Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo

On DATE PERSON was stabbed by CARDINAL persons during an event in a café in the town of GPE , GPE . He died on the way to hospital .

The following day the authorities of GPE started an investigation into the incident , the applicant and his friend , PERSON , being the main suspects .

A number of eyewitnesses were questioned . In particular , witness ORG , the owner of the café , stated that he had seen the applicant and PERSON having a conversation with the victim and his nephew , PERSON At the time of the incident he had been outside the café and went back in when he heard the noise . Thereafter he learnt from those present that PERSON and the applicant had stabbed the victim and escaped .

Witness GPE , Kh . H. ’s son , stated that he had been in the kitchen when he heard the noise and came out into the hall . He then saw the applicant with a knife in his hands going towards the victim .

Witness ORG stated that he had been with his uncle , the victim , in the café and had witnessed the applicant and PERSON stabbing him .

Witness PERSON , the cook who worked in the café at the relevant time , stated that she had seen the applicant and PERSON having an argument with the victim and stabbing him , after which both of them had fled .

Witness V.H. , Kh . H. ’s brother , who had also been in the café that night , stated that he had seen PERSON and the victim having an argument , after which the former had stabbed the victim , and then the applicant had also stabbed him .

Witness G.A. submitted that he had been in the café with his wife on DATE of the incident and had witnessed PERSON and the applicant attacking the victim and that he had seen a knife in the applicant ’s hands .

A number of other persons , namely ORG and ORG , singers , ORG and ORG , guests , and PERSON , the camera person in charge of filming the event , were also questioned . These witnesses did not provide any concrete details or mention any names and stated that they had either been far away from those fighting or for some other reason had not seen exactly what happened . Witness PERSON had recognised the applicant in a photograph shown to him during the investigation .

On DATE the investigative authorities of GPE brought charges against the applicant and his detention was ordered . Since his whereabouts were unknown , a search was initiated for him .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was released after no agreement was reached between the law enforcement authorities of GPE and GPE as regards his extradition .

On DATE the ORG found PERSON guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

As regards the applicant , the case was sent to GPE for him to be prosecuted in his country of nationality .

On DATE the ORG investigation unit took over the case and the charges against the applicant were brought into conformity with the relevant provisions of LAW of GPE . The applicant was charged with premeditated murder .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . He was questioned on the same day and refused to make any statement in respect of the events of DATE .

In the course of the investigation the applicant requested a confrontation with witnesses ORG , ORG , GPE , PERSON and PERSON The investigator dismissed his motion on the ground that both in the course of the investigation and at PERSON ’s trial those witnesses had reinstated their statements against him .

On DATE the case file , including the finalised indictment , was transmitted to ORG ( CARDINAL of the first instance criminal courts before the relevant amendments to LAW ) to be set down for trial .

On an unspecified date the applicant ’s lawyer filed a motion seeking to remit the case for further investigation on the ground that , inter alia , it was necessary to carry out several confrontations given that there were substantial contradictions between the applicant ’s statements and the statements of witnesses ORG , ORG , GPE , PERSON and O. D. It appears that ORG never examined this request .

Following the amendments to LAW the case was taken over by ORG .

According to the applicant , the CARDINAL witnesses residing in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who had made statements against him , were not properly summoned and ORG did not obtain any proof that they had been notified about the trial . The applicant further claimed that at the preparatory hearing the victim ’s legal heir , PERSON ’s wife , had submitted declarations from CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL witnesses stating their reasons for being unable to attend the hearings . The declarations , drafted in NORP , were not properly examined by ORG but were included in the case file and it was decided to continue the examination of the case in the absence of all the witnesses .

The Government argued that all CARDINAL witnesses were properly summoned to the applicant ’s trial . However , it had not been possible to locate all of them , while CARDINAL of the witnesses submitted to the trial court declarations certified by a notary in GPE stating their inability to attend the trial for financial , family or work - related issues .

NORP The applicant pleaded not guilty at the trial and contested the veracity of the statements of the witnesses made during the investigation of the case in GPE .

The victim ’s legal heir testified before the trial court that on DATE her husband , PERSON , had attended an event in the café together with ORG She had then been told by relatives that her husband had been stabbed during a fight .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed a motion seeking to have examined in court the video recordings from the crime scene included in the case file . He claimed that it was necessary to identify other witnesses of the incident and clarify the colour of his outerwear on DATE of the crime . ORG dismissed this motion .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . In doing so , ORG stated , in particular , the following :

“ The ORG , taking into account and having assessed the evidence supporting the accusation , finds that [ the applicant ’s ] guilt in the offence was established by the following evidence that has been collected in the course of the investigation and examined in the court proceedings :

The [ trial ] statement of the victim ’s legal heir ... according to which at TIME on DATE her husband PERSON attended an event in ... the café together with ORG She was told ... by the relatives that during a fight in the café NORP men [ PERSON ] and [ the applicant ] had stabbed her husband ...

The statement of witness Kh . H. ... ( witness Kh . H. ’s pre - trial statement was read out )

The statement of witness GPE ... ( witness GPE ’s pre - trial statement was read out ) .

The statement of witness ORG ... ( witness ORG ’s pre - trial statement was read out ) .

The statement of witness LAW ... ( witness PERSON ’s pre - trial statement was read out ) .

The statement of witness V.H. ... ( witness ORG pre - trial statement was read out ) .

The statement of witness G.A. ... ( witness ORG pre - trial statement was read out ) .

The statement of witness GPE ... ( witness ORG pre - trial statement was read out ) .

The statement of witness PERSON ... ( witness PERSON ’s pre - trial statement was read out ) .

[ The applicant ’s ] guilt ... has been substantiated also by :

The judgment of CARDINAL of ORG ...

... clarifications provided by expert ... during the above - mentioned court proceedings that there were CARDINAL penetrating knife injuries on the body ... each one of the injuries could by itself have caused the death .

The statement of technical expert [ during the proceedings before ORG ] ...

The conclusion of the forensic medical examination of CARDINAL ... PERSON ’s death had been caused by extensive haemorrhage as a result of liver wounds .

The statement of forensic medical expert [ during the proceedings before ORG ] ... Each stab wounded the liver .

The conclusion of technical forensic examination of CARDINAL ... according to which ... the traces of CARDINAL penetrating wounds ... discovered on PERSON ’s vest could have been inflicted by a ... knife .

The records of examination of the crime scene , records of ... examination of victim PERSON ’s clothes , CARDINAL video recordings of the event , the video recording of the examination of the body during the examination of the crime scene and forensic medical examination . ”

The applicant lodged an appeal claiming , inter alia , that there had been no confrontation between him , PERSON and the witnesses against him during the investigation of the case , either in GPE or in GPE . He further complained that ORG had failed to summon properly the witnesses and relied on their pre - trial statements without good reason . He also complained about the fact that the video recordings from the crime scene had not been examined during the trial , although ORG relied on them as evidence against him .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction with reliance on the same evidence . As regards the non - attendance of witnesses ORG stated that , according to the materials of the case , the witnesses had been properly summoned but had submitted statements about their inability to appear before the court due to lack of funds or reasons relating to family or work and reinstated their statements made during the pre - trial investigation .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law raising arguments similar to those submitted in his previous appeal .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit stating , inter alia , that ORG had reached the correct conclusion as regards the applicant ’s complaints about his inability to examine the witnesses against him .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing;Reasonably necessary to prevent offence)

The applicant worked as a deputy chief guard in “ FAC ” , a ORG - owned company .

On DATE the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant suspecting that he , against bribes , had covered up thefts from the company ’s premises in conspiracy with S. and NORP

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention stating that “ [ The applicant ] committed serious crimes , he does not admit his guilt , if at liberty [ he ] will influence witnesses and other persons involved in the criminal case . [ As the applicant ] works as a policeman , [ he ] is well aware of how to obstruct the investigation and justice ” . There is no evidence in the case - file that the applicant worked as a policemen prior to or during the events described in the present application . It remains unknown whether PERSON and NORP were also arrested or remained at liberty .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE on the grounds that “ not all the applicant ’s accomplices were detained ... [ the investigative authorities ] keep receiving complaints [ from persons who gave bribes to the applicant ] . If at liberty the applicant will have an opportunity to obstruct the investigation or abscond ” . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE stating that “ the accused committed serious crimes , he does not admit his guilt and refuses to testify , while if at liberty [ the applicant ] , who has higher education and extensive work experience [ as a guard ] , might influence witnesses , obstruct the investigation and abscond ” .

On DATE ORG of Appeal prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE stating that there was a need to carry out a number of investigative measures in the case , the applicant was charged with serious crimes , he might abscond , obstruct the investigation , or continue his criminal activities .

On an unspecified date the preliminary investigations in the applicant ’s case were completed and the case was submitted to ORG for trial .

On DATE ORG , holding a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against the applicant , upheld the applicant ’s preventive measure without providing any reasons for doing so or fixing a time - limit for the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s request for change of a preventive measure on health grounds . On DATE the applicant was released against an undertaking not to abscond .


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);No 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 14+2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation)

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

The applicants are CARDINAL NORP nationals of GPE origin . They all live in LOC in the town of GPE , GPE .

On DATE at TIME the applicant PERSON and his friend ORG had a quarrel in a bar with GPE , a policeman who worked for the GPE police . Consequently , GPE filed a criminal complaint against the CARDINAL men , accusing them of insulting behaviour .

In the context of the investigation of the above - mentioned complaint , at TIME , the chief of the GPE police gave the order by telephone for several police officers to go to GPE , the neighbourhood where PERSON and ORG lived , in order to summon them before the prosecutor . He advised them to exercise particular caution , mentioning on the phone that it would be difficult to get there owing to a large number of people ( CARDINAL ) blocking the way armed with bats , pitchforks , axes and scythes , and that the law - enforcement authorities had been unable to secure the area . He also requested the assistance of officers from the local special forces police ( GPE şi ORG DATE ) . According to the operation order completed by the chief of the local special forces unit on DATE , the reason for the request was “ to ensure the protection of the policemen conducting an investigation for insulting behaviour towards policeman GPE ”

NORP Immediately afterwards , CARDINAL special forces officers ( GPE , GPE , PERSON , H.D.M. , ORG wearing special uniforms and masks covering their faces , together with CARDINAL local police officers from ORG ( PERSON and PERSON ) and CARDINAL plain - clothes officers from the investigations department of the GPE police ( TIME , FAC , ORG and ORG ) left for PERSON , taking a van and CARDINAL cars .

On DATE around TIME , on seeing the police vehicles , the applicants and other inhabitants of the neighbourhood , mostly women and children , started gathering in the street out of curiosity .

In order to disperse the crowd , the special forces officers threw several tear gas grenades , which sent everyone into a panic , pushing each other and running around in all directions . At that point the police officers started shooting at the running crowd while backing up their vehicles and leaving the neighbourhood .

According to the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , shortly after the police officers arrived in the neighbourhood , the local residents started gathering and a fight broke out between them and the special forces officers , who were forced to use their weapons . The prosecutor gave details about the incident , noting that shortly after all the ORG agents ( except the CARDINAL driving the van ) got out of their vehicles , they found themselves surrounded by CARDINAL people , who began to jostle against them and pull at their equipment . In the meantime , the police officers recognised the mother of PERSON and told her they were going to summon her son for a hearing before the prosecutor . As this discussion was taking place , some of the policemen heard shouting and noticed that CARDINAL GPE were attacking the special forces officers with bats , pitchforks , empty bottles and stones .

According to statements made by the special forces officers to the prosecutor , they initially used CARDINAL defensive tear gas sprays . This only infuriated the crowd , who got even more aggressive and started to throw stones and bricks . CARDINAL of the officers then fired shots into the air . PERSON stated that since the GPE would not stop , he had fired his hunting weapon twice into the air . He was then attacked by CARDINAL people , who pulled at his clothes and hit him with sharp objects until he fell to his knees , at which point he fired rubber bullets into the crowd . The crowd then partially retreated .

The incident , as presented in the prosecutor ’s decision , continued with the ORG agents attempting to retreat while the GPE , hidden behind the houses , continued to throw stones , glass bottles and other objects at them .

As a result of the clash , CARDINAL ORG agents suffered injuries which required medical treatment lasting DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

CARDINAL GPE were reportedly injured and/or shot . Some of them were issued medical certificates confirming their injuries , which were considered to need DATE of medical treatment .

Ms PERSON as well as the following CARDINAL applicants suffered injuries confirmed by medical certificates :

According to her hospital observation sheet , PERSON was shot in the stomach and was diagnosed with the following conditions : haemorrhagic shock , peritonitis , rupture of the iliac vein , rupture of the ureter , CARDINAL traumatic lesions of the small intestine , and a lesion of the terminal ileum and colon . Following the incident , she underwent surgery and remained in hospital for DATE . Her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE stated that the shooting had endangered her life , that she required DATE to forty - five days of medical treatment , and that she and her aggressor had been face - to - face . Neither of the medical documents contained information about the type of bullet which might have caused her injuries .

According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had several gunshot wounds in the right arm , left knee and left thigh , with CARDINAL bullets remaining in his body . He underwent surgery on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL bullets were extracted from his wounds . He remained in hospital for DATE . His injuries were considered to have been caused by rubber bullets and to require DATE of medical treatment .

According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had an excoriation wound on the right cheek and a gunshot wound on the right elbow , with the bullet remaining in his body . His injuries were considered to have been caused by a rubber bullet and to require DATE of medical treatment .

According to her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , she was shot in the left side of the thorax and also had a gunshot wound on her back in the left thorax area . Her wounds were considered to have been caused by rubber bullets and to require DATE of medical treatment .

According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he was shot in the right arm and the back right side of the chest , with several bullets remaining in his body . His injuries were considered to require CARDINAL to QUANTITY days of medical treatment . According to his hospital observation sheet , he underwent surgery on DATE , but the doctors only managed to take out CARDINAL rubber bullets from his chest .

According to her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE and hospital notes , she had multiple gunshot wounds in the right leg , with CARDINAL bullet remaining in her body . Her injuries were considered to require DATE of medical treatment . On DATE , she underwent surgery to have the bullet extracted . Neither of the medical documents contained information about the type of bullet which might have caused her injuries .

According to his medical certificate issued by the hospital on DATE , he had gunshot wounds in the left chest and on the back of his thigh , with the bullets remaining in his body , and excoriation wounds on his right chest and arm . He underwent surgery on DATE and several bullets were extracted . The medical document contained no information about the type of bullet which might have caused his injuries .

According to her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , she had a gunshot wound in the left side of the chest and CARDINAL gunshot wounds in the left thigh , with CARDINAL rubber bullets remaining in her body , and CARDINAL contusions in the umbilical region . She was considered to require TIME of medical treatment . On DATE , she underwent surgery to have the bullets extracted .

According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had a wound beneath the left eye which could have been caused by being hit with a hard object . He was considered to require DATE of medical treatment .

According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had an excoriation wound in the left zygomatic region and several wounds and ecchymosis on the right side of the thorax and on the abdomen which could have been caused by being shot with rubber bullets . He was considered to require DATE of medical treatment .

According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had a gunshot wound in the right side of the thorax , with a rubber bullet remaining in his body . He was considered to require DATE of medical treatment .

According to her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , she had a gunshot wound and an excoriation wound on the interior side of the lower part of the right leg , which may have been caused by a rubber bullet . She was considered to require DATE of medical treatment .

According to the certificate issued by the hospital on DATE he had a contusion on the left shoulder .

The following CARDINAL applicants : ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON ( Biga ) , ORG , PERSON and PERSON declared to the national prosecutor that they had suffered various injuries , but did not produce any medical certificates to corroborate their claims . The remaining CARDINAL applicants : PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , only complained about the injuries suffered by their mother , PERSON .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG prosecutor ’s office ” ) launched a criminal investigation against the special force officers for the attempted first degree murder of PERSON , under LAW in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW .

The investigation began with an examination of the crime scene DATE . In the prosecutor ’s report it was noted that :

“ The crime scene has suffered numerous alterations , namely the removal of the damaged vehicles , the bullets and bullet cases used by the ORG agents , as well as their other weapons , the transport of all of the victims to hospital ... finding the area has been cleaned to some extent compared to the rest of the street . ”

The report further stated that several traces of blood and holes were found on the ground , doors and walls of the houses surrounding the crime scene . The holes found on the houses were CARDINAL from the ground . Several clothes and other items stained with blood or presenting possible bullet holes were seized as evidence . According to the same report , the following materials were handed over to the investigators by the victims : CARDINAL tear gas sprays , CARDINAL STAR-CARDINALmm - RB-CARDINAL cartridge cases and QUANTITY CARDINALxCARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL cartridge cases . CARDINAL other unidentified cartridge cases and CARDINAL metal bullets were also collected . The objects allegedly used by the crowd to attack the policemen could not be found . In addition , a pitchfork and a QUANTITY hunting gun were seized from the headquarters of the GPE police . Fingerprints were also collected from the vehicles used by the police officers .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered expert examinations of the guns used by the ORG agents during the incident , their cartridge cases and bullets , as well as the clothes and other items gathered from the crime scene . A first report issued on DATE concluded that the CARDINAL STAR-CARDINALmm - RB-CARDINAL cartridge cases had been fired from the hunting gun . The report did not state whether the CARDINAL cartridge cases came from rubber bullets , but indicated that the bullets used in order to perform the tests had been hunting bullets . A second expert report issued on DATE concluded that the other CARDINAL cartridge cases had been fired from CARDINAL of the pistols belonging to the special forces officers . However , with respect to the CARDINAL metal bullets found at the scene of the incident it was noted that no resources were available to establish from which gun they had been fired .

Medical documents were also collected from the local hospital and requested from ORG in respect of some of the GPE victims and all the police officers involved .

On DATE CARDINAL victims of the incident filed a criminal complaint against the special forces officers for abusive conduct and causing bodily harm , a complaint which was joined to the pre - existing investigation . They were the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , GPE Bidi , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON and CARDINAL other victims .

A report drafted on DATE by an officer from the GPE police contained a list of the steps undertaken in the investigation to that date as well as a list of “ questions to ask the GPE ” . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ Did the gypsies know that the police officers and ORG forces were coming to PERSON and why ?

Were the gypsies gathered near the houses of the CARDINAL wanted criminals before the police officers arrived ?

How many gypsies were there ? ”

The report also mentioned that , following a check of the census , it had been possible to identify the inhabitants of the neighbourhood who took part in the incident , some of whom had a criminal record .

On an unspecified date the criminal records of the GPE who had made statements to the prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were checked and the information was adduced to the investigation file . CARDINAL of them had CARDINAL previous convictions for theft and another had CARDINAL convictions for robbery .

On DATE of the applicants , PERSON and CARDINAL other victims made statements to the prosecutor . Their statements were consistent , in that they all said that on seeing the police vehicles they had come out of their houses with their spouses and children out of curiosity . While normal discussions had been taking place between PERSON and the policemen , the special forces officers had started to spray the crowd with tear gas and throw tear gas grenades at them and as everybody ran around trying to protect their children and go back inside their houses , the same officers had started to shoot at them .

In her statement , PERSON said that while she had been in her courtyard giving information to the plain - clothes officers about the whereabouts of her son , a “ fight broke out between the masked men and the NORP ” and a tear gas grenade had fallen by her feet . The CARDINAL officers that she had been talking to ran away and CARDINAL of them had shouted “ Do not shoot ! ” and she had turned to run and hide inside her house . At that moment she had been shot in the back and lost consciousness .

In their statements , the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON declared that they were thereby submitting complaints against the special force officers who ill - treated them and claiming compensation from them .

On DATE the CARDINAL officers from the investigations department of the GPE police were questioned by the prosecutor as witnesses . Their statements were practically identical , saying that while they had been talking to PERSON , they had heard noise coming from where they had left their vehicles and when they had turned round they had seen : “ ... several armed individuals ( CARDINAL ethnic GPE ) , attacking the CARDINAL fighters with bats , pitchforks , bottles , stones and other objects ” .

TIME , M.M. and ORG declared that when they had left for LOC , they had not been aware that the “ GPE from this neighbourhood might commit violent acts ” .

M.M. , ORG and ORG further declared that they had neither assaulted nor been physically assaulted by the “ ethnic GPE .

On DATE the special forces officers made statements to the prosecutor . They all declared that they had been forced to use their guns in order to defend themselves and their colleagues .

Officer PERSON , head of the special forces unit , stated :

“ Immediately upon our arrival in the neighbourhood , a large number of GPE ethnic people started to gather in their yards , on the side of the road and behind us ; they headed towards us after we parked our vehicles ... These people initially only verbally attacked [ us ] ... Shortly afterwards , [ they ] started to push our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] , who were in plain clothes and were not carrying weapons . At that moment , seeing that [ the officers ] could not fulfil the purpose of their operation ... I considered that we must immediately ensure their protection and then leave the neighbourhood ... Because the use of sprays and sticks had no effect on the people in the area , who , on the contrary , became more aggressive and continued attacking us and throwing stones and bricks , me and CARDINAL colleagues fired warning shots in the air with our pistols ... PERSON , who had a rifle with rubber bullets , started using it . I did not see when he started shooting , I just heard the first shots . ”

Officer PERSON stated in his testimony :

“ Immediately upon our arrival , a large number of gypsies started to gather around us ; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] were surrounded , and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies , [ who were ] pulling their clothes , our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles , each of us was surrounded by a few furious gypsies , who started assaulting us ... I was equipped with the following : a tear gas spray , a double - barrel hunting rifle which had rubber bullets , and a CARDINAL mm Glock pistol with CARDINAL rounds of live ammunition , which I did n’t use ... I loaded my hunting rifle with CARDINAL bullets and shouted ‘ Freeze , police ! We will use firearms!’ The shouting had no effect so I fired QUANTITY shots in the air . These also had no effect on the furious crowd . My colleagues also fired their pistols with live ammunition in the air ... At CARDINAL point , on hearing shouting coming from the upper side of the street , and seeing that stones were being thrown from that direction , I went to the crossroads and I saw a big crowd of gypsies coming towards us . I reloaded the gun with the intention of firing another shot in the air . At that moment , I was attacked by a group of around QUANTITY people , who were coming towards me . They started hitting me ... I was then hit in the head by a stone thrown by the group of people coming down the street ... After being hit , I fell to my knees and pulled the trigger of the gun , firing in the direction of the crowd . ”

Officer PERSON said in his statement that :

“ ... I saw my colleague PERSON , who appeared to have been wounded , lying on a fence . Because I had heard my colleagues warn the assaulters to back up or weapons would be used , I took out the pistol and in order to ensure that I had enough space and time to help my injured colleague , I fired four shots in the air ... I personally only saw our commander Mr PERSON fire several shots in the air ... As far as I noticed , all shots had been fired in the air . ”

Officer PERSON stated that he did not fire his gun saying that :

“ Immediately upon our arrival , a large number of gypsies started to gather around us ; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] were surrounded , and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies , [ who were ] pulling their clothes , our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles , each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies , who started assaulting us ... The gypsies were becoming more and more nervous ... We started defending ourselves , first using tear gas spray ... We then threw CARDINAL or CARDINAL grenades , also filled with tear gas ... We used our sticks ... I also had a PERSON pistol on me with live ammunition , but I did not manage to pull it out ... As far as I understood it , our boss and CARDINAL other colleagues took out their guns and fired some shots in the air , in order to discourage the aggressors ... CARDINAL of our colleagues , PERSON , had a “ hunting ” type rifle with rubber bullets . This gun was used to fire several shots into the crowd ... After TIME , I managed to regroup with my colleagues in formation and make way for the CARDINAL ORG [ cars ] , which managed to retreat from the street ... I got behind the wheel of our vehicle and turned to leave the area . ”

Officer H.D.M. also stated that he did not use his gun declaring :

“ Immediately upon our arrival , a large number of gypsies started to gather around us ; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] were surrounded , and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies , [ who were ] pulling their clothes , our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles , each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies , who started assaulting us ... The gypsies were becoming more and more nervous ... We started defending ourselves , first using the tear gas spray ... We then threw CARDINAL or CARDINAL grenades , also filled with tear gas ... We used our sticks ... I also had a ORG pistol on me with live ammunition , but I did not manage to pull it out ... As far as I understood it , our boss and CARDINAL other colleagues took out their guns and fired some shots in the air , in order to discourage the aggressors ... CARDINAL of our colleagues , PERSON , had a “ hunting ” type rifle with rubber bullets . This gun was used to fire several shots into the crowd . After TIME , I managed to regroup with my colleagues in formation and make way for the CARDINAL ORG [ cars ] , which managed to retreat from the street ... ”

From officer PERSON ’s testimony , it appeared that he too did not fire his gun :

“ Immediately upon our arrival , a large number of gypsies started to gather around us ; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] were surrounded , and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies , [ who were ] pulling their clothes , our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles , each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies , who started assaulting us ... I was immediately hit with a bat in the legs and then with a stone or brick in the head ... I fell to the ground ... TIME , I effectively lost consciousness and I can not say what happened to my colleagues next ... ”

Officer PERSON similarly declared that he did not use his gun . He further stated that :

“ Because our warnings had no effect and we continued to be attacked , I heard several gunshots and I saw my colleague PERSON next to me , firing a few shots in the air with his pistol ... I saw my other colleague , PERSON , the only one of us carrying a rifle and he also fired shots in the air ... As far as I noticed , all the shots had been fired in the air . ”

On DATE the prosecutor decided to terminate the attempted first - degree murder investigation , with a decision not to bring charges against the ORG agents . He held that upon the arrival of the police officers in the neighbourhood , people started gathering in the street and “ ... a fight broke out between them and the FAC unit ” . The decision mentioned that according to the agents’ statements , on DATE they had used “ paralysing sprays and grenades , bats and firearms , discharged into the air in order to discourage the crowd ” ; PERSON had used a hunting gun with rubber bullets , shooting both into the air and at the crowd . Several people had been injured , both agents and local residents , but the injuries had not been very serious , with the exception of those sustained by PERSON . Comparing the conclusions of PERSON forensic medical certificate with the statements of the individuals involved in the incident , the prosecutor concluded that the officers under investigation did not intend to take the victim ’s life , stating that “ the GPE intention had obviously been to discourage the large number of people gathered there , not to kill them ” . The prosecutor ’s decision also stated that :

“ This lack [ of intent ] may also be deduced from the approach taken – the person concerned was not targeted , we are dealing with a random shooting ... The acts of the above - mentioned [ individuals ] might constitute the offence of causing serious bodily harm ... with respect to PERSON . ”

The person who shot PERSON or the type of bullet which cause her injuries were not identified and no explanation was given in this regard . The officers who fired their guns were not clearly identified in the decision either .

The ORG prosecutor also acknowledged that CARDINAL victims had filed a criminal complaint requesting the investigation of the special force officers for the crimes of abusive conduct and causing serious bodily harm . Therefore , he ultimately decided that the investigation for the crimes of abusive conduct and causing serious bodily harm under LAW and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code should be continued by ORG of ORG ( “ the PERSON prosecutor ’s office ” ) .

PERSON representative lodged an appeal with the hierarchically superior prosecutor against the NORP prosecutor ’s decision of DATE . The core of his complaint was that the perpetrator had not been identified and that the evidence ( expert reports ) adduced to the file , which proved that there had been guns there DATE which had not only used rubber bullets but also live ammunition , had been completely ignored . The ORG agents should have been aware that the use of such ammunition could have resulted in the death or fatal injury of the people they had shot at . Furthermore , not only had the perpetrator not been identified , no steps had been taken to establish whether PERSON had been shot by a rubber bullet or a regular one .

On DATE the appeal was dismissed as ill - founded by ORG of the Târgu ORG . The investigation was considered to have been properly conducted .

PERSON representative also lodged a complaint with ORG , stating that the prosecutor had not considered all the evidence in the file and had mainly relied on the version of events as presented by the ORG agents . He then reiterated the argument that the use of live ammunition shot at random should have made identifying those who had fired the shots a necessity . A ballistic report was also required in this regard . Attention was brought to CARDINAL of the GPE statements , CARDINAL of them made by GPE police officer ORG , who said that “ neither I nor any of my colleagues in our vehicle attacked the GPE or were attacked by them ” . This was confirmed by FAC , who admitted that he had not been hurt at all . In another piece of evidence it was mentioned that none of the blunt objects allegedly used to damage the State agents’ vehicles had been found at the scene of the incident . In such circumstances , the conclusions drawn by the prosecutor appeared unfounded .

The complaint also claimed that there had been racist motives behind the ill - treatment PERSON and the rest of the victims had been subjected to , with a request that this allegation be clarified . In this respect , relying on the ORG ’s case - law in GPE and Others v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . MONEY and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) PERSON representative complained that the disproportionate reaction of the ORG agents towards PERSON and the rest of the victims constituted discrimination and together with the subsequent ineffective investigation were in breach of ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE ORG , basing its decision on the documents in the prosecutor ’s investigation file , dismissed the complaint , holding that the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE had been correct . The existence of possible racist motives behind the GPE ill - treatment had not been analysed by the court .

NORP The applicants’ representative lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision , reiterating all the complaints submitted before the firstinstance court , and requesting that a further investigation for serious first - degree murder also be conducted , under LAW .

On DATE PERSON died at the age of DATE , DATE after the incident . The proceedings were continued by her sons and daughters : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON and PERSON ( Biga ) .

The Târgu ORG dismissed the appeal by final decision of DATE , holding that the first - instance court had meticulously analysed the file and correctly concluded that there had been no intention to commit the offences under investigation , the agents having acted in accordance with the standard procedure regulating that kind of intervention .

Following the ORG prosecutor ’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction , a criminal investigation was launched by the PERSON prosecutor ’s office for abusive conduct , under LAW .

The prosecutor questioned the ORG agents , who reiterated their previous statements . CARDINAL of the applicants amongst the CARDINAL victims who had filed the complaint on DATE also made statements . CARDINAL of them had also made a statement to the ORG prosecutor . The applicants LAW and PERSON alleged that the special forces officers had shouted : “ go inside your house or I will kill you ” and “ go inside your house or I will blow your brains out ” respectively .

The prosecutor also questioned CARDINAL other GPE victims , who had not made statements to the ORG prosecutor ’s office . They expressed their wish for the individuals who assaulted them to be held liable for their actions and declared that they would be claiming compensation in that regard .

On DATE , upholding the same facts as established in the decision issued by the ORG prosecutor ’s office , the PERSON prosecutor issued a decision not to bring charges against the CARDINAL officers under investigation , concluding that they had acted in self - defence , which under LAW eliminated the criminal element of the acts committed . In connection with the course of events , the decision started by repeating the ORG prosecutor ’s office findings that :

“ ... superior officers from the GPE police ... pointed out that the scene could not be reached because there were a large number of people ( CARDINAL ) armed with bats , pitchforks , axes and scythes and the law - enforcement authorities could not secure the area ...

Almost immediately upon arriving at the scene , several local residents started to gather and a fight broke out between them and members of the DIAS . ”

Also referring to the facts , the decision mentioned that the special forces officers declared they had been grouped together during the incident , while quoting in support of this finding the statement made by H.D.M. , who stated that they had initially been grouped together but had disbanded on being attacked by CARDINAL GPE each .

In order to substantiate the decision , the prosecutor first listed the injuries suffered by the ORG agents as follows :

“ H.D.M. was hit in the legs and the face , and according to the medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;

PERSON was hit in the right shoulder , in both cheeks , above the left temple , the right leg above the knee and all fingers , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;

PERSON was hit with a stick in the legs and then immediately with a stone or a brick in the head , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;

V.M. was hit with a stone in the head , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;

ORG was hit in the ribs , the right ankle , the tibia and calf of the right leg and the left shoulder area , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;

PERSON was hit in the legs , the head , the back and the hands , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care . ”

The prosecutor then gave details of the gunshot injuries suffered by CARDINAL GPE victims , including PERSON , who was held to have been shot in the back .

Further on , the prosecutor listed the damage sustained by the vehicles used by the police officers to get to LOC on DATE of the incident , namely cracks in the windscreen or side windows , scratches and bumps .

In view of the above elements and citing parts of the statements made by the special forces officers , the prosecutor concluded that the ORG agents could not be held liable for abusive behaviour as they had acted in self - defence .

Neither the officers who fired their guns nor the person who shot PERSON were identified , nor was any explanation given in this regard .

NORP The applicants’ representative complained against the DATE decision on behalf of the same CARDINAL victims who had joined the criminal proceedings on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He alleged that the incident had been caused by the authorities’ lack of adequate preparation for their operation , the purpose of which had been to summon CARDINAL individuals to appear before the prosecutor for the investigation of an alleged non - violent offence . He further complained that only the alleged ORG statements had been used as a basis for the prosecutor ’s decision , and had disproportionately referred to the evidence favourable to them , without making the slightest attempt to try and identify who had fired their guns or the type of ammunition used . In addition , he complained that the prosecutor ’s decision had completely failed to mention certain crucial elements , in particular the severity of the injuries inflicted by the ORG agents on the victims . Furthermore , DATE of recommended medical treatment in the medical reports could not be relied on when determining the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims . For example , several applicants who were shot were considered to require the same number of days of medical care as ORG agents whose injuries had been visibly less serious .

On DATE the complaint was rejected and the decision not to bring charges was upheld by the chief prosecutor .

NORP The applicants’ representative contested the prosecutor ’s decision before ORG on behalf of the same CARDINAL victims who had joined the criminal proceedings on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He asked the court to order a reopening of the criminal investigation in order to efficiently identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice . He drew the court ’s attention to the extraordinary and urgent deployment of police forces ( TIME after the commission of the alleged offence ) in order to serve CARDINAL summonses which are normally sent by post , a situation which would never happen in cases involving non - GPE people .

On DATE ORG , basing its decision on the documents in the prosecutor ’s investigation file , dismissed the complaint , holding that the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE had been correct . In dismissing the complaint , the court briefly stated that even if guilt had been established , the application of LAW ( selfdefence ) made it necessary for the prosecutor to adopt the decision not to bring charges .

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG , but it was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the representative of the applicants PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , whose names were not mentioned by the prosecutor in DATE decision , submitted a request to the NORP prosecutor ’s office seeking information concerning the progress of their complaints against the special forces officers . On DATE they were informed that the file concerning the death of PERSON had been terminated with a decision not to bring charges , and that the investigation for the alleged abusive conduct on the occasion of the incident of DATE was currently under way with the PERSON prosecutor ’s office . They were informed that the statements they had made to the ORG prosecutor had also been forwarded to the PERSON prosecutor ’s office . Following this reply , the CARDINAL applicants submitted a request to the PERSON prosecutor ’s office detailing their situation and seeking information about the current status of their complaints . On DATE they received a reply , informing them that they had failed to quote the correct case number . They were asked to provide this information in order to receive a response .

On DATE ORG held a meeting to assess whether TIME , the officer who ran the operations on behalf of the GPE police , had breached police disciplinary rules when fulfilling the order of CARDINAL September CARDINAL given by his chief .

According to TIME of the meeting , the ORG heard evidence from TIME , as well as a witness in his defence , PERSON , the prosecutor in charge of the investigation of the complaint for insulting behaviour filed by GPE

In his statement TIME described the circumstances leading up to the incident . He stated that :

“ After a discussion with officer GPE , during which he told me about the incident that took place on the terrace of the “ GPE ” bar in GPE , I asked him to prepare a written report . Because it was not clear whether a crime had been committed , I decided that a team of officers should go to the bar in order to find witnesses and take statements from them , while I , together with another team , should go to the PERSON neighbourhood to take statements from the CARDINAL suspects ... ”

He further described how the special forces agents were attacked by the “ GPE ” , while PERSON told the ORG :

“ I consider that it was the strange reaction that GPE people have on seeing police cars or policemen that led to the clash DATE . ”

The Disciplinary Council unanimously decided that the policeman under investigation was innocent .

DATE . The complaint for insulting behaviour filed by GPE on DATE was dismissed at a later date by the prosecutor , since at the time of the incident GPE had been off - duty and had not been acting in his official capacity , and there had been no physical violence between the parties .

The CARDINAL summonses which justified the police operation of DATE were never served on the CARDINAL suspects , who were never questioned by the prosecutor in connection with the complaint filed by GPE


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

The first applicant , Mr GPE Qasem PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE . The second applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The CARDINAL applicants were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

In DATE the first applicant set up a limited liability company in GPE . The second applicant was employed by the company . DATE the first applicant visited GPE on several occasions . On DATE the CARDINAL applicants married . After that the first applicant started living permanently in GPE and in DATE was granted a permanent residence permit .

On DATE the Director of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , at the time a department of ORG , issued an order revoking the first applicant ’s residence permit , ordering his expulsion and barring him from entering GPE for DATE . The order relied on sections DATE and CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE . It indicated that it was based on the reasons set out in a classified document named “ proposal ” ( “ предложение ” ) and bearing the number PERSON - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/Пд/CCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and on the fact that the first applicant represented a threat to national security . It was also indicated that the order was subject to immediate execution .

After communication of the present application , the Government provided the ORG with an excerpt from proposal PERSON - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/Пд/CCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , which had been declassified on DATE . The excerpt , in which the names of the other persons are concealed , was shown to the first applicant in the proceedings concerning the judicial review of the order of DATE ( see below ) , and was included in the case file . The document refers to “ operational intelligence data ” showing that the first applicant was involved in drug trafficking . In particular , it is alleged that he was in contact with persons known to be involved in such activities , and used his company ’s trucks to transport drugs to GPE and GPE . It is also stated that in DATE a truck belonging to the first applicant ’s company was caught in the area of PERSON carrying QUANTITY of amphetamines .

The Government submitted an excerpt from another document entitled “ information document ” ( “ справка ” ) bearing the number ORG - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/Пд/CCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , also declassified on DATE , which contained the same statements and alleged , in addition , that the first applicant was involved in “ unlawful drug trafficking , under the control of the NORP secret services , who provide logistical support to the terrorist organisation ORG ” . This excerpt was also presented to the first applicant and included in the case file in the judicial - review proceedings he instigated ( see below ) .

The first applicant was expelled to GPE on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant filed an administrative appeal against the order of DATE . On DATE the Minister of ORG dismissed his appeal , finding that the proposal and the information document drawn up by the ORG contained data leading to the conclusion that the first applicant posed a threat to national security . The Minister went on to say that there had been sufficient grounds to justify the order ; by law , when issuing such orders the authorities had to refrain from setting out in them the facts justifying their conclusion that the respective person represented a national security risk .

In DATE the first applicant sought judicial review of the expulsion order by ORG . He argued that it was unclear on what factual circumstances the expulsion order had been based and that he had not been given an opportunity “ to defend himself against arbitrary action ” . The first applicant also sought a stay of the enforcement of the expulsion order pending the outcome of the proceedings .

The Sofia City Court accepted the application for judicial review for examination . In decisions issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE it refused to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order .

Following amendments to LAW DATE that made expulsion orders subject to review by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , the case was transferred to that court on an unspecified date . In the proceedings before it , the first applicant had legal representation .

NORP In his submissions to the ORG the first applicant disputed the allegations ‒ made in the proposal and the information document referred to in DATE and CARDINAL above ‒ that he had been involved in drug trafficking . He also disputed the claim that in DATE in the region of PERSON the authorities had discovered drugs in a truck belonging to his company . He pointed out that at the time in question he had not sent trucks into that area and argued that if the allegation were true he would have been under investigation . He presented additional documents issued by the prosecution authorities , stating that he had no criminal convictions and that there were no ongoing investigations concerning him in the regions of PERSON or GPE . The first applicant also contested the allegations that he had worked for the NORP secret services and ORG , pointing out that he was a NORP and a GPE , and that ORG was a NORP militant group . He stated that his expulsion had disrupted his commercial activities in GPE . Lastly , he said the following :

“ [ I]t should be noted that my personal rights have been unlawfully encroached upon , which is unjustified . My family has been separated for DATE . ”

In a judgment of DATE , which was final , the ORG found that the order of DATE was lawful and disallowed the first applicant ’s application for judicial review . Its decisive reasoning was as follows :

“ The disputed order was made by a competent body , no material breaches of the rules of administrative procedure have been committed , and it does not contradict the applicable law and its intent . The argument raised in the application for judicial review that the disputed administrative act did not contain any reasoning and was not based on the law is ill - founded . The disputed order refers to the legal provisions it is based on and ‒ given that it concerns compulsory measures under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ Aliens Act ] ‒ pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the same LAW it should not disclose the factual grounds justifying it . Moreover , those factual grounds are set out in detail in [ proposal PERSON - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/Пд/CCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] and are indicated in the disputed order as the factual basis , as can be seen from the [ excerpt from the document ] included in the case file . On the basis of the information contained in the proposal , the administrative body has reached a reasoned conclusion that the [ applicant ’s ] presence in the country amounts to a serious threat to national security , and that the preconditions have been satisfied for the imposition of the compulsory measure ‘ expulsion’ [ ... ] , together with the compulsory measures ‘ revocation of residence permit’ and ‘ bar on entering the [ Republic of Bulgaria]’ which accompany it on a mandatory basis . [ ... ] As can be seen from the proposal and the information document [ ORG - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/Пд/CCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] , an excerpt of which [ ... ] has also been included in the case file , the operational investigative activities carried out have established the grounds for imposing the compulsory measure ‘ LOC , together with the remaining [ compulsory measures taken ] . Contrary to the applicant ’s arguments , the excerpts presented in the case ‒ prepared in accordance with the [ law on classified information ] ‒ are official attestation documents , which have binding force for the court as regards the contents of the proposal and the information document , on the basis of which ‒ in accordance with the applicable substantive rules ‒ the disputed order has been made . ”

With the order of DATE the Director of the ORG ordered the first applicant ’s detention pending expulsion . On DATE the Director of ORG , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL) of LAW , also ordered his detention pending enforcement of the expulsion order . On DATE the first applicant was detained and placed in FAC ( “ the LOC ” ) in ORG , where he remained until his expulsion on CARDINAL DATE .

The order of DATE stated that it was subject to judicial review . It does not appear that the first applicant sought such review .

Around TIME on DATE the first applicant was beaten by a codetainee , an NORP national , with whom he had been accommodated in the same room in the CIDA . Immediately after the accident the NORP was placed in another room .

In TIME of DATE the first applicant was transferred to a hospital where it was established that he had a broken nose . On DATE he underwent surgery . He was discharged from hospital on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the prosecution authorities and requested them to investigate his beating . On DATE a prosecutor from GPE Public Prosecutor ’s Office instructed the police to carry out a check - up . After this had been done , in a decision of DATE CARDINAL the prosecutor found that the injury suffered by the applicant was considered by LAW to be one of a minor severity , which meant that its infliction was a privately prosecutable offence . Thus , the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings .

The above decision , which was served on the first applicant ’s lawyer , was appealable to a higher - ranking prosecutor . The first applicant did not appeal . Nor did he lodge a private criminal complaint against his attacker , who was likewise expelled from GPE on an unspecified date .

The relevant domestic law concerning the expulsion of aliens on grounds of national security , as in force at the time , has been set out in detail in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .