Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

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

The applicant was the Minister of the ORG . He occupied DATE and from DATE to DATE . Since CARDINAL DATE he has been the leader of ORG party .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another individual , PERSON , on suspicion of abuse of office under LAW of LAW . On DATE the applicant was formally charged . On DATE he gave a written obligation not to abscond .

On DATE the ORG instituted another criminal case against the applicant for exceeding his official powers under LAW , on the ground that he had arranged for the allocation of a CARDINAL - room apartment to his driver , PERSON

The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined together .

On DATE the ORG completed the investigation in the case and formally charged the applicant with both offences , having reclassified his actions specified in the first charge under LAW of LAW ( misappropriation , embezzlement , and conversion of property by malfeasance ) .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained in ORG ( Слідчий Ізолятор Служби Безпеки GPE ) .

On DATE ORG ( ORG районний суд ) ( hereinafter “ the Pechersk Court ” ) ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant be changed from a written obligation not to abscond to remand in custody .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL ( ORG № CARDINAL ) ( hereinafter “ the GPE ” ) .

On DATE the ORG submitted the applicant ’s criminal case to ORG which , on DATE , rendered a judgment sentencing the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The case received extensive attention in both national and international media which were present at court hearings . Photographs depicting the applicant behind metal bars were published soon after the court hearings .

On DATE the applicant appealed , seeking the quashing of the first - instance judgment on the ground of lack of guilt .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON суд міста PERSON ) upheld the judgment of ORG .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to LOC colony in LOC to serve his prison sentence .

In a judgment of DATE ORG of GPE for civil and criminal cases ( ORG спеціалізований суд України з розгляду цивільних і кримінальних справ ) upheld the applicant ’s prison sentence slightly reducing the amount of compensation that he had to pay .

On DATE the former President of GPE issued a decree of pardon in respect of a number of individuals , including the applicant , who was released DATE .

Prior to his arrest the applicant was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type CARDINAL and chronic gastritis and pancreatitis .

Upon his admission to the GPE on DATE , the applicant was examined by the head of the medical unit and a duty doctor . He underwent clinical , laboratory and X - ray examinations . On the basis of those examinations and the applicant ’s anamnesis , he was diagnosed with symptomatic hypertension and it was recommended that his arterial pressure be constantly monitored . According to the applicant , the prison doctors did not pay attention to his chronic diseases which were mentioned in the medical report submitted to ORG and indicated orally by him on a number of occasions .

According to the ORG , during the period from DATE to DATE the applicant was under constant supervision by doctors of the GPE medical unit who visited him on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and on DATE . During this period , no complaints were received from him and his state of health remained satisfactory . Doctors regularly measured his blood pressure and pulse rate and carried out his general examination . The applicant denied that he had not complained about problems connected with his state of health . According to him , during DATE of his detention , he lost QUANTITY , his low - grade fever and spastic stomach pain was constant .

Following the applicant ’s complaints about the deterioration of his health , on DATE , a private medical laboratory took blood samples from him for analysis . Inflammation was diagnosed as a result . The doctor who arrived at that conclusion presumed that it was probably a mixed viral and bacterial infection . A provisional diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis was also made . For more specific diagnoses , further specialist examinations were required .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with arthritis by GPE doctors .

On DATE a new blood analysis showed some negative changes in the applicant ’s immune system . His requests for examination by the cardiologist / rheumatologist who issued the above conclusion were without success .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit . He complained of pain in the joints . He was diagnosed with symptomatic hypertension and generalised osteoarthritis , and blood pressure monitoring was recommended .

On DATE the applicant went on hunger strike in protest at his continued pre - trial detention .

According to the ORG , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was under DATE supervision by doctors of the GPE medical unit . From time to time he complained of dizziness and general weakness . His state of health remained satisfactory during this period .

On DATE the GPE administration placed him in a solitary - confinement cell and demonstrated forced - feeding facilities ( such as handcuffs , a mouth widener and a rubber tube ) . Those were apparently never applied to him .

According to the Government , on DATE , the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit . He complained of heart pain , which he said was worse when he made turning movements . The applicant was diagnosed with symptomatic hypertension , generalised osteoarthritis , and myositis of the left major pectoral muscle . At the same time , he informed the doctor that he had eaten no food for DATE and had only had tea without sugar and coffee with sugar . An analysis of the applicant ’s urine was carried out . There was a CARDINAL reaction for acetone . General monitoring of the applicant ’s state of health , of the acetone level in his urine , and of his blood pressure was recommended .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from ORG of GPE ( ORG пенітенціарна служба GPE ) ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) . He was prescribed an “ anti - starvation food mixture ” ( semolina or oatmeal , butter , sugar , milk , eggs , boiled meat , salt , and ascorbic acid , with a total caloric content of CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL kcal ) and the following medication : NaCL solution , vitamins NORP and BCARDINAL , and NORP solution . On DATE a general blood analysis , a blood sugar - level test and a urine acetone test were carried out for the applicant - ( a “ CARDINAL ” reaction was obtained ) . On DATE the applicant consumed QUANTITY of “ anti - starvation food mixture ” .

On DATE the ORG medical panel found his general state of health stable and held that positive progress was being made in overcoming dizziness and general weakness . A urine test for acetone was carried out for the applicant ( a “ CARDINAL ” reaction was obtained ) .

On DATE , upon another examination by the ORG medical panel , a urine acetone test was carried out for the applicant . A “ CARDINAL ” reaction was obtained . On DATE the applicant consumed QUANTITY of “ anti - starvation food mixture ” . It was recommended that he undergo further biochemical and general blood tests , a general urine analysis , a blood - sugar - level test and a urine acetone test , and also ultrasonic examinations of his abdominal cavity and kidneys . Injections of Reosorbilact solution and of glucose in solution were given to the applicant .

On DATE the ORG medical panel saw the applicant again . He was found to have moderate diffuse changes in the liver , chronic cholecystitis and chronic pancreatitis . On DATE the applicant consumed QUANTITY of “ anti - starvation food mixture ” . Injections of Reosorbilact solution and of glucose in solution were given to the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s wife asked the PERSON administration to carry out medical examinations of her husband in her presence . By that time , the applicant had lost QUANTITY in weight . On DATE , according to the Government , the applicant was examined by the ORG medical panel . A general blood test , a blood - sugar - level test and a test of the urine for acetone were carried out at ORG . The test results were low - grade positive . The applicant was diagnosed with chronic cholecystitis and chronic pancreatitis . It was also found that the applicant ’s state of health reflected his starvation . On DATE , the applicant refused to eat food or to undergo fluid - maintenance therapy to restore the balance of water , protein , and electrolytes in the body .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE medical unit . According to the Government , he was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . He was diagnosed with hypertension of the CARDINALst degree , cardiac insufficiency , type CARDINAL diabetes mellitus in a mild form at the compensation stage , chronic cholecystitis in unstable remission , chronic pancreatitis in unstable remission , osteoarthritis without exacerbation , disseminated osteochondrosis of the spine , and thoracic kyphosis . It was recommended that the applicant : ( CARDINAL ) undergo an exercise electrocardiography ( ECG ) test and ultrasonic examination of the heart in order to exclude ischaemic heart disease ; ( CARDINAL ) take antihypertensive medication ( PERSON ) when the blood pressure was higher than CARDINAL/CARDINAL PERSON ; take Metoprolol in order to stop the tachycardia which occurred when the pulse rate was CARDINAL beats per minute . The applicant received this medical treatment in full .

According to the Government , on DATE he was once again examined by the ORG medical panel . A check test of the urine for acetone was carried out ( a “ CARDINAL ” reaction was obtained ) and a general urine test was also done for the applicant . The panel confirmed the previous diagnosis . The applicant refused to consume any of the “ anti - starvation food mixture ” or to undergo fluid maintenance therapy .

On DATE he was examined by a panel of doctors from GPE - based medical institutions of ORG . The previous diagnosis was confirmed and it was additionally found that the applicant had chronic gastritis in unstable remission . The panel noted that the applicant ’s hunger strike was significantly affecting his general state of health . ORG and echocardiography tests were carried out for the applicant . The urinary reaction for acetone was CARDINAL . The applicant was refusing to consume the “ anti - starvation food mixture ” . He was subjected to fluid - maintenance therapy with PERSON . It was also recommended that the applicant broaden the variety of foods he ate , limiting the consumption of easily digestible carbohydrates ( sugar , honey , and sweets ) ; consistently take graduated physical activity ; take GPE or PERSON ( to normalise bowel function ) and probiotics ( ORG or PERSON ) .

On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by the ORG medical panel . The urinary reaction for acetone was low - grade positive . He refused to consume “ anti - starvation food mixture ” . He was subjected to fluid - maintenance therapy with a physiological solution , vitamins Bl , BCARDINAL , C , PERSON , and PERSON .

According to the applicant , before CARDINAL DATE his medical monitoring had been limited to measuring his blood pressure and weighing him , along with a superficial examination by the GPE doctor .

On DATE he was taken to ORG ( Міська клінічна лікарня швидкої медичної допомоги ) ( hereinafter “ the Emergency Hospital ” ) . On DATE , the management of the hospital informed the investigator that the applicant was suffering from chronic pancreatitis in the aggravated stage , chronic gastroduodenitis , cardial - type neurocirculatory dystonia , and type CARDINAL diabetes . His condition was evaluated as moderately serious .

On DATE the deputy medical director of ORG gave additional details to the applicant ’s wife as regards his health . In addition to the aforementioned diagnoses , he noted the following illnesses : chronic cholecystitis , gall bladder polyposis , autoimmune thyroiditis , euthyroidism , seborrheic dermatitis , myopia , osteochondrosis , chronic sinusitis , right - ear deafness , duodenal ulcer , gastric erosion and duodenogastric reflux .

On DATE the applicant ended his hunger strike .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE he was examined by doctors of the GPE medical unit . On DATE he ate gruel . He was also subjected to fluid - maintenance treatment with PERSON and PERSON . Generally , although he continued to complain of general weakness , his condition improved considerably once he had ended the hunger strike .

The GPE doctors saw the applicant also on DATE . They concluded that the applicant was suffering from the following illnesses : exacerbated chronic pancreatitis , chronic cholecystitis , gall - bladder polyposis , chronic duodenal ulcer , autoimmune thyroiditis , euthyroidism , type CARDINAL diabetes mellitus , cardial - type neurocirculatory dystonia of medium severity , seborrheic dermatitis , cervical osteochondrosis , toxic - dyscirculatory encephalopathy of endogenic origin ( degree I - II ) , duodenal ulcer , papillomatous gastropathy , and gastric erosions . On DATE the applicant ate gruel and drank water and carrot juice . The applicant underwent fluid - maintenance treatment and anti - ulcer treatment .

On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the doctors of the GPE medical unit confirmed the previous diagnosis . The applicant received fluid - maintenance and anti - ulcer treatment and underwent a urine test ( which indicated no acetone ) , a blood test for sugar , and biochemical analysis of the blood . A consultation with a gastroenterologist was also scheduled for the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . As a result of the examination , the panel found the applicant ’s general state of health to be satisfactory . The applicant was diagnosed with the following conditions : peptic duodenal ulcer , post gastrointestinal haemorrhage condition , erosive gastritis , and mild post haemorrhagic anemia . It was recommended that he receive anti - ulcer treatment as an in - patient basis at a gastroenterology clinic . If it was impossible to arrange in - patient treatment for him , he would have to continue to take PERSON ; again undergo a fibrogastroscopy with biopsy , a general blood test , electrolytes ( potassium , phosphorus , fecal occult blood test ) and eat CARDINAL small meals a day , sticking to a diet with a high protein content .

According to the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE he was examined in the GPE and diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer in the progressing phase , gastrointestinal bleeding , erosive gastritis , and toxic - metabolic encephalopathy . Moreover , all his previously diagnosed diseases were confirmed .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE he was examined by GPE doctors , who confirmed the previous diagnoses . He continued to receive the anti - ulcer treatment and multiple small - portion meals .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent a urine acetone test , which revealed no acetone , a blood test for sugar , and a general blood test . The examination results confirmed the previous diagnoses .

On DATE and DATE he was examined by GPE doctors who confirmed the previous diagnoses . Analyses of his blood and urine were carried out . He continued to receive the anti - ulcer treatment and appropriate diet .

On DATE the governor of the GPE informed the President of ORG of some further diagnoses regarding the applicant ’s health , established during his examination of CARDINAL DATE , and sought leave for him to be examined in ORG . According to the Government , the letter was sent to the court only on DATE .

In his reply of CARDINAL DATE the judge of ORG stated that the court did not object to the applicant ’s being examined in a civilian hospital . A copy of this letter was sent to ORG of ORG with a request for escorted transport for the applicant .

On DATE ORG replied that the applicant ’s medical care was the responsibility of the PERSON administration .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife and his legal representative made a new request to the court that he be hospitalised . They alleged that the applicant had constant stomach pain and had lost more weight , QUANTITY in total . On DATE the judge replied that the court had no objection .

According to the Government , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined DATE by GPE doctors . In line with the instructions given following the previous examination by the medical panel , the applicant had regular clinical , biochemical , and general blood tests and urine analyses ( these took place on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE ) . The applicant was receiving anti - ulcer treatment , the recommended diet , and the prescribed outpatient treatment . During this period , the above - mentioned diagnoses remained valid . Furthermore , on DATE the doctors found that his peptic duodenal ulcer had begun to cicatrise , which indicated a gradual improvement in his state of health .

According to the ORG , the court gave its permission for the applicant ’s examination at ORG on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was examined at ORG . PERSON and ultrasonic scans were performed for the applicant . The examination revealed that he had esophageal varicose veins with CARDINALst degree dilatation , moderate portal hypertensive gastropathy , chronic cholecystitis , gall - bladder polyposis , chronic pancreatitis , and urolithic diathesis . It was recommended that the applicant undergo a biochemical blood test , a general blood test , analyses for hepatitis B , C , and D antibody titers , abdominal ultrasonic scanning with GPE sonography . According to the applicant , he did not receive any of the prescribed medicines .

On DATE , blood samples were taken from the applicant in the presence of his lawyer for complex liver function tests ( hepatitis B , C , and D ) . At the applicant ’s request , in order to ensure an objective analysis , the samples were sent to CARDINAL laboratories : PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the applicant underwent abdominal ultrasonic scanning with GPE sonography at FAC . On the basis of the examination , the following diagnosis was made : signs of diffuse damage to the liver in a chronic hepatosis pattern , portal hypertension of the P’ degree , splenomegaly of the lst degree , and chronic cholecystitis . In pursuance of the recommendation , the applicant was tested for hepatitis B , C , and D markers , and liver function tests were done .

On DATE the applicant was prescribed the following medication : Ursofalk , Essentiale Forte , Primer , ORG , and ORG .

According to the Government , from DATE the applicant was under DATE supervision by GPE doctors . His state of health remained unchanged . He continued complaining of discomfort in the upper abdomen . He received the medical treatment prescribed for him earlier .

On DATE CARDINAL senior civilian doctors examined the applicant in the GPE . They diagnosed cirrhosis of the liver supposedly triggered by the earlier hunger strike . Furthermore , CARDINAL internal haemorrhages were noted . It was recommended that the applicant undergo a more thorough examination in a specialist civilian hospital . In the meantime , he needed to get proper nutrition .

According to the Government , on DATE , following a court decision , the GPE was visited by a panel of doctors ( gastroenterologists , an endoscopist , and an ultra - sonographer ) . The applicant refused to be medically examined , to have blood samples taken , or to undergo ultrasonic examinations and fibrogastroduodenoscopy , which had been recommended by the medical panel .

On DATE a commission of ORG examined the applicant in the GPE . It recommended that he undergo examination with special equipment so that specific diagnoses could be made .

On DATE and DATE blood samples and faeces were taken from the applicant for laboratory tests .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife again requested ORG to allow her husband to be hospitalised and given proper treatment .

On DATE the applicant was hospitalised and examined in ORG , which diagnosed the initial signs of portal hypertension , as well as signs of chronic cholecystitis , angiomyolipoma of the right kidney , and parenchymatous cyst of the left kidney . On the same date the applicant underwent an abdominal ultrasonic scan , which discovered signs of gall - bladder polyps and pancreatic diffuse changes , and confirmed the aforementioned kidney pathologies .

On DATE the applicant underwent a colonoscopy which showed sigmoid colon diverticulitis . On DATE a newly appointed commission of ORG examined him and diagnosed fatty liver disease . Dietetic therapy , mineral - vitamin complex , proton pump blockers and hepato - protectors were prescribed .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant consulted a haematologist . In view of a decreased number of white blood cells ( leukocytes ) and thrombocytes in his blood , it was recommended that he again undergo a general blood test at CARDINAL independent laboratories , to be identified by ORG . Once the results of those examinations were known it was recommended that the applicant again consult a haematologist .

On DATE the applicant ’s blood samples were sent to the laboratory for a general blood test . On DATE , following the haematologist ’s recommendation , a blood sample was sent to the LOC laboratory for a coagulation profile test .

On DATE the applicant again consulted the haematologist . The results of the previous examinations led the doctor to find that he had no blood system disorders .

On DATE the applicant completed the course of medical treatment prescribed by the panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions on DATE .

On DATE it was proposed that he undergo a liver biopsy , which he declined .

According to him , the biopsy is a surgical intervention , after which the patient should stay in the medical institution under medical supervision for a period the doctor considers necessary to monitor any post - operative complications . However , the applicant was not provided with guarantees that the medical care would be adequate and that he would stay in the hospital after the biopsy . He considered that removing him immediately to the GPE would hurt his state of health . Besides , the applicant feared that proper medical care would not be provided to him in the GPE if there were complications after the biopsy . He referred in this connection to his previous experience .

On DATE the applicant ’s relatives brought him the proton pump blockers and hepato - protectors which had been prescribed by ORG commission specialists DATE .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was examined by GPE doctors . When examined , he complained of general weakness , dragging pain in the right hypochondrium , and discomfort in the upper abdomen and in the intestine area . He was diagnosed with fatty liver disease , signs of incipient portal hypertension , erosive haemorrhagic helicobacter - associated gastritis , and diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon . As the applicant had completed the prescribed course of outpatient treatment , it was proposed that he undergo laboratory and instrumental tests . The applicant submitted a written statement refusing to undergo fibrogastroduodenoscopy and rectosigmoidoscopy .

DATE . On DATE blood samples were taken from the applicant for laboratory examination at the GPE diagnostic centre . In particular , he underwent clinical , general , and biochemical blood tests and a coagulation profile test .

On DATE , upon a court decision , the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . He was diagnosed with the following conditions : fatty liver disease , signs of incipient portal hypertension , chronic helicobacter associated gastritis , and diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon . It was recommended that the applicant undergo an abdominal ultrasound scan , a faecal occult blood test , and a faecal analysis for helminth eggs and protozoa , consult a urologist , receive diet - based treatment , take a mineral - vitamin complex , and continue to take proton - pump inhibitors .

On DATE the applicant underwent abdominal ultrasonic scanning at ORG . He was diagnosed with gall bladder polyp signs , moderate pancreatic changes , angiomyolipomas of the right kidney , and small cysts of the left renal sinus . However , he refused to consult a urologist .

On DATE he received a parcel with the necessary medication .

According to the Government , during DATE the applicant ’s state of health remained satisfactory . From time to time he complained of general weakness , discomfort in the large intestine area , and pain in the right hypochondrium . During that period , he was examined DATE by doctors of the GPE medical unit , and regularly provided with the prescribed medical treatment . The diagnosis remained unchanged .

However , the applicant continued to complain of periodic discomfort in the large intestine area . He received the medical treatment prescribed by the panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . The results of the earlier examinations led the doctors to diagnose the applicant with the following conditions : fatty liver disease , signs of incipient portal hypertension , chronic helicobacter - associated gastritis , irritable bowel syndrome , and diverticular disease of sigmoid colon , but no signs of blood disorder were found . The doctors recommended that the applicant undergo some additional examinations : electrocardiography , irrigoscopy , and an analysis of faeces for dysbiosis , to determine pancreatic ( faecal ) elastase , and a faecal occult blood test . Also , the applicant was prescribed the following medical treatment : diet - based treatment ; Spasmomen or Meteospasmyl ; GPE suppositories ; PERSON ; PERSON , to stop pain in the stomach ; ORG , to continue to take from DATE . However , on DATE the applicant on his own initiative refused to start the medical treatment prescribed .

NORP In DATE the applicant complained to the PERSON administration of stomach and intestinal pains .

On DATE and DATE he underwent various laboratory tests in respect of his chronic gastrointestinal diseases , and on DATE an ultrasonic examination of his abdominal cavity was conducted .

DATE . On DATE , during a court hearing , the applicant complained that he did not feel well . An ambulance was therefore called . The doctor diagnosed exacerbation of chronic pancreatitis and administered some medication to the applicant . The applicant ’s overall state of health was assessed as satisfactory .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of medical specialists delegated by ORG which established the following diagnoses : fatty liver disease ( steatosis ) , signs of incipient portal hypertension , chronic helicobacter - associated gastritis , irritable bowel syndrome , and diverticulosis of sigmoid colon . While the commission acknowledged a deterioration of the applicant ’s health due to “ nutrition - regime disturbance and psycho - emotional overload ” , it found his health generally satisfactory and not warranting in - patient treatment in a specialist civilian hospital . The physicians recommended normalisation of the nutrition regime and reduction of the psycho - emotional pressure . They also prescribed some medication .

On DATE ORG delegated another panel , of CARDINAL gastroenterologists , to examine the applicant in the GPE . The doctors found him to be in a generally satisfactory state of health , and concluded that he did not require hospitalisation . They also specified the medication to be administered to the applicant , and repeated the earlier recommendation regarding his nutritional needs .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . They noted that his state of health had improved . The applicant was diagnosed with fatty liver disease ( steatosis ) , signs of incipient portal hypertension , chronic helicobacter - associated gastritis , irritable bowel syndrome , and diverticulosis of sigmoid colon . It was advised that he receive rational nutrition diet , continue to take ORG and take PERSON , PERSON extract , and suppositories with belladonna . The applicant received that medication in full .

On DATE he was transferred from the GPE to ORG for further examination .

According to the applicant , despite numerous check - ups , there was no proper medical treatment or medicine available to him in the GPE . He received proper medical treatment in ORG on DATE and DATE , but was discharged from the hospital on CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , upon an arbitrary decision by ORG authorities , rather than upon a decision of the doctors treating him at the hospital . He was provided with medication which was incompatible with his general state of health , and although they treated his immediate health problem they contributed to the deterioration of his general state of health .

Upon his admission to the GPE , the applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY . He shared the cell with CARDINAL other inmates . According to him , the cell had poor ventilation and lacked personal hygiene facilities . Its walls had mould traces . Furthermore , there was no access to drinking water . Except for period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he shared this cell with CARDINAL other detainees .

According to the Government , the cell had a proper ventilation system and natural lighting . The applicant had had DATE exercise in the fresh air , except on DATE when lengthy court hearings were held . He was permitted to receive drinking water from relatives . He was allowed to take a shower once or DATE .

DATE , the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL in the GPE medical unit , which measured QUANTITY .

From DATE he was a patient in ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , in the GPE medical unit , which he shared with another person . He remained there until DATE .

On DATE he was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , which he shared with another inmate .

On DATE he was moved to cell no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . He returned to cell no . CARDINAL on DATE .

From the documents provided by the ORG , in particular the minutes of the hearings held before ORG ( see annex ) , it appears that DATE and DATE the court held CARDINAL hearings at which the applicant was present . At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , it pronounced the judgment convicting the applicant . During CARDINAL hearings , the court did not withdraw for deliberation on intermediate procedural issues but CARDINAL break was announced , during CARDINAL hearings the court both withdrew to deliberate and announced CARDINAL break , and QUANTITY hearings were interrupted by deliberations on intermediate procedural issue of the court but otherwise were carried out without a proper break . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the court announced breaks for lunch . However , on DATE the applicant had been removed from the courtroom for the rest of the hearing because of his improper behavior before the lunch break was announced .

Moreover , CARDINAL hearings were carried out without any deliberation and the court did not announce any break . In particular , on DATE the hearing lasted TIME , on DATE it took TIME , and on DATE the hearings lasted TIME .

The applicant continued his hunger strike up to CARDINAL DATE . He was informed beforehand that the preliminary hearing would be held on DATE . According to him , he was woken up at TIME to be taken to the court building for a hearing which started at TIME He had to wait in a small convoy room of QUANTITY . Overall , for TIME , he was allegedly held without food and drinking water , in poorly ventilated LOC . On DATE , he terminated the hunger strike , which had lasted for DATE .

According to the Government , this information was incorrect . The applicant left the hospital at TIME , reaching the court - house at TIME At TIME he was transferred to the courtroom .

According to the applicant , he was brought to the court hearing with an open bleeding stomach ulcer , although this condition required immediate hospitalisation . After TIME hearing he was driven to the GPE . He was transferred to the medical unit of the GPE only after he had lost consciousness . Despite this , no treatment was recommended for him . TIME the applicant ’s state of health suddenly worsened .

According to the ORG , as long as the applicant was in hospital , his health was under constant supervision by medical specialists there . In the event that his state of health did not permit him to take part in a hearing , this would be notified by the medical staff and the applicant would not then have been convoyed to the court hearing .

According to the applicant , he suffered from the absence of drinking water and nutrition , as well as the lack of rest , during the later court hearings too , while being kept in a metal cage in the courtroom .

On DATE the applicant , in his request under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , which was subsequently not granted , maintained that on CARDINAL and DATE ORG had held the hearings DATE despite his complaints of deteriorating health and acute pain in his stomach . According to him , the hearings had lasted from TIME until TIME usually with TIME break . On DATE the court hearing had lasted from TIME The applicant stated that after having left the GPE , he had not been provided with any food or water until his return . Moreover , on DATE the court called the ambulance for him CARDINAL times .

According to the information submitted by the ORG , on DATE of the hearings detainees received food packs from the prison authorities : the applicant refused these in writing on DATE and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , noting that he had his own food supply .

The Government submitted tables of the schedule of DATE ( see annex ) containing the information about the time when the applicant was put in the car and reached the courtroom , when the hearings started and were closed and the time when the applicant was put in the car and arrived back in the GPE . They also submitted the minutes of the court hearings held before FAC .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Legislative amendments);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The CARDINAL GCARDINAL Summit took place in FAC DATE , DATE and DATE under the chairmanship of GPE .

In the run - up to the LOC a large number of non - governmental organisations had set up a coordinating group known as ORG ( “ ORG ” ) with a view to organising an “ anti - globalisation ” Summit in Genoa during the same dates ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary inquiry into the events during the Genoa GCARDINAL Summit ( see “ Final Rapport of the Parliamentary Inquiry ” ) , pp . DATE ) .

Since the meeting of ORG in GPE in DATE , such demonstrations by the “ anti - globalisation ” movement have been organised during inter - State summits and meetings of international institutions on different aspects of global governance . They have sometimes been accompanied by acts of vandalism and clashes with the police ( ibid . ) .

Law No . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Law No . CARDINAL ” ) had assigned the task of organising the preliminary meetings and LOC scheduled for DATE to a plenipotentiary body set up within ORG . Several meetings were attended by representatives of the ORG , the Head of the plenipotentiary body , the Prefect of Genoa , the Minister of the ORG , the Minister for ORG and local authority representatives ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , pp . DATE ) .

Substantial security measures were put in place by the NORP authorities ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) . Under section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , the prefect of ORG was authorised to deploy military personnel . In addition , the part of the city where the GCARDINAL were meeting ( the historic centre ) was designated as a “ red zone ” and cordoned off by means of a metal fence . As a result , only residents and persons working in the area were allowed access . Access to the port was prohibited and the airport was closed to traffic . The red zone was contained within a yellow zone , which in turn was surrounded by a white ( normal ) zone .

According to the information garnered by the NORP police department DATE ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , p. CARDINAL ) , the various groups expected to take part in the demonstrations were broken down into various blocs depending on the danger they posed : the non - dangerous “ Pink Bloc ” ; the “ LOC and the “ LOC ” , which were deemed to comprise persons likely to vandalise property , set up street and railway blockades and cause confrontations with the police ; and lastly , the “ LOC ” , which embraced several anarchist groups and more broadly , demonstrators dressed in black and wearing masks and balaclavas who had systematically wreaked havoc during other summits .

On DATE CARDINAL demonstrations took place during DATE without incident . Disorder occurred during the evening ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , p. CARDINAL ) .

On DATE several demonstrations had been announced for various areas of the city , and rallies were scheduled for specific squares ( “ piazze tematiche ” ) ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , pp . DATE ) .

On TIME CARDINAL July LOC sparked numerous incidents and clashes with law - enforcement officers , and ransacked banks and supermarkets ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . PERSON was attacked and a number of police stations were vandalised ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL , and Final Report of ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .

The Black Bloc sparked similar incidents while the Tute Bianche , a group broadly belonging to the “ LOC , were marching along ORG . Tear gas was fired on the Tute Bianche demonstrators by carabinieri , who charged forward , making use of their truncheons and non - regulation batons . The demonstrators split up , though some of them responded to the attack by throwing hard objects at the law - enforcement officers ; armoured vehicles belonging to the carabinieri drove up at high speed , knocking down the barriers erected by the demonstrators and forcing the demonstrators to leave . Clashes between demonstrators and law - enforcement officers continued in the adjacent areas ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Similar clashes occurred at TIME in PERSON ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , p. CARDINAL ) .

At TIME , during a clash in PERSON , PERSON PERSON , a young demonstrator , was hit by a shot fired from a jeep of carabinieri attempting to escape the demonstrators ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the final anti - globalisation demonstration took place , attended by CARDINAL persons ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

NORP The looting and unlawful damage began in TIME and continued all day throughout the city . In TIME the march ran into a group of CARDINAL individuals facing the security forces . Further clashes ensured , with the security forces firing tear gas and charging the crowd , also involving the orderly demonstrators ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , pp . CARDINAL ) .

During DATE of incidents CARDINAL demonstrators and members of the security forces were injured or suffered from the effects of tear gas . Whole districts of the city of Genoa were laid waste .

On TIME the Head of Police ordered PERSON , Deputy Head of Police and Head of the plenipotentiary body , to assign the task of searching ORG to PERSON , Head of ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) ( see judgment no . ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( the “ appeal judgment ” ) , p. CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL individuals were arrested following that operation , but they were immediately released by order of the prosecution or the investigating judge ( see appeal judgment , p. CARDINAL ) .

It transpires from ORG statements to ORG that the order issued by ORG was explicable by his desire to move on to a more “ incisive ” phase involving arrests of suspects in order to dispel any impression that the police had remained inert vis - à - vis the looting and unlawful damage perpetrated in the city . The Head of Police had wanted to set up large - scale joint patrols directed by officers from the mobile units and the ORG and coordinated by trusted officers , with a view to stopping LOC ( see judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL delivered by ORG on DATE and deposited on CARDINAL DATE ( the “ first - instance judgment ” ) , p. CARDINAL ; see also judgment no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , deposited on DATE ( the “ Court of Cassation judgment ” ) , pp . DATE ) .

At TIME on DATE M.G. ordered GPE , Head of ORG ( GPE ) to second officers from his unit in order to from joint patrols with other officers from the ORG unit and the ORG ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , p. CARDINAL ) .

ORG had provided the ORG and other bodies with access to the LOC of CARDINAL adjacent schools in ORG in order to install a multimedia centre . In particular , ORG ( “ Pascoli ” ) accommodated a press unit and temporary ORG offices , while the ORG housed an Internet access point . Following thunderstorms over the city which had hampered access to some camping sites , the GPE had authorised the use of ORG as a TIME accommodation centre for demonstrators .

On DATE , residents in the area reported to the police that young people dressed in black had gone into the Diaz - Pertini School and taken materiel from the site linked to the ongoing works in the school .

Early in the evening of DATE one of the joint patrols proceeded along PERSON , sparking a heated verbal reaction from CARDINAL of persons standing outside the CARDINAL schools . An empty bottle was thrown at the police vehicles ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and ORG judgment , p. CARDINAL ) .

On their return to the police station , the police officers who had headed the patrol recounted the events at a meeting called by the most senior police officials ( including PERSON , PERSON , Police Commissioner PERSON and ORG .

Having contacted the ORG official to whom ORG had been assigned , the police decided to conduct a search of the LOC in order to secure evidence and possibly arrest LOC members responsible for the unlawful damage . Having discussed and dismissed the idea of bombarding the school with tear gas , they agreed on the following modus operandi : a police unit made up essentially of officers belonging to a division specialising in anti - riot operations who had benefited from ad hoc training ( the VII Nucleo antisommossa operating within the GPE mobile unit ) was to “ secure ” the building ; another unit would carry out the search ; lastly , a carabinieri unit would surround the building to prevent suspects escaping . The Head of Police was also informed about the operation ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , pp . DATE ) .

Late in the TIME a large number of police officers from various units and departments left the NORP police station for ORG ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , ibid . ) . According to ORG judgment , the total number of officers participating in the operation was “ approximately CARDINAL police officers and carabinieri , the latter being responsible exclusively for encircling the building ” . The appeal judgment ( p. CARDINAL ) pointed out that that figure had never been precisely substantiated .

At TIME the members of the VII Nucleo antisommossa , having arrived close to both schools with helmets , shield and tonfa - type truncheons , together with other similarly equipped officers , began to run towards the LOC . A journalist and a municipal councillor standing outside the schools were kicked and struck with batons ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Some of the persons occupying the Diaz - Pertini School who had been outside re - entered the building and closed the gates and entrance doors , attempting to block them with school benches and wooden planks . The police officers assembled in front of the gate , which they forced open with an armoured vehicle after unsuccessful attempts to shoulder - charge them . Finally , the aforementioned police unit broke down the entrance doors ( ibid . ) .

The officers invested all the floors of the building , many of them in complete darkness . With , in most cases , their faces concealed by scarves , they began to punch , kick and club the occupiers , shouting threats at their victims . Groups of officers even struck seated or prostrate persons . Some of those who had been awakened by the noise were struck while still in their sleeping bags , while others were assaulted while holding their hands up as a sign of capitulation or showing their identity documents . Some of the occupiers attempted to escape and hide in the school toilets or lumber - rooms , but they were caught and beaten up , and some of them were hauled out of their hiding places by the hair ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL , and appeal judgment , pp . CARDINAL ) .

The applicant , who was DATE of age at the material time , was on the ground floor . Having been awakened by the noise , when the police arrived he sat down against the wall beside a group of persons with his arms in the air ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He was mainly struck on the head , arms and legs , whereby the blows caused multiples fractures : fractures of the right ulna , the right styloid , the right fibula and several ribs . According to the applicant ’s statement in ORG , the healthcare staff who arrived at the school after the violence had subsided attended to him last , despite hiss cries for help .

The applicant was operated on at the GPE hospital in GPE , where he remained for DATE , and then DATE , at the PERSON hospital in GPE . He was granted over forty days’ unfitness for work . The aforementioned injuries left him with a permanent weakness in his right arm and leg ( see first - instance judgment , pp . ORG and CARDINAL ) .

Shortly after the storming of ORG , a police unit stormed ORG , where journalists were filming events both outside and inside the Diaz - Pertini School . A radio station was broadcasting the events live .

When the police officers arrived the journalists were forced to stop filming and broadcasting . Cassettes containing the reports filmed over DATE of the LOC were seized and the ORG lawyers’ hard disks were seriously damaged ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL ) .

After the storming of ORG the security forces emptied the ORG rucksacks and other luggage without attempting to identify their owners or to explain the nature of the operation under way . They wrapped some of the items collected in a black flag in the school gymnasium . During that operation , some of the occupiers were taken to the gymnasium and forced to sit or lie down ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL ) .

The CARDINAL persons occupying the school were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit unlawful damage and destruction .

Most of them were taken to hospitals in the city . Some were immediately transferred to the PERSON barracks .

During TIME CARDINAL to DATE the Head of the NORP police press unit , who was interviewed close to the schools , stated that during the search of the LOC the police had found black clothing and balaclavas similar to those used by LOC . He added that the numerous bloodstains in the building had stemmed from injuries sustained by most of those occupying the Diaz - Pertini School during clashes with the police DATE ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

DATE , at the Genoa police station , the police showed the press the items seized during the search , including CARDINAL Molotov cocktails . They also showed the uniform of an official who had taken part in the storming of ORG , displaying a clean cut which might have been caused by a knife ( ibid . ) .

The prosecution against the occupiers on charges of conspiracy to commit unlawful damage and destruction , serious or aggravated résistance to the police and the unlawful carrying of weapons led to the acquittal of all concerned .

The Genoa public prosecutor ’s office initiated an investigation to ascertain the facts underlying the decision to storm the Diaz - Pertini School and to shed light on the methodology of the operation , the alleged knife attack on CARDINAL of the officers and the discovery of the Molotov cocktails , as well as the events that had occurred in FAC .

In DATE , after DATE of investigations , CARDINAL police officers and officials were committed for trial . CARDINAL further sets of proceedings concerning CARDINAL other officers were subsequently joined to the initial proceedings .

The applicant had claimed damages at the preliminary hearing on DATE . A total number of CARDINAL parties claiming damages , including CARDINAL of NORP and foreigners who had occupied both schools , as well as trade unions and other non - governmental associations , came to a.

Those proceedings concerned the events in the Diaz - Pertini School , where the applicant had been accommodated ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , and the events in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . They involved hearing CARDINAL individuals , both defendants and witnesses ( including many foreigners ) , CARDINAL expert opinions and the viewing of a great deal of audio - visual materiel .

The charges relating to the events in the Diaz - Pertini School were as follows : giving false information for inclusion in a document , simple and aggravated slander , misfeasance in public office ( particularly on account of the unlawful arrest of the persons occupying the buildings ) , simple and aggravated bodily harm and unlawful carrying of weapons of war .

By judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , deposited on CARDINAL DATE , ORG found CARDINAL of the accused guilty of providing false information ( one accused ) , simple slander ( CARDINAL accused ) and aggravated slander ( one accused ) , simple and aggravated bodily harm ( CARDINAL accused ) and the unlawful carrying of weapons of war ( CARDINAL accused ) . The court sentenced them to CARDINAL imprisonment , a prohibition of holding public office for the period of the main sentence and , jointly and severally with ORG , payment of costs and expenses and of damages to the parties claiming the latter , to whom the court awarded advances of CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( ORG ) .

The applicant , in particular , was awarded an advance of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which was paid in DATE following an attachment .

In determining the main sentences the court had regard to the mitigating circumstances that the perpetrators of the offences had no criminal records and that they had acted in a state of stress and fatigue . CARDINAL of the convicted persons was granted a conditional suspension of sentence , whereby the court ordered that the conviction should not appear on his criminal record . Furthermore , pursuant to Law No . CARDINAL of DATE laying down the conditions for remission of sentence ( indulto ) , CARDINAL of the convicted persons were granted total remission of the main sentences , and CARDINAL of them , who had been given a DATE prison sentence , was granted a DATE remission .

In the reasons for the judgment ( CARDINAL pages of a total of CARDINAL ) , the court first of all rejected the argument that the operation had been planned from the outset as a punitive expedition against the demonstrators . It accepted that the security forces might reasonably have thought , in the light of the events preceding the storming of the buildings ( particularly the information provided by local residents and the attack on the patrol during TIME of DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , that there were also members of LOC in the Diaz - Pertini School . It held , however , that the events at issue constituted a clear violation of the law , “ of human dignity and of respect for the individual ” ( di ogni principio di umanità e di rispetto delle persone ) . The court considered that even in confronting members of LOC , the security forces were allowed to force inasmuch as the latter was necessary in order to overcome violent resistance from the persons occupying the buildings , subject to proportionality between the resistance encountered and the means used . According to the court neither the applicant nor , for instance , a slightly built young woman who had also been present could have put up such resistance as to justify the blows which they had received , causing bruising and fractures .

The court also emphasised that the prosecution had not requested the committal for trial of the actual perpetrators of the violence on account of the difficulty of identifying them , and that the police had not cooperated effectively . It noted in that connection that the prosecution had been provided with old photographs of the officers accused and that it had taken DATE to identify CARDINAL particularly violent officer – filmed during the storming of the buildings – even though he had been easily recognisable by his hairstyle .

In its assessment of the individual responsibility of the accused , the court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case , the perpetrators had acted in the conviction that their superiors tolerated their acts . The fact that some officers and officials who had been in situ right from the beginning of the operation had not stepped in immediately to halt the violence had encouraged the officers of the VII Nucleo antisommossa and the other members of the security forces in their actions . The ORG therefore took the view that only those senior officials could be considered guilty of aiding and abetting the offence of causing bodily harm .

The court then considered the prosecution argument that the security forces had produced false evidence and recounted fictitious events with a view to justifying , a posteriori , both the search of the LOC and the acts of violence .

As regards the behaviour of the persons occupying the buildings before the police stormed them , the court observed that the video recordings added to the case file had not shown them throwing any large objects from the building , but that it might be considered , according to the statements of a witness and the attitude of the police officers , who had been filmed with their shields raised above their heads , that a number of small objects ( coins , bolts , etc . ) had probably been thrown at the officers while they had been attempting to break down the entrance door to the school .

As regards the alleged knife attack on an officer , the court , drawing on the results of the expert opinion prepared on that officer ’s behaviour and the evidence at its disposal , observed that it could neither find that that attack had actually taken place nor preclude the possibility that it had in fact occurred .

NORP Moreover , the court noted that the CARDINAL Molotov cocktails shown to the press on DATE had been found by the police in the city during TIME of DATE and subsequently brought , at the behest of the Deputy Police Commissioner of Genoa , to the schoolyard towards the end of the search of the LOC , and that they had ended up , under obscure circumstances , mingled with the items that had been gathered together in the gymnasium .

Finally , the court considered that the police report on the operation contained a misleading description of the facts , because it stated that all those occupying the school had resisted violently and glossed over the fact that most of them had been injured by the security forces .

The accused , the prosecutor ’s office with ORG , ORG , ORG ( which was civilly liable ) and most of the victims , including the applicant , all appealed to ORG against the first - instance judgment . By judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , filed on DATE , the court of appeal altered the challenged judgment .

ORG found the accused guilty of the following offences : providing false information ( CARDINAL accused ) , aggravated bodily harm ( CARDINAL accused ) and the unlawful carrying of weapons of war ( one accused ) . It imposed prison sentences on them of DATE and prohibited them from holding public office for DATE . Pursuant to Law No . CARDINAL of DATE , all those convicted were given the benefit of a DATE remission of sentence .

Since the limitation period for offences of aggravated slander ( in the case of CARDINAL accused ) , abuse of public authority on account of the unlawful arrest of the persons occupying ORG ( CARDINAL accused ) and simple bodily harm ( CARDINAL accused ) had elapsed , ORG discontinued proceedings against them . The proceedings against the Head of the VII Nucleo antisommossa , who had been convicted at first instance for causing aggravated bodily harm , were also discontinued on account of mitigating circumstances . Finally , ORG acquitted a person accused of simple slander and unlawful carrying of a weapon of war and another person accused of simple slander .

Most of the sentences involving payment of damages and costs and expenses as passed at first instance were upheld in substance , and , at the appeal level , the accused persons who had been convicted for the first time were also held civilly liable .

In the reasons for the judgment ( CARDINAL pages of a total of CARDINAL ) , ORG firstly pointed out that even if the suspicions concerning weapons used by LOC members during their looting could , in principle , have justified searching the schools , there was nevertheless scant evidence that all the persons occupying the CARDINAL schools were armed and could be considered as belonging to LOC .

ORG further stated that several factors demonstrated that the operation had in no way been geared to identifying the members of LOC and had been quite different in nature .

First of all , right from the planning stages of the “ search ” the senior police officials had allegedly specified that the VII Nucleo antisommossa and other heavily armed officers would be in the front line of the security forces ; those units had not been given any precise instructions concerning the use of force against those occupying the school , their sole task being to “ secure ” ( mettere in sicurezza ) the building .

Secondly , even those individuals who had been outside the Diaz - Pertini School and had not put up the least resistance had been immediately attacked by the security forces .

Thirdly , the security forces had launched their assault by breaking down the doors without attempting to negotiate with the occupiers , explaining that a “ non - violent search ” was to be carried out , or to induce them voluntarily to open the door , which , according to ORG , they had justifiably closed . On entry into the building the officers had systematically beaten those inside in a cruel and sadistic manner , inter alia using non - regulation batons . According to ORG , the traces of blood to be seen on the photographs taken during the inspection of the LOC had been fresh and could only have stemmed from the above - mentioned violence , contrary to the “ shameful contention ” ( vergognosa PERSON ) that they had been the result of injuries sustained during the clashes which had occurred over DATE .

DATE . In the light of those factors ORG concluded that the aim of the whole operation had been to carry out a large number of arrests , even in the absence of any judicial purpose , the main thing being to remedy a media image of a powerless police force . The most senior officials of the security forces had therefore surrounded the VII Nucleo antisommossa with a heavily armed unit equipped with tonfa - type truncheons capable of dealing lethal blows , and that unit have been exclusively instructed to neutralise the persons occupying the Diaz - Pertini School , stigmatising them as dangerous troublemakers who had caused all the unlawful damage of DATE . The violent and coordinated action of all the officers who had participated in the operation had been the logical consequence of the instructions given .

Therefore , according to ORG , all the most senior officials of the VII Nucleo antisommossa , as a minimum , had been guilty of causing the injuries inflicted on the persons occupying the buildings . As regards the higher - ranking police officers , ORG pointed out that the decision not to request their committal for trial had impeded proper assessment of their criminal responsibility .

Furthermore , ORG held that once the decision to storm the building and make the arrests had been taken , the security forces had attempted to justify their action a posteriori .

In that connection ORG noted that during the investigation the persons occupying the school had been attributed responsibility for offences which they had not committed : the investigation had in no way shown that the occupiers had resisted the security forces or that they had thrown objects at them while standing in the schoolyard , whereby some of the officers had probably raised their shields merely as a precaution ; and above all , having regard to all the circumstances of the case , the alleged knife attack on an officer during the storming of the building had proven to be a “ bare - faced lie ” .

The Court of Appeal further noted that the most senior officials in the security forces who were present in situ , had decided to place both the Molotov cocktails that had been found elsewhere during the afternoon among the items collected during the search , with a view to justifying the decision to conduct the search and to arrest the persons occupying the school . ORG of PERSON took the view that since the arrests had been devoid of any factual or legal basis , they had been unlawful .

In determining the appropriate sentences , ORG found that apart from the Head of the VII Nucleo antisommossa , who had attempted to limit the violence and had finally admitted the offences during the proceedings , no mitigating circumstances could be acknowledged in respect of the other accused . Having regard to the applicant ’s statements , ORG pointed out that the members of the security forces had turned into “ violent thugs ” indifferent to any physical vulnerability bound up with sex and age and to any sign of capitulation , even on the part of persons who had just been abruptly awakened by the noise of the attack . Moreover , the officers had compounded the violence with threats and insults . In doing so they had discredited GPE in the eyes of the international community . Moreover , once the violence had been perpetrated , the security forces advanced a whole series of fabricated “ facts ” implicating the occupiers .

In ORG opinion , the systematic and coordinated nature of the act of violence committed by the police officers and the aforementioned attempts to justify them a posteriori constituted a deliberate , concerted effort rather than a state of stress and fatigue .

Nevertheless , having regard to the fact the whole impugned operation had originated in the instruction from the Head of Police to carry out arrests and that the accused had therefore clearly acted under the psychological pressure of that instruction , ORG determined the sentences on the basis of the minimum penalty laid down in criminal law for each of the offences in question .

The accused , ORG with ORG , ORG ( which was civilly liable ) and some of the victims , appealed on points of law against the appeal judgment ; the applicant and other victims claimed civil damages in those proceedings .

DATE . By judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , deposited on DATE , ORG essentially upheld the impugned judgment , although it declared the offence of aggravated bodily harm for which CARDINAL of the accused had been convicted at first instance and CARDINAL at second instance ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) .

In its grounds of judgment ( CARDINAL pages of a total of CARDINAL ) , ORG first of all examined the objection as to the constitutionality of LAW on statute - barring of criminal offences as submitted by ORG under LAW and , secondarily , under LAW . It observed DATE as the first- and second - instance decisions had noted , in a finding which had never in fact been contested DATE “ the violence perpetrated by the police during their storming of the PERSON school [ had been ] egregious ” . The “ utmost gravity ” of the police conduct stemmed from the fact that the widespread violent acts committed throughout the school premises had been unleashed against individuals who were obviously unarmed , sleeping or sitting with their hands up ; it was therefore a case of “ unjustified violence [ which ] , as rightly pointed out by ORG , [ was carried out ] for punitive purposes , for retribution , geared to causing humiliation and physical and mental suffering on the part of the victims ” . According to ORG , the violence might have qualified as “ torture ” under the terms of ORG or else as “ inhuman or degrading treatment ” under LAW .

ORG noted that in the absence of an explicit criminal offence within the NORP legal system , the impugned violent acts had been prosecuted on the basis of simple or aggravated bodily harm , which offences , pursuant to LAW , had been the subject of a discontinuance decision on the ground that the limitation period had expired during the proceedings . It noted that that had been why ORG had complained of the contradiction between the regulations on the statute - barring of the criminal offences laid down in LAW inasmuch as that provision did not include ill - treatment within the meaning of LAW among the offences not subject to limitation DATE and in LAW , which , in accordance with the ORG ’s well - established case - law , required the imposition of appropriate penalties on ill - treatment and therefore impeded the limitation of offences or criminal proceedings in cases of ill - treatment .

Nevertheless , ORG considered that a change in the rules on limitation as envisaged by ORG lay outside the jurisdiction of ORG because , LAW , only the law could establish offence and criminal penalties .

As regards the convictions for offence of bodily harm , ORG , having reiterated the events preceding the impugned police storming of the school ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , considered logical ORG finding that the instruction from the Head of Police to carry out arrests had , right from the outset , “ militarised ” the search operation which the police was to conduct in the school . ORG held that the very large number of officers and the lack of instructions regarding alternatives to a tear - gas assault on the school ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and regarding the use of force against the occupiers , among other factors , showed that that operation had not been designed as a peaceful search of the LOC . The operational methods used had caused virtually all the persons occupying the school to be beaten up , which explained ORG upholding of the responsibility , inter alia , of the officials heading the VII Nucleo antisommossa . First of all , the latter had given no instructions on how the building was to be “ secured ” and had at no stage informed the officers of the possible presence of harmless individuals ; secondly , they had not prevented the attacks on persons standing outside the building , the violent storming of the school and the assault on the persons occupying the LOC . In conclusion , as ORG had rightly found , those officials had been aware that violence was inherent in that type of operation .

ORG noted , however , that even the offences of aggravated bodily harm had become statute - barred on DATE by dint of scheduling , the calculation criteria and the interruptions of proceedings provided for in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW as amended by LAW . CARDINAL of DATE .

ORG also upheld the findings of the appeal judgment as regards the offences of providing false information , slander and unlawful carrying of weapons of war perpetrated in the framework of a “ disgraceful whitewashing operation ” in order to justify a posteriori the violence perpetrated in the school and the arrest of those occupying it . ORG noted that the persons occupying the school had not put up any résistance either before the entrance door had been broken down or inside the LOC , and also that the occupiers had not been in possession of Molotov cocktails , which had been brought into the school from the outside by the police . Therefore , ORG declared mendacious the police reports to the contrary and slanderous the conspiracy charges levelled against the occupiers . As regards the conclusions of the appeal judgment concerning the alleged knife attack on an officer , ORG merely specified the sentence passed on CARDINAL officers convicted of providing this false information ( DATE and DATE , as indicated in the reasons given for the appeal judgment , rather than DATE and DATE as indicated in the operative part ) . Finally , it passed a sentence of DATE on CARDINAL of the convicted officers for providing false information , on account of the limitation on the offence of aggravated bodily harm and the resultant inapplicability of the calculation criterion laid down in LAW because of the continuous nature of the offences .

NORP The charges levelled against officers for the events in the ORG concerned arbitrary search and damage to property .

By judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph DATE above ) , ORG held that the storming by the police officers of ORG had been the result of a mistake in identifying the building to be searched . It also found that no clear evidence had been provided to conclude that the accused had actually caused the damage complained of in ORG .

On the other hand , by judgment no . ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG found that there had been no mistake or misunderstanding behind the police storming of ORG . According to ORG , the security forces had tried to destroy all film evidence of the storming of the neighbouring ORG and had deliberately damaged the ORG computers . It nevertheless decided to discontinue proceedings against the police officer charged because the impugned offences had become statute - barred .

By judgment no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ORG upheld that decision . It emphasised that ORG had fully justified its conclusions by noting that the police had carried out an arbitrary search of ORG geared to seeking out and destroying audio - visual material and all other documentation concerning the events in the Diaz - Pertini School .

On DATE the Presidents of ORG and the ORG decided to order an inquiry ( indagine conoscitiva ) into the events during the Genoa GCARDINAL Summit by ORG of both chambers of ORG . For that purpose it set up a commission comprising CARDINAL ORG and CARDINAL Senators .

On DATE the commission submitted a report setting out the conclusions of the majority of its members , entitled “ Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the events during the Genoa GCARDINAL Summit ” . According to the ORG the search of the Diaz - Pertini School “ could probably be seen as the most significant example of the organisational shortcomings and operational dysfunctions ” .


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

Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a life sentence in FAC .

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to death . ORG confirmed this sentence on DATE . The applicant was placed in ORG and was not executed because a presidential moratorium on the execution of death sentences was introduced in the meantime .

After the death penalty was abolished in GPE , the Vice - President commuted the applicant ’s sentence to life imprisonment on DATE . On DATE the authorities placed the applicant under a “ special regime ” to serve his sentence , and on DATE they transferred him to FAC , where he remained until DATE . DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in FAC , and on DATE he was transferred again to FAC , where he was at the time the most recent information was submitted to the ORG , in DATE .

At times he shared his cell with other life prisoners who were serving their sentences under the “ special regime ” .

According to the applicant , throughout the entire period of his detention he has been held in cells not equipped with sanitary facilities , and has only been allowed to go to the toilet CARDINAL times a day . During the rest of the time he has had to relieve himself in his cell in a bucket which he could wash out once a day . The prison authorities have not provided him with chemicals for disinfecting the bucket .

He has been permanently locked in his cell .

According to the Government , DATE in ORG the applicant was placed in a cell which was only locked at TIME . This allowed him unlimited access to the toilet , situated in the wing ’s corridor , TIME Furthermore , toilets and sinks with running water were installed in all cells in FAC in DATE .

In FAC the applicant was allowed to go to the lavatory more than CARDINAL times a day . In particular , he had access to sanitary facilities and hot water also when he was taken out of his cell for his TIME ’s exercise in the open air . Without specifying further , the ORG also stated that this was also the case when he took part in the DATE prison activities . A toilet and a sink with running water were installed in his cell in DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant was held under the most restrictive “ special regime ” . Under this regime prisoners were locked permanently in their cells , and could only communicate with other life inmates and not with the general prison population . In DATE a Commission for the Execution of Sentences changed the applicant ’s regime to the lighter “ enhanced regime ” which became called the “ severe regime ” with the adoption of the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act in DATE . He was able to take part in religious discussions for DATE and to play table tennis for TIME up to twice a week .

The Government submitted DATE psychological assessments of Mr Radev in respect of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . According to those assessments , the applicant demonstrated anti - social behaviour and periodically engaged in conflict with other inmates , whom he also incited to go on hunger strike as a means of pressuring the prison authorities into taking decisions favourable to them . According to the Government , the applicant had been disciplined CARDINAL times for breaching the internal rules , and had only received CARDINAL good - conduct awards . On CARDINAL occasions he was punished for keeping an unauthorised mobile telephone and/or charger and ORG cards for it in his cell ; once for keeping an item which could be used to make a hand - knife ; and another time for keeping a small foldable hand - knife . On CARDINAL occasions the punishments were for violent altercations with other life prisoners . CARDINAL of those occasions was described by the prison authorities as “ not having escalated to the level of lasting tension , but rather being a momentary emotional outburst not uncommon for both the inmates involved ” . In the other incident , the physical engagement had been preceded by verbal arguments on the part of both prisoners , and the prison guards rapidly managed to separate the inmates and defuse the tension . When the applicant considered a situation was detrimental to him , he usually threatened legal action , and sometimes attempted self - harm or suicide as a means of “ persuading ” the prison authorities . He was emotionally unstable and had a tendency to contest the decisions of the prison authorities . Because of all this the prison authorities were not considering a change in the applicant ’s prison regime .

After the Government had submitted their observations to the ORG , the applicant complained that he was serving his sentence in inadequate material conditions . In particular , there was insufficient fresh air and lighting in his cell , which itself was dilapidated and infested with cockroaches , and it was impossible for him to maintain personal hygiene as he had no access to hygienic or cleaning products . He was permanently handcuffed when outside his cell , the food was rather poor , and so was the medical care provided to him in prison . Lastly , no work had been offered him , nor did he have any meaningful occupational activities .

DATE the applicant brought several claims for damages under the ORG and Municipalities’ LAW DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) in connection with various aspects of his conditions of detention . ORG rejected all of them as inadmissible , finding in particular either that the prison authorities had not acted unlawfully or that the applicant had not established that he had suffered as a result of those conditions .


Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant intended to organise a demonstration protesting against “ the persecution of national radicalism ” . It was planned to take place TIME on DATE . The venue was FAC in GPE Xth District , in front of GPE Penitentiary .

Venyige Street is of a width of QUANTITY in the Government ’s submissions and of QUANTITY in the applicant ’s . PERSON to the main driveway , there is a service lane , of a width equivalent to that of CARDINAL cars ; this area is normally used as a car park . In the applicant ’s submissions , this latter section could have accommodated largely all the participants , without them creating any major traffic incident .

The applicant , in the notification addressed to ORG under Act no . III of DATE on ORG , indicated that a maximum of CARDINAL participants were to be expected . This notification was made at TIME on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG banned the demonstration , in pursuit of its prerogatives under section TIME ) of Act no . III of DATE . It was of the view that there was no alternative route for the traffic in the neighbourhood , and consequently the demonstration would impede traffic inordinately . The applicant was reproached with the fact that the notification did not contain the agenda for the gathering .

Because of this prohibition , the demonstration did not take place .

On DATE the applicant requested judicial review of the police decision . He explained inter alia that he had not specified the agenda because the meeting had been intended as a rather small CARDINAL and that therefore the actual course of events , such as speeches or discussion , was hard to predict .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint . It observed that the question of previous notification of the agenda was immaterial , since the only valid reason in the case was the disproportionate difficulties which would be caused to traffic by the demonstration .

The court relied on the expert opinion provided by ORG of ORG , in whose view the demonstration would have significantly impeded the traffic heading to the shops located in FAC , a dead end , to the local waste disposal site and to the ORG entrance of FAC ; and the disruption caused by the crowd might have extended to FAC , a major thoroughfare in the vicinity with lines of city transport involved . Relying on that reasoning , the court endorsed the police decision .