CAT/OP/UKR/3 I. Introduction 1. In accordance with its mandate under articles 11 and 13 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment undertook its second visit to Ukraine in 2016. The visit, which commenced on 19 May 2016, was suspended by the Subcommittee on 25 May because of a lack of cooperation; the second part of the visit was undertaken from 5 to 9 September 2016. 2. In May 2016, the Subcommittee sought to visit a broad range of institutions in different parts of the country, including pretrial and temporary detention centres, penitentiary institutions, a mental health hospital, a social care institution and facilities under the authority of the State Security Service (see annex I). However, the Subcommittee was unable to fully implement its mandate, having been denied access to all but one State Security Service facility and having experienced delays in respect of the one facility to which access had not been denied, so that the delegation could not have confidence in the integrity of its findings. 3. In addition, despite the cooperation of the authorities during the preparatory phase of the visit, the Subcommittee was not provided a full, comprehensive list of all places of deprivation of liberty and their addresses. Moreover, the credentials provided did not fully accord with the terms of Subcommittee requests and the standards of access required by the Optional Protocol. 4. Concluding it would therefore be unable to fulfil its Optional Protocol-mandated functions, the delegation decided, in consultation with the Bureau of the Subcommittee, to suspend the visit on 25 May 2016. It gave the reasons for the suspension orally and confidentially to the Ukrainian authorities, while briefly summarizing its preliminary observations to date. 5. Following positive talks with the Government of Ukraine, the Subcommittee recommenced and ultimately concluded its visit in September 2016, during which time it visited or revisited nine pretrial and temporary detention centres, in addition to State Security Service facilities. During that period, the delegation was granted full and immediate access to all the places it wished to visit. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee remains concerned at what appears to have been a policy of “sanitizing” facilities prior to its visit in order to minimize the chances of it identifying possible causes for concern; the Subcommittee was left with the clear impression that some rooms and spaces had been cleared in order to suggest that they had not been used for detention. 6. In addition to visiting places of deprivation of liberty, the Subcommittee held discussions with relevant government authorities, the national preventive mechanism and civil society organizations, as well as with representatives of the United Nations and other international organizations in the country (see annex II). The Subcommittee conducted interviews with persons deprived of their liberty, law enforcement officials, medical personnel and staff of detention facilities. The Subcommittee thanks all parties for the valuable information provided and, especially, the United Nations human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine for its technical support. 7. In Ukraine, the Subcommittee was represented by Malcolm Evans (Subcommittee Chair and head of delegation), Victor Zaharia (focal point on reprisals), Mari Amos (in May 2016), June Caridad Pagaduan Lopez (in May 2016) and Marija Definis-Gojanović (in September 2016). The Subcommittee was assisted by human rights officers and security officers from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and by interpreters. 8. The Subcommittee considers that its mandate extends over the entirety of the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, in line with General Assembly resolution 68/262. Despite seeking to visit places of deprivation of liberty in areas of the Donetsk region under the control of armed groups, the Subcommittee regrets that it was ultimately unable to obtain access to those places as it is aware of grave concerns relating to the situation of persons deprived of their liberty with which it was unable to engage. 3