No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);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 PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was provided with a flat by the local authorities in the city of PERSON .

On DATE the applicant married PERSON and the couple lived in that flat .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON had a son .

On DATE the couple divorced , but neither of them would agree to vacate the flat .

According to the applicant , after the divorce his former wife repeatedly demanded that he sell the flat . As he refused to do so , he allegedly received threats from PERSON , her relatives and certain police officers . Whenever disputes broke out between the former spouses living in the same flat , PERSON called the police to handle them .

NORP In DATE the ORG considered an administrative case against the applicant following the submissions of the police concerning the domestic violence by the applicant . The court found the applicant guilty of violent behaviour in respect of his son and former spouse and imposed a fine on him .

At QUANTITY on DATE CARDINAL police officers arrived at the applicant ’s flat after receiving a telephone call from S. complaining about the applicant . According to the Government , the call was made by the applicant ’s neighbour ; the applicant was shouting and threatening PERSON and the latter was crying that the applicant was threatening her with a knife .

According to the applicant , he refused to let the police officers in as they did not show their ID cards or present themselves , it was too TIME and the light in the corridor was turned off . The police tried to enter but failed to do so . At TIME on DATE CARDINAL of S. ’s brothers arrived and demanded that the applicant open the door . By that time , the light in the corridor was switched on and the applicant checked to see who was there by looking through the peephole in the door . As he saw only the CARDINAL brothers without any police officers , he decided to open the door . Once he had unlocked the door , the brothers together with QUANTITY police officers burst in and started to beat up the applicant . The applicant did not resist . When trying to handcuff the applicant the police officers twisted his arms and broke his right arm . They then took the applicant to the police station . They allegedly ill - treated him on his way to the police station and once there .

According to the Government , PERSON ’s brothers arrived at the scene after receiving a call from S. At TIME on DATE they managed to persuade the applicant to open the door . However , as soon as he did so , he saw the police officers in the corridor and made an attempt to close the door . PERSON ’s brothers and the police officers pushed against the door and burst into the flat . Having been pushed away from the door , the applicant fell onto a chair and the floor . In order to arrest the applicant and take him to the district police station , the police officers decided to handcuff him . As the applicant was resisting his arrest , they had to apply force against him . In the course of handcuffing the applicant , his arm was unintentionally broken .

In the police station the applicant complained about his broken arm . An ambulance was therefore called and he was taken to ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ the hospital ” ) .

In the hospital the applicant was diagnosed with a fractured right humerus accompanied by displacement of bone fragments , neuritis of the radial nerve , crushed soft tissue , and bruises on both wrists and on his jaw .

On DATE the applicant underwent an operation on his arm . He stayed in the hospital until DATE for inpatient treatment .

On DATE complained to the district police that the applicant had threatened to kill her and their son .

On DATE the police questioned PERSON , her brothers , the applicant and the neighbours . They also inspected the scene of the events .

On DATE a forensic medical examination of S. was carried out . The expert report stated that S. had a bruise on her right lower leg , which could have been caused by a blunt object on DATE .

On DATE the police , having regard to S. ’s refusal to maintain her complaint , refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE the investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with an offence under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( threat to kill ) . According to the applicant , the criminal case was closed for lack of evidence .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) on account of his ill - treatment by the police and his former wife ’s brothers .

On DATE the assistant prosecutor at the district prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill - treatment . Considering the facts of the incident , he noted that the applicant had been pushed backwards when the door had been forced open and had fallen onto a chair , hitting his right arm against the floor . He held that that might have been when the applicant had sustained the injuries . Having regard to those circumstances and the applicant ’s behaviour during the conflict , the assistant prosecutor concluded that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers . The decision was based on the reports of the police officers and the interviews of the applicant , S. , her brothers and the neighbours . The assistant prosecutor also had regard to the city police ’s internal inquiry report of DATE , which suggested that the police officers had acted lawfully .

On DATE the district prosecutor quashed that decision as unfounded and ordered additional pre - investigating enquiries . He noted , in particular , that the medical examination of the applicant had not been completed and the role of S. ’s brothers in the incident had not been properly examined .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office received an internal inquiry report of ORG suggesting that the applicant had sustained his injuries when falling onto a chair and the floor .

The medical examination of the applicant was completed on CARDINAL DATE . The experts noted in their report that , apart from a fractured right humerus , the applicant had sustained bruises on his right forearm , right shoulder , left leg and both wrists .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office , having carried out additional pre - investigating enquiries , refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill - treatment for the reason that there had been no elements of crime in the conduct of the police officers . The decision reproduced the same version of events as the CARDINAL established earlier by the authorities , suggesting that the applicant had sustained his injuries when falling onto a chair and the floor . It specified that the applicant had a strong constitution and had offered resistance during the arrest . The police officers had therefore been assisted by PERSON ’s brothers when restraining and handcuffing the applicant .

On DATE ORG quashed that decision and ordered further pre - investigating enquiries . It considered that it was necessary to examine the applicant ’s personality , his behaviour before the quarrel with PERSON , and whether he had been drunk at the time . Furthermore , the circumstances in which the applicant was injured and the role of each of the participants of the incident had to be scrutinised and an additional medical examination of the applicant carried out .

During the additional pre - investigating enquiries the authorities once again interviewed the applicant and PERSON They took statements from the ambulance paramedic as to the circumstances of the applicant ’s hospitalisation . They inspected the scene of the incident , and enclosed a negative reference letter from the local house - maintenance authority in respect of the applicant .

On DATE the juvenile department of the city council interviewed the applicant ’s minor son in the presence of S. , a school teacher and a school psychologist . By that time the son had undergone a psychological examination by the school psychologist , who had concluded , inter alia , that the son was scared of his father and did not include him in the family circle . During the interview at the juvenile department the applicant ’s son claimed that his father had uttered obscenities and had threatened him and his mother ; occasionally , his father would grab hold of him and shake him . He alleged that his father had taken a knife and had chased his mother around the flat ; his father had also often threatened to throw his mother off the balcony . When asked about his attitude towards his father , the applicant ’s son replied that he was scared of his father and wished to live just with his mother .

On DATE the panel of experts concluded that the fracture of the applicant ’s arm had resulted from a rotary application of force , when the arm had been turned about its axis . They noted that this corresponded to the applicant ’s statement that his arms had been twisted behind his back . The experts added that the fracture could not have been caused by a direct application of force , including when the applicant , as alleged by the police officers , had fallen down as the door had been pushed open .

On DATE the medical expert was interviewed as regards the possible origin of the applicant ’s injuries . The expert opined that the bruises on the applicant ’s wrists could have been caused by the handcuffs . He did not exclude the possibility that the other identified injuries , except for the fractured arm , might have resulted from the applicant ’s fall and the impact with a chair and the floor .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office refused to open an investigation in connection with the alleged ill - treatment for the reason that there were no elements of crime in the conduct of the police officers . According to the decision , the applicant might have sustained the fractured arm when the police officers , assisted by S. ’s brothers , were twisting his arms in order to handcuff him ; the bruises on his wrists might have been caused by the handcuffs ; the other bruises might have been caused by the applicant ’s fall onto a chair and the floor when he was pushed backwards by the entrance door . The decision specified that the applicant had a strong constitution and had offered resistance during the arrest .

On DATE the Staromiskyy District Court of Vinnytsya quashed the decision of DATE , holding that the pre - investigating enquiries were incomplete . The court ordered the authorities to take additional measures to scrutinise the circumstances of the incident , the role of each participant , the personality of the applicant and the situation in the family .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office , having conducted additional enquiries , refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill - treatment . The decision set out the facts in the following way . In the evening of DATE the local police station received a telephone call reporting a domestic dispute at the applicant ’s flat . At QUANTITY police officers arrived at the flat but could not enter as the applicant refused to open the door . The police officers could hear a woman and a child crying for help . In particular , the woman was crying that the applicant was wielding a knife and threatening to kill her . The woman asked the applicant to open the door several times , but to no avail . The police officers attempted to negotiate with the applicant . CARDINAL neighbours stood nearby and observed the situation .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL of S. ’s brothers arrived and asked the applicant to open the door , claiming that the police had left . When the applicant unlocked the door the police officers and the brothers burst into the flat , pushing the applicant backwards with the door , which he was trying to shut . The applicant fell onto a chair and the floor , and might have been injured .

In the flat the police officers decided to handcuff the applicant and take him to the police station . As the applicant had a strong constitution and resisted the arrest , the police officers were assisted by PERSON ’s brothers . They twisted the applicant ’s arms behind his back and handcuffed him . Once the applicant had been taken to the police station , he started to complain of pain in his right arm . He was then taken to the hospital by ambulance for treatment .

Relying on those facts , the district prosecutor ’s office found that the police officers and PERSON ’s brothers had acted lawfully and had had no intention of injuring the applicant . Their intention had been to arrest him and stop his unlawful and dangerous conduct . The recourse to physical force had been lawful and necessary in the circumstances . The fractured arm might have been caused when the applicant resisted the twisting of his arms behind his back ; the bruises on his wrists were probably caused by the handcuffs , and the other bruises might have resulted from the applicant ’s fall onto a chair and the floor when he was pushed away from the door . The district prosecutor ’s office concluded that in those circumstances there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers and PERSON ’s CARDINAL brothers .

On DATE the ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , finding that the prosecutor ’s office had taken all the necessary measures and examined the incident thoroughly , comprehensively and objectively .

On CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the decision of the first - instance court of DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . According to him , at the material time he had obtained a basic education ( середня спеціальна освіта ) in law and was working as a police officer .

On TIME the applicant had a fight with NORP in the course of which blows were exchanged . CARDINAL people witnessed the fight . After the fight the applicant went to work for a twentyfour hour shift . TIME NORP was found dead in the vicinity of the applicant ’s place of work .

According to the applicant , he was arrested on DATE that is to say DATE and was detained at the police office until TIME of DATE . The applicant also submits that during this period he was ill - treated by the police , who forced him to plead guilty , and that he was coerced into declining legal representation . The applicant submits that he did not yield to such pressure and did not make any statements nor confess to committing the murder . He further maintains that the police planted evidence against him , putting a blood stain on his shirt .

On DATE the local police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant , charging him with inflicting grievous bodily harm on NORP , which resulted in his death . At DATE the applicant was released , having signed a written undertaking not to abscond .

DATE and DATE a hoe was found close to the place where NORP ’s body had been found .

According to the applicant , he was arrested again on DATE . However , the arrest report refers to DATE . On DATE the Kirovsky District Court of Donetsk ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) extended the applicant ’s arrest until DATE . On the latter date ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand . It is not clear from the applicant ’s submissions whether he appealed against that court decision .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant , having been apprised of his right to legal assistance , declined to exercise this right and wished to defend himself in person . On DATE he changed his mind and on DATE a lawyer was appointed for him ( according to the applicant , however , he was only represented by a lawyer from DATE ) .

By DATE the investigator had taken a number of investigative steps including an on - site inspection , a post - mortem examination of the victim ’s body and other forensic examinations , questioning of the applicant and witnesses , and face - to - face confrontations between the latter and the applicant .

On DATE the indictment was approved by the district prosecutor and sent to ORG .

According to the applicant , the decisive evidence against him , namely the aforementioned bloodstained shirt and the hoe , which was believed to be the murder weapon , were not sealed during the investigation , as required by the relevant rules of procedure , and were later replaced with other items more consistent with the charges against him and consequently more incriminating . He denied the charges .

On DATE ORG took over the case and commenced the trial .

On DATE it held the first hearing . The applicant and his lawyer filed several motions and requests , including one to record the hearings using audio and video equipment . In order to arrange the latter , the court postponed the hearings until DATE .

During the trial the applicant filed numerous further requests ( for example , to summon additional witnesses , to familiarise himself with the case file , etc . ) and challenged the judge and prosecutor on numerous occasions ; as to the charges against him , the applicant pleaded not guilty .

On DATE , after CARDINAL hearings , ORG found the applicant guilty of the murder of NORP and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE , in the course of the applicant ’s study of the case file , which at the material time consisted of CARDINAL volumes , ORG found that the applicant was abusing this right by requesting simultaneous familiarisation with TIME and the audio and video recordings , and challenging the lawfulness of TIME of the court hearings and how the case file was processed . Eventually on DATE ORG terminated the applicant ’s study of the case file . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaints concerning the lawfulness of TIME of the court hearings .

The applicant appealed against the rulings of CARDINAL and DATE , but the result is not clear . According to the applicant , he was not provided with access to the audio and video records of the court hearings , some of the documents in the case file ( for instance , TIME of the court hearings ) were drafted in an improper manner ( in his view he was not provided with the final version of court TIME but only with a draft version ) in illegible handwriting , the case file was improperly processed , etc .

The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the judgment of DATE , challenging the conclusions of the forensic examinations and the testimonies of a number of witnesses , and alleging procedural shortcomings in the investigation and the trial . They requested discontinuation of the proceedings in question due to lack of evidence of the applicant ’s guilt .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , pointing out a number of the inferior court ’s shortcomings ( for example , failure to establish how D. ’s injuries had been caused and how the blood stain had appeared on the applicant ’s shirt , failure to address the applicant ’s version of events , etc . ) , found that the applicant ’s guilt was not sufficiently proven , and quashed the judgment . Accordingly , the case was remitted for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG resumed the trial .

As in the course of his first trial , the applicant again filed a large number of mostly unsuccessful requests and complaints ( including some concerning the quality of his defence lawyer ’s services ) and challenged the judges and prosecutor on numerous occasions . The situation culminated on DATE when the applicant was expelled from the court room during the hearing because of his shouting and interrupting the proceedings . After CARDINAL hearings had been held , at which , it appears , the applicant ’s lawyer was present , the applicant was once again allowed to be present at the court hearing on DATE .

On DATE the applicant refused the assistance of his lawyer , alleging the latter ’s collusion and incompetence , and on DATE the applicant requested that the court appoint another specified lawyer to represent him . The applicant ’s lawyer also sought leave to discontinue his services to the applicant , citing the latter ’s offensive behaviour and defamatory statements concerning him . On DATE and DATE ORG dismissed all those requests .

According to the applicant , on DATE the court interrupted him and prohibited him from finishing his last plea .

According to the applicant , at several points during the trial and retrial he requested the summoning of certain witnesses ( in particular , C. , the investigator ; an unidentified policeman who on DATE escorted the applicant to the police station ; PERSON , the policeman in whose office on DATE his bloodstained shirt had allegedly been produced ; PERSON , the policeman who signed the protocol on the examination and seizure of the aforementioned evidence ) , but to no avail . On several occasions he also unsuccessfully challenged the judges who were examining his case .

In DATE and DATE additional forensic examinations were held .

On DATE , after CARDINAL hearings , ORG , having examined the case before it , found the applicant guilty of NORP ’s murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . In convicting the applicant , the court took into account :

( a ) the eye - witness testimonies to the fight between the applicant and NORP on TIME DATE . These stated that NORP had sustained no injuries from the fight and that the applicant and NORP had had these types of conflicts before ;

( b ) medical evidence of injuries on the applicant ’s body . The ORG referred to the reports of CARDINAL and DATE stating that , according to them , the applicant ’s injuries had been caused on “ DATE ” and noted that , according to the applicant ’s own explanation to the medical expert , these injuries had been caused by the fight with NORP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ;

( c ) the testimonies of those who discovered NORP ’s body ;

( d ) the testimonies by the applicant ’s colleagues , according to which the hoe had been at their workplace on DATE , before the murder , but could no longer be found there on DATE , after the murder ;

( e ) the statement by ORG , the police officer who interrogated the applicant in DATE , that the applicant had pleaded guilty but refused to confirm his confession in writing ;

( f ) the forensic cytological examination report of DATE according to which the blood stain on the applicant ’s shirt “ could be from any person , including NORP ” and was not identified as being the applicant ’s blood ;

( g ) NORP the post - mortem examination report of DATE according to which the injuries to NORP could have been caused either by a blunt instrument or by a hoe ;

( h ) the forensic expert report of DATE concluding that it was not possible to establish the features of the instrument with which NORP was attacked but “ the probability that the injuries to NORP [ had been ] caused by the hoe under examination [ could ] not be excluded ” ;

( i ) the additional forensic expert report of DATE stating that blood would not have gushed out of NORP ’s injuries during the assault but could have spattered onto surrounding objects .

The court also noted that the procedural shortcomings committed during the pre - trial investigation were not so serious as to prejudice its examination of the case . It did not specify those shortcomings . In addition to the judgment , the court on DATE delivered a special ruling ( окрема ухвала ) informing the superior investigation authorities of the bad faith and negligence of their subordinates in charge of the applicant ’s case . In particular , the court noted that , initially , blood and hair samples had been found on the hoe , but these had subsequently been lost by the investigators at the pre - trial stage . In another special ruling given on DATE , the court informed the head of police of its subordinates’ failure to bring the applicant to the courthouse for the hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE notwithstanding the court ’s requests ; such a failure , according to the court , had delayed the examination of the applicant ’s case .

The judgment itself states that the hearing was public and that the defence lawyer was present . According to the applicant , this judgment was pronounced to him “ secretly ” on DATE in the GPE , that is to say the remand centre , where he was being detained . In support of his claim , the applicant submitted a copy of ORG letter of the same date requesting that the PERSON administration provide them with a room in which to pronounce the judgment to the applicant .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant familiarised himself with the case file . On DATE ORG , alleging the applicant ’s abuse of this right , terminated the applicant ’s study of the case file . On DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG so that the applicant could be given additional opportunity to familiarise himself with the case file . The applicant studied the file additionally from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

At this stage of the proceedings the applicant again challenged the lawfulness of TIME of the court hearings , obliging ORG to give interlocutory decisions .

The applicant further appealed against the judgment of DATE . He maintained , inter alia , that the impugned judgment lacked reasoning and had been “ secretly ” pronounced to him in the GPE .

On DATE the applicant repeatedly refused the assistance of his lawyer , alleging his collusion and incompetence .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant refused legal assistance from any lawyer . On DATE , after the applicant had changed his mind , ORG ordered that a lawyer be appointed for the applicant and for that reason adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE ORG , having reiterated the aforesaid pieces of evidence , upheld the judgment of DATE . It did not address the alleged lack of “ publicity ” of the criminal proceedings against the applicant as maintained in his appeal .

The text of the appellate court ’s decision states that the hearing was held in the presence of the applicant and the prosecutor ; no indication of the applicant ’s lawyer ’s presence at the hearing can be found . However , on DATE the applicant , apparently , filed a written statement before the hearing that he rejected the defence lawyer provided to him , and he did not request another one .

On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting in camera , rejected the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . According to the applicant , he familiarised himself with that decision on DATE .

According to the applicant , on CARDINAL and DATE he was “ beaten ” ( “ избивали ” ) by police officers and threatened and psychologically pressurised by the investigator , who allegedly coerced him into pleading guilty .

On DATE a forensic medical expert examined the applicant , found some bruises on his shoulders and right elbow , and classified them as light ones . Forensic expert report no . CARDINAL ( акт судовомедичного освідування ) concluded that these injuries had been caused DATE before the examination , during a fight or in selfdefence . The report contains a typed statement by the expert to the effect that during the examination the applicant had said that he had sustained the injuries in the course of the fight with the victim . The applicant denies that he had made that statement .

On DATE , following an order from the investigator , the same expert re - examined the applicant and came to the same conclusion , stating additionally that the injuries could have been caused CARDINAL and DATE ( forensic expert report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the prosecutor , having examined the matter proprio motu as required by domestic law , noted that , as the injuries caused to the applicant were light ones , the investigation of such offences was a matter for private prosecution . In the absence of a corresponding complaint by the applicant , the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings .

According to the Government , the applicant had not complained to the prosecutor of ill - treatment by the police and the investigator until DATE . In his description of ill - treatment the applicant stated that on DATE PERSON had exerted pressure under the applicant ’s ear with his finger , had slapped him with the palm of his hand on his forehead and had hit him on the nose with a passport ; at the same time another police officer had pushed the applicant in the back with his hand , and had punched him below the knee and on his head . In reply , on DATE , after holding a preliminary inquiry , the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding no prima facie case . The applicant states that no copies of that or any other decisions on the matter were served on him and he could therefore not challenge them before the domestic courts .

Subsequently the applicant repeatedly asked the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against certain specified policemen and the investigator , but to no avail . In particular , the decision of CARDINAL DATE was set aside and an additional investigation was ordered ; eventually , by decisions of DATE and DATE the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding no corpus delicti in the behaviour of the investigator or the police officers . In particular , in reaching her conclusions in the latter decision the prosecutor took into account :

- the conclusions in the forensic report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , namely that the injuries had been caused before the applicant first came into contact with the police ;

- the report of DATE from the ORG ( the police detention facility ) that in the period from DATE no bodily injuries had been found on the applicant ;

- the report of DATE from the GPE ( the remand prison ) , according to which the applicant did not complain and had no bodily injuries upon arrival ;

- the explanations offered by the police officers and the investigator against whose actions the applicant had complained .

The applicant did not appeal against these decisions . According to the Government , both decisions were sent to the GPE for the applicant ’s information . According to the applicant , he was served with a formal notification that the prosecutor had refused to institute criminal proceedings but not with copies of the relevant decisions . On several occasions he asked to be provided with the copies of the relevant prosecutor ’s decisions ( among others , letters no . ЛCARDINAL sent on DATE ; no . ЛCARDINAL sent on DATE ; no . ЛCARDINAL sent on DATE ; no . ЛCARDINAL sent on CARDINAL DATE ) . In fact , a copy of the decision of DATE was not sent to him until DATE .

During the trial the applicant also complained that he had been illtreated , without however alleging that this treatment resulted in a statement and a confession . On DATE , in the course of examining the charges against the applicant , ORG declared the complaint to be unfounded .

On DATE ORG remitted the criminal case against the applicant for fresh consideration , pointing out the inferior court ’s failure to address the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG referred to the applicant ’s injuries in the terms set out in paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) above .

On DATE , having examined the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG remitted the case to ORG and ordered the local ORG to hold an inquiry into the applicant ’s complaints of alleged ill - treatment in the course of the pre - trial investigation . On DATE ORG remitted the case to the prosecutor in compliance with the appellate court ’s instructions . According to the Government , the prosecutor sent the copies of the earlier decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE to the court and the latter was satisfied with them .

In their decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG of GPE , respectively , rejected the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant , the applicant or his lawyer applied to the courts on several occasions for release ( at least on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) but it is not clear whether the courts examined their requests .

On DATE the defence lawyer requested that the ORG release the applicant . He argued that the applicant had had no previous convictions , had his permanent residence in GPE and had not gone into hiding during the initial stage of the proceedings against him , had not obstructed the investigation , and that the suspicions raised in the detention order were no longer justifiable . The applicant ’s lawyer also referred to the principle of the presumption of innocence . On DATE ORG dismissed the request , limiting its reasoning to a statement that “ there [ were ] no grounds for replacing the applicant ’s detention on remand with a non - custodial preventive measure ” . In the operative part the court noted that its decision could be appealed against to ORG .

In judgments of DATE and QUANTITY DATE ORG and in rulings of DATE and DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) ordered , without any argumentation , that the applicant should remain in detention ; they did not specify any time - limit for his detention .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested that the local police and the ORG institute criminal proceedings in respect of the theft of his property which allegedly took place following his detention in DATE . In DATE the local police refused to institute the requested proceedings . Subsequently this decision was quashed and the preliminary inquiry was resumed several times . On DATE , the latest available decision , the local police again refused to institute the requested proceedings .

The applicant did not appeal against these refusals to a court .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested the local department of ORG ( hereafter “ the SPF ” ) to grant him a pension in so far as he was eligible due to his age . In a letter of DATE the local department of the ORG replied that the applicant was not entitled to a pension under national law as long as he was serving a prison sentence .

On DATE the local department of the ORG stated that the applicant would be entitled to a pension upon his release from prison .

It appears that the applicant did not challenge the aforesaid refusals before any domestic court .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant ’s son , PERSON ( FAC ) , was born in DATE and at the time of the events was serving a life sentence in FAC .

The applicant ’s son , who suffered from epilepsy , was held with CARDINAL other inmate ( ORG ) in cell no . CARDINAL , designated for CARDINAL inmates .

NORP Since DATE M.M. had sent numerous complaints to various domestic authorities , including ORG , ORG and ORG . He complained , in particular , of his conditions of detention , of violations of inmates’ rights in FAC and of ill - treatment by prison guards because of his complaints to various domestic authorities , alleging that his life was in danger .

On DATE S.R. left cell no . CARDINAL for a long - term visit to his mother and PERSON remained the sole occupant of the cell .

Early in the morning of DATE a fire broke out in the cell . According to the applicant , the fire began at TIME and prison guards did not immediately intervene to extinguish it despite warnings from other inmates . It took TIME for them to open the cell door after the outbreak of the fire .

According to the Government , the fire broke out at TIME The prison guards took immediate action and opened the cell door at TIME son out of the cell and gave him first aid . PERSON was sent to hospital by car at TIME , arrived at TIME and died at TIME

NORP The applicant was informed by telegram at TIME on DATE of the death of his son .

It appears from ORG death certificate , dated DATE , that the cause of death was first and second degree burns over the whole body and smoke inhalation ( bütün bədənin texniki yanığı , I - II dərəcəli yanıq , intoksikasiya ) .

On DATE ORG launched a criminal inquiry into ORG death .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the case refused to institute criminal proceedings . The investigator found that M.M. had suffered from epilepsy and that the fire had begun after his cigarette had fallen onto the bed during a seizure . The investigator relied on a statement written by PERSON after the incident , which stated that the fire had broken out because he had had an epileptic seizure while smoking . The investigator found that the prison guards had acted immediately in order to extinguish the fire . The investigator also referred to a statement from ORG that he had seen PERSON after the incident , at TIME on DATE , and that ORG had told him that he had had a seizure and that he had not known how the incident had happened . The investigator ’s decision also referred to post - mortem forensic report no . CARDINAL dated DATE , which confirmed the existence of extensive burns on ORG ’s body . The forensic report also established that the time of the injuries corresponded to DATE and that they were the kind of injuries which caused serious harm and could be life - threatening .

Despite the Court ’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal investigation concerning ORG death , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of GPE and ORG written statements of DATE and forensic report no . CARDINAL of DATE , submitting that the case file had been destroyed .

The applicant was provided with a copy of the investigator ’s decision of DATE only DATE . He immediately lodged a complaint against that decision with a superior prosecutor .

On DATE ORG overturned the investigator ’s decision and remitted the case to ORG for a new examination . The prosecutor held that the investigator had not duly examined the scene of the incident . He also asked the investigator , inter alia , to order forensic fire , chemical and handwriting examinations , to check if ORG cell had been equipped with an adequate fire detection system , to question other inmates , prison guards , and the medical staff who had given first aid to MONEY and to establish why PERSON had not been taken to hospital immediately after the incident . The prosecutor also asked the investigator to order a new forensic examination in order to establish , inter alia , whether PERSON had been able to speak and move freely immediately after the incident given the nature of his injuries .

On DATE the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings , concluding that there had been no crime involved in ORG death . He relied mainly on the statements submitted by the prison guards , who said the fire had broken out at TIME because of ORG epileptic seizure and that they had intervened immediately after the incident . The investigator also noted that handwriting report no . CARDINAL dated DATE had indicated that the statement written on DATE had been signed by ORG However , he also noted in the decision that forensic expert report no . CARDINAL dated DATE had stated that PERSON had not been able to move , speak or write immediately after the incident as he had been in a state of shock as a result of his burns . The decision also recorded that chemical analysis report no . CARDINAL of DATE had concluded that there had been no trace of oil products in samples taken from the cell walls or of carbonised particles . The investigator also pointed out that it was not possible to carry out a forensic fire examination because the scene of the incident had not been preserved and repairs had been carried out in the cell in question . As regards the statements by some inmates that the fire had broken out at TIME , that it had taken TIME for the prison guards to open the door of the cell and that PERSON had died as a result of their negligence , the investigator noted that the cells of the inmates in question were situated far from ORG cell and that therefore their statements could not be considered as reliable . The investigator also questioned ORG paramedic ( feldşer ) ( GPE ) who had given first aid to PERSON after the fire . GPE stated that he had been informed by telephone at home about the incident at TIME on DATE . He had taken a taxi to the prison and had arrived TIME . He had given first aid to PERSON but his condition had worsened at TIME and he had requested his transfer to a hospital . GPE stated that he had accompanied PERSON in the car that had transported him to the hospital but they had not arrived until TIME because they had waited for TIME for the car to be repaired after it had broken down . In that connection , the investigator referred to letter no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE from ORG , confirming that the car transporting FAC to the hospital had arrived at TIME and that the delay in his transfer had been due to the fact that the car had broken down on its way to the hospital . The letter also contained information about ORG medical history , pointing out that he had previously been admitted CARDINAL times to that medical establishment , had been diagnosed CARDINAL times with epilepsy and had received the appropriate treatment .

Despite the ORG ’s explicit request to the ORG to submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal investigation concerning ORG death , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of chemical analysis report no . CARDINAL dated DATE , handwriting report no . CARDINAL dated DATE , forensic expert report no . CARDINAL dated DATE , letter no . CARDINAL of DATE from ORG and the statements made by the prison guards , medical staff and inmates detained in LOC , submitting that the case file had been destroyed .

NORP The applicant lodged a complaint against the investigator ’s decision with ORG , complaining that he had failed to carry out an effective investigation .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . He complained , in particular , of the inconsistency between the conclusions of the handwriting report dated DATE and the forensic expert opinion dated DATE . He also argued that the investigator and the first - instance court had failed to examine photographs of FAC taken immediately after the incident on DATE . He submitted that the photographs showed that ORG body had signs of ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG granted the appeal and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for fresh examination . The appellate court held that the prosecuting authorities had failed to examine the photographs of FAC for signs of ill - treatment on his body or to establish why the scene of the incident had not been preserved .

On DATE a prosecutor at ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds of a lack of a criminal element in the death . In particular , the prosecutor held that there was no evidence that PERSON had been ill - treated , as alleged by the applicant . He relied in that connection on the conclusions of forensic report no . CARDINAL , which had only confirmed the existence of numerous burns on ORG body .

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG overruled the prosecutor ’s decision and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for a new examination . The court pointed out the inconsistencies as to when the fire had begun . It further held that the investigation had failed to clarify why PERSON had been taken to hospital TIME after the fire had broken out . The court held that the fact that the car transporting FAC had broken down could not explain such a long delay . The court also found that the investigation had failed to examine whether ORG conditions of detention had been appropriate for a person suffering from epilepsy .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the case again refused to institute criminal proceedings . The wording of the decision was identical to that of CARDINAL DATE , except the last few paragraphs , which concerned the conditions of detention of inmates suffering from epilepsy . In that connection , relying on statements made by the head of the prison regime department of ORG and GPE , the investigator found that domestic law did not provide for any special conditions of detention for inmates suffering from epilepsy or any restriction on the authorised items they could possess in prison .

On DATE ORG overruled the investigator ’s decision of DATE and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities . The court held that the investigator had failed to examine the reason for the delay in PERSON ’s transfer to hospital . It also pointed out the inconsistencies in the inmates’ statements concerning the circumstances of the incident . The court further found that it had not been established whether ORG conditions of detention had been compatible with his illness and that an inquiry should have been carried out as regards the necessary security and medical measures for a person like PERSON , whose condition was likely to give rise to sudden seizures .

On DATE a prosecutor at ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings , using wording that was almost identical to the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The prosecutor found that it had been PERSON ’s fault that the fire had broken out and that he had died as a result of his burns . He further held that the prison guards had taken immediate action and there had been no negligence on their part . The prosecutor noted that there was no special rule for the detention of inmates suffering from epilepsy . He also confirmed that there had been a delay in taking FAC to hospital because the car had broken down . He further found that it had not been possible to carry out a forensic fire examination as the scene of the incident had not been preserved . Lastly , the prosecutor referred to a statement made by a forensic expert , TIME , that there had been no causal link between ORG death and his delayed transfer to hospital .

Despite the ORG ’s explicit request to the ORG to submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal investigation concerning ORG death , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of TIME ’s statement , submitting that the case file had been destroyed .

The applicant was provided with a copy of that decision only on DATE , following intervention by the ORG .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint against the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE , arguing that the prosecuting authorities had failed to investigate the questions raised by the previous court decisions . In particular , there had been no plausible explanation for PERSON not being taken immediately to hospital after the incident . He also disputed the official version , according to which FAC had been able to write a statement immediately after the incident and that he had caused the fire himself .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The judge held that all the facts of the case had been examined by the prosecuting authorities and that FAC had died as a result of an accidental fire .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that there had not been an effective investigation into his son ’s death in prison . He argued that the wording of the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been almost identical to the prosecuting authorities’ previous decisions and that it had not dealt with any of the questions raised by the previous court decisions .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , finding that there was no reason to overrule the first - instance court ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

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

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

The applicants stated that they are nationals of the “ GPE ” and in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL also nationals of GPE . Their names , dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Annex . They are represented before the Court by Ms Y. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The facts of the cases may be summarised as follows . The applicants are relatives of NORP - Cypriots who went missing in either DATE or DATE during incidents of mounting tension and violence in which NORP or NORP - NORP villages were targeted .

These persons were listed as missing persons , the information being given to the NORP authorities , ORG and ORG .

The remains of the missing men have been found during exhumations carried out by ORG for Missing Persons ( “ CMP ” ) in DATE .

The Government have submitted that investigations had been commenced in both cases . The police had taken statements from relatives of the victims , taken steps to pursue investigation in the various localities and to trace police officers stationed there at the relevant time , to locate witnesses and to seek information from local inhabitants as to the transportation , murder and burial of the victims . In the first application , where investigation is linked with others already launched concerning victims of the same incident , statements have been obtained from CARDINAL individuals , while in the second application police are exploring material obtained from persons in the leadership of the “ NORP ” organisation and tracing as far as possible persons who might have been involved or have information about such involvement .

The applicants submitted that it is not apparent that any progress had been made in the investigations and that they had not been given any copies of reports , witness statements or information gathered from various sources .


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

André Potocki;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At TIME CARDINAL men , CARDINAL of them wearing a mask , entered the applicant ’s house , tied the applicant and took the valuables belonging to her and other household members . Subsequently , the unmasked man put a revolver in the applicant ’s ear and fired a shot . The applicant survived , having sustained a permanent disability . To this day the bullet remains in her head .

On DATE of the assault , the GPE police instituted criminal proceedings into the incident , examined the crime scene , collected fingerprints and other evidence , questioned the applicant ’s household members and neighbors and ordered several expert assessments .

On DATE the applicant was admitted in the proceedings as an injured party .

On several occasions the applicant identified the photos of various persons presented by the police as those of the unmasked offender . Among them , on DATE she identified a certain GPE

On an unspecified date PERSON , ORG partner , acknowledged to the police that she had seen a revolver in his possession . She also noted that at TIME on DATE PERSON had left their home for an appointment with his friend PERSON On DATE he had returned home at TIME , wearing a new suit and carrying some money , which , according to him , had been entrusted to him by PERSON for safekeeping .

On DATE GPE , GPE ’s neighbor , identified PERSON on a photograph , as ORG ’s friend .

On DATE PERSON also identified PERSON on a photograph as ORG ’s friend .

On several occasions in DATE the authorities questioned PERSON as a witness .

On DATE the investigation was suspended on the ground that all possible measures to locate the perpetrators had been exhausted .

On DATE ORG revoked this decision , having found that additional measures were warranted .

CARDINAL further decisions to suspend the proceedings taken on DATE and DATE , respectively , were , in turn , revoked by the prosecutor ’s office on DATE and DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE she informed the investigator in charge of her case that she suspected that ORG , her cousin , had been the masked offender . Having assured her that he would conduct the necessary inquiries , the investigator left this information without any follow - up .

On DATE the proceedings were suspended on the ground that all possible measures to locate the perpetrators had been exhausted . According to the applicant , she was not informed of this decision and kept soliciting the authorities to investigate her suspicions in respect of ORG

On DATE the applicant and several other members of her family complained to ORG of the length of the proceedings and the failure of the investigator to react to the applicant ’s suspicions with respect to ORG

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office informed the complainants that the proceedings had been suspended since DATE . On the same date it revoked the suspension decision , noting that the measures taken to identify the perpetrators had not been comprehensive , and transferred the case to ORG in GPE for supervising further investigative activities .

On DATE PERSON was arrested and remanded in custody . On DATE he confessed to his participation in the crime and identified PERSON as his accomplice .

On DATE S.T. was arrested . He denied his involvement in the crime and presented various pieces of evidence that he had been in GPE , GPE , on the date of the incident .

On DATE the applicant identified GPE as the second offender during an identification parade .

On DATE O.M. retracted his confession alleging that it had been given under duress . Since that time he pleaded innocent and presented various pieces of evidence that he had been at his job as a vendor of ice - cream at the time of the incident .

On DATE the criminal proceedings in respect of ORG and ORG were discontinued for want of evidence of their involvement in the incriminated offence . The applicant appealed , insisting that ORG and ORG had been the perpetrators .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office revoked the decision to discontinue the proceedings and ordered further investigative measures to verify the applicant ’s allegations as well as ORG ’s and ORG alibis .

On CARDINAL further occasions DATE ( in particular , on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE ) the proceedings against ORG and ORG were discontinued , these decisions having been subsequently quashed with reference to insufficiency of the measures taken to verify the relevant facts . Eventually , on DATE the proceedings against ORG and ORG were again closed for want of evidence that they had committed the incriminated offence . The decision referred , in particular , to testimonies by several witnesses and various sources of corporeal and forensic evidence in support of the defendants’ alibis and cited various reasons , why they considered the applicant ’s submissions to be inconsistent and improbable .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that following her complaints of inactivity on the part of the investigative authorities , the case had been transferred to ORG for further investigation .

On numerous occasions throughout the course of the investigation ( in particular , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE ) the investigator in charge of the case requested the police to locate and question GPE and GPE as witnesses in connection with the proceedings at issue . A request to this end was also submitted to the ORG and to the NORP police authorities . The parties did not inform the ORG concerning any follow - up on these requests .

On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE ( in particular , on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) the criminal proceedings in the applicant ’s case were suspended on the ground that the measures available to the investigation had been exhausted without the perpetrators having been identified . These decisions were revoked by various branches of the prosecutor ’s office , which found that the measures taken had not been exhaustive .

On DATE ORG acknowledged , in response to the applicant ’s complaint , that the case had been protracted .

On DATE ORG reprimanded ORG for inactivity in the investigation and ordered the officers responsible to speed it up .

On DATE the PERSON family from GPE was robbed , several of its members having been shot .

On DATE PERSON was arrested in GPE on suspicion of having committed the crime in respect of the PERSON family and remanded in custody .

By DATE PERSON confessed of having been involved in the above crime , as well as in a series of other robberies , assaults and murders , including the one in respect of the applicant . He further divulged that some of these crimes , including the one in the applicant ’s respect , had been committed by him together with V.P.

The proceedings concerning ORG were closed with reference to his death .

On DATE the Deputy ORG signed the bill of indictment accusing PERSON of numerous episodes of criminal activity . The evidence cited in respect of his assault on the applicant consisted , primarily , of ORG own confessions and the sources collected in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE PERSON was committed to stand trial before ORG in GPE .

As of DATE the case was pending before the first - instance court .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and at the time that he lodged the application with the ORG was serving a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment in ORG , GPE . He had been detained since DATE .

The sentence was imposed on him by ORG on DATE for drug related offences . ORG also ordered him to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) as well as ORG in fees payable to the experts , which were to be converted into a further term of imprisonment if not paid . On DATE the aforementioned sums were converted into CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . Following an amnesty and payment of the fee for the experts , the applicant was released on DATE and flown back to GPE after being given the requisite vaccinations .

On DATE , TIME , the applicant was assaulted by another inmate , causing the former to allegedly lose consciousness and sustaining fractures to his facial and leg bones . The Government admitted that the applicant had sustained injuries to his leg and face but argued that there was no evidence that he had lost consciousness at any time .

According to the applicant , disciplinary measures were taken by the prison Chief Security officer , who ordered that he be placed in solitary confinement . Thus , despite his condition , the applicant had had to pack his belongings and walk to the solitary confinement unit . At an unspecified time the prison officer brought the applicant a pair of crutches to assist him walking . According to the Government , disciplinary measures were taken against another inmate involved in the incident but not against the applicant , who had been transferred ( from ORG CARDINAL , a more secure division , immediately after the incident . They also submitted that the applicant had not been placed in solitary confinement .

The applicant alleged that he did not receive any medical treatment for TIME after the incident had taken place . Thereafter he had been kept in solitary confinement without assistance from the prison medical staff . The applicant explained that he had subsequently been seen by a doctor , who had referred him to the hospital , where he underwent surgery . He stated that a plaster cast had been put around his leg and that he had been informed that he might need to undergo surgery if his eyesight was damaged as a result of the injury of his facial bone . Regarding the period of solitary confinement , the applicant claimed that he had been held on the second floor of the building and had not been allowed to see anyone or to use the communal areas .

According to the applicant , the cell did not have adequate ventilation , the heat was unbearable and there was no cold water to drink since he did not have access to the ground floor . Consequently he had to drink warm water and an occasional bottle of cold water ( when his friend managed to obtain one ) . The applicant claimed that he had specifically needed to drink water since he was taking antibiotics .

The heat and lack of ventilation caused the applicant , who is an asthma sufferer , to struggle with his breathing . He also complained that he had had to go to the clinic for treatment of his injuries himself since the nurses refused to visit his cell because of the unbearable heat . He had therefore had to use the staircase whilst still walking with crutches .

The applicant stated that he had been kept in the isolation unit for DATE , and after DATE had become suicidal . Subsequently he had been transferred to a unit that had fewer restrictions . The applicant complained that he had been placed in the same unit as his aggressor , putting his physical integrity at risk since he could have been attacked again .

The applicant submitted that upon his release from solitary confinement , he had spent most of his time in his cell . On an unspecified date he had asked to see a psychologist urgently , but was not able to speak to CARDINAL for DATE . The psychologist referred the applicant to a psychiatrist , who eventually prescribed medication . However , the applicant had refused to take the medication and claimed that the psychiatrist had refused to help him . Later , he had refused to consult the prison psychiatrist because he no longer trusted the prison staff and did not want to be sent to a psychiatric hospital since the facilities there were allegedly worse than those in the prison .

According to the Government the applicant was admitted to the medical infirmary of the prison at TIME on DATE and a referral to the emergency department of the state hospital was made at TIME The referral note issued by the doctor indicated that the applicant had swelling in the face , a bruise on QUANTITY loin , and severe swelling with limited movement in his right ankle . At an unspecified time on DATE he was provided with a pair of crutches by the prison medical infirmary . On DATE he was also admitted to hospital and returned to cell CARDINAL in Division CARDINAL on DATE . The case summary drawn up on DATE before his discharge and submitted to the ORG showed that all the medical investigations had been concluded and the results received prior to his discharge from hospital . According to the case summary the ankle xray revealed a fracture and there was subluxation of the right foot ; there was a head injury , specifically a fracture of the orbit and of the maxillary sinus ; there were no signs of injury or fluid collection in the internal organs ; an ophthalmic review had been carried out and the patient had been discharged from that department as well as from the orthopaedic ward where he had undergone tests and treatment for his bone injuries . The summary also showed that the applicant had to use crutches and to avoid bearing weight for DATE leading up to his outpatient appointment , after which he still would not be able to bear weight fully . It ordered a change of dressing to be undertaken within DATE and prescribed appropriate medicines . Records also showed that a nurse had visited Division CARDINAL to attend to the applicant on DATE the note in the register reads as follows : “ Nurse C. and PERSON came to Division CARDINAL at about CARDINAL.CARDINAL am to visit PERSON in his cell ” . Other notes show that a nurse went to ORG on subsequent days to give inmates medication , without indicating their names . Another note also showed that a certain PERSON ( whose role is unidentified ) visited the applicant on DATE .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been held in Division CARDINAL for his own safety . The Chief Security officer had ordered that the applicant should not meet the other inmate involved in the argument and that the applicant ’s cell be opened for TIME a day until further instructions . The applicant was initially placed in cell CARDINAL ( on the upper floor of ORG ) , which was QUANTITY away from the guard room , thus making it possible to observe the applicant ’s cell , which was to be left open . The Government submitted that , by order of a manager , on DATE the applicant had been allowed to mingle with all other inmates without restriction . The applicant had then been transferred to cell CARDINAL on a lower floor as soon as it was deemed safe for him , specifically on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he had been transferred to ORG , which was also a secure division although it had fewer restrictions . The applicant was finally transferred to ORG CARDINAL on DATE . According to the ORG , the applicant had never been kept in solitary confinement , nor had the inmate involved in the argument with the applicant been accommodated in any of the above - mentioned ORG while the applicant was there , except for a short stay in ORG .

According to the ORG the first request for psychological services made by the applicant had been in DATE . According to the documents submitted , thereafter he was seen DATE by the psychologist until DATE and later CARDINAL or CARDINAL times per month until his release in DATE ( from DATE he had been seen by a counselling trainee ) . Moreover , in DATE the applicant had been referred for psychiatric services by the psychologist . The Government submitted that although the applicant had a past history of being suicidal , there was no record that he had attempted suicide during the period he was detained in DATE . The report prepared by the senior psychologist in prison ( dated DATE ) noted that the applicant attended his sessions regularly and was making progress . It noted that he felt guilty for not having made amends with his mother before her death ( DATE ) and that he had deliberately provoked a fight . The report described the applicant as being “ edgy and hyper - vigilant but not psychotic ” , his sleep was not problematic , his appetite was normal and he was cooperative . He had been diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder , but no other affective disorder was evident . He was put on medication for depression and further followups with the psychologist . He was seen again in a follow - up session with the psychiatrist on DATE , but on DATE he refused a psychiatric review .

In a letter dated DATE , the applicant alleged that he had not received rehabilitative treatment for his fractures since the prison officials had unilaterally decided to cancel the treatment . According to the Government , on DATE , prior to being discharged from hospital , the applicant had been seen by a physiotherapist and found fit for discharge . The applicant had also been given CARDINAL appointments ( DATE ) with the ENT department of the hospital in connection with his facial injuries . On DATE , the applicant had been referred by the prison medical officer to the emergency department of the hospital because of a recurrent swelling of his right ankle . The applicant had at the time already been taking antibiotics and his stitches were intact . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , x - rays were taken of the applicant ’s right ankle by the orthopaedic department of the hospital . The applicant was also referred to the ophthalmology department on CARDINAL DATE . Further referrals to hospital were made by the prison medical doctor , but the Government claimed they were unrelated to the injuries suffered as a result of the incident on DATE . CARDINAL such referral was made on DATE . An outpatient service appointment record given to the applicant listed appointments scheduled for DATE and DATE at the medical outpatients’ clinic , which the applicant also attended . It is recorded that the applicant refused to attend an appointment scheduled for DATE .

In a subsequent letter dated CARDINAL DATE ( at a time when he was held in Division CARDINAL ) the applicant explained that his cell window was positioned at a height of QUANTITY and was therefore very difficult to open . It was also small and had CARDINAL different bands of metal shutters , which hampered the entry of natural light . He claimed that his cell had lacked good ventilation – although there were CARDINAL vents , CARDINAL of them had been blocked . He alleged that the parts of the ceiling were falling apart and that white and yellow dust caused him to experience breathing problems , since he was an asthma sufferer . The applicant also alleged that the water was not drinkable and that he had therefore had to buy water with the little money that he earned . He claimed that foreign inmates were treated differently from the NORP inmates since the former had to wait longer to have their petitions decided .

The Government submitted that at the time when this letter was written , the applicant was accommodated in cell CARDINAL in Division CARDINAL .

The Government submitted that inmates were responsible for the upkeep of their cells . For this purpose , the materials needed to carry out basic repair work in the cells were provided free of charge . If an inmate required assistance for more specialised work , the Trade Section personnel would carry out the work necessary to keep the cell in good condition . The Government submitted pictures dated DATE showing that the ceiling in cell CARDINAL was in good condition and that the current resident was carrying out some works and removing paint from the ceiling , exposing the stone underneath .

The Government submitted that all the cells were equipped with running water which was fit for human consumption . According to certification dated DATE that has been submitted to the ORG , water in the prison ( no specific location was indicated in the reports ) had been certified by ORG as being fit for consumption , although the mains supply and the other Divisions ( including no . CARDINAL ) had been recorded as having a chloride content which exceeded the recommended parameter value indicated in the relevant law . The Government submitted that the water was tested and certified DATE . In addition to the availability of running potable tap water , the inmates were allowed to purchase bottled water from the ORG tuck - shop .

In DATE , the applicant received ORG CARDINAL DATE in socalled “ Gratuity ” money and ORG CARDINAL DATE for work carried out assembling dolls . DATE and DATE the applicant received EUR CARDINAL in total . A CARDINAL - pack of water at the tuckshop cost ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL or an individual bottle ORG Government submitted that all inmates received equal treatment irrespective of the State of their origin .

NORP In a letter dated DATE , the applicant alleged that the prison authorities had refused to forward his letters to the ORG in order to dissuade him from pursuing his case before it . He was therefore corresponding with the ORG through another address .

From the records of the correspondence sent by the applicant held at the prison authorities and submitted by the Government , it is apparent that the applicant sent registered letters to ORG , DATE and DATE and an unregistered letter on DATE . No further requests were made by the applicant to send any communication to the ORG , although letters were sent by the applicant to other addresses on DATE , DATE and DATE , and on DATE and DATE .


CASE OF POCASOVSCHI AND MIHAILA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period (Russia);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim (the Republic of Moldova);Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (the Republic of Moldova);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (the Republic of Moldova)

Dmitry Dedov;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE and NORP respectively .

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

The applicants were convicted by NORP courts and , at the time of the events , were serving their sentences in prison no . CARDINAL situated in the town of GPE ( PERSON ) , in the NORP region of GPE . The town is situated in the security zone under the control of peacekeepers from GPE , GPE and the self - proclaimed “ GPE ( “ FAC ) . Prison no . DATE is under the exclusive control of the GPE authorities . By DATE some CARDINAL people were detained there ; some of them , such as the applicants , were ill with tuberculosis .

On DATE the PERSON local administration , which is subordinated to the “ FAC authorities , disconnected prison no . CARDINAL from the electricity , water and heating supplies . As a result , the detainees were deprived of conditions of basic hygiene , and the food they received did not meet the minimum standards of quality .

NORP The prison authorities informed ORG , ORG , ORG in LOC ( OSCE ) , ORG and ORG , as well as local human rights organisations , with a view to obtaining assistance in resolving the problem arising from the disconnection from the town ’s utilities network .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office ( which forms part of the official NORP authorities ) informed ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , for which the applicant ’s representative worked , that , as a result of pressure from the LOC , the PERSON authorities had reconnected the prison to the electricity and water supply systems on DATE . On DATE the last of the people who were ill with tuberculosis were transferred to a newly - built hospital wing in GPE prison hospital , situated in GPE . According to the head of prison no . CARDINAL , some QUANTITY healthy detainees , including the applicants , remained in the prison after that date . However , also on DATE , the local authorities disconnected prison no . CARDINAL from the electricity and water supply systems again , without any warning . The “ FAC authorities insisted that the prison needed to be closed down .

On DATE Mr GPE ( the first applicant ) was transferred to another prison . He was released on parole on DATE . Mr PERSON ( the second applicant ) was transferred to another prison on DATE and was released on parole on DATE .

On DATE the ORG representatives asked ORG to initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible for disconnecting prison no . CARDINAL from the utilities systems . On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office replied in general terms , describing the difficult situation with regard to prison no . CARDINAL and the unsuccessful negotiations with the local authorities .

On DATE the ORG asked ORG ( which is part of the NORP court system ) to order the prosecutor ’s office to remedy the human rights violations taking place in prison no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the head of prison no . CARDINAL informed the court that , owing to insufficient access to water and electricity , detainees in his institution could not receive appropriate medical assistance or food of a sufficient standard , or maintain proper hygiene .

On DATE ORG ordered the prosecutor ’s office to initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible for disconnecting prison no . CARDINAL from the utilities supply . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

According to ORG , on DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office contacted the “ FAC authorities with a view to prosecuting those responsible for disconnecting prison no . CARDINAL from the utilities . It also informed ORG ( see ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVII ) of the need to include the subject on its agenda . On DATE the “ FAC prosecutor ’s office refused to open a criminal investigation on the ground that no crime had been committed .

On DATE the relatives of CARDINAL of the detainees made another complaint to the ORG regarding the inhuman conditions of detention in prison no . CARDINAL . That letter was forwarded to ORG , the President of GPE and ORG , along with a request to take all necessary steps to immediately improve the conditions of detention .

On DATE the ORG asked the PERSON prosecutor ’s office what action had been taken pursuant to the above - mentioned court decisions . On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office replied that all the material was at ORG , which was dealing with the case .

On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the ORG was making all necessary efforts to ensure acceptable conditions of detention at prison no . CARDINAL , and that , at that time , the conditions of detention at that prison did not differ from those at other prisons in GPE .

On DATE ORG informed the ORG that it had lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG against the decisions of DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG upheld those decisions .

On DATE the ORG asked ORG what actions had been undertaken after the judgment of ORG of DATE . On DATE ORG replied that the actions of the “ FAC authorities could not be investigated by the GPE authorities as long as the “ FAC authorities de facto controlled the territory of the “ FAC .

On DATE , on behalf of CARDINAL detainees in prison no . CARDINAL , including the applicants , the ORG lodged a civil action against ORG , asking for the finding of a violation of the rights guaranteed under LAW . The detainees had authorised the organisation to act on their behalf . The ORG also asked for an improvement in the conditions of detention and for the payment of compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL – MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) for each detainee .

On DATE and DATE the President of ORG asked ORG to decide whether the case should be examined by another court . On DATE ORG rejected the request and left the case with ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to transfer the case to ORG in PERSON , in accordance with territorial competence principles . The claimants ( the detainees ) and their representatives were not consulted . On DATE the ORG challenged that decision . On DATE the ORG set aside the decision of DATE and ordered the urgent examination of the case by ORG .

On DATE the ORG declined to examine the claim because it did not satisfy legal requirements . On DATE ORG set aside that decision .

After DATE many of the CARDINAL detainees who were plaintiffs in the above - mentioned civil action were transferred to other prisons in various parts of the country , which made it more difficult for the ORG to obtain confirmation of each individual ’s power of attorney , as requested by ORG . In such circumstances , the ORG selected CARDINAL cases ( including those of the applicants in the present case ) with which to continue the proceedings . Since the individuals concerned were also detained in separate prisons , the ORG made an application for their cases to be examined separately , an application which ORG refused on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG ’s application to summon as defendants the individuals from the relevant local “ FAC authorities in PERSON responsible for violating the GPE rights . On an unknown date in DATE ORG set aside that decision and ordered the summoning as defendants of ORG , DATE and PERSON , the heads of the relevant local “ FAC authorities in PERSON . According to the applicants , none of these individuals was summoned by ORG .

On DATE the judge who had been examining the case withdrew from it . On DATE the judge who had taken over the case also withdrew from it . Subsequently , all other judges of ORG withdrew , allegedly for fear of persecution by the “ FAC authorities . As a result , ORG was asked to decide which other court could examine the case . On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided that the case should be examined by the LOC .

On DATE the Anenii - Noi ORG declined to examine the claim because it did not fulfil certain legal requirements . It found in particular that there was a lack of valid powers of attorney in favour of the ORG .

On DATE the ORG lodged a reformulated court action in accordance with the legal requirements . It also asked for ORG to be summoned as a defendant in the case , as it had de facto control over the territory of the “ FAC . It claimed ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL respectively for the breach of the applicants’ rights . On DATE the Anenii - Noi ORG declined to examine the claim because the powers of attorney issued by the detainees in favour of the ORG had expired .

On DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE , noting that , in the ORG cases , the powers of attorney had been renewed .

On DATE the Anenii - Noi District Court adjourned the hearing because of the absence of a representative of ORG . The same thing occurred on DATE . The court also informed the ORG that , in a letter dated DATE , ORG had informed the court that a representative of GPE could only be summoned via ORG .

On DATE the Anenii - Noi District Court adopted a judgment in which it allowed the ORG claims in part . It awarded each of them damages in the amount of LAW , to be paid by ORG , and LAW , to be paid by ORG .

On DATE the ORG quashed that judgment in part . It found that , following the prison ’s disconnection from the utilities , the prison administration had no longer been able to offer food or medical treatment for tuberculosis which was of an adequate quality ; there had been no access to showers , a very poor situation concerning personal hygiene , and TIME of electricity per day , ensured by a low - power generator . None of the complaints made to the ORG authorities had resulted in an improvement in the conditions of detention until much later , as established in DATE . The court acknowledged a breach of the applicants’ right not to be held in inhuman conditions of detention , and increased the award in favour of each of them to MDL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) . It also found that GPE could not be a defendant in GPE courts unless it expressly agreed to that , which was not the case here .

On DATE ORG accepted the applicants’ appeal on points of law in part , and amended the judgment of the lower court . It analysed in detail the length of the civil proceedings ( DATE and the date of adopting its own judgment on DATE ) , the complexity of the case , how the parties and the courts had contributed to the length of the proceedings , as well as the significant interest at stake for the applicants . The court found that , despite the applicants’ representatives’ actions contributing to the overall length of the proceedings ( CARDINAL out of DATE ) , a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time had taken place , requiring additional compensation which it set at MDL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the time ) . It did not amend the remainder of the lower court ’s judgment .

ORG submitted a long list of actions concerning their efforts to assert their sovereignty over the “ FAC territory and ensure that human rights were observed in the region . They also submitted copies of documents concerning prison no . CARDINAL in GPE / PERSON specifically , raising in particular the issue of the prison being disconnected from utilities within the framework of the “ CARDINAL + CARDINAL ” negotiations process ( between the LOC , GPE , GPE , ORG and the GPE , in addition to GPE and the “ FAC ) and with various international organisations .