CASE OF INDUSTRIAL FINANCIAL CONSORTIUM INVESTMENT METALLURGICAL UNION v. UKRAINE

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers decided that ORG ( hereinafter “ Kryvorizhstal ” ) was to be privatised . At the time GPE was one of the world ’s largest steel manufacturing companies , employing CARDINAL people and producing PERCENT of GPE ’s DATE steel supply . On DATE ORG included ORG in a list of ORG - owned assets which were to be privatised . Subsequently , ORG and ORG and the Stock Market adopted decisions designed to ensure the privatisation of the enterprise .

NORP The applicant company was founded in DATE by CARDINAL private companies , CARDINAL of which were owned or controlled by A. , CARDINAL of the leaders of ORG . Members of that party held the majority of posts in the Cabinet of Ministers in DATE , including the post of Prime Minister . The remaining CARDINAL companies were owned or controlled by P. , the son - in - law of PERSON , the second President of GPE who held the post from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Fund ” ) announced a bidding competition for the purchase of PERCENT of the share capital of ORG . A condition of bidding was that a bidder had to have produced QUANTITY of charcoal of NORP origin and QUANTITY of steel in GPE in each of DATE preceding the competition . The applicant company took part in that competition .

Out of CARDINAL bids submitted by various companies , the ORG selected bids by the applicant company and ORG , finding that these companies satisfied the conditions of the competition .

On DATE the applicant company was declared the winner ( successful bidder ) of the bidding competition . On DATE the applicant company concluded a purchase contract with the ORG and paid CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time , for the shares at issue . The shares were transferred to the applicant company ’s deposit account at ORG GPE .

On DATE the applicant company appointed T. to represent it as the owner of the ORG shares and to complete the formalities of the transfer pursuant to the contract of DATE .

Without any further specification or evidence , the applicant company stated that it had invested substantial financial resources in GPE during the period of its control .

The lawfulness and transparency of the privatisation of ORG was contested by the political opposition , whose leaders in DATE were Mr PERSON , PERSON and Mr O. Moroz . In their public statements , they all accused President PERSON , P. and NORP of fraud , and called for the enterprise to be returned to the ORG .

During the DATE presidential election campaign the issue was debated by CARDINAL main rivals , Mr PERSON and PERSON . Mr PERSON , whose candidature was openly supported by President PERSON and A. , insisted that the privatisation of ORG had been lawful and fair .

DATE and DATE a series of protests took place in the immediate aftermath of the run - off vote of the DATE election , an election which , according to numerous national and international reports , was compromised by massive corruption , voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud . These events are commonly known as the Orange Revolution .

Following the revote of DATE , PERSON lost the election to PERSON , who became the third President of GPE on DATE . On DATE PERSON was appointed to the post of interim Prime Minister . On DATE the Verkhovna Rada ( NORP ORG ) approved the appointment of the new ORG of Ministers , headed by her . ORG formed the parliamentary opposition .

According to different media reports submitted by the applicant company , DATE President PERSON and Prime Minister PERSON made public statements that the privatisation of ORG had been unlawful , and that the enterprise would be returned to the ORG and subsequently resold .

In particular , in an interview of CARDINAL DATE Prime Minister PERSON said that “ NORP enterprises , like ORG , which had blatantly been stolen , had to be returned to the ORG . ”

On DATE President PERSON made the following statement when addressing the Verkhovna Rada :

“ ... I promise that fair privatisation will be carried out DATE . Those facilities which were stolen , starting with ORG , will be returned to the ORG ... ”

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers revoked its decision of DATE by which the privatisation of ORG had been launched . On DATE the ORG also revoked its decisions concerning the privatisation .

On DATE the ORG took control of ORG , pursuant to commercial court decisions declaring its privatisation unlawful ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . By a decree of CARDINAL DATE , ORG declared the contract of DATE invalid and withdrew the ORG shares from the applicant company .

On an unspecified date the money paid for the shares in the enterprise in DATE was returned to the applicant company .

By CARDINAL decrees of DATE , ORG launched the procedures for resale of PERCENT of ORG ’s share capital . On DATE it approved the bidding conditions . The DATE the bidding competition was officially announced .

NORP The applicant company did not participate in the competition . Instead , it challenged the authorities’ decrees issued in DATE and DATE before the commercial courts and the courts of general jurisdiction , but to no avail . The applicant company did not provide any further details of those proceedings .

On DATE the bidding competition was completed by an auction , which was broadcast live by major television stations . ORG GPE PERSON was declared the successful bidder . On DATE it concluded a purchase contract with the ORG and became the new owner of PERCENT of ORG ’s share capital , for the price of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the equivalent of about ORG CARDINAL at the time . Eventually , ORG GPE PERSON was succeeded by ORG PERSON , which , according to the documents submitted by that company , made significant investments in GPE .

According to the applicant company , after the DATE election A. was targeted for his political expression and association . In particular , companies which he owned or controlled were subjected to various checks by the authorities . The authorities allegedly attempted to nationalise some of those companies , though they were unsuccessful . The applicant company submitted copies of several petitions to the domestic authorities made by third parties with a view to preventing the nationalisation of those companies .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE respectively , CARDINAL private individuals , ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE , PERSON . , members of ORG , lodged with ORG of Kyiv CARDINAL separate administrative law complaints against the decisions of the ORG and ORG and the Stock Market concerning the organisation of the DATE bidding competition , contending that those decisions had violated the right of every citizen to participate in the privatisation of ORG property .

On an unspecified date the President of ORG transferred the case to ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ) . By separate decisions of CARDINAL and DATE , the latter court refused to consider those complaints , and ordered that its decisions be immediately “ enforced ” . No copy of those decisions was provided to the ORG .

On DATE ORG changed the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE in part by excluding the provisions concerning their immediate enforcement .

On DATE I. , a private individual , and ORG lodged with ORG of Kyiv a claim against the ORG , ORG and the Stock Market , and ORG GPE , challenging the validity of their decisions and actions in connection with the privatisation of GPE . On an unspecified date the case was transferred to ORG .

At the PERSON request , the applicant company was invited to participate in the proceedings as a third party . By letters of DATE and DATE , the LOC prosecutor applied to the court for leave to participate in the case to represent the interests of NORP and those of the ORG . The prosecutor ’s application was granted .

On DATE ORG , the losing party in the DATE bidding competition , instituted proceedings in ORG against the applicant company , the ORG , ORG and ORG and the Stock Market , challenging the validity of the authorities’ decisions adopted in connection with the privatisation of ORG and the contract of DATE . It contended that the DATE bidding competition had been unlawful and unfair .

NORP In particular , ORG argued that the shares in ORG had not been issued in accordance with the law ; that the competition had not been announced in due time ; that the conditions of the competition had been too narrow and restrictive , thereby limiting the circle of potential bidders and disrespecting the statutory right of every citizen to participate in the privatisation of ORG assets ; that the shares should have been sold through the stock exchange ; and that its total offer , including the money it had planned to invest in ORG , had been higher than the amount paid by the applicant company for the shares in the enterprise . It also argued that , because the complaints by CARDINAL private individuals against the decisions concerning the organisation of the DATE bidding competition had been ongoing before the courts in the period DATE , any decision adopted DATE in relation to the competition had been invalid .

On DATE the applicant company lodged a counterclaim against the other parties to the proceedings , asking the court to endorse its right to PERCENT of the ORG shares .

By a procedural ruling of DATE , ORG found that ORG had to participate in the proceedings , and ordered it to designate a representative in the proceedings . Notwithstanding that ruling , no prosecutor appeared before ORG or ORG in DATE .

Kryvorizhstal took part in the proceedings as a third party .

On DATE ORG , having considered the arguments of ORG in detail , dismissed them as unsubstantiated and found that the privatisation of ORG had been carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation . The court held , inter alia , that ORG rights to participate in the privatisation had not been restricted , since they had been free to establish companies and participate in the competition through such companies . It also stated that the complaints by the private individuals against the competition had not been lodged in accordance with the law , and thus had had no suspensive effect . The court further endorsed the applicant company ’s property rights over the ORG shares , and banned any actions by the defendants which could violate these rights .

ORG appealed in cassation to ORG .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the parties’ representatives and upheld the judgment of DATE . The parties made no appeal to ORG against the decision of DATE .

On DATE the Prosecutor General lodged a cassation appeal in the interests of the ORG with ORG , alleging that the contested decisions of ORG and ORG concerned the rights and obligations of ORG . The Prosecutor General sought an extension of the time - limit for lodging his appeal , stating , without giving any further details , that he had missed it since he had only become aware of the decision of CARDINAL DATE in the course of examining a complaint by PERSON to the Prosecutor General . According to the Government , ORG had received that complaint on DATE , and it had been directed mainly against the decision of ORG of DATE .

In his appeal , the Prosecutor General mainly challenged the application of the law by ORG and ORG , and alleged that those courts’ decisions had been inconsistent with a decision of ORG in a similar case . He also stated that the courts had failed to invite ORG to take part in the proceedings , although the subject matter had concerned its functions under the relevant privatisation regulations .

On DATE ORG granted the extension requested and opened the proceedings on the merits of ORG cassation appeal . No copy of that procedural ruling was provided to the ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal by ORG , quashed the decisions of the lower courts , and remitted the case for fresh consideration . It found that under NORP law neither ORG nor the applicant company had been eligible to participate in the DATE bidding competition ; that the competition had not been announced in due time , as required by law ; and that the lower courts , when allowing the applicant company ’s counterclaim , had erred in applying the rules of procedure , which stated that no counterclaim could be lodged by a defendant against another defendant in the proceedings .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with ORG , to which the case had been remitted , a claim in the interests of the ORG and on behalf of the ORG against the applicant company , ORG , and ORG and the Stock Market . His claim was directed against the decisions concerning the privatisation of ORG and the contract of DATE . He also sought the return of the ORG shares to the ORG , and asked the court to seize the shares as a temporary measure until the dispute was finally resolved .

The Deputy Prosecutor General argued that the DATE bidding competition had not been organised in a lawful and fair way , particularly regarding the conditions which the potential bidders had had to satisfy . He further submitted that the bidders whose offers had been chosen had not satisfied the legislative requirements for participating in that competition .

On DATE the court held a hearing in camera at which it decided to open the proceedings and invite the parties to submit their arguments on the case . It also scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE the court ordered that ORG GPE , where the shares at issue had been deposited , participate in the case as a defendant . ORG was granted leave to take part in the proceedings as a third party on behalf of ORG .

On DATE the applicant company requested that the court allow journalists to attend the hearings in the case . The court rejected that application , finding that the journalists had not obtained official authorisation from the court administration .

Subsequently , journalists obtained the necessary authorisation and attended the hearings .

On DATE a copy of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) was included in the case file and examined by the court at a hearing on DATE .

On DATE the court delivered a judgment in the case whereby it allowed the claims of ORG and ORG , which it found to be of the same nature . It annulled the authorities’ decisions concerning the DATE privatisation and the contract of DATE , and ordered the ORG to return the money paid by the applicant company for the ORG shares . The applicant company ’s counterclaim was rejected , and it was ordered to return the shares to the ORG and pay ORG CARDINAL , the equivalent of about EUR CARDINAL at the time , to the ORG for costs and expenses .

The court held that the ORG had failed to announce the competition in due time ; that it had unlawfully introduced a condition concerning the production of charcoal and steel ; that the ORG had failed to set out specific conditions of sale of certain number of the ORG shares outside the bidding competition ; that the ORG ’s decisions issued CARDINAL in relation to the competition had been invalid , as the complaints of CARDINAL private individuals against the decisions concerning the organisation of the DATE bidding competition had been ongoing before the courts during that period ; and that the applicant company and ORG had unlawfully been allowed to participate in the competition .

By a procedural ruling of CARDINAL DATE , the same court seized the shares at issue . On DATE , bailiffs started enforcement proceedings in respect of that ruling .

The applicant company appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the ruling of CARDINAL DATE . According to the text of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant company contended that ORG had wrongly established the , and that it had erred in applying the law . The applicant company further challenged the lawfulness of the bailiffs’ actions as regards enforcement of the ruling of CARDINAL DATE . No copy of the applicant company ’s appeal was provided to ORG .

In the appeal proceedings , the applicant company asked ORG to suspend the proceedings before the commercial courts pending the outcome of the proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . The court rejected that application on the grounds that the latter proceedings were not decisive for the outcome of the commercial case .

On DATE the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal changed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in part . In particular , the appeal court found that the claims by ORG had to be rejected , as it had not been eligible to participate in the DATE bidding competition . The applicant company ’s appeal was dismissed as unsubstantiated .

By the same decision , the appeal court annulled the ruling of CARDINAL DATE for non - compliance with the procedural rules , and refused to consider the applicant company ’s complaints against the bailiffs , on the basis that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction . The court further ruled to seize the ORG shares for the purpose of securing the claim by ORG .

The applicant company appealed in cassation . No copy of the cassation appeal was provided to the ORG .

On DATE the Higher Commercial Court rejected the applicant company ’s cassation appeal as unsubstantiated .

NORP On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the applicant company ’s further cassation appeal . No copy of that appeal was provided to the ORG .

In the course of the proceedings before the commercial courts DATE the applicant company challenged the impartiality of the judges and the courts dealing with its case on a number of occasions , alleging that their decisions and actions were influenced by government officials . According to the text of the judgment of ORG of DATE and the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE above ) , the applicant company ’s procedural applications were rejected as unsubstantiated . No further explanation in that regard was given by the courts .

After DATE , and while the applicant company ’s case was being considered by the commercial courts , the President and the Prime Minister made a number of public statements concerning the proceedings . The applicant company submitted different media reports reproducing and/or interpreting those statements . The ORG argued that some of the reports had not interpreted the statements accurately . In particular , they referred to the reports concerning the Prime Minister ’s press conference of CARDINAL DATE , at which she had made statements as to when the ongoing proceedings before ORG might be completed .

According to a number of other reports , at a press conference of CARDINAL DATE the Prime Minister said :

“ ... Facilities such as ORG ... I think that DATE the [ authorities ] are involved in the court proceedings concerning the return of those assets to the ORG . We are confident that we have a clear position [ in relation to the case ] , and these enterprises will be returned to the ORG ... ”

In an interview of DATE the President stated :

“ ... If the owners refuse to cooperate voluntarily , we will go down the legal route and will undoubtedly win [ the case ] . [ However , ] this will take DATE ...

The facility has been stolen , and the cost of that theft is MONEY . For me , this is a fact ...

We prepare the terms of a new [ bidding ] competition ... ”

On DATE , commenting on the possibility that the applicant company could appeal against the judgment of DATE , the Prime Minister stated :

“ ... This will be an important decision by the appeal [ court ] . It will be evidence not only of the court ’s objectivity , but also of the [ past ] negotiations behind closed doors between various representatives from the authorities and the business ... ”

In DATE ORG instituted proceedings in ORG against the applicant company , the ORG , ORG and ORG and the Stock Market , challenging the validity of the authorities’ decisions issued in connection with the privatisation of ORG and the contract of DATE . ORG relied mainly on the same circumstances and considerations referred to in its claims before the commercial courts . Its claims before the courts of general jurisdiction contained an additional element – a challenge to the validity of ORG ’s appointment on DATE as the applicant company ’s representative in the procedures following the DATE bidding competition .

T. took part in the proceedings as a defendant . ORG participated in the proceedings as a third party .

On DATE the court delivered a judgment dismissing the claims of ORG . For the most part , it contained identical reasons to those in the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE . On DATE respectively ORG and a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE lodged an application for review of the above case with ORG , in the light of newly discovered circumstances . In particular , she argued that the findings concerning the right of every citizen to participate in the privatisation of ORG assets contained in the judgment of DATE had been contrary to the judgment of ORG December CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She also contended that the courts had not been aware of the fact that the decisions of ORG and DATE had been challenged on appeal , and thus they had not become final before DATE .

N. ’s application was dealt with by the same judge of ORG who had sat in the main proceedings .

By a telegram of DATE , the court informed the applicant company that DATE it would hold a hearing , at the request of N ..

On DATE the applicant company lodged with the court an application to consult the case file . The application was not granted .

On DATE the court held a hearing on the merits of ORG ’s application . ORG , ORG and the Stock Market and ORG , who had been the parties to the main proceedings , did not take part in the hearing .

NORP The representatives of the applicant company requested leave to consult the case file and the adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that they had not been informed about the merits of the application before the hearing , and accordingly had not been able to prepare for it . They also sought the withdrawal of the judge dealing with the case , challenging her impartiality .

The judge rejected the applications by the applicant company ’s representatives , and read out the application by ORG

DATE . The applicant company ’s representatives objected to the application , arguing that ORG was not entitled to ask for a review of the case , since she had not been a party to the original proceedings , and there were no newly discovered circumstances or other reasons capable of warranting the reopening of the proceedings .

The applicant company ’s representatives did not receive a copy of the application either before or during the hearing .

On DATE the court allowed the application . It found that the right of every citizen , including that of ORG , to participate in privatisation and challenge its lawfulness had been confirmed by the judgment of ORG December CARDINAL . It also held that the ruling of DATE on ORG ’s complaint concerning the DATE competition had not entered into force at the time when the competition had taken place , and thus it could not have served as CARDINAL of the grounds for rejecting the claims by ORG .

The court quashed its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and held that the higher courts’ decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE were no longer valid .

On an unspecified date the case was transferred to another judge of ORG for fresh examination .

On DATE , following an application by ORG , ORG decided to examine the claims of ORG , ORG , and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) jointly , holding that they were of the same nature and concerned the same defendants .

On an unspecified date the applicant company lodged an application for review of the ruling of CARDINAL DATE with the same court , in the light of newly discovered circumstances .

On DATE the court granted the application by the applicant company , quashed the ruling of CARDINAL DATE , and rejected ORG ’s application of CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that she had not participated in the original proceedings concerning the claims by ORG .

By a separate ruling of DATE , the court rejected the claims by ORG and PERSON , finding that they had not participated in the DATE bidding competition and did not have an arguable claim in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings . The court held that their claims represented a disguised attempt to settle a dispute between legal entities falling within the jurisdiction of commercial courts .

By decisions of DATE , ORG quashed the ruling of CARDINAL DATE , stating that , in the light of newly discovered circumstances , the ruling of CARDINAL DATE was not to be reviewed , and that , with regard to LAW , ORG had unlawfully limited ORG and ORG ’s right of access to a court .

On DATE the ORG , acting as a court of cassation , upheld the decisions of DATE .

The case was remitted to ORG , which on DATE decided not to examine the claim of ORG , because its representatives had failed to appear before the court .

No appeal was lodged against the decision of DATE . According to the ORG , on the basis of that decision the joined proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction were terminated . The applicant company did not contest this .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE before his arrest .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and armed robbery and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment . The applicant was represented by a lawyer in these proceedings .

On DATE an appeal brought by the applicant himself was examined by ORG in the absence of counsel . The appeal court upheld the applicant ’s conviction .

The applicant has been serving his sentence in IK-CARDINAL in GPE since DATE .

As regards the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in the IK-CARDINAL facility , the ORG submitted information which can be summarised as follows :

The Government also submitted that all the units where the applicant had been detained had had a sufficient number of sleeping places for all the detainees , they had been ventilated through openings in the windows and had had access to cold water in accordance with up to date sanitary standards . The units were equipped with CARDINAL kettles to boil water and tanks containing potable water . All the lavatories had individual cabins with doors that were QUANTITY high , opening to the outside . They submitted photographs of the washbasins and lavatories .

NORP The applicant acknowledged that he had an individual sleeping place . However , he underlined that the conditions he had to live in were cramped . He further submitted that the units had no access to natural light or had poor artificial lighting , that the ventilation did not work and that the air was damp . The food he was provided was not in accordance with the special diet prescribed for him . Furthermore , inmates with tuberculosis lived in the same dormitory . There were CARDINAL lavatories ( in units CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , they had no doors and the applicant had no privacy when using them . They were clogged up most of the time owing to the number of people using them . Prisoners were only allowed CARDINAL shower a week . The applicant had no access to potable water and CARDINAL washbasin out of CARDINAL had worked . There were CARDINAL kettles for boiling water and the electricity was switched off during DATE and therefore it was not possible to have boiled water . The applicant further submitted that the buildings where his units were located were in a hazardous condition and that the roof and walls were liable to fall in at any time owing to a lack of repairs . Lastly , the applicant adduced written statements from his CARDINAL co - detainees who confirmed his account of the conditions of detention in IK-CARDINAL in GPE .


Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (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 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

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

In DATE the applicants were drafted into the NORP army and assigned to the third infantry battalion of military unit no . CARDINAL , situated near the village of GPE in LOC of the unrecognised GPE Karabakh Republic ( hereafter , PERSON ) ( see Chiragov and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , LAW , DATE ) .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL on account of the murder of CARDINAL servicemen of the same military unit , GPE and GPE , who had been found dead in a nearby canal on CARDINAL and DATE . They had been murdered on DATE .

An investigating team was created by order of ORG of GPE , which was headed by investigator PERSON of ORG of GPE . The investigating team also included the investigator of ORG of GPE , GPE , the investigator of ORG of Nagorno PERSON , PERSON , the Deputy Chief of ORG , GPE , and the Chief of ORG of PERSON , A.B.

On DATE a number of servicemen were arrested and subsequently charged and detained in connection with the murders . It appears that these charges were later dropped for lack of evidence .

NORP By letter of DATE the Military Police Chief of GPE informed ORG of GPE that CARDINAL servicemen had testified and implicated QUANTITY other servicemen , GPE , GPE and GPE , in the crime but later retracted their testimony , alleging that they had made those statements under moral and psychological pressure from CARDINAL of the officers of FAC and CARDINAL officers of their military unit .

On DATE the first and second applicants were assigned to keep watch at a military outpost .

On DATE the investigative team received from CARDINAL of the officers of military unit no . CARDINAL an empty envelope allegedly found at the crime scene on DATE , on which some names were written .

On DATE a former serviceman of the same military unit , ORG , was questioned in this connection in the second applicant ’s home town of PERSON . It appears that it was disclosed during this interview that the envelope in question was linked to the second applicant and had been included in a parcel sent to him by his parents at DATE . It further appears that this fact was confirmed during the questioning of the second applicant ’s younger brother , which took place on DATE from TIME to TIME

The applicants alleged that on DATE they were taken , in turns , to the office of their military unit ’s commander , PERSON , for questioning in connection with the murders . The questioning was carried out by investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON and ORG , ORG and ORG respectively , were also present during part of the questioning . The law enforcement officers started beating , threatening and verbally abusing the applicants , forcing them to confess to the murders . On DATE , following their questioning , they were transported by these law enforcement officers to ORG in GPE PERSON by order of ORG of GPE , where they continued to be illtreated and were kept until their transfer to ORG for further questioning .

The Government contested these allegations and claimed that on CARDINAL and DATE the first and second applicants were on watch at a military outpost . It was only on DATE that the second applicant was taken to the office of the commander of the military unit , ORG , for questioning as a witness in connection with the murders . Soon thereafter the commander of the military unit ordered the Chief of ORG , ORG , to bring also the first applicant from the military outpost for questioning as a witness . The third applicant was also taken for questioning . The questioning was carried out in the office of the commander of the military unit by employees of the military prosecutor ’s office and the military police . During questioning it was revealed that on DATE the applicants had abandoned their military unit without authorisation and had gone to GPE . This was found to be a grave disciplinary offence and the commander of the military unit decided to impose on them a disciplinary penalty of DATE in isolation . On DATE , namely CARDINAL DATE , the applicants were taken first to FAC and later to ORG where they were placed in a disciplinary isolation cell in order to serve their disciplinary penalty .

It appears from the materials of the case that the applicants’ first questioning took place at their military unit , in the office of commander PERSON , where they were taken in turns . The questioning was carried out by investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON and A.B. It appears that the Chief of ORG , I.V. , was also present for part of the questioning . The applicants were asked questions about a parcel that the second applicant had received from his parents on DATE , which included food , letters and other items , whether they had eaten the food together after fetching the parcel from GPE and , if so , where and when . No record was made of this interview .

It further follows from the materials of the case that on DATE the commander of the military unit , ORG , issued Order no . CARDINAL , according to which the applicants were considered to be isolated by ORG and were deprived of their DATE allowance as of DATE . This Order was based on CARDINAL Isolation Notices dated DATE and signed by the commander , which stated that the applicants were to be isolated for a period of DATE on the grounds of a “ VMR ” ( violation of military rules ) and were to be kept in a common cell . In the section of the Isolation Notices entitled “ Doctor ’s conclusion ” the note “ practically healthy ” appeared , followed by the signature of doctor PERSON The sections of the Isolation Notices which were to include the signature of the chief of the disciplinary isolation cell and his notes regarding the time and date of the applicants’ admission to and release from the disciplinary isolation cell were left blank .

On DATE the applicants were questioned as witnesses at FAC . According to the relevant records , the first applicant was questioned by investigator PERSON from CARDINAL p.m. to CARDINAL TIME , the second applicant was questioned by investigator PERSON from TIME , and the third applicant was questioned by investigator PERSON from TIME to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. The second applicant admitted during questioning that he and the other CARDINAL applicants had eaten the food contained in the parcel received from his parents outside the military unit next to the canal on DATE . The first applicant was asked during questioning to provide an account of what he had done on DATE . He was then asked whether he was familiar with servicemen GPE and GPE and whether the nearby shop had still been open when he and the other CARDINAL applicants had eaten the food , as well as CARDINAL questions regarding the envelope of the letter which had arrived with the parcel .

DATE at TIME the applicants were taken to FAC of Nagorno Karabakh where from TIME to TIME the second applicant was questioned as a witness by investigator PERSON The interview was videotaped by the cameraman of ORG of ORG , ORG

The applicants were kept at FAC until DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE issued a letter addressed to the Defence Minister of PERSON , with a copy to the Chief of Military Police of GPE , the Chief of ORG and the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL , having the following content :

“ For the purposes of criminal case no . CARDINAL examined by the investigative unit of ORG of GPE , on DATE [ the applicants ] , who were performing their military service at military unit no . CARDINAL , were taken to ORG , whereupon they were taken to ORG .

It is necessary to transfer the CARDINAL above - mentioned servicemen to military unit no . DATE in GPE in order to carry out a number of investigative measures with their participation . ”

On DATE the applicants were transferred to GPE , the second applicant separately from the first and third applicants . At TIME the officer on duty of ORG of GPE drew up a record entitled “ LOC ” in which it was stated that he had received the first and third applicants from the employees of FAC .

The applicants alleged that , during the entire period prior to their transfer to GPE , they were questioned on numerous occasions as witnesses , in spite of already being suspected of the crime . They were continually subjected to beatings , threats and verbal abuse by investigators PERSON and GPE , military police officers PERSON and PERSON and another officer of ORG nicknamed PERSON , with the aim of extorting a confession . They were kept in various rooms and cells at different law enforcement agencies and were neither fed nor allowed to sleep . They were transferred from CARDINAL law enforcement agency to another , blindfolded and handcuffed . The second applicant also alleged that the officers threatened to rape him with a club and to arrest his mother and younger brother , if he refused to confess .

The applicants further alleged that upon their arrival in GPE they remained in custody and at an unspecified point were placed in an arrest facility situated at military unit no . DATE which was administered by the military police ( hereafter , the military police arrest facility – ՀՀ Պաշտպանության նախարարության ORG ոստիկանության վարչության քննչական մեկուսարան ) upon the instructions of the investigator .

The Government admitted that the applicants had been transferred to GPE upon the request of ORG on DATE , but claimed that this was done as a protective measure under LAW ORG ) . They further claimed that the applicants were placed in the military police arrest facility only after their arrest on DATE .

On DATE from TIME to TIME the second applicant was questioned as a witness by investigator PERSON at ORG of GPE . This interview was videotaped . During the questioning , the second applicant confessed that it was he and the other CARDINAL applicants who had committed the murders . According to his statement , on DATE he and the other CARDINAL applicants had left their military unit in order to eat in private the food sent by his parents , near the canal . There they had come across the CARDINAL fellow servicemen . A quarrel had erupted which led to a fight and resulted in fatal injuries . Having realised that the CARDINAL fellow servicemen were dead , he and the other CARDINAL applicants had decided to throw their bodies into the canal .

On DATE the applicants were formally arrested and recognised as suspects . The first applicant ’s arrest record was drawn up at TIME at ORG in GPE . The record indicated that he was suspected of complicity in the murder of the CARDINAL servicemen .

It appears that investigator PERSON invited lawyers GPE and GPE to represent the applicants . PERSON was assigned to represent the second applicant , while PERSON was assigned to the first and third applicants . The first applicant agreed in writing that his interests be represented by lawyer PERSON

DATE the applicants were questioned separately as suspects in the presence of their lawyers . Furthermore , CARDINAL separate confrontations were held between the second applicant and the first and third applicants respectively , both in the presence of the lawyers . During his questioning and the above confrontations , the second applicant confirmed his earlier confession , while the other CARDINAL applicants denied their guilt and his account of events .

The applicants alleged that the above - mentioned lawyers had been invited to join the case by the investigators of ORG and their involvement in the case was merely a formality and amounted to the signing of records and other documents in order to create an appearance of lawfulness . The first applicant also alleged that he had never met with his lawyer in private , while the second applicant alleged that his lawyer , PERSON , had not been chosen by him and neither he nor his family had given their consent to the lawyer ’s participation in the case .

On DATE at an unspecified hour the officer on duty of the military police arrest facility drew up a record of examination of a person ’s body ( արձանագրություն անձին մարմնի զննության ենթարկելու մասին ) in respect of each applicant , which noted that he , together with CARDINAL deputy officers , CARDINAL attesting witnesses , PERSON K.A. ( male and female respectively ) , and the medical assistant on duty ( հերթապահ բուժակ ) , GPE , examined the applicants’ bodies and that “ nothing was detected on [ them ] ” . The time of the examinations was indicated as “ TIME ” , “ CARDINAL CARDINAL ” and “ TIME ” for the second , third and first applicants respectively . The respective records were signed by the applicants and everybody else involved . The Government alleged that these examinations had been carried out upon the applicants’ admission to the military police arrest facility .

On DATE the applicants were formally charged with murder under LAW . The applicants were questioned as accused in the presence of lawyers GPE and GPE It appears that DATE the first and third applicants dispensed with the services of lawyer GPE

On DATE third applicant was visited by his father and his cousin ’s husband , PERSON It appears that this visit took place in investigator ORG ’s office and lasted TIME .

On the same date investigator PERSON took a decision prohibiting the applicants from meeting with their relatives on the ground that it “ might obstruct the interests of the criminal investigation ” .

On DATE at an unspecified hour the GPE and ORG of GPE examined and granted the investigator ’s motions seeking to have the applicants detained on remand . It appears that the motions were presented at the hearings by the investigators dealing with the case , in the first applicant ’s case this being investigator PERSON The applicants were present at their respective hearings . It appears that the second applicant , who was represented by lawyer PERSON , admitted at the hearing that he and the others had beaten the CARDINAL fellow servicemen , but had no intention of killing them . It further appears that the first applicant was not represented at his hearing . The record of the hearing stated that lawyer PERSON had been duly notified but had failed to appear . The applicants’ detention was to be calculated from DATE and was valid for DATE .

On DATE the second applicant was taken to the crime scene in GPE for a reconstruction of the crime , which was videotaped .

On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant addressed a letter to ORG of GPE in which he retracted his confession , claiming that he and the other CARDINAL applicants had nothing to do with the murder . He submitted that he had made his confession because the investigator PERSON had informed him that his mother and younger brother had been arrested and were also held at ORG of GPE and had threatened that they would “ come to harm ” . The investigator further threatened that his younger brother would be assigned to perform his military service at the same military unit and would “ come to harm ” . The second applicant requested that he be questioned again .

On DATE a lawyer , GPE , was hired by the first applicant ’s family to represent his interests .

On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was questioned by investigators PERSON and PERSON in the presence of lawyer PERSON was asked questions about his letter of CARDINAL DATE , including whether it had been his idea to write that letter , why he had not written it earlier , whether it had been dictated to him , whether he stood by his allegations and why he had not retracted his confession earlier when he had other chances to do so . The second applicant again denied their involvement in the murder and repeated his allegation that he had made his confession since he had been told that his mother and younger brother had been arrested . In reply to the investigator ’s question about whether anyone had forced or coerced him into making the confession , the second applicant replied that no one had forced him . In reply to the investigator ’s question about why he had made a false confession , he replied that when he had told the truth the investigators refused to believe him .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE investigator PERSON informed the chief of the military police arrest facility that the first applicant ’s interests were represented by lawyer PERSON

On DATE the applicants were examined by a board of psychiatrists in order to evaluate whether they were competent to stand trial . They were found not to suffer from any mental health issues either at the time of the offence or at present .

On DATE the chief of the military police arrest facility instructed the staff of the facility that lawyer PERSON had been authorised to represent the first applicant . It appears that the lawyer was allowed to visit the first applicant at the facility . The first applicant alleged that , prior to his first meeting with lawyer PERSON , he had been deprived of any contact with the outside world and of any legal assistance .

On DATE first applicant addressed a complaint to various authorities , including ORG , ORG and the ORG , indicating the number of his criminal case and informing them of the following :

“ I , PERSON , and my CARDINAL conscript friends , PERSON and PERSON , are kept at a military police arrest facility and are falsely accused of a grave crime [ , namely ] the murder of [ servicemen PERSON and GPE ] .

On DATE I and PERSON were at a military outpost when PERSON received a call from the military unit and was told to come down because his parents had arrived . TIME I also received a call and was told that my parents had also arrived and was summoned to the military unit . I went down and was taken to the commander ’s office . In the corridor I saw PERSON who was standing hunched in the corner . There were CARDINAL unfamiliar persons in the office , CARDINAL of whom – as I later found out – were investigators [ ORG and GPE ] of ORG of GPE . Chief of ORG [ E.M. ] and Chief of ORG [ I. ] , whose last name I do not remember , were also present . The CARDINAL investigators , [ ORG and GPE ] , assaulted me , calling me a “ murderer ” , demanding that I tell with whom I had eaten on DATE , beating me and demanding that I explain how we murdered servicemen [ GPE and GPE ] . I was beaten so hard that my nose bled profusely . The Chief of ORG [ I. ] then helped me and took me to clean my nose . Thereafter I , PERSON and ORG were forced to put our T - shirts over our heads , placed in a car and taken away . We arrived in some place , which – as I later found out – was PERSON . I was taken to a room where I stayed with my T - shirt pulled over my head for TIME and from where I could hear PERSON ’s and PERSON ’s terrified voices and how they were beaten continuously for TIME . Then it was my turn . [ Investigator PERSON ] came to my room , started questioning me , saying that my friends had confessed that we had committed the murder , told me to write the same thing and intimidated me , saying that I would not last long and that I would get a life sentence . At that moment some PERSON entered the room and said that the deceased were his friend ’s children and if we did not write the truth – that we had killed them – he would take me out , kill me , throw me in a pit and say that it was the [ NORP ] who had killed me . Thereafter , again with our T - shirts over our heads , we were taken away ... and arrived in some place where I was taken to what appeared to be a police station where I was questioned from TIME to CARDINAL a.m. I was questioned , sworn at , beaten , threatened , persuaded and told to write that it was us who had killed [ GPE and GPE ] . They beat and threatened us for DATE , not even giving us water to drink . TIME I was taken down to FAC detention facility , where there were CARDINAL other persons ... I , PERSON and PERSON were kept in that facility until TIME DATE . PERSON and I were taken to GPE together by a senior lieutenant of the military police department . I realised that PERSON had been severely beaten since his face was covered with red and blue marks of blows . We spent TIME DATE in GPE on the LOC of the military police in а room of some supervised unit where we stayed for TIME . PERSON and PERSON were also there and were kept in separate rooms . DATE I was questioned in the same building and then taken to a confrontation with PERSON . When I saw PERSON , I could hardly recognise him since his entire face was swollen . I realised that he had been beaten and was extremely frightened of the investigators , which is why he gave false testimony .

I ask you to carry out an investigation and to find the real perpetrators ... ”

On DATE lawyer PERSON addressed another complaint to the same authorities , submitting that the applicants had been unlawfully arrested DATE without an arrest warrant and questioned on numerous occasions on suspicion of having committed a murder . The lawyer further complained in detail about the ill - treatment inflicted on the applicants during that period . She also complained that from DATE to the present the applicants , in violation of the law , had been kept at a military police arrest facility , despite their pre - trial detention having been ordered by the court decision of DATE . Thus , they were deprived of the protection offered by the justice system and were kept under the authority of the military police who were , moreover , working in close cooperation with ORG . She alleged , inter alia , a violation of ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .

By a letter of DATE ORG informed the first applicant and his lawyer , in reply to their complaints , that :

“ The first investigative measures involving [ the applicants ] were carried out on DATE at FAC where they were questioned as witnesses . Before the questioning they had been informed about the right not to testify against themselves ... guaranteed by LAW .

In order to clarify a number of discrepancies in their statements , on DATE [ the applicants ] were taken to ORG of ORG of GPE for the purpose of conducting confrontations and further questioning .

On DATE [ the second applicant ] , upon my instruction , was transferred to GPE as a witness in a criminal case , since I found it inexpedient for him to continue his military service at his military unit . In GPE he stayed in the barracks together with the servicemen entrusted with guarding the building of ORG of GPE .

[ The first and third applicants ] were transferred to GPE from PERSON on TIME CARDINAL - CARDINAL April and stayed , without being isolated , in the room envisaged for servicemen on duty of military unit no . DATE ...

On DATE [ the second applicant ] was questioned again as a witness and he was again informed about the requirements of LAW , which is confirmed by his signature under the record of the interview .

[ The applicants ] were arrested on DATE and were immediately provided with lawyers .

From the moment of their arrest all the investigative measures in respect of [ the applicants ] , such as questioning , confrontations , the arraignment , etc . , were carried out in the presence of their lawyers .

In compliance with [ the ORG ] the accused took part in the hearings concerning the imposition of detention , during which they did not make any statements about the ‘ illtreatment inflicted’ on them ...

The accused are kept in the military police arrest facility in accordance with ORG DATE to the Regulations for the Garrison and ORG .

A medical examination can be conducted in respect of [ the first applicant ] and the others if a relevant request is made . ”

On DATE the second applicant ’s lawyer PERSON filed a motion with ORG , challenging the impartiality of investigator PERSON and requesting that he be removed from the case . It appears that attached to this motion was a complaint by the second applicant , in which he alleged that the investigator and others had bullied and beaten him in PERSON and PERSON , as a result of which he had made a false confession . The lawyer requested that the persons mentioned in the second applicant ’s complaint be questioned .

On DATE ORG decided to reject the motion as unsubstantiated , finding that all the investigative measures involving the second applicant had been carried out in compliance with the rules of criminal procedure . From the moment of his arrest his lawyer had participated in all the investigative measures , except the reconstruction of CARDINAL DATE in which case the lawyer ’s absence had been voluntary . Most of the second applicant ’s interviews had been videotaped , which further proved that no ill - treatment had been inflicted on him . Moreover , at the detention hearing of DATE he had stated that his statements made at those interviews had been true . Following his complaint of CARDINAL DATE he had been additionally questioned upon his request and stated that he had not been forced to make any statements .

On DATE the first applicant ’s lawyer PERSON filed a similar motion with ORG , challenging the impartiality of investigators ORG and PERSON and requesting that they be removed from the case on the ground that they had , inter alia , ill - treated the applicants .

DATE . On DATE the third applicant ’s new lawyer , PERSON , filed a similar motion with ORG , challenging the impartiality of investigator PERSON and requesting that he be removed from the case on the ground that the investigator had , inter alia , ill - treated the third applicant in PERSON , including by administering blows to his head with the handle of his pistol .

On DATE the FAC and ORG of GPE examined and granted the investigator ’s motions seeking to extend until DATE the period of the applicants’ detention , which was to expire on DATE . The first applicant submitted at the court hearing that his and the second applicant ’s testimony had been given under duress .

On DATE ORG decided to reject the motion of DATE as unsubstantiated , finding that the first applicant had been questioned on DATE in compliance with all the rules of criminal procedure , including being informed about the right not to testify against himself guaranteed by LAW . No investigative measures involving the first applicant had been carried out on DATE . He was arrested on DATE and was immediately provided with a lawyer . Neither he nor the third applicant had complained about ill - treatment prior to a similar complaint made by the second applicant . The foregoing indicated that the allegations of illtreatment made by the accused and their lawyers were unsubstantiated , concocted and were aimed at justifying the accused , who were employing coordinated common tactics .

On DATE ORG rejected the third applicant ’s motion of DATE on similar grounds .

On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of DATE . In his appeal he complained in detail , inter alia , that he and the other applicants had been subjected to ill - treatment by investigator PERSON and other law enforcement officers . The first applicant also complained that he and the other applicants were unlawfully kept at a military police arrest facility .

On DATE and DATE the second applicant was questioned again . At the outset he was asked questions in connection with the allegations of illtreatment raised in his complaint of DATE , namely whether he had suffered any injuries and whether he still had any injuries . The second applicant stated that he had suffered only a swollen jaw , which healed in DATE , still being visible at the time of his arrest on DATE but not when he had appeared before a judge on DATE . Currently he had no injuries . The injury to his jaw had been inflicted at the office of the commander of the military unit in GPE on DATE by GPE , ORG , police officer PERSON and CARDINAL tall police officer from ORG . The same persons had continued to illtreat him at ORG in PERSON and ORG in PERSON , which made his kidneys hurt and lasted DATE . He had had no other injuries and nobody had ill - treated him following his transfer to GPE . When ill - treated , he was being ordered to tell the truth . He had made up the confession himself , without any outside interference . The second applicant was then asked a number of questions in connection with his allegations , including why he had made his confession in GPE if no ill - treatment had been inflicted on him there and why he had not raised his allegations of ill - treatment earlier . Lastly , a number of questions were posed about the events of DATE and the murder .

On DATE the investigation into the applicants’ criminal case was over .

On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal of DATE .

On DATE ORG addressed a letter to the chief of the military police arrest facility , stating that it was no longer necessary to keep the applicants at the arrest facility and requesting that they be transferred to PERSON pre - trial detention facility .

On DATE the applicants were transferred from the military police arrest facility to GPE pre - trial detention facility .

On DATE the first applicant was subjected to a medical examination at GPE pre - trial detention facility , with the following conclusion :

“ No fresh bodily injuries or traces of beatings have been disclosed . Skin and mucous membranes are of a normal colour . Vesicular respiration present in the lungs . Heart sounds [ ( illegible ) ] ... The abdomen is soft and pain free . There are no external symptoms of venereal disease . ”

Medical file no . CARDINAL was opened . On the front page of the medical file “ DATE ” was noted as the starting date of the first applicant ’s detention .

It appears that the second and third applicants were also subjected to medical examinations and no injuries were recorded .

On DATE ORG decided to reject another motion filed by the first applicant challenging the impartiality of both ORG and investigators ORG and GPE , on the ground that , inter alia , the allegations of ill - treatment had not been confirmed . No such allegations had been made by the applicants at the court hearings concerning their detention and they had jointly started raising such complaints only at DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Ombudsman informed ORG about the second applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . The Deputy Ombudsman further stated that the second applicant had been kept from DATE to DATE at a military police arrest facility in violation of the Law on ORG and Detainees and the Regulations for the Garrison and ORG . The Deputy ORG argued that , according to these legal acts , the second applicant should not have been kept at that facility for TIME after the court issued its decision to detain .

On DATE the Deputy Ombudsman was informed by ORG that the accused had been kept at the military police arrest facility on the basis of ORG DATE Garrison and ORG and had been transferred to ORG pretrial detention facility following the entry into force of the amendments to those Regulations adopted by the ORG on DATE and ratified by the President on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Ombudsman addressed a letter to ORG in connection with the first applicant ’s complaint of illtreatment . The Deputy Ombudsman pointed out that the above complaint had been transmitted to ORG , the authority whose actions were the subject of the complaint , and the criminal case continued to be dealt with by the same investigator who was alleged to have inflicted ill - treatment on the accused .

On DATE the first applicant made a written statement , declaring that he was going on a hunger strike in protest against the unlawful actions of the law enforcement authorities . He alleged that the charges against him and the others were trumped up and based on a coerced confession . Since all his complaints in this respect had remained unanswered , he wished to continue his protest with a hunger strike .

The following record was made in the first applicant ’s medical file :

“ Since DATE the patient has been on hunger strike and under constant medical observation ... ”

DATE . On DATE the first applicant and his lawyer were granted access to the case file .

By a letter of the same date the investigator informed the chief of ORG pre - trial detention facility about this and added that the first applicant ’s detention period was suspended pursuant to LAW ORG .

On DATE the first applicant ’s detention period , as extended by the decision of CARDINAL DATE of the ORG and ORG of GPE , expired .

On DATE the first applicant and his lawyer finished familiarising themselves with the materials of the case .

On DATE first applicant filed a motion with the investigator , arguing that from DATE there was no court decision authorising his detention and requesting that he be released .

On DATE the investigator decided to dismiss that motion , stating that , pursuant to LAW ORG , the detention period had been suspended on DATE when the first applicant was granted access to the case file , namely CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the first applicant ’s mother asked to be allowed to visit him in detention . She was worried about his health , as he was on hunger strike , but she was not allowed to see him .

On DATE the case file was transmitted by the Prosecutor to ORG , which sat in PERSON , PERSON .

DATE . On an unspecified date Judge PERSON of ORG decided to take over the case .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief of GPE pre - trial detention facility informed the first applicant that his detention period had been suspended in accordance with , inter alia , LAW ORG by the letter of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . The chief of the detention facility further stated that , according to ORG letter of DATE , as of that date the detention period had been accounted for by ORG .

On DATE the first applicant was transferred to ORG due to his general emaciation as a result of the hunger strike .

On DATE first applicant ’s lawyer addressed a letter to various public authorities , including the prosecutor in charge of the detention facilities and the Chief of ORG , complaining that the first applicant was unlawfully detained without a relevant court decision . She further submitted that the first applicant ’s state of health was critical and that no requisite medical assistance had been provided for him by the administration of GPE pre - trial detention facility during the entire hunger strike . The lawyer requested that the first applicant be released immediately .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Chief of ORG informed the lawyer that no visceral illnesses had been disclosed following the first applicant ’s objective inpatient examination , clinical and biochemical analyses of his blood and urine , and a number of instrumental examinations . There was therefore no need to administer medicine . The first applicant was under constant medical supervision due to his hunger strike and the resulting general emaciation of a minor degree .

On DATE the lawyer lodged similar requests with the GPE and ORG of GPE and ORG .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the first applicant ’s lawyer that he had not been released from detention by virtue of LAW of the ORG .

On DATE and DATE the lawyer again requested the ORG and ORG of GPE to release the first applicant . She also submitted that she had visited him on DATE at ORG . He had been lying in bed motionless and looked frail . She further alleged that the psychologist had told her that , if the first applicant continued to remain isolated on hunger strike , his life could be in serious danger . She lastly complained that he had been illtreated when questioned as a witness .

By a letter of DATE ORG informed the first applicant ’s lawyer that , in order to have the circumstances of the alleged unlawful methods of investigation examined , she had to apply to the authority dealing with the merits of the case . ORG was not , however , dealing with the merits of the first applicant ’s case .

On DATE the lawyer requested the administration of ORG to provide details of the treatment provided for the first applicant .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Chief of ORG informed her that the first applicant had undergone an examination and no visceral illnesses had been found . Due to his general emaciation , since DATE the first applicant had been receiving intravenous injections of PERCENT glucose and vitamins in order to sustain water and vitamin balance . In his current state of health the first applicant was fit to be transferred to a detention facility .

On DATE the first applicant was discharged from ORG and transported to PERSON , PERSON , to participate in the trial . According to the discharge summary :

“ [ The first applicant ] was taken to ORG on DATE in order to undergo an inpatient examination .

The detainee underwent a clinical and laboratory instrumental examination , as a result of which no symptoms of visceral illnesses were found . He was examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that he had no psychological disorders .

Taking into account his refusal to eat over a long period of time and the general emaciation of his organism , the detainee was injected with glucose and vitamins through a drip .

Since inpatient treatment is no longer necessary , the detainee is being discharged to remain under further medical supervision by the medical staff of the detention facility . ”

On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG decided to set the case down for trial and to fix the date of the first court hearing , which was to take place on an unspecified day in DATE . The judge stated in his decision that the first applicant ’s detention was to remain unchanged .

On DATE the first applicant ended his hunger strike .

On DATE the first applicant ’s lawyer applied to the Chief of the Nagorno Karabakh Remand Centre , claiming that the first applicant ’s state of health was unsatisfactory following his hunger strike and requesting that he be examined by a doctor . It is not clear whether there was any follow - up to this request .

In DATE the court hearings in the applicants’ criminal case commenced at ORG .

The second applicant submitted before ORG that on DATE he had been taken to the office of the military unit commander ORG The Chief of the ORG had also been present . The commander had started asking him questions about a parcel that he had received from his parents on DATE , including where and with whom he had eaten the food contained in that parcel . He had answered that he had eaten the food with the other CARDINAL applicants at the military unit , but the commander did not believe him . Thereafter investigators ORG and ORG and military police officers PERSON and PERSON had entered the office and started beating him and forcing him to admit that it was he and the other CARDINAL applicants who had killed the CARDINAL servicemen . Then the other CARDINAL applicants had been brought and subjected to beatings . The ill - treatment had continued at FAC and ORG . Not being able to stand the ill - treatment , he had had to come up with a false story , admitting his and the ORG guilt . Later on he had realised his mistake and asked to be questioned again , during which he retracted his earlier confession .

The first and third applicants submitted that they had been illtreated in similar circumstances .

ORG called and examined investigators PERSON , GPE and PERSON and military police officers PERSON and A.B.

Investigator PERSON submitted that he and the other members of the investigating team had arrived at the military unit near GPE on DATE . Upon his instructions the second applicant had been brought from the military outpost to the military unit , since it was necessary to find out where and with whom he had eaten the food contained in the parcel received from his parents . The first and third applicants were also later brought in for questioning . In order to verify the versions of events presented by the applicants , the latter had been transferred to PERSON and then to PERSON where further interviews were conducted . Thereafter the applicants had been transferred to GPE where the second applicant confessed to the crime .

Investigator PERSON and military police officers PERSON and PERSON made similar submissions .

Investigator PERSON submitted that he had questioned the second applicant at FAC but did not know about the outcome of that interview since investigator PERSON and military police officer PERSON had taken over and he had left .

The applicants submitted in reply that investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON and PERSON had ill - treated , beaten and threatened them .

ORG also called and examined Chiefs of the Third and ORG and ORG , cameraman ORG and an officer of military unit no . CARDINAL , ORG , who had been present at the reconstruction of the crime on DATE .

I.V. submitted that he had been present on and off during the applicants’ questioning on DATE but nobody had ill - treated them in his presence .

E.M. submitted that he had personally delivered the first applicant to the office of the military unit commander on DATE . The second applicant was already there . Thereafter the law enforcement officers had arrived and he had to leave . Nobody had ill - treated the applicants in his presence .

A.G. submitted that he had been present during the second applicant ’s questioning at FAC and no beatings or violence had been inflicted on the second applicant by investigators ORG and GPE or military police officer PERSON Nor did he notice any injuries on the second applicant or bloodstains on the floor .

M.A. submitted that he had been present during the reconstruction of the crime by the second applicant in DATE . The reconstruction had been filmed by investigator PERSON The second applicant had been calm and no illtreatment or violence had been inflicted on him .

On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of murder and sentenced them to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . This judgment was based , inter alia , on the second applicant ’s confession statement . As regards the applicants’ allegations of ill - treatment , ORG found them to be unsubstantiated on the following grounds . First , the applicants had not raised any such complaints during their questioning as witnesses on DATE , during their questioning as suspects and as accused and the CARDINAL confrontations which were held on CARDINAL and DATE in the presence of their lawyers , or during the reconstruction of the crime on CARDINAL DATE . Second , the second applicant had not raised such allegations even during his additional questioning on DATE and did so only in his motion of DATE , which was followed by similar motions filed by the first and third applicants on DATE , all of which were dismissed by ORG as unsubstantiated . Third , the fact that no ill - treatment had been inflicted on the applicants was confirmed by the submissions of law enforcement officers PERSON , GPE , PERSON and ORG and ORG officer M.A. ORG concluded that the motions filed by the applicants and their lawyers , challenging investigator PERSON ’s impartiality , and their allegations of ill - treatment , threats and psychological pressure were aimed at helping the applicants to avoid criminal responsibility .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG . In their appeal they complained in detail that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty from CARDINAL to DATE and subjected to ill - treatment during that entire period . They further complained that the authorities had failed to investigate their allegations of ill - treatment in violation of LAW . Moreover , instead of ordering the institution of criminal proceedings , ORG decided to call and examine the alleged perpetrators as witnesses and to rely on their statements in justifying the conviction .

On an unspecified date , the proceedings commenced in the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal . The applicants repeated in detail their allegations of ill - treatment before ORG . They also added that at the time of their admission to the military police arrest facility in GPE they had various bodily injuries , including an injured jaw , a bruised eye and a bruised back . They were stripped and examined , but the member of the medical staff who had drawn up the relevant records did not note those injuries . They had signed the records drawn up as a result of these examinations without reading them .

NORP In this connection the Court of Appeal called and questioned medical assistant GPE who had participated in the examination of the applicants’ bodies at the military police arrest facility . GPE submitted that the applicants had been admitted to the arrest facility when he was on duty . They had been examined in the presence of witnesses and no bodily injuries had been found . Appropriate records had been drawn up , which were signed also by the applicants . GPE further submitted that it was impossible for him to fail to record any injuries found , since he would be held personally responsible for such an omission . Nor was it possible for the second applicant to have had an injured jaw , since that was a serious injury which he could not have overlooked .

On DATE , while their case was still being examined by ORG , the applicants lodged another complaint with ORG , alleging in detail that they had been deprived of their liberty from DATE and subjected to ill - treatment for the purpose of coercing a confession . They indicated investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON as the perpetrators and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against them . The applicants alleged , in particular , that as a result of ill - treatment the second applicant had an injured jaw , the first applicant had a bleeding nose and the third applicant was beaten up and had dirty clothes , having been thrown to the floor and repeatedly kicked . Furthermore , the second applicant was stripped , leaned against the wall and threatened that , if he refused to confess , he would be raped with a club . Thereafter , he was forced to hang on a rod placed on chairs and was threatened with clubs and weapons . When being beaten during his questioning in the office of the chief of ORG , a large amount of blood dripped from the second applicant ’s nose onto the floor and he was ordered to lick it off . The applicants finally alleged that they had been kept unlawfully at the military police arrest facility until DATE in order to be subjected to further threats and abuse .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicants that , during the court examination of the criminal case against them , ORG , guided by LAW ORG , had taken the necessary measures to verify the statements alleging that they had been subjected by the investigators to coercion during the investigation , and found them to be unsubstantiated in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with the GPE and ORG of GPE under LAW ORG , complaining that ORG , by relying on the examination carried out by ORG , was refusing to institute criminal proceedings . However , ORG was not competent to carry out examinations outside the scope of the criminal case before it . The alleged perpetrators were not involved as accused and appeared before ORG only as witnesses . In order to carry out an effective investigation of the allegations of ill - treatment , it was necessary to institute criminal proceedings under LAW ORG . They requested ORG to oblige ORG to institute such proceedings .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE dismissed the complaint , finding that ORG reply was in conformity with the law and did not violate the applicants’ rights . ORG stated , in particular , that complaints alleging a violation of lawfulness in the course of criminal proceedings , pursuant to LAW ORG , were to be thoroughly examined by the authority dealing with the merits of the case , while statements about a crime made during a court hearing , pursuant to LAW ORG , were to be entered into the record of the court hearing .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal , raising similar arguments to those in their complaint of DATE .

On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal upheld the decision of ORG , finding that the applicants’ allegations of ill - treatment had been examined during the proceedings before ORG and the evidence obtained was evaluated in the ensuing judgment . The case was currently being examined on the merits by the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal , which was not constrained by the appeal and was competent to examine the full scope of the case , including any new evidence . The ORG argument that ORG and ORG were not competent to conduct proceedings in respect of persons who had not been involved as accused was incorrect , since the courts , in adopting their judgments , were obliged under the criminal procedure law to verify and assess whether the evidence obtained was admissible and relevant and whether or not it had been obtained through violence , threats and other unlawful actions of the police officers as alleged in the ORG appeal . Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG , the courts , based on the materials of a case examined by them , were entitled to request that the prosecutor adopt a decision instituting criminal proceedings against third persons . Since the case was currently pending before ORG , the ORG appeal was to be dismissed .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law , raising similar arguments . They also claimed that their procedural rights had been violated since the authorities refused to comply with the requirements of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal issued its judgment on the merits of the NORP criminal case . It found the applicants guilty and increased their sentences to life imprisonment . ORG relied , inter alia , on the second applicant ’s confession statement . As regards the applicants’ allegations of ill - treatment , ORG found them to be unsubstantiated . In doing so , ORG first of all referred to the submissions made before ORG by law enforcement officers PERSON , GPE , PERSON and ORG and ORG officer ORG and cameraman ORG further referred to the video recording of the reconstruction of the crime , which did not reveal any bodily injuries on the second applicant , who moved and talked freely , and the records of examination of a person ’s body drawn up at the military police arrest facility on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to leave the appeal of DATE unexamined . It found , in particular , that the applicants had brought a complaint under LAW ORG against the prosecutor ’s actions related to the pre - trial proceedings . However , since ORG was the supreme judicial instance and was called upon , pursuant to LAW , to ensure the uniform application of the law , its constitutional status prevented it from examining appeals against decisions and actions of the prosecutor related to the pre - trial proceedings . Such appeals might be examined by ORG in exceptional circumstances , if they raised an issue of high importance for judicial practice . In such circumstances , the appeal was to be left unexamined since it was brought against a decision which was not subject to appeal in cassation .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal of CARDINAL DATE .

On an unspecified date , the father of CARDINAL of the murdered servicemen , in his capacity of victim , also lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment . In his appeal he complained that the criminal case had been conducted with procedural violations , as a result of which CARDINAL innocent servicemen had been found guilty , while the real perpetrators were never brought to justice .

On DATE ORG returned the ORG appeal , requesting them to correct a shortcoming and to re - submit the appeal in accordance with the newly - adopted amendments to the ORG .

On DATE the first and second applicants resubmitted their appeals , seeking to have their conviction quashed and to be acquitted . It appears that on an unspecified date the third applicant also followed suit . The applicants complained in detail that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty from DATE and subjected to illtreatment during that period . They further complained that the authorities had failed to investigate their allegations of ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG decided to admit the applicants’ appeals for examination . On an unspecified date the victim ’s appeal was also admitted for examination .

NORP On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicants’ duly the statements of the defence concerning the applicants’ innocence and the existence of exonerating evidence , as well as their allegations of a violation of lawfulness in the course of the proceedings . In such circumstances , the applicants’ appeals seeking an acquittal could not be granted , since it was necessary to carry out a further investigation into the case .

As regards , in particular , the second applicant ’s confession statement , ORG found that this statement was not supported by other objective evidence in the case . Furthermore , the second applicant had retracted his statement , alleging that he had given it as a result of fear , violence and torture . It was therefore necessary to verify the credibility of the second applicant ’s confession statement .

As regards the question of the applicants’ deprivation of liberty and their allegations of ill - treatment , ORG stated :

“ It follows from the materials of the case that [ the applicants ] were detained on DATE . It was indicated in the appeals on points of law that for DATE [ the applicants ] , having the status of a witness , had been subjected to violence , torture and inhuman treatment , as a result of which a confession statement was extorted from [ the second applicant ] .

Pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE of the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL , [ the third applicant ] was ‘ considered to be PERSON by ORG and was deprived of his DATE allowance on the basis of ORG .

Pursuant to Paragraph CARDINAL of the same Order , [ the second and first applicants ] , who were on military watch , were considered to be ‘ isolated by FAC and were deprived of their DATE allowances on the basis of Isolation Notices N-CARDINAL and ORG .

In the course of the further investigation it is necessary to clarify what it means ‘ to consider’ the said soldiers ‘ to be isolated by FAC on the basis of isolation notices and what is the substance of such isolation . Has it not led to unlawful restrictions and deprivation of liberty not inherent in measures normally applied in the armed forces ?

It is also necessary to verify in detail the arguments raised in the appeals lodged by the defence concerning the infliction of violence on [ the applicants ] and subjecting them to torture during DATE . ”

ORG also decided to annul the preventive measure and to release the applicants from detention .

On DATE the investigation into the applicants’ criminal case was assigned to another investigator of ORG , V.S. An investigator of ORG of GPE , GPE , was appointed as his assistant .

On DATE the applicants appeared for questioning in their capacity of accused but refused to testify , stating that they considered themselves to be victims rather than accused . They stated that they would be willing to testify in connection with their allegations of torture if a separate criminal case was instituted and they were recognised as victims .

On the same date lawyer PERSON , who at that point was representing all CARDINAL applicants , challenged the impartiality of employees of ORG , alleging that they were incapable of carrying out an objective investigation , which was evidenced by all the unlawfulness demonstrated earlier in the case , and requesting that they be removed from the investigation . This challenge was dismissed by ORG as unfounded .

On DATE lawyer PERSON filed a motion with ORG requesting that a separate criminal case be instituted . She argued that the criminal case in question had been instituted on account of murder and the applicants were involved as accused . It was not possible to carry out an investigation into allegations of torture within the scope of that criminal case . The applicants had consistently complained for DATE about the torture that they had undergone , and indicated the names of the perpetrators , but the authorities refused to make a proper assessment of their allegations .

On DATE investigator ORG rejected the motion , finding that not every report of a crime was sufficient in itself to institute criminal proceedings . Sufficient materials had not yet been obtained to adopt such a decision .

In DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of persons , including investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the commander of the applicants’ military unit , GPE , CARDINAL military police officers of ORG and CARDINAL officer of the Nagorno ORG who had transported the applicants from PERSON to GPE , lawyers GPE and GPE , and the third applicant ’s cousin ’s husband , PERSON , who had visited him in detention together with his father on DATE .

Investigators PERSON and GPE provided their account of the events and denied having ill - treated the applicants . The transcripts of their interviews , including the questions and answers , contained texts which were word - for - word duplicates . Military police officers PERSON and A.B. similarly denied having ill - treated the applicants . Military police officer PERSON stated that he had been absent from LOC during the period when the applicants were taken there and he had never encountered them . Commander of the military unit PERSON stated that on DATE he had imposed disciplinary detention on the applicants because of their unauthorised absence from the unit and ordered that they serve it at FAC . He did not know what questions had been posed to the applicants by the investigators in his office because this had been done in private . No violence had been inflicted in his presence . The officers who had transported the applicants stated that the applicants had not been handcuffed and no violence had been inflicted on them during their transfer . They had not noticed any bodily injuries and the applicants had not complained about their health .

Lawyers M.A. and GPE stated that on DATE they had received telephone calls from investigator PERSON who had invited them to ORG to take up the applicants’ defence , since a lawyer ’s participation was mandatory in cases involving servicemen . They were presented to the second applicant , who was asked to choose between them , so he chose lawyer ORG stated that , from that moment , he participated in all the interviews and confrontations involving the second applicant . On DATE he met with his parents and signed a contract . Lawyer PERSON stated that he had represented the first and third applicants until DATE . On DATE he met with the first and third applicants’ parents , who did not wish him to continue representing them . Both lawyers stated that they had not noticed any injuries on the applicants , no illtreatment had been inflicted on the applicants in their presence , no complaints of ill - treatment had been made by the applicants nor any pressure exerted on them by the investigator . Lawyer PERSON added that the second applicant did not raise his allegations of ill - treatment until DATE when they met in private at the military police arrest facility . He then advised the second applicant to lodge a complaint with ORG .

PERSON stated that on DATE the third applicant ’s father had told him that his son had been taken to ORG . Since he was acquainted with investigator PERSON , who lived in his neighbourhood , he promised to find out the reasons for the third applicant ’s arrest . On DATE he had bumped into ORG in the yard and introduced him to the third applicant ’s father . They inquired about the reasons for his arrest , to which ORG had replied that he was investigating a murder case and the third applicant had been arrested in that connection . They had further asked PERSON to give them a possibility to visit the third applicant for TIME , to which ORG replied that on DATE he was going to carry out some investigative measures involving the third applicant at ORG and he could allow them to see him for TIME . On DATE they had gone to ORG and met with the third applicant for TIME in PERSON ’s office . In reply to the investigator ’s question as to whether he had seen any injuries on the third applicant or received from him any complaints of ill - treatment , PERSON stated that he had not noticed any injuries or received such complaints . Furthermore , since the investigator had left them alone for TIME , the third applicant , in his opinion , would at least have told his father about any ill - treatment .

On DATE the investigator decided to order a forensic medical examination in respect of the applicants . The experts were requested to answer the following questions : ( a ) whether there had been or were any injuries on the applicants’ bodies and , if so , what was their origin ; ( b ) if so , whether they could have originated during the period from DATE and not be visible DATE , namely on DATE ; and ( c ) whether the applicants suffered from any illness and , if so , whether it had been caused by the alleged ill - treatment .

On DATE the forensic medical experts produced their conclusions . They found that , according to the applicants’ medical files , they did not have any injuries or suffer from any illnesses at the material time . It was not possible to determine whether the applicants had any injuries or illnesses at present since they had failed to appear for the examination . The experts added that skin , bone and joint injuries , such as wounds , bruises , scratches , fractures and dislocated joints , were usually visible after DATE .

On DATE the Acting General Prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of illtreatment for lack of a criminal act . This decision referred at the outset to the instructions of ORG to investigate the circumstances of the applicants’ alleged deprivation of liberty prior to DATE and their ill - treatment . As regards the deprivation of liberty , it was found to have been a lawful disciplinary measure imposed by the commander of the military unit within the scope of authority vested in him . It was further found that the investigating team had the right to interview the applicants as witnesses and they had been transferred for that purpose . At ORG they were placed in a disciplinary isolation cell and continued to be questioned , but later it was necessary to transfer them to GPE for the purposes of the investigation . There the second applicant had made his confession , after which the applicants were arrested . Lawyers were assigned to them and they were detained by a court decision of CARDINAL DATE . In such circumstances , the ORG allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty and ill - treatment had been rebutted by the evidence collected in the case .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against this decision . They complained in detail that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty from DATE in the guise of witnesses , while already being suspected of the crime . This had been done in order to deprive them of the safeguards enjoyed by a suspect under the law , such as the right to have a lawyer and the right not to testify , and to coerce them into making a confession . They had never been summoned to appear as witnesses as required by law but instead were forcibly taken from their military unit and transported miles away from CARDINAL law enforcement agency to another where they were kept in various rooms and cells and subjected to repeated illtreatment . There had been no reasonable suspicion to justify depriving them of their liberty and they had been arrested only once the confession had been secured through coercion . They had then been placed in the military police arrest facility where the investigators continued exerting pressure , and in order to hide any traces of ill - treatment . They had not been informed about the reasons for their deprivation of liberty and were brought before a judge with a delay of DATE . The decision of ORG had been unlawful and unfounded . He was obliged by law to institute a separate set of criminal proceedings on account of illtreatment , to recognise them as victims and , after carrying out an investigation , to give a proper assessment to the questions raised by ORG in its decision of DATE . For DATE they had consistently raised their allegations of ill - treatment and indicated the names of the perpetrators but no effective investigation had ever been carried out . The applicants relied , inter alia , on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE decided to dismiss the appeal . The decision reads as follows :

“ Having studied the appeal and the materials of the criminal case , the court finds that the contested actions were taken in compliance with the law and there has been no violation of a person ’s rights or freedoms . ”

No appeal was lodged against this decision .

On DATE ORG decided to institute criminal proceedings to investigate whether the fact that the starting date of the first applicant ’s detention was indicated in his medical file as “ DATE ” amounted to falsification of an official document . A number of persons were questioned and it was revealed that the note in question had been made by mistake by the head of the medical service based on the first applicant ’s oral statement . For this reason it was decided to terminate the criminal proceedings for lack of a criminal act .

On an unspecified date the ORG trial resumed in ORG . According to the applicants , a number of former servicemen of their military unit and also a few civilians testified during the trial that they had been locked up during various periods at DATE at FAC and ORG and questioned in connection with the murders . Many of them stated that they had been humiliated and brutally illtreated during those periods in order to confess to the crime .

On DATE ORG , having heard numerous witnesses and examined the available evidence , found that the applicants’ guilt had not been substantiated and decided to acquit them . It appears that no appeals were lodged against this judgment .