No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Mr PERSON , the applicant ’s husband , was a prominent independent journalist in GPE . At the time of the events he worked as the editor - in - chief of the DATE magazine ORG , which was strongly critical of the Government as well as the opposition . He had also been the owner of the magazine since DATE and wrote analytical and investigative articles for each edition under his own name .

Various civil and criminal proceedings had been brought against PERSON PERSON since the beginning of his journalistic activity for the publication of critical articles about the President of GPE and members of his family , and about members of the parliament , Government and other ORG officials . In total , CARDINAL proceedings were instituted against him by various public officials . Moreover , copies of the magazine had been confiscated on several occasions and the domestic authorities sometimes prevented its publication .

According to the applicant , her husband regularly received threats because of his critical articles . In particular , in DATE a police officer had threatened him with death and told him to stop writing about the President and his family .

At TIME on DATE , Mr PERSON was shot dead on the third floor of his apartment building as he returned home from work .

Mr PERSON ’s murder received wide local and international media coverage and was unanimously condemned by various politicians , international organisations , and local and international NGOs .

NORP On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under Articles CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( murder ) and CARDINAL ( illegal possession of weapons ) of LAW by ORG ( “ the SCD ” ) of ORG .

On DATE a record relating to the inspection of the scene of the crime and the examination of the body ( hadisə yerinə və meyitə baxış keçirilməsi haqqında protokol ) was drawn up . It appears from the record that CARDINAL bullet and CARDINAL cartridges were found at the crime scene and that CARDINAL bullets were removed from the body .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the case ordered a post - mortem examination of the body , which was carried out on DATE . Report no . CARDINAL dated DATE showed that death had resulted from bleeding caused by gunshot wounds . The expert also found that death was likely to have occurred TIME after the injuries had been sustained .

On DATE a pistol with a silencer and a knitted hat were found near the crime scene . On DATE the investigator ordered forensic medical , ballistic and chemical trace examinations of the pistol and silencer , the bullets , the cartridges , the victim ’s hair and nails , and the clothes that he had been wearing on DATE . Report no . CARDINAL , dated DATE , concluded that the pistol in question was a ORG pistol that had been produced in DATE in GPE and that it had been used in the murder .

Still on DATE the investigator asked a telecommunications company to provide details on any mobile telephones that had been used near the scene of the crime between TIME and TIME on DATE .

On DATE ORG , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) issued a joint statement officially informing the public of the institution of criminal proceedings in connection with the murder of the applicant ’s husband .

On DATE the crime scene was again inspected by the investigator .

On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant as a witness in connection with her husband ’s murder . She stated that she had not seen the killer , but that from DATE a person , who had introduced himself as PERSON , had come to their flat on several occasions and asked for a meeting with her husband . He had always arrived when her husband had been absent and had asked various questions about his whereabouts and working hours . The applicant further stated that she could not say who had murdered her husband , but she was sure that he had been murdered because of his journalistic activity .

On DATE a photofit picture of the person who had introduced himself as PERSON was compiled on the basis of the applicant ’s statements .

On DATE the investigator arranged an identity parade in the presence of the applicant . However , she could not identify the man who had called himself Vusal among the people who took part in the identity parade .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .

Further to various requests sent in DATE to the NORP authorities concerning the pistol found at the crime scene , the NORP authorities confirmed that the pistol in question had been produced in GPE as a gas pistol and had then been exported to GPE on the basis of a contract with a NORP company . It further appears from a letter , dated DATE and signed by the NORP Deputy Minister of ORG , that there was no record on the buyer of the pistol after its import to GPE because NORP legislation did not provide for such records for the buying and selling of gas pistols .

In the meantime , the prosecuting authorities identified CARDINAL mobile telephone numbers which had allegedly been used by the perpetrators of the murder . On DATE T.B. , an NORP national , was charged under LAW ( use of false documents ) as he had purchased the mobile telephone numbers in a mobile telephone shop in GPE by giving false information about his identity . During questioning , PERSON stated that on DATE he had bought the numbers at the request of GPE and ORG , who had asked him to obtain a telephone number registered in someone else ’s name . He further stated that he knew the men from GPE where he was born and they had told him that they were in GPE on business . It appears from the documents in the case file that in DATE ORG found PERSON guilty under LAW and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the Prosecutor General reclassified the criminal case under Articles CARDINAL ( acts of terror ) and CARDINAL ( illegal possession of weapons ) of LAW and decided to hand the investigation over to the MNS .

On DATE the investigator in the case showed the applicant CARDINAL photographs in order to try to identify the person who had introduced himself as PERSON . The applicant identified the individual in photograph no . CARDINAL as that person .

On DATE the investigator charged GPE , a NORP national , under the aforementioned ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL and issued a warrant for his arrest . It appears from the investigator ’s decision that GPE was suspected of being involved in the murder and had been identified as the person calling himself PERSON .

On DATE ORG , the ORG and the ORG issued a joint statement that GPE had been identified as the person involved in the murder . The statement also noted that GPE had left the country immediately after the murder and that an arrest warrant had been issued . It also indicated that GPE had been identified by the applicant as the person who had introduced himself as PERSON before the murder . Lastly , the statement pointed out that the investigation was being carried out in collaboration with ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) and GPE ’s ORG .

It appears from the case file that on CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned GPE ’s sister and son , who resided in GPE .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the investigator ordered a new ballistic and chemical examination of the pistol and silencer found at the scene of the crime . The investigator noted that although the examination of DATE had concluded that the pistol was a ORG firearm produced in DATE in GPE , the material collected during the investigation had revealed that the pistol had not been produced as a regular firearm but as a gas pistol that had subsequently been modified . On DATE a panel composed of CARDINAL experts issued report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the new ballistic and chemical examination of the pistol and the silencer . The experts reiterated the findings of DATE report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , concluding that the pistol had been produced as a firearm and had not been modified .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned the applicant about a suspicious person that she had seen in their building in DATE .

On DATE ORG , the ORG and the ORG issued a new statement , informing the public that ORG , a NORP national , had been identified as another suspect . The statement said that a warrant for his arrest had been issued .

It appears from a letter dated DATE , signed by the head of ORG of ORG , that notices relating to GPE and ORG had gone out via ORG .

The case file shows that in DATE and DATE the investigating authorities submitted hair samples to the ORG for a trace evidence examination . They were taken from the hat found near the scene of the crime and from pillowcases found in the flat that GPE and ORG had rented in GPE . The results of the examination revealed that some fibres found on the hat and pillowcases had the same microscopic characteristics and optical properties , consistent with them having come from the same source .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the ORG asking for information concerning the progress of the investigation . In particular , she noted that although she had been recognised as a victim , the investigating authorities had failed to share any information on the investigation with her .

It can be seen in a document dated DATE , signed by the investigator , that he informed the applicant by telephone about the investigation . In particular , he informed her that various investigative actions had been conducted , that GPE and ORG had been identified as the perpetrators of the murder , that an international warrant for their arrest had been issued and that some forensic examinations had been carried out by the ORG .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and the MNS issued joint statements on the forensic examinations carried out in GPE . They stated that the results of the examinations had confirmed that GPE and ORG were directly involved in the murder .

In the meantime , on DATE and DATE the NORP authorities asked the NORP authorities to extradite GPE and ORG

By a letter of DATE , signed by ORG , the NORP authorities refused to extradite GPE and ORG on the grounds that as they were NORP nationals they could not be extradited to a foreign country . However , relying on ORG of DATE and the LAW between GPE and GPE on ORG relations in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the Deputy Prosecutor General stated in the same letter that the NORP authorities undertook to institute criminal proceedings against its CARDINAL nationals at the request of the NORP authorities in case of the transfer of the criminal case to the NORP authorities .

NORP By CARDINAL separate letters , dated DATE , ORG again asked his NORP counterpart for the arrest and extradition of GPE and T.A. The Prosecutor General also asked the NORP authorities to provide legal assistance to the NORP authorities by allowing CARDINAL NORP investigators to conduct investigative actions on NORP soil .

In DATE and DATE the NORP authorities conducted various investigative actions at the request of their NORP counterparts . In particular , on DATE CARDINAL flats in GPE were searched and various people were questioned in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted in GPE .

On DATE the investigator showed various photographs to the applicant for identification . Although the applicant stated that she had seen CARDINAL of the people on the photographs somewhere before , she could not remember more details about them .

On DATE and DATE the investigator questioned the applicant about her neighbours and the clothes worn by the man who called himself PERSON .

On DATE the applicant again wrote to the ORG , asking for an effective investigation into the murder of her husband . She further asked the investigating authorities to provide her with information about the progress of the investigation .

On DATE and DATE the investigator ordered further ballistic and trace evidence examinations , in particular asking the experts to compare the pistol found at the scene of the crime with another pistol found in a different murder case . The experts’ reports , dated DATE and DATE , concluded that the pistol found at the scene of the murder of the applicant ’s husband had not been used in the commission of the other murder .

According to the applicant , she was threatened after her husband ’s murder because she said that the domestic authorities had been involved . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant left GPE for GPE , where she was granted asylum .

On DATE the investigator questioned a cousin of GPE who resided in GPE .

On DATE the investigator again questioned the sister of GPE who resided in GPE .

DATE . On DATE the investigator carried out a reconstruction of the murder . In particular , the investigator retraced the path the applicant ’s husband had taken from his workplace to where he had been murdered .

In DATE and DATE , in DATE , DATE and DATE and in DATE the NORP authorities conducted various investigative actions at the request of their NORP counterparts . In particular , by a letter of DATE ORG informed the NORP authorities that the NORP prosecuting authorities had questioned ORG , who had used his right to remain silent . In that connection , it appears from the record of the questioning , which took place on DATE , that ORG invoked his right to remain silent , stated that he did not consider himself guilty and that he had no confidence in the investigation conducted by the NORP authorities . The NORP prosecuting authorities also informed their NORP counterparts by the same letter that they could not conduct any investigative actions in respect of GPE as it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s NORP lawyer asked the MNS to provide the applicant with information about the progress of the investigation . In particular , the lawyer pointed out that although DATE had elapsed since the institution of criminal proceedings , the applicant had still not been informed about the progress of the investigation or the decisions that had been taken . He further asked the investigating authorities to allow the applicant to familiarise herself with the criminal case file and to provide her with copies of the relevant documents .

By a letter of DATE , signed by the head of the investigation department of the ORG , the ORG informed the lawyer that the applicant had been informed orally about the progress of the investigation . It was further stated that in accordance with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the applicant had the right to familiarise herself with the case file and obtain copies of documents only when the preliminary investigation was over . The letter also said that the NORP authorities had asked the NORP authorities to extradite the murderers and were continuing to take the necessary steps to achieve that goal . Lastly , it was noted that members of the investigative group had been sent to GPE several times and that the investigation was ongoing .

On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) about the whereabouts of GPE and ORG It appears from the record of the questioning that PERSON stated that he had not seen them since his release from detention on DATE and that he had no information about their whereabouts .

By a letter dated DATE ORG of ORG informed the head of the investigation department of the ORG that GPE and ORG were not registered as being in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s NORP lawyer and ORG wrote to ORG and the ORG asking for the documents relating to the criminal investigation of the murder of the applicant ’s husband .

By a letter of DATE the ORG informed the applicant ’s NORP lawyer that as he was not a member of ORG and had failed to submit a notarised power of attorney , he could not obtain copies of the documents . Relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the letter also stated that a victim or his or her representative could only have access to a case file and the relevant documents following the termination of the preliminary investigation . The letter also informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the criminal investigation was still ongoing .

On DATE the applicant herself wrote to the ORG , reiterating her previous requests . In particular , she asked the investigating authorities to provide her with the documents relating to the investigation , to inform her of the progress of the investigation and of the date when the investigation would end .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the applicant that her request for access to the case file had been examined . However , in accordance with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW a victim or her representative could only have access to the case file and the relevant documents after the termination of the preliminary investigation . The letter , which was CARDINAL pages long , contained a detailed summary of the investigative steps conducted from the institution of criminal proceedings until DATE . It stated that the investigation had identified GPE and ORG as the perpetrators of the murder and that any information received relating to the possible involvement of various people in the crime had been examined . In that connection , the letter referred to allegations submitted to the investigating authority in DATE and DATE by people arrested in connection with other criminal cases , as well as information revealed by various journalists and NGO activists in DATE and DATE about the identity of GPE and ORG However , the investigation had not substantiated any of those allegations . The letter also stated that the preliminary investigation was still ongoing and had been extended until DATE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG in GPE informed the head of the investigation department of the ORG that ORG was living in GPE in GPE . However , his extradition had been refused by the NORP authorities on the grounds that he was a NORP national . The information was based on a letter dated DATE from ORG of ORG to ORG of ORG .

At the time of the most recent communication with the parties on CARDINAL DATE , when the last observations were filed by ORG , the criminal proceedings were still ongoing .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE . He is serving a life sentence in prison .

According to an extract from the register of convictions provided by the ORG , the applicant had CARDINAL criminal convictions and CARDINAL misdemeanour punishment on record . He was serving a life sentence on the basis of his conviction in DATE for the murder of CARDINAL people and attempted manslaughter of another person . Furthermore , he had several convictions for attacking prison officers and other prisoners . In addition , a large number of disciplinary punishments had been imposed on him in prison , including for disobeying orders of and threatening prison officers . In the individual action plans ( kinnipeetava individuaalne täitmiskava ) drawn up in FAC and in FAC , the applicant was characterised as a dangerous person lacking in self - control and capable of physically attacking others .

On DATE the applicant was informed by prison guard ORG that he would be transferred to a punishment cell in the evening in order to serve a disciplinary punishment . The applicant was dissatisfied , as he had been led to understand that he would not have to serve the punishment in question until the resolution by the Chancellor of Justice ( Õiguskantsler ) of his complaint related to the matter . He said that he would not gather his belongings until he could clarify the situation with a security officer . PERSON told him that if he continued to object to going to the punishment cell , he would be taken there by force . The applicant replied that he would defend himself if unlawfully attacked .

At TIME , together with CARDINAL further guards , GPE and ORG , went to the applicant ’s cell . ORG had a plastic shield and GPE and ORG wore flak jackets and helmets . PERSON moved towards the applicant , keeping the shield in front of him . GPE and ORG followed him .

According to the applicant , PERSON came up to him and pressed the shield into his chest while the CARDINAL other guards added pressure from behind . The applicant tried to push back against the shield , while GPE and ORG tried to grab his hands . Then ORG let the shield fall and tried to grab the applicant ’s neck . The guards twisted his arms behind his back and ordered him to lie down on the floor . The applicant was brought down and PERSON pressed his neck so strongly that he lost his breath . According to the applicant , PERSON pinched his nose with his fingers , covered his mouth with his palm , pressed his knee into his neck and poked him in the eyes with CARDINAL fingers . While on the floor , the applicant was handcuffed and kicked in the ribs so hard that he felt his left rib cracking . He was then raised up and escorted to the punishment cell . In the corridor the applicant lost his breath , cried that he could not breathe and asked for permission to straighten up but the guards pressed him down and continued on their way .

According to the prison guards , the applicant attempted to hit them and had a scuffle with ORG , in the course of which the latter sustained minor injuries . They denied having kicked or strangled the applicant and submitted that he had subsequently threatened to kill them CARDINAL by CARDINAL .

In the punishment cell , CARDINAL nurses came to examine the applicant . They suspected a broken rib and told him to lie still until an X - ray image was taken ( for the medical evidence in the case , see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) . A guard told them that a medical certificate was required to keep a mattress in the punishment cell around the clock . According to the applicant a nurse confirmed that such a certificate would be drawn up .

At TIME guard OV entered the applicant ’s cell and told him to hand in the mattress . The applicant explained that the nurses had drawn up a certificate stating that he needed the mattress around the clock because his rib was broken . The guard left .

At TIME guards ORG , ORG , ORG and OV came to the applicant ’s cell and told him to hand in the mattress . They had a discussion of some length , in the course of which the applicant requested that senior duty officer ORG be called . Guard ORG warned the applicant that force would be used if necessary . According to the statements of ORG given in the subsequent criminal proceedings , the applicant threatened to kill them . The guards left and returned after TIME . According to the Government the guards had in the meantime checked with the medical service that the applicant had not in fact been authorised to keep the mattress in the punishment cell .

At around TIME CARDINAL guards arrived at the applicant ’s cell . ORG and ORG entered , CARDINAL further guards remained in the corridor or stood at the door to the cell .

According to the applicant , ORG came up to him , grabbed his left hand and told him that they were going to take the mattress from him . The applicant pulled his hand away and VG – unexpectedly and without any notice – sprayed pepper spray in his face while ORG was attempting to twist his arm . The applicant ran out of the cell into the corridor , covering his face with his hands . Several guards attacked him from behind and he was forced down on the floor . He was repeatedly hit on the back after handcuffs had been put on him . After the applicant shouted that he could not breathe ORG struck him a couple more times . He was then raised up off the floor , bent down and guided to the security room . According to the applicant , he fainted several times on the way because his injured rib caused him serious pain when being bent down .

The Government relied on the statements of the prison guards given in the subsequent criminal proceedings . All CARDINAL prison guards present were interviewed in the criminal proceedings , either as suspects or witnesses . According to ORG and ORG , the applicant pushed ORG when he attempted to take the mattress . Then ORG used pepper spray . According to the statements of the guards , the applicant resisted strongly and was forced down on the floor in the corridor . According to ORG , he struck the applicant , who was on all fours , CARDINAL times with a telescopic baton in order to overcome his resistance and handcuff him . ORG and ORG were unable to give details about the blows inflicted by ORG . Nor was OV initially able to provide such details , but at a second interview he stated that by the time he closed the handcuffs , the applicant had not yet been hit with the telescopic baton . ORG thought that the applicant had probably been handcuffed while he was being hit by ORG . According to AT , the applicant had been handcuffed but had forcefully struggled and pushed ORG with his shoulder , after which the latter had struck him CARDINAL or CARDINAL times without much force .

The applicant was then strapped to a restraint bed in accordance with the orders of duty officer ORG , as he was still behaving aggressively and offering physical resistance to the officers .

According to the applicant he was suffocating from the pepper spray in his throat but the guards pressed him to the bed , strangled him and did not let him spit . Finally he was allowed to spit and given the water he had asked for .

According to a report on the use of the restraint bed , the applicant was strapped to the bed from TIME to TIME His condition was monitored once an hour , when the necessity of the continued use of the means of restraint was assessed on the basis of his behaviour .

NORP The report contains the following entries . At TIME , TIME , QUANTITY a.m. and TIME : “ [ use of the restraint measures ] to be continued , [ the applicant is ] aggressive ” . At TIME : “ [ use of the restraint measures ] to be discontinued , [ the applicant is ] calm . ” The report also contains an entry according to which medical staff checked on the applicant ; the time of the medical check - up recorded on the copy of the report on file is illegible .

According to a medical certificate dated DATE medical staff had been asked to establish the applicant ’s injuries in the punishment cell . It was stated in the certificate that the applicant had no visible injuries but there was crepitation in the area of the seventh rib on the left side . A rib fracture was suspected .

According to CARDINAL medical certificates dated DATE the applicant was examined by nurse GPE at TIME and at TIME after his release from the restraint bed . It is stated in the certificates that the applicant had no visible injuries and did not need medical assistance . According to the applicant these certificates were “ fabricated ” in order to cover up his beating and were in contradiction with other medical evidence .

On DATE the applicant underwent an X - ray examination which revealed no clear traumatic changes . Photographs were taken of the haematomas ( described below ) on the applicant ’s body . He gave a urine sample . Urine test results , dated DATE , showed red blood cells in the urine .

According to a medical certificate dated DATE the applicant had CARDINAL haematomas measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on his back , a haematoma with a diameter of QUANTITY on his right upper arm , a haematoma with a diameter of QUANTITY on the right shin , swelling to the left wrist , crepitation in the region of the eighth and the ninth ribs on the left side . The applicant complained that he had been beaten on the back by the guards , complained of pain in his back and said that his urine had been red . The doctor considered that providing the applicant with a mattress was justified .

An ultrasound scan of the applicant ’s kidneys performed on DATE revealed no signs of disease .

According to a medical certificate concerning the applicant ’s examination in a punishment cell on DATE , there were haematomas on the applicant ’s back and ribs . The applicant did not allow the doctor to touch him , was aggressive and demanded a mattress . However , the doctor considered that the applicant ’s chronic lower back pain did not serve as a reason for him to have a mattress . She made a recommendation “ for further referral to a psychiatrist ” .

In a written explanation to the prison director by nurse GPE , dated CARDINAL DATE , she submitted that she had been asked to examine the applicant , who had been strapped to the restraint bed on DATE . The applicant had complained , as he had already done on DATE , of pain in the chest under the ribs . The nurse and guards , as well as the applicant himself , had wiped his eyes with wet napkins . The nurse had issued a medical certificate stating that she had discovered no injuries on the applicant . At TIME on DATE , upon the applicant ’s release from the restraint bed , she had again been asked to examine him . He had no complaints , save for the previously known complaint of pain in the lower part of his chest . The nurse had issued a certificate stating that she had not discovered any injuries and that the applicant had not needed medical treatment . On both occasions the examination had been carried out visually and the nurse had asked the applicant about his complaints . She had only noticed the haematomas on the TIME of DATE . She had not noticed them before and had not carried out a more detailed examination because this had not been requested by the applicant . Based on her earlier experience with the applicant , the nurse had known that he was very demanding in respect of medical treatment . Thus , she had assumed that the applicant was not suffering from any serious conditions .

On DATE ORG started a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s allegations of abuse of authority by prison guards . The investigation was carried out by ORG .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed as a victim . Between CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL guards ( ORG , GPE , ORG and ORG ) were interviewed as suspects . CARDINAL further prison officers ( including OV ) , a prison doctor and a prisoner were interviewed as witnesses . Reports on the use of the special equipment and means of restraint ( shield , helmets , flak jackets and handcuffs on DATE and handcuffs and restraint bed on DATE ) , and written explanations to the prison director from prison officers involved in the incidents were also included in the criminal case file .

On DATE prison guard OV was interviewed for the second time .

On DATE the police requested additional information from the prison administration , including the applicant ’s medical records and information about the telescopic batons used in the prison .

On DATE the police ordered a forensic expert examination of the applicant ’s injuries . The expert completed his report on DATE . He relied on the written materials in the criminal case file , including a report of the applicant ’s interview , medical documents and photos of the haematomas on the applicant ’s body . He was of the opinion that the stripe - shaped haematomas on the applicant ’s back had resulted from blows struck with a blunt instrument such as a stick or a baton , possibly on DATE . The haematomas on the applicant ’s upper arm and shin had resulted from blows struck with a blunt instrument or from the applicant ’s body being slammed against it . The haematoma and crepitation in the region of the eighth and the ninth ribs may have resulted from a rib fracture , but that diagnosis could not be confirmed without an X - ray examination . The expert concluded that the injuries in question were not life threatening and usually caused short - term health damage lasting from DATE to DATE .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed for the second time .

On DATE the police ordered a forensic expert examination of video recordings from prison security cameras . The expert completed his report on DATE . Having obtained QUANTITY magnified and processed images from the video recordings , he concluded that it was not possible to establish the exact time at which the applicant was hit .

On DATE the police investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings . She considered that the use of force by the prison guards against the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE had been lawful , since he had not complied with their orders and had behaved in an aggressive manner . On DATE he had refused to gather his belongings for his transfer to the punishment cell and had threatened to resist if force was used . On DATE he had refused to comply with the prison ’s internal rules and hand in his mattress . The guards had not denied that they had used force but had asserted that this had been the only way to overcome the applicant ’s resistance . The applicant had attempted to escape and run out of the cell . Thus , the use of force had had a legal basis . It did not appear that ORG had used the telescopic baton to deliberately cause injuries to the applicant . Nor could it be established that the force used by ORG , ORG , GPE and ORG had been excessive . They had countered an imminent attack after a more lenient response had not proved effective and the applicant had continued his resistance .

On DATE the police investigator ’s decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings was approved by a circuit prosecutor .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It considered that the use of force , special equipment and means of restraint had been caused by the applicant ’s behaviour , that is to say his failure to comply with the orders given to him and his physical and verbal aggressiveness towards the prison officers . It relied on the applicant ’s handwritten letter of explanation to the prison director , in which he had confirmed having said on DATE that if the prison officers unlawfully attacked him , he would strike back . Furthermore , according to prison guard GPE the applicant had threatened to kill them if force was used to transfer him to the punishment cell . Considering the applicant ’s extremely aggressive resistance , it had been proportionate to use force to bring him down to the floor and to hold him there .

In respect of the events of CARDINAL DATE ORG referred to the statements of the suspects and witnesses , according to which the applicant had threatened the prison officers . It had been established that guard ORG had used pepper spray after the applicant had pushed ORG . The applicant had been engaged in an unlawful attack and the use of pepper spray against him had been lawful . Although the applicant ’s subsequent running into the corridor could not be seen as an attempt to escape , it had still been possible that the situation might have got out of the prison ORG control and they had had grounds to believe that the applicant would continue attacking them . To prevent such a scenario , the prison officers had legitimately acted in a quick and decisive manner , including through the use of the telescopic baton by ORG . The incoherent statements of the witnesses as to the issue of whether the blows with the telescopic baton had been delivered before or after the applicant ’s handcuffing did not allow for a firm conclusion to be made on that point . Nevertheless , based on the witness statements , the prosecutor considered it probable that the applicant had been hit before handcuffing . She also referred to the principle that any reasonable doubt should benefit the accused and considered that it had not been established that the prison guards had unlawfully used a weapon , special equipment or force against the applicant . In respect of the applicant ’s being strapped to the restraint bed , ORG concluded that the video recordings showed that after being handcuffed the applicant had remained aggressive and had offered physical resistance to the prison officers .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against the decision of ORG . It found that it had been established that the applicant had offered resistance to the prison officers and therefore the use of special equipment and means of restraint had been legitimate . The court agreed with the position expressed in the decision of ORG that the special equipment had been used to the extent it had been necessary to overcome the applicant ’s resistance . Thus , there were no grounds to continue the criminal proceedings in respect of the prison officers .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim for non - pecuniary damage with the prison administration for his inhuman and degrading treatment on CARDINAL and DATE . The claim was dismissed and the applicant filed a complaint with ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found for the applicant . It declared the use of the means of restraint , special equipment and service weapons in respect of the applicant unlawful . The court found that although the applicant ’s failure to comply with the orders given to him had undeniably constituted a threat to the general security of the prison , the use of handcuffs and his immobilisation had nevertheless not been justified , as there was no evidence and it had not been argued that the applicant had been armed or equipped with a dangerous item or that he had intended to escape or attack anyone . However , the court dismissed the applicant ’s claim for compensation , considering that the use of means of restraint and special equipment had been caused , to a large extent , by the applicant ’s own behaviour . He had disputed the ORG orders , engaged in an argument with them , voiced threats and offered physical resistance . In these circumstances the finding of the unlawfulness of the prison ’s actions constituted sufficient just satisfaction .

Both parties appealed against ORG judgment . The applicant claimed monetary compensation and the prison administration contended that the prison officers had not acted unlawfully .

At the hearing of ORG on DATE the applicant submitted , inter alia , that on DATE he had been kicked in ribs once and that on DATE he had been hit with a telescopic baton after he had already been handcuffed . Video recordings concerning both QUANTITY and DATE were played at the hearing .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . It found that the use of the means of restraint , special equipment , physical force and service weapons had been lawful . The court considered that the prison had been authorised to use preventive measures in case of a probable threat . It noted that the applicant was serving a life sentence and had CARDINAL further convictions for attacking prison officers . In DATE he had also threatened to kill a prison officer .

In respect of the events of DATE ORG noted that there was no dispute that the applicant had repeatedly refused to comply with the prison ORG order to go to a punishment cell . Furthermore , he had offered physical resistance and caused minor injuries to ORG . Therefore , physical force and handcuffs had been used . Considering the applicant ’s unlawful and aggressive behaviour , threats to the prison officers and to the general security in the prison , as well as the short duration ( TIME ) of the use of the handcuffs , ORG found that the use of handcuffs had not been unlawful . In respect of the use of force , the court found that there was no evidence to prove that the applicant had been kicked , strangled or poked in the eyes with fingers . According to the medical evidence there had been crepitation but no fractures of the ribs . The court considered that pain in the applicant ’s chest that he had complained of could have resulted from his resistance , which had led to a scuffle and his being forced on the floor for handcuffing .

In respect of the events of CARDINAL DATE ORG considered it established that the applicant had displayed disobedience and threatened the prison officers . He had offered physical resistance against the guard who had attempted to take the mattress . Thus , the use of pepper spray had not been disproportionate or unlawful . Since the subsequent use of physical force had proved not effective , it had also been justified to use the telescopic baton in order to have the applicant handcuffed . The fact that the applicant had been aggressive at the time he was strapped to the restraint bed had also been proven by the video recording shown at the court hearing .

On DATE ORG declined to hear the applicant ’s appeal .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Karistusseadustik ) stipulates that abuse of authority , that is unlawful use of a weapon , special equipment or violence by an official while performing his or her official duties , is punishable by a fine or by one to DATE imprisonment .

Relevant domestic law and practice concerning the use of special equipment and means of restraint in prison has been summarised in the judgement of GPE v. GPE ( nos . DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

For relevant international instruments concerning the use of instruments of restraint , see PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

According to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development , Production , Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) , tear gas is not considered a chemical weapon and its use is authorised for the purpose of law enforcement , including domestic riot control ( LAW ( d ) ) . The ORG entered into force with regard to GPE on DATE .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the CPT ” ) has expressed its concerns over the use of such agents in law enforcement . For example , in the report on its visit to GPE and GPE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) it noted :

“ CARDINAL . ... Pepper spray is a potentially dangerous substance and should not be used in confined spaces . Even when used in open spaces the ORG has serious reservations ; if exceptionally it needs to be used , there should be clearly defined safeguards in place . For example , persons exposed to pepper spray should be granted immediate access to a medical doctor and be offered an antidote . Pepper spray should never be deployed against a prisoner who has already been brought under control . Further , it should not form part of the standard equipment of a prison officer .

The ORG recommends that the authorities of GPE and GPE draw up a clear directive governing the use of pepper spray , which should include , as a minimum :

- clear instructions as to when pepper spray may be used , which should state explicitly that pepper spray should not be used in a confined area ;

- the right of prisoners exposed to pepper spray to be granted immediate access to a doctor and to be offered an antidote ;

- the qualifications , training and skills of staff members authorised to use pepper spray ;

- an adequate reporting and inspection mechanism with respect to the use of pepper spray . ”

Similar observations and recommendations were made by the ORG in paragraph CARDINAL of the report on its visit to GPE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL) .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently living in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr G .- H. Beauthier , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP summarised as follows .

At some time in DATE the prosecutor opened an investigation against the applicant and CARDINAL other people , including ORG , into numerous criminal offences committed DATE in the cities of GPE and PERSON . Almost all offences had been committed by way of a criminal organisation , named ‘ Revenge for Justice – Hakmarrja për Drejtësi’ , which the CARDINAL co - accused had allegedly established .

On DATE the applicant ’s arrest was ordered . By that time , the applicant had gone into hiding .

On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings for lack of evidence .

On DATE , in a press conference , the then leader of ORG accused the judges who had given the decision of CARDINAL DATE of being members of the said criminal organisation . The applicant has submitted an article of DATE which had appeared in the DATE “ ORG ” . Another article of the DATE “ CARDINAL ” of DATE reported the spokesperson of the office of the Prosecutor General stating that “ the court ’s decision was given by scared judges who were under pressure and threat . ”

NORP The applicant alleges that the judges who gave the judgment of CARDINAL DATE left the country on an unspecified date .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration . It held that ORG was not empowered to discontinue the proceedings . Instead , it should have returned the investigation file to the prosecutor for further completion with documents .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . This decision was upheld on appeal by ORG and ORG ( decisions ORG . CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .

On DATE ORG accepted O. ’s constitutional complaint and found a breach of the length of proceedings and ORG lack of impartiality . It remitted the case for re - examination to ORG . It would appear that the proceedings are pending before ORG .

None of these sets of proceedings are the subject of this application .

On TIME , TIME , a certain PERSON was murdered in a car on a main boulevard in GPE , while waiting at the traffic lights . The victim was the driver of the escort group of ORG and he was shot dead by a male passenger in a taxi which was in the line of traffic . The perpetrator left the crime scene together with a girl who was in the taxi with him . ORG spouse , PERSON , and minor daughter , PERSON , were in the car when the murder was committed .

The crime scene investigation reports indicated that CARDINAL fingerprints , which were taken for an examination , were found on the door of the victim ’s car . Another fingerprint , which was taken for examination , was found on the interior side of the taxi ’s back seat window .

On TIME , at TIME , PERSON made a statement to a prosecutor . The relevant parts of the statement , which was not initially disclosed to the defence , read as follows .

“ While we were waiting at the traffic lights , I heard PERSON speaking to someone on the left of the car . Initially , I did not pay attention . When the conversation was not being made on normal tones , I told PERSON to stop talking and to pull up the window ... The other person started raising his voice and even shouted swear words . I told PERSON not to respond . Suddenly I saw that the other person came closer to the car . Again , I told PERSON to pull up the window and not to snap back . Initially , I could not discern who that person was . At the moment he neared the car , I saw that he was a young man . PERSON attempted to open the door of the car to clarify things away from our presence . He opened the door ajar but could not get out because the person pushed the door back , without closing it , and shot PERSON with a pistol he took out of the inside of his jacket . ”

Z. also gave a description of the perpetrator . Whereas she had not been able to see anyone else who was with the perpetrator , after getting out of the car , she heard people saying that a girl , who was with him on the taxi , left together with the perpetrator after the murder .

On TIME the taxi driver , T. , made a statement to the police officers . He declared that he had collected a man and a woman from a restaurant in GPE . He was asked to take them to a certain address in the city , without having been given instructions as to the route to follow . According to the statement , while they were waiting at the traffic lights , the male passenger , who was sitting in the front seat , pulled down the window and started arguing with the victim whose car stopped beside the taxi . The relevant parts of the statement , read as follows .

“ My passenger nervously hit the door with his fist . I saw that he and the SUV driver were exchanging looks . My passenger pulled down the window and asked the SUV driver ‘ what are you looking at?’ I do not recall whether the window of the SUV door had been pulled down and I did not hear the SUV driver ’s answer . I then saw that my passenger got out of the taxi , went over to the SUV driver and started arguing . I did not hear their arguments . I then saw my passenger taking out a pistol from his belt and directing it to the SUV driver . I did not see whether the SUV door was opened or not . I heard CARDINAL single shot and the SUV driver fell on the side of the passenger ’s seat . At that moment the driver fell on the other side , the door of the SUV was opened . I did not see whether the door was opened by the passengers or the driver . I saw that the passenger took the SUV driver ’s pistol away with him and left from the back of the SUV . ”

The statement also included a description of each passenger .

The applicant alleges that T. left the country immediately after giving the above statement .

On DATE the applicant fled GPE on a false passport and later sought asylum in GPE . On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE ( see the section “ Extradition proceedings and the applicant ’s detention in GPE ” below ) .

On DATE and DATE CARDINAL extradition requests ( “ letër porosi – letters rogatory ” ) were sent by ORG to the NORP authorities requesting the arrest of ORG with a view to his extradition to GPE . At the material time it was believed that O. was the author of the murder of DATE . However , O. obtained asylum in GPE on DATE and the NORP authorities refused an extradition request by the NORP authorities in respect of O. on DATE .

On DATE an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant in connection with the above murder . No copy of the warrant has been submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s fiancée , I m . ( allegedly the girl in the taxi ) was arrested . Her fingerprints were taken the following day . During the questioning , I m . identified the person who had been arrested in GPE as the applicant , on the basis of some photographs . On DATE the Prosecutor General sent another extradition request to the NORP authorities requesting that the applicant , instead of ORG , be arrested with a view to extradition . The relevant excerpts of the applicant ’s copy of the extradition request , as submitted in LANGUAGE ( text not edited ) , read as follows :

« D’après les actions immédiates d’investigation de cette affaire , on a identifié les numéros utilisés par le suspect principal , PERSON . PERSON pour plusieurs crimes do nt meurtre , vol de banques , enlèvement et actes terroristes . PERSON d’un groupe criminel appelé “ FAC ( Vengeance pour la Justice ) . On pense que le groupe est très dangereux et presque tous d’entre eux ont été poursuivis pénalement par défault pour CARDINAL crimes graves .

ORG citoyenne Albanaise [ I m . ] , ( laquelle déclare être la fiancée PERSON ) et après lui avoir montre pour effet de reconnaissance des photos du sujet arrêté en GPE , ORG a admis que la personne sur la photo est PERSON . C’est pourquoi nous avons des raisons fondées pour croire que le tueur n’est pas O. , mais PERSON , qui est la personne arrêtée en GPE .

ORG articles appartenants au Code Pénal Albanais , traduits en Français , qui concernent les crimes pour lesquels Arapi a été condamné auparavant , aussi que le dernier meurtre du chauffeur du Procureur General . ORG

In the meantime , ORG , pursuant to a request for factual information by the Judge Rapporteur in accordance with Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG , submitted a copy of the extradition letter . The cover letter reads as follows :

“ This document [ the extradition request ] was provided by ORG who stated that at the file of extradition regarding PERSON , this document was created only in the NORP version . Please find attached an NORP translation of the extradition request dated DATE . ”

The relevant excerpts of the copy of the extradition request , as submitted in LANGUAGE ( text not edited ) , read as follows :

“ From the very urgent investigative steps that we have taken following the vent , we have identified some telephone numbers used by the chief suspect , PERSON , and his criminal associates . ORG is a known criminal already wanted for several crimes including murder , bank robbery , kidnapping and terrorist acts . ORG is the leader of a criminal group called ‘ Revenge for Justice’ . The group is presumed to be very dangerous and nearly all of them have previously been prosecuted in absentia for other severe crimes .

From the interrogation of the NORP citizen [ I m . ] ( who is actually declaring to be the finance of PERSON ) and after the introduction of the photographs of the subject arrested in GPE , she has admitted that the person in photograph is PERSON . So we have reasonable ground to believe that the murderer is not ORG but PERSON , who is the person that is arrested by you in GPE .

Attached to this request are :

The relevant articles of LAW , translated into NORP , covering both the crimes for which ORG has previously been indicted and the recent murder of ORG driver .

The NORP copy bore stamps reading “ ORG office , copy certified against the original ” .

On DATE the first fingerprint examination concluded that the fingerprint found on the taxi ’s back seat window corresponded to I m . ’s . On DATE the second fingerprint examination concluded that CARDINAL of the fingerprints found on the victim ’s car ’s door corresponded to the applicant ’s right palm and his right hand little finger , of which digital prints had been provided by the NORP authorities following his arrest in GPE .

On DATE the prosecutor charged the applicant with CARDINAL offences , namely the murder of PERSON , theft , the illegal possession of firearms , the forging of documents , the forging of identity cards or visas and the forging of civil status acts . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was notified of the charges .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) granted the prosecutor ’s request for the applicant ’s arrest in absentia . There is no indication that the applicant ’s lawyer attended the hearing .

On DATE the prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) accusing the applicant of CARDINAL criminal offences .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer contended that the prosecutor had breached the presumption of innocence against the applicant by virtue of the extradition request of DATE . He also submitted CARDINAL other requests in order to obtain additional evidence , conduct other experts’ reports and question other witnesses .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested that the fingerprint examination report of CARDINAL DATE be declared invalid for breach of procedural rules . It would appear that on DATE the trial court dismissed the request .

On DATE the trial court heard the testimony of PERSON ( the Prosecutor General ’s spouse ) . She described the events of CARDINAL DATE and the fact that the perpetrator had prevented PERSON from opening the door of the car after the exchange of heated words . She stated that the person who had murdered PERSON resembled the photographs of the accused as shown on the press and on the television , during his appearance before the NORP courts . The witness further declared that she had made a preliminary statement on DATE to a prosecutor , whereas S. had not made any statements since she was a minor at the material time . The applicant ’s lawyer sought to obtain possession of ORG ’s statement of CARDINAL DATE which had been withheld by the prosecutor . CARDINAL other witnesses were questioned on DATE . The court issued a summons for the appearance of the taxi driver , T .. However , ORG never appeared before the court as he had fled the country to an unspecified address .

On DATE the prosecutor read out T. ’s statement , which had been taken during the criminal investigation . The applicant ’s lawyer contested the statement in so far as the characteristics of the perpetrator did not match those given by other witnesses before the trial . The applicant ’s lawyer further insisted on being provided with a copy of PERSON ’s statement of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the trial court rejected the applicant ’s lawyer request . It decided that , in so far as the evidence was not submitted to the trial court , the latter had no right to obtain acts from the parties , neither oblige them to submit any particular acts . However , the court granted most of the applicant’

Consequently , the trial court heard CARDINAL criminal investigators PERSON and PERSON , as well as CARDINAL criminal experts NORP and NORP as requested by the defence . They were questioned about the crime scene investigation reports and the experts’ reports they had completed . In addition , witness PERSON testified before the court as requested by the defence .

B. had not made any statements during the criminal investigation for lack of trust in the justice system . He had decided to testify before the court following the airing of views on television about the murder and the suspects . In his testimony , PERSON declared that he had stopped at the corner of the traffic lights while he was waiting to cross the street . He had seen from distance that the door of PERSON ’s car opened and he heard a choking noise . He thought that a murder had taken place . After that moment , the person who had opened the door of PERSON ’s car , took away a girl who was seated in the back of a taxi next to the car . In PERSON ’s view , the perpetrator did not resemble the applicant .

On an unspecified date before DATE the prosecutor provided the applicant ’s lawyer with PERSON ’s statement of CARDINAL DATE . The statement was not submitted to the court to be included in the case file .

On DATE CARDINAL other criminal experts , PERSON appeared before the court as requested by the defence . They were questioned about the experts’ reports they had conducted . The trial court decided to obtain additional relevant evidence from various bodies in relation to the case as requested by the defence . On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer submitted a memorial objecting to PERSON ’s statement of CARDINAL DATE . According to the memorial , the applicant ’s lawyer complained of the procedure followed for obtaining the statement and its content .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer made his final written submissions . He accepted CARDINAL charges levelled against the applicant , namely the forging of documents , the forging of identity cards or visas and the forging of civil status acts , but dismissed the remaining CARDINAL , namely the murder of PERSON , theft and the illegal possession of firearms . The final observations contested the admissibility and assessment of evidence submitted by the prosecutor .

On DATE the trial court delivered its judgment , finding the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The court relied on the applicant ’s telephone metering information , which indicated that he had dialled the land line telephone number of the taxi company whose taxi he had been using at the time the murder was committed . In addition , CARDINAL of the fingerprints found on the crime scene corresponded to the applicant ’s fingerprints . The oral testimony of PERSON confirmed that the perpetrator resembled the applicant as shown on television in his appearance before the NORP court . The statement of ORG also confirmed the resemblance between the perpetrator and the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed . He mainly complained of the admissibility and assessment of several pieces of evidence , such as ORG ’s oral testimony , the report on the examination of his fingerprints and the report on the examination of the victim ’s car . He asked ORG ( “ ORG ” ) to obtain additional evidence such as O. ’s fingerprints , to summon the restaurant ’s waitresses , and to re - examine some of the experts questioned during the trial . He also complained that the prosecutor had not disclosed a fingerprint examination report that had been conducted at the restaurant in which he had been dining on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted further written observations . He finally argued that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was contradictory and inconclusive .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the trial court ’s judgment . It concluded that the applicant ’s guilt was proved on the strength of the telephone metering information , the fingerprint report , PERSON ’s oral testimony and ORG statement .

In the same judgment , the court addressed each of applicant ’s requests . As regards the applicant ’s requests to declare invalid several pieces of evidence , the court dismissed them as being unsubstantiated and found that they had been obtained lawfully . In so far as the applicant ’s request for the administration of ORG ’s fingerprints was concerned , the court decided that such fingerprints would not serve any purpose . The applicant ’s request for summoning waitresses from the restaurant in which he had been dining on TIME DATE was dismissed on grounds of their incorrect identification and the unclear description of facts the defence intended to prove . The applicant ’s allegation that the prosecutor had not submitted an expert report on the fingerprints taken at the restaurant was rejected as being unsubstantiated . There was no proof that such report existed . The court also dismissed the applicant ’s request to re - examine some experts given that their testimonies would not disclose any new facts other than the ones that had been testified before the trial court . The court considered that the testimony of B. presented information which was difficult to prove given the location and distance of the witness . It found that the credibility of his testimony was questionable and decided to reject it .

On DATE the applicant appealed . He contended that the domestic courts lacked impartiality as they had dismissed the accused ’s requests to obtain further evidence , question witnesses and disregard the evidence already procured as being invalid . He also argued that the courts had erred in the qualification of the criminal offence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that it contained no lawful grounds of appeal in accordance with LAW .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal . He submitted that the applicant ’s right to legal assistance had been breached as a result of non - notification of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He further argued that there had been a breach of the presumption of innocence owing to the content of the extradition request of DATE . The principle of equality of arms had also been violated , following the dismissal of his requests to re - examine witnesses , obtain additional evidence , conduct further experts’ reports and reconsider the evidence submitted by the defence .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It held that the applicant ’s complaint did not raise any fair trial issues , but mainly concerned the assessment of evidence and interpretation of statutes , which was the function of the lower courts .

Following the NORP authorities’ extradition request of CARDINAL DATE requesting the applicant ’s extradition , he was arrested and detained on remand by the NORP authorities . It would appear that the extradition request was supplemented by documents on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG refused the extradition request . The relevant parts of the decision , as submitted by the applicant in NORP , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Considering that in a report of ORG , dated DATE , information is mentioned DATE which ORG received from CARDINAL different sources – that places the arrest of the person whose extradition is requested in a political light whereas the NORP police and justice authorities are being used in a tangle of political complications and a process of settling scores in GPE ; that , according to this report , it had already been established in this case that the working methods and the documents provided by the NORP authorities contained anomalies ; that the report sets out the intelligence obtained from which it , inter alia , appears that , as regards the arrest warrant of CARDINAL DATE , a judgment was given on DATE , which , inter alia , states that documents were forged , that several witnesses testified that they had not identified the accused as perpetrators , that in the course of the investigation witnesses were blackmailed and tortured and , that the accused – including the person whose extradition is being sought DATE were acquitted ; that the judges who issued this judgment were subsequently accused of participating in the “ GPE ” terrorist organisation ; that the basis for the arrest warrant of CARDINAL DATE has to be found in a web of political competition ; that in this case various inconsistencies can be established whereby the data have been manipulated ; that evidence of such manipulation can be found in the great differences between the actual statements of the taxi driver who transported the perpetrator and his female companion on the one hand and the official version of these statements on the other ;

Considering that on DATE an international arrest warrant was originally issued against [ O. ] concerning the murder of [ PERSON ] and that on DATE a picture and fingerprints of this person were submitted ; that only on DATE that [ the applicant ] was interviewed in GPE , namely on DATE , and after there had been contact between GPE and GPE , ORG let it be known that the perpetrator of the assault on [ PERSON ] had not been [ O. ] but [ the applicant ] ; that it is true that the case file contains information relating to fingerprints submitted by the NORP authorities , supposedly demonstrating that [ the applicant ] was present at the crime scene when [ PERSON ] was shot , these elements were however only submitted after the NORP authorities had sent [ the applicant ’s ] fingerprints to the NORP authorities ;

Considering that it is furthermore the case that the request for extradition speaks of criminal proceedings against the [ applicant ] which were instituted on DATE and of the criminal proceedings CARDINAL/CARDINAL , without however making any mention of the course of the aforementioned proceedings ( see para . CARDINAL above ) , i.e. the judgments of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ; that the course of the proceedings was kept concealed until the NORP authorities , based on the documents submitted by the defence , requested the NORP authorities to provide additional information ;

Upon considering that it has thus been adequately demonstrated that in the present case there are serious grounds for believing that the request for extradition was made with the intention to prosecute the person concerned for political motives , or that the position of the person concerned would be adversely affected on the basis of these motives ;

Upon considering that pursuant to LAW the extradition shall not be allowed if the requested ORG has serious reasons for believing that the request for extradition concerning a non - political offence was made with the intention to prosecute or punish a person on the ground of his race , religion , nationality or political opinion , or if the position of the person involved threatens to be adversely affected on the basis of CARDINAL of these reasons ;

Decides :

The extradition of ORG is not granted to ORG . ”

In a letter of DATE to ORG in GPE , the NORP authorities stated that the refusal of the extradition request was based on LAW , according to which extradition shall be refused if there exist “ substantial grounds for believing that a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race , religion , nationality or political opinion , or that that person ’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons . ”

The applicant submits that he was held for DATE in detention in GPE , at the end of which he was released .

A certificate of CARDINAL DATE by ORG of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons stated that the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of LAW of DATE .

The applicant submitted that on DATE the then spokesperson of the parliamentary group of ORG , B.N , declared before the NORP media the following :

“ before making a summary of achievements , the Prosecutor General should explain to NORP his links with the terrorist organisation ‘ Revenge for Justice’ and the reasons that the case file in respect of PERSON , [ the applicant ] , did not follow the formal procedure ” .

On DATE , in an interview in a private television channel , the then Prosecutor General was reported to have stated the following :

“ the fact that GPE , GPE ... did not grant the extradition of the persons concerned for political reasons indicates that these countries assessed the political statements made in GPE and are afraid of an unjust [ legal ] process . ”

According to a press article published in the “ ORG ” DATE newspaper , it would appear that on DATE the NORP Prime Minister , speaking before the NORP parliamentarians prior to their voting on the dismissal of ORG , stated , amongst others , the following :

“ those who voted for you do not have anything in common with the murder of ORG driver by PERSON in the middle of the boulevard . ”

The relevant part of the LAW reads as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL

The Constitutional Court shall determine : ... ( f ) complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , provided all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . ”

Article CARDINAL provides that any document addressed to an accused who can not be found , has been declared fugitive or gone into hiding , is notified to his representative .

Article CARDINAL states that CARDINAL of the security measures ( masë sigurimi ) that the court assigns is imprisonment . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL allows for the opportunity to appeal to a higher court within DATE against measures of restraint . Under LAW , the time - limit to appeal in respect of the accused who has been declared fugitive or gone into hiding starts to run from the date of notification to his representative in accordance with LAW .

Article CARDINAL establishes the scope of the examination of the appeal by ORG . It provides that the examination of the case by ORG is not limited to the grounds of appeal but extends to the whole case .

Under LAW , at the party ’s request , ORG shall be empowered to directly re - examine previous evidence and additional new materials , if it considers necessary .

Article CARDINAL establishes which decisions may be taken by ORG . It provides that ORG may decide to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment , to amend the judgment , to quash the judgment and terminate the criminal proceedings , or to quash the judgment and remit the case for a fresh trial .

ORG judgments may be appealed to ORG in compliance with one of the following requirements of Article CARDINAL : a ) the criminal law has not been respected or has been misapplied ; b ) there have been breaches which result in the court ’s judgment being declared invalid in accordance with Article CARDINAL of this Code ; c ) there have been breaches of procedural rules that have affected the adoption of the judgment .

Article CARDINAL provides that ORG examines the appeal in so far as points of law have been raised therein .

This Act set up ORG ( Gjykatat për Krime te Rënda ) and ORG ( PERSON e Apelit për PERSON ) . Both courts sit in chambers composed of CARDINAL judges . They try cases that concern criminal offences committed under LAW a ) of LAW .

Article CARDINAL ( a ) , as introduced by Law no . DATE , provides that the serious crimes courts try cases that concern the criminal offence of establishing an armed group or a criminal organisation , any criminal offence committed by such group or organisation and any other crime which is punishable by DATE .


Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE , following an application by a police chief and without the applicant ’s knowledge , a judge of the ORG of Stavropol Region issued a decision authorising the taking of “ operational - search measures ” , which read in its entirety as follows :

“ [ The court ] , having examined a decision by the chief of the GPE district police station on the taking of operational - search measures ,


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .

On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of murder .

On DATE the Vyborgskiy ORG of GPE authorised the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pretrial detention . The court referred to the gravity of charges , the applicant ’s character , lack of permanent residence in GPE , and risk of absconding or re - offending .

On DATE ORG returned the case to the prosecutor and extended the applicant ’s detention without specifying any reasons .

On DATE , DATE and DATE when extending pre - trial detention , ORG reproduced the grounds for detention described above .

On DATE the Saint - Petersburg City Court quashed the detention order of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention referring to the gravity of charges , absence of permanent residence , his character , possibility of absconding and committing crimes . The applicant and his lawyer did not attend the hearing on DATE .

On DATE the Vyborgskiy District Court of GPE convicted the applicant of murder and theft .

On DATE FAC upheld his conviction on appeal . As regards the applicant ’s appeal against the detention order of DATE , the court noted that the lower court had failed to ensure the applicant ’s and his lawyer ’s presence at the hearing of DATE . However , in view of the applicant ’s conviction , it discontinued the appeal proceedings finding them unnecessary .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

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

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s arrest in absentia on suspicion of membership of the ORG , an illegal organisation .

On DATE the applicant was captured in GPE , GPE , and taken to GPE on DATE . He was interrogated by ORG ( ORG of Turkey ) agents until DATE .

NORP In DATE , shortly after being taken to GPE , the applicant was described by a number of media outlets as the “ second man of the NORP ” , the “ NORP representative of the NORP ” , “ a terrorist ” and “ a traitor to the country ” . According to an article published in ORG of DATE , ORG of GPE ( ORG ) issued a press statement in which it stated that the applicant had worked to increase terrorist activities and incited the ORG supporters in GPE to use violence .

On DATE the applicant was handed over to ORG for further questioning . At the time of transfer , a hand - written delivery report was produced . It is not known who drafted the report .

On DATE the applicant was brought first before the public prosecutor at ORG and subsequently before a judge at ORG , who ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons . The applicant was charged with being a leading member of the ORG , whose aim was to bring about the secession of part of the national territory . The charges against the applicant were brought under LAW .

NORP The public prosecutor accused the applicant of being one of the leaders of the NORP in LOC and of having been involved in the training of ORG members in GPE . According to the indictment , the applicant had been in contact with Mr PERSON , the leader of the ORG , and had provided him with information about the persons who had been trained . The public prosecutor further noted that when he had questioned PERSON on DATE , the latter had maintained that he had given instructions to the applicant regarding that training . Moreover , the leader of the ORG had confirmed the veracity of that statement during his trial on DATE .

NORP The public prosecutor at ORG further claimed that during telephone conversations with a number of people in GPE , the applicant had issued instructions to perpetrate acts of violence following the arrest of PERSON . In the indictment , the public prosecutor quoted the transcripts of eight of the applicant ’s alleged telephone conversations dated DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The public prosecutor also noted that the applicant had referred to the State of GPE as “ the enemy ” in his conversations . Furthermore , according to the indictment , a number of ORG members – ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and DATE had maintained in their statements that the applicant had been involved in the activities mentioned in the indictment . As a result , the public prosecutor alleged that the applicant had issued instructions for CARDINAL of bombings , fires , hunger strikes , suicide attacks and massacres , including the killing of CARDINAL people as a result of an attack on PERSON , a shopping centre , on DATE and that he had trained members of the ORG in his capacity as CARDINAL of the leaders of the organisation .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case . At the end of the hearing , the court decided to enquire whether the persons who had made statements regarding the accused had been prosecuted and , if so , to request copies of all the statements given during the criminal proceedings against them .

During the second hearing on DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked the court , inter alia , to remove the transcripts of the applicant ’s alleged telephone conversations from the case file . The public prosecutor demanded that the request be refused , and the court duly dismissed it .

On an unspecified date the police sent the prosecution a document containing the statement of an alleged member of the ORG , GPE , taken by the police . During the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the statement was read out in court . According to the document , GPE had testified against the applicant . The applicant denied the veracity of the statement , claiming that he did not know FAC At the end of the hearing , the court decided to enquire whether criminal proceedings had been instituted against FAC and , if so , to request all of his statements given during those criminal proceedings .

During the fourth hearing in the case , held on DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer maintained that only the indictments concerning ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had been included in the file and asked the court to include all the statements they had given during the criminal proceedings against them . The court postponed its decision on the request of the applicant ’s lawyer to a forthcoming hearing .

On DATE , at DATE fifth hearing , ORG decided to request a copy of the case file in the proceedings against GPE

ORG repeated its request CARDINAL times between DATE and DATE , as it had not received the aforementioned case file . During the same period the court also asked a number of other courts to send a copy of the statements made by ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE during the criminal proceedings against them .

At the eleventh hearing in the case , on DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer asked ORG to summon everyone who had allegedly made statements against the applicant to testify before the court . The court did not respond to his request .

Six more hearings were held DATE and DATE . During that period ORG received the documents that it had requested from the other courts . In the course of the hearings , the applicant ’s lawyer maintained before the court that the statements of the persons who had allegedly testified against the applicant did not contain any reference to the applicant . At the end of the hearing on DATE , the court instructed the public prosecutor to prepare his observations on the merits of the case .

On DATE the public prosecutor ’s observations on the merits of the case were read out before the court .

At the hearing of DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer filed a petition with the first - instance court in response to the public prosecutor ’s observations . In his petition , the applicant ’s lawyer contended that the public prosecutor ’s observations had referred to recordings of telephone conversations which were in the case file . He submitted that he had already asked the court to remove the transcripts of the recordings from the case file as they could not be used as evidence . He further noted that the applicant had denied that he was the person whose conversations had been recorded . The lawyer requested the court to order a comparative voice analysis and to enquire whether the phone tapping had been conducted in accordance with the legal procedure and on the basis of a court order . He also asked the court to find out the identities of the persons with whom the applicant had allegedly spoken ( designated as “ X ” in the documents in the case file ) and to take statements from them about those conversations .

On DATE ORG accepted the request for a comparative voice analysis and dismissed the remaining requests without providing any reasons .

At the next hearing , on DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer complained that CARDINAL police officers had been assigned to conduct the voice analysis . He argued that police officers could not be impartial given the involvement of the police in the case . He therefore asked the court to appoint impartial experts . The court allowed his request and asked ORG of GPE ) , the national public broadcaster , to assign impartial experts to conduct the analysis and to prepare a report .

NORP In DATE TRT informed the first - instance court that no appropriate expert could be found . Following receipt of that information , the applicant ’s lawyer filed a petition with the first - instance court on DATE repeating his requests contained in the petition of DATE . In his petition , the applicant ’s lawyer also requested that a copy of the audiotapes be provided to him and his client .

At the hearing of DATE ORG decided to ask the criminal departments of the gendarmerie and the police to assign appropriate experts for the voice analysis . The court dismissed the applicant ’s requests in the petition of the same date , holding that it had already ruled on them .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a further petition with the court repeating the requests contained in his petitions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . He further maintained that any experts assigned in the case should be impartial . At the hearing held on DATE , the first - instance court once again dismissed the requests of the applicant ’s lawyer . The court noted that the objection to the experts was groundless and that it had already dismissed the other requests .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a petition with the court objecting to the court dismissing his requests . No decision was taken in respect of this petition .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a further petition repeating his previous requests . At the hearing held on DATE , the first - instance court dismissed those requests without providing any reason . The court also decided to deliver the audiotapes to the designated expert , PERSON GPE , a police officer from the criminal laboratory at ORG .

On DATE the expert submitted the transcripts of the recordings of the telephone conversations to the first - instance court .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer made written submissions to the court in which he maintained his objections to the expert ’s work . He further contended that the defence did not know whether all the conversations had been transcribed , since the court had refused to deliver a copy of the audiotapes to the applicant and his lawyer . The lawyer claimed that the court ’s refusal to do so was in violation of LAW . In his petition , the applicant ’s lawyer once again asked the court to conduct an inquiry into the legal procedure concerning the phone tapping , to give a copy of the recordings to the defence , to designate an independent and impartial expert to conduct a comparative voice analysis , and to find out the identities of the persons with whom the applicant had allegedly spoken . Lastly , he asked the court to request a copy of the case file of the criminal proceedings concerning the bombing of PERSON .

On DATE , at the CARDINAL hearing in the case , the first - instance court asked the applicant ’s lawyer whether his client would provide a vocal sample for the voice identification analysis . The applicant ’s lawyer replied that he and his client would inform the court of their position on that point once the court had responded to their requests contained in his petition submitted on DATE . At the end of the hearing , the court dismissed the requests of the applicant ’s lawyer , holding that those requests had already been refused . It designated a judge and CARDINAL police officers , PERSON and PERSON GPE , as experts to conduct the comparative voice analysis on DATE and invited the applicant to participate in the voice identification process if he so wished .

On DATE as the voice identification process started in the presence of the applicant , the applicant ’s lawyer maintained that his client would not provide a voice sample until the discrepancies between the transcripts prepared by the public prosecutor ’s office and those prepared by PERSON had been resolved . He further contended that as PERSON had already been involved in the preparation of the transcripts , another expert should have been designated . The public prosecutor submitted , in reply , that there was no reason to believe that officers from the criminal laboratory at ORG were partial and that the applicant ’s behaviour had been unlawful . The judge decided to end the examination in view of the applicant ’s unwillingness to participate .

In a petition dated DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer asked the first - instance court to accept the withdrawal of their request for a comparative voice analysis . The lawyer contended that the applicant had not made those telephone conversations and that it was the defence who had asked for that examination in the first place . However , in view of the court ’s refusal of their other requests , he believed that it was not possible to have a fair trial in the applicant ’s case .

At the end of the hearing held on DATE ORG decided to consider the applicant ’s request contained in the petition dated DATE at the same time as it considered the case on the merits . On DATE the court decided to request a copy of the case file of proceedings before ORG following a request by the representative of CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - accused .

The first - instance court adjourned the hearings CARDINAL times DATE and DATE , as ORG had not sent the documents requested .

At the CARDINAL hearing held on DATE , following receipt of the aforementioned documents , the first - instance court asked the public prosecutor to submit his observations on the merits of the case .

At the next hearing on DATE the public prosecutor asked the court to take his observations of CARDINAL DATE into consideration .

In a petition dated DATE filed with the first - instance court , the applicant ’s lawyer maintained that the refusal of his requests that the court hear the persons who had allegedly made statements against the applicant and those who had allegedly had telephone conversations with him , and of his requests for a copy of the recordings of the telephone conversations and regarding the designation of the experts , had been in breach of LAW and CARDINAL(d ) of the Convention . He further contended that the statements that ORG officials had made to the press referring to the applicant as a “ terrorist ” had been in violation of LAW . No decision was taken in respect of that petition .

During DATE and TIME hearings held on DATE and DATE the applicant and his co - accused responded to the public prosecutor ’s observations on the merits of the case .

On DATE ORG decided to ask the ORG courts for another judgment rendered by ORG in the DATE ’s , convicting the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation . DATE and DATE the court adjourned CARDINAL hearings awaiting a copy of the aforementioned judgment .

At the CARDINAL hearing on CARDINAL DATE the court received the judgment that it had requested on DATE and decided to adjourn the trial pending examination of the case file .

On CARDINAL DATE the first - instance court asked the applicant to make additional defence submissions given that he might be convicted of membership of an illegal organisation under LAW , instead of LAW .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a petition with the court , requesting that the latter take into account their previous submissions , in the context of the application of LAW . The applicant ’s lawyer also repeated his previous requests .

At DATE and DATE hearings held on DATE and DATE , the first - instance court decided to adjourn the trial as the composition of the court had changed and there was a new president .

On DATE ORG rendered its judgment in the case . The applicant was convicted of membership of the ORG under LAW of the former LAW and sentenced to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment .

In its judgment , the first - instance court cited the following evidence contained in the case file : the statements that ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had made to the police within the context of the proceedings against them ; the indictments in the cases against the aforementioned persons ; the statements made by PERSON to the police , the public prosecutor and during his own trial ; a document prepared by the anti - terrorism branch of ORG regarding the acts of terrorism that had occurred DATE and DATE ; and the transcripts , prepared by experts , of the telephone conversations between the applicant and a number of persons designated as “ X ” .

The first - instance court noted that ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had asserted in their statements that the applicant was a member of the ORG and the leader of the organisation in LOC . As to the content of the transcripts , the court noted that it documented that the applicant had given instructions and orders on the carrying out of the acts of violence that had occurred following the arrest of PERSON .

In the light of the aforementioned evidence , ORG found it established that the applicant was a member of the ORG and the leader of the organisation in LOC . Its judgment stated that he had been involved in the training of ORG members in GPE and had been in contact with PERSON . In this connection , the court quoted Mr ORG statements to the public prosecutor after his arrest , in which he claimed that the applicant had trained ORG members in GPE .

The court further quoted the transcripts of CARDINAL telephone conversations and concluded that in the course of those conversations the applicant had issued instructions for the carrying out of acts of terrorism in GPE . It noted , however , that the applicant had not been directly involved in those acts . The court also noted that the applicant ’s instructions had been of a general nature . As a result , according to the court , a direct link between the acts of terrorism , in particular the attack on PERSON on DATE , and the applicant ’s instructions could not be established . ORG therefore did not convict the applicant under LAW of the former LAW . Nevertheless , noting that the ORG had given the applicant the specific task of inciting violent acts in GPE after the arrest of PERSON , the court convicted the applicant of membership of the ORG under LAW .

Both the prosecution and the applicant appealed against the decision .

In his petitions dated DATE and DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer objected to the court ’s having cited as evidence the statements of PERSON , ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE and the transcripts of the applicant ’s alleged telephone conversations . He submitted in particular that all those persons had denied the veracity of the statements taken from them by the police and that GPE , GPE and GPE had been acquitted of the charges brought against them . Moreover , the investigation against ORG had been concluded with a decision not to prosecute . The applicant ’s lawyer noted that the firstinstance court had not cited the accusations against the applicant contained in their statements in the reasoning of its judgment , which demonstrated that there had been no reason to convict his client . He complained , inter alia , that the first - instance court had failed to investigate whether a court order had been issued prior to the recording of the telephone conversations used as evidence in the trial . The court had also failed to provide the defence with a copy of the audiotapes and to hear those individuals designated as “ X ” in the transcripts of the telephone conversations . The applicant ’s lawyer submitted that those deficiencies in the proceedings constituted a violation of LAW .

The Chief Public Prosecutor at ORG submitted his opinion on the merits of both parties’ appeals . In his written opinion ( tebliğname ) to ORG , ORG advised that the appeals be rejected and that the first - instance judgment be upheld , as it was in compliance with procedural rules and law . That opinion was not submitted to the applicant , despite the fact that in his petition of DATE he had asked to be notified . According to the applicant ’s submissions , his lawyer was not aware of the written opinion until it was read out during the hearing before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . ORG at ORG applied for an exceptional appeal procedure before ORG of ORG , requesting that the applicant be sentenced under LAW . His request was dismissed .

On DATE the applicant was released from prison on probation and returned to GPE , where his family were living .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In the application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the applicant also raised a complaint under another provision of the Convention .