Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes an absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
This is one of the norms that allows no exceptions. It cannot be limited by references to economic difficulties, an overloaded prison system, lack of funding, war, reform, bureaucracy or “objective obstacles”. When the State holds a person under its control, the State is responsible for that person.
This is especially true in places of detention.
In 2016, the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Ukraine were already alarming. Under Article 3 of the Convention, 37 judgments were delivered against Ukraine. Ukraine was among the leading States in this category, following the Russian Federation and Romania. At the same time, there were no judgments under this Article against a significant number of States.
At that time, such statistics should have become a signal. Not merely a legal signal for the Ministry of Justice, prosecutors, courts or the penitentiary system. It should have been a signal for the State as a whole: the treatment of a person under State control cannot remain outside serious attention.
However, the newer periods show that the problem has not disappeared.
It continues to exist.
What the New Data Shows
The latest full statistical periods of the European Court of Human Rights show that the situation concerning Ukraine remains critical.
In 2023, 130 judgments were delivered against Ukraine, 123 of which found at least one violation of the Convention. Under Article 3, the Court found 40 violations on account of inhuman or degrading treatment and 10 violations on account of the lack of an effective investigation.
In 2024, 158 judgments were delivered against Ukraine, 153 of which found at least one violation. Under Article 3, the Court found 22 violations under the category of prohibition of torture, 80 violations on account of inhuman or degrading treatment and 13 violations on account of the lack of an effective investigation.
In 2025, 164 judgments were delivered against Ukraine, 160 of which found at least one violation of the Convention. Under Article 3, the Court found 42 violations on account of inhuman or degrading treatment and 11 violations on account of the lack of an effective investigation.
Put simply, Ukraine has not moved out of the problem. It remains among the States in respect of which the European Court of Human Rights systematically finds violations of fundamental human rights.
And this is not dry statistics.
Behind every figure, there is a real person.
What Article 3 of the Convention Really Protects
Article 3 of the Convention does not protect abstract “comfort” or the formal correctness of State procedure. It protects human dignity where a person is most vulnerable: in a cell, pre-trial detention facility, prison, police station, medical unit of a detention facility, during arrest, transfer, interrogation or any other situation of complete State control.
Quo
It continues to exist.
What the New Data Shows
Ukraine remains critical.
complete State control.
The problems that most often give rise to applications before the European Court of Human Rights are well known: inadequate conditions of detention, overcrowded cells, unsanitary conditions, lack of proper medical care, inadequate food, ill-treatment, violence by law-enforcement officers or other persons with State inaction, and the absence of an effective investigation into such complaints.
What is particularly painful is that these problems have been described for years in almost the same words.
Cells. Unsanitary conditions. Medical care. Food. Overcrowding. Formal inspections. Lack of real investigation.
The years change. Governments change. The names of institutions change. But the substance of complaints often remains the same.
Why This Is Not Only About Prisoners
There is a dangerous illusion in society: if we are speaking about detainees, suspects, accused persons or convicted prisoners, their rights somehow matter less.
That is a mistake.
Human rights do not depend on a person’s popularity, procedural status or how society feels about that person.
A person may be a suspect, accused or convicted, but he or she does not cease to be human.
The State has the right to isolate a person only in the cases and manner prescribed by law. But isolation does not mean humiliation. Punishment does not mean abuse. Pre-trial detention does not mean the loss of dignity. Loss of liberty does not mean loss of rights.
Places of detention are where the real condition of the rule of law is most visible.
Because where a person cannot protect himself or herself independently, the State shows its true attitude toward law.
Conditions of Detention as a Form of Humiliation
The issue is not only how many square metres each person has in a cell. It is not only whether there is proper ventilation, light, sanitation, access to water, medical care and adequate food.
The issue is whether the system of detention itself becomes a form of humiliation.
When a person is forced to live in conditions objectively incompatible with human dignity, this is not merely a “domestic inconvenience”. It is a legal problem. If the State detains a person in inadequate conditions, it cannot justify this by saying that “there is no money”, “it has always been this way” or “there are more important expenses”.
When figures appear in public debate about extremely low spending on food for one detained person, the question is not merely financial. It is a human-rights question: can such a system respect human dignity?
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly shown that inhuman or degrading treatment may arise not only from direct physical violence. It may also result from a combination of conditions: lack of space, unsanitary conditions, lack of medical treatment, inadequate food, isolation, helplessness and prolonged disregard of complaints.
Lack of Effective Investigation
The absence of an effective investigation into complaints of ill-treatment remains a separate and serious problem.
Quo
It continues to exist.
What the New Data Shows
Ukraine remains critical.
complete State control.
investigation.
often remains the same.
That is a mistake.
law.
expenses”.
disregard of complaints.
problem.
This is crucial. A violation of Article 3 of the Convention may consist not only in torture or inhuman treatment itself. The State also violates the Convention if it fails to conduct a real, independent, prompt and effective investigation into such allegations.
If a person complains of beatings, torture, threats, ill-treatment or lack of medical assistance, the State’s response cannot be formal. It cannot be reduced to a standard reply. It cannot automatically rely only on explanations from officials. It cannot ignore medical records, video footage, witnesses, the nature of injuries or the time connection between arrest and deterioration of health.
Without an effective investigation, the prohibition of torture becomes a declaration.
And a declaration does not protect a person.
Why ECHR Statistics Matter
A judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is not merely compensation for a particular applicant. It is a signal of a systemic defect.
When one case establishes a violation, it may be an individual problem. When dozens of judgments repeat the same findings, it is no longer accidental. It is practice. It is structure. It is an unresolved State problem.
This is why the statistics for 2023, 2024 and 2025 matter. They show that Article 3 issues in respect of Ukraine have not become a matter of the past. They have not been resolved by reforms, institutional renaming or formal reports.
Ukraine continues to lose cases under Article 3.
This means that grounds for applications to the European Court of Human Rights remain.
War Does Not Suspend Dignity
Ukraine is now living through a full-scale war. This creates immense pressure on the State. But even war does not suspend the absolute nature of Article 3 of the Convention.
The prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment cannot be paused.
That is why the treatment of persons under State control becomes even more important today. War cannot justify the degradation of standards. On the contrary, in difficult periods the State must be especially careful to preserve the boundaries that separate law from arbitrariness.
Human dignity is not a luxury of peacetime.
It is the minimum standard of a civilized State.
Conclusion
How many more judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are needed before the situation changes?
How many more applicants must pass through national authorities, years of waiting, complaints, refusals, formal inspections and only then receive a judgment from an international court?
The statistics for 2016 were alarming. The newer periods — 2023, 2024 and 2025 — show that the problem has not disappeared.
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention is not a technical error by the State. It is a crossing of the line at which the State begins to humiliate the person whom it is obliged to protect.
Quo
It continues to exist.
What the New Data Shows
Ukraine remains critical.
complete State control.
investigation.
often remains the same.
That is a mistake.
law.
expenses”.
disregard of complaints.
problem.
Why ECHR Statistics Matter
reports.
War Does Not Suspend Dignity
Conclusion
not disappeared.
Cells, unsanitary conditions, inadequate medical care, ill-treatment and formal investigations are not minor domestic shortcomings. They are questions of human dignity.
Therefore, grounds for applying to the European Court of Human Rights remain.
And until the State changes the system, the practice will not be strengthened by reports — it will be strengthened by new ECHR judgments.
Quo
It continues to exist.
What the New Data Shows
Ukraine remains critical.
complete State control.
investigation.
often remains the same.
That is a mistake.
law.
expenses”.
disregard of complaints.
problem.
Why ECHR Statistics Matter
reports.
War Does Not Suspend Dignity
Conclusion
not disappeared.