Aleš Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and live in GPE , GPE . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON of ORG , ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

NORP By letter dated DATE the Government of GPE were notified of the applications and were asked if they wished to exercise their right to intervene pursuant to LAW . However , they did not seek to exercise this right .

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

The first applicant was arrested by the army at CARDINAL on DATE in relation to CARDINAL attacks on army patrols in GPE . He was handed over to the police at CARDINAL and he was visited by his father and examined by a police surgeon shortly thereafter . No injuries or complaints were noted .

From CARDINAL to CARDINAL the first applicant was interviewed by CARDINAL detectives . During this interview he admitted that he was a member of PERSON na h’Eireann , a proscribed NORP organisation , and had acted as a lookout during the CARDINAL attacks .

A second interview took place CARDINAL DATE , and during this interview the first applicant allegedly signed a statement admitting membership of a proscribed organisation ; again admitted to acting as a lookout during the CARDINAL attacks ; and sketched the area showing where he and others had been situated during the attacks . His father was admitted to the interview room at CARDINAL and shown the statements of admission .

That evening the first applicant was again medically examined and no complaints or injuries were noted .

The second applicant was arrested by the army at CARDINAL on DATE in relation to the same CARDINAL attacks on army patrols . He was transferred to police custody at CARDINAL on DATE .

During his first interview , which took place between PERSON and CARDINAL.CARDINAL , he admitted to being a member of PERSON na h’Eireann .

He was medically examined at CARDINAL and no complaints or injuries were noted .

He was again interviewed under caution between ORG and CARDINAL and during this interview he confirmed that he was a member of a proscribed organisation and admitted to being a lookout during one of the attacks . He further indicated the location of this incident by reference to a map .

The second applicant was visited by a relative at TIME . He was interviewed again from CARDINAL to CARDINAL , and from CARDINAL onward . During the second of these interviews he made a written confession in which he admitted to acting as a lookout during both attacks and carrying shotgun cartridges across the border into GPE .

At CARDINAL on DATE he was visited by his parents , who declined to countersign his confessions . He was medically examined on TIME of CARDINAL DATE and again on TIME DATE . On both occasions he denied any ill - treatment and no relevant sign of injury was detected .

NORP The applicants’ trial took place from DATE . The first applicant was charged with CARDINAL count of membership of a proscribed organisation , CARDINAL counts of conspiring to communicate information likely to be of use to terrorists , CARDINAL count of causing grievous bodily harm and CARDINAL of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm . He entered “ not guilty ” pleas to all counts . However , he was found to be guilty as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . He did not appeal against conviction and his application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

The second applicant pleaded “ guilty ” to CARDINAL count of belonging to a proscribed organisation , CARDINAL counts of conspiracy to communicate prohibited information , CARDINAL count of unlawful possession of ammunition and CARDINAL count of possessing ammunition without a licence . He pleaded not guilty to CARDINAL count of conspiracy to cause an explosion and CARDINAL count of conspiracy to discharge a firearm . He was found to be guilty as charged and sentenced to a total of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . He did not appeal against either conviction or sentence .

On DATE the applicants’ cases were referred to ORG in GPE by ORG ( “ CCRC ” ) on the grounds that there was a real possibility that ORG would consider that the manner in which they were detained and interviewed involved significant breaches of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and of other protections which they should have enjoyed ( namely , access to a solicitor before or during the police interviews and the presence of a family member or independent adult ) ; that in consequence of those breaches the admissions made were unreliable and/or inadmissible ; and that in the circumstances their convictions were unsafe .

Judgment was delivered by ORG on DATE . The court noted that at the time of the ORG trial confessions made in breach of LAW were admissible under the emergency provisions legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) unless obtained by torture or inhuman or degrading treatment .

In respect of the first applicant , the court held that although the confessions had been obtained in breach of LAW because he had not had access to a solicitor , independent adult or family member , in light of the statutory background it could not conclude that the admission of the confessions rendered the conviction unsafe . In particular , it noted that the confessions were not contradictory or inaccurate , they were not challenged at trial , and the conviction was not appealed . The first applicant ’s appeal was therefore dismissed .

The court also found no evidence that the second applicant ’s conviction was unsafe . In reaching this conclusion , it noted that he had pleaded “ guilty ” to most of the offences and had not challenged the admissibility or reliability of his confessions in contesting the CARDINAL counts to which he pleaded “ not guilty ” . The second applicant ’s appeal was also dismissed .

On DATE ORG certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved in the decision which ought to be considered by ORG :

“ Where in a trial conducted in accordance with the then applicable statutory emergency provisions a young person was convicted of an offence on the basis of a confession admitted at the time of trial by virtue of the statutory emergency provisions but in circumstances in which such a confession would otherwise have been excluded as having been obtained in a manner which contravened LAW , ORG and the Taking of Statements and the ORG LAW and where such confession was obtained in circumstances which did not provide safeguards subsequently and currently considered to be necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice , does such conviction fall to be considered as unsafe ? ”

NORP However , ORG refused to grant leave to appeal to ORG .

On DATE ORG also refused permission on the grounds that the application did not raise an arguable point of law which it ought to consider and that there was no real possibility that the court would find the convictions to be unsafe .

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides that :

“ Where a person has been convicted of an offence on indictment in GPE , the Commission—

( a ) may at any time refer the conviction to ORG , and

( CARDINAL ) A reference under subsection ( CARDINAL ) of a person ’s conviction shall be treated for all purposes as an appeal by the person under LAW against the conviction . ”

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In any criminal proceedings for a scheduled offence a statement made by the accused may be given in evidence by the prosecution in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of subsection ( CARDINAL ) below .

( CARDINAL ) NORP If , in any such proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a statement made by the accused , prima facie evidence is adduced that the accused was subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in order to induce him to make the statement , the court shall , unless the prosecution satisfies them that the statement was not so obtained , exclude the statement or , if it has been received in evidence , shall either continue the trial disregarding the statement or direct that the trial shall be restarted before a differently constituted court ( before whom the statement in question shall be inadmissible ) . ”

The effect of section CARDINAL was to suspend the rules and practice governing the admissibility of confessions for the period during which the legislation was in force . However , immediately following the implementation of the legislative changes , judges dealing with cases governed by the DATE Act declared that they retained a discretion to exclude what was , by statute , otherwise admissible evidence ( see , for example , R v. ORG , ORG , DATE ) .

A note preceding the Judges’ Rules indicated they did not affect the principles :

“ ( c ) That every person at any stage of an investigation should be able to communicate and to consult privately with a solicitor . This is so even though he is in custody provided that in such a case no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of investigation or the administration of justice by his doing so .

( e ) That it is a fundamental condition of the admissibility in evidence against any person , equally of any oral answer given by that person to a question put by a police officer and of any statement made by that person , that it shall have been voluntary .

The principle set out in paragraph ( e ) above is overriding and applicable in all cases . Within that principle the following Rules are put forward as a guide to police officers conducting investigations . Non - conformity with these Rules may render answers and statements liable to be excluded from evidence in subsequent criminal proceedings . ”

The Administrative Directions accompanied the Judges’ Rules . Paragraph CARDINAL provided that , as far as practical , children and young persons should only be interviewed in the presence of a parent or guardian or , if that was not possible , a person who was not a police officer and was of the same sex as the child . ORG guidance indicated that this requirement should be seen as applying to anyone under DATE .

Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL ) , a person in custody should be allowed to speak on the telephone to his solicitor or to his friends provided that no hindrance was reasonably likely to be caused to the process of investigation or to the administration of justice .

The police code applicable at the relevant time provided that :

“ Police pursuing inquiries involving children and young persons must bear in mind that where at all possible children and young persons should be interviewed in the presence of a parent / guardian or other adult friend , and that the venue selected for the interview should not be one which could be calculated to intimidate , unduly embarrass or frighten the person interviewed . ”

In DATE Advocate v GPE [ DATE ] HCJAC CARDINAL , DATE ORG CARDINAL ORG of GPE sitting with CARDINAL judges ) had held , notwithstanding the decision of ORG in GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG DATE , that it was not a breach of LAW read in conjunction with LAW ) for the ORG to rely at trial on admissions made by a detainee while being interviewed without having had access to a solicitor , since the guarantees otherwise available under the NORP system were sufficient to avoid the risk of any unfairness .

However , in ORG unanimously found that PERSON had been incorrectly decided as ORG of Justiciary had erred in its interpretation of PERSON . ORG judgment was to be understood as laying down CARDINAL statements of principle : that access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect ; and that the rights of the defence would be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer were used for a conviction . There was room for a certain flexibility in the application of these requirements but they did not permit a systematic departure from it .

Furthermore , ORG did not accept that the guarantees otherwise available under the NORP system were sufficient to secure a fair trial . Those guarantees were commendable but were , in truth , incapable of removing the disadvantage that a detainee would suffer if , not having access to a solicitor for advice before he was questioned by police , he made incriminating admissions or said something which enabled the police to obtain incriminating evidence from other sources which was then used against him at his trial .

That being said , ORG indicated that where incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer were used for a conviction , it would only be appropriate to quash that conviction if it was clear that there was insufficient evidence for it without the evidence of the police interview , or taking all the circumstances of the trial into account , there was a real possibility that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict had they not had that evidence before them .

Finally , ORG held that , in the interests of legal certainty , the ruling should not permit the reopening of closed cases , but rather should only apply to those cases which had not yet gone to trial , to cases where the trial was still in progress , and to appeals that had been brought timeously . For all closed cases it was a matter for ORG to decide whether the cases should be referred back to ORG and for that court to decide what course it ought to take if a reference were to be made to it by the Commission .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a mathematician and physicist who worked at ORG from DATE . He then became involved in the political and social life of the country . He also worked as editor - in - chief of the Talishi Sedo , a bilingual NORP - Talish newspaper , and was chairman of ORG . He has been chairman of ORG since DATE .

At TIME on DATE , when the applicant was on his way home , CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers assaulted him near the GPE metro station in GPE . Without showing their official identification , they restrained the applicant ’s arms and began to hit him below the knees . They kicked him in the lower part of his right ribcage and then slipped narcotic substances into his right trouser pocket . They handcuffed him and dragged him into their car , where they continued to beat him . In the car they started to insult him , making comments about his ethnic origin , and threatened him on account of a video recording he had uploaded to the GPE online video platform .

NORP The police officers did not inform the applicant of the reasons for his arrest . Indeed , the applicant did not even realise that he had been arrested by the police until he was taken to ORG of ORG ( “ the NORP ” ) .

A search of the applicant was conducted at the ORG . According to the record ( no . CARDINAL dated DATE ) of operational measures and the seizure of physical evidence ( əməliyyat tədbirinin keçirilməsi və maddi sübutun götürülməsi barədə protokol ) drawn up by a police investigator , the search was carried out from QUANTITY on DATE in the presence of the applicant , QUANTITY police officers and QUANTITY attesting witnesses . It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer . During the search , QUANTITY of a substance similar to heroin was found in his right trouser pocket .

At TIME on DATE a police investigator drew up a record of the applicant ’s arrest .

On DATE a search was carried out in the applicant ’s flat without a court order . According to the search record , it was conducted from TIME on DATE in the presence of the applicant , QUANTITY police officers and CARDINAL attesting witnesses . It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer and the CARDINAL attesting witnesses were the same persons who had previously participated in the search at the ORG . During the search , narcotic substances similar to heroin were found . The applicant made a written comment in the record that the narcotic substances did not belong to him .

According to the applicant , on DATE and DATE he was detained in handcuffs and was deprived of food and water .

The Government submitted that on DATE , during the applicant ’s arrest and afterwards at the police station , he was not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by the police .

On DATE the applicant was charged under Article CARDINAL ( illegal preparation , production , possession , storage , transportation and sale of a large quantity of narcotic substances ) of LAW .

On DATE ORG , relying on the official charge brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody ( həbs qətimkan tədbiri ) , ordered the applicant ’s detention for DATE . The court justified the applicant ’s detention pending trial by the gravity of the charge , the fact that the applicant was charged with a criminal offence punishable by PERCENT DATE imprisonment , and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was charged with new criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL ( high treason ) and ORG ( incitement to ethnic , racial , social or religious hatred and hostility ) of LAW .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to be placed under house arrest instead of pre - trial detention . He claimed , in particular , that his detention had not been justified and that there was no reason for his continued detention .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant . It found that if he was placed under house arrest , the applicant might abscond from the investigation and obstruct the investigation by influencing those involved in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention for a period of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on all counts and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . It was further upheld on DATE by ORG .

At TIME on DATE an investigator at ORG questioned the applicant as a suspect . It appears from the record of the questioning that the applicant complained of ill - treatment during his arrest by the police . He stated in this connection that on his way home at TIME on DATE near the GPE metro station in GPE , CARDINAL cars stopped next to him and CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers assaulted him . They dragged him into one of the cars without showing their official identification and began to beat him up . He did not realise that he had been arrested by the police until he was taken to the ORG . The applicant further stated that the narcotic substances found on him and in his flat had been planted by the police . He pointed out that his arrest was related to his political and social activities , as he was editorinchief of the Talishi PERSON newspaper and was involved in defending political prisoners’ human rights .

On DATE the investigator ordered a forensic examination of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic expert . His report ( no . CARDINAL dated DATE ) stated that the applicant had complained of having been beaten up by the police during his arrest on DATE . The expert noticed abrasions on the applicant ’s left calf and right thigh , and concluded that they could have been inflicted on DATE . The relevant part of the forensic report reads as follows :

“ Questions addressed to the forensic expert :

NORP What kind of injuries are there on the body of citizen PERSON ?

What are their characteristics and location ?

On which part of the body , in which circumstances and with which instrument were the injuries inflicted ? Could these injuries have been sustained as a result of an assault ?

What is the degree of gravity of the injuries ?

Initial information :

PERSON submitted in his statement that on DATE police officers arrested him and dragged him into a car where they hit him on various parts of his body .

On DATE was subjected to a forensic examination . According to him , at TIME on DATE CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers arrested him near his place of residence . They kicked and punched him as they put him in the car and whilst in the car . He did not ask for medical help . He complains of pain in the location of his injuries .

Objective examination :

NORP The person examined is a man of medium height , normal build and well fed .

NORP There are CARDINAL abrasions ( sıyrıq ) , measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY , QUANTITY apart , on the middle of the outer side of the left calf ( baldır ) . The surface of the abrasions is covered with a red scab and is situated below the level of healthy skin tissue . There is an analogical abrasion , measuring QUANTITY , on the middle of the outer side of the right thigh ( bud ) . No other injuries were noticed on the body .

Conclusion

Relying on the forensic examination of PERSON , born in DATE and the initial information , and in reply to the questions addressed in the decision , I conclude as follows :

The following injuries were noticed on the body of citizen PERSON : abrasions on the left calf and on the right thigh .

The above - mentioned injuries were caused by a hard blunt object(s ) . They could have been inflicted in the circumstances and at the time indicated in the descriptive part of the decision , namely on DATE . The degree of the injuries has not been determined because they are not injuries causing harm to health . ”

The applicant was not provided with a copy of the forensic report .

It appears from the case file that on DATE the applicant ’s complaint of ill - treatment was transferred to ORG .

On DATE an investigator at ORG questioned the applicant about his ill - treatment by the police . The applicant reiterated his previous statement , pointing out that at TIME on DATE he had been beaten up during his arrest by CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers . He further stated that these police officers had also participated in the search at the ORG on DATE and that the name of CARDINAL of them was Q.

It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that on DATE the Head of ORG of ORG asked ORG to order the examination of the applicant ’s complaint of ill - treatment received by ORG .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE an investigator at ORG separately questioned CARDINAL police officers , including Q. , who had participated in the arrest and search . The wording of their statements was identical . They each claimed that they had not used physical force against the applicant during his arrest .

On CARDINAL and DATE the investigator separately questioned CARDINAL police officers who had been on guard duty at the temporary detention centre when the applicant had been taken there following his arrest . Their statements were also identical , each claiming that , when the applicant had been taken to the temporary detention centre , he had not complained of illtreatment .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator and reiterated that he had been beaten up during his arrest . In reply to the investigator ’s question concerning the fact that the police officers who had participated in his arrest had denied the allegation of ill - treatment , the applicant stated that they had lied in their statements .

On DATE the investigator examined the clothes that the applicant had been wearing on DATE of his arrest . The investigator found that the clothes were not damaged .

On DATE the investigator ordered an additional examination of the applicant by a forensic commission . In particular , he asked the experts to establish whether the injuries found on the applicant ’s body could have resulted from his body coming into contact with “ sharp parts of the vehicle ” ( avtomobilin çıxıntı hissələri ) during his arrest .

On DATE the applicant was examined by CARDINAL experts who issued forensic report no . CARDINAL on DATE . According to the forensic report , the applicant complained of having been beaten up during his arrest on DATE . The experts confirmed the existence of injuries on the applicant ’s body , but concluded that they had resulted from the applicant ’s body coming into contact with “ angular protruding parts of the vehicle ” ( avtomobilin qabarıq tinli hissələri ) during his arrest . The relevant part of the forensic report reads as follows :

“ Information about the case :

The person examined is a man of medium height , normal build and well fed .

NORP There is brown - grey pigmentation in the shape of a strip , measuring QUANTITY , on the middle of his outer left calf . No injury or trace of injury was noticed on other parts of his body .

Conclusion

Relying on the forensic examination of PERSON , born in DATE , the facts indicated in the descriptive part of the decision , the observations indicated in forensic report no . CARDINAL in respect of him and in reply to the questions addressed in the decision , the commission of experts concludes as follows :

There are CARDINAL abrasions on the middle of the outer side of his left calf and CARDINAL abrasion on the middle outer side of his right thigh .

The above - mentioned injuries were caused by a hard blunt object(s ) . They could have been inflicted at the time indicated in the descriptive part of the decision , namely on DATE . The degree of the injuries has not been determined because they are not injuries causing harm to health .

Taking into consideration the characteristics ( morphological particularities ) and location of the injuries found on the outer sides of the left calf and of the right thigh of PERSON , and the fact that such injuries could not have been inflicted by another person or other persons in the passenger compartment of a car , it is refuted that these injuries could have been inflicted in the circumstances described in the statement of PERSON .

It therefore results from the above - mentioned observations that the injuries found on the outer sides of the left calf and of the right thigh of PERSON were caused by contact of the examined lower parts of his body with angular protruding parts of the vehicle when he was put in the car .

No injury or trace of injury corresponding to the circumstances described in H. ORG ’s explanation and statements that he was beaten in the head , neck and chest in the passenger compartment of the vehicle was noticed either during the initial forensic examination dated DATE or during the additional commission forensic examination of CARDINAL DATE . ”

The applicant was not provided with a copy of forensic report no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’s complaint of ill - treatment . The prosecutor concluded that it had not been established that the applicant had been beaten up during his arrest . In this connection , he relied on the conclusions of the forensic report of CARDINAL DATE , the statements from CARDINAL police officers who had participated in the applicant ’s arrest and from QUANTITY police officers who had been on guard duty at the temporary detention centre on DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ Q. also stated that when they arrested PERSON on the territory of LOC they had shown their official identification and had not used any violence against him .

The police officers of the ORG ( GPE , GPE and ORG ) who had been questioned during the inquiry made statements similar to that of Q. , pointing out that ORG had not been subjected to violence during his arrest and search .

It appears from forensic report no . CARDINAL dated DATE issued by ... that H. ORG sustained abrasions on his left calf and right thigh . Their degree of gravity has not been determined because they are not injuries causing harm to health .

On DATE a decision ordering an additional commission forensic examination was adopted . It appears from forensic report no . CARDINAL dated DATE in respect of PERSON issued by ... that the injuries found on the outer sides of the left calf and of the right thigh of PERSON were caused by contact of the examined lower parts of his body with angular protruding parts of the vehicle when he was put in the car . No injury or trace of injury corresponding to the circumstances described in PERSON statement that he had been beaten in the head , neck and chest in the passenger compartment of the vehicle was noticed either during the initial forensic examination dated DATE or during the additional commission forensic examination of CARDINAL DATE .

After having comparatively analysed the facts of the case with the material collected during the inquiry , I therefore conclude that the allegations of PERSON ... that the injuries found on his body were caused on DATE when he was beaten up and was subjected to physical force during his arrest by police officers are not proven .

Accordingly , as the allegations that PERSON was beaten up and subjected to physical force during his arrest by police officers of the ORG are not proven , no criminal act was committed . In accordance with LAW , institution of criminal proceedings should be refused . ”

It appears from the document submitted by the Government that the investigator in charge of the case sent a copy of the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE to the detention centre where the applicant was detained at that time . Although the document was signed by the investigator , it was not dated . Moreover , the date on which it was sent was not indicated on the document .

In the meantime , on DATE , having received no response from the investigating authorities concerning his complaint of ill - treatment , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG concerning the investigating authorities’ failure to investigate his complaint of ill - treatment . The applicant asked the court to find a violation of his right protected under LAW .

In support of his complaint , he submitted that on DATE , without showing their official identification , CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers had assaulted him near the GPE metro station in GPE . They restrained his arms and began to strike him in below the knees . They kicked him in the lower part of his right ribcage and then slipped narcotic substances into his right trouser pocket . They then dragged him into their car where they continued to beat him . In the car they started to insult him , making comments about his ethnic origin , and threatened him on account of a video recording he had uploaded to the ORG online video platform .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The court held that a criminal inquiry had already been carried out in respect of the applicant ’s complaint of ill - treatment and by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General had refused to institute criminal proceedings . The court further held that as the prosecutor ’s decision was still in force , it could not deliver a new decision in this connection . The applicant could , however , lodge a complaint against the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE .

Following the delivery of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant learned about the existence of the Deputy Prosecutor General ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings in respect of his complaint of ill - treatment . The court also provided him for the first time with copies of the forensic reports of DATE and of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the court against the Deputy Prosecutor General ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings . He reiterated his previous complaints concerning his ill - treatment by the police during his arrest and complained about the ineffectiveness of the criminal inquiry . In this connection , he disputed the conclusions of the additional forensic report of CARDINAL DATE . He asked the court to quash the prosecutor ’s decision and declare it unlawful . He also asked the court to hear the experts who had conducted his forensic examinations and the police officers who had participated in his arrest .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint , finding the prosecutor ’s decision justified . The court , however , made no mention of the applicant ’s particular requests that it hear the experts and the police officers . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ Having examined the allegations that the complainant PERSON was subjected to ill - treatment by police officers during his arrest and that he was beaten up and subjected to degrading treatment when he was taken to the ORG , the court considers that a thorough investigation in this respect was conducted by ORG of GPE in accordance with the current legislation and the requirements of the international treaties . All possible measures were taken during this investigation ; the persons who had been involved in the complainant ’s arrest and had been in contact with him immediately after his arrest were questioned ; a forensic examination and an additional commission forensic examination were carried out ; however , the collected material did not prove the allegations indicated in the complaint .

In these circumstances , the court considers that it was not possible to collect sufficient evidence which could constitute the basis for instituting criminal proceedings in connection with the injuries sustained by PERSON on DATE .

Therefore , taking into consideration the collected material and the evidence examined at the court hearing , the court considers that the decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings adopted within his competence by ORG ... was justified and H. ORG ’s application for its quashing should be dismissed . ”

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision , reiterating his previous complaints .

DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court ’s decision . The appellate court ’s decision was identical in its wording to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

It appears from the applicant ’s observations submitted to ORG in reply to the Government ’s observations that ORG of ORG ( “ ORG on Arbitrary Detention ” ) delivered its opinion no . CARDINAL concerning the applicant ’s pre - trial detention on DATE . The relevant part of the opinion reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases :

( a ) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty ( as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to the detainee ) ( category I ) ;

( b ) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW and , insofar as GPE parties are concerned , by articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW ( category II ) ;

( c ) When the total or partial non - observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial , established in LAW and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the GPE concerned , is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character ( category III ) ;

( d ) When asylum seekers , immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy ( category IV ) ;

( e ) When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law for reasons of discrimination based on birth ; national , ethnic or social origin ; language ; religion ; economic condition ; political or other opinion ; gender ; sexual orientation ; or disability or other status , and which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights ( category V ) .

Submissions

Communication from the source

The case summarized below was reported to ORG .

ORG , born in GPE in Astara Rayon , GPE , is an NORP journalist and a defender of minority rights . Since DATE , he has been the editorin - chief of the GPE - based newspaper ORG ( ORG ) , the only newspaper printed in the minority PERSON language .

The source informs ORG that the Talysh people are an ethnic minority residing in southern GPE .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON was arrested by the LOC Police pursuant to article CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW of GPE in relation to illegal manufacture , purchase , storage , transfer , transport or sale of drugs in a large quantity . According to the source , the authorities alleged that they had seized QUANTITY grams of heroin from his person , and QUANTITY from his place of residence .

On DATE , ORG ( GPE ) sentenced Mr. ORG to CARDINAL months’ detention . Mr. PERSON appealed the sentence and requested to be permitted to serve the term under house arrest . On DATE , ORG upheld the original decision , denying him provisional release . Mr. PERSON remains in detention to DATE .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON ’s lawyers reported that , following the completion of the investigation into the criminal charges against him , Mr. PERSON was charged under article CARDINAL ( high treason ) , article CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( incitement to national , racial or religious hostility ) and articles CARDINAL ( illegal manufacturing , purchase , storage , transportation , transfer or selling of narcotics and psychotropic substances ) of LAW .

On DATE , the hearing of Mr. PERSON ’s criminal charges was reportedly transferred to ORG . A preparatory session defining the procedural issues of the case took place on DATE . On DATE , Mr. PERSON ’s lawyer reportedly submitted CARDINAL motions : CARDINAL requesting an audiovisual recording of the hearing ; and another requesting that his client be allowed to sit beside his lawyer rather than behind secure bars . The source informs ORG that both motions were rejected .

The source was informed by FAC of GPE that Mr. Mammadov had been beaten and injured by his cellmate in a PERSON prison on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . The source reports that Mr. PERSON was placed in the cell DATE prior to the attacks . Mr. PERSON ’s lawyers had requested on several occasions that he be removed from the cell as his cellmate ’s behaviour was aggressive to the point of preventing him from sleeping at TIME . Those requests were all ignored . On DATE , his cellmate was transferred to the medical unit of the prison hospital for treatment of his reportedly severe mental illness .

The source considers the ongoing harassment of Mr. PERSON as an attempt to silence his efforts to report on human rights violations . The source points out that Mr. PERSON ’s arrest came shortly before the first edition of the ORG newspaper under his authority as editor - in - chief was due to be published ( at DATE ) . He was arrested after posting music and a video clip on the Internet which attracted attention to the FAC culture .

ORG The source submits that Mr. PERSON faces imprisonment sentences ranging up to life for trumped - up charges brought against him successively in DATE and DATE , and most recently in DATE .

The source signals its concern with regard to Mr. PERSON ’s conditions of detention in the light of the fate that befell ORG , the former editorin - chief of the ORG newspaper , who was allegedly subjected to similar acts of harassment and arbitrary detention in DATE , and who died in custody on CARDINAL DATE .

The source concludes that the detention of PERSON is arbitrary and considers it an obvious attempt to silence his efforts to report on human rights violations . Furthermore , his rights to legal protection have been violated .

NORP The source further expresses its fears for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. PERSON .

Response from the Government

Discussion

ORG was informed that Mr. PERSON has been sentenced to DATE in prison for criminal offences relating to “ illegal selling of drugs ” , “ high treason ” and “ incitement to national , racial , social and religious hatred and hostility ” under articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively of LAW .

The source alleged that the authorities fabricated the case against Mr. Mammadov due to his human rights work and support for the minority Talysh population .

The source informed ORG that Mr. PERSON was a consultant with ORG and editor - in - chief of ORG , the only newspaper in the minority PERSON language in GPE . Mr. PERSON was also head of ORG , a prominent PERSON scientist and human rights activist and former editor - in - chief of PERSON , who was charged in DATE with espionage , subsequently sentenced to DATE of imprisonment , and who died in prison in DATE .

PERSON was arrested on DATE for alleged possession of heroin . On DATE and DATE , he was also charged with treason and incitement of national , racial , social and religious hatred and hostility . His hearing in ORG began on DATE ; he was convicted of the charges brought against him and sentenced on DATE .

In its response , the ORG set out the case for the prosecution and the court ’s judgment . However , ORG is of the view that the Government did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to the allegations put forward by the source concerning the arbitrary character of the charges against Mr. PERSON and his subsequent conviction .

The information provided by the source and the Government to ORG indicates that the charges of treason and incitement of national , racial , social and religious hatred and hostility are based on Mr. PERSON ’s legitimate exercise of the right of freedom of expression under article CARDINAL of LAW and article CARDINAL of LAW . As such , ORG considers that the deprivation of liberty of ORG falls within category II of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by ORG when considering cases submitted to it .

Furthermore , ORG is of the view that the response from the Government does not adequately address the source ’s allegations of ill - treatment to which Mr. PERSON has been subjected in detention , its concerns for his health , nor the groundless rejection of his application for an audio - visual recording of the hearing .

DATE . ORG finds that these violations of international law relating to the right of a fair trial are of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of ORG an arbitrary character . As such , ORG considers that Mr. ORG ’s detention falls within category III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by ORG when considering cases submitted to it .

Disposition

In the light of the foregoing , ORG on Arbitrary Detention renders the following opinion :

The detention of PERSON is arbitrary , being in contravention of articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW and articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE of LAW . It falls within categories II and III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by ORG when considering cases submitted to it .

Consequent upon the opinion rendered , ORG requests ORG to remedy the situation of Mr. PERSON and bring it into conformity with the standards and principles set out in LAW and LAW .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 14+6 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a lawyer and was appointed insolvency administrator of the NORP limited partnership PERSON ( hereafter “ the company ” ) in DATE .

On DATE the applicant , in his position of insolvency administrator of the company , took legal action against PERSON , a former limited partner ( PERSON ) of the KG , to seek the reimbursement of MONEY ( ORG ) , which had been paid to her as advance payment on profits ( FAC ) by the KG .

NORP In his statement of claim , the applicant indicated that he might introduce an additional action concerning QUANTITY , to seek the reimbursement of payments received by PERSON as compensation for her participation as a limited partner ( PERSON für GPE ) and as advance payments for profit . The applicant declared that he had refrained from introducing an action concerning these claims at that point in time because of the costs involved .

PERSON was notified of the legal action on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested legal aid for his initial action and with a view to introducing an action concerning the supplementary claims , amounting to approximately EUR CARDINAL . The statutory timelimit for those latter claims was DATE . This request for legal aid was placed in the case file . It was neither examined by a judge nor was notice given to PERSON

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG to enquire whether he had been granted legal aid . He did not receive a response . On DATE , he sent another letter , to which he received no response . The applicant claimed that , in addition , he had also made telephone calls to ORG on DATE and on DATE to find out whether he had been granted legal aid and that , both times , he had been informed by ORG that the file was at the judge ’s office and that , therefore , no information could be given .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request for legal aid , following another written inquiry of that DATE . The decision to grant legal aid was served on PERSON on DATE . On DATE ORG issued a decision , clarifying that the grant of legal aid covered the supplementary claims brought on DATE .

On DATE the applicant introduced the additional action concerning the said claims . PERSON was notified on DATE . On DATE a hearing was held .

In its judgment on DATE ORG ordered Ms B. to pay EUR PERSON to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’s initial action . That court likewise dismissed the applicant ’s additional action for reimbursement of approximately ORG CARDINAL in its entirety , finding that the claims were time - barred . It stated that the statutory time - limit for these claims was DATE and that submitting the request for legal aid on DATE had not been sufficient to suspend the running of time for purposes of limitation , because domestic law also required that the court arrange for notice to be given to the defendant ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) .

ORG noted that PERSON was notified of the request for legal aid DATE , hence CARDINAL and a half years after the expiry of the limitation period . It considered that the exception foreseen by domestic law allowing for the retroactive effect of arranging for notice to be given was not applicable in the instant case . According to that exception , the running of time for the purposes of limitation was suspended with effect from DATE a request for legal aid was lodged , if the notification of that request was arranged “ shortly after ” ( demnächst ) . ORG noted that , according to the constant case - law of the domestic courts , the term “ shortly after ” was interpreted in a way that required the litigant to act with the necessary diligence to effect the immediate notice or service . It found that the applicant – who , as a lawyer , must have known that arranging for notice to be given to the defendant of his request for legal aid “ shortly after ” its submission was required to prevent his claim from becoming timebarred DATE had in a reproachable manner contributed to the delay and thus not acted with the necessary diligence required . ORG observed that the applicant had not asked ORG to notify immediately the defendant of his request for legal aid , irrespective of its prospects of success , which he could have done without additional costs and without suffering any procedural disadvantages . Also , rather than enquiring whether the notification of the request had been arranged , the applicant limited himself to enquiring whether his request for legal aid had been successful . In relation to the alleged telephone calls in DATE and DATE , it found that , given that ORG had not responded to his written request of DATE , the applicant should not have relied on the registry ’s alleged statement . The court found it incomprehensible that the applicant had waited until DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , to enquire again in writing about the success of his request for legal aid .

ORG added that , in any event , the claim concerning the reimbursement of approximately ORG CARDINAL was ill - founded and thoroughly reasoned this finding .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested legal aid in order to lodge an appeal .

On DATE the GPE / ORG dismissed his request , finding that the appeal lacked prospects of success as ORG had rightly considered the applicant ’s claims to be time - barred . It observed that ORG had arranged for notice to be given to Ms B. of the applicant ’s request for legal aid at the earliest in DATE and argued that notice DATE after the request ’s introduction could not be considered as having taken place “ shortly after ” that introduction . The interests of the defendant , who had no knowledge of the submission of the request for legal aid , in the protection of her legal positions and the clarification of the legal situation , had to be taken into account .

ORG pointed out that it was constant case - law of the domestic courts that the term “ shortly after ” was to be interpreted in such a way that the risk of a delayed notification was distributed fairly between both parties to the dispute and , therefore , the litigant concerned must have acted with the necessary diligence to effect the immediate notification . Furthermore , there must not be legitimate interests of the defendant that conflicted with such retroactive effect ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It confirmed ORG finding that the applicant had not acted with the necessary diligence . It underlined that the applicant would have had to alert ORG about the imminent expiry of the limitation period and to ask to arrange for the immediate notification of the defendant in order to suspend the running of time for the purposes of limitation . In fact the applicant had to take into account that ORG also had the possibility to refuse his request for legal aid without hearing , and hence without notifying , the defendant if it considered the claim to be illfounded or the applicant to have the necessary means ( decision a limine ) . ORG likewise considered that the subsequent steps taken by the applicant were not sufficient , because he had not asked for the notification to be effected immediately . ORG based its decision to refuse legal aid exclusively on the finding that the claims were time - barred .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging that the refusal to grant him legal aid violated his right of access to a court and that he had been discriminated against as an impecunious person compared to a litigant with sufficient financial means .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a formation of CARDINAL judges , declined to accept the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for adjudication ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It found that the period of processing the request for legal aid and the delay in arranging for notice to be given to the defendant constituted gross negligence ( grob fehlerhaft ) by ORG . Nonetheless , it considered that the decision of ORG was in conformity with the case - law of ORG , according to which a notification could only be “ shortly after ” the submission of a request for legal aid if the applicant concerned acted with the necessary diligence to effect the immediate notification , and if there were no legitimate interests of the defendant that conflicted with such retroactive effect ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG found that ORG finding that the applicant had not acted with the necessary diligence did not raise concerns . The applicant failed to ask ORG to notify immediately the defendant about the request for legal aid . Neither in his initial lawsuit nor in his subsequent enquiries did the applicant indicate the particular urgency of the matter , namely , the imminent limitation of the claims .

NORP In relation to the alleged discrimination , ORG found that impecunious litigants and litigants with sufficient financial means were in a comparable situation as regards the possibilities and obligations in order to suspend the running of time for purposes of limitation . Referring to the case - law of ORG ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it considered that a litigant with sufficient financial means must not limit himself to submitting a lawsuit , but rather had to remind the court to ask him to pay the necessary court fees or even to pay the fees on his own initiative , if the court had failed to ask him , in order to effect the service of the legal action . ORG found that such obligations on the part of a litigant with sufficient financial means were comparable to those of the applicant , namely his obligation to ask the court concerned to notify immediately the defendant of the request for legal aid , and to remind the court to arrange for notice to be given .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy to complain about a violation of their right to have a civil case examined within a reasonable time .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Costas Pamballis;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pamballis;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE , he is a lawyer and lives in GPE .

The applicant was appointed as an IDC judge on DATE and as its President on DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the CARDINAL main trade unions and the CARDINAL corresponding ORG federations submitted a complaint to ORG , alleging misconduct on the part of the applicant in the exercise of his judicial functions . The letter referred , in general , to complaints received by members of trade unions and ORG federations who had carried out duties as lay members of the ORG , concerning the applicant ’s conduct towards litigants , witnesses , lawyers and lay members of the court during proceedings .

The applicant was served with a written notice from ORG dated DATE , informing him of the allegations against him and noting that ORG had decided that it was justified to activate Rule CARDINAL of LAW concerning the exercise of the ORG ’s disciplinary authority ( “ the Procedural Rules ” ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was provided with a copy of the letter of complaint and was requested to send his comments within DATE .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant submitted his comments to ORG with regard to the allegations against him . The applicant observed , inter alia , that the complaint was so general and vague that he was unable to identify the precise events on which it was based as he had presided over numerous proceedings . He also informed ORG that the authors of the letter had given a copy to the press and that it had been published in a newspaper on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided , in accordance with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to appoint an investigating judge to look into the allegations against the applicant .

On DATE ORG appointed the then President of ORG of GPE as investigating judge .

In a letter dated DATE the investigating judge informed the applicant of his appointment . He also provided the applicant with statements he had taken from CARDINAL people during his investigation and invited the applicant to submit a supplementary statement , if he so wished , within DATE .

On DATE the applicant made a lengthy supplementary statement to the investigating judge , providing his comments on the statements collected by the judge and referring to various proceedings in which the witnesses had been involved . He also noted that he did not view his comments as a supplementary statement as such , since it was only at that time that the complaint had become more precise , at least in part . Furthermore , he observed that the witness statements covered a period of DATE , when he had sat in CARDINAL cases . The statements could not therefore provide the full picture . He suggested that statements should be taken from a number of lay members of the court and provided the investigating judge with their names and telephone numbers .

On DATE , upon completion of the investigation , the investigating judge submitted a report to ORG summarising his investigation and the evidence collected . The report was accompanied by all the material he had collected , including the statements given by the witnesses and the applicant . The report made no recommendation .

By a letter dated DATE the chief registrar of ORG informed the applicant that the court had decided that a disciplinary process was warranted . He provided the applicant with the charge sheet drawn up by ORG at a meeting it had held on DATE . This included CARDINAL charges of misconduct , and details of the preparatory investigation by the investigating judge . The charges against the applicant were as follows :

“ First Charge

Misconduct ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW )

Particulars

While you exercised the duties of President of ORG you repeatedly displayed oppressive , disparaging , scornful and , more generally , insulting behaviour towards the lay members of the ORG , both inside and outside the courtroom and , at the same time , in the course of proceedings you sometimes ignored them , sometimes did not allow them to put questions and sometimes did not allow them to ask for clarification on the matters at issue .

Second Charge

Particulars

While you exercised the duties of President of ORG you repeatedly displayed oppressive , disparaging , scornful and , more generally , insulting and even humiliating behaviour towards lawyers and/or litigants and/or witnesses during the proceedings , including ironic comments at their expense and/or innuendos , with the result that , owing to the agitation and disruption caused to them , the entire proceedings were diverted from their proper course . ”

A list of CARDINAL witnesses was attached to the charge sheet .

In his letter the chief registrar summoned the applicant to appear on DATE before the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to answer the charges . He informed the applicant that the proceedings would not be held in public unless he so wished and that , pending the proceedings , he would have to refrain from carrying out his duties .

On DATE , before the applicant answered the charges against him , his lawyer raised several preliminary objections . In particular , he argued that the investigation had been incomplete as statements had not been taken from the people indicated by the applicant . Furthermore , he argued that the charge sheet was incomplete , defective and vague ; it did not give sufficient information to the applicant about the offences in relation to the actual content of the CARDINAL charges he was facing .

The ORG ruled DATE that the charge sheet , taken together with the CARDINAL statements , provided sufficient information to the applicant about the facts on which the charges had been based . In that regard , it noted that the applicant had commented on all the details referred to in the statements in a lengthy statement . The ORG also held that the investigation had been adequate and had provided grounds for bringing charges .

NORP The applicant then pleaded not guilty to the charges .

A hearing was set for DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer agreed that the proceedings would not be held in public .

Hearings commenced on the scheduled date . The ORG set out the procedure to be followed : every witness would read out the statement he or she had given to the investigating officer and would then be cross - examined by the applicant ’s lawyer . Following a request by the applicant ’s lawyer , the ORG also held on DATE that in view of the defence ’s line of argument all the files of the proceedings in which the witnesses had sat as members of the ORG , from the applicant ’s appointment as president of the IDC onwards , should be brought before it . The hearing was scheduled to continue on DATE .

Following a request by the applicant ’s lawyer , leave was given by the ORG on the latter date for the applicant to have full access to the ORG registry ’s archives in order to enable him to examine and collect any elements that could help his defence .

The hearings continued , with CARDINAL more sessions being held . Files of the proceedings over which the applicant had presided and in which the witnesses had been involved were admitted as exhibits . They were filed in separate bundles by reference to the particular witness and were recorded in the list of exhibits .

During the proceedings it was clarified that the charge sheet was limited to the period subsequent to the applicant ’s appointment as President of the IDC . Further statements that related to pending proceedings and complaints that had previously been dealt with by ORG were removed from the charge sheet . CARDINAL out of the QUANTITY witnesses listed on the charge sheet ultimately testified . They comprised CARDINAL lay members , CARDINAL lawyers and CARDINAL people who had been witnesses in proceedings over which the applicant had presided . The witnesses read out and confirmed the contents of their statements . They were then cross - examined by the applicant ’s lawyer .

In addition , at the suggestion of the applicant ’s lawyer , the court also summoned the ORG ’s registrar .

After the conclusion of the witness statements and an address by the applicant ’s lawyer , the ORG found on DATE that a prima facie case had been established against the applicant . It therefore called the applicant to put forward his defence .

The applicant took until DATE to set out his defence case , testifying himself and calling CARDINAL witnesses . They consisted of QUANTITY lay members of the ORG , CARDINAL lawyers and a representative from the redundancy fund . The proceedings concluded with the applicant ’s lawyer addressing the court . He raised the issue of the charge sheet again and also submitted that because ORG and the ORG had the same composition , the same judges had examined the witness statements , had decided to refer the case to trial , formulated the charge sheet and overseen the proceedings . Those judges had also acted as prosecutors and had then tried the case . He argued that that was contrary to the rules of natural justice and the right to a fair trial . He stressed , however , that this had nothing to do with the judges as individuals .

In a decision of DATE the ORG found , by a majority of CARDINAL ( the President and CARDINAL justices concurring ) , that on the basis of the evidence and all the material facts before it , the applicant ’s alleged misconduct had been proved . The ORG assessed the evidence given by the CARDINAL witnesses and made specific reference to events transcribed in the records of court proceedings over which the applicant had presided and in which the witnesses had been involved . It referred to CARDINAL specific cases . After hearing the applicant , in accordance with Rule CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the ORG removed him from office .

The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :

Rule CARDINAL secures for the judge against whom proceedings are brought all the rights provided for in LAW for persons who are charged with a criminal offence . That constitutional provision secures the well - known rights that an accused has in a criminal trial and are identical to those secured under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , which was ratified by ORG by law in DATE ( Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Furthermore , the provisions of LAW , which are the equivalent to those of LAW , are also applicable .

At no stage did ORG function as a public prosecutor against PERSON . The President and Members of ORG did not put a single question to the witnesses who were listed on the charge sheet , or to those summoned on behalf of PERSON , which might have been construed as cross - examination for the purpose of contesting the ORG allegations . On the contrary , the President and Members of ORG asked very few questions , and they were solely for the purpose of clarification ; special reference will be made to some of those questions at the appropriate stage . Not a single question was put to PERSON . ORG was not seeking to pursue a procedure of prosecution against PERSON in the form of a confrontation between prosecution and defence . For that reason , and despite having such powers under LAW , the relevant provision of the LAW on the judicial process and the procedure to be followed in investigating disciplinary cases , it did not assign the duties of prosecutor to the judge - investigator or to any other judicial official . In that way , which was the declared intention of ORG , more rights were secured for PERSON than those which he had under the aforementioned ORG of the LAW and the Rule . That was precisely the aim of the procedure followed by ORG , which essentially remained an audience for the ORG statements .

It follows that this is the appropriate moment to refer to the suggestion made by PERSON PERSON ’s lawyer in his final address . Its subject relates directly and absolutely to what we have just said . The lawyer alleged that ORG had functioned in a dual capacity , given that it had judged the case and simultaneously exercised the duties of prosecutor . Clarifying his position , he said that that is inferred from the fact that the President and Members of ORG put questions to the witnesses . In our opinion , that suggestion is unfounded and unjustifiable . It is unfounded for the reasons which we explained above , and unjustifiable because it conflicts with what the lawyer said to us at the beginning of the proceedings , when he ... spoke in praise of the powers invested by LAW in ORG , describing its work as difficult and important [ in those instances ] when it is called upon to decide whether a judge displayed misconduct and is obliged , again in accordance with the LAW , to terminate the latter ’s services in the event of conviction . In brief , PERSON not only accepted but also praised as correct the competence , arising from the LAW , of ORG , which is made up of the full bench of the Members of ORG , the highest judicial authority in the ORG .

[ The applicant ’s lawyer ] asked many witnesses to express an opinion on the extent to which they considered that PERSON decisions were correct . Most of them , including the lawyers , gave the right reply , namely , that it was not for them to judge PERSON decisions . In the same way , ORG is not judging the correctness of PERSON decisions . We do not have such competence . That belongs to ORG . The competence of ORG is only to decide whether the charges of improper behaviour ( misconduct ) are proved , which [ behaviour ] in the case we are examining and according to the particulars of the charges , is continuous ( κατά συρροή , διαρκής ) and directly refers to the function of PERSON as the President of ORG .

We previously stated that certain witnesses called by PERSON , evidently in an endeavour to tone down or explain what the witnesses listed on the charge sheet had testified to and who touched on PERSON behaviour in the course of the hearing , in essence confirmed what those witnesses had said . Several examples follow ...

From the evidence that we have analysed above , we find that the charges have been proved .

We wish to clarify that the purpose of this procedure is not to punish Mr PERSON but to protect the public by adopting of a strict standard of judicial behaviour in order to preserve public confidence in the integrity , prestige and independence of the judicial system . We borrow and adopt the above principle from the decision ( Investigation concerning Judge PERSON , No . CARDINAL ) given in DATE by ORG , in GPE , which concerned a procedure against a specific judge whose services were also terminated for misconduct , with facts and particulars similar to the case before us . In essence , we translate the principle which that Commission adopted and recorded on page CARDINAL of the decision . The principle is based , as stated in the decision , on what was said by ORG , that the purpose of the procedure was not to punish judges who have erred but to protect the judicial system and those who are subject to the formidable power exercised by judges .

Evaluating the above with great care , caution and , we would say , anxiety , we are led to the conclusion that everything imputed to PERSON as stated in the CARDINAL charges has been proved . In accordance with the relevant provisions of the LAW , which are referred to in our decision , the proof of a charge of misconduct against a judge leads to the termination of his services . ”

The dissenting judge found in his decision that the evidence was not sufficient to prove such a serious charge as misconduct . As regards the procedure , the judge noted , inter alia , that ORG had asked the witnesses very few questions and that they had been for the purposes of clarification . Furthermore , with regard to the investigation and the object of the hearing , he observed :

“ A judicial official with the duties of prosecutor was not appointed , a possibility which is referred to in Rule CARDINAL , and we adopted the following approach : every witness read his statement to the investigating officer out loud and , immediately after , was cross - examined by Mr PERSON ’s lawyer . During the cross - examination or subsequently members of ORG asked the witnesses a few questions for clarification purposes . This is also exactly what happened in the case of PERSON and the DATE witnesses called by him .

Before referring to the evidence , it is useful if we outline the methodology which led to the taking of statements by ORG . He did not himself take the initiative of collecting evidence in view of the accusation , as he explains in his report . The persons who signed the accusation did not have any personal knowledge of the circumstances and statements were taken from all those they ... named , and from others subsequently named by those who had been initially summoned . The investigation into the manner in which PERSON exercised his duties in general was therefore not systematic and that is also the reason for not taking statements from a number of other persons whom PERSON himself indicated . Besides , as we have seen , of the CARDINAL statements which ORG took , CARDINAL were attached to the charge sheet , with a further reduction to CARDINAL in the course of the hearing . They did not include statements which , as the Investigating Officer reported , not only expressed no complaints but stated that PERSON conduct had been irreproachable in all respects . Consequently , as is in any case self - evident , the object of the hearing is [ to determine ] whether , on the basis of the evidence of those CARDINAL witnesses , the charge has been substantiated as formulated . That is to say , whether , from each individual ’s evidence and the correlation between them , to the extent possible , there arises conduct as cumulatively stated on the charge sheet , [ and ] in the case of the second charge “ with the result that , owing to the agitation and disruption they were caused , the entire proceedings were diverted from their proper course ” . This ( was the wording ) , without any specification on the charge sheet of a definite , specific incident at a specific time , ... in relation to a specific person in the context of a specific case . The witnesses who remained on the charge sheet ( whose statements I shall of course return to ) , as lay members of the court , or as lawyers or witnesses , did not submit a complaint there and then about what they considered to be objectionable conduct . ... Nor did the litigants in any specific case which could be related to the charge sheet make a complaint at the time , or appeal or employ any other legal means so that any objectionable conduct would be examined also from the aspect of its effect on the final outcome . That was what occurred in the cases of PERSON v. PERSON . ORG Ltd and others ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , and PERSON v. ORG and others ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R.CARDINAL , in which ORG annulled decisions issued by ORG under the presidency of Mr PERSON , using strong language about the degree of his intervention in the proceedings and the appearance of partiality to which it could give rise . Of course , the charge sheet does not extend to those cases and does not concern the issue of interventions as such ... The core of the charge is the conduct attributed to Mr PERSON at the expense of lay members of the court , lawyers , litigants and witnesses , and it is in the light of such considerations that I shall go on to examine the evidence adduced . ”

The applicant continued to receive all the benefits that came with his post during the proceedings . It appears from a letter sent to him by the ORG of GPE that the applicant was considered as having retired from the date of his dismissal , DATE . He was paid a retirement lump sum and started receiving his pension .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in the GPE region . He is currently serving his sentence in GPE detention facility in the village of GPE .

At TIME on DATE PERSON was robbed in the street and was stabbed through the heart . She died of the wound shortly afterwards . The assailant took a mobile phone and MONEY ( RUB ) from the victim ’s purse .

The PERSON town prosecutor ’s office ( “ the town prosecutor ’s office ” ) instituted a criminal investigation into PERSON ’s killing . Having obtained from the mobile phone operator the call logs in respect of the victim ’s phone , the investigators established that at TIME on DATE a phone call had been made to a number belonging to PERSON from PERSON ’s phone using the applicant ’s ORG card .

At TIME on DATE the police arrived at the applicant ’s flat and ordered him to follow them to the police station .

Once at the police station , the applicant explained that on DATE he had bought a used mobile phone from a stranger because a friend of his had earlier expressed an interest in purchasing a second - hand phone . In order to test the phone , he had inserted his ORG card and made a call to his then girlfriend , PERSON He also claimed that on DATE he had played slot machines and won RUB CARDINAL . Then the officers questioning him showed him a call log from PERSON phone , informed him of the killing and suggested that he confess to mitigate his sentence . The applicant refused to admit to the crime .

The officers proceeded to hit and kick him on his head , chest and flanks . The applicant fainted several times . The beatings went on for TIME . Eventually the applicant gave in and agreed to write down a “ statement of surrender and confession ” ( явка с повинной ) , as dictated by the officers , admitting to the robbery and murder of PERSON

An investigator of the town prosecutor ’s office , PERSON , questioned the applicant as a suspect and later went to the applicant ’s flat to seize a few items including the mobile phone contract for the applicant ’s ORG card .

NORP The applicant was not provided with legal assistance on DATE .

The applicant was brought to the police station at TIME on DATE . Upon arrival the police officers asked him how he had obtained PERSON phone and then showed him the call log . The applicant looked at the log and then asked the officers to leave him alone in the room . He then wrote a statement of surrender and confession describing the circumstances of the crime . No physical force was applied to the applicant .

In the ORG ’s submission , on DATE the applicant complained to the town prosecutor ’s office ; however , he did not raise the issue of ill - treatment .

At TIME on DATE an arrest record was drawn up . It contained a handwritten note by the applicant that read as follows : “ [ I ] agree with the arrest , rights are understood , [ I have ] no statement to make ” .

A handwritten statement signed by the applicant and dated DATE affirmed that the applicant ’s rights had been explained to him ; that he did not require legal assistance ; that the “ bodily injuries visible at [ that ] moment on [ his ] face and body [ had been ] inflicted on DATE by [ his ] roommate PERSON ; and that police officers had not used force against him .

Between TIME and CARDINAL a.m on DATE the applicant was questioned without a lawyer present .

In TIME on DATE the applicant was placed in a temporary detention centre ( ORG временного содержания , hereinafter “ ORG ” ) . According to the Government , when placed in the ORG , the applicant did not make any healthrelated complaints . He had a bruise under his right eye . An entry in the ORG logbook was made by an ambulance doctor stating that the applicant was “ in a post - epileptic - fit state ” .

TIME on DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of PERSON , a legal - aid lawyer . According to the Government , in the course of the interview he described how he had committed the crime . The record of the interview reads that the applicant found the knife used as the murder weapon at a market after a fire .

On DATE the investigators carried out an investigative re - enactment . In the applicant ’s submission , the re - enactment was limited to bringing him to the crime scene and photographing him there . According to the Government , during the visit the applicant confirmed his statement made in the presence of the lawyer in the course of the second interview of DATE . He also selected a knife similar to that used to stab PERSON from a selection of CARDINAL knives available at a local shop .

On DATE a judge of the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) placed the applicant in custody . The applicant complained to the judge about his ill - treatment ; she refused to take note of the allegations , however , stating that they could be examined in the course of the trial against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was formally charged with murder and robbery . He retracted his confession .

On DATE the police transported the applicant to a remand prison . However , the staff on duty refused to admit the applicant as he had visible injuries . The applicant was returned to the ORG . On DATE the police again tried to transfer him to the remand prison and were refused for the second time .

On DATE the police brought the applicant to the GPE polyclinic where he underwent an X - ray examination which showed that there were fractures to CARDINAL ribs with signs that the bones were beginning to heal . The following day the applicant was admitted to the remand prison .

According to the applicant , once in the remand prison , he complained about his illtreatment to the town prosecutor ’s office .

According to the Government , the applicant raised the ill - treatment complaint on DATE . The town prosecutor ’s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry on the basis of the complaint .

On DATE Mr A. , an investigator with the town prosecutor ’s office , refused to initiate criminal proceedings into the alleged ill - treatment . He observed that upon arrival at the ORG the applicant had had a bruise under his right eye and yet had made no complaints about his state of health , and noted that , according to the ORG logbook , an ambulance had been called for the applicant on account of an epileptic fit .

On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant was submitted for trial before ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) .

The applicant first took cognisance of the decision of DATE on DATE while studying the case file in the criminal case against him .

The applicant complained about the town prosecutor ’s office ’s refusal of DATE to ORG , which forwarded it for examination by ORG of the GPE region . The latter forwarded the complaint to the town prosecutor ’s office ( against which the complaint was directed ) . The applicant received no reply .

The applicant did not attempt to institute any judicial review proceedings , considering that they would be futile on account of the judge ’s reply of DATE .

On DATE ORG scheduled a trial hearing on DATE .

The applicant raised the matter of ill - treatment before ORG at his trial .

On DATE ORG ordered an expert medical examination of the X - ray of DATE . It can be seen from the trial record of that date that ORG informed the judge that he was not an expert in interpreting Xrays and asked for a period of DATE to consult a colleague ; the judge acceded to the request . On DATE N. drew up a report stating that the rib fractures had been caused by blunt objects ; by DATE the knitting together of the fractures had commenced ; the fractures had been “ considerably old ” and “ no injuries corresponding to [ those of ] CARDINAL and DATE [ had been ] identified ” . The judge rejected the applicant ’s request for another expert report .

ORG dismissed the record of the first interview of DATE as inadmissible evidence for the reason that the interview had been conducted without a lawyer present .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment . The court referred to the applicant ’s pre - trial confession , the record of his questioning by the investigator , his statements at the investigative reenactment and other physical evidence .

The trial judge also examined in detail the evidence presented by the parties in relation to the allegation of illtreatment , including the decision of DATE and the expert medical report ordered in respect of the X - ray . The judge also heard evidence from an expert , ORG , as well as investigator Mr A. and several police officers . The judge refused to examine the ORG logbook which , according to the applicant , would support his assertion that there were injuries . Instead , the judge examined a letter from the deputy director of the ORG , according to which on his arrival there the applicant only had had a black eye which he had explained as having received before the arrest . The deputy director had also noted that the logbook entry concerning the call for an ambulance had been made for another person . The judge dismissed the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment and declared the relevant evidence ( the confession statement , the interview record and the investigative re - enactment record ) admissible .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal reiterating the issue of his confession under duress without a lawyer present , as well as the weakness of the prosecution ’s case against him . He insisted on his innocence .

On DATE the applicant lodged an additional appeal in which he claimed that ORG had wrongly considered his previous conviction as an aggravating factor and yet had chosen to regard the surrender and confession as a mitigating factor . He asked for the firstinstance judgment to be quashed on the grounds given in his appeal of DATE .

On DATE the applicant ( through his counsel ) lodged an appeal in which he insisted that the statement of surrender and confession had not been genuine as he had been forcibly brought to the police station and detained there for TIME with no access to a lawyer .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment in a summary fashion .

The applicant further unsuccessfully sought supervisory review of his conviction .

On DATE the applicant sent another complaint to ORG , which was forwarded to the town prosecutor ’s office .

On CARDINAL DATE the deputy town prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE and issued an instruction to carry out an additional preinvestigation inquiry .

On CARDINAL DATE S. , an investigator with the town prosecutor ’s office , refused to institute an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . He found it established that on DATE a police officer in ORG had received a report of a violent fight ; on DATE he had invited the applicant to come in for a “ preventative talk ” and had noticed CARDINAL bruises under the applicant ’s eyes . PERSON concluded that the bruise under the applicant ’s right eye had been a result of the injury inflicted long before the arrest . He also pointed out that ORG had “ carefully examined ” the applicant ’s version of ill - treatment by police officers . The issue of the fractured ribs was not examined .


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

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE .

On DATE police officers from the Inza ORG arrested the applicant . He was accused of having broken into a flat and having stolen personal belongings the estimated cost of which was MONEY ( RUB ) , ( MONEY ( ORG ) . He was remanded in custody at the LOC Town police station ( “ the police ward ” ) .

DATE , a prosecutor authorised the applicant ’s pre - trial detention and charged him with theft . He was transferred to LOC temporary detention facility GPE .

On DATE a deputy prosecutor of the LOC served the applicant with a bill of indictment . The applicant was committed to stand trial before ORG .

On DATE ORG held the first trial hearing , and on DATE it found the applicant guilty of aggravated theft and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

In addition to his first period of detention in the police ward following his arrest , the applicant was taken to the ward on CARDINAL occasions during the pre - trial investigation and court proceedings .

The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in the ward . He was usually detained in a cell containing CARDINAL wooden bunk beds and accommodating up to QUANTITY detainees . Inmates had had to take turns to rest owing to the shortage of sleeping places . No bedding was provided . The cell did not have a window in the proper sense of that word – a small window was covered with a metal sheet , blocking access to natural light and air . In the absence of any artificial ventilation in the cell , it was hard to breathe owing to the thick smoke and the humidity . The cell was lit by a small bulb inserted in a recess in the concrete wall above the door . Thick metal bars separated the bulb from the cell . According to the applicant , there was no furniture , wash - bowl or lavatory pan in the cell . Once a day , in the morning , inmates were taken to a public lavatory outside the police station . For the rest of DATE , they had to use a bucket as a lavatory pan . They were allowed to clean the bucket once a day , in the morning . The foul smell permeated the cell , as the bucket had no cover . The police station did not have a recreation yard and inmates were therefore confined to their cells day and night . Food was provided once a day . The DATE food ration consisted of CARDINAL a bowl of cabbage soup and a piece of bread . In addition , inmates were given tea , which they drank from containers cut from plastic bottles . Medical assistance was unavailable .

The Government submitted that in the period after his arrest and until DATE , the applicant had been taken back to the police ward CARDINAL times . He had usually been taken from the detention facility GPE to the ward early in the morning and had been returned to facility GPE in TIME , only to be sent back to the police ward in TIME or DATE . The Government observed that he had spent DATE in the police ward during the pre - trial investigation : DATE while attending the court hearings , DATE while he was re - acquainting himself with the case - file materials , and DATE while he was studying the court records . The Government acknowledged that the material and sanitary conditions in the ward had not “ entirely satisfied the established legal requirements ” . They stressed that the cells had had no furniture , save for bunk beds , or radios , the lighting had been “ insufficient ” , the cells had not been equipped with lavatory pans as the police ward was not connected to the water mains or the sewerage system . They further conceded that there had been no artificial ventilation system , the cells had not been disinfected and detainees had not been provided with bedding . Following a number of warnings from the prosecutor , in DATE the director of the police station sent a request for additional funding and took the necessary steps to comply with the legal norms governing conditions of detention . The Government provided the ORG with a copy of a prosecutor ’s order issued on DATE . Having seen for himself the conditions of detention in the police station and talked to inmates , the prosecutor noted the following problems requiring immediate improvement : occasional overcrowding , failure to provide inmates with bedding , scarce food and lack of sanitary facilities . The Government described the detention authorities’ response to the prosecutor ’s orders , and submitted that after the applicant ’s detention in the ward the metal shutters had been removed from the cell windows and inmates had been guaranteed an individual sleeping place and personal space of QUANTITY . Furniture had been installed in the cells and inmates had started receiving food CARDINAL times a day . The police station administration was now organising DATE walks for detainees , had introduced disinfection of the facilities and was providing inmates with the opportunity to take a shower and wash their clothes and bedding .

Nonetheless , the Government disputed the applicant ’s allegations concerning the availability of medical assistance and the provision of warm clothes . In particular , they stated that urgent medical assistance had been ensured by emergency doctors , although the applicant had never requested any medical attention . It had also been open to him to ask the administration of the detention facility GPE for warm clothes . He had not used that opportunity . The Government insisted that the applicant had had warm clothes when he had been taken to the police station CARDINAL , because his female partner had sent warm clothes to him at the temporary detention facility in DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action in tort against the police station administration and ORG of GPE . He claimed that the conditions of his detention in the police ward had been inhuman and had led to a serious deterioration in his health .

On DATE the ORG partly allowed the applicant ’s action and awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . ORG held , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ It was established in a court hearing that the facilities provided to detainees in [ the LOC police station ] were not adequately furnished , in violation of the legal norms ; the representatives of [ the police station ] explained that the underlying cause was a lack of funds .

The materials of the prosecutor ’s inquiry confirm that bedding is not provided in the [ detention ward ] . The cells are not furnished in compliance with the law . There are no lavatory pans , water , tables , radio , etc . The lighting in the cells is insufficient ; the cells are in semi - darkness . There are windows in the cells ; however , they are covered by metal bars in such a fashion that they block access to natural light . There is no ventilation in the cells . The air is stuffy with a peculiar odour . The police ward is not disinfected ...

... suspects and defendants have the right to TIME ’s outdoor recreation per day ...

The director of [ the police station ] Mr T. explained in a court hearing that he does not draw up a record of GPE DATE outdoor recreation ; whenever possible [ detainees ] are taken for a walk once a day .

Following a prosecutor ’s decision addressed to the director of [ the police station ] about the elimination of violations of ORG , certain measures were taken : persons detained in [ the police station ] are now taken for outdoor walks in compliance with the above - mentioned law ; light bulbs with a higher wattage are now used in the cells , thus producing more light ; and an estimate of expenditure has been drawn up in respect of the shortcomings that have to be eliminated in order to comply with [ the prosecutor ’s ] decision . It appears from the reply of the police station director to [ the prosecutor ’s decision ] , that once funds have been received , all the necessary measures will be taken to eliminate the shortcomings .

[ The applicant ’s ] complaints pertaining to the lack of medical assistance are worth consideration .

In the court hearing the representatives of [ the police station ] did not dispute the fact that the requirements of the Instruction on the Provision of Medical and Sanitary Assistance to Detainees ... are not complied with in [ the police ward ] .

However , the court does not disregard the fact that ... urgent medical assistance was provided to suspects by emergency medical teams in [ the police ward ] . That fact is corroborated by the records of medical examinations of detainees . [ The applicant ] did not request the provision of medical assistance .

By virtue of norm no . CARDINAL for DATE food rations of persons detained in police detention facilities , detainees ... should have been given the following food ration per TIME : QUANTITY of bread ... , QUANTITY of porridge , QUANTITY of pasta , QUANTITY grams of meat , QUANTITY of fish , QUANTITY of margarine , QUANTITY of vegetable oil , QUANTITY of sugar , QUANTITY of tea , QUANTITY of salt , QUANTITY of potatoes , QUANTITY of vegetables , QUANTITY of bay leaf and QUANTITY of tomato sauce .

In the court hearing [ the applicant ] explained that [ on DATE when he was transferred between the police station and detention facility GPE ] he received food in [ that facility ] in TIME , [ and that he was ] not given food in [ the police station ] . [ During longer stays ] he received food once a day [ in the ward ] . The food ration included a plate of soup , CARDINAL a loaf of bread and a glass of tea . The representatives of the [ police station ] did not dispute that fact .

It was established in a court hearing that when [ the applicant ] was transferred [ to the ward ] in DATE , he did not have DATE clothes . He was not provided with DATE clothes in detention facility GPE ... [ The ward ] also did not provide [ the applicant ] with warm clothes as it did not have them .

The above - mentioned facts confirm that [ the applicant ’s ] right to conditions of detention in compliance with domestic requirements was violated in [ the police ward ] , which caused [ him ] psychological distress .

Having regard to the requirements of reasonableness and justice , the nature of the psychological distress caused to [ the applicant ] , the temporary character of [ the applicant ’s ] detention in [ the police ward ] : the limited period of CARDINAL ; the fact that [ he ] was transferred to [ the police station ] to take part in investigative measures and court hearings , and DATE during which [ he ] was detained in [ the ward ] , the court finds that [ the applicant ’s ] claims should be awarded but in a reduced amount . ”

The applicant attended the hearings before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , endorsing the reasons given by ORG .

In DATE the applicant lodged an action against the head of the medical unit of the temporary detention facility GPE in GPE , the police station administration and an investigator from the ORG , seeking compensation for damage to his health and loss of earnings . In particular , he argued that he had had no chronic illnesses prior to his detention and that he had fallen ill during his pre - trial detention because of the appalling conditions of his detention in the LOC police ward . He also alleged that the serious deterioration in his health had become apparent in DATE and DATE , after his first tort action against the police ward had already been examined by ORG .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action , finding it to be manifestly ill - founded . ORG concluded that there was no evidence supporting the applicant ’s allegations that he had sustained damage to his health as a result of his detention . The applicant was represented by a lawyer during the hearings . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .