Preliminary objections dismissed (victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, six month period);Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Inadmissible under Art. 7;Inadmissible under Art. 14;Inadmissible under Art. 17;Just satisfaction reserved

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

Until DATE the applicants all lived in GPE , a village of NORP district in GPE , in the then state - of - emergency region of GPE .

The applicants PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( applications nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE and CARDINAL respectively ) owned houses and land in NORP , whereas the other applicants cultivated land and lived in the houses owned by their fathers .

In particular , ORG is the son of PERSON ( applications ORG . ORG and CARDINAL respectively ) .

PERSON , ORG and ORG are the sons of PERSON ( applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) .

PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) cultivated the land owned by his father PERSON .

PERSON and PERSON are brothers ( applications nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL respectively ) . They used the property owned by their father PERSON .

PERSON is the son of ORG ( applications nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) .

ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) cultivated the land owned by his father PERSON .

Boydaş village may be described as an area of dispersed hamlets and houses spread over mountainous terrain , where there is insufficient land suitable for agriculture . For administrative purposes the village was regarded as being in the NORP district . An extended patriarchal family system prevailed in the region , where there were no large landowners but generally small family farms . These usually took the form of livestock farms ( sheep , goats and beekeeping ) revolving around the grandfather or father and run by their married children . The applicants earned their living by farming , in particular stockbreeding , land cultivation , tree felling and the sale of timber , as did their fellow villagers .

NORP In DATE , terrorist activity was a major concern in this area . Since DATE a violent conflict had been going on in the region between the security forces and sections of the NORP population in favour of NORP autonomy , in particular members of the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) . This resulted in the displacement of many people from in and around GPE either because of the difficulty of life in the remote mountainous area or because of the security situation .

The facts of the case , in particular the circumstances of the applicants’ and the denial of access to their property in GPE , are disputed .

NORP In DATE the inhabitants of NORP were forcibly evicted from their village by security forces on account of the disturbances in the region . The security forces also destroyed the LOC houses with a view to forcing them to leave the village . The applicants and their families thus moved to safer areas , namely to ORG and GPE where they currently live in poor conditions .

DATE and DATE the applicants petitioned various administrative authorities , namely the offices of the Prime Minister , the Governor of the state - of - emergency region , the NORP Governor and the GPE District Governor , complaining about the forced evacuation of their village by the security forces . They also requested permission to return to their village and to use their property .

Although the ORG petitions were received by the authorities , no response was given to the applicants , except the letters in reply sent to PERSON , PERSON , GPE and ORG , within DATE prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the GPE Governor of GPE replied to PERSON petition dated DATE and stated the following :

“ The Project ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation in ORG and LOC - eastern ORG is developed by the LOC - eastern ORG ( GAP Bölge Kalkındırma İdaresi Başkanlığı ) . It aims to facilitate the resettlement of any inhabitants who unwillingly left their land due to various reasons , particularly terrorist incidents and who now intend to return to secure collective settlement units , since the number of terrorist incidents has decreased in the region . The ORG also aims at creating sustainable living standards in the re - settlement areas .

In this context , your petition has been taken into consideration . ”

By letters of DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , the stateofemergency office attached to the NORP Governor ’s office stated the following in response to the petitions submitted by PERSON , GPE and ORG :

“ Return to GPE is forbidden for security reasons . However , you can return and reside in PERSON , Karaca , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON villages .

Furthermore , your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Since DATE the ORG terrorist organization waged a vicious and deadly campaign against ORG with a view to separating a part of its territory and setting up a NORP State . The terrorist campaign carried out by the ORG focused on the south - east provinces of GPE and aimed at destabilizing the region morally and economically as well as coercing the innocent population in the area to join the terrorist organisation . Those who refused to join the terrorist organisation were intimidated with random killings and village massacres . In this connection , DATE , CARDINAL incidents occurred causing the death of CARDINAL people and the wounding of CARDINAL .

NORP This terrorist campaign resulted in a drastic movement of population from the area to more secure cities and areas of the country . Thus , the inhabitants of the villages and hamlets in the region left their homes owing to the terrorist threat by the ORG .

NORP However , a number of settlements might have been evacuated by the local authorities to ensure the safety of the population as a precaution . According to the official figures , the number of people internally displaced on account of the terrorism is CARDINAL . This figure corresponds to the evacuation of CARDINAL houses located in CARDINAL villages and CARDINAL hamlets .

The applicants were residents of GPE . The official records indicate that the inhabitants of NORP evacuated the village because of the ORG intimidation . They were not forced to leave the village by the security forces .

Mr PERSON stated that he had been the mayor of GPE since DATE . He lived in the NORP district for DATE following the forced evacuation of the village in DATE . He is currently living in GPE . Mr PERSON explained that PERSON was a forest village with oak trees and pastures around it . Since the village did not have sufficient land for agriculture , the inhabitants earned their living mainly from stock breeding and treefelling .

As to the property owned by the applicants in GPE , the mayor gave the following information :

( i ) PERSON had land , a house , a barn and a sheep pen as well as approximately CARDINAL head of small livestock and cattle in the GPE hamlet of GPE ;

( ii ) ORG was cultivating a number of plots of land registered in the name of his father . He owned a house , a sheep pen , a barn and a number of animals ;

( iii ) PERSON was using CARDINAL plots of land adding up to CARDINAL dönüm ( about CARDINAL mCARDINAL ) in the north and west of GPE hamlet . He had small livestock and a number of animals ;

( iv ) PERSON had a house , a sheep pen , a barn and a plot of land of around CARDINAL dönüm in GPE hamlet . He had CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL cattle ;

( v ) PERSON was using , along with his father , CARDINAL plots of land adding up to CARDINAL to CARDINAL dönüm in the north of GPE . He also had a flock of small livestock together with his father ;

( vi ) PERSON was using some leased plots of land . He further had , together with his father , a flock of CARDINAL head of small livestock ;

( vii ) PERSON was cultivating a plot of land , approximately twohundred dönüm , owned by his father PERSON , in the Dereköy hamlet of GPE . He also had CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL cattle ;

( viii ) PERSON was cultivating a plot of land , approximately twohundred dönüm , along with his father PERSON . He and his father also had CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL cattle ;

( ix ) PERSON and his siblings were cultivating a plot of land , approximately twohundred dönüm , which they had inherited from their father in the hamlet of GPE . He had CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL cattle ;

( x ) PERSON was cultivating a plot of land owned by his father PERSON . He had a house , a barn , a sheep pen and CARDINAL head of small livestock in GPE hamlet ;

( xi ) PERSON had a few plots of land adding up to CARDINAL dönüm in total in the east of GPE and CARDINAL head of small livestock as well as CARDINAL head of cattle ;

( xii ) ORG and his father PERSON were cultivating the land owned by the latter in GPE hamlet . ORG also had a separate house , a barn , a sheep pen and CARDINAL head of small livestock as well as CARDINAL cattle ;

( xiii ) PERSON is the son of PERSON , and they were cultivating the land and feeding the animals mentioned above ( PERSON ) ;

( xiv ) PERSON had a house , a barn and a sheep pen in GPE hamlet . He also had CARDINAL plots of land , adding CARDINAL dönüm , and CARDINAL head of small livestock as well as CARDINAL cattle ;

( xv ) ORG is the son of PERSON . He was cultivating CARDINAL plots of land , CARDINAL to CARDINAL dönüm , which he inherited from his grandfather and father in the GPE hamlet of GPE . He had CARDINAL to CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL cattle .

Following their visit to GPE on DATE , the applicants observed the following :

“ We are the villagers who lived in GPE of the NORP district , but who had to leave since the village was forcibly evacuated . We are currently residing in the NORP district . Although we were informed that we could return to our village , nobody is living there at the moment because there are no buildings to live in , no roads , no water , no electricity , no education or health service . ”

This document was prepared by CARDINAL gendarmes from the GPE gendarmerie command and undersigned by CARDINAL villagers from Cevizlidere in the GPE district , which is the neighbouring town of GPE . It contained the observations of the signatories on the current state of Cevizlidere and referred to the fact that everyone registered in the village was allowed to leave and enter the village freely up to that date , provided that the gendarmerie station was informed of those movements .

This identity card was issued by the GPE district gendarmerie command for a resident of the Cevizlidere village . It contains a statement that the identity card was issued for villagers temporarily resident in Cevizlidere .

This document pertains to the military public prosecutor ’s decision that he did not have jurisdiction in relation to CARDINAL incidents which concerned the disappearance and killing of certain individuals by unknown persons in the GPE and GPE districts of the province of GPE .

This petition contains the complaints of the mayors about the burning of their villages and forced eviction of the inhabitants by the security forces . The mayors further allege that security forces apply an extensive embargo on foodstuffs and essential commodities in the region . They ask the Prime Minister to take necessary measures with a view to allowing the inhabitants of the villages to return to their homes and land . They also request that the damage they suffered as a result of the destruction of property and forced displacement be compensated , that economic aid be provided and that the land mines in the region be cleared .

The above - listed documents pertain to the inability of the authorities to conduct an on - site investigation into an allegation of destruction of property in GPE village in the GPE district on account of the lack of security in the area in question .

NORP This report was prepared by ORG composed of CARDINAL members of parliament . According to the report , in DATE and DATE the inhabitants of CARDINAL villages and CARDINAL hamlets were evicted and forced to move to other regions of the country ( p. CARDINAL ) . The number of people evicted from CARDINAL villages and CARDINAL hamlets in the province of GPE , which includes GPE , was estimated to be around CARDINAL ( p. CARDINAL ) .

The report includes the statements given by PERSON , a member of ORG of GPE ( PERSON ) , who claimed that MONEY of the villages had been evacuated by the ORG authorities and MONEY by terrorists ( p. CARDINAL ) .

The report also refers to ORG GPE , which includes a chapter on evacuated villages and immigrants , prepared and submitted to ORG in DATE by Mr PERSON , the chair of ORG . It appears from this report that the mayors of the evacuated villages in the GPE and NORP districts of NORP met in GPE on DATE . They noted that CARDINAL out of CARDINAL villages and hamlets attached to GPE had been evacuated and that MONEY of the evacuated villages had been burned . The mayors further pointed out that the inhabitants of the region faced starvation on account of the food embargo and that the restrictions imposed by the authorities on access to the high ground in the region had struck stock - breeding , which was the sole source of income of the inhabitants of the region . It was further noted in ORG GPE that in DATE the practice of evacuation of villages and hamlets had continued . Many houses in the villages were either destroyed or made uninhabitable . People were forced to emigrate from the region . Pressure was exerted on the inhabitants until they left their villages . In DATE there was practically no village or hamlet inhabited except those whose inhabitants agreed to become village guards .

The report further refers to the speech delivered at ORG by Mr PERSON , a deputy from Şırnak , on DATE on the question of the evacuated villages . Mr Yıldırım stated , among other assertions , that the villages were evacuated either by the ORG , in order to intimidate those who opposed it , or by the authorities since they were unable to protect the villages or since the inhabitants of the villages refused to become village guards or were suspected of having aided the ORG ( p. CARDINAL ) .

In conclusion , it was recommended in the report that the inhabitants of the settlement units should either be re - housed in the provinces or districts or central villages , that those who wanted to return should not be rehoused in hamlets but in central villages which were close to the area where they used to live and that necessary economic measures should be taken with a view to providing employment to the inhabitants of the region while priority was being given to the immigrants ( p. CARDINAL ) .

ORG stressed in ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL , in so far as relevant , that an effective remedy entailed , under LAW , a thorough and effective investigation into alleged abuses with a view to the identification of and the punishment of those responsible , as well as effective access by the complainant to the investigative procedure . ORG also expressed its regrets that repeated demands for the reform of NORP criminal procedure to enable an independent criminal investigation to be conducted without prior approval by the ORG ’s prefects had not yet been met . It therefore urged GPE to accelerate without delay the reform of its system of criminal prosecution for abuses by members of the security forces , in particular by abolishing all restrictions on the ORG competence to conduct criminal investigations against ORG officials , by reforming the prosecutor ’s office and by establishing sufficiently deterrent minimum prison sentences for persons found guilty of grave abuses such as torture and ill - treatment .

In response to ORG Affairs’ letter of DATE which contained a request for information as to whether it was possible for the applicants to return to GPE in the NORP district of GPE , PERSON , a gendarmerie senior colonel , stated , on behalf of the Gendarmerie General Commander , that there was no obstacle to the return of the citizens to their homes in GPE .

The following can be observed from the land and aerial views of GPE on DATE : The village was located in steep terrain and was completely covered by snow . The houses , which were spread over the mountainous area , seem to have been constructed out of stones , wood , adobe and mud . The houses do not have roofs . They seem to have collapsed due to hard DATE conditions and lack of maintenance . However , the public buildings , such as the school , are intact since they seem to have been constructed of cement and stones . Access to the village seemed to be impossible on account of the lack of usable roads and the snow . Electricity and telephone supply posts are still intact , though the wires need to be repaired .

In response to a question concerning the content , cost and the budget earmarked for DATE of the return to village and rehabilitation project , the then ORG Minister in charge of ORG stated , inter alia , the following at the parliamentary session on DATE :

“ The aim of the project is to resettle the people who have either left or been evicted from villages , hamlets and neighbourhoods in east or south - east GPE . The project also aims at reviving these settlement units by ensuring the return of their former inhabitants . MONEY have been earmarked in the budget for DATE in respect of ORG . This fund can also be used for DATE . The funds to be used in DATE for the project have been earmarked by ORG ( PERSON ) and included in the budget of ORG . The project will be implemented by ORG . ”

At the parliamentary session of DATE , PERSON , the then Minister of the ORG , reported on the return to village and rehabilitation project . He noted that the project was being implemented in east - and south - east GPE and that sufficient funds had been earmarked in the budget for CARDINAL provinces under the state - of - emergency rule . The Minister pointed out that the governor of the state of emergency region , of his own motion , had been supplying cement , iron and bricks to those who voluntarily sought to return to their former settlement units . The Minister further noted that CARDINAL persons had returned to their homes in CARDINAL villages and CARDINAL hamlets . As regards the investments to be made to facilitate the return of the villagers , he explained that priority had been given to central villages which would provide services to sub - settlement units in east and south - east GPE .

At the parliamentary session of DATE Mr PERSON ORG , a deputy for the province of PERSON , submitted that CARDINAL people had been forcibly displaced and that their houses had been destroyed . He welcomed however the termination by the authorities of the food embargo imposed on the inhabitants of the region ( east and south - east GPE ) . He pointed out that the return of the displaced persons to their homes would make an important contribution to the improvement of the NORP economy . In response to Mr ORG ’s comments , the Minister of the ORG provided information on implementation of the return to village and rehabilitation project .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE parliament debated the issue of displaced persons and implementation of the return to village and rehabilitation project . At the parliamentary session on the latter date , Mr ORG , a deputy for GPE , stated that since DATE permission had been issued by the authorities for the return of CARDINAL people to their homes in the CARDINAL provinces where emergency rule was in force .

Following an on - site visit carried out by members of the ORG , a report was issued on developments in GPE . The ORG noted , inter alia , that CARDINAL houses had been built and given to those in need of shelter in the NORP district within the context of the return to village and rehabilitation project . ORG recommended that implementation of the latter project be accelerated , that the villagers be allowed to return and that economic aid be supplied to those who wanted to return .

CARDINAL meetings were held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE at the Secretariat General for ORG , attended by representatives of the ORG , ORG and ORG . The participants considered the situation of the internally displaced persons and examined the return to village and rehabilitation project . Following these meetings , a technical working group was set up , which held CARDINAL meetings to discuss various related issues .

This document , prepared in DATE by the Presidency of ORG attached to ORG , sets out the content of the project , the work carried out within the context of this project , the principles of the project and the investments made and aid provided in accordance with the project . It appears from this document , in so far as relevant , that according to the figures of DATE left GPE , CARDINAL people submitted applications for return and CARDINAL of them were allowed to return by the authorities . The authorities provided monetary aid and aid in kind with the sums of MONEY ( TRL ) and TRL CARDINAL respectively for the province of GPE .

This document , submitted by ORG attached to the Prime Minister ’s office , contains information on the measures taken by the authorities to resettle displaced persons in GPE , PERSON , Batman , PERSON and PERSON .

This sub - project was prepared , by ORG attached to the Prime Minister ’s office , to ensure the return of displaced persons to their former settlement units within a short time , to better use economic resources and to avoid any possible problems regarding the services to be provided to the inhabitants . It describes the principles to be followed in the implementation of the return to village and rehabilitation project .

This document indicates that the provinces of GPE , PERSON , Batman , PERSON and PERSON received monetary aid totalling GPE CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) DATE within the context of the return to village and rehabilitation project . It was noted that MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) were allocated for DATE for the abovementioned provinces .

In a case brought by PERSON , who claimed that he had abandoned his village due to the terror incidents , that he had not been able to return to his village since DATE on account of the lack of security and that he had suffered damage on account of not being able to use his property , ORG awarded compensation ( decision no . CARDINAL , on file no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Relying on the “ social risk principle ” the latter reasoned that the damage sustained by the plaintiff must be compensated without the establishment of a “ causal link ” and that it should be shared by society as a whole since the administration had failed in its task of preventing the terror incidents .

In an appeal case lodged with ORG ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , on file no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) against the judgment rendered by ORG , the appellant , PERSON PERSON , alleged that he had left his village in the province of Ağrı on account of the terror incidents and of the lack of security and that he had suffered damage because he had not been able to use his property since DATE .

ORG acceded to the plaintiff ’s request and overruled the first - instance court ’s judgment . The former court noted that the plaintiff had left his village owing to the terrorist incidents and not at the request or by the instructions of the administration . On that account , it considered that , even if the damage sustained by the plaintiff could not be ascribed to the administration and though there was no “ causal link ” , the administration was liable since it had failed to prevent terrorist incidents and maintain security .

The Government submitted a copy of an application form for return to village , filled in by the applicant Mr PERSON . This form contains information on the applicant ’s identity and family situation , his education level , the village he left , settlement unit he wants to return to and a query as to whether he has suffered any damage on account of the terrorism and if so , how .

In his application form filed with the GPE District Governor ’s office , Mr PERSON noted that he wanted to return to ORG and that he had left his village due to the terrorism . He further noted that his house had been burned , that his fields had been damaged and that he wanted to return on account of economic difficulties . A similar form was also filled in by a certain PERSON

It appears from the records of ORG that the applicants Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON received monetary aid or aid in kind , such as food , medicine and heating supplies , DATE . The aid received by the applicants was TRL CARDINAL and GPE CARDINAL respectively .

Mr PERSON had also requested aid , but the authorities could not supply it since he was out of town .

It also transpires from other documents that some of the villagers of the NORP district were given beehives , sheep or cows to provide a source of income .

These documents give detailed information on the personal state of each of the applicants .

The Government submitted documents entitled “ Personal information form for the inhabitants of GPE who filed an application with the ORG ” in respect of each of the applicants . These documents contained detailed information on the personal situation of the applicants , namely their father ’s name , date of birth , village , the amount they had declared for tax for DATE and the immovable property registered with their title .

DATE Mr PERSON , the rapporteur of ORG , established by ORG of ORG , carried out a fact - finding visit to GPE concerning the “ humanitarian situation of the displaced NORP population in GPE ” . Mr PERSON prepared a report based on the information gathered from a number of sources , including his visit , official statements by the NORP authorities and information received from local and international non - governmental organisations , as well as international governmental organisations .

NORP In this report , PERSON drew attention to the controversy concerning the figures for displaced persons . The NORP authorities’ official figure for “ evacuated persons ” amounts to QUANTITY originating from CARDINAL villages at DATE , whereas credible international estimates concerning the population displaced as a result of the conflict in south - east GPE range CARDINAL by DATE . As to the cause of the movement of the population , the NORP authorities maintained that the movement was not caused by the violence in the region alone . They contended that economic factors also accounted for the “ migration ” . The report , recognising the situation of internal displacement due to the conflict in the region , confirmed the ORG ’s stand point . However , it pointed out that there was no doubt that there had been a major displacement and migration to towns affecting those caught in the crossfire of the conflict : on the one hand NORP security forces had targeted villages suspected of supporting the ORG . On the other hand the ORG had assassinated inhabitants of the villages “ collaborating ” with the ORG authorities ( i.e. belonging to the village guards system ) or refusing to support the ORG . This vicious circle of violence had forced many people to flee their homes .

Mr PERSON pointed to the failure of ORG to provide emergency assistance to people forcibly displaced in the south - east , including persons displaced directly as a result of the actions of the security forces . He further underlined the failure of the Government to provide a sanitary environment , housing , health care and employment to the internally displaced population .

As to the prospects for the future , Mr PERSON observed that the respondent Government had started developing return and rehabilitation projects DATE . However , the first returns had occurred in DATE , as the region had not been secure before the latter date . Despite obvious improvements , security remained the main concern conditioning mass return movements . On the one hand , the authorities felt reluctant to allow for a large influx of returnees fearing the return of ORG militants . For that reason , they scrutinize every application and did not authorize returns to certain areas . On the other hand , the displaced population was in most cases unable to return without state financial or subsistence assistance and sometimes reluctant because of fresh memory of the atrocities committed in the past . Nevertheless , ORG ( ORG ) , which is a comprehensive development programme aimed at the ending of the disparities between this region and the rest of the country , financed a number of projects concerning the return and resettlement of displaced persons . Among them was the “ town - villages project ” , which , through the construction of centralised villages , had allowed CARDINAL displaced persons to return to their region . According to the official figures , CARDINAL persons had returned to CARDINAL villages up to DATE . Even so , a number of human rights organisations were critical of the ORG ’s efforts since the application forms for those who wished to return included a question concerning the reason for leaving the village . According to these organisations , displaced persons were not allowed to return unless they gave the actions of the ORG as a reason . Furthermore , there had been allegations that return was authorised only to the villages within the village guard system .

Mr PERSON concluded with satisfaction that the humanitarian situation in the region had progressed in relation to the situation presented in the last report of ORG ; although the aims of provision of full security for mass returns and taking measures for revitalisation of the economy were still to be achieved . He made recommendations to ORG concerning a number of issues , which constituted the basis for Recommendation DATE ) of ORG of ORG .

On DATE ORG of ORG adopted Recommendation DATE ) on the “ humanitarian situation of the displaced NORP population in GPE ” . ORG urged GPE to take the following steps :

“ a. lift the state of emergency in the CARDINAL remaining provinces as quickly as possible , namely in PERSON and GPE , ORG and PERSON ;

b. refrain from any further evacuations of villages ;

c. ensure civilian control over military activity in the region and make security forces more accountable for their actions ;

d. step up investigations into alleged human rights violations in the region ;

e. properly implement the rulings of ORG ;

PERSON abolish the village guard system ;

g. continue its efforts to promote both the economic and social development and the reconstruction of the south - eastern provinces ;

h. involve representatives of the displaced population in the preparation of return programmes and projects ;

i. speed up the process of returns ;

j. allow for individual returns without prior permission ;

k. not to precondition assistance to displaced persons with the obligation to enter the village guard system or the declaration on the cause of their flight ;

l. present reconstruction projects to be financed by ORG in the framework of return programmes ;

m. adopt measures to integrate those displaced persons who wish to settle in other parts of GPE and provide them with compensation for damaged property ;

n. grant full access to the region for international humanitarian organisations , and provide them with support from local authorities . ”

DATE the Representative of the Secretary - General of ORG on internally displaced persons , PERSON PERSON , undertook a visit to GPE , at the invitation of the Government of GPE . He aimed to gain a first - hand understanding of the situation of the displaced and to engage in a dialogue with the Government , international agencies , non - governmental organisations and representatives of the donor countries . Following his visit the Representative prepared a report which was submitted to ORG .

Mr PERSON reported that the figures concerning the displaced population ranged widely CARDINAL persons , predominantly of ethnic NORP . Regarding the cause of the displacement in GPE , the Representative contended that the situation of displacement had mainly resulted from armed clashes , violence and human rights violations in south - east GPE . Like the rapporteur of ORG , he recognised the Government ’s claim that economic factors also accounted for the population movements .

Mr PERSON stated that the majority of the displaced persons had moved into provincial cities , where they had reportedly lived in conditions of extreme poverty , with inadequate heating , sanitation , infrastructure , housing and education . He noted that the displaced persons had to seek employment in overcrowded cities and towns , where unemployment levels were described as “ disastrous ” . Mr PERSON observed that the Government officials were mainly concerned with explaining the initiatives that the authorities were taking regarding the return and resettlement of the displaced population . He further observed that there was a tendency not to refer to the current conditions of the displaced . He noted that the problems of the displaced were not specific to the displaced , but affected the population of south - east GPE as a whole .

Regarding the return and resettlement initiatives , Mr PERSON primarily reported the “ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project ” , which was announced by ORG in DATE . Citing the positive aspects of the project , such as the feasibility study conducted prior to the development of the project and the voluntary nature of any return and resettlement , PERSON expressed his concerns on a number of issues . He noted that the extent of the consultation with the displaced and the nongovernmental organisations working on their behalf might be insufficient . He further reported the concerns regarding the plan of a new centralised settlement pattern , as opposed to the traditional pattern of CARDINAL large settlement ( village ) surrounded by smaller settlements ( hamlets ) . PERSON PERSON noted that , although establishing security in the region through promoting centralised settlement units was a legitimate policy , the authorities should consult the displaced themselves . CARDINAL other issues that were of concern for Mr PERSON were the absence of basic data which would give an accurate picture of the displacement and the failure to implement the project .

As to return and resettlement initiatives other than the “ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project ” , Mr PERSON noted that there had not been sufficient information as to their target groups and how exactly they related to one another .

Concerning the obstacles to return , Mr PERSON referred to the practice of requiring persons to declare that they would not seek damages from the ORG . PERSON noted that Government officials denied the existence of a non - litigation clause in the application forms for those who wished to return . Furthermore , he had received information concerning the application forms , which included a question concerning the reason for leaving the village . According to the reports , only those persons who stated that they had been displaced as a result of “ terror ” were allowed to return . Mr PERSON further noted that there had been allegations that return was authorised only to villages within the village guard system . He finally noted that antipersonnel mines posed a threat to those who wished to return to their villages in south - east GPE .

The recommendations of ORG on internally displaced persons were summarised as follows :

“ a. The Government should clarify its policy on internal displacement , including return , resettlement and reintegration , make its policy widely known , create focal points of responsibility for the displaced at various levels of the government structures , and facilitate co - ordination and co - operation among government institutions and with non - governmental organisations , civil society and the international community .

b. The Government should enhance their efforts to address the current conditions of the displaced , which are reported to be poor , in co - operation with non - governmental organisations and ORG agencies .

c. The Government should provide more comprehensive and reliable data on the number of persons displaced as a result of the actions of both ORG ( ORG ) and the security forces , on their current whereabouts , conditions and specific needs , and on their intentions with respect to return or resettlement .

d. The Government should facilitate broad consultation with the displaced and the non - governmental organisations and civil society organisations working with them . The Government should further consider producing a document that clearly outlines the objectives , scope and resource implications of the Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project . Finally the results of the feasibility study conducted should be made public and the Government should facilitate an open discussion with the displaced and non - governmental organisations on the findings of this study and the steps which should be taken to implement them .

e. The Government should examine areas of possible co - operation with the international community . In this connection , the ORG might consider convening a meeting with international agencies , including ORG , and representatives of the potential partners to explore ways in which the international community could assist the Government in responding to the needs of the displaced .

f. The Government should ensure a nondiscriminatory approach to return by investigating and preventing situations in which former village guards are allegedly given preference in the return process over those persons perceived as linked to ORG .

g. The Government should ensure that the role of the security forces , or jandarma , in the return process is primarily one of consultation on security matters . Displaced persons who have been granted permission by the authorities to return to their villages - the decision being based on the advice of the jandarma - should be allowed to do so without unjustified or unlawful interference by the jandarma .

h. The Government should take steps to abolish the village guard system and find alternative employment opportunities for existing guards . Until such time as the system is abolished , the process of disarming village guards should be expedited .

i. The Government should undertake mine clearance activities in the relevant areas of the south - east to which displaced persons are returning , so as to facilitate that process .

j. The Government should enhance their efforts to develop legislation providing compensation to those affected by the violence in the south - east , including those who were evacuated from their homes by the security forces . ”

DATE . Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ...

The administration shall be liable to indemnify any damage caused by its own acts and measures . ”

The above provision is not subject to any restrictions even in a state of emergency or war . The latter requirement of the provision does not necessarily require proof of the existence of any fault on the part of the administration , whose responsibility is of an absolute , objective nature , based on the concept of collective liability and referred to as the theory of “ social risk ” . Thus , the administration may indemnify people who have suffered damage from acts committed by unknown or terrorist authors when the ORG may be said to have failed in its duty to maintain public order and safety , or in its duty to safeguard individual life and property .

The principle of administrative liability is reflected in the additional section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG , which provides :

“ ... actions for compensation in relation to the exercise of the powers conferred by this PERSON shall be brought against the administration before the administrative courts .

The Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence

( a ) to deprive an individual unlawfully of his or her liberty ( LAW generally , LAW servants ) ;

( b ) to oblige an individual through force or threats to commit or not to commit an act ( Article CARDINAL ) ;

( c ) to issue threats ( LAW ) ;

( d ) to make an unlawful search of an individual ’s home ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ;

( e ) to commit arson ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , or , where human life is endangered , aggravated arson ( Article CARDINAL ) ,

( f ) to set fires unintentionally by carelessness , negligence or inexperience ( Article CARDINAL ) ; or

( g ) to damage another ’s property intentionally ( Article CARDINAL ) .

For all these offences complaints may be lodged , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities . The public prosecutor and the police have a duty to investigate crimes reported to them , the former deciding whether a prosecution should be initiated , pursuant to LAW . A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings .

If the suspected authors of the contested acts are military personnel , they may also be prosecuted for causing extensive damage , endangering human lives or damaging property , if they have not followed orders in conformity with Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Military Code . Proceedings in these circumstances may be initiated by the injured persons ( nonmilitary ) before the competent authority under LAW , or before the suspected ORG hierarchical superior ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on the LAW and Procedure of Military Courts ) .

If the alleged perpetrator of a crime is an agent of the ORG , permission to prosecute must be obtained from local administrative councils ( ORG of ORG ) . An appeal against the local council ’s decisions lies to ORG ; a refusal to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal of this kind .

Any illegal act by civil servants , be it a crime or a tort , which causes pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage may be the subject of a claim for compensation before the ordinary civil courts .

DATE . Under LAW ( Law No . CARDINAL of DATE ) those who have suffered damage on account of a wrongful act of the administration may bring compensation proceedings against the latter within DATE from the date on which they learned of the impugned act and , in any event , within DATE from the commission of that act . The proceedings before the administrative courts are in writing .

Damage caused by terrorist violence may also be compensated out of ORG .

DATE . Persons who have sustained damage as a result of an administrative act may file an application with the superior authority of the relevant administration and request the annulment , withdrawal or alteration of the impugned act ( LAW ) . The administrative authorities’ failure to reply within DATE is considered to be a tacit refusal of that request ( LAW ) . The persons concerned may then bring an action before the administrative courts requesting the annulment of the administrative act and compensation for their damage ( LAW ) .

NORP The governor ’s office of the state of emergency region was set up with special powers after the state of martial law was officially declared to be over on DATE by a legislative decree ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . A state of emergency was thus decreed in the provinces of ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE and PERSON . On DATE the state of emergency was extended to the province of ORG , but lifted in the province of ORG . It was declared to be over in the provinces of Batman , ORG and ORG on DATE , in the province of GPE on DATE , in the provinces of GPE and PERSON on DATE and in the provinces of GPE and PERSON on DATE .

In accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG ( DATE ) , state of emergency councils and offices were set up within the emergency region with a view to monitoring incidents , implementing and assessing measures taken by the authorities and making proposals in this regard . Should the governor of the state of emergency region consider it necessary , or in provinces where a state of emergency has been decreed , state of emergency offices are to be set up in the provinces and the districts . The state of emergency offices are to be presided over by the governors or their deputies in the provinces and by the district governors in the districts .

Under section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL , the governor of the state of emergency region may delegate part or all of the duties and powers conferred on him to the governors of the provinces in the state of emergency region .

Extensive powers have been granted to the governor of the state of emergency region ( PERSON GPE ) by decrees enacted under PERSON no . CARDINAL on ORG , especially Decree no . CARDINAL , as amended by Decrees nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and Decree no . CARDINAL .

According to LAW no . CARDINAL , the governor of the state of emergency region can order the permanent or temporary evacuation of villages . Under LAW b ) of Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , he can also impose residence restrictions and enforce the transfer of people to other areas .

The relevant part of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ ... There shall be no right of appeal to ORG to contest the form or substance of legislative decrees issued during a state of emergency , a state of siege or in wartime . ”

DATE Decree no . CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , precludes any application in the administrative courts to have an administrative act performed pursuant to Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL set aside .

DATE of Decree no . QUANTITY provides :

“ No criminal , financial or legal responsibility may be claimed against the state of emergency regional governor or a provincial governor within a state of emergency region in respect of their decisions or acts connected with the exercise of the powers entrusted to them by this decree , and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to this end . This is without prejudice to the rights of individuals to claim indemnity from the ORG for damage suffered by them without justification . ”

The public prosecutor does not have jurisdiction with regard to offences alleged against members of the security forces in the state of emergency region . LAW no . CARDINAL provides that all security forces under the command of the regional governor are subject , in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties , to the Law of DATE on the prosecution of civil servants . Thus , any prosecutor who receives a complaint alleging a criminal act by a member of the security forces must decline jurisdiction and transfer the file to ORG . These councils are composed of civil servants , chaired by the governor . A decision by the ORG not to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal to ORG . Once a decision to prosecute has been taken , it is for the public prosecutor to investigate the case .

ORG has reviewed the constitutionality of LAW no . CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , in a judgment of DATE , which was published in ORG on DATE . It stated :

“ It is not possible to reconcile that provision [ which precludes any judicial scrutiny of acts performed by the governor of the state of emergency region ] with the concept of the rule of law ... The system of government when a state of emergency has been declared is not an arbitrary one that escapes all judicial scrutiny . There can be no doubt that individual and regulatory acts performed by the competent authorities while the state of emergency continues must be subject to judicial review . Contravention of this principle is inconceivable in countries run by democratic regimes and founded on freedom . However , the impugned provision is contained in a legislative decree that can not be the subject of constitutional review ... Consequently , the application for an order quashing that provision must be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae ( yetkisizlik ) ... ”

As regards LAW no . CARDINAL , in CARDINAL judgments delivered on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( published in ORG on DATE and DATE respectively ) , ORG followed that decision in dismissing as incompatible ratione materiae applications for orders quashing the relevant provisions .

However , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG reversed its previous case - law and annulled LAW . CARDINAL as being unconstitutional .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and apparently lives in Hämeenlinna without a permanent address . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in Hämeenlinna . The respondent Government are represented by Mr PERSON , director in ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested together with another person who was subject to an order of arrest . An unlawful gas pistol was found in the applicant 's possession . Later the applicant became suspected of other , mainly property offences . Several bags were seized from the car in which the applicant was when arrested . The bags contained , inter alia , several car keys , some of which had been filed , and a skeleton key .

On DATE the applicant was charged with several offences before ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätt ) of PERSON . This included a charge of being in possession of objects which could be used for committing property offences . This charge was based on LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflag ) and read as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] and PERSON [ a co - defendant ] , who must be regarded as vagrants within the meaning of LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , had on DATE in GPE in their possession CARDINAL car ignition keys , some of which had been filed , a skeleton key of NORP origin and other equipment suitable for lock picking . ”

In ORG the public prosecutor recalled that although the Act on Vagrants ( irtolaislaki , lagen om lösdrivare ; CARDINAL ) had been abolished , the concept of “ a vagrant ” was still maintained in LAW , section DATE , of LAW . The prosecutor claimed that the applicant and his co - accused had both admitted to have been wandering around for DATE and maintained that they should be regarded as “ vagrants ” within the meaning of LAW .

The applicant denied being “ a vagrant ” . During the proceedings the applicant also submitted , inter alia , that he had been living in Riihimäki in an apartment he had been renting since DATE and that as CARDINAL of the charges concerned a provision of law which could only be applied to people without a permanent address ( i.e. to so - called vagrants ) , it could not be applied to him .

According to the public prosecutor LAW , section DATE , of LAW was to be interpreted as applying to persons wandering around , i.e. “ a vagrant ” , and in possession of objects which could be used when committing a burglary ( i.e. keys or skeleton keys ) . In the final hearing the public prosecutor further interpreted the said section as prohibiting a person who regularly committed property crimes from possessing objects such as skeleton keys .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant on several counts , including the count under LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and DATE imprisonment . The court also ordered that , inter alia , CARDINAL car keys and a skeleton key be confiscated from the applicant .

As to LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW ORG found the provision applicable and in force even though the comparable provision of the old Act on Vagrants had been abolished . According to the court , the notion of “ vagrant ” had its own independent meaning in LAW . The relevant provision prohibited a person who was wandering around and living rough from being in the possession of certain equipment , if that equipment could , in the light of that person 's behaviour and other circumstances , be considered as in his possession for the purpose of committing an offence .

The applicant 's co - defendant was convicted on several counts . He was however not convicted of possession of skeleton keys pursuant to LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW due to lack of evidence .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , maintaining , inter alia , that he was not “ a vagrant ” as he had had a permanent address since DATE and could therefore not be convicted under LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . As to the applicant 's conviction as “ a vagrant ” within the meaning of LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG recalled that the old Act on Vagrants was revoked on DATE . According to the travaux préparatoires of ORG for ORG ( päihdehuoltolaki , lag om missbrukarvård ; CARDINAL ) , which replaced the Act on Vagrants , LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW was not to be amended . ORG , thus , found that the revoked Act on Vagrants and the practice built on it had not lost its relevance for the interpretation of LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW . According to LAW , subsection CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the revoked LAW on Vagrants “ a vagrant ” was , inter alia , a person who by his way of life endangered public order or safety . ORG noted that the applicant had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for , inter alia , offences against property on numerous occasions during DATE . It therefore found that the applicant endangered public order and safety by his criminal way of life and was , accordingly , to be regarded as “ a vagrant ” within the meaning of LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the applicant applied for leave to appeal to ORG and requested that the conviction be quashed or , at least , that the case be referred back to ORG or ORG for an oral hearing . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW ( perustuslaki , grundlagen ; GPE ) provides that no one shall be found guilty of a criminal offence or be sentenced to a punishment on the basis of a deed , which has not been determined to be punishable by an LAW at the time of its commission . The penalty imposed for an offence shall not be more severe than that provided by an LAW at the time of commission of the offence . This section corresponds to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the repealed LAW ( hallitusmuoto , regeringsformen ) , in force at the relevant time .

LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW ( as in force at the relevant time ) provided that a vagrant who was found with a lock pick or a skeleton key should be sentenced to a fine . The said provision was enacted in DATE , when the existing LAW entered into force , and has not been amended until DATE .

The ORG passed a PERSON for the amendment of LAW of LAW ( ORG Reply CARDINAL ) . The amendment entered into force on DATE . In this context , section DATE was repealed .

According to the new LAW , section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , concerning possession of tools used for burglary , a person who without an acceptable reason has in his / her possession a key to the lock of another or a skeleton key or other implement that can justifiably be suspected as intended for use primarily for entry into closed LOC in the possession of another for the commission of an offence , shall be sentenced to a fine for possession of a burglary implement .

Section CARDINAL of the Act on Vagrants provided until DATE that a vagrant pursuant to the LAW was , inter alia , a person fit to work who was unemployed without sufficient sustenance and wandered around from one locality to another without the purpose of seeking employment , and a person who acquired income by morally unacceptable or indecent means , or who by his or her way of life otherwise manifestly endangered public order , safety or morality .

The ORG which had been set up to assess the effects of repealing the Act on Vagrants ( Committee Report CARDINAL:CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) held that “ [ section CARDINAL in LAW of LAW ] was never intended to refer to “ vagrants ” within the meaning of LAW or the earlier Decree ” . The ORG maintained that most of the referrals in the legislation to the concept of “ a vagrant ” had lost their meaning after the repealing of the Act on Vagrants . The concept of “ a vagrant ” in LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW was however regarded as being originally independent from the concept pursuant to LAW . The ORG recommended that the provision should be clarified in connection with the general reform of LAW .

At the relevant time there were some references in the legislation to the concept of “ a vagrant ” . Firstly , LAW ( asetus joka sisältää maaseudun yleisen järjestyssäännön ; förordning innefattande allmän ordningsstadga för landsbygden ; CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE . Its section DATE , subsection CARDINAL provided , inter alia , that nobody was allowed to hide a vagrant in his / her home .

Secondly , the LAW on the Publicity of Official Documents ( laki yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta ; lag om allmänna handlingars offentlighet ; CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE , i.e. , at the time of the offence in question . In the said Act there was an outdated reference to ' vagrants register ' ( irtolaisrekisteri , registret över lösdrivare ) , which register no longer existed .

In the ORG 's PERSON . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on LAW for ORG ( päihdehuoltolaki , lag om missbrukarvård ; CARDINAL ) , which replaced the Act on Vagrants , it is stated that characteristics of a vagrant are a drifting life , rejection of work , begging and an indecent life . It was held that the LAW was largely based on the Decree on Vagrants from DATE and that there were significant regional differences in applying LAW . It was maintained that the characteristics of a vagrant could no longer be regarded as appropriate criteria for admitting people to involuntary health care .

In the subsequent Government 's PERSON . CARDINAL concerning the amendment of the provisions of LAW of LAW it was held that “ [ T]he concept of “ a vagrant ” lacks an appropriate meaning in the contemporary language of a modern society . ” It was also held that the existing provisions of LAW , section CARDINAL provided a certain justification for the prohibition of possession of burglary implements albeit it was regarded as limited in nature and , more particularly , was open to interpretation .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in GPE in DATE . It appears that he currently lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) indicted the applicant on serious fraud charges . According to the decision on indictment , the applicant had failed to pay for CARDINAL TV sets which he had received under a consignment agreement with a joint stock company . On DATE ORG ordered the arrest of the applicant . On DATE the applicant 's name was put on a wanted list .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE received a request from their counterpart in GPE for the extradition of the applicant .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE authorised the extradition of the applicant to GPE . The applicant challenged the extradition order in court .

On DATE ORG upheld the extradition order as lawful and justified . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

From the submitted materials , it appears that , on an unspecified date after DATE , the applicant was extradited to GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and held in custody , first at the GPE - Paveletskiy temporary detention facility and then at remand prison no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE authorised the detention pending extradition of the applicant under LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ the ORG ” ) without providing a time - limit for his detention .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In his appeal , he also stated that his detention from DATE to CARDINAL DATE had been unlawful because he had been detained without a court order and that the overall length of his detention had been excessive .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) left without examination the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant 's detention .

For a summary of domestic law provisions on detention on remand , see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 5-1

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG , GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and allegedly beaten up by the police officers . On DATE he was remanded in custody on suspicion of robbery .

On DATE the charges were brought against the applicant and he was provided with a legal - aid counsel .

On DATE the applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town .

On DATE the Rostov ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and imposed a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment on him . On DATE , however , ORG of GPE quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial .

On DATE the Rostov ORG convicted the applicant of fraud , kidnapping , illegal deprivation of liberty , extortion , burglary and theft and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . The applicant was taken straight from the courtroom to the detention unit .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial . ORG held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “ should remain unchanged ” .

On DATE the Rostov ORG listed the new trial hearing for DATE and ordered that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “ should remain unchanged ” .

On DATE the Rostov ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE .

“ The defendants [ the applicant and CARDINAL other persons ] are charged with kidnapping , illegal deprivation of liberty , burglary and other crimes .

They have been in custody : ... , [ the applicant ] – since DATE , ...

The Prosecutor requested that the defendants ' detention be extended by DATE .

Having examined the ORG 's request , and having heard the parties to the proceedings , the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants ' detention by DATE , that is , until DATE inclusive , because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences .

Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the defendants ' detention on remand is extended by CARDINAL ( DATE , that is , from DATE to DATE . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the extension order , finding that it was sufficiently justified .

On DATE and DATE and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The wording of the decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of DATE .

The applicant appealed against each of the above - mentioned extension orders of ORG arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration his individual situation . On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE respectively , ORG upheld the above - mentioned decisions on appeal .

In the meantime , on DATE the Rostov ORG , composed of presiding judge PERSON . and lay judges PERSON and PERSON , extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . The court used the same stereotyped wording and referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant . The applicant again appealed against the extension to ORG .

On DATE , that is , after the applicant 's conviction by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG of GPE discontinued the examination of the applicant 's appeal because he had been convicted in the meantime by ORG .

As regards the trial proceedings in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the case was adjourned on over QUANTITY occasions : at the request of the applicant and his co - defendants , who wished to study the case file or the records of the hearings ; at the requests of the applicant and his co - defendants for the replacement of their representatives and the need for the newly appointed representatives to study the case file ; owing to the illness of the representatives and their failure to appear before the court ; and owing to the illness of the co - defendants or following their complaints concerning their health . On CARDINAL occasion the hearing was adjourned on account of the failure of the authorities to transport the defendants to the courtroom .

On DATE ORG , composed of presiding judge Mr Zh . and lay judges PERSON and PERSON , found the applicant guilty of multiple counts of fraud , kidnapping , illegal deprivation of liberty , extortion , theft and burglary and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant lodged an appeal . He claimed , inter alia , that the lay judges had sat on the bench unlawfully . The law had been changed and after DATE lay judges were no longer permitted to take part in the administration of justice .

On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , reduced the applicant 's sentence to DATE imprisonment and upheld the rest of the judgment on appeal . CARDINAL of the judges of ORG had previously examined the applicant 's case on appeal on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and had also examined , on DATE , the appeal against the decision of DATE to extend the applicant 's detention until DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . CARDINAL other judge had previously examined the applicant 's case on appeal on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As to the applicant 's allegation that the composition of the tribunal was unlawful , the court found that the trial had begun before DATE and that the participation of CARDINAL lay judges in the determination of the criminal charge against him had been in accordance with the principle of continuity of the trial .

From DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in detention facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of GPE - on - PERSON ( ORG ИЗ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. PERSON ) . Throughout this period the applicant was held in the following cells :

( a ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL - CARDINAL detainees ;

( b ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL - CARDINAL detainees ;

( c ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ;

( d ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ;

( e ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ;

( f ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ;

( g ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL - CARDINAL detainees ;

( h ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ; and

( i ) cell no . DATE ( punishment cell ) measuring QUANTITY and designed for CARDINAL person .

The Government were unable to provide any precise information on the number of persons detained together with the applicant , because the relevant documents had been destroyed following the expiration of the time - limit for storing them . They submitted , however , that the design capacity of the cells had not been exceeded .

NORP In each cell the applicant had an individual bed and was provided with bedding ( CARDINAL bed sheets , a pillowslip , a blanket , a mattress and a pillow ) and tableware ( a cup , a spoon and a plate ) .

The dimensions , number and location of the windows in the cells corresponded to the established legal norms and allowed sufficient access of daylight . Until DATE the windows were covered with metal screens ( жалюзийные решетки ) installed to prevent communication between cells .

The cells were illuminated with QUANTITY filament lamps ( CARDINAL lamps per regular cell , CARDINAL lamp per punishment cell ) , which were on from TIME At TIME - time the cells were lit by QUANTITY security lights with tinted glass shades .

All cells were ventilated by a system of exhaust ventilation . Natural ventilation through windows was also available .

The cells were equipped with potable water tanks , cupboards for storage of foodstuffs , lavatory pans separated from the main area of the cells by partitions , water taps , dining tables and benches corresponding to the number of detainees , radio receivers , electric plugs and ventilation equipment .

NORP The food was served CARDINAL times a day in accordance with the established legal norms . The quality of the food was monitored on a regular basis by the medical staff of the detention facility .

The applicant was allowed a DATE TIME outside walk in a specially equipped exercise yard .

In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of GPE on DATE and statements by prison wardens ( although not dated ) . They also submitted documents attesting to the destruction of registration logs in respect of the cells in GPE ( журналы покамерного размещения ) for the years CARDINAL following the expiry of the DATE time - limit for storing them .

The applicant claimed that the number of detainees exceeded the design capacity of the cells by CARDINAL times and that the detainees had to sleep in shifts .

Most cells where the applicant was detained were equipped with a small window . Access to daylight was restricted by metal screens and the arrangement of the bunks in CARDINAL or CARDINAL tiers .

The electric lighting was too dim to enable the inmates to read .

The ventilation system did not function most of the time .

The bedding was hardly ever changed ; no tableware , toilet paper or personal hygiene items were provided to the applicant .

The food was scarce and of poor quality . It was always poorly presented .

The exercise yards were unequipped and too small to accommodate all the detainees properly .

In support of his statements the applicant produced written depositions by CARDINAL former cellmates who had been detained with him in different cells DATE . In particular , PERSON stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell no . DATE . The population of the cell had exceeded its design capacity by CARDINAL times . PERSON stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell no . DATE , which accommodated from CARDINAL to CARDINAL detainees at any one time . Mr F. stated that he had been detained with the applicant in cell no . CARDINAL in DATE . The cell used to accommodate CARDINAL detainees . Finally , PERSON submitted that he had been detained with the applicant in cell no . CARDINAL , which accommodated from CARDINAL detainees . All of the above - mentioned witnesses testified that they and the other detainees had slept in shifts . They further testified to the appalling sanitary conditions in the cells , poor access to daylight , inadequate electric lighting , absence of natural ventilation and malfunctioning of the artificial ventilation system . The applicant further submitted a photograph of cell no . CARDINAL , taken on an unspecified date in DATE , in support of the above - mentioned statements .

The Government submitted that the detention unit ( конвойное помещение ) of ORG is situated in the semi - basement of the LOC . It has CARDINAL individual cells measuring QUANTITY and CARDINAL collective cells measuring CARDINAL , QUANTITY and designed for CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL detainees respectively . The detention unit is equipped with CARDINAL lavatory pans and wash stands ( CARDINAL for detainees and CARDINAL for those escorting them ) . All cells are equipped with benches , artificial ventilation and central heating . The cells are illuminated with filament lamps . The detainees are provided with dry rations ( сухой паек ) when taken to the courthouse . They receive hot food in accordance with the schedule before their departure from , and after their return to , the detention facility .

The Government supported their submissions with the results of an inspection of the technical equipment of the LOC of ORG of DATE , a certificate issued by the director of IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE , the results of an inspection of the detention unit of ORG of DATE and recent photographs of the inspected LOC ( photocopies ) .

The applicant submitted that DATE he had been transported between ORG and the detention facility on CARDINAL occasions .

The journey to and from the courthouse took TIME .

At the courthouse the applicant was detained in a small windowless cell without ventilation or heating . The cell was not equipped with a lavatory or a wash stand .

No food was provided to the applicant at the courthouse .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR ( PERSON of DATE , “ the old CCrP ” ) . From DATE the old ORG was replaced by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , “ the new CCrP ” ) .

“ Preventive measures ” ( меры пресечения ) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , personal security , bail and detention ( LAW of the old ORG , LAW ) .

LAW of DATE establishes that a judicial decision is required before a defendant can be detained or his or her detention extended ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Under the old ORG , a decision ordering detention could be taken by a prosecutor or a court ( LAW , CARDINAL and DATE ) .

The new ORG requires a judicial decision by a district or town court on a reasoned request by a prosecutor supported by appropriate evidence ( LAW , DATE ) .

When deciding whether to remand an accused in custody , the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “ sufficient grounds to believe ” that he or she would abscond during the investigation or trial or obstruct the establishment of the truth or reoffend ( LAW CCrP ) . It must also take into account the gravity of the charge , information on the accused 's character , his or her profession , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances ( LAW CCrP , LAW ) .

Before DATE , detention was authorised if the accused was charged with a criminal offence carrying a sentence of DATE imprisonment or if there were “ exceptional circumstances ” in the case ( Article CARDINAL ) . On DATE the old ORG was amended to permit defendants to be remanded in custody if the charge carried a sentence of DATE imprisonment or if they had previously defaulted or had no permanent residence in GPE or if their identity could not be ascertained . The amendments of DATE also repealed the provision that permitted defendants to be remanded in custody on the sole ground of the dangerous nature of the criminal offence they had committed . The new ORG reproduced the amended provisions ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and added that a defendant should not be remanded in custody if a less severe preventive measure was available .

The Codes distinguished CARDINAL types of detention : the first being “ pending the investigation ” , that is , while a competent agency – the police or a prosecutor 's office – investigated the case , and the second “ before the court ” ( or “ during the trial ” ) , that is , while the case was being tried in court . Although there was no difference in practice between them ( the detainee was held in the same detention facility ) , the calculation of the time - limits was different .

After arrest the suspect is placed in custody “ pending the investigation ” . The maximum permitted period of detention “ pending the investigation ” is DATE but can be extended for DATE in “ exceptional circumstances ” . Extensions were authorised by prosecutors of ascending hierarchical levels ( under the old CCrP ) but must now be authorised by judicial decisions taken by courts of ascending levels ( under the new ORG ) . No extension of detention “ pending the investigation ” beyond DATE is possible ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) .

The period of detention “ pending the investigation ” is calculated to DATE when the prosecutor sent the case to the trial court ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) .

Access to the case - file materials is to be granted DATE before the expiry of the authorised detention period ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) . If the defendant needs more time to study the case file , a judge , on a request by a prosecutor , may grant an extension of detention until such time as the file has been read in full and the case sent for trial ( LAW CCrP , LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the new ORG ) . Under the old ORG , such an extension could not be granted for DATE .

Under the old ORG , the trial court had the right to remit the case for an “ additional investigation ” if it established that procedural defects existed that could not be remedied at the trial . In such cases the defendant 's detention was again classified as “ pending the investigation ” and the relevant time - limit continued to apply . If , however , the case was remitted for an additional investigation , but the investigators had already used up all the time authorised for detention “ pending the investigation ” , a supervising prosecutor could nevertheless extend the detention period for DATE starting from the date he received the case . Subsequent extensions could only be granted if the detention “ pending the investigation ” had not exceeded DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) .

From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court , the defendant 's detention is “ before the court ” ( or “ during the trial ” ) .

Before DATE the old ORG set no time - limit for detention “ during the trial ” . On DATE a new LAW was inserted which established that the period of detention “ during the trial ” could not generally exceed DATE from the date the court received the file . However , if there was evidence to show that the defendant 's release might impede a thorough , complete and objective examination of the case , a court could – of its own motion or on a request by a prosecutor – extend the detention by no longer than DATE . These provisions did not apply to defendants charged with a particularly serious criminal offence .

The new ORG establishes that the term of detention “ during the trial ” is calculated from the date the court received the file to the date the judgment is given . The period of detention “ during the trial ” may not normally exceed DATE , but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences , the trial court may approve CARDINAL or more extensions of no longer than DATE each ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

Under the old ORG , the detainee or his or her counsel or representative could challenge a detention order issued by a prosecutor , and any subsequent extension order , before a court . The judge was required to review the lawfulness of and justification for a detention or extension order DATE after receipt of the relevant papers . The review was to be conducted in camera in the presence of a prosecutor and the detainee 's counsel or representative . The detainee was to be summoned and a review in his absence was only permissible in exceptional circumstances if the detainee waived his right to be present of his own free will . The judge could either dismiss the challenge or revoke the pre - trial detention and order the detainee 's release ( LAW ) .

An appeal to a higher court lay against the judge 's decision . It had to be examined within the same time - limit as appeals against a judgment on the merits ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ( Article CARDINAL in fine ) .

NORP Under the new CCrP , an appeal may be lodged with a higher court within DATE against a judicial decision ordering or extending detention on remand . The appeal court must decide the appeal within DATE of its receipt ( LAW ) .

Upon receipt of the case file , the judge must determine , in particular , whether the defendant should remain in custody or be released pending trial ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the old ORG , ORG ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the new ORG ) and rule on any application by the defendant for release ( LAW CCrP ) . If the application was refused , a fresh application could be made once the trial had commenced ( LAW CCrP ) .

At any time during the trial the court may order , vary or revoke any preventive measure , including detention ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) . Any such decision must be given in the deliberations room and signed by all the judges of the bench ( LAW ORG , LAW ) .

An appeal against such a decision lies to the higher court . It must be lodged within DATE and examined within the same time - limit as an appeal against the judgment on the merits ( Article CARDINAL of the old CCrP , LAW of the new CCrP – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Under the old ORG , within DATE of receipt of the case file ( if the defendant was in custody ) , the judge was required either : ( CARDINAL ) to fix the trial date ; ( CARDINAL ) to return the case for an additional investigation ; ( CARDINAL ) to stay or discontinue the proceedings ; or ( CARDINAL ) to refer the case to a court with jurisdiction to hear it ( Article CARDINAL ) . The new ORG empowers the judge , within the same time - limit , ( CARDINAL ) to refer the case to a competent court ; ( CARDINAL ) to fix a date for a preliminary hearing ( предварительное слушание ) ; or ( CARDINAL ) to fix a date for trial ( LAW ) . The trial must begin DATE after the judge has fixed the trial date ( LAW CCrP , LAW ) . There are no restrictions on fixing the date of a preliminary hearing .

The duration of the trial is not limited .

Under the old ORG , the appeal court was required to examine an appeal against the first - instance judgment within DATE of its receipt . In exceptional circumstances or in complex cases or in proceedings before ORG this time - limit could be extended by DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) . No further extensions were possible .

The new ORG establishes that the appeal court must start the examination of the appeal DATE after its receipt ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The old CCrP provided that hearings in first - instance courts dealing with criminal cases were , subject to certain exceptions , to be conducted by a single professional judge or by CARDINAL professional and CARDINAL lay judges . In their judicial capacity , lay judges enjoyed the same rights as the professional judge ( DATE ) .

DATE . The new ORG does not provide for the participation of lay judges in the administration of justice in criminal matters . It provides that serious crimes should be dealt with by a single professional judge or by CARDINAL professional judges provided that the accused has submitted such a request prior to the scheduling of a trial hearing ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) .

It further provides that the composition of the court examining the case should remain unchanged throughout the trial ( LAW ) .

The Federal Law enacting the new CCrP ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) provides as follows :

Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL provides that LAW on ORG of ORG is ineffective as of DATE .

Section CARDINAL provides that LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , in so far as it concerns the examination of serious crimes by CARDINAL professional judges , is effective as of DATE . Before that date serious crimes were to be dealt with by a single professional judge or by CARDINAL professional and CARDINAL lay judges if an accused filed such a request prior to the scheduling of a trial hearing .

Section CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINALFZ of DATE ) provides that detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health according to the standards established by the Government of GPE . Section CARDINAL provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have QUANTITY of personal space in his or her cell .

On DATE ORG adopted the Rules on food supplies for convicts and persons detained in remand centres . According to Annex no . CARDINAL to the Rules , a daily dry ration ( bread , tinned beef or fish , sugar , tea and salt ) is provided to the following categories of persons : convicts on their way to a prison , a remand centre or colony ; persons released from custody on the way to their place of residence ; persons for the duration of their stay in patient care institutions ; and convicted juveniles . The Rules were amended in DATE and repealed in DATE .

On DATE ORG adopted the Rules on supplies of dry rations , according to which persons suspected or accused of criminal offences should be supplied with a dry ration ( bread , precooked first and second courses , sugar , tea and tableware ) during their presence at a courthouse . Detainees should be supplied with hot water with which to consume the ration .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) visited GPE from DATE . The section of its ORG to ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) dealing with the conditions of detention in temporary holding facilities and remand establishments and the complaints procedure read as follows :

“ b. temporary holding facilities for criminal suspects ( ORG )

According to LAW establishing the internal rules of ORG temporary holding facilities for suspects and accused persons , the living space per person should be QUANTITY m. It is also provided in these regulations that detained persons should be supplied with mattresses and bedding , soap , toilet paper , newspapers , games , food , etc . Further , the regulations make provision for outdoor exercise of TIME per day .

The actual conditions of detention in the ORG establishments visited in DATE varied considerably .

It should be stressed at the outset that the ORG was pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great concern for the NORP penitentiary system : overcrowding .

When the ORG first visited GPE in DATE , overcrowding was identified as the most important and urgent challenge facing the prison system . At DATE visit , the delegation was informed that the remand prison population had decreased by CARDINAL since DATE . An example of that trend was GPE no . CARDINAL in GPE , which had registered a PERCENT decrease in the remand prison population over DATE .

The ORG welcomes the measures taken in DATE by the NORP authorities to address the problem of overcrowding , including instructions issued by ORG , aimed at a more selective use of the preventive measure of remand in custody . Nevertheless , the information gathered by the ORG 's delegation shows that much remains to be done . In particular , overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are underdeveloped . In this respect , the ORG reiterates the recommendations made in its previous reports ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ; paragraphs CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ; paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

As during previous visits , many prisoners expressed scepticism about the operation of the complaints procedure . In particular , the view was expressed that it was not possible to complain in a confidential manner to an outside authority . In fact , all complaints , regardless of the addressee , were registered by staff in a special book which also contained references to the nature of the complaint . At Colony no . CARDINAL , the supervising prosecutor indicated that , during his inspections , he was usually accompanied by senior staff members and prisoners would normally not request to meet him in private ' because they know that all complaints usually pass through the colony 's administration ' .

In the light of the above , the ORG reiterates its recommendation that the NORP authorities review the application of complaints procedures , with a view to ensuring that they are operating effectively . If necessary , the existing arrangements should be modified in order to guarantee that prisoners can make complaints to outside bodies on a truly confidential basis . ”


The applicant , Mr FAC , is an NORP national who was born in DATE , and is currently detained in prison in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the ORG ( GPE ) issued an international warrant for the arrest of the applicant on suspicion of having committed the offences of forcible rape , corporal injury to a co - habitant , and false imprisonment by violence , as defined in sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of GPE and punishable by respectively CARDINAL , DATE imprisonment . An investigation by ORG had revealed in particular that on DATE the applicant drank QUANTITY of wine , became violent with his live - in girlfriend , kicked her chest fracturing her ribs before dragging her to the bedroom , where he bound her wrists to her ankles with plastic straps and raped her . A short time later he removed the straps and raped her again .

On DATE the applicant was arrested at the GPE airport . On DATE he was heard before ORG ( Amtsgericht ) and remanded in custody pending extradition proceedings .

On DATE ORG of ORG requested the applicant 's provisional arrest . On DATE the ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) ordered the applicant 's detention pending a ruling on his extradition .

On DATE the Government of GPE requested the applicant 's extradition under the terms of LAW between GPE and GPE of DATE .

ORG ordered the applicant 's continued detention with a view to extradition on DATE .

At a hearing held on DATE before ORG , the applicant , assisted by a NORP and an NORP lawyer , indicated his refusal to be extradited .

On DATE the ORG declared the applicant 's extradition admissible . It considered that the evidence furnished in support of the request for the applicant 's extradition was sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion and that in the absence of any exceptional circumstances it was not necessary to examine this question more in depth . ORG held that it was not for it to determine the question of the applicant 's guilt in respect of the charges brought against him in GPE , but only to examine whether the formal extradition requirements had been fulfilled . It noted that the applicant was charged with offences which were punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by deprivation of liberty for a maximum period exceeding DATE . ORG did not consider it necessary to take into account the applicant 's allegation that , if extradited to GPE , there was a serious likelihood that he would be given a life sentence , since , according to the relevant provisions of LAW accompanying the extradition request , the maximum sentence possible did not exceed DATE imprisonment .

The applicant applied for judicial review on DATE .

On DATE the ORG confirmed its previous decision . It found that the applicant 's extradition was admissible , even if , at worst , the charges brought against him would be qualified as CARDINAL offences of rape with the aggravated circumstances of tying a person up and inflicting corporal injury and the applicant be sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(a ) , ( c)(CARDINAL ) , ( e)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG . According to ORG , an extradition could only be objected to , if a life sentence as such would be contrary to the rule of law and inadequate under all possible aspects . Rape under section CARDINAL ( e)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG constituted severe wrongdoing and was punishable in GPE by DATE imprisonment , pursuant to section QUANTITY no . CARDINAL ( a ) of GPE . Moreover , a life sentence did not mean that the applicant would have no possibility of early release . Under section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(a ) and ( j ) of GPE Code a convicted person was eligible for release on parole after having served DATE imprisonment . This period could be reduced by PERCENT on account of good conduct .

The applicant requested again that the warrant of arrest pending extradition be set aside and his extradition declared inadmissible on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to reverse its decision of DATE . It noted that the warrant of arrest issued by ORG on DATE and the indictment of DATE charged the applicant with CARDINAL count of forcible rape , pursuant to Section CARDINAL(a)(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( maximum possible sentence up to DATE imprisonment ) . According to ORG , it could not be inferred from these charges that there would be a sufficient legal basis for imposing CARDINAL life sentences . The investigations carried out in GPE gave no reason to assume that the applicant had inflicted bodily injury “ in the commission ” of the sexual offences , as required by LAW ( e ) ( CARDINAL ) of ORG . Furthermore , in respect of the second sexual offence , no aggravating circumstance had been established , since the victim had not any longer been tied up . ORG concluded that no substantial grounds had been shown for believing that the applicant , if extradited , would be exposed , as alleged , to CARDINAL consecutive life sentences , amounting to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant 's constitutional complaint for adjudication .

Article CARDINAL.CARDINALa of LAW between GPE and GPE of DATE as amended on DATE allows the verification of the facts on which the extradition claim is based , the ordinary courts are , however , not obliged to make use of this possibility .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the German Law on International Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters ( Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in PERSON ) provides that , if exceptional circumstances require to examine the question of the existence of a reasonable suspicion , facts must be furnished which are sufficient to support the conclusion that there was a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed .

The relevant provisions of LAW of GPE provide as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another . ”

Section CARDINAL . ( a )

“ False imprisonment is punishable by a fine not exceeding MONEY ( $ MONEY ) , or by imprisonment in the county jail for not DATE , or by both that fine and imprisonment . If the false imprisonment be effected by violence , menace , fraud , or deceit , it shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison . ”

Section CARDINAL . ( a )

“ Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator , under any of the following circumstances :

ORG ( CARDINAL ) Where it is accomplished against a person 's will by means of force , violence , duress , menace , or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another . ”

Section CARDINAL . ( a )

“ Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse , former spouse , cohabitant , former cohabitant , or the mother or father of his or her child , corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition , is guilty of a felony , and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for CARDINAL , CARDINAL , or DATE , or in a county jail for not DATE , or by a fine of MONEY ( $ MONEY ) or by both that fine and imprisonment . ”

Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL

“ ( a ) A person who is convicted of an offense specified in subdivision ( c ) under one or more of the circumstances specified in subdivision ( d ) or under CARDINAL or more of the circumstances specified in subdivision ( e ) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life and shall not be eligible for release on parole for DATE except as provided in subdivision ( j ) .

( b ) Except as provided in subdivision ( a ) , a person who is convicted of an offense specified in subdivision ( c ) under one of the circumstances specified in subdivision ( e ) shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life and shall not be eligible for release on parole for DATE except as provided in subdivision ( j ) .

( c ) This section shall apply to any of the following offenses :

ORG ( CARDINAL ) A violation of paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of subdivision ( a ) of Section CARDINAL .

e ) The following circumstances shall apply to the offenses specified in subdivision ( c ) :

ORG ...

( CARDINAL ) The defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim or another person in the commission of the present offense in violation of LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The defendant engaged in the tying or binding of the victim or another person in the commission of the present offense .

ORG ( j ) Article CARDINAL ( commencing with Section CARDINAL ) of LAW CARDINAL of Part CARDINAL shall apply to reduce the minimum term of DATE in the state prison imposed pursuant to subdivision ( a ) or DATE in the state prison imposed pursuant to subdivision ( b ) . However , in no case shall the minimum term of DATE be reduced by PERCENT for credits granted pursuant to LAW , DATE , or any other law providing for conduct credit reduction . In no case shall any person who is punished under this section be released on parole prior to serving CARDINAL percent of the minimum term of DATE in the state prison . ”

Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL

“ ( a ) This section applies to the following felonies :

( CARDINAL) Section CARDINAL or CARDINAL ( rape ) . ”