Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested during the dispersal of a political rally at FAC in GPE . He was detained at the police station for DATE pending administrative proceedings in which he was found guilty of failure to obey lawful police orders , an offence under LAW , and sentenced to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention . The parties’ submissions on the circumstances surrounding the public assembly and its dispersal are set out in part A , and the specific facts relating to the applicant are set out in part B below .

On DATE CARDINAL individuals ( Mr I. GPE , Mr S. NORP , Ms Y. PERSON , PERSON Mityushkina and Mr S. Udaltsov ) submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of GPE . The march , with CARDINAL participants , was to begin at TIME on DATE from FAC followed by a meeting at FAC , which was to end at TIME The aim of the demonstration was “ to protest against abuses and falsifications in the course of the elections to ORG and of the President of GPE , and to demand fair elections , respect for human rights , the rule of law and the international obligations of the GPE ” .

On DATE the Head of ORG , PERSON ORG , informed the organisers that the requested route could not be allocated because of preparations for the Victory Day parade on CARDINAL DATE . They proposed that the organisers hold the march between LOC and GPE embankment .

On DATE the organisers declined the proposal and requested an alternative route from FAC , down FAC and FAC , followed by a meeting at FAC . The march was to begin at TIME , and the meeting had to finish by TIME The number of participants was indicated as CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG approved the alternative route , having noted that the organisers had provided a detailed plan of the proposed events .

On DATE ORG informed the Chief of ORG of the Interior , PERSON V. GPE , that a different group of organisers had submitted notification of another public event – a meeting at FAC – which the GPE authorities had rejected . The organisers of that event had expressed their intention to proceed in defiance of the ban and to squat on the square from DATE , ready to resist the police if necessary . ORG was therefore requested to safeguard public order in GPE .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the First Deputy Head of ORG , PERSON , held a working meeting with the organisers of the demonstration at FAC , at which they discussed the security issues . The Deputy Chief of ORG of the ORG , Police Colonel D. ORG , took part in the meeting . The organisers stated at the meeting that the turnout could significantly exceed the expected CARDINAL participants . They were warned that exceeding the number originally declared would be unacceptable . According to the applicant , during that meeting the organisers and the authorities agreed that since there was insufficient time for an on - the - spot reconnaissance , which would otherwise have been carried out , the assembly layout and the security arrangements would be identical to the previous public event organised by the same group of opposition activists on DATE . On that occasion , the march had proceeded down FAC , followed by a meeting at FAC , and the venue of the meeting had included the park at FAC ( in some documents referred to as “ Repin park ” ) and the GPE embankment .

On DATE the deputy mayor of GPE , Mr A. PERSON , instructed the PERSON district prefect to assist the organisers in maintaining public order and security during the event . He ordered ORG to inform the organisers that their assembly notice had been accepted and to monitor its implementation . Other public agencies were assigned the duties of street cleaning , traffic control and ensuring the presence of ambulances at the site of the assembly .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to issue a warning to the organisers against exceeding the notified number of participants and against erecting camping tents at the meeting venue , an intention allegedly expressed by the organisers at the working meeting . ORG also referred to information found on the Internet that the demonstrators would go to FAC after the meeting . On DATE ORG issued the relevant warning to CARDINAL of the organisers , Mr NORP and Mr GPE .

On DATE ORG of the ORG published on its website the official information about the forthcoming demonstration on DATE , including a map . The map indicated the route of the march , the traffic restrictions and an access plan to FAC ; it delineated the area allotted to the meeting , which included the park at FAC . Access to the meeting was marked through the park .

On DATE the Police Chief of ORG of the ORG , Police Major - General PERSON ORG , adopted a plan for safeguarding public order in GPE on DATE ( the “ security plan ” ) . The CARDINAL - page security plan was an internal document which had not been disclosed to the public or to the organisers . In view of the forthcoming authorised demonstration at FAC and anticipated attempts by other opposition groups to hold unauthorised public gatherings , it provided for security measures in GPE city centre and set up operational headquarters to implement them .

CARDINAL high - ranking police officers , including CARDINAL major - generals , CARDINAL military commanders and one emergency - relief official , were appointed to the operational headquarters . The Deputy Police Chief of ORG of the ORG , Police Major - General PERSON , was appointed as head of the operational headquarters ; the Chief of ORG of ORG of the ORG , Police Major - General PERSON , and the Deputy Chief of ORG of the ORG , Police Colonel D. ORG , were appointed as deputy heads of the operational headquarters .

The security plan provided for an CARDINAL,CARDINAL-strong crowd - control taskforce , comprising the police and the military , to police the designated security areas and to prevent unauthorised public gatherings and terrorist attacks . The main contingent was the police squad charged with cordon and riot - control duties in accordance with a structured and detailed action plan for each operational unit . Furthermore , it provided for a CARDINAL-strong police unit assigned to operational posts across the city centre , with responsibility for apprehending offenders , escorting them to police stations and drawing up administrative offence reports . They were instructed , in particular , to prepare templates for the administrative offence reports and to have CARDINAL printed copies of them at every police station . The security plan also provided for a QUANTITY police unit for intercepting and apprehending organisers and instigators of unauthorised gatherings . The squad had to be equipped with full protection gear and police batons . Each unit had to ensure effective radio communication within the chain of command . They were instructed to keep loudspeakers , metal detectors , handcuffs , fire extinguishers and wire clippers in the police vehicles .

The security plan set out in detail the allocation and deployment of police vehicles , police buses , interception and monitoring vehicles and equipment , dog - handling teams , fire - fighting and rescue equipment , ambulances and a helicopter . It also made provision for a CARDINAL,CARDINAL-strong reserve unit equipped with gas masks , aerosol grenades ( “ Dreif ” ) , flash grenades ( “ GPE ” ) , bang grenades ( “ PERSON ” and “ FAC ” ) , a CARDINAL hand - held grenade launcher ( “ Gvozd ” CARDINALГ-CARDINAL ) , and a CARDINAL hand - held grenade launcher ( ORG ) ; tubeless pistols ( ПБ-CARDINALСП ) with CARDINAL rubber bullets and propelling cartridges , and rifles ( KC-CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL water - cannon vehicles were ordered to be on standby , ready to be used against persistent offenders .

All units were instructed to be vigilant and thorough in detecting and eliminating security threats and to be polite and tactful in their conduct visà - vis citizens , engaging in a lawful dialogue with them without responding to provocations . If faced with an unauthorised gathering they were instructed to give a warning through a loudspeaker , to arrest the most active participants and to record video footage of those incidents . The police chiefs were instructed to place plain - clothes officers among the protesters in order to monitor the threat of violence and terrorist attacks within the crowd and to take measures , where appropriate , to prevent and mitigate the damage and to pursue the perpetrators .

The Chief of ORG of GPE , Police Major - General PERSON , was required , among other tasks , to prepare , together with the organisers , the text of the public announcement to be made if the situation deteriorated . The head of the press communication service of ORG of the ORG , ORG Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON , was in charge of communication with the press . The head of ORG of the ORG , ORG Colonel PERSON , had to ensure “ coordination with the representatives of public organisations and also coordination and information flow with other services of ORG of the Interior ” .

The units assigned to police the march and the meeting belonged to “ Zone no . CARDINAL ” ( FAC , FAC and the adjacent territory ) . The zone commander was the Chief of ORG of the Interior , Police Colonel PERSON , with CARDINAL high - ranking police officers ( Police Colonel PERSON , Police Colonel A. Zdorenko , Police Lieutenant - Colonel A. ORG GPE , Police Colonel PERSON GPE , Police Colonel A. GPE , Police Colonel A. Dvoynos , Police Captain PERSON and ORG Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON ) as his deputies .

The units assigned to Zone no . CARDINAL comprised CARDINAL riot police officers , of whom CARDINAL were on duty at FAC . They were instructed , in particular , to search the demonstrators to prevent them from taking camping tents to the site of the meeting and to obstruct access to PERSON , diverting the marchers to GPE embankment , the site of the meeting . The adjacent park at FAC had to be cordoned off , and the only entrance to GPE embankment DATE from PERSON bridge – had to be equipped with CARDINAL metal detectors , which were to be removed just before the march approached the site of the meeting . An exception was made for the organisers and the technical staff , who were allowed access behind the stage through CARDINAL additional metal detectors . Further arrangements were made for access of the press .

Lastly , the command of Zone no . CARDINAL , in particular Police Colonels PERSON and PERSON , were under orders to meet the organisers in person at the beginning of the event to remind them of their responsibilities and to have them sign an undertaking . The organisers would undertake to ensure the lawful and safe conduct of the event , and to refrain from any calls for forced change of the constitutional order and from hate speech and propaganda in favour of violence or war . They would also undertake to be present at the venue until the end of the assembly and the departure of the participants . A video recording of the briefing and the signing of the undertaking had to be made .

At TIME on DATE the organisers were allowed access to FAC to set up the stage and sound equipment . The police searched the vehicles delivering the equipment and seized CARDINAL tents found amid the gear . They arrested several people for bringing the tents , and the installation of the equipment was delayed . During that time communication between the organisers setting up the stage and those leading the march was sporadic .

At the beginning of the march , Police Colonel PERSON met the organisers at FAC to clarify any outstanding organisational matters and to have them sign the undertaking to ensure public order during the demonstration . He specifically asked PERSON to ensure that no tents were placed on FAC and that the participants complied with the limits on the place and time allocated for the assembly . The organisers gave their assurances on those issues and signed the undertaking .

NORP The march began at TIME at FAC . It went down FAC peacefully and without disruption . The turnout exceeded expectations , but there is no consensus as to the exact numbers . The official estimate was that there were CARDINAL participants , whereas the organisers considered that there had been CARDINAL . The media reported different numbers , some significantly exceeding the above estimates .

At TIME the march approached FAC . The leaders found that the layout of the meeting and the placement of the police cordon did not correspond to what they had anticipated . Unlike on DATE , the park at FAC was excluded from the meeting venue , which was limited to GPE embankment . The cordon of riot police in full protection gear barred access to the park and continued along the whole perimeter of the meeting area , channelling the demonstration to GPE embankment . Further down the embankment there was a row of metal detectors at the entrance to the meeting venue . By that time the stage had been erected at the far end of GPE embankment and a considerable number of people had already accumulated in front of it .

Faced with the police cordon and unable to access the park , the leaders of the march – Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON DATE stopped and demanded that the police open access to the park . According to the protesters , they were taken aback by the alteration of the expected layout and were unwilling to turn towards GPE embankment ; they therefore demanded that the police officers at the cordon move the cordon back to allow sufficient space for the protesters to pass and to assemble for the meeting . According to the official version , the protesters were not interested in proceeding to the meeting venue ; they stopped because they had either intended to break the cordon in order to proceed towards PERSON bridge and then to the ORG , or to stir up the crowd to incite disorder . It is common ground that the cordon officers did not enter into any discussion with the protest leaders and no senior officer was delegated to negotiate . After TIME of attempting to engage with the cordon officers , at TIME the CARDINAL leaders announced that they were going on a “ sit - down strike ” and sat on the ground . The people behind them stopped , although some people continued to go past them towards the stage . The leaders of the sit - in called on other demonstrators to follow their example and sit down , but only a few of their entourage did so ( TIME and QUANTITY people in total ) .

Between TIME and TIME CARDINAL State Duma deputies , Mr PERSON and PERSON , contacted unidentified senior police officers to negotiate the enlargement of the restricted area by moving the police cordon behind the park along the lines expected by the organisers . At the same time PERSON , the Ombudsman of GPE , at the request of Police Colonel PERSON , attempted to convince the leaders of the sit - in to resume the procession and to head towards the meeting venue at GPE embankment , where the stage had been set up . During that time no senior police officers or municipal officials came to the site of the sit - down protest , and there was no direct communication between the authorities and the leaders of the sit - in .

At TIME of the meeting participants announced from the stage that the leaders were calling on the demonstrators to support their protest . Some people waiting in front of the stage headed back to PERSON bridge , either to support the sit - down protest or to leave the meeting . The area in front of the stage almost emptied .

At TIME the media reported that PERSON had demanded that the protesters be given airtime on GPE ’s main television channels , that the presidential inauguration of PERSON be cancelled and that new elections be called .

At TIME the crowd around the sit - down protest built up , which caused some congestion , and the leaders abandoned the protest and headed towards the stage , followed by the crowd .

At TIME the media reported that the police authorities were regarding the strike as a provocation of mass disorder and were considering prosecuting those responsible for it .

At the same time a commotion arose near the police cordon at the place vacated by the sit - down protest , and the police cordon was broken in several places . A crowd of CARDINAL people spilled over to the empty space beyond the cordon . Within TIME the police restored the cordon , which was reinforced by an additional riot police force . Those who found themselves outside the cordon wandered around , uncertain what to do next . Several people were apprehended , others were pushed back inside the cordon , and some continued to loiter outside or walked towards the park . The police cordon began to push the crowd into the restricted area and advanced by QUANTITY , pressing it inwards .

At TIME PERSON to make an announcement from the stage that the meeting was closed . She did so , but apparently her message was not heard by most of the demonstrators or the media reporters broadcasting from the spot . The live television footage provided by the parties contained no mention of her announcement .

At the same time a Molotov cocktail was launched from the crowd at the corner of ORG bridge over the restored police cordon . It landed outside the cordon and the trousers of a passer - by caught fire . The fire was promptly extinguished by the police .

At TIME at the same corner of PERSON bridge the riot police began breaking into the demonstration to split the crowd . Running in tight formations , they pushed the crowd apart , arrested some people , confronted others and formed new cordons to isolate sections of the crowd . Some protesters held up metal barriers and aligned them so as to resist the police , threw various objects at the police , shouted and chanted “ Shame ! ” and other slogans , and whenever the police apprehended anyone from among the protesters they attempted to pull them back . The police applied combat techniques and used truncheons .

At TIME Mr Udaltsov climbed onto the stage at the opposite end of the square to address the meeting . At that time many people were assembled in front of the stage , but , as it turned out , the sound equipment had been disconnected . Mr PERSON took a loudspeaker and shouted :

“ Dear friends ! Unfortunately we have no proper sound , but we will carry on our action , we are not going away because our comrades have been arrested , because DATE is the coronation of an illegitimate president . We shall begin an indefinite protest action . You agree ? We shall not leave until our comrades are released , until the inauguration is cancelled and until we are given airtime on the central television channels . You agree ? We are power here ! Dear friends , [ if ] we came out in DATE [ DATE ] and in DATE [ DATE ] , it was not to put up with the stolen elections , ... it was not to see the chief crook and thief on the throne . DATE we have no choice – stay here or give the country to crooks and thieves for DATE . I consider that we shall not leave DATE . We shall not leave ! ”

At this point , at TIME , several police officers arrested PERSON ORG and took him away . Mr PERSON attempted to go up onto the stage , but he was also arrested at the stairs and taken away . As he was pushed out by the police officers he turned to the crowd shouting “ Nobody shall leave ! ”

At TIME the police arrested Mr PERSON , who had also attempted to address people from the stage .

Meanwhile , at ORG bridge the police continued dividing the crowd and began pushing some sections away from the venue . Through the loudspeakers they requested the participants to leave for the metro station . The dispersal continued for TIME until the venue was fully cleared of all protesters .

On DATE Police Colonel PERSON drew up a report summarising the security measures taken on DATE in GPE . The report stated that the march , in which CARDINAL people had participated , had begun at TIME and had followed the route to FAC . It listed the groups and organisations represented , the number of participants in each group , the number and colours of their flags and the number and content of their banners . It further stated as follows :

“ ... at TIME the organised column ... arrived at the [ cordon ] and expressed the intention to proceed straight to ORG bridge and [ to cross it ] to FAC . The police ... ordered them to proceed to FAC , the venue of the meeting . However , the leaders at the head of the column – [ Mr GPE , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ] – ... called on the marchers through the loudspeaker not to move . Together with CARDINAL protesters they sat on the ground . Another group of CARDINAL , called by [ their leaders ] , sat as well . The police ... repeatedly warned them against holding an unauthorised public gathering and required them to proceed to the venue of the meeting or to leave . Besides that , CARDINAL State PERSON deputies , PERSON and PERSON , the Ombudsman of GPE , PERSON , and a member of ORG , PERSON , talked to them , but those sitting on the ground did not react and continued chanting slogans ... From TIME persons on PERSON bridge and GPE embankment made attempts to break the cordon , and threw empty glass bottles , fireworks , chunks of tarmac and portable metal barriers at the police officers . From CARDINAL to TIME music was playing on the stage ... At TIME ... a deputy of ORG called on the participants to head to ORG to support those sitting on the ground ... At TIME of the organisers , PERSON ... , went on the stage and declared the meeting closed . At TIME Mr PERSON went on the stage and called on the people to take part in an indefinite protest action .

At TIME a group of CARDINAL individuals including PERSON ... attempted to put up CARDINAL - sleeper camping tents on GPE embankment .

From TIME necessary measures were taken to push the citizens away from ORG bridge , GPE embankment and FAC and to arrest the most actively resisting ones ... , during which QUANTITY police officers and military servicemen [ sustained injuries ] of various gravity , CARDINAL of whom have been hospitalised .

In total , CARDINAL people were detained in GPE to prevent public disorder and unauthorised demonstrations ...

The total number of troops deployed for public order and security duties in GPE was CARDINAL servicemen , including CARDINAL police officers , CARDINAL traffic police officers , CARDINAL military servicemen and CARDINAL members of voluntary brigades .

As a result of the measures taken by ORG of the Interior the tasks of maintaining public order and security have been fully discharged , and no emergency incidents have been allowed to occur . ”

On DATE ORG of GPE opened a criminal investigation into suspected offences of mass disorder and violent acts against the police ( LAW and LAW ) .

On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising mass disorder ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .

On DATE ORG set up a group of CARDINAL investigators and put them in charge of the criminal file concerning the events of CARDINAL DATE .

On an unspecified date CARDINAL human - rights activists filed a request with ORG to open a criminal investigation into the conduct of the police in the same events ; they complained , in particular , of the suppression of a lawful public assembly . Another petition was filed , also on an unspecified date , by CARDINAL human - rights activists and members of NGOs , calling for the curbing of repression against those who had been arrested and prosecuted in relation to the events of CARDINAL DATE and denying that mass riots had taken place at FAC .

Following an enquiry from ORG about publication of the maps of the assembly of CARDINAL DATE , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG replied as follows :

“ ... on CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG published on its official website ... a notice on ‘ Safeguarding public order in GPE during the public events on CARDINAL May’ . The notice included information about the route , the map of traffic restrictions and information about the location of the socio - political events , which a large number of participants were expected to attend , the security measures and the warning against any unlawful acts during the events .

The decision to publish this notice was taken by the head of ORG with ORG of ORG of the ORG with the aim of ensuring the security of citizens and media representatives planning to take part in the event .

The pictures contained in the notice were schematic and showed the approximate route of the [ march ] as well as the reference place of the meeting – ‘ GPE DATE indicated in the ‘ Plan for Safeguarding Public Order in GPE on DATE CARDINAL’ .

On DATE a working meeting took place at ORG with participants from among [ the organisers and ORG ] , where they discussed the arrangements for the march ... , the placement of metal detectors , the stage set - up and other organisational matters .

After the meeting ... the [ ORG of the Interior ] prepared a [ security plan ] and map providing for the park at FAC to be cordoned off with metal barriers [ and ] for the participants in the meeting to be accommodated on the road at the GPE embankment .

Given that the agreement on the route of the demonstration and the meeting venue had been reached at the aforementioned working meeting at TIME on DATE , the [ security plan ] and the security maps were prepared at extremely short notice ( during TIME DATE and DATE of CARDINAL DATE ) , to be approved afterwards , on CARDINAL DATE , by senior officials at ORG of the Interior .

ORG did not discuss the security maps and [ security plan ] with the organisers . Those documents were not published as they were for internal use , showing the placement of the police forces ... and setting out their tasks . ”

DATE . On an unspecified date CARDINAL prominent international NGOs set up an international expert commission to evaluate the events at FAC on DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) . ORG comprised CARDINAL international experts whose objective was to provide an independent fact - finding and legal assessment of the circumstances in which the demonstration at FAC had been dispersed . In DATE ORG produced a CARDINAL - page report containing the chronology and an assessment of the events of DATE . It identified the sources used for the report as follows :

“ The work of the ORG was based on the following materials :

- evidence from the official investigation , reports and statements made by the relevant authorities and any other official information available on the case ;

- information from public investigations and observations gathered by human rights defenders , journalists and others ; and

- reports by observers and journalists , witness testimony and video materials .

In order to provide an objective and complete picture of the events , the ORG developed a series of questions that it distributed to the city administration of GPE , ORG of GPE , police authorities in GPE , the Ombudsman of GPE and event organisers . Unfortunately the Commission did not receive replies from the city administration , police authorities or ORG . As a result , the analysis contained in this report is based on information from open sources , including materials presented by the event organisers , observers and non - governmental organisations , materials from public investigations and information provided by defence attorneys engaged in the so - called ORG . These materials include : eyewitnesses’ testimony , videos from the media and private actors , documents and some open data about the GPE criminal case . The experts analysed TIME of video - records and CARDINAL documents related to the GPE events . In addition , they met organisers , participants and observers of the events and attended several court hearings of the PERSON case . ”

Concerning the way the assembly of CARDINAL DATE had been organised , ORG noted the following :

“ ... ORG announced on DATE [ DATE ] that the event would follow a similar route to the previous rally on DATE [ DATE ] . The participants were to assemble at FAC , set off at TIME along ORG and ORG for a rally in FAC , and disperse at TIME The official notification of approval was issued on DATE before the beginning of the event .

That DATE , the [ ORG of the ORG ] published a plan on its website indicating that all of FAC , including the public gardens , would be given over to the rally , while the PERSON bridge would be closed to vehicles but would remain open to pedestrians . This was the same procedure [ the ] authorities had adopted for the CARDINAL previous rallies on FAC on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On TIME of [ CARDINAL DATE ] , the police cordoned off the [ park ] of FAC . According to Colonel PERSON , who was responsible for security at the location , this was done ‘ in order to prevent the participants from setting up a camp and from [ carrying out ] other [ illegal ] acts.’ [ The ] authorities received information [ that ] the protesters might attempt to establish a protest camp at the site , causing them to decide that the rally should be confined to only the GPE waterfront area – a much smaller area than had been originally allocated for the assembly .

The police did not , however , inform the organisers of the changes they had decided upon , and they only became aware of the police - imposed changes to the event when they arrived at the site on TIME CARDINAL May [ DATE ] .

ORG did not send out a written announcement that a special representative from the city authorities would be present at the event , nor did the chairman of the GPE local department of the [ Interior ] , PERSON , issue any special orders on sending a special representative of ORG to the event .

The organisers requested TIME to set up a stage and sound equipment for the rally ; however , on TIME CARDINAL May , the authorities only allocated TIME of advance access . Furthermore , at TIME , the police did not allow vehicles with stage equipment onto the site until they had been searched . The searches revealed a small number of tents , and [ the ] authorities detained a number of people as a result . The police finally allowed the truck with the stage equipment onto FAC at TIME , TIME before the march was due to begin . ”

As regards the circumstances in which the assembly was dispersed , ORG report stated as follows :

“ As the march approached FAC , [ the ] demonstrators found that a police cordon was blocking off most of the square , leaving only a narrow stretch along the waterfront for the rally . The police established a triple cordon of officers on PERSON bridge , which prevented any movement in the direction of the FAC . The first cordon was positioned close to the junction of ORG and the GPE waterfront . Students from ORG and officers of ORG ( without any protective equipment ) made up this line . Behind them were CARDINAL rows of PERSON [ riot police – OMOН ] , a line of voluntary citizen patrol ( druzhinniki ) , and another cordon of the PERSON [ the riot police ] . A number of water cannons were visible between the second and third cordons .

[ The report contained CARDINAL photographs comparing the police cordon on DATE , a thin line of police officers without protection gear , and the CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE , multiple ranks of riot police with full protection gear backed up by heavy vehicles . ]

The police cordons , which blocked off movement in the direction of the ORG , created a bottleneck that slowed the march ’s progress to such an extent that it came to a virtual stop as demonstrators attempted to cross the bridge . Moreover , just beyond GPE bridge , the marchers had to go through a second set of metal detectors , where progress was very slow since there were CARDINAL detectors .

By TIME , the majority of the march was immobile . A number of leaders , including PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , encouraged demonstrators to sit down on the road in front of the ‘ Udarnik’ cinema facing the police cordon to protest [ against ] the inability of the march to continue and to demand that they be given access to the originally allocated space for the rally on FAC . An estimated CARDINAL people joined the sit - down protest . The leaders stressed the need to maintain a peaceful protest and appealed to demonstrators to remain calm . Participants chanted : ‘ We will not go GPE and ‘ Police together with the people’ . The leaders attempted to address the crowds using loudspeakers , but those behind the sit - down protest could not hear or see events as they transpired . The sit - down protest did not completely block the road , but it did restrict the movement of those approaching the police lines and the bottleneck caused by the police cordon . As a result , the crowd grew denser as more demonstrators arrived from FAC .

At TIME , the chief of the [ ORG of the Interior ] issued a statement : ‘ The organizers of the rally and other participants refuse to proceed to the agreed place of the rally ( to FAC ) . They [ have ] stopped on the roadway near the ‘ Udarnik’ theatre . Some of them [ have ] sat on the ground and thus blocked the movement of the column . Despite repeated warnings on the part of the police to proceed to the place of the rally , they wo n’t move thereby creating a real threat of a jam and trauma for the participants . An inquiry commission is working on the spot to document their actions related to appeals to commit mass public disorder with a view to further consider the issue of instituting criminal proceedings.’

Some demonstrators appeared to become frustrated with standing and waiting and began to walk away . Some tried to pass through the police cordon to leave the area , but the police refused to let them through . Instead , they were directed to go back through the crowd to ORG , even though this was practically impossible .

The police used loud speakers to inform demonstrators of the rally location . They asked participants to pass directly to FAC and not stop at the bridge , despite the fact that the major part of the square was closed to demonstrators . They announced that all actions on the bridge could be considered illegal . However , given the poor quality of the sound equipment , only those nearest the police could hear this information ; the majority of protesters did not hear the police instructions .

From the moment difficulties first arose for demonstrators attempting to cross PERSON bridge , demonstrators made repeated attempts to negotiate with the police over moving their cordons to allow protesters onto FAC .

PERSON , a member of ORG , and Member of Parliament PERSON tried to talk to the police authorities at around TIME , but there was no response . Shortly after participants broke through the police cordon at TIME , a group of human rights activists spoke to Colonel PERSON , head of the [ ORG of the Interior ] ’s press service . At TIME , Member of ORG PERSON tried to stop violence during the clashes on the embankment by speaking to the authorities , but he did not get a positive response .

Many of those involved in organising the event stated that they tried to engage with [ the ] police throughout DATE to ensure the event took place in a peaceful manner .

PERSON : ‘ I tried unsuccessfully to find the responsible people in ORG [ Interior ] in order to solve the organisational problems . I knew whom to contact in case we needed help when issues arose ... Only at DATE TIME did a police officer approach me . I knew from previous demonstrations that he was a senior officer responsible for communication with event organisers ... and he told me that the authorities had suspended the demonstration . He told me , as one of the rally organizers , to announce from the stage that the event was over , which I did following our conversation.’

PERSON : ‘ A police officer in a colonel ’s uniform contacted me only once , and I showed him the documents [ confirming ] my credentials as an event organiser . Later clashes with the police erupted , I could n’t find anyone with whom to communicate and cooperate.’

PERSON : ‘ I personally did not meet nor have time to get into contact with the authorities regarding the fences set up around the perimeter of the rally . I assumed some other organisers had already spoken to the authorities regarding this issue or were speaking with them at that time . There was no one to contact and nothing to talk about . I only saw the ORG officers who behaved aggressively and were not predisposed to get into a conversation .

At TIME , as people tried to move through the narrow gap between the police cordon and the waterfront to reach FAC , the police line moved CARDINAL steps forward , further pressing the crowd . This in turn generated a counter response from the crowd , and protesters began pushing back . In several places , the police cordon broke , and CARDINAL people found themselves in the empty space behind the first police line . It is impossible to determine whether the breaking of the cordon was the result of conscious action by sections of the crowd or if the police cordon simply broke due to the pressure from such a large number of people . Some of those who made it past the police lines were young men , but there were also many elderly citizens and others who did not resemble street fighters . Those who found themselves behind the police cordon did not act in an aggressive manner but appeared to move towards the entrance to the GPE [ park ] , the supposed rally point .

Different demonstrators reacted very differently to the breaking of the police line . Some tried to move away , others called for people to break the cordon , while some tried to restrain the crowd from [ trampling on ] those who were still taking part in the sit - down protest . As pressure and tension grew , the sit - down protesters stood up rather than risk being trampled . There was a high degree of confusion , and people were not clear on what was happening .

Just after the breaking of the police cordon at approximately at TIME , a single Molotov cocktail was thrown from the crowd . It landed behind the police ranks and ignited the trousers of ... a DATE demonstrator who had passed through the cordon . The police used their fire extinguishers to put out the fire . This was the only such incident recorded during DATE ...

Soon after the cordons were broken , the authorities began to detain those who remained behind the police lines , taking them to special holding areas . The police also arrested some protesters at the front of the crowd who had not tried to break the cordon . The police cordon was fully restored after TIME .

At TIME , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON managed to walk from the PERSON cinema to the stage at the waterfront followed by a large number of people . A police cordon blocked access to the stage , but they were allowed through . As they tried to start the rally , the police intervened ... the PERSON officers then detained PERSON on stage and shortly afterwards detained PERSON and PERSON as well . By TIME the organizers began to disassemble the stage .

In TIME between TIME , the demonstration was marked by CARDINAL distinct types of activity . For much of the time , demonstrators and the police stood face to face without much happening . These moments were interspersed with periods when the police advanced and the crowd moved back . There does not appear to have been any clear reason for the police decision to advance other than to divide the crowd up into smaller sections . More than anything , the police advances served to raise tensions and provoke some members of the crowd to push back . There is little evidence that demonstrators initiated the violence . Rather , they appear to have become aggressive only in response to the authorities’ advances .

During these interchanges some protesters threw objects at the police , and the police used their batons freely . The crowd threw plastic bottles , shoes and umbrellas ...

At around TIME the police announced that the rally was cancelled and asked protesters to disperse . The police used a loudspeaker to state , ‘ Dear citizens , we earnestly ask you not to disturb public order ! Otherwise , in accordance with the law , we will have to use force ! Please , leave here , and do not stop . Go to the metro.’ Although the police used a loudspeaker , the announcement was not loud enough to reach the majority of the crowd . It is likely that only those nearest to the loudspeakers could have heard the call to disperse .

There was confusion over the police demands because at the same time ... Colonel PERSON , head of the GPE [ Department of the Interior ] ’s press service , told a group of human rights defenders ( including PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) that the demonstrators could continue to FAC to take part in the rally .

By TIME the crowd at the corner of PERSON bridge and the waterfront was cut in CARDINAL . Those on ORG bridge were pushed in the direction of FAC , while those on the waterfront were cut off from both PERSON and PERSON bridges .

Around TIME , the police cordon that acted as a barrier along the waterfront near the FAC bridge was removed , and demonstrators were able to move freely along the GPE waterfront . TIME , some CARDINAL police officers in protective equipment who had formed a cordon at FAC began pushing protesters in the direction of PERSON , which runs from FAC to the GPE metro station . At the same time , police began to push people back along the GPE waterfront from the LOC bridge towards the PERSON cinema . Those who remained on the waterfront linked arms in passive resistance . The police pushed forward , divided the crowd and began to detain demonstrators .

At TIME ... authorities created a corridor to allow demonstrators to leave the GPE area .

At TIME a group of ORG officers appeared from the bushes of GPE Gardens and divided those demonstrators that remained on the square . Those on one side were able to move towards PERSON bridge , while those on the other remain[ed ] totally blocked between the police lines .

At TIME the last groups of people slowly left the waterfront along a corridor formed by the policemen . The police also began to move people away from LOC on the other side of ORG . Some people were detained , while others were pushed along FAC in the direction of ORG .

DATE around CARDINAL demonstrators moved along FAC chanting slogans ... and the ORG officers began to detain people and actively disperse the column . ”

On DATE the LOC branch of ORG dismissed CARDINAL individual complaints and CARDINAL official enquiries made in relation to the matter , CARDINAL by PERSON , a deputy of ORG , and another one by Mr A. Babushkin , President of ORG GPE . The complaints and enquiries concerned the allegedly unlawful acts of the police in dispersing the rally on DATE , including excessive use of force and arbitrary arrests . ORG interviewed CARDINAL of the CARDINAL individuals who had lodged the complaints and QUANTITY police officers deployed in the cordon around FAC , including squadron and regiment commanders . They stated , in particular , that they had been acting under orders to maintain public safety and to identify and arrest the most active instigators of unrest ; only those resisting the demands of the police had been arrested and no force had been used unnecessarily . The police officers stated that when the police had had to intervene , they had used combat manoeuvres and truncheons but not tear gas or other exceptional means of restraint . ORG Commander PERSON explained that he had been deployed in the sector adjacent to the stage and that there had been no incidents or disorder in that sector ; no one had been arrested . The decision listed CARDINAL other internal inquiries carried out following individual complaints and medical reports ; in CARDINAL cases the allegations of abuse had been found to be unsubstantiated and in CARDINAL cases the police conduct had been found to be lawful . As regards the substance of the complaints at hand , ORG found as follows :

“ ... having crossed PERSON bridge , the column leaders stopped . Many participants in the march bypassed the organisers and proceeded to FAC towards the stage ... When the march participants had filled nearly all of GPE embankment , limited by the police cordon on one side and by the stage on the other side , the organisers were still at the point between PERSON bridge , FAC , [ the park ] and the PERSON cinema ...

At this time the organisers demanded that the police officers let them pass through to the ORG . The police told them that they would not let anyone pass through to the ORG because the event was authorised to take place at FAC , where the stage had been specially set up , and they were told to proceed . After that , the organisers decided to call a sit - down protest and called upon those present to disobey the lawful orders of the police . After that , the meeting participants congregated opposite the PERSON cinema , where after a while they attempted to break the cordon , which [ the police ] did not manage to prevent . Therefore the police began arresting those who had been most actively involved in breaking the cordon ; they were put in a police van and then taken to police stations in GPE . After the confrontation had been localised , the police officers slightly dispersed the crowd , having apprehended the most active perpetrators . From the very beginning of the sit - down protest the police requested the participants through loudspeakers to proceed to the stage , not to act on provocation and not to commit unlawful acts , but these requests had no effect and therefore [ it was clear that ] the breaking of the cordon had been organised . In suppressing it the police officers acted in coordination and concert . They did not apply force or special means of restraint . However , the work of the officers charged with apprehending offenders did involve the use of force and special means of restraint , in so far as necessary , against persons putting up resistance .

Later on , in the area of ORG and at the [ park ] corner some localised confrontations took place ... force and special means of restraint were used . All those detained at FAC were taken to the police stations ... Administrative offence reports were then submitted to the Justices of the Peace for consideration on the merits .

In accordance with LAW , any acts of a public official connected with the use of his or her official powers which have caused damage to interests protected by law may not be classified as a criminal offence if they were committed pursuant to a binding order or instruction .

After the organisers had decided to call a sit - down protest ... [ they ] provoked mass disorder , during which the participants threw various objects at the police , thus causing injuries to some of them . Because of this turn of events the police officers detained those participating in the mass disorder with justifiable use of force , and by special means of restraint against those who resisted .

In view of the foregoing , the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers ... is refused for the absence of corpus delicti . ”

On DATE the first criminal case against CARDINAL individuals suspected of participation in mass disorder was transferred to LOC of GPE for the determination of criminal charges ( “ the first GPE case ” ) .

On DATE Mr PERSON gave testimony as a witness in the first GPE case . He testified , in particular , as follows :

“ The political organisers and the formal organisers , we all had a clear idea ... and the GPE mayor ’s office confirmed that the march would be the same as the one that had taken place on DATE . FAC is a traditional place for holding various opposition events . We all had a clear understanding what the route would be , where the stage would be , what the layout would be . We came there at that time for a rather traditional , customary event , the scenario of which was well - known to everybody ... DATE beforehand the maps showing where people would assemble and the direction of the march were published on the official [ news ] website ORG ; they are still posted there . The map was published on the [ police ] website ‘ Petrovka , PERSON and this map is still posted there . Not only the organisers , but the participants too , they knew where they were going ... When we approached the venue of the meeting ... we saw that the map showing where people would assemble on the square had been essentially altered . It was essentially different from the map of CARDINAL February [ DATE ] , and , above all , different from the document which had been agreed with the GPE mayor ’s office and had been published on the website[s ] ORG and ‘ Petrovka , PERSON ... [ according to which ] people were to assemble on GPE embankment as well as in the park at FAC . However , when we came we saw that the park at FAC , taking up PERCENT of the square , was barred and cordoned off ... since [ the cordon ] did not correspond [ to the map ] the column stopped . The event organisers and the people who came just waited for this question to be resolved , for the police to remove the wrong cordon , for the police chiefs to reply as to what had changed , why the approved meeting was not being conducted according to the scenario that had been approved ... I had previously [ organised events ] ... Somebody had taken the map and changed the location of the meeting . This had practically never happened before ... to show visually that we were not moving anywhere , we sat on the ground ... the first line of [ the police ] cordon was composed of CARDINAL-year - old conscripts , and with CARDINAL people pressing on it the cordon broke . It could only break . This led to an uncontrollable situation , as several policemen were walking and trying to say something through megaphones – impossible to tell what they were saying . Some activists passing by were also speaking through megaphones – impossible to tell what they were saying . No authorities were present on the spot . And [ it was ] impossible to understand who was in command . So all of that caused the rupture of the police cordon . People started spreading across that spot ... Then I tried to walk over to the stage to try and explain to the gathering what was going on , using the amplifiers . I did not know then that the police had already cut off the amplifiers .

[ Question to the witness ] Did anybody try to negotiate with the participants of the sit - down protest ?

- Attempts had been made as much as possible in the circumstances ... everybody had stopped because we all wanted to understand where the representatives from the mayor ’s office were , where the appropriate representative of ORG was . All the [ high - ranking ] police officers were asked , but they only shrugged . Nobody could understand what was going on . ORG deputies present on the spot tried to act as negotiators , but ... they said that nobody wanted to come up to us . We could see some police officers resembling chiefs , at a distance ... but it was impossible to get to them ... it was impossible to reach the [ police ] command . Nobody would come to us . Nobody could negotiate despite everyone ’s wish to do so .

... when I was in the detention facility I lodged a complaint about the hindrance of a peaceful public event . This complaint was with ORG of the ORG . I have set out the arguments [ as to why ] I considered that there had been ample evidence that the officials of ORG of the ORG had deliberately provoked the crowd to panic so that [ they ] could later make claims about mass disorder . ”

On DATE Mr PERSON gave testimony as a witness in the first PERSON case . He testified , in particular , as follows :

“ The negotiations with the [ mayor ’s office ] were very difficult this time ... I had been the organiser of most events from DATE . It was always possible to meet the deadline , to find a compromise , [ but not this time ] . ... It was [ only ] on CARDINAL [ DATE ] that we received the written agreement . On DATE the working meeting took place ... Usually , everything is decided DATE before the event . This time there was practically QUANTITY notice . We could not even bring the vehicles carrying the stage to the square before TIME [ on DATE ] . We were put under very harsh conditions ... we had to put up the stage within TIME ... At the [ working meeting ] technical issues were discussed , but for the previous events we held , as a matter of practice , [ there was ] an on - site reconnaissance : the representatives of the organisers [ together with ] the representatives of the police ... would visit the site , walk through the route and determine where the barriers would be put , the stage , the lavatories , so that there was no ambiguity in understanding the event . This time , because [ the working meeting ] was on CARDINAL [ DATE ] , and the event was on CARDINAL [ DATE ] , it was already clear at the working meeting that we would n’t have time for an on - site reconnaissance ; therefore at Mr PERSON ’s suggestion it was stated that in organising the event we would follow the example of the assembly held on CARDINAL February [ DATE ] . Then , it was also a march from FAC and a meeting at FAC . The only thing that was noted was that this time the stage would be a bit closer to the park at FAC , at the corner of the square , because originally the event had been declared for CARDINAL participants . We had a feeling that people were disappointed , somehow low - spirited , and that not many would come . When we realised that there would be more people I told that to PERSON [ the First Deputy Director of ORG ] , but he told us that it was unacceptable . But it was clear that we could not do anything about it . We warned that there would be significantly more participants ... When we called Mr Deynichenko the following day he told [ us ] that he had had a map drawn up by ORG , and that PERSON could come during DATE to see it to clarify any issues . During DATE he postponed the meeting several times and then he was no longer picking up the phone . Therefore it was not possible to see or discuss the map .

[ Question to the witness ] Was the blocking of the park discussed at the working meeting , or later ?

- No , of course not . The event of DATE [ DATE ] had been organised so that the meeting was held at FAC . FAC is an area comprising the park and GPE embankment . It was supposed that people would ... turn [ like before ] towards the park . It was said that everything except the position of the stage , which would be moved forwards QUANTITY , would be the same as [ the last ] time , this was expressly spelled out . We were guided by it .

[ Question to the witness ] With whom was it discussed that the positioning of the security forces would be the same , [ give us ] the names ?

- This was spelled out at the big working meeting at the office of PERSON and in his presence . Since we realised that we had no time for an on - the - spot reconnaissance , Mr PERSON suggested that it would be like the last time as we had already walked along this route .

... PERSON called me several times and complained that they were having trouble bringing in the equipment ... that they could not find anyone in charge . Usually it is the police representative who is responsible for the event , separately for the march and for the meeting . When I crossed [ to ] the area allocated to the march , even before passing through the metal detectors , Colonel PERSON , who is traditionally in charge of the march , called me . We met . I gave him a written undertaking not to breach the law ... I told him that [ CARDINAL members of staff ] had been arrested [ at the stage area ] ... he promised to release them ...

[ Question to the witness ] What exactly did Colonel PERSON say ? The areas allocated to the march and to the meeting , were they determined in front of the camera ?

- No we did not discuss it ...

... at the turning [ from ORG bridge ] the procession came to a standstill ... some people sat on the ground ... those who sat down had justifiably asked for an expansion . I could not push through to get there . I learned that both [ ORG deputies ] were conducting negotiations ; I thought that it was probably going to settle this situation ... at a certain point PERSON called me and said that the police were demanding to close the event . I explained ... that if [ the police ] considered that there had been breaches , they had to give us time to remedy these defects , they could not end the event at once . I called PERSON ... and said that we were coming , [ that there was ] no need to end anything . Actually when I reached the corner the sit - in protest had already ended . The organisers who had participated in the sit - in protest and [ other ] people tried to approach the stage ...

The official website of the GPE [ GPE of the ] ORG published the map on which it was shown , just as agreed [ and ] just as on DATE , [ that ] the border [ of the meeting venue ] was outlined at the far end of the park and not the near one ... all agreements were breached .

[ Question to the witness ] During the working meeting on CARDINAL [ DATE ] or at the beginning of the [ march ] , did ORG warn you about any preparations for provocations , breach of public order , the campsite ?

- No , there were no such talks with the police .

[ Question to the witness ] If one has a badge , does it help in principle for talking to the police ?

- No , it does not make any difference . I personally called Mr PERSON and asked him to take measures . There was no communication with the police . The police officers did not pick up the phone calls . [ I ] did not manage to find anyone in charge of the police .

[ Question to the witness ] When , according to the rules , ... should the appointments be made to coordinate ... on the part of the organisers and the mayor ’s office ?

- The law does not expressly say [ when ] ... we received no documents from the [ GPE Government ] or ORG . We had no information as to who was responsible .

[ Question to the witness ] That means that at the beginning and during the event you did not know the names of those in charge ?

- Except for the officer in charge of the march , Colonel PERSON .

[ Question to the witness ] When the emergency occurred , who did you try calling at ORG command ... ?

- By then I was no longer trying to call anyone . I had heard that [ the CARDINAL ORG deputies ] were holding negotiations . I called PERSON to tell him that they were trying to close the meeting , but he told me that they were already heading to the stage , that they had ended the sit - in protest .

[ Question to the witness ] Why did the police announce that the event was banned ?

- I can not explain why such a decision was taken . They themselves impeded the conduct of the event and then they ended it by themselves ...

[ Question to the witness ] The reason why [ the event was ] closed was the sit - down protest ?

- As I understood from PERSON , yes .

[ Question to the witness ] How did the police make their demands ? Through loudspeakers ?

- I would not say that it was some sort of large - scale [ announcement ] . It was more through physical force . But some demands were made via megaphones , there were no other means . ”

On DATE Mr PERSON gave testimony as a witness in the first GPE case . He testified , in particular , as follows :

“ ... I was not one of the organisers of the event , but I was well informed about the way it had been authorised . On the website of ORG of the ORG a map was posted showing the location of the police [ cordon ] and the access points . The map was in the public domain and one could see that the park of FAC should have been opened . But it turned out to be closed . Moreover , we openly announced on the Internet , and it was reported in the media , that the route would be exactly the same as on DATE ... On DATE there was an authorised event ... all of [ GPE ] PERSON was open , no cordons on PERSON bridge . We easily turned into the square , there had been no scuffles ... we were sure that on DATE it would be exactly the same picture ... but the police had deceived us , blocked FAC , having left a very narrow passage for the demonstrators . We understood that it would be hard to pass through this bottleneck . We stopped , and to show the police that we were not going to storm the GPE and the [ ORG ] Kamennyy bridge we sat on the ground ... PERSON [ the State PERSON deputy ] , ... offered to be an intermediary in the negotiations between the protesters and the police ... we waited , all was peaceful ... he several times attempted to negotiate but this came to nothing . It became clear that ... the crowd were about to panic . We got up . And an awful scuffle began ... I was moving [ to the stage ] ... when I arrived there I saw a strange scene for an authorised event . The microphones had all been switched off , Mr PERSON and PERSON had been arrested just before me . The police never act like that at authorised events . I took a megaphone and addressed the people . I did not speak for long . Within TIME the police apprehended me . ...

[ Question to the witness ] Why , as you say , were the police particularly aggressive ?

- The demonstration took place DATE before PERSON inauguration . Naturally , the police had received very strict orders . Naturally , they were paranoid about ‘ Maidan’ . The fact that they had treacherously breached the agreement and closed off the square , this proves that there were political orders . I was particularly surprised at PERSON , the deputy mayor , with whom PERSON was negotiating . He is a reasonable man , but here he was like a zombie , he would not negotiate with PERSON PERSON . This was strange ... he did not want to talk like a human . ...

[ Question to the witness ] Did you know about the intention to set up tents , or about the breaking of the cordon ?

- No , I did not know about it then .

We demanded only that [ the authorities ] implement what had been agreed with [ the organisers ] . ”

On DATE PERSON , the head of the ORG ’s secretariat , gave testimony as a witness in the first PERSON case . She testified , in particular , as follows :

“ ... [ on DATE ] I was present as an observer ... unlike the usual events held at FAC , [ this time ] the park was cordoned off ... when we passed the metal detectors ... PERSON called and asked us to return urgently because ... at ORG bridge ... [ protesters ] had sat down on the ground ... [ The Ombudsman ] tried to persuade these people to stand up and to go and conduct the meeting ... At this time the [ second ] riot police cordon , which had stood between ORG bridge and ORG bridge , apparently approached the crowd , therefore the pressure built up from both sides ... I tried to leave the congested area ... showed my observer ’s badge ... but the riot police were not listening to me , laughed slightly and continued to press , there was no reaction on their part . This somewhat surprised me because we found ourselves there at the request of ORG of the Interior .

Usually there was no such multi - layered defence . PERSON bridge was blocked as if it was warfare , beyond what was required , as we thought ... among the protesters we saw several people in masks , and we reported that to the police , [ as ] this was unusual . The mood of ORG was also unusual , and so was the mood of the riot police . A police chief from ORG of the ORG , Mr GPE , told me , for example , that he could do nothing , that he was not in charge of the riot police and that the riot police reported to the [ federal ] police , and this was also unusual to us . I spoke to the deputy mayor ... and saw how upset he was , and his very presence there was also [ a rare occasion ] .

As I was later told by PERSON from ORG , [ the protesters had sat down on the ground ] because the passage had been narrowed down . The passage had indeed been narrowed down , I can confirm that , I saw that , the passage was much narrower than usual , and there were metal detectors which were not supposed to be there .

PERSON was in charge on behalf of ORG of the Interior – this is absolutely certain because he is always in charge of such events . His name , his function and his telephone number were written on our badges so that he could be contacted if any questions or doubts arose . As to the [ representative of the mayor ’s office ] , [ I am not sure ] .

[ Question to the witness ] You have explained about the cordon . Why was it not possible , for example , to move it [ back ] so as to prevent a scuffle ?

- Mr Biryukov is a very constructive person and he knows his job , but he could not explain to me why he could not influence the riot police .

... [ the deputy mayor also ] told me that he could not do anything , it was said to me personally . At this time the breaking of the cordon occurred . [ The ORG ] and our staff , together with a few other people , walked out through [ the gap ] ...

[ Question to the witness ] Did you receive any information while at the cordon ? Perhaps you heard from the police officers about the official closure of the public event ?

- No .

... After the cordon had already been broken , when the arrests had begun , [ then ] they were telling us through a megaphone to disperse , that the meeting was over , I heard it . ”

On DATE Mr N. Svanidze , a member of ORG of GPE , gave testimony as a witness in the first PERSON case . He testified , in particular , as follows :

“ ... [ on DATE ] I was present as an observer ... [ when ] everybody headed towards the narrow bottleneck at the embankment ... it created a jam . CARDINAL people sat on the ground , and the cordon moved towards them ... I asked ‘ Why wo n’t they open up the passage?’ , but PERSON [ GPE ] would turn his face away and would not answer when told that the passage had to be opened . I understood that there was no point talking to him , he was not in command .

[ Question to the witness ] Did [ the ORG ] or anyone else attempt to negotiate the widening of the passage ?

- We could not do anything . We requested it , [ PERSON ] requested it and I think that [ the ORG ] did too , but nothing was done . The passage was not widened .

[ Question to the witness ] Were there any calls to move towards the ORG ?

- No .

[ Question to the witness ] During your presence at the event did you know on what territory the meeting had been authorised ?

- Yes , I was convinced that [ it was ] FAC and the park at FAC . ”

On DATE Mr Vasiliev , a staff member at the ORG ’s office , gave testimony as a witness in the first PERSON case . He testified , in particular , as follows :

“ ... [ on DATE ] I was present as an observer ... on DATE we gathered at the press centre of ORG , we were given maps , instructions on how to behave , the list of public observers ...

... the ORG asked [ the protesters sitting on the ground ] why they were not going to the meeting venue . I could not hear the answer , they got up and headed on , after that , congestion occurred ... [ the ORG ] began looking for the officer responsible for the cordon . There was [ the chief press officer ] PERSON there , [ the ORG ] told him : ‘ let ’s move the cordon back so that people can ORG [ but ] PERSON told him that it was outside his powers . [ The ORG ] asked in whose powers it was ; he replied ‘ I do n’t ORG . At that moment the police began splitting the crowd ... ”

On DATE the ORG of GPE delivered a judgment in the first PERSON case . It found CARDINAL individuals guilty of participation in mass disorder and of violent acts against police officers during the public assembly on DATE . They received prison sentences of CARDINAL ; CARDINAL of them was released on parole . CARDINAL co - defendants had previously been pardoned under LAW and a fourth had his case disjoined from the main proceedings .

On DATE the LOC branch of ORG dismissed CARDINAL complaints by individuals who had sustained injuries on DATE , allegedly through the excessive use of force by the police . The complaints had originally been a part of the criminal investigation file concerning the mass disorder , but were subsequently disjoined from it . During the investigation of the mass disorder case , confrontations were conducted between those who had lodged complaints ( in the capacity of the accused in the criminal case ) and the police officers accused of violence ( in the capacity of victims in the criminal case ) . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :

“ In suppressing attempts to break the police cordon , the police officers acted in coordination and concert , without applying physical force or special means of restraint ; however , the work of the officers charged with apprehending offenders did involve physical force and special means of restraint , in so far as necessary [ to restrain ] those resisting .

After the crowd of protesters had calmed down and thinned out a little , the police officers began to tighten the cordon , [ and ] by doing so encouraged the citizens to proceed to the stage . At the same time many participants in the meeting who did not want to go there began to return to ORG Street in GPE . The police also accompanied them .

Later , in the area of ORG and at the corner of the park [ at FAC ] confrontations took place between the provocateurs , the persons calling for defiance and the persons displaying such defiance . During the apprehension of those persons force was used by the police because of their resistance , and in a number of cases , special means of restraint were also used for apprehending the most active instigators .

Because of such a turn of events the police officers justifiably used physical force to apprehend the participants in the mass disorder , and also special means of restraint in relation to some of them who attempted to resist . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , having slightly reduced the prison sentences for CARDINAL of the defendants .

On DATE ORG found PERSON and PERSON ORG guilty of organising mass disorder on DATE . The judgment contained the following findings :

“ The witness Mr PERSON testified that on CARDINAL DATE he had taken part in a working meeting at ORG ... as a follow - up to the meeting a draft security plan was prepared , and all necessary agreements were reached with the organisers concerning the order of the march and meeting , the movement of the column , the stage set - up , access to the meeting venue , barriers and the exit from the stage ; the [ organisers ] had agreed on that . The question of using the park at FAC was not raised because the declared number of participants was CARDINAL , whereas over CARDINAL people could be accommodated in the open area of the square and the embankment , and [ the organisers ] had known that in advance . It had been discussed with them how the cordon would be placed from ORG bridge to the park of FAC , so the organisers knew about the cordon in advance . The placement of the cordon was indicated in the [ security plan ] . This document was for internal use and access to it was only given to the police ; the location of the forces could be changed in an emergency by the operational headquarters . The organisers did not insist on an on - the - spot visit ; such visits are held at the initiative of the organisers , which had not been requested because they had known the route ... and the meeting venue ... [ The witness Mr GPE ] had known that at the beginning of the march the event organisers , including PERSON , had discussed between them that they were not going to turn towards the meeting venue but would stop and try to break the cordon to proceed to ORG bridge .

The witness ORG testified that PERSON had known the route of the march and had not raised a question about opening up the park at FAC . Moreover , the park was a nature reserve with narrow lanes ... the park had been opened up previously [ for a public event ] , as an exception , on only one occasion , on DATE , but then it was DATE , it was snowing and the declared number of participants had significantly exceeded CARDINAL . No such exception was made for DATE .

... according to the statement of ORG , ... the meeting venue at GPE embankment could accommodate CARDINAL people ...

The fact that no map of the assembly route or the placement of the police had been produced at the working meeting of CARDINAL DATE , that these questions had not been expressly discussed , ... that the event organisers present at the working meeting had not been shown any maps , was confirmed by them .

... the court concludes that no official map had been adopted with the organisers and , in the court ’s opinion , [ the published map ] had been based on PERSON own interview with journalists ...

Therefore the map presented by the defence has no official character , its provenance is unknown and therefore unreliable and it does not reflect the true route of the demonstration and the placement of the police forces .

... the witness PERSON ... testified that on CARDINAL DATE he received the [ security plan ] ... Before the start of the march he personally met the event organisers PERSON , PERSON [ and ] Mr PERSON and in the presence of the press and with the use of video recordings explained to them the order of the meeting and the march , warned against the breach of public order during the conduct of the event ; and stressed the need to inform him personally about any possible provocations by calling the telephone number known to the organisers . He asked PERSON about the intention to proceed towards the FAC and to cause mass disorder because the police had received information about it from undercover sources ; PERSON had assured him that there would be no breaches of order at the event and that they had no intention to move towards the FAC ... He ( PERSON ) arrived at FAC after the mass disorder had already begun ... After the mass disorder began he tried calling PERSON ORG on the phone but there was no reply . PERSON did not call him ... Other event organisers had not asked him to move the cordon . Given the circumstances , PERSON , at his request , announced the end of the meeting , and the police opened additional exits for those willing to leave . In addition to that , the police repeated through a loudspeaker the announcement about the end of the meeting ...

... the witness Mr Zdorenko ... testified that ... following information received [ from undercover sources ] about the possible setting up of a camp site , at TIME on CARDINAL DATE he arrived at FAC and organised a search of the area including the park . The park was cordoned off and guarded ... if necessary , at the decision of the operational headquarters , the venue allocated for the meeting could be significantly extended at the expense of the park [ at FAC ] . However , there was no need for that given that there were CARDINAL persons on FAC ... [ others being stopped at ] FAC .

The witness PERSON testified that ... while the stage was being set up he had seen an unknown man smuggling CARDINAL camping tents in rubbish bins .

The witness PERSON testified that ... before the beginning of the march , police information came through from undercover sources that the event organisers intended to encircle the FAC holding hands to prevent the inauguration of the NORP President .

The witness PERSON testified that ... he had been [ officially ] filming ... while Police Officer PERSON ... explained the order ... and warned the organisers ... and asked PERSON ORG to inform him of any possible provocations . Mr PERSON stated that they would act lawfully and that he had requested the police to stop any unwanted persons from joining the public event ...

The witness PERSON testified that on DATE ... at TIME Mr Udaltsov , while on the way to the stage , told people around him that they were going to set up a campsite ...

... the witness PERSON testified that ... Police Officer PERSON had asked her and [ the Ombudsman ] to come to PERSON bridge where some of the protesters , including Mr PERSON and PERSON , had not turned right towards the stage but had gone straight to the cordon , where they had begun a sit - in protest on the pretext that access to the park of FAC had been closed and cordoned off ... While [ the Ombudsman ] was talking to those sitting on the ground they remained silent and did not reply but would not stand up .

The witness Mr PERSON testified that ... after the first confrontations between the protesters and the police had begun , the latter announced through a loudspeaker that the meeting was cancelled and invited the citizens to leave .

The witness Mr Ponomarev testified that ... the police cordon had been placed differently from [ the cordon placed for ] a similar march on DATE ... he proposed to PERSON that the cordon be pushed back so that the police would go back a few steps and widen access to FAC , and the latter replied that he would figure it out when they reached the cordon ... he knew that PERSON was negotiating with the police about moving the cordon , which had now been reinforced by the riot police .

... the witnesses PERSON and PERSON testified that ... during the steering committee meeting the question of setting up tents during the public event had not been discussed ... while [ PERSON ] and [ Mr PERSON ] were negotiating with the police ... the crowd built up [ and ] suddenly the police began moving forward , the protesters resisted and the cordon broke ...

The witness PERSON [ deputy of ORG ] testified that ... at the request of the organisers , who had told him that they would not go anywhere and would remain sitting until the police moved the cordon back and opened up access to the park at FAC , he had taken part in the negotiations with the police on that matter . He had reached an agreement with the officers of ORG of the ORG that the cordon would be moved back , but the organisers who had filed the notice [ of the event ] should have signed the necessary documents . However , those who had called for a sit - in , including PERSON , refused [ to stand up ] to go to the offices of ORG of the ORG to sign the necessary documents , although he ( Mr PERSON ) had proposed several times that they should do so ...

... the witness Mr D. Gudkov [ deputy of ORG ] testified that ... together with Mr PERSON he had conducted negotiations with the police ... an agreement had been reached that the cordon at ORG would be moved back and the access to the park would be opened up , but at that point some young men in hoodies among the protesters began first to push the citizens onto the cordon provoking the [ same ] response , after that the cordon was broken , the [ police ] began the arrests and mass disorder ensued .

... the court [ rejects ] the testimonies to the effect that it was the police who had begun moving towards the protesters who were peacefully sitting on the ground and thus provoked the breaking of the cordon ... [ and finds ] that it was the protesters , and not the police ... who began pushing against the cordon , causing the crowd to panic , which eventually led to the breaking of the cordon and the ensuing mass disorder .

The court takes into account the testimony of Mr NORP that ... at QUANTITY , who was responsible for the stage , informed him about the demand of the police that she announce , as an event organiser , that it was terminated . He passed this information on to PERSON by phone , [ and he ] replied that they were standing up and heading towards the stage ... he knew that on DATE [ some ] citizens had brought several tents to FAC , but Mr PERSON had not informed him about the need to put up tents during the public event .

The court takes into account the testimony of PERSON ... , one of the [ formal ] event organisers ... , that nobody had informed him about the need to put up tents during the public event .

[ The court examined ] the video recording ... of the conversation between PERSON PERSON and PERSON during which the latter assured PERSON that they would conduct the event in accordance with the authorisation , he would not call on people to stay in FAC and if problems occurred he would maintain contact with the police .

... [ the court examined another video recording ] in which PERSON and PERSON ORG discussed the arrangements . PERSON showed PERSON where the metal detectors would be placed ; after that they agreed to meet at TIME ... and exchanged telephone numbers ...

According to [ expert witnesses PERSON and PERSON ] , the borders of FAC in GPE are delimited by ORG , FAC , GPE embankment and Faleyevskiy passage , and the [ park ] forms a part of FAC . During public events at FAC the park is always cordoned off and is not used for the passage of citizens .

These testimonies are fully corroborated by the reply of the Head of LOC of GPE of DATE and the map indicating the borders of FAC .

[ The court finds ] that the place of the sit - in ... was outside the venue approved by the GPE authorities for the public event ...

The organisation of mass disorder may take the form of incitement and controlling the crowd ’s actions , directing it to act in breach of the law , or putting forward various demands to the LOC representatives . This activity may take different forms , in particular the planning and preparation of such actions , the selection of groups of people to provoke and fuel mass disorder , incitement to commit it , by filing petitions and creating slogans , announcing calls and appeals capable of electrifying the crowd and causing it to feel appalled , influencing people ’s attitudes by disseminating leaflets , using the mass media , meetings and various forms of agitation , in developing a plan of crowd activity taking into account people ’s moods and accumulated grievances , or guiding the crowd directly to commit mass disorder .

... this offence is considered accomplished as soon as CARDINAL of the actions enumerated under LAW has been carried out ...

... the criminal offence of organisation of mass disorder is considered accomplished when organisational activity has been carried out and does not depend on the occurrence or non - occurrence of harmful consequences .

There are no grounds to consider the closure of access to the park of FAC and the placement of a guiding police cordon at the foot of FAC bridge to be a provocation ... since it was only to indicate the direction and it did not obstruct access to the meeting venue at FAC .

... the reinforcement of the cordon ... was necessary in the circumstances ... to prevent it from breaking ... but the police [ cordon ] did not advance towards the protesters .

It is therefore fully proven that the mass disorder organised by PERSON [ and others ] ... led to the destabilisation of public order and peace in a public place during the conduct of a public event , put a large number of people in danger , including those who had come to fulfil their constitutional right to congregate in peaceful marches and meetings , and led to considerable psychological tension in the vicinity of FAC in GPE , accompanied by violence against the police ... and the destruction of property ... ”

ORG sentenced Mr Udaltsov and PERSON PERSON to CARDINAL and a half years’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE , with a number of amendments .

On DATE the ORG of GPE examined another “ GPE ” case and found CARDINAL individuals guilty of participating in mass disorder and committing violent acts against police officers during the demonstration on DATE . They received prison sentences of CARDINAL ; CARDINAL of them was released on parole . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant arrived at FAC at TIME to take part in the meeting . He stood in front of the stage on GPE embankment , within the area designated as the meeting venue .

According to the applicant , TIME the area around him remained peaceful , although there was general confusion . He claimed that he had not heard any announcement about the termination of the meeting ; he had heard the police orders made through a megaphone to disperse , but in the general commotion he was unable to leave immediately and remained within the authorised meeting area until TIME , when he was arbitrarily arrested by the police dispersing the demonstration . The applicant denied that he had received any warning or orders before being arrested . The police apprehended him and took him to a police van , where he waited for TIME before it left FAC for the police station . According to the applicant , there was no traffic at FAC at the time of his arrest ; it was still suspended .

DATE . According to the Government , the applicant was arrested at TIME at FAC because he was obstructing the traffic and had disregarded the police order to move away .

At TIME the applicant was taken to the LOC police station in GPE . At the police station an on - duty officer drew up a statement on an administrative offence ( протокол об административном правонарушении ) on the basis of a report ( рапорт ) by Police Officer Y. , who had allegedly arrested the applicant . Y. ’s report contained the following handwritten statement :

“ I [ Y. ] report that on DATE at TIME , at FAC , together with Police Lieutenant [ A. ] , I arrested PERSON . ”

The rest of the report was a printed template stating as follows :

“ ... who , acting in a group of citizens , took part in an authorised meeting , went out onto the road and thus obstructed the traffic . [ He ] did not react to the multiple demands of the police to vacate the road ... , thereby disobeying a lawful order of the police , who were fulfilling their service duty of maintaining public order and ensuring safety . He thereby committed an administrative offence under LAW . ”

The statement on the administrative offence contained an identical text , but indicated that the applicant had been arrested at TIME The applicant was charged with obstructing traffic and disobeying lawful police orders , an offence under LAW . His administrative detention was ordered with reference to LAW ( протокол об административном задержании ) . The “ reasons ” section of the order remained blank .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to court , but his case was not examined . After having spent DATE in a transit van without food or drink , at TIME he was taken back to the cell at the LOC police station . A new order for the applicant ’s administrative detention was issued , indicating that he had been detained “ for the purpose of drawing up the administrative material ” .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was brought before the Justice of the FAC of circuit no . CARDINAL of LOC , who examined the charges . The applicant requested that the case be adjourned on the grounds that he was unfit to stand trial after the detention ; he also requested that the hearing be opened to the public and that QUANTITY police officers be examined as witnesses . Those requests were rejected in order to expedite the proceedings . A further request for the examination of several eyewitnesses was partly refused and partly granted . CARDINAL witnesses for the defence were examined .

On the basis of the report written by Police Officer Y. , the court established that at TIME on DATE the applicant had been walking along the road at FAC and obstructing the traffic , and that he had then disobeyed lawful police orders to vacate the venue . The Justice of the Peace rejected as unreliable two eyewitnesses’ testimonies to the effect that the police had not given the applicant any orders or warnings before arresting him . The applicant was found guilty of disobeying lawful police orders , and was sentenced under LAW to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE examined an appeal lodged by the applicant . At the applicant ’s request the court examined PERSON as a witness . She testified that at TIME on DATE she had been looking for her son when she saw the applicant in a police van and spoke to him . She also testified that at TIME she had been at FAC ; the site had been fully cordoned off and the traffic had not resumed . The court rejected the applicant ’s argument that the police report and the police statement were inconsistent as regards the time of his arrest and found that the correct interpretation of those documents was that the time of arrest had been TIME and the detention at the police station TIME The court dismissed the video recording submitted by the applicant on the grounds that it did not contain the date and the time of the incident , but found that the applicant ’s guilt had been proved by other evidence . It upheld the first - instance judgment .

DATE . On DATE the Deputy President of ORG examined the applicant ’s administrative case in supervisory - review proceedings and upheld the earlier judicial decisions .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They lived in Hakkari ( the first applicant ) , PERSON ( the second applicant ) , GPE ( the third , fourth , fifth and eighth applicants ) , ORG ( the sixth applicant ) and GPE ( the seventh applicant ) at the time their applications were lodged with the ORG .

The applicants , who are of NORP ethnic origin , were students at various faculties attached to ORG ( “ the University ” ) at the time of the events . In DATE they petitioned the ORG Rector ’s office requesting that NORP language classes be introduced as an optional module .

Around the same time similar petitions were submitted by students studying at various universities in GPE .

Upon receipt of these petitions a disciplinary investigation was initiated by ORG into the applicants’ actions .

On DATE , relying either on regulation CARDINAL ) or on regulation CARDINAL(e ) of LAW , ORG , after having heard defence submissions from some of the applicants , either suspended them from ORG CARDINAL semesters ( Mr GPE and Mr PERSON ) or expelled them from ORG , Mr Ay , Mr Uçak and PERSON ) .

The applicants claim that following this disciplinary sanction they were denied access to ORG facilities , they were branded as terrorists by ORG authorities , their names were put on notice boards and they were shunned by their friends and other students . Some of the applicants also alleged that they were subject to criminal investigations .

The applicants , upon notification of the disciplinary sanctions in question , lodged separate actions with ORG , requesting a stay of execution of the disciplinary decisions , with a view to their subsequent annulment .

On DATE and on DATE ( in respect of the fifth applicant ) ORG suspended the execution of the applicants’ disciplinary sanctions on the grounds that , inter alia , the sanctions in question were unlawful and that , therefore , their application would cause irreparable damage to the applicants . It appears that the objections of the University to some of these decisions were also dismissed by the court on DATE .

On DATE , following the notification of the aforementioned decisions to the University , the applicants , save for Mr Çalışkan , were all re - enrolled in their respective faculties . As a result they were allowed to take part in the repeat exams held on DATE . Mr Çalışkan was reenrolled on DATE and he was allowed to sit his exams , upon his request , in the DATE spring midterm period .

On DATE and DATE ORG examined the merits of the cases and annulled the disciplinary sanctions against the applicants on the ground that they were unlawful . In its decisions , the court noted , inter alia , that there was nothing in the content of the petitions or in the manner in which they were submitted to warrant disciplinary sanctions .

The University unsuccessfully challenged these decisions before ORG .

In DATE the applicants each lodged an action for compensation with ORG pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ) . In their petitions they maintained that they had sustained psychological damage as a result of the disciplinary punishment imposed on them for having used their democratic right of petition , and requested nonpecuniary damages .

DATE and DATE ORG awarded compensation to the applicants on the grounds that they had been denied their right to education and that their honour and dignity had been adversely affected by the accusations against them .

DATE ORG quashed the judgments of the first - instance court and dismissed the actions . In its decisions the court held , inter alia , that following the stay of execution of the disciplinary sanctions the University administration had permitted the students to take repeat exams in DATE , compensating for the exams which they had been unable to sit in DATE and that therefore the conditions for awarding non - pecuniary damage had not been met .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the office of the PERSON of ORG submitted the following information to the Government for the purposes of the present proceedings :

– Mr PERSON , who was studying to become a librarian , graduated on DATE ;

– Mr PERSON , who was studying LANGUAGE language and literature , graduated on DATE ;

– Mr PERSON , who was studying to become a teacher of NORP language , graduated on DATE ;

– Mr PERSON , who was studying to become a primary school teacher , graduated on DATE ;

– Mr Mustafa Çalışkan , who was studying to become a primary school mathematics teacher , graduated on DATE ;

– Mr Münür Ay , who was studying geography , failed to finish his studies within the required time - limit and he was removed from the University register on DATE ;

– Ms Ruken Buket Işık , who was studying LANGUAGE language and literature , graduated on DATE ;

– Mr PERSON , who was studying NORP language and literature , graduated on DATE .

According to the PERSON of the Faculty of Literature of ORG , PERSON and PERSON graduated from the GPE within the minimum time allowed DATE ) .