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

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

The applicant was living with her grandmother GPE and her uncle , her grandmother ’s handicapped son GPE , in a council flat in PERSON where she had permanent registration as an inhabitant . GPE had a lease in respect of this flat . On DATE GPE died and her tenancy expired .

Subsequently , GPE moved to GPE to live with his sister , GPE

On DATE , in accordance with the housing law of DATE , the applicant lodged a motion with ORG for PERSON ( PERSON ) to take over the tenancy of the flat where her grandmother had lived . In a letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that she could only enter into such a contract on the basis of a judicial decision .

On DATE PERSON lodged a motion with ORG for a declaration of her brother ’s GPE ’s legal incapacity . On DATE GPE , represented by his sister PERSON , lodged a claim with ORG , seeking a declaration that he had succeeded to the tenancy agreement between his mother and the municipality , and thus acquiring the tenant ’s rights and obligations in the flat .

On DATE the applicant , represented by her lawyer , lodged a claim with the ORG seeking a similar declaration to her benefit . In her claim , the applicant indicated her current address where she had permanent registration as an inhabitant .

On DATE the ORG summoned the applicant to appear at the hearing to be held in her civil case on DATE . The summons was sent to the applicant ’s correct address .

On DATE she was summoned as a witness to attend the hearing on DATE in the case brought by GPE This time the summons was sent to the address of the applicant ’s parents where she had not lived .

On DATE a hearing in the case of the applicant ’s uncle was held . On CARDINAL and DATE ORG sent CARDINAL identical letters , which included a copy of the court ’s decision of DATE and a summons to attend the hearing to be held on DATE . Again , the summonses were sent by the registered letter to the wrong address . The letters were returned to the court with the notes that they had not been delivered to the applicant .

On DATE a hearing in the applicant ’s case was held . It lasted TIME . The court informed the applicant that the cases would be joined . The applicant was not given an opportunity to address the court .

On DATE ORG ordered that the cases be joined . This order , along with a summons indicating the date of the hearing of DATE , was subsequently sent to the applicant in a registered letter , with an acknowledgment of receipt , to CARDINAL addresses . She received CARDINAL of them at her permanent address and acknowledged it on DATE . An identical letter was delivered to her lawyer on DATE .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim and held that GPE succeeded to the tenancy agreement between his mother and the municipality . Neither the applicant nor her lawyer had attended the hearing .

The applicant appealed . She contended that the proceedings were null and void as neither the applicant nor her lawyer had been informed of , or summoned to , the hearing on DATE . Accordingly , her interests could not have been presented and protected properly . She had only been correctly informed about the order of the ORG of DATE .

In the meantime , by virtue of a decision of ORG of DATE , ORG had been legally incapacitated . His tutor was appointed on DATE .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The court held inter alia as follows :

“ Contrary to the applicant ’s allegations , no procedural shortcomings on the part of the first - instance court were found . As it transpires from the documents enclosed with the case file no I C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( case of PERSON v. GPE concerning the establishment of a tenancy of a flat ) , at the hearing of DATE both the applicant and her lawyer were informed that the proceedings concerning the establishment of a tenancy of the same flat instituted by GPE were already pending and that both cases would be joined . In fact , the court ’s joinder order issued on DATE , together with a summons for the hearing of DATE , was delivered both to the applicant and her lawyer .

This order , together with the summons indicating the date of the hearing , was sent to the address of the apartment in dispute in PERSON at CARDINAL FAC , which the applicant had declared as her residence . As could be seen from the note made by the postman , due to the fact that the applicant had not collected the letter at the declared address , the letter remained at the post office on DATE and was finally collected by a person called Sopotnicka on DATE . Therefore , the court found unreasonable the applicant ’s argument it had been another person , not herself , who had collected that document .

An identical joinder order , together with the summons indicating the date of the hearing of DATE , was delivered to the office of the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , in PERSON at CARDINAL FAC , and its delivery was confirmed by the office ’s stamp and the signature of its employee . The court , therefore , considers unreasonable the argument of the applicant ’s lawyer that the signature was made by an employee who was not authorised to receive documents , especially in the light of the fact that the same signature was made on the acknowledgment of receipt of a summons giving notice of the appellate hearing , and that receipt , in particular its validity , has not been contested by counsel . ”

On DATE the applicant , represented by her lawyer , lodged a cassation appeal with ORG . She submitted that , in the letter of DATE , she had only been informed that ORG had ordered the joinder of both cases , without any information concerning the hearings .

She stressed the fact , which could be seen in the case - file , that on DATE the ORG sent CARDINAL identical letters , which included a copy of the court ’s decision of DATE and a summons to attend the hearing to be held on DATE , to the wrong address – that of her parents , where she had not lived . The letters were returned to the court with the notes that they had not been delivered to the applicant . Moreover , the court , being aware of this mistake , had failed to inform the applicant by sending the summons to the correct address which was indicated by the post office . Furthermore , the applicant was not cited in these letters as a plaintiff , but only as a witness . The applicant argued that by the letter of DATE , delivered on DATE , her lawyer had only been informed about the court ’s order to join the cases without being summoned to the hearings . Therefore , the applicant asked to have the case remitted to the second instance court .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill - founded . The court upheld the conclusions of the second - instance court in respect of the service of the summonses . The court held inter alia as follows :

“ The applicant ’s complaints are focused on the statement that neither she nor her lawyer were duly summoned to the hearing held before ORG on DATE , and that , consequently , they did not have any possibility of asking the court to admit evidence which ORG should have taken .

That argument is unfounded . ORG , on the basis of the acknowledgments of receipt of the summonses , established that the applicant PERSON and her lawyer had been duly summoned to the hearing held before ORG on DATE and informed about the court ’s joinder order . ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE the applicant applied for widows’ benefits . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . The applicant appealed but received no reply . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a DATE prison sentence in ORG prison for aggravated murder . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

NORP The applicant submitted numerous complaints to the ORG . Among those was a complaint that he had been denied the right to vote in the general election to the GPE , the NORP parliament , on DATE , as the police had failed to send his passport to the prison where he was being held in custody at the time . He also alleged a violation of LAW , on account of the fact that he had been called a “ murderer ” during a TV broadcast .

NORP The applicant ’s complaints under LAW No . CARDINAL to LAW were communicated to the Government on DATE , who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the case .

The applicant did not submit any observations . Instead , in his letter of CARDINAL DATE he stated that “ ORG is not afraid of [ the ORG ] , because [ the ORG ] plays with it like a toy ” .

On DATE the ORG repeatedly requested him to appoint a representative and advised him to contact ORG if he could not find one himself . The applicant did not designate a lawyer .

On DATE the applicant expressed distrust in the ORG and used grossly abusive language towards it . In reply , the ORG notified the applicant that the time - limit for submission of his observations had expired , and drew his attention to LAW ( a ) of the LAW , which provides that the ORG may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he did not intend to withdraw his application , and requested an extension of time to submit his observations . Exceptionally , the President of the ORG granted that request .

On DATE , in reply to the ORG ’s letter stating their position on a friendly settlement , the applicant issued threats directed at officials of ORG . The ORG replied to the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , explaining the procedure before it and insisting on the need for the applicant to appoint a representative .

In the letter sent on CARDINAL DATE the applicant continued to issue abusive and threatening remarks . He stated that “ the ORG supports fascism ” and that during DATE he would “ find the opportunity to discover the truth and [ the chance ] to make sure that those who call themselves gods get what they deserve ” . In reply , the ORG referred to its previous letter .

In the letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that he did not have any trust in the ORG because it scoffed at human rights .

In his letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant continued to use grossly abusive language towards the ORG and the ORG .


CASE OF RAINYS AND GASPARAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

Violation of Art. 14+8;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;No violation of Art. 10;No violation of Art. 14+10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , Mr Antanas Gasparavičius , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

DATE the first applicant was an employee of the NORP branch of ORG ( hereinafter the “ ORG ” ) . Thereafter he found employment as a lawyer in a private telecommunications company .

On DATE CARDINAL authorities - ORG and ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People - jointly concluded that the applicant was subject to the restrictions imposed LAW ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG ) and ORG ( hereinafter “ the LAW ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The conclusion confirmed that the applicant had the status of a “ former ORG officer ” as construed by LAW . As a result , on DATE he was dismissed from his job at the telecommunications company .

The applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities , arguing that his dismissal under LAW and the resultant inability to find employment were unlawful .

On DATE ORG found that the conclusion of DATE had been substantiated , and that the applicant was subject to the restrictions imposed under LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal .

The applicant has been unemployed since DATE .

DATE until DATE the second applicant worked at the ORG . Thereafter he started practising as a barrister .

On an unspecified date in DATE , ORG and ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People jointly concluded that the applicant had the status of a “ former ORG officer ” , and that he was thereby subject to the restrictions imposed LAW . On DATE the Bar informed him that he would be disbarred pursuant to that law .

The applicant brought an administrative action , claiming that his dismissal from the Bar would be unlawful . While the applicant did not contest the fact that he had worked for the ORG even following the declaration of NORP independence on DATE , he submitted that thereafter he had worked as an informer for the authorities of independent GPE . Furthermore , throughout his time at the ORG the applicant had allegedly only worked with cases concerning purely criminal investigations , not political persecutions . In the applicant 's view , he had been entitled to be exempted from the employment restrictions , in accordance with LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's claim . The court found that he had indeed worked with criminal investigations while at the ORG , but that he had remained employed there until his retirement in DATE . The court held that the exceptions in LAW were not applicable to the applicant , given that he did not end his employment with the ORG immediately after GPE 's declaration of independence on DATE .

Upon the applicant 's appeal , on DATE ORG upheld this decision . The court reiterated that the applicant was not entitled to be exempted under LAW , as he had not ended his ORG employment immediately after DATE . Moreover , there was no plausible evidence attesting that thereafter the applicant had worked at the ORG as an agent of the authorities of independent GPE .

As a result of the proceedings on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was disbarred .

He has now found employment in the business field .

The PERSON on the Evaluation of the USSR State Security Committee ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG ) and ORG dėl SSRS valstybės saugumo komiteto ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG ) vertinimo ir šios organizacijos kadrinių darbuotojų dabartinės veiklos ) was enacted ORG on DATE by the LAW ( ORG ) and promulgated by the President of the ORG . The LAW reads as follows :

“ ORG ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG – hereinafter ORG ) is recognised as a criminal organisation which committed war crimes , genocide , repression , terror and political persecution in the territory of GPE when occupied by the GPE . ”

“ For DATE from the date of entry into force of this PERSON , former employees of the ORG may not work as public officials or civil servants in government , local or defence authorities , the ORG department , the police , prosecution , courts or diplomatic service , customs , ORG supervisory bodies and other authorities monitoring public institutions , as lawyers and notaries , as employees of banks and other credit institutions , on strategic economic projects , in security companies ( structures ) , in other companies ( structures ) providing detective services , in communications systems , or in the educational system as teachers , educators or heads of institutions [ ; ] nor may they perform a job requiring a weapon . ”

“ CARDINAL . The restrictions provided for in LAW shall not be applied to former permanent employees of the ORG who , while working at the ORG , investigated only criminal cases and who discontinued their work at the ORG not later than DATE .

ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People and ORG may [ recommend by ] a reasoned application that no restrictions under this law be applied to former permanent employees of the ORG who , within DATE of the date of the entry into force of this PERSON , report to ORG and disclose all information in their possession ... about their former work at the ORG and their current relations with former ORG employees and agents . A decision in this respect shall be taken by a commission of CARDINAL persons set up by the President of the Republic . No employees of ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People or ORG may be appointed to the commission . The commission 's rules shall be confirmed by the President of the Republic . ”

“ The procedure for implementation of the Act shall be governed by [ a special law ] . ”

“ This Act shall come into effect on DATE . ”

Following the examination by ORG of the compatibility of the LAW with LAW ( see LAW below ) , on CARDINAL DATE LAW was amended to the effect that even those individuals who had worked for the ORG after CARDINAL DATE could be eligible for exceptions under LAW .

On DATE a separate law on the implementation of the Act was adopted . According to that law , ORG into the Genocide and Resistance of the NORP People and ORG were empowered to reach a conclusion on an individual 's status as a “ former permanent employee of the ORG ” for the purposes of the Act .

On DATE the Government adopted a list ( “ the list ” ) of positions in various branches of the ORG on NORP territory attesting to a person 's status as a “ former permanent employee of the ORG ” ( “ former ORG officer ” ) for the purposes of the LAW . CARDINAL different positions were listed in this respect .

On DATE ORG examined the issue of the compatibility of the LAW with LAW . ORG held in particular that the LAW had been adopted in order to carry out “ security screening ” measures on former NORP security officers , who were deemed to be lacking in loyalty to ORG . ORG decided that the prohibition on former ORG agents ' occupying public posts was compatible with the LAW . It further ruled that the statutory ban on the holding by former ORG employees of jobs in certain private sectors was compatible with the constitutional principle of a free choice of profession in that the ORG was entitled to lay down specific requirements for persons applying for work in the most important economic sectors in order to ensure the protection of national security and proper functioning of the educational and financial systems . ORG also held that the restrictions under LAW did not amount to a criminal charge against former ORG agents .

While the Act does not specifically guarantee a right of access to a court to contest the security intelligence authorities ' conclusion , it was recognised by the domestic courts that , as a matter of practice , a dismissal from employment in the public service on the basis of that conclusion gave rise to an administrative court action ( and a further appeal ) under the general procedure governing industrial disputes and alleged breaches of personal rights by the public authorities , pursuant to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW , LAW and LAW as effective at the material time ) .

Restrictions have been imposed in many post - communist countries with a view to screening the employment of former security agents or active collaborators in the former regimes . In this respect , international human rights bodies have at times found fault with similar legislation where this has lacked precision or proportionality , characterising such rules as discrimination in employment or the exercise of a profession on the basis of political opinion . The possibility of appeal to the courts has been considered a significant safeguard , although not sufficient in itself to make good shortcomings in legislation ( see NORP and PERSON , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ... ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to work , the Parties undertake :

CARDINAL ) to protect effectively the right of the worker to earn his living in an occupation freely entered upon[. ] ”

This provision , which was retained word for word in LAW of DATE ( which entered into force with regard to GPE on DATE ) , has been consistently interpreted by ORG ) as establishing a right not to be discriminated against in employment . The non - discrimination guarantee is stipulated in Article E of LAW in the following terms :

“ The enjoyment of the rights set forth in this LAW shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other opinion , national extraction or social origin , health , association with a national minority , birth or other status . ”

ORG ( ORG ) has also adopted a number of relevant international legal instruments . The most pertinent text is ORG . CARDINAL on ORG ) of DATE . In its DATE ORG , ORG on ORG ( ORG ) restated its interpretation of Convention No . CARDINAL , drawing upon examples taken from national law .

A DATE survey identifies comparable provisions in the national law of a number of NORP countries .

In GPE , ORG CARDINAL and LAW DATE prohibit the employment of persons who worked for or with the NORP security services . In DATE the ORG expressed its dissatisfaction with the above texts in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recalls that requirements of a political nature can be set for a particular job , but to ensure that they are not contrary to the LAW , they should be limited to the characteristics of a particular post and be in proportion to its labour requirements . The ORG notes that the above established exclusions by the provisions under examination apply broadly to the entire civil service and police rather than to specific jobs , functions or tasks . The ORG is concerned that these provisions appear to go beyond justifiable exclusions in respect of a particular job based on its inherent requirements as provided for LAW . The ORG recalls that for measures not to be deemed discriminatory under LAW , they must be measures affecting an individual on account of activities he or she is justifiably suspected or proven to be engaged in which are prejudicial to the security of the ORG . LAW does not exclude from the definition of discrimination measures taken by reason of membership of a particular group or community . ORG also notes that in cases where persons are deemed to be justifiably suspected of or engaged in activities prejudicial to the security of the ORG , the individual concerned shall have the right to appeal to a competent body in accordance with national practice .

In the light of the above , the ORG considers the exclusions from being a candidate for any civil service position and from being employed by the police are not sufficiently well defined and delimited to ensure that they do not become discrimination in employment and occupation based on political opinion ... ”


The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are NORP nationals .

They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( GPE ) .

s , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants , accused of being members of the illegal organisation Dev - Yol , ( Revolutionary Way ) , were taken into police custody on various dates DATE .

In DATE , the military public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants in GPE . It was alleged that the applicants were members of an illegal organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a NORP - Leninist regime . The prosecution called for the applicants to be sentenced pursuant to LAW of LAW .

All the applicants were released pending trial on various dates DATE . CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , was kept in detention on remand until DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment and acquitted the applicants of the charges against them .

The public prosecutor challenged the judgment of the first instance court as regards CARDINAL of the applicants . However , he did not appeal against the acquittals of CARDINAL of the applicants , namely PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and the decision against them became final in DATE .

Pursuant to the law No . CARDINAL promulgated on DATE the case - file was transferred to a non - military court , ORG . On DATE ORG ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicants be terminated on the ground that the statutory time - limit under LAW of LAW had expired .

The applicants’ lawyer obtained a copy of this decision in DATE .


Violation of Art. 5-4;Not necessary to examine Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE . He was a lawyer and is currently detained in the GPE do ORG secure psychiatric unit in NORP ( GPE ) .

The applicant , who was suspected of fraud , was arrested on DATE and placed in pre - trial detention .

During the proceedings against him the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist . In his report of DATE the psychiatrist concluded that the applicant was suffering from residual schizophrenia and should be given long - term psychiatric treatment .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that , on account of his mentally disturbed state , the applicant was not criminally responsible ( inimputável ) and was dangerous . It accordingly ordered that he be detained for a maximum period of DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE do ORG secure psychiatric unit .

In an order of DATE a judge of ORG decided that , in accordance with the relevant legislation , the mandatory periodic review of the applicant 's detention should take place on DATE .

The applicant 's file was transmitted to ORG das GPE ) . On DATE the judge of that court assigned a lawyer to represent the applicant , who had not chosen CARDINAL himself . He also asked the staff of the GPE do PERSON secure unit to prepare an initial report on the applicant 's condition .

In a letter of DATE PERSON informed the judge that the applicant was “ clinically balanced ” . He added that his behavoiur “ [ was ] adequate and he [ could ] be released on probation [ liberdade para prova ] if he agree[d ] to accept psychiatric support outside and [ took ] his medication ” .

In an order of DATE the judge decided to await the expiry of the time - limits provided for in LAW .

On DATE the applicant personally lodged an application for release , relying on Dr M.S.C. 's favourable opinion . On DATE the judge marked the file as “ seen ” ( visto ) .

On DATE the judge asked ORG , in accordance with the relevant legislation , to submit its opinion on the applicant 's social situation and asked ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to carry out a medical examination .

ORG submitted its report on DATE , concluding that the applicant 's circumstances were such that he could be released on probation . A medical examination was carried out on DATE . The ORG filed a report also on CARDINAL DATE concluding that the applicant remained a danger to society .

On DATE the applicant personally lodged a further application for release , relying on , inter alia , LAW .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the judge . As the applicant 's officially assigned lawyer was not present , the judge appointed an officer from the GPE do ORG secure psychiatric unit as his defence counsel . The applicant stated , among other things , that he considered himself to have recovered and that the medicines which he was still taking were unnecessary .

On DATE the applicant personally lodged a further application for release . On CARDINAL and DATE he filed pleadings criticising the ORG 's medical report .

On DATE ORG asked ORG for a copy of the latest decision relating to the periodic review of the applicant 's detention . On DATE the judge indicated that no decision had yet been taken .

The applicant absconded during prison leave CARDINAL . He was captured on DATE when the police authorities found him at his family home .

In a decision of DATE ORG decided to keep the applicant in detention . The judge based his decision on the ORG 's report of CARDINAL DATE first , before stressing that it was clear that the applicant , who had absconded during prison leave , was not in a position to prove himself worthy of the trust that the prison system had placed in him . Lastly , the judge considered that , on account of the applicant 's mentally disturbed state , the applications for release he had lodged personally did not have to be examined .

The applicant personally appealed against that decision to ORG ) . However , in an order of CARDINAL DATE the judge of ORG decided not to examine his appeal , noting that the applicant had been admitted to a secure psychiatric unit and was represented by officially assigned counsel , and that the President of ORG had delivered a decision on DATE in habeas corpus proceedings to the effect that no other request for habeas corpus submitted by the applicant himself would be examined on account of his mentally disturbed state .

On an unknown date the applicant personally appealed against that order to ORG . However , the judge of ORG made an order on DATE stating that he would not examine the appeal and referring to the reasons stated in his order of CARDINAL February CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant lodged , through Mr PERSON , an application with ORG challenging the judge of ORG dealing with his case . In a judgment of DATE , ORG granted his application , a new judge being appointed .

On DATE the public prosecutor requested the applicant 's release since he presented no further danger . In a decision of DATE the judge dismissed that request and decided to review the situation at the next periodic review ( scheduled for DATE ) . The public prosecutor appealed against that decision to ORG .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

The relevant provisions of LAW , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , are as follows :

“ Persons suffering from a mental disorder who are incapable at the material time of appreciating the unlawful nature or the consequences of their actions shall not be held criminally responsible for those actions . ”

“ CARDINAL . A person who commits a punishable offence and who is found not to be criminally responsible within the meaning of Article CARDINAL shall be ordered to be detained in an asylum , hospital or secure unit , if there is reason to believe , in view of his mental illness and the nature and seriousness of his offence , that he may commit further serious offences .

Where the offence committed by a person found not to be criminally responsible is an offence against the person or a crime punishable by DATE imprisonment , he shall be ordered to be detained for DATE , save where his release is not incompatible with the protection of the legal system and public order . ”

“ Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of the preceding Article , detention shall cease when the court finds that the justification for the detention no longer exists because the detainee is no longer criminally dangerous . ”

“ CARDINAL . The court may at any time hear an application relying on a ground for the cessation of the detention measure .

NORP The court shall , of its own motion , regardless of whether any application has been made , review the detention DATE after it began or after the decision extending it .

The Code of Criminal Procedure and Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE setting up sentence - supervision courts lay down the appropriate procedure to be followed . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide :

“ CARDINAL . A personal file shall be opened in the establishment in which the person is to be detained in which shall be registered or placed all documents received from or sent to the court together with periodic reports on the effects of the treatment on the dangerousness of the detainee .

NORP The governor of the establishment shall send the periodic reports to the sentence - supervision court DATE and when justified by the circumstances or requested by the court . ”

“ CARDINAL . Up until DATE prior to the date scheduled for the mandatory review of the detainee 's situation , the sentence - supervision court shall order

( a ) a psychiatric or character report , if possible in the establishment where the detainee is detained , which must be submitted to the court within DATE ;

( b ) of its own motion , or at the request of the public prosecutor , the detainee or the lawyer , measures likely to assist it in reaching a decision .

Up until DATE the social rehabilitation services shall send a report on the detainee 's family and professional environment .

The mandatory review of the detainee 's situation shall be conducted after hearing submissions from the public prosecutor , the lawyer and the detainee ; the latter must be present , save where his state of health renders such hearing purposeless or impossible .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , which applies as an alternative provision in proceedings before ORG , provides DATE in urgent cases , where it is not possible to find a member or trainee member of the Bar , that the judge may officially assign an appropriate person without legal qualifications to represent the accused . In judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ( Boletim do PERSON no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the appointment of a court - registry official as the accused 's defence counsel did not infringe the rights of the defence , as guaranteed by LAW .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows . The applicant was , at the material time , a lance corporal ( a non - commissioned officer ) in the NORP army .

On DATE he was convicted by a General Court Martial ( “ GCM ” ) of CARDINAL offences of rape of a junior female army officer ( a Lieutenant ) . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and dismissed with disgrace from the service . The ORG comprised CARDINAL officers ( not below the rank of Captain ) , a permanent president and a judge advocate . ORG did not alter the GCM ’s finding or sentence .

The appeal to ORG ( “ ORG ” ) was dismissed on DATE . The applicant had argued that trial by court - martial comprised exclusively of officers violated the impartiality guarantee of LAW where the complainant was an officer , the accused was a soldier from the ranks and the issues in the case turned on the credibility of the evidence of those individuals . The ORG noted that :

“ We have already referred to the fact that the members of the court swear a judicial oath for each case they are to try . The following passage formed part of the judge advocate ’s summing - up ... :

“ What is required of you at this stage is cold , clinical dissection of the evidence . You are a panel of CARDINAL commissioned officers , trying the factual issues in this case . The complainant ... is a commissioned officer . It would , of course , be entirely wrong for you to prefer the evidence of [ the complainant ] because she is a commissioned officer as against the evidence of the accused because he is a non - commissioned officer . That would be to show partiality and I remind you again of the oath you took at the outset of this case , to try this case without partiality , favour or affection . Your commonsense will no doubt tell you that commissioned officers do not always tell the truth any more than non - commissioned officers do not always tell the truth . It may be , I know not , that you were unimpressed with [ the complainant ’s ] career to date . It ’s not been without its problems . She was short - toured from GPE and I suspect you will conclude that on occasions she drank rather more than was good for her . These are factors about her that you are entitled to consider , but again it would be wrong to say ... that simply because of those problems in her career to date , she is not worthy of belief . Similarly with the accused , bear in mind all you know about him , the fact that he is a non - commissioned officer is CARDINAL of the things you know about him . You also know about his career to date , his achievements and what other people think of him and his qualities . Weigh that in the balance when deciding the weight that you feel is appropriate to attach to his evidence . ”

These directions were clear , robust , and balanced . The court can have been left in no possible doubt but that it was their duty to assess the evidence free of the least influence exerted by the ORG respective ranks . In our judgment no apparent bias ... is shown , and there was no violation of LAW . ”

In its judgment of that date the ORG also refused to certify a point of law of public importance to ORG concerning the applicant ’s ground of appeal to the ORG .

LAW ( the “ LAW ” ) came into effect on DATE , amending the Army Act DATE ( the “ CARDINAL Act ” ) . The relevant domestic law and practice applicable to air - force courts - martial following the entry into force of LAW is set out in the case of ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINALXII ) . The relevant regulatory framework governing post-CARDINAL Act army courts - martial is the same in all material respects ( the ORG judgment , at § MONEY ) .

At the relevant time , a ORG was required to consist of a permanent president , not CARDINAL serving military officers of CARDINAL years’ military experience and a judge advocate ( section CARDINAL of LAW , prior to amendment by LAW ) .

LAW ( the “ LAW ” ) has since inserted a new section CARDINALD into LAW . The new section provides , inter alia , that membership of a ORG may include CARDINAL ( non - commissioned ) warrant officers where the accused is a person of a rank below that of the warrant officers concerned . In giving evidence on DATE to ORG on this draft legislation , the Chief of ORG stated :

“ There are some areas where [ the Bill ] will improve the way we actually conduct our discipline . The idea , for example , of having warrant officers able to sit on courts - martial gives us the opportunity to use the experience of these excellent people within the service , and I am sure that will be perceived as a good thing , which in turn must reflect on the overall discipline . ”


CASE OF DANGAYEVA AND TARAMOVA v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life)

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicants live in GPE , GPE . The first applicant was married to the second applicant ’s brother , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The couple had CARDINAL children . At the material time PERSON was a senior bailiff and held an officer ’s identity card ( no . DATE ) and a gun licence . He had positive references from his superior .

On DATE PERSON and the first applicant together with Mr PERSON ’s nephew and his wife were at the PERSON family house at FAC in the LOC district of PERSON . The town was under curfew ; checkpoints manned by NORP federal forces were located on the main roads leading to and from the town .

At TIME a UAZ military vehicle arrived at the PERSON house . CARDINAL or QUANTITY tall men in camouflage uniforms and masks descended from it . They were armed with machine - guns equipped with silencers and spoke unaccented NORP . The men told the first applicant that they were from the military commander ’s office and ordered her to open the gates . When she did so , they entered the courtyard . The applicants thought that the men were NORP servicemen .

The servicemen asked the first applicant whether there were any weapons in the house . PERSON came out to the courtyard and requested the servicemen to produce identification . The men replied that they were from the military commander ’s office and were performing an identity check .

PERSON produced his bailiff ’s identity card and his service pistol . The servicemen took his card and the gun . While they were examining the identity document , one of them shouted and swore at the first applicant . PERSON asked him to mind his language in the presence of women , but received a kick from one of the servicemen . He then rushed into the house and reappeared on the porch with his service machine - gun . CARDINAL of the servicemen then shot PERSON in the arm and chest , whereupon the servicemen ran out of the courtyard with PERSON identity card and pistol .

PERSON fell to the ground bleeding . The first applicant was unable to transport him to the doctor ’s because of the curfew . After TIME PERSON died from blood loss in the courtyard of his house .

According to the first applicant , her neighbours had seen her husband ’s killers arrive at the applicants’ house on board ORG military vehicles . However , they refused to give witness statements as they feared for their safety .

The applicants also submitted that either before or after the killing of PERSON , the same group of armed men had visited the house of their neighbour , Mr M.

In support of their account the applicants submitted CARDINAL witness statements by the first applicant and copies of the documents received by the applicants from the investigation into PERSON death .

The Government submitted that “ at TIME on DATE unidentified persons in camouflage uniform and masks , armed with automatic weapons arrived on board a ORG vehicle at FAC , PERSON , and committed the murder of PERSON . PERSON .

Referring to the witness statement the first applicant had given in the investigation into her husband ’s death the Government noted that on TIME of DATE she and her husband had been at home . From the window she had seen several men speaking loudly and using swear words . They had told her that they were from the military commander ’s office and were conducting an identity check . After she opened the gate CARDINAL or CARDINAL armed masked men had entered the courtyard . The first applicant ’s husband had come out of the house carrying a pistol . He had introduced himself to the armed men , showed his bailiff ’s identity card and asked the men about their identity and the reasons for their visit . In response CARDINAL of them had kicked him between the legs . He had then gone back into the house before returning with a machine - gun . CARDINAL of the armed men had shot him . As she had not heard the sound of gunfire , the first applicant thought that the weapon must have been equipped with a silencer . Immediately afterwards the applicant ’s husband had fallen to the ground and the armed men had left with his bailiff ’s identity card and service pistol . Meanwhile , the applicant ’s nephew , Mr PERSON , had picked up the machine - gun and fired a number of shots in the direction of the departing men who had not responded . The first applicant had not heard the noise of car engines or see any cars .

The Government noted that the first applicant had failed to inform the investigators that she had been prevented by the curfew from taking her husband to hospital .

According to the Government , at TIME on DATE ( DATE ) a group of unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had broken into the yard of PERSON , an engineer from the operational communications unit of the department of the interior of the LOC district of PERSON ( LOC ) , requested his identity papers and taken away his officer ’s identity card .

On DATE a shooting incident involving the same group of armed men had taken place at the house of Mr I. S. , an officer of the criminal search unit of LOC .

The Government stated that according to information received from various ORG offices in GPE no “ power structures ” ( силовые структуры ) had been engaged in special operations in FAC , ORG on DATE . The Government stressed that there were grounds for suspecting that the group of armed men who had visited all CARDINAL houses were an illegal armed group .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of the city of PERSON ( “ the PERSON prosecutor ’s office ” ) instituted an investigation into the murder of PERSON under LAW of LAW ( “ aggravated murder ” ) . The case file was assigned DATE .

On DATE PERSON body was examined by a forensic expert and a report was drawn up which stated that the body had CARDINAL gunshot wounds : CARDINAL in the left arm and the other on the left side of the chest . No other injuries were found . It appears that the examination was perfunctory and no post - mortem was carried out .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office granted the first applicant victim status in criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE it issued a certificate confirming that PERSON had been killed by unidentified persons and that the investigation was in progress .

On DATE ( in the documents produced to ORG the date is mistakenly stated as being DATE ) the PERSON prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation in case no . DATE owing to a failure to establish the identity of the killers .

On an unspecified date in DATE it conducted a crime scene inspection at FAC , PERSON , where it collected an ORG assault rifle no . DATE , a machine - gun belt , bullet casings , bullets and a cartridge .

On DATE it informed the first applicant of its decision to suspend the investigation .

On DATE ORG examined the cause of death on the basis of an autopsy report dated DATE . It concluded that the death could have been caused by the gunshot wound in the chest .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to the GPE prosecutor ’s office requesting that the investigation into her husband ’s murder be resumed , that she be provided with detailed information on progress and granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor ’s office quashed the decision to suspend the investigation and reopened the proceedings , noting inter alia , that the investigation had established the following :

“ ... TIME on DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniform conducted identity checks and inspected houses in FAC , ORG . They entered the yard of the house at FAC where the senior bailiff from the LOC bailiff ’s office PERSON . PERSON resided with his wife , his nephew and his nephew ’s wife .

According to the witness statement of PERSON , the wife of the victim , CARDINAL or CARDINAL armed men entered the yard . PERSON . PERSON heard the noise and came out into the yard . He had his pistol and bailiff ’s identity card with him . He produced them to the men and asked them who they were . In response he was kicked between the legs . He then ran back into the house and reappeared on the porch holding a machine - gun . At that moment he was shot with a silencer - equipped gun . After he had fallen to the ground , the men , who , in PERSON opinion were military servicemen , started running away from the yard . Her nephew picked up her husband ’s gun and opened fire at them .

The investigators collected from the crime scene : CARDINAL bullet casings of calibre CARDINAL x CARDINAL mm , CARDINAL of which had been fired from the calibre CARDINAL ORG machine - gun assigned to PERSON . PERSON as his service gun under licence no . DATE and CARDINAL bullet casings which had been shot from another gun . Additionally , the investigation also collected CARDINAL calibre CARDINAL x CARDINAL PERSON bullet casings which had been fired from a sniper rifle or calibre CARDINAL machine - gun and CARDINAL calibre CARDINAL x CARDINAL PERSON bullets ... ”

On DATE the GPE prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant of the decision to reopen the investigation and undertook to update her on any progress in the proceedings .

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators ordered a ballistic report on the bullet casings which had been found at the scene on DATE .

On DATE the investigation was transferred to the prosecutor ’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy district of PERSON ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended owing to the failure to establish the identity of the killers and that she had the right to challenge the decision before a higher prosecutor or a court .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation owing to the failure to establish the ORG identity . The applicants were not informed .

On DATE a lawyer acting on behalf of the first applicant requested the district prosecutor ’s office to provide the first applicant with a copy of their decision of DATE .

On DATE the PERSON requested the GPE prosecutor ’s office to provide detailed information on the investigation , in particular , on whether the findings of the ballistic report had been used to identify the type of gun used and the killers and whether the bullets had been extracted from the body , placed with the investigation file and submitted to the ballistic experts for evaluation . The prosecutor ’s office was also asked to inform the applicant why the investigators had also decided to examine the investigation files in criminal cases nos . DATE and DATE and of the results of the comparative ballistic expert evaluation of the bullet casings in all CARDINAL cases . Finally , the prosecutor ’s office was asked to provide the first applicant and her representative with a copy of the ballistic report and of the decision granting the first applicant victim status and to inform her about progress in the investigation .

On DATE the PERSON again wrote to the GPE prosecutor ’s office stating that they had not received any response to their request of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office quashed the decision to suspend the investigation and reopened the criminal proceedings . The decision stated , inter alia :

“ ... [ the investigators ] failed to question witnesses PERSON , Mr ORG , who was born in DATE , Mr I.Sh . and Mr S.V ...

It is necessary [ for the investigators ] to identify and question the persons who saw the car and armoured vehicles used by the unidentified persons who arrived at PERSON house , to establish their route to the house and the direction in which they departed .

It is necessary [ for the investigators ] to enquire of the Headquarters of ORG of ORG of the ORG , ORG and other lawenforcement agencies stationed in GPE whether any special operations were conducted during TIME DATE in FAC and nearby streets in GPE .

[ The investigators ] should ask all permanent and temporary district departments of ORG and ORG of ORG , ORG , ORG of ORG whether they conducted any special operations during TIME DATE in FAC in GPE .

[ The investigators ] should obtain the registration log of the car and armoured vehicles which went through the checkpoints along the Staropromyslovskiy main road during TIME DATE and carry out operational - searches to establish whether the unidentified killers belonged to federal structures ... ”

On DATE the GPE prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation into her husband ’s murder was in progress and advised her to contact the district prosecutor ’s office in order to join the proceedings as a victim . A copy of the letter was sent to the SRJI .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation owing to a failure to establish the identity of the killers .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office quashed the decision to suspend the investigation and reopened the proceedings . The decision stated , inter alia :

“ It is necessary to take the following investigative actions :

- to grant CARDINAL of the relatives [ of PERSON ] victim status in the criminal proceedings and to question him / her in that capacity ;

- to question Mr ORG as a witness ;

- to examine the investigation files in criminal cases nos . DATE and DATE and , if necessary , to join the investigation of these criminal cases [ with the investigation into the murder of PERSON , criminal case no . DATE ] ;

- to request responses to the ORG requests for information and send reminders , if necessary ;

- to question as witnesses persons whose preliminary accounts of the events were included in the investigation file ;

- to send requests for information to all district and city ORG offices in GPE ... ”

The applicants were informed of this decision on DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation owing to a failure to establish the killers’ identity . A letter informing the first applicant of this decision was sent to her address on DATE .

On DATE the PERSON wrote to the district prosecutor ’s office reiterating their request of DATE for information about the results of the ballistic expert evaluation and progress in the investigation .

On DATE the PERSON wrote to the GPE prosecutor ’s office stating that no reply had been received to their request of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that they had reopened the investigation DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the ORG that pursuant to LAW they could not disclose any information concerning the investigation .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation owing to the failure to establish the ORG identity and informed the first applicant .

On DATE the present application was communicated to ORG and a copy of the investigation file into the death of the applicants’ relative was requested .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office quashed the decision to suspend the investigation as being unsubstantiated and reopened the proceedings . The applicants were not informed of this decision .

The ORG has not been informed whether any investigative steps have been taken by the district prosecutor ’s office since the last reopening of the criminal investigation on DATE .

The Government submitted additional information about the investigation into the murder of PERSON . However , they did not submit to the ORG the witness statements , forensic and ballistic reports and a number of other documents to which they referred in their submission . The list of documents submitted by the ORG is provided below ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .

According to the Government on DATE following PERSON death – the PERSON prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case file no . DATE and took the necessary investigative measures . The Government did not specify which measures were carried out by the investigators on that date .

The Government submitted that the applicants had not informed the investigators that at the material time the LOC district of PERSON had been under curfew which had prevented the transportation of PERSON to a local hospital . In addition , they referred to statements by unnamed witnesses who said that they had not been prevented from moving freely about the LOC district of PERSON during the curfew .

The Government further submitted that the applicant had not mentioned in her complaints to the domestic authorities that the killers could have been NORP military servicemen .

According to the ORG , the manner in which PERSON was killed ( by a gun equipped with a silencer ) and the fact that the heavily armed assailants had left the scene without responding to the numerous shots fired by Mr Isa NORP demonstrated that it could not have been a special operation by law - enforcement agencies . They added that the fact that the killers were armed with AK-CARDINAL assault rifles , pistols and sniper rifles with silencers did not prove that they were members of federal forces .

According to the ORG , the investigators in criminal case no . DATE questioned CARDINAL witnesses : Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON . I. who described the perpetrators as a group of unidentified armed masked men in camouflage uniform who had spoken unaccented NORP .

The Government further submitted that the description provided by the witnesses did not demonstrate that the assailants were representatives of the ORG . Although the camouflage uniforms used were similar to the uniform of military servicemen , such uniforms had been available for purchase everywhere in GPE . In addition , the masks used did not have features distinguishing criminals from military servicemen . The firearms used could have been stolen or obtained by other illegal means . The fact that the killers spoke NORP did not prove that they were NORP military servicemen ; they could have been residents of GPE and members of illegal armed groups from other countries who spoke the language .

The investigators had collected a significant number of bullet casings at the scene . According to the Government , this fact along with the inability of the eye - witnesses to clarify who was shooting and from which direction , cast doubt on the truthfulness of their statements to the criminal investigators . Nevertheless , the investigators had been trying to clarify the factual circumstances surrounding the killing .

The Government referred to a letter from LOC and submitted that the investigators had not found any witnesses able to confirm that the killers had arrived at the house by car or in armoured vehicles . According to the letter , on an unspecified date after PERSON death , officers of LOC had gone to the homes of residents in FAC and the nearby streets trying to obtain information relating to the murder of PERSON . They had spoken to CARDINAL local residents who had not provided any meaningful information .

The Government further referred to the ballistic expert ’s report of DATE ( a copy of this document was not provided to ORG ) . According to that report , a comparison of the bullet casings found at the scene of PERSON murder with casings found at the scene of the theft of PERSON . ’s property on DATE ( criminal case no . DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and at the scene of the DATE shooting at the home of PERSON , an officer of the criminal search division of LOC ( criminal case no . DATE ) had established that the same gun had been used to commit all CARDINAL crimes .

Referring to the witness statement of PERSON , an engineer from the operational communications department of LOC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Government submitted that at TIME on DATE a group of unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms had broken into his yard , demanded his officer ’s identity card and taken it away with them .

The Government contended that the taking of ORG ’s and PERSON identity cards by the unidentified men demonstrated that the crimes had been perpetrated by the same group with the intention of using the documents for criminal purposes .

The Government further referred to the information received from ORG of ORG ( ORG ) and LOC PERSON that ORG had not conducted any special operations in FAC , ORG on DATE . Various ORG offices in GPE had also confirmed that they were not aware of any special operations being carried out by law - enforcement agencies in FAC , PERSON on that date .

The Government further confirmed that the investigation had been suspended on a number of occasions owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicants had been duly informed each time the criminal proceedings had been suspended or reopened as also of their right to appeal against these decisions to public prosecutors or domestic courts . The Government further stated that although the investigation had not identified the killers , it was currently under way and investigative measures aimed at solving the crime were being taken .

NORP Despite specific requests by ORG refused to disclose most of the documents from the investigation file in criminal case no . DATE on the grounds that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since it would be against the interests of the participants of the criminal investigation and lead to a violation of their rights . The ORG submitted CARDINAL procedural documents ( CARDINAL pages ) from the investigation file in criminal case no . DATE as follows :

( a ) decision dated DATE to open a criminal case ;

( b ) CARDINAL ORG decisions dated DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE to take up the case ;

( c ) CARDINAL decisions dated DATE ( which should read DATE ) , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE to suspend the investigation ;

( d ) CARDINAL decisions dated DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE to reopen the investigation ;

( e ) CARDINAL letters dated DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE informing the applicants of the suspension of the investigation ;

( f ) CARDINAL letters dated DATE and DATE informing the applicants of the reopening of the investigation .

Article CARDINAL of LAW Procedure DATE ( “ ORG ” ) provides that the decision of an investigator or prosecutor to dispense with or terminate criminal proceedings , and other decisions and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede ORG access to justice , may be appealed against to a district court , which is empowered to examine the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG establishes the rule that data from the preliminary investigation can not be disclosed . Part CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission .

Article CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code provides that damage sustained by an individual because of the unlawful acts or omissions of ORG and municipal agencies or their officials is to be indemnified by the ORG or municipal treasury concerned .


ASSOCIATION OF THE VICTIMS OF TERRORISM v. SPAIN

The applicant is a GPE association that was formed in DATE to protect the interests of victims and relatives of victims of acts of terrorism . It was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and Mr NORP , lawyers practising in GPE .

judgment of DATE to which reference is made below , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the terrorist organisation ORG released a communiqué entitled “ NORP alternative ” ( ORG ) through a newspaper , Egin .

A decision was taken by ORG ( GPE ) , the executive body of the political movement , PERSON , to take active steps to disseminate the communiqué from DATE . The decision was taken by a differently composed GPE from that which was subsequently prosecuted .

In DATE the newly composed ORG drafted a document entitled “ Presentation of the democratic alternative to the people ” ( Presentación Popular de la Alternativa Democrática ) , in which it set out a strategy for disseminating pro - ORG propaganda through advertisements placed in the press , in particular with the PERSON newspaper , and through other channels of communication with the general public in ORG .

At DATE , shortly before the general election on DATE , unidentified members of ORG sent the ORG CARDINAL videocassettes on “ Alternativa Democrática ” . During a meeting on CARDINAL DATE and in accordance with ORG , DATE and CARDINAL of its articles of association which defined it as the executive body of ORG party with responsibility for representing the political movement , the ORG agreed to adopt the content of the cassettes and to arrange for their dissemination , and also to allow ORG to use advertising slots that , as a legally recognised political party , had been reserved to ORG free of charge for its party political broadcasts . The cassettes presented ORG ’s “ Alternativa Democrática ” programme , with its logo , symbols and weapons , and called , inter alia , for the independence and self - determination of the NORP people , an unconditional general amnesty and the withdrawal of ORG from the territory claimed .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged a complaint with central investigating judge no . CARDINAL , who started an investigation ( diligencias previas ) .

On DATE the central investigating judge issued an injunction prohibiting the dissemination of the material in slots reserved for free party political broadcasts and of radio announcements intended for that purpose .

By a decision of DATE , the central investigating judge agreed to permit the applicant to join the proceedings against the CARDINAL members of the GPE concerned as a third - party prosecutor .

On DATE ORG held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case , which had been assigned to it as some of those allegedly involved in the matters complained of were members of the parliaments of the autonomous communities of ORG and GPE .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged his submissions . The applicant did likewise on CARDINAL DATE . It argued that the GPE acts should be classified as the offence of membership of an armed and the continuing offence of aiding and abetting an armed organisation or , in the alternative , of aiding and abetting an armed organisation and the continuing offence of vindication of offences under ORG CARDINAL bis ( b ) and CARDINAL bis ( a ) § CARDINAL of LAW , or the continuing offence of vindication of terrorism , contrary to LAW . The ORG lodged its defence submissions on DATE .

By a judgment of ORG on DATE , the members of the ORG were acquitted of the offences of being members of an armed organisation and of vindicating acts of terrorism , but convicted under LAW ( a ) of LAW of aiding and abetting an armed organisation . They were sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

The ORG lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court based on their rights to a fair trial and to have their case heard by an independent and impartial court established by law , their right not to incriminate themselves , their rights to respect for freedom of expression and information , to respect for freedom of thought and to take part in politics , and lastly the presumption of innocence and the principle of equality .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged his pleading setting out his reasons for contesting the grounds relied on by those seeking amparo relief . The applicant followed suit on DATE .

By a judgment of DATE , which was served on the applicant on DATE , ORG , sitting as a full court composed of CARDINAL judges , granted the PERSON amparo relief and quashed the judgment appealed against . It held that the ORG ’s right protected by the rule requiring that offences and punishments shall be strictly defined by law had been infringed by the application of LAW and QUANTITY of LAW , in that the penalty imposed was disproportionate on the facts of the case . CARDINAL dissenting opinions and CARDINAL concurring opinions were annexed to the judgment .

Basic law on ORG

“ ORG may at any time before adopting its decision inform the parties that other grounds exist , apart from those that have been relied on , that are of relevance to admissibility and , if applicable , to the merits . In such cases a single hearing shall be held for the parties within DATE and the period for delivery of the decision shall be extended accordingly . ”

Third - party prosecution

In NORP law the right to bring a criminal prosecution is public . In addition to the public prosecutor , private citizens are entitled to institute criminal proceedings . ORG may bring a private prosecution ( for offences that may be prosecuted by the injured party ) ; these take the form of a special prosecution or a third - party prosecution , the latter being for offences for which a prosecution lies ex officio ( LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW on PERSON and LAW ) . By Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , third - party prosecutions , unlike special prosecutions , are commenced by a criminal complaint ( querella ) lodged by someone other than the victim of the crime .


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms J. Tonks , a welfare rights adviser in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . Subsequently the applicant was sent a further application form under the new system in place as from DATE . He duly completed and returned the application form on DATE . Subsequently the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not entitled to the benefits at issue because his wife had died before DATE .

The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG . The Government of GPE did not make use of their right to intervene ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention ) .

On DATE , during his stay in GPE , the applicant ’s car was damaged by a snow excavator .

On DATE the applicant filed a motion seeking the issuance of a payment order and an action for damages with ORG ( okresní soud ) against the Pec pod GPE ( Město Pec pod GPE ) , the ORG pod GPE Services ( PERSON města Pec pod GPE ) and the owner of the excavator .

The proceedings terminated on DATE on the date on which a judgment of ORG of DATE became final .

On DATE the applicant applied for compensation pursuant to Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended . He claimed ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of fees and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that his application had been accepted , that it had been found that his right to a determination of his civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated , but that the length of the proceedings did not justify a financial compensation . ORG refused also the applicant ’s claim regarding compensation for pecuniary damage .

On DATE the applicant informed the Registry that he did not intend to turn to a court under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE )


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

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

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

On DATE a married couple , PERSON and PERSON , lodged a criminal complaint with the police , alleging that they had been victims of kidnapping and extortion . On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) and QUANTITY and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE for aggravated unlawful deprivation of liberty , extortion and unlawful purchase and possession of firearms .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in connection with the above proceedings . As disclosed by the record of a search of the applicant ’s vehicle , which according to the applicant had been falsified , several items of evidence were found in the vehicle and collected for further examination , including one hand grenade , several cartridges and a face mask .

The applicant alleges that on the same date several police officers subjected him to ill - treatment upon his transfer to ORG of GPE , with the aim of obtaining a confession to the charges against him . The police officers allegedly tied the applicant to a chair and beat him for TIME , the applicant receiving a particularly large number of blows to the head . The beatings were allegedly encouraged and supervised by CARDINAL senior police officers , PERSON . and Mr. PERSON , who threatened to kill the applicant if he did not plead guilty .

Subsequently , the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention centre , where , upon admission , he was visually examined by a duty officer in the presence of another prison officer . According to the record drawn up by the duty officer and duly signed by the applicant ( “ the record of CARDINAL DATE ” ) , multiple scratches and reddened areas were identified on the applicant ’s neck . The record also stated that the applicant had said that he had sustained those injuries prior to his arrest .

At a photo identity parade held on DATE , the victims identified the applicant as one of their kidnappers .

On DATE a department head of ORG , relying on the record of DATE , instructed the NORP - Saburtalo district prosecutor to inquire into the origin of the applicant ’s injuries and take any lawful actions required . As disclosed by the case file , the above request has not resulted in any actual investigative actions .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused were convicted on multiple charges of aggravated kidnapping , extortion , hostage - taking , unlawful purchase and possession of firearms , and causing both grave and minor bodily injuries , committed while acting in an organised , armed criminal gang . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The applicant ’s conviction was primarily based on the ORG statements , the results of the identity parade , the record of the search of the applicant ’s vehicle , statements from the police officers who had conducted the search , and an analysis of the incoming and outgoing mobile phone calls of the applicant and his CARDINAL co - accused . According to the transcript of the trial hearing , both victims identified the applicant in court as the perpetrator . The court rejected the applicant ’s alibi and supporting witness testimonies as unsubstantiated , reasoning that the alibi had been made up with the sole purpose of evading criminal responsibility .

In his appeal dated DATE , the applicant reiterated all the arguments made by him at the first - instance hearing . Notably , the applicant challenged the results of the search of his vehicle and complained of inaccurate assessment of evidence by the trial court and also about the dismissal of his alibi . The applicant did not make allegations of ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG , whilst whilst rejecting CARDINAL of the aggravating circumstances modifying the qualification of the offences , maintained the applicant ’s conviction and his sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The appellate court endorsed the reasoning of the first - instance court concerning the conclusiveness of the incriminating evidence . On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with ORG and , relying on LAW , requested the initiation of a criminal investigation of the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . The lawyer denounced the failure of the prosecuting authorities to carry out the prosecutor ’s instructions of CARDINAL September CARDINAL , and to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained his injuries . The lawyer particularly stressed the relevant authorities’ failure to question the applicant in connection with his injuries . In support of the above request , the lawyer provided ORG with a copy of the record of DATE assessing the applicant ’s injuries , the applicant ’s statement describing ill - treatment he stated he had suffered DATE including the names of some of the alleged perpetrators , and a copy of the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE .

The above complaint was forwarded to the GPE prosecutor on DATE with a request to report back .

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated by the prosecuting authorities in connection with the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment on DATE . On DATE , while being questioned as a witness , the applicant maintained his allegations of ill - treatment and named the key suspects again . On DATE a forensic examination established that the applicant ’s injuries as described in the record of CARDINAL September CARDINAL were of a minor nature , causing no damage to his state of health .

As disclosed by the relevant criminal case file submitted by the Government , several witnesses were questioned , including CARDINAL of the alleged suspects named by the applicant and the CARDINAL investigators and the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case against the applicant . They all denied the applicant ’s allegations . Several other investigative actions were also carried out for the purpose of verifying the applicant ’s claims . According to the Government , no evidence was found to substantiate the applicant ’s allegations .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the psychiatric wing of the prison hospital with symptoms of post - traumatic stress disorder . By that time he had developed insomnia , frequent headaches and dizziness . He complained in particular of depression , irritability and tinnitus . Following a psychiatric evaluation , the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from emotionally unstable personality disorder and post - traumatic nonpsychotic cerebral syndrome . The medical report of the applicant ’s treatment in the prison hospital DATE and CARDINAL DATE noted that the applicant had suffered from concussion several times in the past . The report also noted that the applicant had never been registered with any psychiatric hospital in the past and that his parents did not suffer from any genetically transmissible diseases .

The applicant was discharged from the prison hospital after DATE of treatment and returned to GPE no . CARDINAL Prison on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer wrote a letter to the governor of GPE no . CARDINAL Prison , where the applicant was an inmate at the material time , inquiring about the availability of a psychiatrist in the prison . In a reply of CARDINAL DATE , the prison governor informed the lawyer that the applicant had been transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL Prison . He further maintained in general terms that a psychiatrist from the prison hospital was asked to attend whenever the need arose .

In DATE the applicant raised new medical grievances with the prison authorities . Notably , he complained of pain in the waist area and after a medical check - up was diagnosed with radiculopathy . The applicant was prescribed relevant drug - based treatment on an out - patient basis .

As disclosed by his medical file , the applicant subsequently had periodic consultations with various specialists , including a psychiatrist . The most recent consultation , on DATE , indicated that the applicant ’s mental condition was stable , with no signs of psychosis .

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

Article CARDINAL – Obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation

“ Upon receipt of information concerning the commission of a crime , the investigator and the public prosecutor , within the limits of their powers , shall open an investigation . ... ”

Article CARDINAL – Information concerning the commission of a crime

“ CARDINAL . A preliminary investigation shall be opened on the basis of information concerning the commission of a crime brought to the attention of the investigator or the public prosecutor by a natural person or other legal entity ... reported in the media , or brought to light during the investigation of a case by the authority in charge of the investigation ... ”


Julia Laffranque;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE . PERSON is the mother of the other CARDINAL applicants .

From DATE onwards PERSON lived in a house together with PERSON , her husband , PERSON , her mother in law , and PERSON . In DATE PERSON was born . In DATE PERSON acquired a property title over the said house . In DATE PERSON died . In DATE PERSON concluded a deed of gift with Mr GPE and transferred the ownership over the house to him .

In DATE PERSON instituted proceedings in ORG against PERSON and Mr O.O. on her own behalf and on behalf of the other CARDINAL applicants seeking division of the house and partial invalidation of the deed of gift .

On DATE the court ordered a forensic examination and suspended the proceedings .

Having received the results of the examination on DATE , the court resumed the proceedings on DATE .

On DATE the court found in part for the applicants .

On DATE PERSON and Mr O.O. appealed .

On DATE and DATE ORG returned the appeal to the first instance court due to procedural shortcomings . On DATE and DATE the first instance court allowed the appellants time to rectify their appeal . Finally , on DATE the first instance court rejected that appeal without examination due to its procedural shortcomings .

On DATE the court of appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first instance court for a decision on the admissibility of the appeal lodged by PERSON and Mr GPE

Following a decision on admissibility , on DATE ORG sent the appeal to the court of appeal for consideration .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh consideration .

On DATE the court suspended the proceedings in the case upon the applicants ' request .

On DATE ORG ordered resumption of the proceedings .

On DATE the court found in the applicants ' favour .

On DATE PERSON and Mr O.O. appealed . On DATE the court of appeal quashed the first instance court judgment and found against the applicants .

On DATE the applicants appealed in cassation .

On DATE ORG rejected that appeal as unsubstantiated .

Out of QUANTITY hearings in the case CARDINAL were adjourned upon the applicants ' request or due to their failure to appear , CARDINAL were adjourned upon the respondents ' requests or due to their failure to appear , and CARDINAL were adjourned due to the necessity to call a witness or to examine proof or information .