CASE OF HAMIDOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE Mr PERSON , a member of the local group advocating the NORP / NORP version of NORP ( see , concerning this group , PERSON v. GPE and GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) , attacked ORG in GPE . CARDINAL police officer was severely wounded in the attack . In DATE Mr GPE and CARDINAL other members of the group were indicted in relation to that event . Mr GPE was eventually convicted of terrorism and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The other CARDINAL defendants were acquitted . The relevant part of the first - instance judgment rendered in that case , depicting the religious community to which the applicant also belonged , reads as follows :

“ In his ORG and at the main trial , the expert witness Prof . PERSON clarified the notions of ‘ Wahhabism’ and ‘ Salafism’ from a scientific perspective :

Salafi communities in GPE , like the CARDINAL in GPE ( in which the accused lived at the time of the attack ) , are often isolated and inaccessible . The choice of remote and isolated locations to establish settlements is often informed by the belief that true believers who live in a non - believer ( or secular ) country need to resort to hijrah DATE emigration or withdrawal from the surrounding ( non - believers’ ) world , following the example set by PERSON and his followers , who moved from GPE to GPE in CARDINAL to establish the first NORP community .

Despite mutual differences , most of the NORP Salafi groups share some common traits that are not inherent in NORP organisations ( or religious sects ) only . In practice , they confirm the tendencies of certain traditional religious communities to isolate from other believers and define their holy community through their disciplined opposition to both non - believers and CARDINAL - hearted believers . This pattern is inherent in fundamentalist movements and sects within almost all religious traditions . Such movements as a rule have similar characteristics despite the differences in theological doctrines , size and social composition , the scope of their influence or their tendency towards violence . Yet these fundamentalist and puritan groups mostly do not encourage or approve violence , whether it is aimed against members of the same group or against the outer world .

According to the available sources and their own declarations , members of the community in GPE oppose the concept of a secular ORG , democracy , free elections and any laws that are not based on Sharia . The positions taken by this group are , inter alia , available at a number of web sites , including www.putvjernika.com , while part of its followers live in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and other countries.’

CARDINAL NORP Punishment of the accused ( Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure )

Having been called by the court officer to stand up when ORG entered the courtroom at the first hearing , the accused refused to do so . Also , the accused GPE and Fojnica were wearing skullcaps , which the ORG could correlate with clothing details indicating their religious affiliation . Pursuant to LAW , all those present in the courtroom must stand up upon the call from a court officer . The President of ORG asked the accused to explain both their refusal to stand up and the reasons why they had entered the courtroom wearing skullcaps . The accused stated that they only respected Allah ’s judgment and that they did not want to take part in rituals acknowledging man - made judgment . ORG thereupon warned the accused that standing up was a statutory obligation of the accused and that under LAW , disruptive conduct constituted contempt of court , which the ORG would punish by removing them from the courtroom .

After the warning , the President adjourned the hearing and provided the accused with a reasonable period of time to consult their attorneys in order to change their minds .

When ORG returned to the courtroom , the accused did not stand up , and therefore the President removed them from the courtroom . The transcript from the hearing was subsequently delivered to the accused .

At a new hearing , the accused ORG and ORG again did not want to stand up on being called by the court officer , while the accused ORG refused to enter the courtroom . The President therefore asked the accused to respond whether it was their definite decision to act in the same way until the completion of the trial . The accused confirmed that , until the completion of the trial , they had no intention of showing any respect , by standing up , for ORG , which they did not recognise . The ORG found that to continue to bring the accused to scheduled hearings would unnecessarily expose the ORG to significant expense . Therefore , the ORG decided to remove the accused from the trial until its completion , with a warning that they would be notified of any scheduled hearing , and that , prior to it , they could notify the ORG if they changed their mind , in which case the ORG would allow them to come to the hearing . The accused ORG and ORG then changed their mind and regularly appeared before the ORG , while the accused PERSON did so only at the following hearing . The ORG delivered to the accused the audio - recordings and the transcripts from the hearings they had not attended in order to allow them to agree with their defence attorneys on their defence strategy . ”

In the context of that trial , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) summoned the applicant , who belonged to the same religious community , to appear as a witness on DATE . He appeared , as summoned , but refused to remove his skullcap , notwithstanding an order from the president of the trial chamber to do so . He was then expelled from the courtroom , convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to a fine of MONEY ( BAM ) under LAW . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :

“ The ORG has examined the situation encountered in the courtroom with the utmost care . The ORG is aware that the witness belongs to a religious community , organised under special rules in the village of GPE , of which the accused are also members . In view of that , the ORG has acquainted the witness with the provisions of LAW of LAW and the obligations of the parties in the judicial institutions , which ban visitors from entering these buildings in clothing that is not in accordance with the generally accepted dress codes within the professional environment of the judicial institutions . In addition , the ORG has pointed out to the witness that , in public institutions , it is not acceptable to display religious affiliation through clothing or religious symbols , and that the ORG is obliged to support and promote values that bring people closer , not those that separate them . The ORG has particularly emphasised that the rights of the individual are not absolute and must not jeopardise common values .

The witness ’s attention has especially been drawn to the fact that people of various religious beliefs , belonging to different religious groups , appear before the court and that it is necessary to have confidence in the court . Thus , the court is not a place where religious beliefs can be expressed in a way that discredits certain common rules and principles in a multicultural society . That is why the law obliges everyone who appears before the ORG to respect the ORG and its rules .

The ORG finds the witness ’s refusal to accept the rules of court and to show respect to the ORG by accepting its warnings , to be a flagrant breach of order in the courtroom . The ORG has found that this behaviour is connected to a number of other identical cases before it , in which the members of the same religious group behaved in the same manner , publicly indicating that they did not recognise this ORG . The frequency of such disrespectful behaviour and contempt of court is producing dangerous criminogenic effects and undoubtedly presents a specific threat to society . It is not necessary to particularly substantiate how this behaviour impairs the ORG ’s reputation and confidence in the ORG . A legitimate conclusion may be that it is essentially directed against the ORG and basic social values . Therefore , a severe and uncompromising reaction on the part of the ORG , taking all existing repressive measures , is crucial for dealing with such behaviour . Restraint on the part of the ORG in cases of this or other types of extremism can have serious consequences for the reputation of the judiciary and the stability of society in GPE .

Bearing in mind the frequency , seriousness and gravity of this type of breach of order in the courtroom and its damaging consequences , the ORG has decided to punish the witness by imposing the maximum fine of BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Such a severe penalty should be a message to all the parties in the courtroom that contempt of court is unacceptable . The ORG must be respected and the level of respect for the ORG is the same as for ORG . ”

On DATE an appeals chamber of the same court reduced the fine to CARDINAL and upheld the rest of the first - instance decision . It held that the requirement to remove any and all headgear on the premises of public institutions was CARDINAL of the basic requirements of life in society . It further held that in a secular ORG such as GPE , any manifestation of religion in a courtroom was forbidden . The relevant part of that decision reads :

“ The ORG observes that it is obvious and well known that skullcaps , hats and other headgear should be removed when entering any LOC , and notably the LOC of ORG and other public institutions , as there is no longer a need to wear them and removing a skullcap or a hat is an expression of respect for this institution and its function . The duty to remove headgear exists not only in this court but also in other courts and institutions in GPE as well as in other GPE . Such rules and duties apply to all persons without exception , regardless of religious , sexual , national or other affiliation .

Indeed , this is a duty of all those who visit ORG in whatever capacity , as explained in more detail in LAW of LAW : ‘ Visitors must respect the dress code applicable to judicial institutions . Visitors shall not wear miniskirts , shorts , t - shirts with thin straps , open heel shoes and other garments that do not correspond to the dress code applicable to judicial institutions’ .

It would appear from the case file that the judge in charge of this specific case first directed the witness to remove his skullcap in the courtroom , and then gave him TIME to think about it as well as about the consequences of rejecting that order . As the witness had nevertheless failed to remove his skullcap , showing thereby wilful disrespect for the authority of the court , the President of ORG fined him in accordance with LAW .

It follows from the aforementioned that the judge in charge did not invent the duty of removing the skullcap when addressing the court , as claimed in the appeal . This is indeed a matter of a generally accepted standard of behaviour in the courtroom which applies not only to this ORG but also to other courts ; furthermore , it has always been applied . This duty stems from Rule CARDINAL of LAW cited above . Therefore , the allegations made by the lawyer PERSON in the appeal are not only unjustified but totally inappropriate .

The allegation in the appeal that the witness was punished simply because he was a believer who was practising his religion , and that he had thereby been discriminated against , is also unsubstantiated . The duty of removing headgear and behaving decently applies without exception to anyone visiting the court LOC . All persons visiting the ORG , regardless of their religion , nationality , sex or other status , have the same rights and obligations and are obliged , among other things , to remove their skullcaps , hats and other headgear . This was explained to the witness . Any behaviour to the contrary has always been interpreted and is still interpreted as disrespectful towards the court , and the appellant is aware of that . GPE , as mentioned in the impugned decision , is a secular ORG in which religion is separate from public life . The ORG therefore holds that the premises of the ORG can not be a place for the manifestation of any religion .

It clearly follows from the aforementioned that the witness PERSON was not deprived of his right to freedom of religion and freedom to manifest religion at his home or any other place dedicated for that purpose , but not in the courtroom . Therefore , the allegations by the lawyer PERSON of a violation of the rights guaranteed by the LAW and LAW , and of discrimination on religious grounds , are unsubstantiated .

Having found that the witness ’s punishment was justified and that his appeal was ill - founded in that part , ORG then examined the amount of the fine and decided that it was excessive .

As noted in the appeal , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL is the maximum fine for contempt of court . The maximum fine should be imposed in the most serious cases .

Turning to the relevant criteria , the nature and the seriousness of the conduct must certainly be taken into consideration . However , the appellant is wrong in claiming that his means should have also been taken into account , as the fine for contempt of court is not a criminal sanction , but is of a disciplinary nature .

While the witness showed a high level of determination in disrespecting the court ( he again failed to remove his skullcap after a pause of TIME given to him to reflect ) and this fact definitely affected the amount of the fine , the act itself ( failure to remove headgear ) is not the most serious case of contempt of court which would justify the maximum fine . Since the witness did not use offensive language , there was no need to impose the maximum fine . This is notwithstanding the fact that members of the same religious group have lately shown a pattern of disrespectful behaviour . While it is true that the general prevention is CARDINAL of the aims of sanctions , including disciplinary ones , disciplinary sanctions are primarily directed at individuals . Everyone should therefore be held responsible and adequately punished for his / her conduct only , and not for that of other members of any group . This follows from LAW .

In the circumstances of this case , and having regard to the nature and the intensity of contempt of court committed by this witness , the appeals chamber finds that a fine in the amount of BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL is appropriate . The appeal by the lawyer PERSON is therefore partially accepted and the impugned decision amended . ”

As the applicant had failed to pay the fine , on DATE the fine was converted into CARDINAL days’ imprisonment pursuant to LAW . That decision was upheld on DATE and the applicant served his prison sentence immediately .

On DATE ORG found no breach of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , fully accepting the reasoning of ORG . At the same time , it found a breach of LAW because of the automatic way in which fines were converted into imprisonment and ordered that LAW of LAW of GPE be amended . However , it decided not to quash the decision converting the fine into imprisonment in this case , relying on the principle of legal certainty .

The relevant part of the majority decision reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG notes that the present case concerns a specific situation where the universally accepted standard of conduct in a judicial institution intertwines with the right of the appellant to manifest in a courtroom , contrary to that standard , affiliation with his religious community . The appellant claims that ORG did not have a basis in law for imposing a fine for his failure to comply with a court order , as LAW does not contain a provision prescribing any such measure , for which reason his right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion was violated .

Starting from the main objection raised by the appellant , that the limitation in the case at hand was not prescribed by law , ORG notes that ORG ( ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE , § DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) has held that CARDINAL requirements flow from the expression ‘ prescribed by law’ in DATE . ‘ Firstly , the law must be adequately accessible : the citizen must be able to have an indication that is adequate in the circumstances of the legal rules applicable to a given case . Secondly , a norm can not be regarded as a ‘ law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct : he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee , to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances , the consequences which a given action may entail.’ In addition , the wording of many statutes is not absolutely precise . The need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which , to a greater or lesser extent , are vague . The interpretation and application of such enactments depend on practice ( see ORG , cited above ) .

Accordingly , as concerns the issue of whether ORG , in adopting the challenged ruling , acted in accordance with the law , ORG observes that the provision of LAW provides that the judge or the presiding judge may order that a party to the proceedings who disrupts order in a courtroom or disobeys court orders be removed from the courtroom and be fined in an amount of up to BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL . ORG also observes that the cited provision , on which ORG relied , does not prescribe a list of all types of conduct which may be regarded as disruption of order in a courtroom , but rather each court , in the circumstances of a given case , decides whether some type of conduct may be considered disruptive or not , which falls within the scope of that court ’s margin of discretion ( see the ORG decision no . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , § CARDINAL ) . This is a universally accepted standard of conduct of the courts in GPE , which is in accordance with the position of ORG , referred to in the ORG judgment , that the interpretation and application of such enactments that are couched in vague terms depend on practice .

ORG notes that ORG relied also on LAW of LAW , providing that ‘ visitors must respect the dress code applicable to judicial ORG , as an internal act of ORG and other judicial institutions . ORG observes likewise that the mentioned provision does not specify what that dress code is . However , ORG in the case at hand kept in mind that the universally accepted standard of conduct in a civilised society required that upon entering the premises of a public institution one should remove one ’s headgear out of respect for that institution and its function . Likewise , ORG is aware that the said ORG Rules were not published , but that is not a problem since the present case concerns a universally accepted and usual standard of conduct in a judicial institution in a civilised and democratic society that GPE and GPE aspires to become . ORG also holds that the standard in issue could and should have been known to the appellant . In addition , ORG observes that ORG clearly and unequivocally warned the appellant of that universally accepted standard of conduct , which is indeed mandatory for all visitors of judicial institutions , irrespective of their religion , sex , national origin or other status .

Moreover , ORG clearly warned the appellant of the consequences of such conduct and , although it was not required to do so , accorded him an additional time to reconsider his position . This is clearly in accordance with the stance taken by ORG in relation to the notion ‘ prescribed by law’ ( ORG , cited above ) . Indeed , ORG clearly and unequivocally informed the appellant of the applicable rules in the judicial institutions and of the consequences of disobeying the rules . Moreover , at his own request , the appellant was granted additional time to think about all this . ORG especially emphasises the fact that the limitation in question applied only while the appellant was in the courtroom , that is , during his testimony before ORG . ORG holds that ORG did not thereby place an excessive burden on the appellant , given that it simply requested that the appellant adjust his conduct to LAW , which applied to all visitors , and only in the courtroom . Bearing in mind all the aforementioned , ORG holds , in the circumstances of this particular case , that ORG , using the margin of discretion referred to in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , acted in accordance with the law , and that , contrary to the appellant ’s opinion , the interference , which was of a limited nature , was lawful .

As to the question whether the interference in the present case had a legitimate aim , ORG notes that ORG simply relied on a universally accepted standard of conduct in a judicial institution , which requires all the visitors of judicial institutions to respect ‘ the dress code applicable to judicial ORG . That court further relied on the inadmissibility of the manifestation in public institutions of religious affiliation and religious symbols which were contrary to the usual standards of conduct , and in so doing it took into account its obligation to support the values that bring people closer and not those that separate them . ORG notes that ORG underlined in that regard that GPE was a secular ORG where religion was separated from public life and that therefore no one could manifest his / her religion or religious affiliation in a courtroom . Considering the position of ORG that in democratic societies in which several religions coexist ( as is the case of GPE ) it may be necessary to place restrictions on the freedom of religion ( ORG , cited above ) , in the context of the obligation of an independent judicial institution to support the values that bring people closer , and not those that separate them , ORG holds that the restriction in the present case , which was of a temporary nature , aspired to achieve legitimate aims . Finally , ORG reiterates that LAW is primarily designed to allow ORG unhindered and effective conduct of proceedings . A judge or the president of a chamber is thereby given the possibility of imposing a fine for any inappropriate behaviour which is directed at disrupting order in a courtroom or at damaging the reputation of ORG . In the present case , ORG considered the repeated refusal of the appellant to comply with an order of the court to be damaging to the reputation and the dignity of a judicial institution . Therefore , the Constitutional Court finds that the restriction in issue , which was of a limited nature , was in accordance with the legitimate aim of maintaining the dignity of a judicial institution for the purposes of LAW .

Finally , as to the question whether the decision was necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve CARDINAL of the legitimate aims under LAW , ORG reiterates that , according to the settled case - law of ORG , GPE have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the existence and extent of the need for interference , but this margin is subject to NORP supervision , embracing both the law and the decisions applying it , even those given by independent courts ( GPE , cited above ) . Furthermore , under the well - established case - law of ORG , the ORG is called upon to establish whether the measures undertaken at the national level were justified in principle – that is , whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify them were ‘ relevant and sufficient’ and whether the measures were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued ( ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

of Criminal Procedure enabling the courts to fine participants in proceedings who refuse to obey court orders , with a view to conducting proceedings efficiently and maintaining the authority and dignity of courts . ORG took into account the fact that owing to his failure to pay the fine , the appellant ’s fine was converted to a prison sentence pursuant to LAW . However , ORG will examine that factor in the following paragraphs of this decision concerning the right to a fair trial . Therefore , in view of the above and the circumstances of this particular case , ORG holds that the impugned restriction did not constitute an excessive burden for the appellant , that the measure undertaken by ORG pursued legitimate aims within the meaning of LAW , and that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the restriction and the legitimate aim pursued .

Accordingly , ORG concludes that the impugned decision did not breach the appellant ’s right to manifest his religion under LAW ( g ) of LAW and LAW . ”

CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL judges of ORG appended dissenting opinions . They disagreed with the majority as concerns Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . In particular , given that the applicant had appeared as summoned and had stood up while addressing the court , they considered that his conduct had not been disrespectful . They further maintained that , unlike public officials , private citizens , such as the applicant , did not owe a duty of neutrality . Therefore , the applicant ’s punishment for refusing to remove a religious symbol in a courtroom constituted , in their opinion , disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of religion .


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

NORP The applicant lodged his application under the name NORP In his application form , he stated that he was an PERSON ( registered stateless ) NORP born in DATE in GPE . He is currently living in GPE .

NORP The applicant , who had been granted legal aid , was represented before the Court by PERSON GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , Attorney - General of GPE .

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

According to the applicant , he left GPE illegally on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE . He applied for asylum on DATE under the name ORG

NORP In his application for asylum , the applicant claimed that he had fled GPE for CARDINAL reasons . Firstly , he alleged that his human rights had been violated as he was an PERSON . He furnished the authorities with a document from ORG under the name ORG stating that he was registered in the LOC governorate ’s register of foreigners . The applicant claimed that as an LOC , he could not open his own business , continue his studies or get married . Secondly , he was an active member of ORG ( which opposed the NORP government ) and the NORP authorities had sought to make him their informer . Thirdly , he claimed that he would be imprisoned if he returned to GPE , as he had left the country illegally .

ORG held an interview with him on DATE .

His asylum application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE , in that he had not shown that he had a well - founded fear of persecution for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well - founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons . ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was in danger of persecution as a member of ORG or by reason of being an GPE . Furthermore , it considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It therefore held that his asylum application had not been substantiated .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG hereinafter “ the Reviewing Authority ” ) against ORG decision . On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .

ORG pointed to contradictions in the applicant ’s claims and held , having regard to all the information and evidence available , that they were unsubstantiated . It stressed , inter alia , that NORP were not persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity when they were not involved in anti - regime activities . The applicant had neither alleged that he had been harassed by the NORP authorities nor that he had been persecuted because of his participation in ORG activities . Furthermore , ORG observed that unless a person was an opponent of the regime , there was no real risk that leaving GPE illegally would result in persecution on their return . It also noted that according to its own research , PERSON were entitled to , among other things , work in the public and private sector , receive an education and register their marriages and property .

ORG concluded by observing that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution and , if he returned to GPE , that his life would be in danger or he would be imprisoned . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .

In DATE or DATE the applicant applied for legal aid for the purpose of bringing a “ recourse ” ( judicial review proceedings ) under LAW of the LAW to challenge the Reviewing ORG ’s decision ( for the relevant domestic law see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , ECHR DATE ) . The respondent Government argued that the application for legal aid should fail as the recourse did not have a reasonable chance of success .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant legal aid . It held that the case raised issues concerning the status of PERSON and the consequences that this entailed , which had not been examined by it before . It considered that it should not dismiss , in advance , the possibility that the applicant could be successful in his recourse without giving him the opportunity , in view of the particularity of his case and after considering the lengthy documents submitted , to develop his arguments . It also observed that his refusal to be an informer for the NORP authorities had obvious consequences and therefore it could not say that the recourse did not have a reasonable chance of success .

On DATE the applicant brought a recourse before ORG ( first - instance revisional jurisdiction ) challenging the Reviewing ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE it was dismissed .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( appellate revisional jurisdiction ) , which appears to be still pending .

On DATE ORG and other NORP from GPE organised a demonstration in GPE . The applicant took part and was arrested on DATE when the authorities conducted an operation to remove the protesters . A detailed description of the relevant events can be found in the case of PERSON ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

Deportation and detention orders were issued against the applicant on DATE pursuant to section PERSON ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON ( PERSON . CARDINAL , as amended ) on the grounds that he was an illegal immigrant by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(k ) of the PERSON ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . Subsequently , on DATE , a letter was prepared in LANGUAGE by ORG informing the applicant of the decision to detain and deport him ( ibid . , § DATE ) .

In the meantime , a letter dated DATE was sent to the applicant requesting him , in view of ORG dismissal of his appeal on DATE , to start making the necessary arrangements for his departure from GPE .

On DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL other individuals of NORP origin , submitted a Rule CARDINAL request in order to prevent their imminent deportation to GPE .

On DATE the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule CARDINAL , indicating to the respondent Government that the detainees should not be deported to GPE until the ORG had received and examined all the documents relating to their claim . The parties were requested under LAW ( a ) of ORG to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation . The applications were granted priority on DATE ( Rule CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule CARDINAL in the light of information provided by the parties . He decided to maintain the interim measure in respect of CARDINAL of the applications , including that of the applicant .

On DATE the application was communicated to the Government . It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time ( LAW ) .

The applicant was released on CARDINAL DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant lodged a habeas corpus application with ORG ( first - instance jurisdiction ) .

On DATE it was dismissed ( for the relevant details of the proceedings , see PERSON , cited above , § § DATE ) .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( appellate jurisdiction ) on DATE .

It was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that the application was without object as the applicant had in the meantime been released .

In a fax dated DATE the applicant ’s representative notified the ORG that she had been informed by members of the NORP community in GPE that the applicant had been deported .

The Government replied in a fax dated DATE that the authorities did not hold any records showing that the applicant had been deported or that he had even left GPE .

The applicant ’s representative eventually managed to establish contact with the applicant with the aim of clarifying the circumstances of his departure from GPE . The applicant informed her that he had tried , in DATE , to leave GPE from GPE airport with a false NORP passport . He alleged that he had been apprehended by the police , to whom he had presented a NORP passport under the name PERSON , apparently his real passport . He had been detained for TIME at the airport and during his detention had made an arrangement with the immigration authorities / police to be sent to GPE with his NORP passport , as GPE did not require a visa for NORP nationals . He had wanted to leave GPE as soon as possible to avoid being prosecuted for attempting to travel with false documents . He alleged that he had then made his way from GPE to GPE .

Following receipt of this information , the Government informed the ORG that the authorities did not hold any records indicating the departure or deportation of anyone named ORG from GPE . They therefore suggested that the applicant might have left GPE from the occupied areas .

On DATE the President of the Fourth Section , in the light of the information provided by the parties and the circumstances of the applicant ’s departure from GPE , decided to lift the measure indicated under LAW . She also decided on DATE to change the name of the application to reflect what the applicant now claimed to be his true name .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Angelika Nußberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of GPE prison in the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . He was held in cell CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) , with CARDINAL other prisoners , having CARDINAL QUANTITY of personal space . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE prisoners were held therein , from DATE to DATE CARDINAL prisoners were held therein .

As regards the general characteristics of the cells , material conditions inside the cells , sanitary conditions and health care , see the judgment in ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE , § § CARDINAL to CARDINAL , DATE .

As to the out - of - cell time in the closed section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities , most of which were to take place in the recreation room . There was , however , CARDINAL ORG - metre recreation room per floor , which was to be used by CARDINAL inmates at most ( NORP and Others § DATE ) .

As regards the cell temperature , the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in TIME ( TIME ) in DATE and DATE had been approximately CARDINAL , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE .


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

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

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

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

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the applicants’ respective close relatives , were killed .

On DATE the applicants’ legal representative lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG against ORG , PERSON , and ORG on charges of war crimes against the civilian population , which concerned the killing of CARDINAL individuals , including the applicants’ close relatives mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above .

The GPE State Attorney ’s Office concluded that the applicants’ relatives had been killed in combat between paramilitary groups of the so - called “ GPE ” and ORG or as collateral victims of that combat , so on DATE it dismissed the criminal complaint .

The applicants took over the prosecution , and on DATE lodged a request for an investigation with ORG . On DATE the court invited the applicants to amend their request to satisfy the requirements prescribed under LAW . The applicants did not reply , and on DATE the court declared the request inadmissible . This decision became final on CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by ORG in the interest of GPE and its citizens .

( CARDINAL ) Exceptionally , in respect of certain criminal offences , it may be prescribed by law that criminal proceedings shall be instituted by private prosecution or that the ORG Attorney ’s Office shall institute criminal proceedings by [ private ] application . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall be instituted and conducted at the request of an authorised prosecutor only .

( CARDINAL ) NORP In cases involving criminal offences subject to public prosecution , the authorised prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney , and in cases involving criminal offences to be prosecuted privately , the authorised prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .

( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there exists a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution , and there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .

( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor may take his place under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . ”

Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL regulate the rights and duties of private prosecutors and injured parties acting as subsidiary prosecutors . The Criminal Code distinguishes between these CARDINAL roles . A private prosecutor ( privatni tužitelj ) is the injured party who brings a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such prosecution is expressly prescribed by LAW ( offences of a lesser degree ) . An injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor ( oštećeni kao tužitelj ) takes over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecution authorities have , for whatever reason , decided not to prosecute .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Requests to prosecute shall be lodged with the competent ORG Attorney ’s ORG and private prosecutions with the competent court .

( CARDINAL ) Where the injured party has lodged a criminal complaint ... it shall be considered that he or she has also thereby lodged a request to prosecute .

( CARDINAL ) Where the injured party has lodged a criminal complaint or a request to prosecute , but the [ competent authorities ] establish that the criminal offence in question should be prosecuted by private prosecution , the criminal complaint or request to prosecute shall be treated as a timely private prosecution if it has been submitted within the time - limit prescribed for [ bringing ] a private prosecution ... ”

Pursuant to LAW , the ORG Attorney is under a duty to inform the injured party within DATE of a decision not to prosecute and of the party ’s right to take over the proceedings , as well as to provide instructions to that party regarding the steps to be taken .

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG prosecutions , bills of indictment , requests to prosecute , legal remedies and other statements and information shall be submitted in writing unless otherwise provided by law .

( CARDINAL ) The submissions referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall be comprehensible and contain the necessary information for the authorities to act upon them .

( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided in this LAW , the court conducting the proceedings shall invite a person who has made submissions which do not contain the necessary information or are incomprehensible to supplement them . Where the submissions have not been amended as required , the court shall declare them inadmissible .

( CARDINAL ) In its invitation to amend the submissions , [ the court conducting the proceedings ] shall warn the person concerned about the consequences of not complying with the instructions . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG shall report criminal offences subject to public prosecution .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A [ criminal ] complaint shall be lodged with the competent ORG Attorney ’s [ ORG ] in writing or orally .

Article CARDINAL governs , inter alia , the required contents of a request for an investigation , namely details of the person in respect of whom the request is being submitted , a description and the legal classification of the relevant offence , the circumstances confirming there exists a reasonable suspicion that the person concerned has committed the offence , and any existing evidence .

LAW allows a private prosecutor and the injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor to lodge with an investigating judge of a competent court a request for prosecution and other submissions .


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

Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained currently in FAC . The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE ORG telephoned the applicant and asked him to appear at their station . According to the applicant , at the State Police station , prior to any formal charges being laid against him , he was accused of murdering PERSON The police officers used physical force against him in order to obtain a confession to the crime . As a result of the duress brought to bear upon him , the applicant made a written confession .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to a short - term detention facility .

On CARDINAL DATE the police opened an investigation into the alleged misconduct of police officers at the time of the applicant ’s questioning . On DATE a prosecutor concluded that the complaint was no longer subject to the prosecutor ’s review . The prosecutor referred to the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) dismissing the allegation of ill - treatment .

Further details in relation to the events following the applicant ’s appearance on DATE at the State Police station are set out in the decision in LOC ( cited above ) , where the Government acknowledged , inter alia , that the applicant had been ill - treated while in police custody and there had been a lack of effective investigation of the applicant ’s complaint of a violation of LAW ( ibid . , § § CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) .

The typewritten transcript of the applicant ’s questioning as a witness dated DATE from TIME to TIME recorded the applicant ’s statement to the police .

NORP The applicant declared that he had given PERSON documents concerning his late father ’s company , ORG , because ORG had been looking for a company to carry out the leasing of motor vehicles . Later , PERSON had asked the applicant whether he knew anyone who could make withdrawals at the bank . The applicant had suggested his acquaintance Z.K. Occasionally GPE had sent PERSON sums of money that he had withdrawn from the bank via the applicant .

On the applicant ’s evidence at DATE he travelled to GPE . While there PERSON had called him looking for GPE , because PERSON had needed GPE to collect money at the bank .

The applicant gave further information in his police statement about meeting GPE in GPE upon his return from GPE and GPE telling him about a withdrawal of the funds and their handover to ORG

The applicant stated that he had learnt of PERSON ’s murder from the police officers on DATE the police had contacted him .

In the applicant ’s handwritten confession dated DATE , he stated that in DATE he had borrowed the sum of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) , which he had been unable to pay back .

On DATE the applicant together with his acquaintance ORG had travelled to GPE hoping to obtain money there , but they were unsuccessful .

The applicant had told ORG about the transfers of money to ORG and himself . ORG had also learnt that the sum of ORG CARDINAL would arrive in DATE in the bank account , to be sent on to ORG , and had told the applicant that he could resolve the issue of the debt if the applicant gave him full information .

On DATE they had left GPE and had arrived DATE in GPE . At TIME the applicant had phoned GPE , who later gave him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and told him that the remaining amount would be withdrawn on DATE . On DATE O.O. called the applicant , saying that everything was in order . Later the applicant realised that something terrible had occurred .

The same handwritten confession contained an addendum to the effect that ORG had said that he would murder PERSON

According to the typewritten transcript of the applicant ’s questioning as a suspect dated DATE from TIME , the applicant confirmed the truthfulness of his confession .

He added that he had concealed the circumstances and the purpose of his travel to GPE .

He declared that he had borrowed a sum of money from his acquaintance ORG which he had failed to return . ORG had demanded to be repaid in a threating manner and to go with the applicant to GPE . ORG had insisted that the applicant keep the money intended for ORG and give him some of it in repayment of the debt instead . ORG had told the applicant to forget about PERSON , meaning that ORG had decided to kill him .

After their return to GPE , on DATE ORG had told the applicant over the phone that he could now forget about PERSON and that nobody would ever find him . The applicant had understood him to mean that PERSON had been murdered .

A typewritten transcript of a further interview of the applicant as a suspect dated DATE from TIME to CARDINAL a.m. indicated that the applicant wished to supplement his previous statement .

The applicant stated that he had concealed the fact that he had sought the killing of ORG in order to obtain the ORG CARDINAL belonging to Ģ.Č. He had wanted ORG money because he had been experiencing serious financial difficulties . He had ordered parts for his sports car from GPE but did not have the means to pay for them .

The applicant added that while in GPE Ģ.Č. had phoned him , looking for GPE The applicant then had learnt that GPE was to withdraw the sum of ORG CARDINAL for Ģ.Č. On DATE the applicant had asked ORG to kill ORG That DATE , using the applicant ’s phone , ORG had called an acquaintance in GPE about the job and told his acquaintance that he would give details later . In TIME they had again phoned the same person from a hotel . That person had been NORP and had had difficulty understanding NORP . ORG had passed the phone over to the applicant , who had provided more information about PERSON On DATE , while on a bus to GPE , ORG had again called the same person .

Both transcripts of the applicant ’s questioning recorded that he had wished to give a statement in the absence of a lawyer .

The applicant and CARDINAL co - accused ORG , GPE and GPE were brought before ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) to stand trial on charges related to the murder of GPE

On DATE ORG found GPE and GPE guilty of aggravated murder . ORG established that GPE and PERSON had murdered PERSON on DATE , which they had partly admitted in the course of the trial .

ORG was unable to establish the guilt of the applicant and ORG

With reference to the applicant , ORG reasoned that at trial he had pleaded not guilty to the criminal offences he was charged with and recanted the statements he had given to the police . According to the applicant , he had provided these statements as a result of ill - treatment by police officers , who had beaten him and broken his nose . In this regard ORG reasoned :

“ In assessing the [ applicant ’s ] explanation the court does not have a reason to not believe it , because , as is evident from the case materials , on DATE from CARDINAL TIME [ the applicant ] was questioned as a witness ... however ... he was taken into custody on DATE at TIME ... [ but ] he was not transferred to a detention facility until TIME on DATE , remaining in the LOC of the GPE police station ( PERSON rajona policijas pārvalde ) ...

The fact that [ the applicant ] had been asked at TIME [ of DATE ] to attend the police station was confirmed by the witness [ ORG ] , an employee of ORG ( Organizētās noziedzības apkarošanas pārvalde ) ...

The foregoing was also confirmed by witnesses [ A.B. ] , a police employee , and [ PERSON ] , an inspector , who were unable to explain to the court why [ the applicant ] had not been released from the police station after having been questioned as a witness .

The fact that [ the applicant ] ... suffered bodily injuries while in custody is confirmed by the expert reports contained in the file ... ”

In that light , ORG found that LAW had been violated with respect to the applicant , irrespective of the fact that the criminal case against the police employees had been terminated .

ORG also added that the applicant ’s statements of DATE had been contradictory . It deemed unreliable an expert report finding that there were no signs that the applicant had written the confession “ in the circumstances of anxiety , fear or physical ill - treatment ” . ORG reasoned that the expert report did not contain “ a study section ” ( izpētes daļa ) that would allow it to understand how the expert had arrived at her conclusion .

Accordingly , ORG ruled that the applicant ’s statements of DATE could not be used in the applicant ’s conviction .

It further held that no other evidence had been obtained to the effect that the applicant had in any way organised , assisted or incited another person to commit PERSON ’s murder . The evidence established that transactions involving money transfers had taken place between the applicant , GPE and Ģ.Č. This was corroborated by the evidence of witness GPE , a police inspector who testified about an ongoing criminal investigation into illegal transactions involving all CARDINAL individuals .

ORG in its judgment referred to telephone call records admitted in evidence . On DATE at TIME a phone call had been made from the applicant ’s mobile number to ORG ’s mobile number . At the same time , it reasoned that ORG had never testified having spoken on the phone to the applicant or having previously known him . In addition , ORG considered that it had no reason to conclude that ORG ’s testimony that he had used the applicant ’s phone in order to contact ORG about a vehicle had been false . It was evident from the telephone call records that on several occasions DATE and CARDINAL DATE V.Z. had been contacted from a number which according to ORG was his .

The first - instance judgment was appealed against to ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu palāta ) on behalf of the prosecution , the victim and both co - accused convicted at first instance .

On DATE ORG overturned the applicant ’s acquittal and found him guilty of the aggravated murder of PERSON

NORP The judgment of ORG noted that in the appeal proceedings the applicant had continued to deny his initial statements and maintain that he had given them as a result of ill - treatment by police employees . In that regard , ORG reasoned as follows :

“ ORG groundlessly ( nepamatoti ) accepted that [ the applicant ’s ] statements and [ his ] confession given during the pre - trial investigation were not truthful .

The file does not contain impartial evidence affirming [ the applicant ’s ] assertion that he gave these statements as a result of physical and psychological ill - treatment by police employees , [ and ] that police employees dictated the testimonies [ to him ] . That it was merely a coincidence that during the commission of the crime [ the applicant ] was together with [ ORG ] ... [ and ] that a call was made from his phone at that time to [ ORG ] .

The criminal case ... against police employees that they possibly had exceeded their powers and inflicted injuries on [ the applicant ] has been terminated and [ the applicant ’s ] defence has not disputed this decision ...

ORG groundlessly rejected the expert report ... which concluded that the confession had been written by [ the applicant ] and [ that there was ] no indication ... of it being written in the circumstances of anxiety , fear or physical ill - treatment ... because the said expert report provides answers to the questions put to the expert . The expert report contains a study section providing the manner in which the expert reached the conclusion .

Furthermore ... in comparing [ the applicant ’s ] complaint of DATE ... and the confession written on DATE ... [ there can be ] no doubt ... that it is [ the applicant ’s ] free style ( brīvais stils ) [ of handwriting ] . ”

ORG allowed the applicant ’s statement of DATE to be admitted in evidence and relied on it in its judgment .

The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , with confiscation of property and police control for DATE . The applicant was immediately taken into custody .

The defence lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG departaments ) , arguing that ORG had convicted the applicant in violation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention because he had given the pre - trial confession and other statements relied upon by the court as a result of ill - treatment by police employees . The defence presented an extensive volume of evidence and pointed out that the applicant had been injured while in police custody and the circumstances of the injuries had not been explained . They submitted that there had been no other evidence in the file attesting to the applicant ’s guilt . The court had been under an obligation to assess the material in the criminal case against the police employees and not merely to rely on the fact that the case against them had been terminated . In the defence ’s submission , on DATE they had appealed against the decision terminating that criminal case . Pursuing appeal had subsequently become impracticable “ because the criminal case regarding the [ applicant ’s ] beating had been joined , as evidence , to the criminal case concerning [ ORG ’s ] murder ” .

On DATE the ORG of ORG decided to dismiss the appeal without holding a hearing .

The decision of the ORG of ORG in its relevant part read as follows :

“ ... contrary to the [ requirements of the ] Criminal Procedure Code , the appeals filed ... are not substantiated with [ submissions as to ] a violation of the said provisions of the law , but [ rather ] factual submissions are put forward [ with the aim of obtaining ] a re - evaluation of the evidence on which the appeals court ’s guilty verdict is based .

Pursuant to LAW ... the re - evaluation of evidence and establishment of new facts ... is not within the competence of the cassation court .

The reference in the appeal on points of law to a violation of ... the relevant international Convention in the course of [ the lower court ’s ] adjudication is not based on the materials of this case and is therefore [ purely ] formal in nature . ”

The decision of the ORG of ORG was not subject to appeal .


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

The applicants , PERSON and Mr Y.A. , are a mother and son of NORP nationality . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively and are currently living in the GPE . The duty judge decided that the applicants’ identities should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG ) . They were represented before the ORG by Mr P.C.M. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .


CASE OF VUJOVIĆ AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

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

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was founded in GPE in DATE . The first applicant is the founder , the sole owner , and the executive director of the second applicant . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE an insolvency creditor X ( stečajni povjerilac ) requested ORG ( GPE sud ) in GPE to open insolvency proceedings ( stečajni postupak ) in respect of the second applicant . In the proceedings before ORG the second applicant was represented by the first applicant and a lawyer duly authorised by the latter . On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the second applicant and , inter alia , appointed an insolvency administrator ( stečajni upravnik ) .

On DATE the second applicant , through the lawyer , lodged an appeal against the ORG decision .

On DATE ORG ( Apelacioni sud ) in GPE rejected the appeal ( žalba se odbacuje ) as having been submitted by an unauthorised person , given that the lawyer had not been appointed by the insolvency administrator . The court relied on sections DATE of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . This decision was served on the applicants on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG representative filed an initiative with ORG ( Ustavni sud ) seeking the assessment of the constitutionality of section CARDINAL of LAW in force at the time . There is nothing in the case - file as to the outcome of that initiative .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal for “ not having been lodged by a party to the domestic proceedings or by a person authorised to appeal on behalf of the person whose rights and freedoms were violated ” . This decision was served on the applicants on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants , a married couple and their son , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . Their religious affiliation is unknown .

On DATE , the applicant husband applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE . On DATE , his application was dismissed since he was registered as having left the country .

On DATE , the applicant husband applied anew for asylum and a residence permit in GPE , as did the other applicants on DATE .

Before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) , all the applicants were heard in an introductory interview on DATE . Subsequently , the adult applicants were heard anew during a longer interview , which took place on DATE and lasted CARDINAL . The applicant son was interviewed briefly for a second time and the applicant husband was interviewed a third time . The applicants were assisted by appointed counsel .

The applicants maintained that upon return to GPE they risked persecution by ORG and that the applicant husband appeared on their death list . The applicants had been brought up in GPE . Since DATE the applicant husband had run his own business exclusively with NORP clients and had had his office at the NORP base “ FAC ” . Several of his employees had on occasion been warned not to cooperate with the NORP .

On DATE , the applicant husband had been the target of a murder attempt carried out by ORG . He had had to stay in hospital for DATE . There , unknown men had asked for him , after which he was treated in CARDINAL different hospitals .

In DATE , his brother had been kidnapped by ORG who had claimed that they would kill him due to the applicant ’s collaboration with the NORP . His brother had been released through bribes DATE and had immediately fled from GPE . The applicants had fled to GPE and stayed there until DATE , before returning to GPE .

Soon thereafter , ORG members had placed a bomb next to their house . However , it had been detected by the applicant wife , and the NORP had arrested the perpetrator . During interrogations , the perpetrator had confessed that he had been paid by ORG to kill the applicant husband and had disclosed the names of CARDINAL persons who had been designated to watch the applicants . Thereafter , the applicants had moved to GPE although the applicant husband had continued his business in GPE . During this time , ORG had destroyed their home and their business stocks .

NORP In DATE , the applicants had returned to GPE . In DATE , the applicant husband and his daughter had been shot at when driving . The daughter had been taken to a hospital where she had died . The applicant husband had then stopped working and the family had started to move around in GPE . The business stocks had been attacked CARDINAL times by ORG members , who had threatened the guards . The applicant husband stated that he had not received any personal threats since DATE , as the family was moving around . The applicant son had spent most of his time indoors for fear of attacks and had only attended school for the final exams . They had never sought protection from the domestic authorities as they lack ability to protect the family and for fear of disclosing their address , knowing that ORG collaborated with the authorities . The applicant husband still had an open and infected wound on his stomach where he was shot in DATE . The applicant wife had cysts on her liver and in her uterus . They submitted several documents , including identity papers , a death certificate for the applicants’ daughter and a medical certificate for the applicant husband ’s injury .

On DATE , ORG rejected the application . It found that all of the applicants had proved their identity and that their asylum story was credible . However , ORG noted that the applicant husband had ended his collaboration with the NORP in DATE and that , thereafter , he had stayed in GPE for DATE without being victim of any attacks except for the ongoing threats against his work stocks . Moreover , the applicant couple had CARDINAL daughters who still lived in GPE and who were not harassed . ORG acknowledged that the applicants had been the victims of severe violence and harassment but observed that they had not sought any protection from the domestic authorities in GPE . Although it was true that ORG had infiltrated the domestic authorities , this had to a great extent diminished . Therefore , ORG concluded that the applicants had not made probable that they would be unable to seek the domestic authorities’ protection . Furthermore , the applicants’ state of health was not poor enough to grant them asylum . Consequently , there were no grounds on which to grant the applicants asylum or residence permits in GPE .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) and maintained that the NORP authorities had been and would be unable to protect them . They had contacted the police following the fire at their home and business stock in DATE and DATE and the murder of their daughter in DATE , but thereafter they had not dared to contact the authorities due to the risk of disclosing their residence . Together with their written submissions , they enclosed a written translated testimony attestation allegedly from a neighbour in GPE , who stated that a masked terrorist group had come looking for the applicant husband on DATE at TIME and that the neighbour had told them that the applicants had moved to an unknown place . The neighbour also stated that , just after the incident , the applicant husband had called him and been told about the incident . The applicants also submitted a translated residence certificate / police report allegedly certifying that the applicants’ house had been burned down by a terrorist group on DATE . Furthermore , the applicants submitted a recording of a public debate on TV concerning the corruption and infiltration of ORG members within the NORP administration . The applicants mentioned in that connection that the applicant husband had participated in the public debate , which was broadcast on ORG in GPE on DATE , thus DATE . Finally , submitting various medical certificates , the applicants contended that the applicant husband ’s health had deteriorated and that he could not obtain adequate hospital care in GPE . Before ORG was heard . It stated , among other things , that the documents submitted concerning the alleged incidents on DATE and CARDINAL DATE were of a simple nature and low value as evidence .

On DATE , ORG upheld ORG decision . The court stated that the criminal acts of ORG had been committed DATE before and that the applicant husband no longer had any business with the NORP . In the event that a threat still remained against the applicants , the court found it probable that the NORP authorities had the will and the capacity to protect them . Finally , referring to the applicants’ health , the court noted that these could not be seen as exceptionally distressing circumstances . In view of the above , there were no grounds on which to grant the applicants asylum or residence permits in GPE .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) . Their request for leave to appeal was refused on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicants submitted an application to ORG for a re - examination of their case . They maintained that the applicant husband was under threat from ORG because he had been politically active . They enclosed a video showing the applicant husband being interviewed in LANGUAGE , a video showing a demonstration , and a video showing a TV debate . The applicants’ request was refused on DATE . The applicants did not appeal against the decision to ORG .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Brydak , a lawyer practising in GPE .


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

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra

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

The applicants , who were detained at the material time in NORP penal facilities , were claimants in separate sets of civil proceedings . Most of the applicants were seeking compensation for various aspects of the conditions of their detention , for unlawful criminal prosecution , or for lack of adequate medical care .

None of the applicants were able to attend the hearings at which their claims were examined . The domestic courts at both levels of jurisdiction refused to allow them to be present . In most of the cases the courts held that there was no domestic legal provision for bringing detainees to court and referred to Article CARDINAL of the LAW on the Execution of Sentences and the relevant provisions of LAW . They also noted that the applicants had had the opportunity to submit written pleadings and to retain counsel to represent them in court .

NORP The applicants’ claims were refused at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . The dates of the final judgments are set out in the appended table .


Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Apandiyev , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG at ORG .

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

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with a double murder and arson committed DATE .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness . He made no self - incriminating statements . In the transcript of the questioning it was noted that the applicant spoke LANGUAGE , did not need an interpreter ’s assistance and wished to be interviewed in LANGUAGE . The transcript was signed by the applicant , who also made a handwritten note in LANGUAGE to the effect that the content of the transcript correctly reflected his statement . The investigator also seized a number of the applicant ’s personal items , including the boots , trousers , shirt , sports jacket and leather jacket that he was wearing at the time , so as to attach them as exhibits .

According to the applicant , on DATE police officers escorted him to a police station and interviewed him as a witness in the case . After they seized his clothes , he was provided only with old trousers and was not given any footwear . Thereafter the police officers and CARDINAL of the attesting witnesses DATE who , in the applicant ’s submission , was known to the police officers – started beating him with truncheons and kicking him in an attempt to extort a confession from him . Allegedly , he was beaten for TIME and then , wearing only trousers and socks , was placed in a cold cell , where he spent DATE , during which time he was not given any food .

According to the ORG , before the questioning on DATE the applicant ’s rights were explained to him . However , neither during the questioning nor afterwards did the applicant make any complaints concerning either his health or the actions of the police officers .

On DATE the applicant was again questioned as a witness . As in the course of his questioning he confessed to the murder , he was subsequently detained as a suspect , and a record of detention was drawn up . As the applicant expressed the wish to be provided with counsel , lawyer NORP from the GPE bar association was assigned to him . After her arrival the applicant was again questioned as a suspect and confirmed his previous statement in the presence of counsel . In the transcript of the applicant ’s interview as a suspect dated DATE and signed by him it was noted that he spoke NORP , did not need an interpreter ’s assistance and wished to be interviewed in LANGUAGE . The transcript also contained a handwritten note by the applicant to the effect that his statements were reflected accurately in the transcript , that he had made them without any duress , and that he confirmed them .

According to the applicant , in the course of the questioning on DATE the police officers beat him again and the investigator put pressure on him , forcing him to sign the transcripts of the interviews of DATE . The applicant allegedly requested the investigator to provide him with a lawyer and an interpreter , as his mother tongue was PERSON and he had a poor understanding of LANGUAGE , which meant that the contents of the transcripts were unclear to him . Allegedly , these requests were refused and , unable to resist the beatings and physiological pressure , the applicant finally signed the transcripts without reading them .

According to the ORG , before the questioning on CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s rights were again explained to him . However , as on DATE , neither during the questioning nor afterwards did the applicant make any complaints concerning either his health or the actions of the police officers .

On DATE the applicant was taken to the scene of the incident , where a reconstruction of the events was carried out in his presence and that of his lawyer and the attesting witnesses . It was video recorded .

DATE the applicant was escorted from the police station to the GPE temporary detention facility ( “ the ORG ” ) .

Also on DATE , the applicant was seen by a doctor , who issued a certificate stating that the applicant had an abrasion on his back that he had sustained DATE .

According to the applicant , the ORG authorities refused to admit him without a medical certificate . The police officers then took him to city hospital no . CARDINAL where a doctor issued him with a certificate attesting to the presence of abrasions on his back . As he had been allegedly threatened by the police officers who escorted him , the applicant did not disclose the cause of his injuries to the doctor , and the latter , upon the police ORG advice , noted in the certificate that the injuries had been received by the applicant a fortnight before .

Thereafter the applicant was taken back to the ORG , where he remained until his transfer to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE formal charges of aggravated murder were brought against the applicant in the presence of lawyer PERSON , who had been assigned to represent him . On the same date the applicant confirmed in writing in the presence of his lawyer that he preferred to give evidence in NORP , and he was subsequently questioned . In the transcript of the questioning it was indicated that NORP was his mother tongue . The applicant also made a handwritten note in NORP on the transcript to the effect that he admitted his guilt in part but wished to avail himself of the right to remain silent until he had had a chance to study all the case - file materials . He also noted that he had written the note in his own hand and under no pressure . The text was followed by the signatures of the applicant ’s counsel and the investigator . There is no indication that the applicant made any complaints concerning the alleged ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the ORG to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , where he remained until DATE . The applicant had no injuries when he was admitted to the remand prison and during his custody there he never requested medical treatment .

The applicant and his counsel studied the case - file on DATE from TIME , on DATE from TIME to TIME , and on DATE from TIME . The applicant and his counsel made handwritten notes on the relevant procedural records to the effect that they had studied the case - file materials in their entirety . On DATE the investigator also familiarised the applicant with CARDINAL forensic examination reports .

On DATE a bill of indictment was served on the applicant .

In the proceedings before the trial court the applicant was represented by lawyer NORP

According to the transcript of the hearing of DATE , the applicant requested the court to allow him access to the case file , the exhibits and the video recording of the reconstruction of events , stating that he had been unable to study the case file fully at the pre - trial stage . He further requested the court to call the witnesses he had previously indicated , stating that they could give oral evidence regarding the circumstances of the incident . Lastly , the applicant requested the court to provide him with an interpreter . He claimed that his understanding of legal terminology in NORP was insufficient . In reply to the court ’s questions , the applicant confirmed that he understood the words “ murder ” , “ being accused ” and “ [ he ] committed ” . He went on to say that he had learned LANGUAGE at school , that he had lived in GPE for DATE before the relevant events and , that he understood everyday language well .

NORP In the prosecutor ’s opinion , the applicant did not need an interpreter ’s assistance as he had been born and had grown up in GPE , had done his military service there and had written documents in LANGUAGE .

Having examined the parties’ submissions , the court rejected the applicant ’s request to be provided with an interpreter , noting that he spoke and wrote NORP adequately . The court further rejected the applicant ’s request concerning witnesses as premature . It also dismissed his request regarding the exhibits , stating that those items had been seized from the applicant and were therefore familiar to him . The court further ordered that the applicant be allowed additional time to study the case file and , to that end , suspended the proceedings until DATE .

The applicant studied the case - file on DATE from TIME and on DATE from TIME to TIME Thereupon the applicant made a hand - written note in the procedural record to the effect that he had studied the case - file materials . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer made any requests for additional time to study the case file .

During the subsequent hearings the applicant stated that he understood the charges against him and pleaded not guilty . He further gave his version of the incident , alleging that the murder had been committed by another person . The applicant repudiated his self - incriminating statements made during the preliminary investigation , stating that they had been extracted under duress and threats of ill - treatment . He stated that he had been beaten by the police officers , with the result that he had signed certain documents without reading them and had copied his “ confession ” rather than written it voluntarily .

The court called and examined a number of witnesses , including expert witness Ts . and witnesses PERSON and PERSON The court further noted that it had not been possible to call witness NORP , as she was paralysed . Her statements and those of witness LOC . made during the preliminary investigation were read out in court , after the applicant gave his consent . The applicant also stated that he no longer insisted on the examination of witness PERSON .

The court further called and examined the investigators in charge of the case , PERSON . and K .. They denied putting any pressure on the applicant or using any unlawful methods of investigation , such as beatings . Investigator PERSON also testified that while studying the case file the applicant had not requested an interpreter ’s assistance , and that at a certain point he had refused to continue with the study of the case file , following which the materials in the file had been photocopied and given to him . Investigator PERSON also stated that the video record of the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL DATE had been shown to the applicant .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

The court admitted in evidence the applicant ’s confession made during the preliminary investigation , rejecting as unsubstantiated his allegation that it had been extorted under duress . In this regard the court noted that the applicant had always been questioned in the presence of a lawyer , and a lawyer had also participated in the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL DATE . Moreover , after being detained , the applicant had been informed on several occasions of his right not to testify against himself . The court also noted that the applicant had not objected to PERSON . ’s statement made in court to the effect that PERSON . had not put any pressure on the applicant during the investigation . As regards the applicant ’s allegation of beatings by the police officers , the court stated that the medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE only attested to the presence of abrasions on his back sustained DATE and did not mention any “ dark blue ” bruises on the applicant ’s legs and shoulders , as he had alleged in court .

The court further based its findings on other pieces of evidence , including statements by a number of witnesses , several expert reports , and , in particular , a forensic report on the clothes seized from the applicant on DATE which attested to the presence on the applicant ’s trousers of blood , which could have come from of CARDINAL of the victims .

In their appeal submissions , the applicant and his lawyer complained , inter alia , that the self - incriminating statements made by the applicant during the preliminary investigation had been extorted from him as a result of ill - treatment by the police .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) granted the applicant ’s request to be present at the appeal hearing .

On DATE the applicant was transported from remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE ORG notified the applicant and counsel PERSON , who had represented him before the trial court , that the appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE .

The applicant requested an interpreter ’s assistance for the examination of his case before the appeal court . He further requested the appeal court to allow him to study the case file , alleging that he had not been given enough time to do this at the pre - trial stage .

The applicant and his counsel were present at the hearing of DATE . ORG noted that during the proceedings before the trial court the applicant had demonstrated sufficient command of LANGUAGE , being well able to understand what was being said to him in NORP and to express himself clearly in that language . Nevertheless , noting that everyone had the right to use his mother tongue , the appeal court decided to grant the applicant ’s request and provide him with an interpreter during the examination of his appeal . ORG accordingly postponed the hearing to DATE .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was present but his counsel did not appear . The applicant did not make any requests in this regard , such as for the postponement of the hearing . ORG refused the applicant ’s request for additional time to study the case file . It referred to the case - file materials , stating that on DATE the applicant and his lawyer had had access to and studied all the materials , including the exhibits and the video recording , and that they had not made any requests upon the completion of their study . Moreover , the first - instance court had granted the applicant additional time to study the case file , which he had done on CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant and the prosecutor , upheld the judgment of DATE . It confirmed that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the domestic law . It noted , in particular , that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been interviewed as a witness and that the procedural law then in force had not provided for a lawyer ’s assistance during such interviews . However , after the applicant had made self - incriminating statements during his witness interview , he had then been questioned as a suspect in the presence of a lawyer and confirmed his statement . The applicant ’s defence counsel had been present at all subsequent interviews and investigative actions .

The court further rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment during the investigation , stating that they were not corroborated by the results of the applicant ’s medical examination as recorded on the certificate of CARDINAL DATE . It also pointed out that the applicant had not complained about any injuries upon his arrival at the ORG , nor had he complained at the pre - trial stage about the alleged ill - treatment , although he had had the opportunity to do so , as he had always given oral evidence in the presence of his defence counsel and , during the reconstruction of events , also in the presence of the attesting witnesses .

The court went on to note that when his rights were being explained to him at the pre - trial stage , the applicant had stated that he understood his rights , that he spoke NORP , would give oral evidence in that language and did not need an interpreter ’s assistance . Furthermore , when interviewed both as a suspect and an accused , the applicant had expressed his wish to give oral evidence in NORP and refused an interpreter ’s assistance . Further , when studying the file of his criminal case , the applicant had not requested an interpreter ’s assistance . The court further noted that the case file contained the applicant ’s confession written in LANGUAGE , his handwritten notes made on the transcript of his interview of DATE and other documents which confirmed that he had an adequate command of NORP . The appeal court added that the applicant had received secondary education in GPE , had learned LANGUAGE at school , had done his military service in DATE in GPE and had lived in GPE since DATE . During the hearings before the trial court the applicant had stated that he understood everyday NORP , had testified in NORP and had actively participated in the examination of his criminal case . The appeal court therefore concluded that in such circumstances the fact that the applicant had not had an interpreter ’s assistance during the preliminary investigation and before the first - instance court had not violated his rights .

NORP The applicant ’s attempts to have his case reopened in supervisory review proceedings were to no avail .

On DATE the applicant ’s sentence was reduced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment because of changes in the criminal law .

On DATE the applicant complained in writing to the prosecutor ’s office of GPE about various irregularities in the preliminary investigation , including ill - treatment by the police and refusals of his requests to be provided with a lawyer and an interpreter , to have the case - file materials and the bill of indictment translated into his mother tongue , and to be granted access to the exhibits .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of LOC of GPE refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s allegations . It noted in its decision that it was clear from the medical certificate of DATE that the applicant had sustained the abrasion on his back DATE before the examination , that is , in DATE , before he was questioned and subsequently detained . Thus , there was no evidence of an offence .

A copy of that decision was sent to the applicant on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant resubmitted his complaint to the prosecuting authorities .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed the applicant that the inquiry into his allegations of ill - treatment by the police officers carried out by the prosecutor ’s office of LOC of GPE had been incomplete and that therefore the decision of DATE had been quashed and the relevant materials sent back to the prosecutor ’s office of LOC of GPE for an additional inquiry . The letter further stated that the applicant would be apprised of the results of that inquiry .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of LOC of GPE again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s allegations on the ground that following an additional inquiry they had been found to be unsubstantiated . In particular , there was no evidence that the applicant had sustained any injuries apart from an abrasion on his back that had been sustained DATE before he had been questioned and detained . A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant .

In DATE the applicant contested the decision before a higher prosecutor ’s office . His complaint was dismissed by the prosecutor ’s office of GPE on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the authorities of detention facility USHCHCARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the prison authorities ” ) accepted for dispatch from the applicant an envelope addressed to the ORG which contained a completed application form which , with its enclosures , totalled CARDINAL pages . DATE , the applicant was informed that it had been entered in the prison correspondence register CARDINAL and sent out .

On DATE the prison authorities returned the envelope to the applicant . They explained that it had been returned by the postal service on the ground that the stamps placed on the envelope by the applicant , which corresponded to the postage for a standard letter , were insufficient , and that the applicant needed to pay MONEY ( RUB ) in postage for the excess weight .

According to the applicant , on DATE he again handed his letter to the prison authorities and requested them to take the necessary amount from his account to cover the postage . However , the authorities returned the letter to him . He allegedly resubmitted it for dispatch on DATE .

DATE and DATE there was no money in the applicant ’s account . On the latter date the account was credited with the amount of RUB CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant requested the prison authorities to send a letter to ORG , an NGO based in GPE , and to debit his account for the amount of the postage . In the letter he asked ORG to forward his application to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG received a CARDINAL - page letter from the applicant dated DATE , which was the first piece of correspondence it had received from him . In the letter the applicant explained that on DATE he had tried to send an application form to the ORG but it had subsequently been returned on account of insufficient postage . He went on to note that as he had then had to apply to ORG with a request for his application to be forwarded to the ORG , there might be a delay in the application reaching the ORG .

On DATE the ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant ’s letter of DATE and invited him to submit a duly completed application form .

On DATE the ORG received a CARDINAL - page letter from the applicant dated DATE . In the letter the applicant again described his attempt to send the application form to the ORG on DATE and his subsequent application to ORG . He added , however , that ORG had refused to forward his application form to the ORG and that he had being trying to send it to the ORG himself . He noted , without specifying any reasons , that he was having difficulty in doing so , which might lead to the dispatch of the application form being delayed . He therefore asked the ORG not to reject it on the ground of expiry of the DATE time - limit .

On DATE the ORG reminded the applicant that he still had to submit a duly completed application form .

On DATE the ORG received a CARDINAL - page letter from the applicant dated DATE , in which he stated that he had been unable to send the application form to the ORG because of the prison authorities’ refusal to forward it , but that he would persist in his attempts to send it .

On DATE the ORG received an CARDINAL - page letter from the applicant dated DATE , in which he again outlined his previous attempts to send the application form to the ORG and made lengthy observations on the ORG ’s admissibility criteria , in particular the application of the DATE time - limit .

On DATE the ORG again reminded the applicant that he still had to submit a duly completed application form .

On DATE the ORG received a letter from the applicant dated DATE in which he asked it to confirm receipt of the application form .

On DATE the ORG received a letter from the applicant dated DATE enclosing the application form dated DATE .

On DATE the ORG received an additional application form sent by the applicant on DATE . The applicant once again stated that , following the return of his application form of CARDINAL DATE and after his account had been credited with a sum of money , he had asked the prison authorities to send the form to ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG confirmed receipt of both application forms .

Thereafter the applicant continued to send correspondence to ORG on a regular basis . The following documents , inter alia , were enclosed with the applicant ’s correspondence :

– An undated certificate signed and stamped by the head of detention facility GPE confirming that the applicant had indeed submitted an application to the ORG to the prison authorities on DATE , which had been registered under the outgoing number QUANTITY and forwarded to the post office , which had then returned it , stating that the envelope containing the applicant ’s correspondence weighed QUANTITY and therefore additional payment needed to be made . The certificate also indicated that the prison authorities had sent out the application immediately upon receipt of the necessary sum of money from the applicant .

– A letter of DATE from ORG of the GPE Region informing the applicant that his application to the ORG comprising CARDINAL pages had been registered by the prison authorities on DATE under the number QUANTITY . The letter went on to say that the post office to which the applicant ’s letter had been taken had pointed out that its weight exceeded the maximum allowed and that therefore it was necessary to pay a supplement ; however , at that time there had been no money in the applicant ’s account and therefore his letter had been sent out later , when the necessary sum had been credited to the account .

– A letter of CARDINAL DATE from the head of detention facility USHCHCARDINAL/CARDINAL informing the applicant that his application had been sent to ORG after DATE , when the supplement for the postage had been paid . The letter assured the applicant that DATE , the date on which his letter had been accepted for dispatch by the prison authorities , would be considered as the date of dispatch .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Penal Code states that detainees may receive and send unlimited letters , postcards and telegrams at their own expense . The correspondence sent by detainees must comply with the applicable postal requirements . After receipt of requests by detainees , the prison administration informs them of the transfer of their correspondence to the postal service for delivery to the addressee .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides for judicial review of decisions , acts or failure to act on the part of an inquirer , investigator or prosecutor which affect constitutional rights or freedoms . The judge is empowered to verify the lawfulness and reasonableness of the decision , act or failure to act , and to grant the following forms of redress : ( i ) to declare the act or failure to act unlawful or unreasonable and order the relevant authority to remedy the violation ; or ( ii ) to reject the complaint .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

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 . Some applicants also raised complaints under LAW .