André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

NORP The applicant , ORG , ( “ the applicant company ” ) , is a stock company based in GPE . It currently operates under the name Tipp CARDINAL ORG . The applicant company was represented before the ORG by Mr T. ORG and Mr PERSON , both lawyers practising in GPE .

NORP In GPE , jurisdiction over gambling is divided between ORG and the Länder . In most of the Länder , there is a regional monopoly on the organisation of sports betting and lottery games , while the organisation of betting on horseracing and the operation of gaming machines and casinos are entrusted to duly authorised private operators . By way of LAW on lottery games ( Staatsvertrag zum Lotteriewesen in GPE ) , which entered into force on DATE , the ORG created a uniform framework for the organisation , operation and commercial presence of games of chance . Under this treaty , the professional intermediation of lottery games was lawful without special licensing , so long as retailers complied with certain conditions .

NORP In a judgment of DATE ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) the German ORG held that the regional monopoly on sports betting in the Land of Bavaria infringed LAW , which guaranteed freedom of occupation . The court held in particular that , by excluding private operators from the activity of organising betting , without at the same time providing a regulatory framework capable of ensuring the effective pursuit of the aims of reducing the passion for games of chance and combating gambling addiction , the monopoly had a disproportionately adverse effect on the right to freedom of occupation .

A majority of the NORP Länder later concluded LAW on games of chance ( ORG ‒ “ the LAW ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which established a new uniform framework for their organisation , operation and intermediation . LAW was ratified in the Länder of GPE and GPE on DATE and entered into force on DATE , subject to certain transitional provisions . It subjected the organisation and intermediation of games of chance to a licensing system whereby licences could be issued by separate ORG and were limited to the territory of the respective Land . Furthermore , LAW prohibited outright the online organisation , intermediation , and advertising of public games of chance .

From DATE , the applicant company operated an Internet platform which allowed the placing of bets with lottery operators run by ORG . This intermediation was operated on a contractual basis with the lottery operators , who paid a commission to the applicant company . The applicant company held PERCENT of the overall market share in this area . By DATE , it had CARDINAL registered customers .

NORP Before the entry into force of LAW , the applicant company requested the ORG authorities to grant it permission to continue its professional activity under LAW of LAW for a transitional period of DATE . Only the Länder of GPE and ORG granted such permission . Accordingly , the applicant company continued its activity in these ORG until DATE . Following that date , the applicant company ceased all its activities relating to the intermediation of the ORG - run lottery . Instead , it continued to use its Internet platform for hosting so - called “ ability games ” , which , however , attracted significantly fewer customers .

On DATE the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint against a number of provisions of LAW as implemented by the laws of the Länder of GPE and GPE . The applicant company alleged , in particular , that the prohibition on online organisation and intermediation of public games of chance set out in LAW violated its right to freedom of occupation under LAW . It further complained of a violation of its property rights , and of its rights to freedom of expression and equal treatment .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a CARDINAL - judge panel , refused to accept the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for adjudication . The court observed that LAW restricted and ( as from DATE ) prohibited outright the online intermediation of public games of chance , and thus the carrying out of a professional activity which had until then been exercised by the applicant company in a lawful way . Furthermore , LAW , by subjecting the organisation of public games to ORG licensing , restricted the applicant company ’s right to carry out a specific professional activity . These provisions were closely linked to LAW , which provided that licences were issued by the ORG authorities and were limited to the territory of the respective Land . ORG concluded that these provisions interfered with the applicant company ’s freedom to provide services . The same applied to the provisions relating to advertising and to its prohibition on television , the Internet and via other means of telecommunication . Conversely , the applicant company ’s complaint did not come within the scope of the right to protection of property ( LAW , as that right only applied in case of interference with the use of acquired property , but not in cases concerning interference with specific professional activities .

ORG held that the provisions at issue were sufficiently precise and complied with the distribution of powers within ORG . Furthermore , they respected the principle of proportionality . In this connection , the court noted that the provisions primarily pursued the aim of protecting the population , and in particular minors , from the dangers of dependency on games and gambling - related crime . The court considered that these were important aims serving the public interest , which were capable of justifying objective restrictions on the freedom to carry out a specific professional activity .

The court further considered that gambling dependency could entail serious consequences not only for the person concerned , but also for his or her family and the wider community . It was true that certain types of games of chance were more likely to cause dependency than others , and that the lottery games intermediated by the applicant company were less likely to cause problematic or even pathological gambling behaviour than , for example , gaming machines and casino games . However , this did not call into question the legitimacy of the aims pursued .

NORP The court considered that the legislature enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation when it came to making a prognosis on dangers to be averted from the public . This margin of appreciation was only exceeded if the legislature ’s considerations were obviously erroneous to such a degree that they could not serve as a basis for the legislative measure in issue . Against this yardstick , ORG did not find reason to object to the legislature ’s considerations . It noted that these considerations were supported by scientific research carried out by ORG , from which it could be concluded that lottery games could lead to the development of symptoms of addiction .

The court further held that the provisions were suitable for achieving the aim pursued . The prohibition on and special licensing of the organisation of games of chance created a channelling effect leading to a restriction on which games were offered and enhanced the transparency of the betting industry . In particular , the licensing system allowed the ORG authorities to directly influence the number of persons actively working in the betting industry . The restrictions on advertising also pursued the aim of preventing dependency and protecting minors .

Lastly , the court considered that the prohibition on the online organisation and intermediation of public games of chance was intended to curtail problematic forms of participation in such games . Online gambling was characterised by a high degree of convenience and unrestricted availability of the games in question . The high degree of abstraction from traditional ways of gambling could cause a player to lose perspective and , in particular , ignore the possibility of losing stakes . By cutting off the option of online gambling , participation became more difficult and the individual player was made more aware of the process of the game , which could prevent him or her from drifting off into problematic behaviour . Furthermore , there remained doubts as to whether the requirements of protecting minors could be effectively implemented on the Internet .

As regards the proportionality of the interference , the court further held that the ORG stayed within their margin of appreciation . It was , in particular , acceptable to ban any form of online advertising , as the ORG - run games of chance were exclusively devised to channel the natural play instinct , but they should not turn into a branch of the national economy . Lastly , the court held that there was no indication that any of the other basic rights relied upon by the applicant company had been violated .

NORP The decision was served on the applicant company ’s counsel on DATE .

On DATE , a new LAW amending LAW entered into force . Under LAW , the ORG may allow the organisation and intermediation of public games of chance on the Internet , provided specific prerequisites are met . The operator must , in particular , ensure the effective exclusion of minors or prohibited players . Furthermore , stakes must , as a rule , not exceed LAW per player and DATE ; particular incitements to dependency by rapid draws are prohibited ; a programme of social measures adapted to the specific conditions of the internet have to be established and operated and bets and lotteries must not be offered via the same Internet domain . Advertising for public games of chance on television , on the Internet and via means of telecommunication remains , as a rule , prohibited , but the ORG may allow advertising for lotteries and horse- and sports bets on the Internet and on television in accordance with the principles laid down in LAW .

The relevant provisions of LAW on games of chance ( Glücksspielstaatsvertrag – “ LAW ” ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ LAW objectives

The objectives of LAW are as follows :

( CARDINAL ) to prevent dependency on games of chance and on bets , and to create the conditions for effectively combating dependency ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP to limit the supply of games of chance and to channel the gaming instinct of the population in an organised and supervised manner , preventing in particular a drift towards unauthorised games of chance ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP to ensure the protection of minors and players ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP to ensure the smooth operation of games of chance and the protection of players against fraudulent manoeuvres , and to prevent criminality connected with and arising from games of chance . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ General provisions

( CARDINAL ) ORG organisation or intermediation of public games of chance may take place only with the authorisation of the competent authority of the Land concerned . All organisation or intermediation of such games is prohibited without such authorisation ( unlawful games of chance ) .

( CARDINAL ) LOC authorisation shall be refused where the organisation or intermediation of the game of chance is contrary to the objectives of LAW Authorisation shall not be issued for the intermediation of games of chance unlawful according to the present LAW . There is no established right to the obtaining of an authorisation .

( CARDINAL ) The organisation and intermediation of public games of chance must not contravene the requirements of the protection of minors . Minors are not allowed to take part . The organiser or intermediary has to ensure that minors are excluded from taking part .

( CARDINAL ) The organisation and intermediation of public games of chance on the internet are prohibited . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Advertising

( CARDINAL ) NORP In order to avoid any enticement while maintaining the aim of offering lawful gaming opportunities , advertisements for public games of chance have to be limited to offering information and instructions on the offer of games of chance .

( CARDINAL ) ORG for public games of chance must not contravene the aims laid down in DATE . In particular , it must not be targeted at inviting , enticing or encouraging participation in public games . It must not be addressed to minors or similarly vulnerable target groups . Advertisements must not be misleading and must contain clear information that minors are not allowed to participate as well as on the risk of addiction and the possibilities of obtaining help .

( CARDINAL ) Any advertising for public games of chance on television , on the Internet and via other means of telecommunication is prohibited .

( CARDINAL ) Any advertising for unlawful games of chance is prohibited . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Supervision of games of chance

( CARDINAL ) The authorisation is issued by the competent authority for the territory of the respective Land or for a part of this territory . It has to be revocable and subject to a time - limit ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) The ORG may , for a maximum period of DATE after the entry into force of LAW , by way of derogation from LAW , permit the organisation and intermediation of lottery games on the Internet where there is no reason to refuse them pursuant to LAW and where the following conditions are met :

exclusion of minors or prohibited players guaranteed by identification and authentication measures , in compliance with the directives of ORG for the protection of minors as a closed group of media users ;

NORP limitation of stakes , as fixed in the authorisation , to LAW per month , and guarantee that credit is prohibited ;

prohibition of particular incitements to dependency by rapid draws and of the possibility of participating interactively with publication of results in real time ; as regards lottery games , limitation to CARDINAL winning draws per week ;

NORP localisation by use of the most modern methods , in order to ensure that only persons within the scope of the authorisation may participate ;

NORP establishment and operation of a programme of social measures adapted to the specific conditions of the Internet , the effectiveness of which is to be assessed scientifically . ”

On DATE , ORG of ORG ( CJEU ) issued several judgments relating to the compatibility of the rules on sports betting with ORG ( GPE ) PERSON ( case C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Winner PERSON ; joined cases ORG , C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL to C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG , PERSON and Others v. Wetterauskreis and Others ; and C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG v. ORG and Others ) . The ORG found that the NORP rules did not regulate games of chance in a consistent and systematic manner . In such circumstances , the objective of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and combating addiction to the latter could no longer be effectively pursued by public monopoly , so that the latter could no longer be justified having regard to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services ; see PERSON and Others , ibid . , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

NORP In its judgment in the case of ORG ( ibid . , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , the ORG , in addition , answered the question as to whether a prohibition such as that set out in LAW ( referred to below as “ the GlüStV ” ) could be regarded as suitable for pursuing the objectives of combating the risk of dependency on games of chance and protecting minors from the betting industry as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Concerning , first , the prohibition on the organisation and intermediation of games of chance on the internet , it should be noted that the referring court has confined itself to casting doubt on the conformity of that prohibition with ORG law in the very general terms which have just been referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this judgment .

Since the referring court has not been more specific about the nature of the doubts which it has in that regard , merely referring to positions which the ORG is said to have adopted in a reasoned opinion addressed to GPE following notification by the latter of the draft of the GlüStV [ ORG , see § § CARDINAL and DATE , above ] , without however explaining them in any way , the ORG will limit its examination to the question whether a measure prohibiting offers of games of chance on the internet such as that contained in [ LAW ) of the GlüStV may , in principle , be regarded as suitable for achieving the objectives of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling , combating gambling addiction , and protecting young people .

In that regard , it should be noted as a preliminary observation that the ORG has previously acknowledged that a measure prohibiting , purely and simply , the practice of a form of gambling on the territory of a Member ORG , in that case lotteries , is capable of being justified by such overriding reasons in the public interest ( see PERSON ) .

In the main proceedings , the prohibition in dispute concerns not the marketing of a particular type of gambling , but a channel through which games of chance may be offered , namely the internet .

The Court has already had occasion to emphasise the particularities concerned with the offering of games of chance on the internet ( see ORG Profissional and ORG , paragraph DATE ) .

has thus observed in particular that , because of the lack of direct contact between consumer and operator , games of chance accessible via the internet involve different and more substantial risks of fraud by operators against consumers compared with the traditional markets for such games ( ORG Profissional and ORG , paragraph CARDINAL ) .

It should be noted that , in the same way , the characteristics specific to the offer of games of chance by the internet may prove to be a source of risks of a different kind and a greater order in the area of consumer protection , particularly in relation to young persons and those with a propensity for gambling or likely to develop such a propensity , in comparison with traditional markets for such games . Apart from the lack of direct contact between the consumer and the operator , previously referred to , the particular ease and the permanence of access to games offered over the internet and the potentially high volume and frequency of such an international offer , in an environment which is moreover characterised by isolation of the player , anonymity and an absence of social control , constitute so many factors likely to foster the development of gambling addiction and the related squandering of money , and thus likely to increase the negative social and moral consequences attaching thereto , as underlined by consistent case - law .

NORP Moreover , it should be noted that , having regard to the discretion which Member GPE enjoy in determining the level of protection of consumers and the social order in the gaming sector , it is not necessary , with regard to the criterion of proportionality , that a restrictive measure decreed by the authorities of CARDINAL Member ORG should correspond to a view shared by all the Member GPE concerning the means of protecting the legitimate interest at issue ( see , by analogy , ORG GPE [ DATE ] ECR I-CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Having regard to the whole of the above , it must be acknowledged that a prohibition measure covering any offer of games of chance via the internet may , in principle , be regarded as suitable for pursuing the legitimate objectives of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling , combating addiction to the latter and protecting young persons , even though the offer of such games remains authorised through more traditional channels .

Secondly , concerning the establishment of a transitional period such as that at issue in the main proceedings , it needs in particular to be verified whether the latter might not undermine the consistency of the legislation concerned by leading to a result contrary to the objective pursued .

NORP In that respect , it should first be noted that the transitional measure at issue in the main proceedings applies only to lotteries , and not to other types of gambling .

Next , the explanations provided by the referring court show that that transitional measure is designed only to allow certain economic operators , who had hitherto legally offered lotteries via the internet in the Land concerned , to carry out a conversion of their business following the entry into force of the prohibition affecting their initial business , and that it is limited in duration to DATE , which can not be regarded as unreasonable in the said perspective .

Finally , it should also be emphasised , first , that , according to [ Article ] CARDINAL ) of the GlüStV and [ LAW , during the said transitional period , the operators concerned are obliged to comply with a series of conditions concerning the exclusion of minors and prohibited players , the limitation of stakes , the rules for and the frequency of the offer of games and the implementation of social measures , and , secondly , that ORG has stated before the ORG that the benefit of that transitional measure was to be available , without discrimination , to all lottery operators who might be concerned .

It does not therefore appear that such a transitional period , in appearance justified by considerations of legal certainty ( see , by analogy , Case C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ASM GPE [ CARDINAL ] ECR I‑CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) , is likely to affect the consistency of the measure prohibiting the offer of gambling on the internet and its suitability for achieving the objectives which it pursues ( see , by analogy , in relation to a temporary exception from a prohibition on the operation of pharmacies by non - pharmacists , Joined Cases C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others [ DATE ] ORG , paragraphs CARDINAL ) .

Having regard to all the foregoing , the answer to the fourth question is that , on a proper interpretation of Article CARDINAL ORG , national legislation prohibiting the organisation and intermediation of games of chance on the internet for the purposes of preventing the squandering of money on gambling , combating addiction to the latter and protecting young persons may , in principle , be regarded as suitable for pursuing such legitimate objectives , even if the offer of such games remains authorised through more traditional channels . The fact that such a prohibition is accompanied by a transitional measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not capable of depriving the said prohibition of that suitability . ”


The applicant was born in DATE and is presently detained at ORG prison .

On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with CARDINAL counts of rape under aggravated circumstances , i.e. having caused serious injuries . ORG submitted that on DATE the applicant had raped ORG , had beaten and strangled her , had forced her to swallow drugs and had threatened her with death . On DATE he had raped ORG , had beaten and strangled her , had forced her to swallow drugs , had burned her skin with cigarettes and had cut her vagina with a knife causing a deep laceration as well as opening the abdominal cavity .

On DATE ORG ( Geschworenengericht ) of ORG ( PERSON ) convicted the applicant of both offences of aggravated rape and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . In assessing the penalty , the court considered as mitigating circumstances the applicant ’s partial confession regarding the rape of ORG and , to some extent , that he had acted under the influence of alcohol and drugs . As aggravating circumstances , the court considered the applicant ’s criminal record , the fact that he had committed CARDINAL rapes and the extreme brutality which the applicant had shown when committing the offences .

On DATE the applicant filed a plea of nullity ( GPE ) and an appeal against sentence ( GPE ) . In his plea of nullity the applicant complained , inter alia , that ORG had failed to hear the requested witnesses from GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) confirmed ORG judgment as regards the rape of ORG and quashed the judgment as regards the other charge of rape and the sentence . It found that there had been sufficient information to identify the witnesses from GPE and that ORG should have attempted to take this evidence . It remitted the case to that court .

On DATE the new trial commenced before ORG sitting with another jury and on DATE ORG convicted the applicant of raping PERSON and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . When fixing the sentence the court considered as mitigating circumstances the applicant ’s confession regarding some of the facts concerning the charge of having raped ORG and , to a certain extent , his intoxication . As aggravating circumstances it considered the applicant ’s criminal record , that he had committed CARDINAL rapes and his extreme brutality when committing the offences .

On DATE the applicant filed a plea of nullity and an appeal against sentence . In his appeal against sentence the applicant submitted that ORG had failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating circumstances , namely his neglected education , his difficult childhood and his intoxication . The applicant did not request to attend the hearings before ORG or ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private , rejected as inadmissible the applicant ’s plea of nullity .

On DATE ORG fixed the hearing date for the applicant ’s appeal against the sentence for DATE . The applicant received a notification which stated that he , being detained , could only appear through his counsel and would not be brought to the court as the conditions of LAW [ LAW § CARDINAL ] of LAW ( GPE ) were not fulfilled .

On DATE ORG , after having held a hearing in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his defence counsel , dismissed the appeal against the sentence . As regards the weighing of mitigating and aggravating circumstances by ORG , ORG found that the applicant ’s partial confession was merely a contribution to the establishment of the truth ( PERSON ) and did not qualify as a mitigating circumstance . Further , there were additional aggravating circumstances such as the particular cruelty which the applicant had used when committing the offences , as well as their concurrent nature ( PERSON strafbarer PERSON ) . As regards the circumstances invoked by the applicant , the

ORG found that they could not be taken into consideration as mitigating circumstances . A neglected education and difficult childhood could not be considered as the applicant was now an adult and it could not explain his excessive use of brutality . Also no weight could be given to his intoxication because he should have known about the effects of alcohol on his person , and the experts had stated that it had no bearing on him committing the offences . Furthermore , the applicant ’s offences were not a consequence of a mental defect but of frustration and increased aggression and he had not shown any consciousness of his guilt . Thus , there was no reason to reduce the sentence .

A first - instance judgment of an assize court may be challenged by a plea of nullity to ORG on the specific grounds enumerated in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW The sentence as such may be challenged by way of an appeal against sentence to ORG . It may concern both points of law ( in particular whether mitigating or aggravating circumstances have been correctly taken into account ) and factors relating to the assessment of the sentence . Where the substance of an appeal is examined , a public hearing must normally be held . Unless an appeal against sentence is filed together with a plea of nullity and ORG decides on both remedies , such a hearing is held before ORG .

As regards the personal appearance of the accused at a public appeal hearing , section CARDINAL § CARDINAL , second sentence , of LAW provides :

“ An accused who is detained shall always be summoned and an accused who is detained shall also be brought before the court if he has made a request to this effect in his appeal or counter - statement or otherwise if his personal presence appears necessary in the interests of justice . ”


The applicant , born in DATE , is an NORP national and lives in GPE ) . In the proceedings before the ORG he is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising PERSON .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE . On DATE he applied for asylum . In support of his request he submitted that , as a member of the People 's Mujahedin movement , his father had been arrested and killed . The applicant further submitted that when distributing leaflets together with a friend , his friend had been arrested . Thereafter he himself had been arrested CARDINAL times and detained for DATE . His whole family , i.e. his mother and his CARDINAL sisters , had fled from GPE . They had all been recognised as political refugees in GPE .

On DATE ORG für die ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s request on the ground that his submissions were not credible and invited him to leave the NORP territory within DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Verwaltungsgericht ) dismissed the action filed by the applicant against the refusal of asylum and his envisaged expulsion .

On DATE the applicant renewed his request to be granted asylum ( PERSON ) . When interviewed on DATE at ORG , the applicant repeated the statements he had made in the first asylum proceedings , adding some more details . He further submitted that in the meantime he had engaged in political activities in GPE in favour of the ORG movement , such as distributing leaflets , organising information stands , taking part in demonstrations and working in the movement ’s office in GPE . The media , in particular television , had published information about these activities which thus came to the knowledge of the NORP authorities . An NORP witness called by the applicant stated , when also heard on DATE before ORG , that he had met the applicant in DATE in front of ORG near a bookshop with a third person called A. The latter had talked to the applicant and handed him a shoe box . According to the witness , he was not informed about the contents of the box for security reasons . The applicant did not remember PERSON ’s first name , nor did the witness .

On DATE ORG dismissed the asylum request on the grounds that the applicant ’s statements did not appear to be credible and that they were in contradiction with the statements made in the first proceedings and that his political activities in GPE were not important enough to establish a real and substantial fear of persecution in GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . According to the court , there was no indication that the applicant was persecuted when he had left his country , nor was there a sufficient likelihood that he would be persecuted if he were to return to his country . His earlier and his new submissions concerning his arrests in GPE were unsubstantiated . Accordingly , there was no need to take further evidence in this respect . As to the statements of the NORP witness concerning the circumstances of the meeting with the applicant in front of ORG , the court observed that there were contradictions between the applicant ’s and the witness ’s declarations . Furthermore , the witness could not confirm that the applicant was involved in the ORG movement , since he had met him only once . The court added that the applicant ’s activities in GPE did not go beyond a mere presence at demonstrations and other events , and that they would not expose him to political persecution in GPE . Finally there was no reason to believe that the applicant would face persecution in GPE on the ground that he had requested asylum in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Oberverwaltungsgericht ) of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal ( PERSON ) . In its decision it stated that ORG had correctly assessed the evidence and rejected the applicant ’s requests to take further evidence in a convincing manner . ORG had not acted arbitrarily in concluding that the applicant ’s submissions were unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that following the final decision in his asylum proceedings , his residence permit was no longer valid and invited him to submit CARDINAL passport photographs for the purpose of a provisional residence permit ( PERSON ) to be issued for the period during which the expulsion order could not be implemented for legal or practical reasons .

On DATE the ORG of the of the Land of North - Rhine Westphalia rejected a petition brought by the applicant on the ground that his submissions did not justify the granting of political asylum .


BOZINOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a national of the former GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On an unspecified date the applicant 's niece Ms D. instituted civil proceedings with ORG disputing the applicant 's title to a part of a house .

On DATE ORG granted PERSON claim . It found that her late father , who was the applicant 's brother , with the knowledge of the previous owner of the house , had invested a considerable amount of money for its refurbishment and , thereby , he had acquired a title to part of the house in accordance with the relevant provision of ORG . On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment .

On DATE ORG quashed the lower courts ' judgments . It referred the case back for re - examination to ORG and instructed it to order an expert valuation whereby the value of PERSON father 's investment would be determined in a precise manner .

On DATE the experts submitted their report . They concluded that PERSON late father 's investment represented PERCENT of the value of the relevant part of the house after its refurbishment .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE several witnesses appeared before ORG .

On DATE the applicant made written submissions to the court . It objected to the expert report and requested that an additional expert report be prepared in respect of the value of the investment made by PERSON late father .

A hearing was held on DATE before ORG .

In DATE the applicant was served with the additional expert report .

On DATE the applicant objected to the additional expert report and asked the court to appoint new experts . From the applicant 's submissions it appears that the court did not grant his request .

Another hearing was held on DATE before ORG .

On DATE ORG granted PERSON claim , as it found , on the basis of the witnesses ' statements , expert report and additional expert report , that her late father had obtained the title to the disputed part of the house on the basis of the investment made .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He complained , inter alia , that the lower court assessed the evidence wrongly and refused to appoint new experts .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal . It held , inter alia , that the expert report covered all the important issues , that on the applicant 's request an additional expert report had been prepared and that the report was corroborated with other evidence .

The applicant received the judgment on DATE .


CASE OF STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

Preliminary objection dismissed (victim);Violation of Art. 10;Not necessary to examine Art. 6;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is the owner of the DATE newspaper “ der Standard ” .

In the issue of “ der Standard ” of CARDINAL March CARDINAL the applicant published an article in the context of criminal proceedings on charges of large scale fraud and embezzlement against a former Member of ORG of ORG ( ORG , “ the ORG ” ) , Mr PERSON .

The article whose author , ORG , is a well - known court room reporter , reads as follows :

“ ‘ I had more important things to DATE

PERSON claims he was unaware of ORG ’s loan machinations

As expected , ORG ( ORG ) politicians offered their resignation DATE in connection with the PERSON trial . ( On the contrary : the ORG ’s long - serving legal counsel has suddenly become Minister of ORG . )

There is no way back for the CARDINAL in the dock , however . PERSON , the former ORG member of ORG , is accused of having colluded in aggravating the collapse of the poultry firm belonging to his brother PERSON , known as ‘ LOC . The public prosecutor has assessed the damage at MONEY . CARDINAL people in all are said to have played a part in the chicken debacle . CARDINAL of them may have been the former leader of the NORP branch of the ORG , PERSON .

He knew little about it

CARDINAL member of PERSON former chicken coop ( if this casual expression is permitted ) who is still in office took his turn in the witness box DATE : PERSON , now a member of the NORP regional government but at the time the leader of the ORG ’s parliamentary group . In that capacity he is alleged to have known even before DATE that loans and guarantees from the Circle of ORG ( ORG ) nourished ORG ’s chickens , fed his suppliers and enticed his creditors . In any event , PERSON claims to have ‘ handed over all ORG . But PERSON has no recollection of this . ‘ As parliamentary group leader I had more important things to do than worry about lists of that PERSON , he retorts . In short , the loan machinations apparently passed from him , like a cup , almost without trace .

ORG claims that he heard CARDINAL loan , in which ORG had agreed to borrow MONEY from ORG funds . PERSON asked for an explanation . PERSON duly ‘ served up a cock - and - bull story’ and referred to an investment on favourable terms and with a better rate of interest in his tax consultancy firm , ORG .

He is alleged to have reiterated that version of events in DATE at a meeting of ORG party executive , in the presence of the federal party leaders . And it was believed . PERSON himself was doubtful and made an early exit .

‘ Whether the federal party was informed or not is a matter on which everyone may now form his or her own view’ , the judge summed up exclusively for all the journalists in the courtroom . ‘ However , it will not settle the criminal proceedings.’ Irrespective of this , the fraud trial will drag on further DATE with witness statements . ”

The article was accompanied by a photograph of PERSON and the following text :

“ The former leader of the ORG ’s parliamentary group , PERSON , gives evidence defending the party ’s ignorance of the co - financing of the ORG collapse ” .

The criminal proceedings against Mr ORG received extensive media coverage . Mr PERSON and a number of co - accused were eventually convicted of large scale fraud and embezzlement by ORG . Its judgment was confirmed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON brought private prosecution proceedings for defamation under LAW ( Mediengesetz ) as regards the statement :

“ He [ Mr PERSON ] is alleged to have known even before DATE that loans and guarantees from the Circle of ORG ( ORG ) nourished ORG ’s chickens , fed his suppliers and enticed his creditors . In any event , PERSON claims to have handed over all documents to PERSON . ”

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) held a hearing . PERSON , who had been called as a witness , had refused to give evidence on the ground that he risked incriminating himself . According to the minutes , the applicant contested that PERSON was entitled to refuse giving evidence and requested the court to impose a fine on him . The ORG dismissed the request for the taking of evidence , finding that it was irrelevant and that the case was ready for decision . It did not give any detailed reasons .

At the close of the hearing , the court gave judgment ordering the applicant to pay compensation of CARDINAL NORP schillings ( ORG , that is MONEY ( ORG ) ) to PERSON and to publish the judgment .

In ORG view , the incriminated passage meant that Mr PERSON already new of PERSON fraudulent transactions before DATE . However , having regard to the evidence adduced in the criminal proceedings against PERSON , the court found that there was no indication that PERSON knew before DATE that loans or guarantees of ORG had been transferred to ORG ’s firm . It followed from TIME of the trial against ORG , that the latter had not claimed to have given all relevant documents to PERSON , but had only stated to have met another ORG politician in PERSON ’s office and to have given documents to that politician .

Referring to Section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG found that the statement at issue fulfilled the elements of defamation ( üble GPE ) under LAW as it insinuated that PERSON PERSON had remained inactive despite being aware of fraudulent transactions . Thus , it accused him of behaviour likely to lower him in public esteem . Although the incriminated passage purportedly cited statements of third persons , the applicant company remained responsible since it had failed to present these quotes neutrally without identifying itself with their content . The article ’s style and choice of wording did not fulfil the requirements of a neutral presentation . In any case , the quote was not correct as PERSON had not claimed to have given PERSON all relevant documents nor had it been shown that the latter knew otherwise about the transactions . The applicant had , thus , failed to prove the truth of the impugned statement .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

It noted the applicant ’s argument that the article was of a satirical nature and that the reader , expecting a certain degree of exaggeration , concluded in essence that PERSON had known more than he admitted , or could have known more had he made the necessary investigations on the basis of the documents given to him .

ORG conceded that ORG court room reports differed from usual reports of this genre . His irony and sarcasm were well - known and appreciated by the reader . In the present case however , the issue was not whether the author had made use of some degree of exaggeration . He had simply reported facts which were not true , as no documents at all had been handed over to PERSON . Furthermore , the court confirmed ORG view that the article had not quoted third ORG statements correctly and neutrally .

Finally , ORG confirmed that ORG had rightly granted PERSON a right to refuse to give evidence in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW . As the article at issue had reported on the criminal proceedings against Mr ORG , it was likely that he would , inter alia , have to give evidence as regards his fraudulent transactions . He therefore risked incriminating himself as regards the charges against him .

The decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON filed an action under LAW ) and under LAW ) requesting the applicant to refrain from publishing his picture accompanied by the incriminated text , to publish the judgment and to pay him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . He also requested a preliminary injunction .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON appeared before ORG ( ORG ) and concluded a partial agreement . The applicant undertook to refrain from publishing PERSON picture accompanied by any text similar to the impugned statement , and to publish the agreement . The court therefore limited the hearing to the issue of compensation .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to reimburse Mr PERSON ’s costs as regards the part of his claim that was covered by the partial agreement , but dismissed the latter ’s claim for compensation .

ORG , referring to ORG established case - law as regards the binding force of a conviction in subsequent civil proceedings ( see relevant domestic law and practice , below ) , noted that the publication of PERSON picture accompanied by the impugned statement which fulfilled the objective elements of defamation , had violated his legitimate interests within the meaning of Section CARDINAL of LAW . He was , therefore , in principle entitled to receive compensation if the non - pecuniary damage suffered went beyond the annoyance usually caused by the unlawful publication of a picture . However , he had failed to substantiate that he had suffered any such damage .

On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ORG ’s appeal .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides for the strict liability of the publisher in cases of defamation ; the victim can thus claim damages from him . In this context “ defamation ” has been defined in LAW ) , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Anybody who , in such a way that it may be noticed by a third person , attributes to another a contemptible characteristic or sentiment or accuses him of behaviour contrary to honour or morality and such as to make him contemptible or otherwise lower him in public esteem shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding DATE or a fine ...

Anyone who commits this offence in a printed document , by broadcasting or otherwise in such a way as to make the defamation accessible to a broad section of the public , shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine ...

NORP The person making the statement shall not be punished if it is proved to be true . In the case of the offence defined in paragraph CARDINAL he shall also not be liable if circumstances are established which gave him sufficient reason to believe that the statement was true . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW , so far as material , provides :

“ CARDINAL . Images of persons shall neither be exhibited publicly , nor disseminated in any other way in which they are made accessible to the public , where the legitimate interests of the person in question or , in the event that they have died without having authorised or ordered publication , of a close relative would be injured . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Anybody who , due to defamation , suffered a damage or loss of profit , may claim for compensation .

NORP The same applies if anyone is disseminating facts , which jeopardize another person ’s reputation , gain or livelihood , the untruth of which was known or must have been known to him . In this case there is also a right to claim a revocation and the publication thereof ... ”

It is ORG constant case - law that a person who has been convicted in criminal proceedings can not argue in subsequent civil proceedings that he has not committed the offence at issue ( lead case CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , ORG ) . ORG has also held that a judgment under LAW has this binding effect in subsequent civil proceedings ( CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL/CARDINALb , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial)

Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a village in the GPE region .

In DATE the applicant lodged a court action against a private company seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of actions of company ’s employees .

On DATE ORG ( Khabarovsk Region ) dismissed the applicant ’s action as unfounded .

The applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE . His statement of appeal was received by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG sent the case file , with the applicant ’s appeal statement enclosed , to ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) . On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant confirming that his case had been transferred to ORG and informing him that an appeal hearing had been scheduled for TIME on DATE . It follows from the stamp marks on the envelope that the letter was dispatched on CARDINAL DATE and arrived at the applicant ’s local post office on DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing , which the applicant did not attend . ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , endorsing ORG reasoning . The company ’s representative attended the appeal hearing and made submissions .

On DATE the head of the post office replied to the applicant ’s complaint about the delays in delivery of mail that ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE had been delivered to the applicant only on DATE by the fault of CARDINAL of the employees of the post office .

On DATE ORG sent to the applicant a copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

For a summary of relevant domestic law , as worded at the material time , see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , LAW , DATE ) .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Sri Lanka)

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE in GPE . Currently they live at FAC . They are of NORP ethnicity .

On DATE , with valid passports and DATE visas , the applicant spouses entered GPE , where the applicant husband , GPE 's sister and brother lived permanently . His CARDINAL other siblings lived elsewhere in LOC .

On DATE the applicants requested asylum .

On DATE they explained that they had never been arrested , politically active or involved in any conflict with the authorities . The applicants were married on DATE and lived in GPE on the east coast of GPE , where the applicant husband ran a fishing business and an electrical company , and had a good income . They lost their fishing boat and their house in the tsunami on DATE . Thereafter they lived with the applicant wife 's parents . The applicants did not sympathise with ORG ( NORP ) but the latter had sometimes forced the applicants to support them financially . After the applicants had left GPE , their motorbike had been confiscated by the GPE group , which had stated that “ they were waiting for the applicants ” . The GPE group , later known as ORG , ( ORG ) , was led by GPE , a previous commander in the NORP . Initially it was a paramilitary group that helped the Government fight the NORP and later , in DATE , it became a registered political party .

On DATE the applicant husband added that on DATE he had been confronted by CARDINAL unknown men , CARDINAL of whom belonged to the GPE group , who wanted information about his cousin , who was a member of the NORP . Later in DATE TIME persons had tried to stop him on his motorcycle . On DATE in DATE , he had been stopped on the street by CARDINAL of the previously mentioned QUANTITY persons , who again requested information about the cousin . This was the reason why the applicants had decided to go to GPE .

On DATE the applicant husband added that his home was searched on average once a month in a general way , whereby the whole village was surrounded and the whole population was gathered by the military who wanted to find out whether there were any NORP members in the village . Every now and then he was taken away by the military . In DATE he had been detained by ORG for TIME and his feet and hands had been tied . He was released after his eldest brother paid bail for him . In DATE he was detained by GPE for DATE , suspected of being a member of the NORP . They hit his jaw , leaving a scar . Following mediation by members of ORG , he was released together with CARDINAL other detainees . The applicant was not detained or illtreated by the authorities up to his departure in DATE . In DATE QUANTITY persons had tried to stop him and his wife on their motorbike in a forest area in order to kill them , but they had managed to escape .

By decision of DATE ORG , now GPE ) refused to grant the applicants asylum .

NORP On appeal , during a hearing before ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE the applicant husband stated that he had been approached by the NORP and asked to pay them money for the first time DATE . All fishermen were to pay money to the ORG . The latter would come to his home at DATE intervals . After he lost his fishing boat in DATE they stopped asking him for money . On DATE he had been confronted by CARDINAL men from the GPE group and a NORP who beat him and forced him to admit that he had paid money to the NORP . They also asked about the whereabouts of his cousin , who was a member of the NORP at the relevant time . The last time he had seen his cousin was at his aunt 's home in DATE , but only briefly , and they did not really talk to each other . The applicant did not like the cousin due to his connection with the LTTE . The applicant did not know where the cousin lived at the relevant time and the CARDINAL men let him go . Later , in DATE , CARDINAL persons from the GPE group , CARDINAL of whom had taken part in the incident on DATE , stopped him and asked about his cousin 's whereabouts and then let him go . In DATE , DATE prior to his departure , CARDINAL unknown men had tried to stop him and his wife on their motorcycle , but they had managed to escape .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG confirmed ORG decision of DATE that the applicants failed to fulfil the criteria under section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) . It noted that the applicants ' asylum motive was based mainly on fear of the PERSON group , which demanded the male applicant 's cooperation to obtain information about his cousin . It did not rule out that it was possible , as stated by the applicants , that the Sri NORP authorities cooperated with the GPE group but it found that approaches from people related to the GPE group in GPE had to be considered geographically restricted and emphasized that in the present case the male applicant had a low profile and had been able to depart legally from ORG in DATE .

An anonymised summary of the applicants ' case , together with CARDINAL other cases involving NORP nationals , was published on ORG Website .

NORP By letter of DATE the applicants ' representative requested a re - opening of the case .

On DATE , in the light of a recommendation of CARDINAL October DATE from the ORG to ORG about the situation in GPE , ORG decided to suspend all cases concerning ethnic NORP from GPE .

On DATE , and anew on DATE , finding that no essential new information or aspects had been submitted , ORG refused to reopen the applicant 's case .

On DATE , ORG refused the applicants ' application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds .

On DATE ORG received a letter by a named person , who stated that the applicant husband was suspected by the security forces and the GPE group of having cooperated with the NORP . ORG understood the letter as a request for a reopening of the case . The applicant husband submitted a letter of DATE repeating his previous statements , and adding that he had been forced to try to find the cousin who was a member of the ORG .

On DATE , ORG refused once more to reopen the applicants ' case .

On DATE the ORG requested ORG to stay forced returns of ethnic NORP from LOC and LOC GPE with reference to a letter dated DATE from ORG to ORG . On DATE ORG extended the time - limit for the applicants ' departure .

On DATE ORG replied to the ORG 's request in general terms , refusing to introduce a general stay of forced returns of ethnic NORP from LOC and LOC with reference to the general situation for this group .

On DATE the latter decided to resume the forced deportation of the applicants .

The ORG repeated its request on DATE , to which ORG replied on DATE , again refusing to extend the applicants ' departure date .

In the meantime , CARDINAL daughters were born to the applicants on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) , an NGO , requested that ORG reopen the case . It stated , inter alia , that the applicants had provided new information in the case at an interview held with the said ORG . The applicants had stated that , several times since their departure , persons from the GPE group and GPE NORP soldiers had contacted the applicant wife 's parents , questioned them about the applicants and had their home searched . The parents had therefore gone into hiding . Due to recent developments the GPE group had been able to operate in the GPE area . The applicant husband had been imprisoned in DATE and again in DATE on suspicion of affiliation with the ORG . Both times he was subjected to ill - treatment , leaving scars on his body and face . Moreover , and differently from claims in previous statements , the applicant had carried out jobs for the NORP , such as purchasing batteries , petrol , food and other goods in the Government controlled areas and bringing the products to the NORP . In fact in DATE , the applicant husband had been released from prison at the request of the ORG so that he could continue to work for them . He had avoided mentioning his work for the NORP for fear of being expelled from GPE .

On DATE , on the applicants ' behalf , ORG submitted a letter to ORG requesting that it stay the applicants ' deportation .

On DATE , ORG decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG , indicating to the Government that it was in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE pending the ORG 's decision .

Consequently , on DATE ORG extended the time - limit for the applicants ' departure until further notice .

On DATE ORG again refused to reopen the applicants ' asylum case finding that no essential new information or aspects had been submitted . As regard the new and extended information , for example about having scars on his body as opposed to his previous explanation about having “ only ” a scar on his jaw as a result of his detention in DATE , and about his alleged work for the ORG , ORG noted that in view of the numerous times he had been requested to provide all relevant information , and the fact that he had on his own initiative requested a reopening of the case several times with reference to new information , he had not provided a reasonable explanation as to why he had not furnished this information before . ORG therefore rejected the new information as fabricated for the occasion .

On DATE , on the basis of the most recent background information concerning GPE including , inter alia , a Memorandum of CARDINAL DATE prepared by ORG , ORG decided to review the suspended cases , including the applicant 's case .

On DATE ORG refused to reopen the applicants ' case as it found that the most recent general background information would not lead to a revised assessment of the case . More specifically in its letter to the applicant 's representative it stated as follows :

“ ... ORG still finds that , if returned to GPE , your clients will not risk persecution or outrages as covered by LAW by the Sri NORP authorities , including in connection with arrival at FAC . In this connection , ORG emphasises that your male client stated during the asylum proceedings that he has not been politically active or otherwise been involved in conflicts with the Sri NORP authorities or the NORP . ORG thus emphasises that your male client appears not to stand out in any way at all as he has exclusively been the subject of money demands from the NORP like other fishermen in GPE . In that connection , the ORG refers to the fact that your clients left GPE lawfully using their own GPE national passports . ORG also refers to the fact that it appears from the background material available to the ORG that , in general , individuals who have previously supported the ORG on a lower level are not of interest to the authorities . Thus , generally , only high - profile members of the NORP who are still active and wanted , or individuals wanted for serious criminal offences are of interest to the authorities , see GPE ORG , Operational Guidance Note , GPE , DATE , and ORG to GPE , GPE CARDINAL CARDINAL DATE . Also against that background , ORG finds that your clients will not be at a real risk of persecution or outrages as covered by section CARDINAL of LAW on the part of ORG or the ORG , which are in the factual control of ORG according to GPE , Operational Guidance Note , GPE , DATE . In that connection , ORG observes that your clients ' incidents with the group took place in DATE . Likewise , on the background of the above , ORG finds that the fact that your male client 's cousin has been a member of the ORG for DATE can not warrant a residence permit under LAW according to the background material now available . It should be noted that your male client stated at ORG hearing on DATE about his cousin , V , that he last saw V in DATE at his mother 's sister 's house and did not otherwise have any contact with him . The fact that as ethnic NORP from eastern GPE your clients may risk being questioned and investigated by the authorities upon entry into the country does not lead to a revised assessment of the case under asylum law . In this assessment , consideration has been given to the background information available to ORG , from which it appears that the individuals at particular risk of being detained and investigated upon entry in GPE are young NORP , men in particular , from northern and eastern GPE : those without ID ; those not resident or employed in GPE ; and those recently returned from the LOC , see GPE ORG to GPE , GPE DATE . In that connection , ORG refers to the fact that your clients appear not to stand out at all . Against that background , ORG finds that it has not been rendered probable that the Sri Lankan authorities would take a special interest in your clients upon return . This also applies regardless of the fact that your male client may have scars on his face or on his body . In that respect , please see ORG further observations of CARDINAL DATE to your pleading of CARDINAL DATE in the complaint ORG and ORG v. GPE before ORG . As in its decision of DATE , ORG still finds that the general situation for ethnic NORP in GPE is not of such nature that it in itself warrants a residence permit under section CARDINAL of LAW . The ORG observes in that connection that it is a condition for a residence permit under section CARDINAL that , upon a specific and individual assessment , the alien is deemed at risk of persecution or outrages . The authority of ORG is restricted to determining asylum - relevant issues , and it is thus outside the ORG 's authority to determine whether an alien who does not meet the conditions of LAW may be issued with a residence permit for other reasons of a more humanitarian nature . Against that background and in accordance with its decision of DATE , ORG still finds that it has not been rendered probable that , in case of return to GPE , your clients would be at a concrete and individual risk of persecution as covered by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , or that your clients would be at a real risk of outrages as covered by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . It should be noted that your clients ' time - limit for departure is still suspended until further notice on the basis of the request of DATE from ORG . If your clients ' basis of lawful residence in GPE lapses , your clients must leave GPE immediately , see section QUANTITY of LAW . As appears from the decision of ORG of DATE , your clients may be forcibly returned to GPE if they do not leave voluntarily , see section GPE , cf . section CARDINAL , of LAW . The decision also comprises your clients ' CARDINAL children . ”

By virtue of section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) , asylum is granted to aliens who satisfy the conditions of LAW . Applications for asylum are determined in the first instance by the former ORG ( now called ORG ) and in the second instance by ORG .

Pursuant to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL of LAW , decisions by ORG are final , which means that there is no avenue for appeal against the ORG 's decisions . Aliens may , however , by virtue of LAW of LAW ( PERSON ) bring an appeal before the ordinary courts , which have authority to adjudge on any matter concerning the limits to the competence of a public authority .

DATE 's country of origin or first country of asylum . For this purpose , ORG has a comprehensive collection of general background material on the situation in the countries from which GPE receives asylumseekers . The material is up - dated and supplemented on a continuous basis . The background material of ORG is obtained from various authorities , in particular ORG and ORG . In addition , background material is procured from various organisations , including ORG , ORG and other international human rights organisations and the ORG . Also included are the annual reports of ORG ) on the human rights situation in a large number of countries , reports from ORG , reports from the documentation centre of ORG , reports from ORG , reports from ORG ( ORG for Asylum Practitioners ) , reports from the authorities of other countries and to some extent articles from identifiable ( international ) journals . Moreover , the ORG may request ORG to issue an opinion on whether it can confirm information from a background memorandum drafted in general terms . ORG also retrieves some of its background material from the Internet . Internet access also enables the ORG to obtain more specific information in relation to special problems in individual cases .

Usually , ORG assigns counsel to the applicant . Board hearings are oral and the applicant is allowed to make a statement and answer questions . The ORG decision will normally be served on the applicant immediately after the ORG hearing , and at the same time the Chairman will briefly explain the reason for the decision made .

Extensive information about GPE can be found in ORG . v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE . The information set out below concerns events occurring after the delivery of the said judgment on CARDINAL DATE and , in particular , after the cessation of hostilities in DATE .

Fighting between the Sri NORP army and the NORP intensified in DATE , with the army taking a number of rebel strongholds in the north and east of the country . On DATE , in an address to the country 's parliament , the President of GPE announced the end of hostilities and the death of the leader of the LTTE , PERSON . It was also reported that most , if not all , of the NORP 's leadership had been killed .

DATE , ORG for ORG had estimated that CARDINAL people had already reached internally displaced persons ' camps , including CARDINAL in DATE . In addition , it was believed that another CARDINAL people were on their way to the camps through the crossing point at GPE , in the northern district of PERSON .

NORP In DATE , ORG reported that the number of killings in GPE in DATE ( including deaths of civilians , security forces and members of the ORG ) was : CARDINAL in DATE ; CARDINAL in DATE ; CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE . CARDINAL people were reported to have been killed in total over the course of DATE conflict .

“ Notwithstanding the cessation of the hostilities , the current protection and humanitarian environment in GPE remains extremely challenging . In the GPE , nearly the entire population from the territory formerly held by the NORP in the LOC ( CARDINAL NORP ) has been confined to heavily militarized camps in the LOC region . Although the government has gradually reduced the military presence in the camps and has pledged to start the progressive return to their villages of origin of the majority of those in the camps , it is clear that this may take a considerable amount of time . The lack of freedom of movement remains the overriding concern for this population restricting its ability to reunite with family members outside the camps , access employment , attend regular schools , and ultimately choose their place of residence . ”

A Human Rights Watch [ HRW ] press release , dated DATE , reported that :

“ The government has effectively sealed off the detention camps from outside scrutiny . Human rights organizations , journalists , and other independent observers are not allowed inside , and humanitarian organizations with access have been forced to sign a statement that they will not disclose information about the conditions in the camps without government permission . On several occasions , the government expelled foreign journalists and aid workers who had collected and publicized information about camp conditions , or did not renew their visas . ”

A further ORG press release dated DATE set out concerns that CARDINAL NORP civilians remained in detention camps without the freedom to leave .

In DATE , the first post - war local elections were held in LOC . ORG reported that voter turn - out was low due to the number of people who were still displaced . The governing party , ORG , took the majority of seats in the biggest city in the region , GPE . However , ORG , a party sympathetic to the defeated ORG , took the majority of seats in PERSON , the other town where polling took place .

On DATE , PERSON , the official spokesman for ORG in GPE was ordered to leave GPE because of adverse remarks that he had made to the media about the plight of NORP in the government - run camps .

On DATE the Sri Lankan Official Government News Portal announced that the motion to extend ORG ( under which the authorities have extensive anti - terrorism powers and heightened levels of security including checkpoints and road blocks ) by DATE had been passed by ORG with a majority of CARDINAL votes .

In a report dated DATE , GPE ORG published a report entitled “ Report to ORG on Incidents During the Recent Conflict in GPE ” , which compiled incidents from DATE , when the fighting intensified , until DATE . Without reaching any conclusions as to whether they had occurred or would constitute violations of international law , it set out extensive reports of enforced child soldiers , the killing of captives or combatants trying to surrender , enforced disappearances and severe humanitarian conditions during the hostilities .

On DATE , ORG announced its decision that all internally displaced persons would be given freedom of movement and allowed to leave the detention camps from DATE .

In its Global Appeal DATE , the ORG reported that :

“ The Government - led military operations in northern GPE which ended in DATE displaced CARDINAL people , most of whom fled their homes in DATE of the fighting . The majority of these internally displaced persons ( IDPs ) now live in closed camps in Vavuniya district , as well as in camps in GPE , GPE and PERSON . CARDINAL IDPs , some of whom have been displaced since DATE , are also in need of durable solutions .

The IDPs originate mainly from the NORP , PERSON , PERSON , GPE and GPE districts in northern GPE , as well as from some areas in the east of the country . Though the end of hostilities has paved the way for the voluntary return of displaced people , some key obstacles to return remain . For instance , many of the areas of return are riddled with mines and unexploded ordnance . Not all are considered to be of high risk , particularly those away from former frontlines , but mine - risk surveys and the demarcation of no - go areas are urgently needed .

Other key obstacles to return include the need to re - establish administrative structures in areas formerly held by ORG ; the destruction or damaged condition of public infrastructure and private homes ; and the breakdown of the economy - including agriculture and fisheries .

The Government of GPE is planning the return framework , and it has called on ORG for support with return transport , non - food items , return shelter , livelihoods support and assistance in building the capacity of local authorities .

With some progress having been recently achieved , it is hoped that a substantial number of IDPs will be able to return to their places of origin in DATE , but a large portion of new IDPs are also likely to remain in the camps and with host families until well into DATE .

In a Human Rights Report DATE , dated DATE , GPE State Department stated that ORG accepted assistance from NGOs and international actors for the ORG camps but management of the camps and control of assistance were under the military rather than civilian authorities . Food , water , and medical care were all insufficient in DATE after DATE war , but by DATE the situation had stabilised and observers reported that basic needs were being met . In DATE the military withdrew from inside the camps but continued to provide security around the barbed wire - enclosed perimeter . The IDPs in the largest camp , ORG , were not given freedom of movement until DATE , when a system of temporary exit passes was implemented for those who had not yet been returned to their districts of origin . Some observers said that this exit system still did not qualify as freedom of movement .

Human Rights Watch , in their report , ORG DATE , estimated that DATE after the main fighting ended , the ORG continued to hold CARDINAL people ( CARDINAL of them women and girls ) in the camps . CARDINAL of these were children . The camps were severely overcrowded , many of them holding twice the number recommended by the ORG . As a result , access to basic requirements such as food , water , shelter , toilets and bathing , had been inadequate . These conditions imposed particular hardships on the elderly , children and pregnant women . The camps were under military administration , and effective monitoring by humanitarian agencies was lacking . The authorities failed to provide camp residents with sufficient information about the reason for their continued detention , the whereabouts of relatives , or the criteria and procedure for their return home .

GPE on GPE of DATE ( “ the DATE ORG ” ) stated as follows :

CARDINAL ORG ( ORG ) report GPE : A Bitter Peace , DATE , also referred to “ extra - legal detention centres ” maintained by the military and observed : “ These detained have had no access to lawyers , their families , ORG or any other protection agency , and it is unclear what is happening inside the centres . In addition , ' the grounds on which the ex - combatants have been identified and the legal basis on which they are detained are totally unclear and arbitrary ' . Given the well - established practice of torture , enforced disappearance and extra - judicial killing of ORG suspects under the current and previous NORP governments , there are grounds for grave concerns about the fate of the detained . The government has announced that of those alleged ex - combatants currently detained , CARDINAL will be put on the trial ; most will detained for a further period of ' rehabilitation ' and then released . ”

CARDINAL Referring to the “ CARDINAL people ” detained “ in so - called ' rehabilitation centers ” because of their alleged association with the ORG , the ORG [ document Legal Limbo , The Uncertain Fate of ORG in GPE , released on DATE , observed : “ The government has routinely violated the detainees ' fundamental human rights , including the right to be informed of specific reasons for arrest , the right to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before an independent judicial authority , and the right of access to legal counsel and family members . The authorities ' consistent failure to inform families of the basis for the detainees ' arrest and their whereabouts raises serious concerns that some detainees may have been victims of torture and ill - treatment , which are more likely to take place where due process of law is lacking and which have long been serious problems in GPE . Given the lack of information about some detainees , there is also a risk that some may have been ' disappeared ' . ”

CARDINAL The ORG ' Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum - Seekers from GPE , DATE reported that “ In the wake of the conflict , CARDINAL persons suspected of NORP links were arrested and detained in high - security camps ” adding that “ According to a ORG survey , as of DATE , CARDINAL ORG cadres were being held at CARDINAL centres . Among the detainees were CARDINAL males and CARDINAL females . ” and noted that “ Some of the adult detainees have ... been released after completing rehabilitation programmes or because they were no longer deemed to present a risk , including some persons with physical disabilities . ”

The DATE ORG also set out :

CARDINAL The ORG [ ORG ] , ORG , GPE , DATE reported : “ The ORG has warned that GPE faces losing trade advantages under LAW ( GSP - Plus ) scheme from DATE , unless the Government commits itself in writing to improving its human rights record . The ORG has put forward CARDINAL conditions that it says the Government needs to promise to meet within DATE . These include : ensuring that the CARDINALth amendment to the constitution , which requires that appointments to public positions be impartial and reflect the country 's ethnic and religious mix , is enforced ; repealing parts of LAW that are incompatible with GPE covenants on political and human rights ; reforming the criminal code to allow suspects immediate access to a lawyer on arrest ; and allowing journalists to carry out their professional duties without harassment . However , the ORG has rebuffed the ORG , stressing that the issues that it has raised are internal political matters that should not be linked to trade . “ The ORG is not the only international body currently putting pressure on the government . GPE has also rejected the ORG 's appointment of a CARDINAL - member panel to examine possible human rights violations during the island 's civil war . The Sri Lankan authorities have warned that they will not provide visas for panel members to enter the country . ”

CARDINAL The ORG , ORG , GPE , DATE noted that : “ The decision by the ORG secretary - general , Ban PERSON [ on DATE ] , to appoint a panel to examine accountability issues stemming from the final stages of the island 's civil war , which ended in DATE , has prompted a strong reaction in GPE ...

CARDINAL On DATE ORG reported that “ Secretary - General Ban Kimoon has held his first meeting with the panel of experts set up to advise him on accountability issues relating to alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages DATE of the conflict in GPE . ” The source also noted that the role of the experts was to examine “ the modalities , applicable international standards and comparative experience with regard to accountability processes , taking into account the nature and scope of any alleged violations in GPE . ”

GPE on GPE of DATE ( “ the DATE ORG ” ) sets out a series of letters from ORG – hereafter “ LOC ” , GPE , on arrival procedures at GPE airport . In its letter of DATE , the ORG observed :

“ [ T]he correct procedure for [ ORG and Emigration [ DIE ] ] officers is to record the arrival of these persons manually in a logbook held in the adjacent Chief Immigration Officer 's office . The name , date and time of arrival and arriving flight details are written into the log . It records why the person has come to their attention and how the case was disposed of . I have had the opportunity to look at the log , and it appears that the CARDINAL ways of disposal are to be passed to ORG [ ORG ] , or allowed to proceed .

The office of ORG [ SIS ] is in the immigration arrivals hall and an officer from ORG usually patrols the arrivals area during each incoming flight . Invariably , if they notice a person being apprehended they approach IED [ ORG ] and take details in order to ascertain in [ sic ] the person may be of interest to them . Their office contains CARDINAL computer terminals , CARDINAL belonging to the airport containing flight information and CARDINAL stand - alone terminals . If an apprehended person is considered suitable to be passed to ORG , they are physically walked across the terminal building to the ORG offices . A ORG officer should then manually record the arrival of the person in a logbook held in their office ... often persons shown in the ORG logbook to have been handed to ORG are never actually recorded as being received in the ORG logbook . It is believed that ORG has allowed these persons to proceed and no action has been taken against them . ”

The same letter also noted that ORG offices at the airport contained CARDINAL computers , which were not linked to any national database . Any checks on persons detained or apprehended were conducted over the phone with colleagues in central GPE . There were no fingerprint records at the airport . CARDINAL computer contained records of suspects who had been arrested and charged with offences , and court reference numbers . It continued as follows :

“ Were a Sri NORP national to arrive at FAC having been removed or deported from GPE , they would be in possession of either a valid national NORP passport , or an emergency travel document / temporary passport , issued by ORG in GPE . The holder of a valid passport would have the document endorsed by the immigration officer on arrival and handed back to him / her . A national passport contains the national ORG card number on the laminated details page . I have made enquiries with the DIE at FAC , and with ORG who meet certain returnees at the airport , and both have confirmed that a person travelling on an emergency travel document is dealt with similarly . They too have the document endorsed by the immigration officer on arrival and returned to them . Before issuing an emergency travel document , ORG in GPE will have details of an applicant confirmed against records held in GPE and will thus satisfactorily confirm the holder 's nationality and identity . If a returnee subsequently wishes to obtain a national identity card , they have to follow the normal procedures . ”

In a letter dated DATE , the ORG reported that an official had spent TIME observing the return of failed asylum seekers from GPE , including those who were in possession of emergency travel documents , issued by ORG in GPE . In the official 's opinion , the fact that certain returnees had been issued with emergency travel documents by ORG in GPE did not seem to make any difference to their treatment upon arrival .

The Report of Information Gathering Visit to GPE on DATE , conducted jointly by ORG and ORG ( “ the Report of Information Gathering Visit , DATE ” ) , concluded that all enforced returns ( of whatever ethnicity ) were referred to the ORG at the airport for nationality and criminal record checks , which could take TIME . All enforced returns were wet - fingerprinted . Depending on the case , the individual could also be referred to the ORG and/or ORG for questioning . Anyone who was wanted for an offence would be arrested .

The report set out that those with a criminal record or ORG connections would face additional questioning and might be detained . In general , non - government and international sources agreed that NORP from the north and east of the country were likely to receive greater scrutiny than others , and that the presence of the factors below would increase the risk that an individual could encounter difficulties with the authorities , including possible detention :

- Outstanding arrest warrant

- Criminal record

- Connection with the LTTE

- Bail jumping / escape from custody

- Illegal departure from GPE

- Scarring

- Involvement with media or NGOs

- Lack of an ORG card or other documentation

GPE on GPE of DATE set out the following :

CARDINAL The ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE went on to observe that : “ At DATE , partly due to the large numbers of NORP being returned from around the world and causing logistical problems , ORG procedures were relaxed in that they no longer had to detain returnees until written confirmation was received from the local police . All returnees are still interviewed , photographed and wet fingerprinted . The main objective of these interviews is to establish if the returnee has a criminal record , or if they are wanted or suspected of committing any criminal offences by the police . The photographs are stored on a standalone computer in the ORG office at the airport . The fingerprints remain amongst paper records also in the ORG office at the airport . Checks are initiated with local police , but returnees are released to a friend or relative , whom ORG refers to as a surety . This surety must provide evidence of who they are , and must sign for the returnee . They are not required to lodge any money with ORG . “ The main ORG offices at FAC , which are housed on the ground floor adjacent to the ORG embarkation control , are currently undergoing a complete refurbishment funded by the NORP government . The CARDINAL completed office suite has CARDINAL purpose built interview rooms , and facilities where returnees can relax and eat meals . ”

CARDINAL A ORG letter of DATE reported : “ There is strong anecdotal evidence that scarring has been used in the past to identify suspects . Previous conversations with the police and in the media , the authorities have openly referred to physical examinations being used to identify whether suspects have undergone military style training . More recent claims from contacts in government ministries suggest that this practice has either ceased or is used less frequently . At the very least it appears that the security forces only conduct these when there is another reason to suspect an individual , and are not looking for particular scars as such , but anything that may indicate the suspect has been involved in fighting and/or military training . There is no recent evidence to suggest that these examinations are routinely carried out on immigration returnees . ”

On DATE , Tamilnet reported that CARDINAL NORP youths were taken into custody by ORG of the Sri Lanka Police at FAC in CARDINAL separate incidents whilst trying to leave GPE . It was also reported that since DATE , special teams of ORG and police had been deployed in the airport to monitor the movement of NORP who try to go abroad .

The Report of Information Gathering Visit , DATE , stated that the frequency of cordon and search operations had not reduced significantly in DATE , though there were fewer large - scale operations than in DATE . In general , young male NORP originating from the north and east of the country were most at risk of being detained following cordon and search operations , with the presence of the risk factors set out above increasing that risk . Those without employment or legitimate purpose for being in GPE were also likely to be seen as suspect . The same report also noted that most sources agreed that there had been few , if any , abductions or disappearances since DATE . There was not a great deal of available information about the profile of NORP targeted for abduction , although it appeared that people linked to the media might be more vulnerable . Police did not generally carry out effective investigations . It went on to note that most sources agreed that there had not been any significant reduction in the number of checkpoints in GPE , whose stated purpose remained to detect and prevent terrorist activity . In general those most likely to be questioned were young NORP from the north and east ; those without ID ; those not resident or employed in GPE ; and those recently returned from the West . However , most sources said that arrests at checkpoints were rare and none had been reported since DATE . It was reportedly fairly likely that someone would be stopped at a checkpoint en route from the airport to GPE . Finally , it clarified that people who wished to live in GPE but did not originate from there must register with the local police station with a national ID card or full passport , and details of planned length and purpose of stay . In theory , whilst anyone was entitled to register to stay in GPE , some sources suggested that young NORP men originally from the north or east of the country could encounter difficulties and face closer scrutiny . The presence of any of the risk factors set out above would also attract greater attention from the police .

“ The significant majority of reported cases of human rights violations in GPE involve persons of NORP ethnicity who originate from the LOC and LOC ... In Government - controlled areas , NORP who originate from the LOC and the LOC , which are , or have been under ORG control , are frequently suspected as being associated with the NORP . For this reason , NORP from the LOC and the LOC are at heightened risk of human rights violations related to the implementation of anti - terrorism and anti - insurgency measures . While this risk exists in all parts of GPE , it is greatest in areas in which the ORG remains active , and where security measures are heaviest , in particular the LOC and parts of the LOC , and in and around GPE . ”

“ The country of origin information that ORG has considered indicates that NORP from LOC continue to face a significant risk of suffering serious human rights violations in the region ( and elsewhere in the country ) because of their race ( ethnicity ) or ( imputed ) political opinion . NORP in the LOC are still heavily targeted in the security and anti - terrorism measures described in LAW . Wide scale detention and confinement of NORP from the LOC remains a serious concern . ORG paramilitary elements also continue to operate with impunity against NORP in the LOC . ”

The UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum - Seekers from GPE of DATE , which superseded the DATE Guidelines contained information on the particular profiles for which international protection needs may arise in the current context . It was stated that :

“ given the cessation of hostilities , NORP originating from the north of the country are no longer in need of international protection under broader refugee criteria or complementary forms of protection solely on the basis of risk of indiscriminate harm . In light of the improved human rights and security situation in GPE , there is no longer a need for group - based protection mechanisms or for a presumption of eligibility for NORP of NORP ethnicity originating from the north of the country . It is important to bear in mind that the situation is still evolving , which has made the drafting of these LAW particularly complex . ”

In summary , the following were ORG 's recommendations : All claims by asylum seekers from GPE

( i ) persons suspected of having links with ORG ( NORP ) ;

( ii ) journalists and other media professionals ;

( iii ) civil society and human rights activists ;

( iv ) women and children with certain profiles ; and

( v ) lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender ( ORG ) individuals .

It was also stated that in the light of GPE DATE internal armed conflict , and a record of serious human rights violations and transgressions of international humanitarian law , exclusion considerations under LAW may arise in relation to individual asylum seeker claims by GPE asylum seekers .

The ORG reported in DATE that the Colombo Police force had opened CARDINAL special units in GPE suburbs able to take statements in GPE , with plans for more . Previously , GPE - speaking NORP had to rely on a friend to translate their complaints into NORP .

DATE . GPE Operational Guidance Note on GPE from DATE stated as follows :

CARDINAL In DATE , the ORG 's eastern commander , Colonel PERSON , broke away from the mainstream NORP . Much of the breakaway “ GPE / TMVP ” ( ORG ) group was wiped out and disbanded during DATE in a military counter - offensive by the mainstream ORG . However , it was rebuilt during DATE by GPE and his close associates . Initially a paramilitary group supported by the Sri NORP authorities in its fight against the NORP , the ORG was registered as a political party in DATE . DATE and DATE , the ORG group fought together with the NORP armed forces against the NORP in GPE . Under deputy leader PERSON ( a.k.a . Pillayan ) , the TVMP contested their first provincial elections in DATE , winning a majority in ORG . ORG was named Chief Minister for the LOC and is now the leader of the TVMP .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL In DATE , the ORG was reported to have become further factionalised when the deputy leader of the GPE group , ORG , became involved in a dispute with GPE . The dispute escalated into violence and PERSON reportedly ordered his loyalists to hunt down and kill ORG . In DATE , ORG reported deepening tensions and violent infighting within the ORG , particularly between the GPE and ORG factions . It was later reported that GPE had joined ORG as MP PERSON with a large following of NORP from the LOC . Most recently , he was appointed Minister of ORG .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL The ORG ( ORG ) has reported that during DATE and DATE there was a growing number of NORP attacks in the east , both against the ORG , including some apparently successful attempts to infiltrate ORG offices , and against the police , army and civil defence personnel . However , there was also credible evidence to suggest that many of those killed were targeted by the ORG and government security forces as ORG members or supporters , either as part of the government 's general counterinsurgency strategy or in response to specific NORP attacks on , or infiltration of , the ORG .

ORG According to ORG , while the immediate impact of the ORG on the lives of civilians in the LOC has been greatly reduced , the ORG , which now effectively controls ORG and other parts of the LOC , is reported to engage in terror and crime . Incidents of ORG involvement in abductions , child recruitment , robberies and repression of dissent are widely documented . It is also reported that ORG forces are responsible for extrajudicial killings , deaths in custody and abductions , which have apparently been carried out with the knowledge and tacit agreement of Government actors and local authorities . Abductions and forced recruitment by the ORG group have occurred in ORG camps in GPE and ORG districts . A series of abductions of young women in GPE district were believed to be the work of local ORG cadres .

GPE on GPE of DATE set out , inter alia :

CARDINAL With regard to LOC the same source [ The ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE ] reported that : “ Security restrictions in GPE district have markedly relaxed during DATE ... The security situation in GPE has also improved , although the town is not yet as calm as PERSON and there is still a high military presence . To emphasise this , in DATE a crowd of CARDINAL people gathered to watch a performance from the ORG forum theatre in a GPE suburb with no military presence . This would not have been possible DATE . “ The police presence is comparable to GPE but encouragingly , some do not carry weapons despite being on duty . “ ORG ( SSP ) for PERSON was proud of the fact that there had been a marked improvement in the security situation in the district which allowed his officers not to carry weapons . He was not aware of any remaining ORG cadres in the area and considered that most of the cached weapons had now been seized or could no longer be found as the land was now overgrown . Reported abductions and low level crime were minimal . “ ORG in the Diocese of GPE and ORG have provided grass roots assessment . They opined that there was no longer a NORP presence in the GPE district . During the latter stages of the conflict , the few remaining ORG cadres , mainly youths , had thrown away their weapons and returned to their families . The community knew who they were but had no concerns about them re - arming . Community level engagement both with the police and ORG over DATE had improved considerably . There were now regular meetings between the various community leaders and the Deputy Inspector General ( DIG ) Police and ORG commanders which allowed them to voice any concerns they had about the paramilitaries , abductions , harassment by the security forces . As a result , the paramilitaries were no longer carrying weapons , abductions were low ( and once reported to the community leaders , they were able to raise it immediately with the DIG ) and security check points were no longer a problem . ”

CARDINAL The ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE further observed : “ It is apparent that recent security improvements in GPE are starting to make tangible improvements to the people living there . “ The ORG Secretary ( ORG ) spoke of the extent of development taking place in the GPE with new roads , electricity and telephone lines , much of which being already visible . There is now a low police and military presence , and no LTTE . ... ”

GPE on GPE of DATE stated inter alia :

CARDINAL A letter from ORG ( ORG ) in GPE , dated DATE referred to a programme in the east related to : “ ... the rehabilitation and reintegration of many cadres loyal to the ORG . This programme was conducted through ORG who provided lists of former ORG cadres to the ORG office in GPE . Technical support for the project was provided by the GPE and ORG conducted a community perception survey to assess the impact these cadres would have within the local community . ”