Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-4) Rejection of application at any stage of the proceedings;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 18+5-1 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Iulia Motoc;Jean-Paul Costa;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Loukis Loucaides;Luzius Wildhaber;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and is now serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE .

In DATE the so - called “ Rose Revolution ” erupted in GPE , after elections perceived as rigged . It consisted of DATE of peaceful protests , and caused the then President , Mr PERSON , former First Secretary of ORG and former NORP foreign minister , who had led GPE since DATE , to resign . New presidential and parliamentary elections were held in DATE . They were won by ORG ( “ UNM ” ) , led by PERSON , one of ORG protagonists .

The applicant was an active participant in those events , a close collaborator of Mr PERSON , and a leading figure in PERSON .

Until DATE , when ORG lost the parliamentary elections to the coalition ORG , led by Mr PERSON , the applicant was a member of ORG : from DATE to DATE he was Minister of ORG and then , from DATE , Prime Minister .

On DATE , DATE after the parliamentary elections , the applicant was elected Secretary General of ORG , which became the chief opposition party in GPE .

Shortly after his term of office came to an end , after the presidential election on DATE , Mr PERSON , who had been President of GPE since DATE , left the country .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE , when he was arrested ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant had made CARDINAL trips abroad , always returning as scheduled .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant had attempted to cross the border at FAC using a fake passport .

After checking the passport against the official electronic database , an officer of ORG spotted a discrepancy between the photograph in it , which matched the applicant ’s appearance , and the other data , including the name , PERSON , which differed from the information about the applicant in the database . The officer returned the passport to the applicant ’s personal assistant , asking for clarification . The assistant then brought from the applicant ’s office another passport , issued in the applicant ’s real name and matching all his identification data . After a check of that passport ’s authenticity , the applicant was allowed to cross the border .

The same day the Border Police opened a criminal investigation into the incident . The head officer immediately went to FAC to interview the officer who had discovered the allegedly fake passport . According to evidence gathered in the course of the ensuing investigation , while he was at the airport the head of FAC received a call from the applicant on his mobile telephone . Relying on his status and long - standing personal connections within ORG , the applicant demanded that the incident not be investigated and that the border - police officer not be asked to give evidence in relation to the incident . According to statements later given to the investigating officers by the head of ORG , the applicant had threatened him personally and with regard to his career and used obscene language during their telephone conversation .

When interviewed on CARDINAL and DATE in relation to the incident , the applicant denied having presented a passport under the name of PERSON , and said that he only had CARDINAL passports , CARDINAL ordinary ones and CARDINAL diplomatic ones , all issued under his real name .

On DATE the Prosecutor ’s Office of Western Georgia in GPE opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON , the Minister of ORG in his government ( who immediately after the DATE elections had been appointed governor of the PERSON region ) , for alleged embezzlement and abuse of official authority , in relation to a “ State programme for job seekers ” put in place by the applicant ’s government DATE .

DATE the applicant and PERSON appeared before the prosecuting authorities and were interviewed as witnesses .

On DATE ORG of GPE opened separate criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged abuse of official authority in relation to a private house in GPE , a resort on GPE ’s southern LOC coast .

On DATE the applicant was examined as a witness in the context of those separate criminal proceedings .

On DATE the CARDINAL sets of proceedings were joined .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON were summoned by the investigator attached to ORG in GPE , which was dealing with the joined case , for an interview DATE . DATE the applicant ’s wife left GPE .

The applicant appeared for the interview , which took place from TIME to TIME on DATE .

DATE after the interview , at TIME , the investigator arrested the applicant under LAW ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She noted that the arrest was being made because , faced with a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and a possible punishment , the applicant might try to flee . That risk was corroborated by his attempt to cross the border with a fake passport in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , as well as by his many trips abroad , which showed that he would have no difficulties getting out of GPE . The investigator also noted that the applicant had held high office for DATE , and was still an influential figure . There was hence a risk that he would obstruct the investigation .

Shortly before that , at TIME , the investigator had also arrested PERSON GPE

DATE , at TIME , the applicant was charged .

The first charge was that DATE he had devised , and PERSON and the director of GPE ’s ORG had implemented , a scheme creating fictitious public - sector jobs for CARDINAL persons whereby they were unduly paid a total of CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL ) ( at that time equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) ) of budgetary funds for carrying out campaign work for ORG in the run - up to the DATE elections . According to the authorities , the applicant had thereby bought votes contrary to LAW , misappropriated property in large quantities , acting in an organised group and using his official position contrary to LAW § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( d ) and CARDINAL ( b ) of the LAW , and abused his power as a public official holding a political post contrary to LAW .

The second charge was that after DATE the applicant had systematically used the house in GPE , which belonged to a limited liability company under investigation by ORG , for family vacations , that in DATE and DATE he had had work costing GEL ORG done on that house with funds of ORG , and that he had caused GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to be spent on the salaries of staff servicing the house , thus depriving the ORG budget of a total of GEL MONEY ( at that time equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . According to the prosecuting authorities , the applicant had thereby infringed the inviolability of property by using an official position contrary to LAW ( b ) of LAW , misappropriated property in large quantities by using an official position contrary to LAW § CARDINAL ( d ) and CARDINAL ( b ) , and abused his power as a public official holding a political post contrary to LAW .

In their observations , the ORG set out the witness and other evidence on which those CARDINAL sets of charges were based . Many of the witnesses whose statements related to the first set of charges were current or former officials of ORG , of ORG , or of other ministries or government departments ; some were ORG party officials . Many of the witnesses whose statements related to the second set of charges were former officials of ORG .

In the meantime , the prosecuting authorities searched the applicant ’s flat . They discovered and seized GEL CARDINAL ( at that time equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) , MONEY and ORG CARDINAL in cash .

On CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office of LOC asked ORG to place the applicant in pre - trial detention . It described the offences with which the applicant was charged and cited the witness and other evidence supporting the charges . It also argued that there was a risk that the applicant would flee and a risk that he would obstruct the gathering of evidence , and that those risks could not be averted by a less restrictive measure .

In the prosecution ’s view , the risk of flight was borne out , firstly , by the applicant ’s having established , by dint of his having held high public office for DATE , many contacts abroad and in GPE , which would facilitate his departure from the country . Since DATE he had crossed the border CARDINAL times . Secondly , the applicant ’s wife had left the country on CARDINAL DATE , immediately after the applicant had been served with the summons to appear for his interview with the investigator in GPE . Thirdly , the search of the applicant ’s flat on CARDINAL DATE had revealed large sums in cash . It was reasonable to suppose that the applicant had amassed that money in order to be able to leave the country . Fourthly , the applicant had a fake international passport that had been issued to him at the time when he had still been Minister of ORG . Lastly , the seriousness of the charges which the applicant was facing and the severity of the possible sentence also had to be taken into account .

The risk of obstructing the gathering of evidence was , for its part , borne out by the applicant ’s having held a number of high political posts and by his uncivil attempt to put pressure on the head of ORG during the incident on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The prosecution requested that the applicant ’s co - accused , PERSON , also be placed in pre - trial detention .

Counsel for the applicant opposed the prosecution ’s request . In their written submissions to ORG they argued that since the applicant had been a member of the Government , by law only the Minister of ORG could institute criminal proceedings against him . Yet he had been arrested by an investigator from the district prosecutor ’s office of LOC , and charged by a prosecutor from the same office . His arrest and the criminal proceedings against him were therefore unlawful . Moreover , his arrest had been in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The alleged risk that he would flee was not supported by concrete evidence , and was belied by his repeated appearances before the investigating authorities and his public pledge that he would cooperate with them . Also , he had been out of GPE many times and had not once tried to flee , including after the opening of the investigation . On DATE of his arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning . There had therefore been no need to detain him without a judicial warrant . The alleged risk of his obstructing the investigation was also not specifically borne out . Moreover , the investigation had already lasted DATE without any instances of his having interfered with it being reported . Counsel for the applicant also invited the court to take into account the applicant ’s achievements in combating crime and police reform during his time in office .

The Kutaisi City Court heard the prosecution ’s request at a public hearing held on DATE , CARDINAL DATE . Both parties made oral submissions .

After the hearing , the court decided to place the applicant in pre - trial detention , but to release PERSON on bail . It briefly noted that , according to the materials in the case file , there had been no serious procedural breaches in the applicant ’s arrest or the bringing of charges against him . In particular , by law only acting , not former , members of the Government had to be prosecuted by the Minister of ORG rather than a regular prosecutor . The court went on to say that there was enough information to show that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and PERSON The other pre - requisites for placing the applicant in pre - trial detention were also in place . A number of investigative steps were yet to be carried out , and as was apparent from the prosecution ’s request , there was a risk that the applicant would tamper with the evidence or put pressure on witnesses . That was borne out , in particular , by the applicant ’s having already tried to put pressure on a witness against him . Another factor which suggested such a risk was that the applicant had for DATE held high public office and was still an influential figure in some circles of NORP society , especially bearing in mind that the charges against him related to his time in office . Many witnesses were former subordinates of his or people under his professional or personal influence . The court also agreed with the prosecution that there was a risk that the applicant would flee . That was borne out , in particular , by his facing serious charges and the possibility of a severe sentence . Lastly , the court found that those CARDINAL risks could not be averted by a less restrictive measure .

NORP The court fixed the pre - trial conference hearing for DATE .

The applicant was remanded in custody in Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG . He argued that on a proper reading of the relevant statutory provisions the Minister of ORG alone was competent to prosecute offences committed by anyone in their capacity as member of the Government , not only someone who was such a member at the time when the prosecution was being brought . He also argued that ORG had erred by not examining in detail the lawfulness of his arrest . That arrest had been in breach of LAW , in particular because on DATE of the arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning . It was also hard to believe that ORG , which had ruled on the prosecution ’s request CARDINAL or four hours after it had been made , had really studied the evidence said to give rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicant . There were no facts or information in the case file to suggest that he had committed the offences . The lower court had also expected him to disprove the risks of flight and obstruction of justice alleged by the prosecution rather than require the prosecution to establish those risks . Its finding that the applicant had put pressure on a witness ran counter to the presumption of innocence . He had never called or threatened the head of ORG . ORG had also disregarded the fact that in DATE before his arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning several times . Neither that court nor the prosecution had pointed to evidence showing that he would flee abroad . He had travelled out of GPE many times since the investigation had been opened . The argument that his being an influential figure in some circles suggested that he could influence witnesses made it clear that he was a victim of political persecution . His character showed that there was not even a minimal risk of his fleeing , putting pressure on witnesses or destroying evidence .

On DATE ORG , having examined the appeal on the papers , declared it inadmissible . It noted that ORG had reviewed the materials in the case and the evidence submitted to it , and had checked whether the gathering of that evidence and the bringing of the charges against the applicant had complied with LAW . When deciding to place the applicant in pre - trial detention , that court had taken into account his personality and the risk of his obstructing the proceedings . Since that court had already dealt with all the points raised in the appeal , as well as with all the important points concerning the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention , there was no reason to entertain the appeal .

On DATE the prosecution , citing the need for additional investigative steps , asked ORG to adjourn the pre - trial conference hearing until DATE . On DATE the court partly allowed the request , adjourning the conference until DATE .

On DATE the applicant , citing the volume of materials in the case file and the need for more time to prepare his defence , sought a further adjournment of the pre - trial conference . The prosecution objected , stating that the applicant was trying to protract the proceedings and leave less time for the examination of the case on the merits . On DATE ORG allowed the request in full and scheduled the pre - trial conference for DATE .

The pre - trial conference hearing took place on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE DATE .

At the session on DATE the applicant requested to be released from pre - trial detention . He pointed out that he had publicly pledged to cooperate with the investigation , that before his arrest he had always duly appeared for questioning , and that he had been abroad many times and had always returned as scheduled . He also offered to hand in his passport . He went on to say that since the investigation had already been concluded and the authorities had secured all witness and other evidence , there was no longer a risk of his influencing witnesses , which in any event did not exist since he no longer held the high posts which he had occupied previously .

The prosecution argued that the applicant ’s high political status and connections abroad and his possession of CARDINAL diplomatic passports and a fake passport made it easy for him to leave GPE . It was also possible that he had other unidentified passports , a device used by other former officials to get out of the country . The surrender of his passport would therefore not obviate the risk of flight . The risk of his influencing witnesses was also still present . He had already done so on DATE , when no longer occupying an official post . Moreover , the witnesses were still due to testify at trial , which was by law the only way of adducing their evidence .

ORG examined and rejected the request for release DATE . It gave its decision orally . As evidenced by the audio record of the hearing , the judge said , without further explanation , that the “ request for termination of the pre - trial detention [ wa]s to be rejected ” .

The applicant ’s trial started on DATE , and he again sought release from pre - trial detention . He pointed out that before his arrest he had always appeared freely before the investigating authorities , had repeatedly declared that he had no intention of fleeing , had been abroad and back even after the proceedings against him had started , was the secretary general of a major political party , and had a wife and CARDINAL children . All those factors showed that there was no real risk of his fleeing . Nor was there any risk of his influencing witnesses . The prosecuting authorities had already questioned a considerable number of witnesses , and there was no risk that those witnesses would change their statements , as they could incur criminal liability if they did so .

ORG rejected the request in a written decision of DATE . It noted that the applicant had failed to point to , or provide evidence of , new circumstances calling for a reconsideration of the decision to place him in pre - trial detention . In that decision , the court had already dealt with all the points raised in his request . The fact that the trial had already started had no bearing on the justification for the applicant ’s detention .

The court went on to say that its decision could be appealed against at the same time as its final judgment on the merits of the criminal case .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of buying votes contrary to LAW , and of misappropriating property in large quantities , acting in an organised group and using his official position contrary to LAW § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( d ) and CARDINAL ( b ) of the LAW , in relation to the fictitious - jobs scheme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also found the applicant guilty of infringing the inviolability of property by using an official position contrary to LAW , and of misappropriating property in large quantities by using an official position contrary to LAW § CARDINAL ( d ) and CARDINAL ( b ) of the LAW , in relation to the house in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court dismissed the charges of abuse of power under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code as superfluous . It sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and banned him from holding public office for DATE .

The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG upheld it in full .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s ensuing appeal on points of law inadmissible .

On DATE ORG charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence , contrary to LAW , in relation to his role in a police operation to disperse a rally on CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG placed the applicant in pre - trial detention in relation to that charge , and on DATE convicted him of it . The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld it . An appeal by the applicant to ORG on points of law was declared inadmissible on DATE .

On DATE ORG charged the applicant with abusing his power as a public official holding a political post , contrary to LAW . The case concerned the applicant ’s role , in his capacity as Minister of ORG , in the alleged cover - up of a DATE murder implicating high - ranking officers of ORG and the applicant ’s wife ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . DATE , on DATE , ORG refused the prosecution ’s request to place the applicant in pre - trial detention in relation to that charge . The applicant was later additionally charged with forging official documents in his capacity as an official , contrary to LAW . On DATE the ORG convicted him of the CARDINAL offences , and on DATE ORG upheld the conviction .

On DATE ORG charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence , contrary to LAW , in relation to his role in the planning and supervision of a police raid on a private television and radio company , ORG , on DATE , and the ensuing withdrawal of the company ’s broadcasting licence ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . The case is apparently still pending before ORG .

On DATE ORG charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence , contrary to LAW , in relation to his having allegedly ordered high - ranking police officers to have a member of parliament subjected to ill - treatment in reprisal for having made insulting public statements about Mr PERSON ’s wife . The prosecuting authorities later also charged the applicant with wilfully causing that person grievous bodily harm , acting in concert with others , contrary to LAW . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of those offences . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE , during a court hearing in the trial against him , which was being broadcast live on television , the applicant stated that at about TIME DATE , DATE , he had been taken out of his prison cell , put in a car with his head shrouded in his jacket , and driven from Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE , where he was being held in custody , to what he believed to be ORG building . There , he had been taken to an office where , having had the jacket removed from his head , he had seen CARDINAL men . The first had been the then Chief Public Prosecutor , PERSON The applicant was not certain of the identity of the second , as he had left the office shortly after his arrival , but surmised that he had been Mr GPE , the head of ORG . PERSON who had been appointed as ORG on DATE and resigned on DATE over allegations that he had a criminal record in GPE DATE had requested the applicant to provide information about the death in DATE of Mr PERSON , the then Prime Minister , and about the bank accounts of the already former President of GPE , PERSON PERSON . If the applicant did that , he would be allowed to leave GPE with “ the money that he [ had ] made during his time in office ” .

Mr GPE was CARDINAL of the protagonists of the Rose Revolution ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Shortly after it , in DATE , he became Prime Minister . In DATE the applicant became Minister of ORG in his government . PERSON died in DATE . On DATE his dead body was found along with the dead body of Mr GPE , a deputy regional governor , in a flat in GPE . According to the official version of the events , the CARDINAL had died accidentally from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by faulty ventilation in a gas heater . The circumstances of PERSON death are still a subject of heated debate in GPE , and ORG made it CARDINAL of their campaign promises in the DATE elections to elucidate them . Shortly after those elections , in DATE , the investigation into PERSON death was renewed and is apparently still pending . The applicant was questioned as a witness in the course of that renewed investigation on DATE . During the hearing before ORG , the Government stated that while no one had asked the applicant anything about Mr Zhvania ’s death on DATE , there was still a “ huge question ” to him in relation to that death , in view of the lack of credibility of the version that he had put forward at the time when it had happened : that it had been due to an accident .

According to the applicant , he had replied to PERSON that it made no sense to accuse Mr PERSON of corruption . As for PERSON death , the investigation into it in DATE had been comprehensive , and there was no further information that he could provide in relation to it . PERSON had then threatened the applicant that if he did not cooperate , his detention conditions would worsen and he would not be able to get out of prison “ until [ Mr PERSON ] ’s government was in power ” . PERSON had become Prime Minister of GPE on DATE , succeeding PERSON GPE , who had become Prime Minister on DATE , following the parliamentary election won by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

According to the applicant , he was then taken back to Prison no . CARDINAL , arriving in his cell at TIME

The applicant went on to say that he could describe the office where the meeting had taken place and identify the CARDINAL men who had taken him from Prison no . CARDINAL to that office .

At the end of his statement , the applicant suggested that the authorities could verify his allegations by checking the footage from the surveillance cameras in Prison no . CARDINAL . He also requested an examination of the footage from the road - traffic cameras situated along the road allegedly taken by the car transporting him from the prison to ORG .

In the proceedings before ORG , the applicant submitted that he had first discussed the meeting with ORG with his lawyers when they had visited him in prison DATE , on DATE . According to him , he could not have voiced his allegations earlier , as he was not allowed to receive visitors during DATE and did not have free access to a telephone . For their part , the Government submitted that the applicant could have telephoned his lawyers or ORG at any time , including at DATE and during TIME .

The applicant ’s allegations prompted public reactions from several high officials .

DATE . On DATE , DATE , the Prime Minister stated that the allegations were an attempt to discredit the Government and a provocation , and that “ questions should be rather put to psychologists and psychiatrists ” in connection with them . In an official statement put out DATE , ORG described the allegations as “ absurd and untrue ” , and surmised that the applicant had made them to manipulate public opinion and the criminal trial against him .

For her part , the Minister of ORG stated that , while the allegations appeared “ unbelievable ” , they were to be addressed seriously .

The following day , DATE , the Prime Minister again described the allegations as a provocation and said that he would not take seriously calls for the Minister of Prisons and ORG to be suspended from office . For his part , the Minister of Prisons stated that “ [ the applicant had ] not [ been ] taken out of prison ” and that the allegations were “ an absolute lie ” . He went on to specify , in relation to the surveillance camera footage to which the applicant referred ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that “ the footage [ could ] not be obtained , as no investigation [ was ] being launched into such unserious matters ” . He noted , however , that if an investigation were opened , the investigators would obtain access to the footage , which otherwise no one had the right to see .

DATE , DATE , GPE ’s Public Defender visited the applicant in prison to discuss his allegations . After the meeting , he called for an investigation into them .

On DATE ORG opened an internal inquiry into the applicant ’s allegations . It was in the main handled by CARDINAL inspectors .

DATE , DATE , ORG deputy head wrote to the deputy head of ORG , requesting a copy of the footage from the surveillance cameras in Prison no . CARDINAL and the ORG building for the period TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE .

In his reply of DATE , ORG deputy head said that the request could not be complied with as the footage from those cameras was kept for TIME , following which it was automatically deleted .

At that time there were apparently no rules on the amount of time for which the footage was to be kept . Such rules were first put in place in DATE in response to criticism by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ CPT ” ) in the report of its visit to GPE in DATE .

DATE . According to the Government , the applicant was aware of the limited time for which the footage was kept and had for that reason first voiced his allegations about the meeting with ORG DATE after it had taken place .

According to the applicant , the footage was kept for CARDINAL . In support of that assertion , he pointed out that ORG deputy head was apparently unaware of the time - limit when asking for it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant also submitted an affidavit by PERSON , deputy Minister of Prisons DATE , who had been in charge of reforming the surveillance system in prisons and had set up the ORG ’s information - technology department in DATE . According to that affidavit , surveillance camera footage was saved on servers and back - up servers in ORG itself , and kept for DATE . It could not be deleted before the expiry of that period without outside interference .

According to ORG response to the ORG ’s report on its visit to GPE in DATE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) , footage from the surveillance cameras was kept for TIME in every prison equipped with a video surveillance system , the reason for the limited duration being a lack of adequate technical equipment . Footage was kept for longer in several prisons where the surveillance equipment and servers had been upgraded shortly before that ( ibid . , at pp . QUANTITY ) .

On DATE ORG head asked CARDINAL private companies who owned facilities equipped with surveillance cameras , such as petrol stations , along the road supposedly taken by the car transporting the applicant from Prison no . CARDINAL to ORG to provide the footage for the period TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . All but CARDINAL of those companies , which replied that the footage had already been deleted , complied with the request , and the footage was simultaneously reviewed by the CARDINAL inspectors between CARDINAL and DATE . Their notes stated briefly , without providing further details , that they had seen nothing of interest .

On DATE CARDINAL of the inspectors interviewed the applicant and the governor and deputy governor of Prison no . CARDINAL .

The applicant stated that he had been taken out of his cell by the governor , who had told him that a prosecutor wished to speak with him . Once in the prison yard , CARDINAL other men , whose features he clearly remembered , had put him in a dark - coloured car , probably a ORG Land Cruiser Prado or CARDINAL . The car had been driven by a third man whose features the applicant could not make out because once inside the car he had been blindfolded with his jacket . The car had moved for TIME along main roads . Based on the direction of the drive , the applicant had surmised that he was being taken to ORG . During the drive , one of the men in the car had made a mobile telephone call informing someone that they would arrive in TIME . A short while after that , the same person had received a call saying that they would arrive in TIME . The applicant stated that he did not wish to describe in detail the office to which he had been taken , but that he could recognise it . He relayed in detail his conversation with the head of ORG , ORG , noting that he had appeared heavily intoxicated . He did not describe in detail his ensuing conversation with ORG , PERSON , stating that he had already spoken about that at the hearing on DATE .

The governor and the deputy governor both stated that they had been in Prison no . CARDINAL in TIME of the alleged meeting , DATE , but that they had not seen or spoken to the applicant . When asked about the surveillance cameras , the governor said that if there had been any problem with them , he would have been told about it by the officers working in the technical room , which had not happened . He also specified that his service car was a black ORG Land Cruiser Prado , and provided the registration number .

Still on DATE CARDINAL of the inspectors reviewed the logs for the movement of vehicles in and out of Prison no . CARDINAL . They did not contain any entries suggesting that the applicant had been taken out of the prison during TIME in question .

DATE ORG head asked ORG to provide footage from the road - traffic cameras along the road supposedly taken by the car transporting the applicant from Prison no . CARDINAL to ORG for the time TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . Footage from CARDINAL road - traffic cameras for the time TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE was provided on DATE and was reviewed by CARDINAL inspectors DATE . Their notes stated briefly , without providing further details , that they had seen nothing of interest in it .

DATE , DATE , the inspectors interviewed CARDINAL prison officers supervising the movement of prisoners in Prison no . CARDINAL and a prison officer tasked with escorting prisoners in the applicant ’s wing in and out of their cells , all CARDINAL of whom had been on duty TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . All CARDINAL officers dismissed the applicant ’s allegations as untrue , and stated that if he had been taken out of his cell they would have known about it and would have recorded it in the relevant logs .

On DATE CARDINAL of the inspectors interviewed CARDINAL prison officers who had been in charge of monitoring the surveillance cameras in Prison no . CARDINAL from screens in a technical room inside the prison and who had been on duty TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . Both of them stated that nothing unusual had happened TIME and that the cameras had been working properly throughout . The CARDINAL officers had learned about the applicant ’s allegations from the media , and dismissed them as untrue . They also stated that there was a surveillance camera inside the applicant ’s cell , and that it enabled them to monitor all of his movements in and out of it .

On DATE CARDINAL of the inspectors reviewed the logs for the movement of people in and out of Prison no . CARDINAL . They did not contain any entries suggesting that the applicant had been taken out during TIME in question , but showed that he had been visited by his CARDINAL lawyers DATE , on DATE .

Neither Mr O.P. nor Mr D.D. were interviewed or asked to provide explanations in the course of the inquiry .

On DATE one of the inspectors drew up a report in which he stated that the inquiry had not confirmed the applicant ’s allegations . In a letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s lawyer , apparently in response to a request for information on his part made on DATE , that the inquiry was complete .

DATE after the end of the inquiry , DATE , the Public Defender reiterated his call for a full - scale investigation into the applicant ’s allegations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE several non - governmental organisations also urged the authorities to carry out a full investigation into the applicant ’s allegations , expressing concern in particular about the lingering uncertainty surrounding the footage from the prison surveillance cameras .

NORP In a television interview on DATE , the Prime Minister , PERSON PERSON , said that the applicant ’s allegations were “ absurd and ridiculous ” and that he had very much liked a “ rhetorical question ” asked by the former Prime Minister , PERSON , in relation to them DATE , on DATE : “ So what happened after [ Mr PERSON ] abducted [ the applicant ] ? What did he do to [ him ] then , did he rape him or what ? ”

On DATE a member of parliament from ORG revealed documents showing that in DATE forty officials from ORG – among whom were the head of ORG , ORG , his deputies , the governors of several prisons , and a Mr PERSON , head of the special forces of ORG – had received high bonuses : GEL CARDINAL ( at that time equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for ORG ; GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) and GEL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) respectively for his deputies ; for prison governors , sums ranging from GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL to GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL ; and GEL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for Mr PERSON The member of parliament suggested that the bonuses had been paid to recompense those officials for keeping the meeting between the applicant and the Chief Public Prosecutor secret . In response to those allegations , Mr D.D. stated that the bonuses had been exceptionally high because all those who had received them had worked in difficult conditions for TIME a day . For his part , the Minister of Prisons stated that the bonuses had been personally approved by Mr D.D.

At the hearing before ORG , the Government denied the existence of any link between those bonuses and the applicant ’s allegations , emphasising that officials from other prisons had also received them . The Government also stated that it was usual for such bonuses to be paid at DATE to government employees , especially law - enforcement officials .

In an interview with a newspaper journalist on CARDINAL DATE Ms GPE , adviser to Mr D.D. , said : “ [ E]ven a child knows that [ the applicant ] was taken from his prison cell by GPE ” . In a television interview DATE she said that she had spoken with officials from ORG who had confirmed that ORG had instructed them to conceal the surveillance - camera footage from TIME of DATE . The following day , DATE , Mr D.D. dismissed PERSON from her post . DATE , on DATE , he himself resigned , apparently in connection with the controversy which had erupted following the disclosure of the bonuses paid in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , during an appeal court hearing in an unrelated criminal case concerning a DATE operation in the course of which officers of the special forces of ORG had killed CARDINAL people , CARDINAL of the co - accused , Mr DATE . , stated that he had information about the applicant ’s meeting with ORG . A number of people had been arrested and accused in that case , which became known as the “ GPE ” case , including ( a ) the CARDINAL officers who had carried out the operation , CARDINAL of whom was a Mr I.M. ; ( b ) the special forces’ then deputy head , Mr PERSON ( who DATE , in DATE , was appointed by PERSON as head of the special forces of ORG – see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; ( c ) Mr GPE , former deputy head of ORG of ORG ; and ( d ) the above - mentioned Mr DATE . , former deputy head of that ORG .

After the delivery of the ORG judgment on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the speaker and several members of ORG called for a fresh investigation into the applicant ’s allegations . The Minister of ORG stated that she hoped that the prosecuting authorities would carry out an investigation in connection with the ORG ’s findings under LAW . She went on to say that the Government would seek a referral of the case before ORG .

On DATE ORG opened a criminal investigation and assigned it to CARDINAL investigators from its investigative department .

The applicant was interviewed on DATE . He reiterated his assertions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE in relation to his conversations with Mr GPE and PERSON , and the car which had taken him to his meeting with them ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . With regard to his removal from Prison no . CARDINAL , the applicant stated that when entering his cell to take him out , the prison governor had been accompanied by his deputy . He also stated that although he could not describe the CARDINAL men who had then put him in the car , he could recognise them , in particular one of them , who had a distinctive face . The applicant also named the roads along which the car had allegedly driven .

On DATE CARDINAL of the investigators interviewed the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL . He stated that the applicant had not been taken out of his cell , either by himself or by anyone else . He also stated , inter alia , that pre - trial detainees were entitled to telephone ORG at any time during DATE , and that CARDINAL and DATE the applicant had not asked to make such a call . He stated , further , that a surveillance camera had been installed in the applicant ’s cell with his consent , for his own safety , but that the footage from that camera , just like the footage from all other surveillance cameras in the prison , was only kept for TIME .

NORP The following day , DATE , the other investigator interviewed the deputy governor of Prison no . CARDINAL . His statement was almost identical to that of the governor . He stated that he had learned about the applicant ’s allegations from the media and that they were false . He also confirmed that pre - trial detainees were entitled to telephone ORG at any time during DATE .

On DATE the investigators interviewed the CARDINAL prison officers in charge of monitoring the surveillance cameras in Prison no . CARDINAL . They confirmed the statements that they had given during the internal inquiry ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Both stated that the footage from the cameras was only kept for TIME and then automatically deleted . Only if something unusual was noted during that time would the relevant footage be specially retrieved and kept for DATE . Since nothing of the sort had happened in TIME of DATE , the footage for that period had not been retrieved .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators interviewed the CARDINAL prison officers in charge of supervising the movement of prisoners in Prison no . CARDINAL . They likewise confirmed their statements given during the internal inquiry ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE one of the investigators interviewed the prison officer in charge of escorting prisoners in the applicant ’s wing in and out of their cells . He stated that no one had gone into the applicant ’s cell in TIME of DATE .

On DATE one of the investigators interviewed CARDINAL of the inspectors from ORG of ORG who had carried out the internal inquiry . The inspector described the steps that he had taken during the inquiry . In response to a question about the surveillance camera footage from Prison no . CARDINAL , he stated that the inquiry had been informed that that footage was only kept for TIME . He went on to say that the examination of the footage from the private and the roadtraffic cameras had not yielded any relevant information . In particular , it had been impossible to make out the registration numbers of the vehicles caught on camera . No car matching the description given by the applicant had been spotted .

On DATE one of the investigators interviewed Mr D.D. ’s deputy . He stated that the footage from the surveillance cameras was kept for TIME , and denied the applicant ’s allegations . He explained that he had been at work in the ORG building in TIME of DATE , in his office which was just opposite that of Mr D.D. , and that he had not seen the applicant or PERSON there .

DATE the investigators reviewed the footage obtained during the internal inquiry ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Their reports said , without giving further details , that they had not seen anything in it of interest for the case .

On DATE the investigators interviewed Mr DATE . ( see paragraphCARDINAL above ) in the presence of a judge . He stated , inter alia , that on DATE , while in court for a pre - trial hearing in the “ GPE ” case , he had heard CARDINAL of his co - accused , Mr PERSON , former deputy head of the special forces of ORG and former head of the special forces of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , say that he had been CARDINAL of those who had transported the applicant on DATE , and that for that reason it would not be in the authorities’ interests to keep him in detention for a long time . According to Mr DATE . , that conversation had been recorded by the video camera in the courtroom , and overheard by another of the co - accused , Mr GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . Mr DATE . also stated that DATE , in DATE , Mr PERSON and the other special - forces officers accused in the “ GPE ” case , including Mr GPE , had been placed in a cell in Prison no . CARDINAL adjacent to his . Mr DATE . had then heard Mr PERSON tell his cellmates that he and Mr GPE had transported the applicant on DATE , and that it had been agreed with the authorities to release the specialforces officers if they agreed to give evidence against Mr I.P. and others connected with ORG in the “ FAC case . ( From the materials in the case file it appears that those officers , who had been charged with aggravated murder under LAW , were released in DATE under personal surety . ) Mr DATE . had been able to hear the entire conversation through the wall as they had talked in loud voices . Mr DATE . also stated that during his stay in Prison no . CARDINAL a prison officer had told him about the applicant ’s removal from his cell . When asked why he had not spoken about that earlier , Mr DATE . replied that it was because he had no trust in the prosecuting authorities . He also stated that he had no incentive to bend the truth in favour of the applicant as the applicant had dismissed him from his post and had caused him to be detained in connection with a fight .

On DATE the investigators interviewed Mr GPE , then in detention , in the presence of a judge . Mr GPE stated that shortly before his arrest in the “ GPE ” case in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he had met with Mr PERSON , who had told him , albeit in veiled terms , that he and Mr GPE had transported the applicant from Prison no . CARDINAL to ORG , and that if the prosecuting authorities did not take that into account he would start talking about it in public . Mr I.P. also confirmed Mr G.Ts . ’s story about the conversation in the courtroom on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He stated , in addition , that a Mr GPE , with whom he had shared a cell in Prison no . CARDINAL , had told him that he had seen the applicant being taken out of his cell on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , PERSON had only spoken about that after the delivery of the ORG judgment on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE of the investigators interviewed Mr PERSON and the other interviewed Mr GPE Mr PERSON denied Mr DATE . ’s and Mr I.P. ’s assertions that it had been he who had transported the applicant . He was not asked about the bonus which he had received in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Mr GPE likewise denied that he had transported the applicant , and stated that he had only started working at ORG on DATE , DATE after the alleged incident .

On CARDINAL , DATE and QUANTITY DATE the investigators interviewed the other CARDINAL special - forces officers detained in relation to the “ GPE ” case alongside Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr DATE . and Mr GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . All of them stated that they had learned about the applicant ’s allegations from the media , and that during their stay in the same cell as PERSON PERSON he had not told them anything about the applicant ’s alleged removal from his cell .

On DATE of the investigators interviewed Mr GPE , who from CARDINAL to DATE had been detained in a cell in the same wing as that of the applicant , in the presence of a judge . Mr GPE , who had previously held various high - ranking positions in ORG and ORG , stated that on DATE he had seen the prison governor take the applicant out of his cell through the gap between the door of his cell and its frame . He had discussed that with Mr I.P. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with whom he had later shared a cell , but only after the delivery of the ORG judgment on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . When asked why he had not spoken about all this earlier , PERSON replied that when observing the reactions to the applicant ’s allegations , he had realised that his speaking about the issue might have repercussions for him , especially as he was detained in the same prison in which some of the alleged perpetrators were employed .

DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators went to Prison no . CARDINAL and examined Mr GPE ’s cell . According to their report , it was impossible to observe the corridor from inside the cell with the door closed . The door was fully intact and there was no gap between the door and the frame . The examination was video recorded by CARDINAL of the investigators .

DATE , on DATE , the prosecutor supervising the investigation decided to carry out an experiment in the cell with Mr GPE ’s participation , with a view to checking whether Mr GPE could really observe the corridor from inside the cell . Mr PERSON refused to take part in the experiment , saying that he first wished to consult with his lawyer . CARDINAL of the investigators called the lawyer but he refused to see Mr GPE DATE , CARDINAL DATE , Mr GPE again refused to participate in the experiment in the absence of his lawyer . On DATE the report of the cell ’s examination was sent to ORG together with the video recording . The experts were asked , among other things , to examine whether there was a gap between the cell door when closed and the frame , and if so , to specify its size and exact location . In their report , filed on DATE , the experts stated that there was no such gap because the door protruded QUANTITY from its frame . They went on to say that , in view of the door ’s width and locking system , it was impossible to deform it without special instruments .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the investigators interviewed CARDINAL inmates who had shared Mr GPE ’s cell at the relevant time . All CARDINAL stated that they had only learned about the applicant ’s allegations from the media , and that Mr GPE had not spoken to them about that . The investigators also obtained confirmation from ORG that no work had been done in Mr PERSON ’s cell between DATE and the time when they examined it .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the investigators also interviewed CARDINAL prison officers working in Prison no . CARDINAL . All but CARDINAL of those officers had been on duty during TIME of DATE . All of them stated that they had learned about the applicant ’s allegations from the media . None of them had seen the prison governor or deputy governor that night in the wing containing the applicant ’s cell .

On CARDINAL DATE one of the investigators interviewed PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She stated that relations between her and her former boss , Mr D.D. , had become strained after the bonuses paid in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She went on to say that she had only learned about the applicant ’s allegations from the media , and that her statements in DATE had been twisted and taken out of context by the journalists who had interviewed her . She knew nothing about the incident .

On DATE of the investigators interviewed the by then former head of ORG , Mr D.D. He denied the applicant ’s allegations , and stated that on DATE he had been in GPE , coming back to GPE TIME and remaining in his office late into TIME . According to him , the applicant had voiced his allegations DATE after the incident because he was aware that the surveillance - camera footage was only kept for TIME . He also stated that his service car at the relevant time had been a Toyota Land Cruiser CARDINAL . He was not asked about the DATE bonuses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the same investigator interviewed the by then former Chief Public Prosecutor , PERSON He described the applicant ’s allegations as false and politically motivated . He had never met the applicant in person or been in the ORG building . During TIME of DATE he had been in his office . At the relevant time , there had been no need to question the applicant and , had such a need arisen , he could have been questioned via the official channels rather than in the way alleged by him . PERSON also stated that his service car at the relevant time had been a ORG LX CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigators interviewed CARDINAL of the CARDINAL inspectors from ORG who had reviewed the surveillance footage in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . They said , among other things , that they had been unable to make out any vehicle registration numbers and that they had not seen a vehicle matching the description given by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked ORG and ORG for a copy of the footage obtained in the internal inquiry . He received no reply to those requests .

DATE the investigators asked CARDINAL experts from ORG to check whether the footage had been tampered with . In their report , the experts stated that they had not detected any traces of editing . They confirmed that statement when interviewed on DATE .

The investigators also obtained expert reports and statements by the prison officers confirming that the prison logs for CARDINAL and DATE had not been tampered with .

The investigators obtained , in addition , data from the prosecuting authorities’ document - management system according to which TIME on DATE ORG , PERSON , had been logged in the system and working on official correspondence . At the hearing before FAC , the applicant ’s representatives challenged the authenticity of that data . They also stated that even if it were to be taken at face value , it only showed that PERSON had been in his office until TIME on DATE , whereas the alleged meeting with the applicant had taken place TIME . Since ORG building was CARDINAL away from ORG building , that data did not therefore negate the applicant ’s allegations .

On DATE a prosecutor from ORG closed the investigation . In his decision he set out in detail the witness and other evidence obtained during the investigation , and concluded that on DATE the applicant had not been taken out of his cell .

Since the parliamentary elections in DATE , a number of former high public officials from ORG , including the President of GPE until DATE , Mr PERSON , and several government ministers , have been prosecuted , some in separate sets of proceedings , in relation to offences allegedly committed by them while in office .

At a press conference on CARDINAL DATE ORG then leader and Prime Minister of GPE since DATE , Mr GPE , in response to a question whether the recent arrests of several former senior officials would lead to criminal proceedings against others , including the President , Mr PERSON , stated that it was not his wish to have an indefinite number of arrests , including that of PERSON PERSON . He added that he was not interfering with the work of the prosecuting authorities and it was up to them to decide who should face prosecution . He went on to say that PERSON ’s “ conduct increase[d ] the queues at the FAC offices ” .

According to an affidavit by PERSON , a former member of ORG ’s leadership , submitted by the applicant , shortly after the DATE parliamentary elections , on DATE , he had met in private with PERSON to discuss the transition of power . PERSON had allegedly told him , inter alia , that key members of the PERSON leadership would face criminal prosecution unless they refrained from challenging the new government : “ The more problems you create , the more people from your team will go to jail ” .

In DATE those criminal prosecutions drew expressions of concern from ORG ’s Secretary General , ORG President , ORG High Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy and the GPE Secretary of ORG . In DATE a group of GPE senators wrote an open letter to GPE ’s Prime Minister to express their concern that the proceedings could be politically motivated . In DATE a group of GPE congressmen did the same in a letter to GPE Secretary of ORG . So did CARDINAL members of ORG , in a DATE address to GPE ’s Prime Minister , as well as the foreign ministers of GPE and GPE .

In DATE the Special Representative on LOC of ORG of ORG “ LOC ” ) expressed concern over the applicant ’s and Mr GPE ’s arrests . So did several GPE senators , leaders of ORG and the President of GPE .

In his report , “ GPE in Transition ” , published in DATE , ORG Special Adviser on Constitutional and Legal Reform and Human Rights in GPE , Mr PERSON , former ORG Commissioner for Human Rights , said , at pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ ORG has initiated investigations against a number of office - holders in the previous administration . Prosecutors have questioned CARDINAL persons , most of them ORG party activists , as witnesses in the framework of investigations into different suspected crimes , including misuse of the ORG funds and money laundering . The opposition party considers this questioning to be a politically motivated attack on the opposition . Currently , CARDINAL former central officials are charged of whom CARDINAL are in pre - trial detention , CARDINAL have been released on bail , CARDINAL is released without restrictive measure , CARDINAL has been pardoned by the President after conviction and CARDINAL have left the country . Other former civil servants have also been charged or were convicted .

CARDINAL of those charged and held in pre - trial detention is [ the applicant ] who is not only a former Prime Minister and former Minister of ORG but was also Secretary General of UNM at the time of arrest . The ORG has consistently and vehemently been challenging the necessity of applying this measure of restraint . The case has raised deep concerns in relation to the forthcoming presidential election – as one of the key organisers of the opposition became prevented from contributing to the campaign .

There are signs that the courts are more independent than earlier in relation to requests from the prosecutors . For instance , there was an acquittal in a case against another former Minister , and the request for pre - trial detention was refused in another case against a leading ORG politician . ”

In a report on his visit to GPE in DATE ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) ORG Commissioner for Human Rights noted , in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the allegations of selective justice in relation to those criminal cases and stated , in paragraph CARDINAL :

“ The persistence of allegations and other information indicative of deficiencies marring the criminal investigation and judicial processes in cases involving political opponents are a cause for concern , as this can cast doubt on the outcome of the cases concerned even when there have been solid grounds for the charges retained and the final convictions . The NORP authorities must address these issues at the systemic level , in the interests of respecting fair trial guarantees for everyone and in enhancing public trust in the institutions responsible for upholding the law . ”

In DATE ( DATE ) , adopted on DATE , ORG stated :

“ CARDINAL . The otherwise smooth handover of power was accompanied by a polarised and antagonistic political climate , especially during the period of cohabitation between the then President PERSON and the ORG coalition government . The ORG regrets that these tensions sometimes overshadowed the many positive changes that were taking place in the democratic environment of GPE . ORG ( ORG ) has reported that CARDINAL of its activists and supporters were regularly interrogated and intimidated by various investigative agencies ( some up to CARDINAL times ) . A number of major opposition figures , including members of parliament , were violently attacked . It should be noted that DATE on , almost the entire leadership of the former ruling party has been arrested or is under prosecution or investigation : former Prime Minister and ORG Secretary General , [ the applicant ] , former Defence Minister , [ GPE ] , and former GPE mayor and ORG campaign manager , [ ORG ] , are in prison ( pre - trial detention ) . The judicial authorities have brought charges against the former President , PERSON DATE and ordered pre - trial detention in absentia – and have done the same for former Defence Minister , [ GPE ] , and former Minister of Justice , [ Z.A. ] . ...

The ORG recalls its concerns about the administration of justice and the independence of the judiciary in GPE . In that respect , it welcomes the adoption of a comprehensive reform package that aims to ensure genuine independence of the judiciary and a truly adversarial justice system . The ORG welcomes the first signs that the judiciary is now working more independently . However , it also notes that the proceedings in sensitive legal cases , including against former members of government ( some of whom are leading members of the opposition ) , have revealed continuing vulnerabilities and deficiencies in the justice system that need to be addressed . ... Further reforms of the judiciary , including of the prosecution services , are therefore necessary . In this respect , the ORG :

NORP while welcoming the recent decrease in its use , expresses its concern about the continued widespread use of pre - trial detention in GPE . ...

The ORG takes note of the numerous changes in local governments in GPE as a result of local councillors and city officials resigning or switching sides following the change of power at national level . ... The ORG is ... seriously concerned by credible reports that a number of these changes were the result of undue pressure on local ORG ( ORG ) activists by supporters of the ruling coalition . The ORG is also concerned by reports of violent disturbances of the campaign activities of the ORG , allegedly by ORG supporters , as well as reports that a considerable number of opposition candidates in the local elections , mainly from the ORG , withdrew their candidatures , allegedly under pressure from the authorities . ... ”

NORP The report of ORG . CARDINAL , DATE ) which led to that resolution said , among other things ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL . Many interlocutors have reported that there seems to be less political interference in the work of the courts and that the judiciary has become increasingly more independent , including in relation to the prosecution , which has been a point of concern in previous reports . This seems to be confirmed by the court proceedings against former government members , where requests of the prosecution have regularly been denied . There has been a decrease in the granting of pre - trial detention by the courts , combined with a decline of requests by the prosecution service . According to the authorities , in DATE , the prosecution service made PERCENT fewer requests for pre - trial detention than in DATE , and PERCENT of the requests for measures of constraint , such as pre - trial detention or bail , were granted by the courts . However , despite this positive trend , the use of pre - trial detention is still too widespread in GPE . ...

Following the DATE parliamentary elections , CARDINAL complaints were lodged with the prosecutor general by citizens claiming to have been victims of abuses committed by , or under , the previous authorities . CARDINAL claims concern allegations of torture and ill - treatment in prisons , while CARDINAL concern violations of property rights and CARDINAL complaints were filed against in total CARDINAL prosecutors by persons claiming that they were forced to accept plea - bargain agreements .

The authorities announced that the ‘ restoration of justice’ would be CARDINAL of their key priorities and underscored that there would be no impunity for former officials for past abuses . In DATE a number of leading members of the former governing party and ministerial officials were arrested for alleged crimes committed under their responsibility during their tenure in office . ORG has decried these arrests as political prosecutions and as revanchist justice . For its part , the authorities have stressed that no selective or political motivated justice is taking place , or will take place , in GPE , but that these people are accused of serious ordinary crimes , for which the authorities have sufficient proof to warrant an investigation or initiate prosecution .

NORP In support of their position , the authorities point to the fact that both the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice left the country in a hurry the day after the elections , as did a number of high - level officials from ORG . While the former Minister of Defence voluntarily returned to GPE , the others are still on the run and are the subject of an ORG .

There has been some confusion regarding the number of former officials concerned by these investigations . Until now , CARDINAL officials of the former authorities have been charged with criminal offences . Of these , CARDINAL are in pre - trial detention , CARDINAL have been released on bail , CARDINAL was released without restrictive measures , CARDINAL have fled the country and CARDINAL have been convicted , CARDINAL of whom was pardoned by President PERSON . In addition , charges have been brought against a considerable number of former civil servants .

The allegations of selective and politically motivated justice and revanchist policies by the new authorities are of concern . In addition , they considerably raise emotions and tensions in an already politically tense climate , which is not beneficial for the political environment and democratic development of the country .

The most publicised cases against former ORG government officials are those against former Minister of Defence [ GPE ] , former Prime Minister and ORG Minister DATE and current ORG Secretary General – [ the applicant ] , and former GPE Mayor [ G.U. ] , who were all influential members of former President PERSON ’s inner circle .

We wish to emphasise that there can not be any impunity for ordinary crimes including , or even especially , for government members and politicians , whether current or past . However , especially in the current political context , it is important that in the criminal cases against former government officials , any perception of politically motivated or revanchist justice is avoided . The authorities should therefore ensure that the legal processes are conducted transparently and in a way which fully respects GPE ’s obligations under LAW . Not only should selective or politically motivated justice not take place , it should also be seen as not taking place . ”

In Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) , adopted on DATE , ORG stated :

“ CARDINAL . The following abusive grounds for pretrial detention have been observed in a number of GPE Parties to ORG , namely :

to put pressure on detainees in order to coerce them into confessing to a crime or otherwise co - operating with the prosecution , including by testifying against a third person ( for example ... certain cases of opposition leaders in GPE , such as [ the applicant ] ) ;

to discredit or otherwise neutralise political competitors ( for example , certain cases of ORG ( ORG ) leaders in GPE ) ;

The root causes of the abusive use of pretrial detention include :

NORP the possibility of ‘ forum GPE by the prosecution , which may be tempted to develop different strategies to ensure that requests for pretrial detention in certain cases are decided by a judge who , for various reasons , is expected to be ‘ accommodating’ ( for example in GPE , GPE and GPE ) ;

the possibility for the prosecution to circumvent statutory time limits imposed on pretrial detention by modifying or staggering indictments ( for example , in the cases of [ G.U ] and [ ORG ] , before the judgment of ORG of GPE in DATE ) . ”

As a result of the concerns about the criminal prosecutions against former government officials from ORG , in DATE the OSCE ’s ORG assigned monitors to CARDINAL of those cases , including the case against the applicant at issue in these proceedings . In its report , published in DATE , the ORG noted a number of shortcomings with respect to those CARDINAL cases , including the cases against the applicant . The specific points in the report highlighted by the applicant related to the criticisms , in paragraphs CARDINAL , of the NORP courts’ failure to give appropriate reasons regarding the credibility of the witness and other evidence against him , of the cogency of those ORG findings in relation to each of the elements of the offences of which he was convicted , for example the exact manner in which he had exceeded his powers , and of the quality of their reasoning in relation to the factors determining his sentence .

By way of general findings , the report also noted , in paragraph CARDINAL of its executive summary , that NORP law was generally in line with international standards and guaranteed the right to an independent tribunal . There were , however , some aspects which raised concerns in that respect , such as the practices of transferring judges between courts , allocating cases without a fully transparent procedure , and changing judges in the course of ongoing proceedings with no explanation . Another issue was comments by public officials about ongoing criminal proceedings made in a manner implying that they had some control over the prosecuting authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the executive summary ) . Public officials had also expressed their views on the guilt of some defendants before they had been convicted , which raised an issue with regard to the presumption of innocence ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the executive summary ) . The report also expressed concern about the courts’ failure in some cases to give reasons for their decisions to order pre - trial detention or to reject requests for release , and about the lack of provision in LAW for periodic review of pre - trial detention . That had contributed to a practice of automatic prolongation of pre - trial detention up to the maximum statutory time - limit of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the executive summary ) .

In a decision of DATE ( no . CARDINAL/EXT/CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG - en - GPE refused to extradite to GPE Mr GPE , Minister of Defence from DATE . It held , among other things , that the prosecution against him was politically motivated . It based that finding on the fact that even though the NORP court had issued warrants for the arrest of both Mr GPE and his brother - in - law , who were being sought on identical charges , and even though the CARDINAL had been found together when Mr GPE had been arrested by the NORP authorities , the NORP authorities had at first only sought the extradition of Mr GPE , specifically mentioning his political responsibilities in the Interpol Red Notice . The only difference between the CARDINAL was that Mr GPE ’s brother - in - law was not involved in politics .

In a judgment of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG refused to extradite to GPE Mr D.A. , former head of ORG . It held that there were compelling reasons to believe that there was a risk that , if extradited , his position would worsen owing to his political beliefs and his having held high office in a previous government which was in opposition to the current one .

NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( unreported ) , ORG also refused to extradite Mr GPE to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Having reviewed at length reports and other evidence about the political and legal situation there since DATE and the criminal proceedings against Mr GPE , the chief magistrate concluded :

“ On the facts as found above ... I am not sure that the request for PERSON [ PERSON ] ’s extradition is for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his political opinions . I am aware that the requests may have been made for entirely proper purposes . The evidence may be there to sustain CARDINAL or more convictions . However this is not the test . On balance I consider it more likely than not that the desire to prosecute former ORG politicians is a purpose behind these requests . It may not be the only purpose , but without that factor I do not believe , on balance , that these requests would have been made and pursued in the way they have been .

As for the future , I have considerable respect for the judiciary of GPE . I believe it is likely that the judiciary will successfully resist pressure on them from the administration , through the public prosecutors . However , looking at what has happened to others , I am satisfied that there is a reasonable chance , a serious possibility , that this defendant ’s liberty will be restricted ( and in particular that he may be detained in pre - trial detention ) because of a flawed prosecution process motivated by a desire to obtain a conviction of a ORG politician , or by a desire to obtain evidence from PERSON [ PERSON ] that can be used against senior former colleagues . ... ”

The court described the evidence which had led it to conclude that there was a possibility that Mr GPE could be placed in pre - trial detention in order to be pressured to give evidence against former colleagues of his in GPE in these terms :

“ I have heard evidence , about which I can not be sure but think it is likely correct , that pressure has been applied by the prosecutor ’s office to witnesses to leave ORG and/or give false testimony . ... Mr [ PERSON ] gave evidence that he was told by former [ P]rime [ PERSON , who was also relaying the views of former Prime Minister PERSON , that if he helped to locate [ Mr ] PERSON ’s bank accounts ‘ it would help relieve the situation of [ Mr PERSON ] as well and that all the charges against him w[ould ] be dropped.’ The same witness suggested that if returned , illegal methods would be used to force him ( [ Mr GPE ] ) to give evidence against [ Mr ] PERSON . ”

In DATE ORG decided to delete from its files all information relating to Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON It did so on the basis of CARDINAL recommendations by ORG Files , according to which the political elements surrounding their cases prevailed over the common - law criminal elements . In arriving at that conclusion , the Commission said that in cases of doubt , it had to decide in the interest of the party seeking deletion .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their then Agent , PERSON and , subsequently , by PERSON of ORG .

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

It would appear that , DATE , the applicant served a total of DATE in prison . He submitted a criminal history record ( vërtetim i gjendjes gjyqësore ) in support of this claim . The applicant stated that , while in prison , he had mostly worked in mines , labour camps or other ORG entities . From DATE , on the strength of a court decision , he performed his compulsory military service . From DATE he was sentenced to internal exile ( internim ) and performed corrective labour at an agricultural cooperative ( kooperativë bujqësore ) .

On unspecified dates the applicant requested the authorities to count the work he had undertaken during his imprisonment DATE for the purpose of assessing his pension rights and obtaining an old - age pension .

On DATE and DATE ORG and Equal Opportunities ( “ the Ministry ” ) informed the applicant that , having regard to a considerable number of former prisoners who had not obtained an old - age pension , an inter - ministerial working group had been established to examine the possibility of recognising work undertaken during imprisonment in the communist period in the calculation of insurance DATE for the purpose of obtaining an old - age pension . A draft proposal was made and submitted in DATE to ORG and ORG . ORG instructed the applicant to contact his local authority to seek ways of obtaining financial assistance ( ndihmë ekonomike ) .

To date , no legislative act has been adopted either by ORG or the Government as regards the affiliation of former working ( non - political ) prisoners of the communist period to the old - age pension system .

On an unspecified date the applicant was awarded assistance in the form of financial aid by his local authority , having regard to his family ’s financial difficulties . The family consisted of his wife and his son born in DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife left the country to join her brother in GPE in the hope of finding employment . However , she fell ill and it would appear that she has been unable to work since .

On an unspecified date the financial assistance was revoked .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that he was not entitled to an old - age pension , as he had not accumulated the required number of insurance DATE . He was further informed that , by virtue of a Government decision of DATE , financial assistance was not awarded to families whose members had left the country , unless they had gone away for the purpose of pursuing studies or receiving medical treatment . The applicant was invited to submit supporting documents to prove that his wife was ill in GPE and to seek a further award of financial assistance from the local authority .

NORP On DATE the local authority indicated that the applicant was in receipt of financial assistance in the sum of CARDINAL NORP leks per month , QUANTITY per month .

The Social Insurance Act has been amended CARDINAL times since its first enactment . According to the LAW , a male is entitled to : ( i ) a full old - age pension at DATE , after having accumulated CARDINAL insurance years ; ( ii ) a reduced old - age pension at DATE , after having accumulated CARDINAL insurance years ; or ( iii ) a partial old - age pension at DATE , after having accumulated DATE CARDINAL insurance years . Insurance DATE comprise the period in which contributions have been paid . Under LAW , the Government may recognise other periods DATE , provided that the payment of social insurance contributions is borne by the ORG budget .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that families in need , with no source of income or with insufficient means , are entitled to financial assistance ( ndihmë ekonomike ) , which can be total or partial . It consists of a DATE payment in cash or in kind . The head of the family makes an application for financial assistance to the social administrator of the local authority where the family resides . A decision refusing an award of financial assistance is amenable to appeal before a court .

Recital CARDINAL ( c ) of Government decision no . CARDINAL of DATE provides that families , CARDINAL of whose members lives abroad for whatever reason , other than for the purpose of pursuing studies or receiving medical treatment , are not entitled to financial assistance .

The Prisoners’ Rights and Treatment Act governs the rights and treatment of prisoners , as well as the responsibilities and duties of the competent authorities .

Section CARDINAL recognises ORG right to work ( të gjithë të dënuarve u njihet e drejta për të punuar ) , which can be undertaken within or outside the prison facility . Work is remunerated in accordance with criteria defined by a separate Government decision .

Section CARDINAL provides that work undertaken in prison is taken into account in the calculation of an old - age pension . Government decision no . CARDINAL of DATE sets out the criteria for the calculation of benefits for the old - age pension .

In an effort to recognise the innocence of former politically persecuted persons and former political prisoners and to publicly ask those people to forgive them for the suffering they experienced during the communist period , ORG enacted LAW . LAW recognised their time spent in prison DATE for the purpose of obtaining an old - age pension .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis

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

On an unspecified date the applicant arrived to GPE . He was granted refugee status by the NORP authorities and applied to GPE authorities for asylum .

According to the NORP authorities , the applicant was involved in transportation of CARDINAL illegal migrants from GPE to GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested and formally charged .

On DATE the Primorsk District Court of GPE remanded the applicant in custody . ORG noted that the applicant was a foreign national without a permanent place of residence in GPE and official employment and charged with a serious crime . ORG also noted that his application for asylum was pending before ORG in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative appealed .

On DATE GPE quashed the detention order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal and referred the matter back to the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG , relying on the same grounds , ordered the applicant ’s detention DATE and DATE . In doing so , ORG considered that neither the applicant ’s refugee status nor his permanent place of residence and dependent family members ( wife and child ) justified the application of an alternative preventive measure . Finally , it referred to the applicant ’s intention stated at the hearing eventually to leave the NORP territory .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel appealed .

On DATE GPE upheld the detention order on appeal .

On DATE , ORG , relying on the same grounds , extended the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE , ORG , relying on the same grounds , extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE GPE rejected the applicant ’s counsel ’s appeal .

On DATE GPE held a preparatory hearing and again extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE GPE upheld the detention order .

On DATE ORG , by a collective detention order in respect of both co - defendants , extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant was in detention pending trial at least until DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty and convicted him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant had been living with ORG since DATE . They were not married . In the course of DATE , ORG became pregnant . After the birth of ORG on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant continued to care for the child and to support ORG and the child financially , including paying the rent and utility bills for the apartment in which they were residing .

On an unspecified date the applicant suggested to ORG that they officially register the birth of ORG and record the applicant ’s paternity in the register of births . ORG refused .

The applicant informed ORG that he would try to have his paternity established by the courts .

Starting from CARDINAL DATE ORG no longer permitted the applicant to meet the child .

On DATE the applicant consulted a lawyer and on DATE requested a copy of a report of the registration of the child ’s birth ( izziņa par bērna dzimšanas reģistrāciju ) from a civil registry office ( dzimtsarakstu nodaļa ) . He received the requested report on DATE and found out that DATE , on DATE , a certain ORG had voluntarily acknowledged his paternity and had been registered as the child ’s father . According to the applicant , he did not know who PERSON was .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with GPE . He asked the court to order forensic biological testing in order to establish the child ’s descent , to strike the record of A.L.as the father of the child and to record himself , the applicant , as the child ’s father instead .

On DATE ORG and ORG submitted a response , arguing that the fact that civil proceedings had been instituted had infringed their rights guaranteed by , inter alia , LAW . The respondents also argued that the applicant lacked standing to contest paternity and denied that he had ever co - habited with ORG

ORG held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE it decided to discontinue the proceedings . The court agreed with the respondents that the applicant lacked standing to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity . It reached that conclusion by interpreting LAW in conjunction with ORG out of PERSON ( “ the LAW ” ) and DATE judgment of ORG , and found that the restrictions in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were not contrary to LAW .

The applicant appealed on DATE . On DATE the case was forwarded to ORG , which held hearings on DATE and DATE , and quashed the lower court ’s decision by a decision adopted on the latter date . It was found that the lower court had erred in not ordering forensic biological testing . The case was remitted to ORG .

The first hearing in FAC was held on DATE and was attended only by the applicant ’s lawyer . The hearing was adjourned . The verbatim record of the hearing shows that the court decided to invite a representative of ORG ( bāriņtiesa ) to attend the following hearing .

According to the applicant ’s lawyer , the question of involving ORG had not in fact been discussed in court and therefore she requested the removal of the judge in charge of the case .

On DATE the judge withdrew from the case . The proceedings were accordingly adjourned .

The next hearing was held on CARDINAL DATE and was attended by the applicant ’s lawyer , the CARDINAL respondents and their lawyer , as well as by a representative of ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered forensic genetic testing and ordered the applicant , ORG , ORG and the child to submit the necessary samples of genetic material before DATE .

On DATE the court was informed that the applicant had submitted a tissue sample on DATE , while ORG , ORG and the child had not appeared at the testing laboratory .

On DATE the applicant asked the court to order that the respondents and the child be delivered for genetic testing under constraint . The hearing organised on CARDINAL DATE to decide that question was adjourned because the respondents and their lawyer had not appeared in court .

In the course of the hearing of DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s request on the grounds that the child was not a party to the case and therefore his delivery under constraint could not be ordered . No ordinary appeal lay against that decision . The applicant ’s representative requested that the proceedings be adjourned so that an extraordinary complaint could be lodged with ORG .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to lodge an extraordinary complaint ( protests ) about the decision of ORG . On DATE the Prosecutor General granted the applicant ’s request and asked the ORG of ORG to quash DATE decision . On DATE the ORG accepted the Prosecutor General ’s complaint for examination .

On DATE the ORG decided to uphold the Prosecutor General ’s complaint , to quash ORG decision and to remit the case to another judge of the same court .

After adjourning the hearing of DATE owing to the respondents’ failure to appear in court , on DATE ORG decided to grant the applicant ’s request and to order the municipal police to deliver the respondents and the child for genetic testing under constraint . The court also fined ORG and ORG CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) each for failing to appear at the hearing without a justified reason .

On DATE the applicant informed the court that the decision of DATE did not appear to have been sent to the municipal police .

That omission was admitted by the court in a decision of CARDINAL DATE , by which the court decided to order the ORG police to deliver the respondents and the child for testing under constraint .

On DATE the director of the testing laboratory informed ORG that a tissue sample had been taken from ORG on DATE but that ORG and the child had not appeared at the laboratory for testing .

According to a letter sent by the police to the court on DATE , on several occasions police officers had not found ORG and the child at their stated address and a neighbour had informed the police that a woman with a small child was not residing there .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to order a search ( izsludināt meklēšanā ) for ORG and the child .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s request on the merits . The respondents were absent . The court fined ORG and ORG LVL CARDINAL each for failing to appear at the hearing without a justified reason .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court granted the applicant ’s request .

On DATE a genetic sample was taken from the child at the testing laboratory .

On CARDINAL DATE the testing laboratory issued a report , finding that the probability that the applicant was the father of ORG was CARDINAL PERCENT and that it was impossible that ORG was the father .

The next hearing of ORG was held on DATE .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment by which it rejected the applicant ’s claim . The court held that , even though the applicant was the child ’s biological father , LAW did not give him the right to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity .

The applicant appealed on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted appeal proceedings . ORG held a hearing on CARDINAL DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to uphold the impugned judgment . In response to the applicant ’s complaint that the overall length of the proceedings was excessive within the meaning of LAW , the appeal court noted that such questions were outside its competence .

On DATE the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law , complaining , inter alia , that the time taken by the first - instance court to examine his claim had been excessive .

On DATE the applicant asked the ORG of ORG to expedite the examination of the case , referring to LAW and the urgent nature of cases relating to the interests of children . The ORG instituted cassation proceedings on CARDINAL DATE .

The ORG held the first hearing on DATE . On DATE the ORG decided to examine the case in an extended composition ( paplašinātā tiesas sastāvā ) of CARDINAL judges instead of the usual CARDINAL - judge composition . A final decision was adopted by the ORG on CARDINAL DATE .

The ORG disagreed with the lower - level courts’ interpretation of section CARDINAL of LAW . It held that that section could not be interpreted so as to deny a biological father the right to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity if the legal father had acknowledged paternity in the knowledge that he was not in fact the father of the child . On the other hand , having the standing to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity did not mean that the claim should be automatically upheld , since the courts were obligated to balance the rights of the child and the rights of the biological father .

Turning to the facts of the specific case , the ORG noted that during DATE hearing of the appeal court , the representative of ORG had explained that the child was living in a “ united family ” ( apvienotā ģimenē ) and that upholding the applicant ’s claim would be contrary to the child ’s interests . The ORG found no reason to doubt the professional competence of the staff of ORG and agreed with its assessment of the interests of the child .

In conclusion , the ORG held that the appeal court had erred in deciding that the applicant lacked standing to contest the acknowledgment of paternity . However , “ taking into account the unreasonable length of the proceedings ” , the ORG , decided not to remit the case to the appeal court . The judgment of the appeal court was thus upheld .

The applicant submitted that after the decision became final , he learned of certain facts previously unknown to him . In particular , he found out that when the child was born and throughout the proceedings ORG had been married to ORG and had CARDINAL children in that marriage . In addition , from DATE until DATE PERSON had been living with yet another woman ( PERSON ) and several of his children from his marriage to PERSON The applicant submitted to ORG a written statement from PERSON to that effect .

On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint about the actions of representatives of ORG to ORG ( NORP bērnu tiesību aizsardzības inspekcija ) . Among other things , he complained that ORG had come to the unsubstantiated conclusion that PERSON was living with ORG and the child , whereas in fact he had been living with another woman in a different town .

On DATE the ORG replied to the applicant , informing him that ORG was responsible for omissions ( pieļāvusi trūkumus ) , which could have had a negative effect on the performance of its duty to protect the rights and legal interests of children .

On DATE the applicant submitted the present application to the ORG .

DATE . On DATE the applicant requested that ORG reopen the proceedings in the light of the newly discovered circumstances , namely , the information set out in paragraph CARDINAL above .

On DATE the present application was communicated to the respondent Government .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s request to reopen the proceedings and rejected it , finding that the circumstances invoked by the applicant could not be considered as “ newly discovered ” within the meaning of LAW .

The applicant submitted an ancillary complaint and on DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the decision of ORG , examined the applicant ’s request on the merits and upheld it , quashing the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The case was sent for fresh examination to GPE , which held the first hearing on DATE . The court decided to invite ORG to submit a report concerning the family situation of the child . The proceedings have been adjourned until DATE .