Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Torture);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants are :

CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and

CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .

The applicants are brothers . The first and the second applicants live in GPE . Prior to his death in DATE the third applicant also lived there . The cause of the third applicant ’s death is not relevant to the present case .

The applicants are ethnic NORP . They were born in PERSON and lived there until the armed hostilities between NORP military forces and NORP fighters destroyed their house in DATE . The applicants moved to GPE , GPE , a NORP region neighbouring GPE .

NORP In TIME of DATE the first and the second applicants went to a TIME club ( the documents submitted also referred to the establishment as a concert hall ) . They had an argument there with Mr M. Sh . , who was also an ethnic NORP , and friends of his . As a result , Mr PERSON . stabbed the first applicant in the buttocks . A security guard , Mr PERSON . , who was an ethnic PERSON , was also lightly stabbed either by PERSON PERSON . or CARDINAL of his friends . The conflict was resolved without police intervention . Mr M.Sh . and his friends then left the club . Someone called the police and reported the stabbing , saying that a NORP had stabbed a NORP security guard at the club .

After TIME the first and second applicants left the club . Just a few blocks away they were stopped by several policemen who had apparently been waiting for them . The first applicant tried to explain to them that he had been wounded and needed medical assistance , but the officers disregarded his explanations ; they did not ask for the applicants’ identity documents either . According to the applicants , the policemen detained them based on the information that a NORP had stabbed a GPE at TIME club . The second applicant managed to call the third applicant and inform him about their arrest . The first and second applicants were immediately put in the police patrol car and taken to the CARDINALnd ORG of the Interior ( the PERSON ) in FAC , GPE , where they arrived at TIME The officers took them to CARDINAL different rooms on the third floor of the police station . No documents were drawn up by the policemen before or after the applicants were taken to the police station .

The first applicant was taken to a room in which there were a number of police officers , including CARDINAL officers from the criminal search division , Mr PERSON . and Mr PERSON . , and the head of the criminal search division , Mr A. Bo . All the officers were either ethnic GPE or GPE . The policemen pulled the applicant ’s jacket over his head , knocked him off his feet and started to kick him . CARDINAL of them struck the applicant with a rifle butt in the face , causing him to lose consciousness . When the applicant regained consciousness , the officers continued to beat him , shouting racist remarks and insulting him on account of his NORP ethnicity : “ You NORP are all faggots . Why did you come over here ? Go back to GPE ... ”

After that the policemen took the first applicant to an adjacent office where he saw the second applicant , who was bleeding on the floor , and officers PERSON . and PERSON . kicking him . The first applicant was taken back to the office and was subjected to further beating . The applicant told the policemen that he would complain about the ill - treatment . In response , officer PERSON . told him that he was a relative of the NORP Minister of the ORG and that even if he were to kill the applicant or his brother , he would not be held responsible for killing a NORP .

At TIME the first applicant was taken to another office , where officer PERSON . showed him the statements of the club ’s staff , according to which neither the first nor the second applicants were responsible for stabbing the security guard . During the applicant ’s conversation with the officer , another policeman , who was in camouflage uniform , struck the applicant in the back with a rifle butt and the applicant passed out again . Upon regaining consciousness , the applicant noticed that he was bleeding in the mouth and asked the officers to provide him with medical assistance ; he reminded them that he was not responsible for the stabbing and that he would complain to the authorities about the illtreatment . Officer PERSON . replied : “ If you or your brother try to complain , we will kill you right here . We will not be held responsible for a NORP ” . After that the beating continued .

TIME later officer PERSON . brought a medical doctor to the office . She looked at the applicant , but refused to examine him and explained to the officers that he needed urgent hospitalisation . The officers refused to let him go and the doctor left the room .

At TIME the first applicant heard the third applicant screaming . Through the door , which was ajar , he saw QUANTITY police officers dragging with them the third applicant , who had arrived at the police station after receiving the second applicant ’s phone call about the arrest .

The first applicant pleaded with the policemen not to beat the third applicant . In response they continued to beat the first applicant , insult him and his ethnicity by calling him and his brothers “ NORP faggots ” and threatening to sexually assault him .

After TIME the first and the third applicants were released from the police station . Their relatives were waiting for them outside . The CARDINAL applicants went to the GPE town prosecutor ’s office ( hereafter “ the town prosecutor ’s office ” ) . The second applicant was already there . They described what had happened to them to the on - duty investigator , Mr Em . , and lodged an official complaint . The second applicant ’s wife , PERSON , tried to dissuade the applicants from lodging a complaint by saying that the deputy town prosecutor , Mr PERSON . , had spoken to her and asked her to convince her relatives not to lodge any complaints : “ I know that the GPE brothers are going to lodge a complaint . You have to make sure that they change their minds as it will get worse for them . They will not succeed ... ”

According to the first applicant , a NORP police officer from FAC of the Fight against Organised Crime ( the ORG ) , PERSON , visited the police station on TIME of DATE and learnt of the applicants’ ill - treatment . He informed the applicants’ relatives about it and at a later date provided statements to the investigation ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

Upon arrival at the police station the second applicant was taken to a separate room where the police officers ordered him to empty his pockets . The applicant put his belongings on the table . After that , without providing any explanation , the policemen started kicking him and beating him with truncheons . Other officers entered the room from time to time , and asked : “ A NORP ? ” and joined in with the beating . The officers kept insulting the applicant and his ethnicity by saying : “ You fucking NORP , we will fuck you now ... ”

During the beating the applicant lost consciousness several times . He told the officers that he had a gastric ulcer and pleaded with them not to hit him in the stomach . After that the policemen intentionally tried to hit him there . The head of the criminal search division , officer PERSON . , also participated in the ill - treatment of the second applicant . When the applicant told him that he would complain about the ill - treatment to the authorities , the latter responded : “ You are a NORP . I can kill you right now and nothing will happen to me . My uncle is the NORP Minister of the Interior ” . The applicant heard the first applicant being beaten in the adjacent room . The second applicant bled ; as a result , the office floor was covered in his blood .

At some point later the policemen took the second applicant to another room , and gave him back some of the belongings which had been confiscated from him earlier .

Subsequently , the officers took the second applicant outside . A number of his relatives , including his wife , PERSON , her sister , PERSON , his uncle , PERSON , his nephew , PERSON . and the third applicant were waiting on the porch of the police station . When they saw the second applicant , who was bleeding and whose clothes were torn , the third applicant asked the policemen why his brother had been ill - treated . The officers immediately grabbed the third applicant and dragged him into the building ( see below ) . They hit PERSON , who had tried to intervene , in the stomach and she fainted .

At TIME on DATE the third applicant received a phone call from the second applicant , who told him that he and the first applicant had been arrested by the police following an incident in a club .

At TIME the third applicant and his relatives went to the PERSON in FAC and the third applicant inquired whether his brothers had been brought there . The on - duty officer confirmed that they had , and told him that his brothers were being questioned . The officer did not allow him to enter the police station , so the applicant , PERSON , Ms PERSON , and his nephew PERSON . remained outside waiting for the release of the first and second applicants .

At TIME policemen dragged the second applicant outside . He had been severely beaten , his clothes were torn and he was barely recognisable . The third applicant asked the officers why his brother had been ill - treated . CARDINAL of them responded : “ Are you also a NORP ? Get the fuck out of here ” . Several other policemen , including officer GPE . , then came out on the porch , beat the third applicant with their rifle butts and kicked him , grabbed him by his hair and dragged him inside ; they took him to the third floor of the building . CARDINAL of the officers was in police uniform , while another wore camouflage clothing . The rest of them were in civilian clothing , as they belonged to the criminal search division .

While being dragged along the third floor , the third applicant noticed the first applicant , who looked as if he had been brutally beaten , in CARDINAL of the offices . The third applicant was taken to the adjacent office , where he was beaten and kicked by CARDINAL policemen , who insulted him and his ethnic background by saying : “ You NORP are faggots ... Get the fuck out of here back to GPE ... ”

The policemen spoke PERSON to each other . The applicant , who also spoke the language , concluded that all of them were GPE . None of the officers asked for the applicant ’s identity documents or asked him any questions at any time .

Sometime later the third applicant was taken to the office of the head of the criminal search division , officer PERSON . , who told him , along with other officers : “ We hate all of you NORP . We are not going to let you live here . We will fuck all of you . You are all animals . Go back to GPE and fight with GPE ... ” The officers also warned the applicant that it was pointless for him to complain to the authorities about the illtreatment : “ You are a NORP and that says it all . You are not going to get any justice here ” .

Late at night the third and the first applicants were released from the police station and immediately went to the town prosecutor ’s office .

PERSON is the wife of the second applicant ; she is an ethnic Balkar . She is the sister of PERSON

At TIME on DATE PERSON called and told her that according to an acquaintance , who was a police officer , the first and the second applicants were being subjected to ill - treatment at the police station .

PERSON called the third applicant and together with him , PERSON and other relatives they went to the PERSON in FAC . Upon arrival at the police station PERSON knocked at the door and tried to obtain information about her husband , the second applicant , from the on - duty officers . She also tried to explain to them that her husband had a stomach ulcer which could start bleeding at any moment if aggravated . The policemen refused to speak to her , but they did not deny that the first and the second applicants were detained on their LOC .

PERSON , the third applicant and their relatives decided to wait at the entrance for the release of the first and the second applicants . While they were waiting , they saw police officers coming out on the porch to smoke . They heard them speaking in GPE , GPE and NORP about the first and the second applicants and making disparaging comments concerning the NORP ethnicity . PERSON and her relatives also understood from the ORG conversations that the first and the second applicants were being subjected to beatings .

TIME an ambulance arrived at the police station and a doctor went inside . When the doctor came out , PERSON asked her about the first and the second applicants . The doctor told her that she had not been allowed to see the second applicant , but that she had seen the first applicant , who had been in a very bad condition with signs of beatings all over his body and face and a stab wound . She also explained that she was supposed to take him to a hospital , but the policemen had refused to let him go .

PERSON pleaded with the doctor to return to the building and provide the first and second applicants with medical assistance . The doctor agreed and went inside . TIME she returned and told PERSON that the officers had refused to let her see the applicants and provide them with medical assistance .

Late at night the officers dragged the second applicant outside ; he was bleeding , his teeth were knocked out and his clothes were torn . PERSON asked him what had happened and he told her that he had been subjected to ill - treatment , humiliation and insults by the policemen on account of his NORP ethnic origin . He insisted on going to the prosecutor ’s office immediately and making a complaint about the ill - treatment .

Then the third applicant approached the officers and asked them why his brother had been ill - treated . In response , several policemen in masks ran out from the building and started beating him with their rifle butts and kicking him . The officers kept insulting the third applicant on account of him being a NORP . When PERSON tried to intervene and protect the third applicant , CARDINAL of the officers kicked her in the stomach and she fainted .

Upon regaining consciousness , PERSON went with the second applicant and their relatives to the town prosecutor ’s office . The policemen who had ill - treated the applicants had already arrived there , and the head of the criminal search division , officer PERSON . , was speaking with the deputy town prosecutor , Mr PERSON .

Sometime later the first and third applicants arrived at the prosecutor ’s office . PERSON saw that the third applicant , who had been dragged into the police station in a normal state of health , had been severely beaten and kept passing out .

The deputy town prosecutor invited PERSON into his office and told her the following : “ I know that the PERSON brothers are going to make a complaint ; you have to make sure that they do not do it , as it will get worse for them . They will not succeed ... ” Immediately after , PERSON spoke to the brothers and asked them not to lodge official complaints about the illtreatment , but the applicants refused , claiming that they had been subjected to the ill - treatment on the sole ground of their ethnic origin .

In TIME of DATE PERSON received a phone call from a friend who was a police officer in GPE . He told her that the PERSON brothers were being severely beaten by policemen in the ORG in FAC . PERSON immediately called her sister , PERSON

At TIME PERSON , PERSON and the third applicant went to the police station , where a number of other people were waiting outside . Ms LOC tried to explain to the on - duty officers that her husband had a stomach ulcer which could start bleeding . She kept asking them to call an ambulance and provide medical assistance to the first and second applicants .

At some point an ambulance arrived at the police station . The doctor spent TIME in the building . When she came out , PERSON and PERSON asked her about their relatives . The doctor said that she was worried about the first applicant , who was in a bad state , but the policemen had refused to let him go to hospital . PERSON told the doctor about the second applicant ’s ulcer and asked her to go back into the station and provide him with medical assistance . The doctor agreed and went back into the station ; TIME later she left the building and said that the policemen had not allowed her to examine the second applicant and refused to let her take the first applicant to hospital .

Late at night two police officers brought the second applicant , who had been severely beaten , outside . His teeth were knocked out , he was covered with blood and his clothes were torn . The third applicant asked the officers why his brother had been ill - treated . In response , CARDINAL officers ran out of the station and started beating him and saying : “ You are also a NORP , get out of here ... ” PERSON attempted to intervene and protect him , but she was kicked in the stomach and fainted . The policemen dragged the third applicant inside .

After PERSON had regained consciousness , she , PERSON and the second applicant went to the town prosecutor ’s office , where the officials and the police officers tried to dissuade the second applicant and PERSON from making a complaint about the ill - treatment : “ Do not go against the flow . It is futile for you to make a complaint ” .

At TIME the first and third applicants also arrived at the prosecutor ’s office . They were bleeding , and the office employees had to cover the chairs with oilcloths to protect the furniture from getting blood stains on it . The third applicant kept spitting blood and running to the toilet . PERSON stayed with the applicants and PERSON at the prosecutor ’s office until TIME of DATE ; after that she went home .

On TIME , upon the order of the town prosecutor ’s office , the applicants underwent a medical examination at ORG of ORG ( hereafter “ the Bureau ” ) . The expert evaluation of the first applicant , dated DATE , stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ...... PERSON had a fight with unidentified persons . From the place of the incident he was taken to the PERSON in GPE . According to PERSON , at the police station officers beat him in the head with punches , kicks and truncheons . ... in TIME of DATE police officers first beat him outside ; then they took him into the police station , where they continued beating him until TIME with truncheons , rifle butts , punches and kicks ; ... prior to these events he had had a fight in a night club ...

Conclusions . PERSON sustained the following injuries : soft tissue bruises of the head and the right hand ; haemorrhages of the sclera of both eyes ; soft tissue bruises of the right part of the face ; bruises of the face , left ear , area behind the left ear , chest , back , left hand and both legs . These injuries were caused by blunt firm objects ... PERSON was hospitalised at ORG ... ”

On DATE the maxillofacial injuries unit of ORG in GPE issued an official medical certificate concerning the first applicant . The text of the document included the following :

“ ... diagnosis on arrival on DATE : multiple severe craniofacial injuries ; closed craniocerebral injury , moderate brain contusion , multifragmental fracture of the left zygomatic region with dislocation of multiple bone fragments .

Surgery : under general anaesthesia ... open repositioning of the zygomatic bone ... by titanium plates with screws ... ”

On DATE the ORG issued an additional expert evaluation in respect of the first applicant . The text of the document included the following :

“ ... conclusions : Mr PERSON has the following injuries :

Closed fracture of the left zygomatic bone ...

Closed craniocerebral injury ; moderate brain contusion ...

Stab wound in the left gluteal region ...

Extensive bruising of the head , ears , chest , upper and lower extremities ...

The injuries described were caused by blunt firm objects ... which could have been fists , boots ... and the injury described in paragraph CARDINAL was caused by a piercing or sharp object ... ”

On DATE the second applicant underwent a medical examination at the ORG . The expert evaluation , dated DATE , stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ...... PERSON had a fight with unidentified persons . From the place of the incident he was taken to PERSON in GPE . According to PERSON , at the police station CARDINAL to CARDINAL officers beat him in the head with fists , kicks and truncheons ... he lost consciousness ...

Conclusions . Mr PERSON has the following injuries :

Closed fracture of the nose with dislocation of multiple bone fragments ;

Closed craniocerebral injury ; moderate brain contusion ;

Contusion of the right kidney ;

Contusion of the ribcage ;

Extensive bruising of the face , back , lower back , neck , chest ... , upper extremities ... violent extraction of CARDINAL teeth ;

PERSON head wound ... The injuries described were caused by blunt firm objects ... ”

DATE . On DATE the ORG issued an additional expert report in respect of the second applicant . The text of the document contained the same findings as those established during the examination of DATE .

On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL issued an official medical certificate concerning the second applicant . The document stated that the applicant had been “ ... undergoing treatment in the surgical department of the hospital since DATE ” and had been diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer complicated by bleeding .

On an unspecified date ORG no . CARDINAL issued an official medical certificate concerning the second applicant ’s hospitalisation from DATE to CARDINAL DATE on account of the abovementioned condition .

On DATE the third applicant also underwent a medical examination at the ORG . The report , dated DATE , stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ...... ORG was taken to the PERSON in GPE , where several police officers beat him in the head and the torso with fists , kicks and rifle butts ... he complains of pain in the chest .

Conclusions . Mr LOC has the following injuries :

Contusion of the left part of the chest ;

Bruises and contusion of facial tissue and the chest ... The injuries described were caused by blunt firm objects ... ”

On DATE the ORG issued an additional expert report on the third applicant ’s condition . The text of the document contained the same findings as those established during the examination of DATE .

In support of their application the applicants provided the following documents : a statement by the first applicant dated DATE ; a statement by the second applicant dated DATE ; a statement by the third applicant dated DATE ; a statement by PERSON dated DATE ; a statement by PERSON dated DATE ; CARDINAL official medical examination reports in respect of each of the applicants by the ORG , each dated DATE ; a medical certificate in respect of the first applicant issued by the department of maxillofacial injuries of ORG in GPE , dated DATE ; an official medical examination report in respect of the first applicant issued by the ORG , dated DATE ; CARDINAL official medical examination reports in respect of the second and third applicants issued by the ORG , both dated DATE , and CARDINAL medical certificates issued by ORG no . CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL in respect of the second applicant , CARDINAL dated DATE and CARDINAL undated .

The Government challenged the facts as presented by the applicants , stating that during the investigation the applicants had on several occasions changed their statements concerning the participation of the third applicant in the fight in the club .

The Government further stated that the domestic criminal investigation had established the true circumstances of the events of TIME DATE . According to their submission , on DATE the applicants received their injuries as a result of the fight at the establishment referred to both as a club and a concert hall . The applicants were not subjected to beatings or inhuman or degrading treatment at the police station .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned police officers ORG and GPE , who stated that on DATE they had been on duty and received information about a riot at a concert hall . Upon arrival at the hall someone had told them that CARDINAL of the hall ’s security guards had been taken to hospital in an ambulance . Then the officers had noticed the CARDINAL GPE brothers sitting on a bench surrounded by a group of QUANTITY men . Each of these men had been running up to the brothers and delivering blows and kicks to their heads and torsos . The policemen had broken up the flight and taken the applicants to the patrol car . According to the officers , the brothers had been severely beaten : some their teeth had been knocked out and their clothing had been torn . The men who had beaten the applicants up had asked the policemen to hand the GPE brothers back to them , but the officers had refused . Then the applicants had been taken to the PERSON police station by car . The officers had not seen the applicants again .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the head of the criminal search division , PERSON . , who stated that on DATE he had arrived at the police station , where on the CARDINALnd floor he had found the first and second applicants , who looked as though they had been severely beaten . The first applicant ’s buttocks had been covered in blood . The officer had ordered that the second applicant be taken to his office and the first applicant to another . According to the witness , PERSON had started swearing and expressing his anger against GPE . CARDINAL other police officers who had been present in the office , Mr PERSON . and PERSON . , had asked the applicant to calm down . The latter had suddenly hit the witness in the face , causing bleeding , and then grabbed a stationery knife . PERSON . and PERSON . had managed to take the knife from the applicant . After that the witness had gone to the bathroom to wash the blood off his face . When he had returned to the office , CARDINAL police officers had been there : PERSON , Mr M.Al . , PERSON . , Mr DATE . and Mr PERSON After that the applicant had told the officers about the fight with Mr GPE . at the club . Then the witness had gone to the office where the first applicant had been questioned . The latter had told him that he and the second applicant had been beaten by unidentified persons outside the concert hall . Having noticed blood on the first applicant ’s trousers the witness had asked his colleagues to call an ambulance and returned to his office . Then police officer GPE . had entered the office and told him that an officer from ORG , Mr A.R. , had arrived and asked to speak with the PERSON brothers . The witness had given his permission . Meanwhile , the ambulance had arrived at the police station and a medical doctor had examined the applicants . The applicants had been asked to go to hospital , but they had refused and signed a document to that effect . Officer Z.Le . had then entered the room and told the witness that the second applicant had claimed that a sum of money had been stolen from him at the police station . In the other office the first applicant had alleged that his watch had gone missing after he had been brought to the station ; however , it had been found TIME in the applicant ’s pocket . The witness had then asked for an investigator from the prosecutor ’s office to come to the police station . Then he and other police officers had gone outside , where they had seen QUANTITY women and the third applicant , who were swearing . When the police officers had put the second applicant , PERSON , in a car , one of the women had run up to the vehicle , got into the front seat and demanded to be told where PERSON was being taken . The officers had pulled her out and explained to her that they were taking him to the prosecutor ’s office . Meanwhile , the third applicant had kept shouting and swearing at the officers . In view of the third applicant ’s behaviour , CARDINAL officers had taken him into the police station . After that the witness had gone back to his office , and sometime later he had gone to the town prosecutor ’s office to make a statement about the events .

On unspecified dates the investigators questioned police officers GPE . , ORG . , ORG , GPE and GPE , whose statements about the events of DATE were similar to the one made by officer PERSON .

The Government stated that a number of witness confrontations were conducted by the investigators as a result of which the witness statements made by the police officers had been confirmed . In particular , on an unspecified date the investigators conducted a witness confrontation between officer PERSON and the third applicant . The applicant confirmed that he had passed by the concert hall on DATE . The Government did not furnish a copy of this statement .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the guard of the concert hall ( in the submitted documents also referred to as the night club ’s security guard ) Mr ORG . , who stated that on DATE he had been at work when a group of young men had entered the LOC and started drinking alcoholic beverages . After a while a fight had broken out between them . The witness had wanted to break up the fight . He had physically removed CARDINAL of the men from the LOC . When returned inside , the man had followed him back in and stabbed him in the left thigh . Meanwhile , the young men had continued fighting . Someone had called an ambulance , which had taken him to hospital .

On DATE the applicants complained to the town prosecutor ’s office about their ill - treatment by the police officers .

On DATE the town prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation into the beating of the applicants by “ unidentified persons ” under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( voluntary infliction of injuries ) . The case file was given the number CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicants complained to the Prosecutor General about ineffectiveness of the investigation in the criminal case . In particular , they pointed out the following :

“ ... the beatings were carried out in the most humiliating way , debasing our ... ethnic dignity ...

In spite of the fact that the proceedings have been ongoing for DATE , the investigator has not taken investigative steps ...

We have not been granted victim status in the criminal case ... ;

Even though we directly identified the persons who had subjected us to the beatings ... the investigator has not brought any charges against the police officers who tortured us ... he has not taken basic steps such as [ organising ] an identification parade , [ witness ] confrontations , etc ...

On a number of occasions we have stressed that we were subjected to beatings in the police station , but the investigator nonetheless stated in the decision to open the criminal case that we had been beaten by ‘ unidentified persons next to the building of PERSON in Nalchik’ ...

... As long as this criminal case is being investigated by the prosecutor ’s office in FAC , there will not be an objective investigation of the crime ; ... Taking into account that the beatings to which we were subjected took place on account of xenophobic hostility , this criminal case should be investigated by [ another ] department of the Prosecutor General ’s office ...

... This criminal case could turn against us ; for instance , bullet cartridges or other similar things could be planted on one or all of us and we would be prosecuted for our attempts to hold the police officers responsible ...

... The court to which we brought our complaint about the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation did not support us owing to our ethnic origin ... ”

On DATE the investigators questioned the head of the PERSON , officer ORG , who stated that on DATE he had been the senior police officer responsible for the station . In TIME the police had received information about a fight taking place outside a night club . Shortly after , he and an on - duty officer had arrived at the scene , where a crowd of CARDINAL persons surrounded their patrol car and demanded the release of CARDINAL young men who had allegedly stabbed the club ’s security guard . As the officer in charge , the witness had ordered that an investigator remain at the scene ; then he had driven with the wounded guard to the hospital and taken his statement about the events . Next , he had returned to the PERSON , where on the third floor he had seen the first and second applicants who had looked as though they had been beaten up . His colleagues had informed him that CARDINAL of the brothers had been stabbed . DATE an ambulance had arrived at the station . The doctor had advised CARDINAL of the GPE brothers to be taken to the hospital , but he had refused , and signed a document to that effect , after which the ambulance had left . After that , the witness had gone to his office on the third floor and then he had heard screaming . TIME he had overheard a loud conversation from a nearby office . He had gone there and seen a tall young man , the third applicant , who had told him that he wanted to know the reasons for his ORG arrest as they were not guilty of anything . The witness had promised him that the policemen would clarify the situation and returned to his office . The third applicant had not had visible injuries ; he had not been subjected to beatings in the presence of the witness . The witness further stated that he had not personally beaten any of the applicants .

At some point prior to DATE the investigators suspended the investigation of the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators . It appears that the applicants learnt about it and on DATE they complained to ORG and to the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE , stating , amongst other things , the following :

“ ... on DATE we were brought to the PERSON in GPE , where in the office of the head of the criminal search division , PERSON , Mr Al , PERSON and other policemen subjected us to beatings ... We were taken to the PERSON town prosecutor ’s office where we complained about the unlawful actions taken by the policemen of the PERSON against us .

It has been DATE since the initiation of the criminal investigation [ into the incident ] , but investigator PERSON has been procrastinating with the investigation , failing to ... prosecute the perpetrators in spite of the fact that we have directly identified them ...

... we believe that the criminal case can not be objectively investigated by the public prosecutor ’s office in FAC as the policemen subjected us to the beatings on the basis of their hostile attitude towards people of NORP ethnic origin , and insulted us by debasing our ethnic dignity .

In connection with the partiality of the the policemen conducting the criminal investigation , we request that the federal law - enforcement authorities intervene and carry out a lawful investigation into all the circumstances [ of the incident ] ... ”

On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and the proceedings were resumed . The decision stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ... the investigation failed to verify the allegations of PERSON , PERSON and LOC that they had been beaten by police officers and to take all possible measures to confirm or disprove [ their allegations of ] the use of violence against them .

The decision [ to suspend the investigation ] did not comply with LAW , as the investigator had listed the evidence but had failed to analyse or substantiate it ; the investigator ’s decision was based on the statements made by the police officers , whereas the statements of the GPE brothers were disregarded ... ”

DATE . On DATE the investigators questioned a police officer , Mr A.R. , from ORG of ORG in ORG in GPE , GPE - Balkaria . The officer , who was a NORP , stated that at TIME on DATE his acquaintance , PERSON , had asked him to go to PERSON and find out the reasons for the PERSON arrest . The witness had gone to the police station , where in CARDINAL of the offices on the third floor he had met officer GPE . and the first applicant , who had told him in NORP that he had been beaten by the policemen and that his brother had been taken to an adjacent office . Immediately afterwards an ambulance doctor had entered the office and the witness had left . He had asked officers at the station about the reasons for the first and second ORG arrest ; PERSON . had explained to him that the applicants had been detained in connection with a fight at a club . Then another officer , Mr ORG . , had demanded that the witness leave the building . At the entrance to the police station the witness met the third applicant and suggested that he complain to the prosecutor ’s office . DATE the applicants were taken to the town prosecutor ’s office ; the witness also went there and stayed at the office until TIME on DATE . The witness further stated that the applicants had not been beaten in his presence , that he had not seen masked men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns at the police station and that during his visit to the PERSON he had not seen officer PERSON .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON She stated that on DATE she had gone with the second applicant to the town prosecutor ’s office , where she had found officers PERSON . and PERSON . The policemen had told her to convince her husband to write a statement to the effect that he had not been ill - treated at the police station . Immediately after that the deputy prosecutor Mr PERSON . had told her that instead of lodging complaints , she should take care of the applicants , as they were in an awful condition after the beating , and that it would be impossible for them to prove their allegations of ill - treatment by the police . On the basis of that advice , the witness had tried to dissuade her husband from complaining , but to no avail , as he went on to make a written complaint about his illtreatment at the PERSON . The witness further stated that she had been kicked in the stomach by CARDINAL of the policemen when she had tried to stop the officers hurting the third applicant at the entrance to the police station .

On DATE the investigators organised a witness confrontation between PERSON and the deputy town prosecutor , Mr M.Tkh . The latter stated that on TIME of DATE , in connection with a mass fight at a night club , he had been asked to come to the prosecutor ’s office , where he met the second applicant , who had been severely beaten . According to the deputy prosecutor , PERSON had spoken with the second applicant and had then informed him that she and the applicant would not lodge complaints against the police officers and that she needed to leave as soon as possible to provide medical assistance to the applicants . According to Mr M.Tkh . , he had told her that irrespective of her desire to abstain from lodging a complaint , the prosecutor ’s office would conduct an inquiry into the events in any case . PERSON , on the other hand , insisted that the statement Mr M.Tkh . had provided during the confrontation was absolutely untruthful . She confirmed her previous statements concerning the circumstances of the applicants’ ill - treatment at the police station and their subsequent visit to the prosecutor ’s office and pointed out that at the PERSON and the prosecutor ’s office she had been with her sister , PERSON , who could confirm her description of the events and provide her own statement to the investigation .

On DATE , DATE , the town prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision on the ground that the investigators had failed to take the necessary steps and pointed out the following :

“ ... it is necessary to take the following investigative steps :

- to hold an identification parade of officer TIME . and , if necessary , to conduct a witness confrontation between him and the GPE brothers ;

- to organise witness confrontations between officers ORG . and PERSON . and Ms PERSON ;

- to organise a witness confrontation between PERSON and the deputy prosecutor PERSON . ;

- to inform ORG of the ORG about the unlawful actions of the officers of the PERSON in GPE ;

’ allegations that they had been subjected to physical violence on DATE in his office ;

- to take other steps [ necessary ] for a lawful and substantiated decision ... ”

It appears that upon the prosecutor ’s orders the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the town prosecutor ’s office again suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor again overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and pointed out that the investigators had failed to carry out the previously given orders .

On DATE the town prosecutor ’s office issued a “ decision concerning the refusal to institute a criminal investigation ” in respect of CARDINAL criminal cases : no . CARDINAL ( opened against the police officers ) for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of police officers PERSON . , GPE . , ORG . , GPE , GPE and no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( opened against PERSON , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) for lack of corpus delicti in his actions . The decision contained detailed descriptions of the statements made by the policemen from PERSON about the events of DATE , but none of those made by the applicants concerning their ill - treatment at the police station . The document made general references to the applicants’ participation in the fight at the concert hall and included the following :

“ ... Thus , the documents in the investigation file confirm that the PERSON brothers were beaten up outside the concert hall , [ and ] the brothers themselves do not deny this fact . ... this demonstrates that the ORG injuries were caused by unidentified persons and not by the policemen ...

The GPE ORG statements concerning their beating by the policemen in the PERSON building were not confirmed by the investigation . The investigation did not obtain any objective evidence demonstrating that physical force was used against them in the PERSON , which excludes the possibility of their alleged beating by the policemen . Therefore , a criminal investigation will not be instituted against officers PERSON . , GPE . , ORG . , GPE , GPE on account of a lack of corpus delicti in their actions ... ”

DATE . On DATE the applicants complained to the Deputy Prosecutor General in ORG and the prosecutor of ORG . They requested that the decision of DATE be overruled and the proceedings against the police officers be reopened . In particular , they alleged that the police officers had ill - treated them on account of their NORP ethnic origin and quoted some of the ORG disparaging remarks . The applicants further complained that the investigation of the ill - treatment had been ineffective as the local law enforcement authorities had been biased against them on account of their ethnicity ; that the criminal case which was opened against PERSON DATE after the events had been a means of pressure exercised by the authorities on the applicants in order to make them withdraw their complaints against the policemen ; that the investigation had been conducted with numerous violations of the criminal procedure ; and that there was enough evidence in the case file to prosecute the police officers .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of ORG rejected the ORG complaint . The decision left the ORG allegations of racially motivated violence without examination and stated that the decision of DATE was lawful and well - founded . In particular , the document stated that “ the GPE ORG allegations that they had been subjected to beatings by police officers in the PERSON were not confirmed by the criminal investigation ” .

On DATE the applicants again complained to the Deputy Prosecutor General in ORG that the decision of DATE was unlawful . They alleged that they had been subjected to illtreatment by the officers on the grounds of their NORP origin ; that a number of witnesses had observed the third applicant being dragged into the police station in good health and his subsequent release with numerous injuries ; that their allegations had been confirmed by the findings of the forensic medical examinations ; that the police had initiated proceedings against the second applicant ( see below ) to intimidate the applicants and force them to withdraw their complaints of ill - treatment ; that the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL had been ineffective and plagued by inexplicable delays ; that the investigators had completely disregarded their allegations of beatings at the police station and that there were numerous pieces of evidence proving their allegations of ill - treatment by the policemen . No reply to this complaint was received .

According to the applicants , the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL had concluded that the first applicant ’s injuries had been sustained at the night club during a fight with Mr M.Sh . The latter was charged by the authorities with voluntary infliction of injuries under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW for the stabbing and beating of the first applicant .

NORP The criminal investigation into the applicants’ beating has not been completed to date . From the materials submitted it follows that the investigators failed to identify the perpetrators of the second and third applicants’ ill - treatment ; therefore , a separate set of proceedings was initiated in this connection and the relevant case file was given the number CARDINAL . The investigation of this criminal case is still pending ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

According to the applicants , the authorities have not properly informed them about the progress of the criminal proceedings .

According to the Government , on DATE the town prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation into the beating of the applicants by “ unidentified persons outside the building of the PERSON in Nalchik ” under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( voluntary infliction of injuries ) . The case file was given the number CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that on TIME of DATE a friend of hers had called and told her about the beating of the second applicant in the PERSON . She had called her sister , PERSON , immediately and had told her about it . Ms PERSON had said that she had already heard from the third applicant that his brothers had been arrested and taken to the PERSON . After that PERSON and the third applicant had picked her up and they had driven together to the police station . At the entrance to the station they had asked the police officers about the first and second applicants . At that point an ambulance had arrived at the station and a female doctor had gone inside . After the doctor had come out , the witness had asked her about the GPE brothers . The doctor had told her that she had wanted to take GPE to the hospital , but the officers had not allowed him to go . After that the ambulance had left . The witness , PERSON and the third applicant had decided to wait for the first and second applicants at the entrance to the police station . Shortly afterwards , a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL officers had run out of the building , grabbed ORG and dragged him inside . PERSON had tried to intervene , but she had been kicked in the stomach and fainted . A policeman had brought over some water , sprinkled it on PERSON and she had regained consciousness . After that the witness and PERSON had waited for the applicants at the entrance to the station where they had been joined by their relatives , PERSON . and PERSON At TIME the first and second applicants had been brought outside by the policemen ; sometime later the officers had also dragged out the third applicant . Immediately after their release the applicants had gone to the town prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that at TIME on DATE her sister PERSON had called and told her that her husband PERSON and his brother PERSON had been taken to the PERSON in Nalchik and subjected to beatings in the police station . Shortly after that the third applicant had picked her up and they had gone to the police station . The guards at the entrance had refused to provide any information about the first and second applicants . Then the witness had knocked at the window and asked an officer to call an ambulance for her husband PERSON , who suffered from a stomach ulcer . Then an ambulance had arrived and the medics had gone inside . TIME they had come out and the witness had asked a female doctor who she had examined inside . The doctor had told her that she had examined LOC and that his condition had been serious ; she had asked the policemen to allow him to be taken to hospital , but they had refused . The doctor had not been allowed to see PERSON . The witness had asked the doctor to go back and convince the officers to let her take PERSON to hospital . The doctor had agreed and gone inside ; she had returned TIME and told the witness that the officers had refused . The doctor had then left in the ambulance . At TIME PERSON and PERSON had been released from the police station . Both of them had been beaten ; PERSON ’s teeth had been knocked out and his face was swollen and covered in bruises and blood . ORG had approached his brothers and asked them who had beaten them up . The witness had not had time to hear their reply as a group of CARDINAL armed policemen in camouflage uniforms and masks had come running out of the building . CARDINAL of them had hit ORG in the face , and then the others had started beating and kicking him . CARDINAL of the officers had kicked the witness in the stomach and she had fainted . When she had regained consciousness , the applicants had gone to the town prosecutor ’s office to make a complaint about their ill - treatment by the police officers . The applicants had told the witness that they had been subjected to beatings by the policemen in the PERSON .

On DATE the investigators asked the PERSON deputy prosecutor to extend the time frame for the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL . The text of the document included the following :

“ ... the preliminary investigation in the criminal case established that on DATE unidentified persons had beaten the applicants in the head , torso and extremities ...

When questioned about the circumstances of the incident , Mr LOC stated that [ .... ] ... he and his brother had been detained by security guards [ after the fight at the concert hall ] ... the police had then arrived and taken them to PERSON . He and his brother had been taken to the third floor . While they had been walking up the stairs , he had been hit in the stomach and back . On the third floor he had been taken to an office located on the left side of the hall . As soon as he had entered the office , he had been knocked down on the floor and kicked repeatedly . Unable to get up , he had managed to cover his head with his hands . After some time he had lost consciousness . When he had regained consciousness he saw only the police officers , who were insulting him on account of his ethnic background . Then an ambulance had been called . The doctor had suggested that he go to hospital , but he had refused . Then he had been taken to an office and seated on a chair . He had written a statement . After that the police officers had hit him in the lower back with their rifle butts , and he had passed out again . When he had regained consciousness , nobody had demanded anything from him ; the officers had just continued to insult him . After that he had been taken out of the office and had heard ORG ’s voice . He had been released sometime in the morning and had immediately gone with his relatives to the Nalchik prosecutor ’s office .

PERSON witness statement about the events was similar to ORG ... ”

On DATE the investigators decided to sever a criminal case from criminal case no . CARDINAL and to investigate it separately . The text of the decision included the following :

“ ... Officer PERSON . stated to the investigation that after the PERSON brothers had been brought to his office , PERSON had started cursing GPE and had suddenly punched him in the face , causing a closed craniocerebral injury ...

The above circumstances demonstrate that the actions of PERSON fall within the scope of LAW CARDINAL of LAW ( aggravated use of violence against a representative of the authorities ) ... ”

On DATE the investigators decided to suspend the investigation in criminal case CARDINAL for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the deputy PERSON prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature , stating , amongst other things , the following :

“ ... this decision was taken prematurely and without all possible investigative steps having been taken ; it should be overruled due to the incompleteness of the investigation .

For example , it is necessary to request from the PERSON department of the interior ( the UVD ) information concerning the GPE ORG detention in the ORG ... to examine the actions of the policemen and take other steps to establish the culprits ... ”

On DATE the town prosecutor ’s office refused to initiate a criminal investigation against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti . The decision was taken within the framework of criminal case no . CARDINAL . The Government furnished the ORG with a part of this document , the text of which included the following :

“ ... the GPE ORG allegations that they were beaten on the LOC of the PERSON were not confirmed by the investigation ; therefore , [ this allegation ] is false . For that reason , no investigation against officers PERSON . , GPE . , ORG . , GPE and GPE will be instituted on account of a lack of corpus delicti in their actions ... ”

According to the Government , on DATE , within the framework of the criminal case the investigators again decided to refuse to institute criminal proceedings against police officers PERSON . , GPE . , ORG . , GPE and GPE for lack of corpus delicti in their actions . The applicants appealed against the refusal to ORG . On DATE the court rejected the appeal and on DATE the investigator ’s decision was upheld by ORG see paragraphs DATE below ) .

On an unspecified date the investigators charged Mr M.Sh . with inflicting bodily harm of moderate severity on the first applicant as a result of the stabbing at what they termed the concert hall on DATE . During the trial the actions of Mr M.Sh . were redefined by the court as inflicting minor bodily harm , which fell within the scope of private prosecution . The applicant , Mr PERSON , refused to prosecute Mr M.Sh . and therefore , on DATE criminal case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL was terminated under LAW § CARDINAL ( absence of a complaint by the victim ) . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE the investigators decided to sever a part of the material collected within the framework of criminal case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL concerning the injuries caused by the second applicant , PERSON , to police officer PERSON . , from that case . The separated criminal case file was given the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) .

Upon the completion of the investigation of the criminal case , on DATE the ORG ordered that PERSON be fined . On DATE this sentence was upheld on appeal by ORG .

According to the Government , on DATE “ in connection with the infliction of bodily injuries to the GPE brothers by unidentified persons ... ” the investigators decided to separate a part of the material collected within the framework of criminal case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL and open a new criminal case file which was given the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL . The relevant decision stated that Mr PERSON . and unidentified persons had severely beaten up the first applicant :

“ ... the investigation established that at TIME on DATE Mr FAC . in the [ concert ] hall ‘ Olimp’ had beaten [ the first applicant ] PERSON up ...

[ ..... ] it was impossible for the investigation to identify the persons with whom PERSON M.Sh . had committed this crime . Therefore , in order to investigate the actions of the unidentified persons there is a need to sever the relevant part of the criminal case file and create a separate investigation file ... ”

The decision further mentioned that the second applicant had been at the concert hall , but stated that it was only the first applicant who had been beaten up . It did not mention the third applicant .

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE overruled that decision and ordered that the investigation in the criminal case be resumed . The proceedings in criminal case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL are pending and the other perpetrators responsible for ‘ the infliction of bodily injuries to ORG have not been identified .

Upon the ORG ’s request , the ORG furnished copies of some of the contents of the files in criminal cases no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL , without specifying either the total number of pages of the submitted documents or the reasons for their failure to submit the remaining part . In addition , the Government furnished the ORG with copies of documents from investigation files concerning third persons and documents irrelevant to the ORG complaints ; the Government neither specified the reasons for their submission nor the total number of pages of the documents submitted . The total number of copies of documents submitted by the ORG comprised CARDINAL pages .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) . They stated that the investigators in criminal case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL had failed to take certain crucial steps and that they had not been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings . They also described the circumstances of their illtreatment by the police officers at the PERSON .

On DATE ORG rejected their complaint stating , amongst other things , the following :

“ ... the court established the following :

The PERSON brothers lodged a complaint with the court stating that the investigator of the NORP town prosecutor ’s office , PERSON . , had failed to take certain crucial steps and had delayed the investigation of the criminal case opened in connection with their complaint of DATE ... According to that complaint , on TIME of DATE Ibragim and PERSON had been taken to the PERSON after they had been attacked by hooligans at FAC . Instead of holding the perpetrators of those actions responsible , the police officers had started punching and kicking the brothers , demanding that they ‘ stop loitering in the Republic [ of PERSON . Their younger brother PERSON had also been taken inside the PERSON police station ; he had also been subjected to beatings by the police officers . ... In spite of the fact that the PERSON brothers had directly identified the [ officers ] who had subjected them to the beatings , no measures had been taken [ by the investigators ] against them ; no identification parade had been carried out , nobody had been questioned as a suspect or charged with a crime and the brothers themselves had not been granted victim status in the criminal case . The applicants had also requested the investigator to exclude from the text of the decision to open the criminal case the phrase stating that they had been subjected to beatings ‘ outside the ORG of the PERSON in GPE ... ”

The court further stated that it was too early to assess the effectiveness of the criminal investigation into the ORG allegations and that therefore their complaint was premature .

On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against that decision to ORG . The outcome of the appeal is unknown .

On DATE the applicants again complained to ORG that the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL was ineffective . They stated that the investigators had failed to take certain necessary steps , such as setting up witness confrontations between them and the policemen who had ill - treated them , and that they had not been granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the court rejected their complaint as unsubstantiated and premature , stating that the length of the proceedings had been due to the transfer of the investigation file for examination to the supervisory prosecutor ’s office between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

The applicants appealed against this decision , stating , amongst other things , that they had been ill - treated by policemen who had also undermined their dignity and insulted them on account of their ethnic origin and that none of their complaints to that effect had been properly investigated by the authorities .

On DATE ORG overruled the decision of DATE and returned the case for a fresh examination , stating that ORG had failed to examine the applicants’ arguments and properly examine the investigator ’s actions .

On DATE ORG allowed the complaint and instructed the town prosecutor ’s office to “ take all the measures prescribed by law to conduct an objective investigation ” .

On DATE the applicants again complained to ORG about the investigation into their allegations of ill - treatment . They stated , amongst other things , that in spite of the information submitted by them and the witnesses to the authorities , the investigators had failed to take the requisite measures . They pointed out that the investigators had initiated criminal proceedings against the second applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as a means of putting pressure on them to withdraw their complaints .

On DATE the town court allowed their complaint in the part concerning the ORG failure to comply with the court ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the decision to ORG , which rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated on DATE .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also given as DATE ) the applicants complained to ORG about the ill - treatment at the police station alleging , amongst other things , that “ ... the beating was accompanied by obscenities and insults aimed at debasing our human and ethnic dignity ... ” They further stated that the ORG refusal to institute a criminal investigation against the police officers was unlawful , as they had disregarded numerous pieces of evidence , including several witness statements and the fact the third applicant had been taken into the police station in good health ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They stressed that their attempts to appeal against this and other decisions of the investigating authorities to the supervising prosecutors had been rejected by the latter without proper grounds and that the authorities had deprived them of access to the investigation file . The applicants requested , amongst other things , that the court overrule the refusal and oblige the investigators to grant them victim status in criminal case no . CARDINAL and provide them with access to the investigation file .

On DATE the court rejected the complaint , stating the following :

“ ... The PERSON brothers consider that the decision to refuse to initiate criminal proceedings of DATE was taken unlawfully and that the actions of the policemen against them must be investigated ...

... During the examination of the complaint the third applicant stated that he and his CARDINAL brothers had been subjected to beatings by policemen . However , instead of charging the policemen ... , the investigation pinned the responsibility on Mr PERSON . and charged him with the crime ... in spite of the fact that from DATE of the proceedings the applicant and his brothers had stated that they had been beaten in the police station by policemen ...

... in their statements to the investigation the PERSON brothers stated that after the fight at the concert hall they had been taken to the PERSON , where they had been beaten by police officers ...

... the decision [ of DATE ] stated that the investigation had not confirmed the GPE ORG allegations of beating by policemen in the PERSON and that no pertinent evidence had been obtained by the investigators ...

... Under part CARDINAL of LAW the investigator has the right to determine the direction of a criminal investigation , take decisions concerning investigative and other steps ... [ therefore ] the court is not entitled to instruct the investigators as to which steps should be taken and what decisions should be made after that ... the court is entitled to examine whether the procedure for the taking of a decision has been complied with ... in this connection the court finds that the impugned investigative decisions were delivered in compliance with LAW ... ”

On DATE the applicants appealed against this decision to ORG , stating that ORG had disregarded their arguments concerning their ill - treatment by the policemen and had failed to examine their complaints properly .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision on appeal . It held that ORG had fully examined the ORG complaints , that the investigation had established that Mr PERSON . had been responsible for causing the first applicant ’s injuries , and that the culprits responsible for injuring the second and third applicants had not been identified , and that therefore a separate set of proceedings had been initiated to that end and the relevant criminal case file had been given the number CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the town prosecutor ’s office initiated criminal proceedings against the second applicant under LAW ( use of violence against a representative of the authorities ) in connection with the events of DATE . The case file was given the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

At TIME on DATE the investigators of the town prosecutor ’s office arrested the second applicant . The reasons for his detention were stated in the arrest report as follows :

“ ... witnesses directly identified PERSON as having committed a crime under LAW ( use of violence against a representative of the authorities ) ; there are also reasons to assume that PERSON might abscond from the investigative authorities ... ”

On DATE the second applicant was released from the temporary detention centre of LANGUAGE ( the ORG ) by decision of the town prosecutor ’s office . The text of the decision included the following :

“ ... at TIME on DATE in the office of the head of the criminal search division of the PERSON , officer PERSON . , PERSON , being aware that the latter was a representative of the authorities carrying out his duties , intentionally , and using life - threatening force , hit officer PERSON . once in the face causing him a closed craniocerebral injury , brain concussion , bruising of the upper and the lower lips and loosening of CARDINAL tooth .

[ In connection with this ] on DATE PERSON was arrested and placed in the ORG on suspicion of having committed this crime .

Presently there is no need to hold PERSON in custody . He is therefore to be released from the ORG ... ”

On DATE the second applicant was charged with the crime under LAW . The applicant disagreed with the charges and made a note to that effect in the record of the proceedings .

According to the documents submitted , on CARDINAL DATE the criminal case file was forwarded to ORG for examination .

On DATE ORG ordered that PERSON be fined . On DATE this sentence was upheld on appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international legal materials see PERSON GPE , nos . CARDINAL and FAC , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXII and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

The relevant parts of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW on the Elimination of all forms of ORG ( ICERD ) , ratified by GPE in DATE and in force since DATE provide :

“ Article CARDINAL

In this Convention , the term " racial discrimination " shall mean any distinction , exclusion , restriction or preference based on race , colour , descent , or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition , enjoyment or exercise , on an equal footing , of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political , economic , social , cultural or any other field of public life .

Article CARDINAL

States Parties ... undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to , or acts of , [ racial ] discrimination and , to this end ...

( a ) Shall declare an offence punishable by law ... all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin ... ”

In its views of DATE in Communication no . CARDINAL , PERSON the GPE , which concerned racist threats uttered by private individuals against Mr PERSON and the inadequate reaction by the authorities to the victim ’s complaint , ORG stated , inter alia , that it was incumbent on the ORG to investigate with due diligence and expedition cases of incitement to racist discrimination and violence .

NORP The relevant part of LAW , in force in GPE since DATE , provides :

“ The Parties undertake to take appropriate measures to protect persons who may be subject to threats or acts of discrimination , hostility or violence as a result of their ethnic , cultural , linguistic or religious identity . ”

On DATE ORG against Racism and Intolerance issued its General Policy Recommendation no . CARDINAL on national legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination . The relevant part concerning the investigation of allegations of racially - motivated acts reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The law should provide that , if persons who consider themselves wronged because of a discriminatory act establish before a court or any other competent authority facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination , it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no discrimination . ”

Explanatory memorandum to the above General Policy Recommendation no . CARDINAL reads , as far as relevant , as follows :

“ LAW of the Recommendation

Given the difficulties complainants face in collecting the necessary evidence in discrimination cases , the law should facilitate proof of discrimination . For this reason , according to paragraph CARDINAL of the Recommendation , the law should provide for a shared burden of proof in such cases . A shared burden of proof means that the complainant should establish facts allowing for the presumption of discrimination , whereupon the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that discrimination did not take place . Thus , in case of alleged direct racial discrimination , the respondent must prove that the differential treatment has an objective and reasonable justification ... ”


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE , in the course of a fight between CARDINAL groups of youths , the applicant ’s son ( hereinafter “ A ” ) , aged DATE , was fatally shot by an off - duty police officer ( hereinafter “ B ” ) , who had apparently attempted to assist his own brother as one of the participants in the said incident .

On an unspecified date thereafter ORG ( PERSON javno tužilaštvo ) in GPE charged B with murder , as well as a number of other persons for several related crimes .

The decision to institute a formal judicial investigation ( rešenje o sprovođenju istrage ) was adopted on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , however , the charges against B were dropped , and on CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge ( istražni sudija ) of ORG ( Okružni sud ) in GPE decided to terminate the proceedings against him ( obustavi istragu ) .

During the said investigation the defendants had all been heard in person , as had several witnesses , including A ’s own brother . The investigating judge had further obtained relevant medical and ballistics reports , as well as other expert testimony . The autopsy report had also been produced .

On DATE the applicant filed an indictment ( optužnica ) against B with ORG , and thus took over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of a “ subsidiary prosecutor ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG acquitted B , stating that he had acted in self - defence .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings had been held before FAC . The applicant and numerous witnesses , as well as medical and ballistics experts , had all been heard , and a re - construction of the events in question had been carried out .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered that the case be re - examined at first instance . In so doing , it described ORG reasoning as incoherent and noted that its establishment of the facts and its assessment of evidence had been fundamentally flawed .

On DATE ORG again acquitted B , re - affirming that he had acted in self - defence .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment . It noted that the said court ’s reasoning had almost exclusively taken into account the evidence in favour of B , having ignored or misrepresented the rest . ORG was thus ordered to thoroughly review the case and re - assess the evidence . ORG received ORG decision on DATE .

The next hearing before ORG was scheduled for DATE , but was subsequently cancelled by the court itself because it had , apparently , been unable to secure the proper composition of its bench .

On DATE ORG adjourned the hearing because of the inability of B ’s lawyer to appear in court due to a prior professional commitment .

Following an additional adjournment on DATE , a new hearing was set for DATE .

On DATE ORG again adjourned the hearing , this time because it had been informed that B , still an active police officer , had been sent , as a member of the NORP contingent , to take part in the LOC Nations’ mission in GPE . The decision of ORG ( ORG unutrašnjih poslova ) issued in this respect , on CARDINAL DATE , stated that B ’s posting would last for DATE , but that it could be extended . ORG scheduled the next hearing for DATE , which was apparently when B was supposed to briefly visit GPE .

On DATE , however , the applicant was informed that the next hearing would instead be held “ on DATE ” .

The applicant thereafter went physically to ORG registry and was told that the upcoming hearing was still scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the applicant therefore appeared before ORG , but was informed by the presiding judge that the hearing had been set for DATE . The judge ultimately accepted to schedule a new hearing for DATE .

On DATE , however , the applicant received the ORG decision of DATE , declaring that the proceedings had been terminated due to the applicant ’s failure to appear before the court on DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained about this decision , and on DATE ORG re - instituted the proceedings in question .

DATE and DATE a total of CARDINAL hearings were adjourned by ORG , the reasons for this being : ( i ) B ’s failure to appear in court ( on CARDINAL occasions ) ; ( ii ) the presiding judge ’s wish to withdraw from the case in view of the applicant ’s complaints against him ( once ) ; and ( iii ) the inability of B ’s lawyer to appear in court as a result of a traffic accident ( twice ) .

By DATE ORG had held another CARDINAL and adjourned another QUANTITY hearings . Specifically , the hearings of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE had been held , during which B and a number of witnesses had been re - heard , whilst the hearings of DATE and DATE had been adjourned due to B ’s failure to appear in court and the presiding judge ’s absence , respectively .

NORP In DATE the presiding judge was not re - elected to the bench . The case was therefore assigned to another judge and the proceedings started anew .

It would appear that no hearings have been scheduled thereafter .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakonik o krivičnom postupku , published in ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as well as in ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provide , inter alia , that formal criminal proceedings can be instituted at the request of an authorised prosecutor . In respect of crimes subject to prosecution ex officio , including murder , the authorised prosecutor is the public prosecutor personally . The latter ’s authority to decide whether to press charges , however , is bound by the principle of legality which requires that he must act whenever there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime subject to prosecution ex officio has been committed .

Article CARDINAL provides that should the public prosecutor decide that there is no basis to prosecute , he must inform the victim of this decision , who shall then have the right to take over the prosecution of the case on his own behalf , in the capacity of a “ subsidiary prosecutor ” .

Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that in a case where the prosecution has already been taken over by a subsidiary prosecutor , the public prosecutor shall nevertheless have the power , up until the conclusion of the main hearing ( do završetka glavnog pretresa ) , to resume the prosecution of the matter ex officio . It is understood that this refers to the main hearing at first instance , including the main hearing following a possible quashing of a first instance judgment , as well as a potential main hearing on appeal ( see PERSON o krivičnom postupku , Prof . PERSON and Prof . dr PERSON , ORG , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

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

In DATE a search was carried out in the applicant ’s room in the military premises where some religious books were found , including the Koran and the Great Islam Catechism ( PERSON - i PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG ( Yüksek Askeri Şura ) decided to discharge the applicant from the army on grounds of acts of “ insubordination and immoral conduct ” pursuant to LAW .

The Government submit the following in the light of the intelligence reports concerning the applicant :

The applicant was a member of the Nurculuk sect . He was aiding a lieutenant who was discharged from the army in his extreme religious activities . The applicant was involved in disseminating the ideology of the sect . He had an antisocial character and adopted extreme right wing ideology .

A committee of CARDINAL members of the armed forces concluded , in the light of the findings of the above intelligence reports , that the applicant had breached military discipline and that he should be discharged from the army . Subsequently , ORG based its decision on that opinion .

The relevant provisions of the LAW are as follows :

“ None of the rights and freedoms set forth in the LAW may be exercised with the aim of undermining the territorial integrity of the ORG or the indivisible unity of its people , imperilling the existence of ORG and the Republic , abolishing fundamental rights and freedoms , handing over control of the ORG to a single individual or group or bringing about the dominance of CARDINAL social class over the others , establishing discrimination on the grounds of language , race , religion or adherence to a religious sect or setting up by any other means a ORG order based on such beliefs and opinions . ”

“ Everyone shall have the right to freedom of conscience , faith and religious belief . Prayers , worship and religious services shall be conducted freely , provided that they do not violate the provisions of LAW . No one shall be compelled to participate in prayers , worship or religious services or to reveal his religious beliefs and convictions ; nor shall he be censured or prosecuted because of his religious beliefs or convictions . ...

No one may exploit or abuse religion , religious feelings or things held sacred by religion in any manner whatsoever with a view to causing the social , economic , political or legal order of the ORG to be based on religious precepts , even if only in part , or for the purpose of securing political or personal influence thereby . ”

“ All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ...

Decisions of the President of the Republic concerning matters within his sole jurisdiction and decisions of ORG shall not be subject to judicial review .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW provides that a disciplinary action can not be imposed to the civil servants provided that that the right to defence is respected . Moreover , it lays out that the disciplinary actions , other that the warnings and the reprimands are subject to legal control . The provisions concerning the soldiers are reserved . LAW on ORG stipulates that the disciplinary actions imposed to the soldiers are not subject to legal control .

Section CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged to be inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline or immoral behaviour on CARDINAL of the grounds set out below , as established in CARDINAL or more documents drawn up during their service in the last military rank they held , shall be subject to the provisions of LAW .

Where their conduct and attitude reveal that they have adopted unlawful opinions . ”

Section CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline and immoral behaviour shall be subject to the provisions of LAW . LAW shall lay down which authorities have jurisdiction to commence proceedings , to examine , monitor and draw conclusions from personnel assessment files and to carry out any other act or formality in such proceedings . A decision of ORG is required to discharge an officer whose case has been submitted by ORG to ORG . ”

Section CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW provides :

“ ( b ) Discharge from the army for the acts of insubordination and immoral conduct :

Notwithstanding the seniority in the service , the non - commissioned officers whose maintenance is considered to be inappropriate for the acts of insubordination and immoral conduct are subject to PERSON on ORG . The investigation , examination and follow - up of the notation reports and the formalities and the competent authorities fulfilling these duties are subject to the provisions of The Regulations on assessment of officers and non - commissioned officers . The General Staff determines which non - commissioned ORG cases concerning their discharge from the army should be examined by ORG . ”

LAW on assessment of officers and non - commissioned officers provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , the compulsory retirement procedure shall be applied to all servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged to be inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline or immoral behaviour on CARDINAL of the grounds set out below , as established in CARDINAL or more documents drawn up during their service in the last military rank they held :

( e ) where by his conduct and attitude the serviceman concerned has provided evidence that he holds unlawful , subversive , separatist , fundamentalist and ideological political opinions or takes an active part in the propagation of such opinions . ”