Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE .

They are residents of ORG , GPE .

The submissions of the parties on the facts concerning the circumstances of the applicants ' relatives ' deaths and the ensuing investigations are set out in Part A below . A description of the materials submitted to the ORG is contained in Parts B and C below .

The applicant 's families lived in a settlement referred to by local residents as PERSON , located administratively in the Oktyabrskiy and Zavodskoy districts of PERSON .

In DATE hostilities resumed in GPE between the NORP forces and the NORP fighters . PERSON and its suburbs came under heavy bombardment . From DATE northern parts of the city came under the control of the NORP forces . At DATE the central parts of the city were taken over by the NORP troops . The first applicant submitted that from DATE their district in the south of the city was no longer shelled , because the NORP troops had been stationed QUANTITY away , in FAC . According to the first applicant , there were no NORP fighters in PERSON , because there were no large administrative buildings which they could have used as defence positions .

In DATE the first applicant and several members of his extended family remained in PERSON . The first applicant lived at FAC . Several of his relatives lived in the neighbourhood . According to the applicant , most of CARDINAL persons who had lived in PERSON before the hostilities fled , and only CARDINAL remained , mostly elderly people .

The first applicant submitted that on DATE the NORP forces had entered PERSON . Armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) and other military vehicles were stationed at crossroads , and the settlement was surrounded and blocked from all sides . Large groups of military servicemen went from one house to another , checking documents and inspecting the cellars and lofts of the buildings . According to the first applicant , they behaved in an orderly and polite fashion . In TIME the soldiers left , having warned several inhabitants to stay inside and to beware of a certain military unit which might come the following day .

Early in the morning on DATE the first applicant heard shots from automatic guns in the neighbourhood . He was at his cousins ' house at CARDINAL FAC with his CARDINAL cousins , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

Another of the applicant 's cousins , PERSON , rushed into the courtyard and told them that early in the TIME he had gone with his CARDINAL nephews , PERSON and PERSON , to fetch some water from a well . On their way back with a sledge loaded with several water cans they were stopped by a group of NORP soldiers who ordered them to approach . PERSON , who had been walking behind his nephews , managed to escape unseen . He was very worried about their safety . ORG and PERSON went outside to look for them . This was the last time they had been seen alive .

Soon afterwards their neighbour PERSON , who was DATE , came into the courtyard with her CARDINAL-year - old grandson PERSON and told them that in their street , in front of house no . CARDINAL , there were CARDINAL bodies . The first applicant and his cousins were afraid that these might be their cousins .

TIME a group of servicemen entered the courtyard , shouting and firing from automatic weapons . They ordered the men , including the CARDINAL-year - old PERSON , to lie down in the snow . They then searched the house and the courtyard , having ordered PERSON to walk in front of them . After TIME , while the first applicant and others were still lying on the ground , the servicemen “ calmed down ” and the most senior among them , CARDINAL old , ordered them to leave . The first applicant , worried about his cousins and nephews , asked for permission to go into the street and to look at the CARDINAL bodies . The servicemen ordered him to stay inside “ unless he wanted to be lying beside them ” . They then proceeded into PERSON house , next door on FAC .

For TIME there was continued gunfire all around , and the first applicant did not dare to go outside . After TIME he heard cries from women in the street and went out . He saw his cousin PERSON and her daughter PERSON , screaming . They had found CARDINAL bodies in the street , all of them shot dead . CARDINAL bodies were in a pile on the corner of FAC and FAC . They were PERSON , PERSON husband , and their CARDINAL sons , NORP and PERSON . The fourth body was the first applicant 's cousin PERSON . In front of the house at CARDINAL FAC were the bodies of PERSON , another of the first applicant 's cousins , and PERSON , a neighbour .

The first applicant , his relatives and neighbours started to take the bodies inside the yards . A group of soldiers were still standing at the intersection of FAC and FAC , and CARDINAL of them fired a single shot which wounded PERSON , a neighbour . He fell down , and other neighbours pulled him inside the courtyard . He died of his wound in TIME of the following day .

In TIME on DATE the first applicant noticed that the house of his relative PERSON at CARDINAL FAC was on fire . Together with some neighbours they tried to extinguish the flames , but it was too late and the house burnt down entirely .

At TIME a relative came and said that they had found the bodies of PERSON and PERSON , the first applicant 's relatives who had been missing since TIME , when they had gone to fetch water from a well . Their bodies were found in front of the house at CARDINAL FAC . The first applicant submitted that they had been shot by an automatic gun and a sub - machine gun , because PERSON 's shoulder was twisted . The first applicant dragged the bodies into the courtyard of a neighbouring house , and TIME took them to the house at FAC , using a sledge .

On DATE the first applicant was thus a witness to CARDINAL killings , CARDINAL of the deceased being his relatives . They were :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) LOC , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) Aslanbek PERSON , born in DATE .

The first applicant put the bodies of his relatives in the courtyard of the house at CARDINAL FAC . Contrary to local tradition , the applicant and his relatives did not bury the bodies on DATE because they were afraid to go to the cemetery , but also , as some witnesses stated , because they were waiting for some form of investigation into the killings .

On DATE a group of servicemen arrived at PERSON . They went around the settlement and checked documents . They asked why the bodies had not yet been buried , and the first applicant replied that they were afraid to go to the cemetery . The servicemen allegedly advised him to hurry up with the burials and left .

On DATE a military NORP truck with soldiers came to the first applicant 's house at FAC . The applicant submitted that some of the soldiers were the same ones who had been involved in the killings of DATE . The first applicant tried to enter his courtyard , but the servicemen fired shots in the air and told him not to approach . They took out anything of value from his and his cousin 's house , stacked it into the truck and left . The first applicant watched their actions from a neighbour 's house , but could not distinguish the registration plates of the vehicle , which were covered with mud .

On DATE a NORP human - rights activist , PERSON , was in PERSON and filmed the bodies of the first applicant 's relatives and interviews by the first applicant , by PERSON ( the first applicant 's cousin , whose husband and CARDINAL sons had been killed on DATE ) , and by other survivors of the massacre . The first applicant submitted a copy of the videotape and a transcript of the recording .

On DATE there came a group of men in uniform , who said they had come from ORG . They inspected the bodies still lying at house no . CARDINAL , filled in some papers and collected evidence . The first applicant gave them CARDINAL automatic - rifle bullets extracted from the bodies of PERSON and PERSON , and cartridges and bullets collected at the execution sites . The officers assured him that there would be an expert report on them .

On DATE a new group of servicemen arrived . They said that they were from the military prosecutor 's office for LOC . They too examined the bodies at CARDINAL FAC and collected more bullets and cartridges .

The first applicant submitted that among the evidence collected by the investigators there was an identification card apparently dropped by a serviceman in FAC and a note written by CARDINAL group of soldiers to his neighbours on DATE in order to “ protect ” them . The first applicant has submitted a copy of that note .

On DATE the first applicant and his relatives buried the dead .

He submitted that until DATE groups of officials continued to come to PERSON , asking the residents about the events .

On DATE ORG of the Zavodskoy district of ORG issued death certificates for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

The first applicant submitted a hand - drawn plan of PERSON with indications of the places to which he referred . He also submitted statements by PERSON , by the parents of PERSON and by a neighbour , PERSON , who was a witness to the killings in FAC .

The first applicant submitted that the events of DATE had affected him deeply . He had undergone several courses of treatment in GPE and in GPE , but despite that he could not sleep , and suffered from headaches and depression .

The second and third applicants submitted that in DATE they had stayed in GPE because of the fighting in ORG . Their relatives had remained in PERSON to look after the family property . They were PERSON ( born in DATE ) , the husband of the third applicant and the second applicant 's brother , and FAC ( born in DATE ) , the second applicant 's other brother . They stayed in their house at FAC . The third applicant and PERSON had been married since DATE and had CARDINAL daughters , born in DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

On DATE NORP forces conducted an operation in PERSON , as a result of which numerous houses were burnt and civilians killed . The neighbours later told the applicants that the soldiers had started at CARDINAL FAC and had gone into the houses , killed the inhabitants and set fire to the houses one by one .

On DATE their CARDINAL neighbours GPE . examined the burnt - out house at LOC , and discovered the remains of PERSON and FAC in the cellar . They dug them out from the debris and buried them in the courtyard . The applicants learnt of this while in PERSON .

DATE the second applicant came to ORG , alerted by the neighbours . In the cellar of the house he discovered some personal belongings of his brothers – a wristwatch , keys from a flat , a key from a garage and parts of clothes . He also found several bullets from a CARDINAL calibre automatic rifle and machine - gun cartridges . At DATE the remains of the second applicant 's brothers were buried at the local cemetery .

On DATE ORG of the Zavodskoy district of ORG issued death certificates for PERSON , aged DATE , and FAC , aged DATE . The deaths had occurred on DATE in ORG as a result of numerous bullet wounds to the head and body .

The fourth and the fifth applicants are wife and husband . During DATE they remained in ORG in their house at no . CARDINAL , CARDINALrd GPE . Within the same courtyard in a separate house there lived the fifth applicant 's sister and brother , PERSON ( born in DATE ) and PERSON ( born in DATE ) .

On DATE in the afternoon NORP troops entered the settlement of PERSON . The residents , who had been hiding in cellars during DATE of shelling , went into the streets . The soldiers instructed them to remain at their homes in accordance with the registration of their places of residence , because on DATE there would be a “ mopping - up ” operation ( зачистка ) . The fourth applicant submitted that they had eagerly awaited the end of fighting and the entry of the NORP troops and did not worry about the checking of passports .

On DATE at TIME CARDINAL servicemen came into the applicants ' house . They were aged CARDINAL . They greeted the applicants , checked the passports and left . The fourth applicant then decided to visit her husband 's relatives , the Abdulkhanovs , who lived at CARDINAL FAC , to see if the “ mopping - up ” had finished there . Through backyards she arrived at the Abdulkhanovs ' house .

When she reached their house she met PERSON , aged DATE , sitting in the courtyard . He told her that they had been visited CARDINAL times and that there were dead bodies everywhere in the street . The fourth applicant opened the gates and saw CARDINAL bodies of their neighbours , an CARDINAL-year - old man , QUANTITY women and a DATE man , each one at the gates of their houses . The fourth applicant suggested that ORG take the bodies inside , but he said that the soldiers might return .

The fourth applicant returned to her house and told her husband , the fifth applicant , and his relatives about what she had seen . She also suggested that they should all go into the cellar and hide because even women and old men had been killed , but they refused . PERSON told her that they had been checked already and had nothing to fear . The fifth applicant went to a neighbour 's house .

At TIME the fourth applicant heard some loud noise and swearing in the courtyard and opened the door . PERSON and PERSON also came out and stood in the doorway of their house . In the courtyard there were several soldiers . CARDINAL of them , tall and dressed in white camouflage , asked the fourth applicant what she was doing there , and she replied that she lived there .

They brought ORG from FAC with them . He was pale and his lips were blue . He asked the fourth applicant to get some money . She said that they had no money , and had they had any , they would have left as everyone else had . Then the soldiers started to fire in the air and said that they would kill them all , as they had been ordered .

The fourth applicant ran to her neighbours and managed to obtain MONEY . She gave the money to the soldier in white camouflage , but he laughed at her and said it was not enough . The fourth applicant gave him her golden earrings . The servicemen were shouting that they had an order to kill them all and ordered one of the soldiers to take the fourth applicant into the house and to “ shake her ” there .

The fourth applicant let the soldier inside the house , ran behind his back and hid behind the heater . The soldier walked up to her and pointed the automatic gun at her head . She fell on her knees and pleaded for her life . The soldier told her that he would be killed if he did not kill her . Then they heard shooting in the courtyard and a male voice shouting . The soldier in the room shot at the ceiling and at the walls , and the fourth applicant realised that he had spared her life . She started to cry and thank him , but he told her to keep quiet and walked out .

The fourth applicant heard PERSON shouting to his sister to bring his documents , and then more shots were fired . She later realised that the soldiers had first shot PERSON in the courtyard , and when her husband 's sister and brother saw this , they had run into their house . PERSON had been registered as disabled and the applicant guessed that he had wanted to produce the relevant papers . PERSON and PERSON were shot inside the house .

In the meantime the fourth applicant heard her husband , the fifth applicant , calling her from the backyard . She understood that he had heard the noise and shooting in the house and returned . The fourth applicant approached the door and cried in NORP “ Go away ” , and her husband escaped unseen by soldiers .

Before leaving , the soldiers set the LOC ' house on fire . Their house and barn , with sheep and cows inside , burnt down .

Later the fourth and the fifth applicant buried the remains of the fifth applicant 's relatives in the courtyard .

On DATE ORG of the Zavodskoy district of ORG issued death certificates for PERSON , aged DATE , and for PERSON , aged DATE . In both certificates it was recorded that the deaths had occurred on DATE in ORG , as result of numerous bullet wounds to the head and body .

The fourth applicant submitted that she had been deeply affected by the events of DATE , and that her health had deteriorated significantly . She suffered from hypertension and nightmares .

Soon after the events the first applicant and other relatives of the victims set up a group called ORG , in order to coordinate their efforts in the aftermath of the massacre . The fourth applicant was elected as the head of this group .

The applicants submitted that on DATE CARDINAL civilians had been killed in the neighbouring settlements of PERSON and GPE in the southern suburbs of ORG . They referred to the ORG report of DATE entitled “ DATE : A Day of Slaughter in PERSON ” , which put the blame for the extrajudicial executions on the NORP special police forces ( PERSON ) and the military . The document reported the deaths of the applicants ' relatives , on the basis of interviews with the applicants and their neighbours . They also referred to ORG report entitled “ ' Mopping - Up ' . Settlement PERSON , CARDINAL DATE – Deliberate Crimes against Civilians ” ( « Зачистка DATE . ORG PERSON , CARDINAL февраля DATE – преднамеренные преступления против мирного населения ) , which listed the applicants ' relatives and neighbours among CARDINAL civilians murdered on DATE ( see Part B below ) .

The applicants also submitted a number of press reports relating to the massacre in PERSON and the subsequent investigation .

It appears that the applicants did not seek any direct contact with law - enforcement bodies or with doctors immediately after the killings or when they buried the remains of their relatives . Nevertheless , the events in PERSON became known to the relevant authorities shortly after DATE as a result of ORG and media reports .

On DATE the ORG opened a criminal investigation into the murder of several inhabitants of the PERSON settlement in PERSON by “ unidentified men armed with guns ” , and into the looting of property . The investigation was opened under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ( murder of CARDINAL or more persons with aggravating circumstances ) .

On DATE Memorial wrote a letter to the Chief Military Prosecutor about the investigation into the massacre in PERSON . It referred to the conclusions of the military prosecutors that “ no federal servicemen took part in the operation which entailed civilians ' deaths ” . Referring to the witnesses ' statements , PERSON argued that there were valid reasons to conduct a more detailed investigation into the identity of the perpetrators . PERSON appended to its letter several witness statements it had obtained in DATE in PERSON and a list of CARDINAL names of persons apparently killed on DATE .

On DATE the fifth applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings in case no . DATE in relation to the murder of his brother PERSON “ by detachments of ORG of the NORP Federation ” . That decision was not countersigned by the fifth applicant .

On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor replied to PERSON that its letter of DATE had been forwarded to the military prosecutor 's office for LOC for investigation .

On DATE ORG of ORG replied to PERSON and stated that a military prosecutor had conducted a verification of its submissions and on DATE had refused to open a criminal investigation owing to the absence of corpus delicti in the servicemen 's actions . The letter further explained that no servicemen of ORG or ORG , who fell under the supervision of the military prosecutor , had taken part in the operation in PERSON on that date . The so - called “ mopping - up ” operation on DATE in PERSON had been conducted by servicemen of the special police forces ( PERSON ) from GPE and LOC , and the investigation should be carried out by ORG . All further complaints and letters should be addressed to that office .

On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor replied to a member of ORG , PERSON , about the investigation into the PERSON killings . The prosecutor informed him that a criminal investigation was pending and that the investigation had been slowed down by the difficult security situation in the region and by the need to identify witnesses to the crimes .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL ( located in GPE , the main NORP military base in GPE ) informed LOC , in response to its requests for information about a number of alleged crimes committed by the military against civilians , that all material pertaining to the murders in PERSON had been forwarded to ORG of ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a public statement in which it deplored the murders of DATE , the absence of an effective investigation and the lack of any assistance to the victims .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the President of GPE , the speakers of ORG and ORG , the Prime Minister and other public figures . The letter described the events of CARDINAL DATE and asked for an efficient investigation , and also for any kind of urgent assistance to the survivors whose houses had been burnt down or plundered .

On DATE the fourth applicant , on behalf of ORG , wrote to ORG . The letter stated that the relatives of those killed had no information about the progress of the investigation , despite the fact that they had agreed to the exhumation of their relatives ' bodies , in breach of their religious beliefs . They asked him to take urgent measures to carry out a proper investigation , to question the witnesses and to inform them about its progress .

DATE . On an unspecified date in DATE an investigator from ORG of ORG issued certificates to the relatives of those killed in PERSON . They contained identical printed text , with only the names of the deceased entered by hand . They read as follows : “ On DATE in the morning in the settlement of PERSON of the Zavodskoy district of PERSON , GPE , the forces of ORG and of ORG during a passport check committed mass murders of civilians of the above settlement , including _ _ _ _ . This event is being investigated by ORG of ORG ” . The first applicant submitted such certificates issued in respect of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . Similar certificates were issued in respect of the other applicants ' relatives .

On DATE PERSON requested ORG to provide it with an update on the investigation into the PERSON killings .

On DATE ORG forwarded ORG 's request to ORG of ORG and stated that the file in case no . DATE had been referred to that office in DATE .

On DATE the NORP Prosecutor informed FAC that criminal investigation no . DATE , “ opened on DATE in relation to the killings committed in ORG on DATE ” , had been transferred to ORG of ORG . All further requests should be addressed to that office .

On DATE ORG for ORG forwarded ORG 's letter to ORG with a request for information about the investigation in criminal case no . GPE , concerning “ a murder in PERSON on DATE ” .

On DATE Memorial again requested information from the Prosecutor General about the investigation . No reply was received to that request .

On DATE and on DATE Memorial again sought an update on the investigation from ORG . At the same time it sought an explanation as to why no answers had been given to its previous requests . The first letter requested the prosecutor to provide a list of those killed , to list the persons who had been granted victim status in the proceedings and questioned as witnesses , to specify whether there had been a decision to adjourn or reopen the investigation and to grant access to the case file .

On DATE ORG Office replied to PERSON that the file in criminal case no . DATE was under investigation and that no results could be made public before the conclusion of the investigation . It further stated that no explanation could be provided for the failures to reply , because persons who had earlier been responsible for the case file no longer worked in that office .

DATE . On unspecified dates CARDINAL persons from PERSON signed applications to the President of GPE and the speaker of ORG . They called for an investigation into their relatives ' deaths and for the identification of the servicemen who had committed the murders .

The applicants submitted that they had not been properly questioned by the investigators . They were not aware which prosecutor 's office was responsible for the investigation and had not been informed about its progress and therefore could not appeal against the investigator 's actions .

In DATE the applications to the ORG in the present case were communicated to ORG , who were requested at that time to submit a copy of the file on the investigation in case no . DATE , opened in relation to the killings in PERSON . The Government refused to do so , because the file contained information of a military nature and personal data relating to the witnesses . They referred to LAW . At the same time , the Government suggested that a ORG delegation could have access to the file at the place of the preliminary investigation , with the exception of “ the documents [ disclosing military information and personal data of the witnesses ] , and without the right to make copies of the case file and transmit it to others ” .

In DATE the ORG declared the applications admissible and reiterated its request for the file . In DATE the Government submitted a copy of the file as summarised below , as well as updated information concerning the progress of the investigation . In their memorials the ORG stated that the investigation had established that on CARDINAL DATE a group of armed persons wearing camouflage uniforms had killed CARDINAL inhabitants of the PERSON settlement . It had also established that on DATE a special operation had been carried out in PERSON by servicemen of the special police forces ( PERSON ) from GPE . The investigation was pending and no final conclusions as to the identity of the perpetrators had been reached . At some point the investigation had been transferred from ORG to ORG of ORG and then to ORG . During the investigation CARDINAL bodies had been exhumed and subjected to a forensic examination , which had confirmed burns and gunshot wounds . A number of other investigative steps had been taken , such as an examination of the sites and ballistics reports ( see Part B below for a description of the documents in the investigation file ) .

It appears from the information submitted by the ORG and some of the documents in the case file that the applicants and other relatives of the victims were questioned . However , the case file submitted by the ORG does not contain full copies of any of the witness statements , except for CARDINAL transcript of the third applicant 's questioning in DATE . These transcripts are also not mentioned in the list of documents contained in the investigation file . At the same time , the Government submitted that the investigation body had questioned CARDINAL persons and granted victim status to CARDINAL persons .

In their memorials the Government revealed additional information about the proceedings , which is not contained in the documents submitted by them . As appears from these submissions , only the first , third and fifth applicants had been granted victim status in the proceedings . The second and the fourth had not been granted victim status and apparently had not sought it .

The Government stated that in DATE and DATE over QUANTITY persons had been invited to participate in the investigative measures . However , the first , second and fifth applicants had not appeared when summoned . The Government did not specify the nature of these measures . In DATE a photo identification had taken place with one of the victims ( there is no information about the results of this measure ) . In DATE the investigators in charge of the criminal case had attempted to identify , through the relevant archives the units of the army ( ORG ) , or of ORG that had possibly been involved in the special operations in ORG from DATE . According to the Government , no meaningful results had been obtained .

As it appears , the investigation did not identify the detachments which had been involved in the security operation in PERSON and no one was charged with any crime . The investigation was adjourned on several occasions owing to the failure to identify the culprits , and was then resumed . The most recent decision to resume the investigation was issued by the GPE Deputy Prosecutor on DATE .

The Government submitted a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no . DATE , which comprised CARDINAL volumes ( CARDINAL pages ) and a list of the documents contained in the file . The most important of these documents can be summarised as follows .

On DATE the ORG opened a criminal investigation into the killing of inhabitants of the settlement of PERSON in the PERSON district of PERSON and the looting of property . The decision referred to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW . On DATE an investigative group was set up , composed of the officers of ORG of ORG , ORG and ORG .

On DATE a number of relatives of the victims submitted similarly worded requests to ORG . They stated that on DATE their relatives had been shot by unknown persons wearing camouflage , and asked for an investigation to be carried out . CARDINAL application was submitted by PERSON , the second applicant 's brother , who had complained about the killing of his brothers PERSON and ORG .

In DATE and DATE the investigation requested ORG of the ORG ( ORG ) to find and question a number of local residents in PERSON about the killings of DATE and to collect additional information about those who had been killed . These requests were later repeated .

DATE and DATE the investigation body questioned and granted victim status to CARDINAL relatives of the deceased . In many cases the degree of kinship was not indicated . The case file examined by the ORG does not include any of the witness statements presumably made by the relatives .

NORP In DATE the Zavodskoy ORG of the Interior ( ROVD ) informed the prosecutor that it had not been able to identify any witnesses to the crimes in the district . Many relatives of the victims had left and it was impossible to locate them .

In DATE a lawyer practising in GPE requested the investigation to allow him to participate in the proceedings . He submitted powers of attorney from CARDINAL members of the families of the victims . In DATE he was granted leave to take part in the proceedings . He was also informed that the persons who had victim status in the proceedings would be questioned again and informed of the possibility of submitting claims for damages . On DATE the lawyer died in GPE , and it does not appear that another representative was subsequently appointed .

On CARDINAL DATE the third applicant was questioned . She described the known circumstances of the deaths of her husband and his brother . She also explained that PERSON , who had been granted victim status in the proceedings , had died in DATE ; she also requested to be granted victim status .

DATE the investigation questioned and granted victim status to CARDINAL other persons , including CARDINAL eyewitness to the events who had been forced to give her earrings to the soldiers .

On DATE the investigators examined the area at the intersection of FAC and FAC in PERSON and the courtyard of the house at QUANTITY FAC . The local residents stated that on DATE six persons had been killed in front of that house . The investigation noted CARDINAL bullet holes in the gates of the house . No bullets or cartridges were found .

On DATE the investigation examined the location and exhumed the bodies of the first applicant 's CARDINAL relatives , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , as well their neighbour PERSON , who had been buried in the courtyard of the house at CARDINAL Bryanskaya Street .

On DATE the investigation examined the site at CARDINAL LOC and exhumed the burnt remains of the second applicant 's CARDINAL brothers , PERSON and FAC .

In addition to that , DATE and DATE the investigators examined several other locations in PERSON and GPE , indicated by the local residents . They exhumed and described the remains of several persons who had been buried by their relatives in the courtyards of the houses , as well as numerous bullets and cartridges .

The reports were accompanied by photographs of the sites and sketches of the area . After the exhumations and the drawing up of the reports , the bodies were buried at the local cemetery .

It appears that in DATE several relatives of the victims , including the fifth applicant , refused to allow the exhumation and forensic analysis of their relatives ' bodies , referring to religious traditions and the decision of the local council of elders . However , later their agreement was obtained and the exhumations and forensic reports were carried out .

In DATE and DATE the investigation exhumed in the courtyards and at the cemetery CARDINAL bodies of persons who had been killed on DATE , including the applicants ' relatives . The exhumations took place in the presence of the relatives and forensic experts , and the results were documented on video and in photographs .

The forensic experts were asked to resolve questions relating to the cause and date of the victims ' deaths . In DATE a forensic expert reported numerous lethal fire wounds . The expert reported that the bodies of the second applicant 's CARDINAL brothers , PERSON and ORG , had been incinerated , as a result of which no proper conclusions about the circumstances of the deaths could be reached .

In DATE and DATE the investigation ordered CARDINAL new forensic reports , seeking further details relating to the dates and circumstances of the deaths . In DATE and DATE forensic experts in PERSON issued additional reports based on the previous descriptions of the bodies . The reports concluded that the date of the deaths could have been CARDINAL DATE and described in greater detail the numerous bullet wounds caused to the bodies , many of them to the head .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE an investigator from ORG ordered ballistics reports on the cartridges and bullets collected at the site .

In DATE and DATE the ballistics experts concluded that the cartridges and bullets had been used by several PERSON sub - machine guns or modified versions , of MONEY and QUANTITY calibre . Several rifle bullets were also found . Some of the bullets were found to be suitable for identifying the particular guns used . The experts also reported that some of the bullets and cartridges bore serial numbers , which could allow DATE and place of their production to be traced . All the bullets and cartridges were sent for further checks through ORG federal database of bullets and cartridges ( containing data about firearms involved in crimes or lost service firearms ) .

NORP In DATE the investigation authority informed the head of GPE and GPE ORG of the ORG that it had been established that on DATE the special operation in the settlement of PERSON had been carried out by servicemen of the PERSON for that region . The investigation body requested him to assist in identifying the firearms that could have been involved in the crime by submitting examples of shots from CARDINAL different firearms . This request was again sent in DATE to an investigator at ORG . It is not clear if these analyses were carried out .

In DATE the investigation collected from the local residents a passport found at the place of the shooting . They also collected a handwritten note issued by a group of servicemen to the residents .

The owner of the passport was located in LOC and questioned . He stated that from DATE he had worked in ORG as a construction worker . His passport had been stolen there in DATE , and he had later obtained a new one . In DATE he had had an accident in GPE , as a result of which he had become severely disabled . He had not been to GPE since DATE . His statements were corroborated by a number of other testimonies and documentary evidence .

The handwritten note was examined on DATE . It said : “ Guys ! We were here , regiment no . CARDINAL . [ These are ] normal people , not fighters . Have mercy on them . Commander of ORG [ motorised rifle company ] no . CARDINAL ORG of the grd [ Senior Lieutenant of the ORG ] ” and contained an unclear signature . It does not appear that any further action was taken in the light of that note , including the identification of the military unit in question .

It follows from the relevant prosecutors ' orders that at some time in DATE the investigation collected a complete list of servicemen of the ORG from GPE and GPE who had been stationed in GPE in DATE , as well as their photographs , with a view to carrying out an identification . It is unclear whether the identification took place .

The case file submitted by the Government contains extracts of CARDINAL testimonies collected in DATE and DATE from the servicemen of the special police forces ( PERSON ) from GPE , but no full copies of any of these statements . From the extracts contained in the file it appears that they all submitted , almost word for word , that in DATE they had participated in an operation in PERSON and that their detachment had not used any vehicles . They stated that they were not aware of the killing of civilians in PERSON .

The investigation was carried out by ORG . It appears that DATE and DATE the case was adjourned and reopened CARDINAL times . The most recent document in the case file , dated DATE , informed the victims about the resumption of the investigation .

In DATE , and subsequently with their memorials , the applicants submitted numerous items of documentary evidence in support of their allegations . The most important documents can be summarised as follows .

NORP In addition to their own statements of the facts , the applicants submitted CARDINAL statements by eyewitnesses to the events of CARDINAL DATE and by other relatives of those who had been killed . CARDINAL witness was not identified by name .

Z. and Ya . , the neighbours of the second applicant , stated that PERSON and ORG had been killed on DATE in the cellar of their home in FAC . The witnesses , together with the third neighbour , had dug out the remains , scarcely more than a few bones , from under the debris in the burnt - out cellar on DATE and put them into a large pot , which they buried it in the courtyard of the same house .

PERSON . , a resident of PERSON and a nurse by profession , submitted a detailed account of the events of DATE . She submitted that the men who had conducted the operation on DATE had called themselves “ police ” , had been wearing camouflage uniforms , had used radio to communicate between themselves and had driven around in military LOC trucks and APCs with obscured number plates .

Other witnesses described the perpetrators of the killings as being DATE , wearing camouflage uniforms without insignia . They confirmed the applicants ' statements about the circumstances of the killing of their relatives and others . Some witnesses submitted that the servicemen had been drunk .

NORP In DATE ORG issued a DATE report entitled “ DATE : DATE of Slaughter in PERSON ” , which put the blame for the extrajudicial executions on the units of the PERSON and the military . The document reported the deaths of the applicants ' relatives , based on interviews with the applicants and their neighbours . It contained a detailed description of the events , including a plan of the district , a list of CARDINAL names of those killed and information about CARDINAL “ unconfirmed ” killings .

In DATE FAC issued a LAW report entitled “ ' Mopping - Up ' . Settlement of Novye Aldy , DATE – ORG against NORP ” ( « Зачистка GPE . ORG PERSON , CARDINAL февраля DATE – преднамеренные преступления против мирного населения ) , which listed the applicants ' relatives and neighbours among CARDINAL civilians murdered on DATE . The report contained numerous statements by the witnesses and victims , photographs of the dead and a plan of the neighbourhood with indications of the places where people had been killed .

On DATE ORG issued a memorandum on the state of the national investigation into human rights and international humanitarian law violations in GPE . The report stated that the investigation into the mass murder of civilians in PERSON had been “ pushed around ” between CARDINAL prosecutors ' offices and then adjourned . Exhumations and forensic reports had been carried out in respect of CARDINAL bodies . The officers and servicemen of the detachments of the military and police allegedly implicated in the murders had not been questioned .

On DATE ORG reported the events in PERSON in the article “ NORP Tell of Murderous Rampage by NORP ” . The publication referred to interviews with internally displaced persons ( IDPs ) in ORG .

On DATE The ORG published an article entitled “ CARDINAL Feared Dead in Chechen Massacre ” , which was based on information from human - rights groups and survivors . The newspaper mentioned that access to PERSON was severely restricted and that there was no way of independently verifying the testimony of the witnesses interviewed in the ORG camps in ORG .

On DATE ORG ran an article entitled “ Chechen Civilians Shot by PERSON from ORG ? ” The article referred to information from ORG , according to which servicemen from ORG had not been involved in the killings of CARDINAL civilians in PERSON on DATE . The newspaper stated that CARDINAL armed men who had killed the civilians and looted and set fire to property reportedly belonged to a detachment of ORG , and that there were reasons to believe that they belonged to the ORG units from ORG .

On DATE ORG published an article entitled “ Freedom or Death . The Aldy Nightmare . ” It reported the deaths of the applicants ' relatives and contained interviews with the survivors and the relatives of those killed .

On DATE ORG published an article entitled “ GPE 's Bloodiest Massacre ” , which contained the fourth applicant 's story and interviews with other residents of PERSON .

On DATE the GPE newspaper PERSON published a letter received in response to the publications about the murders in PERSON from the Chief of Staff of ORG , which stated that ORG was conducting a verification of the facts contained in the article and of the possible involvement of the military servicemen in the events .

In DATE ORG reported on the lack of progress in the investigation of the PERSON massacre in an article entitled “ Receipt for Murders ” . The article contained an interview with the fourth applicant and stated that the victims of the events of CARDINAL DATE had received no assistance from the authorities in the form of either an effective investigation of the events and prosecution of the perpetrators , or compensation for the lost and looted property .

The applicants also submitted an extract from a book by PERSON , “ LOC . A PERSON through GPE After the Fall ” ( GPE , DATE ) , with an account of the author 's visit to the PERSON settlement in the aftermath of the massacre and interviews with the survivors and the relatives of those who had been killed .

The applicants submitted a videotape made by a NORP human - rights activist , PERSON , in PERSON on DATE . They also submitted a transcript of the videotape and a translation of the transcript into LANGUAGE . The footage depicted bodies of the victims in the houses and at the local cemetery . The bodies were shown to have firearm wounds , many of them to the head . The inhabitants of the settlement spoke of the events of DATE , stressing that the servicemen who had committed the crimes had behaved as if they had had an order to kill , because they had not asked for the residents ' identity documents and had not spared anyone , including old men and women . They also spoke of looted and burned houses and of the extortion of money and valuables , including gold teeth . Some people said that the soldiers had been drunk , and described the mocking to which they had been subjected .

The applicants submitted a letter issued by the Chief of Staff of ORG ( UGA ) to the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL concerning operations in ORG in DATE . The letter was issued on DATE in connection with another criminal case investigated by the military prosecutor . According to the letter , “ combat operations to free ORG of illegal armed groups took place DATE and DATE . The troop alignment ' Special District PERSON ' was in charge of the liberation of the town . ” The letter listed CARDINAL military units of ORG , ORG , the ORG and ORG , which had formed the “ Special District Grozny ” alignment . Among these units was listed the “ ORG ” ( motorised rifle regiment ) of the GPE military circuit .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW the NORP Federalist Socialist Republic . From DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( CCP ) .

Article CARDINAL of the new ORG establishes the rule of impermissibility of disclosing data from the preliminary investigation . Under paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW , information from the investigation file may be divulged only with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . Divulging information about the private life of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission is prohibited .


The applicants , PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively , are all NORP nationals and they live in the district of FAC in ORG . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE at CARDINAL p.m. ORG , President of ORG ( HEP ) , was taken away from his home allegedly by police officers from ORG of ORG . From the window of their house his wife , who is the first applicant , saw ORG being put in the back seat of a dark - coloured ORG estate car and immediately rang their lawyer . The lawyer called the police headquarters ; however , she was told that ORG was not detained there .

On DATE the first applicant and her lawyer contacted the police headquarters , the Governor of the emergency region , FAC , ORG of ORG , ORG of the province and the gendarmerie headquarters . All these authorities replied that they did not know anything about ORG . Police officers took a statement from the first applicant on DATE .

On DATE a body was found in LOC attached to the province of ORG . An on - site body examination was carried out by the PERSON public prosecutor and a doctor . The report noted the presence of a number of bullet entry holes on the back of the trunk of the body and exit holes on the front . The doctor stated that the cause of death was internal bleeding and brain destruction caused by trauma . As the cause of death was clearly established , it was not considered necessary to carry out a full post - mortem examination . The unidentified body was then buried in the PERSON cemetery .

On DATE , the third applicant , ORG brother , heard about the body and went to PERSON . The gendarmes showed him some clothes and he identified these clothes as those of ORG . The body was exhumed and another post - mortem examination conducted , which confirmed the findings of the previous examination . The body was handed over to the family on DATE .

The first applicant was invited to the police station on DATE respectively to give statements . On DATE , she gave a description of the people who had abducted ORG and upon this description photo fit drawings of the abductors were produced .

On DATE the applicants sent a letter to GPE 's ORG to be conveyed to ORG . In this letter , the applicants referred to the GPE report , which concluded that ORG had been killed by agents of the ORG . They asked the prosecutor to investigate these allegations and to inform the family about the outcome of the investigation . They received no reply to this letter .

On DATE the applicants repeated their submissions in a letter addressed to GPE 's ORG .

On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG informed the applicants that the investigation into the killing of ORG was still pending .

On DATE ORG lawyers lodged a petition with the ORG public prosecutor 's office stating that their client had been taken from his house on DATE by persons who had introduced themselves as police officers from ORG of ORG . DATE , ORG wife gave a statement at the police and maintained that her husband had been taken away from their house by CARDINAL armed men .

On DATE a body was found in LOC attached to the province of ORG . The PERSON public prosecutor and a doctor carried out an on - site body examination and established the cause of death as brain destruction and internal bleeding . The body was subsequently buried in the PERSON cemetery as its identity could not be established .

On DATE the body was identified as that of ORG and it was handed over to ORG family on DATE . A further body examination was carried out by the ORG public prosecutor 's office which confirmed the previous findings .

The ORG public prosecutor 's office commenced an investigation into the death of ORG . On CARDINAL and DATE respectively the first applicant gave statements to the police and described the persons who had abducted ORG . Statements were taken from ORG neighbours and from the officers who had found his body on DATE in PERSON .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor declared lack of jurisdiction and transferred the file to PERSON public prosecutor . The first applicant intervened in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG reported that the bullets found in ORG body had not been used in any previous incidents .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor delivered a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the file to the public prosecutor attached to ORG on the ground that ORG killing could be politically motivated .

On DATE ORG office requested ORG office that progress reports at regular intervals be submitted concerning the attempts to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the case - file was transferred to the public prosecutor attached to ORG , who subsequently sent the file to the public prosecutor attached to ORG . Upon receipt of the file , the prosecutor requested regular progress reports from the PERSON public prosecutor .

The perpetrators of the killing of ORG still remain unknown and the investigation is pending before the ORG public prosecutor 's office .

A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in the GPE and PERSON v. GPE decision ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-III ) .


Preliminary objection dismissed (exhaustion);Violation of Art 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - convention proceedings;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in PERSON , GPE . He died on DATE . By letter of DATE , PERSON , the applicant 's widow , informed the ORG that she wished to pursue the application .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON районний суд ORG області ) awarded the applicant a lump sum of ORG CARDINAL in various payments and ORG CARDINAL in DATE disability allowances against his former employers , the ORG - owned companies “ PERSON ” ( ДВАТ “ Дніпрошахтобуд ” ) , “ PERSON ” ( трест “ GPE ” ) and “ PERSON ” ( ORG “ GPE ім. LOC ” ) . The judgment came into force and the enforcement writs were transferred to ORG for enforcement .

On CARDINAL and DATE ORG informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the considerable number of enforcement proceedings taken against the debtors and that the sale of the debtors ' assets was blocked by the PERSON of DATE “ on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property . ” Later , liquidation procedure was initiated in respect of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL debtor - companies .

In DATE the applicant received , in instalments , the total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the lump sum award due to him . In DATE the remaining part of the award was transferred to the applicant . However , it was returned as unclaimed .

In DATE the applicant received the DATE allowances in arrears due to him by the judgment of DATE and since then was receiving them regularly . The DATE and DATE allowances were returned as unclaimed .

The relevant domestic law is briefly summarised in the judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicants , PERSON , a permanently resident non - citizen of GPE ( “ the first applicant ” ) , and her daughter , PERSON , a NORP national ( “ the second applicant ” ) were born in DATE and DATE and live in Rīga . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

The applicants ' flat was burgled twice in succession , on DATE ( “ the first burglary ” ) and DATE ( “ the second burglary ” ) . On DATE a preliminary investigation was opened against inter alia X , a minor at the time . With decisions adopted on DATE , DATE and DATE the first applicant was joined as a civil party in the criminal proceedings against X. By a decision of DATE at the latest , the second applicant was joined as a civil party in the same proceedings .

On DATE the preliminary investigation was opened .

On DATE X was remanded in custody , where he remained until DATE . He was again arrested on DATE .

On DATE a decision was taken to impose an attachment on X 's property in order to secure the applicants ' civil claims . It was noted that X did not possess any property . On DATE some of the stolen belongings and money were returned to the first applicant .

Initially , on DATE the case materials in relation to both burglaries were separated since X was suspected of having committed only the second burglary . On DATE a charge was brought against him in that connection . However , it followed from the testimony given by X on the same date that he had also participated in the first burglary . On DATE a second charge was brought against X in relation to the first burglary . Subsequently , on DATE the case materials against X were joined together . On CARDINAL DATE X 's detention order was extended until DATE . On that date he was released .

Following the applicants ' complaint of DATE about inactivity of the public prosecutor in proceeding with the case , on CARDINAL DATE another public prosecutor was assigned to the case .

On DATE the mother of X was joined as a civil respondent in the criminal proceedings . On DATE the public prosecutor requested information from a competent domestic authority about any real estate owned by ORG or his mother .

On DATE a final charge was brought against X in relation to both burglaries . Since X did not appear before the public prosecutor as requested to be informed of the final charge , a detention order was issued on DATE . The police set out to locate and arrest him . Eventually , on CARDINAL DATE , they arrested him and on DATE the case was sent to ORG for adjudication .

On DATE ORG received the case . On CARDINAL October X reached the age of majority and on DATE he was committed for trial in that court . The date of the hearing was not set .

On DATE the applicants submitted a petition to ORG to clarify whether the amendments to LAW DATE applied in the proceedings against X. They requested that the court proceed with the case within the time - limits prescribed by domestic law . They also asked if the case would be transferred to ORG pursuant to the same amendments to LAW .

On DATE ORG forwarded the case to ORG ( GPE PERSON tiesu palāta ) to determine the competent court to adjudicate the case pursuant to the amendments to LAW .

On DATE ORG noted as follows :

“ ORG has forwarded the case [ against X ] for determination of the competent court in accordance with transitional provision no . CARDINAL of DATE Amendments to LAW .

Pursuant to the LAW to LAW , criminal cases against persons accused of crimes for which responsibility is determined in section CARDINAL of LAW are to be examined by GPE .

According to transitional provision no . CARDINAL , ORG may transfer a criminal case to LOC if the case has been sent for adjudication to the former court by DATE , after which date the latter court is competent to adjudicate upon it , and if the former has not yet begun to adjudicate and if a minor is being held in detention in the case .

ORG shall decide upon such transfer .

[ X ] was born on DATE and was committed for trial on DATE as a minor ... ”

As a result , it was decided to transfer the criminal case to LOC . On DATE that court committed X for trial and scheduled the first hearing for DATE .

On DATE the Rīga City Latgale District Court convicted X of CARDINAL counts of aggravated burglary . The offences were qualified under section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . LAW sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and ordered confiscation of his property . The court awarded CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) and ORG in damages to the first and the second applicants , excluding the value of the applicants ' property that had been returned to them during the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and requested that PERSON 's sentence be increased to DATE imprisonment and that his parents be declared liable for damages .

On DATE the case was sent to ORG . The hearings were scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the court of first instance but reduced the sentence to DATE imprisonment . That court found that the first instance court had lawfully ordered X to pay damages since he was DATE by the date when that court handed down its judgment and was fully liable for the loss inflicted .

According to the applicants , the full judgment was drawn up on DATE and sent to them on DATE . They received its translation into NORP on DATE .

On DATE the applicants requested that ORG extend the time - limit for appeal on points of law and provide a translation of the judgment into NORP .

On DATE the applicants gave notice of a preliminary appeal on points of law , stating that they would submit an appeal on points of law in full within DATE of receipt of a translation of the judgment into NORP .

On DATE the applicants appealed on points of law .

On DATE ORG of the ORG of ORG in a preparatory meeting dismissed the appeal on points of law .

Following X 's conviction , the applicants were not able to have their award of damages enforced because X had no financial means and no property . It appears that the applicants have not received the awarded damages to date .

The former Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force until DATE ) , applicable at the material time , stipulated the competence of the domestic courts . Section CARDINAL provided that GPE ( as the courts of first instance ) examined criminal cases not falling within the competence of ORG . According to section CARDINAL ORG examined all cases involving very serious crimes and some other categories of legally complex cases , in addition to their inherent competence as courts of appeal . Aggravated burglaries involving large amounts ( section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ) were very serious crimes and thus had to be examined by ORG .

On DATE ( effective as of DATE ) amendments to LAW were adopted with a view to reducing the backlog of cases before certain GPE Courts and ORG . They were also aimed at ensuring an even distribution of cases among domestic courts . The competence of ORG was established to hear cases involving specific crimes prescribed by LAW as courts of first instance . It no longer included any type of burglaries . Thus starting from DATE cases involving burglaries had to be examined by GPE . Yet , according to the transitional provision cases where the accused had already been committed for trial before DATE were to be examined by the court that initially received the case .

On DATE ( effective as of DATE ) another set of amendments to LAW was adopted with regard to the detention of minors . According to transitional provision no . CARDINAL in cases where a minor was kept in detention , the trial had not yet commenced and if a case had been sent for adjudicating to ORG but after DATE it fell to be examined by GPE , the latter could examine the case if ORG decided about the transfer .

According to section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure a civil claim could be submitted by an individual who had suffered damage as a result of crime . It could be brought against the accused or the person who was materially liable for the acts of the accused . By virtue of section CARDINAL the investigator or the public prosecutor determined who bore the liability for a civil claim . If it was not the accused , the civil respondent , for example parents of the accused , had to be joined in the proceedings . Attachment of property could be imposed on the assets of the accused or of a person who was materially liable for the acts of the accused in order to secure a civil claim ( section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In relation to the complaint procedure , section QUANTITY gave a victim of a crime and a civil party the right to complain about the actions of the investigator or the public prosecutor . Further sections of LAW specified the procedure for complaints before and against the actions of a public prosecutor . The prosecutor had to decide upon a complaint within DATE following its receipt and notify the petitioner . The decision could be appealed against to a higher - ranking public prosecutor .

With regard to the trial at the first - instance court , LAW , paragraph CARDINAL set a time - limit for committing the accused for trial . The decision had to be adopted within DATE of the date when the case was received at the court . Pursuant to section CARDINAL , adjudication of a case in a hearing had to be commenced within DATE ( in exceptional cases within DATE ) of the date when the case was received at the court . A legal representative of a minor was required to take part in the proceedings until the minor reached the age of majority ( section CARDINAL ) .

Finally , section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , concerning decisions of an appellate court , stipulated that a judgment or its operative part ( rezolutīvā daļa ) had to be pronounced . If only the operative part was pronounced , this had to be done in writing . The reasoned judgment had to be drawn up within DATE .


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

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

The applicant was accused of rape and committed for trial before ORG . It was alleged that the applicant had raped the complainant at his surgery during a urological examination .

According to the applicant , during the investigation proceedings , the police did not believe the complainant ’s allegations . This led to a strong reaction from the complainant ’s lawyer , a person with political connections who , in a letter dated DATE to the Chief of Police , called for the immediate replacement of the investigating officer , which was done without informing the applicant .

The applicant contends that the new investigating officer carried out a search at the applicant ’s surgery – where the alleged offence took place – without a search warrant , in the presence of the complainant and her lawyer , but in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer who were not even notified of the search . The new investigating officer took a statement from the complainant which was different from an earlier one in which she had said that she was not certain that she had actually been raped .

The police investigations in respect of the rape for which the applicant was convicted started on DATE of the incident , i.e. CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was interrogated by the police about his involvement in this incident during TIME . He was acting on legal advice . The knickers and other objects connected with the case against the applicant were taken by the police also that day and were delivered on CARDINAL DATE to the Government forensic expert ( who testified during the trial as a prosecution witness).The expert proceeded to make scientific tests in order to discover whether there was Vaseline on any of the objects delivered to her by the police .

At the pre - trial stage , the defence asked for the discovery of a number of documents and the knickers of the complainant , which were in the prosecution ’s possession . The defence wished to submit the knickers to scientific examination by its own experts in order to challenge the finding of the prosecution expert , a civil servant , that there was Vaseline on the knickers . When the prosecution refused , the defence successfully applied on DATE to ORG which , on DATE , ordered discovery on condition that the knickers remained in the prosecution ’s possession with access being arranged for the defence examination .

On an ex parte application for certiorari by the Attorney General before a single judge of ORG , enforcement of the order was suspended . Then on DATE , after hearing the parties , the single judge granted judicial review and quashed ORG order on the grounds of an excess of jurisdiction .

The applicant appealed . On DATE the appeal was dismissed by a majority of CARDINAL to CARDINAL in ORG . It held that , in the absence of a specific provision in the law of criminal procedure , the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order for discovery , and that neither Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) and CARDINAL ) of the LAW nor LAW ) of the LAW , empowered the court to issue such an order . ORG considered that the handing over of the knickers to the defence might lead to their destruction and thus deprive the prosecution of the possibility of presenting its case fairly in court . The court also held that whether the denial of a scientific examination would render the proceedings unfair was a matter which could only be examined at the end of the trial , but that ORG could not take positive measures to ensure the fairness of those proceedings .

ORG , inter alia , stated :

“ The issue of the orders in questions , and in particular the order for the handing over of exhibits , may possibly lead to other complications , damaging to the proper administration of justice .

Such a possibility – the destruction or alteration of an object relevant to the proof of the case DATE will have devastating consequences on the prosecution case , and the orders in question , intended to render the trial fair , will produce the opposite result ...

There is no legislative or procedural authorisation for dealing before the trial with issues of what is disclosable , substantial , relevant or irrelevant . The course adopted by ORG does not safeguard the right to a fair trial . On the contrary , it offends the principle of equality of arms and only contributes to delays , in violation of Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . ... ”

Thereafter the hearing before ORG commenced . On DATE the prosecution began with the production of evidence before the court . Prosecution witness CARDINAL was the complainant herself . During DATE of her testimony she was asked by the prosecution to view the knickers and she identified them as those she had worn at the time of the rape . Expert evidence in relation to the knickers was produced by the prosecution on DATE , with the testimony of prosecution witness CARDINAL , PERSON , an expert at ORG . The knickers became evidence at the trial on DATE . She stated that DATE after the offence she had “ washed ” the pants in certain chemical liquids , thus managing to extract all the Vaseline from it , which she then preserved in a tube which was also produced as an exhibit in court .

Furthermore the expert excluded the possibility of there being a substance in the material out of which the knickers were made which was of the same chemical composition as Vaseline and the possibility of a finding , after a further examination of the knickers , that Vaseline had existed on them . No evidence contradicting this opinion or creating doubts as to its correctness was produced by the defence .

On DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The ORG based its decision mainly on the credibility of the complainant in respect of whom the court stated the following :

“ Our global view is that [ the complainant ] is completely credible . Her evidence has all those elements which characterise and determine the credibility of evidence and we note the consistency , completeness , accuracy , naturalness and cogency of her whole relation , beyond , as we have already observed , the very good impression she made in the witness box . We also find nothing with reference to the matters discussed above , which affects or weakens this view of ours . On the contrary , [ the complainant ’s ] evidence has passed the test of trial with reference to its contents and the rest of the evidence as well as with reference to the question of any motive . We would simply mention the fact that no motive was attributed to [ the complainant ] and no submission was made that her version is made up and no such suggestion was made by [ the applicant ] in his unsworn statement , but she was only cross - examined as we have noticed in relation to those parts of her version which concerned her statements to the police ... ” .

ORG found that the evidence of the complainant was further corroborated by the fact that she made the first complaint to CARDINAL persons whose testimony was accepted by the court . The court also took into account in corroboration of the complainant ’s allegations the fact that , according to a prosecution expert , evidence of Vaseline was found on the knickers which the complainant had been wearing at the material time , thus supporting her claim that the applicant had put Vaseline on her . In defence , it was argued that it had not been proved that the knickers in question were the pair worn by the complainant at the material time . However , ORG was satisfied from the evidence that the knickers on which Vaseline had been found were those of the complainant .

It appears that the defence did not argue before ORG that the non - discovery of the knickers had the effect of depriving the applicant of a fair trial .

Regarding the complaint of the defence that the police and the prosecuting authorities did not perform their duties impartially , ORG stated that the case had to be determined on the basis of the evidence and that “ to the extent that any actions of the police or other persons involved in the case concerned the evidence , we do not find anything which could affect our view regarding the credibility of [ the complainant ] ” . ORG also dismissed this complaint , on appeal , as being unsubstantiated .

ORG further held that the allegation of the applicant that he had had an unfair trial because the prosecution failed to disclose to the defence a number of statements made by the complainant to the police which might have been relevant to the defence , was not substantiated , given the fact that this matter was neither pursued nor clarified during the cross - examination of the complainant .

As regards the defence argument that , soon after the incident , the complainant ’s lawyer addressed a letter to the Attorney ORG and ORG in which no clear reference to the offence of rape was made , the court found this to be “ fully understandable in view of the circumstances , the letter itself explaining the reason for the lack of certainty as to whether there was rape or only attempted rape in view of the fact that the difference between the CARDINAL is , as was meant to be , of legal significance and many times this is not easy to define ” .

The applicant appealed against his conviction to ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and confirmed the applicant ’s conviction .

Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure PERSON . CARDINAL provide as follows :

“ When the accused pleads “ not guilty ” then , through a written request to the prosecution , he is entitled to be supplied with copies of the written statements and the documents which were obtained during the investigation of the criminal offence with which he is charged . ”

“ At every preliminary enquiry and at every trial , the court shall have the discretionary power to regulate the course of the proceedings in any way which may appear desirable and which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this PERSON . ”

Where the offence is of a sexual nature , the evidence of the complainant must be corroborated . By virtue of an express statutory provision LAW of the Evidence Law , PERSON . CARDINAL a first complaint constitutes corroborative evidence per se .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant was born in DATE and was serving his prison sentence in FAC at the time of his application to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody by the Anti - terror branch of ORG on suspicion of his involvement in an illegal organisation , namely the ORG ( ORG ) .

According to the search protocol drafted on DATE by police officers and signed by the applicant ’s father , the police , after obtaining his consent , searched the applicant ’s GPE flat and did not find any incriminating evidence .

According to the search and seizure protocol drafted on DATE by the police officers and signed by the applicant , the police searched the applicant ’s flat and had found inside a book a paper with coded inscriptions and numbers on it . Following the search the applicant was taken back to the police station . However , QUANTITY police officers remained in the applicant ’s flat , until TIME , in case other members of the illegal organisation appeared .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative requested the public prosecutor at ORG to give her permission to see the applicant in police custody . On DATE the public prosecutor refused .

Also DATE , the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG . The applicant complained that he had been beaten . However , the doctor found no physical evidence of illtreatment .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at ORG . Before the public prosecutor the applicant gave information as to his relations with various people but denied that he had been involved in an illegal organisation and that he had taken part in military training in GPE . He claimed that he did not know anything about the code found during the search . He acknowledged that he knew Mr A.T and Mr U.M who had identified him in the police station . He submitted further that he knew Mr A.E.K. , PERSON , and Mr PERSON because they were in the same prison as his sister . He admitted that Mr ORG and Mr ORG knew him as PERSON but stated that this was not a code name .

On DATE the applicant was brought , together with CARDINAL other suspects , before ORG . He refuted the statements he had given to the police and reiterated his statements made to the public prosecutor . The other suspects claimed that they knew the applicant as “ PERSON and acknowledged their statements given to the police and to the public prosecutor . The court ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment with that court , accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG . The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under LAW § CARDINAL and LAW no . ORG .

On an unspecified date ORG commenced the trial against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused .

At a hearing held on DATE the applicant stated that he was not a member of the ORG and that he did not accept the content of the statements he had given to the police since they had been extracted under duress and torture . The statements which the applicant had made to the public prosecutor were read out to him . He rectified certain details . He further submitted that he had asked his brother for money but since he did not have an identity document and a bank account , his brother had sent the money to the bank account of Mr PERSON He was asked PERSON , who had sent the money to PERSON He stated that he did not know PERSON personally but that she was a friend of his brother . He maintained that he did not have a code name and that people knew him as “ PERSON ” because that was his middle name . As to the coded inscriptions , he claimed that the police made him write them in the police station . The search and seizure protocol was read out to him . He denied that the coded inscriptions had been found in his house .

At a hearing held on DATE the applicant requested that witnesses on his behalf be heard by the court . The court , taking into account the evidence contained in the case file and the fact that the witness PERSON was living in GPE , decided not to hear the latter witness . On the other hand , the court decided to hear the other witnesses . On DATE the court heard the applicant ’s witnesses .

On DATE the applicant submitted his final written defence submissions to the court . He claimed that there was no evidence in the case file to support the accusations against him apart from his statements given under duress in police custody . In particular , he alleged that the police had made him write the coded inscriptions while he was in custody .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The court held , inter alia , that as the applicant ’s statements in police custody were consistent with the statements made by PERSON , PERSON ORG , Mr ORG and Mr U.M. , it did not find the applicant ’s statements made during the trial convincing . As to the defence witnesses’ statements , the court ruled that , as the witnesses were the applicant ’s relatives , their submissions could not be considered reliable . The court further held that since the profile of the applicant did not match that given by CARDINAL convicted persons who had given evidence it did not take into account the latter ’s statements in its assessment .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG . In his appeal petition , the applicant reiterated his previous submissions . He further argued that the court had relied on unlawfully obtained evidence and that there was no evidence to support the allegation that he was a member of an illegal organisation . The applicant also attached the written witness statement of PERSON to his petition . According to the written statement of PERSON , she was a friend of the applicant ’s brother and since he had been busy she had made all the necessary transactions and sent the money to the bank account given to her .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and upheld the judgment of ORG . The court pronounced its decision on DATE in the absence of the applicant and his representative . The applicant ’s representative claims that she learned of the decision of ORG on DATE when she went to that court on other business .

On DATE the decision of ORG was deposited with the registry of the first - instance court .

NORP The applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been released from prison after having served his sentence .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments : PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished .


No violation of Art. 5-1;No violation of Art. 5-4

The applicant is a NORP national and was born in DATE . He lives in GPE .

On DATE , in the course of an investigation into offences against public decency following complaints filed with the police , the assistant public prosecutor ( hulpofficier van justitie ) , in accordance with Articles DATE of LAW ( Wetboek PERSON , hereinafter “ CCP ” ) , issued a warrant for the applicant ’s arrest on suspicion of contravening LAW ( PERSON , hereinafter referred to as “ ORG ” ) , which provision prohibits trafficking in persons ( mensenhandel ) .

On the basis of this warrant the police arrested the applicant in his home on DATE at TIME and brought him to the police station . According to the formal police report on this arrest ( proces - verbaal van aanhouding ) of DATE , the police officers identified themselves and , upon request of the member of the applicant ’s family who answered the door , showed the warrant for the applicant ’s arrest when they entered the applicant ’s home and arrested him in relation to an offence under LAW . This police report further states that the applicant was provided with a copy of the arrest warrant . The formal police report does not mention at what time the applicant was provided with this copy .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was questioned by CARDINAL police officers . In so far as relevant , the formal police report on this questioning ( proces - verbaal van verhoor ) states as follows :

( Translation )

“ After we had informed the suspect that he was not obliged to answer and also informed him what he was to be questioned about , he stated to us as follows :

‘ I understand what I am suspected of . I understand you well . I do not understand for what I have been arrested . I have no statement to make , I want to speak to my lawyer first . I will not sign anything.’

After his statement had been read out to him , he agreed with it , but refused to sign it . ”

At TIME on DATE , after the applicant had been brought before the assistant public prosecutor , the latter ordered the applicant ’s detention in police custody ( inverzekeringstelling ) for a maximum of DATE .

According to the wording of the custody order , the applicant ’s custody had been ordered at TIME on suspicion of having contravened LAW . The relevant legal qualification was stated to be “ living off immoral earnings ” ( koppelarij ) . The custody order further stated that the applicant and his lawyer had been provided with a copy of the custody order without delay ( onverwijld ) . The custody order does not contain an indication as to the exact time the applicant and his lawyer were provided with a copy of this order .

On the cover page of the police investigation file and in the formal police report on the investigation in the present case , both dated DATE , it is recorded that the applicant , together with another person , was suspected of contravening LAW .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the investigating judge ( rechter - commissaris ) in order to be heard and on the prosecution ’s request to order the applicant ’s detention on remand ( inbewaringstelling ) , which written request was based on LAW and referred to the offence set out therein . During this hearing , the applicant was assisted by his lawyer .

The applicant denied the suspicions against him , explaining :

( Translation )

“ I only run errands for the girls . I know girls from GPE , GPE , GPE and the GPE . I pick them up with the car and bring them home . I do so at their own request . I earn MONEY per day with that [ activity ] . ”

In response to the public prosecutor ’s demand , the applicant stated :

( Translation )

“ Everything is falling apart on me , my marriage and my children . If my family becomes aware that I am involved in trafficking in women , they will kill me . ”

The applicant ’s lawyer submitted that the applicant had been placed in police custody on suspicion of contravening LAW , for which offence police custody can not be ordered . He demanded the applicant ’s immediate release .

According to TIME of this hearing , the investigating judge ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand , holding :

( Translation )

“ I , investigating judge , inform the suspect , as I do not find the police custody unlawful , that as to the submissions – however well - founded in fact they may be – regard must be had to the nature of the infringed rule(s ) , the interest protected by such rule(s ) , the degree to which this interest may be considered as having been harmed and the relevant interests of society . ”

The written order for the applicant ’s detention on remand ( bevel tot bewaring ) issued by the investigating judge , in so far as relevant , reads :

( Translation )

“ … as it is plausible that the suspect is to a considerable extent involved in trafficking in persons ; that the pre - trial detention is in all reasonability necessary to … reveal the truth as [ the ] suspect denies [ the offence ] and ( a ) further witness(es ) need(s ) to be heard ;

NOTING the contents of … Article(s ) CARDINAL ter Criminal Code/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ;

ISSUES an order for detention on remand against [ the ] suspect for a period of DATE … ”

Following the prosecution ’s request for the applicant ’s further detention on remand ( gevangenhouding ) , ORG ( ORG ) of GPE , after having heard the applicant and after having noted the grounds on which the applicant ’s detention on remand had been ordered and having found these grounds still to be pertinent , on DATE ordered the applicant ’s further detention on remand for a period of DATE . On DATE , the applicant was released for lack of space for further detainees in any remand centre .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE acquitted the applicant of the charges brought against him under LAW . On DATE , in a different set of proceedings concerning unrelated facts , ORG of GPE convicted him of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment .

On DATE , the applicant filed a request under LAW ORG for compensation in respect of damage sustained on account of the time spent in pre - trial detention on suspicion of committing the offences of which he had been acquitted . Instead of seeking pecuniary compensation , the applicant requested ORG to order the deduction of the time he had spent in pre - trial detention from the CARDINAL GPE imprisonment to which he had been sentenced in the other set of criminal proceedings .

In its decision of DATE , ORG noted that the applicant had been taken into police custody on DATE on suspicion of committing an offence under LAW , that on DATE the investigating judge had ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand and that he had been released for lack of space on DATE . Pursuant to LAW and LAW ORG , ORG ordered that DATE be deducted from the CARDINAL GPE imprisonment imposed for the other offence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As to the remaining DATE , the applicant has successfully sought a royal pardon , these DATE having been commuted to CARDINAL ORG work .

According to LAW , a public prosecutor is competent to order the arrest of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence in respect of which pre - trial detention ( voorlopige hechtenis ) may be ordered .

Pursuant to LAW ORG , a public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor is competent to order a person ’s detention in police custody , after having seen and heard that person , who is entitled to be assisted by a lawyer .

According to LAW ORG , a custody order can only be issued in respect of punishable offences for which pre - trial detention may be ordered . A custody order is only valid for a maximum of DATE and may be prolonged once for a maximum period of DATE . No appeal lies against a custody order .

Article CARDINAL ORG requires that DATE and TIME after being arrested , a suspect must be brought before an investigating judge in order to be heard . On that occasion the suspect may request the investigating judge , in accordance with Article QUANTITY § CARDINAL ORG , to order his or her release . Where the investigating judge finds the order for detention in police custody ( inverzekeringstelling ) unlawful , the suspect ’s immediate release must be ordered ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ORG ) .

In order to prolong the detention of a suspect , the public prosecutor can request the investigation judge for a remand order ( inbewaringstelling ) under LAW ORG . Pursuant to LAW ORG this remand order is valid for a period of maximum DATE .

Although no direct appeal lies against a remand order , a person whose detention on remand has been ordered can , in accordance with LAW , apply to ORG for an order lifting the pre - trial detention ( opheffing voorlopige hechtenis ) . Under LAW ORG , an appeal against a rejection by ORG of a first request to lift pre - trial detention may be lodged with ORG ( Gerechtshof ) .

NORP In order to prolong the detention of a suspect whose remand has been ordered by the investigation judge , the public prosecutor can request ORG for an order for further detention on remand ( gevangenhouding ) . Pursuant to LAW ORG this order is valid for a period of maximum DATE . Under LAW ORG , an appeal against an order for further detention on remand lies with ORG .

According to the established case - law of ORG ( PERSON ) , procedural defects occurring in respect of previous orders for pre - trial detention do not constitute independent grounds for dismissing an application for a subsequent category of pre - trial detention . A judge must examine for each category separately whether all conditions are fulfilled ( see HR ( PERSON ) , CARDINAL DATE , GPE ( PERSON ) , DATE , no . CARDINAL ; HR , DATE , GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ; and HR , DATE , GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) . However , in deciding requests under LAW ORG , a judge may take procedural defects into consideration as a relevant factor ( see HR , DATE , GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL ORG reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An order for pre - trial detention can be issued in case of suspicion of :

( a ) an offence which , according to the law , carries a punishment of imprisonment of DATE or more ;

( b ) CARDINAL of the offences defined in ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINALc , CARDINAL and CARDINAL bis of LAW ;

( c ) the misdemeanour described in LAW , under QUANTITY , of LAW ;

( d ) CARDINAL of the offences defined in :

– Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW DATE ;

– Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW ;

– Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY on Conscientious Objections to Military Service ;

– LAW ;

– LAW ;

– Article CARDINAL of the Stockbroking Control Act ;

– Article QUANTITY Act on LAW .

The order can further be issued if no permanent address or place of residence of the suspect in the GPE can be established and he is suspected of an offence within the jurisdiction of the courts and which , according to the law , is punishable by imprisonment .

The previous paragraphs are only applied when it appears from the facts or circumstances that there are serious indications against the suspect . ”

( “ CARDINAL . Een bevel tot voorlopige hechtenis kan worden gegeven in geval van verdenking van :

a. een misdrijf waarop naar de wettelijke omschrijving een gevangenisstraf van vier jaren of meer is gesteld ;

b. een der misdrijven omschreven in de artikelen CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL , eerste lid , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINALc , CARDINAL en CARDINAL bis van het GPE ;

c. de overtreding omschreven in artikel CARDINAL , onder QUANTITY , van het Wetboek van Strafvordering ;

d. een der misdrijven omschreven in :

– artikel CARDINAL , tweede lid , PERSON DATE ;

– artikel CARDINAL , tweede lid , van de Wet buitengewone bevoegdheden burgerlijk gezag ;

– de artikelen CARDINAL , DATE , eerste lid , en CARDINAL van de Wet gewetensbezwaren militaire dienst ;

– artikel CARDINAL PERSON op de kansspelen ;

– artikel CARDINAL , tweede lid , PERSON ;

– artikel CARDINAL PERSON toezicht effectenverkeer DATE ;

– artikel DATE , eerste en tweede lid , van de Wet wapens en munitie .

Het bevel kan voorts worden gegeven indien CARDINAL vaste woon- of verblijfplaats in GPE PERSON kan worden vastgesteld en hij verdacht wordt van een misdrijf waarvan de rechtbanken kennis nemen en waarop , naar de wettelijke omschrijving , gevangenisstraf is gesteld .

De voorgaande leden van dit artikel vinden alleen toepassing wanneer uit feiten of omstandigheden blijkt van ernstige bezwaren tegen de verdachte . ” )

Article CARDINAL ORG provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The following persons shall be punished :

CARDINAL ° any person who intentionally causes or encourages his minor child , foster child or adopted child , his ward , a minor entrusted to him for care , education or supervision , or a servant or subordinate who is a minor , to commit an indecent act with another person , shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding DATE or a fourth - category fine .

CARDINAL ° any person who intentionally causes or encourages a minor who he knows to be or may reasonably be expected to know to be a minor to commit an indecent act with another person , other than in the cases defined under QUANTITY , shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding DATE or a fourth - category fine .

If the offender has made a profession or habit of committing the indictable offence , the terms of imprisonment may be increased by CARDINAL . ”

( “ CARDINAL . ORG gestraft :

CARDINAL ° met gevangenisstraf van QUANTITY of geldboete PERSON , hij die het plegen van ontucht door zijn minderjarig kind , stiefkind of pleegkind , zijn pupil , een aan zorg , opleiding of waakzaamheid toevertrouwde minderjarige or zijn minderjarige bediende of ondergeschikte met een derde opzettelijk teweegbrengt of bevordert .

CARDINAL ° met gevangenisstraf van QUANTITY of een geldboete PERSON , hij die , buiten de gevallen genoemd onder QUANTITY , het plegen van ontucht door een minderjarige PERSON of redelijkerwijs moet vermoeden , met een derde opzettelijk teweeg CARDINAL of bevordert .

Indien de schuldige van het plegen van het misdrijf een gewoonte maakt , PERSON met een derde worden verhoogd . ” )

LAW states as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The following persons commit be the offence of trafficking in persons and are liable to a punishment of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment or a fifth - category fine :

CARDINAL ° any person who induces another person to engage in prostitution by means of violence or any other physical action or by means of threats of violence or of any other physical action or by misusing authority or influence derived from the actual state of affairs , or by means of deception , or who under any of these circumstances undertakes any action which he or she knows or may reasonably be expected to know will lead to the other person becoming engaged in prostitution ;

CARDINAL ° any person who recruits , takes with him or abducts any person with a view to inducing the latter to engage in prostitution in another country ;

CARDINAL ° any person who induces another person to engage in prostitution , or who , as regards this other person , undertakes any action which he or she knows or may reasonably be expected to know will lead to the other person becoming engaged in prostitution , if the other person is a minor .

The penalty for the following offences shall be DATE imprisonment or a fifth - category fine :

CARDINAL ° trafficking in persons , committed by CARDINAL or more persons acting in concert ;

CARDINAL ° trafficking in persons , where the victim is aged DATE ;

CARDINAL ° trafficking in persons , if violence or any other physical action referred to in paragraph CARDINAL results in serious bodily harm .

Trafficking in persons , committed by CARDINAL or more persons acting in concert , under circumstances set out in paragraph CARDINAL under QUANTITY , shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment or a fifth - category fine . ”

( “ CARDINAL . Als schuldig aan mensenhandel wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraf PERSON jaren of geldboete PERSON :

CARDINAL ° degene die een ander door geweld of een andere feitelijkheid of door bedreiging met geweld of een andere feitelijkheid dan wel door misbruik van uit feitelijke verhoudingen voortvloeiend overwicht of door misleiding tot prostitutie brengt , dan wel onder voornoemde omstandigheden enige handeling onderneemt QUANTITY of redelijkerwijs moet vermoeden dat die ander daardoor in de prostitutie belandt ;

CARDINAL ° degene die een persoon aanwerft , medeneemt of ontvoert met het oogmerk die persoon in een ander land in de prostitutie te brengen ;

CARDINAL ° degene die een ander tot prostitutie brengt , dan wel CARDINAL aanzien van een ander enige handeling onderneemt QUANTITY of redelijkerwijs moet vermoeden dat die ander daardoor in de prostitutie belandt , indien die ander minderjarig is .

Met gevangenisstraf van QUANTITY of een geldboete PERSON gestraft :

CARDINAL ° mensenhandel door twee of CARDINAL verenigde personen ;

CARDINAL ° mensenhandel ten aanzien van een persoon die de leeftijd van zestien jaren nog niet heeft bereikt ;

CARDINAL ORG mensenhandel , indien geweld of een andere feitelijkheid als bedoeld in het eerste lid , zwaar lichamelijk letsel QUANTITY gevolge heeft .

GPE door twee of meer verenigde personen onder de omstandigheden , bedoeld in het tweede lid onder QUANTITY , wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraf PERSON jaren of geldboete PERSON . ” )