Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .

The applicant was a police officer at ORG ( “ the police station ” ) until DATE .

DATE a submachine gun disappeared from the police station . The police officers noticed it was missing on DATE .

According to the applicant , on DATE , in the evening , police officers delivered him to the police station . There they handcuffed him to a chair and ill - treated him overnight , beating him on the back and head and pressing bare electric wires against his ears to make him confess to the theft of the sub - machine gun . He was released from the police station before TIME on DATE .

On DATE the applicant underwent a medical forensic examination . Forensic report no . CARDINAL attested that he had concussion , abrasions on his head which could have been inflicted by hard blunt objects , areas of pigmentation on his earlobes resulting from healing abrasions which could have been inflicted as a result of the application of low - frequency electrical current , and areas of pigmentation on his lower arms which could have been caused by hard blunt objects , possibly handcuffs . The report stated that the aforementioned injuries could have been inflicted within the period , and in the circumstances , described by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant complained about the events of CARDINAL DATE to the prosecutor ’s office of GPE - GPE . The latter referred his complaints to the prosecutor ’s office of LOC and to the prosecutor ’s office of LOC for inquiry , in letters of CARDINAL DATE respectively . The latter prosecutor ’s office further transmitted the applicant ’s complaint to ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’s allegations . The decision stated that according to the applicant , at TIME on DATE he received a phone call from a former colleague at the police station , PERSON , who told him that another former colleague from the same police station , Officer PERSON , had some problems . PERSON asked the applicant to call Officer PERSON The applicant called Officer PERSON The latter said that he had problems and asked the applicant to join him in Officer PERSON ’s car , parked outside the applicant ’s house , to go to LOC . Officer PERSON also asked the applicant to take his passport with him . The applicant went outside and joined Officer PERSON and another man in camouflage uniform in a silver grey ORG car . The applicant sat in the back seat and they drove off . As they were driving , Officer PERSON told the applicant that when he started his duty shift he had signed an entry in the register confirming that he had been issued with a sub - machine gun , but this had not actually been the case , as the gun had not been found . Officer PERSON asked the applicant to go with him to GPE until everything had “ cleared up ” . Then Officer PERSON and the other man began contending that it was the applicant who had taken the sub - machine gun , because on DATE the sub - machine gun had gone missing he had been at the police station ; this was recorded on ORG . The applicant protested against these allegations , and the man in the camouflage uniform started beating him , while Officer PERSON pretended to try to separate them . Then they drove to the town centre , stopped at the police station , and the man in the camouflage uniform left . Soon Officer PERSON , the deputy head of criminal investigations and the applicant ’s former colleague , came out of the police station . The applicant expressed indignation about the police ORG allegations and assault . Officer PERSON replied that he did not suspect the applicant , but asked him to help them if he could . The applicant said that he could not help them . Then Officer PERSON left and Officer PERSON came out of the police station and told the applicant that Mr PERSON , the applicant ’s cousin , would soon arrive . Mr PERSON arrived shortly afterwards , accompanied by officers of the police special unit ( ORG ) and asked the applicant to help Officer PERSON because he was a close friend . The applicant responded that there were no grounds to suspect him and that he did not wish to continue this conversation . Officer PERSON then said that they had a video recording , and the applicant asked to see it . They went together to the office of the head of criminal investigations on the second floor of the police station , where Officer PERSON showed the applicant a recording of him entering and leaving the police station . The applicant explained that during his entire visit to the police station he had been accompanied by police officers . After they left that office Officer PERSON , Mr PERSON , and another man , X. , whom the applicant did not know , took him to Officer PERSON ’s office , where Mr PERSON again urged him to confess to stealing the sub - machine gun . Then they took him to a different office , where Officers PERSON , NORP , ORG . and X. handcuffed him to a chair , taped his mouth , put wires against his ears and passed electric current through them . The applicant fell off the chair several times but they put him back and sent the current through the wires to his ears again . He managed to get rid of the tape and spit out the blood that had collected in his mouth . Officer PERSON started yelling at him , saying that he would receive no pity as the “ minister ” had personally ordered that he should be “ locked up ” . The applicant then realised that he would not be able to endure the torture and offered to confess in writing that he had thrown the sub - machine gun into the river . However , they were unhappy with this suggestion . Then they took him to Officer PERSON ’s office , where he and Officers NORP and X. remained until TIME on DATE , when they let him go .

NORP The decision further quoted forensic report no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and statements by police officers . In particular , Officer PERSON . stated that he knew the applicant , as he had worked at the police station until DATE . On DATE they had realised that a sub - machine gun was missing . Officer M. had seen it last when he was on duty ; he was subsequently dismissed from the police for its loss . When they tried to establish what had happened , they watched the ORG records since DATE , this being the likely date of the sub - machine gun ’s disappearance . The recording showed the applicant entering the police station ; in the film of him leaving he seemed to be holding an unidentified object under his jacket . As the applicant often visited the police station and went into its offices , including the office from which the sub - machine gun might have gone missing , it was decided to invite the applicant , show the recording to him , and ask him to return the weapon . Officer PERSON , a relative of the applicant , was instructed to invite him . On the date in question Officer PERSON . saw Officer PERSON and the applicant in the police station . The applicant did not have any visible injuries , seemed to be in a good mood and asked him how he was doing . TIME he saw the applicant leaving the police station . Neither he nor any other police officers applied physical force to the applicant . However , Officer PERSON . still suspected the applicant of stealing the sub - machine gun and believed that his allegations were an attempt to undermine any possible prosecution for the theft of the weapon . Officer PERSON . believed that the applicant had caused the injuries stated in forensic report no . CARDINAL himself , in order to corroborate his submissions .

Officer PERSON stated that he was a distant relative of the applicant . He then corroborated Officer PERSON . ’s statement concerning the loss of the sub - machine gun , and added that with the help of PERSON he had contacted the applicant and arranged a meeting with him near his home . Officer PERSON went there by car alone and , when the applicant joined him , explained the situation to him and asked him to return the sub - machine gun , as otherwise Officer PERSON and his colleagues would have a lot of problems . The applicant denied being involved in the theft of the weapon , and agreed to go to the police station . On arrival they met Officer PERSON , who also suggested that the applicant return the sub - machine gun . The applicant reiterated that he had nothing to do with its loss . Then Officer PERSON took him to the office of the head of criminal investigations and left him there with Officer PERSON In TIME he saw the applicant leaving the police station ; he was sitting on a bench nearby with Officer PERSON . He had not seen the applicant since . From Officer PERSON he knew that the latter had shown the applicant the video recording and had asked him to return the sub - machine gun , but nobody had used physical force against him . Officer PERSON had no idea how the applicant had sustained the injuries or why he had accused the police officers of causing them ; he maintained that those allegations were false .

Officer PERSON corroborated Officers PERSON . ’s and PERSON ’s statements concerning the loss of the sub - machine gun , and added that on DATE in question he had seen the applicant and Officer PERSON on the second floor of the police station . He had asked the applicant to return the sub - machine gun , explaining that otherwise the police officers would be in serious trouble . However , the applicant denied being involved in its disappearance . Then Officer PERSON left and went to the first floor . He did not know where the applicant had gone afterwards but he saw no injuries on him . Officer PERSON did not know how the applicant had sustained the injuries described in forensic report no . CARDINAL , as no one in the police station had either ill - treated or insulted him . Officer PERSON believed that the applicant ’s allegations were intended to discredit his former colleagues .

Officer NORP corroborated the statements of Officers PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON concerning the disappearance of the sub - machine gun , and added that on the date in question , when he left the police station on finishing work and was walking towards his car parked nearby , he had seen Officer PERSON and the applicant entering the police station . He had not spoken to the applicant and had only seen him from a distance . Officer NORP had then gone home . He did not know how the applicant could have sustained the injuries stated in forensic report no . CARDINAL , as neither Officer NORP nor other police officers had ill - treated him .

Officer PERSON corroborated the statements of Officers PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON and NORP concerning the disappearance of the sub - machine gun , and added that on DATE in question , when he left the police station , he had seen the applicant and Officer PERSON nearby . They were talking peaceably and he did not see any injuries on the applicant ’s head or body . Officer PERSON approached them and told the applicant that there were grounds to believe that he had stolen the sub - machine gun and that he must return it . The applicant responded that he had nothing to do with its disappearance . The applicant did not make any complaints concerning the police officers . Officer PERSON had not seen the applicant since , and believed that his allegations were an attempt to avoid prosecution for the theft of the weapon .

The decision concluded that , as a result of the inquiry conducted , the applicant ’s allegations were not corroborated , and it was doubtful whether he had received the injuries described in forensic report no . CARDINAL in the circumstances described by him . Accordingly , the actions of the police officers disclosed no evidence of a criminal offence .

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

On DATE , following a complaint lodged by the applicant , a senior investigator of ORG set aside the decision of DATE as premature , because a number of investigative steps had not been taken . In particular , the investigators were instructed to question the applicant and the police officers who had been on duty on the relevant date , to inspect , in the presence of the applicant , the office where he had allegedly been ill - treated , and to take other investigative measures if they appeared necessary .

On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’s allegations . The decision reproduced verbatim the decision of DATE , with the addition of CARDINAL paragraph . The paragraph concerned the questioning of Officer M. , who had served at the police station since DATE . He submitted that he knew the applicant and that the latter frequently came to the police station to see his former colleagues . However , because of the time which had elapsed since then he could not remember whether he had seen the applicant at DATE , and had no information about whether the applicant had been forcibly held at the police station CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE a copy of the decision was sent to the applicant , who complained about the decision to ORG . That complaint was subsequently forwarded to ORG of the Iristonskiy District of Vladikavkaz .

On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s complaint , found the decision of DATE ungrounded , and forwarded the materials concerning the complaint to ORG for it to set aside that decision .

On DATE a senior investigator of ORG set aside the decision of DATE as premature and superficial as , in particular , the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained the injuries had not been established . The investigators were instructed to ( i ) establish the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused ; ( ii ) inspect in the presence of the applicant the office where he had allegedly been ill - treated ; ( iii ) question Officer FAC . ; ( iv ) question Officer PERSON ; ( v ) question Mr PERSON ; ( vi ) add to the case file materials relating to criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of the weapon from the police station ; and ( vii ) take other investigative measures if they appeared necessary .

On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’s allegations . The decision reproduced verbatim the decision of DATE , with the addition of CARDINAL paragraphs setting out the submissions of Officers FAC . and PERSON FAC . stated , in particular , that at TIME on DATE he had started his FAC duty shift at the police station . Because of the time that had passed since then , he could not remember whether the applicant had been delivered to the station during his duty hours , but he was positive that nobody had used physical force on him . Officer PERSON stated that after the official weapon had gone missing from the police station it had appeared possible that the applicant had been involved in its theft , as he had been recorded leaving the police station with his arm pressed against his body . When the applicant was asked why he had held his arm in such a way he responded that that was how he walked . However , it was clear to Officer PERSON that he was lying . He was then asked to tell everything he knew about the weapon ’s disappearance , but he said he knew nothing and left the office . No one either threatened the applicant or applied physical force to him .

The applicant was informed of the decision by a letter sent on DATE .

On DATE , following a complaint lodged by the applicant , a senior investigator of ORG set aside the decision of DATE as superficial since ( i ) the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained the injuries had not been established ; ( ii ) neither the applicant nor Mr PERSON had been questioned ; and ( iii ) materials concerning criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of the weapon from the police station had not been added to the case file . The investigators were instructed to rectify the above shortcomings .

On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’s allegations . A copy of that decision has not been provided to the ORG .

The applicant was informed of this decision by a letter sent on DATE .

On DATE , following a complaint lodged by the applicant , a senior investigator of ORG set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the ground that the investigators had failed to rectify the shortcomings indicated in the decision of DATE . They were instructed to ( i ) enclose in the case file materials concerning criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of the weapon from the police station ; ( ii ) establish the applicant ’s whereabouts and question him in relation to the injuries sustained ; ( iii ) establish the whereabouts of PERSON PERSON and question him with respect to his meeting with the applicant at the police station ; ( iv ) carry out a forensic medical examination of the applicant with a view to establishing how the injuries had been caused ; and ( v ) take other investigative measures if they appeared necessary .

On DATE another forensic examination was conducted , apparently on the basis of the materials in the case file . Forensic report no . CARDINAL stated that the applicant had concussion and abrasions on his head which could have been inflicted by hard blunt objects , possibly on DATE . He also had a scar on his tongue formed as a result of a healed wound , and pink pigmentation of skin on his earlobes and on his right lower arm . On the basis of the materials available it was not possible to determine either when and how those injuries had been caused , or their gravity .

On DATE ORG once again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s allegations . The decision reproduced verbatim the decision of DATE , with an additional paragraph describing forensic report no . CARDINAL of DATE .

It appears that the decision of DATE was again set aside by a senior investigator of ORG .

On DATE , after the Court had communicated the application to the respondent Government , the ORG of Vladikavkaz instituted criminal proceedings against Officers PERSON , PERSON . and NORP on account of the applicant ’s ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE - GPE informed the applicant that a number of investigative steps had been taken in his case . They included confrontations between the applicant and Officers PERSON , PERSON . and NORP ; identification of the fourth suspect on the basis of photographs ; and inspection of the crime scene in the presence of the applicant .

NORP On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW of LAW with ORG . He alleged , in particular , that , whereas he had indeed taken part in the confrontations with Officers PERSON . , NORP and PERSON in DATE , he had not taken part in the inspection of the crime scene , which had apparently been conducted later , or in the identification of the fourth suspect on the basis of photographs ; and that his signature on the records of these investigative actions had been forged . The applicant made a number of other complaints concerning the progress of the investigation .

On DATE ORG returned the complaint unexamined , on the ground that the applicant had failed to specify the actions or omissions of the investigators that he was seeking to have declared unlawful . The applicant was advised that he could resubmit his complaint after it had been rectified .

CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE the investigating authorities conducted a confrontation between the applicant and PERSON , a relative of both the applicant and Officer PERSON They were questioned about the events of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant reiterated his account of the events . Mr PERSON stated that during TIME of CARDINAL DATE Officer PERSON had called him and asked to meet him . They met at a supermarket , where Officer PERSON told him that the applicant was suspected of stealing a submachine gun from the police station , and asked him to talk to the applicant . Mr ORG agreed . On DATE he arrived at the police station and entered an office : he could not remember exactly which one because of the time that had passed since the events . In the office he was left alone with the applicant . When PERSON E.L. asked the applicant about the sub - machine gun , the latter replied in a rude manner . Mr PERSON then pushed him and said that that was no way to talk to a relative . The applicant hit PERSON PERSON back and this started a fight . Then Officers PERSON and PERSON . appeared and separated them . The applicant said that he would complain about what had happened , and PERSON E.L. left . He had not spoken to the applicant since . On DATE he met Officer PERSON , who reminded him of those events and said that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him and other police officers in this respect . As PERSON thus became aware that police officers “ were suffering ” because of injuries he had caused the applicant , he decided to go to the police station and confess . Mr PERSON added that he had not told his relatives about the events of DATE , so as not to upset them . The applicant contested PERSON submissions and insisted on his account of the events . He said that he had no idea why PERSON had contended that he had caused him injuries .

The investigator noted that , apart from the concussion and abrasions on the head , according to forensic report no . CARDINAL of DATE the applicant also had a scar on his tongue and pink pigmentation of skin on his earlobes and on the right lower arm , and asked PERSON for clarification in this respect . PERSON replied that in the course of the fight he had hit the applicant on the head and face and other places , and that therefore the concussion and the abrasions on the head had most likely been caused by his blows . However , PERSON could provide no information with respect to the scar on the applicant ’s tongue and the pigmentation of his skin .

TIME and TIME on CARDINAL DATE the investigating authorities conducted a confrontation between the applicant and Officer PERSON . who served at the police station . They were also questioned about the events of DATE . The applicant reiterated his account of the events . Officer PERSON . submitted that on DATE , after it had been established that a sub - machine gun had gone missing and the recording of the applicant leaving the police station had been found on the ORG , Officer PERSON was instructed to invite the applicant to the police station and to ask him to return the weapon . On the date in question Officer PERSON . saw Officer PERSON and the applicant at the police station . The applicant seemed to be in a good mood and did not have any injuries . Officer PERSON . was aware that Officer PERSON had also told PERSON , the applicant ’s relative , that the applicant was suspected of stealing the sub - machine gun , and asked him to come to the police station to talk to the applicant . PERSON arrived at the police station on DATE , and was alone with the applicant in an office for some time , while Officers PERSON . and PERSON stood outside in the corridor . Officer GPE . could not remember exactly which office that was . When they heard noise and the sound of a quarrel in the office , they entered it and saw the applicant and PERSON fighting . When Officers PERSON . and PERSON separated them , the applicant said that he would complain about this . Officer PERSON . then left and had not seen the applicant since . In his view , the applicant alleged that he had been beaten by the police officers because PERSON PERSON was his relative . He contended that the police officers had not caused any injuries to the applicant . The applicant contested Officer PERSON . ’s submissions and insisted on his own account of the events . He emphasised that PERSON had not caused the injuries .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the actions of Officers PERSON , PERSON . and NORP disclosed no evidence of a criminal offence .

The applicant complained to ORG of GPE - GPE of a number of breaches in the conduct of the investigation .

On DATE ORG of GPE - GPE dismissed his complaint , stating that all the investigative steps had been taken in accordance with the laws on criminal procedure .

On an unspecified date after DATE a criminal investigation was instituted in connection with the alleged theft of the submachine gun from the police station by an unidentified person .

DATE . On DATE the investigation was suspended on the ground that the person to be charged with the offence could not be identified .

According to the applicant , since the events of DATE the police officers have continued to put pressure on him . In particular , they followed his movements , called him by telephone and tapped his conversations , and visited him at home , interrogating his friends , acquaintances and neighbours about him . Because of this pressure , in DATE he had had to close the grocery / delicatessen that he had been running for DATE . Furthermore , in the applicant ’s submission , he was unable to vote in the election of the NORP President held on DATE as a result of that persecution , as he was afraid to leave his home .

The applicant submitted a number of complaints to the prosecuting authorities in this respect . They appear to have been dismissed .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Speediness of review);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained at ORG , in a section of the hospital located in the municipality of ORG ) .

The applicant has been in receipt of a second - degree disability allowance since DATE .

On DATE , following the publication of an article in the national press and a programme broadcast on a national television channel , the police operating at GPE police station no . CARDINAL initiated a criminal prosecution against the applicant . He was charged with incest and sexual corruption of his CARDINAL under - age daughters , aged DATE and DATE . He was alleged to have had sexual intercourse with his elder daughter and forced both his daughters to be present while he was having sexual intercourse with his wife .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police in the presence of an officially appointed lawyer regarding the charges against him , before being placed in police custody for TIME .

On DATE the applicant , assisted by an officially appointed lawyer , was questioned by a prosecutor concerning the same charges .

On DATE the prosecution , with reference to LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( CP ) , ordered the applicant ’s provisional detention in a psychiatric hospital with a view to conducting a medical examination to assess his capacity for discernment . The prosecution noted in that regard that a paranoid affective psychosis diagnostic had been posited on several occasions DATE . It stated the following :

“ ... in the present case there is sufficient circumstantial evidence of the precarious state of health of the accused , who represents an extremely serious danger to society given that he is liable to commit further such antisocial acts . ”

On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG in GPE . He underwent psychiatric examinations which found , inter alia , paranoid impulsive tendencies with high conflict potential . Furthermore , the applicant ’s state was described as comprising irritability , suspicion , interpretative tendencies and potential aggression .

A forensic medical report was drawn up on DATE establishing that the applicant suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and lack of discernment . It recommended putting in place the compulsory medical treatment provided for by LAW .

A preliminary investigation was also instigated against the applicant for the rape of his wife .

NORP The prosecution heard the applicant ’s wife and CARDINAL daughters .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE the prosecution , in the absence of a medical certificate and since the applicant ’s daughter had not confirmed the sexual relations with her father , ordered the closure of the criminal proceedings against the applicant for incest . Drawing on the statements of his CARDINAL daughters , it also concluded that the applicant had forced them to be present while he was having sexual intercourse with his wife , thus committing offences of sexual corruption of minors , but decided to close the proceedings on that count owing to the applicant ’s lack of discernment , as found in the forensic medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecution further dropped the rape charge on the grounds that the applicant ’s wife had not lodged a criminal complaint against him . Lastly , it referred the case file to the competent court for confirmation of the preventive measure of medical detention .

By decision of DATE NORP ORG CARDINAL upheld the medical detention order . Listing the criminal charges against the applicant , the court stated the following :

“ In the light of the findings of the psychiatric forensic medical report that ORG suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and lacks discernment as regards the offences he committed , and having regard to the recommendations of the [ reporting ] committee that the preventive detention measure should be imposed on the accused , the court accedes to the [ prosecution ’s ] request and , pursuant to LAW , confirms the provisional medical detention order and informs ORG of the implementation of that order . ”

The applicant did not attend the hearing , nor was he represented by a lawyer in court .

The decision was posted on the door to the applicant ’s home and in the town hall of GPE District DATE , where the applicant ’s home was located .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in the Alexandru Obregia Psychiatric Hospital . On DATE he was transferred to ORG , where he remained until DATE . The applicant was provided with a neuroleptic- and tranquilliser - based treatment .

In DATE , after the entry into force of the amendments to LAW ( CPP ) requiring periodic and automatic judicial review of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the judge of ORG ( “ the delegated judge ” ) ordered a psychiatric forensic medical report .

In DATE the competent medical board drew up a report based on the results of an examination of the applicant , the medical documentation transmitted by the psychiatric hospital , the report by his ORG , a social welfare inquiry concerning the applicant conducted on DATE , the DATE decision of GPE ORG CARDINAL and the forensic medical report of DATE .

The board found that during his detention the applicant had expressed delusions of grandeur with transient psychotic relapses , had endeavoured to conceal his symptoms , had behaved in a calm , composed manner , had accepted his treatment , had refrained from stirring up trouble with the other patients and had shown little hostility during the treatment . It pointed out , however , that he had been hostile during the examination and had expressed delusional ideas of injustice and his intention to remedy the latter . It concluded that the applicant was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and that , having regard to the medical documentation , to the evolution in the patient ’s condition during his detention and to the psychiatric examination in issue , the detention measure should remain in place .

On DATE the delegated judge invited ORG to replace the detention measure provided for in LAW with the compulsory medical treatment measure provided for in LAW .

On DATE the applicant , assisted by an officially appointed lawyer , was heard by the court . He requested his release , seconded by his lawyer .

By decision of DATE , ORG decided to order the applicant ’s continued psychiatric detention . It reasoned as follows :

“ By Criminal Decision No . CARDINAL of DATE , GPE ORG CARDINAL ordered ORG ’s medical detention on the grounds that he had been charged with having committed the offence of incest , consisting of sexual relations with his CARDINAL-year - old daughter , in DATE , and the offence of sexual corruption on the grounds that on DATE he had sexual intercourse with his wife in the presence of his CARDINAL daughters .

The psychiatric forensic medical report [ of DATE ] shows that the patient suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and points to the advisability of maintaining the preventive detention measure laid down in LAW .

Having regard to the foregoing , the court ... decides to maintain the medical detention measure ( LAW ) imposed on patient GPE

The applicant took cognisance of that decision in DATE , when he underwent a further forensic medical examination . He appealed .

By final decision of DATE ORG , referring to the reasoning of ORG , dismissed the appeal as manifestly ill - founded after having heard the applicant , assisted by an officially appointed lawyer .

The applicant ’s detention measure was made subject to several judicial reviews by ORG and ORG . It transpires from the decisions adopted , of which the ORG has copies , that the applicant was heard by both courts during the different sets of proceedings .

He was assisted by various officially appointed lawyers , who , in the proceedings completed before DATE , had confined themselves to referring to the findings of the forensic medical assessments carried out , and had either left it to the discretion of the courts whether or not to maintain the measure or objected to the lifting thereof .

Apart from the decisions adopted after DATE , the case file does not indicate whether the prior decisions had been served on the applicant .

According to the forensic medical reports drawn up after each review , the applicant , who had not fully acknowledged the fact of his mental illness , had been calm , had not refused his treatment and had refrained from causing trouble with the other patients . On the other hand , the reports stated that he had vehemently denied having committed the criminal offences with which he had been charged , claiming that his former wife had been plotting against him .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG maintained the detention measure in respect of the applicant . The court referred to the DATE decision and to a forensic medical report drawn up following an examination of the applicant in DATE , which had recommended maintaining the measure . On DATE , on appeal from the applicant , ORG upheld that decision .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed a request submitted by the applicant for the lifting of the detention measure . The court referred to a forensic medical report drawn up after an examination of the applicant DATE , which had recommended maintaining the measure and described the applicant ’s delusional ideas concerning the setting up of a new ORG , his lack of feasible future plans and the fact that he had not fully accepted his drug therapy .

By decision of DATE ORG maintained the detention measure in respect of the applicant . It referred to the decision of DATE to a forensic medical report drawn up after an examination of the applicant in DATE , insofar as it recommended maintaining the measure and described the applicant ’s delusional ideas concerning the setting up of a new ORG and his lack of realistic future plans .

Furthermore , although this aspect was not mentioned by the court , it transpires from that report that the applicant ’s ORG had noted an erotomaniac obsession with his former wife , which had indicated a total incapacity for social reintegration and would most likely have triggered conflicts or unforeseeable , potentially dangerous situations had he returned to the apartment where he had lived with his family . The report further noted that the applicant ’s friend , who had attended most of the medical boards’ meetings , had come down emphatically in favour of the applicant ’s release , claiming that he would accommodate him indefinitely in the apartment which he shared with his mother . However , the assessment board doubted the reality of such support proffered by someone who was himself suffering from psychiatric problems . On the other hand , the report mentioned that the applicant had been plainly rejected by his daughters and his former wife , and that despite the rejection by his former wife and the fact that he himself considered that his detention was the result of scheming on her part , he intended to get back together with her if he was released .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant ’s second application for release on the grounds that its decision of CARDINAL DATE had meanwhile become final and was therefore res judicata . During the proceedings a forensic medical report had been drawn up on DATE , reaching conclusions similar to the findings of the report submitted in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE the delegated judge requested ORG to carry out psychiatric assessments with a view to periodic reviews of the need to maintain the applicant ’s psychiatric detention .

ORG examined the applicant on the aforementioned dates but did not draw up or forward its reports until DATE . The reports confirmed the diagnosis of the applicant ’s condition and proposed maintaining the detention measure .

By CARDINAL separate decisions adopted on CARDINAL and DATE , ORG , citing the case - law of the ORG in matters of detention of persons suffering from mental disorders , maintained the detention measure . It referred to the findings of the above - mentioned forensic medical reports . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the court further had regard to a forensic medical report drawn up following an examination of the applicant carried out DATE previously , in DATE . Furthermore , it referred , broadly , to the “ aim of the preventive measures , which was to put an end to a situation of danger and prevent the perpetration of acts punishable under criminal law ” , and concluded that the criteria set out in LAW had been satisfied .

By CARDINAL separate decisions adopted on DATE , ORG maintained the applicant ’s detention measure on the basis of CARDINAL psychiatric forensic medical reports drawn up following examinations of the applicant in DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG has not received copies of those reports and decisions .

On DATE ORG applied to the courts to declare the applicant incapable and place him under guardianship ( see paragraph CARDINAL et seq . below for the conduct of the related proceedings ) .

By decision of DATE , citing the ORG ’s case - law in matters of detention of persons suffering from mental disorders , ORG maintained the detention measure in respect of the applicant . It referred to a forensic medical report drawn up after an examination of the applicant in DATE , which recommended maintaining the measure and referred to the “ aim of the preventive measures , which was to put an end to a situation of danger and prevent the perpetration of acts punishable under criminal law ” .

The operative part of the decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of ORG against the alleged practice of ORG of conducting retrospective reviews of the need to maintain the detention measure . By decision of DATE ORG dropped the applicant ’s complaint . It confirmed the existence of the practice criticised by the applicant , but pointed out that it had been caused by the medical authorities’ delay in forwarding their expert reports and not in any breach by the judges of their attributions .

On DATE the delegated judge requested ORG to conduct a further psychiatric expert assessment with a view to periodically reviewing the need to maintain the applicant ’s psychiatric detention . The applicant filed a separate action seeking the replacement of the detention measure with a compulsory medical treatment measure .

On DATE ORG also examined the applicant . The applicant ’s lawyer representing him in the present application before the ORG sent a reasoned letter to the ORG strongly advocating the replacement of the measure implemented in respect of his client .

On DATE the ORG drew up its forensic medical report recommending the replacement of the detention measure with a compulsory medical treatment measure . It emphasised that the persistence of the applicant ’s delusional ideas concerning the setting up of a “ new ORG ” and his lack of social and family support , a factor conducive to social reintegration , supervision of his medical treatment and the management of the applicant ’s DATE needs relating to the purported “ new ORG ” , had justified maintaining the detention up until then . It noted that the applicant had not been aggressive to others or to himself during his detention . In that context , it welcomed the steps taken by ORG to place the applicant under guardianship , which it considered appropriate in the perspective of his release , given that the applicant had been rejected by his family ( his brother , sister , former wife and daughters ) . Finally , the ORG recommended that the social welfare services of the applicant ’s district of residence should be informed that they had to take the necessary action with a view to releasing him .

On DATE ORG , which was responsible for the review , ordered a fresh forensic medical report from ORG ( ORG ) in GPE .

On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination at the ORG .

On DATE the ORG submitted its expert report , which stated , in particular , that :

– the applicant was suffering from chronic delusional disorder with no prospect of improvement , but rather with future aggravation of the illness due to aging ;

– the illness as manifested in the applicant did not point to any risk of a danger to society , but the lack of feasible plans for the future foreshadowed future conflicts , a risk of advanced social deterioration and the impossibility of monitoring the evolution of his illness ;

– the applicant lacked any social support from his family or other persons of trust .

Under those conditions , the forensic medical board pointed out that the case presented a genuine psychiatric and deontological dilemma . Indeed , it considered that although , from the psychiatric point of view , the applicant could be released subject to compulsory medical treatment on the basis of LAW , that measure was inconceivable in the absence of social support . Consequently , it proposed provisionally maintaining the detention until the social welfare services could transfer the applicant to a specialised institution capable of providing him with appropriate living conditions and treatment .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , referring to the findings of DATE forensic medical rapport ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ordered the maintenance of the detention measure .

The applicant appealed to ORG against that decision . He was represented by an officially appointed lawyer , who argued that the applicant ’s wishes should be complied with . Questioned by the court , the applicant stated that he would live with his former wife and one of his daughters in their apartment . He added that he had a retirement pension .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the CARDINAL DATE decision . It held as follows :

“ Given the absence of improvement in the patient ’s state of health and the fact that the members of his family can not monitor his continued medical treatment , and having regard to the nature of the charges against him which had resulted in his medical detention , family members against whom [ the applicant ] has committed antisocial acts can not be expected to cohabit with him .

Nevertheless , the director of the establishment [ where the applicant is detained ] must inform the social welfare services responsible for transferring [ the applicant ] to a specialised institution capable of providing proper living conditions and treatment . ”

On DATE the Director of ORG invited ORG ( “ DGASPC ” ) in GPE District DATE to adopt welfare measures in respect of the applicant pursuant to the instructions set out in the forensic medical report of DATE .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON replied that the applicant ’s former wife had informed it that she did not intend to be involved in any way in the process leading up to the applicant ’s release . Furthermore , the PERSON pointed out that it had contacted the social welfare services in the county of residence of the applicant ’s sister with an eye to his possible placement with her . It also stated that the only centre in GPE District DATE which took in persons suffering from neuropsychiatric disorders could not admit the applicant owing to a lack of available places . Finally , it explained that it had also unsuccessfully attempted to contact other specialised and residential centres .

On DATE the Director of ORG contacted the municipality of GPE , which had meanwhile been assigned the guardianship of the applicant .... The Director informed the municipal authorities the implementation of the preventive detention measure was temporary , and that they were required to act in the interests of the applicant , particularly with a view to his possible placement in a specialised institution after his release .

DATE . On DATE GPE municipality replied that the guardianship order was not yet final and that it therefore could not act in respect of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant underwent a further forensic medical examination .

The forensic medical report drawn up on DATE recommended replacing the detention measure with a compulsory medical treatment order in view of the applicant ’s “ low level of dangerousness ( while on treatment ) , compliance with the rules , absence of incidents , [ and ] the lengthy period of supervision ” . The report mentioned in particular :

– the existence of a single , strange and systematic delusionary theme concerning the creation of a “ united NORP State ” , which delusion did not however alter his compliance with hospital rules ;

– lack of conflict situations and of incidents pointing to potentially aggressive behaviour ;

– proper therapeutic cooperation during detention , despite his purely formal acquiescence in the reality of his illness and need for treatment ;

– absence of antisocial precedents – apart from the acts noted during his placement in detention DATE or consumption of psychoactive substances ( drugs , alcohol ) ;

– negative effect of the extension of detention for social reasons on the development of the applicant ’s illness and physiological state , and

– the guardianship order .

The report nevertheless emphasised the risk of decompensation of the illness , involving possible negative social consequences should the aftercare provided to the applicant by the body assigned guardianship prove inadequate .

On DATE the applicant was heard by ORG . He was represented by an officially appointed lawyer , who advocated replacing the detention measure .

By final decision given on DATE , ORG ordered the replacement of the detention measure with a compulsory treatment order until the applicant had made a full recovery . It referred to the forensic medical report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to the “ aim of the preventive measures , which was to put an end to a situation of danger and prevent the perpetration of acts punishable under criminal law ” .

On DATE the applicant asked to remain in psychiatric hospital until his social situation had been settled .

On DATE the lawyer representing the applicant before the ORG sent a letter to ORG recommending , in the framework of enforcement of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant ’s ultimate reintegration into society rather than his placement in a residential centre . He emphasised that releasing the applicant without adequate support would condemn him to vagrancy , destitution and the deterioration of his physical and mental health . Lastly , he requested the setting up of an interdisciplinary commission responsible for identifying the action to be taken on the applicant , on the model of the efforts expended in other countries to deinstitutionalise persons in medical detention .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to another section of the same hospital for persons suffering from chronic illnesses .

DATE . On DATE the Director of ORG invited la DGASPC to implement assistance measures in respect of the applicant pursuant to the final decision ordering the replacement of the detention measure . It also attempted , unsuccessfully , to contact CARDINAL foundations in GPE for the same purpose .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and second applicants live in GPE . The third applicant lived in the GPE region and died there on DATE .

On DATE elections to the GPE were held . The applicants came to a polling station at TIME They started to loudly criticise the elections and were immediately ( at TIME ) arrested and brought to the PERSON police station .

At TIME on DATE the local prosecutor ’s office opened criminal proceedings against the applicants . It follows from its decision that at TIME on DATE at polling station no . DATE the applicants had unrolled banners , turned on smoke jets and distributed leaflets in an attempt to disturb the work of the polling station . Their unlawful actions had been interrupted by the police .

At TIME on DATE the police started to draw up arrest records in respect of the applicants . According to those records the applicants were arrested at the PERSON police station . The first applicant was arrested at TIME , the third applicant at TIME and the second applicant at TIME

On DATE the investigator asked ORG to remand the applicants in custody .

During the hearings on DATE - which lasted from TIME to TIME for the first applicant , from TIME to TIME for the second applicant and from TIME to TIME for the third applicant – the judge heard the prosecutor , the applicants and their counsel . She also read the prosecutor ’s applications for remand . No other documents were examined at the hearings .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , ORG ordered that the applicants be remanded in custody . The court found that the prosecutor ’s applications had been supported by evidence showing the necessity of placing the applicants in custody in view of the risks of absconding , reoffending or interfering with the investigation .

On DATE the applicants prepared their preliminary appeal submissions against the detention orders and asked the detention facility administration to dispatch them . It follows from a document issued by the detention facility administration that the first applicant ’s submissions were dispatched on DATE . However , the submissions by the second and third applicants were not dispatched until DATE .

On DATE counsel for the applicants lodged additional appeal submissions . They complained that they had not still received copies of the detention orders of CARDINAL DATE . They further argued that ORG had disregarded the fact that the offence imputed to the applicants was not a serious one , that they had permanent places of residence , had positive references and studied at a university . On DATE counsel asked for permission to study the case - file . Their request was however rejected because the case file had been taken by the judge who was currently on leave .

On DATE counsel for the applicants complained before ORG that the investigators had denied them access to the case file and had refused to give them copies of , in particular , the prosecutor ’s applications for remand and of the detention orders .

On DATE the second applicant received a copy of his detention order . The first and third applicants received copies of their respective detention orders on DATE . The delay in serving the detention orders on the applicants was due to the fact that the judge had sent the documents to the Mozhaysk detention facility , although the applicants were held at the PERSON detention facility .

On DATE the ORG found that the investigators had unlawfully restricted counsel ’s access to the case file and had thereby violated the applicants’ defence rights . However , it was not until DATE that counsel were ultimately granted access to the case file .

On DATE counsel lodged additional appeal submissions in which they complained about the belated access to the case file . They further complained that the detention order had been based on insufficient reasons and that no time - limit for detention had been fixed . The evidence showing the existence of the risks of absconding , reoffending or interfering with the investigation to which ORG had referred in its detention orders had not been examined during the hearings and the applicants had not been given an opportunity to challenge it . They also complained that the investigator who had lodged the application for remand had acted outside his competence and that the detention orders had been issued CARDINAL after the arrest . Moreover , the applicants’ arrest had been unlawful because the arrest records had been drawn with several ORG delay . Finally , the applicants asked to be brought to the courtroom for the appeal hearing .

On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing . The applicants were not brought to the courtroom . On DATE ORG quashed the detention orders of CARDINAL DATE . It found that the detention orders had been based on insufficient reasons . ORG had disregarded the facts that the charges were not serious , that the applicants had no criminal record , had a permanent place of residence and studied at a university . There was no evidence that they had threatened witnesses or had attempted to destroy evidence . ORG finding that the applicants might abscond , interfere with the investigation or reoffend had not been therefore supported by relevant facts . ORG ordered the applicants’ immediate release .

Counsel for the applicants asked the court to give them copies of the appeal decisions so that they could bring it to the detention facility and have the applicants immediately released . Their request was refused .

On DATE counsel asked for a second time for copies of the appeal decisions . By letter dated DATE the President of ORG informed them that under the domestic law copies were to be sent by post to the detention facility , which had been done on DATE . Copies of the detention orders could not be given to counsel .

On DATE , DATE , counsel asked the director of the detention facility to release the applicants , referring to ORG order to release them . However , the director refused to release the applicants because the appeal decisions had not yet been received by the detention facility .

The appeal decisions were received by the detention facility on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicants were released .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE she married PERSON The couple settled in GPE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant gave birth to CARDINAL children , a son and a daughter respectively .

NORP In DATE she and ORG decided to separate .

On DATE PERSON took the children to GPE without the applicant knowing . He left them with his parents ( the paternal grandparents ) and went back to GPE .

On DATE the marriage between the applicant and ORG was dissolved .

On DATE the applicant applied to the Izmaylovskiy ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) for a residence order in respect of the children . She also applied for child maintenance from ORG

On DATE ORG decided that the children should reside with their mother , the applicant . It further ordered ORG to return the children to her and pay child maintenance . The judgment became final on DATE .

NORP However , ORG refused to comply with the judgment .

On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .

On DATE ORG in GPE refused to institute enforcement proceedings since the debtor , ORG , resided in GPE .

On DATE the Izmaylovskiy ORG in GPE opened enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were transferred to ORG in GPE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the lawfulness of the above - mentioned decision before ORG .

On DATE ORG found the decision of DATE to be unlawful .

Meanwhile , on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE a bailiff from ORG tried to enforce the judgment of DATE without success : on DATE and DATE due to the emotional state of the children , on DATE because the children were outside the territory of GPE , and on DATE because the applicant was absent .

On DATE the applicant challenged in court the lawfulness of the bailiffs’ actions during the attempt to return the children to her on DATE , in particular : involvement of the wrong district childcare authority in the enforcement , refusal of a request by her to have the enforcement filmed , refusal to examine an objection by her concerning a psychologist participating in the enforcement , delay in notification of the enforcement , establishment during the enforcement of the applicant ’s son ’s preferences as to his future living arrangements , as well as the bailiffs’ inaction resulting in the failure to secure enforcement of the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE found the bailiffs’ actions during the attempt to return the children to the applicant on DATE to be unlawful .

On DATE a bailiff from ORG restricted ORG travel within GPE for DATE .

Meanwhile , according to the Government , on DATE , DATE , an unspecified date in DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE a bailiff from ORG informed the applicant that the enforcement was scheduled for DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . On each of the CARDINAL occasions ORG took the children to the LOC of ORG . However , since neither the applicant nor her representative were present , the enforcement could not take place .

According to the applicant , she was never informed of the enforcement dates scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

It appears from the case file that the notification of DATE was sent to ORG address . The notifications of DATE and CARDINAL DATE were sent to the applicant ’s address , though there is no evidence to suggest that she received them . The case file contains no evidence that she was notified of the other CARDINAL scheduled dates for carrying out the enforcement measures either .

On DATE the enforcement file was returned to the Izmaylovskiy ORG in GPE pursuant to the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE and DATE a bailiff from LOC in GPE ordered ORG to comply with the judgment of DATE by DATE and DATE respectively . He further visited ORG at his place of residence in GPE . It was established that the children were living with ORG parents in GPE .

On DATE the deputy chief bailiff of ORG imposed an administrative fine on ORG ) for failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE a bailiff from the Izmaylovskiy ORG invited ORG to the bailiffs’ office on DATE to provide explanations for his non - compliance with the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the bailiff imposed an execution fee on LAW for failure to comply with the judgment of DATE . He was ordered to comply by CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the deputy chief bailiff of ORG imposed a further administrative fine on LAW for failure to comply with the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the chief bailiff of LOC imposed an administrative fine on LAW for failure to comply with the lawful demands of the bailiffs .

On DATE the Commission for the Affairs of Minors and ORG in GPE imposed an administrative fine on LAW .

On DATE the bailiff temporarily restricted ORG travel in view of his failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , and ordered him to pay the imposed administrative fines . ORG was invited to the bailiffs’ office on DATE to provide explanations for his reluctance to comply with the judgment of DATE , and was ordered to comply by DATE .

At the applicant ’s request , on CARDINAL DATE the bailiff launched a search for the children and restricted ORG right to drive .

On DATE the chief bailiff of ORG imposed an administrative fine on LAW for failure to comply with the lawful demands of the bailiffs .

On DATE the bailiff telephoned PERSON and asked him to attend the bailiffs’ office to provide explanations for his non - compliance with the judgment of DATE . He refused to do so .

On DATE the bailiff suspended the enforcement proceedings .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement was scheduled for TIME on DATE at the children ’s place of residence in GPE . However , since she failed to attend , the enforcement could not be carried out .

According to the applicant , she was not informed of the enforcement scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

It appears from the case file that the notification of CARDINAL DATE was sent to ORG address .

The judgment of DATE remains unenforced to date . The children continue to live with their paternal grandparents in GPE .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Kaya , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent .

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

According to the applicant , on DATE , at TIME , he was stopped by the police for a routine identity check in FAC , GPE . After examining his identity card and running his information through the police database , the police let the applicant go . However , as he was leaving FAC , a police car approached him from behind and a number of police officers grabbed him and shoved him into the police car . Once inside the car , QUANTITY police officers sprayed him with pepper gas and beat him , whilst swearing at him . The applicant ’s pleas to find out the reason for this treatment were left unanswered .

The applicant claimed that following a TIME drive , during which he continued to be assaulted , he was taken out of the car to find himself in a secluded area by the old city walls which he identified as the PERSON or PERSON district of GPE , where CARDINAL more police cars were waiting . There , the applicant was once again insulted , threatened at gunpoint , kicked , punched and beaten with a truncheon and subjected to pepper gas by a total of CARDINAL police officers for TIME . He was eventually put back in the car where the beatings continued until he was thrown out of the moving car somewhere near GPE around TIME that same night . The applicant was subsequently taken to ORG by some friends whom he contacted for help .

The Government disputed the facts as submitted by the applicant . They claimed that he had not even been stopped for an identity check on the relevant TIME as alleged .

After preliminary examinations at FAC at ORG , the applicant was referred to LOC Thoracic and FAC ( “ the FAC ” ) with suspected chest trauma . At an unspecified time on DATE the applicant was examined by a specialist at ORG , who noted the following injuries on his body : an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the left arm ; an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the left cervical area behind the left ear ; haematoma on the left ear ; an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the left scapula , at the level of the spine of the scapula ; a number of ecchymotic patches on the back measuring QUANTITY ; an ecchymosis of CARDINAL x QUANTITY at the level of the right spine of the scapula ; an ecchymosis of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the right arm joint , at the posterior side ; an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the right lateral arm starting from the shoulder level ; ecchymotic patches spread over an area of QUANTITY on the corpus sternum ; CARDINAL lesions of QUANTITY , located QUANTITY below the right patella ; and a fracture of the sixth and seventh ribs on the right side .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG public prosecutor ’s office against the police officers who had allegedly assaulted him . The applicant stated in his complaint that he did not remember all the details of the ill - treatment he had received at the hands of the police officers , as he had passed out a number of times on account of the physical trauma and pepper gas he had been subjected to , but he believed that the police car in which he had been kidnapped was a ORG Clio . He added that the police might have targeted him upon finding out during his identity check that he was standing trial for assaulting several police officers and/or that he was the managing editor of a number of well - known opposition publications . The applicant asked the public prosecutor to summon the police officers on duty at the place of the incident on TIME QUANTITY DATE for an identification parade and to examine images from the security cameras of the banks and other buildings in the area .

On DATE , the ORG public prosecutor ’s office filed an urgent request with the Haydarpaşa ORG and ORG for the submission of the medical reports documenting the injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of the alleged incident .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor took the applicant ’s statement in relation to his complaints ; the applicant reiterated his previous allegations . He added that the police officers involved in the incident were DATE , that he clearly remembered the face of one of the officers and could identify another one by his distinct accent . The public prosecutor subsequently referred the applicant to ORG of ORG for further medical examinations .

In its report dated DATE ORG made the following findings : bruising and ecchymosis of QUANTITY , QUANTITY and CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the left scapula ; scabbed scratches of QUANTITY and QUANTITY on the waist ; scabbed scratches of CARDINAL x QUANTITY and CARDINAL x CARDINAL cm on the right elbow ; ecchymosis on the right and left arms ; ecchymosis around the left eye and ear ; scabbed scratch on the front side of the right leg ; a wide - spread yellowpurple ecchymosis of CARDINAL x CARDINAL x QUANTITY at the centre of the left gluteal region ; an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the right gluteal region ; and ecchymosis and pain on the right side of the chest . The report noted that the injuries sustained by the applicant could not be treated by simple medical intervention and recommended that a radiologist examine his head and chest scans . There is no information in the case - file as to any further examinations of the head or the chest as suggested .

NORP In the meantime , the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment by the police was covered in a number of national newspapers . In the issue of CARDINAL DATE of the DATE PERSON , the police authorities were reported as stating that they had no knowledge of the incident but that they would investigate the allegations .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested ORG to make available any ORG footage of the place of the alleged incident from TIME until TIME on the relevant night .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor also requested from ORG the list of police officers on duty at FAC on DATE TIME and TIME , along with their respective photographs .

Upon the public prosecutor ’s request , QUANTITY police officers , namely GPE , GPE and GPE , were identified as being on duty at FAC at the indicated time . On DATE ORG informed the ORG public prosecutor that while the officer ORG had been instructed to report to the prosecutor ’s office with a photo , the remaining CARDINAL officers had changed departments and could not be contacted at their new places of duty .

On DATE ORG advised the ORG public prosecutor that , although a ORG camera was in place at the place of incident , there was no recording available from the relevant night , as ORG footage was preserved for DATE .

On DATE the CARDINAL remaining police officers , namely GPE and GPE , were successfully notified of the instruction to present themselves at the ORG public prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE , following ORG ’s failure to report , the ORG public prosecutor summoned him once again to take his statement .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested the Bayrampaşa Branch of ORG to arrange for the applicant to review the photographs of all the officers and their chiefs on duty at ORG for identification of the suspects who had allegedly carried out the assault . A copy of this request was given to the applicant ’s lawyer in person . The Government alleged that , despite being aware of the public prosecutor ’s instruction , the applicant never applied to the Bayrampaşa Branch of ORG with a view to identifying the suspects .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , the ORG public prosecutor reissued summons in relation to GPE , GPE and GPE , none of whom had reported to give a statement as ordered .

On DATE the ORG informed the ORG public prosecutor that the summons of CARDINAL DATE could not be notified to ORG as he had since been appointed to ORG ( in GPE ) .

On DATE the ORG notified the ORG public prosecutor that the officer PERSON had been instructed to report to the prosecutor ’s office as requested , but GPE could not be reached as he had been appointed to ORG ( in GPE ) . Accordingly , on CARDINAL DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office forwarded the summons in relation to GPE to ORG and also reiterated the request regarding PERSON to ORG .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued an order to bring GPE , GPE and GPE to his office , by force , to give statements .

On DATE the ORG advised the ORG public prosecutor ’s office that ORG could not be forcibly brought to the prosecutor ’s office as he had been assigned outside GPE and was now stationed at ORG , as of DATE . Accordingly , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG public prosecutor ’s office contacted the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office to arrange for the questioning of GPE

In the meantime , on DATE the ORG similarly informed the ORG public prosecutor that GPE had been appointed to ORG in the east of GPE . Accordingly , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor ’s office contacted the NORP public prosecutor ’s office to take GPE ’s statement .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor took ORG statement . PERSON indicated that he had no recollection of an incident from the indicated date and that he could possibly remember more if he were given the incident report or other records from the relevant night .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG public prosecutor took the statement of GPE , who briefly denied all the allegations against him . He said that as a stationary unit , they could only leave their posts at FAC in response to a call . He also asserted that the police car in their service at the relevant time was a FAC .

On DATE S.C. reported to the NORP public prosecutor ’s office to give his statement in connection with the applicant ’s complaints . He noted at the outset the considerable amount of time that had lapsed since the alleged incident . He then stated that he had not taken part in any such incident and added that his unit , stationed constantly at FAC , rarely used any vehicles .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor decided not to bring a prosecution against the police officers GPE , GPE and GPE in connection with the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment on TIME QUANTITY DATE . Relying on the statements made by the CARDINAL officers , the public prosecutor held that there was insufficient evidence or suspicion to proceed with the prosecution of these officers . The applicant did not appeal against the public prosecutor ’s decision .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued a permanent search warrant , in effect until DATE , which instructed ORG to continue its search for the perpetrators and to report to the prosecutor ’s office DATE with an update on the investigation .

It appears that the investigation , which is still open , has not yielded any results thus far .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , Mr Bobirzhon PERSON , is an NORP national . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is not currently in detention .

On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant with participating in an extremist organisation of a religious nature ( Nurchilar ) and distributing material containing religious extremist ideas . On DATE the ORG in GPE ordered the applicant ’s arrest . The NORP authorities put the applicant ’s name on the international list of wanted individuals . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant fled to GPE , fearing both prosecution and persecution on religious grounds by the NORP authorities .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE , GPE in connection with criminal proceedings pending against him in GPE . He was placed in a temporary detention facility in GPE .

On DATE the applicant requested refugee status in GPE .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE ordered the applicant ’s extradition to GPE .

On DATE ORG ( “ FMS ” ) in GPE denied the applicant ’s request for refugee status .

On DATE ORG overturned ORG decision to extradite the applicant , terminated the extradition proceedings against him and ordered his immediate release from detention .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of ORG on appeal . The appeal court held , inter alia , that GPE may refuse the extradition of an individual if there are serious grounds for believing that the individual would be subjected to torture or other cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment in the country that is requesting extradition . The court also held that ORG decision to extradite the applicant had lacked sufficient guarantees regarding the applicant ’s safety in the event of his extradition to GPE .

On DATE the ORG in GPE examined a request from the applicant for temporary asylum . It studied in detail the applicant ’s allegations concerning torture and ill - treatment whilst in police custody in GPE , which had been applied in order to force a confession from him . Moreover , the ORG in GPE also reviewed the applicant ’s submissions concerning similar criminal prosecutions of his relatives and neighbours and the ensuing persecution of him after his release from detention . In particular , the applicant contended that CARDINAL of his relatives and CARDINAL of his neighbours had been convicted of being members of the extremist religious organisation . In addition , the applicant submitted that the authorities had pressured him to make a written denial ‒ on a DATE basis ‒ of his allegiance to the extremist religious organisation . They also questioned him on the activities of the organisation . When he found out that his brother had been forced to testify against him , he decided to flee to GPE , fearing further repercussions . The ORG in GPE found the applicant ’s allegations substantiated and granted the applicant ’s request for temporary asylum . Afterwards , the applicant withdrew his appeal against the earlier decision by the ORG in GPE not to grant him refugee status .

On DATE the ORG in GPE granted the applicant ’s request to have his temporary asylum status renewed for DATE , until DATE .

In the meantime , the applicant applied for temporary residence status in GPE . However , on DATE the ORG in GPE denied the applicant ’s request . DATE the FMS GPE upheld this decision , citing unspecified security reasons as justification .

On DATE the ORG in GPE refused the applicant ’s request for renewal of his temporary asylum status relying ‒ inter alia ‒ on information received from GPE ’s ORG ( ORG ) stating that the applicant ’s presence in GPE had been deemed undesirable . The exact nature of the information remained undisclosed . The applicant appealed to GPE ’s ORG concerning the refusal . In his appeal complaint , the applicant reiterated that the reasons behind the staying of his expulsion had not ceased to exist . He also submitted that the information obtained from the ORG had not been made known to him and , in any event , it would not have justified the termination of his temporary asylum status or his expulsion because the law contained no corresponding provision .

On DATE the ORG of GPE upheld the decision of the ORG in GPE . It cited the procedural steps taken in the applicant ’s case but did not evaluate his situation and arguments in detail . It also relied mainly on undisclosed information obtained from the ORG and found that no humanitarian grounds existed that would permit renewal of the applicant ’s temporary asylum status .

On DATE the ORG in GPE sent a letter to the applicant informing him that he would be deported should he fail to leave the territory of GPE of his own volition .

On DATE the Basmanny District Court of GPE refused the applicant ’s request to have his temporary asylum status renewed and upheld the ORG decision issued on DATE .

On DATE , following the application of interim measures under Rule CARDINAL by ORG , ORG sought a court order to compel the ORG in GPE to renew the applicant ’s temporary asylum status . No information is available regarding the outcome of these proceedings .

On DATE the GPE City Court heard the applicant ’s case on appeal . The outcome of these proceedings remains unclear .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that on CARDINAL DATE the ORG in GPE had granted the applicant temporary asylum in GPE until DATE on humanitarian grounds .

According to the text of the decision of the ORG in GPE , the applicant sought temporary asylum in GPE after ORG had applied interim measures staying his removal in the light of the risk of ill - treatment in GPE . The ORG in GPE then noted that dynamic political and social reforms had been taking place in GPE since DATE . However , it also mentioned the incidents of human rights violations in the country . In particular , it referred to current authoritative human rights reports on ill - treatment of suspects in custody in GPE . Noting that the applicant remained on the wanted persons list , the ORG in GPE found that as a suspect , he might indeed be subjected to torture or other cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment in GPE and therefore granted his request for temporary asylum in GPE .

For a summary of the relevant general provisions of LAW GPE ( Law no . GPE of DATE ) , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

LAW ( the LAW ) provides that a person who has been granted temporary asylum status can not be returned against his will to the country of his nationality or to the country of his former habitual residence ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Act ) .

NORP The temporary asylum status may be terminated if ( i ) the circumstances generating eligibility for such temporary asylum cease to exist ; ( ii ) the temporary asylum holder obtains permanent resident status in GPE or becomes a citizen of GPE or of another state ; ( iii ) the temporary asylum holder resettles outside GPE ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Act ) .

NORP The temporary asylum status may be revoked as a result of ( i ) the conviction of the temporary asylum holder of a crime committed by him or her in GPE ; ( ii ) the submission by the temporary asylum holder of false information on his or her application for temporary asylum ; ( iii ) the imposition of an administrative sanction on the temporary asylum holder for a drug - related offence ( section QUANTITY of the Act ) .

The Rules on Temporary Asylum Status ( the Rules ) enacted by the Government of GPE in accordance with LAW ( decree No . CARDINAL of DATE ) provide that temporary asylum may be granted for a period of DATE and may be renewed DATE at the request of a person seeking temporary asylum who can also provide reasons for such renewal ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules ) . The request for renewal should be submitted DATE prior to the expiry of the person ’s current temporary asylum status ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules ) .

Under LAW and LAW a person can bring civil judicial proceedings against an official decision which , in his or her opinion , has an adverse effect on his rights and freedoms .


CASE OF STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

Remainder inadmissible;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 - Public hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder . On DATE he was charged with aggravated murder . Subsequently , the applicant and a number of other individuals ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) were accused of other violent crimes . The proceedings in relation to all these offences were joined into CARDINAL case , which was investigated by a group of investigators from the GPE prosecutor ’s office . The investigation was completed in DATE .

The applicant studied the case file in DATE and DATE and requested a trial by a jury .

On DATE the GPE city prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was submitted to ORG for trial . The applicant was committed to stand trial on charges relating to a number of offences including conspiracy to commit murder . CARDINAL other co - defendants were committed to stand trial on similar charges .

On DATE ORG noted that the majority of the defendants had opted to exercise their constitutional right to a trial by jury . However , as there were no juries in ORG , it decided to send an inquiry to ORG of GPE as to where the case should be tried . ORG referred the case to ORG , where juries were available .

On an unspecified date a judge of ORG sent a request to ORG of GPE , inviting it to rule on the compatibility of ORG interpretation of the jurisdictional rules with LAW . On DATE she suspended the proceedings pending a decision by ORG and held that the defendants were to remain in custody because of the dangerousness of the criminal offences they had been charged with , which were classified as serious or particularly serious .

On DATE ORG issued a decision to the effect that the decision on the change of venue had been incompatible with LAW .

NORP In accordance with that ruling , on DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG , which decided on DATE that ORG was competent to try the case .

On DATE ORG scheduled the first hearing for DATE before a bench consisting of a professional judge and CARDINAL lay judges , but it was adjourned on DATE because the presiding judge was sitting in another case .

In DATE and DATE the presiding judge was replaced by other judges of ORG . The lay judges were replaced several times .

On DATE the applicant asked the judge for additional time to study the case file . His request was left without reply .

Numerous hearings were scheduled DATE . They were adjourned for various reasons , mainly because the prosecutor , interpreter and some of the defence lawyers failed to appear , but also because the presiding judge was involved in other proceedings in DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE .

It appears that consideration of the merits began in DATE , but hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were again adjourned , inter alia , because several of the lawyers failed to appear .

On DATE the trial judge ordered that the applicant be removed from the courtroom “ until the closure of the oral pleadings ” for contempt of court during the reading out of the indictment . He was kept away from the hearings that followed on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE .

The applicant was taken to a hearing on DATE , where he asked to be provided with a list of people to be called as witnesses at the trial . His request was left without reply .

Hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were also adjourned . From DATE the trial hearings were held in remand centre no . MONEY , where the applicant was being detained . On CARDINAL and DATE the trial judge refused to deal with a request from the applicant to be given reasons for the change of venue and a copy of the relevant court order .

On DATE the trial judge ordered bailiffs to summons the absent witnesses and victims to a hearing scheduled for DATE , but not all of them were summonsed . On a number of occasions DATE the judge reiterated his request .

On DATE the trial bench ( presiding judge PERSON and lay judges PERSON and PERSON ) extended the GPE detention until DATE .

On DATE the court closed the trial and started deliberations .

NORP In DATE the governor of remand centre no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL wrote to ORG on several occasions to say that the detention order in respect of the applicant had expired on DATE , and that a new detention order was required without delay .

On DATE ORG replied that since the trial bench was deliberating , it could not issue decisions concerning the detention of any of the defendants , including the applicant .

On DATE the trial bench found the applicant guilty of a number of offences including conspiracy to commit murder , and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment . The court held that the time he had spent in detention since DATE should be counted towards his sentence .

On DATE the court concluded its delivery of the judgment . It appears from its operative part of the judgment ( dated DATE ) that the trial bench decided to keep the applicant in detention as a preventive measure until the conviction became final and enforceable .

The applicant and the other defendants lodged an appeal . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction , but reduced the applicant ’s sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant instituted proceedings under LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) , alleging inaction on the part of the governor of the remand centre in failing to release him on DATE . On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the complaint , holding that the inaction in question could not be made the subject of proceedings under LAW On DATE ORG set aside that decision and ordered a re - examination of the case , holding that a complaint in respect of a governor of a remand centre could not be processed under LAW

According to the Government , on DATE the authorities dismissed the applicant ’s complaint and refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the governor of the remand centre for lack of corpus delicti .

In the meantime , in separate proceedings under LAW CCrP , the applicant argued that the prosecutor responsible for supervising detention facilities had acted unlawfully by failing to deal with the complaint concerning his detention after DATE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed his case . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

Subsequently , the applicant brought civil proceedings against the remand centre , arguing that its governor had failed to release him on DATE . By that time , the most recent detention order had expired and thus DATE and the trial judgment there had been no valid order authorising his continued detention pending trial . By a judgment of DATE , the ORG of GPE rejected his claim . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

During a trial the court is empowered to order , vary or cancel a preventive measure in respect of the defendant ( LAW CCrP ) . In particular , “ the court dealing with the case ” is empowered to order extensions of the defendant ’s detention ( LAW ) . If after the trial judge has started deliberations in the criminal case the term of detention meanwhile expires , it is not against the requirements of the CCrP for another judge of the same court to order an extension of the detention ( Appeal Section of ORG of GPE decision FAC . CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .

Deliberations take place in the deliberations room ( LAW ) , where the trial bench reaches its judgment and decides on the preventive measure ( LAW ) . After signing the judgment , the trial bench returns to the courtroom so that the presiding judge can deliver the judgment ( LAW ) . If only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment are read out , the court should explain the procedure for becoming acquainted with its full terms ( LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) required at the relevant time that the governor of a detention facility should release a detainee upon receipt of an order to this effect . The governor should notify the authority in charge of the case that the authorised period of detention expires within TIME . If no extension order is received by the time the authorised period of detention expires , the governor must release the detainee .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that criminal cases should be heard in public . A court may issue an order for a hearing in camera ( i ) if a public hearing could result in the disclosure of ORG secrets or other sensitive data ; ( ii ) in cases concerning defendants DATE ; ( iii ) if a public hearing could result in the disclosure of information relating to the private life of the trial participants ; or ( iv ) to guarantee the safety of the trial participants or their next of kin .