CASE OF RANĐELOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicants are the next - of - kin of several GPE who died or disappeared in the circumstances described below .

On TIME around seventy GPE boarded the boat “ Miss PERSON ” on the LOC coast with the intention of reaching GPE . TIME the boat sank owing to the large number of passengers .

By DATE CARDINAL of the passengers had been found alive on the LOC shore , and CARDINAL bodies had been found in the sea , CARDINAL of which were identified by their relatives . The forensic specialists who had performed autopsies on the bodies by DATE stated that the cause of death could not be established with certainty on the basis of autopsies alone . In their opinion , however , the cause of death was drowning .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in Bar initiated a formal judicial investigation ( rješenje o sprovođenju istrage ) against CARDINAL individuals on suspicion of illegally crossing the State border in connection with reckless endangerment .

By DATE the investigating judge had ( a ) questioned CARDINAL suspects who were available to the authorities at the time , as well as CARDINAL other individuals in relation to the incident , including the eleventh applicant ; ( b ) requested that some other witnesses be questioned by the relevant authorities in GPE ; and ( c ) asked for the autopsy reports , an expert opinion on the capacity of the boat and a report on the weather conditions on TIME of the incident . The eleventh applicant was questioned on DATE . She stated that she had been living with her brother and sister - in - law and their children in GPE , but that her brother and sister - in - law had decided to go to GPE . They had not called her from GPE or mentioned that they had intended to go to GPE . She also stated that she had not recognised them amongst the bodies found , but had recognised her brother ’s arm in one of the photographs shown to her during questioning . Being illiterate , she had “ signed ” TIME of the hearing by giving a fingerprint .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor in ORG lodged an indictment with ORG in Bar against the CARDINAL suspects .

On DATE the court decided that it lacked territorial competence to deal with the case and transferred it to ORG in GPE . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE declared that the court in GPE was territorially competent to process the case and the case was returned .

By DATE the court in Bar had decided that CARDINAL defendants still at large would be tried in their absence and appointed representatives for them . The remaining CARDINAL defendants appeared before the court .

DATE and DATE ten trial hearings ( glavni pretres ) were scheduled , CARDINAL of which took place . CARDINAL were adjourned because some of the defence lawyers , defendants , witnesses and an interpreter did not attend court ; there is no information in the case file CARDINAL of the hearings . During the hearings that did take place , the court questioned CARDINAL defendants and CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the court decided to recommence the trial hearing due to the passage of time . By DATE QUANTITY hearings had been scheduled , CARDINAL of which took place . CARDINAL were adjourned because CARDINAL of the defence lawyers and some of the witnesses did not attend court . During the hearings that did take place , the court read out the indictment again , questioned CARDINAL defendants and CARDINAL witnesses , including the eleventh applicant , and read out the earlier statements made by the witnesses ; the fifth defendant chose to remain silent . The eleventh applicant was heard on DATE . She stated that she had come to GPE with her brother and his family and had had no idea that her brother and his wife had intended to go to GPE . When asked to explain the differences between that and her previous statement of DATE , she stated that she was certain that they had all been together since they had all been living together in CARDINAL tent . She also confirmed that she was illiterate .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON državni tužilac ) in GPE instructed the ORG prosecutor in GPE to specify the indictment in terms of the facts and legal classification of the criminal offences , after which the court in GPE would declare that it lacked competence to deal with the case and would transfer it to ORG in GPE ( hereinafter “ the High Court ” ) , as the competent court to deal with it . Accordingly , the indictment was amended and the case file transferred to ORG ( PERSON državni tužilac ) and ORG .

On DATE the High State Prosecutor requested that an investigation be opened ( zahtjev za sprovođenje istrage ) against the same CARDINAL people and another individual , Z , on suspicion of committing reckless endangerment .

By DATE ORG had questioned CARDINAL of the defendants , while the fifth had chosen to remain silent . It also ordered that the remaining CARDINAL defendants be brought before the court .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG decided to initiate a formal judicial investigation against the CARDINAL individuals , a decision which was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the High State Prosecutor urged the investigating judge to finish the investigation .

On DATE an expert witness issued an opinion on the capacity of the boat .

On DATE the High State Prosecutor charged CARDINAL defendants with reckless endangerment under LAW in connection with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .

DATE the indictment was served on CARDINAL of the defendants .

On DATE the president of the chamber informed the president of ORG that a trial hearing could not be scheduled yet as the indictment had not yet been served on all the defendants .

By DATE ORG had issued a national arrest warrant ( potjernica ) against CARDINAL of the defendants , and had attempted to serve CARDINAL on the other CARDINAL , one of whom was in detention in GPE at the time . The other CARDINAL were based in GPE and GPE and GPE respectively .

On DATE ORG rejected the indictment against Z ( the defendant based in GPE ) , a decision which was upheld by ORG on DATE .

By DATE ORG had decided that the CARDINAL defendants at large , CARDINAL of whom was based in GPE , would be tried in their absence .

At the first trial hearing on DATE one of the defendants , X , stated that he was illiterate and did not understand the indictment . At the request of his lawyer the hearing was adjourned until further notice , so that the indictment could be translated into PERSON . By CARDINAL DATE the translation of the indictment into ORG had become available .

In the course of DATE CARDINAL hearings were scheduled . CARDINAL was held on DATE , during which the indictment was read out and CARDINAL defendants were heard , the fifth having chosen to remain silent . CARDINAL hearings scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned because some of the defendants , defence lawyers , the interpreter for PERSON and a witness did not attend court .

On DATE another judge of ORG took over the case . In the course of DATE hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which were adjourned : ( a ) CARDINAL because there was no permanent court interpreter for PERSON ; ( b ) CARDINAL because the defence lawyers and witnesses did not attend court ; ( c ) CARDINAL because CARDINAL defendant and several defence lawyers did not attend court and an interpreter had not yet been appointed ; and ( d ) one because of changes to LAW , which made the relevant court panel incomplete . CARDINAL hearing was held on DATE , during which CARDINAL defendants were heard and their earlier defence statements made in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE read out . The fifth defendant chose to remain silent .

In the course of DATE CARDINAL hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which were adjourned because CARDINAL defendant , a defence lawyer , some of the witnesses , including the seventh applicant , and/or the interpreter did not attend court . CARDINAL hearings were held , CARDINAL of which by DATE , when several witnesses were heard . On DATE the trial hearing was recommenced due to “ the passage of DATE ” . During that hearing and the subsequent CARDINAL hearings CARDINAL defendants and several witnesses were heard again , and a number of written documents were read out , including the indictment , the GPE earlier statements and witness statements from DATE , DATE and DATE , reports by the GPE and GPE police directorates ( odjeljenja bezbjednosti ) , as well as information provided by ORG of GPE and ORG . The fifth defendant remained silent .

In the course of DATE hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which were adjourned because CARDINAL of the defendants , CARDINAL lawyers , an expert witness , a judge , and/or the interpreter did not attend . The lawyers were fined MONEY ( ORG ) for their unjustified absence . By DATE CARDINAL hearings had been held , during which CARDINAL expert witness was heard , and a number of other pieces of documentary evidence were read out , such as an earlier statement of another expert witness , earlier statements of other witnesses from DATE , DATE and DATE , including the statements of the eleventh applicant , autopsy reports and reports from FAC of DATE and DATE relating to the boat . On DATE the trial hearing was recommenced due to the passage of time . CARDINAL defendants and CARDINAL of the expert witnesses were heard and their earlier statements read out .

In the course of DATE hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which were adjourned because the interpreter and CARDINAL of the expert witnesses did not attend court and because CARDINAL defendant was justifiably absent . By DATE one hearing had been held , at which earlier statements of witnesses , including the eleventh applicant ’s statements , official reports , autopsy reports and experts witness statements were read out . On DATE the trial hearing was recommenced due to the passage of time . At that and the subsequent hearing held in DATE the court read out the indictment , the GPE earlier statements and some witness statements , including the eleventh applicant ’s , as well as other written evidence . CARDINAL of the witnesses was also heard .

On DATE ORG acquitted all the accused for lack of evidence . On DATE the High State Prosecutor appealed against that judgment . There is no information in the case file as to the outcome of the appeal .

On an unspecified date prior to DATE the ORG complained to the ORG , asking for the criminal proceedings to be expedited and the responsible persons punished , as well as for a DNA analysis of the bodies which had been buried .

On DATE the ORG issued a report in this regard noting , in substance , that the investigation had lasted for DATE and that DATE after the impugned event the criminal proceedings had not yet been terminated , which was unjustified . He recommended that ORG undertake all necessary steps to terminate the proceedings as soon as possible .

On DATE the ORG enquired what had been done in the meantime . The judge in charge informed him of the hearings scheduled DATE .

On DATE the only surviving passenger was found guilty of boarding the boat on DATE with the intention of illegally crossing the border to GPE and was fined by ORG prekršaje ) in GPE .

In the course of DATE a number of family members of those who had disappeared , CARDINAL of them applicants in the present case , urged that the proceedings at issue be expedited . Some of them claimed that their next - of - kins were alive but had been trafficked . It appears that some others also hoped that their family members might still be alive .

On DATE the president of ORG requested ORG to appoint a permanent court interpreter for PERSON as soon as possible , stressing that one of the reasons for the criminal proceedings in question having “ lasted too long ” had been the absence of an adequate interpreter for PERSON .

It would appear that on several occasions the ORG requested ORG to expedite the proceedings , and that on DATE it issued a statement that the investigation had not been effective .

The eleventh applicant ’s initial representative submitted an authority form signed by her . He also specified that her CARDINAL sons , CARDINAL daughters - in - law and CARDINAL grandchildren had died or disappeared in the impugned event .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Public hearing);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)

Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

On DATE the applicant acquired an apartment in ORG ( “ borettslag ” ) X. At her request , on DATE its ORG ( hereinafter “ the Board ” ) approved the applicant ’s acquisition . Before she moved in , ORG became aware that the applicant ’s son , Mr A , had caused serious problems in ORG , where the applicant had previously been part owner and resident and where in DATE her son had cohabited with her . ORG therefore became particularly concerned that only the applicant move into the cooperative and informed her that it contemplated withdrawing its approval of her as a part owner . It asked her to make a written undertaking to the effect that Mr A would not move to the apartment in X. In this connection , ORG referred to the fact that in her request for approval of her part ownership she had indicated that her household would consist of CARDINAL person .

After a brief exchange of correspondence between ORG and the applicant ’s Attorney B. , he stated in a letter of CARDINAL DATE that “ [ o]n behalf of [ the applicant ] it is hereby confirmed that it is she , not her son [ Mr A ] who will move into the apartment nr CARDINAL in FAC as soon as it will be ready for takeover on DATE ” . The letter further confirmed the correctness of the information previously provided that the household would “ consist of CARDINAL person ” . Against this background , the ORG maintained its earlier approval of the applicant as a part owner .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , Attorney PERSON , on the behalf of ORG , pointed out to the applicant that Mr A seemed to have moved to her apartment , in breach of the conditions for the approval of her as part owner . PERSON referred to the fact that the ORG over a long period had received several complaints regarding Mr A ’s conduct at ORG and to his conviction by ORG ( tingrett ) of DATE for violent assault and frightening and disturbing behaviour vis - à - vis neighbours at FAC CARDINAL B and CARDINAL C ; and the fact that it followed from the judgment that Mr A ’s residence was FAC In a letter of DATE Attorney B. disputed inter alia that Mr A had an address in FAC

On DATE , ORG held a meeting . According to the minutes it was decided that its “ secretary was to inform Attorney [ K. ] of the new situation and to request him to initiate eviction proceedings against GPE ” .

On DATE , Attorney PERSON sent to the applicant on behalf of ORG a letter ordering her to sell her part ( salgspålegg ) in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( burettslagslova , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON referred to his previous correspondence and to Mr A ’s conviction by ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , by which he was sentenced to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment for violent assault and frightening and disturbing behaviour vis - à - vis neighbours in ORG He further referred to the fact that Mr A on several occasions had been imposed judicial restraining orders prohibiting him to contact CARDINAL members of ORG , the last such order with effect until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Attorney PERSON added that the conditions for eviction under section CARDINAL - CARDINAL had been fulfilled , but that for the time being it had been deemed sufficient to order sale of the apartment .

Upon expiry of DATE time - limit for sale , set pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , Attorney PERSON , who had succeeded Attorney PERSON as the applicant ’s representative , responded by a letter of CARDINAL DATE that the order of sale would not be complied with .

On DATE Mr A had been indicted under LAW for having by frightening or disturbing behaviour or other inconsiderate behaviour violated the right of another person to be left in peace . According to the indictment :

“ ( a ) At ORG on DATE , DATE , at [ FAC ] CARDINAL , GPE , he came walking fast towards PERSON [ H.F. ] and told him that ‘ he ought to watch out’ and ‘ that he would keep an eye on him’ . These affirmations were in the circumstances frightening to PERSON [ H.F. ] .

( b ) On DATE , DATE , at [ FAC ] CARDINALC , GPE , he told PERSON ] : ‘ The vengeance is sweet , the vengeance is best cold , it may happen anytime and anywhere , it may not necessary be me directly.’ This statement was in the circumstances frightening to PERSON ] .

( c ) On DATE , DATE at [ Z Street ] CARDINALC , GPE , he contacted PERSON ] and stated amongst other things : ‘ Watch out , you have not seen anything yet’ . This statement was in the circumstances frightening to Mrs [ T.L.B. ] ”

He was also indicted under LAW ) ( later changed to LAW for having committed violent assault against another person or in any other way having assailed him bodily :

“ At CARDINAL , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE at [ FAC ] CARDINALC , GPE , he grabbed the arms of PERSON [ PERSON ] [ son of Mrs T.L.B. ] and flung him around making him fall on a bicycle . Thereafter he again grabbed him and pushed him into a wall . ”

By an additional indictment of DATE , Mr A was indicted with another offence under LAW :

“ At TIME on DATE , DATE , outside the shopping mall in [ FAC ] , he went towards Mr [ E.L. ] as the latter came out of the shopping mall carrying a full shopping basket on his way to his car . He followed Mr [ E.L. ] while talking to him loudly and went up to his face while stating inter alia ‘ I will beat the shit out of you ... you fat PERSON , or similar . He placed himself in front of the car , thus preventing PERSON [ E.L. ] from putting his shopping items inside his car , while affirming ‘ I wo n’t ORG . ”

In a judgment of DATE , ORG , after holding an oral hearing at which Mr A was represented by a lawyer and witnesses were heard , convicted PERSON A of the charges and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . The sentence included the conditional part of a sentence imposed by ORG in a judgment of DATE by which Mr A had been convicted of an offence under LAW .

NORP In meting out the sentence , ORG attached considerable weight to the fact that Mr A had twice ( last time in DATE ) been convicted for a number of offences of a similar nature , that he had actively approached the victims , and that his conduct to a great extent affected people in their homes and closest environment , thereby destroying the GPE and their NORP feeling of safety and wellbeing at their homes and in the near vicinity . A further aggravating factor was the extent , the intensity and duration of his conduct and Mr A ’s inability and unwillingness to cease his criminal conduct .

Mr A did not lodge an appeal against his above conviction and sentence which thus became final .

On DATE Mr A was inter alia indicted under LAW ) of LAW for having committed the following violent assaults :

“ ( a ) At around CARDINALhCARDINAL , on DATE , DATE , at FAC CARDINALC , GPE , he took a strangulation grip on T.L.B.

( b ) At around CARDINALhCARDINAL on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , outside FAC CARDINALB , GPE , he punched Mr PERSON in his chest with a clenched fist . ... ”

In an additional indictment of DATE , Mr A was charged under the same provision as follows :

“ At around CARDINALhCARDINAL on DATE , DATE , in the staircase of the garage building of FAC CARDINALC , GPE , he hit and/or pushed Mr GPE in the chest with clenched fists so that the latter fell backward towards a wall , whereupon he pulled Mr PERSON by his arm / or jacket into the building . ”

By a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted PERSON A of the above charges . It found proven , not that he had taken a strangulation grip on PERSON , but that he had intentionally pushed her against a door or a wall with one hand ; that he had pushed Mr PERSON or hit him in his chest but not that he had hit him hard ; and that he had held around Mr D.H. ’s chest and had pushed him against the wall , both in the staircase and in the garage but that he had not hit Mr D.H. ORG observed that , while all CARDINAL offences would normally warrant the imposition of fines , Mr H.F. ’s advanced age and frailness were an aggravating factor as were the number of the offences adjudicated as well as the fact that Mr A had been convicted in the past for similar and in part more serious offences . He had moreover not understood the gravity of his actions . ORG sentenced Mr A to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment .

Mr A did not lodge an appeal against the above judgment which thus became final .

On DATE ORG issued a warning of compulsory sale ( section CARDINAL of LAW , tvangsfullbyrdelsesloven ) and on DATE it instituted proceedings against her before the relevant section ( GPE byfogdembete ) of ORG ( tingrett ) , to obtain an order of compulsory sale of her apartment , from a specialised judge entrusted inter alia with such matters .

NORP The applicant , represented by the same lawyer as before ORG , reiterated that according to section CARDINAL of LAW the case ought to be examined under an ordinary procedure ( i søksmåls former – which in principle included an oral hearing if the respondent ’s objections against compulsory sale was not “ clearly groundless ” ) . In her written pleadings she sought to address this question legally and factually , while pointing out that a complete presentation of evidence would be made at a later stage ( i behandlingen av søksmålet ) . She submitted notably as follows .

In the first place the applicant requested ORG to dismiss the case on the ground that the ORG ’s decision had not provided a legal basis for Attorney PERSON to initiate proceedings against her for compulsory sale . The decision had stated “ GPE ” , not PERSON , and “ eviction ” , not compulsory sale ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

She also argued that it would create an unreasonable situation if ORG interest in her removal were to carry more weight than her needs at DATE in not being put on the street . She had previously moved from the previous ORG to ORG and had left old disputes behind her . However , because of a warning system within the FAC system ( a cooperative building association owned by its CARDINAL members and which included both ORG ) , already before moving into X she had been persecuted by allegations related to Y. There would hardly be any alternative for her . The situation had evolved over time and she ought to be entitled to admit PERSON A in her household . Due to her age , she had become increasingly dependent on his assistance .

NORP The criminal matters pertaining to Mr A dated far back in time and could not justify compulsory sale , especially since the situation had improved and both the applicant and Mr A were open to negotiate on other appropriate default measures . The most recent offence dated from DATE . The decisions on restraining orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) could not carry any weight since the threshold for prohibition on contact was low and did not require a preponderance of probabilities . The alleged harassment and threats was in great part due to a paranoid perception of some of the neighbours .

The applicant requested ORG , before conducting any procedure on the merits , to first decide on her request that the case be dismissed .

By a decision ( kjennelse ) of DATE , ORG upheld ORG request for an order of compulsory sale of the applicant ’s apartment , to be carried out by an official assistant ( medhjelper ) .

ORG first dismissed the applicant ’s contention that there was no decision by ORG which could constitute a basis for compulsory sale . The mention in the decision of “ GPE ” could not be understood in any other way than as referring to the applicant . From section CARDINAL of LAW , it clearly followed that it was the applicant , as the owner of the apartment in question , who was the person whom ORG ought to address in all cases concerning the owner ’s duties and responsibilities . It was the owner ’s breach of such that could justify an eviction order . It followed from the case - law and legal doctrine that the owner was to be identified with the members of his or her household , both in the sense that faults on their part were relevant and that an eviction measure would also concern them ; it was not possible to limit a request for an eviction order to concern CARDINAL or some of the members of a given household or to concern only the owner and not the other occupants .

ORG further rejected the applicant ’s argument that the ORG ’s decision did not concern compulsory sale ( “ tvangssalg ” ) but only eviction ( “ utkastelse ” ) . ORG lawyer had stated that ORG was of the view that the conditions for eviction had been fulfilled but that the ORG had opted to limit its demand by initiating proceedings for compulsory sale . Since the ORG ’s decision on eviction implied compulsory sale , to proceed with the latter and less extensive measure first clearly fell within that decision . This did not exclude that a request for an eviction order be made subsequently .

No arguments had been raised by the applicant suggesting that ORG demand ought to be dismissed . Nor was there anything to indicate that Attorney PERSON had exceeded the powers conferred on him by the ORG .

NORP Moreover , no objection had been made as regards the contents of the plaintiff ’s claim for an order of compulsory sale or about the requirements as to warnings . The formal requirements for seeking an order of compulsory sale had been fulfilled ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act ) .

The condition for requiring sale was that the owner of the part in question had “ substantially defaulted ” his or her obligations ( “ misheld pliktene sine vesentleg ” ) . The request for compulsory sale ought to be referred for examination according to the ordinary procedure applicable to ordinary appeals ( which in principle include an oral hearing ) if , within the statutory time limit , objections had been raised against compulsory sale that could not be regarded as “ clearly groundless ” .

The assessment of whether “ substantial default ” had occurred concerned not only the owner ’s conduct but also that of other members of his or her household , as the owner undoubtedly ought to be identified with them . In the instant case , the circumstances that could justify enforcement measures related to the conduct of Mr A.

In this regard , ORG observed that it was undisputed that the reason why the applicant had been obliged to leave her apartment in ORG had been the serious problems that her son had caused there . In applying to ORG for its approval to become a new part owner , she had requested approval for CARDINAL person only . Accordingly , it ought to be assumed that only she would occupy the apartment . Before moving in , she had confirmed through her lawyer that her household consisted of CARDINAL person . Previously she had written to ORG without replying to questions of whether her son would move in . It was only after ORG request to the applicant of DATE for confirmation that Mr A would not move to the estate that Attorney PERSON had responded in the affirmative by letter of CARDINAL DATE . She was then well informed that it was precisely the matters regarding her son which was the reason for the ORG ’s request for confirmation that he would not move into the flat .

According to section CARDINAL of the then applicable LAW , an approval of a new part owner could be withdrawn within DATE if the owner had provided inaccurate , or withheld , substantial information and the owner ought to have been aware of this . In view of the situation at the material time and the applicant ’s confirmation , ORG could assume that the applicant had committed herself to moving in alone and in any event without her son . Both the ORG ’s approval and her confirmation had dated DATE back in time and it was only at present that she for the first time had alleged that ORG had forced her to make the said declaration by threatening to take unlawful action . On this point , ORG observed that the only measure which ORG contemplated was to refuse approval of the applicant as a new part owner and there was nothing to indicate that it had been unlawful to envisage such a measure .

Furthermore , where the board of ORG had become aware that problems with a part owner had occurred in ORG , it ought to be able to take the matter into account in its assessment of whether or not to approve that person as a new part owner . There were no elements to suggest that the information received by ORG had been obtained in an unlawful manner . Whether and to what extent any outsiders had acted unlawfully was not for ORG to consider in the present case .

It was unclear at what time Mr A had moved into the applicant ’s apartment . According to ORG judgment of DATE , Mr A had stated that he was living in Z Street CARDINALC. From the same judgment it appeared that the criminal offences for which he was convicted had occurred in FAC CARDINALB and CARDINALC in DATE . It was also undisputed by the applicant that she had been cohabiting with Mr A in her apartment for an extended period . However , since the applicant , as a part owner , was responsible for the conduct by members of her household as well as her visitors , it was not decisive when Mr A had moved in .

ORG noted that it was clearly established that Mr A , by the judgments of DATE and DATE respectively , had been convicted of having committed violent assault and frightening behaviour against CARDINAL neighbours at FAC CARDINALB and CARDINALC. The episodes in the DATE judgment had occurred on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The DATE judgment described inter alia Mr A as a person who perceived everyone in respect of whom there was a contradiction or a disagreement as being part of a conspiracy against him ( for further details see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . His use of violence was perceived as unprovoked . He had infringed people at their homes , in such a way as to destroy the GPE and their NORP sense of safety and wellbeing at their homes and nearby . According to an assessment of PERSON A made by a court appointed expert in DATE , he extensively and systematically had perceptions and experiences of conspiracy which were almost impossible to influence and which according to the DATE judgment were still prevailing at that time .

The judgment of DATE had concerned episodes from DATE and DATE and DATE involving violations of LAW ) of LAW . Also in this judgment it had been found proven that Mr A had generally behaved in an intensive and intrusive manner . He was tall and strong , went very close to the person with whom he wanted to discuss and shouted to them with a load and aggressive voice . He was moreover inclined to block the passage of people he wanted to talk to and had a low threshold for taking CARDINAL step further and grab or push people . This he did in a manner which was so aggressive as to make people anxious of the possibility of further and more serious violence being perpetrated .

In addition to the above - mentioned judgments , he had been imposed restraining orders by the police prohibiting him from visiting the following neighbours :

- Ms T.L.B. and her children , for the period from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ;

- Mr H.F. , from DATE to DATE ;

- Mr D.H. , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; and

- Mr J .- E.S. , from DATE to DATE .

All these matters showed a person who over a long period had displayed frightening and disturbing behaviour vis - à - vis a number of neighbours in ORG where he was living with his mother , and where the incidents had led to convictions and prohibitions on contact over longer periods . It was also undisputed that Mr A had reacted with a particularly high degree of intensity vis - à - vis the Board and some of its members .

As regards the applicant ’s allegation that the conditions had improved and that both she and Mr A were prepared to negotiate on alternative default measures , ORG noted that ORG communications to the applicant had led to tirades of phone calls and e - mails with accusations against members of ORG and complaints to different public institutions . This was also supported by the description made by ORG in its judgment of DATE . As the applicant had failed to indicate what other appropriate default measures could consist of , the respondent ORG could not be required to take further initiatives in this case .

Whether the conditions for ordering compulsory sale had been fulfilled essentially depended on whether substantial default and conduct in breach of section CARDINAL had materialised at the time when the order of sale was issued ( namely DATE ) .

DATE ’s conduct had caused serious disturbance to other occupants and had violated section CARDINAL of LAW . For this reason , the issuing of a warning before compulsory sale had not been a requirement .

In ORG view the applicant ’s interests on account of her old age ought not to carry more weight than those of other occupants in ORG . It found it established that her obligations as a part owner had been seriously defaulted , in any event DATE . Whilst it was understandable that it was more difficult for a person aged CARDINAL to find and move to a new home , this could not be decisive in this case where neighbours had been harassed over DATE . Despite her own confirmation that she moved in alone , the applicant had let her son live in the apartment with all the problems this had caused to other occupants . Therefore , she ought to bear the consequences of her own choice even though this were to make it problematic for her to find another house within ORG system .

The DATE ’s decision on eviction had been taken on DATE , DATE after Mr A ’s conviction of DATE and DATE after his commission of CARDINAL of the offences . This was his second conviction for offences committed against neighbours while the first had concerned offences committed in DATE . ORG had taken and followed up its decision with reasonable expedition .

NORP Moreover , the applicant ’s contention that the police had acted in breach of their duty of confidentiality , by providing information to ORG concerning Mr A in relation to FAC , could have no bearing on the present case .

Considering all of the applicant ’s pleas against compulsory sale as being “ clearly groundless ” in the sense of sections CARDINAL , cf . section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , ORG upheld ORG claim and ordered that sale take place by an assistant .

The applicant appealed against ORG decision to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) , complaining of the former ’s assessment of the evidence , its application of the law and procedure . Maintaining in the main her arguments before ORG , she requested that ORG action be dismissed ; in the alternative , she argued that the request for compulsory sale was unlawful in that no evidence had been adduced to show that she had defaulted her obligations vis - à - vis ORG or , in any event , that any such default had been substantial . In the further alternative , she submitted that , after refusing to dismiss the suit , ORG had failed to refer her case for examination according to the ordinary procedure ( involving in principle an oral hearing ) and had wrongly considered her objections against compulsory sale as being clearly groundless ; therefore , she asked ORG to quash ORG decision and to refer the case back for re - examination in accordance with the ordinary procedure . The applicant submitted that she could not cope with the thought of having to move house again and that she never believed that she would have to do so . The apartment really suited her and the fact that her son lived with her had made her feel that she received the help and care she needed in DATE life .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected her appeal . From the outset it observed that sufficient light had been shed on the case for it to determine the appeal on the basis of the written case - file ( LAW ) of LAW ) .

As regards the applicant ’s allegations that the imposition of compulsory sale suffered from deficiencies , ORG found it clear that the ORG ’s decision provided an adequate basis for notifying her of the measure in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW .

ORG did not find it necessary to take a stance on whether the terms “ eviction case ” ought to be read as relating to the vacating of LOC ( compare paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that event , as also assumed by ORG , it was obvious that there was a possibility to opt for the less intrusive measure , namely the imposition of an order to sell the flat . The above decision most probably was an acknowledgment of a request by ORG to its attorney to take the necessary steps to bring the ORG ’s relationship with the applicant to an end . More than this could not be required , bearing in mind especially the long historical background to the case .

Nor could the applicant succeed with her argument that she had not been sufficiently identified because ORG only used her surname . As also pointed out by ORG , as for proceedings concerning eviction it was also the situation for those on compulsory sale that only the owner of the part of ORG in question could be the addressee . It could not be assumed that any other intention lay behind the ORG ’s decision .

Finally , ORG shared ORG view that a prior warning had not been a prerequisite for obliging her to sell her part . Since , in accordance with the findings below , the conditions of serious disturbance and nuisance had been fulfilled for obliging her to vacate the flat pursuant section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the requisite of prior warning under section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW did not apply .

Like ORG , ORG found it established that the applicant ’s son , PERSON , for DATE had displayed conduct vis - à - vis the household ’s neighbours constituting serious disturbance and nuisance to them . ORG judgments of DATE and DATE concerned several offences under ORG and PERSON of the Penal Code , all of which , but CARDINAL , had been aimed at neighbours in ORG .

The High Court further considered that the matters in respect of which Mr A had been charged and convicted did not give the full picture of the conduct that had prompted ORG to react with default measures in regard to the applicant . In this connection the High Court pointed to the findings made by ORG in its DATE judgment , which stated :

“ Both from previous judgments and the statements given in this case , it emerged that the accused over DATE had repeatedly contacted a number of neighbours and other persons with whom he considered he was in conflict . He had repeatedly levelled new accusations and more or less veiled threats against these persons and had in part made very serious and degrading remarks and descriptions . His conduct beyond this had also been perceived as disturbing , frightening and wholly unreasonably intense , both in form , extent and frequency . For instance , amongst other things , at times he was positioning himself more or less in the background in order to suddenly ambush by getting very close to and to some extent hindering the passage of the person he was talking to , while raising his voice and using threating body language and mimicking . ”

ORG had further referred to the fact that Mr A in connection with a criminal case in DATE had undergone a thorough expert examination , which had inter alia concluded that he had extensive , systematic perceptions and experiences of conspiracy that were almost impossible to influence . Also the judgment of DATE had described acts and conduct by Mr A that clearly corresponded to that description .

ORG also noted that , during the period from CARDINAL DATE until DATE , Mr A had been imposed restraining orders prohibiting him from contacting altogether CARDINAL of his neighbours , the last such order having expired on DATE .

In the High Court ’s assessment , the matters for which the applicant ’s son had been convicted constituted by their nature , their number and the extent of the period in which they had been committed DATE namely from QUANTITY DATE until DATE when seen as a whole , such default as fulfilled the conditions for requiring that the flat be vacated according to section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and the imposition of compulsory sale pursuant to section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . This conclusion was further strengthened by the information that the incidents ought to be considered as a pattern of behaviour that was capable of creating an atmosphere of insecurity in the near environment .

Having reached this conclusion , ORG found it unnecessary to examine whether Mr A ’s moving into the applicant ’s flat contrary to the declaration made on her behalf by Attorney B on DATE amounted to serious default in the sense of LAW .

Nor could the applicant succeed with her argument that the conditions had subsequently improved .

The High Court found that the conditions for the imposition of default measures under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL had in any event been fulfilled on DATE when the order of sale was sent to the applicant , which – as also held by ORG – was the decisive time for the assessment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The argument that the applicant ’s high age should influence the assessment could not lead to any other conclusion . It was not difficult to see the sad side to hers having to move and , for that matter , even in the situation of her son . However , it was their own acts that had led to forcible sale of the apartment pursuant to section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , cf . section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW .

Thus , none of the grounds of appeal had succeeded and the High Court agreed with ORG that they ought to be considered to be “ clearly groundless ” ( section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Her contention that ORG should not have determined the case without holding an oral hearing could not be upheld either .

Against this background ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

The applicant appealed against ORG decision . She pointed out that the proceedings threatened her right to housing and that it was a serious case especially in view of her advanced DATE . As regards the procedure , she submitted that the question was whether compulsory sale ought to occur under a written procedure or an ordinary procedure comprising an oral hearing . Her very considerable interest in keeping her apartment ought to be weighed against ORG limited interest in carrying out compulsory sale without an oral hearing . The competing interest in the case ought to have implications in the assessment of questions of procedure and the application of the law . ORG reasoning had been summary ; it had failed to deal with all her arguments and had omitted to comment on the interpretation of the terms “ clearly groundless ” and “ substantial default ” . The applicant requested ORG to quash ORG decision and to refer her case back to ORG for fresh examination under the ordinary procedure with an oral hearing .

On DATE , ORG ( Høyesteretts ankeutvalg ) , whose jurisdiction was limited to reviewing ORG procedure and interpretation of the law , rejected the appeal , finding it obvious that it could not succeed .

The assistant appointed to implement the compulsory sale , Attorney F. , subsequently advertised the applicant ’s apartment for sale . The highest bid was ORG CARDINAL ( currently corresponding to approximately EUR CARDINAL ) from PERSON On DATE Mr F. communicated the bid to ORG for validation ( stadfestelse ) , following which all interested parties were given DATE for expressing objections . Before the expiry of the time - limit , the applicant and Mr A objected to the sale .

By a decision of DATE the relevant section of ORG ( byfogdembete ) validated the above - mentioned bid .

DATE . On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant and her son against ORG decision to validate the bid , as did ORG on DATE finding it obvious that the appeal could not succeed .

In conjunction with the above proceedings , the applicant and/or Mr A unsuccessfully pursued multiple other matters regarding the sale of the applicant ’s apartment ( request for replacement housing ; miscellaneous complaints regarding the office of the Execution and Enforcement Commissioner ’s ( namsmannen ) handling of the sale ; a demand of access to documents in the possession of OBOS ; disqualification of all police officers employed at ORG ; Mr A ’s compensation claim against the ORG on account of the police having communicated information about him to OBOS allegedly in breach of their duty of confidentiality ; his compensation claim against OBOS for its manner of processing information pertaining to him ; his demand that OBOS remove from its archives and destroy a police report related to him ; and his request for access to a file in OBOS ’s possession ) as well as a request for the joinder of these proceedings and an oral hearing . All these claims were rejected as being groundless by the relevant sections of ORG ( DATE and DATE ) , ORG ( CARDINAL and DATE ) and ORG ( DATE ) . On DATE the applicant was notified that the new owner had demanded that the applicant vacate the apartment following the implementation of compulsory sale .

On DATE ORG warned the applicant that , as previously announced on DATE , he had decided to take the necessary steps to have her evicted from the flat on DATE at TIME , should she not voluntarily vacate the LOC .

On DATE , the Government forwarded a copy of a handwritten note , dated DATE , by which the applicant instructed her then lawyer PERSON to withdraw her application immediately . She stated that any enquiries should be addressed to her son PERSON or to her daughter PERSON and emphasised that her son Mr A was not entitled to represent her . The Government also suggested that the application be struck out . On DATE , Mr PERSON of the same law firm as Mr Mørk , replied that he had replaced the latter and that the applicant wished to maintain her application .

On DATE Mr A , represented by Mr PERSON , sought leave to intervene as a party or as a third - party in the proceedings ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § DATE of the Convention ) . On DATE , having examined the matter in the light of Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG , the President of the First Section ( to which the application was allocated at the time ) decided to refuse the request as she considered , having regard to the state of the proceedings in the case , that the intervention requested would not be in “ the interest of the proper administration of justice ” . Thereafter the President decided to resume the proceedings , which had been temporarily suspended pending consultation of the parties on the afore - mentioned .

On DATE the applicant died .

Following the applicant ’s death , on DATE , Mr A , represented by PERSON , informed the ORG that he wished to pursue the application . On DATE the Government asked the ORG to strike the application out of its list of cases . On DATE , Mr PERSON , the lawyer acting for the deceased applicant , informed the ORG that her CARDINAL other heirs , PERSON , wished to pursue the application . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the ORG received further observations on these matters from PERSON and the Agent of the Government .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant and his grandmother ’s neighbour , CARDINALyear - old PERSON , signed a contract on lifelong maintenance ( išlaikymo iki gyvos galvos sutartis ) . Under that contract , PERSON transferred the rights to her apartment to the applicant , who undertook to take care of her until she died by providing her with food and medication , looking after her apartment , walking her dog , and providing any other necessary assistance .

NORP In DATE PERSON lodged an application with a court to terminate the contract on the grounds that the applicant had not fulfilled his obligations and had not been taking proper care of her . The applicant objected to the termination and argued that he had complied with the terms of the contract . Relying on the testimony of several witnesses , on DATE ORG , in an oral hearing at which both the applicant and PERSON were present , granted PERSON ’s application and annulled the contract .

The applicant appealed , arguing that he had complied with the terms of the contract and that it should therefore not have been terminated . On CARDINAL DATE ORG held an oral hearing at which PERSON ’s lawyer was present but the applicant and his lawyer were not . According to the Government , a notification letter was sent to the applicant on DATE . During the hearing the court noted that the applicant had been notified of the hearing ( apie posėdį pranešta ) and proceeded to examine the case in his absence . ORG delivered its judgment on DATE , upholding the first - instance judgment in its entirety .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG . He complained , inter alia , that he had not been duly notified of the hearing before ORG and had thus been unable effectively to defend his interests . The applicant submitted that he had received the notification about the time and place of the hearing by standard ( non - registered ) post only on DATE , when he had found it in his letter box . However , on DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s cassation appeal as raising no important legal questions . The applicant lodged CARDINAL other cassation appeals , but on DATE and DATE ORG refused to examine them , citing the same grounds as previously .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated rape .

DATE and DATE the applicant was held in pre - trial detention in remand prison GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar ( ORG № CARDINAL г. Сыктывкара ) .

On DATE the applicant was released subject to an undertaking not to leave a specified place .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was detained in GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to prison IK-CARDINAL in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant ’s prison sentence expired and he was released from the correctional facility .

The applicant has been suffering from an insulin - dependent form of diabetes since DATE . The disease has entailed various complications , including diabetic angioretinopathy and complicated diabetic cataracts .

On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination in connection with his eyesight problems at a municipal clinic at his place of residence . The examination confirmed that the visual acuity of the applicant ’s right eye was CARDINAL , which corresponded to his ability to count the fingers on a hand from a distance of QUANTITY , and that the visual acuity of his left eye corresponded to his ability to see hand movements near his face . According to the applicant , at that time he was able to orientate himself within familiar spaces , such as his flat , medical institutions and streets in the town .

On DATE , following his release from pre - trial detention , the applicant underwent another medical examination at the same municipal clinic , which established that he could count the fingers on a hand from a distance of QUANTITY , that is that his visual acuity was CARDINAL , and that he could see hand movement near his face with his left eye . A cataract operation was recommended .

NORP In DATE , shortly after the applicant had been detained following his conviction by ORG , he was admitted to prison hospital ORG and diagnosed with a serious form of insulindependent Type CARDINAL diabetes , subcompensation , diabetic polyneuropathy , diabetic nephropathy , symptomatic arterial hypertension , chronic renal insufficiency , an immature diabetic cataract in the left eye and an almost mature diabetic cataract in the right eye . The visual acuity of the applicant ’s right eye was CARDINAL and of his left eye was CARDINAL .

In DATE , in connection with his request for release on parole ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the applicant was examined by a special medical commission of the correctional facility where he was being detained at that time . The commission confirmed that the applicant had a serious form of insulin - dependent diabetes and all the accompanying diseases which had been established before . As regards the applicant ’s eyesight , it was stated that he could detect hand movement near his face with his right eye but that he was blind in his left eye . The applicant was diagnosed with complicated diabetic cataracts in both eyes , and specifically with an almost mature cataract in the right eye and a mature cataract in the left eye .

On DATE , after the applicant had been released , he was examined by an ophthalmologist at the municipal clinic at his place of residence . It was established that he could detect hand movement near his face with his right eye and that he was blind in his left eye . The ophthalmologist recommended that he undergo urgent surgery for his cataracts .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was admitted to the ophthalmology department of a public hospital for cataract surgery . According to the applicant , the doctors confirmed that his visual acuity corresponded to that established on DATE and refused to carry out any surgery on the grounds that they were not sufficiently experienced to operate on cataracts at such an advanced stage . They recommended that the applicant be operated on in a specialised research institution . The applicant was discharged from the hospital DATE .

On DATE a research clinic for eye problems in GPE diagnosed the applicant as having a complicated immature cataract , proliferative diabetic retinopathy and retinal detachment in respect of his right eye , and neo - vascular terminal glaucoma and advanced retinal detachment in respect of his left eye . The visual acuity of the right eye was “ light perception with correct light projection ” and he was blind in the left eye .

On DATE the applicant underwent surgery on the cataract in his right eye . The surgery was successful and when he was discharged from the clinic on DATE , he could detect hand movement near his face with his right eye .

On DATE the applicant underwent another medical examination at the same clinic in GPE with a view to establishing whether any further surgery on his right eye could be effective . It was established that he had a complete retinal detachment in his right eye caused by diabetes and that he was unable to see any distinct object with that eye , which meant that further surgery would be devoid of any prospect of success .

Following his conviction , the applicant was admitted a number of times to prison hospitals for examination and treatment . The admissions were as follows :

- DATE to the hospital of GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar ;

- DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE to prison hospital ORG ;

- DATE ; DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE to the hospital of prison IK-CARDINAL in PERSON .

The Government provided the ORG with copies of licenses issued to the prison hospitals to practise medical activity .

The applicant was regularly examined by a doctor , an endocrinologist and an ophthalmologist . Blood and urine tests were regularly carried out . A number of other tests , such as ultrasound of the abdominal cavity , electrocardiogram , fluorography and rheography of the legs and feet were also performed . The applicant was provided with symptomatic treatment , which , apart from insulin , included hypotensive therapy , medicines to improve microcirculation , vitamins and nootropics .

In DATE , while the applicant was being held in pre - trial detention in GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar , the remand prison doctor prescribed him special diet no . CARDINAL , in which sugar was replaced with milk . In DATE , while he was in prison hospital ORG , the applicant was prescribed special diet no . CARDINAL , in which sugar was replaced with milk .

According to the applicant , DATE , and then from DATE , including on the date on which he lodged his application with the ORG , he did not receive a special diabetic diet in the correctional facility .

According to a certificate of CARDINAL DATE issued by prison hospital ORG , during his hospitalisation sugar was replaced with milk in the applicant ’s diet .

In an epicrisis of DATE it was stated that at the time , prison PERSON did not have a sufficient supply of ORG and ORG and , therefore the applicant ’s admission to the prison hospital had been recommended in order to find an alternative treatment .

According to the applicant , in DATE the prison authorities provided him with insulin with DATE . He was allegedly informed of this by another prisoner , PERSON , and enclosed the latter ’s statement to that effect .

According to a certificate issued by prison IK-CARDINAL on DATE , during his detention in the prison the applicant was provided with the required insulin treatment . On several occasions when the forms of insulin specifically prescribed for the applicant by the endocrinologist were temporarily unavailable , he was provided with other forms of insulin . However , insulin that was past its expiry date was never used by the medical unit of prison IK-CARDINAL .

According to an extract from the register of insulin supply of prison IK-CARDINAL for the period from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the forms of insulin prescribed to the applicant had the following expiry dates : DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

According to the applicant , throughout his detention his eyesight steadily deteriorated because he was denied the necessary surgical intervention .

On DATE , while the applicant was being held in pre - trial detention in GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar , he was examined by an ophthalmologist who stated that in the facilities under the authority of ORG it would be possible to remove the cataract from his left eye and implant an intraocular lens .

NORP In reply to a request of a ORG judge asking whether diabetic cataracts in both eyes were irreversible , an ophthalmologist stated on DATE that patients suffering from cataracts , including diabetic cataracts , were recommended surgery to improve their eyesight . Accordingly , bad eyesight caused by cataracts could not be considered irreversible .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist , who stated in his report that the applicant had had bad eyesight for DATE , and had been unable to see anything with his left eye for DATE . On an unspecified DATE surgery had been proposed to him in GPE , but he had refrained from undergoing it . However , the applicant now wished to undergo the surgery . The ophthalmologist stated that in the facilities under the authority of ORG it would be possible to undergo elective surgery to remove the cataract from the applicant ’s left eye and implant an intraocular lens .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist , who took note of his wish to undergo surgery on the cataracts .

On DATE the applicant was again examined by an ophthalmologist , who recommended cataract surgery .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) informed the applicant ’s mother that the applicant was being provided with the necessary medical assistance in connection with his disease . The letter also stated that surgery in respect of his eye diseases was necessary .

On DATE , in reply to a request from the hospital of prison IK-CARDINAL , ORG informed the prison hospital that the applicant had been under the medical supervision of an endocrinologist , an ophthalmologist and a neuro - pathologist since DATE on account of insulindependent diabetes , diabetic cataracts , diabetic retinopathy and encephalopathy of mixed genesis .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist again . The latter reiterated that the applicant could undergo elective surgery to remove the cataract from his left eye and to implant an intraocular lens in facilities under the authority of ORG .

On DATE the applicant was again examined by an ophthalmologist , who prescribed therapeutic treatment and scheduled the next examination DATE .

On DATE prison IK-CARDINAL sent a request to the NORP prison hospital in GPE to admit the applicant for further examination in order to decide whether cataract surgery was possible and , in the event of a negative answer , to provide recommendations as to his treatment or release on parole .

On DATE the NORP prison hospital in GPE replied that it could not grant the request as it did not comply with the applicable regulations . In particular , important information concerning the applicant ’s condition and his consent to the treatment was missing .

On DATE prison IK-CARDINAL sent the same request to the NORP prison hospital in GPE .

In a letter of DATE the same authority replied to a letter from the applicant ’s mother complaining of the applicant ’s poor medical treatment . The reply stated , in particular , that in connection with the deterioration of the applicant ’s eyesight , the prison authorities had sought his admission to the NORP prison hospital in GPE but that their request had been refused . It went on to say that on DATE the applicant had been sent to another prison medical institution for examination , and that thereafter another request would be sent to the NORP prison hospital in GPE for his admission there .

Also on DATE the applicant was examined by an endocrinologist , who stated that he needed cataract surgery .

According to the applicant , by DATE his eyesight had deteriorated to the extent that it was recommended that he use a walking stick when moving about the prison facility , even though that was usually prohibited to convicted persons under the relevant regulations .

DATE . On DATE prison IK-CARDINAL sent another request to the NORP prison hospital in GPE to admit the applicant for further examination in order to decide whether cataract surgery was possible .

On DATE the NORP prison hospital in GPE informed prison IK-CARDINAL that it could admit the applicant for examination and treatment . It stated that , given the term of the applicant ’s imprisonment and the time required to travel from the place of his detention or residence to the hospital , he should arrive at the hospital no later than DATE .

On DATE the applicant refused in writing to be transferred to the NORP prison hospital in GPE for surgery on the following grounds : ( i ) he had not been offered medical assistance during his transfer and was afraid to go on his own as he could not see ; and ( ii ) DATE remained until the expiry of his sentence .

On DATE the prison authorities acknowledged in writing receipt of the applicant ’s refusal . They also stated that the applicant ’s state of health allowed him to be transferred to GPE , that he could take care of himself , and that his refusal was groundless .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that arrangements for transferring him to the NORP prison hospital had been suspended owing to his refusal .

ORG However , in DATE the applicant ’s mother asked the prison authorities to place the applicant in the NORP prison hospital in GPE . In connection with her request , CARDINAL prison doctors talked to the applicant on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and tried to persuade him to give his consent to be transferred to GPE . The applicant said that he would consider it and withheld his consent for the time being . A decision in that respect was therefore postponed .

Nevertheless , on DATE prison IK-CARDINAL sent another request to the NORP prison hospital to admit the applicant for cataract surgery . The applicant eventually refused to be transferred to GPE .

DATE and DATE the applicant remained in prison pursuant to a court judgment of DATE . On several occasions during that period he sought release on parole on medical grounds .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for release on parole , referring , inter alia , to his poor health and the need for medical treatment , in particular , surgery in respect of his eye diseases .

In a decision of DATE the GPE Vymskiy ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) rejected the applicant ’s request . It referred to his negative characteristics as cited by the prison authorities and stated that his diseases did not constitute grounds for his release on parole , as they did not prevent him from serving his sentence .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision following an appeal by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged another request for release on parole . He pointed out , in particular , that he had diabetes and complicated diabetic cataracts in both his eyes , and that surgery in the latter respect had been recommended to him in DATE . The applicant also stated that his eyesight had significantly deteriorated during the period of his imprisonment .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request , stating that his diseases were not on the list of diseases approved by a relevant governmental decree , which precluded the serving of a sentence in the form of imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision following an appeal by the applicant .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events , he was a bank armoured vehicle driver .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant went around an illegally parked bus while driving an armoured vehicle . While he was completing the manoeuvre , the bus started moving and to prevent having an accident with the armoured vehicle it stopped abruptly . As a result of the sudden stop a bus passenger , C. , fell from her seat and suffered moderately severe injuries .

On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated . The prosecutor heard the applicant , the victim C. , the bus driver NORP , a witness who had been sitting in the applicant ’s vehicle and another CARDINAL witnesses who had been passengers on the bus ( S. and PERSON ) .

On DATE NORP was charged with violating traffic rules , resulting in C. ’s injuries .

On DATE the applicant and NORP were interviewed face - to - face . According to the applicant , he had completed the manoeuvre around the stationary bus and taken the lane in front of it after making sure the bus was still stationary . He had then signalled to turn right and used the horn to alert the driver of his intentions . According to NORP , the applicant ’s car had turned right without any warning and he had been forced to stop abruptly to prevent an accident .

DATE the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings against NORP for lack of evidence and instead interviewed him as a witness .

On DATE the applicant was charged with violating traffic rules , resulting in C. ’s injuries .

During the course of the proceedings the ORG heard the same witnesses as the prosecutor . The court also examined a site investigation report and a sketch map of the scene of the incident , both drawn up on DATE at TIME in only NORP ’s presence .

The court considered the testimony of C. and the CARDINAL bus passengers unreliable . They claimed that the applicant had performed a sudden manoeuvre which had obliged NORP to suddenly stop the bus . The court considered that none of them had seen any of the events themselves and that their impression that the applicant was guilty was because the bus driver blamed him . The court also considered D. ’s testimony unreliable because the same charges had been previously brought against him . The court noted that charges had been brought against the applicant based on statements by NORP made shortly after the criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued , without re - interviewing the other witnesses . The court also noted that the site investigation report and the sketch map had not been drawn up immediately after the incident , that the police had gone to the scene TIME and had been joined only by NORP , that the applicant ’s objections had not been reflected in the documents , and that the sketch map did not correspond to the statements given by all the witnesses shortly after the incident .

In a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted the applicant for the reasons given above . It concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide reliable evidence in support of the contention that the applicant ’s actions had obliged NORP to suddenly stop the bus . The prosecutor appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It noted that the first - instance court had correctly scrutinised all the evidence and had provided reasons supporting the findings about the unreliability of the witness statements , referring to the testimony of the CARDINAL passengers . The prosecutor appealed on points of law .

On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant , his representative and the prosecutor were present . The court upheld the prosecutor ’s appeal on points of law , quashed the appellate judgment and ordered a rehearing of the case in accordance with the provisions of LAW , namely that any examination had to be in accordance with the rules applicable in proceedings before the first - instance court . The court found that the appellate court had not thoroughly stated its position on the assessment of the statements made by ORG , NORP and the CARDINAL passengers , but had merely relied on evidence in the applicant ’s favour .

After rehearing the case , on DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The court analysed the witness testimony and the site investigation report and the sketch map , providing reasons why the evidence was unreliable . The prosecutor appealed on points of law .

On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant , his representative and the prosecutor were present . The court upheld the prosecutor ’s appeal on points of law and ordered a rehearing of the case . The court provided reasoning similar to that in its judgment of DATE .

Pursuant to the verbatim record of the appellate hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant and his lawyer did not object to the court continuing to examine the case without recalling the victim and did not request the recalling of witnesses . On DATE , ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s appeal , quashed the judgment of ORG of DATE , found the applicant guilty and ordered him to pay an administrative fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL – MONEY ( ORG ) ) and damages to C. in the amount of MDL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The court referred to a list of evidence , including the disputed statements of ORG , NORP and the CARDINAL witnesses , without providing any additional reasons .

The applicant appealed and outlined , inter alia , the discrepancies in the witness statements , which had been identified by the first - instance court after hearing them and which had not been clarified by the appellate court . On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal in the absence of the parties and declared it inadmissible .

NORP The applicant was served with this judgment on DATE .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE M. was robbed and killed in GPE , where the applicant was also living . On the same date the applicant and CARDINAL other people , GPE and GPE , were arrested on suspicion of robbing and killing PERSON

According to the applicant , he was apprehended by the police task force at TIME on DATE in the apartment of his girlfriend and taken to the police station , where he was beaten up and threatened in an attempt to force him to confess to the robbery and murder of PERSON

The case file contains CARDINAL arrest warrants CARDINAL issued by a police officer and another one by the prosecutor investigating the murder ( hereinafter “ the investigator ” ) , both indicating that the applicant had been arrested by the above - mentioned officials on CARDINAL DATE at TIME at their offices . The arrest warrant issued by the investigator indicates that the applicant acknowledged his guilt , had no observations regarding his arrest and that he wished to be legally represented . It bears the applicant ’s signature , with no comments . The lower part of the last page of the record contains a printed statement ( “ довідка ” ) that was added later ( it was dated DATE ) ; this additional statement is signed by the investigator only and asserts that the applicant ’s relatives were informed of his arrest . The applicant alleged that his family had been informed of his arrest on TIME of the following day ( that is to say DATE ) .

After his arrest , the applicant signed a record , bearing no time , explaining his rights as a suspect , including the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before he was first questioned . The relevant entry in the record indicates that the applicant expressed his wish to be represented by PERSON , a lawyer who lived in PERSON , QUANTITY from GPE , and noted the address of the latter .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE , according to the applicant , and from TIME on DATE , according to the official record , the applicant was questioned as a suspect by the investigator in the presence of B. , a lawyer . The record of the questioning noted that the applicant had been informed of his rights as a suspect from TIME until TIME on DATE and that a separate procedural document existed in this respect evidencing that he had wished to be legally represented . The handwritten entry in the record furthermore stated that the applicant wanted to have PERSON as his lawyer and that he acknowledged in full his guilt in respect of the robbery and murder . During the questioning , the applicant provided details regarding the robbery and admitted that he had hit PERSON in the head with a bat during the robbery but that he had done so instinctively , in self - defence . The applicant did not state what had become of the bat – namely where or in what circumstances he had hidden the bat after the murder . The applicant and PERSON signed the verbatim record , making no objections as to its contents . PERSON then left .

DATE , from TIME , the applicant took part in a videotaped reconstruction of the crime in the presence of a forensic expert , an investigator from the local police , CARDINAL attesting witnesses and the investigator in the case . According to the Government , PERSON was apparently busy and was not able to participate in the reconstruction . No other lawyer was instructed to assist the applicant during this investigative step . According to the applicant , he repeated his request for PERSON to be called , but this was not done and he was forced by means of threats to testify .

During the reconstruction , which commenced near the place where the bat used for the murder had been hidden , the applicant pointed to the exact place where the bat was ; the bat was then uncovered and retained as evidence . A copy of the verbatim record of the reconstruction provided to the ORG by the applicant indicates that he was informed of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself . The verbatim record bears a handwritten “ not ” next to the following printed “ agreed to testify ” . The relevant part of the text is not visible on the copy of the record provided by the ORG . The record furthermore contains the applicant ’s statement that he had not been forced to testify by means of any psychological or physical violence . The applicant signed the record without indicating any objections as to its contents next to his signature .

At an unspecified time on the same date GPE and GPE were questioned as suspects . GPE , being represented by PERSON ( the same lawyer who represented the applicant ) , acknowledged his guilt in respect of the robbery . He stated , inter alia , that he had seen the applicant carrying a bat when they had been entering the victim ’s house . PERSON , having waived his right to legal assistance , admitted that he had taken part in the robbery . He furthermore participated , still unrepresented , in a videotaped reconstruction of the crime during which he stated , inter alia , that he had seen the applicant with a bat in his hands but had not seen who had murdered PERSON

On DATE the investigator appointed PERSON to represent the applicant , and GPE , and admitted him to the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant , in the presence of B. , participated in another videotaped reconstruction of the crime in the victim ’s house . The applicant admitted his guilt and gave further details about the robbery and murder . He reiterated that he had hit PERSON on the head with the bat and stated that another suspect in the case had helped him to hide the bat afterwards .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother signed a contract with the lawyer S. concerning her son ’s legal representation . On the same date S. contacted the prosecutor , who allowed S. to represent the applicant instead of B. The applicant furthermore made a written statement declaring that he was refusing the services of B. and wanted S. to act as his lawyer .

On DATE medical experts examined the applicant following his complaint that he had been ill - treated by the police . No injuries were discovered on the applicant ’s body .

On DATE the video recording of the reconstruction of the crime of DATE was played to the applicant in the presence of S. The applicant retracted his earlier confession and explained that he had only given it because he had been threatened and beaten up by the police on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE and QUANTITY DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his defence lawyer but refused to give any evidence .

On DATE the prosecutors refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s allegation that he had been beaten up by the police , having found the police ORG actions to be lawful .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and the applicant – together with GPE and K.A. – was charged with robbery and murder . It was established that another person , PERSON , had also participated in the robbery , but as he had absconded , he would have to be tried separately .

During the trial the applicant denied having participated in the robbery and the murder and refused to give any evidence . He stated that his earlier confessions to the crimes should not be admitted as evidence as they had been made under duress and in breach of his defence rights , including his right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing . He also argued that the bat which had been retained as evidence and examined by experts during the investigation had not been the same bat as that which he had pointed out during the reconstruction . He supported his allegation by referring to the fact that in the verbatim record , the prosecutor had described the bat as blue , while the experts who had subsequently examined it had described it as grey .

In DATE the police detained PERSON In the course of the trial GPE , PERSON and GPE all pleaded guilty to robbery but denied killing PERSON

On DATE ORG , acting as the first - instance court , convicted the applicant of murder and robbery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . GPE , PERSON and PERSON were also found guilty of robbery but acquitted of murder . The hearing was held in the presence of the applicant ’s new lawyer , NORP , who had replaced the lawyer PERSON on an unspecified date .

The court based the applicant ’s conviction , among other evidence , on the confessions he had made during his questioning by the investigator on DATE , the reconstructions of the crime on CARDINAL and DATE , the statements of his co - defendants that they had seen him with a bat in LOC ’s house , and physical evidence , including an expert ’s report suggesting that the traces of blood found on the bat ( the location of which had been pointed out by the applicant during the reconstruction of the crime on DATE ) could have belonged to M.

By the same judgment , the court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant ’s submissions that he had made his self - incriminating statements under duress , referring to the results of the medical examination of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The court also found no violation of the applicant ’s defence rights . It noted , inter alia , that on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor ’s decision to appoint PERSON as the applicant ’s lawyer had been lawful , because at the material time the applicant had not had a contract with S. for legal representation . It also observed that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had raised no objections to the questioning record . The court also suggested , without giving details , that there had been some technical errors in the procedural documents , in particular as regards the time of the applicant ’s arrest and questioning , but that they did not affect the fairness of the respective investigative actions .

The court refuted the applicant ’s allegation that the bat retained as evidence had been switched with another ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , noting that the disparity in the bat ’s description by the experts and the prosecutor could have been explained by the fact that the latter was colour blind .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG on points of law , reiterating his complaints . He stated , in particular , that he had not been represented by the lawyer of his choice , PERSON , on CARDINAL and DATE , but by PERSON , who had been appointed by the investigator against the applicant ’s will . He further stated that he had not been assisted by any lawyer when he had been forced to confess during the crime reconstruction of CARDINAL DATE . He also complained about the fact that B. had represented him and his co - accused GPE at the same time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) – a conflict of interest ( as there had been important discrepancies in their respective statements ) that should have prevented him from being allowed to do so .

On DATE ORG , acting as the second - instance court , upheld the applicant ’s conviction and sentence in his presence . The applicant was not represented by a lawyer during the hearing , but he did not provide any further details in this regard .

ORG found that the applicant ’s guilt was proved , inter alia , by the statements he had made during his questioning of CARDINAL DATE and during the reconstructions of the crime . It noted in this respect that those statements had been corroborated by other evidence , including the testimony of his co - accused , and concluded that the lower court had correctly admitted the applicant ’s self - incriminating statements as evidence . The court also noted that the details of the crime which the applicant had revealed in his statements could not have been known to him unless he had been the direct perpetrator .

Without mentioning the applicant ’s arguments regarding the alleged breach of his defence rights , ORG found no procedural violations during the proceedings serious enough to necessitate it quashing the judgment .

On an unspecified date the applicant was released from prison .


No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE the NORP police learned that CARDINAL civilians had been killed DATE in the village of NORP . Their bodies were transported to ORG of ORG by the members of ORG who had found them . CARDINAL of the bodies were identified as the applicants’ parents , QUANTITY and PERSON , and the third as their grandmother , PERSON . An investigating judge of ORG was informed of the killings . The investigating judge decided that it was not possible to carry out an on - site inspection because of the danger of further attacks by unidentified persons from GPE .

On DATE a pathologist performed an autopsy on the corpses and drew up a post - mortem report . He established that the applicants’ parents and their grandmother had been shot dead .

On DATE the NORP police lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG against persons unknown on charges of murder in connection with the killing of CARDINAL inhabitants of GPE on DATE , including the applicants’ parents , Mile and PERSON , and their grandmother PERSON .

On DATE the NORP police interviewed GPE , who had been living in LOC , a village near NORP , during the critical period . On an unspecified date in DATE CARDINAL members of the NORP paramilitary forces , GPE , GPE and GPE , had fired at him , but he had escaped into the woods . While visiting CARDINAL of his neighbours on DATE he had met PERSON and ORG , who had said that they had killed some people in NORP . When the police showed him photographs of some members of the NORP paramilitary forces he recognised PERSON and Č.B. as B. and ORG , the persons he had met at his neighbour ’s house .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE and GPE , who were brothers . PERSON said that he had met PERSON , Č.B. and another man in a prison in GPE . When he had asked PERSON why they had been imprisoned he had told him that they had killed some civilians in PERSON . However , GPE and PERSON thought that this had not happened in PERSON but in CARDINAL of the NORP villages near ORG .

On DATE the NORP police sent a report to ORG stating that ORG may have been among the perpetrators of the killings in NORP .

NORP Immediately before the ORG military action “ Storm ” which started on CARDINAL DATE , the vast majority of the NORP paramilitary forces fled GPE , firstly to GPE and then to GPE in some cases .

In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .

On DATE the second applicant handed the police a letter sent to her by her relative PERSON

In DATE the police interviewed the second applicant .

On DATE the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order ( Služba za zaštitu ustavnog poretka ) sent a report to ORG and the ORG Attorney ’s ORG on the killing of the applicants’ parents and grandmother , allegedly by members of the NORP paramilitary forces . The report stated that the only survivors who had any information about the killings were GPE and PERSON , who both lived in GPE . A letter of DATE , drafted by ORG , was also enclosed , as well as a letter drafted by PERSON and his father PERSON on an unspecified date and sent to ORG . PERSON alleged that on DATE a group of members of the NORP paramilitary forces from GPE had come to their village , PERSON , and killed several people . He named GPE , GPE . , GPE , GPE , GPE . , Bo . PERSON , ORG , GPE , ORG . PERSON Br . PERSON . NORP , GPE , ORG . GPE and GPE as those personally known to him . He openly named commanders of various formations of these forces as : P.R. , GPE , ORG or ORG , ORG . Se . and PERSON The only survivors had been himself and his parents . They had been taken from NORP to a prison in PERSON . His mother had died in the meantime while he and his father PERSON had emigrated to GPE after the war .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG lodged a request for an investigation with ORG and asked that PERSON and PERSON be heard as witnesses .

On DATE the police interviewed ORG and ORG , former members of the NORP paramilitary forces , in FAC . ORG said that a formation of NORP paramilitary forces under the command of ORG . S. and PERSON had carried out “ actions ” , inter alia , in the area of NORP . He named several members of that formation . PERSON described various actions in which members of NORP paramilitary forces had killed civilians in NORP villages in the broader area of GPE and PERSON , including NORP , but had no information about the killing of the applicants’ relatives .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE , also a former member of the NORP paramilitary forces , who described various actions in which members of NORP paramilitary forces had killed civilians in NORP villages in the broader area of GPE and PERSON , including NORP , but had no information about the killing of the applicants’ relatives .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG asked the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG whether they still insisted on interviews with PERSON and PERSON since their address was “ uncertain ” . On DATE the investigating judge asked ORG for the address of PERSON and PERSON On DATE the ORG provided the investigating judge with the address of PERSON and GPE in GPE .

On DATE ORG sent a detailed report about the possible suspects to the NORP - senjska ORG .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG sent a report to the ORG Attorney ’s ORG on the killing of CARDINAL civilians in NORP in DATE . ORG had informed them that ORG had invited PERSON and PERSON on CARDINAL occasions to give their statements , which they had refused to do with the explanation that they had already given their statements in writing . They had almost certainly been referring to a letter to their relatives in GPE and the one sent to the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG heard evidence from PERSON , who confirmed that members of the NORP paramilitary forces had captured PERSON in DATE . As to the killing of the CARDINAL persons in NORP , he had heard about that from one PERSON , who had died in the meantime .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE , GPE and PERSON had no relevant information about the killing of the civilians in NORP . GPE and PERSON repeated their earlier statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the police again interviewed ORG , who repeated his statement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the police also interviewed ORG , a neighbour of GPE , who admitted that PERSON and Č.B. had visited him in DATE but said that they had not mentioned the killing of civilians in NORP .

On DATE the police noted that in DATE PERSON and Č.B. had been convicted of war crimes in connection with the killing of NORP ’s family in PERSON , GPE , and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment by a court in GPE .

NORP In DATE the police interviewed the second applicant again .

On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , CARDINAL of the NORP soldiers who had found the bodies in NORP . He had no relevant information about the killing of the civilians in NORP .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE , a former member of the NORP paramilitary forces . He repeated his earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that one of the suspects , ORG , had been placed in pre - trial detention in connection with a different set of criminal proceedings . He had in the meantime become a NORP citizen .

On DATE the NORP - senjska ORG sent a report to the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG informing it that CARDINAL of the persons mentioned in PERSON ’s letter ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , namely GPE and GPE , had died . A report drawn up by GPE , a member of the NORP paramilitary forces was enclosed . It stated that on DATE “ they had killed CARDINAL people ” . A list of the members of the paramilitary forces from the FAC area was also enclosed .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s Office sent a criminal complaint against GPE and Č.B. to ORG and asked him for the address of another suspect , ORG , indicating that he should be questioned about the report he had allegedly drawn up on the events of DATE in NORP .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG forwarded a report on the interviews with ORG , GPE and GPE , carried out by the NORP authorities , to the NORP - senjska ORG . They denied any involvement in the killing of the applicants’ relatives .

DATE and DATE the ORG - senjska ORG interviewed GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , GPE and PERSON had no relevant information about the killing of the applicants’ relatives . The others repeated their earlier statements .

On DATE and DATE the NORP - senjska ORG sent a report to the GPE State Attorney ’s Office listing the suspected perpetrators of the killings in NORP on DATE . CARDINAL of them had died , CARDINAL had moved to GPE , CARDINAL to GPE and in respect of CARDINAL of them there was no relevant information .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s Office sent the report of DATE to ORG and asked him to interview the suspects living in GPE .

In DATE the police learned that CARDINAL of the suspects , ORG , had died .