No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person;Legal assistance of own choosing)

Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Guido Raimondi;Helena Jäderblom;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Marko Bošnjak;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Síofra O’Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON do PERSON ( GPE ) .

The applicant is a lawyer by training and an auditor by profession . From DATE onwards , he was no longer authorised to practise as a lawyer . By a decision of ORG of DATE , the applicant was suspended from the roll , as the exercise of the profession of lawyer was considered to be incompatible with his practising as an auditor . This decision was published in ORG in DATE . When the applicant ceased his activity as an auditor in DATE , he continued to be suspended from ORG roll until DATE as the result of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him for having practised as a lawyer while not being authorised to do so .

On DATE , in the context of a set of civil proceedings in which he was nevertheless acting as a lawyer , the applicant criticised the decisions taken by the judge hearing the case , saying that they were not worthy of a judge and that a judge could not lie or omit the truth in the exercise of his functions . The judge in question filed a complaint for insult with the public prosecutor ’s office . It is not clear from the material before the ORG on what basis the applicant was acting as a lawyer in the context of those proceedings given the suspension from the roll referred to above .

On DATE the public prosecutor ’s office at the ORG filed the prosecution ’s submissions against the applicant on a charge of insulting a judge . As the applicant had not instructed a lawyer , the public prosecutor ’s office appointed counsel on the basis of LAW ORG ) to conduct the applicant ’s defence .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG for the opening of adversarial investigation proceedings ( abertura de instrução ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He also sought leave to replace his officially appointed defence counsel and represent himself .

In an order of DATE the court agreed to open the investigation but dismissed the request for officially appointed defence counsel to be replaced and for the applicant to conduct his own defence . It held that the applicant was not entitled to act in the proceedings without the assistance of defence counsel . The court held that under the provisions of NORP law , in particular LAW and Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) , the defendant had the right to be represented by independent counsel , a right which would not be made effective if self - representation were to be allowed . Referring to ORG case - law on the subject , the court found that a defendant who was a lawyer could therefore not act in proceedings as his own counsel .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the order of DATE , challenging the decision not to allow him to represent himself in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It considered the appeal to be admissible despite the fact that it had been lodged by the applicant in person , as it concerned the very issue whether the applicant , as the defendant , was entitled to conduct his own defence . ORG stressed that NORP law on criminal procedure did not allow the procedural status of defendant to be combined with that of defence counsel in the same proceedings . It required that the defendant be assisted by defence counsel at the hearing before the investigating judge and at the trial in all cases where the proceedings concerned could give rise to a custodial sentence or a public - safety detention order . This reflected the premise that the accused would be better defended when the defence was conducted by a legal professional trained in advocacy . The latter , unencumbered by the emotional burden weighing on a defendant , could provide a lucid , dispassionate and effective defence . The law on criminal procedure was thus intended not to place limits on the defence ’s action , but to support the proper defence of the accused .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided that it was not necessary to adjudicate on the constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant in person , in which he had complained about the lower courts’ refusal to grant him leave to represent himself . ORG found that the appeal had been neither signed nor endorsed by court - appointed defence counsel . The latter had not replied to ORG query of CARDINAL DATE as to whether she endorsed the constitutional appeal signed by the applicant himself .

On DATE the PERSON - Vouga investigating judge held a hearing ( debate instrutório ) , of which the applicant had been notified in person . The judge had previously refused to adjourn the hearing at the applicant ’s request , finding that ORG had already given a final ruling on the applicant ’s application to represent himself . The applicant failed to attend the hearing , at which his court - appointed counsel was present . The investigating judge confirmed the charge against the applicant and referred the case for trial ( despacho de pronúncia ) before PERSON .

On DATE the Baixo - Vouga Criminal Court , following a hearing which the applicant again did not attend but at which his court appointed defence lawyer was present , found the applicant guilty of aggravated insult ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and ordered him to pay CARDINAL dayfines of CARDINAL ( ORG ) each as well as the costs of the proceedings .

The applicant , who at no point requested legal aid to cover the cost of his trial , court - appointed counsel or counsel of his own choosing , was ordered , in particular , to pay costs amounting to ORG CARDINAL for his representation by court - appointed counsel . He did not pay these costs and the execution of the cost order was later discontinued for lack of assets which could be seized .

In an order dated DATE PERSON rejected an appeal by the applicant against the judgment as inadmissible , on the ground that the appeal had not been signed by court - appointed defence counsel or by a lawyer instructed by the applicant . It confirmed that , as had previously been decided in a final decision , the applicant , as the defendant , did not have the right to represent himself in the proceedings .

By an order dated DATE ORG , acting through its President , dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant in person against the order of PERSON .

The Court of Appeal reiterated that , according to NORP law and well - established case - law , defendants in criminal proceedings , even if they were themselves lawyers , could not represent themselves but had to be assisted by defence counsel . It stressed that , as had also been argued by ORG in Opinion No . E-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the provision of a criminal defence constituted a public - order interest . Therefore , the right to a defence could not be waived , even if this meant imposing a defence lawyer on the accused . Moreover , in adversarial proceedings the powers vested by law in the defence were incompatible in many situations with the position of the defendant . This was also clearly the case at the trial , taking into account , for example , the places to be occupied in the courtroom , the wearing of a gown and the cross - examination of witnesses .

ORG noted that ORG had repeatedly confirmed , in particular in judgments FAC . CARDINAL and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , that this interpretation and the corresponding legislation – including LAW ( d ) of the ORG , which stipulates that only defence counsel can lodge appeals ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) – was in keeping with the LAW . Likewise , this approach was not in breach of LAW ( ORG ) or of the LAW . In GPE , the accused had an array of procedural rights which went beyond the minimum standards guaranteed by these international instruments .

ORG explained that NORP law on criminal procedure granted accused persons ample opportunity to defend themselves in person . The defendant had a very comprehensive right to intervene in person at any time in the proceedings in order to make requests , offer points of clarification , reply , explain or submit statements ( see , in particular , Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG ) and CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ; CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) . He also had the right to be the last person to address the court , immediately following the pleadings and before delivery of the judgment ( see LAW ORG , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . There was a distinction between , and a dual safeguard emanating from , the mandatory instruction of a lawyer to ensure the accused ’s “ technical ” defence and the possibility for the accused to be present and to intervene in the proceedings .

Lastly , ORG noted that , having no valid reasons to depart from an interpretation rooted in case - law and legal literature , GPE had not amended its law in this regard either before or after the Views adopted in DATE by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .

As the applicant had not appointed counsel following his application to have the order of CARDINAL DATE quashed , PERSON judgment of DATE became final on DATE .

According to the material before the ORG , the applicant did not call into question the qualifications or quality of the court - appointed lawyer at any stage in the proceedings before the domestic courts .


CASE OF MAGEE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer;Conditional release)

George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the first and third applicants were arrested under section CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) on suspicion of involvement in the murder of a police officer on DATE . They were detained at GPE police station on DATE . The first applicant was interviewed twice on DATE and once on DATE ; the third applicant was interviewed CARDINAL times on DATE and once on DATE .

On DATE the Director of Public Prosecutions ( “ ORG ” ) made applications to ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule QUANTITY for warrants of further detention in respect of both applicants in order to carry out questioning and to conduct forensic examinations . The first applicant gave evidence on oath in the course of the hearing . Following the hearing , the ORG Judge granted warrants authorising a DATE extension of detention .

Each of the applicants was interviewed on QUANTITY occasions in DATE .

On DATE the ORG made applications to ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act for DATE extensions to the periods specified in the warrants for further detention . The extensions were sought in order to facilitate further questioning of the applicants once the results of additional forensic tests were obtained . At separate hearings on CARDINAL DATE a police Superintendent gave evidence on oath as to the necessity of the extensions and arguments were heard on behalf of the first and third applicants .

Following the hearings Her Honour Judge PERSON delivered a written judgment in respect of the first applicant and an ex tempore decision in respect of the third applicant . She granted both applications , authorising the first applicant ’s continued detention until CARDINAL on DATE and the third applicant ’s continued detention until CARDINAL on DATE . In her reasoning , Judge PERSON noted that the relevant forensic evidence was central to the investigation and that the investigation was being carried out diligently and expeditiously .

In the rulings Judge PERSON considered whether LAW or LAW gave the court deciding whether or not to grant an extension of detention an express or implied power to examine the lawfulness of the arrest or to grant bail . She concluded that it did not as LAW only gave the judge the power to decide whether or not an extension of detention was necessary . Consequently , she had to confine herself to the issue of whether or not it was necessary to extend detention beyond TIME for investigative purposes and any issue as to the lawfulness of the arrest would have to be determined by ORG in either Habeas Corpus or judicial review proceedings .

On DATE the second applicant was arrested under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act on suspicion of involvement in the murder of CARDINAL soldiers at GPE , GPE , on DATE . He was detained at FAC on DATE .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule QUANTITY for a warrant extending the second applicant ’s detention as the results of a number of forensic tests were pending .

Following a hearing on DATE a ORG Judge granted a warrant authorising a DATE extension to his detention .

The second applicant was interviewed on CARDINAL occasions in DATE . However , neither the interviews nor the results of the forensic tests provided any evidence linking the second applicant to the murders of the CARDINAL soldiers .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act for a DATE extension to the period specified in the warrant for further detention . The extension was sought as the results of further forensic tests which had been sent for analysis to a laboratory in GPE were expected to become available within DATE and detention was considered necessary to ensure that further questioning could take place and , if there was sufficient evidence , charges could be brought .

On DATE Judge PERSON granted the application , authorising the second applicant ’s continued detention until MONEY DATE .

The applicants sought permission to apply for judicial review of Judge PERSON ’s decisions of CARDINAL and DATE granting further extensions to the warrants authorising their detention . They submitted first , that Judge PERSON had been wrong to conclude that a court , in deciding whether or not to grant an extension of detention , was precluded from investigating the lawfulness of the arrest ; secondly , that the judge had failed to address the question of whether the detention of the applicants was required while the results of the forensic examinations were expected ; thirdly that the judge had failed to give reasons for her decision that detention was required ; and finally , that Schedule CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act was incompatible with LAW .

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by the High Court of GPE on DATE and ORG heard the applications on DATE .

In respect of the applicants’ first submission , ORG held that DATE and DATE of Schedule QUANTITY had to be read in conformity with the requirements of LAW as explained in the jurisprudence of the ORG . Thus , the review of the lawfulness of the detention had to embrace an examination of the basis of the arrest , otherwise a person could be detained under LAW for up to QUANTITY days without there having been any judicial review of the lawfulness of the original arrest and that could not be Convention compliant . ORG therefore found that Judge PERSON had been wrong to disavow any review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ arrest and , as a consequence , her decision to grant extensions had to be quashed . The court accepted , however , that a review of the lawfulness of the arrest need not involve a detailed analysis of the basis for the decision to arrest and should reflect the constraints that necessarily apply in many arrests for terrorist offences .

With regard to the applicants’ second and third submissions , ORG found that although the judge had not focused directly on whether the applicants had to be detained rather than released pending the outcome of the remaining forensic examinations , she had not failed to have regard to the need for detention as the basis for the grant of the warrant . Moreover , although her reasons were pithily stated , they were sufficient to convey to the applicants the basis of her decision .

Consideration of the applicants’ fourth submission , namely the compatibility of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act with LAW , was adjourned . In a judgment delivered on DATE , ORG of GPE found no basis for the submission that Schedule CARDINAL was incompatible with LAW . In particular , the court held that although there was no doubt that the “ competent legal authority ” referred to in LAW ) was the authority having competence to deal with a criminal charge ( the Magistrate in the GPE ) , in GPE v. GPE , DATE , § CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL and PERSON v. the GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALX the ORG had made it clear that the function of “ a judge or other officer ” for the purposes of LAW could be carried out by an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and did not necessarily have to be a person with power to conduct the trial of any eventual criminal charge ; that , although there was no express power to order release in LAW as required by LAW , such a power must be implied ; that , as paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act provided that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention of a person was necessary , it therefore contained a requirement of proportionality ; that , there was no provision for conditional release on bail within the statutory scheme , an issue which did not arise in the present case but would need to be addressed in any future case in which it arose ; that , although paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL enabled a judicial authority to exclude an applicant or anyone representing him from any part of the hearing and paragraph CARDINAL permitted information to be withheld from the applicant or anyone representing him , there were a range of tools available to the court to preserve to the necessary extent an adversarial procedure and equality of arms ; and , finally , that there was no authority which supported the ORG contention that LAW that a detained person should be charged well before the expiry of the twentyeight day period contemplated in LAW .

On DATE ORG of GPE certified that it was satisfied that the decision given on DATE involved the following points of law of general public importance :

“ ( a ) Whether paragraphs ORG ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of Part III of Schedule CARDINAL to LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) permitting extended detention for DATE are compatible with the PERSON ’s rights under LAW , PERSON ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( “ the Convention ” )

If compliance with LAW can only be achieved by providing for a detainee to be brought before a judicial authority ( i ) other than the Magistrate ’s Court and ( ii ) without any charges having been preferred against him ;

If Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Convention are required to be read together as linked provisions and understood as creating a scheme so that the “ judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power ” referred to in LAW and “ the competent legal authority ” referred to in LAW are one and the same ;

If the “ judicial authority ” provided for in Schedule CARDINAL to the LAW is the “ judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power ” within the meaning of LAW ;

If Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW can not be interpreted in such a way as to permit the detention of a suspect without charge for any period specified by ORG , subject only to the requirement of periodic judicial approval of the kind specified in LAW .

( b ) Whether the absence of a power to allow for conditional release on bail rendered the scheme for extending detention set out in Part III of Schedule CARDINAL incompatible with Article CARDINAL ORG ; and

( c ) Whether the procedure for granting an extension of detention , in circumstances where the suspect and legal representative have been excluded by the judge for a part of the hearing ( as per Schedule CARDINAL , para CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) and by reason of same information is made available to the judge but withheld from the suspect and his legal representative , ( Schedule CARDINAL , para GPE ) and ( CARDINAL ) is incompatible with the request for an adversarial hearing as required by LAW in light of Secretary of ORG for ORG ( ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL AC CARDINAL . ”

NORP However , ORG refused leave to appeal to ORG .

Permission to appeal was refused by ORG on DATE on the basis that the applications did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance .

The applicants were released without charge on DATE . The first and third applicants were not subsequently charged with any offence related to the murder of the police officer .

The second applicant was immediately re - arrested and interviewed over DATE . On DATE he was charged with the murder of the CARDINAL soldiers , CARDINAL attempted murders and possession of a firearm and ammunition . He was produced before a District Judge sitting at ORG on DATE . His application for bail was refused . Following a hearing which took place on CARDINAL and DATE , bail was refused by ORG on the ground that there was a real risk of re - offending on account of his suspected involvement with a dissident NORP organisation . ORG again declined to grant bail on DATE .

On DATE the second applicant stood trial before a judge sitting without a jury . On DATE he was acquitted on all counts on the indictment .


Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE .

Since DATE the applicant has been suffering from progressive multiple sclerosis . He was designated with Category CARDINAL disability as a result of that condition .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of active membership of an organised criminal group DATE and the murder or attempted murder of several people in DATE .

The applicant ’s health deteriorated significantly and rapidly in the detention facility , where his health complaints were not addressed in any way , as the facility did not have any medical specialists . In DATE the prison authorities recorded that the applicant ’s movement was impaired and that he was unable to walk without a cane .

In DATE the applicant suffered an epileptic seizure which resulted in paralysis of the left side of his body . DATE an investigator authorised a forensic medical examination of the applicant to determine whether he was fit to stay in a detention facility . A medical examination , based , inter alia , on the results of an MRI exam performed by civilian experts from the GPE medical institute , led to the conclusion that the applicant was suffering from “ a serious condition preventing his detention ” . In particular , experts diagnosed him with progressive multiple sclerosis , left - sided hemiplegia ( paralysis ) in the cerebral spinal form , acute right - sided hemiparesis ( muscle weakness of the right side of the body ) with the persistent astheno - depressive syndrome , memory deterioration , partial atrophy of the visual nerves , symptomatic epilepsy with polymorphic partial motor and generalised attacks CARDINAL times a month , arterial hypertension of the first degree , and light myopathy of both eyes . On DATE the applicant was released from detention .

On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , to be served in a correctional facility under a strict regime . The trial court , however , decided that the applicant should not be placed in custody pending appeal proceedings . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG of GPE to order a medical examination for him with a view to confirming that he was not fit for detention . The request was not processed .

The applicant was taken into custody on DATE . He was placed in a prison hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant underwent an MRI test and was examined by several doctors , including by a neurologist , from the prison hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL . Their decision issued on DATE indicated that given the negative prognosis for and the severity of the applicant ’s condition , he should be sent for a forensic medical examination to determine whether he could be released early on health grounds . The doctors relied , inter alia , on the results of the MRI examination , which had shown that in comparison to the results of the previous MRI exam in DATE the applicant ’s illness had progressed significantly and demonstrated further negative dynamic . The applicant was informed by the prison administration that they would seek his immediate release on health grounds .

NORP However , DATE the applicant was notified that an additional expert examination was to be performed . CARDINAL medical experts visited the applicant , spoke with him and informed him that his condition did not warrant release . On DATE the applicant was served with a copy of an opinion by the CARDINAL medical experts who had concluded that he did not suffer from any condition listed in Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE on illnesses warranting release on health grounds , as his condition had not yet reached the crucial stage which required early release .

Relying on a number of medical certificates and reports issued by medical specialists from civilian medical facilities , who had either treated him following his release from detention in DATE or had studied his medical history in DATE , the applicant argued that he was unable to care for himself and that he required constant assistance , care and medical treatment which the NORP penal system was not able to provide . In particular , a report issued in DATE by a neurologist from the GPE NORP hospital indicated that the applicant had no movement on the left side of his body and could only partly move the fingers of his right hand and his right leg ; he could not walk or sit without assistance ; and he required assistance even if placed in a wheelchair . Another report indicated that the applicant was suffering from urethral dysfunction leading to involuntary urination , an additional element calling for constant care . The civilian doctors concluded that the stage of development of the applicant ’s illness was CARDINAL ( with death expected to occur according to that scale at stage CARDINAL ) .

Having provided copies of his complaints to various NORP authorities , the applicant submitted that his requests for an independent medical examination to determine whether he could remain in detention , as well as his complaints about the lack of proper medical assistance , had gone unanswered .

The applicant argued that he spent DATE in bed . Prison doctors , who had no proper training to deal with patients in his condition , came to see him only once DATE . He had not been bathed for DATE . He could not eat or drink unaided , so he received food once a day . He suffered from severe pain , as he could not defecate and the medical personnel only gave him an enema once DATE . He did not receive any treatment , and had not been seen in detention by specialists such as a neurologist .

On DATE the ORG , in response to the applicant ’s request under LAW , decided to indicate to the ORG that the applicant should be examined immediately by medical experts independent of the penal system , including by a neurologist and an epileptologist . The experts were to be asked whether the treatment and physical care the applicant was receiving was adequate for his condition , whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the conditions of a correctional colony or a prison hospital , and lastly whether the applicant ’s current condition required him to be admitted to a specialised hospital or released . ORG were also asked to ensure the applicant ’s immediate transfer to a specialised hospital if the medical experts concluded that he required to be admitted to such a hospital .

NORP In response to the ORG ’s request , the Government provided the ORG with a typed copy of the applicant ’s medical history prepared by the detention authorities ; certificates issued by the head of the applicant ’s correctional colony and the head of the Service for the Execution of Sentences in GPE ; and a copy of the report drawn up on DATE by a medical panel comprising the head , deputy head and senior inspector of the medical unit of ORG in GPE and a deputy head of the prison hospital of correctional colony no . CARDINAL , where the applicant was detained . Relying on those documents , the ORG argued that the applicant was receiving adequate medical assistance and that the medical panel of the Service for the Execution of Sentences in GPE had concluded that “ the degree of the manifestation of the applicant ’s condition ( multiple sclerosis ) did not [ reach the level ] which could be described as bodily function impairment ” warranting release in compliance with the Government ’s decree of DATE which laid down a list of illnesses calling for ORG early release .

NORP The applicant commented on the Government ’s information , insisting that the medical assistance afforded to him was virtually nonexistent . He relied on his medical record , and stated that prior to the application of the interim measure under LAW he had been prescribed over CARDINAL different drugs , of which , as indicated in the record , he had only received CARDINAL . At the same time the applicant argued that the medical record was a forgery , as he had in fact only received one drug . Following the application of the interim measure he had been allowed to obtain certain medication from his wife to treat the epilepsy . He further submitted that the prison hospital where he was an inmate did not have the necessary medical equipment . He had usually been taken to another hospital for examinations , or a specialist with the proper equipment had been allowed to visit him in the prison hospital . The prison hospital only employed a neurologist , a specialist who , according to her own assessment , did not have the skill to treat the applicant ’s complex condition . Despite the fact that the applicant ’s condition was progressing and that the prognosis for him was negative , the authorities had not taken any steps to alleviate his sufferings and safeguard his life and limb .

The applicant submitted that since DATE he had developed new health problems , but the medical staff of the prison hospital had failed to address the ongoing deterioration of his health . In particular , he had begun suffering from kidney pain , but no nephrologist was available in the prison hospital . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with urinary tract infection , but no appropriate treatment followed . DATE the applicant complained to an otolaryngologist of a purulent discharge from his left ear and severe pain . However , medical staff failed to comply with the otolaryngologist ’s recommendations .

At the request of the applicant ’s wife , on DATE he was examined by a panel consisting of the deputy head of the prison hospital and several prison doctors . The commission found that the applicant did not suffer from bodily function impairment warranting his release .

On several occasions the applicant ’s wife complained to ORG and to the prison authorities , requesting an independent medical assessment . In their replies the authorities informed her that allegations of lack of adequate medical assistance had not been confirmed , and thus there were no grounds to order the applicant ’s medical examination .

NORP However , on DATE a medical panel of the prison hospital , having confirmed the applicant ’s earlier diagnosis , recommended his early release . In DATE the applicant ’s wife lodged a motion for his release before the ORG of Kazan .

At the hearing held on DATE ORG heard the applicant ’s attending prison doctor who stated that he had not and could not receive adequate treatment in respect of his multiple sclerosis in detention and that such treatment could only be provided in a specialised hospital , in particular in the NORP diagnostic centre of demyelinised illnesses . On DATE ORG dismissed the motion for release . The applicant ’s lawyer appealed .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE to continue serving his sentence . DATE , following a visual medical examination , he was admitted to medical unit no . CARDINAL in the colony which was to determine the issue whether the applicant ’s condition called for his early release . According to the applicant , colony no . CARDINAL did not employ a neurologist and had no means to deal with a patient of his health .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of DATE and sent the matter for a new examination to ORG .

During the re - hearing on DATE the ORG took note of the applicant ’s transfer to a new colony and decided that it no longer had territorial jurisdiction to examine the applicant ’s motion for release . The case was sent to ORG in GPE for further examination .

On DATE a medical commission comprising CARDINAL specialists from medical unit no . DATE issued a report finding that the applicant ’s condition made him eligible for an early release . That report was filed with ORG which on DATE authorised the applicant ’s release , having relied on the report of CARDINAL DATE and statements by the head of medical unit no . CARDINAL . The latter had testified to the gravity of the applicant ’s condition and the impossibility to provide him with adequate treatment or permanent general care and assistance in detention . The applicant was released on DATE and taken by an ambulance to a hospital in GPE .

The applicant provided the ORG with expert opinions issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE by neurologist PERSON from ORG . Having examined the applicant and studied his medical file , the expert recorded negative dynamics in the applicant ’s neurological condition , and found that he had not received the drugs necessary to treat his multiple sclerosis . The doctor recommended that the applicant undergo specific treatment in the ORG or in foreign hospitals , and noted that the lack of such treatment could lead to irreversible deterioration of the applicant ’s health and eventually to his death .

The Government produced , in addition to the documents submitted by them in response to ORG Rule CARDINAL request , a number of certificates signed by the staff and administration of the prison hospital , as well as by a fellow inmate . According to those certificates , the applicant was provided with the necessary care in the hospital . Medical staff fed him CARDINAL times a day , washed his face and ears TIME , cut his hair and nails , changed his bedding , and showered him once DATE . Nurses gave him enemas and changed his catheter bag as often as necessary .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE . He is a migrant worker who arrived in GPE in DATE and has been working on construction sites and in repairs . He lives in the village of GPE , GPE district of GPE region .

At TIME on DATE the applicant arrived at a meeting place as requested by his employer , Mr PERSON , who was acting on police instructions . CARDINAL police officers in plain clothes knocked the applicant to the ground , handcuffed him and pushed him into their unmarked car . They did not explain who they were , where they were taking him or why . According to PERSON , who witnessed the scene , they were armed with pistols .

NORP The police officers took the applicant to the GPE district police department of GPE ( отдел внутренних дел Железнодорожного района г. GPE , “ the GPE ” ) , where he was led to an office on the upper floor . CARDINAL police officers in uniforms demanded that he confess to a murder . He refused to do so and was punched .

The uniformed police officers and those in plain clothes subjected the applicant to various acts of physical violence . They removed the handcuffs from him and bound his hands with scotch tape instead . He was seated on the floor with his arms around his bended knees . A metal bar was passed under his knees . The police officers lifted him and hung him on the bar , the ends of which were put on CARDINAL tables . The police officers continued punching him in the head and the rest of his body . The pressure caused by the bar behind his knees was such that it prevented his blood from circulating . The police officers hit him several times on the head with an empty glass beer bottle . The applicant felt unwell . He was taken off the bar and untied for a short time . The police officers then hung him again in the same way and attached wires from a special device to his ears . They subjected him to electric shocks by rotating a handle on the device . The applicant felt sharp pain .

Then CARDINAL men in masks and rubber gloves entered the office . They undressed the applicant completely , including his underwear , tied his arms and legs with his own shirt and leather belt , and hung him with a rope on the door of the office , head down . They showed him a syringe containing a yellowy fluid and threatened him with an intravenous injection . CARDINAL of them tied a rope to his penis and pulled it , thereby opening and shutting the door on which the applicant was hanging . They squeezed his testicles . Several times the applicant said that he agreed to confess to the murder , but his answers did not satisfy the policemen . At some point they loosened the rope and he fell onto his head .

The treatment described above continued until TIME , when the applicant was placed in a cell for administrative detainees at the same police station . A young man who was detained in that cell advised him to do as the police had requested . TIME later the applicant was taken to an office and given some food . His questioning by the police officers continued . He was warned that he would not be able to support DATE of such treatment . He then confessed to the murder of a certain NORP , as dictated by them . In TIME he was again placed in the cell for administrative detainees , where he spent TIME .

On DATE police officers PERSON and ORG took the applicant in handcuffs to the LOC investigation department of the investigative committee at the GPE regional prosecutor ’s office ( Следственный отдел по PERSON району ORG управления PERSON комитета при прокуратуре ORG по Воронежской области , “ the district investigative committee ” ) for questioning by an investigator as a witness in a criminal case concerning the murder of NORP During the questioning the applicant remained in handcuffs . He was requested to sign a paper in NORP , which he could not read . He was then transferred back to the cell at FAC .

At DATE the applicant was taken out of the cell and given back his papers and mobile phone . He was asked to sign a document which he could not read and was released . The applicant ’s landlady , PERSON , who had been phoning the police in vain for DATE to find out about his whereabouts , saw him arrive home at TIME with a swollen eye , bruises on his wrists , a swollen leg , a lesion on his right ear resembling a burn mark and suffering from sharp pains in his chest .

No criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant .

The following morning , on DATE , accompanied by his landlady , the applicant was examined at the emergency unit of town hospital no . CARDINAL and received a medical certificate diagnosing him with bruising of the soft tissue of his face and his rib cage .

On DATE the applicant was examined at ORG . He described his ill - treatment at FAC . According to the expert ’s forensic medical report ( акт судебномедицинского освидетельствования ) , the applicant had bruises each measuring QUANTITY above and below his right eye and on his left eyelid , a bruise on his right cheek , bruises on his chest ( CARDINAL bruises measuring QUANTITY and a bruise of QUANTITY ) , a bruise of QUANTITY on his scrotum , abrasions on his forearms and right wrist , a bruise of CARDINAL to QUANTITY on his left forearm , and bruises measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY behind his right and left knees respectively .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined at town clinic CARDINAL . On the basis of an LOC examination he was diagnosed with a fracture of the ninth rib on the right side .

According to a report prepared as a result of a forensic medical examination of the applicant carried out on DATE and DATE , his injuries could have been inflicted on DATE .

According to police records , at TIME on DATE police officer PERSON arrested the applicant , who had allegedly used obscene language in the street , and at TIME brought him to the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD . The applicant was found guilty of petty hooliganism and sentenced to a CARDINAL NORP rouble ( RUB ) administrative fine . He was allegedly released at CARDINAL noon on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant was given access to documents concerning the administrative proceedings against him . On DATE the ORG of GPE examined an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the GPE of DATE to give him an administrative fine . ORG quashed the decision and terminated the administrative proceedings against the applicant for lack of an administrative offence .

According to the applicant , on DATE the deputy head of the district investigative committee refused to receive his complaint of illtreatment by the police and allegedly threatened to call the migration service and have him deported from the country .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel lodged a complaint of illtreatment with the district investigative committee , describing the illtreatment in detail . She supported the allegations by submitting the medical certificate of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the forensic medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She requested that criminal proceedings be brought against the police officers concerned for abuse of power ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) and torture ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . She asked for specific investigative measures to be carried out , in particular an opportunity for the applicant to identify the police officers who had been on duty on DATE DATE and a forensic medical expert examination of the applicant with a view to establishing the possible cause and time of the infliction of the injuries .

An investigator of the district investigative committee carried out a preinvestigation inquiry . He interviewed the applicant , who gave a detailed account of his alleged ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , PERSON , who saw the applicant arrive home with the injuries after his alleged illtreatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and police officer PERSON , who stated that on CARDINAL DATE he had stayed home and that on DATE he had performed duties at the ORG which had had nothing to do with the applicant . The investigator also interviewed police officers PERSON . and PERSON , who stated that on DATE they had held a “ conversation ” ( беседа ) with the applicant in CARDINAL of their offices , at the request of the head of the criminal unit of the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD , about the applicant ’s involvement in the murder of NORP After the “ conversation ” they had taken the applicant , at the request of their supervisor , to investigator PERSON of the district investigative department . Both of them denied any violent behaviour on their part . The investigator also obtained the police records , according to which the applicant had been brought to the ORG at TIME on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant ’s complaint for lack of elements of a crime in the acts of police officers PERSON . and PERSON , pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ CCrP ” ) .

NORP The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG under LAW On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings because DATE a deputy head of the district investigative committee had quashed the investigator ’s decision as unlawful and unfounded . In particular , he had ordered that the head of the criminal police unit of the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD , PERSON , be interviewed in the course of an additional preliminary inquiry .

NORP The investigator ’s subsequent decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE that no criminal proceedings would be instituted on the applicant ’s allegations were likewise revoked on the same grounds by the district investigative committee ( on DATE and DATE ) . ORG appeals lodged by the applicant were not examined for the same reason ( ORG decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) . In his decision of DATE the head of the district investigative committee ordered that police officers PERSON and PERSON . , who had brought the administrative proceedings against the applicant , be interviewed . He also noted that the identity of all the police officers present during the “ conversation ” with the applicant at the ROVD had not been established .

On DATE the district investigative committee again refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of elements of a crime in the acts of police officers PERSON . , PERSON On DATE the investigative committee at the GPE regional prosecutor ’s office ( следственное управление PERSON комитета при прокуратуре ORG по Воронежской области , “ the regional investigative committee ” ) set aside as unlawful and unfounded the district investigative committee ’s refusal . It noted , in particular , that the applicant ’s allegations were supported by the forensic medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the explanations of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the police records certifying the applicant ’s presence at the police station at the relevant time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It concluded that there were sufficient data disclosing elements of a crime under LAW § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) committed by unidentified police officers at FAC , and opened criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was given victim status in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to establish the identity of a person to be charged , pursuant to LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the CCrP.

The proceedings were subsequently reopened and suspended again on the same grounds several times , the last time on DATE . The investigator established in that decision that at TIME on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL unidentified police officers had taken the applicant to the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD by force and in handcuffs . In an office on the upper floor of the ROVD CARDINAL other unidentified police officers in uniforms had demanded that the applicant confess to a murder . He had refused and had been beaten up by the officers who had taken him in . During the period from CARDINAL to DATE both uniformed and plain - clothes police officers had subjected the applicant to various acts of physical violence , in particular punching him and hitting him with a glass bottle on his head and other parts of his body , subjecting him to electric shocks via wires attached to his ears and genitalia , and to other forms of torture , as a result of which he had confessed to the murder of NORP

During the preliminary investigation the regional investigative committee had questioned witnesses , including police officers who had been on duty at the ROVD during the relevant period , the head of the criminal police unit and his deputies , the police officers of the criminal investigation unit , witnesses to the applicant ’s apprehension , persons detained in the cells for administrative offenders during the period concerned and the doctor who had examined the applicant on DATE . It examined the offices where the illtreatment could have taken place and held identification parades to enable the applicant to identify the alleged perpetrators from among a number of the police officers who had been working at FAC . While a number of those identification parades had not resulted in an identification ( for example , police officer PERSON who was found to have been using a phone number from which calls to the applicant ’s employer PERSON had been registered ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not been identified by the applicant ) , the applicant had identified police officers PERSON and S. as participants in his ill - treatment . The investigator found their identification insufficient for the prosecution in view of its alleged inconsistency with the applicant ’s statements describing the perpetrators and in view of their alibi , as neither of them had according to their statements allegedly been present at the ROVD during the period concerned .

On DATE the first deputy to the GPE regional prosecutor dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the investigator ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .

On DATE judge PERSON of ORG dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant under LAW That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . In particular , the applicant , represented by his counsel , argued in the court proceedings that the identity of the alleged perpetrators had been established since he had identified police officers PERSON and PERSON ; hence , it had been wrong to suspend the proceedings for failure to identify the alleged offenders . The courts rejected his submissions and found the investigator ’s decision lawful and well - reasoned .

Some of the applicant ’s allegations – notably that the administrative charge of petty hooliganism against him had been trumped up and that police officer PERSON had unlawfully handcuffed him on DATE when taking him for questioning to the investigator in the murder case – were the subject of separate proceedings . The district investigative committee ’s initial refusal to open a criminal case was followed by the regional investigative committee ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE to open criminal proceedings concerning the alleged forgery of administrativecase documents under LAW of LAW and their subsequent suspension . On DATE the district investigative committee ’s initial refusal to open a criminal case into the applicant ’s handcuffing was revoked and an additional preliminary inquiry was ordered .

The applicant ’s counsel requested the transfer of the criminal cases concerning the applicant ’s ill - treatment to a new division at the LOC investigative department , which had been created pursuant to order no . CARDINAL of the chairman of the investigative committee to investigate crimes committed by police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the regional investigative committee replied to the applicant that firstly , it was not competent to take such a decision as , under LAW of the ORG , a criminal case could only be transferred for investigation to a superior investigative authority by a reasoned decision of the head of that authority , and that secondly , order no . CARDINAL did not provide for obligatory transfer of cases of this kind to the new investigative divisions .

On DATE the central office of the investigative committee of GPE sent the applicant ’s transfer request back to the regional investigative committee , which , in a letter of DATE , gave the applicant the same reply as before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant brought civil proceedings for damages sustained as a result of his unlawful arrest , detention at the police station , torture , handcuffing and unlawful questioning about his involvement in a criminal offence . He claimed RUB CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and RUB CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage . Judge PERSON . of ORG held a hearing with the participation of the applicant , his lawyer and his interpreter , representatives of ORG , the GPE regional department of finance and budget policy and the GPE regional police department acting as a third party , and a prosecutor .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that the investigative measures conducted by the investigative committee after the opening of a criminal case had allowed it to establish the fact of the applicant ’s unlawful arrest , handcuffing and detention during the period from CARDINAL to DATE in the offices of police officers of the criminal investigation unit ( сотрудников уголовного розыска ) of the PERSON and in a cell for administrative detainees , as well as the fact that he had been subjected to physical violence with the aim of obtaining his confession to a murder and had had bodily injuries inflicted on him on the premises of FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As a result of the physical and psychological violence , the applicant had confessed to a murder . He had not been detained as a suspect , nor charged with , or found guilty of , any crime .

On the basis of the preliminary investigation , which had established the elements of a crime under LAW ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE terminating the administrative proceedings against the applicant for lack of an administrative offence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the evidence submitted by the applicant in the civil proceedings , ORG found it established that the applicant had been subjected to the abovementioned unlawful acts by police officers , despite the failure to identify them all . Of those identified , ORG noted PERSON , who had signed the records and the decision concerning the administrative offence allegedly committed by the applicant . The physical violence to which the applicant had been subjected had not been made necessary by his conduct , had diminished his human dignity and had as such been a violation of the law . ORG awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of nonpecuniary damage and RUB CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage , to be paid by the federal and regional treasuries , and rejected the remainder of his claims .

According to the internet site of ORG , on DATE it examined the case following appeals lodged by the respondent authorities . No appeal against ORG judgment had been lodged by the applicant , who was represented before the appeal court by his counsel . ORG rejected the appeals and upheld the judgment .

A complaint about the applicant ’s ill - treatment was also lodged with the GPE regional police department , which informed the applicant ’s counsel on DATE that police officer PERSON had been disciplined for his failure to identify an alleged witness to the applicant ’s administrative offence .

Police officer S. , identified by the applicant as one of those who had participated in his illtreatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was promoted on DATE as head of a district police department .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON , PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing .

On DATE the ORG of Samara remanded the applicant in custody . The court held that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime , that he could abscond , commit crimes , destroy evidence , threaten witnesses or in any other way interfere with the investigation .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . The court reproduced the reasoning of the previous detention order . The court also indicated that the applicant had played a leading part in the criminal activities .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pretrial detention on the ground that the investigation was still pending and it was necessary to conduct some investigative activities . The court further referred to the same grounds as in the previous detention orders .

ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeals against the detention orders .

On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and a fine . On DATE ORG upheld his conviction on appeal .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed a robbery .

NORP By decision of CARDINAL DATE the court extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention until DATE . According to the applicant , his pretrial detention continued on DATE since the investigator sent his criminal case to the court with a CARDINAL day delay .

On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment with certain modifications .

The applicant subsequently lodged a request with a court to initiate supervisory review proceedings in his case . On an unspecified date the applicant ’s request was granted .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG amended the judgment and reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE and DATE of imprisonment .

During the trial the applicant was transported to ORG of GPE to take part in the examination of his criminal case .

While waiting for hearings in ORG of GPE the applicant was put in a convoy cell , a barred room measuring QUANTITY metres with CARDINAL bench . According to the applicant , he was usually kept in the convoy cell with CARDINAL other accused . On DATE CARDINAL accused were kept in the convoy cell . The cell did not have a toilet and the detainees were taken to the toilet on the wardens’ orders . Though the accused leaving for a court were provided with a packed lunch , no hot meal or hot water was distributed . The accused were not allowed to smoke .

The applicant did not provide any detailed information as to how many times and how long he had been detained in the convoy cell .

He stated that the average time spent in the convoy cell by an accused was TIME a day .

On DATE and DATE the applicant complained to the court and the Head of ORG about the conditions of detention in the convoy cell .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of PERSON replied to the applicant ’s complaint . The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :

“ ... on DATE accused were brought to the court ’s convoy cells , the cells were filled up to the limit because according to the Order no . CARDINAL ... the following categories of individuals should be detained separately : men and women , minors and adults , individuals with previous criminal record and first time accused , suspects and convicted , suspects and accused in CARDINAL case .

According to LAW ... smoking is prohibited in all LOC of ORG of GPE , including the convoy cell . ”

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the Head of ORG replied to the applicant ’s complaint . The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :

“ On DATE the convoy staff was obliged to seat the accused brought to the court according to the rules in force , thus CARDINAL individuals were put together in CARDINAL of the convoy cells .

On DATE the applicant asked the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the wardens of the courthouse . The prosecutor ignored the applicant ’s motion and the applicant challenged his inaction in court . By decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint in the final instance . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ The court ’s conclusion that there are no grounds to record the applicant ’s complaint under LAW ORG ) and to adopt a procedural decision under LAW correlates It follows from the applicant ’s statement of appeal ... that he complained of the conditions of the detention in the convoy cell of ORG of GPE , namely the smoking ban and the overcrowding of the cells . The complaint does not contain any information on committed crimes and does not require institution of criminal proceedings . These circumstances were established during the court hearing and confirmed by the record of the hearing . For the reasons mentioned above the court of first instance reasonably dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . ”

The Government submitted that the courthouse convoy LOC measuring QUANTITY metres in total had CARDINAL cells , QUANTITY metres each . They had adequate ventilation and lighting , the entrance was secured by metal grill doors . Each cell was equipped with CARDINAL bench . The cells did not have sanitary facilities , but the convoy LOC had CARDINAL lavatories . The applicant had access to the toilet at any time upon request . The Government provided undated photographs and a plan of the convoy LOC .

Relying on a certificate issued by the director of facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE , the Government claimed that the applicant was brought to ORG of Chelyabinsk seven times : on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE DATE .

The Government submitted that the documents confirming the number of detainees in the convoy cells and their time of arrival and departure were destroyed on DATE due to expiry of the timelimit for their storage .

With reference to the applicable regulations , the ORG submitted that on the dates of the applicant ’s transfers to ORG the applicant had received a dry ration ( bread , tinned meat or fish , tea , salt , sugar and disposable tableware before DATE , and instant first and second course , sugar , tea , disposable tableware from DATE ) . The Government provided a copy of the invoice dated DATE confirming the purchase of a water boiler by ORG .

The Government acknowledged that on DATE the convoy premises were crowded to the limit . According to the statement by the Deputy Head of ORG dated DATE , there were CARDINAL detainees in CARDINAL cells in the convoy LOC . The statement does not provide exact numbers for each cell .


CASE OF KHALILOVA AND AYYUBZADE v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence)

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . At the material time the first applicant was a member of CARDINAL of the main opposition parties in the country , ORG of Azerbaijan , and the second applicant was a member of an opposition group , ORG .

The applicants participated in an assembly on DATE . According to the applicants , they were among people who gathered near ORG to support members of ORG ( an opposition group ) , who were being tried on DATE . The courtroom was full , and therefore some people gathered outside the court to wait for the outcome of the proceedings . When the court announced its judgment , those who had gathered outside began to protest against the judgment , since they considered it unfair . The protest was brief , spontaneous and peaceful . Immediately after the protesters started chanting slogans , police officers and people in plain clothes began to forcibly disperse the demonstration .

The applicants were arrested during the dispersal operation and were taken to a police station , where they were kept TIME .

The applicants were questioned at the police station .

On DATE of the applicants’ arrest , administrative - offence reports on them ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) were issued , which stated that they had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( “ the CAO ” ) : participation in a public assembly organised not in accordance with the law .

According to the applicants , they were never served with copies of the administrative - offence reports or other documents from their case files . They were not given access to a lawyer either after their arrest or while they were in police custody .

According to a police officer ’s decision and an order dated DATE , a ORG - funded lawyer ( Mr O.A. ) was invited to defend the first applicant . Similarly , according to a police officer ’s decision and an order dated DATE , a ORG - funded lawyer ( PERSON ) was invited to defend the second applicant .

The applicants were brought before ORG on DATE following their arrest .

According to the applicants , the hearing before the first - instance court was very brief in both cases . Members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .

According to the applicants , they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing .

A ORG - funded lawyer was invited to defend the first applicant . It was the same lawyer , PERSON , who had been invited to defend her in accordance with the above - mentioned police officer ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The second applicant was not represented by a lawyer . According to the transcript of the hearing in his case , he refused the assistance of the ORG - funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person .

According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the first applicant , the ORG - funded lawyer did not make any oral or written submissions .

The only witnesses questioned during the hearing concerning the first applicant were police officers who , according to official records , had arrested her or issued the administrative - offence report on her . They testified that the applicant had staged an unauthorised protest . With respect to the second applicant , the court did not question any witness .

According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the first applicant , she stated that she had participated in the protest of DATE and had rightfully used “ improper language ” in the course of the protest .

According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the second applicant , he stated that he had simply protested against an unfair judgment against the ORG members , and had not committed any unlawful action .

NORP In both cases ORG found that the applicants had participated in an unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted the applicants under LAW of the ORG , and sentenced them to a period of administrative detention of CARDINAL and twenty days respectively .

On unspecified dates the applicants lodged appeals with ORG , arguing that their convictions had been in violation of their rights , because the protest in which they had participated had been spontaneous and peaceful . The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful , and that the hearings before the first - instance court had not been fair . They asked ORG to quash the firstinstance court ’s decisions in their respective cases .

The first applicant was assisted by a lawyer of her own choosing before ORG . The second applicant was not represented by a lawyer .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the decisions of the firstinstance court .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

On DATE the applicants were taken into police custody . Their statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer . All the applicants confessed to having committed the crimes with which they had been charged . On DATE they were remanded in custody .

On DATE ORG at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicants ( except for GPE ) , charging them under LAW of the former LAW with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory .

On DATE the LAW was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of ORG were replaced by civilian judges .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicants as charged .

On DATE ORG quashed the convictions .

State Security Courts were abolished on DATE pursuant to Law no . CARDINAL . The case was accordingly transferred to ORG .

NORP On DATE ORG again convicted the applicants under LAW of LAW and sentenced them to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the convictions .


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

All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became final but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts ( for more details see the Appendix ) .


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

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE there was a bomb explosion in GPE . Criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with this explosion and on DATE the applicant was charged with unlawful possession of explosive materials under LAW of GPE .

On DATE ORG , GPE , ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant and issued an arrest warrant .

On DATE the arrest warrant was sent to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) of GPE .

It appears from a letter of DATE signed by the head of ORG of the ORG that following the transfer of the arrest warrant to the NORP authorities the police contacted the applicant , who was in GPE , sometime in DATE . The applicant came voluntarily to the ORG and submitted that he had no link with the explosion in question . The ORG established that the applicant was an NORP national and decided to transfer his statement to the relevant NORP authorities . At the request of the NORP authorities , on DATE the applicant was again questioned at the ORG with the participation of CARDINAL NORP police officers about his possible involvement in the explosion . Following a TIME interrogation , no action was taken against the applicant and he left the premises of ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) of the ORG about an alleged misappropriation of his property by a certain ORG and others . Dissatisfied with the progress in the case , the applicant subsequently lodged complaints with various ORG authorities about the failure of the ORG to investigate his complaint .

On DATE the applicant was summoned to the ORG and on arrival there he was arrested . The applicant was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer , and his arrest was not documented .

As the applicant ’s family had no information about his whereabouts , on DATE they lodged a criminal complaint with FAC . CARDINAL related to the applicant ’s disappearance , and submitted a photograph of him to the police .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant ’s family by telephone that the applicant had been arrested and detained in the temporary detention facility of the ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s brother was allowed to visit him in the temporary detention facility of the ORG . However , the applicant ’s family was not informed of the reasons for the applicant ’s arrest and detention .

On DATE the applicant ’s family contacted a lawyer for the applicant ’s defence and at around TIME on DATE a contract was concluded between them .

At TIME on DATE the lawyer went to the ORG and tried to meet the applicant . However , the lawyer was informed that he could not meet the applicant without the authorisation of the investigator . The lawyer immediately sent telegrams to the ORG , ORG and the ORG complaining that he had been prevented from meeting the applicant .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was brought before a judge of ORG who ordered his detention on remand ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . His lawyer was not informed about the hearing ; the applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer .

While detained in the temporary detention facility of the ORG , he was during the period from DATE to DATE forced to change his statement in the criminal case concerning the misappropriation of his property by ORG and others .

As regards the criminal complaint lodged by his family ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , by letter of DATE the head of GPE FAC . CARDINAL informed the applicant ’s family of the investigator ’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings in connection with his disappearance . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ On DATE citizen PERSON lodged a complaint with FAC . CARDINAL , stating that his brother , PERSON [ the applicant ] , born in DATE , left his home at TIME on DATE and has not returned .

Citizen PERSON also made a statement confirming the content of his complaint .

A report was prepared and transferred to FAC . CARDINAL in connection with the search for PERSON [ the applicant ] . During the search , all the police stations in GPE were instructed and other measures were taken .

During the search , non - official information was received indicating that PERSON had been arrested by the ORG of the ORG because he was wanted in GPE . An enquiry in this regard was sent to the ORG , but no response has yet been received .

The whereabouts of PERSON have not yet been clearly established .

Taking into account that there is no evidence that a crime has been committed , institution of criminal proceedings in connection with this subject should be rejected . ”

The applicant was arrested at TIME on DATE . The relevant part of the official record of the applicant ’s arrest ( cinayət törətmiş şəxsin tutulması barədə protokol ) of DATE reads as follows :

“ ... At TIME on DATE , PERSON [ the applicant ] , whose identity was established later , born on ... and in ... was arrested in the district of GPE in GPE and taken to the department . It was established during questioning there that on DATE PERSON was charged under LAW ( unlawful possession of explosive materials ) of LAW of GPE by ORG ... an arrest warrant was issued , and the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody was ordered ...

PERSON was transferred to the temporary detention facility of the ORG ... ”

It appears from the extracts from the logbook of the ORG ’s temporary detention facility submitted to ORG that the applicant arrived at the detention facility at TIME on DATE following a decision of a ORG judge .

On DATE a judge of ORG , relying on the NORP court ’s detention order of CARDINAL DATE , ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant for DATE . At the hearing the applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer . The judge relied on the provisions of LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) of GPE relating to detention with a view to extradition when she ordered the applicant ’s detention . The judge justified this measure as follows :

“ Taking into account the fact that PERSON oglu committed a less serious criminal offence and , if released , would obstruct the objective functioning of the investigation by absconding from it , I consider it necessary to confirm the decision of DATE of ORG of Preobrazhensky District , GPE , to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him for DATE .

In fact , according to LAW , upon receipt of a request for extradition of a person and a copy of a detention order in respect of him from the competent authority of a foreign ORG , the prosecuting authority of GPE to which the request is addressed may , if necessary , take measures in compliance with the provisions of this LAW to have the person arrested and detained before a decision on extradition is taken . ”

Following a series of complaints to the various domestic authorities , on DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was provided with a copy of the record of the applicant ’s arrest and ORG decision of DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against ORG decision of DATE , claiming that his arrest and detention had been unlawful . In particular , he submitted that he had been unlawfully arrested on DATE and that there were no criminal proceedings pending against him in GPE . He further argued that as he was an NORP national he could not be extradited to a foreign ORG , which followed from LAW and LAW . He also submitted that his arrest and detention had not been carried out in accordance with domestic and international law , since no official request accompanied by the relevant documents for his detention and extradition was ever submitted by the NORP authorities . The applicant ’s lawyer also submitted a request for restoration of the time - limits for lodging an appeal . In this connection , the lawyer stated that although at TIME the applicant ’s family had appointed him as a lawyer for the applicant ’s defence , he had not been informed of ORG hearing , which was held at TIME on DATE . He further noted that he had been provided with a copy of the detention order only on DATE .

On DATE the NORP ORG granted the request for restoration of the time - limits for lodging an appeal and forwarded the applicant ’s appeal to the appellate court for examination .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE without considering the applicant ’s specific complaints .

On DATE the NORP ORG granted the prosecutor ’s request for the extension of the applicant ’s detention for DATE , relying on LAW CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings . In its decision , the court noted that as the applicant was an NORP national he could not be extradited to a foreign ORG , and for this reason ORG had requested ORG to transfer the applicant ’s criminal case to the NORP authorities . The court thus justified the extension of the applicant ’s detention period by the fact that more time was needed for the submission of relevant documents relating to the applicant ’s case from ORG to the NORP authorities . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ As the extradition of PERSON to GPE is impossible because he is a citizen of GPE , a request was sent to ORG for the criminal case to be transferred to ORG for the criminal inquiry to be continued in GPE .

Taking into account the fact that more time is needed for the transfer of the criminal case relating to the accused PERSON from ORG to ORG , but that the detention period of PERSON oglu ends on DATE , I consider the request justified in order to ensure the criminal prosecution of PERSON in the future and to prevent him from absconding from the court proceedings .

Taking into account the above - mentioned matters and relying on ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , I decide that the detention period of PERSON oglu born on ... and in ... must be extended for DATE , until DATE . ”

The applicant appealed against this decision , claiming that the extension of his detention was unlawful . He noted in particular that although the court had relied on LAW CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings when it ordered the extension of his detention , there were no criminal proceedings pending against him in GPE , and therefore his detention could not be extended on this basis . He also submitted that the court had failed to justify the extension of his detention , and that his continued detention was in breach of the relevant international conventions . The applicant further reiterated the complaint concerning his unlawful detention from DATE in the ORG , noting that the main reason for his detention was his complaint concerning misappropriation of his property by ORG and others . In this connection he disputed the content of the official record of his arrest , stating that his family could not possibly have known about his arrest at TIME on DATE and concluded a contract with his lawyer for his defence , if he had been arrested at TIME on DATE as indicated in the official record .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The appellate court made no mention of the applicant ’s particular complaints .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG , asking the court to replace his remand in custody with the preventive measure of house arrest . He claimed , in particular , that his detention had not been justified and that there was no reason for his continued detention . In support of his request , the applicant pointed out that he had a permanent place of residence and that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE , relying on LAW CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings . As to the justification for the extension of the applicant ’s detention , the court relied on an almost identical wording as that of the court ’s decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision , reiterating his previous complaints . He noted in this regard that the domestic courts had ignored his complaint concerning his unlawful detention in the temporary detention facility of the ORG from DATE . He further stated that although the NORP authorities had never submitted any extradition request or a request for institution of criminal proceedings against him in GPE , he had been detained in breach of the domestic and international law . In particular , he referred to Article CARDINAL of the ORG , which provides that a person arrested with a view to extradition must be released if no official request for his extradition is received by the NORP prosecuting authority within TIME of his arrest .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s decision . The appellate court made no mention of the applicant ’s specific complaints .

On DATE the ORG again extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE . The court ’s decision was almost identical in its wording to the decisions of DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision . He reiterated that the domestic courts had ignored his complaint concerning his unlawful detention in the temporary detention facility of the ORG from CARDINAL to DATE . He further stated that it was not legitimate for the domestic courts to order the extension of his detention on the ground that more time was needed for the transfer of relevant documents from the NORP authorities to their NORP counterparts .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s appeal and ordered his release . The appellate court quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , holding that the first - instance court had erred in extending the applicant ’s continued detention . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ It appears from the ORG ’s decision of DATE , concerning an operational - search measure and which was added to the case file , that a decision concerning an operational - search measure in respect of PERSON , who was wanted for a crime committed in GPE , was taken .

The record of the applicant ’s arrest , drawn up by ... , indicates that PERSON was arrested on DATE .

In accordance with the requirements of LAW , upon receipt of a request for extradition of a person and a copy of a detention order in respect of him from the competent authority of a foreign ORG , the prosecuting authority of GPE to which the request is addressed may , if necessary , take measures in compliance with the provisions of this LAW to have the person arrested and detained before the decision on extradition is taken ...

In accordance with paragraph II of LAW , a citizen of GPE may under no circumstances be extradited to a foreign state .

In accordance with LAW , a citizen of GPE who has committed a crime on the territory of a foreign state shall not be extradited to that foreign state ...

In accordance with the requirements of LAW DATE , if a request for extradition , as provided for in LAW , and accompanying documents were not transferred within DATE of the date of arrest of the person arrested , the person must be immediately released .

It appears that PERSON has been in detention for DATE and DATE , or CARDINAL , and that during this period no additional material concerning him was sent from GPE to the NORP authorities ...

Therefore , taking into account the above - mentioned findings , the panel of the court considers that the appeal of the lawyer must be granted and that ORG decision on extension of PERSON detention period must be quashed . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)

Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE Inspector PERSON ORG arrested the applicant and took him to the police station . The applicant , who had category CARDINAL disability status in relation to his eyesight , did not offer any resistance . Subsequently , PERSON beat up the applicant by delivering several blows to his head , near to his eyes . When the applicant fell to the ground , PERSON kicked him at least once in the chest .

After this injury , the deterioration of the applicant ’s sight accelerated , leading to retinal detachment . In DATE and DATE he had several eye operations , including CARDINAL in a hospital in GPE , but the retinal detachment continued to progress . In DATE he was granted category CARDINAL disability status for complete loss of vision .

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against GPE On DATE the applicant was joined as a civil party to those proceedings .

NORP In DATE a forensic medical report was drawn up . It stated that on DATE the applicant had sustained numerous injuries , which by their nature were considered moderate , resulting in long - term health problems of CARDINAL one days and permanently reducing his capacity to work by CARDINAL .

On DATE charges were brought against PERSON and on DATE the case was sent to ORG for adjudication .

S.K. did not appear at the first hearing on DATE . ORG held that the case could not be heard in his absence and issued a warrant for his arrest . In DATE the warrant was sent to the NORP police station .

During the same hearing the applicant ’s lawyers asked the trial court to order a second forensic medical report in an attempt to establish the nature and seriousness of the injuries sustained . The prosecutor supported the request and ORG ordered a report .

In DATE , DATE and DATE ORG asked the NORP police station for information about the measures taken and results achieved in executing the arrest warrant . In reply to each request the police sent identical responses stating that PERSON was wanted and that the trial court would be informed when he was caught . In DATE the police informed ORG that , according to information received , PERSON had left GPE .

NORP In DATE the forensic medical service reminded ORG that it had not received any original medical documents . In DATE and DATE ORG asked the NORP authorities for assistance in obtaining originals of medical records relating to the applicant ’s operations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . For unknown reasons the documents were not obtained and as a result , the report could not be drawn up .

On DATE the prosecutor asked the trial court to order a forensic medical examination to confirm the classification of the offence . After the initial forensic medical report the applicant ’s health had deteriorated and he had completely lost his sight . According to the prosecutor , there were therefore grounds to consider that that might be related to the injuries which had been inflicted on the applicant in DATE . ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s request and ordered the third forensic medical examination . A medical panel was asked to comment on what kind of trauma had caused the injuries ; whether the applicant had lost his sight as a result of the injuries inflicted on him in DATE ; to what extent he had been incapacitated before the injuries and their severity .

On DATE a medical report was drawn up . It stated that on DATE the applicant had sustained injuries which by their nature were considered minor , resulting in health problems of DATE . The report continued that prior to the injuries the applicant had had serious and progressively deteriorating myopia . The applicant ’s sight problems had become worse as a result of the head injuries sustained on DATE , and that had led to further deterioration of his sight .

It was also noted that , under domestic law , the worsening of a preexisting condition did not as such serve as grounds for reclassifying the seriousness of an injury . Serious eye disorders could develop and result in the loss of sight even without trauma . In the light of the above , the report did not establish a direct causal link between the injuries inflicted on the applicant in DATE and his loss of sight .

In DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant ’s request for another medical report for lack of reasoning .

DATE a total of CARDINAL hearings were postponed because experts , doctors , including an ophthalmologist , did not attend and several medical experts needed to be called . In particular , on QUANTITY occasions DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE hearings were postponed at the request of the applicant , as he had asked for a doctor and a forensic expert to be summoned .

On DATE , at the request of ORG , a panel of experts drew up the fourth medical report which stated that the applicant had suffered CARDINAL blow to his right eye and to his thorax . The injuries sustained by him were considered minor . The report continued by stating that on DATE the applicant had suffered injuries to his head that had resulted in a serious worsening of his eye disorder ( myopia ) with the recurrence of retinal detachments in both eyes followed by further deterioration of his sight . The worsening of a pre - existing condition , including after earlier injuries , did not in itself provide a basis for determining a more serious classification of bodily injury . A severe and progressive eye disorder ( myopia ) could deteriorate and lead to retinal detachment even if no injuries had been suffered , and eventually lead to complete loss of vision . The experts concluded that the applicant ’s head injuries of CARDINAL DATE had no direct causal link with the subsequent deterioration of his vision and his category CARDINAL disability status .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with the trial court for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG found guilty PERSON absentia for abusing his official power in a violent and disrespectful manner . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

In relation to the applicant ’s civil claim ORG held that the total amount claimed , namely CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and MONEY ( ORG ) had not been supported by evidence . The majority of the documents confirming payment of the medical expenses had been submitted in NORP and LANGUAGE , and in order to invite a translator it would have to delay the adjudication . In addition , the applicant had not stated which part of the expenses related to the consequences of the injuries sustained . Accordingly , the trial court decided as follows :

“ To recognise the [ applicant ’s ] rights to compensation from the ORG for material , pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the criminal offence , and to remit ( nodot ) the question of the precise amount to be awarded / enforced ( piedzīt ) to the court to decide in civil proceedings ” .

The judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the ORG registered the applicant ’s civil claim dated DATE against ORG and ORG . The applicant claimed compensation for damage caused by the criminal offence committed by Inspector PERSON In the claim the applicant relied on the operative part of the judgment of ORG ( see above ) , section CARDINAL of the Law on Police and various provisions of LAW which regulated tort liability . Relying on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in particular , the applicant claimed pecuniary and non - pecuniary ( morālo kaitējumu ) damages of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for blindness , mutilation and disfigurement ( sakropļojums un izķēmojums ) , loss of future income ( atrautā peļņa ) and medical expenses .

On DATE ORG , acting as a firstinstance court , relied , amongst other provisions , on LAW and section CARDINAL of the Law on Police , and accepted the applicant ’s civil claim in part . He was awarded ORG ( LAW ) in non - pecuniary damages for the damage caused to his health and ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages from both defendants on a pro rata basis for his medical expenses .

According to ORG , the applicant ’s claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage came within the scope of section CARDINAL of LAW , a lex specialis providing no specific criteria for awarding compensation . The court referred to the findings of the experts in the criminal proceedings and stated that the applicant ’s bodily injuries caused by the police officer might have been the reason for the worsening of his eye disorder ( myopia ) that had resulted in a rapid deterioration of his sight and eventually complete loss of vision .

On DATE ORG reviewed the case following appeals by the applicant , ORG and ORG . It ruled that the first - instance court had been incorrect in concluding that the applicant ’s injuries had amounted to mutilation and disfigurement under LAW of LAW . The applicant ’s claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage was dismissed . The pecuniary damages were reduced to ORG ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

Regarding the applicant ’s claim for pecuniary damages , ORG ruled that the judgment adopted in the criminal proceedings against PERSON only proved that he had committed a crime using violence against the applicant . The CARDINAL usual criteria for establishing tort liability and compensation thus had to be satisfied ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the judgment of CARDINAL DATE the first and fourth criteria had been established . ORG analysed all the medical data before it concerning the applicant ’s health and concluded that ORG were liable to pay pecuniary damages to the applicant for his medical expenses under section CARDINAL of LAW .

Regarding the applicant ’s claim for non - pecuniary damages , ORG concluded that the loss of the applicant ’s sight had occurred under specific circumstances , including his previous state of health . It was also noted that the loss of his sight was not directly linked to the bodily injuries sustained by him on DATE . There was therefore no evidence to prove that his bodily injuries had amounted to mutilation or disfigurement , as provided in section CARDINAL of LAW .

In a preparatory meeting on CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant as not raising any relevant legal issues .

In a letter dated DATE addressed to the Government , ORG stated that there were no grounds for the national courts to extend the scope of the applicant ’s claim and decide on the awarding of non - pecuniary damages on the following grounds . The applicant had claimed pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages for injuries sustained as a result of police ill - treatment . In this regard he had relied on sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW , which provided that compensation could be claimed for mutilation and disfigurement . In order to determine whether the consequences of the alleged injuries were those stipulated in the legal provision , the domestic courts had to establish the essential conditions of tort liability , namely ( i ) unlawful conduct , ( ii ) damage , ( iii ) a causal link between the unlawful conduct and damage claimed and ( iv ) fault . In the applicant ’s case , no such conclusions could be drawn on the basis of the medical documents . The applicant had lost his sight owing to various coexisting circumstances , not as a result of the injuries sustained in DATE .

ORG also stated that with the amendments of DATE LAW contained a general legal provision ( section DATE of LAW ) for claiming non - pecuniary damages . Nevertheless , it did not have retroactive effect and therefore the national courts could not apply it in the applicant ’s case . According to ORG , no such obligation could be inferred from any other legal acts on the account that the subject matter of the present civil dispute did not concern the public law obligation which ORG had undertaken in the area of human rights .

Furthermore , ORG indicated that in the applicant ’s case the DATE statutory limitation period for claiming damages had started to run on DATE , DATE the final judgment in the criminal case became effective . ORG therefore considered that the applicant still had the right to rely on LAW and lodge a claim for compensation for damage caused by a criminal offence . In that regard ORG referred to the judgment of DATE in the so - called “ PERSON tragedy ” case , in which it ruled that a person has the right to receive compensation for violations of his or her human rights .