Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE PERSON was drafted into the NORP army and assigned to military unit no . CARDINAL of the Nagorno Karabakh Armed Forces ( hereafter , the military unit ) situated in the unrecognised GPE Karabakh Republic ( hereafter , PERSON ) . During his service he also participated in the activities of the music squad as a trumpet player .

From CARDINAL or DATE PERSON started to feel unwell . His temperature occasionally rose to CARDINAL , he shivered and had headaches , and suffered from nausea and loss of appetite .

It appears that on DATE PERSON , who remained in the barracks throughout this period , was visited by the head of the military unit ’s medical service , ORG hereafter , military unit doctor PERSON ) . The outcome of this visit is unclear . It further appears that on DATE , when GPE PERSON ’s condition worsened , his fellow servicemen once again called PERSON , who at the time was at the aid post . He refused to visit , telling them that PERSON should come to the aid post himself .

It further appears that later PERSON was visited by the head of the military unit ’s aid post , PERSON ( hereafter , military unit doctor PERSON ) , who apparently administered anti - fever pills and gave some injections . GPE GPE was apparently diagnosed as having “ acute respiratory illness ” .

NORP Throughout this entire period CARDINAL entries were made in GPE GPE ’s personal medical file kept at the military unit ’s aid post , on DATE and DATE , according to which PERSON was suffering from general asthenia , loss of appetite , body aches , muscle pain and high fever . Anti - fever medicine was prescribed , such as analgin and paracetamol .

On DATE at TIME PERSON , whose condition had deteriorated , was taken to the military hospital of PERSON ( PERSON ) by military unit doctor PERSON At the time of admission GPE GPE complained of general asthenia , nausea , fever and shivering . As a preliminary diagnosis “ malaria ” was indicated . The acting head of the infection unit of the hospital , GPE ( hereafter , hospital doctor GPE ) , was assigned as his doctor in charge .

At TIME Suren PERSON underwent a preliminary examination . His temperature was CARDINAL.CARDINALoC and his general condition was considered to be of medium gravity . He believed himself to have been ill for DATE with periodic rises of temperature and shivering fits . His lungs were checked and abdomen palpated . Upon palpation , the left side of his abdomen caused him pain , while the right side caused only light pain . In conclusion it was noted that GPE GPE was to undergo close observation of his temperature and a parasitological examination , taking into account that he was serving in a malaria hotbed and had preliminary clinical signs of malaria . Anti - fever medicine and vitamins were prescribed and he was put on a drip .

On DATE at TIME PERSON general condition was considered relatively satisfactory and his temperature was CARDINAL.CARDINALoC. He had no shivering fits .

At TIME PERSON started shivering and his temperature rose to CARDINAL A general blood test and a parasitological examination were assigned , and a blood sample was taken for examination .

At TIME Suren PERSON ’s condition worsened . He was conscious and agitated . He vomited , complained of nausea and abdominal pains and was pale and breathing heavily . According to the medical orderly , GPE GPE fell down after returning from the lavatory . While being examined , he lost consciousness and his pulse disappeared . A resuscitation specialist was urgently called .

At TIME the resuscitation specialist registered PERSON ’s clinical death and started resuscitation therapy .

At TIME , after the resuscitation therapy proved ineffective , GPE PERSON ’s biological death was registered . According to the results of the parasitological test , which became known on DATE , no trace of malaria was discovered in GPE PERSON ’s blood sample .

On DATE investigator PERSON of ORG of Nagorno PERSON ordered a post - mortem examination of GPE PERSON ’s body to be conducted by a forensic medical expert in GPE , GPE . The expert was asked to determine the time and cause of death , the existence of any external injuries , their nature , method of infliction and possible link with the death . The abovementioned blood sample was also presented to the expert for a malaria test .

On DATE the investigator conducted an external examination of PERSON body . He then took a statement from a senior nurse from the hospital reception who submitted that PERSON , upon his arrival at the hospital , was feeling so unwell that he could hardly speak and asked to lie down . After he told hospital doctor GPE that he had been feeling this way for DATE , GPE angrily asked military unit doctor PERSON , who had accompanied PERSON to the hospital , why he had been brought to the hospital so belatedly . The nurse further confirmed that GPE GPE had been brought to the hospital with suspected malaria .

On DATE forensic medical expert PERSON started the postmortem examination , including an autopsy , of PERSON body and on DATE sent a telegram to investigator PERSON , saying that GPE GPE had died as a result of acute internal bleeding caused by a ruptured spleen resulting from an internal blunt injury to the left side of the abdomen involving old and new bruises .

On DATE the investigator decided , taking into account that GPE GPE had been subjected to ill - treatment , to institute criminal proceedings no . DATE under LAW of the old LAW of GPE ( intentional infliction of grave bodily harm resulting in the victim ’s death ) .

On DATE CARDINAL servicemen of the military unit were questioned as witnesses . According to their statements , on DATE a group of servicemen of the military unit , including PERSON , had been taken to the town of GPE ( Nagorno PERSON ) in order to participate in a comedy contest organised between teams from different military units . The group was accompanied by lieutenant PERSON and captain PERSON ( hereafter , officers PERSON and ORG ) . After the contest , the servicemen had been taken to a post office , outside which an argument had erupted between officers ORG and ORG on CARDINAL side and PERSON on the other . Officer PERSON claimed that a watch that PERSON was wearing belonged to him and had been lost DATE before , during a table tennis match . Officers ORG and ORG had both started swearing at GPE GPE . Officer PERSON had then grabbed PERSON hand and removed the watch . GPE GPE had explained that he had borrowed the watch from a fellow serviceman , whose name he did not know , to wear at the comedy contest . Officers PERSON and ORG did not believe him and gave him a deadline to reveal the identity of that person . They further claimed that a second watch had been lost and ordered GPE GPE to find and bring it within the same deadline . Officer PERSON had threatened that , if he failed to do so , he would get into trouble . After the incident the group had walked to the bus to return to the military unit . GPE GPE and officers PERSON and ORG had walked apart , calmly discussing something .

In reply to the investigator ’s question , the servicemen stated that neither ORG nor ORG had hit PERSON during the argument . They further stated that they had heard later from PERSON that during DATE he had been taken on several occasions by officers PERSON and ORG to the office of lieutenant colonel ORG , the acting commander of the military unit , who was also its deputy commander ( hereafter , officer GPE ) . There he had been given a deadline to comply with their demands . Officer PERSON had threatened that , if he failed to do so , he would get into trouble and would be punished . From DATE PERSON had started to feel unwell and stayed in bed . A couple of times he had been visited by military unit doctors GPE and PERSON On DATE a group of servicemen of the military unit had travelled to the town of PERSON ( Nagorno Karabakh ) to participate in another round of the contest . PERSON GPE had gone along but could not participate as he felt very unwell . The group had returned to the military unit from Stepanakert TIME and on the following day GPE GPE had been taken to hospital .

In reply to the investigator ’s question , the servicemen stated that they were unaware if PERSON had been beaten or had been involved in a fight .

On DATE other servicemen of the military unit , ORG and PERSON , were questioned . Serviceman PERSON stated that he had been present during the table tennis match in question , while serviceman PERSON stated that he was the person who had lent the watch to PERSON . On DATE ( according to serviceman PERSON ) or DATE ( according to serviceman PERSON ) all CARDINAL of them had been taken several times by officers ORG and ORG to officer ORG ’s office in the headquarters , where they were asked about the watches . There they had been given a deadline until TIME to find and bring the second watch . When they had returned at TIME , GPE GPE and serviceman PERSON had been ordered to enter first , while serviceman PERSON had entered after they went out . According to serviceman PERSON , they had been given CARDINAL more days , while according to serviceman PERSON , they had been given until DATE ( DATE ) TIME to find the second watch . PERSON further stated that on DATE he had been temporarily transferred to a different location for works and was no longer involved in this story . He added that when he and PERSON had been together in the office nobody had touched them .

On DATE respectively the investigator took statements from officers GPE and ORG in their capacity of witnesses , who recounted the events that had taken place on DATE in GPE , including the argument between them and PERSON near the post office . Officer PERSON stated , inter alia , that PERSON had voluntarily removed and handed the watch to him . Officer PERSON stated , inter alia , that he had met PERSON on TIME in front of the headquarters and had given him a DATE deadline to find and bring the second watch . Both officers further stated that following the expiry of the DATE deadline they had taken PERSON and serviceman PERSON to the office of officer ORG who had had a talk with them in private .

No questions were posed by the investigator to officer ORG , while officer PERSON was asked several questions about the argument of DATE . Officer PERSON admitted swearing at PERSON , as well as briefly shaking and pulling on his hand , but denied hitting him and could not remember whether he or officer PERSON had slapped him .

On DATE the investigator questioned officer ORG as a witness , posing a number of questions about the argument of DATE . The investigator further asked for information on the follow - up meetings , to which officer ORG confirmed his earlier statement , adding that he had not heard any noise coming from officer ORG ’s office while waiting outside .

On the same date serviceman PERSON was questioned again . He added to his previous statement that officer ORG had sworn at them but had not hit them , when he and PERSON were in his office .

On DATE officers ORG and ORG were questioned again and asked further questions about the argument of DATE . Officer PERSON was further asked , inter alia , whether he had had personal motives in summoning PERSON so often to the headquarters , as well as why no entry had been made in GPE PERSON ’s medical file until DATE , if he had asked for medical help already on DATE .

On DATE the investigator took a statement from officer ORG in his capacity as a witness . Officer GPE confirmed that he had summoned PERSON and serviceman PERSON to his office for a talk in connection with the lost watches . During their talk PERSON had been allowed to go and fetch serviceman PERSON had then had a talk with all CARDINAL of them , releasing PERSON first and ordering the other CARDINAL to find and bring the second watch . Officer PERSON further stated that on DATE he had again summoned PERSON and serviceman PERSON but the latter had come alone since PERSON was unwell . He had then ordered serviceman PERSON to fetch PERSON . When the latter came , he had asked what was wrong with him and why he was staying in the barracks , to which GPE GPE had replied that he had a fever and was taking treatment prescribed by the doctor . He had then given them DATE to find the second watch .

The investigator posed CARDINAL questions to officer ORG : ( a ) whether he had beaten , slapped or sworn at PERSON or serviceman PERSON when they were in his office , which officer ORG denied , and ( b ) whether he was alone when he met with them , to which officer ORG replied that he had met them only in his office .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .

On DATE the post - mortem examination was completed and its results were sent to ORG . The relevant parts of forensic medical expert PERSON ’s conclusions read as follows :

“ External examination of the corpse . ... Injuries : There is an abrasion measuring QUANTITY on the right side of the forehead , which is located lower than the surrounding skin and has a dark red surface . ...

Internal examination of the corpse . ... In the thickness of the muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen , in the projection of the spleen , bruising measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY was discovered ...

The blood sample taken from PERSON at the hospital was sent to ORG of GPE and ORG of GPE for a bacteriological examination ...

The following reply , dated DATE , was received from military unit no . CARDINAL of ORG of GPE on DATE ... ‘ DATE malaria agents ... were found as a result of a bacteriological examination under a microscope slide of PERSON blood smear taken at the hospital’ . According to the results of the forensic histological examination ... dated DATE ... ‘ Forensic histological conclusion : ... old and new bruises to soft tissues in the area of the left side of the abdomen ; internal bruising of the spleen’ .

Forensic medical diagnosis . A closed blunt injury to the abdomen , old and new bruises to soft tissues and muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen , enlarged spleen ... , spleen rupture and bruising , ... Acute internal bleeding . Malaria . An abrasion on the right side of the forehead ...

Conclusions .

Suren PERSON ’s death was caused by acute internal bleeding resulting from the rupture of the deformed and enlarged spleen , accompanied by a closed and diffuse abdominal injury and by old and new bruises in the area of the left side of the abdomen .

The following injuries were identified as a result of the forensic medical examination of PERSON corpse : old and new bruises to soft tissues and muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen , spleen rupture and bruising ... [ and ] an abrasion on the right side of the forehead . ... Of the above - mentioned bodily injuries the old and new bruises to soft tissues and muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen [ and ] spleen rupture and bruising ... were inflicted by blunt objects or tools having a limited surface ; judging by the nature of the old and new bruises to soft tissues and muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen it can be said that the old bruises are more than DATE , while the new bruising is DATE . The closed and diffuse abdominal injury accompanied by spleen rupture and acute internal bleeding is considered a grave bodily injury posing threat to life and has a direct causal link with [ GPE PERSON ’s ] death . The abrasion on the right side of the forehead was inflicted while alive by a blunt object having a limited surface and is considered a minor bodily injury ...

As indicated above , the death occurred CARDINAL - CARDINAL days after the infliction of the main injuries ( the above - mentioned old bruising in the area of the left side of the abdomen , in all probability accompanied by an initial sub - capsular rupture of the spleen and absorbent haemorrhage ) . As regards the abrasion on the right side of the forehead and the new bruise , these were inflicted DATE before death .

It follows from the reply received from Laboratory no . CARDINAL of ORG of GPE that DATE malaria agents were discovered in the blood sample [ taken from PERSON at the military hospital ] .

... A. Suren PERSON ’s spleen was enlarged and deformed as a result of malaria .

B. C. As indicated above , the initial closed and blunt abdominal injury , accompanied by the old bruising in the area of the left side of the abdomen , in all probability led to the sub - capsular rupture of the spleen with concentration of blood , which is also indirectly evidenced by the absorbent haemorrhage in the spleen disclosed by the forensic histological examination ; the spleen capsule erupted as a result of the increase in concentration of blood in DATE , which led to acute bleeding . This process may DATE but it is impossible to determine the exact number of DATE .

D. It appears from the medical file that on DATE at TIME GPE GPE fell down in the hospital ’s lavatory ; taking into account the abovementioned circumstances concerning the spleen rupture and acute internal bleeding , the spleen rupture could not have been caused by DATE in the hospital ’s lavatory . ”

On DATE officers ORG and ORG were arrested under LAW of GPE ( insult of a subordinate by a violent act by a superior ) .

On DATE they were charged under the same Article and were detained . This decision stated that on DATE at TIME near GPE post office , officers ORG and ORG , being public officials and suspecting PERSON of theft , instead of applying disciplinary sanctions , attacked him in front of CARDINAL servicemen by swearing at him , thereby humiliating him . It further stated that officer ORG , having pulled at PERSON , caused him physical pain .

On DATE officers ORG and ORG were questioned as suspects and both confirmed that on DATE they had pulled and sworn at GPE GPE near the LOC post office . They were asked questions about the swear words used .

On DATE investigator PERSON decided to assign a panel forensic medical examination in order to determine the scope of responsibility of the military unit and the hospital doctors for GPE PERSON ’s death , including the timeliness and accuracy of the diagnosis and the treatment provided , the timeliness of his transfer to hospital and whether they could have detected the injuries revealed by the post - mortem examination . This decision stated , inter alia , that on DATE PERSON had had an argument with CARDINAL officers of the military unit , ORG and ORG , after which , starting from DATE , his health had deteriorated .

On DATE a serviceman of the military unit ’s music squad was questioned . He stated that PERSON had had no arguments or scuffles with anybody . On the way back from GPE , PERSON had told him that he had got into trouble because of this watch and that “ now they would frame him ” . However , PERSON had never told him or others that he had been ill - treated , even in reply to a direct question following his visit to officer ORG ’s office . The serviceman confirmed that GPE GPE had started to feel unwell from DATE . He further stated that he and others had wiped sweat from PERSON forehead , belly , back and legs during his illness but had not noticed any traces of injuries . On DATE of his illness , military unit doctor PERSON had come to visit him and concluded that he had caught cold . DATE military unit doctor PERSON had come , said that PERSON had flu and given him some pills . On DATE PERSON had been very ill : he had lost a lot of weight and staggered when walking , so they had to accompany him to the toilets .

On DATE the experts conducting the panel forensic medical examination produced their opinion . According to its conclusions , it had been possible for the doctors of the military unit not to discover the injuries which led to GPE PERSON ’s death since there were no visible traces of injuries on the surface of the skin . The enlarged spleen might have been caused by malaria and the injury sustained by PERSON might have brought about the sub - capsular bleeding which later led to a ruptured spleen and acute internal bleeding . Referring to the fact that no malaria agents were discovered in GPE PERSON ’s blood sample by the parasitological examination of CARDINAL DATE , the experts attributed this to the fact that agents could be detected at the stage of the disease when the sick person experiences shivering and fever accompanied by high temperature . The opinion lastly stated that , given that no malaria agents had been discovered , not specific but symptomatic treatment had to be prescribed , and in fact had been provided in full .

On DATE serviceman PERSON was questioned again and stated that both PERSON and serviceman PERSON had denied having been beaten or sworn at during their first visit to officer ORG ’s office . When he and PERSON visited the office TIME , officer ORG had said to him “ Why did you enter ? You go out , you have received your punishment ” . In reply to the investigator ’s question , serviceman PERSON stated that he had not noticed any bruises or signs of pain on PERSON when he came out of the office TIME . He could not say what officer ORG meant by his statement and whether it meant that now it was PERSON ’s turn to be punished .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of GPE , arguing in detail that his son had died as a result of a beating by officers PERSON , GPE , GPE and another officer , PERSON , as well as the failure of the doctors of the military unit , LOC and ORG , to provide medical assistance . He claimed that serviceman PERSON had admitted during questioning , in his presence , that he had been badly ill - treated by officer ORG in his office . PERSON had been next to enter that office , alone , and TIME he had been so unwell in bed that he was not able to return to officer ORG ’s office . The applicant alleged that the beating which resulted in GPE PERSON ’s ruptured spleen and subsequent death had taken place at that moment . He further claimed that the doctors had intentionally refused to provide medical assistance and to transfer GPE GPE to hospital in order to cover up the abuse . The applicant requested ORG to identify those responsible for his son ’s death .

On DATE investigator PERSON decided to order an additional forensic medical examination . In addition to the questions asked earlier , the experts were requested to determine whether the military unit and the hospital doctors could have detected the spleen enlargement and what they were supposed to do if it had been detected , as well as whether GPE PERSON ’s spleen could have ruptured earlier and been followed by slow bleeding .

On DATE the forensic medical experts produced an additional opinion . According to its conclusions , since on DATE PERSON had not complained of abdominal pains , the doctors of the military unit had no reason to suspect malaria and diagnosed his condition as an acute respiratory illness . The opinion further stated that usually a doctor was obliged to deliver a diagnosis after having carefully examined the patient . PERSON medical file contained his complaints but no indication of results of any such examination . If on DATE GPE PERSON ’s spleen had already been enlarged , it would have been possible to detect this through palpation and to transfer him to hospital . The same was possible at the hospital . As regards the sub - capsular rupture of the spleen , it was almost impossible to detect . Had the spleen rupture been detected and the spleen removed by surgery , PERSON ’s life could have been saved . Lastly , the injuries discovered by the post - mortem examination were not detected by the doctors since there were no visible traces of injuries on the outer part of the skin .

On DATE a serviceman , ORG , who had been undergoing treatment at the hospital when PERSON was admitted , was questioned . He stated that he had become acquainted with PERSON upon the latter ’s admission to hospital . PERSON had looked very ill and told him that he had spent DATE in the barracks . ORG further stated that he had not noticed any bruises on PERSON ’s forehead or any fights or arguments during his DATE stay in hospital .

On DATE the criminal case against officers ORG and ORG concerning the charges of insult was disjoined from the main criminal proceedings concerning PERSON death since there was no causal link between the CARDINAL . A new number was assigned to the disjoined case ( no . ORG ) .

During the investigation a number of other unrelated offences committed by officers ORG and ORG were revealed . As regards , in particular , officer ORG , the investigation revealed that in DATE he had kicked a soldier for sleeping on watch duty and broken the soldier ’s arm . Officer PERSON was charged with inflicting bodily injuries .

On DATE the bill of indictment concerning the disjoined case was submitted to ORG .

By a letter of DATE the Minister of Defence of Nagorno PERSON filed a motion with ORG requesting that a non - custodial sentence be imposed on officer PERSON and that he stay under the control of the military unit command , taking into account his long and diligent service in the armed forces , the report / request of the command of formation no . DATE and the fact that he regretted his actions and that his actions posed no danger to society .

On DATE forensic medical expert PERSON was questioned . He confirmed that PERSON had already been ill with malaria when he sustained the old bruises in the area of the left side of the abdomen . He stated that the fact that PERSON was ill might have accelerated the transformation of the sub - capsular rupture into a full rupture and internal bleeding . However , even a healthy spleen could suffer a sub - capsular rupture from a blow , later leading to a full rupture . The transformation of the sub - capsular rupture into full rupture could happen with or without external influence . The expert lastly confirmed that the new bruises found on PERSON body and the abrasion to the left side of his forehead could have been caused by his falling on the hospital floor not long before his death .

On DATE serviceman PERSON was questioned again and confirmed that no sound of blows or other loud noise could be heard when he had waited for PERSON outside the office . Later he had heard rumours that GPE GPE had been beaten by officers PERSON and ORG G.M. further explained that he had inquired with PERSON and serviceman PERSON whether they had been beaten , because officer ORG had hit him a few times while in the office . He lastly requested that no criminal proceedings be brought against officer GPE because he had hit him CARDINAL times on his buttocks .

On DATE the applicant contacted the investigating authority , willing to provide additional information . On DATE he was questioned and stated that in DATE he had heard from a former colleague of his , who in DATE had visited a relative serving in the same military unit , that he had heard CARDINAL of the officers saying that a serviceman matching PERSON ’s description had recently died as a result of a beating by officer PERSON

DATE . On DATE both the former colleague and his relative serving in the military unit were questioned and confirmed this information but could not remember the name of the officer in question . On DATE the former colleague ’s relative was once again questioned and stated that the officer ’s name was V.M.

On DATE several more persons were questioned , including military unit doctors NORP and ORG , hospital doctor GPE , and an orderly of the hospital , ORG

Military unit doctor PERSON stated , inter alia , that DATE before , during a conversation with serviceman PERSON , he had asked the latter to confirm the rumours that PERSON had been beaten by officers PERSON and ORG , to which serviceman PERSON replied that he was not aware of that . PERSON was further asked questions regarding the medical assistance provided to PERSON at the military unit .

Military unit doctor PERSON claimed that he had also examined GPE GPE once , including palpating his abdomen , but no abnormalities were found or bruises and injuries revealed . He was further asked to explain as to why he had refused to visit PERSON after being called by the latter ’s fellow serviceman .

Hospital doctor GPE stated that it was he who had initially diagnosed GPE GPE as having malaria , because of the symptoms and the fact that he was serving in a malaria hotbed . PERSON had not told him , except on DATE he died , that he had been beaten or that he had fallen , and since there were no symptoms he did not put such questions to the patient . However , on DATE , when he rushed to provide medical aid to GPE GPE , the latter , when asked what had happened , told him “ I have pain in my belly , I feel very ill , I fell not long ago in the ward ” .

Hospital orderly ORG stated that on DATE at TIME GPE GPE had told him that shortly before he had felt giddy and fallen down . TIME he had called a doctor because GPE GPE ’s condition had worsened and then , after PERSON lost consciousness , he summoned the resuscitation specialist , who came and started resuscitation procedures .

On an unspecified date the court proceedings into the disjoined criminal case against officers ORG and ORG on account of insult commenced at ORG of GPE , sitting in PERSON ( Nagorno Karabakh ) . It appears that officer PERSON pleaded guilty and admitted that he had sworn at and pushed GPE GPE and pulled the watch off his wrist , but said that he had not hit him .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG found officers ORG and ORG guilty as charged and sentenced them to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE officer ORG was released on parole .

On DATE the investigation into PERSON death ( criminal case no . DATE ) was taken over by ORG of GPE and assigned to investigator H.

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of GPE , claiming that the investigation was flawed and had failed to reveal those responsible for his son ’s death , despite the fact that there was sufficient evidence that he had died as a result of illtreatment by the CARDINAL officers , ORG , GPE and GPE

On DATE military unit doctor PERSON was questioned again and confirmed his earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE serviceman PERSON was questioned again and added to his previous statements that on DATE of their first visit to officer ORG ’s office , ORG had hit him CARDINAL times with a wooden pole on his buttocks when he was alone in his office .

On DATE a confrontation was held between serviceman PERSON and another serviceman , during which ORG stated that on DATE of their first visit to officer ORG ’s office they had also gone to officer ORG office where the latter had started screaming at them because of the stolen watch . Officer PERSON also threatened to undress them in front of the entire battalion if they failed to find the second watch .

On DATE serviceman PERSON was questioned again and described in greater detail how officer ORG had taken a wooden pole from behind a safe , told him to lean against the wall and hit him CARDINAL times on his buttocks .

On DATE officer PERSON was questioned and stated that he had not provided the full story in his previous testimony and that during the argument between him and PERSON on DATE he had grabbed the latter ’s left wrist with his right hand and started shaking it briskly , during which PERSON fist had touched the left side of his abdomen in the area of the spleen . Being very angry , he had not noticed whether PERSON facial expression had changed as a result of the blow , but he had not displayed any unusual movements or convulsions . Officer PERSON further denied hitting PERSON .

On DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL of the servicemen , GPE and FAC , who had previously testified on DATE and asked them to describe how officer ORG had pulled on PERSON ’s hand on DATE . According to ORG , officer ORG had grabbed GPE GPE ’s left forearm , while according to ORG the left wrist , and had pulled forcefully . PERSON had tried unsuccessfully to free his arm . When he was pulling back his arm , officer ORG hand was also being pulled back with it . Officer PERSON had then removed the watch with his other hand , while still holding on to PERSON with his right hand .

On DATE the applicant was questioned and stated that DATE he had bumped into a number of servicemen who had told him about the circumstances of PERSON murder and the identities of those who had ill - treated him . According to them , PERSON had told them that he had been summoned to the headquarters where he had been badly beaten by officers PERSON , GPE and GPE , as a result of which he had lost consciousness and been taken back to the barracks by couriers . The applicant requested that these allegations be investigated .

On DATE ORG of GPE addressed a letter to the Head of ORG of Nagorno Karabakh , informing him of the applicant ’s allegations and requesting that those circumstances be clarified .

DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned officers ORG and ORG respectively . Both denied the above allegations . Officer PERSON added that the only time that there had been any use of force in respect of PERSON was during the incident of DATE , when he had shaken PERSON hand briskly , during which his hand had touched PERSON abdomen . In reply to the investigator ’s question as to why he had earlier stated that it had been PERSON ’s hand that touched the abdomen while now he was stating that it had been his hand , officer PERSON stated that , since he was holding PERSON hand in his hand , both his and PERSON hands had touched the abdomen .

On DATE the investigator decided to assign an additional panel forensic medical examination and pose further questions to the medical experts , taking into account that it had been established that during the argument of CARDINAL DATE officer ORG had accidentally hit PERSON in the left side of the abdomen . It had been further established that on DATE PERSON had fallen at the hospital , with his left hand under his belly .

On DATE forensic medical expert PERSON was questioned again . He stated that the sub - capsular rupture and the bruising to the soft tissues had been caused by direct contact with a blunt object . If , during that blow , officer PERSON had held in his hand the deceased ’s forearm or part of his wrist , those parts must have touched the front wall of the deceased ’s abdomen during the blow , while the injuries , namely the rupture and the bruising to the soft tissues of the abdominal area , were caused by direct contact with officer PERSON ’s fist ; contact between the deceased ’s wrist or forearm with that area could not have caused the sub - capsular rupture . If the deceased ’s wrist or forearm or fist touched the abdomen , then officer ORG fist must have undoubtedly touched the front wall of the abdomen .

On DATE the panel of experts produced their opinion in reply to the questions posed by the investigator ’s decision of DATE . As regards the responsibility of the military unit and the hospital doctors , the experts found that they had failed to reach a timely and accurate diagnosis and to provide adequate medical treatment . The opinion further included , inter alia , the following questions and answers :

( CARDINAL ) Question : what impact could the blow sustained by PERSON during the argument of DATE have had on his health ? Could it have caused spleen rupture , internal bruising and subsequently death ? Answer : as a result of the blow sustained during the argument of DATE , GPE GPE sustained bruises to muscles and a sub - capsular rupture of his spleen which later led to his death .

( CARDINAL ) Question : was he ill with malaria on DATE and why were no malaria agents found in his blood sample at the military hospital , if threeday - old malaria agents were found in the same sample following a later test ? Answer : on DATE PERSON was suffering from malaria .

( CARDINAL ) Question : what impact would the above - mentioned blow have had on his health if he had not been ill with malaria ? Answer : depending on the strength , location and nature of the blow , it was possible not to sustain a sub - capsular rupture , but even a light blow could cause spleen rupture to an unhealthy and deformed spleen .

( CARDINAL ) Question : could he have sustained bruises to soft tissues in the area of the left side of his abdomen by falling at the hospital on DATE ? Answer : the new bruising to soft tissues in the area of the left side of GPE PERSON ’s abdomen could have been caused by his fall at the hospital .

( CARDINAL ) Question : exactly when did his spleen rupture occur , and would his life have been unequivocally saved , if diagnosis had been made in a timely manner ? Answer : the sub - capsular rupture of PERSON spleen occurred on DATE , while the second rupture occurred on DATE at TIME , as a result of which he most likely lost consciousness and fell down . Had the internal bleeding been diagnosed in a timely manner , it might have been possible to save PERSON life .

On DATE forensic medical expert GPE , who had contributed to the opinions of DATE and DATE and DATE , was questioned . Asked about the discrepancies between the findings in those opinions , expert ORG stated that it must have been an automatic mistake and admitted that she had not read CARDINAL of the opinions before signing it . She further stated that the reason why no trace of malaria had been discovered at the PERSON hospital could have been due to lack of proper equipment . She lastly stated that an enlarged spleen in a person suffering from malaria would become hard and filled with blood , the capsule would be strained and become more sensitive . Even a light blow might cause a sub - capsular rupture .

On DATE hospital doctor GPE was questioned and added to his previous statement that the pain upon palpation of GPE PERSON ’s abdomen made him suspect that it was connected with malaria . In reply to the investigator ’s question as to why he had not administered anti - malaria treatment if he had been convinced of that diagnosis , GPE replied that he had had to wait for the result of the parasitological test . Furthermore , often an initial negative result of such test did not mean that a patient had no malaria and this could be confirmed only after a third negative result .

On DATE the forensic medical expert who had presided over the panel which had produced the opinion of CARDINAL DATE was questioned and confirmed the responsibility of both the military unit and the hospital doctors .

On DATE sent a letter , marked “ secret ” , to ORG of GPE . The relevant parts of the letter read as follows :

DATE . On DATE the Minister of Defence of Nagorno PERSON filed a motion with ORG of GPE , asking for officer GPE not to be prosecuted , taking into account his positive characteristics , his impeccable service in the armed forces and his active participation in the struggle for the existence of PERSON , as well as the report / request of the command of formation no . DATE .

On DATE charges were brought against hospital doctor GPE under LAW of LAW of GPE ( abuse of authority or public position , accidentally resulting in grave consequences ) on the ground that he had failed to provide adequate treatment to PERSON .

On DATE the Military Prosecutor of GPE lodged an application with ORG seeking to re - open the proceedings concerning the criminal case against officer PERSON on the basis of a newly established circumstance . ORG submitted that all possible hypotheses had been verified and it had been established that , apart from the incident of DATE , PERSON had no other conflicts and had good relations with fellow servicemen and officers . It followed from the statements made by officer PERSON on DATE and DATE , in which he admitted that during the incident of DATE both his and PERSON hands had touched the left side of the victim ’s body , that the sub - capsular rupture of GPE PERSON ’s spleen was a result of that incident .

On DATE the applicant lodged a challenge with ORG against ORG and other employees of ORG , arguing in detail that they had failed to conduct an adequate investigation into his son ’s death .

On DATE and DATE charges were brought against military unit doctors ORG and PERSON LAW of the new LAW of GPE .

On DATE the Senior Assistant to ORG decided to dismiss the applicant ’s challenge of DATE . This decision stated , inter alia :

“ On DATE the criminal case [ concerning PERSON death ] was transferred from FAC to the investigative division of ORG of GPE , where following an investigation it was disclosed that from CARDINAL to DATE [ officers ORG and ORG ] had on several occasions summoned [ PERSON ] to the headquarters of the military unit , demanded the lost watch and , having received no positive reply , had taken him to [ the acting commander of the military unit , GPE ] , who in his office had hit [ Suren PERSON ] , as well as serviceman [ ORG ] , who had been called to the office in connection with the same matter , with a wooden pole .

According to the materials of the case , a number of witnesses testified that during the argument of DATE nobody had hit [ PERSON ] . In the course of additional questioning [ officer V.G. ] alleged that during the argument of DATE he , infuriated by [ PERSON ] behaviour , had grabbed his hand and shaken it briskly , during which his hand had touched [ PERSON ] in the area of the spleen . ”

The decision further referred to the expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE and specifically its finding that PERSON had sustained bruises to muscles and a sub - capsular rupture of his spleen as a result of the blow sustained during the argument of QUANTITY DATE . The Senior Assistant to ORG concluded that the arguments raised by the applicant had been examined in the course of a thorough and objective investigation by ORG and his challenge was therefore unfounded .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE in its part concerning officer PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case for further investigation .

On DATE the investigator , finding that there were discrepancies between previous expert opinions , and also upon the request of CARDINAL of the accused , namely military hospital doctor GPE , decided to assign a new panel forensic medical examination .

On DATE the criminal case against officer ORG on charges of insult was re - joined to the main criminal proceedings concerning GPE PERSON ’s death .

On DATE new charges were brought against officer ORG under LAW ( abuse of authority or public position , accidentally resulting in grave consequences ) . It appears that he was detained on DATE .

On DATE the panel of experts produced their opinion in reply to the questions posed by the investigator ’s decision of DATE , confirming their earlier findings regarding the responsibility of the military unit and the hospital doctors . The opinion also included , inter alia , the following question and answer :

Question : what was the intensity of the blow sustained by GPE GPE , considering that it caused bruising of deep muscles ? Answer : it was impossible to determine the exact intensity of the blow in the absence of relevant medical criteria , although it could be asserted that the blow had been of certain intensity .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG similar to that of DATE . He also offered to bring witnesses who , according to him , could tell the truth , namely that on DATE his son had been beaten by officers ORG , GPE and GPE , as a result of which he had suffered the fatal injury . The witnesses could further confirm that his son had lost consciousness and that military unit doctor ORG had provided first aid and was therefore aware of the illtreatment .

On DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE the investigator posed a number of questions , suggested by the applicant , to the CARDINAL forensic medical experts who had produced the opinion of DATE . CARDINAL of the experts were unable to answer the applicant ’s question about whether it was possible for his son , who on DATE had allegedly been ill with malaria and had an enlarged spleen , not to complain , have fever or shiver and to feel well . The fourth expert stated that his son might have experienced dull pain .

In reply to the applicant ’s question about whether it was possible for his son , whose spleen was enlarged and already ruptured , not to complain for DATE of any pain , to feel healthy , participate in exercises and to play the trumpet , CARDINAL of the experts were unable to provide an answer , the third expert stated that it was only a sub - capsular rupture and not a full one , and the fourth expert stated that it was possible for him not to complain if the sub - capsular rupture had been small , and possible to complain if had been big .

In reply to the applicant ’s question about how his son would have reacted ( screaming , losing consciousness , and so on ) when he sustained the injury resulting in extensive bruising and a sub - capsular spleen rupture , CARDINAL of the experts stated that different people felt and expressed pain differently . The fourth expert stated that it was equally possible for him to feel or not to feel pain . CARDINAL of the experts also added that it was only a subcapsular rupture and the spleen was not a painful organ .

In reply to the applicant ’s question about whether the bruising would have been visible from the outside , CARDINAL expert referred to the findings in the opinion , CARDINAL experts said “ not necessarily ” , while the fourth expert stated that it would have been visible , although external bruises healed faster than internal ones .

In reply to the applicant ’s question concerning the responsibility of the military hospital doctor , all experts stated that the doctor had no reason to suspect internal bleeding because the patient had failed to inform him about the injury , there were no visible external traces and the clinical signs were similar to those of malaria . The hospital doctor had carried out all the examinations and tests which he was obliged to in such circumstances . The applicant alleged that each time the investigator had posed this question to an expert , he would first invite him to leave the room . The answers given to this question by all CARDINAL experts in his absence were almost identical .

On DATE the investigator decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against military hospital doctor GPE for lack of corpus delicti , finding that GPE had carried out all possible examinations which he was able and obliged to perform in the circumstances . This conclusion was reached on the basis of the above statements of the CARDINAL forensic medical experts .

On DATE ORG of GPE decided not to prosecute officer GPE for beating serviceman PERSON This decision stated that officer ORG , suspecting PERSON and serviceman PERSON of lying about the lost watch , had started swearing at them and demanding that they find it . Thereafter he had ordered them to leave his office and called serviceman PERSON When the latter had told the same story as the CARDINAL other servicemen , officer ORG had become furious , started swearing and ordered serviceman PERSON to turn towards the wall , whereupon he had taken a CARDINAL cm long pole and twice hit serviceman PERSON on his buttocks . PERSON had started crying and after leaving the office he had asked PERSON and serviceman PERSON whether they had also been beaten , to which both of them replied “ no ” . The decision concluded that it was not necessary to prosecute officer GPE because he had no criminal record , was known to be of good character and regretted his actions . The motion of ORG of Nagorno PERSON asking not to prosecute him was also taken into account .

On an unspecified date the applicant submitted to the investigating authority a photograph of his son allegedly performing on stage at the comedy contest in PERSON on DATE , arguing that this proved that his son was not yet that ill on DATE . The version that his son felt ill and could not perform had been made up on purpose in order to justify the deterioration of his condition and his transfer to hospital . In reality , upon arriving at the military unit from PERSON , he had once again been beaten by the officers on TIME DATE , which had caused the spleen rupture . This was also confirmed by the new bruising to soft tissues in the area of the left side of the abdomen revealed during the autopsy .

On DATE the bill of indictment was finalised and on DATE approved by ORG . Its relevant parts stated as follows :

“ A number of hypotheses have been checked in the course of the investigation , which have been investigated in an objective manner . Thus , because of a watch found on [ Suren PERSON ’s ] wrist [ officers PERSON and ORG ] invited him to the headquarters on several occasions and presented him to the acting commander of the military unit , [ ORG ] , who in an attempt to clarify the above - mentioned question , subjected to beating [ serviceman PERSON He ] did not , however , beat or hit [ GPE GPE ] .

It has been confirmed by the investigation that on DATE , as [ officer ORG ] noticed on PERSON wrist his younger brother ’s stolen watch , he argued with him , grabbed his hand , started swearing and shook it briskly , during which he hit PERSON abdomen resulting in a sub - capsular rupture of his spleen . Thereafter from DATE Suren PERSON ’s health started to deteriorate while in the military unit . On DATE PERSON was visited by [ military unit doctor PERSON , ] who failed to diagnose PERSON real illness and to make any entries [ in the registers ] and , having given several paracetamol pills , left . When on DATE [ ORG ] was called to provide medical assistance to GPE GPE , he refused to come and provide assistance and said that the patient should be brought to the aid post . Thereafter PERSON fellow servicemen called [ military unit doctor PERSON ] . The latter came , also failed to diagnose GPE PERSON ’s real illness and , having given some anti - fever injections and several paracetamol pills , left . Hence , PERSON remained ill in the military unit until DATE , which was also in violation of Order no . CARDINAL of the Minister of Defence of CARDINAL DATE , namely PERSON was transferred to hospital TIME DATE , as a result of which it was impossible to save [ his ] life .

During the investigation at his additional questioning as a witness on DATE and DATE [ officer ORG ] regretted his actions and stated that he had not provided the full story in his previous statements and added that during the incident of DATE both his and PERSON hands had hit the left side of the latter ’s abdomen .

The investigation carried out has confirmed that the sub - capsular rupture of GPE PERSON ’s spleen resulted from [ officer ORG ] actions during the incident of DATE . ”

All CARDINAL defendants , namely military officer FAC and military unit doctors ORG and PERSON , were accused under LAW in connection with the above acts .

On DATE ORG , sitting in the town of GPE ) , found officer PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , minus the one year and twentyfour DATE already spent in detention , finding it to be confirmed that on DATE officer ORG , during an argument with PERSON about a stolen watch , shook briskly PERSON hand , and in doing so his hand touched the left side of GPE PERSON ’s abdomen causing a subcapsular rupture of the spleen . As regards military unit doctors ORG and GPE , ORG re - qualified the charges from LAW to LAW ( official negligence resulting in grave consequences ) and , applying LAW , sentenced each of them to a fine of CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) . ORG also granted the civil claim lodged by the applicant and ordered officer ORG to pay MONEY ( ORG ) and military unit doctors ORG and PERSON to pay ORG CARDINAL each as reimbursement of funeral costs and legal costs incurred by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal . He argued in detail that there was sufficient evidence suggesting that his son had been harassed by a number of high - ranking officers , including ORG , GPE and GPE , in the period DATE and that the fatal injury had been inflicted by them on DATE . The applicant referred , in particular , to a witness statement by his son ’s fellow serviceman , according to which his son had woken up in TIME DATE and complained that he was feeling ill . The same followed from the findings of the post - mortem examination , according to which the initial bruising had been inflicted DATE before death . Furthermore , DATE was DATE of the deadline fixed by the officers . The investigating authority was deliberately ignoring this evidence and had failed to clarify what had happened on DATE , while the proceedings had been perfunctory and not objective and aimed to lead the case into an impasse and not to punish the murderers . The applicant further referred to the fact that serviceman PERSON had admitted that he had been ill - treated by officer ORG in his office . It followed from the decision of ORG of DATE that the same had happened to his son . The accused , officer ORG , had also admitted in court that he had been outside officer GPE ’s office when the latter ill - treated GPE GPE and that he had heard him scream . Furthermore , no explanation had been given for the second bruising and abrasion on the forehead sustained by his son DATE before his death . The applicant further complained that ORG had failed to clarify what was meant by the “ well - known beating of GPE ” referred to in the letter of the Head of ORG of Nagorno Karabakh , as well as the circumstances and perpetrators of this beating . Lastly , as regards the military unit doctors , the applicant complained that the requalification of the charge had been inaccurate and the sentence imposed too lenient .

Appeals against the judgment of DATE were lodged also by officer ORG and the Prosecutor , who sought harsher penalties .

On DATE ORG commenced the appeal proceedings . Officer PERSON admitted before ORG that either his or PERSON hand had possibly touched the latter ’s abdomen during the argument of DATE , but argued that GPE PERSON ’s spleen could not have ruptured as a result of that contact .

In the course of the proceedings , upon the applicant ’s request , CARDINAL witnesses , serviceman PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and hospital orderly PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , were summoned and examined in court .

ORG stated that PERSON had told him at the hospital that he had been called to the headquarters by officer PERSON on DATE when the latter was on duty and beaten by him , officers ORG and GPE and another officer , ORG , because of the watch . The officers had pushed him to the ground and started kicking him , while officer ORG hit him with a wooden pole . They had demanded that he bring the watch or its value in cash . The most active beaters were officers ORG and GPE He had been beaten so badly that the headquarters couriers had had to carry him back to the barracks . On DATE he was called again by officer ORG He had been unable to go but ORG had insisted . Thereafter he had remained in the barracks for DATE .

ORG stated that upon admission to hospital PERSON was very agitated and kept uttering swear words directed at officers GPE , GPE and GPE He then said that he had been beaten by officers ORG and GPE

Both ORG and ORG stated that they had been afraid to tell the truth at their questioning during the investigation as they had been military servicemen at that time . They had been demobilised now , had nothing to be afraid of and were telling the truth . PERSON added that PERSON had asked him not to tell this to anyone in order not to get into trouble .

Officer GPE was also summoned and examined in court . He denied having ill - treated PERSON , but admitted that he had hit serviceman PERSON for having stolen the first watch .

ORG sent an inquiry to ORG of Nagorno PERSON asking for clarification of the content of the letter of CARDINAL DATE .

By a letter of DATE the Head of ORG of Nagorno PERSON informed the court that the expression “ wellknown beating ” had been used merely as a brief description of the incident and had no other meaning .

NORP The applicant submitted once again before ORG that his son had died as a result of ill - treatment by officers PERSON , GPE and GPE , while the military unit doctors had failed to provide adequate medical assistance .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment , upholding that of ORG in its part concerning the guilt of officer ORG and military unit doctors ORG and PERSON However , it decided to modify the penalty in respect of PERSON and PERSON , imposing a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment respectively , with CARDINAL years’ and DATE probation period respectively . ORG decided also to modify the judgment in its part concerning the applicant ’s civil claim , by annulling the award of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by both PERSON and PERSON , on the ground that they had already paid those amounts to the applicant voluntarily .

ORG . As regards the statements of former servicemen ORG and ORG , as well as the applicant ’s arguments , ORG found that these were not sufficient grounds for bringing harsher charges against officer ORG or for remitting the case for further investigation with the aim of bringing criminal proceedings against officers GPE and GPE Firstly , the court was required by law to examine the case only in respect of the accused and within the scope of the charge against him . Secondly , the law prescribed CARDINAL grounds for remitting a case for further investigation , namely ( CARDINAL ) if the investigating authority had committed a substantial violation of procedural law or ( CARDINAL ) upon the ORG ’s request , if there were grounds for harsher prosecution or prosecution on a different factual basis . No such request had been filed by ORG , while the investigating authority had carried out a thorough , full and objective investigation by examining a number of hypotheses , none of which confirmed that GPE GPE had been ill - treated . ORG further noted that both PERSON and ORG had been questioned on numerous occasions during the investigation but had never made such statements in the past . Moreover , they cited as their source of information the late PERSON . ORG lastly referred to the letter of the Head of ORG of Nagorno PERSON of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , raising similar arguments .

The Prosecutor also lodged an appeal on points of law , seeking that the case be remitted for fresh examination in its part concerning the military unit doctors on the ground that the sentence imposed was too lenient .

On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicant ’s appeal and to grant that of the Prosecutor , finding that the sentence imposed on military unit doctors ORG and PERSON had not been proportionate to the gravity of the offence and remitting that part of the case for fresh examination .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of this decision .

On DATE ORG examined the case anew in its part concerning military unit doctors ORG and PERSON and decided to sentence them to DATE and DATE years’ imprisonment respectively . At the same time ORG decided to grant amnesty and to release them from serving their sentence .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens

The applicant , who was born in DATE , was detained at FAC at the time when the application was lodged .

On DATE ORG decided to restrict access to the file regarding an ongoing investigation against a terrorist organisation .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organisation and making its propaganda .

On DATE the applicant ’s police statement was taken at the Anti - Terror Branch of ORG , in the presence of his lawyer . He was mainly questioned about several records of telephone conversations as well as allegations about the burning of vehicles and throwing Molotov cocktails . He was questioned at length about the telephone conversations that had been intercepted . The police read out the transcripts of the telephone conversations and asked the applicant to comment on them . He was further asked questions about the incriminating statements of CARDINAL of his co - accused . The applicant used his right to remain silent .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative lodged an objection against the decision on the applicant ’s detention , and requested his release . She also asked the court to lift the restriction of access to the investigation file . On DATE ORG dismissed the objection , without holding a hearing . The applicant ’s representative filed a further objection against that decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the objection on the basis of the case file , without holding a hearing .

On DATE the ORG ex officio examined the applicant ’s detention on remand on the basis of the case - file and decided to extend it .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant , accusing him mainly of being a member of a terrorist organisation , making propaganda in its favour , illegal possession of explosives , causing damage to property and having participated in an illegal armed demonstration .

On DATE ORG accepted the indictment . On DATE the restriction on the investigation file was lifted .

According to the latest information in the case file , the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before assize court .


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

André Potocki;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

The applicant was born in DATE and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F - type prison .

On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG , in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the ORG , PERSON by using the honorific “ sayın ” , meaning esteemed .

Pursuant to the ORG on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences , the applicant was found guilty of breaching a prison order by the Bolu F - type ORG ( referred hereafter as “ the board ” ) .

On DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL days’ solitary confinement on the orders of ORG , on account of his statements in the above - mentioned letter .

On DATE the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant ’s objection .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions .


ZUBAN AND HAMIDOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant in the first case , PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , is also a citizen of GPE . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

After its declaration of independence on DATE , a brutal war started in GPE . It would appear that CARDINAL people lost their lives and CARDINAL people were displaced in the course of the war . It is estimated that around CARDINAL people went missing and that around DATE of them is still missing . The conflict came to an end on DATE when ORG in GPE entered into force . In accordance with that Agreement , GPE consists of CARDINAL Entities , ORG and PERSON .

NORP In response to atrocities then taking place in GPE , on DATE ORG passed LAW establishing ORG for the former GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , headquartered in GPE . CARDINAL individuals have already been convicted and proceedings are ongoing for CARDINAL accused . In the period from DATE until DATE , local prosecutors in GPE and GPE were required to submit case files to the ORG for review ; no person could be arrested on suspicion of war crimes unless ORG had received the case file beforehand and found it to contain credible charges ( the “ Rules of the Road ” procedure ) . Moreover , the ORG had primacy over national courts and could take over national investigations and proceedings at any stage in the interest of international justice . As part of the ORG ’s completion strategy , in DATE war crimes chambers were set up within ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) with primacy over other courts in GPE as regards war crimes . CARDINAL persons have been finally convicted by ORG . Many others have been convicted by the competent Entity courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

Furthermore , ORG on ORG ( “ the ICMP ” ) was established at the initiative of GPE President PERSON in DATE . It is currently headquartered in GPE . Reportedly , the ICMP has so far identified by DNA CARDINAL missing persons in GPE , whereas local authorities have identified CARDINAL missing persons by other methods . In DATE the Government of GPE and the ICMP established a ORG , also headquartered in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It became operational on DATE .

NORP In DATE , after having been captured by the ORG forces in GPE , PERSON , the husband of PERSON , and PERSON , PERSON ORG ’s father , disappeared .

On DATE PERSON , one of the war - time leading political figures of PERSON , pleaded guilty before the ORG to having participated in the persecution of Bosniacs and NORP from , among other municipalities , ORG . She was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

Cases against PERSON , the war - time civilian leader of ORG , ORG , the war - time military leader of that Entity , and PERSON , a leading political figure of GPE in DATE , are also pending before the ORG . They are charged with the participation in a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove ORG and NORP from , inter alia , ORG .

Domestic authorities have taken statements from the applicants and a number of other persons about these CARDINAL cases . However , no formal charges have been brought yet . At the same time , domestic authorities have finalised investigations into several other crimes committed in GPE during the war ; CARDINAL person has thus far been convicted PERSON

On DATE PERSON sought and obtained a declaration of presumed death with respect to her husband .

NORP PERSON , the father of PERSON , was identified by DNA on DATE . PERSON , PERSON husband , has not yet been identified .

On DATE ORG held that there had been a violation of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered PERSON to release any and all information in its custody pertaining to the fate or whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives and to conduct a full , meaningful , thorough and detailed investigation aimed at making known the fate or whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives and bringing the responsible to justice . Lastly , it awarded the applicants MONEY ( BAM ) each for non - pecuniary damage .

LAW entered into force on DATE ( ORG GPE no . CARDINAL ) . In accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act , families have the right to know the fate of missing persons ( that is , their whereabouts if they are still alive , or the circumstances of death and their place of burial , if they are dead ) and to obtain their mortal remains . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the relevant domestic authorities have the obligation to provide any and all such information in their keeping .

Section CARDINAL of that LAW provides for the setting up of a Missing Persons Institute . In DATE the ICMP and the Government of GPE founded the ORG , headquartered in GPE , pursuant to that provision and the Agreement on Assuming ORG - founders of ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It became operational on DATE . CARDINAL of the organs of that ORG , comprised of CARDINAL representatives of families of missing persons ( see LAW mentioned above ) .

In accordance with section QUANTITY , the status of missing person comes to an end on the date of identification . Therefore , if a missing person is declared dead but the mortal remains have not been found and identified , the process of tracing continues .

Pursuant to LAW , the families of missing persons are entitled to DATE financial support under some conditions , notably if they were supported by the missing family member until his or her disappearance and if they are still in need of support ( in other words , if they are not in paid employment and do not receive welfare benefits beyond PERCENT of the average salary paid in GPE ) . LAW provides for the setting up of ORG for that purpose . However , as the ORG has not yet been established , no payment has been made so far .

Families of missing persons are also entitled to , inter alia , temporary administration of the property of missing persons , burial of mortal remains at public expense and priority in access to education and employment for the children of missing persons ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the setting up of ORG with the aim of verifying information about missing persons from different sources ( government agencies , associations of families of missing persons , the FAC and ORG ) and creating a single database . While ORG were founded on DATE , it would appear that the verification process is still ongoing . Once that process is completed , all those recorded as missing will be declared dead ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , but the tracing process will nevertheless continue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP Despite the fact that the verification process outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above is pending , any person may request that a declaration of presumed death be issued with respect to a missing person ( see LAW DATE , ORG GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL ) .

DATE War crimes cases fall , as a general rule , under the jurisdiction of ORG , but ORG may transfer any such case to the competent Entity court in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph CARDINAL below ( see LAW ) . For example , only in DATE ORG transferred CARDINAL cases to CARDINAL Entity courts .

In accordance with ORG on ORG of DATE the following types of cases were , as a rule , to be heard before ORG : ( a ) cases concerning genocide , extermination , multiple murders , rape and other serious sexual assaults as part of a system ( such as in camps ) , enslavement , torture , persecution on a widespread and systematic scale , mass forced detention in camps ; ( b ) cases against past or present military commanders , past or present political leaders , past or present members of the judiciary , past or present police chiefs , camp commanders , persons with a past or present notorious reputation , multiple rapists ; ( c ) cases with insider or suspect witnesses ; ( d ) if there was a risk of witness intimidation ; and ( e ) cases involving perpetrators in an area which is sympathetic to them or where the authorities have a vested interest in preventing public scrutiny of the crimes . All other war crimes cases were , as a rule , to be heard before the Entity courts .

In DATE the authorities adopted ORG , providing a new set of criteria . However , they are almost identical to those outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above . In addition , the Strategy defines the time - frames , capacities , criteria and mechanisms for managing those cases , standardisation of court practices , issues of regional cooperation , protection and support to victims and witnesses , as well as financial aspects , and supervision over the implementation of the Strategy . CARDINAL of its objectives is to process the most complex and top priority cases within DATE ( thatis , by DATE ) and other war crimes cases within DATE ( that is , by DATE ) . In order to comply with that time - frame , the local authorities have , inter alia , almost doubled the number of ORG prosecutors in charge of war crimes ( from DATE ) in DATE .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicants were all employed at a ORG - owned limited liability company . Their employment was terminated as of DATE .

The first applicant , GPE was born in DATE and lives in GPE . A certain part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

The second applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The second applicant withdrew his application on DATE .

The third applicant , DATE was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

The fourth applicant , NORP was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

The fifth applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Due to subsequent amendments of the relevant legislation , the tax rates applicable to the fifth applicant ’s severance payment changed retroactively . Accordingly , ORG found that part of the applicant ’s severance payment had been subject to a flat - rate public charge of PERCENT in the amount of ORG CARDINAL and another part of his severance payment had been subject to a flat - rate public charge of PERCENT , amounting to ORG CARDINAL . Therefore , the applicant was reimbursed HUF CARDINAL by ORG . The overall tax burden imposed on the applicant ’s severance payment was PERCENT .

The sixth applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

The seventh applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

The eighth applicant , ORG was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The eighth applicant withdrew his application on DATE .

The ninth applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

The tenth applicant , S.S was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

The eleventh applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) .