Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading punishment);No violation of Article 13+5 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);No violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The first applicant is the father of the fifth and sixth applicants and a grandfather of PERSON , born in DATE . The second and third applicants are the parents of ORG , born in DATE . The fourth and fifth applicants are PERSON parents . The sixth applicant is ORG husband and PERSON ’s uncle . The seventh and eighth applicants are ORG children .

The applicants live in LOC of GPE .

It does not appear that any of the applicants witnessed the events of DATE . The following account is based on eye - witness statements submitted by the applicants .

On DATE a number of farmers from several villages of LOC , including CARDINAL of the applicants’ relatives – PERSON and PERSON – were harvesting in a field near the village of GPE . The farmers had obtained prior authorisation for their work from the local authorities .

At TIME the farmers loaded the crop into a ORG “ GPE ” vehicle belonging to the first applicant , in order to transport it to GPE . PERSON was driving and PERSON accompanied him , as she intended to return to the village to take care of her ailing grandmother and her CARDINAL minor children DATE applicants , who were then DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE respectively .

At TIME an MI-CARDINAL and CARDINAL MI-CARDINAL helicopters without clear hull numbers appeared in the sky over the field . CARDINAL of the helicopters had the letters ORG ( “ ORG of the Russian Federation ” ) on its side .

The MI-CARDINAL helicopters headed towards the field and started shooting over the heads of the people who remained there . Women and children were among their number .

NORP The MI-CARDINAL helicopter attacked the “ FAC vehicle . After several warning shots the car stopped . The helicopter then landed nearby and several armed men in uniform approached the “ GPE ” , strafing it with machine guns . They took the applicants’ relatives out of the car and put them in the helicopter . According to the witnesses , PERSON and PERSON appeared wounded or dead . The military blew the car up and the CARDINAL helicopters then left .

NORP Immediately after the incident the residents of LOC made a video recording of the car . The “ NORP ” vehicle had been blown up , its windows were missing and there were numerous bullet holes in its frame . There were blood traces on the car doors . ORG shoes and PERSON cap lay nearby . Police officers arrived shortly after the incident , inspected and took photographs of the incident scene , collected slugs and cartridges from bullets of various calibres and a casing for a signal flare , examined the bullet holes on the car frame and noted the findings in their report .

The applicants referred to statements by a resident of ORG , who had claimed that late in the evening of DATE he had seen CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers arrive at the scene of the incident and leave shortly afterwards .

According to the Government , since the beginning of the counter - terrorist operation in GPE , the civil and military authorities had taken all necessary steps to secure the safety of civilians residing in LOC . The residents of GPE had been notified of the actions they should perform when in the area of any special counter - terrorist operation so as to indicate that they did not belong to illegal armed formations . In particular , once they had established “ visual contact ” with representatives of the federal forces , residents were to stop moving , exit from their means of transport , show that they had no firearms or other weapons in their hands and wait for the arrival of a group of servicemen for an identity check .

On DATE , following orders , a group of CARDINAL federal military helicopters were patrolling the air space trying to detect movements of off - road vehicles , a type of vehicle often used by members of illegal armed formations , with a view to carrying out identity checks .

At TIME , while patrolling over the area in the vicinity of the village of GPE , the pilots of the helicopters saw an off - road VAZ-CARDINAL “ NORP ” vehicle moving at high speed . The pilots fired warning shots using a light machine - gun at a spot situated QUANTITY away from the car in order to make it stop . In the Government ’s submission , the “ FAC accelerated . The pilots again fired warning shots using the same weapons and aiming the same distance from the car . The “ GPE ” then stopped and the helicopters landed . Servicemen from the helicopters saw a man rush out of the car and hide in thick bushes along the road . According to the Government , the people who remained in the car did not get out and show that they were unarmed . The servicemen started approaching the “ GPE ” but when they arrived within QUANTITY of the car , it suddenly drove off . The officer in command of the servicemen assessed the situation as life - threatening and ordered that lethal fire be opened on the car , with the result that PERSON and PERSON were shot dead .

The servicemen further inspected the “ LOC and found an ORG grenade and a RPG-CARDINAL hand - held grenade launcher . The servicemen then took those weapons and the bodies of the deceased to the helicopter and delivered them to the competent authorities .

NORP Immediately after the incident the applicants started searching for PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the first applicant applied in writing to various LOC officials seeking their assistance in establishing the whereabouts of his grandson and daughter - in - law .

According to the applicants , on DATE the corpses of PERSON and PERSON , wrapped in plastic sheeting , were brought by a helicopter to LOC military commander ’s office . The bodies were severely mutilated – the upper half of the body was missing from ORG corpse and PERSON corpse had no lower limbs .

On DATE the remains were taken to PERSON , in GPE , for an independent forensic examination . In the applicants’ submission , they were denied access to a report on the results of this examination .

According to the applicants , on the same date the bodies were returned to them and they buried the remains .

On DATE a civil registration office of LOC issued death certificates for ORG , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE . The dates of death were recorded as CARDINAL and DATE respectively and the place of death was indicated as the village of GPE , LOC .

Since DATE the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies , including prosecutors at different levels , ORG ) , the Special Envoy of the NORP President for Rights and Freedoms in GPE ( ORG представитель ORG по соблюдению прав и свобод человека PERSON ) and the President of ORG PERSON Суда Чеченской Республики ) . In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to the events of DATE and asked for assistance and details of any investigation . These enquiries remained largely unanswered , or only formal responses were given , stating that the ORG requests had been forwarded to various ORG offices . The applicants also applied to a number of intergovernmental organisations and mass media .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office ( прокуратура NORP района ) commenced an investigation in connection with the shooting at the “ FAC vehicle and the detention of PERSON and PERSON . The case file was assigned the number CARDINAL . In the ORG submission , neither they nor any other relatives were formally notified of the initiation of the investigation or granted victim status .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office referred the case to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE ( военная прокуратура DATE ) for investigation . The latter received the case on DATE and assigned it the number DATE . According to the Government , as a result of the re - organisation of the system of military prosecutor ’s offices , the case file number was subsequently replaced with the number FAC .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL discontinued the investigation , in the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in the actions of the servicemen involved in the incident of DATE . According to the applicants , they were not apprised of this decision until much later .

In a letter of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL notified the applicants , in response to their query , that :

“ The preliminary investigation established that the use of firearms by the servicemen on DATE in the vicinity of the village of ORG had been lawful and justified . There are no grounds to bring criminal proceedings against them .

Besides , during the examination of the “ Niva ” vehicle [ the servicemen ] discovered weapons and ammunition which had been kept there and carried unlawfully . ”

The letter further stated that the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the death of the applicants’ relatives had been discontinued , and informed the applicants that they could challenge that decision in court and also file a civil claim for compensation for pecuniary damage . According to the applicants , they were not furnished with a copy of the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings referred to in the letter of DATE , and therefore were unable to challenge it .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( прокуратура PERSON , “ the NORP prosecutor ’s office ” ) informed the fourth applicant , father of PERSON , that his complaint concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the murder of PERSON and PERSON had been transmitted to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL for examination .

On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor ’s Office ( Главная военная прокуратура ) informed the fourth applicant that his application of DATE concerning the investigation into the abduction and murder of PERSON and PERSON had been transferred to ORG of ORG ( “ ORG ” , ORG прокуратура Северо-Кавказского военного округа ) and to the Government of GPE .

In a letter of DATE ORG notified the fourth applicant that his application concerning the abduction and murder of PERSON and PERSON had been forwarded to the Commander of ORG ( Командующий ОГВ ( с ) ) for investigation .

By a letter of DATE ORG informed the fourth applicant that his application of DATE had been transmitted to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE for examination .

In its letter of DATE ORG reported that :

“ Criminal case no . DATE was closed on DATE by the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL ... in the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in the actions of [ servicemen ] of an air - borne search and attack group ( воздушно-поисковая штурмовая группа ) of military unit no . DATE who had been carrying out their combat mission of searching for and apprehending leaders of armed gangs on the territory of GPE . The ground for the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings was the failure by PERSON , who had been driving the vehicle VAZ-CARDINAL , ... to comply with the group ’s order to stop in order to permit the inspection of the car , with the result that the group opened fire on the vehicle . PERSON and PERSON ( ORG , who were sitting in the car , died as a result of their wounds . During the inspection of the vehicle boot [ the servicemen ] found an ORG grenade and a RPG-CARDINAL hand - held grenade launcher . ”

The letter also stated that ORG was studying the case file and would inform the applicants of its findings .

On DATE the sixth applicant – PERSON uncle and ORG ’s husband – sent a complaint to ORG of GPE ( Генеральная прокуратура Российской PERSON ) . He referred to the events of DATE and requested that the criminal proceedings in connection with the abduction and murder of his relatives be resumed . He also complained that his applications to the military prosecutor of GPE had remained unanswered .

In reply , on DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor ’s Office referred the sixth applicant ’s complaint to ORG for examination .

On an unspecified date in DATE the sixth applicant requested ORG to inform him of developments in the case , stating that for DATE he had received no information regarding the results of the investigation .

NORP In its letter of DATE ORG notified the sixth applicant that the decision of DATE had been quashed on DATE on the ground that the investigation had been incomplete . The letter further stated that the case had been transmitted to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL for fresh investigation , and that ORG would closely supervise the course of the investigation .

On DATE the sixth applicant again applied to ORG , seeking information about the results of the investigation . On DATE ORG transmitted their application to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE .

In DATE the sixth applicant applied both to ORG and to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE for information regarding the results of the investigation . It does not appear that those applications were ever answered .

On DATE the sixth applicant sent another query to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE . He complained that none of the relatives of PERSON and PERSON had ever been questioned by the investigating bodies .

On DATE the PERSON , acting on the applicants’ behalf , applied to the NORP prosecutor ’s office and the ORG prosecutor ’s office , seeking to ascertain what measures had been taken to establish the circumstances of the crime and the identities of the culprits . The PERSON also requested the authorities to let the applicants have the forensic examination report of DATE .

The NORP prosecutor ’s office referred the above application to ORG of ORG in LOC ( военная прокуратур объединенной группировки войск ORG ) .

The latter informed the PERSON on DATE that during the preliminary investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL , opened in relation to the abduction and murder of PERSON and PERSON , the identities of the servicemen involved had been established and that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued on DATE on account of the lack of the constituent elements of a crime . ORG Office of ORG in LOC was at that stage unable to review the lawfulness of the decision of DATE , since the case file had been transferred on DATE to a prosecutor of ORG who had been studying it since that date .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the SRJI that the investigation had identified all the servicemen involved in shooting and abducting PERSON and PERSON . In order to establish the events of DATE in detail , all the persons involved in the incident , including the helicopter pilots , had been questioned and CARDINAL ballistic expert studies had been carried out . A number of forensic examinations had also been conducted , but reports on their findings had not yet been obtained from an expert body in GPE . The letter provided assurances that the forensic examination reports would be obtained on demand from the expert body in PERSON and that the victims would have access to them . The investigation was pending .

On DATE the ORG requested the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE to inform the applicants of the latest developments in the case and of the exact number of criminal proceedings instituted in relation to the abduction and murder of PERSON and PERSON . The PERSON also enquired about the possibility for the applicants to obtain access to the forensic examination reports and requested that the applicants be notified of the names of the relatives who had been granted victim status in the case and provided with a copy of the relevant decision .

DATE . On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL stated that they were unable to reply to the SRJI ’s queries as case file no . DATE had been transferred to ORG of ORG for examination .

Following the receipt of that letter , on DATE the ORG submitted a query similar to that sent on DATE to ORG of ORG . The latter forwarded it to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE the sixth applicant addressed a letter to the ORG prosecutor ’s office . He complained that he had on numerous occasions requested the investigating authorities to update him on the results of the investigation into the deaths of his wife and nephew but had never been provided with any information . He also complained that neither he nor the fourth and fifth applicants – PERSON parents DATE had so far been declared victims of a crime .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG ( Управление Генеральной прокуратуры РФ в Южном федеральном округе ) replied to the sixth applicant , informing him that his complaint had been forwarded to the NORP prosecutor ’s office “ for examination on the merits ” . The latter forwarded the sixth applicant ’s complaint to the ORG prosecutor ’s office on DATE .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL replied to the SRJI ’s letter of DATE , forwarded by ORG of ORG , stating that they were unable to provide any information concerning the investigation , as the case file had been sent to the LOC military prosecutor ’s office for study .

On DATE the PERSON complained to ORG that their queries addressed to various military prosecutors remained unanswered .

In a letter of DATE ORG of ORG informed the PERSON that the investigation in criminal case no . DATE had been discontinued on DATE in the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in the servicemen ’s actions , and that the said prosecutor ’s office was at present studying the case file to establish whether the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful . The letter further stated that the applicants would be apprised of the results of that study and that they could have access to the case file at the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE ORG of ORG further notified the PERSON that the criminal case had been transmitted to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL for additional investigation . The applicants were invited to address their further queries to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the sixth applicant that on the same date the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINALD against Captain PERSON , a serviceman of military unit no . DATE , for criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL ( kidnapping ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( causing death by negligence ) and CARDINAL ( abuse of dead bodies and desecration of their graves ) of LAW , had once again been terminated in the absence of the constituent elements of a crime , and the proceedings against him for a criminal offence under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( aggravated abuse of power ) had once again been terminated due to an amnesty act .

On DATE the first applicant complained in writing about the incident of DATE and the defects in the investigation to the President of GPE . It does not appear that any reply followed .

On DATE and DATE the first , fifth and sixth applicants wrote letters to ORG complaining about the deaths of their relatives and the inadequate investigation . It does not appear that they received any replies to their letters .

Referring to the information provided by ORG , the Government submitted that the investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives had been commenced on DATE , and had then been discontinued on several occasions as there had been no constituent elements of a crime in the servicemen ’s actions , and subsequently resumed by higher - ranking prosecutors in view of the incomplete nature of the investigation . According to them , the applicants were duly informed of all the decisions taken during the investigation . The Government adduced a report on the investigative measures taken in case no . DATE . The undated report signed by an acting head of CARDINAL of the departments of ORG lists investigative measures taken during the investigation , without providing any details concerning those actions .

It can be ascertained from this document that the criminal proceedings in criminal case no . DATE were instituted under LAW on DATE . They were then discontinued on DATE owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in the incident of DATE . That decision was quashed on DATE and the case file was forwarded to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL for further investigation . The report further states that the investigator in charge of the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL took up the case on DATE . It is unclear from the report whether any action was taken in the period DATE and DATE . The investigation was then discontinued on DATE in the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in the incident of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE that decision was set aside and the case was sent for additional investigation . On DATE the proceedings were again discontinued , as it was impossible to establish the whereabouts of Captain PERSON , the officer in command of the servicemen involved in the incident of DATE . Thereafter the investigation was reopened on DATE and DATE and discontinued in application of an amnesty act on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

NORP The report also states that the scene of the incident was inspected on DATE and DATE , and that the “ FAC vehicle was inspected on DATE . It can also be ascertained from the report that in DATE following the incident of DATE fragments of bullets and cases were collected at the scene of the incident and in the “ PERSON and examined by experts . Also during DATE following the incident investigators seized and examined documents relating to the combat mission of DATE , as well as firearms and ammunition used by the servicemen involved in the events in question . Over DATE a number of expert studies were ordered and carried out and a number of witnesses were questioned . The report reveals the names of some of those witnesses , whilst the other witnesses , apparently the servicemen involved in the events of DATE , are identified only by the first letter of their surnames . According to the report , DATE apparently the third applicant DATE was questioned and granted the status of victim of a crime on DATE .

NORP The report also states that “ a male and female corpse were examined ” on DATE and that a forensic expert examination of the remains of the applicants’ relatives was ordered on DATE ; however , it is unclear when this examination was performed . The report further states that the results of the forensic examination of the bodies of the deceased “ were received on DATE ” . It can also be ascertained from the report that at some point criminal proceedings were brought against Captain PERSON , the officer in command of the servicemen who strafed the ” Niva ” vehicle on DATE , but were discontinued on DATE , under an amnesty act .

In their memorial of CARDINAL DATE , submitted after the decision on admissibility , the Government did not provide any updated information regarding developments in the investigation after DATE despite the ORG ’s specific request for such information . In reply to another question of the ORG they indicated that on DATE investigators had examined the dead bodies of PERSON and PERSON in the presence of forensic medical experts . They further submitted that a forensic medical examination of the remains had been ordered and commenced on DATE and terminated on DATE . According to the Government , expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE reflecting the results of the examination of PERSON remains had stated that CARDINAL gunshot and shrapnel wounds had been found on his chest and that those wounds had been caused by bullets and iron fragments of a car body . The report had further attested a traumatic amputation of PERSON ’s lower limbs as a result of the explosion of some explosive device . It had stated that PERSON death had been caused by abundant blood loss as a result of a bullet wound to his chest inflicting injuries of the heart and left lung . In the ORG ’s submission , expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE showing the results of the examination of ORG remains had stated that CARDINAL bullet wounds had been found on the right buttock , thigh and pubic region . The Government did not provide any further details regarding the results of the examination of ORG body and , in particular , did not indicate the cause of her death . They also remained silent as regards the ORG assertion that the upper half of ORG body had been missing . According to them , both reports stated that the gunshot wounds had been inflicted while the victims were alive . The Government did not submit a copy of any of the reports to which they referred .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of ORG ( военный суд Северо-Кавказского военного округа ) , alleging inactivity on the part of investigators from the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE , the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG and the LOC military prosecutor ’s office . He described in detail the events of DATE , the circumstances of the discovery of the bodies of PERSON and PERSON and the ORG fruitless efforts to have their relatives’ killings investigated . He further complained that the investigation had been plagued with serious defects which rendered it ineffective . The first applicant complained , in particular , that the investigation had been pending for DATE without any progress , that none of the numerous eye - witnesses to the events of DATE had ever been questioned by the investigators , that the reports on the forensic examination of the remains of PERSON and PERSON had not been included in the case file and that none of the relatives of the deceased could gain access to those reports , that none of the relatives of the deceased had been declared victims , that none of them had received copies of the decisions to open the criminal proceedings or to discontinue the investigation , or been informed what measures were being taken to investigate the events of DATE , and that their numerous requests and applications had remained unanswered or only formal replies had been given . The first applicant requested the court to order the competent authorities to carry out a full and objective investigation capable of leading to the identification of those responsible for his relatives’ deaths .

The Military Court of ORG forwarded this complaint to ORG ( ORG гарнизонный военный суд ) on DATE .

In a letter of DATE the ORG notified the first applicant that a court hearing in connection with his complaint had been scheduled for DATE . The letter was sent to the PERSON ’s address in GPE rather than to the first applicant ’s address in LOC of GPE . According to the PERSON , they received the above letter on DATE , and therefore neither the first applicant nor his representatives from the PERSON were able to attend the hearing .

DATE . On DATE , in the absence of the first applicant or his representatives and in the presence of the GPE representatives , ORG examined the first applicant ’s complaint of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed it as unfounded . The court held , in particular :

“ It has been established that the objective reason for the prolonged processing of the case was that the case file had been transmitted to various levels of the competent authorities by confidential mail .

The question of the necessity of questioning any witnesses falls within the competence of the investigator in charge or the supervising prosecutor .

The case material also reveals that the report on the forensic examination of the bodies of ORG and PERSON was not included in the case file , with the result that it was impossible for the [ applicants ] to gain access to it .

... On DATE the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings in connection with the abduction of PERSON ] and PERSON by [ the ] servicemen was quashed and it was not until DATE ] that the senior investigator of the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE took up the case . As a result , the [ applicants ] have not been informed of the course of the investigation and so far [ they ] have not been granted the status of victims of a crime .

Accordingly , it has been established that there is no evidence of any breach of the law in the [ defendants’ ] actions . ”

On DATE the PERSON wrote to ORG stating that they had not received the court ’s letter of DATE until DATE . They requested the court to send them a copy of its decision of DATE , if a decision had been taken on that date , and henceforth to inform them of court hearings in advance . They also pointed out that the first applicant ’s address in GPE had been indicated on the front page of his complaint .

By CARDINAL letters of DATE the ORG forwarded a copy of its decision of DATE , without further explanations , to the first applicant and the PERSON . According to the applicants , this letter never reached the first applicant , whilst the PERSON received it on DATE .

On DATE the SRJI dispatched an application to have the time - limit for appealing against the decision of DATE restored . The application was sent by registered mail and received by ORG on DATE . No reply followed .

On DATE the ORG forwarded a copy of their application of CARDINAL DATE to ORG and asked the latter to provide them with reasons for its failure to reply to the motion received by the court on DATE . According to the applicants , they were informed in reply that the court had not received their letter of CARDINAL DATE . The outcome of these proceedings is unclear .

In DATE , when the application was communicated to them , the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in the criminal case opened in connection with the incident of DATE . Relying on information obtained from ORG , the ORG replied that the investigation was in progress and that the disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW of LAW since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses . At the same time , the Government suggested that a ORG delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary investigation was being conducted , with the exception of “ the documents [ disclosing military information and personal data concerning the witnesses ] , and without the right to make copies of the case file and to transmit it to others ” .

In DATE the ORG reiterated its request and suggested that Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG be applied . In reply , the Government again refused to produce the investigation file for the aforementioned reasons . The Government did , however , submit a report containing a list of investigative measures taken in the context of the investigation in case no . DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the application was declared partly admissible . At that stage the ORG once again invited the ORG to submit the investigation file and to provide information concerning the progress in the investigation after DATE , the latest date on which it had been stayed . Having regard to the ORG ’s statement to the effect that on DATE the federal servicemen had been pursuing a combat mission in order to suppress the criminal activity of members of illegal armed formations in GPE , and to their argument that the use of force by the federal servicemen was no more than absolutely necessary during the incident on DATE , the ORG also put a number of factual questions to the Government . It enquired , in particular , how and by whom the mission had been planned and commanded , whether , and , if so , in what manner , the military personnel involved had been instructed to avoid civilian casualties , and whether any firearms or unlawful violence had been used by the ORG relatives before the federal servicemen fired lethal shots .

DATE . In reply , the Government once again refused to furnish the ORG with the investigation file , referring to LAW and the lack of assurances from the ORG that , once in receipt of the investigation file , the applicants or their representatives would not disclose the material contained in it to the public . The ORG remained silent as regards the ORG ’s question concerning progress in the investigation after DATE , and the question whether firearms or any unlawful violence had been used by the applicants’ relatives against the federal servicemen on DATE . As regards the ORG ’s question on the planning and commanding of the combat mission of DATE and whether any instructions had been given to the military personnel to avoid civilian casualties during that mission , the ORG replied that during the combat mission the federal servicemen , both commanding officers and their subordinates , had acted in compliance with national legislation and regulations for securing the safety of the civilian population and those relating to the use of lethal force , and that “ every serviceman ... knows and must strictly comply with the rules governing contacts with the civilian population in areas of military action ” . They refused to provide any further details or any relevant documents , stating that such information constituted a military secret .

The Government adduced copies of domestic court decisions reached in unrelated sets of civil and criminal proceedings . These included CARDINAL first - instance judgments by which federal servicemen , privates or non - commissioned officers , had been convicted of criminal offences committed in GPE or GPE , as well as a first - instance judgment and appeal decision awarding compensation for omissions on the part of the investigating authorities during the investigation into an individual ’s abduction in GPE , the person in question having subsequently been released .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see LAW and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-1-f;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 6-2;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Costs and expenses - award

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

According to reports by ORG DATE CARDINAL businessmen were arrested in GPE ) . In DATE twenty of their employees were detained in GPE . Another group of CARDINAL businessmen were arrested in Andijan in DATE . All of them were accused of involvement with an organisation by the name of ORG , charged with criminal offences and committed for trial .

NORP The NORP government claimed that ORG was an extremist religious group . They maintained that in his writings the group 's leader , PERSON , had called for the formation of an NORP state in GPE and for the ousting of the legitimately elected ORG representatives . They also claimed that ORG was a branch of ORG - ut - GPE , which was categorised as a terrorist organisation in GPE . In contrast , PERSON always insisted that he had no interest in politics . He maintained that he had never called for the overthrow of the authorities or for the creation of an NORP state . His writings did not touch upon political issues , but rather on general moral themes . A circle of sympathisers had formed around him , who tried to follow his view of ORG in their own lives . PERSON supporters argued that there was no such thing as an organised group known as ORG . The name “ ORG ” was derived by an NORP court in DATE from PERSON first name . Furthermore , PERSON and his supporters denied having any links with PERSON - ut - GPE .

The verdict in respect of the CARDINAL businessmen was expected on DATE . However , its pronouncement was postponed . A group of supporters who gathered in front of the court building to protest the businessmen 's innocence and demand justice were arrested on CARDINAL and DATE DATE .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE armed men attacked a number of military barracks and government buildings in GPE , killing and injuring several guards , and seizing weapons and a military vehicle . They broke into the city prison , where they freed the businessmen and CARDINAL of remand and convicted prisoners , and later occupied a regional government building on the main square and took a number of hostages .

At the same time CARDINAL of unarmed civilians gathered in the main square , where many spoke out to demand justice and an end to poverty . In TIME the security forces surrounded the demonstrators and started to shoot indiscriminately at the crowd . The demonstrators attempted to flee . According to witnesses , CARDINAL of people – including women and children DATE were killed . The NORP authorities deny responsibility for the deaths , blaming them on NORP “ extremist ” organisations , such as ORG and ORG - ut - GPE , who were intent on overthrowing the government and creating an NORP state in GPE .

CARDINAL of people suspected of involvement in the CARDINAL May events were detained and charged . The charges included “ terrorism ” and premeditated , aggravated murder – capital offences – as well as attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and organising mass disturbances . CARDINAL people were convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL ' imprisonment for their alleged participation in the unrest . All trials except CARDINAL were closed to the public . The defendants ' relatives and international observers were denied access to the courtroom . ORG and Co - operation in LOC ( OSCE ) and ORG observers who were present at the only public trial from DATE were unanimous in their conclusion that the trial fell far short of international standards . They noted that all the defendants pleaded guilty to charges of “ terrorism ” and asked for forgiveness , while several even requested that they be given the death penalty . Their confessions , which were obtained from them during incommunicado pre - trial detention , closely followed the wording of the indictment . The observers expressed concerns that the defendants could have been subjected to torture and that their confessions could have been extracted under duress . Retained lawyers were not allowed to the detention centres or in the courtroom and were barred from representing their clients . The defendants were represented by ORG - appointed counsel who did not mount an active defence of the accused . There was no cross - examination of defendants or witnesses , and contradictions in the testimonies were not addressed . No witnesses for the defence were called to testify . The prosecution did not introduce any forensic , ballistic , or medical reports , nor did it present any exhibits or call expert witnesses . All the defendants were found guilty , predominantly on the basis of their confessions , and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from DATE ( see ORG report of CARDINAL DATE “ The Andijan Massacre : DATE , still no justice ” ; and the report of DATE from the ORG “ Trial monitoring in GPE DATE ” ) .

All the applicants stated that they were NORP . They denied membership of any political or religious organisations .

In DATE Mr PERSON was arrested in GPE by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . He stated that the ORG agents had repeatedly beaten him , threatened to rape his wife and demanded he confessed to planning a violent overthrow of the ORG . He was subsequently convicted for distributing NORP leaflets . In prison PERSON PERSON was repeatedly beaten by the wardens and tortured with electric shocks . He was placed in a punishment cell if he prayed . Food was scarce and the inmates were starving . He was released in DATE . The ORG agents repeatedly threatened to re - arrest him and to fabricate new criminal charges . He left for GPE on DATE .

His brother , PERSON , moved to GPE in DATE . He has been living in GPE ever since .

Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON have been living in GPE since DATE .

Mr Usmanov , PERSON , PERSON , and Mr PERSON were partners in private companies in GPE or Andijan . Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , and PERSON Sabirov were employees of private companies . In DATE the tax authorities and the ORG launched an inquiry into the companies ' tax affairs . The applicants were repeatedly questioned about business matters and about their or their relatives ' alleged participation in ORG 's activities . The ORG agents threatened to arrest Mr GPE and PERSON Sabirov . In DATE business partners of Mr NORP , Mr Makhmudov , and PERSON PERSON were arrested .

Mr PERSON was arrested by the ORG in DATE and held in detention for DATE . He stated that he had been subjected to repeated beatings and questioned about his business and alleged membership of ORG . After his release he was summoned to the ORG office on several occasions where the ORG agents threatened him and his family .

Mr Usmanov , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , and PERSON Sabirov left GPE for GPE DATE for fear of persecution .

Mr FAC owned a company in the town of ORG ) . He has never been to ORG . He travelled to GPE on DATE on business .

NORP Before DATE PERSON lived in GPE . In DATE he moved to GPE . He has never been to GPE . In DATE he went to GPE on a business trip .

On DATE all the applicants except PERSON and PERSON PERSON were in GPE . Mr PERSON was in GPE and PERSON ORG . However , he denied any involvement in the ORG events .

After the DATE events CARDINAL of Mr PERSON 's brothers were arrested . Their fate remains unknown .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office accused Mr ORG of membership of ORG , and charged him with organising a criminal conspiracy , attempting to overthrow the constitutional order of GPE , membership of an illegal organisation and the possession and distribution of subversive literature ( ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , QUANTITY , and QUANTITY of FAC ) . On DATE it ordered his arrest .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office charged the other applicants with membership of extremist organisations , such as ORG , ORG - ut - GPE and ORG , financing terrorist activities , attempting a violent overthrow of the constitutional order of GPE , aggravated murder and organising mass disorders on CARDINAL DATE in PERSON ( offences under LAW ( a , d , j and m ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a and b ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of FAC ) . Some of the applicants were also charged with involvement in subversive activities , unlawful possession of firearms , and the dissemination of materials liable to undermine public security and public order , in conspiracy with others and with financial backing from religious organisations ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . On the same dates the GPE and ORG prosecutor 's offices ordered the applicants ' arrest .

At the material time aggravated murder ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) and terrorism ( LAW of LAW ) were capital offences in GPE . However , GPE abolished the death penalty with effect from DATE and replaced it with life imprisonment . The remaining offences are punishable by terms of imprisonment ranging from DATE .

The applicants said that on DATE they had been arrested in GPE . They had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest . On DATE they had been questioned by ORG agents from GPE who had beaten them and threatened them with torture in GPE . They had been told that they would be forced to confess to various crimes and be sentenced to long prison terms or death .

The documents issued by various ORG authorities indicate inconsistent dates of , and reasons for , the applicants ' arrest . Thus , on DATE the officer in charge of FAC affirmed that Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , and PERSON had been arrested on DATE and charged with administrative offences for uttering obscenities in public and refusing to produce identity documents . A police report dated DATE stated that the applicants had been arrested on DATE because they were wanted by the NORP police . However , in a letter of DATE , the GPE regional police department asserted that all the applicants had been arrested on DATE .

On DATE the GPE police informed the GPE police of the applicants ' arrest . On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office requested the PERSON prosecutor 's office to keep the applicants in detention pending extradition .

In DATE ORG of the Russian Federation received requests for the applicants ' extradition from ORG . The NORP prosecutor 's office gave an assurance that without GPE 's consent the applicants would not be extradited to a third - party ORG , or prosecuted or punished for any offences committed before extradition and which were not mentioned in the extradition request . It also stated that after serving their sentences they would be free to leave GPE .

On DATE further assurances were given by the First Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE . He gave an undertaking that the applicants would not be subjected to the death penalty , torture , violence or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . Their rights of defence would be respected and they would be provided with counsel . He also gave an assurance that the NORP authorities had no intention of persecuting the applicants out of political motives , on account of their race , ethnic origin , or religious or political beliefs . Their intention was to prosecute the applicants for the commission of particularly serious crimes .

The PERSON prosecutor 's office carried out an inquiry and established that none of the applicants , except PERSON PERSON , had left GPE in DATE . Mr PERSON had been in GPE from DATE . Mr PERSON had arrived in GPE from GPE in DATE . None of the applicants had made money transfers to GPE in DATE .

On DATE counsel for the applicants complained to the Sovetskiy and Frunzenskiy District Courts of GPE that their detention was unlawful . She submitted that the applicants had not been served with detention orders . On DATE ( the decisions are dated DATE , but this appears to be a misprint ) the Sovetskiy and Frunzenskiy District Courts of PERSON returned the complaints because counsel had not indicated which acts or omissions of ORG officials she wished to challenge , which made it impossible to establish whether they had territorial jurisdiction to examine the complaints .

The applicants did not appeal .

By separate decisions of CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE , the ORG , and ORG of GPE ordered the applicants ' detention pending extradition on the basis of ORG and CARDINAL of LAW ( see CARDINAL and DATE below ) . They referred to the gravity of the charges , and to the risk of the applicants ' absconding , re - offending or obstructing the investigation . It was also noted that the applicants had absconded from GPE to GPE . The courts held that it was not possible to apply a less restrictive measure and that only detention could secure their extradition and “ the execution of any sentence that might be imposed ” . The courts did not set a time - limit on the detention .

On DATE or DATE ORG upheld the decisions on appeal .

On DATE counsel for the applicants asked the director of the remand centre to release the applicants . In particular , she claimed that LAW set the maximum period of detention at DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . A further extension was permitted only in exceptional circumstances . As the detention period had not been extended following the expiry of the DATE period on DATE , the applicants ' subsequent detention was unlawful .

On DATE the director of the remand centre replied that Article CARDINAL did not apply to cases of detention pending extradition and refused to release the applicants .

Counsel challenged that refusal before a court , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On CARDINAL and DATE ORG of PERSON returned the complaint claiming that it had to be examined in criminal , not civil , proceedings . On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , and DATE ORG upheld those decisions on appeal .

On DATE counsel for the applicants petitioned the Sovetskiy , Oktyabrskiy , Frunzenskiy , and LOC prosecutors for the applicants ' release . On DATE the prosecutors rejected their applications . They pointed out that domestic law did not set a maximum period for detention pending extradition or establish a procedure for the extension of such detention .

In DATE counsel lodged applications for release with PERSON , and FAC of GPE . She reiterated the arguments set forth in her complaint of DATE and submitted that the director of the detention centre and the prosecutors had acted unlawfully in refusing release .

On DATE the ORG refused to entertain the applications for release . It held , firstly , that they could not be examined in criminal proceedings because there were no criminal proceedings pending against the applicants in GPE . It further held that domestic law did not set a maximum period for detention pending extradition and added :

“ NORP law in substance prohibits impermissibly excessive , unlimited and uncontrolled detention .

[ The applicants ' ] detention can not be said to be impermissibly excessive , unlimited or uncontrolled , because it has not exceeded the time - limit set in LAW .

[ The applicants ] were held in detention pending the decisions by ORG office to extradite [ them ] to GPE . Those decisions were only taken on [ CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , or DATE ] .

Moreover , [ the applicants ' ] detention was prolonged as a result of [ their ] application for refugee status to ORG and [ their ] challenges of ORG decisions before the courts . Therefore , the detention has not been excessive . ”

On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal . It endorsed the reasoning of ORG and indicated that the applications were to be examined in civil proceedings .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ORG returned the applications of PERSON and Mr PERSON because their applications could not be examined in criminal proceedings . It also pointed out that LAW did not apply to detention pending extradition . On DATE ORG upheld those decisions on appeal .

Mr Tashtemirov 's applications were disallowed in decisions of CARDINAL July and DATE by ORG , which held that domestic law did not set a maximum period for detention pending extradition and that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure . On DATE and DATE ORG upheld those decisions on appeal .

Mr PERSON contested the refusal to release him under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE ORG refused to entertain his application . It found that such complaints were to be filed with a court having jurisdiction for the place where the preliminary investigation was carried out . Since Mr PERSON was not the subject of any investigation in GPE , his application for release could not be examined in NORP criminal proceedings . It indicated that the application for release should be examined in civil proceedings . On DATE ORG quashed that decision as unlawful . On DATE ORG refused to entertain the application for the same reasons as before . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .

The applicants again challenged the refusal to release them in civil proceedings . By separate decisions of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to hear the applications because they could not be examined in civil proceedings . It held that the applications had to be examined in criminal proceedings . On DATE ORG upheld the decisions on appeal .

In DATE the applicants unsuccessfully petitioned prosecutors at different levels for their release .

By separate decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL March CARDINAL the Sovetskiy , Leninskiy , ORG ordered , of their own motion , the applicants ' release . They found that LAW was applicable to detention pending extradition and established a maximum period for detention at DATE . As the applicants had been detained for DATE , they had to be released immediately .

On DATE the applicants were released .

On DATE ORG upheld the decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the applicants applied to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for refugee status . In particular , they submitted that they had left GPE for fear of persecution in connection with their business activities . They claimed that some of the applicants or their relatives had a history of unlawful prosecution . They denied membership of ORG or any involvement in the events in ORG . They maintained that the accusations against them were groundless and that their prosecution was arbitrary and politically motivated .

On DATE ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ the ORG ” ) intervened in support of their applications . The Commissioner submitted that ORG was a peaceful non - violent group of followers of the teachings of PERSON . In his writings , PERSON called on NORP businessmen to cooperate and help the poor . There was no evidence of the group 's involvement in any extremist activities . It was believed that successful NORP businessmen were persecuted in GPE because of their popularity and influence over the local population . It further continued :

“ In the ORG 's opinion , in GPE criminal prosecution of people accused of involvement in the activities of extremist religious organisations can be arbitrary in nature and can result in violations of inalienable human rights , including arbitrary arrest , torture , violations of fair trial guarantees , imposition of penalty unproportionate to the committed crime . Moreover , as the NORP authorities do not tolerate any forms of opposition , there is a high risk of attributing membership of such religious organisations to people who have been noticed for their opposition views or who are perceived by the authorities as supporters of opposition groups . Therefore , there is a great risk that people involved in the activities of such religious organisations , or to whom such an involvement is attributed by the authorities , can be persecuted for the reasons enumerated in the DATE Convention relating to the status of refugees which was ratified by GPE in DATE , especially taking into account the lack of an effective mechanism of legal guarantees in [ GPE ] . ”

The ORG further argued that the risk of persecutions had increased after the PERSON events .

On DATE ORG also supported the applicants ' request for refugee status . They submitted as follows :

“ We are deeply concerned about [ the applicants ' ] fate if their application is dismissed and they are extradited to GPE . It would be a breach of the prohibition against returning individuals to a country where they will face the risk of being subjected to torture ... In GPE ... torture is systematic . People accused of participation in the Andijan events are at an increased risk of torture : we have documented tens of cases of extraction of confessions by means of torture and other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment .

Confessions obtained under duress serve as a basis for criminal prosecution . Trials of people charged in connection with the DATE massacre in GPE fell far short of international procedural standards . Courts in GPE are not independent , the defendants are deprived of their right to effective defence , and convictions are based exclusively on doubtful confessions of defendants and statements by prosecution witnesses . In breach of NORP and international law cases of CARDINAL of defendants are examined in closed trials . Serious doubts as to fairness of the ORG trials were expressed by the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights . ”

On DATE a deputy head of ORG of the ORG rejected the applications by reference to sections LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He found that the applicants had not been persecuted for their political or religious beliefs , or their social status . They had been prosecuted for the commission of serious criminal offences which were punishable under NORP criminal law . In particular , they had been charged with supporting PERSON - ut - GPE and ORG , which had been recognised by ORG as terrorist organisations and whose activities were banned in GPE . He further noted that the NORP authorities had undertaken not to impose the death penalty on the applicants and to ensure that they would not be subjected to torture or ill - treatment and would be provided with defence counsel .

The applicants challenged the refusals before ORG of GPE . They maintained that the real motives behind their prosecution were political and that they were in fact being persecuted for their successful business activities . They also submitted that there was a great risk that they would be tortured and unfairly tried in GPE .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , and DATE ORG confirmed the decisions of DATE . It found that the applicants had come to GPE to find employment . They had not proved that they had left GPE for fear of being persecuted on account of their religious or political beliefs , or social status . In the decisions concerning certain applicants it also added :

“ The court considers that ORG of ORG ... correctly disregarded the ORG events and their aftermath because [ the applicants ] denied ... involvement in those events and had come to GPE long before they occurred . ”

The court concluded that the applicants did not meet the requirements of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and were , therefore , not eligible for refugee status . However , it struck down the reference in the decisions of DATE to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW because the NORP authorities had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had committed a crime against peace , a war crime , a crime against humanity or a serious non - political crime .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicants mandate refugee status .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ORG upheld the decisions of ORG on appeal .

On DATE the applicants applied to ORG for temporary asylum on humanitarian grounds . They claimed that there was a risk of ill - treatment and unfair trial in GPE .

On DATE the acting head of ORG of the ORG rejected their applications . He found that there were no humanitarian grounds warranting temporary asylum . The applicants were in good health , there was no military conflict in GPE and the situation with regard to human rights had been improving . In particular , according to the ORG report on the situation in GPE CARDINAL human - rights laws had been adopted . ORG had issued a circular warning against convictions based on confessions extorted under duress or in incommunicado detention . The death penalty had been abolished as from DATE .

The applicants challenged the refusals before ORG of PERSON , repeating their fears of ill - treatment and an unfair trial in GPE . They submitted reports by ORG , ORG on Torture and Human Rights Watch in support of their allegations .

By separate decisions of DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ORG annulled the decisions of DATE . It found that the reports submitted by the applicants contained well - documented evidence of widespread torture in GPE . The acting head of ORG of the ORG had disregarded those reports . He had also disregarded the fact that the applicants had been granted mandate refugee status by the ORG . The conclusion that the applicants did not run any risk of ill - treatment if returned to GPE had been hypothetical and had not been supported by evidence . The ORG report on the situation in GPE could not be admitted in evidence because it was generic and did not contain any reference to its sources of information . The ORG remitted the applicants ' request for temporary asylum for a fresh examination by ORG of the ORG .

ORG of the ORG appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the decisions of ORG in respect of PERSON , Mr GPE and PERSON . On DATE ORG of the ORG withdrew their appeals in respect of the remainder of the applicants .

It appears that no decision on the applicants ' request for temporary asylum has been taken to date .

DATE . On DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE the First Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE decided to extradite the applicants to GPE . The decisions in respect of certain applicants read as follows :

“ On TIME DATE [ an applicant ] , acting in criminal conspiracy and being a member of the religious extremist party PERSON - ut - GPE PERSON , committed the following offences in aggravating circumstances : attempted overthrow of the constitutional order of GPE , murder , terrorism , and organised mass disorders in GPE with the aim of destabilising the socio - political situation in GPE . ”

The decisions in respect of the other applicants read as follows :

“ [ An applicant ] has been a member of an extremist organisation ; he disseminated materials liable to undermine public security and public order , in conspiracy with others and with financial backing from religious organisations . On TIME CARDINAL DATE [ the applicant ] , acting in criminal conspiracy and being a member of the religious extremist party ORG - ut - GPE PERSON , unlawfully obtained weapons and ammunition and committed the following offences in aggravating circumstances : the attempted overthrow of the constitutional order of GPE , murder , terrorism , subversive activities , and organised mass disorders in GPE with the aim of destabilising the socio - political situation in GPE . ”

Extradition orders were granted in respect of aggravated murder , terrorism , the establishment and membership of an illegal organisation , the illegal possession of arms , and participation in mass disorders . However , the prosecutor refused to extradite the applicants for the attempted overthrow of the constitutional order of GPE and dissemination of materials liable to undermine public security and public order in conspiracy with others and with financial backing from religious organisations , because these were not offences under NORP criminal law .

Counsel for the applicants challenged the decisions before a court . In particular , she submitted that on CARDINAL DATE the applicants were in GPE and denied any involvement in the events in GPE . The accusations against them were unfounded and they were in fact being persecuted by the NORP authorities on account of their political and religious beliefs and their successful businesses . The applicants were charged with capital offences and there was a risk of their being sentenced to death following an unfair trial . They also faced torture and other forms of ill - treatment because torture was widespread in GPE and confessions were often extracted from defendants under duress . She also argued that the documents that had been submitted by the NORP prosecution office to support their extradition requests were flawed . Finally , she submitted that the wording of the extradition decisions violated the applicants ' right to be presumed innocent .

On DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL ORG upheld the extradition decisions . It held that the applicants were charged with offences punishable under NORP and NORP criminal law , that the NORP authorities had given assurances that the applicants would not be tortured or sentenced to death , and that the NORP and NORP authorities had followed the extradition procedure set out in the applicable international and domestic law . The court rejected the suggestion that the applicants would be subjected to inhuman treatment and that their rights would be violated in GPE . It further held that the issue of the applicants ' guilt or innocence was not within the scope of the review by the extraditing authorities . The extradition decision only described the charges against the applicants , and did not contain any findings as to their guilt . Therefore , the presumption of innocence had not been violated .

The applicants appealed . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decisions on appeal , finding that they were lawful and justified .

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

“ CARDINAL . The combination of a lack of respect for the principle of presumption of innocence despite being guaranteed by the LAW ( article CARDINAL ) and [ LAW ] ( article CARDINAL ) , the discretionary powers of the investigators and procurators with respect to access to detainees by legal counsel and relatives , as well as the lack of independence of the judiciary and allegedly rampant corruption in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies , are believed to be conducive to the use of illegal methods of investigation . The excessive powers in the overall criminal proceedings of procurators , who are supposed at the same time to conduct and supervise preliminary criminal investigations , to bring charges and to monitor respect for existing legal safeguards against torture during criminal investigations and in places of detention , make investigations into complaints overly dependent on their goodwill .

The Special Rapporteur regrets the absence of legal guarantees such as the right to habeas corpus and the right to prompt and confidential access to a lawyer and relatives . He further observes that pre - trial detainees are held in facilities which are under the same jurisdiction as investigators in the case ...

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

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also stated in her report of CARDINAL DATE entitled “ Report of the mission to GPE concerning the events in GPE , GPE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE ” ( E / CN.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) :

“ DATE . The main relevant concerns identified by the ORG human rights treaty bodies and the special procedures of the ORG can be summarized as follows : violations of the right to life , in particular the execution of prisoners under sentence of death despite requests for interim measures by ORG ; violations of the principle of prohibition of torture , in particular the systematic and widespread use of torture , the high numbers of convictions based on confessions extracted by torture and the use of ' solved crimes ' as a criterion for the promotion of law enforcement personnel ; violations of fair trial provisions , in particular the lack of access to legal counsel , the lack of independence of the judiciary and of the respect of the principle of ' equality of arms ' ; the lack of a definition of ' terrorist acts ' ; and violations of freedom of opinion and expression , of the press and media and of freedom of association and freedom of religion ...

There is an urgent need for a stay of deportation to GPE of the NORP asylum - seekers and eyewitnesses of the ORG events who would face the risk of torture if returned . ”

DATE . In its report of DATE , “ GPE : lifting the siege on the truth about Andijan ” , ORG remarked :

“ ORG is concerned by reports of alleged torture and other ill - treatment by law enforcement officials in the aftermath of the events in GPE . Individuals , who have been detained and subsequently released , claimed that the detainees were being subjected to various forms of torture and other ill - treatment including beatings , beating of the heels with rubber truncheons , and the insertion of needles into gums and under fingernails . Torture and other ill - treatment have reportedly been used to force detainees to ' confess ' to being involved in religious extremism . A senior policeman who spoke anonymously to IWPR claimed to have witnessed law enforcement officials threatening to rape a detainee 's female relative if he did not confess to being involved in the events in GPE . ORG has also received reports that the detainees have been sexually assaulted with truncheons ...

ORG considers individuals charged in connection with the events in ORG to be at serious risk of being tried in a manner that violates even the most basic international fair trial standards . In DATE ORG expressed its concern about continuing violations of the right to a fair trial in GPE ... In particular , the ORG expressed concern that the judiciary is not fully independent and pointed to the high number of convictions based on ' confessions ' made in pre - trial detention that were allegedly obtained by torture or other ill - treatment . The ORG also expressed concern that the right of access to a lawyer from the time of arrest is often not respected in practice ...

On DATE the government announced that it would abolish the death penalty as of DATE . ORG welcomes this development but is concerned that unless fundamental changes are introduced immediately then scores of people are likely to be sentenced to death and executed before DATE . In previous reports ORG has documented that GPE 's flawed criminal justice system provides fertile ground for miscarriages of justice and executions due to judicial error or grossly unfair trials . ORG is also concerned that the DATE announcement may come too late to protect those people who have been charged with capital crimes – premeditated aggravated murder and terrorism – in connection with the events in GPE . ORG considers that these individuals are at great risk of suffering a violation of their right to life as a result of the likely imposition of the death penalty following what would likely be an unfair trial . The death penalty has played an important role in the clampdown on ' religious extremism ' in GPE and CARDINAL of alleged ' NORP ' have been sentenced to death and executed without being granted the right to effective assistance of counsel and to prepare a defence ... In DATE ORG deplored the fact that CARDINAL individuals have been executed by the NORP authorities , while their cases were pending before ORG . ”

In conclusion , ORG stated :

“ ORG is concerned for the safety of all those individuals who have been detained in connection with the events in GPE . These concerns are based on GPE 's well - documented history of human rights violations in the name of national security . ORG considers all such detained individuals to be at serious risk of being subjected to torture and other ill - treatment . ORG also considers those individuals who have been charged with criminal offences to be at risk of being tried in a manner that violates international fair trial standards . ... [ I]ndividual[s ] who have been charged with capital offences are at great risk of suffering a violation of their right to life , as a result of likely imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial . ”

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

“ CARDINAL . On DATE , the Government of GPE extradited CARDINAL NORP refugees and CARDINAL asylum - seeker to GPE ... Back in GPE , the CARDINAL NORP citizens face a series of charges , including terrorism , the attempted overthrow of the constitutional order of GPE , and the establishment of an illegal organization . As per information received by ORG , no one has been granted access to the CARDINAL since their return .

The fate of CARDINAL other NORP individuals , who fled the ORG events to GPE and were forcibly returned to GPE in DATE , remains unclear . Though the Government of GPE informed ORG about their whereabouts , no international body has been granted access to them thus far .

ORG continues to be concerned about the fate of an increasing number of NORP asylum - seekers and refugees , some of whom fled the ORG events , who have been detained in countries of ORG and forcibly returned to GPE despite a real risk of mistreatment in breach of international standards . In DATE , CARDINAL NORP asylum - seekers were forcefully returned from GPE to GPE . In a press statement of DATE , ORG said that it was appalled by this forceful deportation . Thus far , ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) has not had access to the CARDINAL individuals ... According to information received by ORG , no access has been granted to these individuals since their return to GPE .

ORG is concerned about other individuals who have fled since the ORG events and who are under pressure from the Government of GPE or the host country to return despite a real risk of mistreatment in breach of international standards ...

In an interview of DATE , the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture said that ' there is ample evidence that both police and other security forces have been and are continuing to systematically practise torture , in particular against dissidents or people who are opponents of the regime ' ...

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

In the report of CARDINAL DATE , entitled “ GPE : Andijan – impunity must not prevail ” , ORG claimed :

“ Scores of people suspected of involvement in the ORG events have been sentenced to long terms , in vast majority in closed secret trials , in violation of international fair trial standards . Most had been held incommunicado for DATE in pre - trial detention ...

The NORP authorities have also continued to actively DATE and often successfully – seek the extradition of members or suspected members of banned NORP parties or movements , such as ORG - ut - GPE and ORG , whom they accuse of participation in the ORG events , from neighbouring countries , as well as GPE and GPE . Most of the men forcibly returned to GPE continue to be held in incommunicado detention , thus increasing fears that they are at risk of being tortured or otherwise ill - treated . Over DATE ORG has documented many cases of people forcibly returned or extradited to GPE at the request of the NORP authorities who were tortured to extract ' confessions ' , sentenced to death after unfair trials and executed . ”

The LAW guarantees the right to liberty ( LAW ) :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to liberty and personal integrity .

Arrest , placement in custody and detention are only permitted on the basis of a judicial decision . Prior to a judicial decision , an individual may not be detained for longer than TIME . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) , to which GPE is a party , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In case of urgency the competent authorities of the requesting ORG may request the provisional arrest of the person sought . The competent authorities of the requested ORG shall decide the matter in accordance with its law .

Provisional arrest may be terminated if , within DATE after arrest , the requested ORG has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in LAW . It shall not , in any event , exceed DATE from the date of such arrest . The possibility of provisional release at any time is not excluded , but the requested ORG shall take any measures which it considers necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought . ”

The CIS Convention on legal aid and legal relations in civil , family and criminal cases ( the DATE Minsk Convention ) , to which both GPE and GPE are parties , provides that a request for extradition must be accompanied by a detention order ( LAW ) .

A person whose extradition is sought may be arrested before receipt of a request for his or her extradition . In such cases a special request for arrest containing a reference to the detention order and indicating that a request for extradition will follow must be sent . A person may also be arrested in the absence of such request if there are reasons to suspect that he has committed , in the territory of the other ORG , an offence entailing extradition . The other ORG must be immediately informed of the arrest ( Article CARDINAL ) .

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

LAW of LAW ( “ Measures of restraint ” ) governs the use of measures of restraint , or preventive measures ( меры пресечения ) , which include , in particular , placement in custody . Custody may be ordered by a court on an application by an investigator or a prosecutor if a person is charged with an offence carrying a sentence of DATE imprisonment , provided that a less restrictive measure of restraint can not be used ( LAW ) . The period of detention pending investigation may not exceed DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A judge may extend that period DATE ( LAW ) . Further extensions of DATE , or in exceptional circumstances , DATE , may only be granted if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences ( LAW ) . No extension beyond DATE is permissible and the detainee must be released immediately ( LAW ) .

Chapter CARDINAL ( “ Complaints about acts and decisions by courts and officials involved in criminal proceedings ” ) provides for the judicial review of decisions and acts or failures to act by an investigator or a prosecutor that are capable of adversely affecting the constitutional rights or freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings ( LAW ) . The competent court is the court with jurisdiction for the place where the preliminary investigation is conducted ( ibid . ) .

Chapter DATE ( “ Extradition of a person for criminal prosecution or execution of sentence ” ) regulates extradition procedures . Upon receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , a prosecutor must decide on the measure of restraint in respect of the person whose extradition is sought . The measure must be applied in accordance with the established procedure ( LAW ) . A person who has been granted asylum in GPE because of possible political persecution in the ORG seeking his extradition may not be extradited to that ORG ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) .

An extradition decision made by ORG may be challenged before a court . Issues of guilt or innocence are not within the scope of judicial review , which is limited to an assessment of whether the extradition order was made in accordance with the procedure set out in the relevant international and domestic law ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

A person may apply for judicial review of decisions and acts or failures to act by a ORG body or a ORG official that are capable of violating his / her rights or freedoms , hindering the realisation of his or her rights and freedoms , or imposing an obligation or liability unlawfully ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . If the court finds the application well - founded , it must order the ORG body or ORG official concerned to remedy the violation or remove the obstacle to the realisation of the rights and freedoms in question ( LAW ) .

On DATE ORG examined an application by Mr PERSON , who had submitted that the lack of any limitation in time on the detention of a person pending extradition was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary detention . ORG declared the application inadmissible . It reiterated its settled case - law that excessive or arbitrary detention , unlimited in time and without appropriate review , was incompatible with LAW in all cases , including extradition proceedings . However , in ORG view , the absence of any specific regulation of detention matters in LAW did not create a legal lacuna incompatible with LAW . LAW ORG provided that , in executing a request for legal assistance , the requested party would apply its domestic law , that is , the procedure laid down in LAW . Such procedure comprised , in particular , LAW and the norms in its LAW ( “ Measures of restraint ” ) which , by virtue of their general character and position in Part I of the LAW ( “ General provisions ” ) , applied to all stages and forms of criminal proceedings , including proceedings for the examination of extradition requests .

The Constitutional Court emphasised that the guarantees of the right to liberty and personal integrity set out in LAW were fully applicable to detention with a view to extradition . Accordingly , LAW did not allow the authorities to apply a custodial measure without complying with the procedure established in LAW or the time - limits fixed in the Code .

Article CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , which was ratified by GPE on DATE , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No Contracting State shall expel or return ( ' refouler ' ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion .

The benefit of the present provision may not , however , be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is , or who , having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime , constitutes a danger to the community of that country . ”

The Refugees Act ( Law no . GPE of DATE ) incorporated the definition of the term “ refugee ” contained in LAW , as amended by LAW relating to ORG . The LAW defines a refugee as a person who is not a NORP national and who , owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , ethnic origin , membership of a particular social group or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country , or who , not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events , is unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to return to it ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

The Act does not apply to anyone believed on reasonable grounds to have committed a crime against peace , a war crime , a crime against humanity , or a serious non - political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a person seeking refugee status ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) ) .

A person who has applied for refugee status or who has been granted refugee status can not be returned to a ORG where his life or freedom would be imperilled on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion ( section QUANTITY ) .

If a person satisfies the criteria established in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , or if he does not satisfy such criteria but can not be expelled or deported from GPE for humanitarian reasons , he may be granted temporary asylum ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A person who has been granted temporary asylum can not be returned against his will to the country of his nationality or to the country of his former habitual residence ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The ORG General Assembly resolution CARDINAL/CARDINAL of of DATE “ Torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ” ( ORG Doc.:A / RES/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads as follows :

“ ORG

Urges GPE not to expel , return ( ' refouler ' ) , extradite or in any other way transfer a person to another ORG where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture , and recognizes that diplomatic assurances , where used , do not release GPE from their obligations under international human rights , humanitarian and refugee law , in particular the principle of non - refoulement ... ”

In his interim report submitted in accordance with ORG resolution CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( ORG . : ORG , DATE ) , the Special Rapporteur of ORG on torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , PERSON , reached the following conclusions :

“ CARDINAL . It is the view of the Special Rapporteur that diplomatic assurances are unreliable and ineffective in the protection against torture and ill - treatment : such assurances are sought usually from GPE where the practice of torture is systematic ; post - return monitoring mechanisms have proven to be no guarantee against torture ; diplomatic assurances are not legally binding , therefore they carry no legal effect and no accountability if breached ; and the person whom the assurances aim to protect has no recourse if the assurances are violated . The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion that GPE can not resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture and ill - treatment where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill - treatment upon return .

The Special Rapporteur calls on Governments to observe the principle of non - refoulement scrupulously and not expel any person to frontiers or territories where they might run the risk of human rights violations , regardless of whether they have officially been recognized as refugees . ”

Specifically referring to the situation of torture in GPE and returns to torture effected in reliance upon diplomatic assurances from the NORP authorities , the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture PERSON has stated to the CARDINALnd Session of the UN Human Rights Council on DATE :

“ The practice of torture in GPE is systematic , as indicated in the report of my predecessor PERSON visit to the country in DATE . Lending support to this finding , my mandate continues to receive serious allegations of torture by NORP law enforcement officials ... Moreover , with respect to the events in DATE in GPE , the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that there is strong , consistent and credible testimony to the effect that NORP military and security forces committed grave human rights violations there . The fact that the Government has rejected an international inquiry into the LOC events , independent scrutiny of the related proceedings , and that there is no internationally accepted account of the events , is deeply worrying . Against such significant , serious and credible evidence of systematic torture by law enforcement officials in GPE , I continue to find myself appealing to ORG to refrain from transferring persons to GPE . The prohibition of torture is absolute , and GPE risk violating this prohibition - their obligations under international law - by transferring persons to countries where they may be at risk of torture . I reiterate that diplomatic assurances are not legally binding , undermine existing obligations of GPE to prohibit torture , are ineffective and unreliable in ensuring the protection of returned persons , and therefore shall not be resorted to by GPE . ”

The ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ' Note on ORG and ORG published on DATE reads as follows :

In general , assessing the suitability of diplomatic assurances is relatively straightforward where they are intended to ensure that the individual concerned will not be subjected to capital punishment or certain violations of fair trial rights as a consequence of extradition . In such cases , the wanted person is transferred to a formal process , and the requesting ORG 's compliance with the assurances can be monitored . While there is no effective remedy for the requested ORG or the surrendered person if the assurances are not observed , non - compliance can be readily identified and would need to be taken into account when evaluating the reliability of such assurances in any future cases .

The situation is different where the individual concerned risks being subjected to torture or other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment in the receiving ORG upon removal . It has been noted that ' unlike assurances on the use of the death penalty or trial by a military court , which are readily verifiable , assurances against torture and other abuse require constant vigilance by competent and independent personnel ' . ORG addressed the issue in its decision in GPE v. GPE ( Minister of ORG ) , contrasting assurances in cases of a risk of torture with those given where the person extradited may face the death penalty , and signalling

' ... the difficulty in relying too heavily on assurances by a state that it will refrain from torture in the future when it has engaged in illegal torture or allowed others to do so on its territory in the past . This difficulty becomes acute in cases where torture is inflicted not only with the collusion but through the impotence of the state in controlling the behaviour of its officials . Hence the need to distinguish between assurances regarding the death penalty and assurances regarding torture . The former are easier to monitor and generally more reliable than the latter . '

In his report to ORG of DATE , the special Rapporteur of ORG Human Rights on torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment examined the question of diplomatic assurances in light of the non - refoulement obligations inherent in the absolute and nonderogable prohibition of torture and other forms of ill - treatment . Noting that in determining whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture , all relevant considerations must be taken into account , the Special Rapporteur expressed the view that :

' in circumstances where there is a consistent pattern of gross , flagrant or mass violations of human rights , or of systematic practice of torture , the principle of nonrefoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic assurances should not be resorted to . ' ”

ORG for the Prevention of Torture 's ( the CPT ) CARDINALth ORG of DATE on their activities covering the period from DATE to DATE expressed concern about reliance on diplomatic assurances in light of the absolute prohibition against torture :

“ CARDINAL . Reference was made in the Preface to the potential tension between a ORG 's obligation to protect its citizens against terrorist acts and the need to uphold fundamental values . This is well illustrated by the current controversy over the use of ' diplomatic assurances ' in the context of deportation procedures . The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment encompasses the obligation not to send a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would run a real risk of being subjected to such methods . In order to avoid such a risk in given cases , certain ORG have chosen the route of seeking assurances from the country of destination that the person concerned will not be ill - treated . This practice is far from new , but has come under the spotlight in DATE as GPE have increasingly sought to remove from their territory persons deemed to endanger national security . Fears are growing that the use of diplomatic assurances is in fact circumventing the prohibition of torture and ill - treatment .

DATE . The seeking of diplomatic assurances from countries with a poor overall record in relation to torture and ill - treatment is giving rise to particular concern . It does not necessarily follow from such a record that someone whose deportation is envisaged personally runs a real risk of being ill - treated in the country concerned ; the specific circumstances of each case have to be taken into account when making that assessment . However , if in fact there would appear to be a risk of ill - treatment , can diplomatic assurances received from the authorities of a country where torture and ill - treatment is widely practised ever offer sufficient protection against that risk ? It has been advanced with some cogency that even assuming those authorities do exercise effective control over the agencies that might take the person concerned into their custody ( which may not always be the case ) , there can be no guarantee that assurances given will be respected in practice . If these countries fail to respect their obligations under international human rights treaties ratified by them , so the argument runs , why should one be confident that they will respect assurances given on a bilateral basis in a particular case ?

In response , it has been argued that mechanisms can be devised for the post - return monitoring of the treatment of a person deported , in the event of his / her being detained . While the ORG retains an open mind on this subject , it has yet to see convincing proposals for an effective and workable mechanism . To have any chance of being effective , such a mechanism would certainly need to incorporate some key guarantees , including the right of independent and suitably qualified persons to visit the individual concerned at any time , without prior notice , and to interview him / her in private in a place of their choosing . The mechanism would also have to offer means of ensuring that immediate remedial action is taken , in the event of it coming to light that assurances given were not being respected . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in LOC ) .

The applicant graduated in DATE from ORG GPE ) with a Bachelor ’s Degree in Literature . On DATE he submitted his degree to ORG , a public body empowered to award to NORP students recognition of diplomas obtained from foreign schools and ORG . On DATE the committee of history and archaeology of ORG examined the degree and proposed to recognise it as equivalent to a NORP degree . However , the committee considered that the applicant should take part in CARDINAL supplementary examinations . On DATE the committee of classical literature of ORG decided that the applicant should take DATE supplementary examinations . On DATE , the Chairman of ORG of ORG considered the degree as equivalent to a NORP degree but not fully corresponding to such a degree and , accordingly , invited the applicant to take CARDINAL supplementary disciplines . On DATE the applicant introduced an application for review of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , but on DATE ORG reiterated its refusal to recognise the applicant ’s degree and invited him to sit CARDINAL supplementary examinations ( decision ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG asking it to set aside decision No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG . He also requested ORG to refer to ORG of ORG the prejudicial question of Community law raised by the case . He alleged that the above - mentioned decision was not taken in conformity with ORG DATE setting up “ a general system for the recognition of higher - education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of CARDINAL years’ duration ” ; in particular , he stressed that ORG had not yet taken the necessary measures to comply with the Directive although DATE had elapsed since its notification to the member GPE of the ORG . He also maintained that following that decision , it was impossible for him to find a job or to work in a public school because he did not meet any longer the condition of the age limit .

ORG fixed the date of the hearing on DATE . On DATE , the hearing was adjourned ex officio and the case was referred to an enlarged formation of the ORG because of its major importance . Then the ORG set down the hearing for DATE but on DATE CARDINAL more actions aiming at setting aside decisions of the ORG having the same subject - matter with that concerning the applicant were introduced before the same ORG . The hearing was thus adjourned until DATE . However , the ORG decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Plenary for the CARDINAL new cases and , accordingly , the hearing in the applicant ’s case was adjourned again until DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant had introduced an action for damages before ORG . He claimed a substantial amount for the pecuniary damage he had suffered as a result of the omission of the State to implement Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC and alleged that the amount sought corresponded to the loss of income he would have earned if he had been able to work as a teacher in a private school . The hearing was listed for DATE . However , on that date ORG adjourned the consideration of the case due to the parliamentary elections . A new hearing date was fixed on DATE but the hearing was adjourned by agreement of both parties awaiting ORG judgment . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the ORG adjourned again the examination of the action .

On DATE ORG rejected the abovementioned application because the applicant was not represented by a lawyer at the hearing . The judge rapporteur had , however , proposed to have the decision of the ORG set aside for lack of reasoning .

The hearing before ORG took place on DATE . In its judgment of CARDINAL September CARDINAL ORG declared that it was incompetent to deal with the case and referred it to ORG , on the ground that the competent administrative authorities which allegedly omitted to take the necessary measures to comply with ORG directives and amend the relevant legislation in matters relating to recognition of degrees had their seat in GPE .