His detention was extended several times and his repeated requests for release were rejected. The case was on numerous occasions remitted by the courts to the prosecution service for additional investigation. Mr Kharchenko was released on 4 August 2003 after he signed an undertaking that he would not abscond. In September 2004, the criminal proceedings against him were terminated for lack of evidence of his involvement in the crime.
The Court found a number of violations under art. 5 and it said that they can be described as recurrent. It acknowledges that some of the issues have been addressed by legislative amendments but stressed out hat still other issues persist. The Court thus regularly finds violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention as to the periods of detention not covered by any court order, namely for the period between the end of the investigation and the beginning of the trial and the court orders made during the trial stage which fix no timelimits for further detention, therefore upholding rather than extending detention, which is not compatible with the requirements of Article 5. Both issues seem to stem from legislative lacunae.
The Court also reiterates the fact that after a certain lapse of time the persistence of a reasonable suspicion does not in itself justify deprivation of liberty and the judicial authorities should give other grounds for continued detention. It added that Ukraine needs a clear procedure for review of the lawfulness of the detention.
Most importantly, it stated that specific reforms in Ukraine’s legislation and administrative practice should be urgently implemented in order to bring such legislation and practice into line with the Court’s conclusions in the present judgment to ensure their compliance with the requirements of Article 5. The Court requests the Government to submit the strategy adopted in this respect within six months from the date on which the present judgment becomes final at the latest.