Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , PERSON is a NORP national . She is of GPE ethnic origin and was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant ’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers acting in cooperation with ORG , a non - governmental organisation with its registered office in PERSON .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

NORP On DATE the applicant gave birth to her second child in the public hospital in LOC ( “ the ORG ” ) . The delivery was carried out by means of a caesarean section , as had also been the case when she gave birth to her first child . At the time , the applicant was underage . She was not legally married .

On DATE , when she accessed her medical records , the applicant became acquainted with a document indicating that she had been sterilised during the delivery of her child on DATE .

NORP In particular , a surgery record appended to the applicant ’s medical records indicates that the applicant underwent sterilisation by tubal ligation due to complications involving abnormally deep attachment of the placenta and imminent risk of rupture of the uterus . The document is dated DATE and signed by Doctor PERSON . The delivery record itself contains no mention of a sterilisation operation having taken place .

Neither the applicant nor her legal guardians had been advised of or asked to give their consent to the applicant ’s sterilisation .

The applicant was released from ORG on DATE . Her second child died of pneumonia DATE .

As the applicant was not aware why she was unable to conceive a child , she underwent infertility treatment in DATE following the delivery of her second child .

Due to her inability to have more children the applicant has experienced serious physical and mental health problems . She has been ostracised by the GPE community and has experienced relationship difficulties with her husband .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action for protection of her personal rights under Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW before LOC . She argued that she had been sterilised contrary to the requirements of NORP law and in breach of , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention . She sought an apology , CARDINAL in compensation for damage and the reimbursement of her legal costs .

In a written statement of DATE a representative of the defendant hospital argued that the sterilisation of the applicant had been medically indicated and that the hospital staff had acted in accordance with the law then in force .

ORG heard Doctor PERSON , who stated that he had become the applicant ’s gynaecologist in DATE , after the delivery of her second child . He had not been aware of a sterilisation operation having been performed on the applicant . Nurse PERSON stated that she could not remember the circumstances of the applicant ’s delivery .

An expert appointed by the court noted , in an opinion of DATE , that , according to the applicant ’s medical records , tubal ligation had been performed on her on DATE . It had not been a life - saving operation , but it had been medically indicated , as any subsequent pregnancy would have entailed a serious risk to the applicant ’s life and health . The opinion further noted that the applicant had undergone a radiologic examination on DATE . It had revealed that the applicant ’s fallopian tubes were not blocked and there were no signs of ligation on them .

The applicant submitted the opinion of a NORP expert of CARDINAL DATE indicating that her sterilisation had not been necessary with a view to saving her life . The opinion was based on analysis of medical records related to the applicant ’s admission to ORG from DATE to DATE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the action . With reference to the result of the above - mentioned radiologic examination of DATE , it did not find it established that the applicant had been sterilised .

Upon the applicant ’s appeal , on DATE the ORG quashed ORG judgment . It ordered the firstinstance court to obtain further evidence with a view to establishing all relevant facts .

Subsequently , ORG heard Doctor PERSON , who had been present during the delivery of the applicant ’s second child . Albeit he did not remember its circumstances , he stated that he had completed the delivery record and that he would have mentioned the applicant ’s sterilisation on its front page had such an operation been carried out . The only reference to the applicant ’s sterilisation had been made in the surgery record written by Doctor PERSON , who had died in the meantime . Doctor PERSON was not in a position to explain why Doctor PERSON had made such an entry . She might have mistaken the applicant ’s file with that of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL other people on whom they had operated consecutively on DATE .

ORG further established from the hospital ’s list of operations performed that Doctors S. and L. had performed CARDINAL caesarean sections on DATE . The applicant was the third patient on whom they had operated .

The applicant ’s gynaecologist highlighted that the report drawn up upon her release from the hospital did not state that the applicant had been sterilised .

Upon the court ’s request an expert indicated , on DATE , that endoscopic examination by means of laparoscopic chromopertubation would reliably show whether or not the applicant had been sterilised . The reliability of the radiologic examination which the applicant had undergone on DATE amounted to MONEY . The opinion further stated that sterilisation by tubal ligation , as recorded in the applicant ’s file , failed for an unknown reason in MONEY of cases .

In her submissions , the applicant indicated that she was not willing to subject herself to invasive methods of examination entailing possible side effects and risks to her health for the purpose of proving that she had been sterilised . The medical records clearly showed that this had taken place .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s claim . The court held that the evidence available did not permit it to conclude that the sole reason for which the applicant could not conceive a child was a blockage of her fallopian tubes resulting from an operation performed by the employees of the defendant hospital . The burden of proof was on the applicant to show that she had been sterilised . However , she had refused to undergo further medical tests which were necessary to establish in a reliable manner whether she had been subjected to a sterilisation operation , as claimed by her . ORG further concluded that the applicant ’s right to claim compensation for nonpecuniary damage had prescribed .

The applicant appealed . She argued that it was for the defendant hospital to show that its staff had erroneously indicated in her medical records that she had been sterilised .

On DATE the ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment . It held that ORG had established all relevant facts and had correctly applied the applicable law . In particular , as it could not be established beyond any doubt that the applicant had been sterilised by the hospital staff , she could not succeed in her action for protection of her personal rights . The reference to such an operation being performed in CARDINAL of several medical records drawn up in relation to the delivery of the applicant ’s second child did not suffice to prove that the operation had actually been performed , given that a subsequent test had shown that her fallopian tubes were not blocked . The fact that the applicant had refused to undergo more reliable tests also had to be taken into account .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint . With reference to the proceedings leading to ORG judgment of DATE , she alleged a breach , inter alia , of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . The applicant argued that the ordinary courts had failed to comply with their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of her sterilisation . In particular , ORG finding that it had not been clearly established that the applicant had been sterilised had been arbitrary and in disregard of the information in the applicant ’s medical records . In view of the entry recording her sterilisation in her records , it was for the defendant hospital to show that the applicant had not been sterilised . Asking the applicant to submit herself to invasive medical procedures with possible side effects with a view to proving that she had been sterilised was inappropriate in the circumstances .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . There was no appearance of unfairness in the proceedings leading to ORG judgment , in which all relevant facts and arguments had been addressed and which had not been arbitrary . In those circumstances the other complaints made by the applicant were manifestly ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG in LOC . She submitted that she had suffered serious bodily harm as a result of her unlawful sterilisation in LOC .

On DATE a police investigator informed the applicant that a criminal investigation had been started on DATE .

In the course of the investigation the investigator heard the applicant and her legal representative , as well as CARDINAL staff members from ORG . Doctor PERSON had been present during the delivery but he could not remember its circumstances , including whether the applicant had been sterilised . Similarly , PERSON stated that she could not remember the delivery . An expert indicated that sterilisation was not in itself a life - saving operation . It should not be performed without the consent of the woman concerned .

On DATE the police investigator concluded that no criminal offence had been committed , as it had not been established with sufficient certainty that the applicant had been sterilised .

On DATE ORG in ORG dismissed a complaint against the investigator ’s decision made by the applicant .

On DATE ORG in Prešov informed the applicant that no reason had been found for departing from the conclusions reached by the authorities at the lower level . It was particularly relevant that the surgeon who had operated on the applicant had died , and that the period during which the alleged criminal offence could be prosecuted had expired on DATE .

On DATE ORG found no breach of law in the course of the investigation into the applicant ’s criminal complaint . The reply contained the following information .

In the course of the investigation CARDINAL possible reasons for the applicant ’s infertility had been identified , namely either her unlawful sterilisation on DATE or a medical condition affecting her reproductive organs , namely fallopian tube obstruction .

Only the surgery record of CARDINAL DATE stated that the applicant had been sterilised . There was no mention of a sterilisation operation in the delivery record , in the other records relating to the delivery and the applicant ’s subsequent treatment , in the records of the anaesthesia given to her or in the report drawn up upon the applicant ’s release from the hospital . Doctor PERSON , who had operated on the applicant , had died in the meantime . CARDINAL of her colleagues had stated that Doctor PERSON had drawn up the patient surgery records after all of the operations scheduled for DATE had been completed . An expert had found that CARDINAL caesarean sections , CARDINAL of which had been accompanied by the patient ’s sterilisation , had been performed in the hospital on DATE . Doctor PERSON had performed CARDINAL of those caesarean sections . It could not be excluded that the entry recording the applicant ’s sterilisation in the surgery record had been made erroneously . The expert was not in a position to confirm that the applicant had been sterilised . It was also possible that the applicant ’s tubes were blocked by scar tissue . It was relevant in that respect that scars on the applicant ’s organs had been noted in the course of the delivery of the applicant ’s second child . According to the expert , surgery was required in order to establish why the applicant could not become pregnant .

The letter from ORG further indicated that it would be inappropriate to ask the applicant to undergo such surgery . Even if it were thereby established that she had been unlawfully sterilised , no criminal law consequences would arise , as the surgeon involved had died and the period in which the alleged offence could have been prosecuted had expired .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG . With reference to her sterilisation and the standpoints of ORG and ORG , she alleged a breach of ORG , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW and also a breach of several other international instruments .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill - founded . The decision stated that ORG could only examine any breaches which had resulted from the unfairness or arbitrariness of the proceedings complained of . As the applicant in her complaint had neither relied on LAW nor made reference to its guarantees in substance , her ORG complaints could not be dealt with in the constitutional proceedings .

With a view to describing the overall situation and circumstances in which she had delivered her child , the applicant submitted that she had experienced inferior treatment during her stay at ORG . In particular , patients in the gynaecological and obstetrics ward had been segregated according to their ethnic origin . The applicant had been accommodated in a “ Gypsy room ” , separate from women who were not of GPE ethnic origin .

NORP The applicant referred to a number of publications pointing to a history of sterilisation of GPE women , which had originated under the NORP regime in GPE in DATE and which she believed had influenced her own sterilisation . She also referred to a number of reports and statements by human rights organisations , both in GPE and abroad , including governmental and inter - governmental bodies , asking the NORP authorities to conduct an impartial and fair investigation of the allegations of forced and coerced sterilisation of GPE women in GPE , or criticising the absence of such an investigation ( for further details see also GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .

The applicant considered that her ethnic origin had played a decisive role in the way in which she had been treated . Citing a number of international reports , the applicant submitted that discrimination against GPE in GPE extended to all facets of their lives .

Under LAW , natural persons have the right to protection of their personal rights ( personal integrity ) , in particular their life and health , human dignity , privacy , name and personal characteristics .

Under LAW , natural persons have the right to seek the cessation of unjustified infringements of their personal rights and to have the consequences of such infringements eliminated . They also have the right to seek appropriate redress .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that , in cases where the redress obtained under LAW is insufficient , in particular because the injured party ’s dignity or social standing has been significantly diminished , he or she is also entitled to financial compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

At the relevant time , the following provisions of GPE DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) were in force .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , medical interventions were to be carried out with the patient ’s consent . Such interventions were also permissible in cases where the patient ’s state of health prevented him or her from expressing his or her will but where his or her consent could be presumed .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL a sterilisation operation was permissible only with the consent of or upon the request of the person concerned and subject to the conditions set by ORG .

Further information about the relevant domestic law , practice and international materials is set out in GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § DATE ; GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ; and ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


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

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .


CASE OF YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

The applicants were born in DATE and live in GPE .

The first applicant is a well - known human rights defender and civil society activist . She is the director of ORG ( “ the Institute ” ) , a non - governmental organisation specialising in human rights protection and conflict resolution .

The second applicant , the first applicant ’s husband , is a researcher and the head of ORG of the ORG .

On DATE the first applicant was arrested by the police and was taken to ORG ( “ the SCD ” ) of ORG . On DATE she was charged under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( large - scale fraud ) , DATE ( illegal entrepreneurship ) , DATE ( large - scale tax evasion ) , CARDINAL ( high treason ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( falsification of official documents ) of LAW .

On DATE ORG , relying on the official charges brought against the first applicant and the prosecutor ’s request for application of the preventive measure of remand in custody ( həbs qətimkan tədbiri ) , ordered her detention pending trial for DATE . The court justified its application of the preventive measure by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released , she might abscond from the investigation .

On DATE the first applicant appealed against this decision , claiming that her detention was unlawful . She submitted , in particular , that there was no reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence , and that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody . She pointed out in this connection that her detention was related to her activities as a human rights defender and that she had been punished for her activities . She further complained that the court had failed to take into account her personal circumstances , such as her state of health and age , when it had ordered her detention pending trial .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the first - instance court ’s decision was lawful .

On DATE ORG extended the first applicant ’s detention pending trial by DATE , until DATE . The court substantiated its decision by the fact that more time was needed to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the detention had not changed .

On DATE ORG also dismissed the first applicant ’s request to be released on bail or placed under house arrest instead of in pre - trial detention .

On DATE she appealed against these decisions , reiterating her previous complaints .

On DATE ORG , in CARDINAL separate decisions , upheld ORG decisions of DATE .

No further extension decisions were included in the case file .

On DATE the second applicant was questioned by an investigator at the SCD . Following the interrogation , he was charged under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( large - scale fraud ) and CARDINAL ( high treason ) of LAW .

On DATE the investigator decided to apply the preventive measure of placement under police supervision ( polisin nəzarəti altına vermə qətimkan tədbiri ) , taking into account his state of health , in particular the fact that he suffered from chronic hypertension . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ Taking into consideration the state of health of the accused , PERSON , who was diagnosed with grade CARDINAL hypertension and hypertensive crisis , and given medical treatment in LOC and ORG No . CARDINAL ... it was appropriate to choose the preventive measure of placement under police supervision . ”

It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that on DATE the second applicant was examined by CARDINAL experts , who issued forensic medical report no . QUANTITY dated DATE . The report confirmed that the second applicant suffered from chronic hypertension . The report also indicated that “ considering PERSON current state of health , it is possible to carry out investigative actions with him ” ( “ A. PERSON sağlamlıq durumu ilə əlaqədar onunla istintaq hərəkətlərinin aparılması mümkündür ” ) .

On DATE the second applicant was arrested by the police . On DATE the prosecutor lodged a request with ORG asking it to replace the second applicant ’s placement under police supervision with detention pending trial . The prosecutor justified his request by the second applicant ’s failure to comply with the requirements of the preventive measure of placement under police supervision . The request also indicated that forensic medical report no . TIME dated DATE did not reveal anything that would prevent the second applicant from participating in the investigation .

On DATE ORG ordered the second applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE . The court justified the detention by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation .

On DATE the second applicant appealed against this decision . He submitted , in particular , that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that there was no justification for replacing the preventive measure of placement under police supervision with detention pending trial . He also pointed out that his detention was related to his and his wife ’s activities as a civil society activist and human rights defender and that the court had failed to take into account his personal circumstances , such as his state of health and age , when it had ordered his detention pending trial .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the detention order was justified .

On DATE ORG extended the second applicant ’s detention pending trial by DATE , until DATE . The court substantiated its decision by the fact that more time was needed to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the detention had not changed .

On DATE ORG also dismissed the second applicant ’s request to be released on bail or placed under house arrest instead of in pre - trial detention .

On DATE the second applicant appealed against these decisions , reiterating his previous complaints and arguing that the firstinstance court had failed to justify his continued detention .

On DATE ORG , in CARDINAL separate decisions , upheld ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE .

The medical documentation submitted by the parties shows that the first applicant suffers from a number of illnesses . In particular , she has suffered from chronic hepatitis ( hepatitis C ) since DATE . People with hepatitis C usually suffer from constant exhaustion , joint , muscle and abdominal pain , general sickness and weakness , and often depression . A low - fat diet is required to reduce liver damage . The disease is potentially fatal . The first applicant regularly underwent medical treatment in GPE before her arrest .

NORP Since DATE she has also had type CARDINAL diabetes , which is non - insulin dependent and requires sufferers to follow a special diabetic diet and take regular exercise . In addition , she suffers from myogelosis ( muscle stiffness ) , arterial hypertension and a single cyst in the left kidney .

It also appears from the medical documents in the case file that she underwent surgery on both eyes in GPE before her arrest and needs specialist medical care as a follow - up , to avoid any risk of damage to her eyesight . The relevant part of a letter dated DATE from the head of ORG at ORG in GPE reads as follows :

“ PERSON right and left eyes were both myopic with cataracts .

It is absolutely necessary that she undergoes a repeat consultation and examination for the development of capsular fibrosis , which can lead to visual impairment and needs surgical laser treatment .

It is also absolutely necessary that she undergoes a complete bilateral examination of her retina since she has had myopia and her risk of retinal detachment is substantially higher than in normal eyes and is further increased by the previous surgery . Any signs of retinal tears must be treated early with a laser retinopexy to prevent further damage and minimise the risk of permanent visual impairment . ”

The medical documentation submitted by the parties shows that the second applicant suffers from grade CARDINAL chronic hypertension and hypertensive crisis , with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications . He regularly underwent medical treatment in GPE before his arrest . He was also hospitalised from DATE in FAC and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in GPE Clinical Hospital No . CARDINAL .

The first applicant was detained in a cell with CARDINAL other detainees , CARDINAL of whom were extremely noisy . Heating was available but inadequate . The electricity was cut off from TIME and from TIME , which made it impossible to use a heater . The temperature inside the cell and in the walking area was very low in DATE . There was no proper ventilation inside the cell and the temperature was very high in DATE . There was a problem with hot water distribution in the cell . In particular , she was not informed of the distribution time for the hot water and could not obtain more when necessary . Moreover , there was CARDINAL refrigerator for all the detainees on her floor which was not sufficient .

According to the first applicant , upon her arrival at the detention facility , she was examined by a doctor who confirmed that she had type CARDINAL diabetes and chronic hepatitis C.

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE she was provided with the necessary diabetic food and medicine by the second applicant who , as a close family member , was entitled to deliver her parcels . However , following his arrest on DATE , she was deprived of the necessary diabetic food and medicine . In particular , the detention facility administration did not allow her lawyer or friends to deliver her parcels until DATE , arguing that only the family members of a detainee could send in parcels .

In this connection , it appears from the documents submitted by the first applicant that on DATE her lawyer asked the investigator in charge of the case to allow her friends , PERSON and GPE , to deliver her a parcel . He pointed out that , taking into consideration that on DATE her husband had been arrested and that her only daughter lived abroad , the first applicant did not have any other family member to do this . On DATE the lawyer also lodged a request with the administration of the detention facility ( “ the administration ” ) , complaining that on CARDINAL DATE employees had refused to receive a parcel for the first applicant on the grounds that it had not been sent in by a family member .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a request with the administration and the investigator in charge of the case , asking for a medical examination at her own expense by a doctor of her own choosing , ORG She specified in her request that she suffered from diabetes and other serious illnesses , and that under domestic law detainees could be examined by a doctor of their own choosing .

By a letter of DATE , the deputy governor of the detention facility replied to her request , noting that there was no need for a medical examination by ORG In this connection , he pointed out that the first applicant ’s state of health was stable and being monitored by the detention facility doctors . The letter also indicated that on DATE she had been examined by an endocrinologist from ORG , who had recommended that she continue her previous treatment .

By a decision of DATE , the investigator dismissed her request , finding that all the necessary measures had been taken for her medical treatment in the detention facility .

On DATE the first applicant ’s cell was searched . On DATE she was deprived of her right to make phone calls for DATE . She was also obliged to take a cold shower because the shower room had no hot water .

On DATE the first applicant ’s lawyer asked the administration to provide him with a copy of the administrative decision depriving the first applicant of her right to make phone calls . He did not receive any response to his request .

On DATE the first applicant ’s lawyer asked the administration to provide him with a list of medication prescribed to the first applicant during her detention . He did not receive any response to his request .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the deputy governor of the detention facility responded to the first applicant ’s complaint of being unable to receive parcels following her husband ’s arrest . He noted that she had received a parcel sent in by PERSON on DATE . The letter was however silent as to the delivery of any parcels DATE .

In a statement dated DATE submitted by the first applicant to the ORG with the ORG reply to the ORG ’s observations , she stated that she had not been provided with any documents concerning her state of health . As regards her medical treatment in detention , she stated that she had been examined on DATE and DATE at ORG by PERSON , a NORP doctor from GPE , a university hospital in GPE . During the examination on DATE , she had been insulted and humiliated by a doctor named PERSON when PERSON had been out of the room . In DATE the eyesight in her left eye had drastically deteriorated . The ophthalmologist who had examined her on DATE stated that the same process would soon begin to happen to her right eye . She further stated that in detention her weight had dropped dramatically because of her illnesses and conditions of detention .

On DATE the first applicant was admitted to ORG of ORG .

She was held with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m designed to hold CARDINAL detainees . The cell was adequately lit . It had CARDINAL windows measuring QUANTITY . The sanitary facilities were separate from the rest of the cell and were adequately ventilated . She was provided with food , water , bedding , clothing and other essentials .

Upon her arrival at the detention facility on DATE , she underwent a series of medical examinations . NORP and electrocardiography examinations did not reveal any changes to her pathological condition . Her neuropsychological status was evaluated as satisfactory . An ultrasound examination of her abdomen and external examination of her body confirmed that she had previously undergone surgery . General and biochemical blood tests concluded that her blood sugar level was a little higher than average . Following these examinations , she was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C , type CARDINAL diabetes , gallstones , a single cyst in the left kidney ( measuring QUANTITY ) and pseudophakia ( replacement of the natural lenses of the eyes with intraocular lenses ) . The Government provided the ORG with copies of the results of the medical tests and examinations carried out DATE .

It further appears from the extracts of the first applicant ’s detention facility medical records ( məhkumun tibbi kitabçası ) submitted by the Government that on DATE the doctor recommended that the first applicant continue the medical treatment for diabetes prescribed by her previous doctor , the drug PERSON . She also had the rules of a diabetic diet explained to her and was provided with a blood glucose meter to monitor the level of sugar in her blood .

On DATE the first applicant was provided with medication brought in by her relatives , including CARDINAL ORG capsules , CARDINAL PERSON capsules , CARDINAL ORG tablets , CARDINAL PERSON tablets and CARDINAL PERSON tablets . The next delivery of medication , comprising QUANTITY GPE tablets , took place on DATE . The first applicant ’s need for medication during this period was fully covered by the medication delivered on DATE . As to the provision of diabetic food from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , upon her arrival at the detention facility , the first applicant was registered on a list of diabetic detainees and was consequently provided with diabetic food during this period .

On DATE she was examined by an endocrinologist in the detention facility , who recommended that she continue her previous treatment . On DATE she also underwent a blood test to determine her sugar level and the state of the hepatitis C. The Government provided the ORG with copies of the results of the medical tests and examinations conducted DATE .

On DATE she was examined by a detention facility doctor . She complained of general sickness without raising any particular complaints .

On DATE and DATE she was examined by a neurologist and a therapist . No pathological conditions were revealed .

On DATE the first applicant refused to be examined by an ophthalmologist at ORG in order to establish the impact of the diabetes on her eyesight . According to the Government , on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and DATE she again refused to be examined by the detention facility doctors . They submitted various records compiled by the doctors to support this claim .

On DATE she was examined by an endocrinologist who assessed her state of health as stable . The Government did not submit any documents concerning this medical examination .

On DATE she refused to undergo various medical examinations by a virologist , endocrinologist and physician from ORG in the presence of the members of the joint working group on human rights and members of the public committee under ORG . However , she refused to sign anything to say that she had refused to be examined .

On DATE the first applicant ’s lawyer lodged a request with the prosecution authorities , complaining of the deterioration of her state of health in detention and asking for a forensic medical examination . The lawyer submitted that her hepatitis C and diabetes were serious and that since her detention her weight had dropped dramatically from CARDINAL to CARDINAL or QUANTITY . The lawyer also pointed out that , as the first applicant had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention , she refused to be examined by the detention facility doctors .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the case ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant . The experts could only examine her on DATE in the presence of her lawyer due to her initial refusal . They issued forensic medical report no . CARDINAL , which indicated that the examination had begun on DATE and ended on DATE . The report confirmed that the first applicant suffered from a number of illnesses , including hepatitis C and diabetes . However , the experts concluded that the illnesses were not life - threatening and could be treated in detention . The relevant part of the conclusion of the report reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The illnesses revealed in L.Yunusova , being chronic in nature , do not pose any danger to her life and she does not currently need immediate and specialist treatment .

If necessary , PERSON can receive outpatient treatment in her conditions of detention in respect of the hepatitis C and diabetes which were diagnosed .

PERSON current state of health allows her to remain in detention and does not pose any danger to her life . ”

In the meantime , on DATE the first applicant underwent a number of medical tests and examinations in the presence of C.W from GPE . In particular , she underwent a general and biochemical blood test , an ultrasound examination of the abdominal cavity , a chest computed tomography ( GPE ) scan , and electrocardiography and echocardiography examinations . The ORG submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the ORG with their observations . However , none of the documents submitted contained any information regarding medical recommendations or prescriptions made by the doctors following the examinations dated DATE .

On DATE the first applicant again underwent various medical tests and examinations . She was examined by a group of doctors , including international doctors PERSON , PERSON ( a professor from ORG ) and PERSON ( a gynaecologist ) . The Government submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the ORG with their observations . However , none of the documents submitted contained any medical recommendations or prescriptions concerning the first applicant ’s medical treatment .

On DATE she was examined in the presence of PERSON and GPE ( the director of ORG in GPE ) . On DATE , she underwent a blood test and gynaecological ultrasound examination . The Government submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the ORG with their observations . However , none of the documents submitted contained any medical recommendations or prescriptions concerning the first applicant ’s medical treatment .

The extracts of the first applicant ’s detention facility medical records contained further information concerning her state of health from DATE to CARDINAL DATE :

- On DATE and DATE she was provided with the relevant medication brought in by her lawyer and friends .

- On DATE she complained of constant exhaustion , general sickness and weakness .

- On DATE she again complained of general sickness and stayed in bed . DATE and the next she was examined by a prison doctor who assessed her state of health as satisfactory . In particular , it was established that her blood pressure , temperature and sugar level were within the permitted range .

- On DATE she was provided with medication for diabetes brought in by her friends .

- On DATE she underwent a prophylactic medical examination and was provided with medication brought in by her friends .

- On DATE and DATE she was examined by a neurologist and a therapist . During the examination , she complained only of frequent urination .

- On DATE , DATE and DATE she was provided with medication brought in by her friends .

- On DATE , DATE and DATE she refused to be examined .

- On DATE she was provided with medication brought in by her friends .

- On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE she refused to be examined .

- On DATE she complained of a migraine and stress , but refused to be examined by a doctor .

- On DATE she was examined in compliance with international standards by a group of doctors , including an international doctor .

- On DATE , DATE and DATE she did not complain about her state of health .

( Illegible )

- On DATE she complained of headaches , but refused to be examined by a doctor .

- On DATE she was again examined by a group of international doctors .

- ( date illegible ) DATE she again refused to be examined by a doctor and was provided with medication brought in by her friends .

- On DATE and DATE she again refused to be examined .

- On DATE she complained of headaches .

- On DATE she was again examined by a group of doctors , including international doctors .

The second applicant was detained alone in a cell at the Pre - trial ORG of ORG .

According to his lawyer , his state of health significantly deteriorated after his arrest . In particular , the domestic authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical care in detention . He further submitted that in the absence of any information concerning the second applicant ’s conditions of detention and medical care , it was impossible for him to give an account about either .

On DATE the second applicant was admitted to the ORG - trial ORG of ORG .

He was held in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m designed to hold CARDINAL inmates . He was placed alone in the cell at his own request . The cell had CARDINAL beds and was adequately lit and ventilated . He was provided with hot and cold water , bedding , clothing and other essentials .

According to a letter by the governor of the detention facility dated DATE , heating was available and functioned well . The sanitary conditions were acceptable and the food served was of good quality . The second applicant also had the right to listen to the radio for TIME a day and to use the detention facility library . He was also entitled to receive CARDINAL food parcel DATE ( weighing up to QUANTITY ) from his relatives .

DATE . Upon his arrival at the detention facility , the second applicant underwent a medical examination , during which he stated that he had suffered from arterial hypertension since DATE . However , he did not make any particular complaint about his state of health which was assessed as satisfactory .

On DATE the second applicant underwent an electrocardiography examination which did not reveal any problems .

It further appears from a medical certificate dated DATE from the head of the medical service of the detention facility that the second applicant ’s state of health was satisfactory and that he had not sought medical attention during his pre - trial detention .

On DATE a repeat offender , GPE , was transferred to the applicant ’s cell . After being transferred , GPE frequently subjected the first applicant to verbal and physical violence . She complained to the administration , but no action was taken .

On DATE she lodged a request with the administration , complaining about GPE ’s unlawful behaviour . In particular , she complained that she had been subjected to physical violence and that the placement of a repeat offender in her cell was not in compliance with domestic law .

On DATE the first applicant was subjected to verbal and physical violence by Major PERSON , a prison guard .

By a letter of DATE , the governor of the detention facility responded to the first applicant ’s request of DATE . He claimed that she had not been subjected to violence by GPE and that her conditions of detention complied with the established standards .

Following publication in the media of information concerning the first applicant ’s alleged beating in the detention facility , on DATE an investigator from ORG ordered a forensic medical examination . He asked experts to establish whether there were any signs of ill - treatment on the first applicant ’s body .

DATE . Following examinations on DATE and DATE , the experts issued forensic medical report no . CARDINAL dated DATE . They concluded that there were no signs of injury on the first applicant ’s body .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the case refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding that there was no evidence that the first applicant had been subjected to violence in the detention facility . The decision relied on the conclusions of the forensic medical report of CARDINAL DATE , statements by the first applicant ’s cellmates and video footage from the detention facility .

No appeal was lodged against this decision .

Following the indication of the interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG by the Acting President of the Section on DATE , the Government responded by a letter dated DATE submitting that the relevant domestic authorities had been immediately informed of the interim measure indicated by ORG under Rule CARDINAL . They further submitted that the applicants’ state of health was stable and did not require their transfer to an appropriate medical facility . The letter also contained an overview of the medical examinations that the applicants had undergone in DATE , although no medical documents were attached to the letter .

The Government subsequently provided the ORG with DATE information reports concerning the applicants’ state of health and medical treatment in detention . All the DATE reports submitted were CARDINAL pages long . They began in a standard format and said that “ the applicants’ state of health is stable and does not require [ their ] transfer to a specialist medical facility ” . They were not accompanied by any medical documents .

The reports sent by the Government from DATE contained the same information in respect of the first applicant ’s state of health and medical treatment as they submitted in their observations of CARDINAL DATE . As regards the second applicant ’s state of health and medical treatment , all the reports contained the CARDINAL following sentences :

“ Over DATE , the second applicant ’s state of health was under constant medical supervision , and it was assessed as satisfactory ; no deterioration in his health has been noted .

( date ) , the second applicant passed [ his ] latest general medical examination , which did not reveal any deterioration in his health . ”

As regards the subsequent reports , the CARDINAL - page report dated DATE indicated that on DATE the first applicant had been examined by PERSON in the presence of local doctors . The results of the examination showed that her state of health was stable and did not reveal any pathological conditions or signs of deterioration . PERSON recommended that the first applicant take PERSON and she started treatment with this drug on DATE . As regards the second applicant , the report contained the above - mentioned CARDINAL sentences . No medical documents were attached to the information report .

The CARDINAL - page report dated DATE indicated that on DATE the first applicant had again been examined by PERSON in the presence of local doctors . The results of the examination showed that her state of health was stable and did not reveal any pathological conditions or signs of deterioration . PERSON prescribed the drug Velmetia for the regulation of her blood sugar level . As regards the second applicant , in addition to the above - mentioned CARDINAL sentences , the report indicated that on DATE at a court hearing , the second applicant had asked for medical help . His blood pressure had been QUANTITY and could be stabilised following the intervention of the emergency services . The hearing had been postponed upon a doctor ’s advice . No medical documents were attached to the information report .

The CARDINAL - page report dated DATE indicated that the first applicant had finished her medical treatment with PERSON . The report also contained information relating to her blood pressure and sugar level . As regards the second applicant , the report contained the above - mentioned CARDINAL sentences . No medical documents were attached .

The reports dated DATE and DATE contained information relating to the first applicant ’s blood pressure and sugar level and indicated that on DATE the first applicant had refused to be examined by the doctors . On DATE she had been examined by ORG , at whose request she had been transferred to the medical department of ORG . As regards the second applicant , he had been examined by C.W on DATE . His blood pressure had been CARDINAL/CARDINAL mm Hg and he had been prescribed with the relevant medical treatment . On DATE he had been transferred to the medical department of ORG , where he had received the necessary medical treatment . Following this treatment , his blood pressure had lowered to CARDINAL PERSON . No medical documents were attached to the information report .

On an unspecified date the criminal investigation was completed and the applicants’ case was referred to ORG for trial .

On DATE it convicted and sentenced the applicants to CARDINAL and seven years’ imprisonment respectively .

On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against this judgment to ORG .

It appears from the information submitted by the Government that on an unspecified date the medical department of ORG requested ORG to change the second applicant ’s detention pending trial due to his emotional state and the possible repeat of hypertensive crisis . The Government did not provide the ORG with a copy of this request .

On DATE ORG granted the request and ordered the second applicant ’s release . The ORG was not provided with a copy of this decision .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and gave the applicants a conditional sentence of DATE imprisonment . The first applicant was released from the court .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE .

In DATE the applicant , his wife and CARDINAL children ( born in DATE and DATE ) settled in GPE . DATE the applicant held various managerial positions in NORP companies . He was also a co - owner and the president of the limited liability company L. , registered in GPE . That company was run by a director employed under contract .

On DATE the applicant sent a request to the official representative of ORG of GPE in GPE am PERSON enquiring whether certain business activities undertaken by the director of company PERSON had been lawful .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant was informed that ORG had not found any wrongdoing on the part of the director .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with a financial fraud allegedly committed by him in DATE . The investigator stated that the applicant , as co - owner and president of company L. , had concluded an agreement for the sale of a car , had received the payment from the purchaser , but had failed to supply the car ; the applicant was assisted by the director of that company who , allegedly , had not been aware of the applicant ’s malicious intent . The investigator found that the fraudulent actions of the applicant had been confirmed by both victim and witness statements and also by the documents examined . Among the persons testifying as witnesses concerning the specifics of the business and managerial relationships between the applicant and company PERSON , the investigator also questioned the applicant ’s mother , who stated that the applicant had not lived in GPE for DATE as he and his family had moved to GPE .

On DATE the investigator decided to put the applicant on the national list of wanted persons , stating that the latter had not lived at the registered place of his residence in GPE and his whereabouts were unknown .

In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE on personal business .

According to the applicant , on DATE , when he arrived at the migration service department in ORG to exchange his international travel passport for a new one , he was arrested and escorted to GPE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator in ORG of GPE in connection with the charges against him . The questioning session terminated at TIME in TIME . During the questioning the applicant stated , among other things , that he was temporarily unemployed .

At TIME on DATE the investigator , relying on ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) , decided to arrest the applicant for TIME on suspicion of having committed the crime . He drew up an arrest report citing LAW ORG concerning the grounds for arresting a person without a court order .

On DATE the ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ) considered the investigator ’s request to place the applicant in pre - trial detention . Relying on LAW , ORG found that before taking its decision concerning the application of a preventive measure , it needed to examine in more detail the personality of the applicant , his place of employment and residence , his family status and the risk of his absconding . The court therefore extended the applicant ’s preliminary detention to DATE .

On DATE the investigator instituted another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant and the director of company L. on the grounds that they had obtained a loan from a bank on the basis of forged documents and had later misappropriated these funds .

On DATE ORG again examined the investigator ’s request to detain the applicant in custody . During the hearing the applicant contended that before his arrest he had not been aware of the criminal proceedings or of the fact that he had been placed on the national list of wanted persons . He argued that the investigator had not served him with a summons . Having deliberated , the court found that there had been no evidence suggesting that the applicant might abscond from justice , obstruct the investigation or continue any criminal activity . It therefore released the applicant . The prosecutor appealed .

On DATE , the investigator ‒ relying on LAW ORG ‒ obtained from the applicant a written undertaking not to abscond from his registered place of residence in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the investigator , relying on LAW ORG , seized the applicant ’s old and new international travel passports .

On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor ’s appeal and upheld the decision of DATE , noting that no evidence had been presented concerning attempts by the applicant to abscond from justice and that the gravity of charges alone did not provide sufficient grounds for detaining the applicant in custody .

On DATE the applicant complained to the prosecutor on account of his unlawful arrest and detention and the violation of procedural rules by the investigator . He also stated that as a result of the procedural measures undertaken by the investigator he had not been able to see his wife and children , who lived outside GPE , nor to pursue his professional life . The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaint .

On DATE the applicant challenged before ORG the investigator ’s decisions to initiate criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim , finding that the available evidential material was not sufficient to give rise to criminal proceedings against the applicant . The prosecutor appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim , finding that the impugned decisions issued by the investigator were lawful . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the investigator closed both sets of criminal proceedings , finding that the charges against the applicant had not been proved and that there had been no corpus delicti . The preventive measure ( a written undertaking not to abscond ) was lifted .

On DATE the investigator returned the seized international travel passports to the applicant .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG issued a search warrant allowing the gendarmerie to conduct searches of public places and suspected persons in a designated area .

Late at TIME on DATE , the gendarmerie carried out a search at FAC , which is owned by the applicant . The records drawn up afterwards noted that during the course of the search , a certain GPE had approached the plain - clothes officers outside the hotel and told them that he had a girl inside . It was then established that GPE trafficked women . He and a woman in the hotel were both taken to the gendarmerie headquarters .

The search records , which were prepared TIME after the search and signed by the hotel ’s manager , showed that CARDINAL women of foreign nationalities had been staying at the hotel with some men and that they had all been taken to the gendarmerie headquarters .

On DATE the gendarmerie questioned several men as suspects and CARDINAL women as victims . They all confirmed that they had been staying at the hotel for prostitution purposes . Some of the women were asked whether they knew of any complicity between the traffickers and the management of ORG , to which they responded in the negative .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into the custody of the gendarmerie on suspicion of facilitating prostitution .

On DATE the applicant gave statements to the gendarmerie . He denied having provided premises for prostitution . He argued that he did not allow procurers into his hotel and had never seen GPE before .

On DATE , the gendarmerie also questioned the hotel ’s manager , who stated that both he and the applicant were very strict about keeping procurers out of their hotel .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued an indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons . He accused them of failure to obey an order from an official authority under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) in force at the time , on the ground that they had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels .

On DATE LAW ( Law no . PERSON ) and the new Code of Criminal Procedure ( PERSON no . CARDINAL ) entered into force .

On DATE ORG assessed the case without holding a hearing . Establishing that the accused had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels , it held that the applicant had failed to obey the orders of an official authority as charged and should be punished accordingly . It then sentenced him to an administrative fine of MONEY ( TRY ) pursuant to LAW of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) .

The applicant objected to that decision , arguing that his defence rights had been restricted in that the court had sentenced him to the fine solely on the basis of the statements taken previously by the police , and without hearing him in person . He maintained that he accepted clients into his hotel in compliance with the relevant regulation and that he could not be expected to refuse to offer accommodation to foreign nationals or to question their motives for staying there .

On DATE after examining the case on the basis of the case file , ORG upheld the decision of ORG . That decision was final .

On DATE an official letter was sent to the applicant . It was indicated on the envelope that the applicant was invited to a hearing concerning his case , which would be held on DATE . The envelope did not show any confirmation that the letter had been served on him .

The applicant ’s lawyer stated that he had received a copy of the final decision at the registry of ORG on DATE . In support of his claim , he submitted a copy of ORG decision , on which a lawyer working at his office had noted that he had been served with the copy in person on DATE . That document was later stamped and certified as an authentic copy by the registry of the domestic court .

Following communication of the present application , on DATE a public prosecutor prepared an assessment report , summarising the events in the case . He concluded that the final decision had been served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE both the applicant and the Government were asked under Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG to provide the ORG with a document indicating the notification date of the final decision by DATE at the latest . The parties did not respond to that request .

On DATE the Government were once again asked to provide documents regarding the commencement of the DATE timelimit , in particular the content of the envelope from ORG dated DATE and the document in support of the public prosecutor ’s claim that the final decision had been served on the applicant on DATE . On DATE the Government informed the ORG that they could not find the requested documents .


CASE OF VUGAR ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election)

NORP The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .

The applicants were nominated by the Karabakh Election Bloc as candidates in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE and applied for registration as candidates in various single - mandate electoral constituencies ( see Appendix ) .

As LAW required that each nomination as a candidate for parliamentary elections be supported by a minimum of CARDINAL voters , the applicants on various dates submitted sheets containing the signature of CARDINAL voters collected in support of their candidacy to their respective ORG ( “ ConECs ” ) .

NORP Before a decision by a ConEC on registering an applicant as a candidate , the signature sheets and the other registration documents submitted by the applicants had first to be verified by special working groups ( işçi qrupu ) established by the ConECs . None of the applicants were invited to participate in the examination of their sheets of signatures by the PERSON working groups .

The GPE on various dates ( see PERSON ) issued decisions to refuse the ORG requests for registration as a candidate , after the PERSON working groups had found that some of the voter signatures were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures had numbered CARDINAL . Signatures were found to be invalid on several grounds in each case , including : ( a ) falsified or repeat signatures ( “ signatures made repeatedly by the same individuals who had already signed sheets in the name of other individuals ” ) ; ( b ) incorrect personal information on voters ( birth date , identity card number , and so on ) ; ( c ) signatures by persons whose identity cards had expired ; ( d ) signatures belonging to voters registered outside the constituency ; ( e ) uncertified corrections in signature sheets ; ( f ) withdrawal by the signature collector of his or her own signature certifying a list , invalidating the entire list of CARDINAL signatures ; and ( g ) unspecified “ other grounds ” ; and so on .

None of the applicants were invited to the ConEC meetings where decisions to refuse their requests for registration were taken . In each case , despite the requirements of the law , all the relevant working group documents ( expert opinions , TIME of the meeting , records and tables of results of the examination ) , as well as the ConEC decision itself , were only made available to the applicants after the decision to refuse their registration had been taken . In many cases , some of the documents were never made available to the applicants or were only made available to them as late as during the subsequent judicial proceedings in ORG .

Each applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) against the PERSON decision . They made some or all of the following complaints :

( a ) the findings of the ConEC working groups that such large numbers of signatures were invalid had been factually wrong , unsubstantiated , and arbitrary . Some of those findings of fact could easily have been rebutted by simply contacting the voter in question and confirming the authenticity of his or her signature . However , the ConECs had not taken any steps to corroborate their findings with any reliable evidence , such as contacting and questioning a number of voters randomly selected from the group whose signatures were suspected of being false . There were no specialist handwriting experts among the members of the ConEC working groups and therefore their findings on the authenticity of some signatures had been highly subjective and arbitrary ;

( b ) the ConEC decisions to declare the signatures invalid had been arbitrary and in breach of the substantive and procedural requirements of the law . Relying on various provisions of LAW , the applicants argued that unintentional and rectifiable errors in the signature sheets could not serve as a reason to declare a voter signature invalid . If the errors found could be rectified by making the necessary corrections , LAW required the ConEC to notify the particular candidate of this within twentyfour TIME and to provide him or her with an opportunity to make corrections in the documents before deciding on his or her registration as a candidate . The ConECs had , however , declared large numbers of signatures invalid in the case of each applicant on the basis of easily rectifiable errors , without informing the candidates in advance and giving them an opportunity to make necessary corrections ;

( c ) the procedure followed by the ConECs had also breached other requirements of LAW . Contrary to the requirements of LAW , the applicants had not been informed in advance of the time and place of the examination of the signature sheets and their presence had not been ensured . Contrary to the requirements of LAW , the applicants had also not been provided with a copy of the minutes of the examination of the validity of the signature sheets CARDINAL prior to the PERSON meeting dealing with their respective requests for registration . Subsequently , none of the applicants had been invited to the ConEC meetings , which had deprived them of the opportunity to argue for their position ;

( d ) some of the grounds for invalidation were not provided by law and therefore to declare signatures invalid on these grounds had been unlawful . For example , LAW did not allow the invalidation of a signature merely because the voter ’s identity document had recently expired ;

( e ) in some cases , various local public officials and police officers had applied undue pressure on voters or signature collectors to “ withdraw ” their signatures on the grounds that they had been tricked to sign in the candidate ’s favour “ by deceptive means ” .

The ORG arranged for another examination of the signature sheets by members of its own working group . None of the applicants was invited to participate in that examination process . The ORG working group found in each case that large numbers of signatures were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures were below the minimum required by law .

NORP In each case , the number of signatures found to be invalid by the ORG working group differed from the number given by the particular ConEC working group , with differences often being significant . Furthermore , in almost every case the grounds for declaring signatures invalid given by the ORG had been different from the grounds given for the same signature sheets by the ConEC . In most cases a certain number of the total signatures were also declared invalid on the grounds that they had “ appeared ” to have been falsified , that is , “ made by the same person in the name of other people ” ( “ ehtimal ki , eyni şəxs tərəfindən icra olunmuşdur ” ) .

On various dates , the ORG rejected the ORG complaints ( see Appendix ) . None of the applicants were invited to attend the ORG meeting dealing with their complaint . Moreover , in each case , all the relevant ORG documents ( including the working group documents ) were only made available to the applicants after the ORG decision had been taken , while in some cases such documents were never given to them at all , or were given as late as at the stage of judicial appeal proceedings .

On various dates , each of the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against the decisions of the electoral commissions . They reiterated the complaints they had made before the ORG concerning the ConEC decisions and procedures . They also raised some or all of the following complaints concerning the ORG ’s decisions and procedures :

( a ) NORP contrary to the requirements of electoral law , the ORG had failed to notify them of its meetings and ensure their presence during the examination of the signature sheets and their complaints ;

( b ) NORP contrary to the requirements of electoral law , some or all of the relevant ORG documents had not been made available to them , depriving them of the opportunity to mount an effective challenge to the ORG decisions ;

( c ) the decisions of the electoral commissions had been based on expert opinions that had contained nothing more than conjecture and speculation ( for example , that the signatures had “ appeared ” ( “ ehtimal ki ” ) to have been falsified ) , instead of properly established facts ;

( d ) in those cases where the applicants had submitted additional documents in support of their complaints , the ORG had ignored those submissions and failed to take them into account .

Relying on a number of provisions of domestic law , and directly on LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , the applicants claimed that their right to stand for election had been infringed .

On various dates ( see Appendix ) , ORG dismissed appeals by the applicants , finding that their arguments were irrelevant or unsubstantiated and that there were no grounds for quashing the decisions of the ORG .

The applicants lodged cassation appeals with ORG , reiterating their previous complaints and arguing that ORG had not carried out a fair examination of the cases and had delivered unreasoned judgments .

On various dates ( see Appendix ) , ORG dismissed the ORG appeals as unsubstantiated , without examining their arguments in detail , and found no grounds to doubt the findings of the electoral commissions or of ORG .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the rape of a girl , who was also a minor .

On DATE the ORG of GPE remanded him in custody . He remained in pre - trial detention pending investigation and trial on the grounds that he was accused of a serious crime , might reoffend , abscond , destroy evidence , threaten witnesses , or interfere with the investigation .

On DATE ORG of GPE found him guilty as charged .

On DATE the applicant , acting for himself , submitted his first letter to ORG .

On DATE and DATE he provided CARDINAL powers of attorney authorising Mr GPE , one of his cellmates , to represent him before the ORG .


CASE OF GAHRAMANLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

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

The applicants stood as candidates for the opposition parties in the parliamentary elections of DATE in the single - mandate ORG No . CARDINAL . Mr PERSON was nominated by the coalition of ORG and PERSON parties , Mr PERSON by ORG and Mr PERSON by the PERSON electoral bloc .

The constituency was divided into CARDINAL electoral precincts , with CARDINAL polling station in each precinct . It is apparent that there were a total of CARDINAL candidates running for election in the constituency .

According to the official election results , PERSON , the candidate nominated by the ruling ORG , won the election with CARDINAL votes . Mr PERSON finished second with CARDINAL votes , PERSON PERSON third with CARDINAL votes and Mr PERSON last with CARDINAL votes .

On DATE the applicants , together with CARDINAL other candidate , jointly lodged nearly identical complaints with ORG ( the “ ConEC ” ) and ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) . They complained that the election results had not reflected the true opinion of the voters because there had been numerous instances of electoral fraud and irregularities on DATE , and they requested the annulment of the election results in their constituency . They alleged that :

( a ) In all the constituency polling stations , employees of ORG and people affiliated with Mr PERSON had , in an organised manner , brought a number of persons not registered as voters into constituency polling stations to cast voting ballots ;

( b ) There had been instances of ballot - stuffing in numerous polling stations ;

( c ) The number of ballots cast in all the polling stations had been CARDINAL times higher than the number of voters who had come to cast votes in all the polling stations ;

( d ) In CARDINAL polling station , observers and consultative members of precinct electoral commissions ( “ PECs ” ) ( commission members with no voting rights ) had been prevented from participating in the vote - counting process .

The applicants also requested that their presence be ensured at the commission hearings concerning their complaints .

NORP In support of their allegations , the applicants submitted to the electoral commissions CARDINAL statements ( akt ) made by election observers documenting specific instances of the irregularities complained of .

The applicants submitted copies of CARDINAL of the abovementioned statements to the ORG concerning alleged irregularities in ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . Some examples of those statements are summarised below .

CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL claimed to have witnessed an incident of ballot - box stuffing by CARDINAL ORG members . They noted that , although CARDINAL voters had been counted throughout DATE , a total of CARDINAL ballots had been found in the ballot box and officially counted .

Three observers in Polling Station no . CARDINAL witnessed an incident where the ORG chairman had given a stack of several pre - marked ballots to a voter , who then accidentally dropped them on the floor near the ballot box . Despite this , the ballots were gathered up and put into the ballot box in plain view of all those present . In a separate statement , the same CARDINAL observers noted CARDINAL other incidents of similar ballot - box stuffing allegedly initiated by the ORG chairman .

CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL noted that , although a total of only CARDINAL voters had been counted throughout DATE , the number of ballots found inside the ballot box at DATE had exceeded CARDINAL .

CARDINAL consultative member of the ORG and CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL noted that they had been prevented from standing at a place where they could observe , in an unobstructed manner , the checking of voters’ forefingers for election ink . This had presumably been done by persons in charge in the precinct ,

CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL noted that , although a total of only CARDINAL voters had been counted throughout DATE , CARDINAL ballots had been found in the ballot box . The ballot box contained clumps of ballots , suggesting that ballot - box stuffing had taken place .

Observers in a number of other polling stations had also noted similarly significant differences between the numbers of ballots in the ballot boxes and the numbers of voters who had been observed casting votes throughout DATE .

According to the applicants , they did not receive any reply from the ConEC and their complaint had been examined by the ORG only .

On DATE the ORG extended the statutory DATE period for examining the complaint for an indefinite period of time , noting that “ additional enquiries ” were required .

On DATE , GPE , the member of the ORG ’s expert group who had been charged with dealing with the complaint delivered his opinion , stating that the complaint should be dismissed as unsubstantiated .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the text of which was essentially a repetition of the opinion delivered by the expert GPE , the ORG dismissed the ORG complaint as unsubstantiated . It appears that the applicants were not present at the ORG hearing .

In its decision , the ORG noted that the applicants should first have taken their complaints to the relevant PECs . They could then have appealed against the decisions of the various PECs to the CARDINAL , and only then should they have complained to the ORG , whereas ‒ in breach of the above procedure ‒ they had applied directly to the ORG . The ORG nevertheless decided to examine the complaint on the merits .

As to the merits of the complaint , the ORG found , in particular , that “ the majority of the ORG statements [ as submitted by the applicants ] were of a general character and did not reflect the principle that an observation must be based on fact ” . It furthermore found that a number of the statements contained an assessment of the alleged irregularity based solely on ORG “ subjective opinions ” . As an example of this , the ORG mentioned the statement of CARDINAL observers from ORG no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , the ORG noted that the information in the ORG statements which the applicants submitted ‒ of which there were CARDINAL ‒ was refuted by the statements of CARDINAL other observers from “ all CARDINAL polling stations ” who had not registered any breaches of electoral law that could affect the election results . According to the ORG , some of those observers represented the opposition . In particular , the ORG mentioned the names of a number of observers from ORG . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE who , according to the ORG , “ had confirmed that no breaches of the electoral legislation had been observed ” . Moreover , the ORG noted that ORG members in all the polling stations had stated that , on DATE , they had not received any statements or complaints by any observer or candidate concerning any election irregularities and that the election process in their respective polling stations had been lawful and conducted under adequate conditions .

In conclusion , the ORG found that the examination of the written evidence refuted the allegations made by the applicants and that no grounds for invalidating the election results could be established .

On DATE the applicants , together with CARDINAL other candidate , lodged an appeal against the ORG decision with ORG . In the appeal , they reiterated the complaints made to the ORG about the alleged irregularities on DATE . They also complained that ‒ contrary to the requirements of LAW of LAW ‒ their presence at the ORG hearing had not been ensured and that the ORG had deliberately not investigated the serious allegations of electoral fraud and irregularities .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal , mostly reiterating the ORG ’s reasoning . In particular , it noted that the applicants and their observers had not immediately complained of the alleged irregularities directly to the relevant PECs on DATE . It furthermore found that the ORG had properly investigated the allegations and had found that they had been refuted by a number of other observers representing various political parties , including opposition parties , who had stated that no serious irregularities had taken place in any polling station .

A copy of ORG judgment was made available to the applicants on DATE .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG had sent its final election results record and other relevant documents for review and final approval by ORG . On DATE ORG confirmed the country - wide election results , including the election results in the applicants’ constituency , as final .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG judgment . They reiterated the complaints and arguments raised before the ORG and ORG . They also complained of the following :

( a ) as to the ORG ’s and the appellate court ’s remark that the irregularities allegedly observed on DATE had not been communicated to the PECs immediately on DATE , the applicants noted that it had been precisely the conduct of the PECs ‒ which had created a hostile environment for opposition observers and had themselves been largely responsible for those irregularities ‒ that had made it impossible or difficult for the applicants and their observers to attempt to deal with the irregularities at the ORG level ;

( b ) NORP both the ORG and ORG had given more weight to the statements of pro - Government observers , which had assessed the election process positively , than to those of the applicants’ observers . The ORG and ORG did not explain the reasons for doing so . Moreover , while the ORG noted that positive statements about the conduct of the election had been made even by some observers from opposition parties , the applicants claimed the ORG had simply fabricated the existence of such statements by purported pro - opposition observers .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , agreeing with the lower court ’s reasoning . It also added that the ORG appeal and ORG judgment had to be assessed in the light of LAW of the PERSON on ORG , which stated that ORG decisions were final and could not be subject to quashing , amendment or official interpretation by any authority or person . In this regard , ORG reasoned as follows :

“ The results of the [ parliamentary ] elections of DATE were recognised as valid by [ the ORG ’s ] election results record of CARDINAL DATE and the candidates elected as members of parliament from all CARDINAL electoral constituencies were determined .

The aforementioned results record was approved by the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , and [ on the same date ] the final election results record , together with the [ ConEC ] results records and additional documents , were submitted to ORG for verification and approval of the election results .

By a decision of the ORG of ORG on the results of the [ parliamentary ] elections of DATE ... , dated DATE , the ORG ’s final results record of CARDINAL DATE was deemed compliant with the requirements of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , and the election results concerning CARDINAL electoral constituencies , including ORG no . CARDINAL , were approved , that decision becoming final at the moment of its delivery .

It follows from that decision that ORG did not establish any circumstances that may have taken place during the voting or the determination of the election results that could have prevented the establishing of the will of the voters in ORG no . CARDINAL .

Taking into account the fact that the aforementioned decision [ of ORG ] is final and not subject to quashing , amendment or official interpretation by any authority or person , the court considers that the judgment of the appellate court [ dismissing the ORG complaints ] must be upheld . ”


CASE OF BARTKUS AND KULIKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations)

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE and the second applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

NORP In DATE the first applicant bought a house at an auction organised by the ORG and registered his property rights in ORG . At the time , the former owners of the house , GPE and his wife PERSON , were living there . The auction was organised as a result of a debt of GPE

NORP In DATE the first applicant lodged a claim with the court , asking to evict GPE and PERSON and for an award in respect of pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG held that the first applicant was the lawful owner of the house and that GPE and PERSON were unlawfully occupying the LOC . The court held that GPE and PERSON had to be evicted and decided to award the applicant CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – MONEY ( ORG ) ) for DATE from DATE until the eviction of GPE and PERSON from the house . It appears that by DATE ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been recovered from GPE and PERSON and paid to the first and the second applicants , the remaining amount to be paid being ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution and on DATE it was received by the bailiff ’s office .

On DATE the bailiff sent a letter to GPE and PERSON and asked them to vacate the house , the letter was received by GPE on DATE .

In DATE PERSON lodged a complaint against the bailiff but on DATE ORG dismissed it . PERSON then lodged a separate complaint which was also dismissed by ORG on DATE .

NORP In DATE the first applicant asked the bailiff to ensure that the police were present during the forced eviction ; to ensure that the access to the house was not impeded by the dog ; the first applicant also asked the bailiff to get the information from ORG because GPE claimed that his minor granddaughter had been living in the house . The first applicant also asked the police to oblige the residents of the house to terminate their unlawful actions ; to oblige them to remove their dog from the area ; to warn the unlawful residents of the house of their responsibility for material damage and to fine them .

NORP In DATE the bailiff asked the authorities about the permanent place of residence of GPE ’s granddaughter . The authorities stated that GPE ’s daughter and granddaughter were living together in GPE . This was later confirmed by PERSON ’s daughter herself .

On DATE the bailiff informed GPE and PERSON that the eviction would take place on DATE . On DATE PERSON asked the bailiff to suspend the eviction because PERSON was ill . At first the bailiff refused to suspend the enforcement action but on DATE , after having received medical documents about PERSON ’s state of health , he postponed the eviction until DATE .

On DATE PERSON lodged a complaint against the bailiff , also asking the court to apply interim measures – to suspend the eviction proceedings owing to ORG illness and the presence of his minor granddaughter in the house . On DATE the ORG decided to apply interim measures and to suspend the eviction proceedings until the complaint against the bailiff was examined .

The complaint against the bailiff was examined on DATE by ORG , which decided to dismiss PERSON ’s complaint . The court held that the writ of execution had been issued on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that the bailiff had urged GPE and PERSON to vacate the house before CARDINAL DATE ; thus he had given them DATE . The court further held that GPE had complained about the bailiff ’s eviction notice about the forced eviction but had also asked that the execution proceedings be suspended and the eviction postponed . The court held that GPE had already asked the bailiff to suspend the eviction but the bailiff had refused to satisfy this request . The court also stated that PERSON had complained about the bailiff ’s eviction notice of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The bailiff had informed the animal shelter , the police and ORG ; he had thus acted in accordance with domestic law . The court decided to annul the interim measures applied by the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Z.B. submitted a separate complaint against the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , complaining that the court had made a purely formalistic assessment of his minor granddaughter ’s living arrangements in the house and that it had not commented on the fact that the bailiff had ignored his wife ’s illness . On DATE ORG held that the illness of PERSON had not come on suddenly , that there were no minors living in the house and that there were no grounds to suspend the execution of the eviction order .

The bailiff submitted a separate complaint against the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the bailiff ’s complaint holding that PERSON ’s illness had been grounds to suspend the eviction proceedings .

On DATE the bailiff informed GPE and PERSON that the eviction would take place on DATE . On that day PERSON stated that his mother was living in the house and , because she was not on the list of persons who could be evicted , the eviction could not take place . The bailiff decided to suspend the eviction .

On DATE lodged a complaint with the court , stating that the bailiff ’s actions had been arbitrary and asking to remove him from the case . This complaint was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the bailiff about the latter ’s inactivity on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant claimed that the bailiff had to enter the house and evict PERSON and PERSON by force and that GPE ’s mother had to be taken care of by the police or other relevant authorities .

On CARDINAL DATE the bailiff decided not to satisfy the first applicant ’s complaint . The bailiff held that he could only evict those persons that were listed on the writ of execution , and GPE ’s mother was not CARDINAL of them . The bailiff agreed with the first applicant that GPE had been avoiding the eviction but stated that he had tried to defend the first applicant ’s interests by suggesting to the latter to apply to ORG so that it broadened the list of persons to be evicted .

The first applicant then lodged a complaint before ORG , complaining about the bailiff ’s inactivity .

On DATE the first applicant sold the house to the second applicant .

Consequently , on DATE ORG replaced the first applicant with the second applicant in the proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG satisfied the second applicant ’s complaint . The court held that when the execution actions had been protracted , the interests of a creditor had been breached , and thus the main role in the execution proceedings had been played by the bailiff . Only the persons listed on the writ of execution could be evicted , and any other persons were considered to be only temporarily present and had to immediately leave the LOC . Only the court and not the bailiff could postpone the eviction . The court held that the bailiff had failed to perform the execution of the eviction properly and that he had had no grounds to suspend or postpone the execution . The court thus annulled the bailiff ’s order of DATE to suspend the eviction and the order of CARDINAL DATE by which the bailiff dismissed the first applicant ’s complaint ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

Z.B. submitted a separate complaint . On DATE ORG dismissed it .

On DATE the bailiff issued an order for forced eviction .

On DATE the forced eviction took place , with the participation of the bailiff , the locksmith and CARDINAL police officers . However , GPE and PERSON did not participate in it and when the second applicant entered the house , all their furniture and other belongings were still there . DATE , the bailiff drew up a document by which the second applicant was assigned as the property manager of the goods that had been left in the house and that had been seized .

NORP In DATE PERSON lodged a complaint against the bailiff regarding the forced eviction . On DATE ORG held that the eviction had been lawful and that the bailiff had acted in accordance with domestic law .

Z.B. submitted a separate complaint , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

The Government submitted that on DATE the bailiff ordered GPE and PERSON to collect their goods that had not been seized ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) from the house on DATE at the latest . As this order had not been executed , on DATE the bailiff issued a property - seizure order with the aim of selling the goods off .

Z.B. and ORG lodged a complaint in respect of the bailiff ’s decision to issue the property - seizure order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed their complaint , holding that in accordance with domestic law the evicted person had to take his or her property . If he or she failed to collect the property within DATE from the date when it had been transferred to the property manager , it could be sold and the income given to the debtor . In the present case , the second applicant had become the property manager on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the property seizure act had been drawn up on DATE , and the property had to be taken by GPE and PERSON before DATE . After this date the sale of the property would become lawful .

On DATE and DATE the bailiff announced a public auction concerning the movable property of GPE and PERSON It was also suggested to the NORP representative that they could approach the second applicant and take back their property that had not been seized .

Z.B. applied to ORG to have interim measures applied to prevent the bailiff from selling their movable property . PERSON explained that he wanted either to lodge a complaint against the bailiff in accordance with the out - of - court settlement procedure or to lodge a claim with the court . GPE ’s application was accepted by ORG on DATE . PERSON was also instructed to lodge any such complaint against the bailiff under the out - of - court settlement procedure or a claim with the court before the deadline of DATE and to pay the applicable court fees . According to the Government , GPE failed to pay the court fees , and the interim measures were therefore annulled on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected another complaint lodged by GPE against the bailiff , the second applicant and third parties regarding the annulment of the negative consequences caused by the unlawful actions of the bailiff and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court stated that PERSON had asked it to rule that some personal belongings could not be sold at auction . The court held that GPE and PERSON had not taken advantage of the opportunity to name buyers who might have had an interest in taking part in the auction that had been subsequently carried out . PERSON had failed to explain why he had not taken his belongings within the threemonth time - limit ; moreover , he had not even provided a description of his alleged personal belongings . The court therefore dismissed PERSON ’s complaint .

On DATE PERSON lodged an application for interim measures , asking to prohibit the use of the house and other buildings in the garden and complaining of the result of the auction DATE the first applicant purchasing the house ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) DATE and asking for the result of the auction and the purchase agreement to be annulled .

On DATE this application was dismissed by ORG and on DATE by ORG .

G.B. lodged another application for interim measures , complaining of the results of the auction . Her application for interim measures was dismissed by ORG on DATE and her complaint about the result of the auction was dismissed by ORG on DATE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention .