Contact center of the Ukrainian Judiciary 044 207-35-46
Human rights are one of the fundamental values of modern democratic society, and their protection is a key obligation of the state. In its judgments, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly drawn attention to such aspects as the conditions of holding defendants in the courtroom and their transportation to the place where the case is heard. These, at first glance, technical issues actually have a significant impact on the observance of fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
This was noted by Judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Lev Kyshakevych during the discussion platform “Human Rights through the Prism of ECtHR Case Law: Metal Cages and Boxes in Courts, Convoy Conditions as Factors in Violating the Right to a Fair Trial and the Prohibition of Torture”, which took place in Ivano-Frankivsk.
As Lev Kyshakevych reported, the ECtHR has repeatedly emphasized in its practice that holding defendants in metal cages is incompatible with the principles of respect for human dignity. In the Court’s view, such a practice has a clearly degrading character, as it not only restricts a person’s physical freedom but also publicly demonstrates their alleged dangerousness. This causes a person to feel shame, fear, and humiliation, which directly contradicts the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is important that this article is absolute in nature and does not allow any exceptions, even in cases involving persons suspected of committing serious crimes.
The judge analyzed the ECtHR’s case law regarding the holding of persons in glass boxes in courts, noting that the Court, in its decisions, pays attention to the size of the glass box, the possibility of free movement, the level of ventilation, access to fresh air, and whether the accused has the opportunity to communicate effectively with their defense counsel. If such conditions are inadequate, even a glass box may be considered degrading to human dignity. In addition, the isolation of the defendant from other participants in the proceedings may hinder their active participation in the consideration of the case, which also affects the fairness of the trial.
For example, on March 5, 2026, the ECtHR delivered a judgment in the case of KRYUK v. Ukraine. The applicants claimed that their detention there was degrading and similar to the conditions in which the accused were held in a metal cage. In particular, they had difficulties communicating with their lawyers and could not hear the participants. However, the Court established that placing defendants behind glass partitions or in glass boxes does not in itself involve an element of degradation sufficient to reach the minimum level of severity prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, as is the case with metal cages. Therefore, the ECtHR declared this part of the complaint manifestly ill-founded.
In the case of ZINCHENKO AND TAMTURA v. Ukraine (judgment of 5 March 2026), the ECtHR examined the applicants’ complaint regarding alleged inhuman and degrading treatment in connection with their detention in a glass cabin during court hearings. The circumstances of the case indicate that the applicants, who were accused of serious crimes related to the Euromaidan events, were held for a prolonged period (2016–2017) in a glass box together with other defendants during 77 court hearings, a significant part of which lasted from three to seven hours.
The ECtHR concluded that the totality of circumstances in this case does not indicate that the threshold of severity or degradation required for the application of Article 3 of the Convention was reached. The described conditions did not cause suffering or difficulties of such intensity that would exceed the inevitable level of discomfort inherent in detention. Accordingly, the Court declared this part of the application manifestly ill-founded, thereby confirming an individualized, contextual approach to the assessment of similar complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
Regarding the relevant practice of the Supreme Court, Lev Kyshakevych referred to the resolution of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 6 November 2025 in case No. 335/4734/18 (proceedings No. 51-4644км24). In it, the Supreme Court concluded that the law does not provide for the possibility of an accused person, to whom a preventive measure in the form of detention has been applied, to be outside a specially equipped place in the courtroom.
In the ruling of the Joint Chamber of the SC CrimCC dated 27 May 2019 in case No. 766/22242/17 (proceedings No. 51-7276кмо18), following the consideration of the defence’s motion to ensure the possibility for the accused to remain outside the designated area for persons in custody during the court hearing, the Supreme Court stated the following. The placement of defendants behind glass partitions or in glass cabins does not in itself contain an element of degradation sufficient to reach the minimum level of severity, although this level may be attained if the circumstances of the applicants’ detention, taken as a whole, cause them suffering or difficulties of such intensity that exceeds the inevitable level of suffering inherent in detention.
The event was organized by the Regional Representation of the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for Human Rights in Ivano-Frankivsk Region in cooperation with the NGO “Ukraine without Torture”.
_03_03.png)