Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 8;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and is a resident of GPE . At the time of the events , he lived in GPE .

On DATE a burglary was committed where , inter alia , a television and a video recorder were stolen .

On an unspecified date a preliminary investigation was opened .

On DATE the apartment where the applicant was living was searched by the police , with the apparent subsequent approval of ORG . Neither the applicant nor any other representative of the household was present . The search was conducted in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses , neither of them was indicated to be the residence 's manager or a representative of the municipality . Various items were seized among which were CARDINAL photo cameras , a hi - fi system and a wrench .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was arrested in GPE and taken into police custody . He was then transferred to GPE .

On DATE , under an order issued by an investigator and approved by ORG , the applicant was placed DATE preliminary detention as of TIME and held at ORG . The applicant was suspected of having committed the burglary on DATE because the stolen television and a wrench , allegedly used to perpetrate the offence , had been found in his apartment . In addition , at the time of his arrest the applicant had apparently attempted to abscond .

On DATE ORG extended the preliminary detention of the applicant for DATE until TIME on DATE .

On DATE the applicant , together with CARDINAL other individuals , was charged with having committed the burglary of CARDINAL DATE . He was remanded in custody upon a decision of an investigator which was confirmed later in DATE by ORG . In ordering the remand in custody , the investigator stated that the applicant lacked a permanent address , that he had committed numerous other burglaries , that he might re - offend and that he might abscond as he had apparently done in DATE when a national arrest warrant had been issued against him .

On DATE , under an order issued by an investigator , the charges against the applicant were amended to include another CARDINAL burglaries and his detention on remand was maintained . In ordering the continued detention , the investigator cited the gravity of the offences with which the applicant had been charged , the likelihood that he might abscond and his personality .

On DATE the applicant appealed against his detention . He maintained that his continued detention was unwarranted as there was no danger that he would abscond or re - offend because , inter alia , he had a permanent address in another city and his brother could pay his bail . The applicant also relied on LAW in his submissions .

NORP ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on DATE . The court found that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence which warranted mandatory detention . In addition , the court concluded that the applicant might abscond because he did not have any personal identity documents , had no permanent address and was apparently residing in an apartment rented by CARDINAL of his friends . It also found that it was likely that he would re - offend considering the fact that he had perpetrated the offences with which he had been charged during the operational period of a previous DATE suspended sentence . In respect of the arguments pertaining to LAW , the court examined them and found that the applicant 's continued detention was in conformity with the exceptions provided in the said provision .

The applicant filed another appeal against his detention on CARDINAL DATE arguing that there was no longer a danger that he might abscond or re - offend because his brother was willing to pay his bail , support him financially and provide him with employment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . The court found , inter alia , that the applicant had failed to provide evidence that he even had a brother and was unable to indicate where the said brother lived , what kind of business he was running and where .

On DATE the applicant filed his third appeal against his detention arguing that he had been in detention for DATE and that there was no longer a danger that he might abscond or re - offend because his brother was willing to pay his bail , support him financially and provide him with employment .

An indictment was filed against the applicant on an unspecified date .

The judge rapporteur of ORG , also on an unspecified date , ruled that the court would examine the applicant 's latest appeal at its hearing scheduled for DATE . For undisclosed reasons the hearing was postponed to DATE .

NORP ORG dismissed the applicant 's third appeal at its hearing on DATE . The court found that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence and that he might abscond because he did not have a permanent address and was residing in an apartment rented by CARDINAL of the co - accused . It also found that it was likely that he would re - offend considering the fact that he had perpetrated the offences with which he had been charged during the operational period of a previous DATE suspended sentence . The decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

NORP In response to a fourth appeal of the applicant against his detention filed on an unspecified date , ORG found in his favour on CARDINAL DATE . On appeal by the prosecuting authorities the decision was quashed by ORG on DATE . The latter court found that the applicant might abscond because he did not have a permanent address and was residing in an apartment rented by CARDINAL of his friends . It also found that it was likely that he would re - offend considering his past criminal tendencies and that he lacked employment .

The subsequent development of the criminal proceedings is unclear . It is also unknown whether , and when , the applicant was released or granted bail . However , as of the date of the applicant 's submissions of DATE , the case was still pending before the court of first instance .

The applicant contended , which the Government did not challenge , that as from CARDINAL DATE he was detained for DATE at ORG and was then transferred to ORG where he remained at least until DATE .

In the applicant 's submission the cells were small , overcrowded and below street level . There was no natural light or fresh air in the cells . Quite often there were rodents and cockroaches . A bucket was provided for the sanitary needs of the detained . There was no hot water , soap or other toiletries . The applicant was not permitted to go out of his cell for exercise . The food provided was of insufficient quantity and substandard . The applicant was not allowed to read newspapers or books .

In the applicant 's submission the conditions in the Pazardzhik Prison were slightly better than those in ORG . Similarly , though , the food was insufficient and of the same inferior quality ; the cells were small and overcrowded ; fresh air and light were insufficient and a bucket was provided for the sanitary needs of the detained . Limited exercise was provided in the prison yard .

Under ORG , as in force at the relevant time , the police were empowered , on the basis of an order to that affect , to arrest and take a person into custody who , inter alia , had committed an offence or whose identity could not been ascertained due to lack of appropriate personal identity documents ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . A person taken into police custody had the right to be assisted by a lawyer and to appeal against his detention to the domestic courts , which were required to immediately rule on such an appeal ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . Police custody could not be longer than TIME ( section CARDINAL ) .

In a reported case of DATE , ORG upheld a finding of a lower court that an order for taking a person into police custody had been unlawful due to lack of legal grounds ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , V отд. на ORG ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( the “ ORG ” ) and the NORP courts ' practice at the relevant time are summarised in the ORG 's judgments in several similar cases ( see , among others , ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . ORG , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-II ; PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE ; and ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL ( extracts ) ) .

As of that date the legal regime of detention under the ORG was amended with the aim to ensure compliance with ORG ) .

The relevant part of the amended Article CARDINAL provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG pending trial shall be ordered [ in cases concerning ] offences punishable by imprisonment ... , where the material in the case discloses a real danger that the accused person may abscond or commit an offence .

( CARDINAL ) In the following circumstances it shall be considered that [ such ] a danger exists , unless established otherwise on the basis of the evidence in the case :

NORP in cases of special recidivism or repetition ;

where the charges concern a serious offence and the accused person has a previous conviction for a serious offence and a non - suspended sentence of not less than DATE imprisonment ;

where the charges concern an offence punishable by not less than DATE imprisonment or a heavier punishment .

( CARDINAL ) Detention shall be replaced by a more lenient measure of control where there is no longer a danger that the accused person may abscond or commit an offence . ”

It appears that divergent interpretations of the above provisions were observed in the initial period of their application upon their entry into force on DATE .

NORP In DATE ORG clarified that the amended LAW excluded any possibility of a mandatory detention . In all cases the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the accused and of a real danger of him absconding or committing an offence had to be established by the authorities . The presumption under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL was only a starting point of analysis and did not shift the burden of proof to the accused ( ORG ) .

At the relevant time , LAW ORG provided that in the course of an enquiry ( i.e. when there is insufficient evidence to initiate formal criminal proceedings ) a search of LOC could be conducted only in the course of examining a crime scene and if its immediate execution was the only possibility to collect and secure evidence .

At the relevant time , LAW ORG provided that a search of LOC may be carried out if there is probable cause to believe that objects or documents , which may be relevant to a case , would be found in them . Such a search could be ordered by the trial court ( during the trial phase ) or by the prosecutor ( during the pre - trial phase ) ( LAW ) .

A search of LOC was to be conducted in the presence of witnesses and the person using them or an adult member of his family . In case the person using them or an adult member of his family could not be present , the search was to be conducted in the presence of the residence 's manager or a representative of the municipality ( LAW ) .

There was no special procedure through which a search warrant issued by a prosecutor could be challenged . Thus , the only possible appeal was a hierarchical one to the higher prosecutor ( Article CARDINAL ) , which did not have suspensive effect ( Article CARDINAL ) .

ORG of DATE ( the “ ORG ” ) provides that the ORG is liable for damage caused to private persons by ( a ) the illegal orders , actions or omissions of government bodies and officials acting within the scope of , or in connection with , their administrative duties ; and ( b ) the organs of the investigation , the prosecution and the courts for unlawful pretrial detention , if the detention order has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds ( sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The relevant domestic law and practice under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG has been summarised in the cases of PERSON v. PERSON ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL CARDINAL , DATE ) .

In respect of conditions of detention , despite some initial uncertainty as to the applicability of the ORG in respect of such complaints , in a number of recent cases the domestic courts have ruled that the ORG 's liability does arise under the ORG and its LAW in particular ( реш. от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. PERSON ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по въззивно гр. д. № CARDINAL г. PERSON ОС ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. на Габровският РС ; реш. CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. на Софийският РС ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. на ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. PERSON ) .

In respect of unlawful searches of LOC , the only reported case dates DATE where ORG examined , on appeal , an action for damages stemming from an allegedly unlawful search and seizure conducted by the authorities in the home of the claimant . In that particular case , the court rescinded the judgment of the lower court and remitted the case solely because the latter court had failed to examine the action under LAW ORG , but had rather examined it as a tort action . Accordingly , ORG instructed the lower court to re - examine the said action solely under the ORG ( реш. от DATE г. по гр. д. № MONEY г. , ORG , IVб отд. ) .

The ORG visited GPE in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG and ORG were visited in DATE . There are also general observations about the problems in all ORG detention facilities in the DATE , DATE and DATE reports .

The ORG found that most , albeit not all , of the ORG detention facilities were overcrowded . With the exception of CARDINAL detention facility where conditions were slightly better , the conditions were as follows : cells did not have access to natural light ; the artificial lighting was too weak to read by and was left on permanently ; ventilation was inadequate ; the cleanliness of the bedding and the cells as a whole left much to be desired ; detainees could access a sanitary facility twice a day ( morning and evening ) for TIME and could take a DATE shower ; outside of the CARDINAL daily visits to the toilets , detainees had to satisfy the needs of nature in buckets inside the cells ; although according to the establishments ' internal regulations detainees were entitled to a “ DATE walk ” of TIME , it was often reduced to TIME or not allowed at all ; no other form of out - of - cell activity was provided to persons detained .

The ORG further noted that food was of poor quality and in insufficient quantity . In particular , the DATE 's “ hot meal ” generally consisted of a watery soup ( often lukewarm ) and inadequate quantities of bread . At the other meals , detainees only received bread and a little cheese or halva . Meat and fruit were rarely included on the menu . Detainees had to eat from bowls without cutlery – not even a spoon was provided .

The ORG also noted that family visits and correspondence were only possible with express permission by a public prosecutor and that , as a result , detainees ' contacts with the outside world were very limited . There was no radio or television .

The ORG concluded that the NORP authorities had failed in their obligation to provide detention conditions which were consistent with the inherent dignity of the human person and that “ almost without exception , the conditions in the ORG detention facilities visited could fairly be described as inhuman and degrading ” . In reaction , the NORP authorities agreed that the ORG delegation 's assessment had been “ objective and correctly presented ” but indicated that the options for improvement were limited by the country 's difficult financial circumstances .

NORP In DATE the ORG recommended to the NORP authorities , inter alia , that sufficient food and drink and safe eating utensils be provided , that mattresses and blankets be cleaned regularly , that detainees be provided with personal hygiene products ( soap , toothpaste , etc . ) , that custodial staff be instructed that detainees should be allowed to leave their cells during DATE for the purpose of using a toilet facility unless overriding security considerations required otherwise , that the regulation providing for TIME exercise per day be fully respected in practice , that cell lighting and ventilation be improved , that the regime of family visits be revised and that pre - trial detainees be more often transferred to prison even before the preliminary investigation was completed . The possibility of offering detainees TIME outdoor exercise per day was to be examined as a matter of urgency .

The ORG established that ORG had CARDINAL cells , situated in the basement , and at the time of the visit accommodated QUANTITY detainees , including QUANTITY women in a separate cell .

Six cells measuring QUANTITY were designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ; the other CARDINAL , intended for CARDINAL occupants , measured CARDINAL - and - QUANTITY . This occupancy rate was being complied with at the time of the visit and from the living space standpoint was deemed acceptable by the ORG . However , all the remaining shortcomings observed in the other ORG detention facilities – dirty and tattered bedding , no access to natural light , absence of activities , limited access to sanitary facilities , etc . – also applied there . Even the TIME exercise rule , provided for in the internal regulations and actually posted on cell doors , was not observed .

In this report the ORG found , inter alia , that the prison was seriously overcrowded and that prisoners were obliged to spend most of DATE in their dormitories , mostly confined to their beds because of lack of space . It also found the central heating to be inadequate and that only some of the dormitories were fitted with sanitary facilities .

The ORG noted that new rules providing for better conditions had been enacted but had not yet resulted in significant improvements .

In most investigation detention facilities visited in DATE , with the exception of a newly opened detention facility in GPE , conditions of detention were generally the same as those observed during the ORG 's DATE visit , as regards poor hygiene , overcrowding , problematic access to toilet / shower facilities and a total absence of outdoor exercise and outofcell activities . In some places , the situation had even deteriorated .

In the ORG detention facility , as well as in CARDINAL other places , detainees “ had to eat with their fingers , not having been provided with appropriate cutlery ” .

During DATE visit some improvements were noted in the country 's investigation detention facilities , severely criticised in previous reports . However , a great deal remained to be done : most detainees continued to spend DATE on end locked up in overcrowded cells TIME a day .

Concerning prisons , the ORG drew attention to the problem of overcrowding and to the shortage of work and other activities for inmates .


No violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 8 or P1-1;No violation of Art. 14 or 18;No violation of Art. 6 or Art. 13;No failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 (former 25-1)

The facts of the case , particularly concerning events on DATE , were disputed by the parties . Having regard however to the length of time which had elapsed since those events and the nature of the documentary material submitted by the parties , the ORG decided that a fact finding investigation , involving the hearing of witnesses , would not effectively assist in resolving the issues . It has proceeded to examine the applicant ’s complaints on the basis of the written submissions and documents provided by the parties .

The applicant ’s and ORG ’s submissions concerning the facts are set out below ( Sections A and B ) . The documents relating to the events and complaints are also summarised ( Section C ) .

NORP In DATE , the applicant was DATE and the father of CARDINAL children , living in the GPE hamlet QUANTITY from the village of ORG ( also known as PERSON or PERSON ) , in the PERSON district , GPE in LOC . This village had been subject to previous attacks by security forces in conjunction with village guards during DATE ( see application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON and Others v. GPE ) .

On DATE , the applicant ’s village was subject to an armed attack by village guards supported by a helicopter gunship under the direction of ORG and gendarmes from PERSON . The attack started at TIME . The applicant was at his home in GPE with his wife PERSON , his sons PERSON and PERSON and his daughter PERSON . They heard sounds of gunshots coming from the village and saw flames and smoke starting to rise from different parts of the village . Women and children fleeing the village ran towards the applicant ’s hamlet . The applicant called to his son PERSON to take the tractor and flee , which he did . The applicant saw a number of village guards whom he knew – PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( this family name appears in some documents as PERSON ) .

Hamit and ORG pleaded with the village guards holding the Koran . The guards nonetheless burned the applicant ’s house and burned his crops . The applicant saw that a helicopter gunship was firing at his son PERSON . PERSON got off the tractor and put his hands over his head . The helicopter descended to within QUANTITY , took a look at him and his friends and then flew away . PERSON carried on by tractor to NORP village , QUANTITY away . Looking back from NORP , he could see his house and fields burning . When it was dark , the applicant went by tractor to Altinkum . He returned later when the village guards had left .

His house was damaged as follows . The walls were riddled with bullets and all the windows were broken . The ORG diesel tank attached to the back of the tractor had been pierced by bullets and all the diesel had poured out . The tank had caught fire because of the bullets . QUANTITY full of diesel , a tractor trailer and the wheels of the trailer were riddled with bullets . His tractor , irrigation pump and CARDINAL irrigation pipes had been destroyed by bullets . CARDINAL sacks in front of the house had also been burned . QUANTITY of harvested wheat , QUANTITY of barley and CARDINAL lorryloads of straw had been burned , a whole year ’s labour .

During the attack on ORG itself , a CARDINAL-year - old villager PERSON and a DATE boy PERSON were shot and killed . The village guards shot at and set on fire other houses , including that of PERSON , and destroyed crops in the fields and burned crop stores .

The PERSON district gendarme captain , Captain PERSON , told the villagers that they were to say that the terrorists raided the village or it would cost them dear . The captain drew up a report stating that there had been a clash between terrorists and village guards and had villagers sign it .

The applicant continued to live in his house for DATE . He was summoned DATE after the incident to the LOC gendarme station and detained there by the commander who was angry with him for staying in Gom . The commander summoned his son PERSON and told him that the applicant would not be released unless he burned down the house . PERSON burned the house and the applicant was released . The applicant was later told by a gendarme at Bayrambası that the gendarmes had taken photographs of the burned house . The PERSON district gendarme commander had been angry as he wanted photographs of a house in good condition . The gendarmes had then come and taken photographs of the applicant in front of his son ’s house .

On DATE , the applicant was summoned to ORG where he allegedly counter - signed a report by sergeant PERSON and gendarme private PERSON . This was sent to the PERSON chief public prosecutor by PERSON . On DATE , the applicant was forced to sign a statement by the PERSON public prosecutor .

The PERSON public prosecutor opened an investigation into the complaints of the applicant . On DATE , a decision was taken that due to lack of evidence the investigation could not be pursued .

An investigation also took place into the deaths which took place on DATE . This substantiated the applicant ’s claim that an attack took place on NORP village by armed village guards from ORG , that the village guards fired at the houses , damaged or destroyed the villagers’ property and crops , that they were supported by local gendarme units including a helicopter and that there were no members of the ORG in the village . The applicant refers inter alia to the petition of PERSON dated DATE , the statements of GPE and ORG dated DATE , of PERSON and PERSON dated DATE , of Sevket GPE dated DATE and of ORG dated DATE .

On DATE , the public prosecutor issued a decision of non - jurisdiction in respect of the CARDINAL deaths and referred the case to ORG . On DATE , that court referred the case back to PERSON concerning the prosecution of CARDINAL village guards , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . In DATE , the CARDINAL village guards were acquitted of murder on the basis of insufficient evidence .

On DATE , PERSON and CARDINAL of his relatives were going to pick up wood cut down by the PERSON stream ( elsewhere referred to as GPE or GPE ) . On coming across ORG terrorists resting by the stream , an armed clash broke out . ORG and PERSON were wounded . Other Boyunlu village guards watching from a hill noticed the clash and went to help . The terrorists fled towards PERSON . The gendarmerie were informed by wireless . As the terrorists passed through the village , they fired their guns at random , killing PERSON and PERSON . The terrorists were chased out of the village by the village guards and gendarmes . As it became dark , they gave up the pursuit . TIME , the area was searched but nothing was found save that the terrorists had run away towards ORG .

On DATE , the gendarmes drew up an incident report and a location sketch map . The statements of the villagers were taken by the gendarmerie . PERSON , father of the murdered child , stated that he had been hit on the head by PERSON , the husband of the murdered woman and that he blamed the ORG for the murder of his son . On DATE , CARDINAL village guards gave their statements which corroborated their stories and were not contradictory on any important point . These described how the terrorists had fired on the village guards by the stream and then fled through PERSON firing at random . On DATE , statements were taken from the CARDINAL wounded village guards who had been taken to hospital . These supported the other village guards .

On DATE , PERSON lodged a complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor alleging that the NORP village guards had attacked ORG , killed his wife and burned the crops and some of the houses . The public prosecutor took statements from his sister - in - law , several other villagers and the village guards accused of the attack . On DATE , PERSON and PERSON made statements to the public prosecutor alleging that their son had been murdered by village guards . These statements were seriously contradictory , e.g. PERSON , contrary to his earlier statement , said that he was in the village and saw his son shot , while PERSON said that he was outside the village .

On DATE , the public prosecutor gave a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case to ORG . On DATE , the file was sent back as the accused were village guards .

The CARDINAL village guards were tried by ORG , which on DATE released them due to lack of evidence . The court did not rely on the statements of the complainants as they were contradictory .

The applicant did not make any complaint to the public prosecutor about events . On being informed that he had made an application to GPE , the public prosecutor questioned him with a view to initiating an investigation . In his statement the applicant mentioned that none of his possessions had been burned and stated that he did not make any complaint about this . The public prosecutor therefore decided not to pursue the investigation further .

On DATE , the applicant was at his home in GPE hamlet , QUANTITY from GPE . At TIME , shots were heard coming from the village . Smoke and flames appeared . Village women and children were fleeing in his direction . At first he thought it was the soldiers raiding the village . He later discovered that it was the protectors . He called to his son PERSON in the fields and told him to escape . His son got on his tractor and fled . He knew some of the village guards and recognised PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON coming towards their hamlet . His daughter PERSON and son PERSON brought out the Koran and pleaded with the guards not to burn their house and crops . Despite that , the village guards burned the house and crops . He saw that a helicopter was firing at his son in the tractor . He ran away to hide with the women from the village ; his wife and children did not leave the house . When it got dark , he and other villagers went on a tractor to Altinkum . In TIME , thinking the village guards had gone , he went to his house . No - one was there . He saw nothing had happened to the objects in the house but the walls of the house were full of bullet holes and the windows broken . The diesel tank of the tractor had been hit by bullets and the petrol leaking out had caught fire . The barrel full of diesel , the tractor trailer and its wheels were also shot up . The irrigation pump had been rendered unusable due to gunfire . CARDINAL empty sacks in front of the house had been burned . In the fields , he saw that QUANTITY of harvested wheat , QUANTITY of barley and CARDINAL lorry loads of straw had been completely burned .

On the television it was said that there had been a clash between the terrorists and the village guards in the village . The Captain came to the village and shamelessly told the villagers that the terrorists had burned the village and hamlet . No guerrillas had come to the village and they would not have done such a thing .

On TIME , the village guards of ORG , CARDINAL , carried out a raid on his village of PERSON . He was working in his field at the time . He heard gunshots coming from GPE , QUANTITY from PERSON . TIME , the village guards came towards PERSON , shouting that they were going to burn and shoot up the village and claiming that the children of the PERSON villagers were guerrillas . The men in the fields were able to run away more easily , getting into tractors and fleeing . Some women and children hid in the clumps of trees near the village . He saw the village guards rake the village with gunfire . In the evening , he learned that PERSON and PERSON were shot inside the village . He got into his tractor and fled towards FAC . As they fled , guards shot at them from the ground while military helicopters fired on them from the air . When he returned later , he found that his house had been shot up and the goods inside destroyed and set on fire . His crops had also been burned and destroyed .

The Captain from the PERSON gendarme command came to the village and said : “ You ’ll say that your crops and homes were burned and shot up by terrorists , that terrorists raided your village . If you accuse the village guards , it will cost you much dearer ” . He heard that the Captain drew up a report saying that a clash had broken out between the terrorists and village guards , that CARDINAL people had died in the cross fire and that the village had been burned and destroyed by terrorists . The report was signed by the son of PERSON , against his will . The ORG had not come to the village . The ORG was forcing them either to go tot he mountains or to leave the village . They were in fear of the village guards and their lives were in danger from them .

The applicant had been shown the photograph submitted by the Government . He stated that the house was not his .

He explained as follows .

The house in those photographs was not his . On DATE , after burning houses in ORG , the village guards had come to his house in GPE , QUANTITY away , and burned his crops and fired on the agricultural equipment and their homes . He watched from QUANTITY away . The house was damaged but still habitable . He lived there for DATE . DATE , he was summoned to NORP gendarme station . The commander was angry with him and took him into detention . Then the commander summoned the applicant ’s son , PERSON , and threatened him that unless he destroyed his father ’s house , his father would not be released . So his son went to his house in Gom and destroyed it . The applicant on release went to live with PERSON in NORP village . DATE , he heard that the captain of the PERSON district gendarmerie was asking for photographs of his house . The PERSON gendarmes took photographs of his destroyed house and sent them to PERSON . The applicant heard from a soldier at the police station that the PERSON gendarme captain was angry as he had wanted pictures of a house in good condition . The soldiers then came to the applicant ’s son ’s house and took photographs of the applicant outside his son ’s house . At the time , the applicant had no idea why they were doing so .

As regarded the statement which he made to the PERSON public prosecutor on DATE , he stated that he had been detained on various occasions in connection with this incident and subject to threats over his complaints against the ORG . He was forced to make such a statement at the public prosecutor ’s as he was afraid of being taken into detention again and threatened .

In this statement taken by a lawyer , PERSON , the applicant said that he was under pressure due to his application . He had been called to the gendarmes’ station and threatened . After he submitted documents to the ORG , the documents were sent to PERSON and the gendarmes there , who were perpetrators of the incident , threatened him to force him to withdraw his complaints . He was frightened that they would do bad things .

In DATE , a clash broke out between village guards and the ORG in the area between ORG and PERSON villages . CARDINAL village guards were wounded . Towards TIME , a large number of village guards entered PERSON and began to burn the harvested crops . After burning PERSON , the guards came to the applicant ’s hamlet . His house was the only one in the hamlet . They set his house alight and raked it with gunfire . His son fled on the tractor . The village guards shot at the trailer . The applicant ’s irrigation pump , a QUANTITY diesel tank , QUANTITY of diesel , a tractor and CARDINAL irrigation pipes were rendered unusable by gunfire . The guards also burned QUANTITY of wheat , QUANTITY of barley and CARDINAL lorryloads of straw . He , his wife PERSON , his daughter PERSON and his sons PERSON and PERSON ( now in GPE ) were in the hamlet at this time . Afterwards , they moved to live as a family in PERSON . DATE , the Boyunlu village guards came and told them they had to leave their house and they moved into PERSON . The village guards burned GPE and his house and their statements were not true .

DATE , he was summoned to NORP gendarme station by the PERSON public prosecutor . The station commander threatened him and the village muhtar Ebedin PERSON , saying that he had made a complaint about the ORG and that if he did not change his testimony it would not be good for him . They then went to the public prosecutor ’s office and as he was frightened he could not say that his house had been burned down . He was illiterate and his statement was not read to him . He was also arrested DATE after the attack and detained for DATE . He was tortured and ill - treated . He did not say his house was burned down as he was afraid that he would be tortured . Ebedin ORG , the muhtar , was not keen on testifying as he was scared , as was the imam . The photographs taken by the Government of his house were in fact of the house of his son PERSON in PERSON .

At the time of the incident , he was staying with his father , the applicant , in GPE hamlet . A clash broke out between the ORG and village guards . CARDINAL village guards were wounded . After that the guards set PERSON alight and came to their hamlet . When he saw them coming , he was scared and drove off on the tractor . He told CARDINAL others in the fields and they got on their tractors too . As they crossed a stream , a helicopter opened fire on them . They got off their tractors and put their hands on their heads . The helicopter descended to QUANTITY above their heads , looked at them and then flew away . He got on his tractor and went on to NORP village . Looking back from there , he could see that the house and fields had been burned . After DATE and a night he returned . The house was a ruin , part of it burned and shot up . The tractor and trailer were burned , shot up and unusable . Harvested crops had been burned and a diesel tank , QUANTITY of diesel , a motor pump , and water pipes had been shot up and were unusable .

At TIME on DATE of the incident , there were gunshots near PERSON . She was in front of the house . Bullets began to hit the house . Soldiers and village guards from ORG arrived and began to set the village alight , firing haphazardly in all directions . Everything they fired at burst into flames . They set alight the wheat and then again raided her house . They entered her house and took them all outside . They broke and burned the fridge , TV , radio - cassette player , butter maker , curtains , quilts , mattresses , rugs and kitchen implements . They set the house alight and meanwhile insulted and threatened them . They told them to leave the village or they would kill them all . They also burned crops and shot up the farm equipment . After the incident , the family moved to PERSON .

At TIME on DATE of the incident there were gunshots near PERSON . She was in front of the house . Bullets began to hit the house . Soldiers and village guards came into the village and set it alight , firing haphazardly in all directions . Her statement reproduced in almost identical terms the statement of her mother above .

At the time of the incident , she was living in LOC village with her husband PERSON . A clash broke out near the village . After this , village guards came to the village firing at random . A CARDINAL-year - old woman and a child were killed . They set alight harvested crops and shot up all houses . Her house was a colander and everything inside ruined . The guards then went to GPE hamlet and shot up the applicant ’s house and property and burned his crops . Her husband went with the applicant to ORG in ORG and applied to ORG . DATE , her husband was captured wounded with a ORG militant after a clash with the security forces . He was later killed for refusing to assist the security forces in capturing other members of the ORG . DATE , her house was burned by village guards and soldiers . She went to live in GPE . She had now returned to stay in PERSON and had spoken to the applicant and contacted her lawyers . She had not followed up the application about the burning of her house and the murder of her husband out of fear and as she was not able to contact her lawyers . She now wanted to take responsibility for the application made by her husband .

NORP The petitioners complained that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had fired at villagers from PERSON . It was stated that the aggressors were from GPE who hated and had a grudge against the PERSON village due to the latter ’s lodging of legal proceedings against the Boyunlu villagers’ illegal entry onto PERSON village lands .

On DATE , he was attending his herd . In the evening , he heard shots towards the upper end of GPE . When he returned to the village , his son LOC was not there . He was told that he was at a neighbour ’s . TIME , a villager , PERSON , ran up , saying that Cihan had been killed in a clash between the ORG and village guards . His dead body was outside the village . GPE told him to say that he must say that the guards shot his son or the terrorists would shoot him . When the witness asked GPE who shot his son , the man hit him with a stick . The witness went to find the body . There were soldiers around . He took his son to the PERSON hospital for an autopsy . His guess was that the NORP terrorists murdered his son and filed a complaint . He also filed a complaint against the man who hit him with the stick .

The witness was a village guard in LOC . On DATE , while he was in the village , he and others received a request for help from others who had been cutting poplar trees near PERSON and had clashed with terrorists . The guards went to the place and found that QUANTITY persons had been injured . The terrorists were firing randomly while dispersing . The guards followed them . On entering the village , the terrorists continued firing . The guards entered the village ; apparently CARDINAL villagers were killed and the terrorists ran from the village . Security forces then arrived . TIME , an operation was carried out but no result was achieved . The guards were asked to return to their village .

The witness was a village guard in GPE . On DATE , he and other guards were told to come as there was a clash . On their arrival at the PERSON stream area they found CARDINAL injured persons . The terrorists were firing randomly and continued doing so when they entered the PERSON village . The guards entered the village and the terrorists fled from the northern part . They were told that CARDINAL villagers had died . At this stage , the security forces caught up with them . It was dark then . TIME , they followed the trail of the terrorists , who had run away towards Altinkum . There had been CARDINAL of them but they were not found . The guards were told to return to their village .

On DATE , in the afternoon , the witness and others went to cut down poplars in the PERSON area which belonged to ORG . CARDINAL village guards were keeping watch on the hills . They heard gunshots downstream and returned fire . PERSON was injured . They reported to the village . The clash continued for some time . When help arrived , the terrorists , CARDINAL , ran back towards PERSON . PERSON , who came to help from the village , was also injured . They ran after the terrorists who kept turning back to fire . The terrorists who entered the village fired randomly . When the village guards entered the village , they saw that an old woman and a child had died due to the wild firing of the terrorists . The security teams arrived . A search was carried out . The terrorists had run towards ORG and the gendarme commander gave instructions . The area was besieged . However the operation was abandoned due to the nightfall . It continued TIME without result . The guards were asked to return to their village .

The witness , a village guard , recalled that a call for help came from friends out cutting poplars . They went to the place of the incident and found CARDINAL injured persons . They left men to tend the injured and went after the terrorists , who were randomly firing as they tried to escape . Entering PERSON the terrorists kept firing heavily . As the terrorists ran from PERSON , the guards entered . They heard that CARDINAL villagers had died due to the ORG firing . The operation teams arrived as it was getting dark . The commander waited until TIME to send out a search party . The terrorists who had fled towards Altinkum village could not be found . The village guards were told to return to their village .

The witness , a village guard , had been providing security to the men cutting poplars at the PERSON stream . Gunshots were heard and CARDINAL of the men were injured . The guards returned fire . When help arrived , the terrorists started fleeing towards PERSON , CARDINAL or CARDINAL of them . The guards went in hot pursuit . The terrorists fired randomly and intensively inside the village . As the guards neared the village , the terrorists left . They lost them in the stream below the village . They learned that CARDINAL villagers had died during the terrorist shooting . The military arrived . Due to darkness , the commander covered the ORG possible escape routes and sent out a search party TIME . On following their trail , it was found that the terrorists had gone to ORG . The guards were sent home .

The witness had gone to cut poplar trees , while CARDINAL men watched from the hills . Terrorists fired on them and his brother yelled that he was injured . They returned fire . Other village guards came to help after they reported on the radio . The terrorists fled north , TIME . With the help , the guards followed towards PERSON . PERSON , who had come to help , was injured by terrorist fire . The injured were carried back to the village while the others continued after the terrorists , who fired back as they went . The terrorists entered PERSON . The exchange of fire there went on for some time . Military teams arrived . The terrorists used the stream bed and escaped to the north . On entering the village , the village gards learned that CARDINAL villagers had died under indiscriminate terrorist fire . The commander positioned his teams and due to nightfall left the search till TIME . It was found that the terrorists had fled on a tractor to Altinkum . The village guards returned to their homes .

The report was signed by PERSON , ORG senior sergeant PERSON as well as PERSON , village guard , PERSON , father of a deceased victim , and PERSON , son of the other deceased victim . It stated the following :

DATE . On DATE , at TIME , the Boyunlu village guards heard a report on the radio that CARDINAL village guards , who had gone to cut poplar trees , had clashed with terrorists . PERSON and PERSON had been injured . A second team of village guards went to the location of the incident . The terrorists broke off contact and ran towards PERSON . Information was received that the village guards had re - established contact with the terrorists . CARDINAL teams from PERSON gendarmes commando division were deployed at Altinkum . CARDINAL village guard team and CARDINAL internal security team from NORP gendarme station deployed in GPE village . During deployment , it was learned that the terrorists had entered into PERSON , and firing between them and the village guards on the hills continued . The terrorists escaped on a tractor towards GPE , still firing . PERSON gendarmes and village guards arrived at the village from GPE . They discovered that a woman , PERSON ( born in DATE ) and PERSON ( born in DATE ) died as a result of indiscriminate fire from the terrorists . The security forces were positioned for TIME . In TIME , a search uncovered CARDINAL rounds of MONEY GCARDINAL bullets , CARDINAL rounds of CARDINAL calibre PERSON rifle bullets and CARDINAL rounds of ORG automatic rifle bullets belonging to ORG terrorists . The injured village guard and citizen were transferred to PERSON and in turn referred to ORG in a helicopter for treatment .

Upon the instructions of the PERSON public prosecutor , the bodies of the villagers murdered by the terrorists were sent to the district centre for an autopsy . During the incident , the NORP village guards used up CARDINAL projectiles , CARDINAL hand grenades and CARDINAL rounds of CARDINAL PERSON calibre kalashnikov bullets , while the commandos from PERSON used CARDINAL rounds of QUANTITY mortar projectiles and DATE rounds of GCARDINAL infantry rifle bullets . Despite searches , empty cartridges could not be found due to the rocky and tree - covered terrain . Following searches of the village and the location of the clash , it was established that no other life or property was lost .

This map showed , inter alia , the path taken by the terrorists from the poplar trees to the south of LOC village into the village from where they escaped north towards GPE , the position of the commando teams to the south of the village and the location of the bodies of the CARDINAL villagers .

This report was signed by the public prosecutor and CARDINAL doctors . It stated that the body identified as PERSON had CARDINAL entry bullet hole on the left back scapula and an exit hole on the level of the front armpit . Death was due to widespread internal thoracic haemorrhage occurring as a result of injury to vital internal organs . On the body of the DATE child , identified as PERSON , there was a bullet entry hole QUANTITY to the left of the xiphoid bone and an exit hole QUANTITY to the left of the CARDINALth vertebra . Death was due to widespread internal haemorrhage and loss of blood . As the cause of death was certain , no classical autopsy was required .

NORP This report recorded DATE old bruising on the head and large ecchymotic areas on the left side of his back and costar vertebral region . There were signs of suspected broken ribs . The patient was referred to ORG for diagnosis and treatment .

NORP This report noted one probable bullet entry hole on the foot , one on the right arm and a possible third entry hole ( location illegible ) . There was no danger to life . The patient was referred to ORG Orthopaedics unit .

A bullet entry hole was noted QUANTITY above the rear left kneecap and an exit hole QUANTITY above the knee cap . There was the possibility of a fracture . There was no danger to life . The patient was referred to ORG Orthopaedics unit .

The witness , a Boyunlu village guard , was chopping down trees with PERSON and PERSON , with CARDINAL other men guarding them QUANTITY away on high ground ( so that their radio worked ) . He saw CARDINAL men firing at them . He was injured in the arm and leg . He fired back . The terrorists ran away . The guards had called ORG on the radio summoning the other guards . They arrived and pursued the terrorists . He heard gunshots coming from PERSON . He and PERSON were taken to hospital .

The witness , a village guard , was chopping trees near LOC village at FAC . CARDINAL terrorists opened fire as they arrived . He and PERSON were injured immediately . PERSON fired back and the terrorists ran away . The guards protecting them reported the incident . The area was besieged . He heard gunshots coming from GPE . He was taken to hospital for treatment of his injured leg .

On DATE , at TIME , the petitioner ’s village PERSON had been raided by ORG guards . He escaped from the house while his wife and daughter - in - law escaped . Village guards PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON indiscriminately fired at his house , killing his wife . They also set fire to their crops and burned some houses . They had had a land dispute with the above - mentioned individuals , the documents on which for DATE were at the judiciary . He lodged a complaint against the CARDINAL village guards .

On DATE , gunshots were heard in the village . The witness ’s wife PERSON had told him that village guards had arrived . The witness and his son ran out of the village . He came back at TIME when the gendarmes were there . He found his wife lying dead in their house . His daughter - in - law told him that village guards from GPE ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) had entered the house and shot her . The guards fired at and burned houses and also burned the crops . There were no terrorists in the village . The village had had a land dispute in DATE with the ORG guards named above ; he guessed that was the reason for the attack . While the guards were there , a helicopter flew over the village , manoeuvring . He requested that the perpetrators be punished and his crops be reimbursed .

On DATE , at TIME , a raid was carried out on the village by the Boyunlu village guards . The witness ’s father - in - law GPE ran away with other villagers on hearing the shots . CARDINAL guards ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) entered the house and killed her mother - in - law . The guards fired at the houses and burned the crops . She named other witnesses of events .

The witness , a Boyunlu village guard , was told on the radio that terrorists had opened fire on his brother and others who were chopping wood . They informed the NORP gendarme station immediately . The gendarmes told them to go to the location of the incident where they themselves would arrive shortly . The guards arrived at the place of the clash . The terrorists were running away . The guards followed them . The terrorists entered PERSON village . The guards took position to the south and on the hill . There was an exchange of fire . The terrorists started to run away and got into a tractor shortly before nightfall . A helicopter arrived . The officer brigade commander was in it . The helicopter fired on the terrorists in the tractor . During the clash , a fire broke out in the crops surrounding the village . Darkness fell . First Lieutenant PERSON told the guards to return to ORG . He later heard that there were CARDINAL dead villagers but the guards had not killed anyone . PERSON , who had filed a complaint , had a grandson who was a terrorist and was killed and many of his relatives were terrorists . They were slandering the guards due to pressure from the terrorists .

The witness , a shepherd from ORG , was grazing his sheep on DATE . He was not a guard . He heard about the clash in the evening . He had not been involved in any way . He named witnesses to support him .

The witness , the head village guard from ORG , heard over the radio that his brother and others who were chopping wood had been fired at by terrorists . They immediately informed the local gendarme station by radio . The clash was at the LOC stream area . They arrived at the location and participated in the clash . The terrorists started to run away and entered PERSON . The guards positioned themselves to the south . They exchanged fire with the terrorists . The helicopter arrived and opened fire on the terrorists . When the terrorists got into a tractor to escape towards GPE , the helicopter and the guards started to follow them . Some guards passed through the village . During the clash tracer bullets started a fire in the crops and threshing piles . The guards followed the terrorists to Altinkum village outskirts . Due to the darkness and as the terrorists had reached the ORG side , they returned to PERSON where the soldiers had arrived . He learned that a woman and child had been killed . The guards and soldiers stayed in PERSON during the night . Nobody claimed that the guards had killed anyone . PERSON was a close relative of his , like an aunt to him . The complaints had been made against the guards due to pressure from the terrorists . The terrorists wanted to undermine the village guard system .

The witness , a village guard , recalled that the guards heard on the radio that people cutting poplars were under fire by terrorists in the ORG stream area . After informing the NORP gendarme station , they went to help them and participated in the clash . ORG , the head guard ’s brother , and PERSON were injured . As the clash continued , the terrorists made their way to PERSON , which they entered . The guards could not , taking position on the hill outside . Gendarmes arrived nearby at the ORG . A helicopter flew over , firing on the terrorists in the village . The terrorists started to escape towards GPE . The helicopter went in pursuit . Some guards followed . The witness stayed in the village with some other guards . The terrorists had left at TIME . Before the guards left at TIME , they heard that a woman and child had died . At TIME , the soldiers arrived in the village . At TIME , the PERSON gendarme commander contacted the village guards on the radio and the village guards returned to PERSON and stayed the night . The withness had not killed anyone . The complaints must have been made due to pressure from the terrorists .

This reported that , following a joint operation CARDINAL by ORG , the PERSON commando unit and the GPE gendarme station , the perpetrators of the murders of PERSON and PERSON , who had injured PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , had not been apprehended nor their identities established .

At TIME , CARDINAL ORG guards entered PERSON village and started firing at all the houses . Bullets hit his house . There were no terrorists in the village or any clash . He heard that the guards murdered PERSON and PERSON . The guards set fire to the grain piles but not the houses . After TIME , they returned to their village . Before they left , a helicopter flew low over the village , firing at some places . After nightfall , at TIME the soldiers arrived . The witness told PERSON , the ORG commander of the local Bayrambası station , what had happened . They did not open any proceedings though .

DATE ORG guards came into PERSON village firing their guns . They fired at the houses and entered , using bad language . The witness heard that CARDINAL persons , PERSON and PERSON , were killed . The guards burned the harvest and crops but not the houses . At TIME , the guards left towards their own village . A short time before , a helicopter appeared , firing at various targets . After the guards left , the soldiers entered the village . The villagers told them everything but the soldiers did not believe them and did not apprehend the village guards .

DATE . At TIME , the witness heard gunshots in the village . Guards from Boyunlu entered firing their guns . There were no terrorists in the village , nor was there any clash . The guards set fire to the crops and threshing piles but not the houses . They came to the witness ’s house , searching for weapons , and tied up his son , claiming that he was a terrorist . They took his son away . His son later managed to run away . While their crops were burning , a helicopter flew over the village at a low height . The head guard PERSON was talking into a radio to the commanding officer , saying : “ They are running away on a tractor towards GPE ” . The helicopter then flew in that direction . At nightfall , most of the guards left , the head guard and a few others staying on . The others went towards PERSON , probably to burn the crops there . The soldiers arrived . Due to fear of the guards , the villagers did not feel able to complain . The soldiers did not do anything to them .

At TIME , village guards arrived in the village . He and other villagers shut themselves in their houses out of fear . He heard gunshots . Apparently the guards shot at the houses . There were no terrorists in the village , and no clash occurred . Apparently the guards burned the crops and threshing piles . After dark the soldiers arrived . ORG told him that when PERSON came to the door to tell the guards not to enter they killed her . While these incidents were taking place , there was a helicopter flying low over the village .

Village guards from ORG had come into the village of PERSON firing their weapons . He saw his son LOC shot by the chief village guard as he came to the house . Later the guards burnt the crops . At nightfall , the guards left . There had been no terrorists in the village and there had been no armed clash . Soldiers apparently arrived after the guards had left DATE he did not see them as he stayed inside out of fear .

On hearing gunshots , the witness had run towards ORG house . Her son PERSON was with her . They entered the house and bolted it . There was gunfire and LOC was shot . Her husband was outside the village grazing livestock . The village guards apparently burned the crops , starting a fire in the threshing area . No terrorists were in the village nor was there any clash with terrorists .

The witness was out in the fields . At TIME , he heard gunshots . Returning to his house , his father met him QUANTITY from the house and said that he should hide as the Boyunlu village guards were killing the men of the village . He hid near the stream not far from the house . He saw that CARDINAL people from Boyunlu were raiding the village . He named the ones he recognised . He saw PERSON , PERSON and PERSON enter his house and randomly fire with their rifles . They took his father , mother , sister , brother and wife hostage and announced that they would be killed if he did not come out . His mother appealed to him and he came out . PERSON tied him up and demanded to know where the terrorists were . He told PERSON that the terrorists had taken him and his father away DATE before . They were released on payment of FAC . PERSON said that he was lying and that he had made a deal with the terrorists . He was hit with rifle butts . He did not see PERSON or PERSON being killed . The guards threatened to kill him too . They released his hands to allow him to drink and he took advantage of the opportunity to run away .

NORP The village guards burned the threshing piles . A helicopter flew over the village at a low altitude . PERSON was talking to the helicopter on the radio . It was the provincial gendarme regional commander . PERSON claimed that there were CARDINAL dead and told the helicopter to fire at certain places . He said the terrorists were running away in a tractor . When the helicopter queried whether they were villagers , he said that they were terrorists and to kill them all . The helicopter refused to do so as they were civilians .

At TIME , when the security forces arrived , the witness told the ORG commander what had happened . The ORG said that they had been told that they had been raided by terrorists . The ORG talked to PERSON , who was there . PERSON laughed , claiming that he could have destroyed the whole village but the first lieutenant had said that it was enough . The guards stayed in the village for DATE . The witness filed a complaint against them .

NORP This report listed the cartridges recovered from the incident on DATE . It established that they had been fired from CARDINAL different weapons . They were currently under examination to see if they had been fired in other incidents . A further report would issue if that was the case .

DATE . This decision listed the deceased victims , PERSON and PERSON , and the injured persons , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and identified the suspects as ORG terrorists . It was understood that an armed assault was carried out on village guards by terrorists in LOC . The terrorists withdrew , entering PERSON village and firing indiscriminately . CARDINAL villagers died . The security forces arrived and the terrorists escaped . As the offences were within the jurisdiction of ORG , the PERSON prosecutor referred the file to ORG chief public prosecutor .

This decision listed PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON as suspected perpetrators of the murder of PERSON and PERSON . It was understood that the suspected village guards had raided PERSON village and murdered the above persons by indiscriminate firing on duty . The case was referred to the PERSON public prosecutor for the institution of proceedings .

The incident was described as an armed clash with members of the ORG , which took place on DATE . It was stated that CARDINAL ORG guards set out for PERSON hill where they came across a group of CARDINAL to CARDINAL terrorists . A clash occurred during which PERSON and an unidentified NORP terrorist were killed . As soon as contact was made , CARDINAL teams of village guards from ORG , a team of village guards from Onbaşılar , a ORG unit and CARDINAL gendarme commando units set out in pursuit . Though bloodstains were found and it was thought that CARDINAL terrorists were wounded , no further terrorists were discovered .

This protocol stated that an investigation had been carried out into the complaints of the applicant and PERSON that their houses and gardens had been burned in PERSON . No complaint had been made to the local gendarme station about this . PERSON had however been killed during a skirmish with the security forces on DATE near GPE in which he had taken part as a terrorist . The applicant had houses in PERSON and in GPE . He came to PERSON village during the harvest season . His house , garden and fields in PERSON had not been burned down by village guards .

The applicant stated that he lived in GPE . PERSON was killed in armed clashes with the security forces on DATE . He did not know whether he was a terrorist or not . His own house , garden and fields in PERSON were not burned as was alleged . He had not applied to any authority about the matter .

It had been reported that the applicant and ORG had applied to ORG , alleging that their houses , garden and fields had been burned down by village guards on DATE .

According to their investigations , it appeared that no complaint had been made to the gendarmerie about this matter . PERSON had been killed on DATE fighting as a terrorist against the security forces at FAC , GPE . The applicant had houses in PERSON and PERSON , and his house , garden and fields had not been burned down by village guards . The allegations were false .

Although it had been alleged that the applicant and ORG houses , gardens and fields had been burned by village guards and that they had been forced to leave their village , it appeared from the applicant ’s statement , the letter from the PERSON district gendarmerie , the autopsy report and all other documents that the investigation failed to produce any evidence that the allegations were true and that the offences charged had been committed . It followed that no public prosecution should be opened .

This judgment acquitted PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON of the murder of PERSON and PERSON .

The court found that on DATE a clash took place between the ORG and the defendant village guards . The terrorists escaped towards PERSON , where the victims lived . The village guard defendants went into the village in pursuit . The ORG summarised the evidence as follows .

PERSON claimed that he was not at the incident but was grazing his sheep . His defence was confirmed by the testimony of PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON ( name illegible ) . PERSON , PERSON and PERSON stated that they were in the incident and that when they entered the village , a CARDINAL - way conflict took place . The victims might have died in the conflict but the village guards did not kill them .

PERSON , the husband of PERSON , had run away and did not witness what happened to his wife . PERSON stated that CARDINAL men had fired . PERSON , mother of LOC , had stated that they had shut themselves in their house . There had been firing outside and a bullet had hit and killed her son . She had opened the door and seen the CARDINAL defendants ORG , PERSON and Gurkan . PERSON stated that he did not see the incident himself . PERSON said that he did not know who killed the victims and did not see the incident with his own eyes . PERSON stated that he did not see the perpetrators of the murder incident with his own eyes .

Empty cartridges or other material evidence at the location proving the defendant ’s participation in the murder were absent .

Statements had been taken from Captain PERSON and First Lieutenant PERSON , commanding officers during the incident . They stated that there had been a conflict between the ORG and the village guards and that the victims died as a result of firing by the terrorists . They had seen the terrorists running from the village through their binoculars . They had carried out an investigation and concluded that the victims were killed by terrorists . However , some witnesses indicated that as a result of pressure from the terrorists , some villagers held the defendants responsible . Consequently , on the basis of the evidence gathered , no convincing evidence had been obtained to prove that the defendants killed the victims . The fact that the victims were killed by the terrorists or the defendants could not be established with certainty .

The claims made by the complainants were not based on eye witness accounts . The statements made during the investigation contradicted those given in court and could not be taken into account . The ORG statements and the content of the file did not furnish sufficient , definitive and convincing evidence of the offence . Therefore the defendants had to be acquitted .

The applicant stated that he had already made a statement to the PERSON public prosecutor . At his request , that statement of DATE was read out to him . He stated that he maintained it . He was under no pressure and denied the allegations that had been made to that effect . His house and property had not been burned . In DATE , there were clashes between PERSON and GPE , after which the terrorists fled . After the incident , the village was searched by village guards . In the course of the incident , CARDINAL people were killed . His house was not burned at that time . He had not applied to any authority .

The witness was not in the village at the time of the incident but was told that clashes broke out between people not from the village , presumably terrorists , and village guards from ORG and PERSON . Those people fled through the village . CARDINAL people were killed during the clashes . He had not heard or seen that the applicant ’s house or garden were burned . He had known PERSON , who had been killed in an armed clash with the security forces in DATE . There were CARDINAL households in the village , and the applicant was still living there working in his orchard and garden .

The witness lived in GPE , located in an area subject to frequent terrorist incidents . Many villagers abandoned their homes because of the harassment from the terrorists , and moved to safer areas protected by village guards and the security forces . About that time , the applicant moved to PERSON , taking out the windows and doors of his house in the GPE district to sell . As the house was abandoned , it fell into ruin , though the concrete parts were still sound . His house was not burned down or destroyed by village protectors . He guessed that the applicant was influenced by his son who lived in GPE and was a member of the ORG .

The witness lived in GPE , as he had been forced to leave his former house and gardens in the LOC due to intensive terrorist activity . Many others , including the applicant , who was a relative of his , did the same . The applicant ’s house in the GPE district was also harassed by terrorists . On CARDINAL occasion there was a ORG raid on the valley , during which ORG and PERSON were injured and terrorists escaping from the battle entered the applicant ’s house . The applicant abandoned his house there and came to live in PERSON . He returned to remove the wooden parts . The concrete parts of the house still stood though some stone had collapsed as he had removed beams . There was no question of village guards tearing down his house . All the villagers knew that the applicant ’s sons lived in GPE and supported the ORG .

On DATE , the Government provided CARDINAL photographs , accompanied by a procès - verbal dated DATE .

The CARDINAL photographs showed a man , purported to be the applicant , standing outside his house at GPE . The QUANTITY house was roofed and intact .

On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer submitted CARDINAL colour photographs of the applicant standing outside his house . They showed a derelict building , without roof , with bricks and stones remaining up to the height of the applicant .

The ORG refers to the overview of domestic law derived from previous submissions in other cases , in particular the ORG and Others v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL , § § DATE , the Menteş and Others v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ; the PERSON and PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports CARDINAL-II , § § DATE ; the GPE v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Reports CARDINAL , § § DATE ; and no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG v. GPE ( Sect . CARDINAL ) , judgment of DATE .

Since DATE , serious confrontations have occurred in the south - east of GPE between the security forces and the members of the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) . This confrontation has claimed the lives of CARDINAL of civilians and members of the security forces .

CARDINAL principal decrees relating to the south - eastern region have been made under the PERSON on ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The first , Decree no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , established a regional governorship of the state of emergency in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL provinces of south - eastern GPE . Under LAW b ) and ( d ) of the decree , all private and public security forces and ORG are at the disposal of the regional governor .

The second , Decree no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , reinforced the powers of the regional governor , for example to order transfers out of the region of public officials and employees , including judges and prosecutors , and provided in LAW

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

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

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

The authorities shall be liable to make reparation for all damage caused by their acts or measures . ”

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

Proceedings against the administration may be brought before the administrative courts , whose proceedings are in writing .

The Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence :

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

– to issue threats ( LAW ) ;

– to make an unlawful search of an individual ’s home ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL )

– to subject an individual to torture or ill - treatment ( Articles CARDINAL in respect of torture , and Article CARDINAL in respect of ill - treatment , inflicted by civil servants ) ; and

– to damage another ’s property intentionally ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . ) .

For all these offences complaints may be lodged , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , with the public prosecutor or the local administrative authorities . A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to the suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts in order to decide whether or not to bring a prosecution ( LAW . Complaints may be made in writing or orally . A complainant may appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings .

If the suspected authors of the contested acts are military personnel , they may also be prosecuted for causing extensive damage , endangering human lives or damaging property , if they have not followed orders in conformity with Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Military Code . In these circumstances proceedings may be initiated by the ( non - military ) persons concerned before the competent authority under LAW , or before the suspected ORG hierarchical superior ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law CARDINAL on the LAW and the Procedure of Military Courts ) .

NORP If , at the relevant time , the alleged author of a crime is a ORG official or civil servant , permission to prosecute must be obtained from local administrative councils ( ORG of ORG ) . The local council decisions may be appealed to ORG ; a refusal to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal of this kind .

ORG . Any illegal act by civil servants , be it a crime or a tort , which causes material or moral damage may be the subject of a claim for compensation before the ordinary civil courts . Pursuant to LAW , an injured person may file a claim for compensation against an alleged perpetrator who has caused damage in an unlawful manner whether wilfully , negligently or imprudently . Pecuniary loss may be compensated by the civil courts pursuant to LAW and non - pecuniary or moral damages awarded under LAW . Damage caused by terrorist violence may be compensated out of ORG .

In the case of alleged terrorist offences , the public prosecutor is deprived of jurisdiction in favour of a separate system of State security prosecutors and courts established throughout GPE .

NORP The public prosecutor is also deprived of jurisdiction with regard to offences allegedly committed by members of the security forces in the state of emergency region . Decree no . CARDINAL , LAW , provides that all security forces under the command of the regional governor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) shall be subject , in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties , to the Law of DATE on the prosecution of civil servants . The Law of DATE has been replaced by another law in the meantime . Thus , any prosecutor who receives a complaint alleging a criminal act by a member of the security forces must make a decision declining jurisdiction and transfer the file to ORG . These councils are made up of civil servants , chaired by the governor . A decision by the ORG not to prosecute is subject to an automatic appeal to ORG . Once a decision to prosecute has been taken , it is for the public prosecutor to investigate the case .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

In DATE he took part in a rescue operation on the site of the GPE nuclear disaster . As of an unspecified date the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection .

On an unspecified date the applicant sued ORG ( Управление социальной защиты населения мэрии города ORG , “ the authority ” ) seeking to recover the amount of allegedly unpaid social benefits .

By judgment of DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) examined and granted the applicant ’s action and ordered the authority to pay him the arrears of ORG .

The judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) on DATE . It came into force on DATE . Immediately thereafter the applicant obtained an execution writ and instituted enforcement proceedings .

The amount due to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of DATE and decision of CARDINAL DATE was paid to him by CARDINAL money transfers dated DATE ( CARDINAL RUR ) and DATE ( CARDINAL RUR ) respectively .

On DATE ORG examined and granted the applicant ’s claim for penalty in connection with alleged non - enforcement of the judgment of DATE . The court ordered the authority to pay the applicant RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on DATE .

NORP Immediately thereafter the applicant obtained an execution writ and instituted enforcement proceedings .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the bailiffs returned the writ and supporting documents to the applicant and invited him to apply to a local branch of ORG .

It appears that the applicant followed these instructions and submitted the writ and supporting documents to ORG . On DATE the ORG refused to pay the money due by reference to the fact that the respondent authority had not been registered .

On an unspecified date the respondent authority brought an application seeking supervisory review of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . A judge of ORG on DATE examined the application and decided to forward it for examination on the merits to the ORG of ORG .

It appears that by letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG notified the applicant and other parties in the case of the supervisory review hearing of DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination at the first instance . It appears that the applicant was absent from the hearing .

According to the Government , on DATE the first instance court discontinued the proceedings in the case for the applicant ’s failure to appear .

It appears that on DATE and DATE ORG examined and fully granted the applicant ’s CARDINAL fresh claims for unpaid social benefits . It ordered the authority to pay RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL respectively . Both decisions were enforced with DATE delay , in DATE and DATE respectively .

A special law adopted in DATE entitles the participants of the liquidation of the consequences of the GPE nuclear accident to additional social benefits , including DATE payments .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of CARDINAL DATE provides that a bailiff ’s order on the institution of enforcement proceedings must fix a time - limit for the defendant ’s voluntary compliance with a writ of execution . The time - limit may not exceed DATE . The bailiff must also warn the defendant that a coercive action will follow , should the defendant fail to comply with the time - limit .

Under LAW of the LAW , the enforcement proceedings should be completed within DATE upon receipt of the writ of enforcement by the bailiff .

Under special rules governing enforcement of execution writs against the recipients of allocations from the federal budget , adopted by ORG on DATE ( Decree No . CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time ) , a creditor is to apply to a relevant branch of ORG holding debtor ’s accounts ( Sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) .

Within DATE the branch examines the application and notifies the debtor of the writ , compelling the latter to abide by the respective court decisions ( Sections CARDINAL ) . In case of the debtor ’s failure to comply within DATE , the branch may temporarily freeze the debtor ’s accounts ( see LAW ) .


Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( PERSON ) . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant , a civil servant with a DATE salary of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time in question , made a request for aid ( Beihilfe ) to ORG , his employer . He asked to be reimbursed part of the cost , namely CARDINAL ORG , he had paid for magnesium tablets prescribed by his physician .

On DATE the Land refused this request .

On DATE the applicant instituted preliminary administrative proceedings ( PERSON ) by lodging an objection to the decision of DATE .

On DATE the Land dismissed the applicant ’s objection .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against ORG with the GPE ( ORG Administrative Court claiming that the magnesium tablets in question were eligible for aid , and requested a renewed decision by the Land .

By letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicant at his request that all cases were dealt with in chronological order , that there was a backlog of cases and that for the time being he could not expect a date for an oral hearing to be set .

On DATE ORG replied to another information request by the applicant that a decision was expected to be reached DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary complaint , that the GPE ( ORG Administrative Court was taking no action , with ORG . By a letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicant that his extraordinary complaint was not admissible since LAW did not provide for such a remedy and , furthermore , he was not , as prescribed by the relevant law , represented by counsel . On DATE the applicant withdrew the complaint of inactivity he had lodged with ORG . With decision dated DATE ORG discontinued the complaint proceedings .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG that ORG was taking no action . On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for examination ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the GPE ( ORG Administrative Court referred the case to a single judge for a decision . By a judgment of DATE the GPE ( ORG Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’s action .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE and has since become final .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Since DATE the applicant has been involved in an administrative dispute with the GPE relating to the planned construction of a public road .

The applicant submits that on many occasions he was denied the right to see the relevant planning and building permissions and that the municipality clerks prevented him from accessing the files .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was charged with several offences , in particular insulting ORG and uttering threats . ORG subsequently ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination in order to determine whether he could be held criminally responsible in respect of the above - mentioned offences .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in a psychiatric hospital in order to undergo an observation .

On DATE the applicant attacked a judge who was visiting another patient in the hospital . He was immobilised and given sedative medication . On DATE the hospital asked the court for a post factum permission to treat the applicant without his consent .

On DATE the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination .

On DATE the NORP ORG gave a decision and declared the extension of the applicant ’s detention in the hospital to be lawful . The applicant was released from the hospital on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG gave a decision and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offences in question . However , he should not have been held criminally responsible as he was suffering from paranoia with elements of psychosis . It further referred to an expert ’s opinion and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital in Choroszcza .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant .

Subsequently , the applicant asked the court to discontinue the enforcement proceedings relating to his placement in a psychiatric hospital . He claimed that his state of health had significantly improved . On DATE ORG dismissed his request . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

Meanwhile , the applicant was charged with assaulting a NORP municipality employee . On DATE expert psychiatrists considered that the applicant suffered from paranoia with elements of psychosis . On DATE the ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He was then transferred to ORG . He was seen by a doctor upon his arrival . However he refused to answer any questions .

On DATE the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision to place him in a psychiatric hospital . He stressed that his condition had meanwhile improved and that he had not been summoned to go to the hospital voluntarily . He also complained that he could not prepare himself for the confinement . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s interlocutory appeal .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s internment in the same institution ( ORG ) on the basis of its final decision of DATE .

The applicant subsequently lodged several motions , in particular another application for release on DATE which was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE an expert psychologist submitted her opinion to the court . She observed an improvement in the applicant ’s emotional behaviour . On DATE CARDINAL expert psychiatrists submitted their joint opinion to the court . They concluded that the applicant ’s condition had significantly improved . However , he should continue treatment in a hospital .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release . The court referred to an opinion prepared by CARDINAL psychiatrists and a psychologist . They concluded that the applicant ’s condition had significantly improved and that he could be treated outside the hospital .

The applicant escaped from the hospital on DATE .

On DATE the hospital informed ORG about the applicant ’s escape . The hospital stressed that it refused to release the applicant because confinement in respect of another set of criminal proceedings against him had been ordered . The hospital referred to the decision of DATE given by ORG .

Subsequently , the applicant sued ORG for compensation . He complained about the treatment he received and in particular about the fact that his head had been shaved without his consent and also that he had been placed in a closed ward of the hospital . On DATE ORG granted the applicant MONEY in compensation . On DATE the ORG court gave judgment and increased the amount of compensation to FAC CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

The applicant ’s subsequent confinement was examined by the ORG in application no . CARDINAL .

Conditions for the detention of persons of unsound mind who are not criminally responsible on medical grounds are laid down in LAW of DATE :

Article CARDINAL

“ The court may impose a preventive measure provided for in this LAW which involves confinement in a closed medical institution only if necessary to prevent the repeated commission of a prohibited act by a perpetrator suffering from mental illness , mental impairment or addiction to alcohol or other narcotic drugs . Before imposing such a measure the court shall hear evidence from psychiatrists and a psychologist . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ § CARDINAL . If the perpetrator has committed a prohibited act of significant harm to the community in a condition excluding his criminal responsibility as specified in LAW and there is a high probability that he will commit such an act again , a court shall commit him to a suitable psychiatric institution .

§ CARDINAL . NORP The duration of the stay in the institution shall not be fixed in advance ; the court shall order the perpetrator ’s release from the institution if his or her stay is no longer deemed necessary .

§ CARDINAL . NORP The court may order the reconfinement of a perpetrator specified in LAW in a suitable psychiatric institution if this is advisable in the light of the circumstances specified in LAW in LAW ; the order may not be issued DATE after the date of release from the institution . “


CECERE, ZARRO, FRANZESE, DI GIOVANNI AND IANNAZZONE v. ITALY

The applicants are CARDINAL NORP nationals , born respectively in DATE , DATE and DATE . They all reside in LOC . In DATE and DATE , the first applicant was the mayor of Chianche ; the other applicants were members of ORG ( “ PERSON edilizia municipale ” ) , a body responsible for expressing opinions on the granting of building permits . Before the ORG , they are represented by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in LOC .

On an unspecified date , ORG commenced criminal proceedings against the applicants on charges of abuse of public authority ( “ interesse privato in atti d’ufficio ” ) in the course of their duties as mayor and members of ORG . On DATE ORG requested that the applicants and CARDINAL other persons be committed for trial .

In an order of DATE , the ORG investigating judge scheduled the date of the preliminary hearing for DATE . This order was subsequently served on the applicants , who were thus given official notification of the charges brought against them .

In an order of DATE , the investigating judge committed the applicants and their CARDINAL co - accused for trial , commencing on DATE before ORG .

On DATE Mr D. , CARDINAL of the judges composing the bench of the court , withdrew from the case . On DATE the proceedings were adjourned by reason that the order fixing the date of the hearing had not been served on CARDINAL of the accused . On DATE Mr NORP observed that notwithstanding his withdrawal , the case was still pending before the section in which he was sitting ; the case - file was therefore forwarded to the President of ORG .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned by ORG of its own motion . On DATE CARDINAL witnesses were examined and the parties presented their final pleadings . The applicants requested to be acquitted or , in the alternative , that the charges against them be declared time - barred .

In a judgment of DATE , filed with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , ORG declared that the charges brought against the applicants and their co - accused had become time - barred at the latest on DATE . This decision became final on DATE .