David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by Ms GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ms PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant ’s son , then DATE , was to participate in a triathlon competition at a lake near LOC . On DATE , an association of model boat builders from ORG organised an international competition of radio - controlled model boats in the adjacent part of the same lake . The organisers of the CARDINAL events had arranged between themselves that no model boats would be on the lake QUANTITY when the triathlon competition was to take place .

After TIME and prior to the start of the triathlon competition the applicant ’s son had a swim in the lake . A model boat belonging to a participant from GPE suddenly changed its trajectory after having touched a buoy demarcating the race circuit . It hit the applicant ’s son ’s head and spine . After his body was brought to shore by divers , a physician established that the applicant ’s son had suffered fatal head injuries .

Later the same day police officers drew up reports on the accident and on the examination carried out on the spot . They further photographed the victim and drew up a record concerning the identification of the body . The police retained the model boat which had apparently hit the applicant ’s son and heard what its owner had to say . His replies were interpreted by the director of the model boat competition . A written report by the doctor who had examined the corpse was prepared on DATE . Several objects belonging to the victim were given to the applicant .

On DATE the police in ORG appointed a forensic expert with a view to determining the cause of death of the applicant ’s son .

On DATE the police concluded that there were no grounds for a criminal prosecution of the NORP owner of the boat . The responsibility for safety of the event lay with the club which had organised the competition . The boat owner could not be held responsible for the fact that a swimmer , who was not supposed to be in the area of the competition , had entered the raceway .

The boat owner was allowed to return to GPE , but the police kept the model boat for the purpose of an examination by experts .

In a preliminary report of CARDINAL DATE the forensic institute which had carried out an autopsy of the victim ’s corpse concluded that the fatal injury had been inflicted by an object which had fractured the victim ’s skull , concussed his cerebral tissue and caused bleeding in the brain chambers .

DATE police officers interviewed QUANTITY persons with a view to establishing the relevant facts .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant consulted the police file and copies of several documents included in it were given to him .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the police had acted erroneously in that , inter alia , they had failed to accuse the owner of the model boat of an offence and to carry out an alcohol test on him . The applicant further expressed the view that the police had disregarded attempts by the organisers of the model boat race to distort the account of the events .

In a letter of DATE a public prosecutor pointed out that , at that time , it had not been clearly shown whether the criminal liability for the accident lay with the NORP participant , the organisers or whether it was attributable to the behaviour of the applicant ’s son .

On DATE the applicant complained to GPE ORG that the police had attempted to manipulate the investigation with a view to concealing the real cause of his son ’s death . On DATE GPE ORG replied to the applicant that his allegation was unsubstantiated .

According to a forensic report submitted to the police on DATE , the applicant ’s son had drowned after a serious injury to the skull during a sporting activity performed in water . The injuries were so serious that death could not have been avoided , even if there had been immediate medical assistance .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed the applicant that the police investigation had been supervised by a public prosecutor and that his complaint about misconduct of the policemen concerned was unsubstantiated .

DATE police officers questioned CARDINAL people . On DATE a public prosecutor heard the director and an organiser of the triathlon competition .

In a letter of DATE a public prosecutor instructed ORG of ORG to accuse the director of the model boats competition of having caused damage to another ’s health . The letter stated that all documents submitted by the applicant should be included in the file .

On DATE ORG in GPE informed the applicant , in reply to his complaint , that the public prosecutor dealing with the case had concluded that the organisers of the model boat race had not complied with the statutory security measures , as a result of which his son had been fatally injured .

On DATE a police investigator accused the director of the model boats competition of having caused injury to another ’s health . The director was accused of failing to take appropriate measures with a view to protecting the lives and health of other persons .

In the course of DATE the investigator obtained information about the accused from several authorities and institutions .

The investigator examined the accused from TIME to TIME on DATE . She heard the applicant from TIME on DATE . The applicant stated that he wished to join the proceedings as a civil party claiming compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the director of the triathlon race was examined for TIME . Another person involved in organising the triathlon race was heard as a witness on DATE . Between CARDINAL DATE and DATE the investigator heard CARDINAL other witnesses .

On DATE ORG dismissed a complaint by the accused against the decision to start criminal proceedings against him .

DATE and DATE the police investigator examined CARDINAL witnesses .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant submitted his claim for damages as an injured party .

In a report of DATE the police investigator indicated that the investigation could not be concluded within DATE as , inter alia , the public prosecutor supervising the proceedings had concluded that there was a need to hear the NORP competitor as a witness . For that purpose a request for legal assistance was to be sent quickly to the NORP authorities .

Following his request of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant consulted the entire investigation file on DATE .

On DATE the Bratislava III ORG submitted to ORG a translation of the request for legal assistance in obtaining a statement from the NORP boat owner . Subsequently the request was transmitted to the NORP authorities .

In DATE and in DATE the investigator obtained further information about the accused .

The NORP authorities heard the owner of the model boat in GPE on DATE . GPE ORG received their reply on CARDINAL DATE . A NORP translation of the statement was submitted to the police investigator on DATE .

In his statement the model boat owner explained that , because of an obstacle , he had had to change the trajectory of his model when passing around a buoy demarcating the race area . After that , the model had come to a standstill . The competitor expressed the view that the race area had not been sufficiently secured . The organisers had warned visitors and requested them to abstain from swimming in the lake or approaching its shore . However , several persons had disregarded that warning . The witness further stated that he had drunk no alcoholic beverage before the race . There had been several kiosks around the lake where such beverages were being sold . Nobody had moved the buoys after the accident .

During the course of the investigation the applicant complained of shortcomings to public prosecutors at several levels and to ORG . He alleged that the policemen involved had committed an offence and that no effective investigation had been carried out into the case .

In particular , the applicant contended that the police had failed to inform him of his rights and about the procedure after the incident had occurred ; had not checked whether the persons involved had consumed alcohol ; had refused to record the applicant ’s statement ; that the first statement of the NORP participant had not been interpreted by an authorised interpreter , and that photographs had neither been taken nor drawings made of the scene of the incident . The failure to carry out an appropriate investigation at the outset had been , according to the applicant , the result of undue influence of members of a political party then in government who had acted as patrons of the model boat race .

The applicant also maintained that the organisers of the race and divers involved had manipulated the scene of the accident , and complained that the model boat owner had not been prosecuted .

The applicant ’s complaints were examined by several police and public prosecution authorities but they were dismissed as being wholly unsubstantiated . However , a public prosecutor of ORG admitted , in DATE , that the police had proceeded erroneously in that they had let the director of the competition interpret the NORP participant ’s statement on DATE .

On DATE the applicant examined the police file concerning the case and obtained copies of the relevant documents . According to the record of the examination , the applicant declared that he had no proposals for further action to be taken within the preliminary proceedings

On DATE a public prosecutor charged the director of the model boats race with causing injury to another ’s health before GPE ORG .

ORG held hearings on DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE . On the last - mentioned date it convicted the accused of causing injury to health . It imposed an DATE prison sentence on him , conditionally suspended for DATE .

At the main hearing the court heard the accused and the applicant , as well as CARDINAL witnesses . The statements of CARDINAL other persons were read out . The court also had regard to extensive documentary evidence including forensic reports .

In his statement , the applicant affirmed that the area of the model boat race had not been duly secured . He accused the organisers of having manipulated the buoys after the incident . The applicant further referred to the NORP participant ’s statement according to which alcoholic beverages had been served at the place of the competition .

ORG established that the accused , in his capacity as director of the model boat race , had acted negligently in that he had not taken appropriate measures , as required by sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , with a view to preventing injury to other persons present . In particular , the model boat race had continued despite the fact that there had been swimmers in the lake . Safety barriers had not been arranged in an appropriate manner in order to ensure that visitors were kept separate from the competition area .

The applicant claimed CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) in compensation for damage from the accused . ORG found that the applicant had incontestably suffered damage of SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It awarded that sum to the applicant and referred him , with the remainder of his claim , to a civil court .

The accused appealed , claiming that he had committed no offence .

At the hearing before the appellate court , the applicant requested that the first - instance decision on his claim for damages be upheld .

On DATE ORG varied the first - instance judgment , reducing the sentence to DATE imprisonment conditionally suspended for DATE . ORG held , in particular , that the sentence originally imposed was excessively severe as , inter alia , the accused was not the only person who was responsible for the accident . The appellate court expressed the view that other persons who had given authorisation for the CARDINAL events to be held concurrently without ensuring that appropriate safety measures were taken also bore responsibility for the accident .

ORG further quashed the first - instance decision on the applicant ’s claim for damages . The appellate court noted that the sum awarded to the applicant had not been sufficiently specified and , more importantly , it was not clear whether the accused was liable for damage under the provisions of civil law or labour law . The determination of that issue depended on the legal status of the model builders’ club of which the accused was a member . If the club was a part of ORG , that association was liable for the damage . In such a case the question arose as to whether ORG was not also liable . The appellate court held that the determination of those issues was beyond the scope of the criminal proceedings and that the applicant should bring his claim for damages before a civil court .

The judgment became final on DATE . It was served on the applicant on DATE .

In DATE the applicant sought assistance from ORG with a view to obtaining compensation for damage which he had suffered .

In a letter of DATE a lawyer of that ORG informed the applicant that the model boat competition had been organised by the club from ORG , which was a legal person . In accordance with LAW , that club was liable for damage resulting from the criminal offence committed by its president when organising the competition . The applicant ’s claim against the latter had not interrupted the running of the statutory limitation period , which had therefore expired on DATE .

The view was further expressed in the letter that , for similar reasons , the applicant ’s right to claim compensation for non - pecuniary damage under LAW had also lapsed on DATE .

It was therefore no longer possible for the applicant to claim compensation before the civil courts .

Since DATE the applicant has been treated as an outpatient for psychological trauma suffered as a result of his son ’s death .

In DATE the applicant ’s contract of employment was terminated . The applicant submitted that , as a result of the mental problems which he had been experiencing , he was no longer able to carry out his job .

The Government contested that argument . Relying on the relevant document , they argued that the applicant ’s contract had been terminated for redundancy .

In DATE the applicant was found to be fully disabled , CARDINAL of the reasons being his mental disorder .

In DATE a physician confirmed that the applicant continued to suffer from severe depression . For that reason an expert commission confirmed , in DATE , that the applicant was still disabled .

At the relevant time Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL governed the organisation of sporting and tourist events accessible to the public .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , prior approval of a ORG authority is not required for a sporting event to be held .

Section CARDINAL obliges the organiser to notify the municipality concerned in writing of the plan to organise a sporting event within its territory . Such notification must indicate , inter alia , the name and purpose of the event , its venue and time , the expected number of participants as well as the measures which the organiser will take with a view to maintaining public order and preventing harm to the lives or health of the participants or to the environment .

Section CARDINAL ) provides for an obligation of the organiser of a sporting event to maintain public order both at the place where the event takes place and in the adjacent area , to comply with the relevant rules relating to security and health protection , to establish teams of organisers and to give relevant instructions to its members . It also provides that an organiser has to suspend or put an end to an event where public order has been disturbed and where it is not possible to restore it . Where an organiser is unable to maintain public order , he or she shall ask the municipal authority or the police for assistance .

Under section CARDINAL , the organiser is entitled , inter alia , to ask participants to refrain from inappropriate behaviour and to expel persons who , despite a prior warning , seriously disturb the event .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) gives municipalities the right to verify whether an event is held in accordance with the earlier notification submitted by the organiser .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , a person whom the municipality has authorised in writing to supervise the event shall draw the organiser ’s attention to any shortcomings established . The supervisor has to stop or suspend an event at which human rights and freedoms are being breached .

Section CARDINAL provides that the area where an event is held is to be arranged in a manner permitting the effective control of all participants , appropriate placement of security barriers , and the designation and separation of individual sectors . An organiser is authorised to close an area where the circumstances or the ORG behaviour indicate that the event could be disturbed . Finally , an event can not start unless all relevant provisions of the LAW are complied with .

Pursuant to LAW , a person who negligently causes the death or serious damage to the health of another person is to be punished with a prison sentence of DATE or a ban on any involvement in the activity in issue . LAW CARDINAL provides that the perpetrator of such an offence is to be punished with a prison term of DATE where the offence results from his or her failure to comply with an important obligation relating to his or her job , position or function or an important obligation imposed by law .

Article QUANTITY provide , inter alia , that a person who has suffered damage as a result of a criminal offence can claim compensation from the accused person and request that the court , in a judgment convicting the accused , order the latter to compensate for such damage .

Under LAW DATE , where no criminal proceedings can be brought because the person who could be liable for an offence has not yet been identified , the police or investigator can take action for the purpose of criminal proceedings , such as taking evidence , but only to the extent that such action can not be delayed or repeated later . Within the meaning of this provision , an action or procedural step can not be postponed until criminal proceedings are brought where , in view of the purpose of the criminal proceedings , there is a danger of it or its object being thwarted , destroyed or lost .

Under LAW , a criminal court shall refer a person claiming damages to a civil court where the evidence available is not sufficient for determining that claim or where the taking of further evidence going beyond the scope of the criminal case is required and the criminal proceedings would be thereby unduly prolonged .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( d ) provides that an injured party may appeal against a first - instance judgment only to the extent that it concerns his or her claim for damages .

The following provisions are relevant in the present case .

“ Every natural person shall have the right to protection of his or her personal integrity , in particular his or her life and health ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Every natural person shall have the right in particular to request an order restraining any unjustified interference with his or her personal integrity , an order cancelling out the effects of such interference and an award of appropriate compensation .

NORP If the satisfaction afforded under paragraph CARDINAL of this Article is insufficient , in particular because the injured party ’s dignity or social standing has been considerably diminished , the injured party shall also be entitled to financial compensation for nonpecuniary damage .

When determining the amount of compensation payable under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , the court shall take into account the seriousness of the harm suffered by the injured party and the circumstances in which the violation of his or her rights occurred . ”

“ After the death of the injured party the right to the protection of his or her personal integrity shall pass to his or her spouse and children or , if none , to his or her parents . ”

“ A person who by unjustified interference with another person ’s personal rights causes [ pecuniary ] damage is responsible for it in accordance with the provisions of this law on liability for damage . ”

“ CARDINAL . The right to compensation for damage shall lapse DATE from DATE when the injured party learns about the damage and who is liable for it .

The right to compensation for damage shall lapse , at the latest , DATE ... from the event which is at the origin of the damage ... ”

“ Where the creditor , prior to the expiry of the limitation period , asserts his or her right before a court or other appropriate authority and where he or she duly pursues the proceedings , the limitation period does not run from the moment when the claim was submitted and during the period when the proceedings are pending ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall be liable for any damage he or she causes by breach of statutory duty .

Damage is considered to have been caused by a legal person ... when it has arisen in the context of an activity carried out by other persons whom [ that legal person ] has entrusted with carrying out that activity . Such other persons do not bear liability under LAW for damage thus caused . ” ...

“ CARDINAL . Compensation shall cover actual damage and loss of profit .

Damage shall be made good in money . However , if the injured party so requests and it is possible and appropriate , damage shall be repaired by restitution in full ... ”

“ Indemnification for damage to health shall consist of a lump - sum payment for suffering ( bolestné ) and reduced capacity for work ( sťaženie spoločenského uplatnenia ) . ”

... “ CARDINAL . In the event of fatal injury , the compensation shall cover reasonable funeral costs provided such costs have not been paid by the health insurer . ”

Information on the legal opinion and domestic courts’ practice as regards the protection of one ’s personal rights under LAW seq . of LAW are set out in PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , decision of CARDINAL DATE and judgment of CARDINAL DATE , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALVI ( extracts ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . GPE , DATE .


GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL ) , may be summarised as follows .

NORP The applicant is the widow of PERSON , a military official of the break - away “ GPE ( the “ FAC ) who was killed on DATE , during the military conflict in the FAC .

NORP In a judgment of DATE the “ ORG of GPE found the CARDINAL applicants in ORG and Others ( cited above ) guilty , inter alia , of killing PERSON and another high ranking ORG official and sentenced them to sentences varying DATE imprisonment and death penalty , PERSON being the one sentenced to death .

The subsequent events were summarised as follows in GPE and others :

“ QUANTITY . NORP On DATE the President of GPE declared that the applicants’ conviction was unlawful , on the ground that it had been pronounced by an unconstitutional court .

On DATE ORG examined of its own motion the judgment of DATE of the “ ORG of the FAC ” , quashed it on the ground that the court which had rendered it was unconstitutional , and ordered the file to be referred to the NORP public prosecutor for a new investigation in accordance with LAW . It appears from the written depositions , the information supplied by ORG and the evidence given by the witnesses heard by the ORG in PERSON in DATE , that the investigation ordered in the judgment of DATE came to nothing ( see PERSON : PERSON , § CARDINAL ; and Mr PERSON , § CARDINAL ) .

In addition , ORG set aside the warrant for the applicants’ detention , ordered their release and asked the public prosecutor to look into the possibility of prosecuting the judges of the “ so - called ” ORG of Transdniestria for deliberately rendering an illegal decision , an offence punishable under ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW .

The authorities of the “ FAC did not respond to the judgment of DATE .

The NORP authorities had opened an investigation into the deaths of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON in DATE and DATE respectively , but the public prosecution service suspended this on DATE , under LAW of LAW , in the absence of any cooperation from the NORP judicial and police authorities . The investigation was reopened on DATE . As a result , a number of requests for cooperation ( the transmission of documents ) were sent to ORG FAC ” , Mr PERSON . Not receiving any reply , the NORP public prosecution service once again suspended the investigation on DATE . Since then it has not been reopened .

On DATE Mr PERSON was released ... ”

The other CARDINAL applicants in GPE and others were released in DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG of GPE requesting information concerning the progress of the investigation into the circumstances of her husband ’s death .

In a reply dated DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been discontinued on DATE in view of restrictions of access to the territory of the FAC .


András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Giorgio Malinverni;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG issued an arrest warrant against the applicant in order to obtain his statement in relation to a charge of slander .

According to incident reports drawn up at the ORG Doğancılar police station , an officer was sent to the applicant ’s house early on DATE to execute the arrest warrant . Upon discovering that the applicant was not at home , he left a note inviting him to present himself at the ORG Doğancılar police station to make a statement regarding the charge brought against him .

DATE , at TIME , the applicant telephoned the police station and quarrelled with the officer GPE on the phone , arguing that the police had no authority to ask him to go to the police station as he had not received a summons from the court to make a statement . It is indicated in the incident report that the applicant was very aggressive on the phone and that he insulted and threatened officer MONEY The applicant denied these allegations .

NORP Immediately after this phone conversation , QUANTITY police officers were sent to the applicant ’s home to effect his arrest . Upon the applicant ’s failure to cooperate and surrender , oral instructions were given from the office of the ORG public prosecutor to make a forcible arrest . A scuffle then ensued between the parties , and the applicant attempted to throw himself off the balcony . He was , however , detained by the police , with the assistance of his neighbour E.A.

The applicant was subsequently taken to the ORG Doğancılar police station at TIME According to the police report , the applicant continued to behave aggressively and defiantly at the police station , shouting that the police had no authority to keep him there , and at CARDINAL point he tried to jump out of the window to escape . The officers , however , managed to grab hold of him and restrained him with handcuffs . The applicant confirmed this , but claimed that he had only attempted to jump out of the window as a reaction to QUANTITY police officers hitting him on the chest and foot .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG , who noted no signs of illtreatment on his body . Following the medical examination , the applicant was taken back to the ORG police station .

In the meantime , after handing the applicant over to the police station , CARDINAL of the police officers who had made the arrest , namely ORG . and GPE . , underwent a medical examination at ORG . Slight abrasions were noted on both ORG right hands .

On DATE the CARDINAL police officers who were in charge of the applicant ’s arrest , namely ORG . , PERSON . and PERSON , and the police officer the applicant had allegedly insulted on the phone DATE , namely GPE , lodged criminal complaints with the ORG public prosecutor against the applicant , accusing him of resisting police officers on duty and insulting them . In their complaints , they each gave identical accounts of the events that took place prior to and during the applicant ’s arrest , which were also consistent with the official incident reports ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

At TIME on DATE the applicant ’s neighbour E.A. , who had witnessed the whole incident and had assisted the police in restraining and arresting the applicant , was asked to testify as a witness . E.A. verified that the applicant had violently resisted arrest , including by shouting insults , whereas the arresting police officers had in no way assaulted or otherwise mistreated him .

On an unspecified date the ORG public prosecutor initiated an investigation against the applicant on charges of obstructing police officers in the performance of their duties by insulting and assaulting them ( investigation no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was questioned at the police station in relation to the charges brought by the police officers . According to the official statement ( sanık ifade tutanağı ) , which he declined to sign , the applicant chose to remain silent and refused the assistance of the lawyer appointed by ORG . He declared that he would make his statement before the public prosecutor .

At TIME the same day the applicant was taken to the ORG police headquarters by QUANTITY police officers , GPE and GPE , for a physical identity check , including the taking of fingerprints . The applicant claimed that when he inquired about the purpose of the identity check , PERSON started swearing at him and then punched him on the nose , eye and cheek and squeezed him by the throat in the yard of the headquarters , while his hands were cuffed behind his back .

At TIME on DATE he was referred to ORG for a medical examination .

At TIME a doctor at ORG examined the applicant and noted an oedema on his nose , hyperaemia of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the right side of his neck , ecchymosis ( bruising ) of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the left side of his neck , hyperaemia on his right shoulder blade and hyperaemia and abrasion of QUANTITY on his left shin . An otolaryngologist who examined him at TIME also noted sensitivity on his cervix . No information was provided in the medical reports as to how the indicated injuries might have been sustained by the applicant .

The applicant was subsequently brought before the ORG public prosecutor . In his statement , which was made in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant denied the charges against him in relation to the insult and assault of police officers on duty . He lodged a counter - complaint against the officers who had carried out his arrest for trespass and violation of the right to privacy of the home . He also complained that DATE he was beaten , strangled and sworn at by a police officer , ORG , outside the ORG police headquarters , where he had been taken for an identity check , and that another officer who had accompanied them , namely GPE , had witnessed the incident . After having identified both police officers , who were waiting outside the office of the public prosecutor , he demanded that the public prosecutor initiate an investigation against ORG for subjecting him to ill - treatment .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was referred to ORG for a further medical examination . The doctor who examined him noted , in a preliminary report , that the applicant complained of having been hit on the face and squeezed around the neck DATE , as well as of having his chest crushed DATE before during his arrest , on account of which he was suffering breathing problems . The doctor found an ecchymosis on the right side of the applicant ’s nose , an ecchymosis of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the front left side of the base of his neck and an abrasion of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the front side of his left forearm , just below the joint . He referred the applicant to a specialist in pulmonary diseases before drawing up the final report . This preliminary report was apparently not made available to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a pulmonary specialist , who did not note any damage to his lungs apart from a scar from a previous operation .

There is no information in the case file as to the outcome of the investigation against the applicant .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor questioned police officer PERSON regarding the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment ( investigation no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . PERSON stated that at TIME DATE he had taken the applicant to the ORG police headquarters together with officer GPE When the applicant asked why he had been brought there , they explained that the ORG public prosecutor had issued written instructions for him to have a physical identity check for the purposes of the ongoing investigations against him . The applicant thereafter became extremely agitated and starting shouting loudly and swearing . When they tried to get him inside the building , he tried to hurt himself by hitting his head against the front window of the building . ORG alleged that he then tried to cuff the applicant ’s hands behind his back in order to get better hold of him . When the applicant resisted , GPE tried to hold him down by the waist while he stabilised the applicant by putting his neck in an arm - lock and cuffing his hands behind his back . PERSON claimed that some police officers on patrol duty at the relevant time had witnessed these events . PERSON also pressed charges against the applicant on account of the insults and the injuries he had sustained , which consisted of a red line of QUANTITY on his right forearm , as had been noted by the public prosecutor .

NORP The public prosecutor subsequently took a statement from GPE , the police officer who had accompanied PERSON at the time of the impugned incidents . GPE , who was also a relative of GPE by marriage , repeated the latter ’s statement . He also claimed that QUANTITY police officers on duty at the ORG police headquarters had witnessed the events .

On DATE the public prosecutor heard E.A. , the applicant ’s neighbour who had witnessed his arrest . E.A. verified his earlier police statement , except for the part about the applicant insulting the police officers , which he claimed had been misrecorded . E.A. stated that the applicant had at no point insulted the police officers , yet he had very strongly resisted arrest . He further stated that the police officers carrying out the arrest had not used excessive force or otherwise ill - treated the applicant .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the accused police officers GPE . , PERSON . , GPE and PERSON He held that both the applicant and the police officers who had carried out his arrest had sustained slight injuries as a result of the applicant ’s aggressive resistance to his arrest on DATE . However , as E.A. had also confirmed in his witness statement , the police had not used excessive force to effect the arrest . The public prosecutor did not indicate in the decision the medical reports and other evidence he relied on for the purposes of the investigation .

On DATE ORG delivered its final report regarding the applicant . After repeating the findings of the previous medical reports , it concluded that the injuries observed on the applicant ’s body were not life - threatening and could be treated by a simple medical intervention .

On DATE the applicant objected to the decision of the public prosecutor . The applicant argued , inter alia , that on DATE at TIME he had been punched on the face and strangled by police officer PERSON , who had cuffed his hands behind his back to render him more defenceless . The injuries he had sustained as a result of this beating had been clearly indicated in the medical report issued by ORG at TIME DATE . ORG , where the public prosecutor had referred him after taking his statement , had also noted his injuries in its preliminary report and had photographed them . However , neither the report of ORG nor the photographs had been submitted to the investigation file at the ORG public prosecutor ’s office by the police officer in charge . The applicant asserted that when he had requested ORG preliminary report from the public prosecutor ’s office , the prosecutor had informed him in person that the report was not in the investigation file . In the absence of this report , his complaints against GPE regarding the illtreatment he had been subjected to had not been duly examined by the public prosecutor . He further claimed that the public prosecutor had not heard his witnesses regarding the impugned incidents .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the public prosecutor , without responding to the applicant ’s specific objections . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested from ORG the medical report issued by its GPE branch following his examination on DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that a copy of the report containing the findings of his medical examination had been sent to the ORG public prosecutor ’s office on DATE as the examination . In the event that it could not be found in the investigation file , a new copy could be supplied at the request of the public prosecutor ’s office . It appears that no such request was made by the office of the ORG public prosecutor .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant applied to the ORG public prosecutor ’s office , requesting , inter alia , that his medical report prepared by ORG , together with the photographs , be found and communicated to him , and that the authorities responsible for concealing these documents be punished . He also demanded an explanation as to why ORG had been charged with “ excessive use of force ” rather than “ ill - treatment ” and why the public prosecutor had heard evidence from a witness called by the police against him , E.A. , but not accepted the examination of witnesses on his behalf . The applicant did not receive a reply from the public prosecutor ’s office .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant applied once again to the ORG public prosecutor ’s office for the medical report issued by ORG , which was not available in the investigation file . It appears that he did not receive a reply to this request either .

In the meantime , administrative proceedings were also initiated against the police officers who had effected the applicant ’s arrest , namely ORG . , GPE . , ORG It appears that no administrative action was taken against ORG in respect of the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment .

On an unspecified date the chief superintendent officer in charge of the investigation submitted an investigation report , in which he expressed the opinion that the officers involved in the applicant ’s arrest had acted strictly under orders from the public prosecutor and had not committed any offences which required disciplinary action .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the investigation against the police officers on the basis of the report of the chief superintendent officer .


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

Mr PERSON , a teacher who works in CARDINAL secondary schools in GPE , lives in GPE di GPE .

On DATE he applied to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for judicial review of CARDINAL reductions in salary , for DATE and DATE , imposed on him by the ORG inspectorate and reimbursement of the sums unpaid , after adjustment for inflation and the addition of interest at the statutory rate .

On DATE he asked for a date to be fixed for the hearing . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE he applied for the case to be set down for an urgent hearing .

According to the information supplied by the applicant , on DATE , the proceedings were then still pending .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-b;Violation of P7-2;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

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

The applicant has been a member of ORG since DATE .

In DATE and DATE a presidential election took place in GPE . Following the first and second rounds of the election , a series of protest rallies were organised in GPE by the opposition parties , alleging irregularities .

On DATE the applicant participated in a rally in GPE which was part of a nationwide public demonstration . Following the demonstration the applicant returned to his home in the village of PERSON .

On DATE CARDINAL police officers from ORG ( ՀՀ ոստիկանության NORP բաժին ) visited the applicant at his home .

The applicant alleged that this visit had taken place at TIME The police officers told him that he was required to accompany them to the police station as the chief wished to see him regarding matters unrelated to the demonstration DATE .

The Government contested this allegation and submitted that the police officers had visited the applicant at TIME because they suspected him of having participated in an unauthorised demonstration DATE .

It appears from the materials of the case that the applicant was asked by the police officers to accompany them to the police station . He showed resistance but was nevertheless taken to the police station .

According to the Government , at the police station the arresting police officers drew up a record of the applicant ’s arrest ( արձանագրությաւն բերման ենթարկելու մասին ) in which the reasons for his arrest were indicated . This record was allegedly signed by the applicant .

In his application form , the applicant alleged that at the police station he had discovered that the real reason for his detention was his participation in the demonstration DATE . Contrary to what he had been told , the chief of police did not want to see him . His requests to have a lawyer were ignored . In a later submission , the applicant alleged that the chief of police had in fact met him and told him that he would be detained since there were instructions from the Minister of the ORG to arrest temporarily all political activists .

According to a written statement ( արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին ) made by the applicant at the police station , on DATE he had participated in a rally in GPE and TIME he had returned home to his village . TIME at TIME the police officers had visited him at home and asked him to accompany them to the police station . An argument had erupted , during which the applicant admitted having disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers . The applicant had regretted his actions , asked for forgiveness and promised that it would never happen again .

The applicant alleged that he had made the above statement since the police officers had led him to believe that his arrest was not in relation to serious matters and that he would not face any serious consequences .

The Government contested the above allegations and submitted that the applicant had made the above statement voluntarily . The police officers had informed the applicant of his procedural rights and had advised him to avail himself of his right to have a lawyer but he had not wished to do so .

The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence ( վարչական իրավախախտման արձանագրություն ) in which it was stated that the applicant “ had used foul language and had maliciously disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers ” . The applicant was charged under LAW ( Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք – “ the CAO ” ) . The applicant ’s signature did not appear on this record .

TIME after his arrest the applicant was brought before Judge PERSON of ORG ( ORG մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան ) .

Judge PERSON , after a brief hearing , sentenced the applicant under LAW of the CAO to DATE of administrative detention . The judge ’s entire finding amounted to the following sentence :

“ On DATE at TIME in the village of PERSON of GPE [ the applicant ] maliciously refused to obey the lawful order of the officers of ORG acting in pursuance of their duties of preserving public order ; in particular , while being taken to the police station , he disobeyed the police officers , used foul language and prevented them from performing their duty . ”

According to the record of the court hearing , the hearing was held in public with the participation of the judge , a clerk and the applicant . The judge informed the applicant of his right to challenge the judge and the clerk and to have a lawyer . The applicant did not wish to lodge any challenges or to have a lawyer . The judge then proceeded with examination of evidence . The applicant submitted that the police officers of ORG had visited him at home at TIME DATE and asked him to come to the police station . He had tried to find out why he was being taken to the police station but it turned out that he had used foul language . His attempts to find out the reasons remained unanswered . Thereafter , the judge examined the materials prepared by the police . No further evidence was produced or requests made by the applicant . The judge departed to the deliberation room , after which he returned and announced the decision .

According to the applicant , the hearing was conducted in the judge ’s office , without examination of any witnesses , and lasted TIME . No charges were presented prior to the hearing . The judge explained that he was in no position to help the applicant or to make any decision other than that which he had made as he was acting on instructions from higher authorities . He also explained that it was not possible to call a lawyer because he had many cases to examine and could not afford to spend more time on the applicant ’s case .

The applicant was taken to ORG at ORG to serve his sentence .

The applicant alleged that , at the detention facility , he had been asked to sign the above record of an administrative offence without reading it , which he refused to do .

The Government contested this allegation and claimed that the applicant had actually signed this document while in police custody prior to the court hearing .

The applicant alleged , and the Government did not dispute , that at ORG he had been placed with CARDINAL other people in a cell measuring QUANTITY m. There were no beds in the cell so the detainees had to sleep on the floor . They had no bed linen , blankets or pillows .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL others were transferred to another cell , as a result of constant oral complaints . The applicant alleged , and the Government did not dispute , that the new cell also measured CARDINAL sq . m and was designed for CARDINAL persons . There were CARDINAL metal beds in the cell , each QUANTITY wide , so the applicant had to share a bed with another detainee . There was no bed linen , blankets or pillows . DATE , after repeated oral complaints , the applicant was given bedding which was in a very dirty condition . The water provided to the detainees was of such bad quality that he refused to drink it . He had to acquire mineral water from the outside , using the money that he had , with the help of the staff of the detention facility . Food was provided only once a day and it was always buckwheat of poor quality without salt .

The applicant further alleged – but the Government disputed DATE that while in detention he had developed an allergy resulting in a big swelling on his face which had continued to recur from time to time following his release . His health deteriorated as a result of his detention .

The applicant finally alleged that , during the entire stay at the detention facility , he had been prevented from having any contact with his family members and had not been permitted to receive newspapers or magazines .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention after fully serving his sentence .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a chronic infection of unknown origin .

In DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination and was diagnosed with suspected tuberculosis of the left lung . According to a medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was suffering from liver problems .

For a summary of the relevant provisions of the ORG see the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . GPE , § DATE , DATE ) . The provisions of the ORG which were not cited in the above judgment , as in force at the material time , provide :

“ Maliciously disobeying a lawful order or demand of a police officer or a member of the voluntary police made in the performance of his duties of preserving public order shall result in the imposition of a fine of PERCENT and double the fixed minimum wage , or of correctional labour for DATE with the ’s personality , the application of these measures would be deemed insufficient , of administrative detention not exceeding DATE . ”

The relevant provisions of the PERSON , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ An arrested or detained person is entitled : ... ( CARDINAL ) to lodge , himself or through his lawyer or lawful representative , applications and complaints alleging a violation of his rights and freedoms with the administration of the facility for arrested or detained persons , their superior authorities , a court , a prosecutor ’s office , the ORG , the bodies of public administration and local self - governance , non - governmental unions and [ political ] parties , mass media and international institutions and organisations protecting human rights and freedoms . ”

“ ... The living space afforded to arrested and detained persons must comply with the building and sanitary - hygienic norms established for general living spaces . The area of the living space afforded to arrested and detained persons shall not be CARDINAL sq . m for each individual .

Arrested and detained persons must be provided with individual bedding and bed linen . ”

The relevant provisions of the Decree read as follows :

“ Special sections of the [ facilities for holding arrested persons ] shall be reserved for persons who have been subjected to administrative detention for periods prescribed by [ the ORG ] ... ”

The relevant parts of the Report read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Conditions of detention

a. introduction

At the outset , the ORG wishes to highlight the criteria which it applies when assessing police detention facilities .

All police cells should be clean , of a reasonable size for the number of persons they are used to accommodate , and have adequate lighting ( i.e. sufficient to read by , sleeping periods excluded ) and ventilation ; preferably , cells should enjoy natural light . Further , cells should be equipped with a means of rest ( for example , a chair or bench ) and persons obliged to stay TIME in custody should be provided with a clean mattress and clean blankets .

Persons in custody should be able to satisfy the needs of nature when necessary , in clean and decent conditions , and be offered adequate washing facilities . They should have ready access to drinking water and be given food at appropriate times , including CARDINAL full meal ( that is , something more substantial than a sandwich ) DATE . Persons held in custody for TIME or more should , as far as possible , be offered TIME of outdoor exercise every day .

b. temporary detention centres

During the visit , the ORG ’s delegation visited temporary detention centres in GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG and ORG Establishments of this type are used to hold CARDINAL categories of detainees : criminal suspects and persons under administrative arrest .

Conditions of detention in the temporary detention centres visited varied from acceptable ( at ORG ) to poor ( e.g. at the PERSON and ORG ) .

As regards occupancy levels , a consultation of registers and the number of sleeping places per cell suggested that the minimum standard of CARDINAL m² of living space per person , as stipulated by the PERSON on [ ORG ] , was respected as concerns criminal suspects . However , the ORG must add that this minimum standard is too low . As concerns the cells for administrative detainees , the information gathered during the visit indicated that conditions could become extremely cramped , e.g. CARDINAL detainees in a cell of CARDINAL m² in GPE and GPE .

All the centres visited presented deficiencies concerning the in - cell lighting and ventilation . With the exception of the GPE centre , access to natural light was poor ( small windows , sometimes - as in GPE - covered by metal shutters ) or inexistent ( e.g. in NORP ) . Artificial lighting was invariably dim , with some cells ( e.g. in GPE , NORP and NORP ) submerged in near darkness . As to ventilation , it left something to be desired at GPE and GPE .

As to the state of repair and hygiene of the detention areas , it ranged from quite acceptable at ORG to poor at the PERSON establishment . Cells at the Temporary detention centre in GPE were in a reasonably good state of repair ; however , their level of cleanliness left something to be desired . Detention areas in GPE and NORP were dilapidated but clean .

Cells were furnished with beds or wooden sleeping platforms . The delegation noted that mattresses , sheets , pillows and blankets were available for criminal suspects at all the temporary detention centres visited ; however , this was not the case for administrative detainees .

The delegation did not hear any complaints from persons who were - or had recently been - detained at the centres visited as regards access to a toilet . However , with the notable exception of ORG , the communal toilet and washing facilities were dilapidated and dirty .

The centres in GPE and GPE possessed shower facilities , which could apparently be used by newly - arrived detainees ( upon recommendation of a feldsher / doctor ) and by those administrative detainees who stayed in the respective establishments for DATE . In both centres , the shower facilities were in an acceptable state of repair and cleanliness , and hot water was available . However , the only personal hygiene item that was distributed to detainees was a small piece of soap .

According to information provided by police officers in the majority of the temporary detention centres visited , detainees were offered food CARDINAL times per day , including CARDINAL hot meal . However , this was not the case at ORG , where food was only delivered once per day , reportedly due to the limited budget set aside for this purpose ( CARDINAL ORG - i.e. MONEY - per detainee per day ) . In this situation , the provision of food was to a large extent ensured by detainees’ families . Detained persons without family contacts had to rely on the generosity of other detainees or individual police officers for food .

All the temporary detention centres visited possessed outdoor exercise areas , where detainees were apparently allowed to take exercise for TIME per day ( in the case of women and juveniles - for TIME per day ) . However , at FAC of ORG in GPE , the delegation was informed that detainees could be deprived of outdoor exercise as a form of punishment for violation of the centre ’s internal regulations .

DATE . The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities take steps at temporary detention centres to :

- ensure that all detainees are offered adequate living space ; the objective should be CARDINAL m² per person ;

- provide adequate in - cell lighting ( including access to natural light ) and ventilation ;

- maintain the cells and common sanitary facilities in a satisfactory state of repair and hygiene ;

- ensure that all detainees ( including those held for administrative violations ) are offered a mattress and blankets at TIME ;

- ensure that administrative detainees are able to take a hot shower at least once DATE during their period of detention ;

- ensure that all detainees are offered food - sufficient in quantity and quality - at normal meal times ;

- put an end to deprivation of outdoor exercise as a disciplinary punishment . ”

The relevant part of the ORG reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Conditions of detention

a. Temporary detention centre of ORG of GPE

Conditions of detention in this facility remained basically the same as those observed during DATE visit , i.e. poor . CARDINAL positive change was that persons under administrative arrest were now provided with bedding ( pursuant to Order No . CARDINAL of the Head of ORG DATE ) . Further , the delegation was informed that the food entitlement for detainees had been increased by Government decision of DATE . Otherwise , no refurbishment or major repairs had taken place since the previous visit .

Consequently , the ORG reiterates the recommendations made in paragraph CARDINAL of the report on DATE visit , in particular as regards living space , in - cell lighting , ventilation , state of repair and hygiene . ”

The relevant parts of the ORG read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Conditions of detention

a. police holding areas

At DATE visit , the delegation was informed that , pursuant to LAW , dated DATE , a large - scale refurbishment programme had been initiated in all police holding areas . The ORG welcomes this . It should also be noted that a recent amendment to the [ Law on ORG ] increased the official standard of living space per detained person in police holding areas to CARDINAL m² . This can be considered as acceptable when applied to multi - occupancy cells ; however , CARDINAL m² is not an adequate size for a single occupancy cell .

During the visit , the delegation could observe the impact of the above - mentioned programme . Some of the police holding areas ( e.g. in GPE , PERSON and PERSON ) were still undergoing refurbishment and were to reopen shortly . As regards the already refurbished holding areas , conditions in them were overall of a high standard . ”