George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their agent PERSON , who was succeeded by PERSON K. Līce .

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

On DATE at TIME the police received information about an incident in the centre of GPE in which PERSON had been beaten up and robbed .

According to the pre - trial statements of CARDINAL police officers ( GPE and GPE ) , when they arrived at the scene the patrol team saw the victim S. lying on the ground and CARDINAL young men running away . CARDINAL of them , the applicant , had dropped a black jacket . PERSON pointed to the group as the perpetrators , so the police arrested all CARDINAL of them and took them to a police station .

According to the pre - trial statements of the victim S. , while he was standing outside a nightclub in the centre of GPE , CARDINAL young men commenced a conversation with him and afterwards they started walking down the street together . Then CARDINAL of them grabbed PERSON by the hands ( CARDINAL of them , P. , had his arm in a splint ) and tried to drag the victim away . The victim resisted and the man with the splint hit him . Afterwards the victim was kicked in the head and body , and robbed of his jacket and a watch . When the police arrived the victim drove around with a police officer , looking for the perpetrators . The victim saw his jacket next to a group of CARDINAL men . With the exception of the man with his arm in a splint he could not describe those who had inflicted injuries on him .

The victim , the applicant and CARDINAL other arrested persons ( Ka . and ORG . ) were taken to the police station in the same car . During the first identity parade , set up soon after the arrest , the victim did not recognise the applicant as the perpetrator .

On DATE , during a second identity parade , the victim for the first time recognised the applicant and PERSON , who had his arm in a splint , as the perpetrators of the attack . The latter CARDINAL had spent DATE in custody , and they were presented in the identity parade together with people brought in from the street .

On DATE the applicant was confronted with the victim . The latter had identified him as one of the perpetrators of the attack .

In DATE a bill of indictment was drawn up . The applicant and another person , P. , were charged with aggravated theft , committed as a group . It stated , notably , that on the critical date the applicant and PERSON had forced the victim to follow them . Then , with the aim of robbing him , PERSON had hit the applicant in the face and the applicant had kicked him on the body , inflicting minor bodily injuries on him . Afterwards they had both taken off the victim ’s jacket and watch , causing him total material loss in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) . Both defendants denied the offence .

During the pre - trial investigation the other CARDINAL members of the group of CARDINAL were questioned . In DATE Kv . and PERSON . testified that on the critical date the defendants and another person from their group had been talking to a man . The latter had shown no resistance to being led away down the street . After TIME the defendants came back ; the applicant was carrying a black jacket . When the police arrived the jacket was on the ground . Ka . testified that he had not seen anyone drop the jacket but that it could have been the applicant . According to ORG . , when the police arrived the applicant dropped the jacket . Later , when questioned by a prosecutor , ORG . and PERSON . upheld and added to the statements they had made during the police questioning .

NORP During court hearings in DATE and DATE the defendants cross - examined the victim , both police officers ( GPE and GPE ) , and CARDINAL other witnesses ( Ka . , ORG . , GPE and ORG ) . The CARDINAL other witnesses were all part of the group which had initially been arrested , and GPE and ORG had been summoned to the court at the GPE request .

During the hearing defence witnesses GPE and ORG stated , inter alia , that they had not been with the defendants the whole time .

On DATE the Riga ORG acquitted the defendants and released them from detention . As far as the applicant was concerned , the lower court indicated , in particular , that the scene of the alleged crime had not been identified , and the victim could not indicate who had attacked him , with the exception of co - defendant P. ; that his statements concerning the applicant ’s clothes and height did not match those of the applicant ; and that the victim had not stated that the applicant had beaten him and on what parts of the body ; similarly it was not stated that the applicant had stolen the victim ’s belongings . Finally , the court refused to admit in evidence the results of the identity parade and also refused to cross - examine the victim and the defendants . It emphasised that the record of the identity parade had been drawn up contrary to the domestic law , in that the defendants were presented in the parade after having spent DATE in custody , and their clothes and appearance differed considerably from those of the others in the parade ; also , no photographs were taken of those in the parade and there was no statement by the victim confirming which characteristics had caused him to recognise the defendants .

The prosecution lodged a protest reiterating the arguments set out in the bill of indictment . They considered that the lower court had failed to give weight to the statements of the victim and witnesses ORG . , PERSON . and both police officers .

The appellate court summoned the victim and CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON . and PERSON . The latter failed to attend the hearing . Invited by the court to express an opinion about whether the court could commence adjudication in the absence of the witness PERSON . , the applicant confirmed that he had no objection .

Questioned during the appellate hearing about the circumstances of the attack , the victim stated that although it was dark , at the moment of the attack he had had a clear view of the faces of his attackers , but that immediately after the arrest he could not recognise them , because it was dark and the co - defendant ’s splint was not visible .

Witness Kv . retracted his statements given to the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation . The statements of the police officers were read out .

Before summing up , defence counsel argued that the objection was also based on the statements of the QUANTITY police officers , who should be summoned to the appellate court hearing . Without giving reasons , the defence also asked for GPE and ORG to be summoned .

The appellate court dismissed the defence ’s requests for witnesses to be heard , arguing that they had all already been cross - examined . The defence did not object to the court investigation being brought to a close .

On DATE ORG convicted the defendants and sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The court preferred to give weight to ORG . ’s statements given during the pre - trial investigation , because , as a friend of the applicant ’s co - defendant , his statements given during the hearing of the appellate court in the presence of his friend were not to be treated as objective . In relation to the statements given by ORG . , the court noted that he had not changed the statements he had made during the pre - trial investigation and before the court of first instance , and that his statements did not differ in substance from those given by ORG . The court also did not consider that there were contradictions in the victim ’s statements and that it was not crucial that he could not tell precisely which defendant had kicked him and how many times . The court gave weight to the fact that during the court hearing the victim could describe the situation and explained that he had tried to cover his face instead of observing the actions of each perpetrator . In connection to the varying statements about the exact place of the fight , the appellate court observed that it was explained by the fact that neither the victim nor the defendants lived in GPE . As regards statements about the visual description of the perpetrator ’s clothes , the court did not consider the slight differences in the statements crucial , given that the events took place at TIME . The court said that even without the identification parade the defendant ’s guilt had been proved by other evidence . The court noted that the victim had recognised the applicant during the confrontation .

In their appeal on points of law the applicant and his counsel based their case on the shortcomings identified by the lower court . In connection to the ORG statements the applicant noted

“ ... the court investigated the case incompletely . [ It ] did not summon all the witnesses , and the statements they had given before the lower court were not read out and [ were not ] taken into account ” .

On DATE the ORG upheld the appellate court ’s judgment . It noted that the appellate court had excluded from the evidence the contested records of the identification parade . The ORG noted that the appellate court had analysed in detail and assessed all the statements provided by the victim S. , as well as the statements of ORG . provided during the pre - trial investigation and during the court hearing , and also the statements of ORG . which had been read out during the hearing , and other evidence described and analysed by the appellate court .

It noted that the question concerning the defence ’s request in relation to witnesses had been examined and decided in accordance with the law .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provides that when a court session is opened the presiding judge is to ask the defendant and his representative whether they request new witnesses to be summoned or the submission of new evidence and inclusion thereof in the criminal matter . The person who submits a request shall specify particular circumstances which should be clarified by the questioning of witnesses or the submission of other evidence . The court shall ask the opinions of other participants in the proceedings concerning each request in accordance with Article CARDINAL of this Code , and shall make a ruling . Refusal of the request shall not deprive the person whose request has been refused of the right to submit the request during the court hearing .

Article CARDINAL sets out that the appeal court may summon witnesses who have testified before the first - instance court to a court session if the appeal court deems it necessary .

Article CARDINAL stipulates that parties to appeal proceedings have the right to request witnesses to be summoned who have not been heard by the first - instance court . Such witnesses may be summoned on the appeal court ’s own initiative .


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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant , who was born in DATE , is a farmer and the head of a farming company , A. He lives in GPE .

In DATE , ORG . , the newly - appointed head of a private agricultural company , NORP , requested that the law - enforcement authorities investigate the suspected misappropriation of NORP ’s property . In particular , PERSON . stated that in DATE , PERSON , another agricultural company , had written off a debt of CARDINAL NORP hryvnyas ( ORG ) owed to his company , although the latter had not received any payment .

On DATE the applicant , interviewed in connection with the inquiry into the case , informed the police that in the autumn of DATE he had received QUANTITY concrete slabs from GPE in settlement of a debt to NORP , of which he was a shareholder . The applicant said he had used the slabs to construct a trench for A. , to which NORP had also owed money . NORP ’s former director had been aware of that fact . The transaction had not been finalised on the books as there had been disagreements between the parties over the price of the slabs and on various procedural issues .

On DATE the Borznyanskiy district prosecutor ( the “ district prosecutor ” ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of fraudulently appropriating slabs that he had received on NORP ’s behalf .

On DATE a police investigator called the applicant in for questioning as a witness in connection with the case , but rejected his request to be assisted by a lawyer during the questioning . According to the applicant , his lawyer had accompanied him to the investigator ’s office but had not been allowed to be present during the questioning .

In the course of the questioning the applicant again admitted to receiving the slabs and using them on his farm . He also explained that the transaction had not been finalised in the accounts because the parties had had debts to each other and had still been negotiating over how to write those debts off . In any event , the directors of PERSON and NORP had been well aware that the applicant had used the slabs on his own farm and had never objected to that use . As can be seen from the copy of the record of the questioning submitted to the ORG , it was apparently filed as pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the domestic case file .

On DATE the applicant was officially indicted for the fraudulent appropriation of CARDINAL concrete slabs transferred by the PERSON company to the NORP company in payment of a debt . On DATE , the applicant was questioned as a defendant in the presence of his lawyer but he refused to testify and relied on his right to silence .

On DATE the applicant was informed of the completion of the pre - trial investigation and committed to stand trial in ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On an unspecified date the applicant presented the authorities with an agreement dated DATE and signed by the directors of PERSON , NORP and himself . According to that document , the CARDINAL parties had agreed that the value of the CARDINAL slabs received by the applicant was UAH CARDINAL and that the transfer of the slabs to the applicant covered the relevant portion of PERSON ’s debt to NORP and NORP ’s debt to the applicant ’s farm .

By DATE the above agreement had been reflected in all CARDINAL parties’ documents relating to accounting , tax and other matters .

In the course of the trial , ORG questioned the applicant and numerous other individuals , including the directors and accountants of NORP and PERSON , and examined various documents . As can be seen in TIME of the court hearings submitted by the Government , the documents examined in the course of the trial included “ a letter from the farming company ” , included as page CARDINAL in the domestic case file .

During the trial , the applicant , represented by a lawyer of his own choice , reiterated that he had had no fraudulent intent in taking possession of the slabs and that the CARDINAL parties had decided on all the details of the transaction in DATE ( that is , before the criminal proceedings had been instituted against him ) . The transaction had also been properly accounted for in all the paperwork by DATE ( that is , before the trial had commenced ) . The delay in finalising the papers had been due to various objective circumstances , including initial disagreements between the parties concerning the scope of the transaction and a fair price for the slabs , the replacement of NORP ’s director in DATE , and a lengthy break in the functioning of NORP ’s accounts office .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the charges . It found that although the case had eventually been settled , there was sufficient evidence that the applicant ’s initial intent had been fraudulent . In justifying that finding , the court noted , in particular , as follows :

“ As regards the arguments by the defendant ORG that ... the CARDINAL - party agreement had been concluded ... before the initiation of the criminal case , and that the managers of the CARDINAL entities had agreed on the price and procedure for the transfer of the concrete slabs , the court can not accept them , as they contradict the case file materials and the evidence examined in court . It appears from the case file materials that the above - mentioned agreement was submitted by ORG at the end of the pre - trial investigation . It can be seen from the testimony of the witnesses ... that [ ORG ’s debt to NORP ] , amounting to ORG CARDINAL , had been reinstated after having been written off ... According to ... order no . CARDINAL of DATE the slabs transferred were valued at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and [ K. ’s ] debt to NORP as of DATE remained at UAH CARDINAL .

The aforementioned evidence shows that an understanding between the managers of [ K. ] , [ NORP ] and [ A. ] concerning the price and procedure for the transfer was reached after the criminal case had been instituted , in the course of the pre - trial investigation . These findings correspond to the declarations by the head of the farming company ORG contained on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of volume CARDINAL of the case , dated DATE ” .

ORG then granted the applicant an amnesty and released him from any punishment .

On DATE the court issued a separate ruling ( окрема постанова ) in which it drew the attention of the district prosecutor to various procedural shortcomings in the preparation of the case for trial . It noted , in particular , as follows :

“ On DATE the [ district prosecutor ] initiated criminal proceedings against [ the applicant ] . On DATE the [ police investigator ] ... questioned [ the applicant ] as a witness , despite ... sufficient evidence ... for him to be questioned as a defendant , in compliance with all the requirements of LAW of GPE ...

With regard to the said breaches , the testimony [ of the applicant ] given ... during his questioning as a witness on DATE was not taken into account by the court as evidence in the present case .... ”

It appears from the case - file materials that on an unspecified date the applicant filed an appeal against his conviction , which was accepted for examination . No copy of this appeal has been provided to the ORG .

On DATE lawyer PERSON also filed a separate appeal in the applicant ’s interests . In this appeal he challenged , primarily , the substantive conclusions of the trial court and contended that the applicant ’s actions had not been criminal .

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG ” ) upheld the applicant ’s conviction . Referring to statements by various witnesses and the documentary evidence on file , it concluded that the applicant had not made any reasonable and meaningful efforts to regularise his appropriation of the slabs until the criminal proceedings had been instituted .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , in which he complained , in particular , that his right to mount a defence had been breached on account of his being questioned without a lawyer on DATE . He argued that it was clear from the phrase , “ These findings correspond to the declarations by the head of the farming company ORG contained on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of volume CARDINAL of the case , dated DATE ” in ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , that the testimony he had given on DATE had in fact been relied on for his conviction , in spite of ORG formal decision to exclude the record of that questioning from the case file .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined submissions by the applicant , in the absence of both the applicant and his lawyer . However , the prosecutor was present and advised the ORG to reject the applicant ’s arguments .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s cassation appeal , finding that the lower courts had correctly assessed the facts and applied the law . Without addressing directly the applicant ’s complaint concerning the breach of his right to defence , it made the following general remark concerning the procedural fairness of the proceedings :

“ ... no breaches of the provisions of the criminal - procedure law in the course of pre - trial investigation as well as during the court proceedings can be identified ” .

A copy of ORG ruling of DATE was sent to the applicant by post on CARDINAL DATE and , according to him , was received on DATE .

At various times the applicant made unsuccessful attempts to institute criminal proceedings against the investigator who had questioned him on DATE , and to begin administrative and civil proceedings to challenge various purported procedural omissions on the part of ORG judge in his case .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4-2 - Compulsory labour;Forced labour)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in detention in GPE .

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

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ) of the GPE of GPE sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for multiple sexual acts with minors and multiple acts of sexual coercion .

On DATE ORG suspended the execution of the custodial sentence , replacing it with preventive detention ( Verwahrung ) designed to prevent the applicant from reoffending .

On DATE the applicant requested exemption from the requirement to work in the context of custodial sentences and measures . On DATE ORG of the GPE of GPE refused his request .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the competent authority of ORG placed the applicant under a stricter prison regime confining him to his cell and confiscated his television and computer for DATE , on account of his refusal to work . That decision was revoked on DATE by ORG and ORG following an appeal by the applicant .

By a decision of DATE ORG and ORG of the GPE of GPE dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG of the GPE of GPE dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , arguing in particular that ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW had been wrongly applied , and alleging a violation of his human dignity and personal freedom within the meaning of LAW and CARDINAL respectively of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

In judgment CARDINALB_CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ( published under the number ORG CARDINAL I CARDINAL ) , which was notified to the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

ORG found that the requirement for prisoners to work was not in itself in breach of human rights , and specifically of LAW ( point CARDINAL of the reasoning ) .

Hence , the purpose of compulsory work in the context of the execution of custodial sentences and measures was to develop , maintain or promote prisoners’ capacity to resume working life after their release . In ORG view , the requirement to work contributed to the execution of sentences and fostered appropriate social behaviour and the capacity to avoid reoffending . It was also designed to occupy prisoners , lend structure to their DATE lives and maintain order in the institution ( point CARDINAL ) .

ORG added that , as prisoners got older , greater emphasis was placed on the obligation to provide them with the necessary support ( necessary support principle ) and on reducing the negative impact of detention ( principle of least possible harm ) . In the case of prisoners over DATE , the requirement to work served the purpose of avoiding the harmful effects of detention , for instance the isolation of persons who had reached retirement age , and preventing mental and physical deterioration . The work had to be tailored to the prisoner ’s abilities , training and interests , and it was therefore necessary to avoid placing an excessive burden on prisoners over DATE . Lastly , in the case of persons who were less physically and mentally able , the occupation could take the form of therapeutic activity ( point CARDINAL ) .

ORG further held that ORG was designed to guarantee a living income to persons who were no longer able to work because of their age . However , work performed in connection with the execution of a custodial sentence or measure was not comparable to an employment contract on the competitive labour market , but rather should be regarded as an occupation within a closed system . ORG therefore held that the rules governing persons of pensionable age did not apply to prisoners ( point CARDINAL ) .

ORG also found that an occupation carried out on a voluntary basis was not apt to fulfil the aims pursued by the requirement to work in prison ( point CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in the town of ORG .

On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicants guilty of various offences but declared that they need not serve their respective sentences because the case was time - barred . On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the Presidium of the NORP ORG quashed by way of supervisory review the decisions of DATE and DATE and discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicants . It found that the courts had not been in a position to decide on the ORG guilt because the whole case had been time - barred .

The applicants sued ORG of GPE for , among other things , compensation in respect of nonpecuniary damage in connection with their prosecution .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE rejected their claims . It reasoned as follows :

“ ... The court finds that , since the applicants’ guilt of the commission of the abovementioned crimes was established , the use of the measure of restraint was justified . This being so , the court has no reason to grant the ORG claims for compensation in respect of the non - pecuniary damage resulting from their unlawful detention and the obligation not to leave their usual place of residence . ... ”

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . It stated that :

“ ... The first instance court , in reaching its decision refusing to grant the ORG claims for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage , correctly assumed that the decision of the Presidium of ORG dated DATE cleared them of liability on non - exonerating grounds . In the court ’s view , since the applicants’ guilt of the commission of the above - mentioned crimes was established , the application of the measure of restraint during the investigation was justified .

The court ’s conclusion is a correct one , made following the examination and proper assessment of the legally relevant ... ”


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant , who had been diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma , underwent mastectomy of her left breast .

In DATE the applicant began to experience pain in the left side of her chest , for which in DATE she underwent a bone scintigraphy . The scintigraphy found a pathological uptake of radioactive tracer in her sixth left rib . Another bone scintigraphy in DATE confirmed that finding . However , a computerised axial tomography scan carried out later in DATE showed a suspected metastasis in the area of DATE left ribs rather than the sixth one . The doctor who performed the scan recommended a further bone scintigraphy . CARDINAL such scintigraphies , in DATE and in DATE , showed the same findings as DATE . A radiography in DATE showed a suspected pathological lesion in the sixth left rib . But a second computerised axial tomography scan later in DATE found again that the suspected metastasis was in the area of DATE left ribs .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL medical doctors decided that the suspected metastasis was to be surgically removed .

Worried that the exact location of the suspected metastasis had not been fully established , the applicant asked the surgeon who was to operate on her , PERSON , whether further tests were required before the operation . According to the applicant , he told her that the available imaging results were sufficient and that he would be able to identify the metastasis once he had opened up her thorax . The applicant then approached the medical doctor who had performed the mastectomy in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He told her that the suspected metastasis was very small , could not be localised visually , and had to be precisely localised before any surgery . The applicant shared her misgivings in that respect with PERSON and reiterated her request for further tests before the operation . However , he reassured her that the available imaging results were sufficient .

Having assented to the operation by signing an informed consent form , the applicant underwent surgery on DATE . In the course of that surgery PERSON removed fragments of her fourth and fifth left ribs , rather than her sixth , eighth or ninth left ribs . However , the operation report erroneously said that he had removed fragments of the eighth and ninth ribs . When talking to the applicant DATE , PERSON likewise told her that he had removed fragments of those ribs , and that he had inspected her lungs .

The removed rib fragments were sent for histological testing , the results of which were ready on DATE and showed that they did not contain cancerous tissue .

When seeing her hospitalisation report upon her discharge from hospital on DATE , the applicant was surprised to find that her sixth left rib had been left in place and that , instead , fragments of her fourth and fifth left ribs , where no lesions had been detected by the scans and where no cancerous tissue was present according to the histological tests , had been removed . She approached PERSON , who denied having made a mistake but agreed to prescribe a further bone scintigraphy , which was carried out in DATE and found an increased uptake of radioactive tracer in the sixth left rib and also in DATE left ribs . A computerised axial tomography scan carried out DATE found that parts of DATE left ribs had been removed and that the sixth left rib was fractured .

The applicant asked PERSON to explain all that , and he apparently again denied having made any mistake .

For DATE after the operation , the applicant was undergoing radiotherapy and hormonal therapy .

In DATE the applicant complained about the operation to ORG . The Ministry ordered ORG to carry out an inquiry and , based on its findings , on DATE informed the applicant that in view of the inconclusive results of the medical imaging tests , the operating team had chosen to make a wide opening in the thorax , enabling them to inspect the left side of the thoracic wall from the fourth to the ninth ribs . They had decided to remove parts of the fourth and fifth ribs because they had observed macroscopic changes on them ; they had not found pathological changes in the sixth rib . The reference to the eighth and ninth ribs in the operation report had been a clerical mistake .

NORP The results of the inquiry , coupled with a complaint filed by the applicant with the hospital , prompted the hospital ’s ethical commission to review the case . It did not find any misconduct on the part of PERSON

On DATE the applicant brought a claim for damages against Dr PERSON and the hospital in which he was employed , a ORG - owned limited liability company . She alleged that he had ( a ) erroneously removed parts of CARDINAL healthy ribs , the fourth and the fifth on the left , without having obtained her consent ; ( b ) inspected her lungs , which had been unnecessary and unjustified ; ( c ) fractured her sixth left rib ; and ( d ) failed to remove the metastasis , which had been the very purpose of the operation .

On DATE the ORG admitted a number of medical documents , including the consent form signed by the applicant before the operation . At the request of the applicant , the court ordered an expert report , to be drawn up by an oncologist , nominated by the applicant , a thoracic surgeon , nominated by PERSON , and a radiologist , nominated by the court , on a number of points raised by counsel for the applicant . At the request of PERSON , the court ordered a second expert report , to be drawn up by another thoracic surgeon .

On DATE the court appointed a new oncologist because the CARDINAL initially chosen had declined the task , ordered the applicant to present herself for examination by the experts , admitted her medical files , and heard as witnesses a surgeon who had taken part in the operation alongside Dr GPE and another surgeon who had monitored the applicant in the hospital after the operation .

NORP The CARDINAL expert reports were filed in DATE .

NORP The report drawn up by the CARDINAL experts described the different methods for detecting bone metastases , including bone scintigraphy , emphasising that their results had to be assessed cumulatively ; said that when operating on cancer patients it was mandatory to inspect adjoining organs by palpation ; described the extent , in their view limited , to which the removal of parts of DATE left ribs had affected the applicant ’s body movements ; said that rib fractures were almost inevitable and very frequent in thoracotomies ; said that the main principle when operating on cancer patients was that all decisions were to be made by the entire team ; and opined that it would be possible to operate on the applicant again , should the need arise .

The thoracic surgeon ’s report said that the operating team had not erred from a medical point of view when carrying out the operation , and that the applicant ’s prognosis and quality of life would have been much worse had the operation not taken place .

On DATE the court heard the CARDINAL experts , including their answers to questions put by counsel for the applicant . The experts stood by their conclusions . The court then reserved judgment . However , on DATE the court , finding that the applicant had not specified whether her preferred defendant was PERSON or the hospital , reopened the proceedings and instructed her to do so .

On DATE the court asked the thoracic surgeon to deal with additional questions . He filed his supplementary report in DATE .

On DATE the court admitted further written evidence and heard CARDINAL witnesses called by the applicant . At the request of counsel for the applicant , it disqualified the thoracic surgeon on the basis that he was employed by the defendant hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court then appointed a new expert .

In his report the new expert , a thoracic surgeon from GPE , said that the operating team had not breached good medical practice by removing parts of the applicant ’s fourth and fifth left ribs based on their visual and tactile inspection in the course of the operation , bearing in mind that histological testing of bone tissue required time and therefore no histological conclusion could be obtained during the operation ; that they had correctly inspected the applicant ’s lungs by palpation ; that rib fractures in the course of such operations were almost inevitable ; that the removal of the rib fragments had not unduly affected the applicant because they had later partly regenerated ; and that it could not be categorically said that the applicant had a metastasis in her sixth rib , especially bearing in mind that no further metastases had been detected for DATE after the operation .

On DATE the court heard the new expert , including his answers to questions put by counsel for the applicant . He explained in detail why he stood by his conclusions . Counsel for the applicant requested a further expert report on the need for the operation . The court turned down the request on the basis that it went beyond the scope of the case .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It referred to the conclusions of the experts but said that it would not take into account the reports drawn up by the expert who had been disqualified ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . Based on those conclusions , the court found that the precise location of the suspected metastasis had not been fully established before the operation . It went on to say that the allegation that PERSON had removed parts of the applicant ’s fourth and fifth left ribs without her consent was baseless , since the written consent form that she had signed before the operation , following an explanation on the proposed procedure , had not specified the rib to be operated upon . The court further held , with reference to the expert opinions , that PERSON had not erred by removing parts of DATE left ribs , as he had observed on them tissue which he had suspected to be cancerous . The fact that the histological test had later showed otherwise had not retrospectively rendered his assessment flawed . Nor had he erred by inspecting the applicant ’s lungs by palpation – that was standard practice in that type of operation . Furthermore , the evidence did not categorically prove that the applicant still had a metastasis in her sixth left rib , especially bearing in mind the lack of other metastases after the operation . In particular , the experts were agreed that the medical imaging results submitted by the applicant could not be conclusive on that point in the absence of a fresh histological test . Lastly , the court found that it had not been proved that the applicant ’s sixth rib had been fractured in the course of the operation and that , in any event , such a fracture was a habitual risk in that sort of operation .

The applicant appealed to ORG .

On DATE , at the request of counsel for the applicant , the court instructed the replacement thoracic surgeon who had acted as expert in the proceedings before the lower court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to draw up a supplementary report in which to address several points raised in the appeal . Counsel for the applicant also requested a fresh expert report , to be drawn up by CARDINAL thoracic surgical oncologists . They asked that CARDINAL of those be PERSON for PERSON opposed the request , arguing that Dr V.T. would be biased in favour of the applicant because he had known her for DATE . The court did not order the report .

The thoracic surgeon ’s supplementary report said that the applicant had correctly been subjected to surgery ; that the operating team had not erred by acting on the basis of the visual and tactile findings made in the course of the operation , especially bearing in mind the uncertain results of the prior medical imaging tests ; that there was no universally reliable method to establish the presence of bone metastases ; that it had been impossible to mark the precise spot of the suspected metastasis before the operation ; and that PERSON had had the requisite qualifications to operate on the applicant .

On DATE the court admitted the report and heard the thoracic surgeon . The applicant submitted a private expert opinion which said that the removal of parts of her fourth and fifth left ribs had been needless and erroneous . This opinion could not be admitted because it had not been drawn up by court - appointed experts . The applicant however reiterated her earlier request for a fresh expert report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the court acceded to it , appointing as experts CARDINAL thoracic surgeons , CARDINAL of whom was PERSON , and a thoracic surgical oncologist , all from GPE .

The experts were divided . PERSON , who filed a minority report , was of the view that the operation had not been necessary and had been carelessly carried out , with the removal of parts of CARDINAL healthy ribs . The other CARDINAL experts expressed the same views as those set out in the thoracic surgeon ’s supplementary report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and came to the conclusion that the operation had been required and that the operating team had not acted out of line with good medical practice .

On DATE the court admitted the reports and heard the CARDINAL experts , who each stood by the views expressed in their respective reports . On DATE it admitted further written evidence and heard the parties’ oral argument .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment . It said that it credited all expert opinions save that of the expert disqualified in the proceedings before the lower court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) and that of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which went against the remainder of the evidence . It went on to hold , by reference to the other experts’ conclusions , that the operation had been necessary , and that by removing parts of the applicant ’s fourth and fifth left ribs on the basis of a visual and tactile examination PERSON had acted in line with established medical practice , even though it had later transpired that they did not contain cancerous tissue . The court came to the same conclusions as the lower court with respect to the inspection of the applicant ’s lungs by palpation , the alleged fracture of her sixth rib , and the question whether it had been proved that she had cancer after the operation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On that basis , the court held that the medical team which had operated on the applicant had not acted negligently and that it had not been categorically established that the applicant had suffered damage as a result of their actions .

The applicant appealed on points of law .

In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , I г. о. ) , ORG quashed the lower court ’s judgment and remitted the case . It held that that court had failed duly to elucidate the facts and in particular to take on an active role in the formulation of the questions to the experts . It had thus not fully clarified whether it had been necessary to operate on the applicant , whether her sixth left rib had been fractured in the course of the operation , and why it had been necessary to remove parts of her fourth and fifth left ribs . It had likewise failed to explain fully why it had disregarded PERSON opinion ; simply saying that it went against the rest of the evidence was not enough . On remittal , the lower court had to re - visit these points by taking into account the history of the applicant ’s medical condition , and inquire into the need for the operation , the presence of metastases in her ribs , and the alleged worsening of her health after the operation . In so doing , it had to obtain a fresh medical expert report and enable the parties to take part in the formulation of the questions to the experts .

On remittal , ORG ordered a fresh expert report , to be drawn up by CARDINAL thoracic surgeons from GPE and a medical imaging specialist from GPE .

The report said that it had been imperative to carry out the operation ; that the fracture of the sixth rib had been there before the operation and had been due to the rib ’s heightened fragility resulting from previous anti - cancer treatment ; that the removal of parts of the fourth and fifth ribs had not been an error in view of the inconclusive prior medical imaging data , which had its limitations , and the visual observation of tissue that could at the time have been suspected to be cancerous ; that there was no categorical medical data proving the presence of a metastasis in the sixth rib before or after the operation – the bone scintigraphies had only showed an increased uptake of radioactive tracer there – in spite of the medical treatment undergone by the applicant after the operation ; that the applicant could be operated upon again , should the need arise ; and that the applicant ’s medical condition would have been much worse had she indeed had an untreated metastasis in her sixth , eighth or ninth rib for DATE after the operation .

NORP On DATE the court admitted the report and heard the CARDINAL experts , including their replies to questions posed by counsel for the applicant . The experts stood by their conclusions . The court also admitted other evidence submitted by the applicant .

On DATE ORG again upheld the lower court ’s judgment . It held , by reference to the reports of the CARDINAL experts that it had appointed , the CARDINAL experts appointed in the proceedings before the lower court , and CARDINAL of the experts appointed in the first appeal proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) , that the operation had been required . It said that it could not follow the opinion of PERSON on this point ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because , even though the question whether it had been advisable to operate in such circumstances could be debated theoretically , the medical team treating the applicant had been faced with an exigently practical situation : the medical imaging tests had showed the presence of a suspected isolated tumour whose exact location was uncertain , and there had been for this reason only one course of action : localise the tumour using the methods of surgical diagnostics and immediately remove it . The court agreed with the experts’ conclusions that the operating team had not erred by removing parts of the applicant ’s fourth and fifth ribs on the basis of their suspicion that they contained cancerous tissue , even though that had turned out not to be the case . The mention of the eighth and ninth ribs in the operation report had been a clerical mistake without incidence for the applicant ’s health . Again by reference to the experts’ conclusions , the court fully agreed with the lower court ’s findings with respect to the inspection of the applicant ’s lungs by palpation , and held that it had not been proved that her sixth rib had been fractured in the course of the operation , or that a metastasis in that rib had erroneously not been removed . On that basis , it concluded that PERSON had not acted negligently .

The applicant again attempted to appeal on points of law .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( опр. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , PERSON г. о. ) , ORG refused to admit the appeal for examination , holding that there was no divergent case - law on the points of law decided by the lower court and that the appeal in effect concerned that court ’s findings of fact .


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

Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE in GPE prior to his arrest .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on drug - related charges and taken to the local anti - narcotics unit . According to the applicant , he was beaten by policemen and then questioned in the absence of a lawyer .

On DATE the Balezinskiy District Court of GPE found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment .

During several periods DATE and DATE the applicant was held in GPE , a temporary detention facility located in GPE .

The applicant submitted that the facility had been overcrowded . There were no windows in the cells where he stayed . The ventilation and water taps did not function . No mattresses or bed linen was available . Moreover , the detainees were not taken outdoor for exercise .

The applicant lodged a number of complaints seeking to bring the above issues to the attention of domestic authorities . In his reply of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the ORG had fallen short of the legal requirements . He further informed the applicant that he had brought an action against the management of the ORG for their failure to improve the conditions .

On DATE the Balezinskiy District Court of GPE granted the district prosecutor ’s lawsuit . It found that the conditions of detention in FAC had been characterised , inter alia , by a lack of bed linen and a possibility to take a shower and that the detainees had not been afforded DATE outdoor exercise .

On DATE the regional ORG sent a letter to the applicant , acknowledging , in particular , that the detainees kept in the ORG had been deprived of outdor exercise and and lacked bed linen .

After some time the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of detention . By final judgment of DATE , ORG found that the applicant ’s allegations had been substantiated and granted the claim , awarding him MONEY .


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);No 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 - Liberty of person);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)

Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON Khachukayeva , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) Ms Khadizhat Khachukayeva , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC , GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) Ms Kheda FAC , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The applicants are the wife and daughters of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .

At the material time the applicants and Mr PERSON lived in the village of ORG in GPE , GPE . The village was situated along a major highway known as “ GPE ” , part of the road between GPE in GPE and GPE in GPE , which has several permanent military roadblocks posted along it . It was impossible to drive on the highway without being checked and information from the check being entered into a log . CARDINAL permanent roadblock was situated QUANTITY to the east of LOC , at the junction with the road towards PERSON , the main city in GPE . This road block was commonly referred to as “ GPE ” ( also spelled as “ LOC ) , after the name of a nearby suburb of ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON drove to PERSON with his friends Mr Sayd - Akhmed S. , a resident of PERSON , and Mr PERSON , a resident of ORG , in the latter ’s Toyota Land Cruiser car . The vehicle ’s licence plate number was ACARDINALBKCARDINAL , which was easily recognisable because of the CARDINAL nines .

At QUANTITY on DATE a group of ORG residents were passing through the FAC roadblock by bus and saw Mr DATE Toyota Land Cruiser car there . Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON were standing next to the vehicle , surrounded by members of the military . Nearby were some armoured military vehicles ( BMP ) and UAZ cars . According to CARDINAL unnamed witnesses , who had also been stopped at the roadblock at the same time , they and Mr PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON were taken to the military unit ’s headquarters in the village of PERSON .

The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE . They were not eyewitnesses to the abduction . Their submission to the ORG was based on the first applicant ’s complaints and requests to various ORG authorities , a witness statement by PERSON ORG dated DATE and copies of documents from the criminal investigation file .

The applicants learnt about the detention of Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr DATE on DATE of DATE from the bus passengers , but were not worried at first , as they presumed that the CARDINAL men had been stopped for a routine identity check . They were also reassured by Mr R.V. , the head of FAC village administration at the time , who said that there was no need to worry as all CARDINAL men were law - abiding citizens .

DATE , at DATE , Mr R.Sh . saw Mr Khizir A. ’s Toyota Land Cruiser car in a military convoy , passing through a roadblock over the ORG river in the village of GPE , QUANTITY to the north of GPE . PERSON . was later questioned by the prosecutor ’s office ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .

NORP In DATE a friend of the missing men , PERSON . PERSON , spotted the licence plate from Mr PERSON Toyota Land Cruiser car on a military vehicle and informed the investigation of this ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The serviceman driving the vehicle was subsequently questioned and stated that he had recovered it at the roadblock ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants learned that the blown - up shell of a ORG Land Cruiser had been found in the north of GPE , in LOC . The car was identified as the CARDINAL belonging to Mr DATE

On DATE the remains of CARDINAL bodies and items of clothing were found in the forest near the village of Darbankhi ( also spelled as PERSON ) , near the Darbankhi - Vinogradnoye road in the north of the ORG district . Relatives of the abducted men subsequently identified some of the clothing as belonging to the missing men ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG declared Mr ORG a missing person , at the request of his sister PERSON On DATE she was appointed as the legal guardian of the second and third applicants .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also stated as DATE ) the first applicant and relatives of PERSON SaydAkhmed S. and Mr PERSON complained about the abduction of the men at the roadblock to several law - enforcement agencies . They described the circumstances of the incident and stressed that their relatives had most probably been detained by officers of ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) ( ORG служба безопасности ( ORG ) ) or ORG ( hereinafter “ the GRU ” ) ( ORG разведывательное управление ( ORG ) ) and that their own search for the abducted men had not produced any results .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office ( hereinafter “ the prosecutor ’s office ” ) opened criminal case no . DATE . The decision stated , among other things , the following :

“ ... On DATE , at QUANTITY , on the Rostov - Baku highway at the former roadblock of the FAC [ traffic police ] post unidentified persons detained and took away [ Mr ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr Sayd - Akhmed S. ] to an unknown destination ... ”

On DATE GPE ’s Deputy Minister of the Interior wrote to the GPE prosecutor providing details of the abduction which were similar to the applicants’ account before the ORG and asking to be informed whether the abducted men had been arrested and , if so , on what charges . The letter also stated that there were witnesses to the abduction .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON . PERSON , who stated that on DATE he had seen a grey ORG with the registration number ACARDINALBKCARDINAL and that a group of military servicemen had been next to it . He had recalled immediately that the plate had belonged to Mr GPE . A. ’s Toyota Land Cruiser and asked the driver of the vehicle where he had got it . The driver told him that he had received it from Mr GPE , the driver of the head of the LOC department of the interior ( hereinafter “ the PERSON ROVD ” ) ( ORG районный отдел внутренних дел ( ORG ) ) , who had obtained it from a military serviceman stationed in the settlement of ORG . The witness had taken the plate from the driver and on DATE handed it over to the investigators .

On DATE , investigators questioned the driver of the head of the Grozny ROVD , Mr PERSON , who stated that he had obtained the licence plate with the registration number of Mr GPE . A. ’s car in DATE from a military serviceman at the FAC roadblock .

On DATE , investigators questioned a serviceman , Mr PERSON , who stated that he had found the licence plate with the ACARDINALBKCARDINAL registration number when he was manning the Chernorechensky roadblock in DATE and had handed the plate over to the policemen who had taken over from him at the roadblock .

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unlawful and ordered that further steps be taken .

On DATE the proceedings were resumed , before being suspended again on DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr R.Sh . who stated that on or around DATE he had been crossing the roadblock over the ORG river in the village of GPE , when he had seen a military convoy which included Mr PERSON Toyota Land Cruiser . The car , which had been moving among at least CARDINAL military vehicles , was being driven by a tall red - headed man in a special black military uniform with a bullet - proof vest .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of ORG overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unlawful and ordered that further steps be taken . In particular , he pointed out the following :

“ The examination of the case file shows that the investigation has been carried out in an extremely superficial manner and without any plan . ... To this date , none of the ORG relatives have been questioned or granted the procedural status as the relative of a victim , [ the investigator ] has contented himself with sending formal requests to various bodies and receiving equally formal replies . ...

It is necessary to question family members and close friends about the missing men ’s lives , work and social activities ... , to receive a reply from the military prosecutor ’s office of the [ ORG ] , to question in detail the witness who found the missing car in the forest ... , to question once again the witness [ GPE . ] who saw the vehicle in a military convoy going over the ORG bridge in the village of GPE ... , to take all the necessary steps to identify the military unit which passed over the bridge at that time . The witness has highlighted the large number of vehicles in the convoy , so it would appear to be quite possible to clarify this question . If positive replies are obtained a visit should be planned to the location of the military unit to find out more about the fate of the missing car . ”

Following the discovery of the remains of CARDINAL people ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as DATE ) , the ORG district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE the investigators in criminal case no . DATE questioned the brother of Mr PERSON , PERSON , who described the circumstances of the abduction at the roadblock and stated that some of the items of clothing found with the remains of the bodies resembled clothing worn by Mr PERSON on the date of his abduction . On DATE , PERSON DATE officially identified several items of the clothing as belonging to Mr PERSON .

On DATE the investigators in criminal case no . DATE questioned the wife of PERSON , PERSON , who described the circumstances of the abduction at the roadblock and then identified several items of the clothing as belonging to her missing husband , Mr ORG

On DATE and then again on DATE , the supervising prosecutors criticised the investigation and ordered that the investigators take the steps which had been ordered previously . The documents submitted in the case show that none of the steps were taken , apart from granting victim status to some of the relatives of the men who had disappeared .

On DATE the investigators ordered a complex forensic examination of the human remains ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the experts concluded that they belonged to people with different blood groups . They came to no conclusion about a possible cause of death .

On DATE the investigators ordered a genetic test of the fragments . Blood samples were collected from the relatives of Mr ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr Sayd - Akhmed S.

On DATE the genetic test report showed that the remains belonged to Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr SaydAkhmed S.

Despite the genetic test results of DATE , the initial investigation into the abduction of the CARDINAL men in criminal case no . DATE continued until DATE and referred to them as “ missing ” .

On DATE the first applicant was granted the status of a victim in criminal case no . DATE and questioned . She stated that she had learnt of her husband ’s abduction by servicemen at the roadblock from her relatives .

On DATE the investigators again questioned Mr A.D. , who reiterated his previous statement and added that he and his relatives had found the burnt ORG Land Cruiser car in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that her brother , Mr PERSON , and his friends , Mr PERSON and Mr Khizir A. , had been abducted at the roadblock by officers of the ORG . The witness added that she was taking care of the second and third applicants .

On DATE the first applicant asked the investigators to provide her with unrestricted access to the investigation file . On DATE the investigators granted her request in part , stating that she was allowed to access only the documents which referred to proceedings she had been involved in .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that on DATE her nephew , PERSON , and his CARDINAL friends , PERSON ORG and PERSON , had been abducted by federal servicemen at the roadblock . She also submitted that on that date PERSON Khizir A. had left home with a large sum of money as he had intended to buy a car .

On DATE the investigators combined the abduction case ( no . DATE ) and the murder case ( no . CARDINAL ) into one file ( no . DATE ) . The ORG department of the investigation committee was put in charge of the investigation and the applicants were informed of these developments .

The case file shows that DATE the investigators requested information on the possible whereabouts of the abducted men from the military units stationed in the region at the time , as well as from detention centres , hospitals , law - enforcement agencies and correctional facilities . For the most part , they received no answer and the replies that did come in were negative .

DATE the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was suspended and resumed on CARDINAL occasions . Each suspension of the proceedings was overruled by the supervising body as premature and unlawful . The last suspension took place on DATE , but the investigation was resumed on DATE . It is still pending .

In DATE the first applicant appealed to ORG in PERSON against the ORG refusal to provide her with unrestricted access to file no . DATE . She sought a ruling obliging the investigators to provide her with full access , to resume the investigation , which had been suspended , and to carry it out in an effective manner . She also asked for free legal counsel to assist her in the proceedings .

On DATE the Zavodskoy ORG allowed the complaint in part . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG granted the request for full access to the case file . The request for free legal assistance was dismissed for lack of grounds in domestic law .

The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away and then killed Mr Islam Deniyev had been ORG agents . In support of that assertion they referred to the ample evidence contained in their submissions and the criminal investigation file . They submitted that they had made a prima facie case that their relative had been abducted and killed by ORG agents and that the essential facts underlying their complaint had not been challenged by the Government .

The Government did not contest the essential facts as presented by the applicants . At the same time , they claimed that the investigation had not obtained information proving that ORG agents had been involved in the detention or killing of the applicants’ relative .

A number of principles have been developed by ORG when it has been faced with the task of establishing the facts of events on which the parties disagree ( see PERSON v. “ the former GPE ” [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) : the factual findings should be based on the standard of proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” ; and such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII , and ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVIII ) .

The ORG has dealt with a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances and killings in GPE . Applying the abovementioned principles , it has concluded that if applicants make a prima facie case of abduction and killing 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 any 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 , DATE ; LOC v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG notes that the documents from the investigation file provided by the Government ( see , for example , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) demonstrate that Mr PERSON was detained on DATE at the roadblock by a group of armed servicemen and that his remains were discovered DATE , in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The next point to be considered is whether there is a causal link between the detention of Mr ORG by ORG servicemen at the roadblock and his death . The ORG reiterates in this connection that where the events in issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , such as in cases where persons are under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . Indeed , the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation ( see , among many authorities , ORG , cited above LAW ) .

In the present case there was no news of Mr Islam Deniyev between his detention on DATE at the roadblock and the discovery of his remains in DATE . ORG also notes that although a forensic expert examination was carried out on the remains , it failed to establish the cause of his death ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the discovery of the remains . The link between the detention and the death of Mr Islam Deniyev was , moreover , assumed in the domestic proceedings as the investigations into the abduction and the death were joined ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Government did not provide any substantiated version of the events to refute the version presented by the applicants .

The ORG finds that the facts of the present case strongly suggest that the death of Mr PERSON was part of the same sequence of events as his abduction and support the conclusion that he was executed extrajudicially by ORG agents . In these circumstances , the ORG finds that the ORG is responsible for the death of the applicants’ relative .

For the above reasons the ORG considers that it has been established that Mr PERSON was killed following his unacknowledged detention by ORG servicemen .


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

Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicants were cadets in military schools . Based on classified investigation reports , they were expelled from their schools . None of the applicants had access to these classified reports . They all filed actions against ORG with ORG to have annulment of the impugned decisions .

Relying on the classified investigation reports , ORG rejected the ORG requests and their subsequent requests for rectification on different dates shown in detail in the attached list .


Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , in LOC until his arrest .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence . He remained in custody throughout the investigation and trial .

On DATE the ORG of GPE sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment . The sentence was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

In DATE , following a complaint by the applicant of pain in his lower abdomen , he was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate gland and underwent surgery in relation to that condition .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison tuberculosis hospital in GPE for testing of his urogenital system . CARDINAL operations were performed in the hospital , but various problematic symptoms relating to his urinary system persisted .

In DATE a biopsy of prostate tissue revealed the presence of cancer cells . The applicant was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer which had spread to his liver and inguinal lymph nodes . His condition was aggravated by a wasting syndrome and paraneoplastic syndrome .

According to the applicant , he did not have access to the required medication in the hospital , and therefore his condition worsened .

On DATE a medical panel confirmed his diagnosis , adding a list of secondary illnesses to it . The doctors concluded that the applicant ’s medical condition made him eligible for early release .

On DATE the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk “ the ORG ” examined the applicant ’s request for early release on health grounds . In the proceedings the applicant was represented by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer from ORG .

At the hearing the doctor who was treating the applicant testified that his condition had significantly deteriorated since DATE . He received painkillers in hospital , but effective medical treatment was unavailable , owing to a lack of the required medication .

The acting head of the hospital stated that the applicant could only receive adequate medical treatment in another hospital .

The prosecutor opposed the applicant ’s being released , citing his failure to reform while in detention . He also stated that the release was not necessary , as the applicant could receive the required medical treatment within the prison system .

The court rejected the applicant ’s request for release . It found that he had failed to improve himself , that is to say , the aim of reforming him as a prisoner had not been achieved . His medical condition did not preclude further detention , as the requisite medical treatment was available within the prison system . To receive it , the applicant only needed a transfer to a different hospital .

On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal , having fully endorsed the reasoning of the lower court . It also noted that , in addition to pain relief and therapy to relieve symptoms , the applicant could have chemotherapy , should the prison hospital receive the required medication .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant sought interim measures from this ORG under Rule CARDINAL to ensure adequate medical treatment or his release from detention .

On DATE the ORG decided to apply Rule DATE , indicating to the Government that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant should be immediately examined by medical experts who were independent of the prison system , with a view to determining : ( CARDINAL ) whether the treatment he was receiving in the prison hospital was adequate with regard to his condition ; ( CARDINAL ) whether his state of health was compatible with detention in prison hospital conditions ; and ( CARDINAL ) whether his condition required his placement in a specialist , possibly civilian , hospital . Furthermore , the Government were also to ensure his transfer to a specialist hospital , should the medical experts conclude that he required it .

On DATE the Government responded to the ORG ’s letter of DATE , asserting that the scope and quality of the applicant ’s medical treatment in the prison hospital corresponded to his needs . They alleged that , owing to the gravity of the applicant ’s condition , only treatment of his symptoms was recommended , and such treatment was being provided in full . They submitted the following documents : a typed copy of the applicant ’s medical file ; certificates from detention facilities summarising the applicant ’s treatment and describing his state of health ; a report by a medical panel of CARDINAL DATE confirming his eligibility for early release ; a copy of ORG decision of DATE ; a statement by the acting head of the hospital in which he noted that ORG had misinterpreted his testimony given on DATE , as he had never discussed the possibility of the applicant being treated in another hospital ; and a statement by the head of the prison hospital in which he confirmed that the cancer treatment was only possible in a special oncological centre , and that he had never argued that it was accessible within the prison system .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer submitted that the Government had not made arrangements for the independent medical examination indicated by the ORG to be carried out . However , CARDINAL independent doctors summoned by the applicant ’s lawyer had assessed the quality of his medical treatment in detention and the compatibility of further detention in the prison hospital with his state of health . In an expert report dated DATE the doctors had concluded that the treatment the applicant was receiving in the prison hospital was inadequate . The belated diagnosis of prostate cancer and the failure to provide active treatment , such as glandular therapy , radiation therapy or surgery were mentioned among other major shortcomings on the part of the medical authorities . The doctors had also noted that the applicant could not be provided with adequate medical treatment in the prison hospital , because it had no licence for inpatient treatment of cancer patients and urological diseases . Accordingly , the experts had concluded that his detention in that facility did not correspond to his medical needs , and threatened his life .

NORP Over DATE the applicant ’s health continued to deteriorate , and the wasting syndrome progressed .

On DATE the medical panel prepared a new report , again recommending the applicant ’s early release on health grounds . A court hearing on the matter was scheduled for DATE . DATE before that date the applicant died of cancer .

At the request of the applicant ’s lawyer , Mr A. ORG , ORG carried out a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the applicant ’s death , which ended with a decision of DATE not to open a criminal case .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

The applicants are NORP nationals . They were owners of flats in GPE . The ORG authorities reclaimed the flats , and the ORG title to the real property in question was annulled .

NORP The flat at CARDINAL - CARDINAL GPE , GPE , was owned by PERSON On DATE PERSON died intestate with no surviving kin .

On DATE PERSON bought the flat from a person acting on PERSON ’s behalf by virtue of a power of attorney .

On DATE M. sold the flat to O.

On DATE O. sold the flat to ORG

On DATE V. sold the flat to the applicant and his minor daughter .

On an unspecified date the police opened an investigation into the fraudulent sale of the flat after PERSON ’s death . On DATE the police informed ORG ( ORG ) about the investigation .

On an unspecified date ORG brought an action against the applicant seeking the transfer of the title to the flat to GPE and the applicant ’s eviction .

On DATE the Kuntsevskiy ORG of GPE granted ORG claims in full . The court established that PERSON had died intestate with no surviving kin and that the flat should have been considered bona vacantia . It considered all the transactions with the flat to be void and ordered the transfer of the title to the flat to GPE and the applicant ’s eviction .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG refused to allow the ORG cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG of GPE refused to allow the ORG second cassation appeal .

On DATE GPE had its title to the flat registered .

According to the Government , on DATE ORG entered into a social housing agreement with the applicant and his daughter who continued to reside in the flat .

The flat at CARDINAL , PERSON , GPE , was owned by NORP DATE S. died intestate with no surviving kin .

On DATE an unidentified person sold the flat to B.

On DATE PERSON sold the flat to PERSON , the applicant ’s father .

On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE approved a friendly settlement agreement between the applicant and her father recognising the applicant ’s title to the flat .

On DATE the police opened an investigation into the fraudulent sale of the flat after S. ’s death . On CARDINAL DATE the police informed ORG about the investigation .

On an unspecified date ORG brought a civil action against the applicant seeking the transfer of the title to the flat to GPE and the applicant ’s eviction .

On DATE ORG granted ORG claims in full . The court established that PERSON had died intestate with no surviving kin and that the flat should have been considered bona vacantia . The court ruled that the case fell under one of the CARDINAL exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser ’s title , which required that precedence be given to the previous owner who had been deprived of the property against his or her will . The applicant ’s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to GPE .

On DATE ORG refused to allow the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

According to the applicant , the judgment in the GPE ’s favour has not been enforced and the applicant continues to reside in the flat .

The flat at DATE , ORG , GPE , had been owned by ORG , who died intestate with no surviving kin on DATE .

On an unspecified date PERSON and other unidentified persons forged ORG will , naming P. as ORG ’s heir .

On DATE applied to a notary seeking to be recognised as ORG ’s heir . On DATE the notary issued a certificate confirming that P. had inherited ORG ’s flat .

On DATE ORG ( the “ Registration Board ” ) registered the certificate confirming P. ’s title to the flat and issued the relevant deed .

On DATE P. sold the flat to the first applicant .

On DATE the ORG registered the flat purchase and issued the respective deed to the first applicant . The applicants moved into the flat and resided there .

On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation concerning the forgery of the will issued on behalf of ORG

On DATE ORG of GPE found P. guilty of several counts of fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . In particular , the court established that P. , acting in concert with other persons whose identity was not known , had fraudulently acquired ORG ’s flat and sold it to the first applicant on the basis of a forged will . The court also found that the flat was bona vacantia which therefore vested in the ORG and , by having fraudulently acquired title to it and then sold it to the first applicant , PERSON had caused damage to the ORG .

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

On DATE ORG brought a civil action against the applicants seeking , inter alia , ( CARDINAL ) revocation of the first applicant ’s title to the flat ; ( CARDINAL ) the applicants’ eviction ; and ( CARDINAL ) restitution of the flat to GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE granted ORG claims . It established that the flat was bona vacantia and ordered its restitution to GPE . It also revoked the first applicant ’s title to the flat and ordered the applicants’ eviction .

On DATE ORG refused to allow the applicants’ cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG of GPE refused to allow the ORG cassation appeal .

It appears that the judgment in the GPE ’s favour has not been enforced to date . The applicants continue to reside in the flat .