George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The NORP Government ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife , PERSON , lodged a request with the court to have the applicant deprived of his legal capacity .

In the course of the proceedings , the applicant was examined by CARDINAL psychiatrists and a psychologist . The medical opinion issued by CARDINAL of the psychiatrists on CARDINAL DATE reads as follows :

“ ... the applicant suffers from severe mental disorders ( nasilone zaburzenia psychiczne ) ... progressive , gradual changes to the central nervous system have resulted in a significant deterioration in his insight into his own situation and social relations . They constitute a basis for impulsive behaviour and aggression towards others . ”

The psychiatrist concluded that there was a need to provide the applicant with help with everyday matters and therefore a partial deprivation of his legal capacity and the appointment of a guardian would be recommended . The expert saw no grounds to fully deprive him of his legal capacity .

On DATE the ORG granted PERSON ’s request and decided to fully deprive the applicant of his legal capacity on the grounds of mental illness .

After the expiry of the time - limit for appeal , the applicant appointed a lawyer , who on DATE , lodged an appeal against the decision of DATE together with a request for leave to appeal out of time .

On DATE the request was rejected because the applicant , being deprived of his legal capacity , could not effectively appoint a lawyer . The request and appeal had thus been lodged by someone who did not have the proper authorisation to act on the applicant ’s behalf .

On DATE the ORG appointed PERSON as the applicant ’s guardian .

On DATE an investigation into the alleged mental and physical mistreatment of the applicant ’s wife and son , PERSON , was opened .

On DATE , at the request of the prosecutor , the applicant was appointed a lawyer , GPE

NORP In the course of the criminal proceedings , the applicant was examined by CARDINAL psychiatrists and a psychologist , who on DATE issued their opinion . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ From the medical documentation available , it appears that the applicant has not continued ambulatory treatment , does not take [ his ] medication , abuses alcohol and displays aggressive behaviour towards his family ...

... the applicant is mentally ill . He was also mentally ill at the time of commission of the prohibited acts in question ; at that time , he was incapable of recognising the significance of his behaviour and controlling his conduct ... he absolutely requires treatment within the confines of a psychiatric unit ... because there is a high probability that he might commit another similar prohibited act . ”

On DATE a hearing before ORG was held , at which the expert witnesses confirmed the conclusions reached in their opinion of DATE .

On DATE ORG , relying on LAW , discontinued the proceedings against the applicant . It found that at the time of commission of the prohibited acts in question , he could not recognise the significance of his behaviour because of his mental illness . It also found that there was a high probability that he would commit further similar prohibited acts because he had refused to undergo systematic treatment , did not take his medication , abused alcohol and was completely uncritical as regards the prohibited acts he had committed and his state of health . The court also decided to impose on the applicant a preventive measure , namely placement in a closed psychiatric facility where he would undergo the necessary psychiatric treatment .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG upheld the challenged decision , agreeing with the reasoning of ORG . It also held that since the applicant had been completely uncritical as regards the prohibited acts committed and had refused treatment , there was a high probability that he would commit similar prohibited acts in future .

On DATE ORG Preventive Measures at ORG decided to admit the applicant to a psychiatric hospital in J. The applicant requested to have this decision varied as he preferred to be placed in a hospital in NORP

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the psychiatric hospital in NORP He has been detained there ever since , having had his detention extended by ORG on a regular DATE basis on the following dates : DATE , DATE and DATE ( psychiatric opinions of DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) , DATE and DATE ( psychiatric opinions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( psychiatric opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , DATE and DATE ( psychiatric opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , DATE , DATE and DATE ( for the CARDINAL first decisions , a psychiatric opinion of DATE and for the latest , an opinion of DATE ) . On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant ’s lawyer , the decision of CARDINAL DATE was upheld by the PERSON ’s detention in a psychiatric hospital was given on DATE on the basis of a psychiatric opinion dated DATE .

Each time the court considered extending the preventive measure , it appointed a legal aid lawyer for the applicant . Both the applicant and his lawyer were informed of every hearing with CARDINAL exception , a hearing which took place on DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer appealed . He contested the court ’s findings made in the decision of CARDINAL DATE that there was a high probability that the applicant would commit a further prohibited act and that his state of health required his continued confinement in a psychiatric institution . On DATE the ORG quashed the challenged decision however on other grounds than those which had been relied on by the applicant ’s lawyer . It referred to a judgment of ORG of DATE , according to which a lawyer whose participation in the execution proceedings is mandatory must also be present at any hearings concerning the extension of a preventive measure imposed on his client .

NORP The court ’s decisions extending the applicant ’s detention in the psychiatric hospital were reasoned in a similar way . The court stressed the fact that the experts had found that the applicant , due to the state of his mental health , required further confinement in a unit with reinforced security measures , because of the high probability that he might commit a similar prohibited act .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to partially restore his legal capacity .

On DATE it dismissed the request on the grounds that the applicant ’s health had not improved to an extent that would justify such a decision being taken .

NORP The applicant appealed .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal . It found , among other things , that ORG had based its decision on complete psychiatric opinions , and that it had been unnecessary to appoint other medical experts to determine the applicant ’s state of health .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with ORG .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the appeal .

On DATE the applicant ’s sister , ORG , requested ORG to dismiss the applicant ’s wife as guardian . She submitted that there had been a situation of extreme conflict between the applicant and his wife , who she alleged had had mental health problems in the past and had undergone psychiatric treatment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding that the applicant ’s wife had properly fulfilled her obligations . As regards her alleged mental health problems , the court found that she had undergone some treatment for depression ; however , this did not prevent her from acting as her husband ’s guardian .

The applicant ’s sister appealed against the first - instance decision and , since her appeal was lodged after the expiry of the time - limit , she requested the court for leave to appeal out of time . She submitted that the court ’s correspondence had not been served on her because it had been stolen from her postbox .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the request for leave to appeal out of time . It found that ORG ’s statements as regards the alleged theft of correspondence from her postbox had not been credible . The appeal was dismissed DATE .

The applicant ’s sister regularly visited him in hospital . According to the director of the psychiatric unit , after each visit , the applicant would behave aggressively and refuse to take his medication .

On DATE the director took the decision to ban the applicant ’s sister from visiting him . She relied on Article CARDINALc of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences and reasoned her decision by “ repetitive incidents of internal rule breaking by ORG and a risk of the applicant behaving dangerously ” .

On DATE the applicant was served with a copy of that decision , which included a notice of his right to appeal to the director of the psychiatric unit and , subsequently , to ORG . The applicant failed to appeal .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads as follows :

“ The court may impose a preventive measure provided for in this chapter which involves committal to a closed medical institution only if necessary to prevent the repeated commission of a prohibited act by a perpetrator suffering from mental illness ... mental impairment , or addiction to alcohol or other narcotic drugs . Before imposing such a measure , the court shall hear evidence from psychiatrists and a psychologist ... ”

Article CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If a perpetrator has committed a prohibited act causing significant harm to the community , in a state of insanity as specified in LAW , and there is a high probability that he will commit such an act again , the court shall commit him to a suitable psychiatric institution .

The duration of the stay in the institution shall not be fixed in advance ; the court shall release the perpetrator from the institution if his stay there is no longer deemed necessary .

The court may reorder the committal of a perpetrator specified in paragraph CARDINAL to a suitable psychiatric institution if it is advisable in the light of the circumstances specified in paragraph CARDINAL or in LAW ; such an order may not be issued DATE after release from the institution . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW Sentences reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The director of a closed institution in which a preventive measure is being executed shall send the court , no less than every six months , an opinion on the state of health of the perpetrator placed in the institution and the progress of his or her treatment or therapy . The opinion shall be sent immediately if , due to a change in the perpetrator ’s state of health , the director finds that his or her further detention in the institution is unnecessary .

The court may request , at any time , an opinion on the state of health of the perpetrator placed in an institution referred to in paragraph CARDINAL , the treatment or therapy administered , and the results thereof . ”

Article CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall , no less than every six months , and in the event of receiving an opinion that further detention of the perpetrator in a closed medical institution in which a preventive measure is being executed is unnecessary , immediately make a decision as regards the further execution of that measure . If necessary , the court shall refer to the opinion of other medical experts .

The decision as regards the further execution of a preventive measure may be appealed against . ”

Article CARDINAL c reads as follows :

“ Personal contact of a perpetrator detained in an institution referred to in [ paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ] LAW [ reinforced and maximum security psychiatric hospitals and drug rehabilitation institutions ] with visitors may only take place with the approval of the director of the institution . Approval may be refused , particularly if such contact could cause an increased risk of dangerous behaviour . ”


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr Mileta Petrović , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE B.D. demolished a part of the ventilation system of the applicant ’s restaurant .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil trespass claim ( tužba zbog smetanja poseda ) against B.D.

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG ruled in favour of the applicant , ordering PERSON to reconstruct the ventilation system in question , in accordance with the original project design and under the supervision of mechanical and construction engineering experts , as well as to pay MONEY ( “ RSD ” ) ( MONEY ( “ EUR ” ) at the relevant time ) on account of the costs incurred .

By DATE this decision became both final and enforceable .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s request of DATE , ORG ( hereinafter “ the enforcement court ” ) issued an enforcement order . On DATE the enforcement order was upheld on the appeal .

On DATE the applicant requested the enforcement court to order PERSON to advance the costs of the construction works . By DATE the enforcement court held a hearing , appointed CARDINAL experts and requested their opinion on CARDINAL different occasions , assessed the costs , collected offers , selected building contractors and finally , considered at CARDINAL instances and enforced the decision ordering PERSON to advance the costs and authorising the applicant to undertake the necessary construction works thereof . The applicant objected to the experts’ reports and refused to collect the advance deposited with the enforcement court .

DATE and DATE the enforcement court ordered the applicant to commence with the construction works , appointed new experts and obtained CARDINAL of their reports as to the modalities of the enforcement , held CARDINAL hearings and examined witnesses in connection with the original construction works on the ventilation system , and twice ordered the applicant to have his building contractor provide an estimate of the building costs . The applicant objected to the experts’ reports , lodged a request for the protection of legality against the court order and refused to abide by it .

On DATE the enforcement court terminated the enforcement proceedings . On the applicant ’s appeal , this decision was quashed on DATE and the enforcement court was instructed to prevent the parties’ abuse of procedural rights by undertaking the required actions in their stead .

In the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the enforcement court proceeded with the enforcement and scheduled QUANTITY hearings , CARDINAL of which were adjourned due to the applicant ’s and PERSON ’s ill - health , one because of a mistake in summons , the other one for unspecified reasons and DATE as a result of the applicant ’s request for a relinquishment to another court and for the failure of CARDINAL of the experts to appear , who was therefore fined . In addition , the enforcement court appointed new experts , requested expert opinions on CARDINAL different occasions , considered the applicant ’s independent expert report and consulted a case - file from the administrative body which had issued the construction and use permits for the applicant ’s restaurant . The applicant ’s building contractor failed to provide project documentation specifically requested by the court CARDINAL times .

In the meantime , the applicant lodged numerous complaints about the length of the enforcement proceedings with the President of ORG ( Okružni sud ) in ORG and ORG and filed several requests for the reclusion of , and criminal complaints against the judges and experts .

On DATE the enforcement court terminated the enforcement proceedings . The court found in particular that , since the demolished ventilation system had not been constructed in line with the original project design , the supervision of its reconstruction was impossible and that , therefore , the ORG decision of DATE could not be enforced . On DATE this decision was upheld on the appeal .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against PERSON and the respondent State for compensation for damage due to the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON opštinski sud ) in GPE rejected the applicant ’s claim for compensation for lost earnings and declared the applicant ’s claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage withdrawn .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the judgment of DATE in the part rejecting the applicant ’s claim against PERSON and remitted that part of the case to the first - instance court for reconsideration . At the same time ORG upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE .

It would appear that the proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal complaining about the non - enforcement of the ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud ) of GPE rejected the applicant ’s constitutional appeal .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation;Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE GPE police ( GPE uprava GPE , hereinafter “ the police ” ) received an emergency call informing them that CARDINAL men were attacking a man and a woman of GPE origin .

NORP The police immediately went to the scene , where they found the applicant and her partner GPE , and another individual , GPE , with whom the applicant and her partner had had a verbal and physical conflict . They all had visible injuries . Soon afterwards , nearby , the police found and arrested another man , PERSON , who had also been involved in the conflict .

A preliminary report prepared by the police stated that the applicant and her partner had first had an argument with GPE and GPE , during which PERSON had said “ all NORP should be killed , we will exterminate you ” . PERSON and GPE had then attacked the applicant ’s partner . The applicant and her partner had tried to escape but GPE and PERSON had managed to catch them . PERSON had grabbed the applicant ’s T - shirt and thrown her to the ground and then kicked her in the head . GPE and PERSON had then continued beating the applicant ’s partner , whose hands had been slashed with a knife by S.K ..

NORP The police report stated that the applicant had a contusion that was visible below her left eye . The emergency medical services also attended the scene . A doctor recorded the applicant ’s injuries as minor bodily injuries . On DATE the applicant was examined at a hospital , where her injuries were confirmed . She was told to rest and take painkillers .

In connection with the incident , the police carried out an on - site inspection and a further assessment of the available material . The police also interviewed the applicant and her partner as well as the CARDINAL assailants .

In his police interview of DATE the applicant ’s partner ORG stated that he was of GPE origin . On DATE of the incident he had been at a flea market with the applicant when some passers - by had pushed her . He had realised that it had been CARDINAL young men and he had told the applicant to ignore them because they were drunk ( “ wasted ” ) . CARDINAL of them had heard him and had turned to ORG , saying “ Fuck your Gypsy mother , who is wasted ? Who are you to tell me that ? You should all be exterminated , I fuck your Gypsy mother ” ( Jebem ti mater cigansku , tko je urokan , šta ti meni imaš govoriti , sve vas treba istrijebiti mamu vam cigansku jebem ) . The other man had also turned towards GPE , saying “ Fuck your mother , you should all be exterminated , I will kill you ” ( Jebem vam majku , treba vas istrijebiti , ubit ću te ) . ORG stated that he had then panicked and had drawn a knife in order to scare them . However , that had created a further outburst of anger from the CARDINAL men ; CARDINAL of them had taken out a knife and they had started chasing GPE As ORG was running away , the applicant had joined him and they had started running away together , looking for help . However , the attackers had managed to get hold of ORG and had started beating him . At that point the applicant had tried to help and had also been hit . The CARDINAL men had then continued beating ORG , saying that he was a Rom and should be killed .

NORP In her police interview of DATE the applicant stated that she lived with ORG , with whom she had had CARDINAL children . She confirmed ORG ’s version of events , saying that she had been pushed by the CARDINAL men . After ORG had reacted by saying that the men should be left alone because they were drunk , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men had said , “ Who is drunk ? Fuck your Gypsy mother , you should all be exterminated , this will be a white GPE again , you are garbage ” ( ORG je pijan , jebem ti mater cigansku , vas treba istrijebiti , ovo će ponovno ORG bijela ORG , smeće jedno ) . The applicant stated that after this the CARDINAL men had started attacking GPE She had tried to approach them to help ORG but another woman had prevented her from doing so . However , at CARDINAL point she had joined ORG and they had started running away . The CARDINAL men had then caught them and CARDINAL of them had grabbed her by the T - shirt and said , “ What are you going to do now you bitch ? I will beat you now ” ( Što ćeš sad kujo jedna , sad ću te prebiti ) . He had then kicked her in the head . The CARDINAL men had continued beating ORG , while she had run away and looked for help .

In their interviews of CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL assailants explained that the conflict had broken out because ORG had offended them by saying that they were drunk . They denied the conflict had had any racial overtones .

On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint against GPE and GPE with ORG Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u GPE ) for suspected commission of a hate crime , perpetrated by attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on GPE , and motivated by the latter ’s GPE origin . The applicant was mentioned in the criminal complaint as a witness .

In the course of the investigation the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG questioned the CARDINAL suspects and on DATE and CARDINAL DATE it instructed the police to conduct an identification procedure and formal questioning of the applicant and ORG as witnesses .

When questioned as a witness , ORG repeated the statement he had given during the first police interview . He explained how , after the CARDINAL men had pushed the applicant , CARDINAL of them had turned towards him and uttered the insults related to his GPE origin ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG also stated that the applicant had been attacked after she had tried to help him when the CARDINAL men were beating him up .

During her questioning as a witness , the applicant repeated the statement she had given during the first police interview ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Upon completion of the investigation , on DATE the ORG Attorney ’s Office indicted GPE and GPE in ORG ( Općinski kazneni sud u GPE ) on charges of making serious threats against ORG and inflicting bodily injury on him , associated with a hate - crime element . The indictment also made reference to the attack on the applicant , suggesting that she had been kicked in the head while trying to save ORG from the beating .

The indictment was confirmed and the case was sent for trial on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG informed ORG , as a victim in the proceedings , that an indictment had been lodged against GPE and GPE in connection with the attack on him . On DATE the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’s Office informed ORG ’s lawyer , PERSON , of the institution of the proceedings in ORG .

At a hearing on DATE ORG questioned GPE He repeated the statements given to the police . When asked whether the CARDINAL assailants had said anything to the applicant related to ORG ’s racial origin , ORG stated that she had told him something but he could no longer remember the details . He thought that she had said that the CARDINAL assailants had told her that she was also GPE if she was with a GPE man . On the basis of an agreement between the parties , including ORG ’s representative , the applicant ’s statement to the police was admitted in evidence and she was not questioned further at the trial .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found PERSON and GPE guilty as charged and sentenced them to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant and her partner , represented by the lawyer PERSON , had lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney ’s ORG against CARDINAL unidentified suspects in connection with the incident of DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) . It was alleged in the criminal complaint that CARDINAL of the suspects had first pushed the applicant and had then told her that she was a “ bitch ” ( kuja ) who had a relationship with a GPE man and that she would be beaten . She had been grabbed by the T - shirt and thrown to the ground , banging her head . The assailants had then continued beating ORG , threatening to kill him and the applicant . The criminal complaint also alleged that the assailants had stolen CARDINAL mobile telephones from GPE at the same time .

NORP The applicant ’s representative tried to obtain the relevant information about the attackers from the police on the grounds that she needed the information in order to institute court proceedings . On DATE the police informed the applicant ’s representative that they had lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney ’s ORG against CARDINAL individuals in connection with a suspicion that they had committed the offence of attempted grievous had been classified as a hate crime . The applicant ’s representative was also informed that she should contact the GPE Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG for all further information .

The applicant ’s representative then informed the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG that the applicant and her partner would participate in the proceedings as victims and requested to be informed of all relevant procedural steps . On DATE the applicant ’s representative , invoking the domestic authorities’ obligations under the Convention , requested information from the police and the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’s Office about the criminal complaint lodged on behalf of the applicant .

On DATE the GPE Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG rejected the applicant ’s criminal complaint . It examined the materials related to the investigation into the incident of DATE and the criminal proceedings against GPE and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ In view of the above , it is established without any doubt that on DATE in issue there was a physical conflict between GPE and GPE and GPE whereby [ GPE and GPE ] caused bodily injury to and threatened ORG , and those offences were committed primarily because of hatred towards GPE .

However , the statements of the witnesses GPE and PERSON show that [ PERSON and GPE ] pushed her in the back , causing her to fall onto a [ flea market ] stall , not because she was the partner of ORG , who is of GPE origin , but because they were drunk and they accidentally pushed her towards the stalls .

Furthermore , the medical documentation regarding PERSON , as well as the records of the questioning of the witnesses GPE and PERSON and the statements of GPE and GPE given in their defence in the proceedings before ORG , show that there is no doubt that PERSON kicked Maja GPE in the left side of the face with the result that she sustained a minor bodily injury .

Given that there is no indication that GPE and GPE inflicted injuries on GPE because of hatred towards GPE , as she is not of GPE origin , the criminal offence under LAW in conjunction with LAW has not been established .

In particular , the injury which Maja GPE sustained would , by its nature , suggest an injury within the meaning of LAW . ... As criminal proceedings for the offence under LAW are instituted on the basis of a private prosecution , the criminal complaint ... must be rejected ... on the grounds that the impugned criminal offence is not an offence that is prosecuted of the prosecutor ’s own motion .

With regard to the criminal offence under LAW in conjunction with LAW , it should be pointed out that it is obvious that PERSON and GPE threatened ORG and not PERSON ... Moreover , ... it does not follow from the record of PERSON witness statement , which has been examined , that GPE and GPE threatened her , but rather ORG , and thus the criminal complaint ... should be rejected on the grounds that the impugned criminal offence is not an offence that is prosecuted of the prosecutor ’s own motion . ”

The applicant was informed that she could take over the prosecution of GPE and GPE as a subsidiary prosecutor , as provided for under the relevant domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

He had been a professional truck driver until he became unable to work due to epilepsy .

On DATE the applicant was certified as having a “ category III work - related disability ” as a result of his condition . He was found to have a right to be reassigned to a suitable position of employment where he and others would not be at risk because of his condition , with ( retroactive ) effect from DATE .

On DATE the Celje regional unit of ORG ( hereinafter “ the regional ORG ” ) granted the applicant a so - called “ allowance for the period of waiting to be reassigned to or employed in a different appropriate position of employment ” ( hereinafter “ waiting period allowance ” ) from DATE . Though the sums appear to be lower during DATE , he had been subsequently receiving around QUANTITY ( ORG ) per month in waiting period allowance . The regional ORG relied on section CARDINAL of ORG ( hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) and section CARDINAL of the new ORG ( hereinafter “ the DATE Act ” – see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It noted that the applicant had been registered as unemployed on DATE and had been a beneficiary under LAW from DATE to CARDINAL October CARDINAL . Thus , once his unemployment allowance had come to an end he had become entitled to a waiting period allowance under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The regional ORG also noted that , under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act , beneficiaries were entitled to a waiting period allowance until they fulfilled the conditions for retirement ( ibid . ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s doctor informed the regional ORG about a shoulder injury the applicant had sustained and requested a reassessment of his level of disability .

On the basis of , inter alia , information provided by the applicant ’s doctor , the regional ORG , on DATE , decided that the applicant had a right to be reassigned to another position of employment with several limitations , such as not to work at unprotected heights or drive category C and E vehicles , with effect from DATE . Subsequently , on DATE it adopted a decision granting him a disability allowance ( nadomestilo za invalidnost ) from DATE . The regional ORG relied on the DATE Act , which had introduced certain new disability benefits ( the term “ disability benefit ” is used to cover any type of allowance that arises from a disability ) and discontinued some of those provided for under the DATE LAW , including the waiting period allowance . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW stipulated that a right to a disability allowance applied as from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The regional ORG noted in its decision that the applicant had not been insured under the compulsory insurance scheme at the onset of his disability , but had been registered as unemployed on DATE within DATE of the final decision on his disability , as required by section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . It was established that his capacity to work had in fact further reduced , even though the category ( III ) of his disability remained unchanged . The regional ORG found that , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , he should receive a benefit in the form of disability allowance , which in his case amounted to ORG . It drew the applicant ’s attention to section CARDINAL of the DATE Act , which required beneficiaries to inform the ORG of any change in circumstances which could affect their rights under that LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision , arguing that in determining the amount of his disability benefit , the regional ORG should have respected the principle of acquired rights . He pointed out that his benefit had reduced considerably , even though his disability had in fact worsened , and claimed that such a decision was unlawful .

On DATE the central ORG ( hereinafter “ the central ORG ” ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , confirming that the regional ORG had properly applied the law and correctly calculated the amount of his disability allowance .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG challenging the above decisions . He reiterated that the disability allowance granted to him under LAW violated his acquired rights and that instead of increasing his benefit it reduced it by CARDINAL , which was unlawful and unconstitutional .

On DATE the Celje Labour and ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It explained that while recipients of disability - related rights under LAW retained their acquired rights after the date set out in section CARDINAL of LAW , in the applicant ’s case a reassessment of his disability had been carried out on DATE due to a worsening of his condition ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had resulted in further workplace limitations and his rights being consequently determined anew . In cases where a fresh assessment was made LAW was to be applied . The court concluded that LAW did not contain the right to a waiting period allowance . Instead , under LAW , it provided for the disability allowance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) which had been correctly granted to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment , repeating the complaints he had made before the first - instance court and alleging that he ought to have been informed of the consequences of a request for a reassessment of his disability . If that had been the case , he would have “ forbidden ” his doctor from making such a request . Lastly , he reiterated that the decision of the regional ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was unlawful and unconstitutional , as it violated his right to social security ; he pointed out that he was unable to survive on the newly determined disability allowance .

On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , confirming the position of the lower court that the applicant ’s case concerned a change in the level of disability , which had required a fresh determination of his disability benefit . In such a situation , section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that the applicant acquired rights under LAW . Also , since the applicant ’s rights had been determined anew , ORG concluded that there had been no violation of his acquired rights related to social security , and thus no violation of the LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG , arguing that he could not have legitimately expected that the worsening of his disability would result in a severe reduction of his disability benefit . In that connection , he alleged that ORG view that the reduction did not interfere with his acquired rights or constitute a violation of his constitutional right to social security was arbitrary , as the court had provided no reasoning for that conclusion . The applicant further alleged that the newly determined amount of disability benefit interfered with his constitutional right to property .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , finding that the Higher Labour and ORG had sufficiently explained that the change in his level of disability had required a fresh determination of his benefit in accordance with the DATE Act .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG judgment , alleging a violation of his constitutional rights to property and social security . He argued that the reduction in the disability benefit had put his subsistence at risk and failed the test of proportionality .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant ’s complaint for consideration on the merits , referring to section DATE ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant fulfilled the conditions for a retirement pension in the amount of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL and his disability allowance was discontinued from DATE . He thus received the disability allowance for DATE .

Data concerning the applicant ’s income provided by the NORP tax authorities shows that he received ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE in pension and disability insurance and , after the impugned change in his allowance , ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .

NORP The applicant participated in the clean - up operations following the GPE disaster and has special status as a “ first category liquidator ” . He is a second - degree disabled person as a result of his participation in the clean - up operations . In DATE a commission of medical experts found that the applicant had lost PERCENT of his working ability .

NORP The applicant suffers from multiple ailments of his joints . He has been diagnosed with polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis of his feet joints ; arthritis of the left knee joint and the right ankle joint ; and rheumatoid arthritis of the right elbow joint .

The applicant is a practising lawyer . He supports CARDINAL daughters who were born in DATE . Owing to his condition the applicant is only able to walk for short distances and can hardly move during periods of exacerbation . The applicant uses his car extensively for personal , family and professional purposes . He has had a driving licence since DATE .

On DATE the applicant caused a traffic accident after his negligent driving led to his car being hit by another car . Both cars were damaged , with that of the applicant being damaged in several places , including in the steering mechanism . The applicant admitted his fault .

On DATE ORG of ORG found the applicant liable for a breach of traffic regulations resulting in damage to vehicles . When determining the penalty the court had regard to the nature of the offence and decided to suspend the applicant ’s driving licence for DATE .

The applicant appealed , arguing that the suspension of his driving licence was an excessively severe punishment in his case . He asked for the penalty to be converted into a fine . The applicant contended that in view of his disability a car was indispensable for his professional activities and a driving ban would eventually worsen his financial position and ability to support his family . Moreover , he also used the car for personal and family purposes on a DATE basis . The applicant submitted that he had had a driving licence since DATE and that he had not committed any other administrative offences . He asked ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) to take into account the fact he had admitted being at fault in the accident and that his car had been badly damaged .

By a final decision of DATE ORG amended the penalty and reduced the term of suspension of the licence to DATE . In its reasons ORG first stated that there had been no evidence to suggest that the applicant ’s disability was the sole reason for his using a car . Nor was a car the sole source of his income given that the applicant had a lawyer ’s licence . ORG then had regard to the facts that the applicant was a disabled person and that he had participated in the GPE clean - up operation . It also noted that the applicant had admitted his fault but he had not expressed remorse . In addition , the applicant had not reimbursed the other party for the damage .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides for administrative liability for breaches of traffic regulations which result in damage to vehicles , goods , roads , streets , railway level crossings , road construction equipment or other objects . It provides for a fine or a suspension of the offender ’s driving licence for DATE as a penalty for such an offence .


András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The cases originated in CARDINAL separate applications against GPE ( see list appended ) , lodged with ORG under LAW ( “ the LAW ) .

The persons stated as the applicants in the application forms were Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , and Mr PERSON ( application no . DATE ) . They were all NORP nationals , born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , claimed to represent the applicants before the ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .

The applications were lodged on DATE and concerned the non - enforcement of CARDINAL final court judgments rendered against a socially / ORG - owned company ( see , for example , PERSON and ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) . Enclosed with the application forms were the powersofattorney dated DATE and signed “ LOC ” , “ PERSON ” and “ ORG ” . The powers - of - attorney were also signed by PERSON and stamped with his stamp .

On the basis of signed declarations according to which the Government undertook to pay to each applicant QUANTITY in respect of non - pecuniary damage and legal costs plus the sums awarded in the final domestic decisions , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG decided to strike the applications out of its list of cases .

By letter of DATE the Government notified the ORG that Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , and Mr ORG had actually died on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , that is before the applications had been lodged .

In his reply of DATE Mr Jevtović did not contest that Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , and Mr ORG had died before the applications were lodged , but stated that he had been unaware of this fact at that time , because he had represented those applicants , along with many of their colleagues . Since his clients performed construction work in the field , he was unable to meet them all , but asked some of them to have powers - of - attorney signed by their colleagues and to bring those forms to him . He also stated that he had no reason or interest in lodging applications on behalf of dead persons , when he could have lodged the application on behalf of their heirs . In this respect , PERSON produced powerofattorney forms signed by the heirs of Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG authorising him to receive the amounts agreed in the friendly settlement declarations .

On DATE the ORG decided to restore the applications to its list of cases .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant ’s son , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and died on DATE in hospital , DATE after reportedly having fallen from the window of a police station in GPE .

At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was arrested by ORG - SUP GPE ) on suspicion of having snatched a woman ’s handbag TIME and was kept TIME in police custody . Mr PERSON , then aged DATE , was apparently known to the police as an alleged drug user and as having been involved in similar incidents previously .

According to the police reports , TIME at TIME a.m. Mr PERSON was questioned by QUANTITY police officers , GPE , PERSON and N.K. Mr PERSON allegedly confessed that he had committed the robbery in question and had hidden a sum of money ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in his home . After an unsuccessful search of the PERSON family ’s flat TIME , the police officers left the house together with Mr Petrović in handcuffs .

The applicant alleged that her son had been visibly distressed and very pale , and his mouth had been yellowish . On the way out , he had turned to her and said “ call a lawyer , I have done nothing , they will kill me ” .

According to the incident report of CARDINAL DATE drawn up by Major PERSON , the police ORG superior , Mr PERSON had been brought back handcuffed , at TIME , to office no . CARDINAL on the second floor of the ORG police station to be questioned further . As they entered the office , while PERSON was approaching his desk , PERSON was standing and PERSON was closing the office door , Mr PERSON suddenly rushed forward , jumped head first through a closed window , breaking a window pane , and fell out into the courtyard . None of the police officers had been able to prevent it . The police officers ran out to the courtyard and , as Mr PERSON showed some signs of still being alive , they took the handcuffs off , while some other colleagues called an ambulance .

Around TIME , the police informed the applicant ’s family that PERSON PERSON had jumped from the second floor of the police premises and that he had been taken to the emergency unit of ORG in GPE .

Upon their arrival at the emergency unit , the applicant and her husband ( Mr PERSON father ) were informed that at QUANTITY the hospital had admitted an unidentified and severely injured patient who had jumped from the second floor of a building . He was in a comatose state , with a fracture of his left ribs and femur and contusion and haematoma of the liver , and was undergoing surgery that could take TIME .

While the surgical operation was being carried out , the applicant ’s husband went to the Vračar Police LOC . Following an on - site inspection ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , he was shown the scene of the incident . The applicant claimed that her husband , as well as certain media , had initially been informed that their son , who had been handcuffed and in his DATE jacket , had been alone in the office when he had jumped through the window , but had later been told that their son had broken away in the presence of the QUANTITY police officers .

Mr PERSON remained in a comatose state while in hospital , except DATE , when he showed some signs of consciousness and movement .

According to the medical certificate issued by ORG , Mr PERSON died from sepsis and cardiac arrest on DATE at TIME Following a request by the investigating judge ( GPE ) of ORG , the post - mortem examination of Mr PERSON body was carried out on DATE at TIME by CARDINAL doctors , ORG . PERSON , of ORG in GPE . The autopsy report stated that PERSON PERSON death had been violent and caused by damage to his brain ( vitalne centre ) and complications thereafter . It further concluded that the damage to his brain , as well as the rib and femur fractures and other external and internal bodily injuries described in the report , had been “ inflicted with a blunt , heavy and swinging object ( naneti tupim , teškim i zamahnutim predmetom ) ” . No photographs or results of any toxicological analysis have been submitted to the Court .

Following a telephone call from the GPE criminal police department for investigative and operational affairs ( NORP za uviđajno - operativne poslove LOC kriminalističke policije ( UKP ) - SUP GPE ; hereinafter “ the GPE ” ) , the investigating judge on duty , V.M. , from an unspecified court , arrived at ORG at an unspecified time to inspect the scene of the incident . PERSON , from the GPE , and a crime - scene technician , GPE , from the GPE criminal police forensics unit ( GPE kriminalističke tehnike ORG - a ) were also present .

According to the investigating judge ’s CARDINAL - and - CARDINAL - page report of his inspection of the scene of the incident ( zapisnik o uviđaju ) , upon his arrival at ORG , unspecified police officers had shown him office no . CARDINAL and a broken window pane in the left corner of the window , closest to the floor . As it was a double , wooden multi - paned window , and as he had been informed that Mr PERSON had jumped out through the window pane by breaking the glass , he had examined the pane in question . As he had seen no blood stains , hair or any other trace of this nature , he had asked the CARDINAL above - mentioned investigators whether they had seen any traces , in order to inspect them , but they had both responded in the negative . He had ordered the crime - scene technician to draw a sketch of the scene and to photograph it , as well as to measure the size of the window .

The investigating judge had noted the broken window pane , as well as pieces of glass between the CARDINAL window frames and on the floor below the inside window . In the snow - covered courtyard of the police building , into which the suspect Mr PERSON had allegedly fallen , he had “ noticed footprints and trodden snow of an indeterminate shape below the window ” , but had not found “ any blood stains or other physical traces ” .

The sketch of the scene of the incident , CARDINAL photographs of the office and CARDINAL of the courtyard were an integral part of the investigating judge ’s report . The copies of the photographs submitted to the ORG show an armchair under the broken window with a cabinet to its right and a hat stand to its left . In the report on the forensic inspection of the scene of the incident ( izveštaj o kriminalističko - tehničkom pregledu lica mesta ) , the crime - scene technician noted the following : ( a ) as regards biological traces , the investigating judge had not requested that fingerprints be lifted and collected ; ( b ) as regards the other evidence and objects found , broken glass had been noticed in the pane of the lower left part of the interior and exterior window frames . The window pane ’s frames measured CARDINAL x CARDINAL and CARDINAL x QUANTITY respectively and stood QUANTITY from the office floor . Both window frames had been found closed . Pieces of broken glass had been found between the interior and exterior window frames and on the windowsill . The outside window stood QUANTITY above the ground . The trodden snow and pieces of glass had been found QUANTITY away from the building ’s wall . Other traces had not been found .

According to a separate report on the questioning of the QUANTITY police officers drawn up by GPE from the GPE , they had provided concurring statements to the same effect as those detailed in the incident report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The police officers also stated that Mr PERSON had , as usual , been very well - behaved that morning and had confessed to committing the robbery .

A report was drawn up , apparently in the framework of a fact - finding visit conducted on DATE , at an unspecified time , by Major D.T. and Captain PERSON of ORG ( GPE za kontrolu zakonitosti u PERSON GPE ) . The report restated the events as outlined by the previous reports ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . It was further noted that Mr PERSON parents had mentioned that he had been taking antidepressants as part of his therapy for drug addiction in order to prevent any possible self - injury . Regarding the police ORG accountability , the inspectors considered that the police officers in charge had undertaken preventive , but apparently insufficient , measures for the protection of Mr PERSON . For that reason , disciplinary action against GPE and GPE and a verbal reprimand to ORG by her superior were recommended . The inspectors also recommended that the police ensure appropriate conditions , for example , window security bars , on LOC where apprehended individuals were questioned .

In the framework of a preliminary disciplinary inquiry ( prethodni disciplinski postupak ) that evening , the QUANTITY police officers were questioned again , one by one , by their superior , Major PERSON The CARDINAL officers repeated their earlier statements .

On DATE PERSON and GPE were prosecuted in disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct , namely , omitting to take adequate measures for the protection of Mr PERSON ’s safety while in custody . The disciplinary body heard the officers as the suspects , as well as ORG as a witness , all of whom reiterated their earlier recollection of the incident . The police officers were acquitted at CARDINAL levels , the last decision being rendered on DATE . It was found thathave done more than they had done to protect Mr PERSON and prevent his suicide .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband lodged a criminal complaint against police officer GPE on behalf of the PERSON family , on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had forcibly extracted a statement from Mr PERSON . In the complaint it was claimed that the police officers had used force in order to extract a statement and had severely ill - treated Mr PERSON to such an extent that it had driven him to jump out of the office window . The family also alleged that the police officers had failed to disclose Mr PERSON identity and all the circumstances of the incident to the emergency medical team .

In the meantime , on DATE , the GPE police sent ORG in GPE ( hereinafter “ the PERSON ” ) the CARDINAL reports of DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) . On DATE and DATE , respectively , the PERSON also received the autopsy report and the report on the forensic inspection of the scene of the incident ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the PERSON requested information from ORG on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against the police officers who had been present during the incident . The PERSON also supplied that department with its own case file to enable them to establish the facts of the case more easily . The requested documentation from the disciplinary proceedings was received by the PERSON on DATE .

On an unspecified date , the applicant ’s husband extended the criminal complaint to include CARDINAL other police officers who had been involved in the incident .

On DATE the PERSON requested a commission of forensic experts from ORG of the Belgrade ORG to give their opinion on what other causes , apart from DATE from the window , could explain Mr PERSON ’s injuries . On DATE ORG requested the case file and the PERSON sent it to them DATE . On DATE the PERSON requested an investigating judge of ORG to issue an order for a forensic opinion , as the ORG could apparently not proceed on the basis of the PERSON ’s order alone . The investigating judge did so on DATE .

DATE , in an expert opinion dated DATE , the experts stated , on the basis of the autopsy report and other medical records , that a person of Mr PERSON height and build could have “ squeezed through ” the window in question . They further maintained that Mr PERSON ’s fatal injuries could have been caused by his jump from the window and his falling on a hard surface . Finally , they concluded that no other injuries , lacerations , scratches or bruises of a nature or location which would indicate that they had any cause other than the one mentioned above had been recorded in the autopsy report or in the hospital ’s files .

On DATE the PERSON rejected the criminal complaint on the ground that there was no reasonable suspicion that the suspects had committed the alleged crime . The applicant ’s husband was notified accordingly and informed that he could pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution ( preuzeti krivično gonjenje ) within DATE of the date that decision had been served on him by filing a request for an investigation ( zahtev za sprovođenje istrage ) .

On DATE the Petrović ’s family lodged with the PERSON a new and more detailed criminal complaint against the police officers ( PERSON , ORG , GPE and PERSON ) for causing severe bodily harm ( teške telesne povrede ) , extracting a statement by coercion ( iznuđivanje iskaza ) and ill - treatment in the discharge of their official duties ( zlostava u službi ) . In the complaint they expressed their doubt that Mr PERSON had jumped out of the office window of his own volition and their suspicion that the suspects had thrown their son ’s corpse out of the window in order to conceal previous ill - treatment . The complaint pointed out certain alleged contradictions and shortcomings in the previous investigative measures and reports , and proposed numerous investigative activities to be carried out in order to investigate the circumstances of Mr PERSON ’s death adequately .

On DATE the ORG in GPE rejected that criminal complaint for the same reasons relied on in its decision of DATE , and repeated the information it had provided about the possibility of a subsidiary prosecution . That letter was served on the applicant on DATE .

Following the rejection of the first criminal complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the applicant attempted to take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor by filing a request for an investigation with ORG in GPE and subsequently , on DATE , a request to broaden the scope of the investigation ( zahtev za proširenje istrage ) . She relied on and reaffirmed the assertions and requests she had made in her second criminal complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP In response to a request of CARDINAL DATE by ORG investigating judge , ORG , as well as a reminder sent on DATE , on DATE CARDINAL forensic pathologists , PERSON and PERSON , from ORG in GPE provided an expert opinion . Relying on the previous medical and autopsy reports , they found that the location , distribution and types of injuries observed on Mr PERSON indicated that they were severe and life - endangering , and that they could undoubtedly have been the result of a fall from the second floor , but only through an open window . In particular , they found that taking into account the circumstances of the incident , including Mr PERSON build , his DATE clothes and his handcuffs , the size of the window pane in question and the position of the furniture and the window in the office , it would have been practically impossible for him to have broken through the window and jumped out . Otherwise , it would mean that he had been able to “ fly horizontally ” over the armchair and break the window with his head exactly in its centre .

On DATE the investigating judge held a hearing and interviewed the suspects . They repeated their earlier statements . PERSON added that Mr PERSON had jumped from the floor QUANTITY away from the window and gone through it without touching the armchair , which was under the window ; none of the furniture had fallen over or been moved .

On DATE the investigating judge refused to open the investigation sought by the applicant ( izrazio neslaganje sa zahtevom ) , and referred the case to a CARDINAL - judge criminal panel ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

On DATE the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG upheld the investigating judge ’s findings , relying on the case file , namely , the “ concordant statements of the suspects ” and the findings and opinions of the forensic experts in DATE and DATE , “ which [ were ] consistent and indicate[d ] that all the injuries of the deceased could have been caused at the same time by his fall from a height of QUANTITY metres onto a hard surface ” . The applicant was instructed that she could appeal against that decision within DATE from the date on which the decision was served on her and she did so on DATE , reiterating her previous arguments .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal as unfounded . In reaching that decision , by reference to the expert commission ’s forensic findings of DATE , it upheld the lower court ’s reasoning as clear , conclusive and convincing . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( inicijativa za podizanje zahteva za zaštitu zakonitosti ) , urging him to lodge a request with ORG for the protection of legality ( zahtev za zaštitu zakonitosti ) against the decision of DATE on her behalf .

On DATE the Chief Public Prosecutor informed the applicant that on that same day he had accepted her motion and had lodged a request for the protection of legality against the decision of DATE , submitting , in particular , that : ( a ) the court had based its finding on evidence that had been challenged by the applicant and , which , according to him , had been flawed by inconsistencies ; ( b ) the court had dismissed the applicant ’s appeals without addressing her arguments ; and ( c ) the collection and examination of evidence had been superficial , which had resulted in the incorrect and implausible conclusion reached by the court .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a different composition from that of DATE , rejected the ORG ’s request . Having regard to the case file and a hearing in the presence of the CARDINAL suspects and their lawyer , the court stated the following : ( a ) the forensic experts had not ruled out that the victim might have sustained the injuries while breaking the window and falling on a hard surface ; ( b ) no evidence had shown that the suspects had caused the victim any bodily harm by any other means ; ( c ) according to the relevant evidence , there was no reasonable suspicion that the suspects had committed the alleged crimes which would warrant the opening of criminal proceedings ; and , lastly , ( d ) the impugned decision did not ultimately preclude the opening of criminal proceedings if the victim , as a subsidiary prosecutor , submitted new evidence which had not existed or had been unknown at the time of her previous request for an investigation . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

In DATE the applicant and her husband brought a joint civil action against the respondent ORG and ORG to obtain redress for the mental anguish suffered as a consequence of Mr PERSON death . They relied on LAW and various international human rights instruments . The defendant contested the claim in general , but did not make any further clarification in that respect .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG clarified that although it could not ascertain a reliable course of the events in question or anyone ’s clear fault , this was not its task in any event . Referring to the DATE forensic experts’ report and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below , respectively ) , the court concluded that the respondent ORG should compensate the plaintiffs on the basis of the ORG ’s liability for its officials’ omissions , which had undoubtedly occurred given that Mr PERSON had sustained injuries and died while in police custody under the supervision of ORG officials . Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , it awarded each plaintiff ORG for non - pecuniary damage , and made an award in respect of costs .

That judgment was upheld on the merits by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively . The sums awarded were paid on DATE .


CASE OF RIMSCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . At the time of the events he was an academic and member of ORG .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with the offence of producing and putting into circulation counterfeit money . Since then he has remained remanded in custody pending criminal investigation and trial . The detention warrants were prolonged every month initially and DATE once the case had reached ORG . Each time the reasons given for the detention were that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of DATE , that the criminal case was complex and that , if released , he might interfere with the investigation or collude with other co - accused , or abscond or reoffend .

The last CARDINAL extensions of the applicant ’s detention before the lodging of the present application took place on unspecified dates in DATE and DATE . The applicant argued that there was no risk of his interfering with the investigation since all the witnesses and the parties to the proceedings had already been heard and all the evidence had been examined by the court . He also submitted that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or re - offend and agreed to be placed under house arrest if he could not be released . The applicant also argued that according to LAW , once the case had been referred to a court , the detention could not last longer than DATE , other than in exceptional cases .

NORP ORG dismissed the applicant ’s arguments and , relying on the same grounds as before , extended his detention for a further DATE . The court stated that the case was exceptional within the meaning of LAW of LAW . The decisions of DATE and DATE contain similar wording . The applicant ’s appeals against them were rejected by ORG .

On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . His appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE and the ORG has not been informed about the proceedings before ORG .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are brothers . As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties , they will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs DATE ) . The Government ’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the applicants and the Government is summarised in Section D ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) .

On DATE at TIME the applicants’ neighbour , GPE , was shot in the street . The applicants , who were at their aunt ’s house at the time , and a number of their friends , took the injured neighbour to hospital , where he died on arrival .

A police chief and a number of police officers arrived at the hospital at TIME and asked the applicants and their friends to accompany them to NORP police station , where they could be questioned as witnesses in relation to the incident . By the time they arrived , however , the police officers had already established that the applicants’ neighbour had been shot by a police officer . They then decided to detain the applicants at the station . Although the applicants had been taken to the station at TIME , the time of their arrival was stated as TIME in the relevant police report ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The necessary formalities concerning their detention at the police station were not complied with . For example , their names were not entered in the custody ledgers , and although they were minors and should have been taken to a special police station for minors , this was not done . Furthermore , they were not informed of their rights or allowed to contact a lawyer , nor were their next of kin informed .

On DATE QUANTITY police officers working at the special police station for minors went to NORP police station and questioned the applicants in the absence of a lawyer and thus in contravention of the applicable procedure , which stipulates that the presence of a lawyer is compulsory during the questioning of minors . Furthermore , although the applicants were questioned there , it was written in the statements taken from them that they had been questioned at the special police station for minors .

While detained at the police station , the applicants were stripped naked , doused with cold water , kicked , punched and beaten with truncheons . The reason for the ill - treatment was to force them to implicate themselves in the incident . As they were illiterate and unrepresented by a lawyer , they had no way of verifying the statements before they were forced to sign them . As a result of those incriminatory statements the prosecutor instigated an investigation against the second applicant , but it was subsequently closed for lack of evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At CARDINAL or TIME on DATE the police officers hit the applicants with their truncheons and told them to leave the police station .

NORP The following day the applicants went to the GPE branch of ORG and were referred to ORG , also in GPE , where they were examined by a number of doctors DATE . The reports pertaining to their medical examination were drawn up on DATE .

With the assistance of their lawyer , PERSON , the applicants made an official complaint against the police officers on DATE . The prosecutor referred them to doctors , who examined them and described their injuries in medical reports . During the prosecutor ’s investigation , police chief GPE , CARDINAL of the police officers who had been responsible for the applicants’ ill - treatment , continued to serve as the chief of ORG police station and made numerous attempts to stall the investigation . It was not until he was posted elsewhere and another police chief was appointed to replace him that the necessary information could be handed over to the prosecutor to enable him to start the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

When the prosecutor subsequently started taking meaningful steps to investigate their allegations of ill - treatment , the police officers started putting pressure on the applicants and their family . The applicants were unable to withstand the pressure and were forced to dismiss PERSON . At the behest of the police officers , they appointed PERSON as their new legal representative and informed ORG on DATE that they were withdrawing their complaints . They were also forced to tell the authorities that their allegations of ill - treatment had been fabricated . Mr ORG made submissions against them during the first hearing , held on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Although during that hearing ORG decided to hold its next hearing on DATE , it held an unscheduled hearing on DATE without informing the applicants or their legal representative . Police chief ORG was thus heard by ORG in the absence of their lawyers and in breach of the applicable rules of criminal procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This deprived them and their lawyers of the opportunity to formally identify the police chief and put questions to him .

Although they subsequently dismissed PERSON , reappointed PERSON PERSON and informed ORG of the change of representation on DATE , ORG did not entertain the new power of attorney until DATE . It thus attempted to prevent their lawyer from representing them .

As a result of the indifference of the national authorities to their allegations of ill - treatment and the collusion between the police authorities and the judiciary , the criminal proceedings against the police officers were not conducted diligently and were intentionally allowed to become timebarred . The investigation into their allegations of ill - treatment showed that the judiciary did not have the courage to prosecute people responsible for ill - treating children as young DATE .

In their observations , the Government summarised the investigation documents ( also summarised below in paragraphs DATE to CARDINAL ) , and submitted that the applicants had been taken to LOC police station with a view to being questioned as witnesses of a serious crime , namely the killing of GPE The applicants , who were minors at the time , were taken to the station at TIME with a view to being referred to a special police station for minors . No custody reports were drawn up because the applicants had not been arrested , just taken in as witnesses . They were questioned at the special police station for minors .

On DATE the applicants lodged a formal complaint with the ORG prosecutor against the police officers . According to the medical reports drawn up at the request of the prosecutor , both applicants had a number of injuries .

The information provided by the national authorities showed that the applicants were substance users and had regular problems with the police . During the trial , the applicants gave conflicting versions of events , and withdrew their complaints .

The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties .

According to a report signed by CARDINAL police officers , at TIME on DATE a number of police officers arrived at FAC in the centre of GPE , where they saw an off - duty police officer , PERSON , lying on the ground with various injuries to his head . Next to him was his pistol loaded with CARDINAL bullets and a spent bullet case . The officers also noted in their report that the applicants’ neighbour , GPE , had been shot TIME from where PERSON was lying , and had since been taken to a hospital in GPE .

The report also stated that hand swabs had been taken from CARDINAL individuals with a view to establishing whether or not they had gunpowder residue on their hands . The CARDINAL individuals included the first applicant who , according to the report , “ had been taken in by the police in connection with the incident ” .

According to another police report drawn up TIME , CARDINAL teenagers , including the CARDINAL applicants , “ who had been apprehended in connection with the incident ” were “ placed in the custody of the police ” and taken to LOC police station at TIME with a view to being transferred to a special police station for minors .

TIME , at TIME on DATE , ORG , the chief of LOC station , wrote in a report that he had contacted a prosecutor by telephone , who had given him permission to question the applicants and the CARDINAL other teenagers as “ statement makers ” ( ifade sahibi ) in relation to the death of ORG and the injuries caused to ORG

DATE , TIME , statements were taken from the applicants and the remaining CARDINAL teenagers by police officers GPE and GPE , who worked at the special police station for minors . It is written in the statements that they were taken at the special police station for minors .

In the statements , the applicants were reported to have told the QUANTITY police officers that they had been walking along the street with a number of their friends when they had seen PERSON They had noticed that he was drunk , and had attempted to rob him . However , he had produced a pistol and they had unsuccessfully tried to take it from him . During the scuffle , the pistol had gone off and their friend ORG had been shot .

One of their friends had then pursued the armed man and started hitting him . When his pistol had fallen to the ground , their friend had taken it and shot him in the head . They had then taken ORG to hospital and had been arrested there by the police .

There are no documents in the ORG ’s possession showing the time and date of the ORG release from the police station .

According to CARDINAL medical reports , on DATE the applicants were examined by doctors at ORG . The first applicant told them that he had been beaten up at the police station , doused with cold water , hit on the back and the torso with a police truncheon , and grabbed by the throat by a police officer . The second applicant told them that a police officer had grabbed him by the throat , while another had held his hands behind his back , and the CARDINAL officers had then pulled at his legs .

The doctors observed that the first applicant had a number of injuries . These included a scratch on the upper right side of his torso measuring QUANTITY , as well as bruising on the back of his body in CARDINAL places , measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL , CARDINAL x CARDINAL , CARDINAL x CARDINAL and QUANTITY . The doctors concluded that his description of the ill - treatment was compatible with their findings .

The second applicant did not appear to have any external injuries , but his description of the ill - treatment was deemed by the doctors to be compatible with his unsettled and nervous state of mind . They concluded that further medical examinations , including a bone scintigraphy and a psychological assessment , were necessary in order to reach a definitive conclusion .

On DATE the applicants , assisted by their lawyer PERSON , lodged a formal complaint with the ORG prosecutor against the police officers . They informed him that their statements had been taken in the absence of the necessary safeguards , and contained things they had never said . They alleged that during their time in police custody , they had been subjected to ill - treatment . At the end of their detention they had not been taken to see a doctor , but had been hit with truncheons and told to “ leave and never be seen again ” . The applicants referred to their rights guaranteed by LAW , and asked the prosecutor to investigate their allegations .

DATE , the prosecutor referred the applicants to a doctor , who noted in his report that they had no visible signs of ill - treatment . He considered it necessary , however , that the applicants be examined more thoroughly at a hospital .

An investigation which had been started by a prosecutor against the second applicant and his neighbour GPE for the “ attempted robbery ” of ORG was discontinued on DATE , because the prosecutor observed that the applicants’ neighbour had been killed by the police officer , and there was no evidence implicating the second applicant in the incident .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor questioned the applicants in relation to their allegations of ill - treatment , and opened a criminal investigation file . The first applicant told the prosecutor that he and his brother , the second applicant , had been beaten up by the chief of NORP police station , whose first name was “ PERSON ” . The ill - treatment to which they had been subjected included having been stripped naked and doused with cold water . During their time at the station , they had not been given any food or allowed to inform their family or a lawyer . They had been released “ at CARDINAL or CARDINAL ” in the afternoon .

DATE , the prosecutor referred the applicants to ORG , where further medical examinations were carried out on them on DATE . According to the reports drawn up at that hospital , both applicants had a number of injuries .

On DATE the ORG branch of ORG drew up CARDINAL reports , concluding that the first applicant ’s injuries were of a nature to render him unfit for DATE . The second applicant ’s injuries , which included a number of cuts and grazes on his lip , arms and the backs of his legs , rendered him unfit for DATE .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor questioned police officers GPE and GPE , who worked at the special police station for minors and had questioned the applicants on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They told the prosecutor that on DATE they had been asked to go to LOC police station to take statements from a number of children . When they had arrived , they had been presented with CARDINAL statements allegedly taken from the children and had been asked to sign them as if they had prepared them . They had refused to do so and insisted on questioning the children themselves before returning to their own police station at TIME .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the ORG prosecutor , the chief of LOC police station , ORG , stated that no records existed at his station to show that the applicants had been detained there from DATE .

DATE and DATE the ORG prosecutor sent CARDINAL letters to ORG , unsuccessfully requesting him to ensure that QUANTITY police officers working at LOC police station attended his office . On DATE the ORG prosecutor wrote to him for a fifth time , repeating his previous requests . In the same letter he also warned that a criminal investigation would be opened against him if he failed to comply with the request .

On DATE the new chief of NORP police station replied to the prosecutor ’s letter and gave him the names of the QUANTITY police officers . He also informed him that he had been unable to contact QUANTITY of them because they were working at different police stations around the country .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG of First Instance charging a total of QUANTITY police officers with ill - treatment , an offence defined in section CARDINAL of LAW in force at the time of the events . Those indicted included the former NORP police chief GPE

The applicants joined as interveners in the criminal proceedings before ORG , which decided on DATE that the police officers should have instead been charged with the offence of torture , an offence defined in section CARDINAL of the Criminal Code which fell within the jurisdiction of ORG . The file was thus forwarded to ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was shown photographs of the CARDINAL defendant police officers . He identified GPE and CARDINAL other police officers , GPE , GPE and GPE

In the meantime , a police chief was appointed to carry out a disciplinary investigation and questioned the applicants at PERSON police station on DATE . They were accompanied by their father , PERSON , and PERSON , a lawyer . In CARDINAL almost identical statements drawn up by the investigating police officer the applicants were reported to have stated that on DATE of the incident they had been taken to the special police station for minors and not LOC police station . Furthermore , they had never been beaten up there by officers . They added that DATE after they had left the police station , they had been sniffing glue and had been high when CARDINAL of their friends had suggested they go to ORG and make a complaint against the police . That way , their friend had told them , the police would never bother them ever again . That was how they had come to make the official complaint against the police officers . The injuries detailed in the medical reports had in fact been caused in a fight they had been involved in on the street that day . The lawyers and ORG had then manipulated everything on their behalf .

DATE , the applicants gave CARDINAL petitions to ORG stating that they wanted to withdraw their complaints “ which , in any event , had been made as a result of a misunderstanding ” . Also DATE , the applicants officially dismissed PERSON , the lawyer who had been representing them since the lodging of their official complaint against the police officers .

On DATE ORG also made a statement at PERSON police station in the course of the same disciplinary investigation . He stated that when he had found out on DATE of the incident that the applicants and their friends had been taken to his station , he had had them transferred to the special police station for minors . He had never beaten them up . In his opinion , ORG had been interested in the incident because it concerned the killing of a civilian by a police officer , and it had then manipulated the incident with the assistance of a number of lawyers .

DATE . On DATE , at the end of the disciplinary investigation , the investigating police officer recommended that no disciplinary punishment should be imposed on the defendant police officers . In line with that recommendation , the police disciplinary committee decided on DATE not to impose any such punishment .

On DATE the applicants made a complaint to the ORG prosecutor , complaining that the police officers who had ill - treated them had also been responsible for , inter alia , their unlawful detention . They informed the prosecutor that they had been treated and questioned as suspects at the police station , and had had swabs taken from their hands . Nevertheless , no official records had been kept by the police officers in relation to their arrest , detention or release . This , in their opinion , meant that the police officers had committed an offence , the unlawful deprivation of their liberty . Moreover , although they had been detained for TIME , no authorisation had been sought or obtained from the prosecutor for the period exceeding that time . They argued that although they had been under DATE at the time , and should have been questioned directly by a prosecutor and in the presence of their lawyer , they had been questioned by police officers and in the absence of a lawyer .

These complaints were rejected by the prosecutor on DATE , who considered that the applicants had been questioned as “ statement makers ” , and that in an investigation into an unlawful killing there was nothing unusual about questioning people who had been seen in the vicinity of the incident . The applicants filed an objection against the prosecutor ’s decision , submitting that in the NORP legal system there was no such concept as a “ statement maker ” . They referred to the applicable legislation setting out the procedure to be followed when persons are deprived of their liberty , and argued that none of those formalities had been observed in their case . The objection was rejected by ORG on DATE and the decision served on the applicants on CARDINAL DATE .

In the meantime , PERSON , who had initially represented the applicants but had been dismissed by them on DATE , sent a letter to ORG on DATE stating that the applicants and the other children who had been arrested and ill - treated DATE were being threatened by the defendant police officers . For example , police chief PERSON had personally gone to court with the second applicant and a lawyer , and had made the second applicant sign certain documents there . He and other police officers had then threatened the applicants and their father , and had forced them to withdraw their complaints . Mr PERSON added that when he had suggested to the applicants and their father that they inform the prosecutor about the pressure being exerted on them by the police officers , they had declined to do so because they had been very scared . Mr PERSON further stated in his letter that ORG had given the applicants’ father the business card of a lawyer and had asked him to appoint him to represent the applicants .

The trial of the police officers began before ORG . During the first hearing on DATE , the newly appointed lawyer , PERSON , told the court that the applicants were known to the police because of their past criminal activities . Their initial lawyer PERSON also attended the hearing , and informed the court of the pressure being exerted on the applicants by the defendant police officers . In the official court transcript , Mr PERSON was referred to as the lawyer on record for the applicants . The court decided to hold a second hearing on DATE .

On DATE the court held an unscheduled hearing and heard the defendant police chief GPE The following entry features in the transcript of the hearing : “ Although a second hearing in this case had been scheduled for DATE , the defendant ORG and his lawyer came to court and told us that he was now working in the town of Halfeti and had come to GPE on other business . As it would be difficult for him to come back to GPE for the next scheduled hearing , he informed us that he would like to give his testimony now ” . According to the transcript , apart from the CARDINAL judges on the bench , a prosecutor , a court clerk and ORG , no one else was present . The defendant police chief told the court that the applicants and the other teenagers had been taken to his police station to be questioned as witnesses , but had subsequently been transferred to the special police station for minors . Neither he nor any of his colleagues had ill - treated them .

The applicants submitted their written observations to the trial court , complaining that the hearing held on DATE had been unlawful . They argued that the court ’s failure to ensure their attendance had deprived them of the opportunity to confront the police chief .

On DATE the first applicant went to ORG and informed the lawyers there that pressure was being exerted on him and his brother by ORG to dismiss their lawyers and withdraw their complaints . He further stated that the police chief had accompanied them to see a notary public , where they had signed a power of attorney giving their new lawyer authority . He informed ORG of his wish to be represented by his previous lawyer PERSON .

According to a report drawn up on DATE by PERSON and signed by one of his colleagues , when he and the applicants arrived at court for the second hearing , which had been scheduled for DATE , PERSON was waiting there with some of the defendant police officers . When he asked the applicants what they were doing at court , the applicants told him that they wanted to attend the hearing and continue to press charges against the police officers . Mr PERSON then unsuccessfully tried to dissuade the applicants and urged them not to attend the hearing . When they insisted on attending , all but one of the defendant police officers waiting for the hearing left the building and did not attend .

During the hearing that took place DATE , the applicants repeated their allegations of ill - treatment . PERSON , who claimed to be representing them , told the court that he had been unaware of any allegations of ill - treatment made by his clients against the police officers . The applicants then informed the court that their lawyer was PERSON and not PERSON .

On DATE the applicants officially reappointed their previous lawyers , including Mr PERSON , dismissed PERSON , and informed the court of the change of representation . At a hearing on DATE the court decided to accept the applicants as “ participants ” ( katılan ) in the proceedings . In all subsequent hearings they were referred to as such .

NORP On subsequent dates the lawyers representing the applicants continued to inform ORG and the court about the pressure being exerted on them and the applicants by the defendant police officers . They also submitted official documentation to the court showing that neither applicant had a criminal record , criticising the submissions made by PERSON , who had told the court that “ the applicants were known to the police because of their past criminal activities ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The QUANTITY police officers who worked at the special police station and had questioned the applicants on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) attended one of the hearings , and told the court that when they had arrived at LOC police station they had been presented with CARDINAL statements prepared by the police officers working there , and had been asked to sign them as if they themselves had taken them . However , they had refused to do so and had questioned the applicants personally . They also told the court that when they had urged the police officers at LOC police station to release the applicants because they were being kept there unlawfully , they had been told to mind their own business .

During the proceedings , the court was informed that the special police station for minors did not have in its possession the custody records pertaining to the relevant period . As a result , it was not known whether or not the applicants had been detained there in DATE .

A large number of defendants failed to attend the majority of the hearings held by the trial court . On each occasion the court urged them in writing to attend .

NORP The lawyers representing the applicants drew the court ’s attention to a number of shortcomings in its handling of the case , and the defendant police ORG failure to attend the hearings . They asked the court to ensure the ORG participation by , if necessary , ordering their remand in custody . The other teenagers who were taken to LOC police station with the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) also gave evidence during the trial , describing how the defendant police officers had beaten them up and tried to force them to admit that they had killed ORG who , as it later turned out , had in fact been killed by a police officer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the course of a hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the ORG father gave evidence . He told the court that his CARDINAL children had not come home for DATE . When they had finally come home , they had told him that they had been detained at LOC police station and beaten up there by officers . Mr PERSON explained to the court how his CARDINAL sons’ mental state had deteriorated after the incident . In his testimony he also detailed the threats made to him and his family by the defendant police officers , and explained how , as a result of those threats , he and his sons had had to withdraw their complaints .

On DATE the applicants submitted their written submissions to the trial court , urging it to conduct its proceedings effectively and fairly . They warned the court that the proceedings had been continuing for such a long period of time that they could soon risk becoming time - barred .

During CARDINAL of the hearings a lawyer representing the defendant police officers complained about the press coverage given to the trial , and criticised suggestions published in various newspapers that his GPE continued failure to attend the hearings would cause delays , which would cause the proceedings to become time - barred .

DATE . In a hearing held DATE , the prosecutor made his final submissions to the trial court . He argued that police chief PERSON had ill - treated the applicants and caused them minor injuries , which had necessitated minor medical treatment . The prosecutor requested the court to conclude that the offence the police chief had been charged with should be changed to illtreatment , as defined in section CARDINAL of LAW . In his opinion , the police chief had not committed torture , an offence defined in section CARDINAL of the Code , because he had not ill - treated the applicants in order to obtain information from them . In any event , they had not been detained as suspects at ORG police station . The prosecutor also recommended that the remaining police officers be acquitted .

In the course of a hearing held on DATE the lawyers representing the police officers were due to present their final defence arguments to the trial court . Nevertheless , they informed the court that they were unable to attend the hearing DATE , and it was thus postponed until DATE . According to the transcript of the hearing , the court also decided to remind the lawyers representing the police officers that attending hearings in which they were scheduled to submit their final defence submissions was a legal requirement .

During the CARDINAL hearing , held on DATE , the court decided that there was insufficient evidence to prove that CARDINAL of the defendant police officers had subjected the applicants to “ torture ” within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW , and acquitted them . It also considered that the actions of the remaining QUANTITY police officers , including police chief GPE , had amounted to “ ill - treatment ” within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW and not “ torture ” , because there was no evidence to show that the applicants had been ill - treated in order to force them to confess to a crime or give evidence . Nevertheless , as the end of the prescription period for the offence had been reached , the court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the QUANTITY police officers .

In support of its conclusion that the QUANTITY police officers had ill - treated the applicants , the court stated that they had been “ unnecessarily kept at the police station for TIME , and that their injuries had been caused when they had been pushed and jostled for no apparent reason ” .

The applicants appealed and drew ORG attention to the statements taken from them by the police officers , in which they argued they had been forced to incriminate themselves for offences they had never committed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . They argued that in the light of those statements , the police officers should have been found guilty of torture and not ill - treatment , because the statements had been obtained from them under ill - treatment . By finding them guilty of ill - treatment , for which the prescription period was shorter , the police officers had been allowed to go with impunity .

On DATE ORG held that the applicants had withdrawn their complaints against the police officers on DATE [ sic ] DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that they did not , therefore , have the requisite standing to appeal against their acquittals . It upheld the trial court ’s judgment of DATE .

In the meantime , a disciplinary investigation was conducted by ORG into the complaints made by PERSON . In a decision of DATE its ORG decided to reprimand PERSON for failing to inform Mr PERSON of his appointment to take over representation of the applicants .