Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant is a stateless NORP from GPE who was born in DATE and is currently in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and requested asylum and a residence permit . Before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) , he stated that he was a stateless NORP from GPE and that he had left his home because of the war . His wife and their CARDINAL children still lived in GPE with his parents . On CARDINAL occasions , the applicant claimed , he had been the victim of serious harassment at NORP road blocks . The first time he had been with CARDINAL other young men in the car and the NORP soldiers had hit them and forced them to sit on crushed glass . ORG had intervened and helped them . He further stated that he had never been politically active or deprived of his liberty but that some of his cousins had been active within ORG for DATE and currently worked for ORG . Moreover , he invoked the generally very unstable and dangerous situation in GPE . He submitted his NORP identity card , birth certificate and a NORP passport issued on DATE in GPE .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant a permanent residence permit on humanitarian grounds . It first noted that the applicant had presented no individual grounds on which he could be considered a refugee or a person otherwise in need of protection . However , having regard to the very complex security situation and the difficult humanitarian conditions in GPE , ORG considered that he should be allowed to remain in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( tingsrätten ) in PERSON convicted the applicant of aggravated rape and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and expulsion from GPE with a prohibition on returning before DATE . With regard to the expulsion decision , the court found that the applicant had no connection to GPE and had only been in the country for DATE . Moreover , according to his own statements , his wife and CARDINAL children were living in a refugee camp in GPE . ORG had also been heard and had submitted that there were no impediments to the applicant 's expulsion . Thus , having regard to the very serious crime which the applicant had committed , he should be expelled from GPE . Still , the prohibition on returning to GPE was limited to DATE .

The applicant appealed against the judgment , including the expulsion decision , to ORG ( hovrätten ) which , in DATE , upheld the lower court 's judgment in full . On DATE ORG ( ORG domstolen ) refused leave to appeal .

NORP In DATE the applicant requested the Government to repeal the expulsion order against him and to grant him leave to remain in GPE . Before the Government he claimed , inter alia , that he had in fact been politically active while living in GPE but that he had not informed ORG about it because he had been afraid . He further alleged that he had received several death threats both from the military part of ORG and from ORG . The threats had been sent to his mother in GPE and his brother had sent them to him . He did not know why the threats had been sent to him just at that point in time but he suspected that the members of ORG and ORG had heard that he had been convicted of rape in GPE and imprisoned . This would make it very dangerous for him to return . In support of his claims , he submitted some documents in LANGUAGE as well as some letters in LANGUAGE which he claimed were threats ( see below under paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Upon request by the ORG , ORG submitted its observations on the case . It considered that the applicant had not shown that it was probable that he was a refugee or a person otherwise in need of protection in GPE and , hence , there were no impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order . However , it noted that an expulsion to GPE might be difficult from a practical point of view .

On DATE the Government rejected the request . It found that there was neither any impediment to the expulsion nor any special reasons to revoke the expulsion decision and grant the applicant leave to remain in GPE .

By fax of DATE the border police informed the applicant that he would be expelled from GPE as soon as possible , probably on CARDINAL or DATE , and would be transported to GPE , GPE . It further informed the applicant that ORG Office in GPE had issued him with a new , valid passport . The ORG had also told the police that travelling from GPE to GPE posed no problems .

On DATE , DATE , the applicant requested the ORG to indicate to ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG a suspension of his expulsion to GPE . He claimed that , when living in GPE , he had worked for ORG together with some family members . His family was one of the biggest in GPE and his uncle had held a high position in the political sphere . The applicant had also been an active politician and was therefore well known and recognised by most . ORG had not liked this and had therefore threatened to kill him . For this reason , he had often been stopped , questioned and beaten when travelling between GPE and GPE . Moreover , due to his political involvement , he had also been imprisoned by the NORP and severely tortured . This experience had scared him so much that he had decided to stop his political work . However , when he had stopped working for ORG , the NORP government had imprisoned and tortured him . Since that time , he had suffered from ORG ( PTSD ) . After leaving prison , he had started importing and selling clothes from GPE . Since the border police still suspected him of being politically active , they had continued to question and beat him every time he tried to leave or enter GPE . Moreover , when his work for ORG was over , they had threatened him and he had been afraid to stay in GPE . Thus , he had fled to GPE where he had been refused asylum and sent back . He had then tried to go to GPE but had been refused leave to remain there as well . In a last attempt he had travelled to GPE .

NORP Before the Court , the applicant further alleged that he had received death threats from ORG in DATE and threats from ORG some time during DATE . Since these CARDINAL organisations controlled GPE he was convinced that he would not be able to hide from them . He produced copies of various documents , inter alia , the following :

A medical report , dated DATE , stating that the applicant was suffering from PTSD and was in need of psychological and social care . It was signed by Dr PERSON , psychiatrist at the GPE community mental health centre .

A medical certificate , dated DATE , by PERSON , physician at PERSON prison . It stated that the applicant was suffering from anxiety and insomnia and was taking antidepressants . At DATE he had deliberately cut his arm and had been treated for DATE at the psychiatric care unit . He was considered to be suffering from PTSD .

Some copies of documents in LANGUAGE which had not been translated , but allegedly were marriage and family certificates proving that the applicant was related to leaders within the political organisations of ORG and ORG .

A copy of an undated letter in LANGUAGE which had been translated into LANGUAGE . It was from ORG and addressed to the applicant 's family in GPE . It stated that , according to information that the ORG had obtained , the applicant should be careful since he would be killed no matter where he was found .

A copy of a letter in LANGUAGE which had been translated into LANGUAGE . It was from ORG , the West of GPE , and was addressed to the applicant 's family , warning them that they should be careful and cautious because the applicant was being pursued and would be killed wherever he was found . He should remain outside the country in order to protect his life . The letter was not dated .

On DATE the ORG decided to apply Rule CARDINAL and suspend the expulsion until further notice in order to obtain some further information from the Government . In particular , the Government were requested to inform the ORG whether the expulsion of the applicant to GPE would be possible and , if so , how such an expulsion would be carried out practically in order to ensure that he would arrive in GPE without a breach of his rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .

Following the ORG 's request , on DATE the Minister of ORG , on behalf of the Government , stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order until further notice . However , the applicant , who had been conditionally released from prison on DATE , was kept in detention awaiting his expulsion in accordance with a decision by ORG .

On DATE the Government replied to the ORG 's request . They first observed that since ORG had seized power in GPE in DATE , the human rights situation in GPE had drastically deteriorated , with a strong negative impact on the civil population . However , the NORP migration authorities had expressed the opinion that , although there were other “ severe conflicts ” ( svåra motsättningar ) in GPE , it did not amount to an “ armed conflict ” ( väpnad konflikt ) within the meaning of LAW . Hence , stateless NORP from GPE were not automatically granted residence permits in GPE and , in the ORG 's view , an expulsion of the applicant to GPE was possible . This said , they pointed out that the police authority responsible for the enforcement of the expulsion order had informed them that , due to the decision to stay the enforcement , there were at present no specific plans to enforce the applicant 's expulsion order . Moreover , the police authority had assessed that , currently , it was in general not possible to travel via GPE when enforcing expulsion orders to GPE , since the NORP border to GPE was temporarily closed . Hence , if an expulsion to GPE were to be enforced , it would probably be carried out via GPE , following an evaluation to ensure that it could be carried out in a safe manner .

The Government further stated that in all cases of enforcement of expulsion orders , NORP officials were obliged to accompany the alien to the country / region stated in the expulsion order . The enforcement of the order was only considered to be completed when the alien was received by the country of destination and the NORP authorities were responsible for the alien during the entire enforcement procedure until its completion . If authorities of another ORG provided assistance , the responsibility still remained with the NORP authorities . Thus , NORP officials responsible for the enforcement were obliged to intervene if an alien should be subjected to ill - treatment by the authorities of a third ORG . They were not allowed to hand over the alien to the authorities of a third ORG in order for them to complete the expulsion procedure . Moreover , the NORP officials had to ensure that the alien was allowed to enter the country of destination and was received by that country . Also , an enforcement could only be initiated if there was some degree of certainty that the alien would be received by the country of destination .

In his comments in reply to the information provided by the ORG , the applicant claimed that he had a right to a permanent residence permit in GPE on the basis of his political opinions and work for ORG in GPE DATE . He had primarily spoken at public gatherings and organised demonstrations and he had been imprisoned and tortured by GPE in DATE and by ORG in DATE . Both ORG and ORG would try to kill him if he returned . Moreover , he would not be safe if he were returned via either GPE or GPE and thus there was no safe manner for carrying out the expulsion order without exposing him to serious risk . As there were no direct flights to GPE , the NORP authorities would not be able to accompany him all the way to GPE or to ensure his safety .

By virtue of LAW , LAW ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , a crime may , apart from ordinary sanctions , result in special consequences defined by law . Expulsion on account of a criminal offence constitutes such a consequence and the decision in this respect is made by the court in which the criminal proceedings take place .

Provisions for expulsion on this ground are laid down in the new Aliens Act ( Utlänningslagen , DATE hereinafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) which replaced the old LAW ( PERSON , CARDINAL ) on DATE . However , since the rules on expulsion on account of a criminal offence remain the same in substance under LAW as under the old LAW , reference will only be made to LAW .

According to LAW CARDINAL and DATE Act , an alien may not be expelled from GPE on account of having committed a criminal offence unless certain conditions are satisfied and the person 's links to NORP society have been taken into account .

NORP Moreover , the court must have regard to the general provisions on impediments to the enforcement of an expulsion decision . Thus , under the provisions of LAW , LAW , there is an absolute impediment to expelling an alien to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . Furthermore , a risk of persecution generally constitutes an impediment to enforcing an expulsion decision .

A decision to expel an alien on account of having committed a criminal offence is , according to LAW , LAW ) of LAW , enforced by the police authority . If the police authority finds that there are impediments to the enforcement , it shall notify ORG , which shall refer the matter to the Government to examine whether the expulsion can be executed ( LAW , LAW ) . If there are no impediments to the enforcement , the alien shall normally be sent to his or her country of origin or , if possible , to the country from which he or she came to GPE ( LAW , Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) .

According to LAW , LAW of LAW , if the Government find that a judgment or decision to expel a person on account of having committed a criminal offence can not be executed or if there are otherwise special reasons not to enforce the decision , the Government may repeal , in part or completely , the judgment or decision of the court . When considering whether to repeal an expulsion order , the Government shall above all take into account any new circumstances , namely circumstances that did not exist at the time of the courts ' examination of the criminal case . In the travaux préparatoires to this provision ( Government Bill CARDINAL/CARDINAL:CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , strong family ties and severe illness are given as examples of such “ special reasons ” that may warrant revocation of an expulsion order . In accordance with LAW , LAW , of ORG ( Regeringsformen ) , the Government may also issue a pardon or reduce a penal sanction or other legal effect of a criminal act .

NORP In cases where the expulsion order is not revoked , the Government may still grant a temporary residence permit and work permit . For as long as such a permit is valid , the expulsion order may not be executed ( Chapter CARDINAL , Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) .

On DATE , in a leading decision concerning an asylum seeker from GPE , ORG made an assessment of the general situation in GPE and possibilities to enforce expulsion / deportation orders to the area . ORG found that the situation in GPE could not be regarded as an “ armed conflict ” ( väpnad konflikt ) but assessed that there were other “ severe conflicts ” ( svåra motsättningar ) in GPE within the meaning of LAW , LAW , of LAW ( which was also in line with an earlier decision by ORG , dated DATE , ORG DATE , and decisions by ORG on CARDINAL and DATE ) . This implied that a personal assessment of the individual circumstances in the case had to be made and that a causal link had to be established between the personal risk of the alien and the conflicts in the area . Since the asylum seeker in the case at hand had only invoked the general situation , the ORG found that he was not in need of protection in GPE . Still , the ORG noted that the border crossings to GPE had been closed since DATE and that , currently , it was not practically possible to enforce expulsion / deportation orders to GPE . In DATE negotiations between , inter alia , ORG and the NORP authorities had resulted in a ceasefire and there was hope that the borders might be re - opened in the foreseeable future . On the basis of the above , the ORG decided to reject the asylum seeker 's application for asylum and a residence permit but to grant respite with the enforcement of the deportation order until DATE , during which time the ORG would carefully follow the developments in GPE .

Since ORG seized power over GPE in DATE , GPE has closed all borders into GPE and imposed an almost complete blockade , affecting every aspect of civilian life . In DATE GPE designated GPE a “ hostile entity ” . Due to the blockade , the humanitarian situation in GPE is now considered to be at its worst since DATE as PERCENT of the CARDINAL population in GPE are dependent on the limited international aid that the NORP allow to enter .

In DATE ORG and GPE agreed on a ceasefire aimed at halting NORP rocket attacks on NORP territory in return for GPE lifting the blockade . However , GPE insists that “ normal business ” can not resume at the NORP Rafah border crossing until ORG releases an NORP soldier captured by GPE militants DATE . Thus , it would appear that the ceasefire has not improved the situation for GPE 's population , except to reduce the number of NORP incursions and the number of rockets fired by NORP militants . Still , GPE opened the Rafah border crossing to GPE for DATE on DATE as a goodwill gesture before DATE . According to sources CARDINAL people were allowed to leave GPE , essentially those requiring medical treatment or holders of foreign residence permits , and CARDINAL persons entered the area .

Following its takeover in DATE , ORG established its own security forces , ORG , and , according to international sources , it enforced laws selectively according to its priorities . In DATE ORG named a de facto High ORG for GPE and ORG - affiliated members replaced ORG prosecutors and judges . In DATE ORG militants took over FAC in GPE . This increased lack of law and order in GPE eroded public confidence in security forces and many NORP sought protection from clans and family groups . The press reported widespread abuse , torture and corruption by the security forces . However , ORG ( ICRC ) has stated that it has regained full access to all facilities ( prisons and detention centres ) in GPE , including those administered by ORG and PERSON ( the military wing of ORG ) .

According to reports , ORG has hit hard against the opposition in GPE . However , the sole fact of being a member or sympathiser of ORG has not given rise to persecution . Persons without political influence or a political agenda do not run any significant risk . Moreover , ORG 's civil organisation ( that is , excluding the militant parts ) has been allowed to continue its work and ORG members holding the chairmanship in municipal sectors have not been replaced . Reportedly , it is primarily persons who openly criticise ORG who risk being persecuted , irrespective of whether they belong to ORG . Within ORG , persons who are capable of mounting violent resistance against ORG or who have close connections to the ORG leadership in GPE , are most exposed to persecution . It is generally not a problem to have worked for ORG police forces while ORG was in power or to be employed by ORG police forces DATE . Still , it appears that certain acts of revenge occur against persons who have committed various kinds of abuse against the population in GPE . Family members of persons wanted by ORG are not exposed to an elevated risk of persecution as there does not appear to be any pattern of collective punishment within the internal NORP power struggle .

ORG issues passports for NORP in GPE and GPE . As long as the LOC border crossing is closed , there will remain significant difficulties to return or to enforce deportations to GPE . It is uncertain when the crossing will re - open .


CASE OF HULKİ GÜNEŞ v. TURKEY [Extracts]

Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-d;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , a NORP citizen born in DATE , is currently serving a life sentence in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the security forces in the village of ORG , in the district of PERSON ( province of GPE ) . A handwritten and partly illegible report drawn up on DATE includes the following passage :

“ Following an investigation , Mr Güneş , [ suspected of having ] taken part in an armed clash with gendarmes in the district of PERSON on DATE , ... was arrested , unarmed , while hiding in the house of CARDINAL ORG , in the course of a gendarmerie operation on DATE . ”

On DATE , the gendarmes who had arrested the applicant drew up a further report in which they identified him as one of the terrorists who had taken part in an armed attack on DATE in which CARDINAL soldier had died and CARDINAL others had been injured .

According to a report drawn up on DATE , a confrontation was held between the applicant and the gendarmes who had taken part in the armed clash of DATE . CARDINAL of them identified the applicant . The report was not signed by him .

On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to the ORG provincial gendarmerie headquarters for questioning . However , the circumstances in which he was questioned can not be established from the evidence adduced by the parties .

On DATE the applicant was brought before ORG , composed of a single judge , who ordered his detention pending trial . Before the judge , the applicant denied all the accusations against him . He stated that he had not taken part in any armed attack . He also denied that a confrontation had been held on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and asserted that on DATE of his arrest he had been shown to a soldier , who had been unable to identify him . Lastly , he stated that he had been ill - treated while being detained at the ORG provincial gendarmerie headquarters .

In an indictment preferred on DATE the public prosecutor at ORG instituted proceedings against the applicant , charging him with separatism and with undermining the integrity of the ORG , capital offences under LAW . He accused him of having taken part in CARDINAL armed attacks on CARDINAL DATE and DATE and , in particular , of having fired , together with other terrorists , at the security forces , causing the death of CARDINAL soldier and injuring CARDINAL others .

In connection with the criminal proceedings against the applicant , a Mr PERSON was also accused of having taken part in the armed attack of DATE . He was therefore tried in the same proceedings .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE ORG read out statements by the gendarmes ( GPE , GPE . and PERSON ) who had identified the applicant during the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant disputed the statements and denied all the charges . The court decided to summon the QUANTITY gendarmes as witnesses .

At a hearing on DATE counsel for the applicant contested the record of the confrontation of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and argued that the statements by the gendarmes alleged to have identified his client were contradictory .

At a hearing on DATE the court , as requested by the public prosecutor , decided , on “ road - safety grounds ” , to have evidence from the CARDINAL gendarmes taken on commission . Accordingly , CARDINAL photographs of the applicant , CARDINAL from the side and the other from the front , were sent together with the reports concerning the case to the court delegated to examine the witnesses . The applicant challenged the court 's decision and asked it to hold a confrontation itself .

At a hearing on DATE Mr PERSON , the applicant 's co - defendant , gave evidence , as requested by counsel for the applicant . He stated that he had never seen the applicant . He also maintained that the applicant had not been present during the armed attack on DATE , in which he himself had taken part .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE counsel for the applicant again criticised the method by which the court had decided to take evidence from the witnesses in question , arguing that it could not be considered compatible with the rules of procedure .

At a hearing on DATE it was noted that the depositions of the witnesses who had been examined on commission , with the exception of that of GPE , had been added to the case file .

At a hearing on DATE the applicant pleaded not guilty . He again challenged the manner in which the depositions of the witnesses in question had been taken and argued that they could not be admitted in evidence against him , since he had been identified from photographs and hence without a confrontation . He also rejected the statements he had given under duress at the investigation stage .

At a hearing on DATE it was noted that the deposition of GPE , likewise taken on commission , had been added to the case file . Counsel for the applicant contested it , arguing that , like the other depositions , it could not be admitted as evidence for the prosecution .

At the same hearing the public prosecutor made submissions in which he sought the applicant 's acquittal . He stated , in particular :

“ Criminal proceedings were instituted against the defendant PERSON , who was suspected of having taken part in an armed clash with soldiers on DATE ... The witnesses GPE and GPE . stated that they had seen the defendant with his face uncovered during the clash , whereas the other members of the organisation had their faces covered . [ However , firstly , ] it was not mentioned in the incident report of DATE that a member of the organisation had been observed with his face uncovered . [ Secondly , ] in the statements they gave after the incident , the soldiers did not say that they had seen CARDINAL of the members of the organisation with his face uncovered . [ In addition , ] Mr PERSON was not arrested during the incident in question [ and ] Mr PERSON , the co - defendant , a ' confessor ' [ former member of an illegal organisation turned informer ] who admitted having taken part in the shooting , stated that Mr PERSON had not been present at the time and that he did not know him . [ Lastly , ] there are also contradictions , indeed a blatant discrepancy , regarding the names of those who took part in the shooting , between Mr PERSON 's statements [ obtained while he was in police custody ] and those of his co - defendant . [ Accordingly ] , it should be concluded that there is insufficient evidence for Mr PERSON to be found guilty ... ”

At hearings on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE the public prosecutor reiterated his submissions of CARDINAL DATE and sought the release of the applicant , but his recommendations were not followed .

At a hearing on DATE statements by the applicant 's brother , who had been arrested for being a member of the ORG , and by his sister were added to the case file . Both attested that the applicant was a member of the organisation in question . The applicant was given additional time to file his observations on this new evidence against him .

At a hearing on DATE the public prosecutor made further submissions in which he sought the applicant 's conviction under LAW .

At a hearing on DATE the applicant submitted his defence . Referring to the pleadings he had lodged during the trial and to the public prosecutor 's initial submissions , he asked to be acquitted .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges , CARDINAL of whom was a member of ORG , found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death , commuted to life imprisonment , under LAW . In support of its decision , the court took into account the depositions of the gendarmes concerned , the statement which the applicant had given to the security forces and the reports in the investigation file . It held , inter alia :

“ With regard to the defendant PERSON :

In the record of his statement , the defendant asserted that in DATE , while staying illegally in GPE , he had begun to support the organisation 's ideas . On returning to GPE , he had contacted the organisation . He stated that , on its behalf , he had

( i ) set up a committee , collected funds and disseminated propaganda ;

( ii ) NORP taken part on DATE in an armed attack in the district of PERSON ; and

( iii ) taken part on DATE in an ambush against a patrol from the security forces , in which a member of the patrol had been killed and CARDINAL others injured .

He stated that after that incident he had gone to hide in the village of ORG , where he was arrested by the security forces . He also stated that his code name as a member of the organisation had been ORG .

Before the public prosecutor and ORG he denied all the offences of which he was accused . He stated that he had gone to the village of ORG to do building work in N.Ö 's house . He maintained that he had hidden under the bed when the soldiers had arrived purely because he did not have any identity papers . He denied all the charges against him .

In his defence submissions before the court he again denied the charges .

In his submissions the public prosecutor sought the defendant 's conviction under LAW .

It appears from the reports and documents in the file that on DATE , at TIME , members of the security forces attached to the NORP gendarmerie command were attacked by a group of armed terrorists while on patrol in the province of GPE , in the district of PERSON , near GPE , on LOC . In the course of the shooting , the gendarme PERSON was killed and the gendarmes NORP and PERSON were injured . After additional security forces had arrived as reinforcements , the clash went on until TIME Statements by the gendarmes ORG and GPE . , who were involved in the skirmish , were added to the case file .

The members of the security forces present at the scene after the shooting were informed that there was a terrorist hiding in ORG 's house in the village of ORG , which is part of the district of PERSON . After taking the necessary security measures , the security forces went to the house and rang the doorbell . TIME , after several rings , someone opened the door . With the owner 's agreement , they were able to go in . Inside , they asked ORG if ORG was staying with him . PERSON replied ' no ' . All the family were together in the same room . They were asked if anyone else was in the house . They replied ' no ' . However , the soldiers discovered a person in pyjamas hiding under a bed . When the person was shown to the members of the household , they said that they did not know him or what he was doing there . It was established that the person was PERSON and that he was related to the members of the household . On his arrest , ORG and GPE . , members of the security forces who had been present at the shooting on DATE , immediately recognised him as having been involved in the shooting . That much is apparent from the relevant report .

A confrontation was held between these members of the security forces and the defendant . All CARDINAL members of the security forces recognised the defendant as having taken part in the shooting .

The court sent a photograph of the defendant for identification by the gendarmes claiming to recognise him .

In the deposition taken from him on commission , the witness GPE said that he could not be certain whether the person in the photograph had been among those taking part in the shooting , as the terrorists who had attacked them had had their faces covered . However , he stated that the defendant had been one of the terrorists who had organised the ambush and that his face had not been covered . During the shooting there had been a distance of QUANTITY between them , so he had had a clear view of the person 's face . He accordingly maintained that the person in the photograph was the same person he had seen during the shooting . He added that he had recognised him as soon as he had arrested him . He attested that the arrest report was consistent with his statements and that the defendant was the person who had taken part in the shooting .

The statement by PERSON was also taken on commission . He stated that the person in the photograph was the same person he had seen at the scene of the shooting and that the reports read out to him were consistent with what had happened .

The witness GPE . , who also gave evidence on commission , confirmed the content of the reports . He stated that on DATE there had been an outbreak of shooting with an armed terrorist group . He added that the shooting had carried on for a long time , with the result that at nightfall he and his colleagues had hidden in the bushes to escape the terrorists ' shots . As the terrorists had left the scene , he had had a clear view of CARDINAL of them QUANTITY away . He added that shortly after the defendant 's arrest , he had been able to identify him as the person he had seen . He maintained that that person was the one in the photograph .

It is apparent from the arrest report that the defendant was immediately identified by the witnesses . They identified him without hesitation on being shown his photograph . Furthermore , the defendant 's sister stated that he was a member of the ORG terrorist organisation . It follows from these witness statements and declarations that the confessions made by the defendant in the statement he gave reflect the truth .

The arrest report appears consistent with the evidence given by the defendant in his statement as to the circumstances of his arrest . That factual element tends to corroborate the confessions made by the defendant in his initial statement .

Although the indictment states that the defendant took part in the shooting on CARDINAL DATE in the capital of the district of PERSON , his confessions on the subject are not corroborated by any documents in the file or any other related item of evidence . It has therefore not been established that the defendant took part in that operation .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG instituted proceedings against the defendant . He accused him of having begun to support the organisation 's ideas in DATE , while staying illegally in GPE , and , on returning to GPE , having participated in the organisation 's activities , then taken part in an armed attack in the capital of the district of Varto on DATE and , lastly , having taken part in an ambush against a patrol from the security forces on DATE , in which a member of the patrol had been killed and CARDINAL others injured ... ”

Having regard to the foregoing and to the fact that the public prosecutor had sought the application of LAW , ORG found it established that the defendant , a member of the ORG , had taken part in the shooting on DATE but not in the shooting on CARDINAL DATE . Holding that the armed attack of DATE had occurred in the context of the ORG 's terrorist activities aimed at removing part of the national territory from the ORG 's control , the court held that the defendant should be convicted under LAW .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG and requested a hearing .

Following a hearing on DATE ORG upheld the judgment appealed against . Its judgment was delivered on DATE with neither the applicant nor his counsel present .

On DATE the full text of ORG judgment was added to the case file kept at the registry of ORG and thus made available to the parties .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provided :

“ It shall be an offence punishable by death to commit any act aimed at subjecting the ORG or part of the ORG to domination by a foreign ORG , diminishing the ORG 's independence , breaking its unity or removing part of the national territory from the ORG 's control . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( Establishment and Rules of Procedure ) Act ( Law no . CARDINAL ) provides :

“ ORG may have witnesses and experts examined by delegated judges even where the requirements of LAW are not satisfied . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides :

“ Where a witness or expert is for a long or indefinite period unable to attend a hearing on account of illness , invalidity or another reason , the court may decide to have him examined by a delegated judge or on commission ...

This provision shall also apply to the examination of witnesses or experts who would have difficulty in attending the hearing on account of the distance from their place of residence . ”

From the principles established by the NORP courts when applying the criminal law , it is clear that the questioning of a suspect is a means of enabling him to defend himself that should work to his advantage and not a measure designed to obtain evidence against him . While statements made during questioning may be taken into consideration by the judge in his assessment of the facts of a case , they must nonetheless be made voluntarily , and statements obtained through the use of pressure or force are not admissible in evidence . By LAW , as interpreted by ORG , any confessions made to the police or the public prosecutor 's office must be repeated before the judge if the record of the questioning containing them is to be admissible as evidence for the prosecution . If the confessions are not repeated , the records in question are not allowed to be read out as evidence in court and consequently can not be relied on to support a conviction . Even a confession repeated in court can not on its own be regarded as a decisive piece of evidence but must be supported by additional evidence .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , co - agent , of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant ’s former wife took proceedings against him in ORG , seeking the annulment of a donation of an amount of money made during their marriage . She claimed the return of CARDINAL convertible levs ( „ валутни лева “ ) , a special currency unit used in GPE at the time .

The first hearing was held on DATE . The applicant disputed the claim and counter - claimed for CARDINAL items of jewellery , allegedly costing MONEY ( “ BGL ” ) , which he had donated to his former wife . The court ordered an expert report on the value of the jewellery and requested from the applicant ’s and his former wife ’s bank all documents relating to the banking transactions effected during their marriage .

The second hearing took place on DATE . The court heard CARDINAL witnesses whose testimony related to the jewellery claimed by the applicant . Noting that the banking documents requested at the previous hearing had not been produced , the court reiterated its request to the bank .

The third hearing was held on DATE . The court admitted in evidence the expert report on the value of the jewellery . It noted that the banking information had not yet been produced and adjourned the case until DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked the court to reschedule the hearing listed for CARDINAL DATE because he intended to be on leave CARDINAL and DATE . The court granted the request and listed a hearing for CARDINAL DATE .

At the hearing held on DATE the applicant ’s former wife increased her claim to CARDINAL convertible levs and returned part of the jewellery claimed by the applicant . The court ordered an additional expert report on the value of the jewellery .

The next hearing took place on DATE . The court heard CARDINAL witnesses and admitted in evidence the expert report on the value of the jewellery . The applicant ’s former wife ’s lawyer disputed the expert ’s conclusion and the court ordered a new expert report to be drawn up by CARDINAL experts .

The last hearing before ORG was held on DATE . The court admitted in evidence the report of the CARDINAL experts ordered at the previous hearing . The applicant ’s former wife presented certain documents as evidence . The court also heard the parties’ arguments .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG annulled the donation made by the applicant ’s former wife and ordered the applicant to pay the amount back . The court also disposed of the applicant ’s counter - claim , ordering his former wife to return certain items of jewellery .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . Having noted that he had not paid the requisite fee for filing an appeal , on DATE the court instructed him to rectify this omission . The applicant paid the fee and on CARDINAL DATE the court listed a hearing for DATE .

The hearing before ORG was held on DATE . The court refused the applicant ’s former wife ’s request to adjourn the hearing , admitted in evidence certain documents filed by the applicant and heard argument .

By judgment of DATE ORG partially vacated the first - instance judgment , holding that in view of the amount claimed by the applicant ’s former wife ( CARDINAL convertible levs , equal to BGL CARDINAL at the relevant time ) , the district court had lacked jurisdiction over the matter , the competent court for claims above BGL CARDINAL being the regional court . It upheld the judgment as regards the applicant ’s counter - claim in respect of the jewellery .

The proceedings then resumed at first instance before ORG , but only in respect of the initial claim of the applicant ’s former wife .

The first hearing before ORG was held on DATE . The applicant ’s former wife was represented by a new lawyer . The court ordered an accounting expert report to be prepared on the banking transactions of the applicant and his former wife .

The second hearing took place on DATE . The court admitted in evidence the accounting expert report . Finding that the report was not complete as the bank had not allowed the expert access to all relevant documents , the court ordered the expert to supplement the conclusions and ordered the bank to allow access to all documents . The court also heard CARDINAL witnesses .

The last hearing took place on DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer asked the court to adjourn the case , as ORG of which he was a member had ordered a strike and he could therefore not appear before the court on DATE . The court rejected the request , admitted the supplementary expert report in evidence and heard argument .

On DATE ORG decided in favour of the applicant ’s former wife .

On DATE the applicant appealed . Noting that the requisite court fee had not been paid , the court instructed the applicant to pay it . The applicant did so on DATE , and the case was forwarded to ORG .

A hearing due to take place before ORG on DATE was adjourned because the summons for the applicant ’s former wife had been served on her previous lawyer and not on her current lawyer .

The hearing was held on DATE . The applicant presented CARDINAL document as evidence and his written observations .

By judgment of DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case . It held that the lower court had erred by proceeding at its last hearing in the absence of the applicant ’s lawyer . It also held that the lower court ’s conclusion on the origin of part of the money claimed by the applicant ’s former wife had not been supported by the evidence and instructed that court to gather evidence in that respect . It also instructed the lower court to gather evidence about the applicant ’s former wife ’s animus donandi .

The first hearing in the proceedings on remittal before ORG was held on DATE . On the motion of the applicant ’s lawyer the court ordered an accounting expert report . It also invited the parties to present additional evidence .

The next hearing , which was due to take place on DATE , was adjourned because the expert report was not ready . Since a witness for the applicant ’s former wife was going to be out of the country for DATE , the court decided to schedule the next hearing for a date not earlier than DATE .

The hearing listed for DATE did not take place because the applicant ’s former wife , who was out of the country at that time , had not been correctly summoned .

A hearing was held on DATE . The court admitted in evidence the expert report ordered on DATE , and heard CARDINAL witnesses called by the applicant and CARDINAL witness for the applicant ’s former wife .

By judgment of DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant ’s former wife . It held that the amount in issue was the personal property of the applicant ’s former wife , that she had donated it to him during the marriage and that the applicant was obliged to return it .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal . Finding that the applicant had specified the amount in convertible levs and not in NORP levs , as required under the relevant rules of civil procedure , on DATE the court instructed him to rectify this shortcoming . The applicant did so on DATE . Based on the amount specified by the applicant , the court calculated the requisite fee for filing an appeal , and on DATE invited the applicant to pay it . The applicant paid and on DATE the case file was forwarded to ORG .

The first hearing before ORG was due to take place on DATE , but was adjourned because the applicant ’s lawyer refused to accept the summons as he was no longer in contact with the applicant .

The hearing took place on DATE . The applicant was represented by a new lawyer . The court heard argument .

On DATE ORG , acting as a court of appeal , reversed the lower court ’s judgment as regards the additional amount claimed by the applicant ’s former wife and decided that her action was well - founded only in respect of the amount initially claimed .

On DATE the applicant ’s former wife ’s lawyer lodged a petition for review with a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG .

At a hearing held on DATE the court found that the petition for review , which had been lodged by a lawyer , was not accompanied by a power of attorney . It instructed the applicant ’s former wife ’s lawyer to rectify this omission . On CARDINAL DATE the court , noting that the omission had not been rectified after notification , discontinued the proceedings . As of that date its judgment of DATE became final .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in detention on remand in FAC in connection with an offence unrelated to the present case .

On DATE at TIME the applicant , who was DATE at the time , was arrested by police officers on suspicion of being involved in the armed robbery of a small grocery shop . The police found the applicant while he was asleep in an empty swimming pool near the shop , which had been robbed that night .

On DATE he was examined by a doctor at ORG . His medical report recorded no signs of physical violence on his body , but noted that the applicant was drugged and sleepy . It concluded that there was nothing to prevent the applicant from being taken into custody .

On DATE the applicant was once again examined by a doctor . The medical report described the applicant as sleepy , unresponsive and physically weak . DATE , the police requested the presence of a duty lawyer from ORG for the applicant , who was to be brought before a public prosecutor .

The applicant and his lawyer were both present before the public prosecutor . However , the prosecutor could not take a statement from the applicant as he was asleep . The applicant was then brought before the investigating judge , but he could only stand up with the help of his co - accused . His lawyer maintained that , in the circumstances , it would not be appropriate or lawful to take a statement from the applicant . However , the judge rejected this objection and continued with the interrogation . The judge noted that there were no previous statements made by the applicant to the police or the prosecutor . The applicant occasionally woke up and answered the questions ; he denied that he had committed the robbery . The lawyer repeated that the applicant was not in a fit state to understand the charges against him and that the taking of his statement would violate the law . However , the applicant ’s co - accused accepted the charges . He admitted that he and the applicant had drunk beer and taken tablets before the incident and stolen some chocolates , cigarettes , coca - cola , sausages and biscuits from the shop . The investigating judge remanded the applicant and his co - accused in custody . The applicant was accordingly sent to FAC , where he was kept together with adults .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer challenged the detention before ORG . In her petition , referring to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention , she submitted that the applicant was incapable of understanding the charges against him and that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence as she was unable to communicate with him . She further stated that the applicant was a minor and , according to LAW b ) of LAW on the Rights of the Child , the detention of a minor should be a preventive measure of last resort . She also maintained that LAW ( Law no . MONEY ) , required that the applicant be placed in a hospital or in residential social care , instead of being detained in prison .

On DATE , ORG rejected these objections , having regard to the content of the case file , the nature of the offence attributed to the applicant and the state of the evidence .

On DATE , the public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , accusing the applicant and his co - accused of armed robbery under LAW , for which the minimum sentence was DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG commenced the trial . The applicant was reminded of the statement made to the investigating judge . He accepted its contents , but added that he did not recall anything about the time when it was taken . An eyewitness heard by the court identified the applicant ’s co - accused as the perpetrator . The witness stated that he was living in one of the flats above the shop and that the shopkeeper was his tenant . At TIME on TIME of the incident , he heard noises downstairs and went to check . He saw that the window of the shop ’s door had been broken , and that the applicant ’s collaborator was putting things in bags . He also saw the applicant in the shop . Then , the applicant ’s collaborator pulled a gun on him but the witness grabbed it immediately , whereupon the applicant and his accomplice ran away . The applicant was released pending trial DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery under LAW , instead of armed robbery , noting that the gun used during the incident had been a fake . Accordingly , it sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court , holding that the applicant ’s conviction and sentence should be reviewed following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code on DATE .

The case was remitted to ORG where , according to the information in the case file , the proceedings are apparently still pending .

The recommendation of ORG ( CARDINAL ) , adopted on DATE at the PERSON meeting of ORG , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL LOC under DATE should not be detained in a prison for adults , but in an establishment specially designed for the purpose .

CARDINAL If children are nevertheless exceptionally held in such a prison there shall be special regulations that take account of their status and needs . ...

CARDINAL Where exceptionally children under DATE are detained in a prison for adults the authorities shall ensure that , in addition to the services available to all prisoners , prisoners who are children have access to the social , psychological and educational services , religious care and recreational programmes or equivalents to them that are available to children in the community .

CARDINAL LOC children are detained in a prison they shall be kept in a part of the prison that is separate from that used by adults unless it is considered that this is against the best interests of the child . ”

The recommendation of ORG concerning new ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of juvenile justice ( Rec ( CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , adopted on DATE at the ORG meeting of ORG , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . When , as a last resort , juvenile suspects are remanded in custody , this should not be for DATE before the commencement of the trial . This period can only be extended where a judge not involved in the investigation of the case is satisfied that any delays in proceedings are fully justified by exceptional circumstances .

Where possible , alternatives to remand in custody should be used for juvenile suspects , such as placements with relatives , foster families or other forms of supported accommodation . Custodial remand should never be used as a punishment or form of intimidation or as a substitute for child protection or mental health measures . ”

The recommendation of ORG on social reactions to juvenile delinquency ( no . R ( CARDINAL ) , adopted on CARDINAL DATE at the CARDINALth meeting of ORG , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Recommends the governments of member states to review , if necessary , their legislation and practice with a view : ...

NORP to exclude the remand in custody of minors , apart from exceptional cases of very serious offences committed by older minors ; in these cases , restricting the length of remand in custody and keeping minors apart from adults ; arranging for decisions of this type to be , in principle , ordered after consultation with a welfare department on alternative proposals ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the NORP Social Charter DATE regulates the right of mothers and children to social and economic protection . In that context , ORG noted in its Conclusions XVII-CARDINAL ( GPE ) that young offenders were detained , if arrested , in parts of adult prisons and in the CARDINAL closed detention homes reserved for juveniles and guarded by the gendarmerie . ORG further noted that the length of pre - trial detention was long and the conditions of imprisonment poor .

Article CARDINAL of LAW on the Rights of the Child , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ GPE Parties shall ensure that ...

( b ) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily . The arrest , detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time ;

( c ) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person , and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age . In particular , every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child ’s best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits , save in exceptional circumstances . ”

The relevant part of this text concerning “ juvenile justice ” provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... The fact that detention is not used as a measure of last resort and that cases have been reported of children being held incommunicado for long periods is noted with deep concern . The ORG is also concerned that there are only a small number of juvenile courts and none of them are based in the eastern part of the country . Concern is also expressed at the long periods of pre - trial detention and the poor conditions of imprisonment and at the fact that insufficient education , rehabilitation and reintegration programmes are provided during the detention period .

The ORG recommends that the ORG party continue reviewing the law and practices regarding the juvenile justice system in order to bring it into full compliance with the LAW , in particular articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , as well as with other relevant international standards in this area , such as ORG for ORG ( the Beijing Rules ) and LAW for ORG ( ORG ) , with a view to raising the minimum legal age for criminal responsibility , extending the protection guaranteed by ORG to all children up to DATE and enforcing this law effectively by establishing juvenile courts in every province . In particular , it reminds ORG that juvenile offenders should be dealt with without delay , in order to avoid periods of incommunicado detention , and that pre - trial detention should be used only as a measure of last resort , should be as short as possible and should be no longer than the period prescribed by law . Alternative measures to pre - trial detention should be used whenever possible . ”


HEADLEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The first applicant , Mr Prince PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE . The second applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen , born in DATE who currently lives in GPE .

The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE , and ORG . The respondent Government were represented by Ms. PERSON , ORG .

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

The first applicant claims that he ran a successful record promoting business in GPE , GPE which , he alleges , drew the attention of gangs , who demanded to become involved . When he refused to continue sharing profits with the gang , on DATE the first applicant was shot in the face by gang members and was admitted to hospital suffering with paralysis of the left side of his face . On DATE gang members forced their way into his home in the early morning and shot at the applicant and his girlfriend , PERSON . The first applicant was readmitted to ORG at TIME with multiple gun shot wounds , to the right jaw - bone , the left forearm and right arm , to the right “ axillary fold ” , the tip of the right shoulder and to the right side of his chest . CARDINAL of the bullets intended for him hit PERSON , who was fatally injured and died , aged DATE , on DATE .

The first applicant alleges that he had to be kept under police protection in hospital , and that at CARDINAL point gang members attempted to enter the hospital to kill him , in order to destroy evidence relating to PERSON murder . CARDINAL of the gang members , a cousin of PERSON , was subsequently convicted of a firearms offence and sentenced to a determinate period of imprisonment . According to the first applicant , he has now been released from prison .

The first applicant did not give evidence at the trial . In DATE the first applicant , whose mother is a NORP citizen , entered GPE on DATE medical visa , to allow him to gain treatment for his gunshot injuries . This visa was subsequently extended until DATE .

In DATE the first applicant visited GPE to see his grandfather , who was terminally ill . In DATE he again travelled to GPE , for his grandfather 's funeral . He claims that he was shot at by gang members , and had to return to GPE after a stay of DATE . He has not been back to GPE since .

The first applicant claims he set up a business in the GPE importing clothing from continental LOC . He has been married twice in GPE . On the basis of his first marriage in DATE he was granted , on DATE , leave to remain for DATE . The marriage broke down – although it produced a daughter ( born DATE ) , with whom he still has some contact – and he did not apply for indefinite leave to remain .

The first applicant claims that in DATE he started a relationship with the C. The couple had a child together , R , born on DATE . Although they were married on DATE , it does not appear that their relationship was continuous in the meantime .

On DATE the applicant was joined from GPE by his son PERSON , the second applicant , who was born on DATE , and is the younger son of PERSON . His older brother still lives in GPE .

Upon arriving in GPE the second applicant was given DATE extended leave to remain . The first applicant claims that the second applicant lived with him until he was imprisoned . However , it is not clear who else was living with the first applicant at the time . At the time of his arrest in DATE the first applicant said he was living with a girlfriend by the name of “ PERSON ” .

The first applicant appears to have remained in prison from the time of this arrest in DATE until the time of his trial in DATE . On DATE the first appellant was convicted of conspiracy to import a Class A drug and sentenced to DATE imprisonment and a GBP CARDINAL confiscation order . He had made several trips to and from GPE , CARDINAL of them in the company of a woman who was arrested when re - entering GPE with QUANTITY of cocaine hidden in her vagina . The first applicant had CARDINAL previous convictions , namely CARDINAL counts of assault on a police officer , for which he was sentenced in DATE imprisonment , and CARDINAL offence of affray , for which he was sentenced in DATE to DATE imprisonment .

It is not clear whom the second applicant lived with while the first applicant was in prison . On DATE a person by the name of PERSON made an application for indefinite leave to remain on behalf of the second applicant . In that application she described herself as the second applicant 's “ stepmother ” . On DATE , ORG recorded in a social work assessment that the second applicant was living with a “ family friend ” . However , it is accepted by the Government that by the time of this application to the court , in DATE , the second applicant was living with C and NORP

The trial judge did not recommend that the applicant be deported , but the Secretary of ORG nonetheless , because of the drugs conviction , made a deportation order against him on DATE . The first applicant appealed against this decision and claimed asylum , on the basis that he would risk violence from gang members if returned to GPE . On DATE the Secretary of ORG decided to refuse asylum and to refuse to revoke the deportation order . On DATE the decision was made to give directions for the first applicant 's removal . The first applicant appealed against these decisions under Part CARDINAL of ORG ( see below ) . His appeals were dealt with jointly and refused by an adjudicator on DATE , after a hearing at which the first applicant represented himself . The first applicant did not seek permission to appeal that decision to ORG .

On DATE the ORG set directions for the removal of the first applicant on DATE . The first applicant was nominally released from imprisonment on DATE but was immediately detained by the immigration authorities pending deportation . However , the deportation was stayed pending the outcome of this application and on DATE the first applicant was granted bail on condition that he stay with C.

Around this time the first applicant discovered that C was in a relationship with another man . It was alleged that he made violent threats against this other man and on DATE he was remanded back into custody on charges of possessing an illegal firearm and making unlawful threats . These charges were subsequently dismissed . However , C has since indicated that she no longer wishes to have contact with the first applicant .

When the first applicant returned to prison , in DATE , the second applicant moved in with C 's brother , ORG 's partner and their daughter . He has lived there ever since . S has indicated that the second applicant can stay there “ forever DATE or as long as he wants ” .

The Government have not yet made any decision as to whether or not they intend to remove the second applicant .

The applicants have submitted various reports in relation to the second applicant . A letter from the head teacher of his junior school states that he has slight learning difficulties and would find it difficult to adjust to any further changes in his life . In DATE the second applicant started at secondary school . A letter from his current head teacher , dated DATE , states that the second applicant has behaved aggressively at school . However , according to ORG 's witness statement , dated DATE , the second applicant 's behaviour at school “ stabilised ” after he moved in with ORG 's family in DATE .

CARDINAL reports were prepared in connection with the present application by PERSON , a chartered psychologist . The first report appears to have been based on various false assumptions , such as that the second applicant lived as part of a “ nuclear family ” with the first applicant and C for DATE ( DATE ) .

The second report , dated DATE , contains the following conclusions : ( CARDINAL ) there were CARDINAL consistent factors in the second applicant 's life : his father and his black NORP identity ; ( CARDINAL ) it is in the second applicant 's interests to maintain both ; ( CARDINAL ) the second applicant 's sense of security and family has been maintained by living with S and his partner – “ an extremely positive solution to what could have been an extremely negative situation ” .

Part CARDINAL of ORG ( “ the DATE LAW ) provided that anyone who was the subject of an immigration decision , such as a decision to make or refuse a deportation order or a decision to set removal directions , should have a right of appeal to an adjudicator if they alleged that that decision was in breach of their rights under either ORG ( “ FAC ) or LAW relating to LAW .

The appeal provisions in Part CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act were later repealed by the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act CARDINAL ( “ the DATE Act ” ) . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act brought in new appeal provisions , which did not , however , have effect in relation to any events which took place before DATE . For all such events the appeal provisions under Part CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act continued to have effect .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provides as follows :

“ A party to an appeal to an adjudicator under section DATE or DATE may , with the permission of ORG , appeal to the ORG against the adjudicator 's determination on a point of law . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act DATE ( Commencement No . CARDINAL ) Order DATE ( as amended ) provides as follows :

“ LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act shall apply to a party to an appeal to an adjudicator under LAW which is determined on or after CARDINALth DATE , as it applies to a party to an appeal to an adjudicator under section CARDINAL or CARDINAL . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides that , in determining any question that arises in connection with a Convention right , courts and tribunals must have regard to all relevant case law from this ORG .

In the case of R v ORG ex p ORG ( ( DATE ) EWHC CARDINAL Admin ) , ORG held that , in determining appeals relating to LAW , adjudicators and tribunals were obliged to consider the rights under LAW of the appellant 's family as well as the appellant himself .

ORG and ORG v Secretary of ORG for ORG ( [ DATE ] INLR DATE ) concerned a GPE national , who was given permission to visit GPE for DATE in DATE . DATE he married a NORP citizen and was given indefinite leave to remain . In DATE a son was born to their marriage . In DATE Mr ORG was convicted of being knowingly concerned with the importation of QUANTITY of cocaine worth GBP CARDINAL and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . While in prison he behaved as a model prisoner and it was accepted by the Secretary of ORG that he was unlikely to re - offend . Nonetheless the Secretary of ORG made an order that he be deported , relying in particular on the importance of deportation as a deterrent to actual and prospective drug traffickers . Mr ORG appealed against this decision . In finding against him ORG held that the Secretary of ORG had been entitled to attach importance to his general policy of deporting those convicted of importation of class A drugs in order to protect those resident in GPE from the harmful effect of drugs and , by deterring others , in the interests of preventing crime and disorder .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of storing and transporting drugs and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant started serving his sentence in GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted the applicant ’s request to be transferred to GPE , his country of citizenship and his mother ’s place of residence , to serve the rest of his sentence .

On DATE the applicant ’s request to be transferred to GPE was granted by ORG .

On DATE , following an agreement between the NORP and NORP authorities , the applicant was transferred to GPE .

Following the applicant ’s request for supervisory review of his case , the Presidium of the YuzhnoKazakhstanskiy Regional Court , in its decision of DATE , varied the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by reclassifying the offence and reducing the sentence . In the same decision the court applied the DATE LAW , discharged the applicant from serving the remainder of his sentence and ordered as follows :

“ The convicted prisoner PERSON is to be released from custody forthwith . ”

DATE ORG sent a copy of its decision to the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office , which received it on DATE and , since no information about the place where the applicant was serving his sentence had yet been received from the NORP authorities , launched an inquiry about his location .

On DATE the applicant arrived at correctional facility no . CARDINAL ( penitentiary establishment GPE ) in ORG .

According to the applicant , on DATE , immediately after he had learned of the court decision of DATE , he notified it to the administration of his correctional facility and requested them to expedite his release .

On DATE , after having established the applicant ’s location , the YuzhnoKazakhstanskiy regional prosecutor ’s office sent a copy of the YuzhnoKazakhstanskiy ORG decision of DATE to GPE . According to the Government , the decision was sent to ORG of ORG . According to the applicant , it was sent to ORG correctional facility no . CARDINAL .

According to the ORG , a copy of ORG decision of DATE was received by ORG of ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG , which was located in ORG , after having established the applicant ’s location , forwarded the decision to ORG correctional facility no . CARDINAL , which received it on CARDINAL DATE and forwarded it on DATE to ORG of GPE .

The Prosecutor General ’s Office received the decision on DATE . On DATE a deputy Prosecutor General ordered that the applicant be discharged from serving the remainder of his sentence . DATE , the prosecutor ’s decision was sent to ORG of GPE for execution . On DATE it was received by ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s decision reached correctional facility no . CARDINAL and the applicant was released on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against ORG of GPE and ORG of GPE seeking compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his allegedly unlawful and unfounded detention for DATE after the decision of ORG . By a judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE the applicant ’s action was dismissed . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first - instance court for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined the case anew . It established what the NORP authorities had done in respect of the YuzhnoKazakhstanskiy ORG decision . In particular , it noted that the decision had been received by correctional facility no . CARDINAL from ORG on DATE . It found that ORG on ORG Serving of their Sentences was not applicable to the applicant ’s case as it had not come into force in respect of GPE at the relevant time . It held that ORG had issued the order for the applicant ’s release on DATE by virtue of its competence and relevant regulations , notably the decree of the Presidium of ORG DATE on the Procedure for Execution of Obligations arising for the GPE from ORG in a State of their LAW , signed in GPE on DATE , and instructions of DATE on enforcement of that decree . The court stated that the decision of ORG discharging the applicant from serving the remainder of his sentence had been lawful . It held that there had been no fault on the part of the defendant authorities and that therefore there was no basis to grant the applicant ’s claim for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage . Nor did it find grounds for granting the applicant ’s claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage based on the loss of employment income . It noted that the applicant , who had been employed DATE after his release , had failed to prove that he had been unable to find employment earlier through the fault of the defendant authorities . In rejecting the applicant ’s claims the court relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . It noted , in particular , that ORG had established no unjustified delay on the part of the defendant authorities in executing the NORP court decision . There had thus been no fault on the part of the authorities , and the applicant ’s claims had been rightly dismissed .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the case . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected his application .

Under LAW of LAW , the generally recognised principles and norms of international law and international agreements form part of GPE ’s legal order . International agreements prevail over national statutes in the event of conflict .

The Civil Code of GPE contains the following provisions on liability for damage caused by ORG bodies .

A court may award compensation for non - pecuniary damage ( physical or mental suffering ) to a person who sustained such damage as a result of a violation of his or her personal non - pecuniary rights . In order to determine the amount of compensation for non - pecuniary damage the court must have regard to the extent to which the perpetrator was at fault and the intensity of any mental anguish or physical suffering caused , bearing in mind the individual characteristics of the victim ( LAW ) .

“ Damage caused to an individual or a legal entity as a result of an unlawful act ( failure to act ) of ORG bodies , local self - government bodies or of their officials , including as a result of the issuance of an act of a ORG or self - government body which is contrary to the law or any other legal act , shall be subject to compensation . The damage shall be compensated for at the expense , respectively , of the treasury of GPE , the treasury of the subject of GPE or the treasury of the municipal authority . ”

“ CARDINAL . Damage caused to an individual as a result of his or her wrongful conviction or unlawful criminal prosecution , or the unlawful application , as a measure of restraint , of remand in custody or of a written undertaking not to leave a specified place , or the unlawful imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of arrest or corrective labour , shall be compensated for in full at the expense of the treasury of GPE and in certain cases , stipulated by law , at the expense of the treasury of the subject of GPE or of the municipal authority , regardless of the fault of the officials of agencies of inquiry or preliminary investigation , prosecutor ’s offices or courts in the procedure established by law .

Damage caused to an individual or a legal entity as a result of the unlawful activity of agencies of inquiry or preliminary investigation or prosecutor ’s offices , which has not entailed the consequences specified in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article , shall be compensated for on the grounds and according to the procedure provided for by LAW ... ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW authorises certain ORG financial authorities to act on behalf of the respective treasury in cases where the ORG has been found liable for damages . Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code states , in particular , that non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for irrespective of any award for pecuniary damage .

Under LAW ( signed in GPE on DATE , entered into force on DATE in respect of GPE and on DATE in respect of GPE ) , if an authority which receives another contracting ORG ’s request for legal assistance is not competent to deal with the request , it has to forward the request to the relevant competent authority . An authority which executes such a request normally has to apply the legislation of its own country .

Under Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , in force at the material time , the ORG ’s mail was to be delivered with priority . Under Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , in force at the material time , the ORG ’s mail was to be delivered on DATE of its arrival throughout DATE in question . The statutory time - limit for the postal delivery of normal letters between GPE and ORG was DATE .


KUDUMIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND SERBIA AND REMENOVIĆ AND MAŠOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are citizens of GPE and GPE who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , and live in GPE ( the first applicant ) and GPE ( the second and third applicants ) .

The first and third applicants , who had been granted legal aid , were represented before ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .

The applicants served in the LAW , the armed forces of the former ORG ( “ the SFRY ” ) and retired before DATE .

Their military pensions were assessed according to their rank and DATE of service , and were paid from ORG in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) . Payments from that fund to JNA pensioners living in what is today GPE ( “ the Federation ” ) came to an end shortly after the outbreak of the DATE - CARDINAL war .

From that time until LAW ( see below ) , it was unclear who was responsible for the payment of JNA pensions . However , in DATE GPE issued a decree establishing the right of JNA pensioners to receive pension from what later became GPE ( " LAW " ) in an amount corresponding to PERCENT of what would have been their JNA pensions . That provision was later incorporated in ORG DATE , which entered into force on DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

On DATE GPE , GPE , GPE ( succeeded in DATE by GPE ) , the former GPE and GPE signed LAW ( " LAW " ) , which entered into force on DATE . Under Annex E each successor ORG assumed responsibility for the regular payment of pensions to their citizens who had been civil or military employees of the former SFRY , irrespective of their current residence , if those pensions were financed from federal funds .

NORP The fundamental rights of workers in the former SFRY with regard to pensions and social security were established in LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . That constitutional provision was implemented through ORG .

Regulation of the pension system beyond the rules established in the SFRY law was the responsibility of the GPE , so each republic had its own pension legislation and public pension fund . In GPE pensions were governed by ORG . All employees , except for JNA personnel , paid into the pension fund of their republic of residence . This applied also to employees of the federal ministries and agencies . The pension funds in the republics worked closely together . If an individual worked and contributed to a pension fund in CARDINAL republic , he or she could choose to retire in a second republic and still receive his or her pension from the first republic ’s pension fund through the distribution system of the second republic . If an individual lived and worked , and therefore paid his contributions , in CARDINAL republic throughout his working life , upon retirement he was entitled to receive his pension from the fund to which he had contributed the most .

NORP The pension rights of military personnel were regulated and secured through the federal authorities ( LAW . JNA military personnel paid their contributions to and received their pensions from ORG . This was the only pension fund existing at federal level .

The Military Pension and Disability Insurance Act DATE regulated the specific aspects of military pensions . It provided for several mechanisms which rendered the treatment of JNA military pensioners more favourable than that of other groups . For example , in determining their entitlement to a pension , the Act generally credited JNA pensioners with DATE of service for DATE of actual service . Moreover , the amount of pension was based on the salary of DATE in active service , while for other groups it was based on the average salary of DATE with the highest income .

Pursuant to LAW DATE LAW was transformed into ORG ( succeeded in DATE by GPE ; " ORG " ) . Under this Act ORG was supposed to continue the payment of JNA pensions . It is unclear , however , how that duty was discharged in practice ( whether residence in GPE and/or non - residence in CARDINAL of the former SFRY republics was a condition for those payments ) . However , ORG and , later , ORG continued to pay pensions to JNA pensioners living in what is DATE the PERSON throughout the DATE - CARDINAL war and afterwards . It would appear that this arrangement was based on an ad hoc agreement between ORG and GPE .

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

NORP The applicant was in active military service in the JNA until DATE , when he retired . He received his pension from ORG until DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant started receiving pension from what later became ORG , in an amount corresponding to PERCENT of what his JNA pension would have been .

At the applicant ’s request , on DATE ORG issued a decision terminating the payment of the applicant ’s pension on the basis that he was receiving payments from ORG . It was confirmed that the applicant received his last pension from ORG in DATE .

On several occasions the applicant went to ORG and asked about the full payment of his military pension . Each time he was informed that his right to a pension had been established by ORG and that , therefore , he could not make any direct claims against ORG , which only provided payment after ORG had stopped paying his pension .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex DATE LAW ) about the impugned situation . On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint ( together with those of CARDINAL other JNA pensioners ; see decision CARDINAL . CH/CARDINAL/CARDINAL et al ) as manifestly ill - founded , in line with its established case - law concerning JNA pensioners ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to clarify the status of JNA pensioners after the entry into force of LAW . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it had taken steps to implement LAW , together with ORG of GPE . However , it did not provide any further information on the action taken .

On DATE the applicant sought the same information from ORG of GPE , which transferred his request to ORG . On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that it did not have the power to apply directly the provisions of LAW and that , in the absence of new legislation on pensions , it would continue to apply the provisions of ORG DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant that all legislation concerning the pension system was made at Entity level ( each of ORG being an “ Entity ” ) .

The applicant was in active military service in the LAW until DATE , when he retired . He received his pension from ORG until DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant started receiving pension from what later became ORG in an amount corresponding to PERCENT of what his JNA pension would have been .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to pay his military pension . On DATE ORG responded that his right to a pension had been established by ORG and that , therefore , he could not make any direct claims against ORG , which only provided payment after ORG had stopped paying his pension .

On an unknown date in DATE the applicant complained to ORG . On DATE ORG ( a legal successor of ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s complaint ( together with those of CARDINAL other JNA pensioners ; see decision nos . CH/CARDINAL/CARDINAL et al ) as manifestly ill - founded , in line with its established case - law concerning JNA pensioners ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG of GPE and GPE about the implementation of LAW concerning JNA pensions . ORG forwarded the request to ORG , which in turn informed the applicant on DATE that it did not have the power to apply directly the provisions of LAW and that in the absence of new legislation on pensions it would continue to apply the provisions of ORG DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG ( " ORG " ) against ORG , seeking the payment of his military pension . On DATE ORG rejected his claim as unfounded . That decision was upheld on appeal by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG , requesting that DATE of service in the JNA be included in his pension records . On DATE ORG rejected his request . It explained that the applicant was registered with ORG , which established his right to a pension . That decision was upheld on appeal by the competent second - instance administrative body and ORG on DATE and DATE , respectively .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to pay his military pension in accordance with Annex E to LAW . On DATE the ORG informed him that it did not have the power to apply directly the provisions of LAW and that , in the absence of new legislation on pensions , it would continue to apply the provisions of ORG DATE .

On DATE ORG and ORG informed the applicant that under LAW GPE , pension systems were legislated at Entity level and that , accordingly , ORG had adopted a decision on DATE establishing that the implementation of Annex E to LAW would be the responsibility of the Entities’ pension funds . ORG also stated that attempts had been made to resolve that issue at ORG level , but that the ORG had been unwilling to transfer pension matters to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant , together with CARDINAL other JNA pensioners , lodged an appeal before ORG , alleging that the ORG had failed to respect its obligation under LAW in violation of LAW , and LAW no . CARDINAL to the Convention .

In its observations submitted to ORG on DATE , ORG argued that Annex E did not specify the exact amount of pension to be paid to JNA pensioners . Consequently , by paying certain amounts under LAW DATE , ORG had complied with its obligation to JNA pensioners .

In their observations submitted to ORG on DATE , ORG argued that as CARDINAL of ORG it could not be held responsible for the implementation of LAW because the signatory party to it was GPE . They further argued that they had nevertheless taken steps in DATE to adjust the existing legislation in line with PERSON In particular , section CARDINAL of ORG had been amended so that JNA pensioners could receive payments from ORG irrespective of their place of residence and that those payments would be funded from the Entity budget ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Government also argued that Annex E did not define the amount of JNA pensions to be paid by the successor GPE .

In his observations of DATE the Attorney General of GPE maintained that it was not in dispute that JNA pensioners’ right to a pension had been established under PERSON However , the question of the amount of pension fell to be regulated by the legislation of the ORG and not by LAW . He further proposed that the appeal be dismissed on non - exhaustion grounds as the plaintiffs had failed to use domestic remedies in the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on non - exhaustion grounds , holding that domestic remedies ( an appeal against the " silence of the administration " ) had not been exhausted in the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG " ) for extraordinary judicial review of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On CARDINAL DATE ORG accepted the request , amended the decision of ORG of DATE by quashing the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE , and remitted the case to ORG for a re - trial . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request . On DATE he appealed against that decision . It would appear that those proceedings are still pending .

IV . RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

The LAW of GPE ( Annex CARDINAL to ORG for Peace ) entered into force on DATE . In accordance with LAW , GPE and GPE consists of QUANTITY Entities : ORG and PERSON .

LAW establishes the matters that are the responsibility of the institutions of GPE . It also provides that all governmental functions and powers not expressly assigned in the LAW to the institutions of GPE will be those of the Entities . The pension system is not among the matters listed in that Article .

Under LAW ( a ) of LAW , the Entities have the right to establish special parallel relationships with the neighbouring GPE consistent with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of GPE .

Section CARDINAL of ORG DATE of the Federation , which entered into force on DATE , provides that JNA pensioners who were citizens of GPE and GPE and resident in the GPE would receive pension in an amount corresponding to PERCENT of what their JNA pensions would have been . Section CARDINAL was amended on CARDINAL DATE so that JNA pensioners could receive payments from ORG irrespective of their place of residence , and that those payments would be funded from the Entity budget .

ORG delivered its first decision concerning JNA pensioners on DATE ( see PERSON and others , nos . PERSON . The Chamber held that the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention had not been violated and that they had not been discriminated against in the enjoyment of their right to social security under LAW .

The reasons were set out in the decision , the relevant part of which reads as follows :

“ The ORG notes that the applicants have not paid any contributions to the ORG in GPE , nor to any other pension fund in GPE or in the Federation . They had no legal relationship with the PIO BiH before the issuing of the DATE Decree on Pension and ORG during the State of War or Immediate Threat of War . Moreover , the competent authorities of the Federation do not have access to the employment record of the former JNA personnel , so they would not be in a position to determine the entitlement of these pensioners and the amount to which they are entitled under provisions DATE different from Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL – of ORG .

The ORG concludes that the applicants have no claims against the ORG or against the GPE beyond those attributed to them by the DATE Decree and CARDINAL Act which could be regarded as a possession under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . The applicants’ claim against ORG , which is not at issue before the ORG , appears to remain untouched by the above - mentioned legislation . Accordingly , the ORG concludes that the applications do not reveal any interference with the applicants’ possessions by the GPE and , accordingly , do not reveal a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

In the light of these considerations , the ORG concludes that the difference in treatment between JNA pensioners on the one hand and pensioners of the ORG of GPE and the ORG of the Federation on the other hand , including former JNA members who served in those armed forces , has an objective justification in that the members of the second group are former soldiers of the armed forces of the country or government whose pension fund is paying their pensions . As the applicants still receive a pension that is higher than the average pension paid by ORG , the ORG does not find that the Federation government exceeded its margin of appreciation in not extending the favourable treatment granted to its own pensioners to the JNA pensioners . The ORG thus considers that there is no discrimination of the applicants in the enjoyment of the right to social security in comparison with the military pensioners of either the ORG of GPE or ORG . "

On DATE ORG delivered its decision in the case of PERSON and CARDINAL other JNA pensioners ( no . CH/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It held that in ratifying LAW on DATE , GPE had assumed responsibility for the payment of JNA pensions . However , since the Succession Agreeement was not in force at the time , the applicants could not have had a claim against GPE that would constitute a protected possession within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL . The ORG went further to note that GPE and/or the GPE would have to enact legislation in order to make the obligation resulting from LAW operative and enforceable , once it entered into force .

The Agreement on Succession Issues was the culmination of DATE of intermittent negotiations under the auspices of ORG on the former GPE and ORG ( appointed pursuant to LAW to ORG for Peace ) . It entered into force between GPE and GPE , GPE , GPE ( succeeded in DATE by GPE ) , the former GPE and GPE on DATE . LAW to the LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

" Each State shall assume responsibility for and regularly pay pensions which are due to its citizens who were civil or military servants of the SFRY irrespective of where they are resident or domiciled , if those pensions were funded from the federal budget or other federal resources of the SFRY ... "