Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

NORP The President of the ORG acceded to the ORG request not to have their names disclosed ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG ) , as well as to a request by the Government to grant confidentiality to the case ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG ) . The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON of GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

At TIME on DATE a dead body was found on the outskirts of city X. The police carried out an on - site inspection DATE . The crime scene was photographed , and biological samples and other evidence were collected from the dead body . The body was identified as A , the applicants’ respective husband and father . A tooth was found on the body . An autopsy was carried out and it was established that A had been struck several times on the back of his head with a hard object , and this had caused his death . On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint with the X State Attorney ’s Office in respect of the killing of A by unknown perpetrators .

NORP The police interviewed the person who had found A ’s body on CARDINAL DATE , but he knew nothing about the circumstances of the killing .

The investigation into A ’s killing was opened on DATE in ORG .

On DATE the first applicant , A ’s wife , was called to identify A ’s body . On DATE the police interviewed B , who said that at TIME on DATE he had seen a van going to the area where A ’s body was subsequently discovered . The van had returned after TIME and stopped . The driver had said that they were on their way to a wedding in restaurant PERSON had seen that the driver was wearing a camouflage uniform . There were CARDINAL other men in the van . PERSON gave a detailed description of the van .

On DATE the police interviewed the first applicant , who told them that A had frequented restaurant Y on a DATE basis . The police also interviewed the second applicant and her husband , some of A ’s neighbours and the manager of restaurant Y , who confirmed that there had been a wedding reception in the restaurant on DATE and that a number of NORP soldiers had been present .

On DATE an expert established that the tooth found on A ’s body belonged to a younger person .

On DATE the police interviewed C , a NORP soldier who had been present at the wedding reception in Y on DATE . He said that he had spotted A next to the van in which he and some of his friends had come to the wedding , and had seen that A was noting down the licence plate numbers of the van and of another vehicle parked near - by . C had called his colleagues , D , E and F , and they had forced A into the van and driven to the outskirts of GPE , where they stopped under a bridge . They had taken A out of the van and D had told him to climb onto a river bank ; A had refused . A commotion had ensued , in the course of which A had hit C in the mouth and kicked his tooth out . D , E and F had then continued to strike A. E had taken a metal implement from the van . C took it from him and struck A , killing him . C had pushed A ’s body into the river and had then thrown the metal implement into the river .

On DATE the police interviewed D , E and F. D and E confirmed the events as described by C , and F said that all CARDINAL of them had stayed at the wedding reception in restaurant LOC throughout TIME of CARDINAL to CARDINAL November .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG asked for an investigation to be opened in ORG .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG heard evidence from C , D , E and PERSON , accompanied by his defence lawyer , denied any involvement in the killing of GPE and E repeated the statements they had given to the police . F , accompanied by his defence lawyer , remained silent . The investigating judge opened an investigation in respect of C , D , E and F in connection with the killing of A.

During the investigation an opinion was commissioned from a dental expert . He established that the tooth found on A ’s body did not belong to any of the suspects . In their further statements during the investigation C , D and E denied the charges against them while F remained silent .

On DATE C , D , E and F , were indicted on charges of murdering A. The proceedings were conducted before ORG .

On DATE the Act on ORG from Criminal Prosecution and Proceedings in Respect of Criminal Offences Committed during ORG Zakon o oprostu od krivičnog progona i postupka za krivična djela počinjena u oružanim sukobima i u ratu protiv PERSON ) was enacted .

On DATE , pursuant to LAW , ORG terminated the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG Attorney lodged a request for the protection of legality ( zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti ) with ORG , asking it to establish that the termination of proceedings was contrary to law . On DATE ORG established that the request for the protection of legality was well - founded . However , this finding had no effect on the decision to grant the accused amnesty ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , LAW ) .

On DATE ORG informed the ORG counsel about the results of the criminal proceedings , including ORG decision .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a request with the W State Attorney ’s ORG for an investigation in respect of the same CARDINAL individuals , alleging that they had committed a war crime against the civilian population . On DATE the W State Attorney held a meeting with the first applicant and informed her orally about the results of the criminal proceedings that had ended in DATE and told her that there was no possibility of instituting fresh criminal proceeding against the suspects . An official note was drafted about that meeting , but no formal decision was taken upon the first applicant ’s request .

The first applicants’ request was forwarded to the X State Attorney ’s Office , which dismissed it on DATE on the basis that proceedings in respect of the same facts had already been terminated . The applicant was instructed that she could take over the proceedings and lodge within DATE a request for an investigation with a ORG investigating judge .

The first applicant complied with the said instruction and on DATE submitted the request for an investigation to ORG . It was dismissed on DATE on the same ground as the one provided by ORG , i.e. that it concerned the same facts as the indictment from DATE in respect of which the proceedings had been terminated and that a fresh trial would be in violation of the ne bis in idem principle .

The first applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , which dismissed it on DATE . ORG endorsed the views of ORG .

The first and second applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint , which was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that ORG did not have jurisdiction to examine the complaint .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s Office held a meeting in connection with the ORG ’s judgment in the PERSON case ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG DATE ( extracts ) ) , in which ORG held that the ne bis in idem principle did not apply to amnesties for war crimes . Inter alia on this basis ORG decided to re - open the investigation into the killing of the applicants’ husband and father .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG retrieved the case - file concerning the investigation into A ’s killing from its ORG . The tooth found on A ’s dead body was sent for DNA tests . It was established that all other evidence and biological samples collected during the on - site inspection had been destroyed .

DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG interviewed ORG and several witnesses . The investigation is still pending .

The relevant part of LAW ( Ustav PERSON , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON ) reads as follows :

( CARDINAL ) No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence of which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law .

Only the law may , in accordance with the LAW or an international agreement , prescribe the situations in which proceedings may be reopened under paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW and the grounds for reopening . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku – Official Gazette nos . PERCENT , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG and DATE ) provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall be instituted and conducted at the request of a qualified prosecutor only . ...

( CARDINAL ) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney and in respect of criminal offences to be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .

( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .

( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party as a subsidiary prosecutor may take his place under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . ”

Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL regulate the rights and duties of a private prosecutor and of an injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor . The Criminal Code distinguishes between these CARDINAL roles . A private prosecutor ( privatni tužitelj ) is the injured party who brings a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such prosecution is expressly prescribed by LAW ( these are offences of a lesser degree ) . The injured party as a subsidiary prosecutor ( oštećeni kao tužitelj ) takes over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecuting authorities for whatever reason have decided not to prosecute .

Pursuant to LAW , the ORG Attorney is under a duty to inform the injured party within DATE of a decision not to prosecute and of the party ’s right to take over the proceedings , as well as to instruct that party on the steps to be taken .

“ Criminal proceedings concluded by a final ruling or a final judgment may be reopened at the request of an authorised person only in the circumstances and under the conditions set out in this LAW . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings concluded by a final judgment dismissing the charges may exceptionally be reopened to the detriment of the accused :

( CARDINAL ) Where it has been established that amnesty , pardon , statutory limitation or other circumstances excluding criminal prosecution are not applicable to the criminal offence referred to in the judgment dismissing the charges .

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court competent to decide upon a request for the reopening of the proceedings shall be the court which adjudicated the case at first instance ...

( CARDINAL ) The request for reopening shall contain the statutory basis for reopening and evidence in support of the request ...

“ ( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney may lodge a request for the protection of legality against final judicial decisions , and court proceedings preceding such decisions , in which a law has been violated .

( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney shall lodge a request for the protection of legality against a judicial decision adopted in proceedings in which fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW , statute or international law have been violated .

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG of the Republic of Croatia shall determine requests for the protection of legality .

“ ( CARDINAL ) When determining a request for the protection of legality the [ ORG shall assess only those violations of the law relied on by the ORG Attorney .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where a request for the protection of legality has been lodged to the detriment of the accused and the [ ORG establishes that it is well founded , it shall merely establish that there has been a violation of the law , without altering a final decision . ”

The relevant part of the Act on ORG from Criminal Prosecution and Proceedings in Respect of Criminal Offences Committed during ORG of DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL , Zakon o oprostu od krivičnog progona i postupka za krivična djela počinjena u oružanim sukobima i u ratu protiv PERSON ) reads as follows :

“ Criminal prosecution of perpetrators of criminal offences [ committed ] during the armed conflicts , the war against GPE or in connection with these conflicts or war , committed DATE when this LAW comes into force , shall be discontinued . In respect of these offences no criminal prosecution or criminal proceedings shall be instituted . Where criminal proceedings have been instituted , a court shall terminate them of its own motion . Where a person concerned by the amnesty ... has been detained , he or she shall be released . ”

“ No amnesty under LAW shall be granted to perpetrators of the criminal offences in respect of which GPE is obliged to prosecute under international law . ”

“ A state attorney may lodge an appeal within TIME from the service of a decision under section CARDINAL ... of this Act , where she or he considers that the decision contravenes section QUANTITY . ”

The relevant part of the amendments to LAW of DATE reads as follows :

“ In section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of the Act on ORG from Criminal Prosecution and Proceedings in Respect of Criminal Offences Committed during ORG no . CARDINAL ) the words ‘ DATE when this Act comes into force’ are to be replaced by the words ‘ CARDINAL DATE . ”

The relevant part of LAW of DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON o općem oprostu ) reads as follows :

“ This Act grants general amnesty from criminal prosecution and proceedings to the perpetrators of criminal offences committed during the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts and in connection with the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts in GPE .

No amnesty shall apply to the execution of final judgments in respect of perpetrators of the criminal offences under paragraph CARDINAL of this section .

ORG from criminal prosecution and proceedings shall apply to offences committed DATE and DATE . ”

“ No criminal prosecution or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the perpetrators of the criminal offences under LAW .

Where a criminal prosecution has already commenced it shall be discontinued and where criminal proceedings have been instituted a court shall issue a decision terminating the proceedings of its own motion .

Where a person granted amnesty under paragraph CARDINAL of this section has been detained , he or she shall be released . ”

“ No amnesty under LAW shall be granted to perpetrators of the gravest breaches of humanitarian law , which have the character of war crimes , namely , the criminal offence of genocide under LAW ( ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , consolidated text , nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and ORG ) ; war crimes against the civilian population under LAW ; war crimes against the wounded and sick under LAW ; war crimes against prisoners of war under LAW ; organising groups [ with the purpose of committing ] or aiding and abetting genocide and war crimes under LAW ; unlawful killing and wounding of the enemy under LAW ; unlawful taking of possessions from the dead or wounded on the battleground under LAW ; use of unlawful means of combat under LAW ; offences against negotiators under LAW ; cruel treatment of the wounded , sick and prisoners of war under LAW ; unjustified delay in repatriation of prisoners of war under LAW ; destruction of cultural and historical heritage under LAW ; inciting war of aggression under LAW ; abuse of international symbols under LAW ; racial and other discrimination under LAW ; establishing slavery and transferring slaves under LAW ; international terrorism under LAW ; putting at risk persons under international protection under LAW ; taking hostages under LAW ; and the criminal offence of terrorism under the provisions of international law .

No amnesty shall be granted to perpetrators of other criminal offences under LAW of GPE ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , consolidated text , nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and ORG ) and LAW ( ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , consolidated text , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and ORG ) which were not committed during the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts and are not connected with the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts in GPE .

“ A state attorney may lodge an appeal against a court decision under LAW where a court has granted amnesty in favour of the perpetrators of criminal offences in respect of which this Act grants amnesty within the legal classification of the criminal offence by a state attorney . ”


Remainder inadmissible;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 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in prison no . CARDINAL .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in GPE in connection with a robbery committed in GPE .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in ORG in connection with a robbery committed on ORG .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in GPE in connection with a murder and attempted murder committed in the course of an armed robbery ( “ the murder proceedings ” ) .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) granted the prosecutor ’s request to put the applicant , a former police officer , on remand as a suspect in the criminal proceedings concerning the robbery on ORG . ORG held that , as the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious crime and had absconded during the investigation , his detention was necessary to prevent him from reoffending . The court also noted that the applicant ’s personality was to be taken into consideration , without giving any further details . On DATE , the applicant ’s name was put on a wanted list .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in accordance with the ORG decision of DATE . He submitted that he had presented himself to the police voluntarily once he had become aware that he was wanted . On DATE , he drafted a “ statement of voluntary surrender ” ( явка з повинною ) in which he confessed to committing , as part of a criminal group , a number of armed robberies on ORG , as well as one in the town of GPE . He stated that , in the course of the latter , he had used a firearm against the victim . The applicant also provided more details in writing about the above crimes and his acquaintance with his accomplices and informed the police CARDINAL other armed robberies which he and his accomplices had committed in the town of GPE , as well as about other crimes of which he was aware .

On DATE the applicant was charged with armed robbery and questioned . Before being questioned he was informed of his procedural rights but signed a waiver of his right to legal assistance . He made similar statements to those given to the police DATE before , including about the shooting incident in GPE . On DATE , he familiarised himself with the decision of DATE , against which he was entitled to appeal . He did not appeal against the decision .

On DATE , in the absence of a lawyer , the applicant was questioned in the context of the robbery proceedings . The Government submitted DATE and this is not contested by the applicant – that the applicant again waived his right to a lawyer , having once again been informed of his rights . During the questioning , the applicant , apart from giving information on the robberies , reiterated his statements regarding the shooting which had occurred in GPE . He was further questioned in that regard .

On DATE a lawyer , NORP , was appointed to represent the applicant . On DATE , in the absence of a lawyer , the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the murder proceedings . He admitted to shooting a victim in the course of the armed robbery but denied that he had done so intentionally .

On DATE , in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant was charged with murder and attempted murder , and questioned as an accused . He admitted his guilt in respect of the armed robbery but denied the murder charges . A reconstruction of the crime scene was carried out .

On DATE the applicant was charged with armed robbery causing grievous bodily harm . He waived his right to a lawyer during questioning .

On DATE the applicant was charged with premeditated armed robbery as part of a criminal group . He again waived his right to a lawyer .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention to DATE . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE the criminal proceedings concerning robberies on ORG were joined with the murder proceedings .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal , having heard the investigator and the prosecutor , and referring to “ the applicant ’s personality ” , albeit without assessing it , the seriousness of the charges against him , and the need for additional time to conduct the necessary investigative measures , extended the applicant ’s detention to DATE . The decision was not amenable to appeal .

On DATE B. was appointed as the applicant ’s lawyer .

On DATE the criminal proceedings regarding the robberies in GPE were joined with the other proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal , having heard the investigator and the prosecutor , extended the applicant ’s detention to DATE on the same grounds as those in its ruling of DATE . The decision was not amenable to appeal .

On DATE L. replaced PERSON as the applicant ’s lawyer . On DATE , the applicant was charged with a number of crimes , including banditry , several counts of armed robbery , premeditated murder and attempted murder , and questioned . He pleaded not guilty as charged and refused to give further testimonies .

On DATE amended charges were brought against the applicant and he was questioned again .

On DATE the applicant was granted access to the case file . According to the Government , no investigative measures were conducted DATE .

After the investigation had been completed the case was referred to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , acting as a first - instance court , for trial . The decision to do so was not amenable to appeal .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to change his preventive measure to a non - custodial one .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for additional investigation , holding that the applicant ’s rights of defence had been breached . It found , inter alia , that the applicant had officially been charged with offences other than those considered by the trial court . It further established that on DATE , DATE and DATE investigative measures had been carried out in the absence of the applicant ’s lawyer , contrary to the requirements of domestic law . The court also decided , without giving reasons or setting a time - limit , that the applicant would remain in detention . The applicant appealed in cassation against that decision and requested , inter alia , that the preventive measure , namely the detention ordered be lifted .

On DATE ORG heard the applicant ’s appeal in the presence of the prosecutor . It upheld the decision of ORG of DATE and stated , without giving any reasons , that there were no grounds for changing or discontinuing the preventive measure imposed on the applicant .

On DATE PERSON was appointed as the applicant ’s lawyer .

On DATE , in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant was charged with a number of criminal offences , including banditry , several counts of armed robbery , premeditated murder and attempted murder , and questioned . He admitted to his acquaintance with the co - accused , but pleaded not guilty on all charges .

On DATE , in the presence of his lawyer , amended charges were brought against the applicant . The latter refused to sign or receive copies of the relevant papers as he disagreed with the charges . During further questioning he pleaded not guilty and refused to give any testimony .

On DATE the applicant and his lawyer were granted access to the case file , and on DATE the case was referred for trial .

On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged a request for release with ORG .

On DATE ORG , having acquitted the applicant on CARDINAL of the CARDINAL charges for lack of proof , found him guilty of banditry , several counts of armed robbery , intentional murder and attempted murder . It sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of all his property . The court based its findings to a large extent on the testimonies of the applicant and his co - defendants given during the pre - trial investigation , having found them to be corroborated by a number of other pieces of evidence . In the part of the judgment which concerns the murder charges , the court referred , in particular , to the “ testimonies given by the applicant as a suspect and an accused , including in the presence of a lawyer ” . It further dismissed as ill - founded the applicant ’s complaints that his rights of defence had been violated and his requests to declare inadmissible his statements obtained in the absence of a lawyer . In this context , when finding the applicant guilty of armed robberies , the court held that , having been informed of his procedural rights , the applicant had voluntarily waived his right to legal representation and that such a waiver had been lawfully accepted by the investigative authorities as robbery charges could not lead to a life sentence . It further held that during questioning on the murder , the applicant had been legally represented and had made his statements in the presence of a lawyer .

In addition , ORG gave a separate ruling by which it declared inadmissible a number of pieces of evidence related to different charges against the applicant and his co - defendants , as the evidence had been obtained in violation of the GPE rights of defence . In particular , as far as the applicant was concerned , apart from the evidence which had been found inadmissible on DATE , the court further excluded from the body of evidence some of the testimonies given by the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE . It held that , even though the applicant had allegedly confessed to murdering CARDINAL people shortly after his arrest , he had nevertheless been questioned as a witness , in the absence of a lawyer .

The applicant appealed in cassation against the judgment of DATE . He stated in particular that there had been insufficient evidence to prove his guilt ; he had been ill - treated by the police ; on a number of occasions during the pre - trial investigation he had been questioned in the absence of a lawyer and that evidence obtained in violation of his rights of defence had nevertheless been used to secure his conviction .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor , the applicant and his sister – who acted as his representative . On DATE , it upheld the applicant ’s conviction of DATE . It dismissed as unsubstantiated his complaints that his rights of defence had been violated at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , holding that those complaints had been duly examined and dismissed by ORG . It also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment by the police .

DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the ORG pre - trial detention centre no . CARDINAL ( “ ORG ” ) , in cell no . CARDINAL . He submitted that his cell had been overcrowded : it had measured QUANTITY , contained CARDINAL beds for QUANTITY people , and detainees had had to take turns to sleep . He also alleged that some of the cellmates had been suffering from tuberculosis . In this context , he submitted written statements made by his cellmates PERSON , GPE , GPE , P. and O.

NORP The applicant ’s sister complained to the Governor of ORG about the conditions of her brother ’s detention . By a letter dated DATE the Governor informed her that the cell in question had been designed to accommodate CARDINAL people and that CARDINAL inmates had been held in that cell during the applicant ’s detention . The Governor further informed her that , according to medical documents concerning PERSON , GPE , GPE , P. and O. , none of them had been suffering from an active form of tuberculosis . He stated that the applicant had never been in contact with anyone suffering from such a disease whilst in GPE .

After his conviction on DATE , the applicant was transferred to the high - security wing of the GPE pre - trial detention centre no . CARDINAL ( “ GPE ” ) . According to the applicant , he was handcuffed whenever he left his cell , including during DATE walks and meetings with his relatives .

In GPE the applicant was held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY each , designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees . The cells were equipped with a dining table , a bench , a washstand and a toilet , which was separated from the living area by a brick partition . There was natural ventilation and light through windows ; artificial lighting allowed inmates to read and write without damaging their eyesight . The temperature in the cells was between NORP and CARDINALoC. Running water was constantly available in the cells . All detainees were provided with bed linen and clothes in accordance with domestic standards .

As regards the applicant ’s allegations that he had shared his cell with persons suffering from tuberculosis , the Government pointed out that the domestic legislation provided that persons suffering from that disease should be kept separately from healthy detainees . The Government could not provide any information about the applicant ’s cellmates and their state of health , however , because the time - limit for keeping the relevant documents had expired and the records had been destroyed . They noted that the applicant had not complained that his state of health had worsened in detention .

Whenever the applicant was taken out of his cell and escorted within GPE , handcuffs were used pursuant to the relevant domestic legislation . The Government contested the applicant ’s statement that he had been handcuffed during his DATE walks and meetings with relatives , as the former was prohibited by the relevant domestic regulations .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helena Jäderblom;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

He entered GPE on DATE and applied for political asylum .

On DATE , counsel appointed the applicant made written submissions to ORG ( Migrationsverket ) in which he developed the grounds for the applicant ’s request for political asylum .

On DATE ORG held an oral interview with the applicant in the presence of his counsel and an interpreter . The applicant handed over a declaration of DATE from a pastor in GPE certifying that the applicant had been a member of his congregation since DATE and had been baptised . ORG official therefore started the interview by asking about that matter . The applicant replied that it was a private matter “ in [ his ] heart ” , adding : “ It has nothing to do with this but if you want to ask questions you may . All problems in my home country are caused by ORG entering GPE ... ” . ORG official explained that the reason why he was asking questions about it was that he had interpreted the certificate as though the applicant had relied on his conversion as a ground for asylum . The applicant stated : “ no , it is not something I want to rely on . It is something private ” . ORG official then suggested a break in the interview in order for the applicant and his counsel to confer . After a TIME break , counsel stated : “ the applicant wants to underline that he has not changed religion in order to enhance his chances of getting a residence permit but out of personal conviction ” . When asked when he had converted , the applicant replied that this had happened after he had arrived in the NORP town of GPE , where there were not many NORP . He had got to know a person who went to church CARDINAL times a week . This person knew that the applicant hated ORG . The applicant continued : “ I do not regard NORP as a religion ” . When asked why that was so , the applicant replied : “ if regarded as a religion it would be like ORG , but NORP is about a kind of love you have for God ” . He explained that he had been going to the congregation ’s gatherings CARDINAL times per week and that he read the Bible . The applicant gave examples of miracles and prophecies from the Bible which had attracted him to NORP . ORG official asked why , if the applicant did not wish to rely on his conversion as a ground for asylum , he had nevertheless handed in the certificate from the pastor , to which the applicant replied : “ I do n’t know . I never asked for it and I had not even considered handing it in , but you wanted it . They gave all converts a certificate like that ” .

The rest of the interview dealt with the applicant ’s political past . The applicant explained that in GPE he had worked with persons connected to different universities who were known to oppose the regime . He had mainly worked on creating and publishing web pages . He and CARDINAL of the other persons had been arrested in DATE . He had been released after TIME and then hospitalised for DATE due to high blood pressure .

NORP Before the elections on DATE , the applicant had worked with ORG , who had supported PERSON for the presidential position , by spreading their message via the Internet . DATE before the elections , he and his friends had been arrested , questioned and detained in the polling station TIME .

After the elections , the applicant had participated in demonstrations and other activities . He had been arrested once again in DATE and imprisoned for DATE . He had been ill - treated in prison . In DATE he had been taken before ORG , which had released him after DATE on condition that he cooperate with the authorities and spy on his friends . He had agreed to the demands and given his business premises as a guarantee . He had also assured them that he would not participate in any demonstrations and that he would respond to their summons . Following his release in a park , he had found that his business LOC had been searched . He had kept politically sensitive material there , which the authorities must have noticed , and his passport and other documents were missing .

Subsequently , the applicant was summoned to appear on CARDINAL DATE before ORG . He had contacted a friend who , in turn , had obtained the help of a smuggler to enable him to leave the country . The applicant submitted a summons from ORG dated DATE stating that he should present himself at PERSON prison in GPE on DATE .

The interview before ORG lasted TIME and the record was subsequently sent to the applicant and his counsel for comment . Counsel commented that the applicant had not read the certificate from the congregation ’s pastor before the interview as it had not been translated and that the applicant intended to submit the formal baptism certificate .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for asylum . By way of introduction , it stated that while the applicant had not proven his identity or citizenship he had established the probability thereof .

As regards the request for political asylum , ORG held that participation in demonstrations or affiliation with ORG could not , of itself , give rise to a risk of persecution , ill - treatment or punishment on his return to GPE . ORG noted that the applicant had changed his story in some parts during the proceedings , and in particular , he had changed his statements concerning the number of times he had been arrested . Furthermore , he had not been able to name the park where he had been released in DATE . Thus , ORG found reason to question whether he had been arrested at all . ORG further considered that the applicant ’s political activities had been limited . After the questioning in DATE and until the elections in DATE , he had been able to continue working with the web pages that contained the critical material , even though , according to the applicant , already at that time the authorities had been aware of his activities . For these reasons , ORG found that the applicant could not have been of interest to the authorities on account of his activities or the material he had in his possession .

As to the applicant ’s conversion to NORP , ORG noted that the conversion and baptism had not taken place in ORG and that the applicant had not handed in any proof of his baptism . The certificate from the congregation ’s pastor could be regarded only as a plea to ORG that the applicant should be granted asylum . The applicant had not initially wished to invoke his conversion as a ground for asylum and had stated that his new faith was a private matter . To pursue his faith in private was not found to be a plausible reason for believing that he would risk persecution upon return . In conclusion , ORG found that the applicant had not shown that he was in need of protection in GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and relying on both political and religious grounds for asylum . As regards the latter he handed in a baptism certificate of DATE . He reacted against the decision by ORG , which in his view implied that a conversion within a “ free church ” was of less relevance than if it had been within ORG . He explained that the reason why he had not initially wished to rely on his conversion was that he did not want to trivialise the seriousness of his beliefs .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing in the presence of the applicant , his counsel , an interpreter and a representative of ORG .

ORG did not question the fact that the applicant , at the time , professed the NORP faith , but found that this , by itself , was not enough to consider him in need of protection . It referred to ORG operational guidance note of DATE .

The applicant stated that he did not wish to rely on his conversion as a reason for asylum but considered it something personal . He added that “ it would , however , obviously cause [ him ] problems upon return ” .

In respect of his political past he explained , inter alia , that he had had contact with the student movement and quite a lot of students and had helped them with their home pages . His computer had been taken from his business LOC while he was in prison . Material that was critical of the regime was stored on his computer . While he had not personally criticised the regime , or President PERSON , or the highest leaders , the applicant had visited some websites and had received cartoons via email . Therefore , in his view , there was enough evidence to prove that he was an opponent of the system . It was much the same as the material he had had on his computer in DATE .

The summons to appear before ORG on DATE was also submitted to ORG . The applicant explained that the summons had been served at his home and that his sister had brought it to him . He had left the summons with a friend when he left GPE . Subsequently , the said friend had sent it to another friend , who was going to GPE , and who had made sure that the summons was sent to the applicant in GPE . He had not been summoned again and his family had not been targeted . Something might have happened , though , that his family did not wish to burden him with .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It observed that the applicant was no longer relying on his religious views as a ground for persecution and it did not refer further to this issue in its conclusions .

ORG found that the applicant ’s story in support of his request for political asylum had been coherent and trustworthy on the most essential points . It found that the uncertainties that had been pointed out by ORG had been satisfactorily explained . However , as regards the summons to appear before ORG , ORG found , regardless of the authenticity of the document , that it could not by itself substantiate a need for protection . ORG pointed out in this respect that the document was merely a summons and that no reason had been given as to why the applicant should present himself at PERSON prison . Moreover , the information concerning the applicant ’s political activities had generally been vague and lacking in detail . The applicant had only stated that he had participated in the campaign for the opposition before the elections in DATE by joining demonstrations and having contact with the student movement and students in order to help them with their web pages . Furthermore , the applicant had stated that the material he had had in his possession when he was questioned in DATE had not differed from the material he had in DATE . These circumstances , together with the fact that he had not been summoned again to appear before ORG after DATE and that his family had not been targeted , made ORG doubt that his political activities had been of such a nature and extent as to have resulted in the consequences alleged . ORG found that the applicant had exaggerated the importance of his political activities and their consequences and therefore also the authorities’ interest in him . For these reasons , it considered that the applicant had not made out that the NORP authorities had a special interest in him and that therefore he was in need of protection .

On DATE and DATE the applicant requested leave to appeal to ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) . He maintained his need for political asylum . He also alleged that before ORG he had relied on his conversion . He submitted that the latter issue had been sensitive for him , that he had considered it a private matter and that had not wanted to tarnish the seriousness of his belief . This was the reason why he , in response to a direct question by ORG , had stated that he was no longer relying on his conversion as a ground for asylum . After the oral hearing before ORG he had become a member of another NORP congregation and had taken part in an initiation ceremony broadcast on the Internet . His fear that his conversion had become known to the NORP authorities had therefore increased . He enclosed a letter of CARDINAL DATE from his new congregation which supported his explanation . In particular , it stated that the applicant had converted shortly after his arrival in GPE , that he had shown with honest intent and interest that he was willing to learn more about NORP , and that he took part in church services , prayer meetings and social activities . It also stated that he became a member of the congregation in DATE and that his NORP beliefs were no longer private as the services he attended were broadcast on the Internet .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal . The removal order thus became enforceable .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to stay the enforcement of his expulsion and to reconsider its previous decision in the light of new circumstances . He stated , inter alia , that the act of conversion from ORG to another religion was a taboo and punishable by death in GPE . The applicant submitted the above - mentioned letter of CARDINAL DATE from his new congregation .

On DATE ORG refused to re - examine the applicant ’s request for asylum based on his conversion . ORG noted that in the original asylum proceedings the applicant had stated that he had been baptised and had converted to NORP . He had also stated that his conversion was a personal matter which he did not wish to rely on as a ground for asylum . ORG found it noteworthy that the applicant now raised the question of conversion , when he had been given the chance to elaborate on it during the oral hearing before ORG but had declined to do so . It thus concluded that the applicant ’s conversion could not be regarded as a new circumstance , which was a precondition for ORG to re - examine the request .

The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG , maintaining his claims . He submitted that since he had not previously relied on his conversion , it should be regarded as a new circumstance .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It observed that the authorities had already been aware of the applicant ’s conversion in the original proceeding leading to the decision to expel him . Therefore , the conversion could not be considered as a “ new circumstance ” . The fact that the applicant had previously chosen not to rely on his conversion as a ground for asylum did not change the court ’s assessment in this regard .

The applicant ’s request for leave to appeal was refused by ORG on CARDINAL DATE .

Since under LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , the validity of a deportation order expires DATE after the date on which it acquired legal force , in the present case the deportation at issue expired on DATE .


CASE OF ALEKSANDR VALERYEVICH KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA

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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On an unspecified date the prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal investigation into the activities of a criminal gang allegedly organised by ORG , a high - ranking police officer at the time . The members of the gang were suspected of numerous thefts of goods and foodstuffs from various storage facilities . CARDINAL of the episodes under investigation was a fraudulent attempt by the members of the gang to sell scrap metal , which belonged to a private company , to a scrap metal processing plant . According to the official version , the attempt to sell the scrap metal was carried out by ORG , the applicant , who was also a high - ranking police officer at the time , and PERSON , another member of the gang . On an unspecified date in DATE V. , the applicant and PERSON met with PERSON , a director of the scrap processing plant , and fraudulently represented to him that the scrap metal belonged to PERSON and that they were acting on her behalf . PERSON agreed to purchase the scrap metal and on DATE he sent a group of workers to the company ’s site in order to have the scrap metal removed . PERSON ’s boyfriend PERSON . , another member of the gang , was also present at the site at the time . The removal of the scrap metal was interrupted by PERSON , one of the private company ’s directors . PERSON . phoned PERSON , who told him to go to the police station to notify ORG of the incident . Then both PERSON . and PERSON returned to the site to settle the issue with PERSON , who had complained to the police about the attempted theft of the scrap metal . PERSON also informed PERSON . , the company ’s managing director , of the incident . Acting in his official capacity , ORG assigned the investigation into the attempted theft of scrap metal to GPE . , who decided to question PERSON However , GPE interviewed PERSON himself and brought GPE . PERSON ’s statement . GPE . questioned PERSON , who submitted that she had nothing to do with the removal of the scrap metal from the company ’s premises .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody . On DATE he was released on bail .

On DATE the applicant was formally charged with CARDINAL counts of financial fraud , theft and embezzlement committed in collusion with CARDINAL members of the gang .

The trial opened in DATE . At the end of the trial the prosecutor dropped all the charges against the applicant except the attempted theft of scrap metal .

The applicant maintained his innocence . The testimony he gave at the trial was summed up as follows in the judgment :

“ ... he has known ORG since DATE due to his service in ORG ] They have been friends . Since DATE he has known PERSON too , whom he met from time to time at different places and visited her at her home for work purposes . In DATE , ORG asked ... to take him to the site [ where the scrap metal was ] in order to meet PERSON asked him and PERSON to help the buyer of the scrap metal to ensure its safety . He and PERSON promised to ask CARDINAL of the police patrol teams to secure the scrap metal . They informed accordingly the buyer who arrived later to inspect the scrap metal . He did not talk to anyone about stealing and selling the scrap metal . He did not conspire with such intent and he did not take part in any negotiations about that . He did not receive any proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal or any advance payment . Nor did he take any measures to conceal the crimes committed by PERSON She falsely accused him of the involvement in the attempted theft of the scrap metal . ”

The trial court questioned PERSON , PERSON . , and GPE . It further admitted into evidence the statements made by PERSON , ORG . , and PERSON when questioned by the investigator . As regards witness PERSON , the court noted that he had been away on a business trip and could not attend the court hearing . It considered that this absence amounted to an extraordinary circumstance that would permit the reading - out of his earlier statement . Despite the applicant ’s objection , the court dispensed with summoning PERSON again for questioning and proceeded with the reading - out of his statement . According to the Government , the information concerning PERSON ’s absence was communicated to the court by PERSON ’s wife by telephone .

According to the written statement , used by the court , PERSON stated as follows :

“ ... he has been the General Director of ORG since DATE . It specializes in buying scrap metal from individuals and legal entities in the region . CARDINAL of the long - term suppliers for his company was [ PERSON ] . In DATE [ PERSON ] proposed being a middle person between ORG and her acquaintances who intended to sell a large quantity of scrap metal . She suggested that [ he ] meet with those persons to discuss the terms and conditions of the transaction . As was suggested by [ PERSON ] , at DATE he met with those persons at the site where the scrap metal was located ... . He met CARDINAL men whose names were PERSON and PERSON . They claimed that the scrap metal belonged to them and offered him to buy it . Subsequently , [ PERSON ] told him that those men were high ranking police officers ... . During the meeting PERSON asked him to make an advance payment for the scrap metal in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . [ He also said ] that it was for ORG to saw and dismantle the metal structure . When he asked them to show the documents confirming their title to the scrap metal , PERSON and PERSON “ stepped back ” and explained that they were also middle men and that the scrap metal belonged to another person . [ PERSON ] did not take part in the discussion . He suggested that they could get back to discuss the transaction once they had the necessary documents . Then he left . In DATE [ PERSON ] contacted him again as regards that scrap metal . She explained that police officers PERSON and PERSON would present all the documents for the scrap metal and that she would draft the purchase contract . DATE [ PERSON ] brought [ a draft contract ] which indicated that the scrap metal belonged to PERSON ... . According to [ PERSON ] , the owner of the scrap metal was at the seaside and would contact him later ... . [ PERSON ] convinced him that the transaction was legal as the middle men and “ underwriters ” were high ranking police officers . He has known [ PERSON ] for her good reputation . He trusted her assurances as to the guarantees provided by the police officers and signed the contract . He asked his employees to start sawing the metal structure . Then a criminal investigation was opened . [ PERSON ] came to see him and explained that the police officers PERSON and PERSON had set her up and that she had paid each of them RUB CARDINAL from the amount his company had paid her for the metal . DATE , PERSON came to see him . He asked him to make a written statement and said that he would resolve all the problems and that the criminal case would be closed . He responded that he had no problems because all his actions had been in compliance with law . ”

According to the applicant , the trial court refused to summon PERSON , NORP and P. , witnesses for the defence .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of an attempted theft of scrap metal . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

ORG findings as regards the applicant ’s guilt were based on the testimonies of PERSON , PERSON . and GPE . , who were questioned during the trial . The court also referred to the statements given by PERSON and PERSON . during the pre - trial investigation . Lastly , it relied on the statement made by PERSON during the pre - trial investigation .

The text of the judgment remained silent as to PERSON ’s testimony regarding the attempted theft of the scrap metal . It was indicated that she had pleaded guilty to that charge .

Lastly , the trial court examined and admitted as evidence the following documents : ( CARDINAL ) B. ’s complaint to the police about the attempted theft of the scrap metal ; ( CARDINAL ) his company ’s financial statements ; ( CARDINAL ) a contract for removal of the scrap metal signed by PERSON and PERSON ; ( CARDINAL ) PERSON ’s telephone records ; ( CARDINAL ) PERSON ’s statements recorded by ORG and ( CARDINAL ) the police order appointing PERSON to the post of the head of the police station .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE . He complained , inter alia , about PERSON ’s nonattendance .

On DATE ORG upheld , in substance , the applicant ’s conviction but reduced his sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .


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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant , who was the director of a local bank branch , was arrested and charged with several economic crimes , namely approving loans without respecting the legal requirements , abuse of office , fraud , forgery and conspiracy to commit crimes . CARDINAL other individuals were also charged with various bank frauds allegedly committed in association with the applicant DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant of all the charges against him . The court held that the applicant was not guilty of the crimes of abuse of office , fraud , forgery and conspiracy to commit crimes . As regards the crime of approving loans without respecting the legal requirements , the court held that from DATE this was no longer an offence in law and therefore acquitted the applicant of this offence too . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s acquittal was finally upheld by a judgment of ORG and ORG .

Following the applicant ’s arrest on DATE for DATE , the investigating prosecutor requested ORG to confirm the applicant ’s pre - trial detention for a total period of DATE . The prosecutor reasoned the request by quoting the text of Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW which provided for the cases in which a defendant may be arrested , namely that the defendant had made preparations to abscond from the authorities ; that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant had tried to obstruct the investigation by influencing witnesses and destroying evidence ; that the defendant had committed crimes for which the punishment was imprisonment for DATE ; that there was evidence that if released the defendant would pose a danger to public order and that there were sufficient data to justify the concern that the defendant would exert pressure on the victim or that he would try to make a fraudulent settlement of the case with the latter . No specific reference was made to the applicant ’s situation or to the application of the legislation quoted in his particular case .

On DATE , on the basis of the reasons advanced by the prosecutor , ORG granted this request and remanded the applicant in pre - trial custody for DATE . By the same judgment and with the same reasoning the court remanded the other CARDINAL co - defendants who were arrested at the same time as he applicant in pre - trial custody .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant on points of law against the above - mentioned interlocutory judgment as ill - founded . The court held “ In the current case the applicant has committed the above - mentioned offences and their nature leads to the conclusion that the defendant ’s release would constitute an actual danger to public order . ”

The applicant ’s and his co - defendants’ pre - trial detention was subsequently extended on DATE , with the reasoning that the motives which had justified their arrest still existed . In taking this decision the court also held relevant the fact that CARDINAL more suspects had been arrested since the beginning of the investigation . An appeal by the applicant on points of law against this judgment was rejected by ORG on DATE ; the court held that the applicant ’s release had been correctly deemed by the lower court to be a threat to public order .

DATE and DATE the applicant ’s and his co - defendants’ pre - trial detention was extended DATE by ORG with the same reasoning , namely that there was sufficient evidence for the conclusion that the defendants had committed the offences for which they were on trial , and that therefore their release would constitute a danger to public order . On DATE the ORG additionally held that the GPE pre - trial detention was also justified by the fact that new crimes had been discovered by the investigators to have been committed at the same bank branch . No details were given about these crimes or about the GPE personal situation in this connection .

From DATE to DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s and his co - defendants’ pre - trial detention jointly , with the reasoning that there were no new facts capable of justifying a revocation of the remand in custody , the defendants had not yet been heard in court , and the financial losses caused by the crimes had not yet been recovered .

On DATE the ORG decided to allow the applicant ’s request for the replacement of his pre - trial detention with a prohibition on leaving the town . The court noted that the applicant had already been held in pre - trial detention for DATE , and there was no evidence that he had tried to obstruct the investigation during this period . An appeal by the prosecution on points of law against this decision was allowed on DATE by ORG . The court of appeal held that pre - trial detention continued to be justified for all the defendants because of the high number of offences involved , the severity of the punishment provided by law for these offences , and the fact that the defendants had rendered the investigation more difficult by requesting expert reports as well as submitting documents in their defence for the first time before the court and not during the investigation phase .

DATE and DATE the applicant ’s pre - trial detention was extended a number of times , on the basis of the same reasoning , relying on the severity of the offence and the implied danger to public order . On DATE the ORG additionally held that the GPE pre - trial detention was also justified by the fact that new accusations had been made against CARDINAL of them including the applicant .

The applicant appealed against all the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , alleging that there was not enough evidence from which to acquire a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences , and there was no proof that if released he would present a danger to public order . The applicant also emphasised to the courts that the investigation was based mainly on bank documents which had all already been seized , and therefore it would not be possible for him to obstruct the investigation if released from prison . He further mentioned that he was a respected person in his local community , with a family and CARDINAL minor children for whom he was responsible . He made numerous requests to the courts for his pre - trial detention to be replaced with a prohibition on leaving the town . However , his appeals were rejected as ill - founded , the courts considering that the reasons for his initial pre - trial detention still existed , without analysing the applicant ’s specific allegations or his personal situation .

On DATE the ORG again decided to revoke the applicant ’s pre - trial detention , but that decision was quashed by ORG on DATE , with the reasoning that not all the evidence gathered by the prosecutor had been produced before the court .

On DATE ORG and ORG decided to grant a request made by one of the defendants and changed the location of the trial to ORG .

At the time he was placed in pre - trial detention the applicant was suffering , among others , from chronic coronary heart disease .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG for the revocation of his pre - trial detention for medical reasons . He requested a forensic medical expert report and enclosed medical documents attesting to his state of health .

At a hearing on DATE the court ordered that the applicant be examined by ORG .

On DATE ORG submitted to the court a forensic report concluding that the applicant was suffering from several diseases . The report estimated that the applicant ’s conditions required treatment under strict medical supervision and further cardiology , neurology and orthopaedic tests , hence making him unable to cope with the detention regime . The report also suggested that the suspension of the applicant ’s detention was necessary for DATE in order for him to seek treatment in a civil hospital . Finally , the report concluded that a failure to undertake the treatment recommended by a specialist doctor might endanger the applicant ’s life .

The court requested on DATE that the forensic report be supplemented with specific medical recommendations for the applicant ’s health problems . A new amended report was submitted on DATE .

On DATE , at the request of the prosecutor , the court ordered the revision of the amended report by ORG ( PERSON si control a actelor medico - legale ) for more clarifications .

At the hearing of DATE the court took note that ORG had confirmed the forensic report drafted by ORG , but had recommended the suspension of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention for DATE instead of CARDINAL . Again at the request of the prosecutor , the court ordered clarifications from ORG , given that the suspension of the pre - trial detention was not provided by law .

In view of the lack of response from ORG , on CARDINAL DATE the court ordered a new forensic report to be drawn up by ORG .

On DATE , the court took note of the receipt of the opinion from ORG , which concluded that the applicant ’s condition required a coronarography procedure , which could be done in detention and did not require him to be released for DATE as previously recommended . Therefore , the court decided that the applicant could be treated within the prison health system , and refused his request for revocation of his pre - trial detention for medical reasons . An appeal by the applicant on points of law against this decision was rejected as ill - founded on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained to the court that his state of health had worsened during his detention , and requested a new forensic expert report to establish whether he could be treated within the prison health system . The court granted the applicant ’s request and ordered the report to be carried out by ORG . No such report was ever submitted to the court .

On DATE , on the basis of the medical documents available in the file , ORG ordered the revocation of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention for medical reasons . The applicant was ordered not to leave his town of residence without authorisation . An appeal by the prosecutor against this judgment on points of law was rejected on DATE by ORG . The applicant was released DATE .

In DATE , after his final acquittal by the judgment of ORG and ORG of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant brought a civil action before the domestic courts which was based on the provisions of LAW . He requested pecuniary damages , alleging that his pre - trial detention had been unlawfully ordered by the prosecutor and excessively and unlawfully extended by the courts , an issue which had caused him material losses and also caused his state of health to worsen .

On DATE ORG finally refused the applicant ’s request . The court held that the applicant was acquitted of one of the offences he had been charged with because it was no longer punishable by law . Therefore , given that he was not held in detention once the new law entered into force , his pre - trial detention was lawful and he was not entitled to receive any kind of damages .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant obtained an award of remuneration arrears in the proceedings against a private company that went under insolvency administration . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant sued the insolvency manager of the company seeking the recovery of the remuneration awarded to him by the court .

On DATE the ORG of the Republic of Chuvashiya dismissed the applicant ’s claim . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG against the ORG seeking recovery of nonpecuniary damages for excessively long examination of his claim against the insolvency manager .

On DATE ORG returned the applicant ’s claim on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to examine it . The court directed the applicant to lodge the claim with a district court . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG of GPE amended the decision of DATE and dismissed the applicant ’s claim without consideration on the merits on the ground that it could not be examined in the course of civil proceedings . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ ... According to LAW On ORG in the NORP Federation ” a judge could only be held responsible for actions committed in the course of administration of justice if he or she had been convicted of abuse of powers ... Since the issue of holding a judge responsible for an opinion expressed or a decision taken while administering justice could only be resolved in the course of the procedure established by law , the disputes of such kind could not be examined by courts in the course of civil proceedings .

With regard to the issue of compensation for damages caused by unlawful actions ... of a judge in cases when the judge ’s fault had been established in the course of other type of proceedings than criminal , the issues of the basis for and the procedure of compensation by the state of the damage caused by unlawful actions ... which manifested themselves , among other things , in the breach of [ the requirement of ] the reasonable length of court proceedings ... are at present not determined by law [ as well as ] the ORG jurisdiction in such cases . ”

NORP In the meantime on an unspecified date the applicant lodged with ORG , as advised by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a claim against the ORG of GPE and the ORG seeking nonpecuniary damages for the excessive length of the civil proceedings in his case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim without examination on the merits . The court noted that the procedure for challenging the actions of a judge required a special legal framework which had not yet been set up . The applicant appealed . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ ... Taking into account the nature of the judiciary and the constitutional immunity of the judge , the procedure of appeal against the judge ’s acts not resulting in the decision on the merits of a case required an adoption of special legislation . Currently there is no legislative framework in this respect ... ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It stated that procedural rules for resolution of the issue raised by the applicant had not yet been established . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ ... Taking into account the material law providing responsibility of the judges and judiciary , disputes arising from the applicant ’s claim could be resolved only in the course of the civil proceedings established by law . On the date of adoption of the decision disputed by the applicant , the legislator did not provide any legal framework for such cases ... ”


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)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens

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

On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of ORG , an illegal organisation . The applicant ’s right of access to a lawyer was restricted during his police custody according to the now defunct Law no . CARDINAL . On DATE he was examined by a doctor at his own request . The doctor noted , in a police document , that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant ’s body .

On DATE the applicant was taken part in “ an identification parade with statements ( ifadeli yüzleştirme tutanağı ) ” with other accused persons and identified , in the absence of a lawyer , certain persons as members of the said organisation and confessed to committing a murder .

On DATE the applicant further participated in the reconstruction of the events ( olay ve yer gösterme ) in the course of which he had confessed , in the absence a lawyer , having carried out an arson attack .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police officers in the absence of a lawyer . In his statement , the applicant gave a detailed description about his involvement in ORG .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively , again in the absence of a lawyer . Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , the applicant denied his police statements claiming that he had been subjected to torture . The investigating judge ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand . On DATE and before his statements were taken , he had been examined by a doctor at the request of the police . The doctor noted , in a police document , that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant ’s body .

On DATE he was examined by a doctor at his own request claiming that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody . The doctor noted that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant ’s body .

On DATE the applicant gave evidence as complainant before the public prosecutor and stated that the had been subjected to various forms of torture , which included beatings , electric shock treatment , blindfolding , hosing with cold water , and being stripped naked .

On CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and several other persons . The applicant was accused of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory , proscribed by LAW .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing in the case .

By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished . The case against the applicant was transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order , proscribed by LAW , and sentenced him to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE in respect of some of the accused , including the applicant , and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order , proscribed by LAW , and sentenced him to life imprisonment again .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Yonko Grozev

The CARDINAL applicants in this case are all NORP nationals and retired army colonels . Their case concerns the conditions under which they retired from ORG . They are represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE with PERSON ORG A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

At the material time the conditions of service of commissioned army officers in ORG , including matters of promotion and retirement , was regulated by ORG and by ORG , Hierarchy , Promotions and Retirements ) Regulations of CARDINAL–CARDINAL ( “ the Regulations ” ) .

Pursuant to the ORG , each officer was subject to an DATE performance review by the ORG ’s ORG . Under Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , that review would lead to CARDINAL of CARDINAL category ratings / outcomes :

( i ) the officer being promoted ;

( ii ) the officer being confirmed in the post at the same rank ;

( iii ) the officer being deemed to have “ successfully terminated his or her career ” . This would be the case if he or she did not meet the criteria either for promotion or confirmation in post ( i.e. categories ( i ) and ( ii ) above ) and his or her further service would hinder the advancement of younger officers ; or

( iv ) the officer being retired . This would be the case when it was not considered appropriate for the officer to continue exercising the duties of his or her rank owing to a lack of substantial qualifications .

As a means of allowing officers of lower ranks to advance to higher ranks , Regulation CARDINAL ) provided that , of the senior officers evaluated by ORG every year , a certain percentage were to be considered as falling within categories ( iii ) and ( iv ) . For colonels , the percentage was to range from PERCENT . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that , in complying with LAW ) , ORG should accord priority to requests from officers for retirement on the basis of having successfully terminated their career .

Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) and ( c ) of the ORG sets out the terms on which an officer falling within categories ( iii ) and ( iv ) would leave the army .

For colonels , this regulation provided that a colonel who received a category ( iii ) rating would be promoted CARDINAL rank , that is to brigadier , on DATE proceeding his or her retirement . His or her pension would then be calculated based on the salary a major general ( CARDINAL rank higher than a brigadier ) received at the full age of retirement . The officer would also receive a lump sum payment calculated with reference to his or her pension .

By contrast , a colonel compulsorily retiring with a category ( iv ) rating would do so at his or her existing rank . His or her pension would be calculated based on the salary of a brigadier at full retirement age and the lump sum payment would be calculated with reference to his or her pension . Thus the pensions and lump sum payments would be higher for a colonel on a category ( iii ) rating than a category ( iv ) rating .

The applicants were all colonels in ORG . DATE , they submitted requests for retirement on the basis of having successfully terminated their career , pursuant to LAW ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . Their written requests specified that these were without prejudice to any legal rights which might arise from any declarations of unconstitutionality or nullity of the ORG .

ORG considered the requests of the first CARDINAL applicants at its DATE meeting on DATE ; it considered the remaining requests on DATE . It approved all CARDINAL requests and the applicants were consequently deemed to have successfully completed their military careers . In accordance with LAW , the applicants were promoted from colonel to brigadier with effect from DATE before their retirement , and their pensions and lump sum payments were determined with reference to the salary of a major - general .

In DATE , ORG gave category ( iii ) ratings to a number of officers who had held the same rank and who had completed the same number of DATE of service as the applicants . These officers had not submitted requests for voluntary retirement : the category ( iii ) rating was the result of their DATE performance review .

These officers applied to ORG for annulment of the ORG ’s decisions claiming that they deserved a higher rating .

On DATE , ORG annulled the ORG ’s decisions , finding that ORG had failed properly to examine whether the conditions in DATE Regulations had been met . The court found that it was not open to the ORG to find that officers would not qualify for receiving category ( i ) or ( ii ) ratings simply in order to fill the PERCENT quota for category ( iii ) ratings set out in the Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .

Further to the decision , ORG made settlement offers to the officers concerned . The offers included the following terms :

( i ) the officers would be re - evaluated for DATE and , as a result , some of them would be promoted from colonel to brigadier .

( ii ) the officers would receive an ex gratia payment of ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for DATE they would have served before reaching the age of mandatory retirement which applied to their new ranks ( DATE of age for brigadiers as opposed to CARDINAL for colonels ) .

Having accepted these settlement offers , the officers submitted requests for voluntary retirement . These requests were accepted by ORG and they retired in DATE .

On DATE , the applicants wrote to the Minister of Defence requesting that the offers made to their fellow officers should also apply to them since their requests for voluntary retirement had been made without prejudice ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The Minister rejected the applicants’ request on DATE , relying on legal advice to the effect that ORG decision of DATE had not annulled LAW and the settlement ORG had reached with the other officers was in conformity with ORG decision .

The applicants challenged the Minister ’s refusal before ORG , submitting that it was contrary to the principles of equality and nondiscrimination enshrined in LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

On DATE a single judge of ORG annulled the Minister ’s decision . The judge noted that the Minister had accepted that the applicants were in an equivalent position to their fellow officers in terms of rank and DATE of service , but had submitted that there was a reasonable distinction between the CARDINAL groups : the latter group had sought to vindicate their rights through the courts and thus the extra benefits they had received were provided pursuant to LAW ( the right to damages in administrative recourse proceedings before ORG : see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The judge found that the only distinction between the CARDINAL groups was that the other officers had submitted their requests for voluntary retirement after succeeding in their applications to ORG . There was thus no reasonable distinction between those officers and the applicants and , in the applicants’ case , there had been a violation of LAW of the LAW .

NORP The Minister appealed against the decision of the single judge to the plenary of ORG and , on DATE , the plenary court allowed the Minister ’s appeal ( appeal no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The court found that applicants had accepted the terms of their retirement unconditionally and without reservation . By contrast , the other officers had contested the legality of the ORG ’s decisions in their cases and they had subsequently received benefits that were determined in light of ORG judgment annulling the ORG ’s decisions . In addition , the other officers had continued to serve in ORG while their appeal to ORG had been pending and until they accepted the settlement offers made by ORG . The context surrounding the CARDINAL groups of officers was different and therefore there had been no discrimination contrary to LAW .

Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that everyone shall be equal before the law , administration and justice , and everyone shall be entitled to equal protection and treatment . Article CARDINAL ) protects against direct and indirect discrimination on ground of community , race , religion , language , sex , political or other convictions , national or social descent , birth , colour , wealth , social class , or on any ground whatsoever , unless there is express provision to the contrary in the LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW is not absolute and reasonable distinctions in treatment may be made when the special circumstances of a case so require ( see , inter alia , among others , PERSON and others ( DATE ) CARDINAL A.A.D CARDINAL ; PERSON DATE ) CARDINAL ORG DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL ) provides for recourse against administrative decisions to ORG . Should the recourse succeed , the power of ORG is confined to declaring an act or decision null and void , or , in the case of an omission , that it ought not to have occurred , in that what had not been done should have been done ( Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . LAW ) provides for compensation in such proceedings in the following terms :

“ Any person aggrieved by any decision or act declared to be void under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW or by any omission declared thereunder that it ought not to have been made shall be entitled , if his claim is not met to his satisfaction by the organ , authority or person concerned , to institute legal proceedings in a court for the recovery of damages or for being granted other remedy and to recover just and equitable damages to be assessed by the court or to be granted such other just and equitable remedy as such court is empowered to grant . ”

The relevant provisions of these ORG are as follows .

Regulation CARDINAL provided for the DATE evaluation of army colonels and brigadiers .

Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that , for such officers , their evaluations would fall into CARDINAL of CARDINAL categories : promotion ; confirmation ( i.e. being confirmed in post at the same rank ) ; being deemed to have successfully terminated his or her career ; or retirement . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) set out the criteria for the CARDINAL possible evaluations . For promotion or confirmation in post , an officer was required to meet certain merits - based criteria , including grade of at least “ very good ” in the relevant assessments ( Regulations CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) and ( b ) ) . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) provided that the officer would be deemed to have successfully terminated his or her career if he or she did not meet the requirements for promotion or confirmation in post and his or her further service would hinder the normal advancement of younger officers . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) provided for retirement when it was not considered appropriate for an officer to continue exercising the duties of his or her rank owing to a lack of substantial qualifications .

Regulation CARDINAL provided that senior officers evaluated by ORG as falling within Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) or ( d ) ( i.e. receiving a category ( iii ) or category ( iv ) rating ) would have to leave the army .

Regulation CARDINAL ) provided that for the senior officers evaluated by ORG every year , a certain percentage were to be considered as falling within LAW ) or CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) . For colonels , the percentage was to range from PERCENT . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that , in complying with LAW ) ORG should accord priority to requests for retirement on the basis of having successfully terminated their career .

As stated at paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above , the different pension benefits for senior officers leaving the army with category ( iii ) and category ( iv ) ratings were set out in DATE ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) respectively .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

She is the widow of a well - known NORP poet , PERSON . They married in DATE , and their relationship , partly due to a significant difference in age , as well as their life and work , were constantly the subject of widespread media coverage . They often appeared in the tabloids .

The applicant ’s husband died in DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE an article was published in a DATE newspaper , GPE , based on an interview with the applicant , revealing that she wanted to have a child who would be a blood relative of both her and her late husband and have the same intellect and attitude as him . The applicant explained that she envisaged her own sister and her late husband ’s grandson being the parents of that child .

Following some talks with the applicant , on DATE PERSON , at the material time the biggest DATE journal , republished the same story , adding that the late poet ’s grandson had dismissed the idea of having a child with the applicant ’s sister . The front page of the newspaper contained a photograph of the applicant with her late husband and the headline “ Trampling on the memory of PERSON . The widow does everything for the limelight ” . Despite a previous request by the applicant , the article made no mention of a book to be published on the applicant ’s late husband .

Subsequently , in reaction to a complaint by the applicant , the newspaper published an additional article on the book under publication ; however , it did not appear on the front page as the applicant ’s had presumably wished . The applicant asked for a further article to be published but the newspaper declined .

Dissatisfied , the applicant lodged a civil action against the publisher of the DATE newspaper under article CARDINAL of the ( old ) Civil Code , alleging a violation of her personality rights , in particular her right to reputation . She maintained that the headline published on DATE had negatively affected her public image . She sought an injunction against any further infringement of her right to reputation , an apology from the publisher and compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of CARDINAL NORP forints ( ORG – CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) .

According to the witnesses who gave evidence before the first - instance court , the applicant had been truly saddened by the way the article had presented her family plans , especially that her statements had been hurtful to the memory of her late husband . She had also received a lot of criticism from her acquaintances . In a judgment of DATE ORG granted an injunction against any further infringement , ordered a public apology and obliged the publisher to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The remainder of the applicant ’s claim for compensation was dismissed . The court established the following :

“ .. the private life of the plaintiff and her late spouse was previously at the centre of media attention ... PERSON and the plaintiff have already shocked public opinion with the declaration of their love . It turned out that she seduced the poet from a man ... The poet - prince ( költőfejedelem ) happily introduced to the world his then yet unknown lover , who became his muse and who was DATE younger than him . The Kossuth Prize winner and internationally recognised poet had a tendency to push the boundaries , openly admitted his homosexual adventures and love affairs , and held that taboos were to be dismantled . Therefore , when the country just began to digest and accept his relationship with PERSON , the poet accepted an offer from ORG magazine , which has since closed down , agreeing to be presented in the magazine in high - quality erotic pictures with his lover ... [ The plaintiff ] had even been subject of numerous hurtful and degrading remarks and attacks during PERSON life . The media echoed that opinion , doubting her true feelings towards her husband , and some of the publications stressed that theirs was a marriage of convenience ... They planned to adopt a child during the poet ’s lifetime , but since that plan failed , PERSON came up with the idea of having a child through his son , but since his son was terminally ill , that plan could not go ahead either .

... the plaintiff ’s idea can be said to be bizarre and eccentric , nonetheless , how she has spoken about childbearing does not , following the rules of formal logic , mean that she has trampled on her husband ’s memory .

Based on the witness statements and the role the plaintiff ’s late husband played in public life , the court concluded that the applicant ’s idea about childbearing was not contrary to the thinking of PERSON ... ”

ORG added that both the applicant and her late husband had unusual , provocative personalities and ways of thinking , and the statement according to which she had infringed her late husband ’s memory did not correspond to reality and was unjustifiably hurtful . According to the court , statements in a front page headline constituted journalistic opinion , and were protected by the right to freedom of expression , as long as they were not devoid of any factual basis and did not amount to a blatantly humiliating or offensive value judgment . The court concluded that the statement that the applicant did everything for the limelight had not infringed her personality rights , whereas the statement that she had trampled on her husband ’s memory had infringed her right to reputation and dignity ( CARDINAL . ) .

On DATE ORG reversed the previous judgment finding an infringement of the applicant ’s reputation and dismissed her action in its entirety . The court reiterated ORG case - law on the different fundamental rights at stake , pointing out that even shocking , disturbing or inaccurate opinions were protected by the right to freedom of expression and were not susceptible of proof . It also stressed that statements should be assessed in context and with regard to their background . The court explained in detail that the applicant and her husband had triggered controversial reactions and “ everyday people with an average mindset ” would have had an opinion on their relationship and marriage . It held that the headline was not a statement of fact but a value judgment expressed in connection with the applicant ’s own “ peculiar ” statements . According to the court , the main issue at stake was whether , in the light of the applicant ’s own conduct “ diverging from the widelyaccepted social and ethical norms ” , the statement could be regarded as unreasonably hurtful and humiliating .

The court also found that the headline could not have infringed the applicant ’s reputation since her own statements were irrational and undignified , putting PERSON grandson in an embarrassing situation .

The applicant lodged a petition for review with the LOC . In a judgment of DATE , the GPE endorsed the finding of the second - instance court that the headline did not constitute a statement of fact but a value judgment concerning the unusual manner in which the applicant intended to start a family . Since it was not devoid of factual basis , it could not be considered humiliating , hurtful or offensive and as such had not infringed the applicant ’s dignity . The court nonetheless stated that it was irrelevant whether the applicant ’s previous unconventional conduct justified the value judgment ( PERSON . IV.CARDINAL.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ) .


CASE OF ANTSIFEROV AND NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicants were prosecuted in GPE for crimes . They were arrested and detained while the crimes were investigated and pending trial . Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts . The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges , the primary grounds being the risk of the applicants’ absconding and interfering with the course of justice . The detention and extension orders used stereotypical formulae , without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures .

The first applicant was born on DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE , GPE . The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of fraud and placed in detention . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .

On DATE and DATE his pre - trial detention was extended . His appeals against these detention orders were considered on DATE and DATE respectively . The applicant and his lawyer did not attend the hearing on DATE .

On DATE ORG of PERSON convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The second applicant was born on DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE . The applicant was arrested on DATE . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s pre - trial detention was extended . His appeals against these detention orders were examined on DATE and DATE . The applicant and his lawyer were not present at the hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE convicted him of drug dealing and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment and a fine .