The applicant , born in DATE , is an NORP national . When introducing his application , he was held at FAC of ORG , located on the LOC of FAC . Before the ORG he is represented by Mr. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE and acting on behalf ORG , and by Mr. PERSON , the executive director of ORG .

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

A.

On DATE the applicant arrived at the Budapest Ferihegy II Airport from GPE . His NORP passport contained a transit visa for GPE issued by ORG in GPE , GPE . He possessed an GPE - GPE - GPE return flight ticket . At the immigration control a border guard expert found that it was likely that the applicant ’s passport had been falsified . The applicant ’s entry was therefore denied and his return to GPE was ordered . Subsequently he lodged a request for recognition as a refugee .

On DATE the applicant , who had meanwhile been committed to ORG , was heard by an officer of ORG in the presence of an interpreter .

On DATE the applicant was heard by ORG ( “ the Office ” ) . In these proceedings the applicant , assisted by an interpreter , stated that in DATE his late father , once belonging to the opposition in GPE , had been arrested and executed in DATE . Following the arrest of their father , the applicant ’s CARDINAL brothers had fled from GPE . In connection with his father ’s political activity , the applicant had been arrested in DATE and had been detained until DATE , during which period he had regularly been subjected to interrogation by means of electric shocks . Following his release he had been under surveillance by the NORP security service . In DATE he had obtained a passport with an exit visa and left GPE for GPE where he had spent DATE being under constant surveillance by NORP agents . On his return to GPE he had been detained again for DATE and interrogated by the NORP security service concerning his contacts with his late father ’s political allies in GPE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for recognition as a refugee as unsubstantiated . The decision specified that a subsequent action to challenge the lawfulness of the administrative proceedings before the civil courts would be of no suspensive effect concerning the applicant ’s return to GPE as ordered . On DATE , FAC was designated as the applicant ’s compulsory place of residence .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG to challenge the decision of DATE concerning the dismissal of his request for asylum . These proceedings are still pending .

Meanwhile , apparently during TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities attempted to return the applicant to GPE via GPE . Having been denied entry to GPE , he was , however , returned to GPE on DATE . On DATE a meeting between the applicant and the NORP consul in GPE took place on the LOC of ORG .

On DATE ORG requested the ORG to form an opinion as to any reasons excluding the applicant ’s deportation .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG that it held that , in pursuance of S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , the applicant could not be deported to GPE or GPE .

B. Relevant domestic law

The DATE LAW no . DATE )

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that foreigners may cross the NORP state frontier and stay on the territory of GPE only in possession of valid passports verifying their citizenship and particulars of identification , and with valid visas issued by the NORP authorities . LAW provides that , at the request of the NORP authorities , foreigners shall certify - unless international agreements provide otherwise - that the financial means necessary for entry to , stay in and exit from GPE , as well as the visas necessary for further travel or return , are at their disposal .

According to S. CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , all conditions of entry and stay shall be inspected by the border guards at the time of entry to the country by the foreigner , prior to crossing the state frontier , while the availability of financial means shall be inspected by the customs authority . Foreigners who do not satisfy the conditions prescribed for entering the country , shall be - subject to the provisions of S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL - returned to the territory of the country they arrived from . Upon notification , an appeal may be lodged against the order of return .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that foreigners shall not be returned or expelled to such countries , or to the frontier of such areas , where they would be exposed to the danger of persecution for reasons connected with their race , religion , national , social belonging or political views ; furthermore , to the territory of such states , or to the frontier of such areas , where it is to be greatly feared that they would be exposed to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment . These reasons shall be established by the refugee authority .

Section CARDINAL provides the possibility of ordering an alien ’s residence at a designated place . According to paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the police headquarters and the directorate or branch of ORG may order the residence of the foreigner at a designated place , restricting his personal liberty , if : ( a ) he is not able to certify his identity , until the establishment thereof ; or ( b ) he is not able to certify the lawfulness of his stay in GPE , until the verification thereof or until an official permit to stay is issued ; or ( c ) this is necessary for the purposes of guaranteeing the execution of an expulsion , until the establishment of the conditions of expulsion ; or ( d ) his return was ordered ( see PERSON above ) ; or ( e ) his return or expulsion should take place , but he may not be returned or expelled in accordance with the prohibition under PERSON § CARDINAL .

The compulsory place of residence may also be designated at a communal accommodation , if the foreigner is not able to support himself , and no appropriate accommodation , financial means , income and inviting party or relatives obliged to support him are at his disposal .

Paragraph CARDINAL provides that , although no administrative appeal may be lodged against the order to reside at a designated place , the foreigner may request the court review of the decision . The procedure of the court shall be governed by the provisions applicable to the court review of the lawfulness of ‘ custody for the purposes of supervision of ORG . These provisions are as follows :

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that foreigners may request - during the period of custody - a review of the lawfulness of the decision from the local court competent at the place of custody . The submission of such a request has no suspensive effect in respect of the enforcement of the custody order . If the foreigner requests the court review of the lawfulness of the ‘ custody for purposes of supervision of GPE , he shall be brought before the court in order to be heard . According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL , if the court finds that the foreigner ’s taking into , or holding in , custody violates the law , it shall take immediate measures for his release . Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that the authority ordering the taking into custody as well as the foreigner may appeal against the decision of the court . The appeal may be submitted orally in the course of the hearing or in writing to the local court within DATE following the announcement of the decision . Appeals submitted against the decision of the local court shall be decided by the regional court within DATE . Section CARDINAL requires that the court shall act promptly in matters of judicial review of decisions of the immigration authorities .

QUANTITY no . CARDINAL of DATE )

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that the applicant shall have the opportunity to use legal assistance of his choice , at his expenses , or to accept free legal aid offered by any registered organisation providing legal protection on a regular basis . The aliens control authorities and the refugee authorities shall provide the person applying for protection with information on his rights and the possibility to use legal assistance during the proceedings .

According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL , the immigration authority shall , prior to allowing a foreigner to enter the territory of GPE at the border crossing point of FAC , immediately notify the refugee authority with a view to instituting asylum proceedings , if such a foreigner refers to a reason for seeking asylum defined in this LAW , arrived from a safe country of origin or a safe third country , and is unable to prove his identity by means of a passport or other appropriate document .

Government Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( of DATE ) on the Implementation of the DATE LAW

According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL , the competent aliens control authority shall issue ex officio a certificate permitting temporary residence to any foreigner who does not hold a permit to enter and stay in GPE issued under the DATE LAW or other legislation and may not be returned or expelled from GPE in compliance with S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE LAW or may not leave the country for other reasons .

Paragraph CARDINAL provides that the certificate ’s period of validity shall be determined by the aliens control authority by means of appreciating the foreigner ’s circumstances . The period of validity may be extended until the foreigner ’s departure or until he is granted a residence permit .

Government Decree no . CARDINAL ( of DATE ) on LAW

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL govern the “ airport procedure ” , according to which if an applicant does not prove his personal identity , moreover , the ORG finds that he arrived from a safe third country and this presumption is not refuted , then the ORG promptly delivers a decision on the rejection of the application and informs the aliens control authority thereof . If a decision on the merits can not be delivered promptly or in accelerated procedure , the ORG arranges for the applicant ’s entry into the country and proceeds with the application under the general rules .

The Code of Civil Procedure ( Act no . DATE )

a. General rules

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that if a submission is not in conformity with the provisions of the LAW or must be supplemented or corrected for another reason , the presiding judge shall give it back to the party for completion , fixing a short time limit and indicating the deficiencies , and shall simultaneously warn the party that the court will dismiss the submission or handle it according to its incomplete contents , if it is submitted incompletely again .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL requires that an action must be brought by filing a submission indicating the trial court ; the names , domiciles and legal positions of the parties and their representatives ; the rights intended to be enforced , the relevant facts and evidence ; data from which the competence and jurisdiction of the court can be established and an express claim .

According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL , the presiding judge shall examine the action immediately after its receipt to see whether it has to be given back to the party for completion , forwarded to another court or rejected without issuing summonses and shall take the necessary measures without delay .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( j ) provides that an action shall be rejected by the court without issuing summonses , inter alia , if it can be established that the plaintiff did not re - file the submission given back to him for completion within the time limit fixed or re - filed it incompletely and , as a consequence , the action can not be adjudged .

b. Judicial review of administrative decisions

Section CARDINAL provides that the application of the general rules contained in DATE LAW to litigations concerning the judicial review of administrative decisions is subject to the provisions in LAW . Some of these special rules are outlined below .

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that the action shall be filed either with the authority which has passed the first instance administrative decision or with the competent court and within DATE from the service of the decision requested to be reviewed . The first instance authority shall forward the action along with the case - file to the competent court within DATE . If the plaintiff failed to observe the time - limit fixed for filing the action , he may apply for the reinstatement of the proceedings . The defendant authority shall not have the right to reject an action filed out of time , rather , it shall forward it to the court even if no request for the reinstatement of the proceedings has been filed by the plaintiff .

According to S. CARDINAL , the authority , which has passed the decision requested to be reviewed , shall submit its written observations in reply to the action either when forwarding the case - file to the court ( in case the action has been filed with the authority ) , or otherwise within DATE from DATE when the authority has been notified of the action by the court .


The applicant is an NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in PERSON ( GPE ) .

The applicant previously filed an application with ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) concerning his detention on remand . On DATE the Commission declared that application inadmissible .

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

On DATE ORG ) filed a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with various counts of fraud committed DATE and DATE ( “ indictment no . CARDINAL ” ) . Subsequently the applicant was arrested and taken into detention on remand on suspicion of having committed further fraud offences DATE and DATE .

On DATE a trial was held by ORG ( PERSON ) with Judge PERSON sitting as a single judge on the charges contained in the indictment of CARDINAL DATE . Upon request by the public prosecutor , the trial was adjourned since additional charges were not ready for adjudication .

On DATE the investigating judge , upon request by the public prosecutor , decided to separate the additional charges - concerning the offences the applicant had allegedly committed after DATE - from those contained in indictment no . CARDINAL and to conduct these latter proceedings independently . On the basis of these offences a further bill of indictment was drawn up on DATE ( “ indictment no . CARDINAL ” ) .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG , being Judge PERSON sitting as a single judge , convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of fraud set out in indictment no . CARDINAL and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the president of ORG rejected the applicant ’s motion of CARDINAL DATE challenging Judge PERSON for bias . The president noted that the applicant had accused this judge of suppression of evidence , manipulation of proceedings , defamation and intimidation . The president found that the applicant ’s submissions were polemical and unsubstantiated . As regards the applicant ’s reference to procedural measures , such as the obtaining of files from parallel proceedings , or making enquiries with certain banks and insurance companies whether persons employed there and named as witnesses had information on the subject of the criminal proceedings , such preparatory measures did not indicate a lack of impartiality on the part of a judge .

On DATE the trial concerning indictment no . CARDINAL commenced before a Chamber of the Graz Regional Court , presided by Judge PERSON The applicant , assisted by an ex - officio defence counsel , filed numerous requests for the taking of further evidence . The ORG granted this request and , in view of the complexity of the investigations , decided to remit the case to the investigating judge .

On DATE ORG filed a third bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with a further count of fraud and CARDINAL counts of fraudulent conversion ( “ indictment no . CARDINAL ” ) .

On DATE the applicant challenged all judges of ORG for bias . This motion was dismissed by ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) on DATE . ORG noted the applicant ’s allegations that the investigating judge had manipulated evidence , that the psychiatric court expert had drawn up an erroneous report , that witnesses heard had given false testimony and that the public prosecutor ’s office had refused to institute criminal proceedings against the investigating judge , the court expert and the witnesses . ORG found that the applicant ’s allegations concerned single members of the court and were not sufficient to cast doubt on the impartiality of all members of the court . Whether or not single members of ORG were biased was a matter which the president of that court had to decide , should the applicant file such motions with him .

On DATE the trial against the applicant before ORG resumed . At the beginning the public prosecutor again read out indictment no . CARDINAL , extending the charges to indictment no . CARDINAL . The applicant , assisted by defence counsel , did not oppose this extension . However , he challenged the psychiatric court expert for bias and stated that he had in the meantime laid a criminal information against the expert for defamation . He also challenged the presiding judge for bias . The court rejected both motions . Subsequently the applicant was questioned on the charges against him and several witnesses were heard . As regards the charges contained in the indictment of DATE , CARDINAL employees of the C. bank were heard as witnesses . The applicant asked the witnesses several questions and explained his version of the events .

At the end of the trial the applicant made numerous further requests for the taking of evidence , which were rejected by the court . ORG found , inter alia , that the applicant himself had admitted receiving CARDINAL ORG from the PERSON bank and that it was therefore unnecessary to obtain the report of an expert in graphology as to whether the signature on the receipt was the applicant ’s . As regards a further charge of fraud , ORG found that the witness , PERSON , whom the applicant had requested to be heard , was not available as he had meanwhile emigrated to GPE .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts of fraud , fraudulent conversion and deceit , and acquitted him of further charges of fraud and defamation . It sentenced him to CARDINAL a GPE imprisonment . ORG found that the applicant was an impostor who usually pretended to be a business consultant or a pilot having substantial income and considerable private means . In reality , however , he had no income and no means and , since his release from prison in DATE , earned his living from fraudulent acts and transactions .

As to a count of deceit , the ORG found that the applicant had approached a NORP airline and had pretended to be the managing director of a company and a member of the ORG of GPE wishing to establish , in co - operation with them , a regular flight connection between GPE and GPE . However , the company named by the applicant did not exist . In order to reassure his NORP business partners , the applicant had shown a falsified paper , allegedly established by an NORP bank , according to which he had paid CARDINAL ORG for the foundation of a joint venture between his company and the NORP one . Expecting future co - operation , the NORP company had incurred expenses and thus suffered prejudice .

As to the assessment of evidence , the court noted that in the first hearing on DATE the applicant had requested the taking of further evidence which had been so extensive that the case had to be remitted to the investigating judge . The result of the taking of evidence had not been in the applicant ’s favour . Witnesses named by the applicant did not know him ; others confirmed the accusations against him . As regards the count of fraud to the detriment of the PERSON bank , the applicant ’s defence that the amount paid to him by the PERSON bank had been commission for services rendered , and not a loan granted to him , was implausible as he could not name any service for which he could have charged such commission .

On DATE the applicant filed a plea of nullity and an appeal against sentence with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) . He complained , inter alia , that the indictment of DATE had not been served on him prior to the trial on DATE , and that his right to prepare his defence had therefore been infringed . He further complained that ORG had failed to take the evidence requested by him , and that his motion challenging the presiding judge for bias had been rejected .

On DATE ORG examined the plea of nullity . It quashed the applicant ’s conviction and sentence regarding one of the counts of fraud which involved car rentals , as it found that ORG should have made further efforts to obtain the evidence sought by the applicant . It confirmed the other convictions . As a result of quashing one of the convictions the whole sentence had to be re - examined .

As to the complaint of a failure to serve indictment no . CARDINAL prior to the trial on DATE , ORG acknowledged its veracity . However , the public prosecutor had read out the contents of this indictment at the beginning of the trial and had thereby brought the charges mentioned therein to the notice of the applicant . The applicant had been questioned in detail by the investigating judge on these charges and had therefore been familiar with them beforehand . Moreover , the applicant had failed to show in what way the inclusion of these offences concerning facts he had known for a considerable time would have hindered his defence .

As regards the applicant ’s complaint that ORG had failed to take certain evidence requested by him , ORG found that ORG had in general acted correctly in rejecting these requests , giving detailed explanations . However it did not accept ORG decision regarding witness A. In ORG view , ORG should have tried to obtain this ORG new address in GPE , and summoned or heard him on letters rogatory , before concluding that he was unavailable .

As regards the applicant ’s submissions that the NORP courts lacked jurisdiction concerning the count of deceit to the detriment of the NORP airline , ORG found that the NORP courts were competent since the applicant had also acted in GPE .

On DATE ORG , upon a request by the public prosecutor ’s office , discontinued the criminal proceedings concerning the charge quashed by ORG .

On DATE ORG , after an oral hearing , sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s further plea of nullity .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against sentence .


Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pavlina Panova;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger

Mr PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) and PERSON ORG ( “ the second applicant ” ) are the parents of PERSON PERSON , while PERSON ( “ the third applicant ” ) is his sister . PERSON was born in DATE and was DATE at the time of the events .

In DATE a criminal investigation was opened into the activities of the so - called ORG gang , of which PERSON and CARDINAL other individuals , including the first applicant , were allegedly members . The investigation was carried out in connection with several murders and armed robberies .

On DATE PERSON was charged with premeditated murder ( Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ) and placed in pre - trial detention .

Mr PERSON was held at the detention facility of ORG ( “ the detention facility ” ) located on the sixth and seventh floors of a building it shared with LOC . Accordingly , there were CARDINAL sets of guards – one stationed on the sixth or seventh floor for the detention facility and another on the ground floor for the entire police station . In addition , a metal door barred access to the floors of the detention facility .

Initially , PERSON was held in cell no . CARDINAL on the seventh floor together with another detainee , whose help he tried to enlist in an attempted escape . As a result , on DATE PERSON was moved and placed alone in cell no . CARDINAL on the same floor .

Meanwhile , on DATE the first applicant had been detained in the course of the same criminal proceedings . He was also being held at the detention facility on DATE when the events outlined below took place .

At TIME on DATE , while the detainees were being served dinner , PERSON allegedly tried to escape .

Using the sharpened handle of a wooden spoon as a makeshift weapon , PERSON attacked and apparently wounded CARDINAL duty officers – first LOC and then PERSON was injured and received several cuts in the area of his left eye while PERSON was stabbed in the left eye . The latter subsequently lost the sight in his left eye . Taking PERSON as a hostage and threatening to stab him in the neck with the makeshift weapon PERSON allegedly tried to leave the detention facility .

Taking advantage of PERSON being briefly distracted , PERSON knocked the makeshift weapon out of PERSON hand and moved away . A fight then ensued between PERSON and CARDINAL duty officers , among which were duty officers ORG , GPE and GPE The duty officers kicked , punched and used a truncheon in the course of the encounter , which continued for TIME . During the fight , Mr PERSON and some or all of the duty officers fell down the stairs between the seventh and sixth floors . Eventually , PERSON was subdued and handcuffed .

The first applicant maintains that he and the other detainees heard the screams and cries which accompanied the subduing of his son . Some of those witnesses later gave testimony before the investigators ( see part D below ) .

At TIME on the same day PERSON was examined by doctor ORG who was head of ORG at ORG ( “ the University ” ) .

In medical report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the first medical report ” ) he described the incident of TIME and PERSON overall condition as follows :

“ [ Mr Bekirski ] injured CARDINAL persons from the detention facility using a sharpened handle of a wooden ORG ] A brawl ensued between him and officers from the detention facility [ where ] force was used to pacify [ him ] . During the scuffle they fell down a flight of stairs . [ Mr Bekirski ] indicates that he does not remember anything .

... [ PERSON is ] responsive , correctly answers the questions asked ( name , address , age ) , but does not remember what happened to him . [ He ] does not make any specific complaints . ”

The injuries sustained by PERSON were described as follows :

“ Head – ... [ next to the left eyelid there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval area with skin swelling and a blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ on the forehead above the nose there is ] a CARDINAL - long wound [ showing signs of ] fresh bleeding ... [ on the right side of the face there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY area with slight skin swelling and a reddish coloured bruise ... [ below the left eyelid there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY reddish coloured bruise ... in the right corner of the mouth ... there is a QUANTITY by QUANTITY area where there are numerous ... CARDINAL-cm - long cuts ...

Neck and chest – ... there is a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval reddish coloured bruise ... a QUANTITY by QUANTITY reddish coloured bruise ... on the [ upper left side of the ] back [ there is ] QUANTITY of [ varying ] colouration ... in the middle [ of which there are ] CARDINAL dark red coloured strips [ measuring ] QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... on the [ upper right side of the ] back [ there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval bruise also of [ varying ] colouration ... in the middle [ of which there are ] also CARDINAL dark red coloured strips [ measuring ] QUANTITY ...

Abdomen – ... [ on the right side there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval darker reddish coloured bruise ... [ on the left side there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ and under it ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval darker reddish coloured bruise ...

Limbs – ... [ on the right shoulder blade there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval red coloured bruise ... [ on the right armpit there are ] QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruises surrounded by a QUANTITY by QUANTITY lighter blue - reddish coloured area ... [ on the left armpit there are ] QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruises surrounded by QUANTITY by QUANTITY lighter blue - reddish coloured area ... a QUANTITY by QUANTITY darker red coloured bruise ... [ and ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ on the right armpit area there are CARDINAL ] oval blue - reddish coloured bruises [ measuring ] ... QUANTITY by QUANTITY , QUANTITY by QUANTITY [ and ] QUANTITY ... [ and ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY abrasion ... [ on the right shoulder and armpit area there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval dark reddish coloured bruise ... [ on the left shoulder and armpit area there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ on the left thigh there is ] an QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... a QUANTITY by QUANTITY light blue - reddish coloured bruise ... in the middle [ of which there are ] CARDINAL dark red coloured [ strips measuring ] QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... [ and ] an QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ on the right thigh there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval red coloured bruise ... [ and ] an QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval lighter blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ below the right knee there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ on the right thigh there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ and ] an QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... [ on the left thigh there is ] a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise ... ”

The first medical report concluded as follows :

“ During the examination of PERSON [ I ] discovered a cut on [ his ] forehead , numerous skin bruising in the area of his head , chest , stomach , arms and legs , a skin abrasion on the front part of [ his ] right armpit . These injuries were caused by a solid blunt object and it is possible that they were inflicted at the time indicated [ by the investigators ] .

The affected deterioration of [ his ] health does not represent [ grievous or moderate bodily harm under ] LAW . ”

PERSON did not receive any immediate medical treatment for his injuries .

The Government claimed that on an unspecified date CARDINAL more criminal investigations were opened against PERSON for the attempted murder of an official and attempting to escape while in detention , but did not present documents in support of their assertions .

At TIME on DATE doctor ORG examined duty officer ORG who complained that he had been punched and kicked while subduing a detainee . The report described , inter alia , the injuries sustained by the duty officer as follows :

“ Limbs – ... in the area of the right armpit ... there is a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval reddish coloured bruise ... on the ... right thigh ... there is a QUANTITY oval lighter bluereddish coloured bruise .

The medical report on duty officer ORG concluded as follows :

“ During the examination of [ duty officer ORG ] an injury and a bruise were found ... in the area of the right armpit and right thigh . The injuries were caused by a solid blunt object and may have been caused in the manner described [ by duty officer ORG ] .

[ The injuries ] caused pain and suffering . ”

At TIME on DATE doctor ORG also examined duty officer GPE who complained that his right palm had been injured while subduing a detainee . The report described the injury sustained by the duty officer as follows :

“ Limbs – the area of the CARDINALth bone of the right palm , mainly on the side , is painful to the touch in an area measuring QUANTITY and minor swelling of the skin is visible . ”

The medical report on duty officer GPE concluded as follows :

“ During the examination of [ duty officer GPE ] a swollen injury was found in the area of the CARDINALth bone of the right palm . This injury was caused by a solid blunt object and may have been caused in the manner described [ by duty officer ORG ] .

[ The injury ] caused pain and suffering . ”

The applicants claimed that in DATE following the events of DATE PERSON was systematically ill - treated and beaten by police officers while in detention . That was challenged by the Government . The ill - treatment and beatings allegedly continued day and night for DATE . The beatings were heard by both the first applicant and other detainees who later testified before the investigators ( see part D below ) .

Following complaints by PERSON that he was in pain , on DATE , while at the detention facility , he was examined by a paramedic . He was prescribed painkillers .

Meanwhile , on DATE a prosecutor from the GPE regional public prosecutor 's office visited the detention facility in order to check whether the police were diligently investigating the criminal cases of the detainees being held there . In the course of his visit the prosecutor talked to several detainees and noted their complaints in connection with the processing of their cases . CARDINAL of the detainees he talked to was PERSON who told him that he had no complaints , that he did not know why he was being held and that he was innocent . In connection with his visit , the prosecutor prepared a report dated DATE .

On DATE PERSON complained of pain in his abdomen . He was found to have irregular blood pressure , so he was taken to ORG . The persons that accompanied him there informed the medical personnel that PERSON had suffered injuries ( bruises and abrasions ) after having attacked a policeman .

It was suspected that PERSON had a burst spleen or internal bleeding , so a stomach operation and a tracheotomy were performed on DATE . However , having opened his abdominal cavity , the surgeons could not find any lacerations of internal organs or haemorrhaging .

Thereafter , PERSON medical condition continued to be unstable and he remained in hospital . Over DATE he was kept under medical supervision , was visited by medical personnel on several occasions and was prescribed various medication and treatment .

In TIME DATE his medical condition deteriorated . In spite of changes to his medication and the involvement of a specialist doctor , PERSON passed away at TIME on DATE .

The applicants claimed that neither they nor PERSON lawyer had been informed of PERSON deteriorating medical condition in the period DATE and DATE . That was not expressly challenged by the Government . The applicants also claimed to have learnt of PERSON death from the media and to have not received his body for DATE .

An autopsy was carried out on DATE with the task of determining the cause of PERSON death and identifying what injuries he had sustained prior to his death , including how and when they had been inflicted . The team carrying out the autopsy was lead by doctor PERSON who was assisted by CARDINAL assistant professors from ORG .

The autopsy report described in detail the state of PERSON body and the examinations and tests carried out . In respect of the injuries established it described its findings , inter alia , as follows :

“ Head – ... QUANTITY above the base of the nose ... there is a QUANTITY vertical wound covered by a dry , brownish scab ... There is a QUANTITY by QUANTITY oval blue - reddish coloured bruise on the skin of the front part of the right earlobe . The skin on the whole right earlobe is bruised ... The skin behind the right earlobe is bruised in a QUANTITY by QUANTITY area which connects with the bruising of the skin on the right earlobe . ...

Neck and chest DATE ... There is a QUANTITY by QUANTITY bruise on the skin of the [ upper left side of the ] back ... the bruise is patchy ... [ and there are areas ] with more intense linear - shaped bruising ... measuring QUANTITY . There is a QUANTITY by QUANTITY bruise on the skin of the [ upper right side of the ] back ... This bruise is also patchy ... In the area of the [ upper left side of the ] back , where there is more intensive bruising , ... there is no epidermis in some places in an area measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY [ and ] there is red - coloured dermis , [ which is ] wet , fresh [ and not ] covered by a scab ... Around the CARDINAL ... armpits there are QUANTITY by QUANTITY bruises ... on the right and QUANTITY by QUANTITY bruises on the left ... On the skin on the right side of the chest ... there is a QUANTITY by QUANTITY bruise ...

Abdomen – ... above the umbilicus there is a stitched , vertical surgical scar measuring QUANTITY ... On the left side , above the hip joint , there is a bruise ... measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY which is patchy because there are [ CARDINAL ] areas of more intense bruising and colouring [ as follows ] – in the vicinity of the hip measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , towards the stomach lining measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and [ another ] below it extending towards the genitals measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... On the right hip there is a bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... From it starts [ another bruise ] to the side of the buttocks ... measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ...

Limbs – ... The skin on both buttocks is bruised and patchy ... because there are areas of more intense bruising and colouring . On the left buttock , there are [ CARDINAL such ] areas , CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... and the other measuring ... QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... On the right buttock , ... there is [ another such ] area measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , which is also patchy ... On the skin of the right side of the genitals , there is a bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... The right thigh is almost completely bruised and patchy [ because ] there are areas of more intense bruising and colouring ... on the front and upper outside area measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , on the inner upper area measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , on the back towards the side measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... and on the back lower area towards the right knee joint measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY . On the inner side of the right knee joint there is a bruise ... measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY . Behind the right knee joint there is a more intensely - coloured bruise ... measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY . On the inner part of the upper to middle part of the right shank there is a bruise ... measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... the bruising of the right heel is without visible swelling ... The skin on the left thigh is bruised [ as follows ] : in the upper front and side area measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , in the inner upper to middle area measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , in the area behind the left knee joint ... measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... On the skin below the left knee joint there is a bruise ... measuring QUANTITY . On the inner middle area of the shank there is a bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... The skin in the area of the ankle joint , on the back of the left heel [ and ] up to the toes , has a blue - reddish coloured bruise without visible swelling of the skin on the heel . On the frontal area of the right armpit , from the front part of the right shoulder blade leading down to the lower third of the armpit , there is a wavy bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... On the back and inner area of the right armpit , as well as in the area of the right elbow and the upper back part of the right forearm there is a bruise measuring in total QUANTITY by QUANTITY ... on the middle back part of the right forearm there is a bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY in the middle of which there is a vertical abrasion measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY covered by a yellow - brownish dry scab ... In the area of the right wrist joint there are CARDINAL aligned abrasions one above the other measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY covered by a yellow - brownish scab ... The skin on the back of the right hand is swollen without visible trauma ... The skin in the area of the left armpit is bruised almost everywhere – the inner , back and side areas ... On the front and inner - side area of the middle left forearm , there is a bruise ... measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY . In the area of the left wrist joint there are CARDINAL aligned abrasions measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY covered by a yellow - brownish scab . The skin on the back of the left hand is visibly swollen . In the area of the right elbow joint there is an oval abrasion measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY covered by a yellow - brownish scab . On the upper to middle front part of the right thigh there is an oval abrasion measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY covered by a yellow - brownish scab . On the upper front part of the left thigh there are CARDINAL oval abrasions next to each other , each measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY [ and ] covered by a yellow - brownish scab .

Incisions were made in the area of the chest , buttocks , and upper and lower limbs in order to examine the underlying soft tissue . In the area of the back , very intense and widespread bruising of the underlying soft tissue was found and deep bruising of the muscles in the area of both shoulder blades was found . The right shoulder blade is fractured in the main part of the scapula and its narrow section . The fracture is ' PERSON ' , whereby the CARDINAL upper sections are each QUANTITY long , the [ lower ] is QUANTITY long and there is an adjacent fracture perpendicular to the [ lower ] section , which is QUANTITY long . The muscles in the area of the fracture of the right shoulder blade are bruised ... The tissue in the area of both ankle joints and the upper part of the heels are also bruised , but there is no visible swelling to the soft tissue ...

... On the right side , the following ribs are fractured : CARDINALth , CARDINALth , CARDINALth and CARDINALth in their middle [ sections ] ... while rib CARDINAL is [ also ] fractured where it is attached to the sternum ... ”

The autopsy report summarised its findings , inter alia , as follows :

“ ... numerous skin bruising in the area of the head , chest , abdomen , upper and lower limbs , a skin wound on the forehead , abrasions to the skin on the limbs , CARDINAL fractured ribs on the right [ side ] , a fracture of the right shoulder blade , contusions in the muscles around the area where the skin had been bruised , a fairly distinct fatty embolism in the lungs , [ sporadic ] drops of fat in the brain and kidney , severe [ and ] acute swelling in the lungs , swelling and enlargement of the interalveolar barriers , infectious alterations of the lungs DATE bronchitis , bronchiolitis , bronchopneumonia ... a haemorrhage of the alveolus ... inflammation of the pleura of the lungs , swelling of the brain ... ”

The autopsy report concluded that :

“ The immediate cause of [ Mr PERSON 's ] death was acute cardiac and pulmonary insufficiency resulting from massive swelling and infectious alterations of the lungs . The death was also caused by hypoxia ( oxygen deficiency ) of the body from acute anaemia , was caused by internal bleeding in the soft tissues – under the skin and in the muscles , as well as the morphological changes of the lungs , which most probably resulted in acute pulmonary insufficiency . The above - described changes are the result of injuries which are present on [ Mr PERSON 's ] body – a chest injury with fractured ribs , a fractured right shoulder blade , a contusion of the chest muscles , as well as bruising of the soft tissues in other parts of his body . Death was caused by varying , fairly complex and interrelated infectious processes and mechanisms which , in order to be clarified , require further data , testimonies of witnesses , data from [ Mr PERSON 's medical ] examinations , the history of his illness and other data .

Generally , the injuries were caused by a solid blunt object .

The injuries , relating to the skin bruising and the soft tissue under it , as well as the infectious alterations to the lungs are ... DATE [ old ] . ”

A preliminary investigation into PERSON death was opened on DATE against an unknown perpetrator . The investigation was assigned to ORG which was the authority in charge of the facility in which PERSON had been detained and where the events of DATE had taken place .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the second applicant complained to the GPE regional military prosecutor 's office that the preliminary investigation had been assigned to ORG , because of the possible involvement of police officers from that division in the death of her son . No apparent action was taken in response .

On an unspecified date in DATE a medical report was commissioned to ascertain the injuries sustained by duty officers PERSON and PERSON and whether the weapon used could have been life - threatening .

Medical report no . CARDINAL ( “ the duty officers ' medical report ” ) was prepared by doctor PERSON sometime in DATE on the basis of the existing documentary evidence .

In respect of the events of CARDINAL DATE , the duty officers ' medical report contained the following extracts of statements given by various duty officers in the course of the preliminary investigation :

“ [ duty officer ] PERSON ( victim ) [ - ] ' ... at TIME ... all of a sudden something hit me in the left eye ... I could not see from the blood ... that 's why I ran [ down ] the stairs to the CARDINALth floor where the duty officers ' room was ... on the upper floor [ Mr ] PERSON was shouting to my colleagues not to go up and to throw down their guns ... I heard screams and the noise of falling bodies and when I came out onto the landing , several colleagues were wrestling with [ Mr ] PERSON until they finally handcuffed him ... '

[ duty officer ] PERSON ( victim ) [ - ] ' ... at TIME ... [ LOC ] shouted out ... I went over and saw that [ Mr ] PERSON had attacked him . At that moment [ Mr ] PERSON turned towards me ... he lunged forward ... I felt that he hit me with something sharp in the left eye , which hurt and started to bleed and he began wrestling with me ... I resisted ... then I saw that in his right hand he held a wooden spoon . The forward part of the spoon was in his palm and the handle was protruding forward between his fingers so that he could jab [ with it ] . I then understood that he had stabbed me in the eye with the wooden spoon ... I managed to grab his hand and , using force , I twisted his right wrist , he opened his fingers and , when I prised the spoon away with the other hand , I threw it down the stairs towards the CARDINALth floor ... Only then did I manage to push him away ... because I pushed him away from me , he fell down the stairs towards the CARDINALth floor ... he could have killed me because the handle of the spoon had been sharpened ... '

[ duty officer ] ORG [ - ] ' ... at TIME I heard shouting on the CARDINALth floor landing ... Hristo [ Bekirski ] was behind [ PERSON ] , holding him by the throat with his left hand . In his right hand he was holding a wooden spoon with the handle pointing towards [ PERSON 's ] neck ... he was pointing the handle of the wooden spoon towards [ PERSON 's ] eye and then towards his neck ... he started fighting us and all CARDINAL of us fell down the stairs , where , with GPE , we tried to twist his hands so as to handcuff him ... Downstairs on the CARDINALth floor [ ORG ] joined in and only with his help did we manage to twist Hristo [ Bekirski ] 's hands towards his back and [ ORG ] handcuffed him ... '

[ duty officer ] ORG [ - ] ' ... in the corridor on the CARDINALth floor [ ORG ] and PERSON were brawling . ... Hristo [ Bekirski ] was behind [ PERSON ] and was holding him by the throat with his left hand while , in his right hand , he was holding a wooden spoon ... with the handle pointing first towards [ PERSON 's ] neck and then towards CARDINAL of his eyes ... at that moment FAC and GPE ... grabbed hold of him , all CARDINAL of them tumbled down the stairs while continuing to wrestle ... I joined in and pinned Hristo [ Bekirski ] down on the concrete floor and managed to handcuff him behind his back , and that 's how we overcame his resistance ... ' ”

In respect of the physical condition of the duty officers , the report noted that duty officer PERSON had almost completely recovered from his injury and concluded as follows :

“ [ Duty officer ] ORG was injured [ in the area ] of the orbit of his left eye [ where there is ] a cut to the skin of the upper eyelid [ and ] bruising and swelling to the skin of the eyelids of his left eye . The injury , and in particular the cut , was caused by a blunt solid object with a discernible edge ...

The affected deterioration of [ his ] health does not represent [ grievous or moderate bodily harm under ] LAW . ”

The report also noted that duty officer PERSON had undergone an operation and subsequent treatment for the injury he had sustained to his left eye . In respect of his condition it concluded as follows :

“ [ Duty officer ] ORG sustained a cut to the skin of the lower eyelid of his left eye , a bruise to the skin of the eyelids of his left eye , a cut and damage to the orbit of his left eye and complete loss of sight in his left eye . These injuries were caused by a blunt solid object with a discernible edge ( tip ) and it is possible that they were caused by the wooden spoon , which was produced in evidence , whereby the wound [ would have been ] inflicted by jabbing the sharpened part ( tip ) of the handle into PERSON 's eye .

The damage to the orbit of his left eye caused permanent loss of sight in [ that ] eye . ”

Finally , the duty officers ' medical report noted that the handle of the wooden spoon used by PERSON had been sharpened to a fine point thereby allowing it to be used as a stabbing weapon . It concluded that , given the physical strength of PERSON and the way he had threatened duty officer PERSON by pointing the sharpened handle towards his neck , and given that there were a number of major veins and arteries in that area of the body , the weapon could have been life - threatening .

On an unspecified date ORG commissioned another medical report . Its task was to ascertain the cause of Mr PERSON 's death and its causal relationship with the injuries he had sustained on DATE .

Medical report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the second medical report ” ) was prepared on an unspecified date by a team of CARDINAL doctors on the basis of the existing documentary evidence . The team was again headed by doctor PERSON and the other doctors all worked at ORG .

NORP The team reached similar conclusions to those in the autopsy report in respect of the cause of death and that it may have resulted from the injuries sustained on DATE .

In respect of the events of DATE , the second medical report contained the following extracts of statements given by witnesses in the course of the preliminary investigation :

“ [ duty officer ] ORG [ - ] ' ... the fight on the landing of the seventh floor edged towards the stairs leading to the [ said ] floor as a consequence of [ Mr ] PERSON 's great [ sturdiness ] ... this fight involved many people and I can not say who hit [ Mr ] PERSON and where ... PERSON and those trying to restrain him were hitting [ each others ' ] hands , legs , knees , anywhere we could so that [ Mr ] PERSON himself ... [ was ] shoved against the walls , the stairs , the central heating pipes , the frame of the security fence ... my colleague , [ N.]S. , was also hitting [ him ] with a truncheon ... I think this continued for TIME ... In the end , after all the stumbling [ and ] hitting , we managed to pin [ Mr ] PERSON down ... '

[ duty officer ] ORG [ - ] ' ... he started fighting with us using karate [ techniques ] ... In order to restrain him , we hit and kicked him and , in the case of [ our ] colleague , [ N.]S. , with the use of a truncheon , but [ Mr ] PERSON continued to resist with the same ferocity . The fight continued down the stairs , whereby [ Mr ] PERSON fell several times ... he hit his back against some piping ... We managed to push him to the ground several times and [ during that time ] we continued to kick him , knee him [ and ] hit him with a truncheon , but he [ still ] managed to get up and fight ... Every one of us hit him across every part of [ his ] body and maybe his head with everything we could – legs , knees , by shoving him and in other ways ... '

[ duty officer ] GPE [ - ] ' ... He was very aggressive and ferocious ... The fight continued down the stairs towards the [ security guard 's ] duty room . We hit him with whatever we had available – hands , legs [ and ] a truncheon . We fell several times and got up and tried to subdue him ... he was very agile and offered resistance ... When [ Mr ] PERSON tumbled down the stairs towards the exit we tried to catch up with him in order to subdue him ... ' ”

On DATE the case file was transferred to the GPE regional military prosecutor 's office .

By a decision given on an unknown date DATE the GPE regional military prosecutor 's office discontinued the preliminary investigation . Although it considered PERSON death to have been caused by negligence , it found it not to be a prosecutable offence because it had resulted from the police officers acting in self - defence on DATE .

On DATE the second applicant appealed against the decision to discontinue the preliminary investigation . She claimed that the force used against her son on DATE had been excessive and objected to the fact that all the medical reports had been prepared with the participation of doctor I.D.

On DATE a prosecutor from the military prosecutor 's office found evidence that PERSON had been subjected to systematic beatings on CARDINAL occasion after the events of DATE . He therefore quashed the decision of DATE to discontinue the preliminary investigation and remitted the case to the GPE regional military prosecutor 's office .

In the course of the resumed investigation , CARDINAL witnesses were questioned . CARDINAL of them were duty officers at the detention facility while the remaining CARDINAL were detainees who had been held there DATE and DATE .

On DATE the GPE regional military prosecutor 's office stayed the preliminary investigation because of the need to find and question several more witnesses who were considered vital to the investigation .

The preliminary investigation was resumed on an unknown date .

On an unspecified date , in the course of the resumed investigation , the GPE regional military prosecutor 's office commissioned another medical report tasked to ascertain ( a ) the cause of PERSON death , ( b ) the cause of his injuries , ( c ) whether the injuries established during the autopsy and the other medical examinations had existed on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and ( d ) when those injuries had been inflicted .

Medical report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the third medical report ” ) was prepared on an unspecified date by a team of CARDINAL doctors on the basis of the existing documentary evidence . The team was again headed by doctor PERSON and the remaining doctors all worked at ORG .

In respect of the events of CARDINAL DATE , the report contained extracts from CARDINAL witness statements obtained in the course of the preliminary investigation from detainees at the detention facility , which provided a contradictory account of the said events :

“ [ the first applicant - ] ' ... it was on DATE TIME after TIME I heard the cries of my son . [ I ] recognised his voice ... PERSON blows could be heard and the cries of my son ... The cries and howls of my son , as well as the blows continued until TIME on DATE ... This continued probably until TIME on CARDINAL DATE ... on DATE the new shift came and they started beating my son ... On DATE the beating of my son continued in absolutely the same manner ... on DATE ... around lunch and dinner [ time ] I could hear the cries of my son , which were now inhuman - like and resembled a [ dying ] man ... at around lunch time and in the evening I could hear the cries of my son ... '

[ detainee GPE - ] ' ... I only heard that . [ I ] did not hear anything after that . I did not hear cries or beatings during DATE ... '

[ detainee PERSON ' ... for DATE after that , muted cries could be heard from somewhere down there . I did not hear any beating ... '

[ detainee GPE - ] ' ... DATE after the incident ... patter could be heard ... '

[ detainee ORG - ] ' ... I did not hear of any violence having been inflicted on Hristo Bikirski ... '

[ detainee V.V. - ] ' ... after that everything quietened down ... then I heard the cries of the attacker ... I do not remember hearing the sound of beating ... '

[ detainee ORG - ] ' ... maybe after TIME the sound of blows and cries could be heard ... this continued for DATE ... '

[ detainee GPE . - ] ' ... maybe after TIME screams started to be heard ... I assumed that they were beating [ Mr ] PERSON because he was screaming very loudly and I could also hear blows from a police truncheon ... '

[ detainee PERSON - ] ' ... the person in the cell was beaten continuously for DATE ... DATE after the incident everything quietened down ... '

[ detainee S.A. - ] ' ... these cries continued throughout the whole night [ and I ] could hear the sound of beating ... these sounds continued for DATE ... after that I did not hear cries or the sounds of fighting ... '

[ detainee ORG - ] ' ... after the incident I did not hear any more cries or the sound of beating ... '

[ detainee PERSON - ] ' ... I think this continued for TIME ... the cries were coming form downstairs ... '

[ detainee GPE . - ] ' ... while I was in detention I did not hear anyone getting beaten ... '

[ detainee GPE - ] ' ... the transfer was made TIME after the commotion occurred . After the transfer [ on DATE TIME , DATE , ] until DATE TIME , [ DATE ] muted cries , which I think emanated from the sixth floor , could be heard at regular intervals ... on DATE , DATE , everything quietened down ... '

[ detainee PERSON - ] ' ... after that , during TIME and also for DATE I can not say how many – cries , screams and beatings could be heard ... after DATE everything quietened down ... I have no idea what had been going on ... '

[ detainee PERSON ... after that the situation calmed down ... I do not know what happened ... personally , I did not hear any cries or sounds that were unusual for the [ detention facility ] ... '

[ detainee Ya . H. - ] ' ... I did not hear anything after that . The situation in the [ detention facility ] was normal ... '

[ detainee GPE - ] ' ... beatings and cries could be heard ... this continued for a while ... This was repeated with the arrival of the new shift ... '

[ detainee ORG - ] ' ... the other person was placed in cell no . CARDINAL ... after that I heard the [ duty ] officer shouting at the person in cell no . CARDINAL to get up , to eat , but he said that he could not ... I do not know whether , after the incident , the [ duty ] officers mistreated the person ... after DATE the cries stopped ... '

[ detainee S.B. - ] ' ... and they placed someone in cell no . CARDINAL . From DATE TIME to DATE [ later ] ... I did not hear that person being mistreated by the [ duty ] officers in the [ detention facility ] ... '

[ detainee ORG - ] ' ... they emptied cell no . CARDINAL and placed the person who had shown resistance there ... '

[ detainee PERSON ' ... the blows and the cries continued in intervals of TIME throughout the whole night ... after that cell no . CARDINAL was again opened and [ more ] blows and cries were heard ... '

[ detainee GPE - ] ' ... after a while loud screams and dull thumps could be heard , from which I concluded that they were beating the person whom they had handcuffed ... This continued throughout the whole night on DATE [ DATE ] to DATE [ DATE ] . The beatings , the blows and the cries continued for the following DATE both during DATE and the night ... '

[ detainee GPE . - ] ' ... after that the [ duty ] officers started beating the person in the cell opposite ours ... Cries and blows could be heard ... the beating continued for most of TIME ... the [ duty ] officers were beating that person for DATE ... relentlessly throughout DATE and night , almost continuously . I could distinguish [ between ] blows to the body [ using ] a truncheon and [ using their ] boots [ to kick him ] . '

[ detainee PERSON - ] ' ... they placed someone in the [ adjacent ] cell . During TIME , cries could be heard from the cell where they had placed the person ... sounds of a truncheon hitting a human body could clearly be heard ... The beatings and the cries lasted DATE ... [ Then ] all of a sudden , everything quietened down ... '

[ detainee PERSON ... they opened a cell and placed someone inside . From time to time , policemen opened the cell door and an officer hit him on the head with a truncheon and he cried out ... During DATE no one beat him ... This person did not have scars on his face , nor blood ... I later found out that I had been transported [ to the hospital ] with [ Mr ] PERSON . He was apparently left in the hospital because I came back alone ... '

[ detainee PERSON . - ] ' ... for TIME someone could be heard screaming ... after TIME everything quietened down and after TIME it was all repeated again ... As I said , this continued until TIME on Monday [ DATE ] or DATE [ the CARDINALrd ] ... ' ”

Extracts from the statements of several doctors who had examined Mr PERSON were also quoted in the report . They all reiterated their previous findings as recorded in the respective medical reports .

Extracts from the statements of CARDINAL officers from the detention facility , who all stated that PERSON had never been tortured by any of them , were also contained in the report .

The findings and conclusions of various other reports , such as the medical report of the duty officer who had lost his eyesight , the medical reports on PERSON , the reports of the medical interventions and of PERSON PERSON 's hospital treatment , as well as the autopsy report , were also considered by the medical commission .

In respect of the cause of death , the report concluded , similar to the autopsy report , that it had been caused as a result of complications arising out of the various injuries identified on the body . Moreover , it considered that those injuries could all have been sustained during the incident on CARDINAL DATE even though some of them appeared to be DATE at the time of death . The report also reasoned as follows :

“ the [ medical ] treatment of [ Mr PERSON ] was performed promptly , correctly and in conformity with the [ standards ] of modern medical science and practice , irrespective of the undesired result – the death of PERSON . ”

As to the contradictory accounts of the events , the medical report concluded as follows :

“ The allegations of ... the witnesses that [ Mr PERSON had ] continuously been beaten over DATE are not supported by [ the evidence ] and the injuries established on the body of Mr Bekirski ”

When , on CARDINAL DATE the applicants had acquainted themselves with the results of the investigation , they requested that the body of Mr PERSON be exhumed and that a new medical report be commissioned from independent medical specialists .

DATE . In a decision of DATE the applicants ' requests were dismissed by the investigator . He found that no exhumation of the body was warranted and that the medical report had been :

“ performed by specialists , who have no interest in the outcome of the proceedings and there are no grounds to recuse any CARDINAL of them ” .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the GPE regional military prosecutor 's office discontinued the preliminary investigation . It found that by using force to subdue PERSON the officers had acted in self - defence and that none of them had performed any actions which could be qualified as murder . The GPE regional military prosecutor 's office did not identify any of the officers who had participated in subduing PERSON on DATE and did not assess the relevance of the witness testimonies which had alleged that he had been ill - treated after that date . On DATE the first applicant appealed against that decision .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the appellate military prosecutor 's office dismissed the appeal . It considered that it had not been irrefutably proven that anyone had beaten PERSON after DATE while the CARDINAL medical reports had all concluded that his injuries might have been inflicted only during the incident of that date . The first applicant appealed against that decision on an unspecified date .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant 's appeal and upheld the findings of the lower standing prosecutors ' offices . It also identified CARDINAL duty officers who had participated in subduing PERSON on DATE . In respect of the validity of the statements of the other detainees pertaining to the alleged ill - treatment after DATE , the prosecutor found them to be unsubstantiated in view of the conclusions of the third medical report . On DATE the applicants appealed against that decision to ORG .

Although addressed to ORG , on DATE a prosecutor from ORG rejected the applicants ' appeal because he found that all of their arguments and complaints had already been addressed in the challenged decisions .

In response to a further appeal by the applicants of an unknown date , ORG , in a decision of DATE , remitted the case with instructions that the duty officer who partially lost his eyesight be examined by an ophthalmologist and that a further medical report be commissioned to assess whether all of Mr PERSON 's injuries had been caused on DATE and in the way indicated by the various witnesses . It also requested an assessment as to whether PERSON had been beaten after DATE .

In the course of the resumed investigation , on an unspecified date , the GPE regional military prosecutor 's office commissioned another medical report tasked to ascertain ( a ) the date or dates on which the injuries sustained by PERSON had been inflicted , ( b ) whether they could all have been inflicted in the way indicated by the witnesses DATE duty officers GPE , GPE and GPE , ( c ) whether it was possible that PERSON had been beaten after DATE , and ( d ) to address the questions raised by the applicants in their petition .

Medical report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the fourth medical report ” ) was prepared on an unspecified date in DATE by a team of CARDINAL doctors on the basis of the existing documentary evidence . The team was again headed by doctor PERSON and the remaining doctors all worked at ORG .

DATE . The report reiterated the findings of the previous such reports . It compared the injuries sustained by PERSON on DATE and those present on his body in subsequent examinations and found them to be essentially the same , the only difference being their natural physiological change over time . Furthermore , it found it reasonable and probable that they had been sustained only during the events on DATE . Finally , it confirmed the duty officer 's loss of sight in CARDINAL eye .

When , on DATE the applicants had acquainted themselves with the results of the investigation , they once again requested that the body of PERSON be exhumed and that a new medical report be commissioned from medical specialists in GPE .

In a decision of DATE the applicants ' requests were dismissed by the investigator . He found that no exhumation of the body was warranted and that the medical report had been :

“ ... prepared by specialists , who have no interest in the outcome of the proceedings and there are no grounds to recuse any CARDINAL of them . ”

On DATE the applicants appealed against the findings of the investigator to ORG . Apparently no response was received , so , on DATE , they lodged a second appeal to ORG . No response was received from it either .

In the meantime and in spite of the above - mentioned appeals , by a decision of DATE the investigator proposed that the preliminary investigation be discontinued . He addressed the applicant 's arguments and concluded that :

“ ... the [ duty ] officers ... , in complying with their obligations to guard the detention cells and to prevent the escape of detainees , acted lawfully [ and ] in self - defence by counteracting the unlawful behaviour of [ Mr PERSON ] , [ which ] , moreover , was aimed at threatening the life and health of their colleague . In the specific circumstances , they were obliged to use physical force and [ police ] equipment and the level of response corresponds to the level and intensity of the attack carried out by PERSON against [ the duty officer ] . The actions of the [ duty ] officers do not constitute an offence . ”

On DATE the GPE military prosecutor 's office discontinued the preliminary investigation on the above - mentioned grounds , which was confirmed by the appellate military prosecutor 's office on DATE .

In a supplementary decision of CARDINAL DATE the appellate military prosecutor 's office amended the grounds for discontinuing the preliminary investigation as follows :

“ the negative result – the death of [ Mr Bekirski ] DATE is not [ punishable ] , owing to the fact that he was attempting to perpetrate the offence of [ escape from detention ] and perpetrated the offence of [ grievous and moderate bodily harm on CARDINAL duty officers ] . The injuries to PERSON were inflicted while he was being subdued and in order to prevent him from perpetrating another offence . There was no other way to subdue him and the level of response did not exceed the necessary and lawful [ level of force ] . ”

The case file was then forwarded to ORG . On DATE , in camera , the court confirmed that the preliminary investigation was being discontinued on the grounds indicated in the decision of the appellate military prosecutor 's office of DATE . It also found that :

“ Information has also been collected in the case that , following the incident and the subsequent restraining of PERSON on DATE and until his [ transfer ] to hospital on DATE , [ certain ] unidentified persons may have inflicted a number of additional injuries [ on him ] – the other detainees heard groans and moaning from the cell where he was being held . In spite of [ having ] questioned the personnel at the detention facility and the persons detained there at the time , no unequivocal facts have been ascertained that any such events occurred ... ”

In addition it concluded that :

“ The necessary level [ of force ] required to [ subdue ] PERSON was not exceeded , because they could not [ do it any other way ] in view of the specific circumstances ( screaming wildly , aggressive , detained for serious intentional offences , having perpetrated offences against CARDINAL of the duty officers , attempting to escape , small space , badly lit stairs ) .

In view of the events described [ above ] , the actions undertaken by senior sergeants ORG , GPE and GPE on DATE to subdue PERSON are not [ punishable ] , because , even though they formally [ perpetrated an offence ] it was done in the course of [ restraining ] a person who had perpetrated an offence , it had not been possible to [ subdue ] him in any other way and the inflicted injuries correspond to the offences he had perpetrated and the circumstances surrounding his [ restraining ] . ”

The applicants were informed that the preliminary investigation had been discontinued and , by letter of the appellate military prosecutor 's office dated DATE , were given the decision of ORG .

On an unspecified date the applicants commissioned a medical report . It was prepared on DATE by a doctor from ORG , who re - examined the findings of the first medical report , the autopsy and the other medical reports in the case .

That report found that the differences in the injuries identified on the body of PERSON at the time of his death and their apparently quite recent infliction confirmed that they must have been sustained after DATE . In addition , it reasoned that the identified differences could not be attributed to the natural physiological change over time of the injuries sustained on DATE . The report found it more likely that the said differences came from new injuries sustained in the same areas over a longer period and inflicted by various objects .

In addition , the report considered that PERSON injuries had warranted immediate medical treatment or , at least , that more medical tests should have been carried out in order to ascertain his state of health .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , as in force on DATE , provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) An action shall not be considered dangerous to society , even if injury is caused to an attacker , where it is committed in self - defence – in defence against an imminent unlawful attack ... by the use of reasonable force .

( CARDINAL ) The limits of self - defence shall be considered to have been exceeded where the self - defence has obviously not corresponded to the nature and danger of the attack .

( CARDINAL ) The perpetrator of an action which is considered to have exceeded the limits of self - defence shall not be punished if the action is committed in an atmosphere of fear or confusion . ”

Article CARDINALa of LAW of DATE provided after DATE as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) An action shall not be considered dangerous to society , even if injury is caused to a person who has committed a crime , where this occurs in the course of detaining such person for his or her delivery to the authorities and in order to eliminate the opportunity for such person to commit another crime , provided that there is no other way to detain such person and provided that necessary and lawful measures have not been exceeded .

( CARDINAL ) The necessary measures for detaining a person who has committed a crime shall be considered to have been exceeded where there is an obvious disparity between the nature and the degree of public danger caused by the crime , and the circumstances of the affected detention , as well as in a case in which unnecessary and obviously excessive harm is inflicted on the person . In such an instance , criminal responsibility shall be sought only under circumstances in which harm was deliberately inflicted . ”

Separately , under LAW of DATE , it is an offence to cause the death of another through negligence . LAW of DATE makes it an offence to cause the death of another through the negligent performance of an occupation or a regulated highrisk activity . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of DATE makes it an offence for military or police officers to , inter alia , fail to perform their duties , if this leads to harmful consequences . The offence is aggravated if , inter alia , the harmful consequences are serious ( LAW ) . The conduct proscribed by LAW is criminal even if the harmful consequences are caused merely through negligence ( LAW ) . These offences are all publicly prosecutable .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , as in force at the relevant time , provided that investigations concerning publicly prosecutable offences could only be opened by a prosecutor or an investigator . Prosecutors could discontinue investigations when , inter alia , there was no evidence of an offence , or the alleged act did not constitute an offence ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . DATE , this decision was subject to appeal to a higher prosecutor , or to automatic review by that prosecutor ( ORG CARDINAL and QUANTITY to CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time ) . In DATE the Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE was amended to provide for judicial review at the request of those concerned ( LAW , as amended in DATE ) .

At the relevant time offences allegedly committed by police officers or by officers , sergeants and privates of other ministries and agencies were tried by military courts ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE , as in force at the relevant time ) . Where a case would fall within the jurisdiction of the military courts , the investigation was handled by military investigators and prosecutors .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , originally entitled ORG , renamed on DATE the ORG and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , provides that the ORG is liable for damage suffered by private individuals as a result of unlawful decisions or actions taken , or omissions made by civil servants in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties . LAW ) provides that compensation for damage resulting from unlawful decisions may be claimed after those decisions have been quashed in prior proceedings . ORG has held that it is competent to review the lawfulness of a person 's detention by the police and award compensation by reference to the above - mentioned provisions ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , V отд. , реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG отд. ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) provides that the ORG is liable for damage caused to individuals by the investigating or prosecuting authorities or the courts through unlawful detention , provided that such detention has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds . Over DATE the application of this provision has generated a considerable amount of case - law .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) stipulates that , under certain conditions , the ORG is liable for damage sustained by individuals on account of their being charged with a criminal offence .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that the right to compensation in respect of pecuniary damage is inheritable , but that the right to compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage survives the death of the individual concerned only if he or she has brought a claim .

The general rules of the law of tort are set out in sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . Section CARDINAL provides that the amount of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage is to be determined by the court in equity . In application of this provision , the former ORG held that the parents of an individual who has died can not seek compensation in respect of the non - pecuniary damage suffered by him prior to his death , because of the lack of a sufficient causal link . They can , however , claim compensation in respect of their own distress and anguish flowing from the death ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , I г. о. ) .


Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . His application was lodged on DATE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr T. Neugschwendtner , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG . ORG were given notice of the application , and they informed the ORG on DATE that they would not exercise their right to intervene in the present case .

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

The applicant came to GPE in DATE . On DATE he was taken into custody on suspicion of drug trafficking .

On DATE an NORP court convicted the applicant of offences under LAW ( GPE ) and of attempted use of forged documents , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

It appears that on DATE an exclusion order of unlimited duration ( unbefristetes PERSON ) was issued against the applicant .

In DATE ORG requested the applicant ’s extradition to GPE for the execution of CARDINAL sentences - one from DATE for a robbery , and another from DATE for severe bodily harm - and for further criminal proceedings against him on the basis of an indictment of DATE issued by ORG office in LOC relating to charges of dealing in illegal drugs .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) declared the extradition unlawful .

On the basis of country reports from the asylum file ( see below ) , which included a report by ORG including GPE , dated DATE ) , a report by ORG on asylum issues regarding GPE and GPE without GPE , dated DATE ) and by ORG GPE and GPE , Country Reports on Human Rights Practices DATE , dated DATE ) , ORG found that whereas the human rights situation in GPE had substantially improved since DATE , ill - treatment by the police could not be ruled out - in particular in prisons and during pre - trial detention . Furthermore , investigations into such ill - treatment were slow and ineffective . It also noted that statements made under duress and torture were still accepted as evidence in court proceedings .

From the medical reports submitted during the asylum proceedings the court found it credible that the applicant had suffered ill - treatment by the police in GPE in DATE . The documentation showed that the applicant had been treated for DATE for new and acute injuries he had received during police questioning . He still bore CARDINAL - long scars on his right knee , CARDINAL - long scars on his right and left thigh and a CARDINAL - long scar on his left lower leg , which were consistent with his version of what had happened . Furthermore , the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment had only been dealt with in GPE after a long delay , and the proceedings had finally been discontinued . Lastly , ORG had not commented on the events described by the applicant , although it had been explicitly requested to do so by the court .

Thus , ORG found that even though the general conditions for extradition had been met , the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment by the police during his detention in GPE in DATE and would continue to be at risk of such treatment . Thus , an extradition would constitute a violation not only of LAW , but also of the guarantees of LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for asylum .

He claimed that he had been severely ill - treated and tortured by NORP police in DATE in order to obtain his confession to a robbery he had not committed . He had been arrested and taken to another village , where he had been tortured for TIME by police officers . He had been shot in the leg , beaten and suffered a spinal injury . Owing to severe bleeding , he was then taken to hospital . He was kept in custody for DATE .

In DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . On account of his poor health he was released on DATE of his conviction . He subsequently underwent surgery . In DATE he was again taken into custody for DATE . He was released in DATE .

The applicant stated that he had encountered continuing problems with the chief of police in his home town of S. , from DATE , when he had refused to pay for protection for CARDINAL of his companies . With regard to the events in DATE , the applicant had lodged a complaint of ill - treatment with the public prosecutor and ORG . The applicant then tried to continue living in his home town in GPE , but maintained that he had been continually harassed by the police , and had finally left in DATE and travelled to GPE via GPE and GPE . He claimed that he would be subjected to ill - treatment should he be returned to GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Bundesasylamt ) refused the applicant ’s asylum request and ordered his expulsion to GPE . It found that an isolated incident of ill - treatment by the police did not suffice to establish a substantiated risk of persecution or ill - treatment as required for an asylum claim to be successful . In that context it referred to the period the applicant had stayed in GPE after the attack , the time that had elapsed in GPE before he had lodged a request for asylum there , and the time which had elapsed since the event itself . On the basis of country reports about GPE it considered that there was no longer any real risk of systematic and manifest ill - treatment by police in GPE .

The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision .

On DATE ORG ( Asylgerichtshof ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal in the asylum proceedings .

It noted that according to the information obtained from ORG in GPE , the chief of the police force in GPE , GPE , had been removed ( “ abgelöst ” ) from his post in DATE and apparently was now working as a lawyer . It further found that the applicant ’s statement about the events in GPE in DATE whilst he was in police custody and detention were credible , but concluded that owing to the time which had elapsed since the events and the general improvement of the security situation in GPE the applicant was no longer at risk of ill - treatment .

With regard to the general human rights situation in GPE , ORG referred to reports by ORG and GPE , DATE ORG , dated DATE , and GPE , ORG DATE , dated DATE ) and to CARDINAL reports by ORG GPE and GPE , Country Report on Human Rights Practices DATE and DATE , dated DATE and DATE , respectively ) . It cited a report by ORG that noted a decrease in systematic police violence since DATE . However , especially in general and police detention , human rights violations could not be excluded , although they were directed not against political adversaries , but against criminal suspects . In some of those cases police officers had been suspended from active duty , and in a number of cases NORP courts had awarded damages to victims of ill - treatment ( Report on asylum issues regarding GPE and GPE , dated DATE ) . On the basis of the report of ORG , PERSON , on his visit to GPE in DATE ( dated DATE ) , ORG referred to the introduction of a legal framework for complaint procedures in cases of alleged police assault . Lastly , ORG stated that the length of time which had passed between the events in DATE and the asylum proceedings had led to the dismissal of the asylum request .

With regard to the decision of ORG to declare the extradition unlawful , it found that after DATE following that decision the situation in GPE had further improved . Individual cases of police brutality could not change the overall picture of a much better security situation . It referred again to the country reports on which it had based its evaluation and noted that a ORG for ORG at ORG , and commissions in every region had been introduced to deal with complaints against the police . Lastly , ORG observed that it was not bound by the decision of ORG .

The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG ) . On DATE ORG refused to deal with the applicant ’s complaint . That decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged the present application with the ORG and requested that an interim measure be granted . On DATE the ORG requested ORG to stay the applicant ’s expulsion to GPE until further notice , pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG .

ORG from CARDINAL to DATE for an assessment of the overall human rights situation , and published his report on that visit on DATE ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) . With regard to ill - treatment by the police , he found that various sources had indicated that police ill - treatment had decreased in GPE since ORG on the Prevention of Torture had visited in DATE . While it now appeared that allegations of police violence were the exception rather than the rule , police violence had not yet been completely eradicated . NGOs and representatives from the legal community had pointed out that many people still failed to report incidents of violence for fear of retaliation by the police ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

An ORG had been established as a separate department within ORG by the new police act in DATE to deal with complaints regarding police misconduct . Furthermore , police misconduct was monitored by special commissions established in each of the CARDINAL regions of the Republic . These commissions consisted of CARDINAL members , namely a police officer , a representative of the Sector and a local citizen . DATE until DATE , the Sector had opened CARDINAL formal investigations against police officers , compared with CARDINAL in DATE alone . In the Commissioner ’s opinion , the police complaints mechanism was still in its infancy , and its impact in practice could not yet be gauged ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

ORG ( “ CPT ” ) visited GPE from DATE and published its report on DATE ( ORG ) . It stated that the number of allegations of ill - treatment by the police heard by the ORG ’s delegation in the course of the DATE visit was lower , and the ill - treatment alleged less severe , than during the first of the ORG ’s periodic visits , in DATE . However , the delegation did receive a number of allegations of physical ill - treatment ( consisting of punches , kicks , blows with a truncheon , blows with a thick book or with a wet , rolled newspaper , and handcuffing to fixed objects in a hyperextended position ) during questioning by police officers , with the aim of obtaining confessions or other information ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The ORG welcomed the legislative and other measures taken to combat ill - treatment by the police . However , it concluded from the information gathered throughout its visit that continued determined action was needed to combat ill - treatment by the police ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . It recommended the systematic and ongoing training of the police , independent agents to investigate any complaints of misconduct , the introduction of procedural rules for judges and prosecutors dealing with complaints of ill - treatment by the police , and thorough record - keeping of medical examinations of newly - arrived remand prisoners ( pages CARDINAL et seq . ) .

The Serbia DATE Progress Report of ORG ( ORG ) , published on DATE within the framework of the Enlargement Strategy DATE , noted with regard to civil and political rights that there had been only a small amount of progress in further improving the prevention of torture , ill - treatment and the fight against impunity . Police detention procedures were of great concern , as well as the lack of any internal and independent external oversight mechanisms . Additional efforts aimed at preventing any further cases of torture and ill - treatment were needed . The Deputy Ombudsman in charge of the protection of people deprived of their liberty was operational but still not fully effective ( see page CARDINAL ) . The report concluded by stating that overall , the constitutional framework providing for respect for civil and political rights was largely in place . However , full implementation and enforcement remained to be ensured . Further action by the authorities in combating violence of all types was needed ( page CARDINAL ) .

In DATE ORG published its DATE Report , GPE DATE : Human Rights , Democracy and Violence . In its concluding remarks in the chapter titled “ Police : Dynamics without radical change ” , the ORG stated that during DATE no further significant steps for reform had been taken with regard to the police in GPE ; that the adoption of a new police act , which was required for the continuation of reforms , had not been announced ; that the police still very often abused their authority , and that there were numerous cases of police torture , especially in the interior of GPE ( see page CARDINAL ) .

In its report for DATE , published in DATE , ORG acknowledged that ORG had achieved outstanding results and that it could be stated that DATE had been DATE for the NORP police since DATE . However , in the context of police work there were still many abuse cases involving police officers . Furthermore , ORG was withholding information of public importance and police work was not sufficiently transparent . It emphasised that future reform efforts would require the training of police personnel , especially with regard to human rights standards ( pages CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

In its DATE report for DATE , published in DATE , ORG concluded its chapter on the police by stating that although the number of criminal offences and abuses committed by police officers had been significantly lower compared to DATE , it was still very high . The fact that the number of criminal offences with elements of violence committed by police officers was PERCENT higher gave rise to particular concern . The report emphasised that the continuation of reforms and the positive trends in DATE would give rise to expectations that the NORP police would be able to provide full security to all citizens of GPE in the forthcoming period ( page CARDINAL ) .