Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 2+P6-1 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Death penalty;Life) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 - Abolition of the death penalty;Abolition of the death penalty-{general});Violation of Article 3+P6-1 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 - Abolition of the death penalty;Abolition of the death penalty-{general});Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in ORG at GPE FAC in GPE .

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

At DATE the applicant was captured in GPE , in GPE . By DATE , he was transferred to the custody of the ORG . This fact is mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE ORG :

“ CARDINAL . [ REDACTED ] By DATE , the ORG had PERSON and another high - value detainee , PERSON , in custody [ REDACTED ] and ORG ( OMS ) provided medical care to detainees . ”

Subsequently , GPE agents took him to a secret ORG prison in GPE known as the “ GPE ” . During his detention , the interrogators subjected him to prolonged stress standing positions , during which his wrists were shackled to a bar or hook in the ceiling above the head for DATE .

After a brief stay at the “ GPE ” , GPE agents took him to another secret ORG prison in GPE , GPE , code - named “ Cat ’s Eye ” ( often written as CARDINAL word “ GPE ” in ORG documents ) , where he remained until DATE . Mr PERSON was detained in the same facility throughout the relevant time ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , § § DATE and CARDINAL ) . At this site , the interrogations of both applicants were videotaped .

According to the DATE ORG , at that black site the ORG subjected the applicant to the EITs ( see also paragraphs PERSON above ) from DATE until DATE .

In the chapter “ ORG at [ NAME REDACTED ] ” , which is in most part redacted , paragraphs CARDINAL read :

“ CARDINAL . [ REDACTED ] psycholgist / interrogators [ REDACTED ] led each interrogation of PERSON and PERSON where EITs were used . The psychologist / interrogators conferred with [ REDACTED ] team members before each interrogation session . Psychological evaluations were performed by [ REDACTED ] psychologists .

The Government did not contradict the facts as related by the applicant .

In their written observations filed on CARDINAL DATE , they submitted that until the criminal investigation in GPE had been terminated they reserved their right to comment on and rectify the facts of the case as supplied to them when they were given notice of the application .

In their pleading of DATE they stated the following : “ ORG do not contest in the proceedings before the ORG the allegations submitted by the applicant ’s plenipotentiaries , nor [ do they ] contest the alleged facts ” .

At the oral hearing , the ORG said that they were not prepared to affirm or negate the facts submitted by Mr PERSON and PERSON Abu Zubaydah because they believed that those facts should first be established and evaluated by the NORP judicial system . They added that , in contrast to the case of ORG , in these cases the ORG was not confronted with CARDINAL different versions of facts or differences in accounts of facts . Accordingly , in their view , there was no need for the Court to take the role of a first - instance court and to establish the facts of the cases itself before the domestic proceedings had been completed .

As regards the documentary and oral evidence obtained by the ORG throughout the proceedings , the Government did not at any stage contest the admissibility , accuracy or credibility of the relevant materials and testimonies . Furthermore , at the hearing in camera held on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , during which the parties were asked to state their positions on the oral evidence taken and on whether the parties could rely on that evidence at the public hearing , they confirmed that they had no objection to the parties’ referring at the public hearing to the testimony of the experts and the witness . In their words , “ this [ was ] knowledge that [ was ] already accessible , albeit via other channels , in the public domain anyway ” .

At the public hearing , in relation to that testimony , the ORG drew the ORG ’s attention to the fact that both Senator PERSON and PERSON had carried out inquiries which were not judicial proceedings . Those inquiries , they said , were “ pre - procedural examinations ” instituted for the purpose of corroborating the participation of the NORP countries in the ORG . They had not dealt with individual cases . In terms of the standard of proof they were not comparable to criminal proceedings . In contrast , the investigation in GPE was being conducted in order to obtain evidence concerning all possible offences , to establish individual perpetrators and to determine whether it was possible to bring an indictment to the court .

The Government admitted that the findings of the relevant international inquiries were a source of information about the potential evidence and indicated the direction for subsequent actions to be taken by prosecutors . However , they did not constitute evidence in the strict sense of the word and relying on them would not be sufficient for a prosecutor to bring a charge or indictment against an individual in respect of a specific offence .

Lastly , the ORG , responding to a question from ORG at the hearing , concerning the injured party status accorded to the applicant and Mr PERSON by the investigating prosecutor , explained that for a procedural decision to identify an individual as an injured party in criminal proceedings CARDINAL elements had to be present . First , the subjective element , that is to say a person must have a sense of having suffered prejudice on account of the commission of an offence . The second , the objective element consisted in an indication that there existed a sufficient level of credibility that an offence had been committed to the detriment of that person in GPE . In the applicant ’s case the credibility was sufficiently high for him to be treated as a victim of an offence and the investigation continued in order to determine the extent to which he had been harmed and by whom .

The applicant , in his submissions concerning GPE ’s knowledge of the ORG , the probative value of the evidence before the ORG , the burden of proof and the standard of proof as applicable in the present case stated , in particular , as follows .

Numerous documents , including reports prepared by international organisations , recounted that on DATE the ORG had transported Mr LOC on a plane registered NCARDINALMU from GPE to GPE airport . The airport was TIME drive from Stare Kiejkuty .

Official documents disclosed by ORG , the DATE ORG and other reports before the ORG confirmed that this flight had landed on DATE at Szymany airport . PERSON submissions , which the applicant adopted in so far as they supported his claims , provided further evidence corroborating the fact that he and PERSON Al Nashiri had been flown from GPE to GPE on the same flight .

The material before the ORG also confirmed that the applicant had been transferred from GPE to Rabat on a plane registered NCARDINALP on DATE .

Official documents disclosed by ORG and ORG , the DATE ORG and ORG stated that rendition aircraft NCARDINALP had departed from PERSON airport on DATE for Rabat with the assistance of the NORP authorities . The oral evidence from experts demonstrated how the NORP authorities had filed false flight plans and assisted in the cover - up of the ORG operations .

Evidence before the ORG clearly showed that it had been NORP officials who had granted ORG rendition planes licences and overflight permissions as well as special exemptions . It had been the NORP authorities who had guided the planes in to land , and who had cleared the runway and secured the perimeter and grounds of PERSON airport so that detainees like Mr PERSON could secretly be offloaded into vans bound for the secret prison .

In the Polish ORG , officials had assisted in disguising the existence and exact movements of incoming ORG rendition flights . ORG officials had ensured that ORG flights were exempt from normal procedures for incoming foreign passengers . In the ORG officials had resolved irregularities in the payment of fees related to ORG operations . The manager of PERSON airport had provided significant information with respect to abnormal procedures allowed for rendition aircraft . The ORG had heard expert testimony confirming that after a rendition operation – the very DATE – NORP airport employees had been paid cash at a rate far higher than the usual rate .

NORP The DATE ORG showed that NORP officials had provided extraordinary physical security by setting up “ buffer zones ” around the ORG ’s detainee operations . The same report confirmed that several high - ranking NORP officials had known about , and had authorised , GPE ’s role in the secret ORG prison . The existence of an operational agreement between ORG and the ORG had been mentioned in the DATE ORG and various other material before the ORG and had been confirmed by Senator PERSON ’s testimony . The agreement had set out detailed rules for running the prison on NORP territory and a provision for what would have to be done if a detainee had died there . Prime Minister PERSON and President PERSON had reportedly received oral reports from NORP intelligence officials about what had been going on in that ORG prison , including on the fact that GPE had been detaining individuals there .

Senator PERSON had publicly said that he had information showing that ORG at FAC had commissioned a local contractor to build a prisoner ’s cage . In his testimony to before the ORG , he had confirmed that the cage had been built by a NORP company from GPE with specifications as to the thickness of the bars and size – the cage had been supposed to be big enough to hold a grown man and a portable toilet .

NORP The applicant further stressed that at the fact - finding hearing the Court had heard cogent , credible and consistent evidence from CARDINAL persons of the highest integrity and the highest professional calibre , who had demonstrated that :

CARDINAL ) NORP there had been a secret ORG prison at FAC from DATE to DATE ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the applicant had been detained in that prison from DATE to DATE ; indeed , the fact that the applicant had been granted injured party status in the investigation by a decision which was non - discretionary but mandated by evidence confirmed the fact that the prosecutor was in possession of evidence that that would support his claims ;

CARDINAL ) in Stare Kiejkuty the applicant had been tortured and subjected to unauthorised interrogation techniques specifically set out in the DATE ORG ;

CARDINAL ) GPE had known , or should have known , of the ORG prison on its territory . It had known because it had been directly involved and entered into a secret agreement with the GPE to host that prison ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the NORP authorities had displayed a pattern and practice of obscuring the truth , and during the relevant international inquiries there had been an extreme reluctance on their part to disclose what had in fact happened .

The applicant concluded that he had met his burden of proof in the present case . In contrast to the “ strong , clear and concordant ” facts put forward by him , ORG had failed to answer the ORG ’s questions on the merits . Where , as in the present case , “ the events at issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities ” , the burden of proof could be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a convincing explanation . Where , as here , the authorities had failed to provide a convincing explanation , failed to conduct an effective investigation and failed to furnish the ORG with the necessary information , the ORG was entitled to draw inferences adverse to the authorities and in favour of the applicant .

In addition , unrebutted presumptions of fact led to the conclusion that the applicant ’s factual allegations were true . Indeed , the Government had conceded that they had not contested the facts as related by the applicant and his allegations .

Referring to knowledge imputable to any ORG at the relevant time , AI and the ICJ pointed out , among other things , to the following facts that had been a matter of public knowledge .

On DATE GPE President PERSON signed a military order authorising the indefinite detention without trial , and without access to any court in the GPE or elsewhere , of foreign nationals deemed by the President to be involved in international terrorism . In the same order , he had authorised military commissions , executive bodies in which the ordinary rules of criminal justice would not apply , for the trial of non - GPE nationals accused of broadly defined terrorism - related offences . On DATE the GPE had published rules for the military commissions , which showed that these were purely executive bodies .

Reports of GPE renditions to secret detention were in the public domain as DATE and continued through DATE . It was widely disseminated that detentions at FAC in LOC had begun in DATE , and that by DATE there had been CARDINAL detainees held in that prison . By the same time it was also known that those who had been transferred to ORG had included individuals picked up far from GPE .

In major reports issued in DATE AI had warned that the GPE was engaging in arbitrary detainee transfers into and from its custody and that some individuals had disappeared into secret GPE detention .

The DATE AI report documented that there were over CARDINAL detainees then at ORG and reported on the GPE ’s recourse to secret detention and transfer of detainees to possible torture in third countries . The report and documents published during DATE provided further credible evidence of the GPE ’s use of detention and rendition in the context of the “ war on terror ” , including the use of undisclosed and incommunicado detention by GPE forces in GPE .

In short , during DATE and DATE credible information emerged that the GPE had committed and was continuing to commit gross human rights violations , including enforced disappearances by means of arbitrary , incommunicado and secret detention outside GPE territory as well as secret detainee transfers , in respect of individuals whom the GPE authorities suspected of involvement in or having knowledge of international terrorism .

Thus , by DATE any ORG would have known that the GPE was engaging in the use of the death penalty ; the secret detention of individuals it suspected of involvement in or having information about international terrorism ; the holding of individuals incommunicado or virtually incommunicado in indefinite military detention without charge or trial ; and preparations to subject individuals to an unfair trial by military commission , at ORG , or elsewhere , without access to civilian courts , including in respect of individuals facing capital charges .

The ORG notes that the Government did not take advantage of the opportunity to make comments on the facts as supplied by the applicant and that it was not their intention to contest them . It also notes that they did not challenge the admissibility , accuracy or credibility of documentary and oral evidence obtained by the ORG throughout the proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Consequently , the ORG will proceed on the basis of there being no contestation as such by the ORG as to the facts of the case as put forward by the applicant and no discernible dispute between the parties as to the evidence from various sources which was admitted by the ORG and summarised above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

With respect to the assessment of the facts and evidence gathered in the present case , the ORG would first wish to reiterate the relevant principles .

The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see GPE , cited above , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ; GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ; and ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL . )

In assessing evidence , the ORG has adopted the standard of proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” . However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard . Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on Contracting States’ responsibility under the LAW . The specificity of its task under LAW to ensure the observance by GPE of their engagement to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention – conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof . In the proceedings before the ORG , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre - determined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions .

According to the ORG ’s established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see , among other examples , GPE v. GPE , DATE , § CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ; PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; and ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence , if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the ORG to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred , strong inferences can be drawn ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE , § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , with further references ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . ORG , LAW , DATE ; and ORG and Others , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Furthermore , the Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio . According to the ORG ’s case - law under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , where the events in issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , for instance as in the case of persons under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-IV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ; and GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALXIII ( extracts ) ; ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

In the absence of such explanation the ORG can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government ( see PERSON , ibid . ) .

The ORG observes at the outset that , in contrast to many other previous cases before it involving complaints about torture , ill - treatment in custody or unlawful detention , in the present case it is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( for example , compare and contrast with PERSON , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG DATE ; and ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL ) .

As stated in the application , since DATE , when the applicant was captured by the ORG in GPE , he has continually been in the custody of the GPE authorities , initially in the hands of the ORG in undisclosed detention at various black sites and then , as confirmed by President PERSON on DATE , in the custody of GPE military authorities in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The regime applied to High Value Detainees in ORG custody such as the applicant is described in detail in the ORG documents and also , on the basis , inter alia , of the applicant ’s own account , in the DATE ORG . It “ included transfers of detainees to multiple locations , maintenance of the detainees in continuous solitary confinement and incommunicado detention throughout the entire period of their undisclosed detention ” . The transfers to unknown locations and unpredictable conditions of detention were specifically designed to deepen their sense of disorientation and isolation . The detainees were usually unaware of their exact location ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

It is submitted that since an unknown date in DATE the applicant has not had contact with the outside world , save the ORG team in DATE , the military commission ’s members and his GPE counsel . In this regard , the ORG also takes note of the statement by the applicant ’s representative at the public hearing :

“ [ The applicant ] is gagged from speaking publicly of his own torture in GPE because GPE takes the remarkable position that disclosure of his own memories , observations and experiences of what happened to him would reveal classified sources and methods . In addition , GPE regulations prevent his GPE lawyer , PERSON , who is also counsel in this case , from addressing the issues before this Court . ”

The above circumstances have inevitably had an impact on the applicant ’s ability to plead his case before this ORG . Indeed , in his application the events complained of were to a considerable extent reconstructed from threads of information gleaned from numerous public sources .

The difficulties involved in gathering and producing evidence in the present case caused by the restrictions on the applicant ’s communication with the outside world and the extreme secrecy surrounding the GPE rendition operations have been compounded by ORG failure to cooperate with ORG in its examination of the case .

In consequence , the ORG ’s establishment of the facts is to a great extent based on circumstantial evidence , including a large amount of evidence obtained through the international inquiries , considerably redacted documents released by the ORG , other public sources and evidence from the experts and the witness ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG notes that the ORG official documents clearly confirm that by DATE the ORG had the applicant and Mr PERSON , both referred to as “ High - Value Detainees ” , in its custody and that they were interrogated at a ORG black site with the use of the EITs – the applicant immediately after his arrival at that place on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Those documents also attest to the fact that as from DATE the applicant and Mr PERSON were held in the same detention facility , that they were interrogated by apparently the same team of “ psychologist / interrogators ” , that their interrogations were videotaped and that the series of the applicant ’s enhanced interrogations , including the so - called “ waterboarding ” , “ continued through QUANTITY DATE ” ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

The ORG material further confirm in the cables of CARDINAL and DATE that this specific detention facility was closed following an inventory of the videotapes recording the enhanced interrogations of Mr GPE and Mr PERSON ’s . The inventory was carried out on DATE . No ORG cables from that location were sent to the ORG after DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The DATE ORG states that , after the enhanced interrogations of Mr PERSON which , as noted above , continued at that black site until DATE , both he and Mr PERSON were moved to “ another ORG black site ” . The same fact is mentioned in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

Senator PERSON and Mr GPE , the experts who gave evidence to the ORG , in their presentation at the fact - finding hearing explained in detail the above sequence of events with reference to documentary evidence available in the public domain , in particular the material released by the ORG . They identified the ORG detention facility in which the applicant and PERSON PERSON had been held during the period under consideration as the one known under the codename “ Cat ’s Eye ” or “ GPE ” and located in GPE . They conclusively confirmed that the closure of the site and interruption of Mr PERSON interrogation schedule on DATE indicated the date of his physical transfer by means of the HVD rendition out of the black site in GPE to another black site ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

In the light of the above first - hand ORG documentary evidence and clear and convincing expert evidence , the ORG finds established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant , following his capture , was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE from DATE to DATE , that Mr PERSON was also held in the same facility at that time and that they were both moved together to “ another ORG black site ” on DATE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , § FAC ) .

It is alleged that on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON , had been transferred by the ORG under the ORG from GPE to GPE on a ORG contracted aircraft , registered as NCARDINALMU with ORG . The flight flew on DATE from GPE via GPE and landed at FAC on DATE . The applicant was then secretly detained in the NORP intelligence training base at FAC .

It is further alleged that during his undisclosed detention in GPE the applicant was subjected to torture and various other forms of ill - treatment and deprived of any contact with his family . He was held in GPE until DATE . On DATE he was secretly transferred by the ORG from GPE to Rabat on a rendition plane with tail number NCARDINALP ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG notes that the fact that after DATE the applicant and Mr PERSON were detained together to the same detention facility is conclusively confirmed in paragraph QUANTITY of the DATE ORG . The paragraph states that the same “ interrogation team ” was “ to interrogate PERSON and debrief PERSON ” and that “ the interrogation team continued EITs on LOC for DATE in DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As regards the aircraft indicated by the applicant , the ORG observes that there is abundant evidence identifying them as rendition planes used by the ORG for the transportation of detainees under the HVD ORG . That evidence includes data from multiple sources , such as flight plan messages by ORG and information provided by ORG and ORG ( “ ORG ” ) , which was released and subsequently analysed in depth in the course of the international inquiries concerning the ORG secret detentions and renditions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

In the light of that accumulated evidence , there can be no doubt that :

CARDINAL ) the NCARDINALMU , a Gulfstream jet with capacity for CARDINAL passengers , flew on DATE from GPE via GPE to GPE and landed there on DATE at CARDINAL . ORG official documents recorded that on arrival there were CARDINAL passengers and CARDINAL crew and that the plane departed from PERSON on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL with no passengers and CARDINAL crew ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the NCARDINALP , also known as “ Guantánamo Express ” , a Gulfstream V with capacity for CARDINAL passengers but usually configured for CARDINAL , arrived in PERSON on DATE at TIME from GPE , GPE . It stayed on the runway for TIME and then departed for GPE , GPE . ORG official documents recorded that on arrival there was one passenger and CARDINAL crew and on departure there were no passengers and CARDINAL crew .

As regards transfers of High - Value Detainees between ORG black sites , the ORG declassified documents give , in meticulous detail , a first - hand account of the standard procedures applied to them . The transfer procedure is also related in the DATE ORG , which compiled consistent and explicit descriptions given by the CARDINAL High - Value Detainees , including the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

Nothing has been put before the ORG to the effect that upon and during his transfer to and from “ another black site ” on , respectively , DATE and DATE , the applicant could have been subjected to less harsh treatment than that defined in the strict and detailed rules applied by the ORG as a matter of routine . It accordingly finds it established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that for the purposes of his transfers on CARDINAL DATE and DATE :

CARDINAL ) NORP the applicant was photographed both clothed and naked prior to and again after the transfer ;

CARDINAL ) NORP he underwent a rectal examination and was made to wear a diaper and dressed in a tracksuit ;

CARDINAL ) earphones were placed over his ears , through which loud music was sometimes played ;

CARDINAL ) NORP he was blindfolded with at least a cloth tied around the head and black goggles ;

CARDINAL ) he was shackled by his hands and feet , and was transported to the airport by road and loaded onto the plane ;

CARDINAL ) he was transported on the plane either in a reclined sitting position with his hands shackled in front of him or lying flat on the floor of the plane with his hands handcuffed behind his back ;

CARDINAL ) during the journey he was not allowed to go to the toilet and , if necessary , was obliged to urinate or defecate into the diaper .

In that regard , the ORG would also note that a strikingly similar account of his transfers in ORG custody was given by the applicant in GPE ( see GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

As regards the applicant ’s actual presence in GPE , the ORG takes due note of the fact that there is no direct evidence that it was the applicant who was transported on board the NCARDINALMU flight from GPE to PERSON on DATE or that he was then taken from PERSON to other ORG secret detention facilities on board NCARDINALP on DATE .

The applicant , who for DATE on end was held in detention conditions specifically designed to isolate and disorientate a person by transfers to unknown locations , even if he had been enabled to testify before the ORG , would not be able to say where he was detained . Nor can it be reasonably expected that he will ever on his own be able to identify the places in which he was held . Also , having regard to the very nature and extreme secrecy of the ORG operations in the course of the “ war on terror ” and to how the declassification of crucial material demonstrating the ORG activities at that time currently stands – this being a matter of common knowledge – , no such direct evidence will soon be forthcoming in this regard .

No trace of the applicant can , or will , be found in any official records in GPE because his presence on the plane and on NORP territory was , by the very nature of the rendition operations , purposefully not to be recorded . As unequivocally confirmed by the expert , ORG records showing numbers of passengers and crew arriving and departing on the rendition planes in question “ neither include[d ] , nor purport[ed ] to include detainees who were brought into or out of NORP territory involuntarily , by means of clandestine ORG renditions ” and those detainees “ were never listed among the persons on board filed vis - à - vis any official institution ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In view of the foregoing , in order to ascertain whether or not it can be concluded that the applicant was detained in GPE at the relevant time , the ORG has taken into account all the facts that have already been found established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and analysed other material in its possession , including , in particular , the expert evidence reconstructing the chronology of rendition and detention of the applicant and PERSON in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

It has already been established that on DATE the applicant was transferred from the black site in GPE together with Mr PERSON and that they were subsequently detained in the same ORG detention facility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The date of the transfer coincides exactly with the path followed by the NCARDINALMU , which took off from GPE on DATE and then , after the stopover in GPE , arrived in PERSON on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The flight was the subject of protracted and intense investigations by the experts who gave evidence to the ORG , who had investigated it “ in its most intricate detail from its planning and authorisation to its execution through multiple , different corporate shells ” . They found no alternative explanation for its landing in PERSON other than the transfer of the applicant and Mr PERSON from GPE to “ another black site ” , which they categorically identified as the one codenamed “ Quartz ” and located at the NORP intelligence training base in Stare Kiejkuty near Szymany ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above )

The ORG notes that ORG have offered no explanation for the nature of , the reasons for , or the purposes of the landing of the NCARDINALMU on their territory on DATE , a plane which in all the relevant reliable and thorough international inquiries was conclusively identified as the rendition aircraft used for transportation of High - Value Detainees in ORG custody at the material time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above , with further references ) .

Nor have they explained the reasons for the subsequent series of landings of the ORG rendition aircraft ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The landing of NCARDINALMU on DATE was followed by CARDINAL further landings of the NCARDINALP ( the “ Guantánamo Express ” ) , the most notorious ORG rendition plane . CARDINAL of those landings took place on DATE the date indicated by the applicant as that of his transfer from GPE and conclusively confirmed by the experts as that on which he had been transferred out of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The series ended with the landing of NCARDINALP on DATE the date indicated by Mr PERSON for his transfer from GPE , confirmed by the experts as the date of his transfer out of GPE and identified by them as the date on which the black site “ Quartz ” in GPE had been closed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and also PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , § FAC ) . Indeed , no other ORG - associated aircraft appeared in PERSON after that date ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In view of the lack of any explanation by the Government as to how the events in the present case occurred and their refusal to disclose to the ORG documents necessary for its examination of the case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG will draw inferences from the evidence before it and from the Government ’s conduct ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

Consequently , on the basis of unrebutted facts and in the light of all the relevant documentary material in its possession and the coherent , clear and categorical expert evidence explaining in detail the chronology of the events occurring in the applicant ’s case DATE and DATE , the ORG finds that the applicant ’s allegations to the effect that during that time he was detained in GPE are sufficiently convincing .

Lastly , as regards the applicant ’s treatment in ORG custody over the period under consideration , a detailed description of “ unauthorised techniques ” applied to him by a ORG “ senior operation officer ” or “ debriefer ” in DATE and DATE comes from the most authoritative sources : the DATE ORG and the DATE ORG ( see CARDINAL above ) . This is supplemented by the applicant ’s own account of the ordeal as rendered in the DATE ORG ( see paragraph FAC above ) . Senator PERSON and Mr GPE also gave an account of those events based on the relevant documentary evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

According to all these sources , in DATE and DATE in ORG custody the applicant was subjected to the “ enhanced ” and “ unauthorised ” interrogation techniques . As regards the latter , he was subjected to the following treatment :

CARDINAL ) NORP mock executions with the use of a handgun when he sat shackled and with the use of a power drill during which he stood naked and blindfolded ;

CARDINAL ) stress positions : he was required to kneel on the floor and lean back , he was held in a stress standing position and pushed when and lifted off the floor by his arms while his arms were bound behind his back with a belt ;

CARDINAL ) NORP threats ;

CARDINAL ) NORP during interrogations cigar smoke was blown into his face ;

CARDINAL ) NORP stiff brush was used to bathe him in the manner intended to induce pain ;

CARDINAL ) standing on his shackles , resulting in cuts and bruises .

Assessing all the above facts and evidence as a whole , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :

( CARDINAL ) on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON , arrived in PERSON on board the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALMU ;

( CARDINAL ) from DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE identified as having the codename “ Quartz ” and located in Stare Kiejkuty ;

( CARDINAL ) during his detention in GPE under the ORG he was interrogated by the ORG and subjected to EITs and also to unauthorised interrogation techniques as described in the DATE ORG , DATE ORG and the DATE ORG ;

CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE on the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALP.

ORG Several sources of evidence obtained by the ORG confirm that the NORP authorities followed a special procedure for the landing of ORG rendition flights in PERSON .

That procedure was related before the ORG by an eye - witness , a certain PERSON , who had been the manager of PERSON airport at the material time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . On the basis of her detailed account and statements from other persons , including the former director of PERSON airport and the former Chairman of ORG of that airport , the summary description of that procedure was included in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , the DATE ORG contained a compilation of testimonies obtained from confidential sources among PERSON airport employees , civil servants , security guards , and ORG and military intelligence officials , who had given an account of what had happened at the time immediately following the landing of the ORG aircraft landed in PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The above - mentioned accounts of the special procedure , which are concordant and complementary , can be summarised as follows :

CARDINAL ) NORP all the landings were preceded by a telephone call to PERSON airport from ORG of ORG or a military intelligence official , informing the authorities of the airport of an arriving “ NORP aircraft ” ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the army was informed at the same time and CARDINAL military officials were on duty in the airport at that time ;

CARDINAL ) NORP prior to the landings CARDINAL high - ranking ORG officers always appeared in the airport ;

CARDINAL ) NORP orders were given directly by ORG , emphasising that the airport authorities should not approach the aircraft and that the military staff and services alone were to handle them ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the airport manager was instructed to adhere to strict protocols to prepare for the flights , including clearing the runways of all other aircraft and vehicles , and making sure that all NORP staff were brought in to the terminal building from the vicinity of the runway , including local security officials and airport employees ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the role of the airport personnel was only to complete the technical arrangements after the landing ;

CARDINAL ) the planes were treated as military planes and were not subjected to customs clearance ; the military character of the flight was determined by ORG and the relevant procedure was to be followed by the airport staff ;

CARDINAL) the perimeter and grounds of the airport were secured by military officers and ORG ;

CARDINAL ) the aircraft touched down in PERSON and taxied to a halt at the far end of the runway , QUANTITY ( and out of visible range ) from the QUANTITY terminal control tower ; it always parked with the doors facing towards the wood ;

CARDINAL ) the passengers never entered the airport ;

CARDINAL ) ORG approached the aircraft first and then drove away ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the “ landing team ” waited at the edge of the runway , in CARDINAL or CARDINAL vans with tinted windows , bearing the Stare Kiejkuty army unit ’s registration plates ; the vans , with their engines often running , were parked in close proximity to the aircraft ;

CARDINAL ) after ORG drove away , the vans with tinted windows drove up to the aircraft and then drove away ;

CARDINAL ) the planes left shortly afterwards ;

CARDINAL ) the landing fees were paid to the airport in cash by a LOC ( or a person who spoke NORP very well ) DATE and were considerably higher – several times more – than those normally applicable ( QUANTITY ) , including an amount for “ non - standard handling ” .

Several sources of evidence obtained by the ORG reveal that , in addition to granting the ORG rendition aircraft overflight permissions and navigating the planes through GPE ’s airspace , the NORP authorities , including ORG , accorded them special status , various exemptions and authorisations . They also cooperated with the ORG in disguising the aircraft ’s actual routes and validated incomplete or false flight plans which served to cover - up the ORG activities in GPE , in contravention of international aviation regulations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

As explained in the DATE ORG and by Senator PERSON and Mr GPE orally before the Court , Jeppesen , a usual provider of services for the ORG for rendition flights ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , filed multiple false – “ dummy ” – flight plans for those flights , including the landings in GPE . Those plans often featured an airport of departure and/or destination that the aircraft never intended to visit . In CARDINAL out of CARDINAL instances of the ORG aircraft landings in PERSON , including the landing of NCARDINALMU on DATE with the applicant and Mr PERSON on board ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , flight plans were disguised , false plans were filed and ORG navigated the aircraft into PERSON without a valid flight plan ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

A detailed analysis of the rendition circuit of the flight NCARDINALP , including the stopover in PERSON on DATE is included in ORG . That report explains how the aircraft made the entire circuit under various forms of exemption and special status , which indicated that the flights were planned and executed with the full collaboration of the GPE authorities and the “ host ” States through which the NCARDINALP travelled . Such exemptions are only granted when specifically authorised by the national authority whose territory is being used ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG navigated the NCARDINALP into GPE , despite the fact that all relevant flight plans named GPE as the airport of destination . The fact that ORG accepted ORG ’s flight plan naming GPE but navigated the plane to PERSON demonstrated that the NORP authorities did not require it to comply with international aviation regulations and that they knowingly issued a false landing permit . In consequence , the rest of the aviation monitoring community , including ORG , mistakenly recorded the aircraft ’s stopover in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

ORG Several sources of evidence before the Court have suggested the existence of a special bilateral agreement between GPE and the GPE on the setting up and running of a secret prison in GPE .

The DATE PERSON , based on evidence from confidential sources , states that the ORG brokered an “ operating agreement ” with GPE to hold its High - Value Detainees in a secret detention facility and that GPE agreed to “ provide the LOC in which [ that facility was ] established , the highest degrees of physical security and secrecy , and steadfast guarantees of non - interference ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

In the context of the authorisation of GPE ’s role in the ORG rendition operations , the DATE Report mentioned a number of names of the NORP high - ranking officials , stating that they had known and authorised the country ’s role “ in the ORG operation of secret detention facilities for High - Value Detainees on NORP territory ” and that they “ could therefore be held accountable for these activities ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL , see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Senator PERSON confirmed those statements before the ORG and added that the operation had been organised within the framework of ORG . It had been decided that the ORG would be in sole charge of the operation and , if requested , the member countries would provide cooperation . As regards the specific names of NORP officials that had been given in the DATE ORG , he explained that they had been indicated “ because the sources that [ had ] provided us with these names [ had been ] of such value , they [ had been ] so authoritative and there [ had been ] so much concurring evidence of the involvement of those persons ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Mr GPE , when heard by the Court , said that whilst in the course of ORG they had not seen the classified documents in question , they had been made aware of the existence of authorising agreements , which granted extraordinary protections and permissions to the ORG in its execution of the rendition operations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Senator PERSON , both in his affidavit and oral testimony before the ORG , stated that he had been informed by an authoritative confidential source of a document DATE a draft prepared by the NORP intelligence DATE drawn up under the auspices of PERSON Government for the purpose of regulating the operation of the ORG prison in GPE . According to him , that document , which was currently in the NORP prosecution authority ’s possession , contained precise regulations concerning the functioning of the prison and , among other things , a proposed protocol for action in the event of a prisoner ’s death . The word “ detainees ” was used in the text . The draft had not been signed on behalf of the GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The DATE EP Resolution “ note[d ] with concern ” that the NORP authorities’ official reply of DATE to the to the Secretary General of ORG , “ indicate[d ] the existence of secret cooperation agreements initialled by the CARDINAL GPE secret services’ themselves , which GPE ] the activities of foreign secret services from the jurisdiction of the NORP judicial bodies ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG does not find it necessary for its examination of the present case to establish whether such agreement or agreements existed and if so , in what format and what was specifically provided therein .

It considers that it is inconceivable that the rendition aircraft crossed NORP airspace , landed in and departed from a NORP airport and that the ORG occupied the LOC in FAC without some kind of pre - existing arrangement enabling the ORG operation in GPE to be first prepared and then executed .

The ORG considers that the respondent ORG ’s lack of cooperation in the course of the international inquiries into the ORG rendition operations in LOC undertaken in DATE is an element that is relevant for its assessment of GPE ’s alleged knowledge of , and complicity in , the ORG rendition operations .

To begin with , in their response dated DATE to the Secretary General of ORG questions in the procedure launched under LAW , the authorities “ fully denied ” the allegations of “ the alleged existence in GPE of secret detention centres and related over - flights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; the relevant letter is also mentioned above in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that regard , they relied on the findings of “ ORG internal inquiry ” . It is not clear what kind of “ internal inquiry ” was carried out and whether the authorities in fact meant the ORG inquiry conducted in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but , be that as it may , they could not have been unaware of the ORG operations in the country in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

A similar obstructive attitude was displayed during ORG . In the DATE Marty Report it was noted that “ the NORP authorities ha[d ] been unable , despite repeated requests , to provide [ the rapporteur ] with information from their own national aviation records to confirm any ORG - connected flights into GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The DATE ORG noted that “ in DATE of correspondence , GPE ha[d ] failed to furnish [ the ] inquiry with any data from its own records confirming ORG - connected flights into its airspace or airports ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Senator PERSON , at the fact - finding hearing , added that “ GPE [ had been ] no exception ” and that practically all governments that [ had ] had links with the secret detention centres or with ‘ extraordinary rendition’ not only [ had ] not ORG ] but [ had done ] everything that they could in order to stifle the truth , to create obstacles in the search for the truth ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The conduct adopted by the authorities in respect to ORG was no different . PERSON explicitly stated that the NORP authorities cooperation with the GPE delegation had been “ regrettably poor ” , that the delegation had not been able to meet any representatives of ORG and that the ORG had been “ reluctant to offer full cooperation ... and receive [ the ] delegation at an appropriate political level ” . It was also noted that there had been confusion about flight registers of ORG planes transiting through GPE and contradictory statements about the existence of flight logs ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The same observations were made in the DATE EP Resolution ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In his testimony before the ORG , PERSON stated that ORG had “ cooperated very little ” with the ORG and that almost all representatives of the Government whom they had asked for a meeting had declined the ORG ’s request . He also confirmed that during his visit to GPE with the ORG delegation he had “ definitely ” had the impression that there had been attempts on the authorities’ part to conceal information ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Having regard to the above facts , the ORG finds that in the course of the relevant international inquiries the NORP authorities displayed conduct that can be characterised as denial , lack of cooperation with the inquiry bodies and marked reluctance to disclose information of the ORG rendition activities in GPE .

Mr PERSON , in his oral testimony described in detail a document – the records or “ the debriefing ” of the informal transatlantic meeting of ORG and ORG foreign ministers with the GPE Secretary of ORG PERSON , which had taken place on DATE . The meeting was convened in connection with recent international media reports concerning the ORG secret detentions and rendition , naming NORP countries that had allegedly had ORG black sites on their territory . The debriefing , obtained by the ORG from a credible confidential source in the offices of ORG , confirmed that the member GPE had had knowledge of the ORG rendition programme and there had been an “ animated discussion ” on the practices applied by the ORG . While PERSON could not recall whether there had been any intervention by ORG at that meeting , he said that it had appeared from PERSON statement “ we all know about these techniques ” that there had been an attempt on the GPE ’s part to share “ the weight of accusations ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG further notes that PERSON also referred to the meeting held in the context of ORG with the former NORP head of the security service who , “ although ... with great diplomacy ” , had confirmed that the ORG officials often landed in PERSON and that the NORP intelligence and the ORG had had “ frequent relations of cooperation ... consisting in sharing certain practices and objectives ” ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

NORP Former President of GPE , PERSON , in his press interview given on DATE , also referred to the “ intelligence cooperation ” with the ORG and stated that “ the decision to cooperate with the ORG carried the risk that the NORP would use inadmissible methods ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Having regard to the procedure for High - Value Detainees’ transfers under which , as established above , a detainee such as the applicant was blindfolded , wore black goggles and was shackled by his hands and feet for the duration of his transfer ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG considers that those of the NORP authorities who received the ORG personnel on the PERSON airport runway , put them on the vans and drove them to the black site could not be unaware that the persons brought there with them were the ORG prisoners .

In particular , the ORG finds it inconceivable they would not have seen or , as described by PERSON , “ witnessed ... the unloading of bound and shackled detainees from aircraft ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

There are also other elements that the ORG considers relevant for its assessment of GPE ’s knowledge of the nature and purposes of the ORG activities on its territory at the material time .

As recounted by Senator PERSON in his affidavit and subsequently confirmed in his oral testimony given to the ORG , “ in the period when the ORG prisoners were detained in Stare PERSON the authorities of the military base ordered from a NORP company a metal cage of the size fitting a grown man with the option of adding a portable chemical toilet ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . No explanations have been offered by the respondent Government as to what kind of purposes that cage was to serve .

Furthermore , there were , as pointed out by CARDINAL of the experts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , other aspects of the ORG activity in GPE that were extraordinary from the perspective of the normal operation of an airport like PERSON .

For instance , the landing of the ORG CARDINAL ( NCARDINALP on which Mr PERSON was transferred from GPE ; see PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) on CARDINAL DATE at PERSON took place despite the fact that the airport did not have the necessary technical conditions for receiving such a large aircraft , in particular the facilities to refuel it , and the fact that the airport fire brigade was not adequately equipped for that purpose ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In the view of PERSON , the airport manager at the relevant time , “ there must have been some very pressing reasons ” for allowing that landing ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .

On another occasion in DATE , notwithstanding the severe weather conditions and the fact that snow had not been cleared at the airport for DATE , the airport management were not in a position to refuse the ORG aircraft ’s landing and had to clear the runway because “ if the aircraft concerned did not land , ‘ heads w[ould ] ORG ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

For the airport civilian staff , the landing of the ORG aircraft was a “ major event ” . Despite the fact that they were excluded from the handling of the aircraft and were taken to the airport terminal building during the ORG landings and departures ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they perceived those events as “ spies ” coming or a “ changeover of intelligence staff ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Lastly , the ORG attaches importance to the fact that already DATE and DATE ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody at different places , including LOC or GPE base in GPE was largely in the public domain through numerous statements or reports of international organisations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) .

At the material time that topic was also present in the international and NORP media , which paid considerable attention to the situation of ORG prisoners in GPE custody ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG has taken due note of the fact that knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations and the scale of abuse to which High - Value Detainees were subjected in ORG custody evolved over time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In particular , the ORG ’s various secret or top secret documents , including the DATE ORG , the ORG Background Paper and the DATE ORG DATE which , in the present case and in GPE ( PERSON ) , are among important items of documentary evidence relevant for the establishment of the facts relating to both applicants’ rendition , secret detention and treatment by the GPE authorities DATE were disclosed to the public , in a heavily redacted form , as late as DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The DATE ORG , including the applicant ’s account of the treatment and material conditions of detention to which he was subjected under the ORG , was leaked into the public domain in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The reports following ORG and ORG emerged earlier , in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ) , but this was CARDINAL after the events complained of . As stated by Senator PERSON , even “ the picture provided by the DATE [ ORG is still very much a partial CARDINAL ” , having regard to the subsequent developments , such as the publication of the ORG materials and the availability of statements from detainees ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As already stated above ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG has relied extensively on those sources of evidence in its retrospective reconstruction and establishment of the facts concerning the applicant ’s transfers to and from GPE and his secret detention and ill - treatment by the ORG in GPE . However , the NORP ORG ’s knowledge of and complicity in the HVD Programme must be established with reference to the elements that it knew or ought to have known at or closely around the relevant time , that is , DATE and DATE in respect of the applicant and DATE and DATE in respect of Mr PERSON .

In that regard , the ORG has taken into account the various attendant circumstances referred to above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In the ORG ’s view , those elements taken as a whole demonstrate that at that time the NORP authorities knew that the ORG used its airport in PERSON and the Stare Kiejkuty military base for the purposes of detaining secretly terrorist suspects captured within the “ war on terror ” operation by the GPE authorities . It is inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed NORP airspace , landed in and departed from a NORP airport , or that the ORG occupied the LOC in FAC and transported detainees there , without the NORP State being informed of and involved in the preparation and execution of the ORG on its territory . It is also inconceivable that activities of that character and scale , possibly vital for the country ’s military and political interests , could have been undertaken on NORP territory without GPE ’s knowledge and without the necessary authorisation being given at the appropriate level of the ORG authorities .

The ORG would again refer to the testimony given by the experts who , in the course of their inquiries , had the benefit of contact with various , including confidential , sources . They all stated , in unambiguous terms , that at the relevant time GPE had had , or should have had , knowledge of the ORG rendition operations . GPE had ensured the security of the area and had collaborated in concealing the rendition flights . The NORP officials’ liaison units must have been aware of the preparation or execution of particular operations and their timing . They had known that the ORG interrogations had contributed intelligence to GPE on terror ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

This did not mean , in the experts’ view , that the NORP authorities had known the details of what went on inside the black site , since the interrogations had been the exclusive responsibility of the ORG , or that they had witnessed treatment to which High - Value Detainees had been subjected in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . ORG , being confronted with no evidence to the contrary , accepts the experts’ above - mentioned assessment .

Notwithstanding the foregoing proviso as to the lack of direct knowledge of the treatment to which the applicant was subjected in GPE , as noted above , already DATE and DATE numerous public sources were consistently reporting ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody in different places . Moreover , in the DATE ORG adopted in DATE of which GPE , as any other ORG was aware DATE ORG of ORG was “ deeply concerned at the conditions of detention ” of captured “ unlawful combatants ” held in the custody of the GPE authorities . All these sources reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the GPE authorities that were manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Consequently , there were good reasons to believe that a person in GPE custody under the HVD Programme could be exposed to a serious risk of treatment contrary to those principles ( see also GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Taking into consideration all the material in its possession ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG finds that there is abundant and coherent circumstantial evidence , which leads inevitably to the following conclusions :

( a ) that GPE knew of the nature and purposes of the ORG ’s activities on its territory at the material time and that , by enabling the ORG to use its airspace and the airport , by its complicity in disguising the movements of rendition aircraft and by its provision of logistics and services , including the special security arrangements , the special procedure for landings , the transportation of the ORG teams with detainees on land , and the securing of the Stare Kiejkuty base for the ORG ’s secret detention , GPE cooperated in the preparation and execution of the ORG rendition , secret detention and interrogation operations on its territory ;

( b ) that , given that knowledge and the emerging widespread public information about ill - treatment and abuse of detained terrorist suspects in the custody of the GPE authorities , GPE ought to have known that , by enabling the ORG to detain such persons on its territory , it was exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention ( see also PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Consequently , GPE was in a position where its responsibility for securing “ to everyone within [ its ] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined .... in [ the ] Convention ” set forth in LAW was engaged in respect of the applicant at the material time .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus Kūris;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

DATE and DATE the applicant was employed and made the statutory contributions to the social - security scheme . Subsequently , she was in receipt of unemployment benefit from DATE until DATE .

NORP In response to a request lodged on DATE , the applicant was granted a disability pension ( rokkantsági nyugdíj ) DATE on the basis of a retrospective finding that she had lost , as of DATE , PERCENT of her capacity to work on account of various ailments . This assessment was maintained in DATE , DATE and DATE .

As of DATE the legislation on the methodology used to assess health impairment in occupational contexts changed . In application of the new methodology , the applicant ’s disability was assessed by an expert at PERCENT on DATE . Without envisaging any procedure for rehabilitation , the assessment panel scheduled the next check - up of her medical status for DATE .

The Government submitted that , under the new methodology , the applicant ’s previous condition of PERCENT loss of working capacity would have corresponded to PERCENT overall health impairment . Since , however , she was found to have PERCENT health impairment , her condition had to be deemed to have improved in DATE .

The applicant submitted that the connection suggested by the Government between the scores of PERCENT in the old system and PERCENT in the new system was not based on any legal text . In her submission , her condition had not improved at all ; the difference in scores was solely a consequence of changing the methodology used .

As a consequence of the applicant ’s newly assessed PERCENT level of disability , on DATE the relevant pension insurance directorate withdrew her entitlement to the disability pension . The applicant appealed against that decision . On an unspecified date , the decision was upheld by the second - instance pension insurance authority .

At the relevant time the DATE amount of the applicant ’s disability pension was MONEY ( ORG ) , MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG , challenging the administrative decision .

The Nyíregyháza Labour Court heard the case , and appointed an expert with a view to obtaining an opinion as to the reasons for the difference in the scores . In an opinion of CARDINAL DATE , the expert submitted that the old score of PERCENT , as well as the new one of PERCENT , were correct under the respective methodologies ; at any rate , the applicant ’s condition had not significantly improved since DATE .

Observing that the applicant had accumulated DATE and DATE of service time , the court retained the disability score of PERCENT and dismissed her action on DATE . The applicant was ordered to reimburse the amounts received after DATE . The court noted that the applicant ’s next medical assessment was due in DATE . It drew her attention to the possibility of making a renewed application for disability pension should her health deteriorate .

NORP In DATE the applicant requested another assessment of her disability . On DATE the first - instance authority assessed it at PERCENT , scheduling the next assessment for DATE . The second - instance authority changed this score to PERCENT on DATE , with a reassessment due in DATE . Such a level would have entitled her to disability pension had rehabilitation not been possible . However , this time the assessment panel envisaged the applicant ’s complex rehabilitation within a CARDINAL time - frame , and recommended that she be entitled to rehabilitation allowance ( rehabilitációs járadék ) . Nevertheless , no such rehabilitation took place , and the applicant did not receive rehabilitation allowance .

As of DATE , a new law on disability and related benefits ( Act no . ORG of DATE ) entered into force . It introduced additional eligibility criteria . In particular , instead of fulfilling a service period as required by the former legislation , the persons concerned had to have DATE covered by social security in DATE the submission of their requests . Individuals who did not meet this requirement could nevertheless qualify if they had no interruption of social cover exceeding DATE throughout their careers , or if they were in receipt of a disability pension or rehabilitation allowance on DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted another request for disability allowance ( rokkantsági ellátás ) . Her condition was assessed in DATE , leading to the finding of PERCENT disability . On DATE her request was dismissed because she did not have the requisite period of social cover . Rehabilitation was not envisaged . The next assessment was scheduled for DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant was employed by ORG in ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted a fresh request for disability pension under the new law . She underwent another assessment , during which her degree of disability was again established at PERCENT . Rehabilitation was not envisaged .

In principle , such a level of disability would have entitled the applicant to a disability allowance under the new system . However , since her disability pension had been terminated in DATE ( that is , she was not in receipt of a disability pension or a rehabilitation allowance on DATE ) and , moreover , she had not accumulated the requisite number of DATE of social - security cover or demonstrated uninterrupted social cover , she was not eligible , under any title , for a disability allowance under the new system . Instead of DATE covered by social security in DATE , the applicant had been covered for CARDINAL days . According to the Government , had the law not been so amended , the applicant would again have become eligible for a disability pension , since her health impairment was again assessed as exceeding the relevant threshold in DATE .

The applicant ’s request was refused by the relevant authority of ORG on DATE and , on appeal , by ORG on DATE . On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG , challenging these administrative decisions . On DATE the court dismissed her case . This judgment was not subject to appeal .

From DATE the impugned legislative criteria were amended with a view to extending eligibility to those who have accumulated either DATE of social - security cover over DATE or DATE over DATE . However , the applicant does not meet these criteria either .

NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant received a DATE housing allowance from the local municipality , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( DATE ) in DATE . The applicant also applied for the basic welfare allowance ( rendszeres szociális segély ) , but her request was denied because she did not meet the statutory requirements .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on a charge of murder . On DATE the ORG authorised his pre - trial detention . The applicant remained in custody during the investigation and pending the trial .

On DATE ORG scheduled the trial of the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants for DATE . The court also ruled that the trial was to be held in camera .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder committed out of national hatred and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal . The court decided to hear the applicant ’s case in his absence . His lawyer was present and made submissions to the court .

On DATE the applicant was released on parole .

On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG held a new appeal hearing . The court found that the case had become time - barred under the statute of limitations and discharged the applicant from serving a prison sentence . The applicant ’s lawyer was present and made submissions to the court . The applicant did not attend the hearing .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

On DATE , as part of the Independence Day festivities , there was a wreath - laying ceremony at a monument to PERSON , a famous NORP poet and public figure , with the participation of the then President of GPE PERSON .

The applicant , as a member of the opposition party PERSON , took part in a public gathering organised by it on the occasion of Independence Day . According to her , the beginning of the meeting was delayed because of the aforementioned wreath - laying ceremony .

After the ceremony the applicant approached the wreath laid by PERSON Yanukovych and detached part of the ribbon bearing the words “ the President of GPE V.F.Yanukovych ” without damaging the wreath itself . This was meant to express her opinion that PERSON PERSON could not be called the President of GPE for a number of reasons .

The case file contains several copies of photos of the applicant in the aforementioned setting . In CARDINAL of them she is seen near the wreath detaching the ribbon from it in a careful and concentrated manner , without changing the position of the wreath . In another photo the applicant holds the already detached ribbon in front of her and seems to be either laughing or saying something . There are many people next to her . In the last photo the applicant seems to be trying to tear the ribbon apart . Her face expresses either effort or contempt .

The applicant ’s action was video recorded by CARDINAL of the police officers in charge of maintaining public order . The aforementioned photos may also have been taken by the police .

On DATE the police officer in question established the applicant ’s identity and reported the incident to his superiors .

On DATE the applicant was apprehended ( for TIME see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and taken to the GPE district police station , where a report was drawn up indicating that her actions amounted to petty hooliganism in breach of LAW . The applicant , who was not allowed to consult a lawyer , refused to sign that report .

On DATE the ORG of Kyiv , at a hearing attended by the applicant and the lawyer retained by her in the meantime , found the applicant guilty of petty hooliganism on account of the incident of CARDINAL DATE and sentenced her to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention . The court explained that it had decided to apply such a penalty given the nature of the offence , the applicant ’s cynical attitude towards it and her failure of admit her guilt . The applicant submitted at the hearing that she had been expressing her civil position and that she had not damaged the wreath , but had merely taken a piece of the ribbon to show her children and grandchildren and also her acquaintances who had voted for Mr Yanukovych .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged an appeal on her behalf . He argued that the applicant ’s action had been an expression of her civil position and that it had been neither prompted by hooligan motives nor aimed at disturbing public order or breaching the peace . The appeal further referred to LAW case - law , according to which the notion of “ expression ” concerned not only words , but also actions intended to convey a certain message or information . Referring to paragraph CARDINAL of Resolution of ORG no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the lawyer also submitted that the penalty imposed was excessively severe .

On DATE ORG , at a hearing attended by the applicant ’s CARDINAL lawyers , upheld the first - instance court ’s decision in a final ruling . By that time the applicant had served her sentence in full .


András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicants are NORP nationals living in various regions of GPE . The numbers and dates of lodging of their applications , and their full names , dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Appendix .

NORP , may be summarised as follows .

NORP On various dates DATE the police received information , in each of the applicants’ cases , implicating the applicants in drug - dealing . On the basis of that information , the police decided to carry out an undercover operation in the form of a test purchase of drugs from the applicants by undercover agents .

NORP In all CARDINAL cases , the police invited CARDINAL randomly chosen attesting witnesses to observe the progress of the undercover operation . The attesting witnesses confirmed in their pre - trial depositions that the undercover agents had been searched prior to the test purchase and that they had bought controlled substances from the applicants with the banknotes marked and supplied by the police . They also attested that after the test purchase the police had searched the applicants or their LOC , and seized and sealed controlled substances found on the applicants and other evidence that had been gathered .

NORP The police also documented each step of the undercover operations . In particular , they drew up records of personal inspections of undercover agents , examinations of banknotes , test purchases , personal search and crime scene inspections .

The applicants were criminally prosecuted for drug - related offences under the NORP legislation in force . The undercover agents and police officers who had participated in test purchases of drugs testified during the trial , and as participants in the criminal proceedings , the applicants were able to question them . They were also able to submit various motions , present arguments in their defence and lodge objections . The attesting witnesses summoned by the prosecution were sought for but they failed to appear for various reasons , and the national courts read out their pre - trial statements regarding the investigative measures and admitted them as evidence despite the applicants’ objections . The procedural records drawn up by the police were also admitted as evidence by the courts . The contents of the pre - trial depositions of the attesting witnesses were identical to the relevant police records .

The applicants appealed against the judgments convicting them , submitting , inter alia , that their convictions had been unfair due to their inability to examine the attesting witnesses . The judgments were , however , upheld on appeal and became final .

Article CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the ORG ( as in force at the material time ) provided that the court , prosecution and investigators could not apply laws in breach of the provisions of the ORG .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL further provided that if the court , prosecution or investigators breached the provisions of the ORG in the course of criminal proceedings , evidence obtained as a result of such breach would be rendered inadmissible .

Chapter II of the ORG contained CARDINAL different provisions governing the participation of witnesses and attesting witnesses in the criminal proceedings .

Article CARDINAL provided that ,

“ CARDINAL . A witness ( свидетель ) is a person who may have knowledge of facts relevant to the investigation and resolution of a criminal case and who is subpoenaed to testify . ”

If a witness fails to appear for no valid reason , his or her appearance may be enforced . ”

Article CARDINAL provided that ,

“ An attesting witness ( “ понятой ” ) is a person disinterested in the outcome of the criminal case who is invited by an investigator to attest to an investigative measure being carried out and also to its substance , progress and results . Minors who are involved in a criminal case and their close relatives and relatives , and also investigators , can not act as attesting witnesses . ”

Article CARDINAL of the ORG stipulated that body searches , searches of LOC , seizure of evidence and other investigative measures had to be carried out by order of the investigators . It further required the recording of all investigative measures carried out .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG established that all participants in investigative measures should receive a record thereof . They had to be informed of their right to make amendments and clarifications to the record and have them noted in it . Their remarks should be acknowledged and signed by the persons making them .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG required CARDINAL attesting witnesses to be present during , inter alia , the inspection of objects relevant to the criminal case , body searches , searches of LOC and seizure of evidence .

Article CARDINAL provided for admitting into evidence the records of investigative measures and trial records if they complied with the requirements of the ORG .

Article CARDINAL provided that evidence obtained in breach of the provisions of the ORG would be deemed inadmissible . It further provided that inadmissible evidence would have no legal force and could not be relied on as grounds for criminal charges or for proving any of the circumstances for which evidence is required in criminal proceedings .

Article CARDINAL prohibited the use of the results of a criminal investigation if they failed to satisfy the rules of evidence laid down in the ORG .

Article CARDINAL and Article CARDINAL stipulated the investigator ’s obligation to examine and rule on motions submitted by the defendant after the review of materials of the criminal case , and to inform the defendant of his right to appeal against an adverse decision on his motion .

Article CARDINAL provided that parties to a criminal case could request a trial court to exclude certain evidence . As a general rule , the burden of proof would be on the party which submitted a motion to exclude evidence , except where a defendant sought to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the provisions of the ORG , in which case the prosecution would have to provide evidence to the contrary .

Article CARDINAL made it a crime for investigators , prosecutors and defence attorneys to forge evidence .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Prevent unauthorised entry into country);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants found themselves staying in the transit zone of FAC of GPE . The details of each application are set out below .

The applicant is an NORP national who was born in DATE .

The applicant moved from GPE to GPE in DATE seeking employment . He later moved to GPE to look for a job .

On DATE the applicant travelled by air from GPE to GPE . The journey consisted of CARDINAL legs : GPE to GPE and GPE to GPE . The NORP authorities denied him entry for reasons that the applicant did not specify in his application . The applicant was sent to GPE on DATE . On arrival at FAC , he was not allowed to pass through passport control .

From DATE the applicant stayed in the transit zone of FAC . The applicant described the conditions of his stay in the transit zone as follows . He slept on a mattress on the floor in the boarding area of the airport , which was constantly lit , crowded and noisy . He sustained himself on emergency rations provided by the NORP office of ORG . There were no showers in the transit area .

On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE , arguing that in GPE he would run the risk of persecution by militants belonging to ORG and ORG ( DATE also known as NORP State of GPE and the PERSON ) because he had refused to join them , as well as by NORP government forces for the reason that he practiced the NORP form of NORP .

On DATE the applicant received a visit from the GPE regional department of ORG ( “ the GPE Region FMS ” ) and was interviewed in the transit zone . ORG did not issue the applicant with a certificate to confirm that his refugee status application deserved to be examined on the merits ( “ examination certificate ” ) .

On DATE the GPE Region FMS dismissed the applicant ’s refugee status application . The applicant appealed to the higher migration authority ( ORG of GPE – “ the NORP FMS ” ) , asking it to overrule the decision of DATE , to issue him with an examination certificate , and to allocate him to a centre for the temporary detention of aliens .

On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on the grounds that he had not received any direct threats targeted against him personally and that “ the applicant [ had not submitted ] convincing evidence that he might become a victim of persecution by ORG militants or NORP authorities on the grounds contained in the definition of the term ‘ ORG , including his religion ” . The issue of the applicant ’s stay in FAC was not addressed in the decision .

The applicant ’s lawyer was served with the decision of DATE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decisions of CARDINAL November and DATE with ORG of GPE . He specifically argued that the migration authorities had not complied with the procedural rules by failing to interview him speedily or to issue him with an examination certificate , and that he had spent DATE in the transit zone of FAC in conditions contrary to the guarantees of LAW , without access to shower and other amenities .

On DATE , having been resettled by ORG , the applicant left for GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the NORP ORG ’s decision . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a brief statement of appeal ( « краткая апелляционная жалоба ORG ) , pending receipt of a reasoned judgment in written form . By DATE ( the date on which the applicants submitted their written observations to the ORG ) , no such reasoned judgment had been issued .

The applicant was born in DATE . He holds a passport issued by ORG .

DATE the applicant was in GPE , GPE . It appears that initially he had held a valid entry visa but that he did not take steps to obtain permission to reside in GPE after its expiry .

NORP In DATE the applicant travelled from GPE to the NORP territories via GPE . For unknown reasons he took a flight from GPE back to GPE on DATE . Because the applicant did not have a valid visa for GPE , he was denied entry to the country by the border guard service .

From DATE the applicant stayed in the transit zone of FAC . The applicant described the conditions of his stay in the transit zone as follows . He slept on a mattress on the floor in the boarding area of the airport , which was constantly lit , crowded and noisy . The applicant sustained himself on emergency rations provided by the NORP office of ORG . There were no showers in the transit area .

DATE after his arrival at FAC , the applicant lodged an application for refugee status . In the course of the ensuing proceedings he mentioned that he had left GPE because of the ongoing hostilities in GPE and GPE , as well as a lack of employment and the poor economic situation .

On DATE the GPE Region FMS dismissed the applicant ’s refugee status application as ill - founded . The applicant ’s lawyer appealed to the NORP ORG , arguing that the applicant did not have any possibility to return to his home in GPE , that LOC had failed to assess his personal situation and the risk he would face if returned to GPE , and that the Moscow Region FMS , in breach of LAW ( DATE ) , had not issued him with an examination certificate .

On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed the appeal for the reason that the applicant had “ failed to provide evidence confirming that he runs a higher risk of becoming a victim of the GPE - GPE conflict than the rest of the population of ORG ” . The applicant ’s lawyer was informed of that decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the migration authorities’ decision with ORG of GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities opened the LOC crossing point to GPE . The applicant agreed to take a flight to GPE and left the transit zone of FAC .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the NORP ORG ’s decision . The applicant ’s lawyer lodged a brief statement of appeal on DATE , pending receipt of a reasoned judgment in written form . By DATE , no such reasoned judgment had been issued .

The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE .

In DATE the applicant moved from GPE to GPE , where he was granted refugee status . In DATE he decided to leave GPE .

The applicant travelled by air to GPE , GPE , a journey that consisted of CARDINAL legs : GPE to GPE , GPE to GPE , and GPE to GPE . On DATE the applicant landed in GPE for the first time ; he then continued his journey to GPE .

On DATE the applicant was deported from GPE to GPE . The NORP border guard service did not allow him to pass through passport control .

From DATE , the applicant has been staying in the transit zone of FAC . The applicant described the conditions of his stay in the transit zone as follows . He slept on a mattress on the floor in the boarding area of the airport , which was constantly lit , crowded and noisy . He sustained himself on emergency rations provided by the NORP office of ORG . There were no showers in the transit area .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for refugee status , arguing that he had fled GPE in DATE because he had received threats from members of a terrorist group .

On DATE the GPE Region FMS interviewed the applicant . However , they did not issue him with an examination certificate .

On DATE the applicant ’s brother was killed in GPE , GPE .

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

On DATE the GPE Region FMS refused to grant the applicant temporary asylum . On DATE the NORP ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the Basmannyy ORG of GPE dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decisions by ORG and the NORP ORG to dismiss his application for temporary asylum . It reasoned , in particular , that the applicant had not proved that the terrorists who had threatened him in DATE represented any danger DATE and that , should such threats persist , he “ has not been deprived of an opportunity to avail himself of the protection of his ORG of nationality [ – that is to say ] to apply to the law - enforcement agencies of GPE [ for protection ] . ” On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . On DATE it dismissed in the final instance the applicant ’s complaint about the refusals to grant him refugee status .

Having received the final rejections of his applications from the NORP authorities , the applicant decided that he did not have any chance of obtaining asylum in GPE . On DATE he left for GPE , GPE .

The applicant , PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE in GPE .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE from GPE , GPE , holding a business visa valid until DATE .

On DATE he applied for temporary asylum to ORG of ORG ( “ the GPE FMS ” ) , claiming to have fled GPE because of the ongoing civil war there . That application was refused on DATE .

It appears that the applicant remained in GPE despite that refusal .

On DATE the applicant took a flight from GPE to GPE , GPE . The NORP border guard service seized his passport and handed it over to the aircraft crew . The NORP authorities denied the applicant entry to the country and sent him back to GPE on DATE . Upon the applicant ’s arrival , the NORP authorities sent him back to GPE . The NORP authorities then returned the applicant to GPE .

On DATE the applicant took a flight to GPE , but the NORP authorities denied him entry to the country and sent him back to GPE . The NORP border guard service did not allow him to pass through passport control .

From DATE the applicant stayed in the transit zone of FAC . He described the conditions of his stay in the transit zone as follows . The applicant slept on a mattress on the floor in the waiting area of the airport , which was constantly lit , crowded and noisy . He received basic food , clothing and sanitary wipes once DATE from the NORP office of ORG . Given the absence of any refrigerator or kitchen , his rations were extremely limited . Throughout the whole period of his stay in the transit zone the applicant did not have access to a shower .

The applicant applied to ORG for temporary asylum . On DATE the Moscow Region FMS dismissed the request .

DATE . On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against its refusal of DATE to grant him temporary asylum . It noted , in particular , that there were regular flights from GPE to GPE , from where NORP nationals could travel to other parts of the country , and that “ many NORP wish to leave the country not only because of a fear for their lives but , in large part , because of the worsening economic and humanitarian situation ” .

On DATE the applicant once again tried to lodge an application for refugee status through the border guard service . He received no response .

On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG of GPE about the refusal of LOC FMS and NORP ORG to grant him temporary asylum and about his allegedly unlawful detention in appalling conditions in the transit zone of FAC .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was resettled by ORG and left for GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer submitted additional documents to the ORG of GPE in support of the applicant ’s claims regarding the risks that he would face if returned to GPE . The outcome of the proceedings is unknown .


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

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant is a NORP national and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s father , Mr PERSON , deposited an unspecified amount of money with ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) in her name . The deposit was to be kept for DATE and was redeemable after the applicant had reached the age of sixteen . The interest rate was fixed at CARDINAL per cent per annum .

Later , the Savings Bank reduced the interest rate .

Considering the Savings Bank ’s unilateral decision unlawful , Mr ORG brought a civil claim against it .

On DATE the ORG of GPE found that the terms of the deposit did not provide for unilateral changes in the interest rate and held that ORG should calculate interest at the rate of CARDINAL per cent starting from DATE and until the maturity of the deposit .

On DATE the NORP ORG upheld that judgment on appeal .

On DATE Mr Yakovlev died .

On an unspecified date ORG lodged an application for supervisory review which was rejected by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG filed a new application for supervisory review with the ORG of ORG . It asserted that ORG claim should have been dismissed as premature because the maturity date had not yet occurred .

On DATE the Presidium of the NORP ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , as upheld on DATE , and dismissed the claim lodged by the late Mr Yakovlev , holding that the interest could only be calculated after the terms of the deposit had been fulfilled . As regards the re - opening of the proceedings after the plaintiff ’s death , the ORG found as follows :

“ The fact that Mr ORG died does not preclude a new decision from being made in the case because his claim had been lodged on behalf of his underage daughter PERSON GPE . At present she is represented by her mother , PERSON , who participated to the hearing before the ORG . ”

On DATE the applicant turned CARDINAL . On an unspecified date ORG offered to pay her MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . There is no information on whether she accepted this offer .