Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and was detained in GPE up to the time of his death on DATE .

In DATE the applicants were detained in ORG .

On DATE the second applicant intervened in a fight that had broken out between the first applicant and a prison officer .

The manner in which the impugned events occurred , as submitted by the applicants and as it emerges from their witness statements during the domestic proceedings , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , following an altercation with the prison officer , the first applicant was summoned to a meeting with the correctional unit commander ( comandante di reparto della polizia penitenziaria ) . Before he reached the commander ’s office , he was stopped by a group of prison officers , who took turns beating him . Following the meeting , he was stripped of his clothes and led to a cell in the solitary confinement wing .

The only item of furniture in the cell was a bed with no mattress , bed linen or covers . As to sanitary facilities , the cell had a squat toilet without running water and was not equipped with a sink . The cell window had no window panes and the only source of heating was a small , malfunctioning radiator , which provided little protection against the DATE weather . For DATE , although it is unclear for how many exactly , he was left naked .

During DATE of his detention in solitary confinement no food was provided and he was given only scant amounts of water . He was subsequently given rationed quantities of food .

He was beaten on a DATE basis , several times per day . He was repeatedly punched , kicked and hit in the head by prison officers , who assaulted him in groups of varying sizes .

He was also subjected to sleep deprivation , as the beatings often took place at TIME and the prison officers verbally abused him in order to keep him awake .

During the detention in solitary confinement the applicant did not receive visits from his lawyer or his family .

On DATE , following the same altercation with the prison officer , the second applicant was stripped of his clothes and led to a cell in the solitary confinement wing of the correctional facility . The bed in the cell had no mattress , sheets or covers , and the cell had no sink . Initially there were no panes in the windows , which were covered with some plastic sheeting after an unspecified number of DATE . For DATE , although it is unclear for how many exactly , he was left naked . He was subsequently given some light clothing .

The applicant ’s food was rationed , and at certain times he was given only bread and water . On DATE he received no food at all .

The applicant was beaten by prison officers , often more than once per day . He was subjected to various forms of physical violence , including being repeatedly punched , kicked and slapped , at CARDINAL point with his head being pinned to the ground by CARDINAL of the prison ORG boots . The beatings occurred both during DATE and at TIME . The applicant was beaten by CARDINAL officers at a time . CARDINAL prison officer ripped out a chunk of his hair .

On DATE he was admitted to the hospital .

During the period he spent in solitary confinement he was only allowed outside the cell twice , once to shower and once for some outdoor time .

A criminal investigation into the impugned treatment was launched in DATE . It was initiated when it emerged , in the context of covert surveillance in an operation to investigate drug smuggling in the PERSON correctional facility , that a number of the prison officers had discussed the ill - treatment inflicted on the applicants .

On DATE prison officers , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE , and PERSON , were committed for trial . They were charged with ill - treatment of the applicants under LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) , in conjunction with LAW § CARDINAL of LAW , a provision which considers the commission of an offence by a civil servant abusing his or her position to be an aggravating circumstance .

On DATE the applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties .

ORG judgment was delivered on DATE . Its findings may be summarised as follows .

As to the establishment of the facts concerning the ill - treatment , the court found that the evidence gathered during the investigation and produced at the trial showed that the events had occurred in the manner described by the victims in their submissions during the trial . The ORG relied on statements to the effect that the applicants had been subjected to physical and verbal abuse , coupled with the deprivation of food , water , sleep , and clothing , and had been detained in cells without adequate access to sanitation , heating , and bedding .

The court further found it to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had been subjected not merely to isolated acts of harassment and abuse , but to repeated ill - treatment which had been put into practice in a systematic manner .

More specifically , the court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that the first and second applicants had been subjected to repeated physical violence from DATE and from CARDINAL DATE respectively . The court found that the beatings occurred regularly at all times of DATE , and particularly at TIME .

The court noted that the second applicant had been admitted to the emergency room of ORG on DATE with traumatic injuries . With regard to the first applicant , the court acknowledged his hospitalisation following the events without citing a date or specific medical documentation to this effect .

NORP Moreover , the court found it to be established beyond reasonable doubt that in DATE and DATE in ORG there had existed what it defined as a “ generalised practice of ill - treatment ” that had been systematically inflicted on prisoners considered to be problematic . Measures which the court defines as exceeding the bounds of permitted disciplinary or security measures were routinely taken to punish and intimidate problematic detainees and to deter other disorderly behaviour . As part of this practice , a detainee would generally be taken to a cell in the solitary confinement unit where he would be subjected to repeated harassment and abuse by prison officers . The abuse would primarily take the form of physical violence , as detainees would be beaten by groups of prison officers , often during TIME . In addition , detainees would be routinely subjected to sleep , food and water deprivation , and would also be denied access to sanitary facilities .

The court further found ample evidence that the prison officers operated in a climate of impunity . This was due , in the court ’s view , to the acquiescence of high - level prison administrators and the complicity that existed among prison officers .

It emerges that the court ordered an inspection of the correctional facility , including the solitary confinement wing , during the course of the trial . The court found that several cells in the solitary confinement wing of ORG were unfit for holding detainees . Some did not have bed linen , mattresses , sanitary facilities or heating . Although the windows in some cells had no panes and others had windows covered by metal plates with small perforations , the cells were nonetheless used during DATE . Some cells were equipped with a bed and a squat toilet but no other furniture or sanitary facilities .

Following the establishment of the facts , the court went on to assess responsibility for the established conduct . In this regard , PERSON was acquitted as to his involvement in the ill - treatment , and DATE and PERSON were acquitted of the charge of ill - treatment under LAW . The court nonetheless held that the conduct of GPE and PERSON amounted to infliction of bodily harm contrary to LAW . However , it ordered that the proceedings against them be discontinued due to the expiry of the applicable time - limit as laid down in the statute of limitations .

With respect to PERSON and GPE , the court held that there existed sufficient evidence to conclude that they had been responsible for most , if not all , of the acts of physical , psychological , and “ material ” abuse at issue . The court then considered that the acts at issue could be classified as torture pursuant to the definition provided by ORG ( ORG ) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment . It went on to observe that GPE had failed to incorporate the offence of torture into national legislation , in breach of its international obligations . It was therefore obliged to conclude that , under NORP law , there existed no legal provision that would allow it to classify the impugned conduct as acts of torture .

Having taken note of the above - mentioned considerations , the court proceeded to assess which existing offence was more suitable in respect of the legal classification of ORG and GPE ’s conduct . When conducting its assessment , the court relied on the conclusion that the primary purpose of the impugned treatment was to punish the applicants , to “ maintain order ” in the correctional facility , and to convey a clear message to the other detainees .

The court considered that the conduct of the CARDINAL prison officers thus fell most appropriately within the scope of Article CARDINAL of LAW , which deals with abuse of authority against arrested or detained persons . However , the statutory limitation period for the offence in question had elapsed , as the court had found no procedural action which would have the effect of interrupting it .

The court stated that ORG and GPE were also responsible for the infliction of bodily harm , but that , as the statute of limitations was applicable to that offence as well , such a finding did not alter the substance of the decision . The court therefore ordered that the proceedings against ORG and CARDINAL be discontinued because the applicable time - limit as laid down in the statute of limitations had expired .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an appeal with ORG , arguing that ORG had erred in the legal classification of the offence with respect to PERSON and PERSON The prosecutor contended that the most appropriate offence for the purposes of classification of the conduct in question would have been aggravated illtreatment under LAW ‒ as initially identified in the bill of indictment ‒ in conjunction with LAW of LAW .

By a judgment issued on CARDINAL DATE , and filed with ORG on DATE , ORG declared the public prosecutor ’s application inadmissible . The court expressed its agreement with the prosecutor ’s contention as a matter of principle but , as the statute of limitations had been likewise applicable to the offence of aggravated illtreatment , a decision in favour of the prosecution would have been devoid of any practical effect .

On DATE PERSON lodged an objection to execution ( incidente d’esecuzione ) with ORG , arguing that its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could not be considered as final and binding insofar as he was concerned , as the decision had not been properly served on him .

In a decision issued on DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ’s objection on the grounds that ORG must have had cognisance of the decision at the moment the public prosecutor lodged an appeal with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or , at the latest , when his representative filed a defence brief at a hearing before ORG in DATE .

NORP On DATE PERSON appealed against the decision before ORG .

In a judgment delivered on DATE , and filed with ORG , ORG granted the appeal . It found that the failure to serve the decision on ORG could not be remedied by PERSON ’s potential knowledge of the decision at a later stage , as argued by ORG . ORG judgment of DATE could not , accordingly , be considered final and binding insofar as PERSON was concerned .

Based on the latter decision , on DATE PERSON lodged an appeal against ORG judgment of DATE with ORG , seeking an acquittal .

No further information has been provided by the parties as to the outcome of the proceedings .

In their observations of CARDINAL DATE , the Government indicated that CARDINAL prison officers had undergone disciplinary proceedings in connection with the impugned events and by different decisions issued on DATE the following disciplinary sanctions had been imposed :

– C.B. was dismissed from his functions ( destituito dal servizio ) . He was , however , reinstated on DATE , following ORG judgment of DATE which suspended the binding nature of ORG judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;

– PERSON was dismissed from his functions ;

– DATE was suspended from duty for a period of DATE ;

– PERSON was suspended from duty for a period of DATE .

According to a document issued by ORG on DATE , and furnished by the Government , the CARDINAL prison officers were not suspended from duty ( sospensione precauzionale dal servizio ) during the course of the investigation or the trial .

At the ORG ’s request , the ORG submitted extracts from the prison medical record of the second applicant DATE and DATE and typed copies of his hospitalisation record of CARDINAL DATE .

The prison medical record indicates that on DATE the second applicant was examined visually ( whilst still “ behind bars ” ) . He complained of pain in the thoracic area and right ear . The reporting physician noted the presence of ecchymoses and haematomas around the patient ’s ribcage . He recommended a more thorough medical examination and/or transfer to the infirmary .

The record further indicates that another visual examination ( also “ behind bars ” ) took place on DATE . The information in this entry is the same as in the previous entry . Transfer to the infirmary for a medical examination was recommended .

DATE . On DATE the record shows that the applicant underwent a medical examination in the afternoon . The physician reported ecchymoses on the patient ’s ribcage and in the retroauricular region . Palpation of the patient revealed diffuse pain . The reporting physician recommended that Xrays be performed for a suspected fracture . Painkillers were administered .

The entry of DATE reports the applicant ’s transfer to the emergency room of ORG as a consequence of traumatic injury .

According to the medical record of ORG , an X - ray revealed a fractured rib and the medical examination disclosed diffuse bruising in the thoracic and abdominal area and pain on palpation . The record states that the applicant told the doctor his injuries occurred as a consequence of an accidental fall .

The prison medical record entry on the applicant ’s discharge from the hospital on DATE shows that he was prescribed painkillers .

As to the first applicant , no copy of the prison medical register had been submitted by the Government , notwithstanding the ORG ’s request for such information .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

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

When introducing the application , the applicants were staff members of PERSON , a non - governmental , “ watchdog ” organisation voicing criticism of the Government . The subsequent employer of one of the applicants was subjected to financial control measures by the Government in DATE , which according to the applicants verged on vexation .

Act no . CXLVII of DATE defines combating terrorism as CARDINAL of the tasks of the police . Within the force , a specific Anti - Terrorism Task Force ( “ TEK ” ) was established as of CARDINAL DATE . Its competence is defined in section QUANTITY no . ORG of DATE on the Police , as amended by Act no . CCVII of DATE ( the “ Police Act ” ) .

NORP Under this legislation , ORG ’s prerogatives in the field of secret intelligence gathering include secret house search and surveillance with recording , opening of letters and parcels , as well as checking and recording the contents of electronic or computerised communications , all this without the consent of the persons concerned .

The authorisation process for these activities is dependent on the actual competence exercised by ORG , namely whether it is within the framework of secret surveillance linked to the investigation of certain specific crimes enumerated in the law ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) or to secret surveillance within the framework of intelligence gathering for national security ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

NORP Whereas the scenario under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) is as such subject to judicial authorisation , the CARDINAL under LAW ( CARDINAL ) is authorised by the Minister in charge of justice , ( i ) in order to prevent terrorist acts or in the interests of GPE ’s national security or ( ii ) in order to rescue NORP citizens from capture abroad in war zones or in the context of terrorist acts .

“ Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” takes place under the rules of LAW under the condition that the necessary intelligence can not be obtained in any other way . Otherwise , the law does not contain any particular rules on the circumstances in which this measure can be ordered , as opposed to “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” , which is conditional on the suspicion of certain serious crimes . The time - frame of “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” is DATE , which can be prolonged for another DATE period by the Minister ; however , the latter has no right to know about the results of the ongoing surveillance when called on to decide on its prolongation . Once the surveillance is terminated , the law imposes no specific obligation on the authorities to destroy any irrelevant intelligence obtained .

The applicants filed a constitutional complaint on DATE , arguing in essence that the sweeping prerogatives under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) infringed their constitutional right to privacy . They emphasised that the legislation on secret surveillance measures for national security purposes provided fewer safeguards for the protection of the right to privacy than the provision on secret surveillance linked to the investigation of particular crimes . They pointed out that ( i ) “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” was always linked to a particular crime and could only be ordered for the purposes of identifying or locating suspects , whereas “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” was not linked to any particular crime ; ( ii ) “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” was always ordered by the court , whereas “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” was authorised by the government minister in charge of justice ; ( iii ) the decision on ordering “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” was subject to detailed reasoning , whereas no reasoning was included in the minister ’s decision on ordering “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” ; and ( iv ) under the legislation relating to “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” , all collected but irrelevant information had to be destroyed within DATE , unlike in the case of “ section QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” .

On DATE ORG dismissed the majority of the applicants’ complaints . In CARDINAL aspect the ORG agreed with the applicants , namely , it held that the decision of the minister ordering secret intelligence gathering had to be supported by reasons . However , ORG held in essence that the scope of national security - related tasks was much broader that the scope of the tasks related to the investigation of particular crimes . For the purpose of national security , the events of real life were examined not for their criminal law relevance ; therefore they might not necessarily be linked to a particular crime . Furthermore , in the context of national security , the external control of any surveillance authorised by the minister was exercised by ORG ’s ORG ( which had the right to call the minister to give account both in general terms and in concrete cases ) and by the ORG , and that this scheme was sufficient to guarantee respect for the constitutional right to privacy of those concerned . Finally , ORG was of the opinion that LAW , which applies to “ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance ” , contained general provisions on ex officio deletion of any data unnecessary for achieving the aim underlying the gathering of intelligence .

NORP This decision was published in ORG on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Possessions);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP Since his birth the applicant had lived in a house in the LOC settlement of GPE which previously belonged to his parents . The total surface area of the house was QUANTITY . m , including a habitable area of CARDINAL sq . m. According to the “ technical passport ” for the house issued on CARDINAL DATE by ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , it was located on a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m , of which QUANTITY . m was occupied by the house and QUANTITY . m by the courtyard . The applicant lived in the house with his wife and CARDINAL small children and his elderly mother .

The original ownership of the house is unclear . On DATE the applicant acquired private ownership of the house and was issued with an ownership certificate by ORG of the ORG confirming that he was the private owner . The plot of land underneath the house was not registered as being in the applicant ’s formal ownership .

On DATE the Head of the ORG issued an order assigning various sites in GPE for development by a number of private promoters . The order read , in the relevant part , as follows :

For the purpose of coordinating with ORG [ of GPE ] and completing the facilities [ obyektlərin PERSON uyğunlaşdırılaraq tamamlanması ] in our capital which are in a state of ruin owing to having remained partially constructed for a long period of time and which undermine the beauty and development of the city , the following plots of land should be assigned [ ayrılsın ] to the following companies and firms :

Taking into account the request made by ORG on CARDINAL DATE , the land comprising neighbourhoods nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL on FAC in the LOC shall be assigned to the aforementioned company on the basis of a lease , for the purpose of designing and constructing cottage - type houses .

The developer is instructed [ to do the following : ]

To receive the plot of land in kind and carry out the necessary health and safety checks .

To comply with the instructions of ORG for GPE and Urban Planning [ “ the LAW ” ] concerning the timing and procedure of the project design and with the other conditions laid down in the construction certificate [ inşaat pasportu ] .

Prior to completion of the project design , to coordinate with the [ ORG ] the sketches for the architectural planning of the land and buildings . After completing the project design , to submit the full working plan to the [ CDAUP ] .

To coordinate [ the relocation of utility lines ] with [ the LAW ] and the relevant authorities .

This order , together with the construction certificate , form the basis solely for preparing the project design .

In accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW , the developer shall obtain [ from the relevant authorities ] the certificate and other documents confirming its rights over the plot of land ...

The construction work shall start after the registration of all the project design documentation by ORG .

Should the developer fail to comply with the requirements of the above provisions , this order may be repealed in accordance with the law . ”

The applicant ’s house was located in CARDINAL of the neighbourhoods mentioned in point CARDINAL of the order . According to the applicant , he was never informed of this order by the executive authorities and became aware of its existence for the first time during the court proceedings ( see section C below ) .

By a letter of DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , a subordinate body of the ORG , informed the ORG that the relocation of the inhabitants of the “ old , hostel - type and squatter houses ” located in the area specified in the ORG order of CARDINAL DATE “ remained a problem ” . The ORG further proposed the following :

“ For the purpose of relocation of the families residing in the aforementioned area , we consider it appropriate to assign the empty plot of land in neighbourhood no . DATE on A.M. Cuma Street ... for the construction of CARDINAL and QUANTITY residential houses ... and request you to express your opinion on the construction project submitted by PERSON as a developer . ”

There is no information in the case file as to whether the ORG formally replied to the ORG ’s letter of DATE .

On DATE the Head of the ORG issued an order authorising the construction by PERSON of new houses for the relocated residents . The order read as follows :

“ For the purpose of relocation of the residents of houses located in neighbourhoods nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL on FAC in connection with the construction of an important State facility in the aforementioned area , the project design for the construction of residential houses in neighbourhood no . DATE on A.M. Cuma Street , submitted by PERSON , ... was approved by [ the LAW ] in letter no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL dated DATE .

Taking the above into consideration and for the purpose of completion of the relevant documentation , I hereby decide :

To authorise Azyevro LAU LLC to carry out the development project ( construction of residential houses ) in neighbourhood no . DATE on A.M. Cuma Street , in accordance with the project design agreed by [ the LAW ] and with the purpose of ensuring the relocation of the residents of neighbourhoods nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL on FAC .

To instruct the management of ORG to obtain , in accordance with the legislation , documentation relating to the assignment of the plot of land and the construction .

To instruct ORG to supervise compliance of the construction with the project design and the relocation of the residents in accordance with the requirements of the law .

To instruct ORG to ensure the protection of public order during the relocation process .

To instruct ORG of [ the ORG ] to issue the residents with occupancy vouchers for their new flats .

To request ORG reporting to ORG to assign specific postal addresses to the ORG new flats and to provide them with technical passports [ for the new flats ] and with [ the relevant ] extracts from ORG . ... ”

According to the applicant , in DATE employees of the ORG approached him with oral demands to give up his house and , in compensation , to accept an occupancy voucher ( yaşayış orderi ) for a new CARDINAL - room flat measuring QUANTITY m under construction on LOC , an area previously occupied by a relocated cemetery . When the applicant asked to be shown the lawful basis for the demands , he was told that it was a “ Government instruction ” .

The applicant refused , stating that he had no intention of relinquishing his house . He noted that , in any event , for this to be possible he would require prior monetary compensation equal to the market value of the house and the plot of land underneath the house .

According to the applicant , his neighbours faced the same situation and many of them gave in to the ORG ’s pressure . They moved out and accepted the occupancy vouchers offered to them . Soon the authorities began demolishing their houses . With large - scale demolition works in the neighbourhood ( including the destruction of some walls and fences adjacent or immediately next to the applicant ’s house ) , accompanied by power cuts and the accumulation of debris around his house , the applicant and his family no longer found it possible to stay in it and had to leave the house in DATE . However , the applicant ’s mother remained in the house .

According to the applicant , on DATE the ORG evicted his mother and began demolishing his house . The house was demolished over an unspecified number of DATE , together with the applicant ’s belongings that remained inside .

On DATE the applicant lodged a court action with ORG against the ORG . The applicant asked the court to stop the defendant from breaching his right to enjoy his private property , to order the restoration of the property to its previous condition or , if that was no longer possible , to order the defendant to pay him CARDINAL NORP manats ( AZN ) for pecuniary damage , AZN CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage , and AZN CARDINAL DATE for damages in respect of lost opportunity from DATE until the date of execution of the judgment . Subsequently , the ORG , ORG and PERSON were joined to the case as co - defendants together with the ORG .

In its reply to the applicant ’s lawsuit , the ORG responded that the relocation of the residents from the applicant ’s neighbourhood was being conducted in connection with “ the important ORG project ” approved by the ORG order of DATE . As a legal basis for that order the ORG indicated the old DATE LAW which had been in effect until DATE ( on that date it was replaced by the new Housing Code ) .

On DATE the ORG requested the court to order an expert evaluation of the market value of the applicant ’s house ( which had already been demolished ) and the CARDINAL - room flat offered to the applicant in compensation . The applicant opposed this request , noting , inter alia , that the determination of the new flat ’s market value was irrelevant since he had refused to accept it as lawful compensation and since the subject of his claim was the unlawfulness of the interference with his private property .

On DATE ORG issued an order for an expert evaluation . The applicant challenged this order , relying on various grounds . After a series of appeals , the order was quashed pursuant to a ORG decision of DATE and a ORG of Appeal decision of DATE , on the ground that the first - instance court had designated an incorrect category of expert for the evaluation requested . No further expert evaluations were ordered .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims .

In the legal analysis part of the judgment the court first confirmed that the house had been in the applicant ’s private ownership . It noted , however , that the applicant had not formalised his ownership rights over the plot of land and therefore could not make any claims in respect of the land .

The court also took note of the ORG order of DATE . It further noted that DATE the ORG and ORG had corresponded with each other concerning “ problems ” in relocating the residents of “ old , hostel - type houses and squatter houses ” in the applicant ’s neighbourhood and that on DATE the ORG had decided to contract a private company ( PERSON ) to construct new residential buildings for those residents in a vacant area previously occupied by a relocated cemetery . The court noted that the applicant had been “ given ” a CARDINAL - room flat in CARDINAL of these new buildings , under an occupancy voucher issued in his name on DATE pursuant to the ORG order of CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The court cited LAW concerning the expropriation of private property for ORG needs , although it attempted neither to establish the applicability of that provision to the applicant ’s situation nor to determine whether the applicant had been deprived of his house in compliance with its requirements .

The court further relied on various provisions of the old DATE LAW , which had been in effect until DATE . The court noted that the DATE LAW was still in force at the time when the applicant had been issued with an occupancy voucher on DATE . In particular , the court cited Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , concerning the rules on the provision to citizens of accommodation in residential buildings belonging to “ the ORG housing fund ” or “ the public housing fund ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The court found that the ORG order of DATE was “ in force ” and that the issuance of an occupancy voucher in the applicant ’s name for a CARDINAL - room flat in a newly constructed building constituted “ compensation in kind ” for his house within the meaning of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . For these reasons , the court found that the applicant ’s claim that the GPE actions had been unlawful was ill - founded .

Furthermore , although the order of CARDINAL DATE for an expert evaluation had been quashed , the ORG had nevertheless procured and presented to the court an “ expert report ” which estimated the market value of the new flat proposed to the applicant as being higher than that of his old house . The court considered that the compensation given to the applicant was fair because the new flat , with a total surface area of CARDINAL sq . m , was larger than the applicant ’s house and had a higher market value . Therefore , the court considered that the applicant ’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage , seeking payment of the market value of his house in cash , was also unsubstantiated .

The court then proceeded to reject the applicant ’s claim for non - pecuniary damage , finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered any moral damage .

The applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , raising , inter alia , the following arguments :

( a ) although the first - instance court had based its decision on the premise that the applicant ’s house had been expropriated for public needs , it did not address the fact that this “ expropriation ” had not complied with the applicable requirements of the LAW and the relevant provisions of LAW ( in particular , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) ;

( b ) the de facto deprivation of property had been unlawful as there had been no expropriation order issued in accordance with the procedure specified by law ; in particular , the reasons for the expropriation given by the defendants in the court proceedings did not fall under any of the lawful grounds for expropriation specified by the law and there had been no expropriation order issued by ORG as required by the law ; in such circumstances , the applicant had been arbitrarily deprived of his property ;

( c ) the first - instance court had incorrectly relied on various provisions of the old DATE LAW which had no longer been in force at the time of the interference ( which , according to the applicant , had taken place in DATE , at the time of the demolition of the house ) ; and

( d ) the part of the judgment concerning the dismissal of his claim to the plot of land was unlawful , as the right of ownership over the plots of land underneath privately owned houses had been granted to their respective owners by the regulations approved by LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; therefore , he was the lawful owner of the plot of land by virtue of his ownership of the house , even though he had not formally registered his ownership rights over it .

In its submissions to ORG , the ORG noted among other things that , because the applicant had refused to accept the CARDINAL - room flat offered to him as compensation , the ORG had issued him with occupancy vouchers for CARDINAL other flats ( a CARDINAL - room flat and a CARDINAL - room flat ) in the same newly constructed building . However , for unexplained reasons , these CARDINAL occupancy vouchers were both dated DATE , DATE as the date of issuance of the voucher for the CARDINAL - room flat that had originally been proposed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG essentially repeated ORG reasoning and upheld that court ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE , with the exception of the part of the judgment rejecting the applicant ’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage . In that part , ORG quashed the judgment and ordered that the applicant be given the CARDINAL new flats on A.M. Cuma Street ( the CARDINAL - room flat and the CARDINAL - room flat , instead of the single CARDINAL - room flat offered earlier ) as “ compensation for pecuniary damage ” , and instructed the ORG to deal with the formalities of transferring the flats to the applicant .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , reiterating the points of his previous appeal and further elaborating on them . In particular , he argued as follows :

( a ) although his claim specifically sought only to establish the unlawfulness of the destruction of his house within the meaning of the applicable law , as well as to secure payment of monetary compensation for that unlawful action , the courts had ignored his claim and failed to assess the lawfulness of the interference with his property rights ; instead , they had forced him to accept as “ compensation ” the flats given to him by the defendants ( first the CARDINAL - room flat , then the CARDINAL - room and CARDINAL - room flats ) , which he had repeatedly and lawfully refused to accept as lawful compensation ;

( b ) the interference with his property had taken place in DATE and therefore LAW was not applicable to his situation ; in any event , even the provisions of that Code cited by the courts had been misapplied , as those provisions concerned accommodation in “ the ORG and public housing funds ” and not privately owned houses and flats ;

( c ) the courts had also misapplied ORG decision of DATE , because that decision concerned the local executive authorities’ and municipalities’ competence in respect of buildings constructed on plots of land occupied without authorisation ; however , in the applicant ’s case , the land comprising the yard attached to the house was lawfully his to use by virtue of his ownership of the house ; moreover , he had been entitled to acquire private ownership of the land free of charge in accordance with the applicable legislation ;

( d ) the courts’ reliance on an “ expert report ” presented by the ORG was unacceptable , as that document had been written not by a qualified expert but by an unqualified person with no relevant credentials , was not based on relevant property valuation standards , used arbitrary figures and contained numerous mistakes ;

( e ) NORP under the relevant legislation , privately owned property could be lawfully alienated in favour of the State by way of ( i ) expropriation for ORG needs , subject to prior payment of compensation as required by LAW § IV of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; or ( ii ) purchase of the property by the ORG , with the owner ’s consent , in accordance with ORG DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) ; or ( iii ) other specific situations provided for in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; however , none of the above procedures had been complied with and the courts had failed to provide any legal or factual assessment in that regard ;

( f ) the interference with his property rights had also been in breach of , inter alia , LAW .

The applicant insisted that he had been unlawfully deprived of his house and that , despite his consistent and lawful refusals to accept as compensation any new flats that he did not want , the lower courts had essentially forced him to accept this unlawful compensation .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE , reiterating that judgment ’s reasoning . ORG decision did not address any of the applicant ’s arguments in detail .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


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

András Sajó;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

On DATE the applicant was detained pending trial , on suspicion of drug - trafficking offences . Subsequently , he was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant was detained in ORG from : CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; and CARDINAL May to DATE .

The applicant was in ORG for medical tests and treatment from : CARDINAL to DATE ; CARDINAL to DATE ; and CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC , where he remains to date .

In his letters to the ORG the applicant stated that he had been detained in overcrowded cells in ORG . He had had to share a cell measuring QUANTITY with QUANTITY other detainees . The furniture and the QUANTITY beds in the cell had taken up part of the available living space . Consequently , each detainee had been limited to QUANTITY of living space .

The applicant stated that , even though he was a non - smoker and had been assigned to a non - smoking cell , the prison authorities had also detained inmates who smoked all the time in that cell . He had complained to the prison authorities about it , but they had ignored his complaints . According to him , this problem had lasted until DATE .

The applicant also stated that some of the detainees who had occasionally shared the cell with him had had contagious diseases , such as hepatitis and human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) , or had been drug addicts . Also , some of them had suffered from psychological problems and the prison authorities had been aware of their medical conditions . These detainees had either represented a hazard for the other inmates in the cell , or had not allowed them to rest properly .

The applicant further stated that warm water in the shower had only been available DATE a week for TIME for all QUANTITY detainees in the cell . Also , during DATE , running water had only been available TIME a day and not at all during TIME , even if the detainees had needed to use the toilet .

ORG informed the Government that the applicant had been detained in cells CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL during his incarceration in LOC . The cells measured CARDINAL and QUANTITY , excluding the bathroom and toilet areas . He had shared these cells with CARDINAL other detainees at most . The applicant had had his own bed and at no time during his detention had the number of detainees exceeded the number of beds available in the cells .

Each cell had a window measuring QUANTITY . The food storage area within the cells also had a window measuring QUANTITY . All the aforementioned windows were fitted with bars and metal nets , but allowed for sufficient natural light and ventilation in order to comply with the relevant international standards .

The cells had bathrooms with CARDINAL sinks and a shower . The toilets had natural ventilation , namely windows measuring QUANTITY , and were separated from the rest of the bathroom by a door .

Detainees had permanent access to sanitary facilities . Running water was always available , while warm water was available twice a week for TIME , TIME and TIME and TIME and TIME Also , detainees were provided with protection against sexually transmitted diseases .

The cells and the sanitary facilities also had artificial light and were fitted with radiators . Heating was available intermittently , depending on the outdoor temperature . During DATE , the temperature in the cells would be CARDINAL˚C.

Cells had furniture , in particular , bunk beds , small tables , small benches and television stands .

NORP The prison authorities issued inmates with cleaning materials , and detainees cleaned the cells themselves . Upon their incarceration , and thereafter on a DATE basis , inmates were issued with personal hygiene products and disinfectants . They were also allowed to buy these products from the prison shop if necessary . Detainees were allowed to wash their underwear and bedlinen in the prison laundry room DATE .

NORP In accordance with domestic regulations , DATE the applicant had received CARDINAL toothbrushes , CARDINAL tubes of toothpaste , CARDINAL rolls of toilet paper , CARDINAL bars of soap and CARDINAL disposable razors .

Different products and methods were used to disinfect cells and remove pests , and such work was carried out by either the prison or specialist firms . ORG was carried out DATE , according to the characteristics of each area of the prison . The operations carried out to disinfect and remove pests from the applicant ’s cell were preventive , and neither he nor the other inmates sharing his cell had requested them . However , no rats or mice had ever been found in the detention cells in FAC .

Detainees’ diets were determined according to several criteria , including , inter alia , their health and religion . Ingredients had to meet the quality criteria set out by law and had to have quality certificates provided by suppliers . Food was cooked hygienically in the prison kitchen , and stainless steel cooking utensils and equipment were used . Food quality and quantity was also checked by a detainee representative before it was distributed .

ORG finally informed the Government that , during his detention , the applicant had not raised complaints in respect of the conditions of detention .

In his letters to the ORG the applicant stated that , as a NORP , the prison authorities had not offered him an appropriate diet , namely food which did not contain pork . Moreover , when his visitors had brought him food from home , the prison authorities had only allowed him to receive canned food , fruits and vegetables . Although he had complained to the prison authorities about the inappropriate diet , his complaints had been ignored .

ORG informed the Government that , during his detention in LOC , the applicant had been provided with a diet appropriate for NORP , and any pork had been replaced with beef .

In Rahova Prison , a detainee of a particular faith could ask the prison administration to allow him to buy the food he wanted from the prison shop .

During his detention the applicant had been visited on several occasions , but had only received CARDINAL parcel .

The applicant had been allowed to practise his religion in his cell , and had taken part in various religious activities organised by the prison ’s orthodox chaplain . He had never asked to receive religious objects , even though he had a lawful right to ask for them .


CASE OF ERDİNÇ KURT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano;Georges Ravarani

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

In DATE PERSON parents took her to the GPE ORG hospital because they thought that she was displaying symptoms of heart problems . The child was examined and then transferred to the PERSON paediatric hospital , where she was treated for DATE , after which the doctors decided that she should undergo heart surgery .

NORP Before the operation , which took place on DATE , the patient ’s father signed a form setting out the potential risks facing his daughter in undergoing the surgical operation , consenting to the operation ( “ the consent form ” ) .

During the post - operative check - ups a leak was detected on the periphery of the membrane covering the incision .

On DATE , by decision of the hospital medical board , the patient underwent a second operation carried out by a different medical team . Prior to the operation , the patient ’s father signed a consent form identical to the first one . That form did not mention any risk of a serious neurological problem , but specified that the list of possible sequelae was not exhaustive .

After that second operation , the patient suffered an oedema , a brain haemorrhage , liver failure and muscle spasticity while in intensive care .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint against the doctors who had carried out the operations .

On DATE the medical board of the Dışkapı paediatric hospital in GPE diagnosed the child with a severe irremediable psychomotor disability ( caused by hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy ) , estimating her disability rate at PERCENT .

On DATE , pursuant to standard procedure , the prosecutor ’s office applied to the Governor of GPE for authorisation to prosecute .

NORP The report drawn up following the internal investigation commissioned by ORG stated that the patient was suffering from a very serious congenital heart disease , that treating that disease would entail a high - risk surgical operation and that in PERCENT of cases a leak was noted around the membrane , necessitating a second operation . It concluded that the medical team had not been guilty of negligence during the first operation .

According to the aforementioned report , the second operation , which had been carried out to rectify the leak , had also been very risky . The report pointed out that the patient ’s neurological complications had been a common occurrence during open - heart surgery and that they occurred when artificial pumps were installed to maintain blood circulation or where the patient was placed in hypothermia . It added that the patient continued to suffer from sequelae despite the treatment administered after the second operation . In conclusion , the investigator recommended not authorising a criminal prosecution . This preliminary investigation report explained that the relevant persons had been questioned by the instigator . It is not known in what capacity the author of the report , who is a doctor , was involved or to which hospital he is attached .

On DATE , as recommended by the preliminary investigation report , ORG refused to authorise prosecution .

NORP The applicants’ challenge to that administrative decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE on the grounds that the preliminary investigation report and the appendices thereto were not such as to enable the prosecutor ’s office to instigate a judicial investigation .

Consequently , on DATE the prosecutor ’s office issued a discontinuance decision .

Concurrently with the criminal proceedings , the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG .

The expert appointed by the latter submitted his report on DATE . This CARDINAL - page document stated that the patient had displayed a congenital anomalous left coronary artery from the pulmonary artery ( ORG ) , that open - heart surgery had been carried out in order to irrigate the left coronary artery from the aorta , that DATE a leak had been detected on the membrane which had been applied to the incision during that first operation , that a second operation had been carried out which had resolved that problem , but that the patient had suffered a stroke . The expert pointed out that the patient ’s anomaly had been extremely serious , that it was liable to be fatal , and that the probability of complications occurring during or after such an operation had been high . The expert took the view that the second operation , geared to treating a foreseeable complication stemming from the first operation , had in fact been even riskier . He considered that open - heart surgery presented risks not only to the organ being operated on but also to other organs . The expert concluded his report as follows :

“ The stroke [ suffered by ] the patient PERSON was one of the possible complications occurring during open - heart surgery .

No negligence or fault has been noted on the part of the medical teams which carried out the first and second operations . The teams showed great efficiency and a high degree of medical expertise . The complication [ which occurred in the present case ] was an eventuality which can be observed in cases of anomalies [ such as that suffered by the patient ] and as a result of open - heart surgery . ”

On DATE the applicants brought an action for damages against the doctors before ORG ( “ CCGJ ” ) alleging that they had not practised their profession properly and had caused the very severe sequelae with which their daughter PERSON was afflicted . In support of their claim they submitted a private expert report dated DATE on the amount of the damages .

On DATE the ORG appointed a board of experts comprising CARDINAL professors and a lecturer in cardiovascular surgery from ORG .

The board of experts submitted its report on DATE .

According to that report the patient had originally been diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy ( an illness which significantly diminishes the “ pumping ” capacity of the heart ) at ORG , and following more detailed examinations at ORG , ORG , also known as ORG syndrome , had been diagnosed .

The experts explained that the patient had undergone a PERSON operation to create an intrapulmonary tunnel and that a leak had been noted on the periphery of the membrane during the check - ups conducted DATE . They stated that that leak had led to a second surgical operation , that the patient had been placed on respiratory support owing to the emergence of a tonic - clonic contraction after the operation and that the neurological sequelae had appeared during that period of intensive care .

After those initial findings , the experts stated in their report that the heart disease from which the patient suffered and for which she had undergone surgery was rare , accounting for PERCENT of all congenital heart diseases . Without treatment the mortality rate was PERCENT , and those affected seldom reached adulthood . The board of experts considered that the only treatment for that disease was surgery , and that the most appropriate type of surgery was the PERSON operation . The board added that the latter had a mortality rate of PERCENT , that in PERCENT of all cases a leak could occur around the membrane following such heart surgery and that , taking all types of complications together , the rate of re - operation was PERCENT .

The experts added that in PERCENT of cases congenital cardiovascular diseases were accompanied by neurological disorders , and that a multi - country study had shown that the rate of neurological damage in the immediate post - operative period stood at PERCENT .

In their conclusions , the experts pointed out that ORG was a very serious heart disorder and that the patient ’s parents had signed a consent form before their child ’s operation . They considered that the fact of the patient ’s dilated cardiomyopathy had further exacerbated the already serious risks posed by the operation . According to the report , the leak which had been observed around the membrane after the first operation had been a complication which occurred in PERCENT of cases , and the operation carried out to resolve that issue had been even riskier than the first one . The experts also pointed out that the neurological damage suffered by the patient had been a complication which was often encountered in cases of patients suffering from a congenital heart defect who underwent post - operative intensive care .

NORP The report , which quoted CARDINAL so bibliographical sources , ended with the following words :

“ In short , this patient ’s situation could be seen as CARDINAL large complication . There can be no question of the doctors having committed a medical or surgical error . ”

The applicants contested the report , deeming it inadequate . They considered that the document , which cited scientific studies , was more like a magazine article than an expert report . It contained no concrete and objective facts about the case in hand and would not help in determining the dispute . The applicants did not deny that there had been a risk , but considered that neither that risk nor the signing of a consent form released the doctors from their duty to practise their profession properly . They submitted , however , that the report , which lacked any explanations or reasoning on that point , had not mentioned any checks carried out with regard to the risk factors . Consequently , they asked the court to commission a second expert assessment , either from a different medical board or from a specialist section of ORG .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicants request for a second expert assessment .

With regard to the expert report of DATE and the facts set out in the prosecution investigation file , the court held that the doctors had not been responsible for the sequelae affecting the child after her high - risk operations , to which her parents had given their consent .

The parents lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment , reiterating their previous criticism of the expert report , which they considered inadequate . They also emphasised that the report had been based on the medical file and that their daughter had not been examined by the experts . Furthermore , under established case - law , the experts should have begun by explaining the acts and procedures required by medical lege artis and comparing them with the acts which the doctors in question had actually carried out in order to determine whether and how far the said rules had been observed . Furthermore , they submitted that it was not the ORG usual practice in this type of case to confine themselves to a single expert report . In that connection , the rejection of their request for a second expert report had amounted to a blatant injustice . They alleged , moreover , that CARDINAL of the doctors who should have been present during the operation had stayed away from the theatre after having been alerted by telephone that the patient ’s heart had stopped during the operation , pointing out that the expert report had neither analysed nor even mentioned that fact .

Their appeal was dismissed by judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG also dismissed the applicants’ application for rectification .


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

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant ’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented initially by PERSON , ORG to ORG , and then by his successor in that office , Mr PERSON .

NORP The applicant complained under LAW about the real risk of ill - treatment in the event of his extradition to GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s request for an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG was granted . It was indicated to ORG that the applicant should not be extradited until further notice . At the same time the ORG , acting under LAW ( a ) of ORG , requested the Government to provide factual information regarding the extradition proceedings .

On DATE the Government provided the requested information , arguing in particular that the applicant did not face any real risk of ill - treatment in GPE because he did not belong to any vulnerable group and because the NORP authorities had provided relevant assurances .

On DATE an investigator in GPE opened a criminal inquiry into the applicant ’s actions . On DATE he was indicted on charges of trafficking in drugs , a search warrant was issued in his name and his detention was ordered in absentia .

According to the applicant , at DATE he crossed the NORP border and subsequently moved to the LOC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE an extradition request was submitted by the NORP authorities .

On DATE the applicant ’s extradition was authorised by a deputy Prosecutor General of GPE . The applicant challenged the decision in court .

On DATE the extradition order was upheld on appeal .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the appeal court ’s decision . The applicant ’s extradition authorisation became final and enforceable .

NORP In response to the applicant ’s arguments under LAW , ORG stated that the applicant did not face a risk comparable to persons belonging to vulnerable groups identified by the international reports . They considered that he voluntarily left GPE in pursuance of family life in GPE and was charged with a drug - related offence , which was not a politically or religiously motivated crime . They referred to the assurances of the NORP authorities and argued that he had failed to prove that his individual circumstances justified the conclusion that he would face a risk of ill - treatment if extradited to GPE . In the relevant part the judgment read as follows :

“ Having considered the complaints concerning possible torture of ORG [ in GPE ] , which would prevent his transfer to NORP authorities , [ the court ] notes the following .

It follows from ORG DATE [ by ORG ] on the situation in GPE , as well as reports on the criminal justice system in GPE of the ORG and international non - governmental organizations , submitted by the representative of ORG , that there are instances of the use of torture , ill - treatment by law enforcement officials , and systematic persecution of political opposition , human rights activists , journalists , [ non - orthodox ] NORP and NORP .

Judicial consideration of this complaint by ORG did not reveal circumstances capable of leading to a conclusion that he would be subjected to the risk of cruel treatment or torture in case of extradition to GPE .

In his statements after arrest and during the court hearings ORG , an ethnic NORP , did not claim that he belonged to any opposition movement or a religious group . He did not justify his departure from GPE by any persecution on political , religious , ethnic , faith , or social grounds . Neither did he raise these arguments in his appeal . According to ORG ’s statements in court he arrived to GPE , where his relatives ( mother and brother ) reside , with the purpose of establishing a family .

The charges of drug - related offences pursued against ORG also have no political or religious basis .

Under these circumstances the written assurances of [ NORP authorities ] , compliant with international legal standards , as well as assurances that the criminal prosecution will be pursued in strict compliance with criminal procedure legislation and international treaties , must be considered sufficient ...

Any other conclusion in absence of specific information on the existence of a real risk of violation of [ ORG ’s LAW rights ] would be a mere speculation .

Violations of the said Convention provision in respect of persons charged with politically or religiously motivated crimes do not substantiate the conclusion that similar violations are going to take place in respect of ORG , who is accused of a common criminal offence . ”

On DATE the applicant was released on his own recognisance because of the expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Speediness of review)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6+6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

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

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a life sentence in FAC .

On DATE CARDINAL armed individuals burst into a bureau de change in GPE . Shots were fired and CARDINAL staff members were killed . The criminals fled with a sum of money .

On DATE the GPE investigatory department instigated criminal proceedings against X for armed robbery and homicide .

On DATE the applicant , Mr PERSON , was arrested in GPE by a team from the special unit of ORG . He was transferred to GPE .

At TIME on DATE , an investigator from the GPE investigatory department placed the applicant in detention for TIME . He was suspected of having committed the armed robbery and the QUANTITY murders of DATE , aided and abetted by a certain GPE On DATE a prosecutor from the GPE regional prosecutor ’s office extended his detention by DATE .

The applicant submitted that despite his express requests he had not been assisted by a lawyer for DATE of his detention . During that time the officials responsible for the investigation had questioned him about the robbery and the CARDINAL murders committed in GPE on DATE .

On DATE the investigator appointed an official lawyer to defend the applicant . At TIME on DATE , in the presence of his officially appointed lawyer , the applicant was formally charged with committing armed robbery in the GPE bureau de change and of the murder of QUANTITY persons , and placed in detention . He refused to answer the investigator ’s questions .

On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of CARDINAL lawyers of his choice . He remained silent .

On DATE , assisted by his CARDINAL lawyers , he confessed . His presumed accomplice , GPE , also confessed to the criminal offences charged .

The officers responsible for the investigation subsequently gathered a substantial body of evidence , including witness accounts and medical , scientific , material and documentary evidence .

On DATE the applicant and GPE , assisted by their defence lawyers , took cognisance of the documents in the investigation file . They retracted their confessions , and their lawyers requested a fresh interrogation of their clients .

On DATE the GPE regional prosecutor referred the file to the investigator for further inquiries . He asked him in particular to conduct a number of investigative measures and once again to formally charge both suspects .

On DATE the applicant was charged with an additional offence , namely the unlawful purchase of the firearm which had been used during the robbery of DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL suspects were questioned in the presence of their lawyers . In his depositions the applicant related a version of events to the effect that the robbery and murders in question had been committed by a certain PERSON , an NORP national , aided and abetted by an unknown second person .

On DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office drew up the indictment and committed the applicant and his presumed accomplice for trial before the GPE regional court .

The regional court considered the criminal case DATE and DATE . During the proceedings the applicant , who was assisted by a lawyer , submitted that he and his presumed accomplice had indeed been in GPE on DATE and that they had indeed intended to commit a robbery in the bureau de change , but that they had changed their minds and returned to GPE DATE .

On DATE the GPE regional court delivered its judgment . The applicant was found guilty of armed robbery in the GPE bureau de change , which crime had been accompanied by the murder of QUANTITY persons and committed with the complicity of GPE He was also found guilty of the unlawful purchase of a pistol and ammunition . The regional court imposed the heaviest sentence available under LAW , namely a whole - life sentence . In accordance with section ORG [ CARDINAL ] of the PERSON on the Execution of Punishments , the regional court ordered the applicant ’s placement under the so - called “ special ” prison regime .

Drawing on the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation and at the hearing , the regional court established the facts as follows : the applicant ’s former partner , GPE , had started work as a cashier in the bureau de change in question in DATE when she was still living with the applicant . While working there she had met the first victim , a certain GPE , who was a close relative of the owner and an employee in the same establishment . In DATE PERSON had left the applicant and moved in with GPE in GPE . The applicant had then decided to kill GPE and to steal the cash kept in the bureau de change . He had purchased a “ Makarov ” pistol , a silencer and ammunition . The applicant had persuaded a friend , GPE , to take part in the robbery . On TIME the applicant and FAC had arrived in GPE by bus . They had then gone to the building in which the bureau de change was located , and had gone up to the top floor to spend TIME . TIME , just before TIME , they had descended to the floor on which the bureau de change was located and noted that GPE was in the LOC alone . GPE , who had been carrying the pistol , had burst into the LOC and fired CARDINAL point - blank shot at the victim ’s left temple . The young man had died instantly . The CARDINAL accomplices had then placed the money which they had found in the bureau de change in a bag which they had brought with them . Meanwhile the armed security guard of the bureau de change , a certain GPE , had rushed into the LOC where the first victim had been killed . GPE had fired QUANTITY shots at him , hitting him in the face . The security guard had been killed instantly . GPE and the applicant had left the building . They had then concealed the murder weapon under a rubbish bin , thrown away the clothes they had been wearing and hidden the stolen money . Some time later the CARDINAL men had ordered a certain FAC to fetch the money for them , which he had done .

NORP The applicant appealed against that judgment . He complained that insufficient reasons had been given for the conviction , that his guilt had not been established , that the first - instance court had reached an erroneous decision , that there had been several breaches of the procedural and substantive rules under domestic law and that the regional court had shown bias .

The applicant ’s lawyer requested the withdrawal of all the judges of ORG . He argued that the media coverage of the criminal case had created a climate of intolerance and hostility towards his client . The defence called for an additional witness to be summoned , the re - examination of CARDINAL of the witnesses already questioned by the court of first instance , and several additional expert opinions . On DATE the judge - rapporteur responsible for the criminal case rejected the requests for further evidence - gathering as irrelevant . He dismissed the challenge to the judges of ORG for lack of evidence of bias .

ORG considered the criminal case DATE . It questioned a new witness and received additional conclusions from psychiatric experts on the mental state of the CARDINAL accused .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the court of first instance , giving its full backing to the latter ’s factual and legal findings . The evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation , presented before the court of first instance and produced for the first time before ORG had demonstrated that the CARDINAL accused had planned and carried out the robbery in the bureau de change and that the CARDINAL victims had been killed by FAC Yet the applicant had been the instigator of those murders and had provided the weapon used by his accomplice . ORG drew on the depositions of the many witnesses questioned during the assessment of the case , on the results of the ballistic , technical and NORP reports and the medical and psychiatric opinions , and also on the material and documentary evidence gathered .

The Court of Appeal observed that the accused ’s initial depositions during the preliminary investigation had differed considerably from their submissions to the court of first instance . The initial depositions had corroborated the finding concerning their participation in committing the criminal offences in issue , whereas the subsequent ones set out a version of events to the effect that an NORP national had committed those offences . ORG gave credence to the accused ’s initial depositions , which had been made to an investigator in their ORG presence after they had been formally charged . The CARDINAL individuals thus charged had been advised that their statements could be used in court with a view to establishing the facts , and their prior medical examination had revealed no sign of physical violence , which contradicted the defence lawyer ’s allegation that the applicant ’s initial confession had been extracted from him .

ORG turned its attention to the applicant ’s version of events stating that the CARDINAL murders and the robbery had been committed by a certain PERSON , an NORP national , and that the applicant himself had been at his place of work in GPE at the material time . Verifications carried out in the ORG database had shown that no NORP national of that name was present in GPE . It was true that the applicant had been at his place of work in GPE on DATE . However , he had been working as a night watchman and the robbery and murders had been committed early in the morning , which had given him enough time to cover the distance between GPE and GPE and to arrive at work TIME . ORG deemed unconvincing the statement by the only witness who had corroborated the applicant ’s version of events .

ORG noted that the judgment of the court of first instance displayed none of the procedural defects mentioned by the defence . The factual and legal findings of the regional court had not been exclusively based on the accused ’s confessions but on the whole body of consistent evidence gathered during the criminal proceedings . The applicant had participated actively in the proceedings and his lawyers had submitted several requests linked to the progress of the trial and the gathering of evidence . The regional court had responded to all those requests and had provided full reasons for its procedural decisions . There had been no sign of bias on the part of the judges who had examined the case , and the proceedings had been conducted in such a way as to safeguard the parties’ interests .

The Court of Appeal excluded a statement by CARDINAL witness from the evidence for non - compliance with the procedural rules , but did not consider that statement decisive in terms of the factual and legal conclusions in the case . The problem was that the regional court had been dilatory in issuing its grounds of judgment . However , the defence had been able to submit additional observations on appeal after having secured a copy of the grounds of judgment .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , reiterating his submissions to ORG .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . That court found that none of the circumstances mentioned by the defence demonstrated the existence of bias on the part of the judges who had considered the criminal case . The applicant had had an opportunity to defend himself effectively during the criminal proceedings : he had given evidence and challenged the evidence against him . Some of his requests for further evidence - gathering had been accepted by the lower - level courts , and proper reasons had been given for their rejection of other evidential requests as mentioned by the defence .

Furthermore , in adopting the appeal court ’s other arguments , ORG considered that the facts had been well established , that the substantive and procedural legislation had been appropriately applied and that the accused ’s rights had been fully respected .

The applicant was held in ORG from DATE to DATE , and again from DATE to DATE . He was incarcerated in FAC from DATE to DATE , and again from DATE to DATE . On DATE he was transferred to FAC , where he is still being held .

The applicant submitted that he had been held in a cell without window , toilets or running water . The LOC had had poor ventilation and lighting . He had not been allowed to exercise in the open air . Access to sanitation had been restricted and the time allowed for washing had been insufficient . The applicant emphasised that the conditions of hygiene in the detention facility had been deplorable . He had subsequently been moved to another cell with CARDINAL other detainees . The CARDINAL detainees had had to take turns sleeping because the cell only had one bench .

According to a rapport by the Director General of Prisons submitted by the ORG , at the time the only furniture in the cells in ORG had been a bench . The cells had had no windows and the only daylight had entered through holes in metal plates affixed to the doors . The facility in question had only had CARDINAL shared toilet and bathroom and lacked any open - air facilities for detainees . The rapport also mentioned that DATE the facility had been completely renovated and redeveloped to bring the conditions of detention into line with the GPE human dignity .

The applicant alleged that his cell in FAC had had a surface area of QUANTITY . It had contained a bed and a metal rack . There had been neither running water nor toilets in his cell . He had used a plastic bucket for his bodily functions . Like all the prisoners he was allowed out of his cell for TIME CARDINAL times a day , in order to empty the bucket and fill his water bottle . The applicant submitted , in support of those allegations , a statement by his co - accused GPE , who had been detained with him under the same conditions in FAC . The applicant added that he had been forced to wear a convict ’s uniform even though he should have been allowed to wear his own clothes , under the prison rules .

The applicant explained that at the beginning of his term in FAC he had been deprived of open - air exercise . According to ORG statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , prisoners were allowed TIME open - air exercise every other day . The applicant was not involved in any organised activity in FAC . He had submitted several requests to the prison authorities to allow him to join in the various vocational training and occupational programmes and had applied for a transfer to FAC in order to be closer to his family , but no action had ever been taken on his requests .

According to a report by the Director of ORG submitted by the Government , the applicant had problems adapting to the prison regulations ; his attitude to the wardens and the prison authorities had been refractory and disrespectful . However , the applicant had enjoyed all the rights afforded to persons deprived of their liberty . He had board and lodging in accordance with normal prison standards . He had open - air exercise every day and free access to the prison library . He had consulted a psychologist on several occasions and had had a number of meetings with the official responsible for activities in the prison .

Following his transfer to FAC the applicant had been subject to a “ special ” prison regime involving virtually total isolation from the rest of the prison population .

The applicant submitted that over the period from DATE he had been confined to a cell measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY which he had shared with another prisoner . The CARDINAL beds had taken up most of the floor area , leaving the QUANTITY prisoners with a free area of QUANTITY . There had been no running water in the cell and the prisoners had used a bucket as a toilet .

NORP The applicant stated that he had spent most of the day sitting on his bed for lack of free space in the cell . He had eaten his meals in the cell and had been allowed to walk in the prison yard for TIME every day . His access to the prison library had been limited to TIME it took to choose and borrow a book , after which he had been immediately taken back to his cell . He had been allowed to attend the prison chapel twice a year , at GPE and DATE , although not during worship so that he would not meet other prisoners .

The applicant added that up until DATE , the high - security wing of the prison had been overcrowded and ill prisoners had not been held separately from other prisoners , which had fostered the transmission of infectious diseases . Material conditions had improved somewhat after the works in the high - security wing in DATE and DATE . In DATE , his prison regime had been relaxed . However , like all prisoners in his category , he had still been kept separate from the rest of the prison population and his cell had been kept locked during DATE . In DATE and DATE he had occasionally worked in his cell folding envelopes . Since DATE he has been allowed into an activities room where he can talk to other life prisoners and read books .

According to a report by the Director of PERSON dated DATE , the high - security wing of FAC had been completely renovated in DATE and DATE . On the date of the report in question the applicant had been held in an individual cell measuring QUANTITY and containing a bed , a table , a rack , a shower and private toilets . His cell had been heated and had running water and proper lighting .

Apart from the restrictions imposed by his prison regime , the applicant benefited from all the activities provided to other prisoners : he could work , visit the library and the prison chapel , receive visits from his relatives , write and receive letters . He was also eligible for relaxation of his prison regime under section CARDINAL of LAW , subject to a favourable opinion from the relevant special commission , and could ultimately be accommodated with the rest of the prison population .

Furthermore , in DATE the applicant applied for the annulment of a number of the provisions of the implementing regulations of LAW concerning the manner and method of execution of his life sentence . His application was finally dismissed by a judgment of DATE delivered by ORG , which found that the challenged provisions of the implementing regulations were not contrary to LAW and that the adoption of the regulations had not involved any irregularities justifying their annulment .

In DATE , while in FAC , the applicant began a hunger strike in protest against the authorities’ refusal to transfer him to FAC . He was monitored by the prison medical team while on hunger strike . In DATE his state of health worsened and he was transferred , on the initiative of the prison authorities , to FAC hospital . On recovery he returned to FAC .

On DATE the applicant was taken to FAC hospital . Medical examinations revealed that he was suffering from tuberculosis . He received medicinal treatment at the hospital until DATE . He subsequently asked the prison authorities to allow him to take more exercise in the open air , which request was rejected . The applicant submitted that he had been unable to obtain a diet suited to his state of health either during or after his treatment in the prison hospital .

According to the CARDINAL DATE report by the Director of PERSON , after his stay in the prison hospital in DATE the applicant had been given regular medical examinations and biological control analyses . The results of his latest examinations in DATE had shown that his illness had not returned .

In DATE and DATE the applicant was taken into hospital for headaches and insomnia . He was examined and biological analyses were carried out . The doctors concluded that he was suffering from chronic headaches . No serious complications were detected . The applicant received medicinal treatment and the headaches ceased on release from hospital .

According to the same report , the applicant had several appointments with the prison dentist and another dentist chosen by his relatives .

Furthermore , according to the above - mentioned reports by the Directors of GPE and ORG , the prisons run a prevention and screening programme for tuberculosis comprising prophylactic examinations , medical analyses in cases of suspected infection and hospitalisation of prisoners positively diagnosed with the disease . Specific groups of prisoners such as drug addicts , HIV - positive persons , persons having previously suffered from tuberculosis and diabetics are the subject of special monitoring by the prison doctors .