CASE OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Violation of Art. 9 read in the light of Art. 11;Violation of Art. 11 read in the light of Art. 9;Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The first applicant is the religious community of GPE 's Witnesses of GPE ( “ the applicant community ” ) established in DATE . The other applicants are members of that community . All of them live in GPE .

The second applicant , PERSON PERSON , was born in DATE . He has been with the Jehovah 's Witnesses since DATE and is a community elder .

The third applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He has been a member of the applicant community since DATE .

The fourth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He was twice convicted in NORP times – in DATE and DATE – for disseminating GPE 's Witnesses ' religious literature and officially rehabilitated in DATE as a victim of religious persecution .

The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He is a third - generation GPE 's Witness whose grandparents were exiled to LOC in DATE under an order deporting GPE 's Witnesses .

Jehovah 's Witnesses have been present in GPE since DATE . They were banned soon after the Russian Revolution in DATE and persecuted in GPE .

After LAW was enacted in DATE , on DATE the ORG of Justice registered the charter of ORG of GPE 's Witnesses in the GPE .

On DATE ORG of the NORP Federation registered the charter of ORG of GPE 's Witnesses .

The applicant community , which is the GPE branch of the GPE 's Witnesses , obtained legal - entity status on DATE from ORG . According to its charter , the purpose of the applicant community was “ joint profession and dissemination of [ their ] faith and carrying on religious activity to proclaim the name of God the NORP ” .

NORP In DATE ORG from ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , a non - governmental organisation aligned with ORG , filed a complaint against the members of the applicant community 's management with the LOC prosecutor 's office in GPE . It alleged in particular that GPE 's Witnesses burdened their followers with exorbitant membership dues that put their families in a financially precarious situation and that they incited hatred toward “ traditional ” religions .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office refused to institute a criminal investigation , finding no breaches of the community 's registered charter , the LAW or other laws . It was also noted that no complaints from private persons or legal entities concerning the activity of the applicant community had been filed .

In DATE the ORG complained again and the inquiry into the same allegations was reopened . On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of GPE discontinued the investigation . Having heard several GPE 's Witnesses and completed a study of their literature , the prosecutor found that the applicant community did not cause any harm to the health of citizens or their rights and did not incite citizens to refuse to fulfil their civil duties or commit disorderly acts .

Following a third complaint by ORG , the prosecutor in charge of supervising compliance with laws on inter - ethnic relations in ORG ordered the case to be reopened . On DATE an investigator with the prosecutor 's office of LOC of GPE again discontinued the investigation . She scrutinised in detail ORG allegations concerning the death of a Jehovah 's Witness who had refused a blood transfusion and accusations about alienation of family members resulting from their involvement in the religious activity of the applicant community . The investigator established that no harm allegedly caused by the management of the applicant community to other persons could be proven .

Following a fourth complaint lodged by ORG , the investigation was reopened on DATE . The complaint was based on the same allegations as the previous ones . On DATE the same investigator discontinued the proceedings for the same reasons as those set out in her earlier decision . In particular , she pointed out that “ ORG statements are based upon their active hostility towards this particular religious organisation , whose members they [ the ORG ] deny the mere possibility of exercising their constitutional rights because of their religious beliefs ” .

The ORG requested a new investigation for the fifth time . The GPE prosecutor 's office reopened the case and assigned it to another investigator on DATE .

On DATE the new investigator , in charge of particularly important cases in LOC of GPE , terminated the criminal proceedings . Her findings in respect of substantially the same allegations were different , however . She found that GPE 's Witnesses alienated their followers from their families , intimidated believers and controlled their mind , as well as inciting them to civil disobedience and religious discord . The investigator pointed out that the community acted in breach of NORP and international laws , but that no criminal offence could be established . Accordingly , she discontinued the criminal case but recommended that the prosecutor of LOC of GPE lodge a civil action for the applicant community to be dissolved and its activity banned .

On DATE the prosecutor of GPE of GPE filed a civil action for the applicant community to be dissolved and its activity banned . The prosecutor 's charges against the applicant community were : ( i ) incitement to religious discord ; ( ii ) coercion into destroying the family ; ( iii ) encouragement of suicide or refusal on religious grounds of medical assistance to persons in life- or healththreatening conditions ; ( iv ) infringement of rights and freedoms of citizens ; and ( v ) luring teenagers and minors into the religious organisation .

On DATE hearings before ORG of GPE began . The presiding judge admitted several new witnesses for the prosecution and allowed ORG to take part in the proceedings as a third party on the ground that it “ defends the rights of citizens ” , overruling an objection by the defence .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned to DATE because the prosecutor was not ready .

On DATE the prosecutor filed a supplementary action based on the same allegations and corroborated by references to quotations from the religious literature of GPE 's Witnesses .

On DATE the proceedings resumed . The judge reversed her previous decision and , on a request by the defence , removed the ORG as third party in the case . The court proceeded to hear witnesses and experts .

On DATE the court stayed the proceedings . The judge found that contradictions between the expert opinions submitted by the parties could not be resolved and ordered a new expert study of the applicant community 's religious beliefs . The court appointed CARDINAL experts – CARDINAL in religious studies , CARDINAL in linguistics and CARDINAL in psychology – and asked them whether the literature or materials of GPE 's Witnesses contained indications of incitement to religious discord , coercion into destroying the family or infringements of the rights and freedoms of others . The source material for the study included CARDINAL volumes of evidence in the civil case , literature and documents of GPE 's Witnesses , and the PERSON translation of the Bible .

On DATE the CARDINAL - expert composite study was completed . On DATE the proceedings resumed and on DATE the ORG gave judgment .

The Golovinskiy District Court heard TIME witnesses and experts and examined religious literature and documents . It scrutinised the experts ' report and took their oral testimony . A CARDINAL - page report by CARDINAL experts endorsed the prosecutor 's allegations , while the fifth expert dissented in a refutation of CARDINAL pages . The court noted that he was the only expert who had ever observed “ how GPE 's Witnesses carry out their preaching work in different countries ” , while the CARDINAL other experts “ confirmed that they did not examine anyone belonging to the indicated group [ Jehovah 's Witnesses or potential members of GPE 's Witnesses ] ” . As to the CARDINAL experts ' conclusions , the court also stated :

“ However , not one of the experts , including ... [ the ] psychologist , could explain to the court on the basis of what objective information or research they came to this conclusion regarding the influence of the literature of GPE 's Witnesses on people 's perceptions .

It is simply the experts ' appraisal of this particular religious organisation and is not supported by any actual facts showing incitement to religious discord , infringements of the personality and rights and freedoms of citizens , etc . ”

ORG also referred to the conclusions of an expert examination of DATE performed by ORG at ORG . The examination , which was carried out at the request of ORG for the purpose of granting re - registration to ORG of the GPE 's Witnesses in GPE , found , with certain minor reservations concerning blood transfusion , that GPE 's Witnesses ' teachings inflicted no harm on citizens . ORG also had regard to the fact that in DATE over CARDINAL religious entities of ORG had obtained ORG registration in other NORP regions .

ORG assessed the allegations advanced by the prosecutor and found that none of them had been based on any objectively verifiable facts . The court 's examination of testimony by the prosecutor 's witnesses who spoke in support of the allegation of coercion into destroying the family established that “ the testimonies simply show the stand relatives take when a member of their family becomes a GPE 's Witness and when it is unacceptable from the relatives ' standpoint ” .

ORG determined that the other allegations were likewise unfounded :

“ Facts indicating deliberate incitement to religious discord , discrimination , hostility or violence , coercion into destroying the family , infringements of the personality and rights and freedoms of citizens ... were not adduced by the prosecutor or established by the court ...

... [ T]he court came to the conclusion that there is no basis for the dissolution and banning of the activity of the religious community of GPE 's Witnesses in GPE , since it has not been established that this community in GPE violates LAW or NORP laws , incites religious discord , coerces members into destroying the family , infringes the personality or rights or freedoms of citizens , encourages [ others ] to commit suicide or to refuse medical care for individuals who are in a life- or health - threatening condition for religious reasons . ”

On an appeal by the prosecutor , on CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the claim for a fresh examination by a different bench . ORG held that the ORG the existing expert opinions .

On DATE a new LAW ( “ LAW ” ) entered into force . It required all religious associations that had previously been granted legal - entity status to bring their articles of association into conformity with the LAW and obtain re - registration from the competent ORG .

On DATE ORG of GPE re - registered ORG of Jehovah 's Witnesses in GPE as a centralised religious organisation .

On DATE the first application for re - registration of the applicant community was lodged with ORG . On DATE the GPE ORG refused to examine the application on the ground that some documents were missing , without specifying which documents these were .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE a second and third application for re - registration were filed , both of which were rejected by ORG on the same ground .

On DATE the second applicant , PERSON , sent a written enquiry to ORG asking which documents were missing . On DATE he brought an action against ORG before ORG of GPE , seeking a court order to oblige ORG to consider the third application . The court set a hearing date for DATE and requested ORG to provide a response by DATE .

On DATE the deputy head of ORG informed the applicant community that it had failed to submit the original charter and registration certificate of DATE . He also informed the applicants that he was under no legal obligation to specify the missing documents .

On DATE the applicants filed a fourth application , which included the original charter and registration certificate . On DATE ORG issued the first formal refusal of re - registration . It referred to two allegedly incorrect wordings in the submitted documents : the GPE community had “ adopted ” , rather than “ approved ” its charter and the organisation had indicated its “ legal address ” only , but no “ location ” .

On DATE the fifth application was filed , in which the CARDINAL required wordings were used . This was the last application because on DATE the time - limit for submitting applications for re - registration expired .

On DATE the GPE ORG issued the second formal refusal of re - registration , in respect of the fifth application . It based its decision on the fact that the proceedings to have the applicant community dissolved and its activity banned were pending before ORG of GPE .

On DATE the fifth applicant , PERSON , as an individual and founding member of the GPE community , filed a complaint with ORG of GPE against ORG first refusal of DATE . The court stayed the proceedings pending a decision of ORG .

On DATE the third applicant , PERSON , filed a complaint with ORG of GPE against ORG second refusal of CARDINAL DATE . The court asked for official information from ORG about the proceedings to dissolve the applicant community .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the fifth applicant 's complaints , finding that the refusal of re - registration restricted only the rights of the GPE community , and not those of the fifth applicant himself . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the third applicant 's claim . The court held that , pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW , re - registration could not be granted to organisations that might be liquidated or banned pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW . The court added that the third applicant 's religious rights were not restricted by the refusal , which had only entailed legal consequences for the GPE community as a legal entity . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the Presnenskiy District Court of GPE allowed the action in part . The court found that ORG had wrongly requested the original documents , copies of which had been available on file . It held that ORG reference to ongoing proceedings before ORG was inadmissible because it had first invoked this argument before the court and had never referred to it as a ground for its earlier refusals . The court declared ORG refusals unlawful but did not order re - registration of the applicant community on the ground that new application forms for religious organisations had been introduced and that the applicant community had to submit a fresh application for registration .

DATE . On an appeal by the applicant community , on DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . It decided that the application for registration could not be processed , not only because of the newly introduced application forms , but also with regard to the ongoing proceedings in ORG .

On DATE a new round of proceedings began in ORG under a new presiding judge . On DATE the hearing was adjourned .

Following the adjournment , the community of GPE 's Witnesses in GPE collected CARDINAL signatures on a petition to protest against the prosecutor 's claim that she was protecting the rights of the community members . Copies of the petition were sent to ORG , the President , and ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG ordered a new composite psycho - linguistic expert study of the applicant community 's literature and teachings . The proceedings were stayed pending its completion .

On DATE the composite study was completed and its findings made available to the court .

Following several oral hearings , on DATE the ORG of GPE decided to uphold the prosecution 's claim , to dissolve the applicant community and to impose a permanent ban on its activities .

ORG found the applicant community responsible for luring minors into religious associations against their will and without the consent of their parents ( section QUANTITY of LAW ) and for coercing persons into destroying the family , infringing the personality , rights and freedoms of citizens ; inflicting harm on the health of citizens ; encouraging suicide or refusing on religious grounds medical assistance to persons in life- or health - threatening conditions ; and inciting citizens to refuse to fulfil their civil duties ( section LAW ) . However , the court found the applicant community not liable for extremist activity in the form of inciting religious discord with calls for violent acts ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Likewise , it found unproven the allegation that the applicant community had collected contributions from its members for its benefit .

Regarding the allegation of “ coercion into destroying the family , ” ORG relied on the statements by CARDINAL family members of GPE 's Witnesses DATE of which were members of ORG – who had been unhappy about their relatives ' abidance by the religious norms , their active involvement in the applicant community and their estrangement from non - religious family members . Thus , one husband had blamed the applicant community for the collapse of his family life , claiming that since “ his wife [ had ] joined ORG , she fulfil[led ] all their orders , [ he ] c[ould ] not discuss anything with her , or even watch TV with her because of her comments on everybody , including the leadership of the country and the ORG ” . Other witnesses complained that their adult children or , in CARDINAL case , the daughter - in - law had spent less time caring for elderly relatives because they had been constantly busy within the community . ORG further relied on the majority opinion of the expert study of DATE which determined that “ the texts of NORP 's Witnesses do not contain direct coercion into destroying the family but apply and propose for application direct psychological pressure which risks causing the destruction of families ” . Assessing the opinion by the dissenting expert and the findings of the new study of DATE , which found no coercion into destroying the family , ORG considered that these experts had limited the scope of their inquiry to publicly available literature of GPE 's Witnesses and had not analysed the “ actual activity of the GPE community ” or implementation of the religious commandments and recommendations “ in real life ” and their influence on family relations . ORG rejected statements by the witnesses for the defence who had GPE 's Witnesses in their families and the conclusions of a sociological study of CARDINAL community members , randomly selected , conducted by ORG at ORG on the ground that it had been based on the lists of respondents supplied by the community itself and failed to “ report a single instance of an internal family confrontation which objectively existed ” .

As to the charge of infringement of the personality , rights and freedoms of citizens , ORG firstly found a violation of the right to privacy in that the applicant community determined the place and nature of work of its members , recommended that they engage in part - time employment so as to have time for preaching , prohibited them from celebrating holidays or birthdays , and required them to preach door to door , thus also invading other people 's privacy . As evidence of attempts to interfere with other people 's private life , ORG referred to the criminal conviction of a PERSON for beating a female community member who had offered religious literature to his wife at their home . Moreover , in ORG view , the applicant community violated its members ' right to a free choice of occupation as it recommended that they engage in part - time employment and provided applications for voluntary service at GPE , the community centre near GPE , where they only received a DATE living allowance and no salary .

ORG found a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality between parents in relation to the upbringing and education of children ( LAW ) because some parents involved their children in the religious activity of the applicant community without the permission of the other parent , a non - member of the community . It relied on the fact that there were pending custody disputes between parents in GPE courts where religious education had been in issue . It noted that where a Witness parent had been represented in the custody dispute by a community - retained lawyer , this amounted to “ a manifestation of interest in the outcome of the cases of the community itself and an interference with the family and private affairs of its members ” . ORG also relied on the opinions of CARDINAL psychiatrist witnesses for the prosecution who stated that “ the literal following of the Bible principles , as practised by GPE 's Witnesses , restricted the person 's independent thinking ... and arrested psychological development ” . In their view , a child who did not celebrate holidays would become “ a social outcast ” and the community 's teachings “ hindered the development of patriotic feelings and love for LOC .

ORG found that the applicant community violated the right to freedom to choose one 's religion by resorting to active proselytising and “ mind control ” . According to the prosecution experts , GPE 's Witnesses were set apart from traditional religions because of the “ theocratic hierarchy of the community ” , “ their striving to integrate families into the life of a totalitarian non - secular collective ” and “ military - like discipline in domestic life ” . ORG accepted the opinions of the prosecution experts and rejected the contrary conclusion in the expert study that the defence expert psychiatrist had conducted of CARDINAL community members on the grounds that “ participants had been selected from lists supplied by the organisations ” and that the study “ only concerned the community members whereas their relatives had not been examined ” . ORG also considered that the petitions signed by the community members in its support had been “ evidence of the pressure that the community exercised on its members ” .

Ruling on the charge of “ encouragement of suicide or the refusal of medical assistance on religious grounds ” , ORG found that under the influence of the applicant community its members had refused transfusions of blood and/or blood components even in difficult or lifethreatening circumstances . That finding was based on the following evidence : the prohibition on blood transfusion contained in the literature of the applicant community , the “ No Blood ” card distributed within the community for the benefit of its members , testimonies by community members who confirmed carrying such cards , the existence of ORG with the applicant community , and stories of patients who had refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds and whose refusal had been noted in their medical records . ORG also had regard to a letter from ORG that listed a number of instances in which patients had refused blood transfusions for themselves and , in CARDINAL case , in respect of a newborn child . Even though the medical outcome of those cases was not specified , ORG held that the proven fact of damage to the health of CARDINAL individual was a sufficient ground for terminating the activities of the GPE community . It further noted the opinions of medical experts who clarified that bloodless surgery was a prospective trend in medicine but that in case of certain diseases the transfusion of blood or its components was still indispensable . Finally , in ORG view , the “ No Blood ” card contravened the patient 's right to take medical decisions for himself by delegating that right – in the eventuality of his being unconscious – to his fellow believers .

As to harming the health of citizens , ORG found that , in addition to the prohibition on blood transfusion , the activities of the applicant community had had a “ negative influence on the mental state and mental health of the followers ” . This assessment rested on opinions of PERSON family members who testified that they had seen “ sudden and negatives changes of personality ” in their relatives who had joined the applicant community and that many participants at religious meetings of GPE 's Witnesses had “ cried ” and had complained thereafter “ about colossal emotional exhaustion ” .

As to luring minors into the religious association , ORG found , on the basis of statements by CARDINAL non - Witness parents , that where a Witness parent involved the child in the activities of the applicant community , there was an encroachment on the child 's freedom of conscience and the joint right of parents to participate in the child 's upbringing .

Finally , ORG found that the applicant community 's literature incited citizens to “ refuse to fulfil their civil duties . ” This included refusal to serve in the army and to perform alternative service and promotion of “ a disrespectful attitude towards ORG emblems DATE the flag and the national anthem ” , as well as a prohibition on celebrating State holidays .

ORG held that the interference with the applicant community 's rights was justified , prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim because the applicant community had “ violated rights and freedoms of citizens , and its activity led to the destruction of families , encroachments on the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens and calls to refuse to perform duties to society ... Taking into account that the [ applicant ] community violated constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens , the contemplated restriction on its rights and termination of its activity is justified and proportionate to the constitutionally significant aims ” .

The applicant community was ordered to bear the costs of the expert studies of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and to pay costs of MONEY to the ORG .

The applicant community appealed , claiming , in particular , that the interference with its right to freedom of religion was not justified from the standpoint of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . It also invoked Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Convention .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' appeal in a summary fashion and upheld the judgment of ORG , endorsing its reasons .

DATE . The “ No Blood ” card referred to in the proceedings is a pre - printed foldable card that bears the words “ No Blood ” in capital letters on the front page and empty fields to be filled out concerning the person(s ) to be contacted in case of emergency and the holder 's allergies , diseases and medicine(s ) . The text inside the card reads as follows :

“ MEDICAL DIRECTIVE / RELEASE FROM LIABILITY

I , [ name ] , have filled out this directive as an official statement of my will . The instructions contained therein reflect my firm and conscious decision .

I direct that under no circumstances – even if doctors consider it necessary to save my life or health – shall any blood transfusion be performed on me ... I consent to the use of blood substitutes , hemodiluting solutions ... or bloodless methods of treatment .

By this legal directive I exercise my right to consent to medical treatment or refuse it in accordance with my principles and convictions . I am a GPE 's Witness and issue this directive in pursuance of the Biblical precepts ...

I release doctors , anaesthetists , hospital and medical personnel from liability for any consequences of my refusal of blood provided that I have been given full alternative qualified medical assistance .

Should I be unconscious , the person listed on the reverse side of the card [ emergency contacts ] may represent me before others , acting in accordance with this directive .

[ Date , signature , address , phone number , and signatures of CARDINAL witnesses ] . ”

Article CARDINAL guarantees freedom of religion , including the right to profess either alone or in community with others any religion or to profess no religion at all , to freely choose , have and share religious and other beliefs and manifest them in practice .

DATE provides that everyone shall have the right to freedom of association .

Article CARDINAL establishes that maternity , childhood and the family shall be protected by the ORG . The parents have equal rights and obligations with regard to providing care for children and their upbringing .

On DATE LAW ( no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE – “ LAW ” ) entered into force .

LAW prohibits the involvement of minors in religious associations , as well as the religious education of minors against their will and without the consent of their parents or guardians ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The founding documents of religious organisations that had been established before LAW were to be amended to conform to the LAW and submitted for re - registration . Until so amended , the founding documents remained operative in the part which did not contradict the terms of the LAW ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Re - registration of religious organisations was to be completed by DATE ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL , with subsequent amendments ) .

NORP The list of documents required for ( re-)registration was set out in LAW § CARDINAL and read as follows :

“ — application for registration ;

— list of founders of the religious organisation indicating their nationality , place of residence and dates of birth ;

— charter ( articles of association ) of the religious organisation ;

— TIME of the constituent assembly ;

— information on the address ( location ) of the permanent governing body of the religious organisation at which contact with the religious organisation is to be maintained ... ”

DATE . Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL stated that ( re-)registration of a religious organisation could be refused if :

“ — the aims and activities of a religious organisation contradict LAW or NORP laws – with reference to specific legal provisions ;

— the organisation has not been recognised as a religious one ;

— the articles of association or other submitted materials do not comply with NORP legislation or contain inaccurate information ;

— another religious organisation has already been registered under the same name ;

— the founder(s ) has ( have ) no capacity to act . ”

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( as amended on DATE ) provides for the following grounds for dissolving a religious organisation by judicial decision and banning its activity :

“ — breach of public security and public order ;

— actions aimed at engaging in extremist activities ;

— coercion into destroying the family unit ;

— infringement of the personality , rights and freedoms of citizens ;

— infliction of harm , established in accordance with the law , on the morals or health of citizens , including by means of narcotic or psychoactive substances , hypnosis , or committing depraved and other disorderly acts in connection with religious activities ;

— encouragement of suicide or the refusal on religious grounds of medical assistance to persons in life- or health - threatening conditions ;

— hindrance to receiving compulsory education ;

— coercion of members and followers of a religious association and other persons into alienating their property for the benefit of the religious association ;

— hindering a citizen from leaving a religious association by threatening harm to life , health , property , if the threat can actually be carried out , or by application of force or commission of other disorderly acts ;

— inciting citizens to refuse to fulfil their civil duties established by law or to commit other disorderly acts . ”

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL establishes that an application for re - registration must be refused if there are grounds for dissolving the religious organisation and banning its activity as set out in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL .

Under LAW , the following rights may be exercised solely by registered religious organisations :

the right to establish and maintain religious buildings and other places of worship or pilgrimage ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) ;

the right to manufacture , acquire , export , import and distribute religious literature , printed , audio and video material and other religious articles ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) ;

the right to create cross - cultural organisations , educational institutions and mass media ( section CARDINAL LAW ) ;

the right to establish and maintain international links and contacts for pilgrimages , conferences and so on , including the right to invite foreign nationals to GPE ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) ;

the right to own buildings , plots of land , other property , financial assets and religious artefacts , including the right to have municipal and ORG property transferred to them free of charge for religious purposes and the immunity of such property from legal charge ( section QUANTITY ) ;

the right to hire employees ( section CARDINAL ) .

In addition , the following rights are explicitly reserved to registered religious organisations , to the exclusion of other non - religious legal entities :

the right to found companies publishing religious literature or producing articles for religious services ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) ;

the right to establish licensed educational institutions for the professional training of clergy and auxiliary religious staff ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) ; and

the right to invite into the NORP Federation foreign nationals planning to engage in professional religious activities , including preaching ( section DATE ) .

A citizen or his or her legal representative may refuse medical assistance or require that it be terminated , save in the circumstances listed in DATE . In that case the possible consequences of such refusal should be presented in an accessible form to the citizen or his or her legal representative . The refusal must be noted in the medical record and countersigned by the citizen and a medical specialist ( LAW DATE ) .

If the parents or guardians of a child below DATE of age refuse medical assistance which is necessary for saving the child 's life , the medical institution may apply to a court for the protection of the child 's interests ( LAW ) .

Medical assistance shall be provided without the consent of the individuals concerned if they suffer from highly contagious diseases , grave mental disorders or if they have committed a criminal offence and been ordered to follow medical treatment by a judicial decision ( Article CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld at final instance a judgment of the lower court by which the prosecutor 's request to liquidate the local organisation of GPE 's Witnesses had been refused . CARDINAL of the grounds advanced by the prosecutor in support of the liquidation claim was that a ORG mother had refused a blood transfusion for her child . ORG noted that the mother had refused a blood transfusion but had been in favour of blood substitutes which had been successfully used during surgery . It also pointed out that the teachings of GPE 's Witnesses did not require believers to refuse blood but let everyone make an independent decision on that issue .

In DATE ORG in GPE upheld a decision of the lower court to hold a medical doctor liable for administering blood transfusions to an unconscious patient carrying a card stating that she was a GPE 's Witness and , as a matter of religious belief , rejected blood transfusions under any circumstances ( PERSON v. PERSON CARDINAL O.R. CARDINAL ) . It held , in particular , as follows :

“ CARDINAL ... The principles of self - determination and individual autonomy compel the conclusion that the patient may reject blood transfusions even if harmful consequences may result and even if the decision is generally regarded as foolhardy ... To transfuse a GPE 's Witness , in the face of her explicit instructions to the contrary , would , in my opinion , violate her right to control her own body and show disrespect for the religious values by which she has chosen to live her life ...

CARDINAL NORP The state undoubtedly has a strong interest in protecting and preserving the lives and health of its citizens . There clearly are circumstances where this interest may override the individual 's right to self - determination . For example , the state may , in certain cases , require that citizens submit to medical procedures in order to eliminate a health threat to the community ...

CARDINAL NORP The state 's interest in preserving the life or health of a competent patient must generally give way to the patient 's stronger interest in directing the course of her own life . As indicated earlier , there is no law prohibiting a patient from declining necessary treatment ... Recognition of the right to reject medical treatment can not , in my opinion , be said to depreciate the interest of the state in life or in the sanctity of life . Individual free choice and self - determination are themselves fundamental constituents of life . To deny individuals freedom of choice , with respect to their health care , can only lessen and not enhance the value of life ... ”

A DATE landmark case from GPE involved an adult daughter of a NORP 's Witness who had been prevailed upon by her mother to refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons ( In re GPE ) CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) . Lord PERSON gave the following summary of his opinion :

“ CARDINAL . Prima facie every adult has the right and capacity to decide whether or not he will accept medical treatment , even if a refusal may risk permanent injury to his health or even lead to premature death . Furthermore , it matters not whether the reasons for the refusal were rational or irrational , unknown or even non - existent . This is so notwithstanding the very strong public interest in preserving the life and health of all citizens . However , the presumption of capacity to decide , which stems from the fact that the patient is an adult , is rebuttable ...

In some cases doctors will not only have to consider the capacity of the patient to refuse treatment , but also whether the refusal has been vitiated because it resulted not from the patient 's will , but from the will of others . It matters not that those others sought , however strongly , to persuade the patient to refuse , so long as in the end the refusal represented the patient 's independent decision . If , however , his will was overborne , the refusal will not have represented a true decision . In this context the relationship of the persuader to the patient – for example , spouse , parents or religious adviser DATE will be important , because some relationships more readily lend themselves to overbearing the patient 's independent will than do others ... ”

In GPE law , the doctrine of informed consent required for any kind of medical treatment has been firmly entrenched DATE when PERSON , on ORG , described this doctrine as follows : “ Every human being of adult DATE and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body , and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient 's consent commits an assault ” ( ORG , CARDINAL N.Y. CARDINAL , CARDINAL ORG ) . The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent , that is , to refuse treatment ( NORP v. Director , ORG , CARDINAL GPE CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) . The following summary of the relevant case - law can be found in the case of PERSON ORG ( CARDINAL N.Y.CARDINALd CARDINAL , CARDINAL ORG , CARDINAL N.Y.S.CARDINALd CARDINAL ( DATE ) :

“ The ORG has a well - recognized interest in protecting and preserving the lives of its citizens . ... [ A ] distinction should be drawn between the ORG 's interest in protecting the lives of its citizens from injuries by third parties , and injuries resulting from the individual 's own actions ( see , e.g. , Public Health Trust v. PERSON , CARDINAL So.CARDINALd CARDINAL , DATE [ Fla.CARDINAL , PERSON , PERSON . J. , concurring ] ) . When the individual 's conduct threatens injury to others , the ORG 's interest is manifest and the ORG can generally be expected to intervene . But the ORG rarely acts to protect individuals from themselves , indicating that the ORG 's interest is less substantial when there is little or no risk of direct injury to the public . This is consistent with the primary function of the ORG to preserve and promote liberty and the personal autonomy of the individual ( LOC v. PERSON , supra ) . ... The ORG will intervene to prevent suicide ... but merely declining medical care , even essential treatment , is not considered a suicidal act or indication of incompetence ( Matter of PERSON , supra , CARDINAL N.Y.CARDINALd at CARDINAL - CARDINAL , n. CARDINAL , CARDINAL N.Y.S.CARDINALd CARDINAL , CARDINAL ORG ) . ”

The right of an individual to refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds and to be compensated in damages if such transfusion has been carried out against the patient 's wishes has also been upheld by courts in other jurisdictions ( see , for example , ORG v. Klerk , Case No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; ORG [ DATE ] ; GPE , PERSON v. PERSON , PERSON ( GPE , DATE ) ; Sentence No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in case of Mr PERSON , ORG of GPE , DATE ; PERSON and her heirs v. PERSON and ORG , Case No . DATE ( O ) Nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , ORG ) .

The relevant part of the ORG by ORG , doc . CARDINAL , DATE ) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by GPE stated :

“ CARDINAL . The LAW safeguards freedom of conscience and of religion ( article CARDINAL ) ; the equality of religious associations before the law and the separation of church and state ( article CARDINAL ) , and offers protection against discrimination based on religion ( article CARDINAL ) . The law on freedom of religion of DATE has led to a considerable renewal of religious activities in GPE . According to religious organisations met in GPE , this law has opened a new era , and led to a revitalisation of churches . It was replaced on DATE by a new federal law on freedom of conscience and religious associations . This legislation has been criticised both at home and abroad on the grounds that it disregards the principle of equality of religions .

... In DATE , ORG , PERSON , also acknowledged that many articles of the DATE law “ On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations ” do not meet GPE 's international obligations on human rights . According to him , some of its clauses have led to discrimination against different religious faiths and should therefore be amended . ...

According to the regulations by ORG , - responsible for the implementation of the law on freedom of conscience and religious associations - , religious organisations established before the law came into force ( DATE ) had to re - register before DATE .

The registration process was finally completed on DATE as ORG decided to extend the deadline twice . CARDINAL religious organisations and groups have been registered , and CARDINAL were refused their registration , most of them because they failed to produce a complete file . Many others have , for a variety of reasons , failed to register . The Minister of Justice , PERSON strongly rejected allegations that ORG had exerted pressure on the ORG to prevent some religious organisations from obtaining their registration . PERSON also indicated that experts of the Ministry had “ closely examined ” the status of the ORG and the GPE 's Witnesses , and had come to the conclusion that nothing prevented the latter 's ' registration at the federal level . ...

Indeed , there have been cases where , even if a religious organisation had re - registered nationally , local authorities created obstacles . This has especially been the case with the GPE 's Witnesses , whose GPE congregation has long been the target of civil and criminal proceedings designed to prevent its activities .

The GPE 's Witnesses were registered at federal level in DATE , and its CARDINAL communities have also been registered throughout GPE . Nevertheless , the community in GPE was forced completely underground and prevented from possessing properties and places of worship . The GPE civil trial against GPE 's Witnesses ( since DATE ) has been considered by many as an important test case . The co - rapporteurs thought then that the GPE case has come to an end with a judgment issued on DATE , dismissing the charges against ORG . However , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG set aside this ruling and ordered ORG to hear the case once again . The retrial started on DATE . Until a definitive ruling is reached , ORG in GPE will be without registration and unable to profess their faith without hindrance . The co - rapporteurs regard the length of the judicial examination in this case as an example of harassment against a religious minority and believe that after DATE of criminal and legal proceedings the trial should finally be halted . ”

Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by GPE adopted by ORG of ORG on DATE , noted as follows :

“ CARDINAL . However , the ORG is concerned about a number of obligations and major commitments with which progress remains insufficient , and the honouring of which requires further action by the NORP authorities : ...

xiv . the ORG regrets the problems of the ORG and ORG in GPE , but welcomes the decision of the NORP authorities to ensure that the problem of local discrimination and harassment of these religious communities be brought to an end ; ... ”


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

On DATE the applicant married Mr PERSON in a religious ceremony which was also valid in the eyes of the law ( matrimonio concordatario ) .

On DATE the applicant petitioned ORG for judicial separation .

In a judgment dated DATE ORG granted her petition and also ordered Mr PERSON to pay the applicant maintenance ( mantenimento ) of MONEY per month .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant was summoned to appear before ORG of the Rome Vicariate on DATE “ to answer questions in the PERSON matrimonial case ” .

On DATE the applicant went alone to ORG without knowing why she had been summoned to appear . She was informed that on DATE her husband had sought to have the marriage annulled on the ground of consanguinity ( the applicant ’s mother and Mr PERSON ’s father being cousins ) . She was questioned by the judge and stated that she had known of her consanguineous relationship with Mr PERSON but did not know whether , at the time of her marriage , the priest had requested a special dispensation ( dispensatio ) .

In a judgment delivered on DATE and deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG annulled the marriage on the ground of consanguinity . The court had followed a summary procedure ( praetermissis solemnitatibus processus ordinarii ) under LAW of the Code of Canon Law . That procedure is followed where , once the parties have been summoned to appear and the defensor vinculis ( defender of the institution of marriage ) has intervened , it is clear from an agreed document that there is a ground for annulling the marriage .

On DATE the applicant was notified by the registry of ORG that on DATE the court had annulled the marriage on the ground of consanguinity .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with the Roman Rota ( Romana Rota ) against ORG judgment . She submitted first that she had never received a copy of the judgment in question and complained that the court had not heard her submissions until DATE , which was after it had delivered its judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant also alleged a breach of her defence rights and of the adversarial principle on account of the fact that she had been summoned to appear before ORG without being informed in advance either of the application to have the marriage annulled or the reasons for that application . She had therefore not prepared any defence and , furthermore , had not been assisted by a lawyer .

On DATE the registry of ORG informed the applicant that there had been a clerical error in the notification sent to her on DATE and that the judgment was dated DATE .

On DATE the defensor vinculis submitted observations to the effect that the applicant “ had acted correctly in appealing against the judgment ” ( la convenuta ORG agito giustamente facendo appello contro la sentenza ) of ORG . Accordingly , in a summons of CARDINAL DATE the reporting judge of the Rota summoned the parties and the defensor vinculis to appear .

On DATE the applicant was informed that the ORG would examine her appeal on DATE and that she had DATE in which to submit observations . On DATE the applicant , who was still unassisted by a lawyer , submitted her observations , in which she complained , inter alia , that she had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence . She gave details of the financial arrangements between herself and her ex - husband and stressed that the annulment of the marriage would have substantial repercussions on her ex - husband ’s obligation to pay her maintenance , which was her only source of income .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was deposited with the registry on DATE , the Rota upheld the decision annulling the marriage on the ground of consanguinity . The applicant received only the operative provisions of the judgment , her request for a full copy of it having been refused .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant and her ex - husband that its judgment , which had become enforceable by a decision of the superior ecclesiastical review body , had been referred to ORG for a declaration that it could be enforced under NORP law ( delibazione ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s ex - husband summoned her to appear before ORG .

The applicant appeared before that court and requested it to set aside the DATE ’s judgment for infringing her defence rights . She stated that she had not received a copy of the application to have the marriage annulled and had been unable to examine the documents filed in the proceedings , including the observations of the defensor vinculis . She requested the court to refuse to declare the ORG ’s judgment enforceable , submitting that , in any event , the proceedings would have to be reopened in order to allow her to examine and reply to the documents filed in the proceedings under canon law . She requested , in the alternative , in the event that the court should declare the judgment enforceable , that her ex - husband be ordered to pay her DATE maintenance for the rest of her life .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG declared the judgment of CARDINAL DATE enforceable . The court found that the opportunity given to the applicant on DATE to answer questions had been sufficient to ensure that the adversarial principle had been complied with and that , moreover , she had freely chosen to bring the proceedings before the ORG and had been able to exercise her defence rights in those proceedings “ irrespective of the special features of proceedings under canon law ” . The court went on to hold that it did not have jurisdiction to award her maintenance “ for the rest of her life ” ; as far as a possible award of interim maintenance ( assegno provvisorio ) was concerned , which was a provisional arrangement , the court pointed out that the applicant had not in any event proved that she needed the money .

The applicant appealed on points of law , repeating her submission that her defence rights had been infringed in the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts . She submitted , among other things , that ORG had omitted to take account of the following features of the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts : the parties can not be represented by a lawyer ; the respondent is not informed of the reasons relied on by the petitioner for having the marriage annulled until he or she is questioned ; the defensor vinculis , who acts as the respondent ’s guardian , is not obliged to lodge an appeal ; an appeal must be lodged personally by the party in question and not by their lawyer ; the ecclesiastical court is not particularly autonomous . She repeated that she had not been informed in detail of the application to have the marriage annulled or of the possibility of being assisted by a lawyer . Furthermore , the proceedings at first instance had been too quick . The applicant also criticised the fact that ORG appeared to have omitted to examine the case file relating to the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts , which might have yielded evidence in the applicant ’s favour . Besides that , the applicant submitted that she had shown herself to be in financial need and was therefore entitled to maintenance .

During the proceedings the applicant had requested the registry of ORG to give her a copy of the documents filed in the annulment proceedings in order to produce them before ORG , but the court clerk had refused to grant her request on the ground that the parties could receive only the operative provisions of the judgment , “ which should be sufficient to allow them to exercise their defence rights ” .

In a judgment of DATE , deposited with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . It held , first of all , that the adversarial principle had been complied with in the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts ; moreover , there was case - law authority to support the view that while the assistance of a lawyer was not a requirement under canon law , it was not forbidden : the applicant could therefore have taken advantage of that possibility . The court also held that the fact that the applicant had had a very short time in which to prepare her defence in DATE did not amount to an infringement of her defence rights because she had not indicated why she had needed more time . With regard to the request for maintenance , ORG held that ORG could not have decided otherwise , given that the applicant had mistakenly referred to maintenance “ for the rest of her life ” and , furthermore , had failed to show that she was entitled to maintenance and needed it . ORG did not rule on the fact that the case file relating to the proceedings under canon law had not been examined by ORG .

From DATE the applicant ’s ex - husband ceased paying her maintenance . The applicant therefore began enforcement proceedings for payment of the maintenance by serving notice ( precetto ) on him to pay it . On DATE her ex - husband lodged an objection with ORG , which , in a judgment of DATE , upheld his objection and ruled that he no longer had to pay maintenance because ORG had declared that the decision annulling the marriage was enforceable . The applicant did not appeal against that judgment because on DATE she reached an agreement with her ex - husband ( under the terms of that agreement she also withdrew another set of proceedings that she had instituted in the ORG claiming joint title to property ) .

Under LAW of the ORG between GPE and the FAC , as amended by the Agreement of DATE revising the ORG , ratified by GPE under PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , a judgment of the ecclesiastical courts annulling a marriage , which has become enforceable by a decision of the superior ecclesiastical review body , may be made enforceable in GPE at the request of CARDINAL of the parties by a judgment of the relevant court of appeal .

The court of appeal must check :

( a ) that the judgment has been delivered by the correct court ;

( b ) that in the nullity proceedings the defence rights of the parties have been recognised in a manner compatible with the fundamental principles of NORP law ; and

( c ) that the other conditions for a declaration of enforceability of foreign judgments have been satisfied .


Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition);Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 5-1-f

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE and is currently detained in a remand facility in GPE awaiting extradition to GPE . He holds a valid NORP passport and is considered to be a national of GPE by both the NORP and NORP authorities . The applicant , however , also claims to be an NORP national ( see below ) .

The applicant 's father , PERSON , of NORP ethnic origin , was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . The applicant 's mother , PERSON , of NORP ethnic origin , was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . The applicant had an elder brother , PERSON , and a younger sister , PERSON . The family was living in GPE , GPE at the time the events described below took place .

On DATE the applicant 's entire family , including himself and his then DATE sister , were arrested in GPE on suspicion of killing QUANTITY persons and mutilating their corpses . It appears that prior to the arrest the NORP law - enforcement authorities found remains of mutilated human corpses inside the house of the applicant 's family and in a rubbish dump near their house . The applicant 's mother was the primary suspect , while all the other family members were suspected of being accomplices . The applicant claimed to have been out of town at the time the alleged crimes were committed .

It appears from the case file that their arrest generated much media coverage in GPE . The media reports also allegedly included false rumours that the applicant 's family had been engaged in the trafficking of human organs and even cannibalism . The ethnic origin of the applicant 's father and his children was also usually mentioned .

According to the applicant , while in detention he and all his family members had been constantly subjected to torture and other forms of illtreatment with the aim of extracting confessions from them . They were kept in separate cells for most of the time . The applicant provided a very detailed account of the types of ill - treatment to which he had been subjected , which included , inter alia , various forms of beating , deprivation of food and drink , and suffocation .

It appears that , initially , no charges were brought against the applicant or most of his family members in connection with the murders and on various dates they were all released , with the exception of his mother , owing to lack of evidence . However , after the release all of the family ( except the applicant 's sister ) were arrested again on various grounds .

After DATE in detention , the applicant was released on DATE owing to lack of evidence in connection with his involvement in the murder . However , TIME after his release , the applicant was stopped on the street by other police officers , who asked him for identity documents . The applicant was then taken to a police station where , after a body search , the police allegedly found some heroin concealed in his shoes . The applicant argued that the drugs had been planted on him by the police , as he had been released from detention TIME and would not have been able to acquire any heroin and hide it in the soles of his shoes during this extremely short time period , especially while suffering from the effects of ill - treatment and having had nothing to eat or drink since his initial arrest .

On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of possession of illegal drugs and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . He was not provided with legal assistance during these proceedings .

The applicant was released on DATE following a presidential pardon .

On DATE he left GPE with his sister and has lived in GPE since then .

In the meantime , by a decision of ORG of DATE , the applicant was charged with the murder of CARDINAL persons and the mutilation of their corpses , under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( aggravated murder ) and CARDINAL ( abuse of corpse ) of LAW of GPE . Moreover , by the same decision , ORG ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant without fixing any term for detention .

On DATE ORG suspended the pre - trial investigation , finding that the applicant was at large , and declared a search for him in order to secure his presence at the place of investigation .

The applicant 's father was released from detention on DATE but was arrested again on DATE for alleged possession of heroin , in circumstances similar to the applicant 's second arrest . On DATE the ORG convicted him of possession of illegal drugs and certain other offences and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE , DATE , ORG convicted the applicant 's mother and brother of murdering QUANTITY persons and mutilating their corpses , and sentenced each of DATE imprisonment under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . The court found that the applicant 's mother , with the assistance of her eldest son and with the purpose of enrichment at the expense of the victims , had invited a family of her acquaintance to her home , poisoned and killed them , and thereafter dismembered and otherwise mutilated the corpses so that it would be easier to dispose of them .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's father was also convicted under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . It was found that he had aided and abetted his wife and eldest son in the killings and mutilation of the victims ' corpses . After a series of appeals , his conviction under LAW § CARDINAL was quashed and the conviction under LAW upheld , and taking into account his previous conviction he was sentenced to a combined sentence of DATE imprisonment .

NORP The applicant 's brother died in prison on DATE from heart and lung failure . According to the applicant , his brother 's death was a consequence of many years of ill - treatment .

The applicant 's father was released from prison in DATE following a presidential pardon and moved to GPE .

The applicant 's mother was released from prison in DATE , also following a presidential pardon , and moved to GPE in DATE .

As mentioned above , the applicant has been living in GPE since DATE . It appears from the case file that the applicant entered the territory of GPE legally with his NORP passport . However , he had been entitled to stay in GPE for DATE only and it appears that after this period he continued to live there without a residence permit .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police in PERSON on the basis of a search warrant issued by the NORP authorities .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant 's detention with a view to extraditing him . ORG relied on ORG detention order of DATE and confirmed its findings . No fixed term for detention was specified , and it was noted that the applicant would be detained until an extradition decision had been given . The decision of ORG was subject to an appeal within DATE of its delivery . However , the applicant did not appeal against that decision .

On CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE made a formal request for the applicant 's extradition relying on LAW of DATE ( “ the DATE Minsk Convention ” ) .

On DATE the Prosecutor General of GPE issued a decision on the applicant 's extradition to GPE under the DATE Minsk Convention . Inter alia , the decision stated that , according to the information provided by the NORP authorities , the applicant was a national of GPE and that , according to the information received from ORG of GPE , he was not considered to be an NORP national in accordance with LAW .

By a letter of DATE ORG of GPE asked the NORP authorities to give assurances in respect of the applicant 's criminal case . By a letter of DATE signed by ORG , the NORP authorities gave assurance that the criminal case against the applicant did not have any political or racial motivation , that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or any other inhuman treatment and that the applicant 's defence rights would be ensured . It stated that , by a law of DATE which entered into force on DATE , the death penalty had been abolished in GPE . It also added that the applicant would be allowed to leave GPE after serving his sentence and that he would not be handed over to a third State without the consent of GPE .

Subsequently , the applicant was involved in CARDINAL separate sets of proceedings by means of which he attempted to have the extradition order quashed .

After the applicant 's father returned to GPE , he applied for an NORP national 's identity card on the basis of the fact that he had been born in PERSON , in the GPE SSR , and had lived in the GPE SSR until DATE . On DATE the applicant 's father was issued with an identity card confirming his citizenship .

Following his arrest on DATE , the applicant attempted to apply , through his representative , for an identity card of a national of GPE , on the basis that his father was an NORP national . His application was rejected as he was obliged to apply for this identity card in person .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an action with ORG , requesting the court to order LOC to issue him with an NORP national 's identity card . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant 's request , noting that under the domestic law the applicant qualified as an NORP national by right of blood and instructed ORG to issue him with an identity card .

On the basis of this judgment , and pending its entry into force , on DATE the applicant was issued with a temporary identity document valid until DATE . It appears that , following the appeals mentioned below , the term of validity of this temporary identity document was not extended and that the applicant was never issued with an identity card of an NORP national .

The Absheron ORG lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE , noting that the applicant was a national of GPE and that the only reason for his application for an identity card of an NORP national was to avoid extradition .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE , finding that the applicant was a foreign national and that he could not be issued with an NORP national 's identity card unless he was granted NORP citizenship by the President of the Republic , under LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against ORG judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ( with an addendum on DATE ) , the applicant appealed to ORG against the detention order of DATE and the extradition order of DATE . In his appeal he argued , inter alia , that ( a ) his detention had no basis under the domestic law and the detention order of DATE had unlawfully authorised his detention for an indefinite period ; ( b ) he faced an imminent risk of torture and other forms of ill - treatment if extradited to GPE ; ( c ) despite the authorities ' unlawful refusals to issue him with citizenship documents , under the domestic law he was an NORP national by right of blood ( as the son of an NORP national ) and that therefore his extradition to a foreign country would be contrary to NORP law and LAW .

On DATE the ORG quashed ORG extradition order of DATE , having had regard to ORG judgment of DATE which confirmed the applicant 's claim to NORP citizenship ( although ORG judgment never entered into force , by this time it had not yet been quashed by ORG ) . ORG noted that ORG could appeal against this decision within a DATE period and , in order to allow time for such an appeal , ordered the applicant 's release DATE from the delivery of the decision ( on DATE ) .

NORP The applicant was not released on DATE , DATE after the delivery of the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG lodged an appeal against ORG decision of DATE . Accompanying the appeal was a request to restore the DATE appeal period owing to the fact that ORG did not receive the decision until DATE . The applicant protested , arguing that the law on criminal procedure did not allow for restoration of the missed threeday period for appeals by the prosecution against court decisions concerning remand in custody . The applicant also claimed that the request for restoration of the DATE appeal period was unsubstantiated , because the representative of ORG had been present in the courtroom at the time the decision of DATE was announced .

On DATE the request to restore the appeal period was granted and the appeal of ORG was accepted .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE . ORG held that the applicant was a national of GPE and that he had not been formally granted NORP citizenship . It noted that in upholding the applicant 's citizenship claims the lower court had incorrectly relied on ORG judgment of DATE , which had not entered into force . Therefore , ORG upheld the validity of the extradition order of DATE and quashed ORG decision on the applicant 's release . However , ORG decision was silent as to the existence of the risk of torture or ill - treatment in the event of the applicant 's extradition and as to the lawfulness of his detention with a view to extradition .

No appeals are available under domestic law against ORG decision of DATE .

It appears from the case file that on DATE the applicant applied for refugee status to the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees in GPE . However , it appears that he did not receive any reply to his request .

DATE ) of LAW reads as follows :

“ No one shall be subjected to torture or ill - treatment . No one shall be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment . ... ”

The preventive measure of remand in custody ( həbs qətimkan tədbiri ) is ordered by a court . The court 's decision on remand in custody can be challenged before the court of appeal and the latter court 's decision on this matter is final ( Article CARDINAL ) . Pre - trial detention of defendants in criminal proceedings is subject to automatic review and may not exceed specific time - limits , set out depending on the gravity of charges ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Chapter LII of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which parties to criminal proceedings could challenge acts or decisions of the prosecuting authorities before a court . Article CARDINAL provides that the accused ( or the suspected ) person or his counsel can challenge acts or decisions of the prosecuting authorities concerning , inter alia , his or her arrest or detention . The judge examining the legality of the prosecuting authorities ' acts and decisions can quash them if found to be unlawful ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Chapter LVII of the ORG deals with legal assistance in criminal matters . Article CARDINAL provides that upon receipt of a request for extradition and a copy of a detention order from the competent authority of a foreign ORG , the prosecuting authority of GPE to which the request is addressed may , if necessary , take measures to have the person arrested and detained before the decision on extradition is taken . Article CARDINAL provides that a person who is in the territory of GPE shall be extradited by the prosecuting authority with a view to criminal prosecution or enforcement of a sentence , taking into consideration the requirements of Article CARDINAL of the Code , on the basis of an official request for his extradition from the competent authority of the foreign State concerned .

A person detained with a view to extradition can challenge the prosecuting authorities ' acts before courts . This action is examined under the procedure established in ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( LAW ; see above ) of the CCrP ( Article CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL provides that a person detained “ until the adoption of the decision on extradition ” shall be immediately released if the prosecuting authority decides that the extradition is impossible or refuses to extradite him .

The Law on Extradition of DATE deals with the questions concerning extradition of a person to a foreign ORG . According to this PERSON , the ORG examines the question of extradition of a person at the request of a foreign ORG ( LAW . ORG decision on extradition can be challenged in accordance with the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation ( Article CARDINAL ) .

This Convention was signed on DATE in GPE and both GPE and GPE are parties to it .

LAW ORG provides that a request for extradition must be accompanied by , among other documents , a detention order ( LAW ) . Upon receipt of a request for extradition the requested ORG should immediately take measures to search for and arrest the person whose extradition is sought , except in cases where no extradition is possible ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The person whose extradition is sought may be arrested before receipt of a request for extradition , if there is a related petition . The petition must contain a reference to a detention order and indicate that a request for extradition will follow ( LAW ) . If the person is arrested before receipt of the extradition request , the requesting ORG must be informed immediately ( LAW ) .

A person arrested under LAW must be released if no request for extradition is received within DATE of the arrest ( LAW ) .

NORP The chief prosecutors of the contracting States are responsible for dealing with matters concerning extradition and criminal prosecution ( LAW ) .

In his report ( E / PERSON ) submitted in accordance with Resolution CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG ( ORG Human Rights , the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture , PERSON , described the situation in GPE as follows :

“ DATE . The Special Rapporteur believes , on the basis of the numerous testimonies ( including on a number of deaths in custody ) he received during the mission , not least from those whose evident fear led them to request anonymity and who thus had nothing to gain personally from making their allegations , that torture or similar illtreatment is systematic as defined by ORG . Even though only a small number of torture cases can be proved with absolute certainty , the copious testimonies gathered are so consistent in their description of torture techniques and the places and circumstances in which torture is perpetrated that the pervasive and persistent nature of torture throughout the investigative process can not be denied . The Special Rapporteur also observes that torture and other forms of illtreatment appear to be used indiscriminately against persons charged for activities qualified as serious crimes such as acts against ORG interests , as well as petty criminals and others . ”

In DATE ORG considered the second periodic report of GPE under LAW and adopted the following observations ( ORG ) :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is concerned about allegations relating to widespread use of torture and illtreatment of detainees and the low number of officials who have been charged , prosecuted and convicted for such acts . It is a matter of further concern that no independent inquiries are conducted in police stations and other places of detention to guarantee that no torture or illtreatment takes place , apart from a small number of inquiries with external participation quoted by the delegation ...

The ORG notes that while under domestic law individuals have access to a lawyer at the time of arrest , this right is often not respected in practice ...

The ORG remains concerned that the judiciary is not fully independent and that the appointment of judges has to be reviewed by the executive branch DATE ... ”

In his DATE report “ Situation of human rights in GPE ” ( A/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) the ORG Secretary General expressed his concern about the fate of individuals extradited or expelled to GPE :

“ CARDINAL . ORG , in its concluding observations of DATE ( CCPR / OP/CARDINAL/UZB ) , remained concerned about the high number of convictions based on confessions made in pre - trial detention that were allegedly obtained by methods incompatible with article CARDINAL of LAW . The ORG expressed concern at the definition of torture in LAW of GPE . In addition , ORG pointed to the allegations relating to widespread use of torture and ill - treatment of detainees and the low number of officials who have been charged , prosecuted and convicted for such acts . The Government of GPE was due to submit follow - up information by DATE on these issues in accordance with the request of ORG . So far , no such information has been submitted to ORG . ”

NORP In DATE ORG considered the third periodic report of GPE ( CAT / C / UZB/CARDINAL ) and adopted , inter alia , the following conclusions ( CAT / C / UZB / CO/CARDINAL ) :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is concerned about :

( a ) Numerous , ongoing and consistent allegations concerning routine use of torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment committed by law enforcement and investigative officials or with their instigation or consent , often to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings ;

( b ) ORG reports that such acts commonly occur before formal charges are made , and during pre - trial detention , when the detainee is deprived of fundamental safeguards , in particular access to legal counsel . This situation is exacerbated by the reported use of internal regulations which in practice permit procedures contrary to published laws ;

( c ) The failure to conduct prompt and impartial investigations into such allegations of breaches of the Convention ...

The ORG has also received credible reports that some persons who sought refuge abroad and were returned to the country have been kept in detention in unknown places and possibly subjected to breaches of the Convention ...

The ORG remains concerned that despite the reported improvements , there are numerous reports of abuses in custody and many deaths , some of which are alleged to have followed torture or ill - treatment ... ”

In its report of DATE entitled “ Nowhere to Turn : Torture and Ill - treatment in GPE ” , ORG provides the following analysis :

“ Prolonged beatings are CARDINAL of the most common methods used by the police and security agents to frighten detainees , break their will , and compel them to provide a confession or testimony . They often start beating and kicking detainees with their hands , fists , and feet and then continue using truncheons , filled water bottles and various other tools ...

Several individuals reported that they were either tortured with electric shocks or forced by police to watch as others were tortured with it ...

Police and security officers sometimes use gas masks or plastic bags to effect near asphyxiation of detainees . After forcing an old - fashioned gas mask over the head of the victim , who in some cases is handcuffed to a chair , the oxygen supply is cut ... ”

The DATE GPE ORG on Human Rights Practice , released on CARDINAL DATE , provides the following information in relation to GPE :

“ Although the constitution and law prohibit such practices , law enforcement and security officers routinely beat and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions or incriminating information . Torture and abuse were common in prisons , pretrial facilities , and local police and security service precincts . Informants reported several cases of medical abuse , including forced psychiatric treatment .

DATE reports by ORG ) and ORG ( CAT ) concluded that torture and abuse were systemic throughout the investigative process and had not improved since a DATE UN Special Rapporteur on torture report drew the same conclusions . The CAT report stated that despite an amendment to LAW addressing elements of the definition of torture , punishment for violations was rare and did not reflect the severity of the crimes ... ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for redress for obviously unwarranted pre - trial detention ( o odszkodowanie za oczywiście niesłuszne tymczasowe aresztowanie ) .

On DATE ORG scheduled the first hearing for DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative requested the court for additional time to specify his claim for redress . The court adjourned the hearing sine die .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative requested the court to grant him additional time to update legal and factual grounds for the applicant ’s claim . The court adjourned the hearing .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative requested the court to exclude the presiding judge from the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s motion .

On DATE the court scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant . The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision .

On DATE ORG quashed the contested decision and resumed the examination of the case .

On DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , DATE and DATE ORG held hearings .

On DATE ORG again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant . The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision .

On DATE the court , due to a modification in the bench assigned to try the case ( zmiana składu sędziowskiego ) , reopened the proceedings . CARDINAL witness was heard . The court scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

Eventually , on DATE ORG awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for pecuniary damage and LAW for non - pecuniary damage . Since this judgment was not appealed against , it became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint under LAW June CARDINAL on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . On DATE ORG confirmed that the proceedings in question had indeed been lengthy and awarded the applicant LAW by way of just satisfaction . The court stated , inter alia , that the periods of inactivity between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , as well as DATE and DATE , only confirmed the fact that the court had contributed to the excessive length of the proceedings . The court further stated that the intervals between the hearings were considerable and contributed to the overall length of proceedings . The court also referred to the fact that ORG decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE to stay the proceedings were unwarranted and also affected the length of the proceedings . Finally , the court stated that , although the applicant ’s representative had lodged several futile motions which affected the pace of the proceedings , ORG took no action to discipline him .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.


The applicant , Mr Petru Lupascu , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was charged with fraud in DATE . During the subsequent criminal investigation , his home was searched and certain family assets were seized by order of the court . He was also prohibited from leaving the city . Since his job required frequent travel abroad , he was dismissed . In DATE he was acquitted , an acquittal upheld on appeal .

Given his acquittal , the applicant initiated an action for damages for which domestic law provided . On DATE the ORG accepted his claims in part and awarded him CARDINAL NORP lei ( ORG ) in compensation ( pecuniary and non - pecuniary loss ) and MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL at the time ) in legal costs . On DATE the ORG partly set aside that judgment : it awarded him MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) in compensation ( non - pecuniary loss only ) and it upheld the legal costs award ( MDL CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . An enforcement warrant was submitted to the bailiff , who did not enforce it .

On DATE the Prosecutor General filed a request for the annulment of the judgment of DATE , a request upheld on DATE by ORG . That court adopted a new judgment awarding him MDL MONEY ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL at the time ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage and upholding the legal costs award ( MDL CARDINAL ) . That judgment was enforced in DATE .


No violation of Art. 5-2;Violation of Art. 5-3;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant , born in DATE , is a businessman residing in GPE in GPE .

On DATE the investigating judge ( Untersuchungsrichter ) of the Canton of Solothurn issued a criminal charge ( PERSON ) against unknown persons on suspicion of having committed various criminal offences against the B. company , including forging documents and the improper use of funds obtained by increasing the company ’s capital . On DATE criminal investigations were opened against unknown persons . On DATE the investigating judge heard ORG , who had been deputy director of the B. company until DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant and a certain PERSON , both being members of the board and managers of the B. company , on suspicion of having committed the offences of forging documents , fraudulently obtaining a false document , disloyal management , and giving incorrect information as to commercial companies ( Urkundenfälschung , PERSON , ungetreue PERSON und unwahre Angaben über Handelsgesellschaften ) .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on remand in the municipality of Solothurn .

On DATE , the applicant was brought before the investigating judge who informed him orally of the grounds of his arrest and that he would not be allowed to contact his lawyer . The investigating judge issued a detention order , countersigned by the applicant , informing him of the grounds of his detention , as previously stated in the warrant of arrest .

Also on CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge issued an order to search the B. company and the applicant ’s house . The order stated that the applicant ’s lawyer was not allowed to consult the case - file or to participate in the taking of evidence , and he was not to see or to speak with the applicant .

Still on CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed with ORG ) of GPE a handwritten complaint about his arrest and detention and that he had been refused contact with his lawyer . In his appeal , he referred , inter alia , to accusations concerning the B. company ’s activities at DATE , and to various reproaches formulated in DATE . He recalled that in DATE he had offered the B. company ’s co - operation with the prosecuting authorities , and that the latter had interrogated PERSON in DATE and DATE . He pointed out that if he had wanted , he could have undertaken colluding activities as from DATE .

On DATE the applicant refused to reply when questioned .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge amended that part of his order of CARDINAL DATE concerning the lawyer ’s prohibition to see or speak with the applicant , as that part had been drafted erroneously under stress .

On DATE the applicant was visited by his lawyer . He was also questioned by the police , though he refused to reply . He insisted that he should first duly be informed of the charges laid against him .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge informed the applicant that the charges against him concerned an increase of capital of the B. company in DATE , the balance sheet of DATE and the accusation of disloyal management of the B. company .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a complaint with ORG against the applicant ’s arrest and detention . He requested the applicant ’s release , and the lifting of all restrictions of his defence rights . He further complained that there had been no concrete information about the offences laid against him . The applicant ’s lawyer also complained that the applicant had not been heard by a " judge or other officer " as required by LAW .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was again questioned .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention on remand .

During the proceedings before ORG the investigating judge filed observations in writing . The applicant in his reply dated DATE pointed out that for DATE sweeping charges had been levelled against the B. company . For DATE the cantonal authorities had been threatening with proceedings in order to obtain documents .

As from DATE the applicant and his lawyer were permitted to consult the case - file .

On DATE ORG struck the applicant ’s appeals of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE off its list of cases as having lost their purpose . ORG referred to the case - law of ORG ( PERSON ) as to the requirement in such cases of an appellant ’s legitimation according to PERSON of LAW ( Organisationsgesetz ) . The ORG found that the applicant had meanwhile been released from detention and that he therefore lacked a practical interest in his appeal .

On DATE , the applicant filed a public law appeal ( staatsrechtliche Beschwerde ) with ORG in which he complained that ORG had struck the appeal off its list of cases . He also complained about his detention on remand , the limitations of his defence rights , and that the position of the investigating judge breached LAW .

On DATE the investigating judge filed observations with ORG on the applicant ’s public law appeal . With regard to the grounds of detention , he stated that , in view of the applicant ’s previous contacts with other persons concerned , it could be assumed that the applicant , would with great probability have known quite clearly which charges were laid against him .

On DATE ORG dismissed the public law appeal , the decision being served on DATE . In its judgment , the court examined , with reference to its own case - law , whether or not the applicant was entitled under S. CARDINAL of LAW to file a public law appeal . ORG refused to grant the applicant standing , noting , inter alia , that ORG had itself stated that it would be able again to examine in a later case whether or not the investigating judge of GPE complied with the requirements of LAW .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant , PERSON and the B. company filed with ORG , pursuant to S. CARDINAL of LAW a civil action against GPE , claiming compensation for unlawful detention . After hearing various witnesses the court gave its judgment on CARDINAL DATE .

In its judgment ORG considered , inter alia , that the applicant ’s detention on remand had been lawful in that the investigating judge had correctly assumed that there was a danger of collusion in the applicant ’s case , and that he had duly conducted the investigations .

ORG furthermore dealt with the applicant ’s complaint that during his detention he had been refused contact with his lawyer . The court concluded that the complaint was well - founded and that compensation was due by the Canton of Solothurn .

ORG also considered the applicant ’s complaint under LAW that he had not been duly informed of the reasons of his detention . The court reiterated the various points raised by the applicant in his complaint of CARDINAL DATE from which it transpired that he had been informed orally by the investigating judge on DATE . ORG found that the investigating judge had duly informed the applicant of the various charges of which he was accused as well as of the object of the investigations . The court concluded that the applicant had had sufficient information to file a complaint against his detention on remand .

In its judgment ORG replied to the applicant ’s complaint that the investigating judge of GPE did not comply with the requirements under LAW . It noted that in principle the investigating judge was independent of ORG . After summarising its own case - law and that of ORG in the case of GPE v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , the court concluded that the investigating judge qualified as an independent and impartial officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of LAW , inter alia , on the following grounds :

“ In LOC the investigating judge conducts the inquiries or the preliminary investigations ... He closes these proceedings by means of a final order and refers the matter according to LAW of LAW in cases of jurisdiction of ORG or the ORG President ... to that court “ for examination ” . In respect of the description of the facts of which an accused is reproached and of their assessment from the point of view of criminal law , the final order will serve as bill of indictment in the cases of jurisdiction of ORG and the ORG President ... In cases appertaining to ORG and ORG , the final order will contain an application to ORG to file an indictment , or to ORG to close the proceedings ... ( T)he investigating judge does not himself represent the prosecution in the court proceedings which follow the preliminary investigations . In cases before ORG and ORG the public prosecutor will be exclusively responsible herefor . In case of jurisdiction of ORG or the ORG President , there will be no prosecuting authority acting as party . The investigating judge will have no standing in the proceedings ... ; as a result , it is excluded that he makes an application in his final order as to the sentence ... This right pertains exclusively to ORG - even in cases where the law does not provide for indictment and representation of the prosecution ... It follows that the final order of the investigating judge only has declaratory , orienting character ... ”

As a result , ORG ordered GPE to pay the applicant MONEY ( CHF ) as well as PERCENT interest since DATE as he had been refused contact with his lawyer during his detention . The remainder of the action was dismissed . On the other hand , the plaintiffs were ordered to pay CHF CARDINAL as procedural costs , and to reimburse the Canton of Solothurn the amount of CHF CARDINAL .

PERSON of ORG provides for actions concerning civil litigation introduced by private persons against NORP before ORG which will examine the action as the sole instance .

According to S. CARDINAL of the LAW , an applicant is entitled to file a public law appeal “ in respect of those breaches of law , which they have suffered on the basis of laws or orders which are generally applicable or personally concern them ” .

CARDINALATF [ Arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral ] CARDINAL [ DATE ] Ia CARDINAL ) .

According to ORG CARDINAL [ DATE ] I CARDINAL , a person lacking the required actual practical interest to complain in a public law appeal about a breach of LAW , may nevertheless claim damages based on LAW and introduce an action for compensation . This decision referred to the possibility of cantonal proceedings as well as of filing an action according to LAW of LAW ( see above , § CARDINAL ) . The preceding summary referred to the decision as “ stating the case - law more precisely ” .

LAW of the Canton of Solothurn ( Gesetz über die ORG provides in ORG . CARDINAL et seq . for the jurisdiction in criminal matters , inter alia , of ORG ( ORG ) , the ORG President , ORG ( Obergericht ) and ORG ( ORG ) . Pursuant to PERSON , ORG will examine offences not pertaining to the jurisdiction of the other courts or of the ORG President . According to S. CARDINAL of LAW , ORG will prepare a bill of indictment in cases to be tried by ORG or ORG . He will prepare the bill of indictment before ORG if it is so agreed with ORG President or upon request of the accused .

According to S. CARDINAL of LAW ( Strafprozessordnung ) of GPE , a detained person must be released immediately if there is no longer a reason for his detention . ORG . CARDINAL et seq . provide that the investigating judge will conduct the investigations . S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL states that , if in cases before ORG or ORG President the investigating judge decides to refer the case to court for examination , his final order shall contain a summary description of the facts , the legal description of the offence and the applicable criminal provisions .

As regards the relations between ORG ) and the investigating judge , S. CARDINAL of LAW states that ORG will supervise the office of the cantonal investigating judge , and that he can issue instructions as to the conduct of business ( PERSON ) . LAW provides that in cases to be prosecuted ex officio ORG may at any time instruct the investigating judge to take evidence . PERSON of LAW provides that in cases before ORG may , after the investigating judge has prepared his final order , order the investigating judge to undertake supplementary taking of evidence .