in the Republic of Belarus, approached the UHHRU reception in Rivne. Mr. V., a person living with HIV, had not received antiretroviral therapy (ART) during his entire time in detention and began experiencing a deterioration in his health. The mother had no direct contact with her son and reached out to one of the Ukrainian consulates in Belarus, asking for help to resolve the situation and to meet with her son, but she did not receive a clear response. 

UHHRU lawyers contacted one of their partner Belarusian organizations that assist people living with HIV to help resolve the situation. 

Additionally, on behalf of the mother and her son, the UHHRU reception sent letters to the Consular Section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, the Consulate and Embassy in Belarus, and the Ukrainian Ombudsman regarding the situation and requested urgent consideration. 

As a result of these efforts, Mr. V. received appropriate treatment in detention. The Ukrainian Consulate sent a letter confirming that the Belarusian penitentiary institution had informed them that Mr. V. was finally examined by a doctor and prescribed antiretroviral therapy. 

Moreover, Mr. V.’s mother was personally contacted with information about the letter. 

Thus, thanks to joint efforts with Belarusian colleagues, Mr. V. finally began receiving ART, and his mother obtained up-to-date information about her son’s health condition and the ways to file a petition for his return to Ukraine.