No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .

The applicant was a member of ORG ( Front Islamique du Salut – “ the ORG ” ) and left GPE prior to the dissolution of that political group by a judgment of ORG dated DATE . After spending some time in GPE he entered GPE in DATE using the false name of PERSON . On DATE he applied for political asylum in that country , claiming to have been forced to leave GPE because of his membership of the ORG . His application was refused on DATE .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE eight terrorist attacks were carried out in GPE .

Although no organisation explicitly claimed responsibility , certain factors , such as the existence of virulent press statements against GPE and the mode of operation of the attacks , pointed to the involvement of ORG ( ORG – “ the ORG ” ) .

In the course of the judicial investigation aimed at identifying the perpetrators , telephone tapping operations carried out on public payphones used by a certain PERSON led to a number of persons being arrested and to the search being focused on GPE and an individual named PERSON ( also known as ORG or ORG ) . The sources of these names or pseudonyms were a telephone conversation of CARDINAL DATE concerning PERSON and the Western Union bank , a search of PERSON ’s home during which a document was found showing that a sum of money had been transferred to PERSON from that bank on DATE , and the decoding of a list of telephone numbers found on PERSON ’s person and at his home and featuring CARDINAL numbers in GPE preceded by the name “ ORG ” or “ ORG ” . PERSON , who was arrested on DATE , also directly implicated “ PERSON , claiming that he had funded the campaign of attacks from GPE and had been kept informed of their progress .

On DATE the French National Surveillance Directorate informed the investigators that the individual known as “ PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG or ORG ” , whom PERSON had identified as having funded the attacks , might be the applicant . The latter , who was living in GPE , was suspected of being one of the leaders of the PERSON in GPE , in particular because of his involvement with the publication PERSON ( or PERSON ) which the ORG used as a mouthpiece abroad .

The investigations carried out in GPE established that the applicant had a home there and had a set of keys to a second GPE address , which served as the offices of the magazine PERSON and as a meeting place for all the persons involved in publishing and distributing it . On the LOC the investigators found , among other items , the following : contracts for CARDINAL mobile phones in the names of CARDINAL of the applicants’ acquaintances and corresponding to the numbers identified at the home of PERSON , who had rung the numbers before and after each attack ; a receipt for the rental of a post - office box in the name of Fares ELIASS with the applicant ’s fingerprints on it ; letters and statements from the ORG ; a statement saying that only the PERSON was entitled to conduct the jihad ; a letter from the ORG to the NORP President calling on him to convert to ORG ; a letter commenting on the attacks carried out in GPE ; copies of press articles on anti - terrorism mentioning the names of judges and members of the intelligence service ; a piece of paper on which “ FAC DATE - CARDINAL ” was written , corresponding to the telephone number of ORG branch at CARDINAL FAC in GPE ; and a receipt dated DATE issued by a branch of PERSON in GPE for a sum of MONEY ( GBP ) .

NORP The applicant was arrested and placed in police custody from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE under LAW .

On DATE the applicant was detained pending extradition under the terms of an international arrest warrant issued on DATE in connection with the investigation into the attack carried out on DATE close to the ORG metro station .

Three further international arrest warrants were issued concerning the applicant : on DATE in relation to the attack of CARDINAL DATE at the PERSON d’Orsay station ; on DATE in the case concerning a conspiracy to prepare terrorist attacks ; and on DATE in relation to the attack carried out on DATE at the PERSON suburban rail station .

The applicant lodged habeas corpus applications which were dismissed in DATE and in DATE . On DATE the NORP Home Secretary ordered his removal to GPE , but that order was quashed by ORG , ORG , on DATE .

On DATE the Home Secretary signed a fresh order for the applicant ’s extradition in the light of the assurances provided by the NORP authorities concerning the safeguards of a fair and impartial trial in GPE . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was handed over to the NORP authorities and was remanded in custody the following day .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was committed for trial in ORG for involvement – in GPE and in GPE , from an unspecified date until DATE in an association or conspiracy formed with a view to the preparation , in the form of CARDINAL or more material acts , of CARDINAL of the terrorist acts in question . The investigating judge stated , in particular , as follows :

“ - [ the applicant ] was responsible for distributing the journal PERSON , a propaganda outlet of ORG ;

- ... was involved on this account in disseminating propaganda for that organisation , which is banned in GPE ;

- ... was the main contact person in LOC for [ GPE ] , alias PERSON , in organising and carrying out the ORG ’s activities in LOC ;

- ... was tasked with sending money to ORG members still in GPE to enable them to fund and carry out attacks ;

- ... was in contact with numerous persons involved in and convicted of criminal conspiracy with a view to a terrorist enterprise . ”

In a judgment of DATE accompanied by CARDINAL pages of reasoning , ORG first of all set out the facts with regard to the “ political / religious background ” , the emergence of the ORG and then the ORG , the “ background to the attacks ” in DATE which it listed and described as attributable in all likelihood to the GIA – and the “ context surrounding PERSON ” .

Ruling on the criminal charges , the court began by examining the case against the applicant . It found that it could be established with certainty , on the basis of precise and concurring physical evidence , that the applicant had indeed used various false names and aliases which had come up in the course of the investigations , a fact the court described as “ beyond doubt and indisputable ” . With regard to the ORG ’s funding the court , having noted the prosecution ’s claims that the applicant had funded the ORG groups which carried out the attacks in GPE during DATE , examined the factual evidence in the case file at length and in detail . It observed in particular that , according to CARDINAL witness who was a ORG member , the organisation ’s groups had different specialisations depending on their location , with the GPE group being responsible for sending funds . The court further noted that the applicant had transferred GBP CARDINAL on DATE , DATE before the attack of CARDINAL DATE . This was established by the statements of the NORP police officers tasked with keeping the applicant under surveillance and of the staff of ORG branch where the transfer had been made , and also by the discovery of the applicant ’s fingerprints on the transfer slip kept by ORG branch . The court also observed that one of the perpetrators of the attacks , PERSON , had stated that the money used in preparing the various attacks had always been supplied by the applicant from GPE . The court inferred that the facts as a whole “ demonstrate[d ] that PERSON was indeed responsible for funding terrorist groups on NORP soil ” . Furthermore , in response to the public prosecutor ’s submissions concerning the applicant ’s role in disseminating PERSON propaganda , the first - instance court also considered the various items of factual evidence before it , and in particular the wealth of correspondence and propaganda documents relating to the ORG ’s views and actions that had been found during the searches of the various premises used by the applicant , as well as the statements by a ORG member confirming the applicant ’s role as a member of the team publishing the magazine PERSON , which was the ORG outlet used in particular to claim responsibility for attacks . It also noted the presence at the applicant ’s home of pamphlets promoting terrorism and killing with specific reference to GPE . The court concluded that the applicant had played a part in disseminating ORG propaganda and ideas .

Turning next to the applicant ’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy in connection with a terrorist enterprise , the court found this offence to have been made out , as the investigation had shown that several groups located in the LOC area , in GPE and in GPE had been behind the DATE attacks . All the members had either been directly involved or had played an indirect role by aiding and abetting and providing resources , and all of them were either known activists or claimed to be activists within the ORG . The court found that the applicant ’s contacts with the various members of these networks , who had the shared goal of carrying out attacks , were sufficient to establish his conscious and deliberate participation in a conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts on NORP soil . In its judgment the court set out , among other findings , the facts showing the existence of links to CARDINAL members of CARDINAL groups forming a support network for the ORG .

Accordingly , ORG found the applicant guilty of criminal conspiracy in connection with a terrorist enterprise , on the basis of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and ordered his permanent exclusion from NORP territory . The court cited as reasons for imposing the prison sentence the fact that “ by providing funding and issuing propaganda on behalf of the PERSON , PERSON not only enabled the attacks to be carried out but acted as a propagandist , potentially attracting new members to strengthen the networks spread over several NORP countries ” . It further cited the fact that “ his double talk reveal[ed ] both his bad faith and his complete lack of regret or remorse ” . The court awarded MONEY ( ORG ) in damages to the association ORG , which had joined the proceedings as a civil party .

In a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld that judgment . While referring expressly to the statement of facts as established in the judgment , it devoted CARDINAL pages to analysing the charges against the applicant , giving reasons . First of all , ORG gave further details concerning the evolution and operation of the ORG . It also specified that the case before it concerned “ the series of attacks carried out in GPE in DATE ” , and that “ the facts of the case at hand concern[ed ] the preparation of the attacks and the actions enabling the attacks , which started in GPE in DATE , to be carried out ” . ORG went on to list the CARDINAL attacks carried out DATE and DATE . With particular reference to the evidence of the existence of an information hub based in GPE which the applicant had allegedly managed , it found this to be established on the basis of the telephone calls made on DATE after the killing of the imam S. in GPE ; DATE before the attack on the PERSON suburban rail station ; on DATE of that attack and DATE after the attempted attack on the ORG high - speed railway line at ORG - sur - Fontaines ; on CARDINAL DATE , DATE after the attack of DATE on GPE in GPE , the attempted attack of DATE on Place Charles Vallin in GPE and the attack of DATE in FAC in GPE ; DATE after the shooting at FAC and the arrest of CARDINAL people ; DATE before the attack of DATE and DATE after it ; on DATE , in other words just before the attack of CARDINAL DATE ; and , finally , on DATE , immediately after a telephone conversation between PERSON and S.A.B. concerning preparations for an attack on the ORG market in GPE , with PERSON stating that the purpose of the call was to report to the applicant on the “ final preparations ” for the GPE attack .

ORG also emphasised the existence of several items of factual evidence pointing to the applicant ’s involvement as the supervisor of a structure set up to fund the ORG ’s activities . These included the fact that the applicant had sent funds from GPE on DATE under the false name of PERSON , which had been received by PERSON at the PERSON branch of the ORG bank under the false name of PERSON , and which matched an entry in ORG ’s accounts book marked “ MONEY , GPE and PERSON ’s statements ; the payment by the applicant of ORG and MONEY ( ORG ) , as shown by an entry in ORG ’s accounts book which mentioned funds sent by “ PERSON ” , a false name used by the applicant or the first name of CARDINAL of his acquaintances who could be contacted in order to reach him ; statements from several individuals concerning services offered in return for payment , fundraising , the sending of substantial sums of money , a transfer of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to PERSON and the existence of a receipt for GBP CARDINAL .

Lastly , ORG noted a series of facts demonstrating , firstly , that the applicant had been “ the main contact person ... in organising and carrying out the PERSON ’s activities in LOC ” , as was clear in particular from a telephone conversation of DATE , from the statements of a witness who was a ORG member , and from the detailed content of several documents seized in GPE ( press statements , authorisations to conduct the jihad , documents on the management of funds , articles and handwritten notes on the activities of NORP groups in LOC and anti - terrorist activities , notes on military weapons and the handling of explosives , and so on ) ; secondly , that he had been “ the ORG ’s main propaganda agent outside GPE ” , with “ his role on the magazine PERSON ” ( particularly in the light of documents seized at the applicant ’s GPE address , namely a note on how to make the magazine more dynamic , a letter explaining the means of distributing it , a piece of computer equipment which the applicant would have been unable to afford , letters from readers and ORG sympathisers , a large number of magazines detailing the ORG ’s ideas and violent actions , a substantial amount of correspondence relating to NORP and NORP issues , some testimonies , and a list of post - office boxes in numerous countries , used by the magazine ’s subscribers ) ; thirdly , that he had been at the centre of “ the GPE cell which revolved around [ him and which ] also served as a rallying point for young recruits passing through ” , as demonstrated by the personal histories of CARDINAL of them ; and fourthly , that he had been a leader with “ a strategic role in the ORG ’s external organisation ” , as demonstrated by his links to members and correspondents of other NORP terrorist groups worldwide .

The Court of Appeal echoed the reasons given by ORG and added that there was sufficient evidence in the case to demonstrate that the applicant had been contacted regularly in order to be kept informed of events , that he had been responsible for funding ORG operations in LOC , that he had acted as a conduit for the ORG ’s military command and as a propaganda agent for that organisation , especially through the magazine PERSON , that he had given shelter to fugitives passing through GPE and had sometimes been called upon to coordinate the ORG ’s external activities . ORG therefore concluded as follows :

“ ORG , like the first - instance court , therefore finds it established that the ORG created ‘ an external structure’ in LOC designed to enable it to pursue its goal of overthrowing the NORP regime , including by attacking institutions and people in countries that supported or were deemed to support that regime , by setting up networks in GPE and GPE in particular which provided support to the NORP guerrillas by supplying weapons , munitions and various items of equipment , supplying jihadists and providing safe havens ( accommodation and false identity papers ) to fighters who were fleeing the maquis or had arrived to carry out attacks , organised and coordinated by a cell in GPE in charge of fundraising and using funds acquired lawfully or unlawfully .

... [ the applicant ] knowingly played a decisive role , by means of the material acts referred to by ORG and by this court above , in the achievement of the ORG ’s goal , participating from GPE in the implementation of the group ’s external structure , and played a vital role within the organisation whose aim was to prepare , assist in and carry out the attacks which took place . ”

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG indicted ORG and the applicant for the attack of CARDINAL DATE and committed them for trial before the GPE special ORG . The applicant was charged with aiding and abetting the crimes of attempted murder , destroying or damaging property belonging to others by the use of an explosive substance causing mutilation or permanent disability and temporary total unfitness for work of DATE or of a maximum of DATE , in connection principally or incidentally with a terrorist enterprise , and with the related offence of a breach of the explosives legislation in connection with a terrorist enterprise .

On DATE and DATE ORG of ORG upheld the orders issued by the GPE investigating judge on DATE ( concerning the attack of DATE ) and DATE ( concerning the attack of CARDINAL DATE ) for the indictment of the applicant and PERSON and their committal for trial before the special ORG . The applicant faced trial for aiding and abetting the crimes of murder , attempted murder , destroying or damaging property belonging to others by the use of an explosive substance causing death , mutilation or permanent disability and temporary total unfitness for work of DATE or of a maximum of DATE , in connection with a terrorist enterprise , and for the related offence of a breach of the explosives legislation in connection with a terrorist enterprise .

These CARDINAL judgments of ORG specified that the applicant had aided and abetted by : transmitting instructions from the ORG ordering attacks with explosives and providing PERSON with instructions on manufacturing ; relaying to the ORG leadership operational information provided by the perpetrators of the attacks ; providing the perpetrators with the funds needed not just to manufacture the explosive devices but also to make all the logistical arrangements for preparing and carrying out the attacks . The judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE added the fact that the funds had also been intended , if necessary , to enable the perpetrators based in GPE to flee .

In these judgments the judges noted in particular the following facts in relation to the applicant . The CARDINAL mobile phones used by the applicant had received calls from PERSON on DATE and DATE and DATE ; a receipt for an exchange transaction performed on DATE at CARDINAL TIME ( GPE time ) for an amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been discovered at PERSON ’s home , together with a notice of transfer of ORG CARDINAL from an LANGUAGE branch of ORG , and the checks carried out established that the applicant had gone into a GPE shop in GPE containing a ORG office at TIME on DATE and had re - emerged at TIME ( GPE time ) ; the applicant ’s fingerprints had been found on the transfer slip kept by the GPE office in the GPE shop ; the words “ PERSON CARDINAL FF CARDINAL ” had been found in the credit column of PERSON ’s accounts and the words “ GPE ” and “ NORP Bank ” had also been entered by PERSON in a document logging the details of the CARDINAL DATE attack ; the applicant had possessed the details of ORG branch in FAC in FAC district of GPE ; an exchange receipt dated DATE , for an amount of GBP CARDINAL exchanged at a rate of PERCENT , had been found at the applicant ’s home , with the number of a public payphone in NORP used by ORG written on the back , and an entry had been made in the credit column of PERSON ’s accounts for the sum of “ MONEY from [ W. ] , converted at a rate of PERCENT ” ; a sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been sent on DATE ; CARDINAL DATE the sum of ORG CARDINAL had been entered as expenditure for the purchase of a “ GPE ticket ” , demonstrating that the funds , after being exchanged in GPE , had been transported to GPE in DATE leading up to the attack at the ORG suburban rail station ; and a letter from ORG had been found , addressed to “ PERSON ” at CARDINAL LOC , the applicant ’s address . The judges also noted , as evidence against the applicant , the content of a hard disk found in a GPE flat to which the applicant had keys , containing CARDINAL financial reports , CARDINAL relating to the activities of the ORG in GPE and the other to a set of accounts for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the date of PERSON ’s arrest .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE concerning the attack of CARDINAL DATE ORG observed in particular that the applicant ’s CARDINAL telephone numbers had been called repeatedly from payphones used by PERSON , around the time of the different attacks and in particular on DATE before the attack of CARDINAL DATE . It compared these calls with the statements made by PERSON and a further accomplice , who had been planning an attack on GPE market , according to which they had reported to the applicant on preparations for the operations , and in particular for the attack of CARDINAL DATE . ORG also noted that the applicant had made a transfer of FRF CARDINAL from GPE DATE before that attack – as shown by the fact that his fingerprints had been found on the transfer slip in the GPE office in GPE – which had been received by PERSON in GPE on DATE . The link between that transfer and the attack of CARDINAL DATE had also been established by PERSON ’s statements and by a call made to the applicant ’s mobile phone DATE , after the money had been received .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE relating more specifically to the attack of DATE , ORG stressed that the applicant ’s LANGUAGE mobile phone had been called DATE before that attack from a public payphone in GPE close to PERSON ’s home from which other calls had been made , including a call to a mobile phone belonging to a member of the NORP PERSON network , made TIME before the applicant was called . Furthermore , DATE before the attack and then on DATE itself , the applicant had received calls from GPE on his various numbers , including from a payphone close to the previous one , concerning his role as an intermediary between the perpetrators of the attacks and the person masterminding them in GPE . Above all , ORG noted that the applicant had on CARDINAL and DATE sent sums of GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively which were directly linked to the attack carried out on DATE .

Lastly , in its judgment of DATE ORG also noted that it was clear from these different elements that the applicant had sent funds to the perpetrators of the attacks , not just in relation to the campaign of attacks as a whole but also for use directly in carrying out the attack of DATE . With regard to the latter , it noted that the instructions issued by the ORG concerning the campaigns , which had been accompanied by advice on the manufacture of explosives , had been transmitted via the applicant , who had also funded all the operational arrangements put in place in GPE in order to ensure the success of the attacks , and that the recipients had been required to report to him on how the money had been used . A number of telephone calls had established that the applicant had been kept informed of the progress of the attacks , and in particular of the attack of DATE , which had been followed by a telephone call on DATE telling the applicant that everything had gone well on DATE .

On DATE the GPE special ORG , composed of CARDINAL professional judges , found the applicant guilty as charged in connection with the CARDINAL attacks . It sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE . The applicant appealed on CARDINAL DATE .

The appeal proceedings before the GPE special ORG , this time composed of CARDINAL professional judges , took place from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . CARDINAL individuals joined the proceedings as civil parties , as did the RATP ( the GPE public - transport operator ) , the ORG ( the NORP national rail company ) , ORG for victims of terrorist acts and other crimes , the Government Law Officer and the association ORG .

At the hearing of DATE counsel for the applicant made submissions requesting the termination of the proceedings and a finding that the prosecution was null and void , on the basis of the ne bis in idem principle . Citing LAW No . CARDINAL and the judgment in PERSON v. GPE , delivered by ORG on DATE , they argued that the material acts which ORG was called on to examine were the same as those of which the applicant had previously been convicted by ORG in its final judgment of DATE . In counsel ’s view , the material acts alleged in the ORG proceedings , namely the transfer of funds to the perpetrators of the attacks , the transmission of instructions to the same perpetrators , and the monitoring of the preparation and carrying - out of the attacks , had also been alleged in the ORG proceedings .

In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the special ORG dismissed the objection regarding a breach of the ne bis in idem principle , finding as follows :

“ Although PERSON defence counsel correctly points out that LAW No . CARDINAL must be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second ‘ offence’ in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same , the following factors need to be taken into consideration in the present case :

- The facts on which the criminal courts based their finding that PERSON was guilty , while they related to criminal acts dealt with in the current set of proceedings , were by no means confined to them . In finding the offence of criminal conspiracy to be made out – a separate offence that is provided for and punishable under LAW the courts considered all the elements apt to substantiate the accused ’s involvement in the conspiracy , which was aimed at organising , developing and ensuring the continuation of a movement that was bent on imposing its cause , in particular by using clandestine methods and material and intellectual resources ( recruitment of and regular contact with activists , dissemination of information on the ORG ’s activities and views , fundraising , seeking donations of weapons and various items of equipment , etc . ) , without necessarily pursuing the sole objective of carrying out the attacks that are the subject of the proceedings .

- The facts to be considered by this court differ substantially from the earlier ones in that they relate to criminal conduct aimed at the achievement of CARDINAL - off objectives which were determined with precision and were not inextricably linked , and which were driven by a specific motivation consisting in particular in providing others , in full knowledge of the situation , with the means of deliberately harming human life or ORG physical or mental integrity by the use of explosives .

- In these circumstances the finding that PERSON was guilty and his conviction by ORG can not lead ORG to find that his prosecution has lapsed and to declare the criminal proceedings against him null and void .

- It is thus the task of ORG , on conclusion of the proceedings and in the light thereof , to rule , by answering the questions raised before it , as to whether or not PERSON is guilty of aiding and abetting as charged ... ”

In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the special ORG of Appeal deferred its decision on a request for further information and eventually rejected the request in a further interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

CARDINAL questions concerning the applicant alone were put to the special ORG of Appeal . CARDINAL related to the circumstances surrounding the attack of DATE , DATE to the events surrounding the attack of DATE and DATE to the attack of CARDINAL DATE . The questions gave precise details of the various alleged acts and where and when they had been committed , and listed the names of CARDINAL of victims of killings and attempted killings , mutilation or permanent disability , injuries resulting in unfitness for work of DATE or more , and victims of damage to their property . The answer to CARDINAL of the questions was “ yes ” , by a majority ( some questions , followed by a list of victims and requiring an individual reply in each case , were also found partly “ devoid of purpose ” ) , and CARDINAL questions were found to be “ devoid of purpose ” . Besides details regarding the places and dates concerned in each instance , as well as the indication of the victims according to the damage suffered ( death , mutilation or permanent disability , temporary total unfitness for work of DATE and of a maximum of DATE , destruction of or damage to property ) , the questions related in particular to whether or not the applicant ’s actions had been premeditated ( questions nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) , and to incitement of others to commit certain acts ( questions nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) , the assistance lent by the applicant to the perpetrators of the attacks ( questions nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) and whether the applicant had issued instructions to others to commit certain crimes ( questions nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) . The parties did not comment on these questions .

An affirmative answer was given to the questions whether the applicant had knowingly assisted in the manufacture or possession of explosive devices and in issuing instructions to that effect , in the context of the attacks of DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , and whether he had knowingly incited others to manufacture or possess such devices in the context of the attacks of DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the special ORG of Appeal found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE , and ordered his permanent exclusion from NORP territory . It adjourned the civil hearing for DATE . The applicant appealed on points of law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . Regarding his ground of appeal to the effect that no reasons had been given for the finding of guilt , based in particular on LAW , it found as follows :

“ Firstly , the impugned questions , which were put in accordance with the law , established in all aspects the acts of aiding and abetting of which Mr NORP was found guilty .

Secondly , the judgment convicting PERSON included the answers which the judges comprising the special ORG of Appeal gave immediately after the oral proceedings , on the basis of their personal conviction and by a majority following a secret vote , to the questions concerning his guilt which were put to them in accordance with the operative provisions of the committal orders and were the subject of adversarial argument .

Accordingly , and given that steps were taken to ensure the prior investigation of the charges contained in the indictment , the free exercise of the rights of the defence , and the public and adversarial nature of the proceedings , the requirements laid down by the statutory and Convention provisions relied on were satisfied . ”

As to the ground of appeal concerning a breach of the ne bis in idem principle on account of the applicant ’s final conviction by ORG on DATE on the basis of identical facts , ORG held that criminal conspiracy was a separate offence from the crimes prepared or committed by its members and also from the offences characterised by certain material acts that embodied it .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) declared the applicant legally incapable in her absence . The applicant submitted that she had only learnt about that judgment on DATE . She lodged her appeal twice , accompanied by requests that the court reset the time - limit for lodging the appeals . On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s latest request that the court examine her appeal . On DATE the St ORG upheld that decision on appeal .

On DATE the ORG of GPE declared unconstitutional the practice of divesting people of their legal capacity in their absence , unless their absence resulted from specific circumstances .

On DATE the applicant sought the reopening of her case in view of the judgment of ORG DATE . After an initial refusal , on DATE GPE quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the applicant ’s case for a fresh examination .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the incapacitation proceedings , as the plaintiff , the applicant ’s daughter , had failed to attend . The applicant thus regained her legal capacity .

On DATE an emergency doctor was called to attend to the applicant and found that she required hospitalisation . A psychiatrist examined the applicant on her admission to the hospital and confirmed that she was in need of in - patient care .

On DATE the applicant ’s brother , who was her legal guardian at the relevant time , consented to her confinement . DATE his status as a legal guardian was cancelled and transferred to the hospital . On DATE the hospital , in that capacity , agreed to the applicant ’s involuntary confinement .

According to the applicant , the hospital dismissed her requests to be discharged , and she was not allowed to use a mobile phone , send correspondence or receive visitors . When the applicant contacted her lawyer allegedly seeking to update her application before the ORG and to challenge her involuntary confinement , he attempted to meet her at the hospital on DATE and DATE , but was refused permission to do so .

The applicant ’s lawyer then lodged a complaint against the hospital , asserting his right to communicate with his client . The lawyer supported his complaint with a copy of the power of attorney that the applicant had issued to him on DATE for her application to the ORG . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the GPE ORG ” ) dismissed the complaint , having noted that the applicant lacked legal capacity to appoint a lawyer .

On DATE an expert commission issued a CARDINAL - page report diagnosing the applicant with schizophrenia . It relied on the applicant ’s medical history since DATE and her state of health leading to her hospitalisation in DATE . The experts further stated that during her stay at the hospital , the applicant had been avoiding contact ; she had been complaining about her confinement ; she had remained suspicious and negative and had maintained her delusional ideas about her neighbours , doctors and other patients . They concluded that the applicant required further psychiatric treatment in the hospital .

On DATE held a hearing concerning the applicant ’s involuntary treatment in the psychiatric hospital . The applicant ’s doctor presented to the court the expert commission ’s report of DATE and her own opinion confirming that the applicant needed compulsory treatment in the hospital . The applicant was absent from the courtroom during that presentation , but her ORG - appointed lawyer , PERSON , was present . After the presentation the applicant was brought into the courtroom and was informed about her rights . She then said that she wanted to go home and did not wish to continue her treatment . The judge did not ask her any other questions . PERSON only intervention during the whole hearing was to state that she “ had no objections ” to the applicant ’s continued confinement in the psychiatric hospital . ORG concluded that the applicant required involuntary treatment in the hospital .

On DATE GPE quashed the judgment of DATE , having flagged a violation of counsel ’s right to meet with his client . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant met her lawyer .

On DATE the applicant asked the court to reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the request .

On DATE the St ORG quashed the decision of DATE and reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the St ORG examined the appeal and found the applicant ’s involuntary treatment lawful .

Once the applicant had regained her legal status on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , she refused to continue her treatment in the hospital and was discharged on DATE .

On DATE the Petrodvortsovyy ORG of GPE ( “ the GPE ORG ” ) declared the applicant legally incapable . It noted that in view of the fact that NORP law did not provide for partial incapacitation to take into account the degree of a person ’s mental disorder , it had no alternative but to deprive the applicant of her full legal capacity . On DATE the St ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant , having fully endorsed the Petrodvortsovyy ORG reasoning .

On DATE ORG examined a complaint lodged by the applicant in relation to her incapacitation and invited ORG to amend the legislation and introduce the possibility of partial incapacitation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the NORP Civil Code was amended accordingly ; the entry into force of the amendment was delayed until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Following the Constitutional Court ’s ruling , on DATE the Petrodvortsovyy ORG remitted the applicant ’s case for a fresh examination . However , on CARDINAL DATE the Petrodvortsovyy ORG confirmed its previous decision stripping the applicant of her full capacity , having stated that the amendment to the law had not yet entered into force . On DATE GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE ORG of Stavropol , acting in the applicant ’s absence , stripped him of legal capacity . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was not appealed against and it therefore became final .

NORP In DATE the applicant sought the restoration of his legal capacity . On DATE ORG of LOC ( “ the LOC ” ) dismissed the applicant ’s request . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s application to be declared partially capable .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( the “ LOC ” ) declared the applicant legally incapable in his absence . The judgment of DATE was not appealed against and it therefore became final .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , having asked a court to reset the time - limit for lodging the appeal as he had not been informed about the incapacitation proceedings , had not attended them and had not received a copy of the judgment .

On DATE ORG reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal . On DATE ORG quashed that decision and dismissed the applicant ’s request to have the time - limit for submitting his appeal reset .

On DATE the Dmitrovskiy District Court of the Moscow Region ( “ the Dmitrovskiy District Court ” ) divested the applicant of full legal capacity in his absence . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was not appealed against and it therefore became final .

The applicant allegedly learnt that he had been stripped of legal capacity only in DATE . On DATE he asked ORG to reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the request .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG examined an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It reset the time - limit and at the same hearing examined the merits of an appeal lodged by the applicant against the judgment of DATE . Having found that in DATE ORG had examined the applicant ’s case in his absence despite the lack of any information on the applicant ’s ability to attend , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE . It then proceeded to re - examine the merits of the case . After having heard the parties and basing its findings on a medical expert report of DATE , ORG again declared the applicant legally incapable .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) declared the applicant legally incapable . The applicant , who was being treated in a psycho - neurological facility at the time , did not attend the hearing .

The applicant allegedly only learned about that judgment in DATE . She asked the court to reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal in view of the lack of notification about the proceedings and her absence from the hearing .

On DATE ORG refused to reset the time - limit , having also noted that the NORP law in force at the material time had not called for the mandatory presence of the applicant at the court hearing . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .


No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

The applicant is an NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently in GPE .

The applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE on DATE . Before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) he stated the following . In GPE , he had worked with persons , connected to different universities , who were known to oppose the regime . He had mainly worked on creating and publishing web pages . He and CARDINAL of the other persons had been arrested in DATE . He had been released after TIME and then hospitalised for DATE due to high blood pressure . Before the elections on DATE , the applicant had worked with ORG , who had supported PERSON for the presidential position , by spreading their message via the Internet . DATE before the elections , he and his friends had been arrested , questioned and detained in the polling station TIME . After the elections , the applicant had participated in demonstrations and other activities . He had been arrested once again in DATE and imprisoned for DATE . In DATE he had been taken before ORG , which had released him after DATE on condition that he cooperate with the authorities and spy on his friends . He had agreed to the demands and given his business premises as a guarantee . He had also assured them that he would not participate in any demonstrations and that he would respond to their summons . Following his release in a park , he had found that his business LOC had been searched . He had kept politically sensitive material there , which the authorities must have noticed , and his passport and other documents were gone . On DATE the applicant had been summoned to appear before ORG . He had contacted a friend who , in turn , had obtained the help of a smuggler to enable him to leave the country . He had converted to NORP after coming to GPE . The applicant submitted , inter alia , a summons from ORG which stated that he should present himself at PERSON prison in GPE on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the request . It first stated that the applicant had not proven his identity but that he had made it and his citizenship probable . Turning to the applicant ’s asylum story , ORG held that participation in demonstrations or affiliation with ORG could not , of itself , give rise to a risk of persecution , ill - treatment or punishment on return to GPE . ORG noted that the applicant had changed his story in some parts during the proceedings ; in particular , he had changed his statements concerning how many times he had been arrested . Furthermore , he had not been able to name the park where he had been released . Thus , the ORG found reason to question whether he had been arrested at all . ORG further considered that the applicant ’s political activities had been limited . After the questioning in DATE and until the elections in DATE , he had been able to continue working with the web pages that contained the critical material , even though the authorities at this time were allegedly aware of his activities . For these reasons , the ORG found that the applicant could not have been of interest to the authorities on account of his activities and the material he had in his possession . As to the applicant ’s conversion to ORG , the ORG noted that he had not submitted a baptism certificate and that he had initially been unwilling to refer to his religious affiliation as grounds for asylum since this , he claimed , was a private matter . In these circumstances , it was not plausible that the applicant would risk persecution in GPE due to his religious affiliation . In conclusion , the ORG found that the applicant had not shown that he was in need of protection in GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and adding the following . The reason why , at first , he had not wanted to refer to his religious affiliation was that he had not wanted to trivialise the seriousness of his belief . He submitted a baptism certificate to the court . During the oral hearing , the applicant added that his computer had been taken from his business LOC while he was in prison . Material that was critical of the regime was stored on his computer , since he had visited some web pages and had received caricature drawings via email . Therefore , there was enough evidence to prove that he was an opponent of the system . The summons to appear before ORG was submitted to ORG . The applicant had not been summoned again and his family had not been targeted , or at least they had had no problems with which they wanted to burden him . He did not claim that his conversion constituted grounds for asylum but contended that it would clearly create problems for him if he had to return to GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It did not question the applicant ’s story or that the uncertainties that had been pointed out by ORG had been satisfactorily explained . However , as regards the summons to ORG which had been submitted to ORG , the court found that , regardless of the authenticity of the document , it could not of itself substantiate a need for protection for the applicant . This was because the document was merely a summons and because no reason was given as to why the applicant should present himself at PERSON prison . Turning to the applicant ’s asylum story , the court considered that the information concerning his political activities had been vague and lacked details . The applicant had only stated that he had participated in the campaign for the opposition before the elections in DATE by joining demonstrations and having contact with students and the student movement in order to help them with their web pages . Moreover , the applicant had stated that the material he had had in his possession when he was questioned in DATE had not differed from the material he had in DATE . These circumstances , together with the fact that he had not been summoned again to appear before ORG after DATE and that his family had not been targeted , made the court doubt that his political activities had been of such a nature and extent to have resulted in the consequences he had alleged . The court found that the applicant had exaggerated the importance of his political activities and their consequences and therefore also the authorities’ interest in him . For these reasons , the court considered that the applicant had not made out that the NORP authorities had a special interest in him and , thus , he was not in need of protection .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .

NORP In DATE the applicant requested ORG to stay the enforcement of his expulsion and to reconsider its previous decision due to new circumstances . He stated , inter alia , that the act of converting from ORG to another religion was punishable by death in GPE .

On DATE ORG found that no new circumstances had been presented which could justify staying the enforcement of the applicant ’s expulsion order or granting him a residence permit . ORG noted that the applicant had , in the previous proceedings , stated that he had been baptised by a NORP church and that he had converted to NORP . ORG also noted that the applicant had stated that his conversion was a personal matter which he did not wish to invoke as a ground for asylum . In the ORG ’s view , it was remarkable that the applicant now raised the question of conversion when he had been given the chance to elaborate on it during the oral hearing before ORG but had declined to do so .

The applicant appealed to ORG , maintaining his claims .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It observed that the authorities had already been aware of the applicant ’s conversion in the previous proceedings . Therefore , the conversion could not be considered as a “ new circumstance ” . The fact that the applicant had previously chosen not to invoke the conversion as a ground for asylum did not change the court ’s assessment in this regard .

The applicant appealed to ORG which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG and requested it to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG in order to stay the enforcement of his expulsion . He stated that he had been active against the regime in GPE prior to , and during , the presidential elections in DATE . More importantly , he had converted to NORP DATE . The conversion had taken place prior to any decisions in his asylum proceedings . Conversion from ORG to another religion or faith was harshly punished by the NORP system and society .

In support of his claims the applicant submitted , inter alia , a copy of a certificate , dated DATE , in which a pastor and a congregation member stated that they had first met the applicant in DATE , that he had converted from ORG to NORP and that he had been a member of their congregation since DATE . They also stated that their church services were broadcast on the Internet , meaning that anyone could have access to the transmissions .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Security of person);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

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

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON ( also spelled as ORG ) , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr Sidyk Ireziyev , who was born in DATE .

The first applicant lives in PERSON and the second and third applicants live in ORG , GPE .

The applicants are the brothers of Mr PERSON ( also spelled as PERSON ) , who was born in DATE .

In DATE Mr PERSON lived with the second and third applicants and their families in CARDINAL neighbouring houses in ORG . At the material time Mr PERSON , the applicants’ nephew , was staying together with Mr PERSON . The settlement was under curfew . ORG of the federal forces were functioning on the roads leading to and from ORG .

At TIME ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) masked men in camouflage uniforms with machineguns and rubber truncheons arrived in CARDINAL APCs and a UAZ car in the village . They split in CARDINAL groups of CARDINAL persons and broke into the QUANTITY houses . The men spoke unaccented NORP . They took PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON to the backyard , locking the remaining family members inside . Having checked their passports , the men pulled sacks over their heads and put them in CARDINAL of the APCs .

At dawn the applicants , together with the head of the ORG administration , followed the tracks left by the vehicles . They found that CARDINAL of the APCs had entered the LOC of the ORG collective farm ( совхоз PERSON ) , where a NORP military base was located ( for the description of the LOC see , for example , ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . GPE , CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE and ORG v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) , and the other one had driven in the direction of PERSON . The servicemen and the head of the PERSON administration denied seeing the vehicles .

On DATE Mr PERSON , the deputy head of the NORP district department of fight against organised crime , informed the first applicant that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had been brought to ORG in GPE , and promised to arrange their release at TIME in LOC . At the specified time CARDINAL camouflaged servicemen brought Mr PERSON in a UAZ car . They promised to set Mr PERSON free on DATE , which did not happen . Later Mr PERSON told the applicants that he had not managed to obtain Mr PERSON release .

According to Mr PERSON , after the arrest the men took him and Mr PERSON to the ORG collective farm . There they were handed over to other men , put in a UAZ car and driven away , passing through several roadblocks . At a certain point the men stopped and placed him and Mr PERSON in a cellar . The men introduced themselves as officers of ORG ( the ORG ) from GPE . They questioned them about involvement in illegal armed groups and beat them up .

NORP Some time later the applicants learnt that during TIME raid of DATE the men had killed their neighbour , Mr PERSON .

The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since his abduction on DATE .

NORP The applicants’ description of the circumtances surrounding the abduction is based on the following statements : the first applicant ’s statement dated DATE , the third applicant ’s statement dated DATE , the statement of Mr PERSON dated DATE , the statement of the applicants’ relatives PERSON dated DATE and PERSON dated DATE , and the copies of documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL opened into the abduction of Mr PERSON .

On DATE the applicants complained of their brother ’s abduction by military servicemen to the head of the ORG town administration .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicants complained of their brother ’s arrest by military servicemen to the LOC district military commander .

On DATE the applicants complained of the abduction to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL stating that PERSON PERSON had been detained by their military servicemen .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . ORG replied to the applicants that they had forwarded requests for information concerning Mr PERSON ’s possible arrest and detention to ORG , the Military prosecutor ’s office of the ORG ( ORG ) and other law - enforcement agencies .

On an unspecified date in DATE and then on DATE the applicants wrote to the Envoy of the NORP President in GPE on Human Rights and Freedoms ( the Envoy ) complaining of their brother ’s abduction on DATE by military servicemen in CARDINAL APCs .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of the ORG forwarded the ORG complaint of Mr PERSON ’s abduction by military servicemen to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE for examination .

On DATE the applicants complained to the GPE prosecutor ’s office of their brother ’s abduction from home on DATE by military servicemen in APCs .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE . The decision mistakenly stated that the abduction had taken place on DATE . The applicants were informed of the initiation of the criminal investigation .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the ORG . In particular , the applicant stated that the abduction took place on DATE and that the abduction had been perpetrated by armed men in uniforms who had arrived in CARDINAL APCs .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status . The decision stated that the abduction had taken place on DATE . On DATE first applicant was questioned again . He reiterated his previously given statement , stressed that the abductors had arrived in CARDINAL APCs and then had taken his brother Mr PERSON to the main military base of the federal forces in GPE .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .

On DATE the investigators questioned the third applicant and the applicant ’s relatives PERSON and PERSON whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the applicants’ account submitted to ORG .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor instructed the investigators to establish , amongst other things , whether any law enforcement agencies or military structures had carried out a special operation against Mr PERSON . No replies in the positive were received .

On DATE the investigators questioned the third applicant ’s wife PERSON who stated that Mr PERSON had been abducted in DATE by military servicemen who had arrived at their household in CARDINAL APCs , had been of NORP appearance and spoke unaccented NORP .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ brothers Mr PERSON and PERSON both of whom also stated that their brother PERSON PERSON had been abducted in DATE by military servicemen who had arrived in military vehicles .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the third applicant ’s wife PERSON who stated that Mr PERSON had been abducted by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the third applicant whose statement was similar to that of PERSON

On DATE or DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant . No new information was obtained .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended . The applicants were informed thereof .

On CARDINAL DATE the supervising prosecutor examined , upon the ORG request to this end , the investigation file in criminal case no . DATE and concluded that the suspension of the investigation on CARDINAL DATE was substantiated and lawful .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the NORP district prosecutor of his brother ’s abduction on DATE by military servicemen in CARDINAL APCs and requested that the investigation be resumed and that he be granted access to the case file .

On DATE the LOC prosecutor ’s office rejected the first applicant ’s request stating that there were no grounds to resume the proceedings and that he would be able to access the contents of the case file only upon completion of the investigation .

From the documents submitted it follows that the criminal investigation is still pending .

The Government stated that the investigation had not obtained any evidence proving that ORG agents had been involved in the disappearance of the applicants’ brother or that he was dead .

The applicants submitted that it had been established “ beyond reasonable doubt ” that ORG agents had been involved into the abduction and disappearance of Mr PERSON . In support of that assertion they referred to the ample evidence contained in their submission as well as the contents of the criminal investigation file . They also submitted that they had made a prima facie case that their brother had been abducted by ORG agents and that the ORG failed to provide a plausible explanation to the events . In view of the absence of any news of Mr PERSON for a long time and the life - threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in the region at the relevant time , they asked the ORG to consider him dead .

The Court shall examine the application at hand in the light of the general principles applicable in cases where the factual circumstances are in dispute between the parties ( see PERSON v. “ the former GPE ” [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHRCARDINAL ) .

The ORG has addressed a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in GPE . Applying the abovementioned principles , it has concluded that if applicants make a prima facie case of abduction by servicemen , this is sufficient for them to show that their relatives fell within the control of the authorities , and it is then for the Government to discharge their burden of proof either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , GPE and Others , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . If the Government fail to rebut that presumption , this will entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; Movsayevy v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

The ORG has also found in many cases concerning disappearances that a missing person may be presumed dead . Having regard to the numerous cases of disappearances in GPE which have come before it , the ORG has found that in the particular context of the conflict in the region , when a person has been detained by unidentified ORG agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention , this could be regarded as lifethreatening ( see , among many others , GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG and Others v. GPE , cited above ) .

The ORG has made findings of presumptions of deaths in the absence of any reliable news about the disappeared persons for periods ranging from DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) to DATE .

Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG notes that the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ brother , Mr PERSON , was detained at home in TIME by a group of armed men and gone missing since . In their submissions to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that their brother had been abducted by ORG agents ( see , for example , paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The investigators took steps to verify this theory ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their brother was detained by ORG agents and subsequently disappeared .

The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Their arguments are in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by the ORG and insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in this case .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any reliable news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in a special facility for temporary detention of foreign nationals in GPE .

The applicant is an ethnic NORP who lived in PERSON , GPE . In DATE the region was a scene of mass disorders and inter - ethnic clashes between ethnic NORP and NORP .

NORP In DATE the applicant was present at the barricades raised by ethnic NORP near GPE . On DATE he was wounded by a Molotov cocktail and was admitted to hospital on account of severe burns . He was released from hospital on DATE .

Eventually the applicant fled GPE to GPE , together with many other ethnic NORP , to avoid ethnically motivated violence .

In DATE the NORP authorities opened a criminal case against the applicant charging him with a number of violent crimes allegedly committed in the course of the riots of DATE . On DATE ORG in the PERSON - Abad region ordered in absentia the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE because he was not carrying an identity document . He was placed in the Special Facility for ORG , GPE ( “ the detention centre for aliens ” ) , run by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG , GPE ( “ the district court ” ) found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence punishable under LAW ( “ breach of rules on entry and stay of foreign nationals in GPE , GPE , GPE and the GPE Region ” ) of LAW ( “ the CAO ” ) and sentenced him as follows : “ [ ... ] a punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) [ combined ] with administrative removal and placement in the centre for detention of foreign nationals , [ where he will remain ] until the entry into force of that decision and until administrative removal from GPE under LAW ” .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision arguing that in GPE he would be subjected to illtreatment like many other ethnic NORP . It appears that the appeal documentation reached ORG on DATE . The appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE but was then postponed until DATE .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s request for interim measures and indicated to the ORG that the applicant should not be expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s relatives were told by the officials of the detention centre for aliens that the applicant would be expelled from GPE on DATE . At TIME the applicant contacted his lawyer stating that he was in FAC in GPE . At TIME the lawyer arrived at the airport and was informed by the border control personnel that the applicant had not boarded the plane scheduled for GPE , GPE . State bailiffs informed the lawyer that the applicant had been brought to PERSON but had later been returned to the detention centre for aliens . At TIME a duty officer of the detention centre confirmed to the lawyer that the applicant was back in the facility .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Appeal Court ” ) upheld ORG decision of DATE on appeal . ORG dismissed the applicant ’s allegations of the risk of illtreatment stating that “ the documents submitted by the [ applicant ’s ] defence d[id ] not demonstrate a breach of rights and freedoms of the person in question ” and reasoned that “ [ a]ssessment of actions by law - enforcement agencies of a foreign ORG , as well as of [ legal ] acts carried out by them f[ell ] outside the subject - matter jurisdiction of a court examining a case concerning an administrative offence committed in GPE by a foreign national ” .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that “ the proceedings on the administrative removal of the applicant have been suspended ” and that the applicant “ continues to be held in the detention centre for foreign nationals of the GPE department of ORG ” ( “ the GPE FMS ” ) .

On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status arguing that in GPE he would face persecution based on his ethnic origin .

On DATE the GPE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for refugee status . The parties have not provided the ORG with a copy of the decision .

The applicant challenged the decision before ORG , GPE . The proceedings are pending .

According to the applicant , on DATE he was severely beaten by officers of a special police squad in the detention centre for aliens . He received rubber - truncheon blows to his back , buttocks and heels .

The applicant notified his lawyer accordingly and provided mobile phone photos of his injured back .

On DATE CARDINAL lawyers visited the applicant along with several other persons awaiting expulsion in the detention centre for aliens . The applicant and other detainees informed them that regular beatings of detainees had begun on DATE following unsuccessful suicide attempts by several inmates . The applicant claimed that the officers of the special police squad had beaten him on DATE with rubber truncheons on his back , heels and buttocks .

On DATE the lawyers reported the beatings to the main investigative department of ORG . They emphasised that the medical staff of the detention centre had refused to enter the detainees’ injuries into the medical logs . The lawyers requested that the beatings of the detainees , including the applicant , be investigated . In support of their request they enclosed , among other things , the applicant ’s photos showing injuries to his back .

On DATE the ORG complaint was forwarded to the NORP district investigation department of ORG .

It appears that no investigation into the applicant ’s alleged beatings in the detention centre for aliens has been instituted .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

On an unspecified date the regional police department for combating organised crime opened a criminal investigation into the activities of an organised group involved in a series of residential burglaries and car thefts in GPE . The applicant was suspected of acting as a coordinator and go - between for the group . In the course of the investigation of the group ’s activities , on DATE ORG authorised the tapping of the applicant ’s telephone , a search of his home and the interception of his communications for DATE .

On DATE the police intercepted the applicant ’s mobile phone communications with T. which they conducted while they were stealing a Lada car in the settlement of GPE , GPE . The car belonged to the President of ORG . An official investigation into the car theft was opened on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the investigation was suspended , as the perpetrator(s ) could not be found .

On DATE the police intercepted another mobile phone communication between the applicant and T. which they conducted while they were stealing a Lada car in the town of GPE , GPE . Police officers were at the scene . They observed T. driving a ORG car and the applicant driving the stolen Lada car . Then they followed the applicant to a garage in GPE .

In TIME the police arrested the applicant while he was taking the stolen Lada car out of the garage .

The applicant was charged with a car theft ( theft causing serious financial detriment ) . On DATE he was brought before ORG , GPE , where investigator PERSON , arguing that the applicant might ( CARDINAL ) abscond , ( CARDINAL ) continue criminal activities , or ( CARDINAL ) put pressure on witnesses , other parties to the proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice , asked for the applicant ’s remand in custody during the investigation . The court , however , dismissed the investigator ’s motion . In particular , the court noted as follows :

“ Investigator PERSON submitted that he had no factual information substantiating the fact that [ the applicant ] might abscond , that he put or might put any pressure on the witnesses by way of threatening them or [ that he might ] otherwise interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case .

There is no evidence that would allow the court to conclude that another car or the car plates discovered in the [ applicant ’s ] garage had anything to do with the criminal activities involving car thefts . The court was not provided with any information about the nature of the equipment found [ in the garage ] or confirmation that it had been used to modify the registration numbers on the vehicle ’s parts or to perform other work on the vehicles . ”

After the court hearing , the applicant was taken back to the GPE police station , where he signed an undertaking not to leave his place of residence during the investigation . However , he was not released . It appears that on the same date , ORG of the ORG reopened the criminal investigation of the car theft of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At TIME police officers from the GPE police station showed up at the GPE police station and rearrested the applicant on suspicion of involvement in the car theft of DATE . He was taken to the GPE police station at TIME and booked in .

NORP On DATE investigator ORG from ORG of the ORG indicted the applicant on a charge of car theft ( theft causing serious financial detriment committed in concert with CARDINAL or more persons ) concerning the theft of the Lada that took place on DATE .

On DATE investigator PERSON applied to ORG , GPE seeking the applicant ’s remand in custody during the investigation . Referring to the gravity of the charges , the investigator argued that the applicant might continue criminal activities , abscond , put pressure on witnesses , destroy evidence and interfere with the establishment of the facts of the case .

On DATE ORG examined the investigator ’s application . According to the applicant , he argued before ORG that the application , being a repeated attempt to remand him in custody , was contrary to the rules of criminal procedure . ORG authorised the applicant ’s detention during the investigation . Referring to the car theft which took place on DATE , the court noted as follows :

“ It is evident from the materials submitted to the court that [ the applicant ] is accused of a premeditated serious crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding DATE imprisonment . He does not have a criminal record . He has a permanent place of residence , is in employment and has a family .

It is evident from the materials submitted to the court that [ the applicant ] has been involved in car theft for a long time . It is so noted in the information provided by [ the regional department for combating organised crime ] , the investigator ’s decision of DATE to open a criminal investigation against the applicant and the report on the search of the [ applicant ’s ] garage of DATE .

These facts confirm the investigator ’s argument that [ the applicant ] might continue his criminal activity , [ and ] interfere with the administration of justice by the destruction or concealment of stolen property .

The [ applicant ’s and his lawyer ’s ] arguments that [ the applicant ] has a permanent place of residence , [ is in ] employment and [ has ] a family , [ and ] that he undertakes not to abscond , can not be regarded as sufficient to dismiss the investigator ’s application to remand [ the applicant ] in custody .

Having regard to the above , the court accepts the investigator ’s and prosecutor ’s arguments that the applicant should be remanded in custody . The court considers that the use of a less strict measure of restraint is not possible . ”

The applicant appealed against the court order of DATE . He reiterated that the decision to remand him in custody had not been compatible with the rules of criminal procedure and indicated , inter alia , that the judge of ORG had not been impartial or independent , given that the applicant had been charged with the theft of a car belonging to the President of the court in question .

On DATE ORG upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal , noting that the applicant ’s doubts as to the impartiality and independence of the judge who had delivered the decision in question were unfounded .

On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , relying on the following reasoning :

“ [ The applicant ] is accused of a premeditated serious crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding DATE imprisonment . If released , he might put pressure on witnesses and other parties to the proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the establishment of the facts of the case . There are grounds to believe that [ the applicant ] , if released , might abscond or continue his criminal activity . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court repeated verbatim the reasoning of its previous order of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .

On DATE the applicant was indicted on a charge of a car theft committed by an organised group and on DATE the pending criminal cases against the applicant concerning the car thefts of CARDINAL DATE and DATE were joined and transferred to ORG of the Interior for investigation .

Following the transfer of the applicant ’s case to ORG of the Interior , the question of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention fell to be examined by ORG , GPE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :

“ The circumstances underlying the [ applicant ’s ] remand in custody have not ceased to exist . He is charged with serious offences . ... Regard being had to the circumstances of the crimes [ the applicant ] is charged with , there are grounds to believe that , if at large , [ the applicant ] may put pressure on witnesses or other parties to the proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the establishment of the facts of the case , abscond , [ or ] continue his criminal activity . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE investigator PERSON from the regional department of the interior indicted the applicant on CARDINAL charges of car theft committed by an organised group , forgery of car plate numbers and vehicle identification numbers and handling stolen property .

“ [ The applicant ] is charged with CARDINAL premeditated crimes , CARDINAL of which are classified as serious . There are grounds to believe that , if at large , [ the applicant ] might interfere with administration of justice , put pressure on victims and witnesses , abscond , [ or ] continue criminal activities . These [ grounds ] are supported by the materials provided by the regional department for combating organised crime ... and other materials submitted by the investigator . ”

On DATE ORG fixed the hearing of the case against the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants for CARDINAL DATE . Referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and CARDINAL of the other defendants and the risk that they might continue their criminal activity or interfere with the administration of justice , the court ordered that they remain in custody pending trial . The decision remained silent as to the grounds on which such conclusions were based and also as to the period of such authorised detention or the date of its next review .

On DATE ORG reclassified the charges against the applicant and found him guilty of the theft of CARDINAL cars committed by a group of persons and causing significant financial detriments to the car owners and forgery of car licence plates and sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half GPE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the applicant ’s conviction on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration . The court found that the trial court had failed to correctly establish the facts of the case . It further noted , without specifying the grounds or the time frame that the applicant should remain in custody pending retrial .

On DATE ORG scheduled the retrial for CARDINAL DATE and authorised the applicant ’s release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence . The court took into account the fact that the applicant had no previous convictions , that he had a permanent job and a place of residence , and that he had a family and a minor child .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the theft of CARDINAL cars and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The court applied the prescription rule and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in part concerning the charge of forgery of car licence plates . The applicant was relieved from serving the sentence in view of the time he had already spent in detention .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .


CASE OF PETER ARMSTRONG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained at FAC , GPE .

On DATE , the applicant stabbed a man at his home in GPE . The man died of his injuries . When the police arrived at the house , they found the applicant sitting in a chair , and he told them , “ He ’s my best friend and I ’ve stabbed him ” . The applicant was arrested and taken to the police station . When interviewed , he claimed that the victim had entered the house and attacked him , and that he was acting in self - defence .

The applicant was charged with murder and his trial began in ORG at GPE before a judge and a jury . The applicant ’s defence to the charge was one of self - defence .

On DATE of trial , a member of the jury informed the court that he was a retired police officer . He had been retired for DATE and had not served in any of the units involved in the case . He did not recognise the names of any of the police officers in the case . The judge brought the matter to the attention of counsel and invited observations . The applicant ’s counsel explained that he had not had the opportunity to speak to the applicant about the matter and continued :

“ ... [ B]ut can I say without having exercised that right that the advice which I will [ be ] giving him is that there is no objection on the face of it even for a serving police officer remaining on the jury in a case of this sort provided that the officer in question , or in this case the retired officer in question , has no knowledge of the case and the parties to the case or any of the police officers who may be concerned with it . ”

He went on to refer to “ obvious exceptions ” , including where the police officer juror had some connection with the case or where there was a “ significant challenge to police evidence as a necessary part of the conduct of the defence ” , adding :

“ That does not apply in this case , the police evidence is , I will not say it is completely agreed but there is no significant challenge to the police evidence which would have any realistic impact on the jury ’s verdict in this case . ”

A short adjournment took place to allow the applicant ’s counsel to investigate whether the retired officer had any connection or contact with the case . Following the adjournment , defence counsel confirmed that he had no representations to make .

On DATE of the trial , another member of the jury informed the court that he was a serving police officer and that he recognised a man sitting at the back of the court as a police officer .

NORP Prosecuting counsel confirmed that the man in question was the officer in charge of the case , but explained that they did not intend to call him as a witness . They had made inquiries with the man , who had clarified that when he was an inspector at GPE , a town near GPE , DATE the police officer juror had been serving there as a constable . The man had not been the juror ’s line manager . He suggested that inquiries ought to be made into the juror ’s knowledge of the man , but suggested that it would be sufficient if the man were to remain outside the courtroom , as the rest of the jury did not know who he was and none of the jurors knew why he was there .

Defence counsel said that he wanted to know how much the juror knew about the man and about other officers involved in the case . The judge sought confirmation of the precise information required by the defence and proposed to prepare a list of questions for the juror on that basis , which he would share with counsel before they were put to the juror . Defence counsel indicated that his “ provisional reaction ” was that provided the answers to the questions were satisfactory there would be no problem .

The judge rose and returned to read his proposed questions to counsel and to the applicant . The questions were :

- What is the extent of your knowledge of the police officer with the beard who you say you recognized sitting in court DATE ?

- What were the circumstances in which you came to know him ?

- When and where prior to DATE was your last contact with him ?

- What is your present rank ?

- Where are you currently based ?

- Please look at the list of police officers who will give evidence . Have you any knowledge of them ? If so , what is the extent of this knowledge ?

Defence counsel made no comment on the proposed questions . They were duly put to the police officer juror . Following a short adjournment , the judge set out the result of the investigation :

“ I say it in open court so there is no doubt about it . I understand that the juror in question knew the man with the beard , as I shall call him , at GPE ’s when the man with the beard was his inspector . This was DATE . He was able to give his name ... He has not , however , seen him since that inspector left PERSON , which he thinks was perhaps as long ago as DATE . He makes clear that the inspector was his inspector for DATE but he did not see him socially or out of TIME . The juror is currently a serving Police Constable at GPE ’s and he indicates he knows no - one on the list [ of police officer witnesses ] . Any observations ? ”

Defence counsel responded as follows :

“ No , my Lord . I am quite happy that the juror may continue to serve . I understand that he does not wish other jurors to be told that he is a police officer and that is understandable , his occupation is irrelevant to his jury serving and his participation in these proceedings . ”

On DATE the applicant was convicted of murder . On DATE he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of DATE .

The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG on the ground that the presence of the serving police officer on his jury created a real possibility of actual or apparent bias which rendered his conviction unsafe .

On DATE permission to appeal was refused on the papers . The judge considered that no fair - minded and informed observer with full knowledge of the relevant facts as disclosed in the discussions between counsel and the trial judge would conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury were biased . He further observed that the police evidence was not in dispute and that the applicant ’s trial counsel , who was pre - eminently placed to assess the situation , had made no objection to either juror sitting on the jury after full inquiry had been concluded .

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal before the full court . He argued that bias in his case arose from the following factors : that police witnesses and other witnesses closely connected to the police were cross - examined ; that the juror was an officer in the same police force as the police witnesses and the officer in charge of the case , although was not based at the same police station ; and that the juror had served under the officer in charge of the case DATE .

On DATE , following an oral hearing , ORG refused permission to appeal . It noted the factors relied on by the applicant as suggesting bias , but considered that , against those factors , were the fact that the juror had no particular knowledge of the facts of the case ; that he knew none of the police witnesses who were due to be called ; and that he had had no contact with the officer in charge of the case for DATE . The court rejected the suggestion that the juror had worked out that the man at the back of the court was the officer in charge of the case , or indeed that he had any connection with the case . It concluded :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL It is apparent that the mere fact that a juror is a serving policeman is not sufficient to give rise to a real risk of bias . There must be some other factor connecting him to the case in order to give rise to that risk . This was not a case in which the police evidence was in any sense hotly contested , despite the fact that some of the witnesses were cross - examined . In the circumstances , in our view , the suggestion that there was some additional connection between this juror and the office in charge of the case could be little more than speculation . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . In DATE her pension was MONEY ( “ ORG ” ) , i.e. DATE ( “ EUR ” ) .

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

On DATE ORG , acting on the basis of a private criminal action ( privatna krivična tužba ) filed on DATE , found the applicant guilty of criminal defamation ( kleveta ) and sentenced her to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE ( uslovna osuda ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON , a journalist , was also found guilty of the same offence and sentenced identically .

ORG noted , inter alia , that on DATE Dnevnik , a ORG DATE newspaper , had published an article , prepared by PERSON and based on the information provided by the applicant , to the effect that the latter ’s lawyer , PERSON , had deliberately failed to represent her properly in a pending civil case . The article maintained that this was subsequently confirmed by ORG . ORG described the applicant ’s and article ’s assertions as lacking any factual basis and being aimed solely at harming the honour and reputation of PERSON , a highly respected member of the ORG legal community and a former judge .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment on appeal and endorsed its reasoning . The applicant received ORG decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for the reopening of these proceedings .

Following CARDINAL remittals , on DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s motion and reopened the case . The applicant personally and a number of witnesses were reheard and numerous documents / files were re - examined , but ultimately , on DATE , both the original conviction and the sentence imposed were reaffirmed in their entirety . ORG reasoning likewise remained the same . It clarified , however , that , whilst the police had indeed filed a criminal complaint against Mr GPE on DATE , by DATE ORG had informed the applicant of its formal rejection based on the applicable statute of limitation . The applicant had thereafter attempted to take over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of a subsidiary prosecutor , but this had ultimately been rejected by the courts by DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE . The applicant was served with ORG decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG , complaining , inter alia , about the outcome , fairness and length of the criminal proceedings , as well as the alleged breach of her freedom of expression . This appeal is still pending .

On DATE Mr NB filed a separate civil claim for damages with ORG , alleging that he had suffered mental anguish due to the publication of the impugned article .

On DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of PERSON and ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL in compensation , together with default interest , plus costs in the amount of ORG CARDINAL , i.e. approximately ORG CARDINAL in all .

In its reasoning ORG found that : ( a ) the applicant had already been convicted of defamation within the criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; ( b ) having examined Mr GPE ’s professional conduct , her allegations had clearly lacked any factual basis ; and ( c ) this had offended the honour , reputation and dignity of Mr GPE and had caused him profound mental anguish ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG in ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal , and in so doing endorsed the reasons given at first instance . The applicant received the ORG decision on DATE .

The applicant could not file an appeal on points of law , revizija , with ORG in view of the amount of damages awarded .

On DATE the applicant thus filed an appeal with ORG . This appeal was , effectively , supplemented by memorials of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . The applicant complained about the breach of her right to freedom of expression , as well as the procedural fairness . Concerning the former she specifically referred to the disproportionate nature of the damages awarded , and cited the relevant GPE case - law ( such as , for example , PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINALB ; and GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The applicant , lastly , complained about the consequent danger to her life and her health , as described at CARDINAL below .

On DATE the applicant requested that the ORG order the suspension of the civil enforcement proceedings brought against her ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s motion for the reopening of the civil proceedings , and on DATE the Novi Sad High Court upheld this decision on appeal .

On DATE the applicant again requested that the ORG order the suspension of the said enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal on its merits , stating , inter alia , that the impugned decisions had been adopted in accordance with the law , that they had been well - reasoned , and that it was not its function to assess whether the amount of compensation which had been awarded was disproportionate . ORG made no mention of the applicant ’s complaint concerning her medical situation .

NORP The applicant was apparently informed of this decision in ORG letter of DATE , and received it by CARDINAL DATE at the latest .

On DATE Mr ORG filed a motion with ORG , seeking enforcement of its judgment dated DATE .

On DATE ORG issued an enforcement order whereby CARDINAL of the applicant ’s pension were to be transferred to the creditor ’s bank account DATE , until the sums awarded to the latter have been paid in full ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The said deductions to the applicant ’s DATE income began as of CARDINAL DATE .

In DATE the applicant ’s DATE pension was RSD CARDINAL , approximately EUR CARDINAL . After deductions , the applicant was left with approximately EUR CARDINAL on which to live .

By DATE the applicant had paid a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , i.e. approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . However , given the accrued and future interest , she would have to continue with the payments for DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant suffered from a number of diseases including cataracts , progressive ocular hypertension , which had allegedly caused a total loss of vision in her left eye , angina pectoris , and clinical depression . She had also had a pacemaker installed DATE , had suffered a stroke and was in need of hip surgery .

The applicant maintained that she needed a minimum of ORG CARDINAL DATE for her medication , i.e. approximately ORG CARDINAL , but that she could no longer afford to buy it .

On DATE , concerning the same article published on DATE , ORG ruled in favour of Mr NB and ordered PERSON , PERSON , and GPE ( as the said newspaper ’s founder ) jointly to pay ORG CARDINAL in compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered , together with default interest , plus costs in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , i.e. approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in all . On DATE this judgment was upheld by ORG on appeal .

The applicant maintained that on DATE her gas supply had been disconnected in view of her continuing inability to pay her utilities .