Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings)

Luzius Wildhaber;Nicolas Bratza;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE .

On DATE , when he was DATE , he and another DATE boy , “ V. ” ( the applicant in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , had played truant from school and abducted a DATE boy from a shopping precinct , taken him on a journey of QUANTITY and then battered him to death and left him on a railway line to be run over .

The applicant and ORG were arrested in DATE and detained pending trial .

Their trial took place DATE in DATE , in public , at ORG before a judge and CARDINAL jurors . In DATE preceding the trial each applicant was taken by social workers to visit the courtroom and was introduced to trial procedures and personnel by way of a “ child witness pack ” containing books and games .

The trial was preceded and accompanied by massive national and international publicity . Throughout the criminal proceedings , the arrival of the defendants was greeted by a hostile crowd . On occasion , attempts were made to attack the vehicles bringing them to court . In the courtroom , the press benches and public gallery were full .

The trial was conducted with the formality of an adult criminal trial . The judge and counsel wore wigs and gowns . The procedure was , however , modified to a certain extent in view of the defendants ' age . They were seated next to social workers in a specially raised dock . Their parents and lawyers were seated nearby . The hearing times were shortened to reflect DATE ( TIME , with an TIME 's lunch break ) , and a TIME interval was taken TIME . During adjournments the defendants were allowed to spend time with their parents and social workers in a play area . The judge made it clear that he would adjourn whenever the social workers or defence lawyers told him that CARDINAL of the defendants was showing signs of tiredness or stress . This occurred on CARDINAL occasion .

At the opening of the trial on DATE the judge made an order under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that there should be no publication of the names , addresses or other identifying details of the applicant or PERSON or publication of their photographs .

On DATE , the applicant 's counsel made an application for a stay of the proceedings , on the grounds that the trial would be unfair due to the nature and extent of the media coverage . After hearing argument , the judge found that it was not established that the defendants would suffer serious prejudice to the extent that no fair trial could be held . He referred to the warning that he had given to the jury to put out of their minds anything which they might have heard or seen about the case outside the courtroom .

During the trial , the prosecution presented evidence for the purpose of establishing that the CARDINAL defendants were criminally responsible for their actions in that they knew that what they were doing was wrong ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant had refused to be examined by Dr PERSON , a consultant psychiatrist instructed by the prosecution . Dr PERSON , a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist who had originally been instructed by ORG 's solicitors , was subpoenaed by the ORG to give evidence . In her report of CARDINAL DATE prepared for the applicant 's solicitors , PERSON had expressed the opinion that the applicant presented as a boy of good or at least average intelligence who had answered questions spontaneously and appropriately and who would have known the difference between right and wrong in DATE , more particularly that it was wrong to take a child from his mother , injure him and leave him on a railway line . In addition , she found that T. showed the signs of post - traumatic stress disorder , involving a constant preoccupation with the events of the offence , a generalised high level of anxiety and poor eating and sleeping patterns . This disorder , combined with the lack of any therapeutic work since the offence , limited his ability to instruct his lawyers and testify adequately in his own defence . At trial Dr ORG stated that , although she considered that the applicant was fit to stand trial , she had some concern as to how the post - traumatic stress symptoms affected his understanding of the procedures .

The prosecution also called the headmistress at the school attended by the CARDINAL boys . She stated that from DATE and CARDINAL children were aware that it was wrong to strike another child with a weapon . She stated that PERSON and the applicant would have been aware that what they were doing was wrong . Another teacher gave evidence to the same effect .

NORP In addition , evidence was given by persons who had witnessed PERSON and the applicant in the shopping centre from which the DATE boy was taken and who had seen the QUANTITY boys at various points between the shopping centre and the vicinity of the railway line , where the body was later found . The tapes of the interviews of the police with PERSON and the applicant were replayed in court . Neither the applicant nor PERSON gave evidence .

In his summing - up to the jury , the trial judge noted that witnesses had arrived in court in a blaze of publicity and that many had faced a bevy of photographers . They had had to give evidence in a large court packed with people and not surprisingly several of them were overcome with emotion and some had had difficulty in speaking audibly . This was CARDINAL of the factors to be borne in mind in assessing their evidence . He instructed the jury , inter alia , that the prosecution had to prove to a standard of sureness , in addition to the ingredients of the offences charged , that the applicant and PERSON knew that what they were doing was wrong .

On DATE , the jury convicted PERSON and the applicant of murder and abduction . Neither applicant made any appeal to ORG against his conviction .

Following their conviction , the judge modified the order under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to allow the applicant and PERSON 's names , but no other details , to be published . DATE their names , photographs and other particulars were published in newspapers throughout the country . On DATE the judge granted an injunction restraining , inter alia , the publication of the addresses where the boys were being detained or any other detail which could lead to information about their whereabouts , care or treatment being revealed .

In a report on the applicant dated DATE , PERSON of ORG , who had worked with GPE since DATE , explained that “ trust building has been a difficult and long drawn out process which is partly due to [ T. 's ] fear of retaliation and media interest and partly due to his innate fear and dislike of psychiatrists ” . As part of the process of trust building , PERSON had agreed with the applicant that their sessions should be confidential , with progress being reported in general terms only . It follows that there is limited psychiatric evidence relating to , inter alia , the effect of the trial on the applicant .

In his memorial to the ORG the applicant stated that , due to the conditions in which he was put on trial , he was unable to follow the proceedings or take decisions in his own best interests . He had been severely intimidated and caused feelings of anxiety and oppression by the procedures followed .

In a report on the applicant PERSON dated DATE , Sir PERSON , Professor of ORG at ORG , ORG , observed :

“ I have also been asked to comment on the likely mental and emotional effects on children in general , and on [ ORG ] in particular , of the prolonged trial process being in public . In my opinion there are CARDINAL negative aspects of the trial process as they apply to children of [ ORG 's ] age . First , one serious consequence of the long time involved in a trial means that there is an inevitable delay in providing the psychological care and therapeutic help that is needed . A child of DATE of psychological development still to come and it is most important that there is not a prolonged hiatus when this is impeded by the trial process . In particular , when children have committed a serious act , such as killing another child , it is most important that they are able to come to terms with the reality of what they have done and with all that that means . That is not possible at a time when a trial is still underway and guilt has still to be decided by the court . Thus , I conclude that the very prolonged nature of the trial process is bound to be deleterious for a child as young as QUANTITY or eleven ( or even older ) . The fact that the trial process is held in public and that the negative public reactions ( often extreme negative reactions ) are very obvious is a further potentially damaging factor . While it is crucially important for young people who have committed a serious act to accept both the seriousness of what they have done and the reality of their own responsibilities in the crime , this is made more difficult by the public nature of the trial process ... ”

Following the applicant and ORG 's conviction for murder , the judge sentenced them , as required by law , to detention during Her Majesty 's pleasure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

He subsequently recommended that a period of DATE be served by the boys to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence ( the “ tariff ” – see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He commented that he could not determine the boys ' relative culpability , and stated :

“ Very great care will have to be taken before either defendant is allowed out into the general community . Much psychotherapeutic , psychological and educational investigation and assistance will be required . Not only must they be fully rehabilitated and no longer a danger to others but there is a very real risk of revenge attacks upon them by others . ... If the defendants had been adults I would have said that the actual length of deterrence necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence should have been DATE . However these QUANTITY boys came from homes and families with great social and emotional deprivation . They grew up in an atmosphere of matrimonial breakdown where they were exposed to , saw , heard , or suffered abuse , drunkenness and violence . I have no doubt that both boys saw video films frequently showing violent and aberrant activities . In my judgment the appropriate length of detention necessary to meet the requirement of retribution and general deterrence for the murder , taking into account all its appalling circumstances and the age of the defendants when it was committed is DATE ... . DATE is ' very very many years ' for a DATE . They are now children . In DATE time they will be young men . ”

The Lord Chief Justice recommended a tariff of DATE . The applicant 's representatives made written representations to the Home Secretary , who was to fix the tariff period .

By a letter dated DATE , the Secretary of ORG informed the applicant that the family of the deceased child had submitted a petition signed by CARDINAL people urging him to take account of their belief that the boys should never be released , accompanied by CARDINAL letters of support from the public ; that a Member of ORG had submitted a petition signed by CARDINAL people calling for a minimum of DATE to be served ; that CARDINAL coupons from the PERSON newspaper supporting a whole life tariff and a further CARDINAL letters and small petitions had been received of which CARDINAL wanted a higher tariff than the judicial recommendations .

The applicant 's solicitors were given an opportunity to submit further representations to the Secretary of ORG .

By a letter dated DATE , the Secretary of ORG informed the applicant that he should serve a period of DATE in respect of retribution and deterrence . The letter stated , inter alia :

“ In making his decision , the Secretary of ORG had regard to the circumstances of the offence , the recommendations received from the judiciary , the representations made on your behalf and the extent to which this case could be compared with other cases . He also has regard to the public concern about this case , which was evidenced by the petitions and other correspondence the substance of which were disclosed to your solicitors by our letter of DATE , and to the need to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice . The Secretary of ORG takes fully into account the fact that you were DATE when the offence was committed . He further acknowledges that a much lesser tariff should apply than in the case of an adult . The Secretary of ORG notes the representations which were made on your behalf regarding the relative culpability of yourself and your co - defendant . The Secretary of ORG notes that the trial judge was unable to determine this . The Secretary of ORG has reached the same conclusion . The recommendations made by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice were that the appropriate tariff should be DATE , and DATE respectively . The trial judge added that if the defendants had been adults then the appropriate tariff would have been DATE . The Secretary of ORG has had regard to these views . He takes the view that this was an exceptionally cruel and sadistic offence against a very young and defenceless victim committed over a period of several hours . The Secretary of ORG believes that if the offence had been committed by an adult then the appropriate tariff would have been in the region of DATE and not DATE as suggested by the trial judge . For these reasons , and bearing in mind your age when the offence was committed , the Secretary of ORG has decided to fix a tariff of DATE in your case . The Secretary of ORG is satisfied that such a tariff is consistent with the tariffs fixed in other cases . The Secretary of ORG is prepared to consider any fresh representations which you or your representatives might wish to make about the length of the tariff and , in the light of such fresh representations , to reduce the tariff if appropriate . ”

The applicant instituted judicial review proceedings challenging , inter alia , the tariff which had been set by the Secretary of ORG as being disproportionately long and fixed without due regard to the needs of rehabilitation . Leave was granted on DATE .

On DATE , ORG upheld part of the applicant 's claims . On DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal of the Secretary of ORG . On DATE , ORG by a majority dismissed the Secretary of ORG 's appeal and allowed the applicant 's cross - appeal . A majority of ORG found that it was unlawful for the Secretary of ORG to adopt a policy , in the context of applying the tariff system , which even in exceptional circumstances treated as irrelevant the progress and development of a child who was detained during Her Majesty 's pleasure . A majority of ORG also held that in fixing a tariff the Secretary of ORG was exercising a power equivalent to a judge 's sentencing power and that , like a sentencing judge , he was required to remain detached from the pressure of public opinion . Since the Secretary of ORG had misdirected himself in giving weight to the public protests about the level of the applicant 's tariff and had acted in a procedurally unfair way , his decision had been rendered unlawful ( see further paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The tariff set by the Secretary of ORG was accordingly quashed .

On DATE , the Secretary of ORG informed ORG that , in the light of ORG judgment , he had adopted a new policy in relation to young offenders convicted of murder and sentenced to detention during Her Majesty 's pleasure , pursuant to which , inter alia , he would keep the tariff initially set under review in the light of the offender 's progress and development . The Secretary of ORG invited the applicant 's representatives to make representations to him with regard to the fixing of a fresh tariff .

At the time of the adoption of this judgment , no decision has been taken in respect of the applicant 's tariff . The Government in their memorial informed the ORG that although the applicant ORG had submitted representations regarding the appropriate length of tariff , similar representations were still awaited in respect of T. , and the Home Secretary was in addition seeking independent psychiatric advice regarding both detainees .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG as amended by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , the age of criminal responsibility in GPE and GPE is DATE , below which no child can be found guilty of a criminal offence . The age of DATE was endorsed by ORG ( composed of Members of ORG ) in DATE ( ORG , Sixth Report of the Session DATE , Her ORG ) . At the time of the applicant 's trial , a child DATE was subject to a presumption that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong ( doli incapax ) . This presumption had to be rebutted by the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that , at the time of the offence , the child knew that the act was wrong as distinct from merely naughty or childish mischief ( C. ( a minor ) v. the Director of Public Prosecutions [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL ) .

The doli incapax presumption has since been abolished with effect from DATE ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Magistrates ' Courts Act DATE , children and young persons DATE must be tried summarily in ORG , where the trial usually takes place in the specialist ORG , which has an informal procedure and from which the general public are excluded . The exceptions are children and young persons charged with murder , manslaughter or an offence punishable if committed by an adult with DATE imprisonment , who are tried in ORG before a judge and jury .

Where a child is tried in ORG , section CARDINAL of LAW imposes an automatic prohibition restraining the media from reporting the child 's name or personal details or from publishing his photograph or any other information which might lead to his identification . The court has a discretion to dispense with the restriction following conviction if it considers it in the public interest to do so .

Where a child is tried in ORG , there is no restriction on the reporting of the proceedings unless the trial judge makes an order under section CARDINAL of LAW , which provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In relation to any proceedings in any court ... the court may direct that –

( a ) no newspaper report of the proceedings shall reveal the name , address or school , or include any particulars calculated to lead to the identification of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings , either as being the person by or against or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken , or as being a witness therein ;

( b ) no picture shall be published in any newspaper as being or including a picture of any child or young person so concerned in the proceedings as aforesaid ;

except in so far ( if at all ) as may be permitted by the direction of the court .

( CARDINAL ) NORP person who publishes any matter in contravention of any such direction shall on summary conviction be liable in respect of each offence to a fine ... ”

This provision was extended by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE to cover sound and television broadcasts .

ORG interpreting section CARDINAL has held that , since ORG intentionally distinguished between trial in ORG , where there is a presumption against publicity , and trial in ORG , where the presumption is reversed , there should be a good reason for the making of an order under section CARDINAL of LAW ( NORP v. PERSON ( a minor ) CARDINAL Criminal Appeal Reports CARDINAL ) .

An accused is “ unfit to plead ” if by reason of a disability , such as mental illness , he has “ insufficient intellect to instruct his solicitors and counsel , to plead to the indictment , to challenge jurors , to understand the evidence , and to give evidence ” ( NORP v. PERSON ) . The question whether or not a defendant is fit to plead must be decided by a jury upon the written or oral evidence of CARDINAL medical experts . Where a jury has found the defendant unfit to plead , either the same or another jury may be required to proceed with the trial and decide whether the accused did the act or made the omission charged against him as the offence , in which case the court may make a hospital order against him ( Criminal Procedure ( Insanity ) Act DATE , sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Alternatively , the trial may be postponed indefinitely until the accused is fit to plead .

In the case of ORG v. the ORG ( [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL ) , ORG quashed the conviction of an uneducated peasant from GPE in LOC who had been sentenced to death for murder after a trial in GPE conducted in a language he did not understand and where the evidence was not translated for him by an interpreter . ORG stated , inter alia :

“ It is an essential principle of the criminal law that a trial for an indictable offence should be conducted in the presence of the defendant . The basis of this principle is not simply that there should be corporeal presence but that the defendant , by reason of his presence , should be able to understand the proceedings and decide what witnesses he wishes to call , whether or not to give evidence and if so , upon what matters relevant to the case against him . ”

In GPE and GPE , adults convicted of murder are subject to mandatory life imprisonment ( Murder ( Abolition of Death Penalty ) Act DATE ) . Adults convicted of certain violent or sexual offences , for example manslaughter , rape , or robbery , may be sentenced to life imprisonment at the discretion of the trial judge , if he or she considers that ( i ) the offence is grave and ( ii ) there are exceptional circumstances which demonstrate that the offender is a danger to the public and that it is not possible to say when that danger will subside .

Offenders under DATE who are convicted of murder are automatically to be detained “ during Her ORG 's pleasure ” , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG as amended ) , which provides :

“ A person convicted of an offence who appears to the ORG to have been under DATE at the time the offence was committed shall not , if he is convicted of murder , be sentenced to imprisonment for life nor shall sentence of death be pronounced on or recorded against any such person but in lieu thereof the court shall ... sentence him to be detained during Her ORG 's pleasure , and if so sentenced he shall be liable to be detained in such a place and under such conditions as the Secretary of ORG may direct . ”

Until DATE a child or young person detained during Her Majesty 's pleasure will be held at a children 's home or other institution providing facilities appropriate to his age . At DATE , the detainee becomes liable to be transferred to a Young Offenders ' Institution and , at DATE , to detention in the same institution as an adult sentenced to life imprisonment for murder .

At the time of the applicant 's conviction the effect of the sentence of detention during Her Majesty 's pleasure was that the child or young person was detained for an indeterminate period , the duration of which was wholly within the discretion of the Home Secretary . The Secretary of ORG had a discretion to refer the case of a detained child to ORG for its advice and , if so advised by ORG , had a discretion to decide to order the child 's release ( Criminal Justice Act DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , sections PERSON ) and ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) ; see the speech of Lord PERSON in ORG , NORP v. Secretary of ORG for ORG , ex parte PERSON and CARDINAL [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL at p. CARDINAL - F , hereafter “ Ex parte V. and NORP ” ) .

On DATE , section CARDINAL of ORG was brought into force in order to implement the judgments of ORG in the PERSON and PERSON cases ( PERSON v. the GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions PERSON , p. CARDINAL , and PERSON v. the GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Reports CARDINAL-I , p. CARDINAL ) . The section provides that , after the tariff period has expired ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , it shall be for ORG , and not , as previously , for the Secretary of ORG , to decide whether it is safe to release on licence an offender serving a sentence of detention during Her Majesty 's pleasure for an offence of murder committed before DATE .

A person detained during Her ORG 's pleasure who is released on licence is liable to be recalled throughout his or her life , subject to the decision of ORG .

Over DATE , the Secretary of ORG has adopted a “ tariff ” policy in exercising his discretion whether to release offenders sentenced to life imprisonment . This was first publicly announced in ORG by Mr PERSON on DATE ( ORG ) cols . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . In essence , the tariff approach involves breaking down the life sentence into component parts , namely retribution , deterrence and protection of the public . The “ tariff ” represents the minimum period which the prisoner will have to serve to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence . The Home Secretary will not refer the case to ORG until DATE the expiry of the tariff period , and will not exercise his discretion to release on licence until after the tariff period has been completed ( per Lord PERSON , Ex parte V. and T. , op . cit . , at pp . CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , the tariff of a discretionary life prisoner is fixed in open court by the trial judge after conviction . After the tariff has expired , the prisoner may require the Secretary of ORG to refer his case to ORG which has the power to order his release if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to detain him for the protection of the public .

NORP A different regime , however , applies under LAW to persons detained during Her LOC 's pleasure or serving a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment . In relation to these prisoners , the Secretary of ORG decides the length of the tariff . The view of the trial judge is made known to the prisoner after his trial , as is the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice . The prisoner is afforded the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of ORG who then proceeds to fix the tariff and is entitled to depart from the judicial view ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG for ORG , ex parte Doody [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL , and see the ORG Secretary , PERSON PERSON Howard 's , policy statement to ORG , DATE , ORG ) cols . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . ) .

In the judicial review proceedings brought by the applicant ( Ex parte V. and ORG , op . cit . ) , ORG gave consideration , inter alia , to the nature of the tariff - fixing exercise in respect of sentences of detention during Her Majesty 's pleasure .

Lord PERSON held :

“ The starting point must to be inquire into the nature of the power to fix a tariff which the Home Secretary exercises . Writing on behalf of the Home Secretary ORG explained that : ' The Home Secretary must ensure that , at all times , he acts with the same dispassionate fairness as a sentencing judge . ' The comparison between the position of the Home Secretary , when he fixes a tariff representing the punitive element of the sentence , and the position of the sentencing judge is correct . In fixing a tariff the Home Secretary is carrying out , contrary to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary , a classic judicial function . ORG entrusted the underlying statutory power , which entailed a discretion to adopt a policy and fix a tariff , to the ORG Secretary . But the power to fix a tariff is nevertheless equivalent to a judge 's sentencing power . ”

Lord Hope held :

“ But the imposition of a tariff , which is intended to fix the minimum period in custody is , in itself , the imposition of a form of punishment . This has , as Lord PERSON observed in NORP v. Secretary of ORG for ORG , ex parte Doody at p. CARDINAL - B , the characteristics of an orthodox judicial exercise , which is directed to the circumstances of the offence and those of the offender and to what , having regard to the requirements of retribution and deterrence , is the appropriate minimum period to be spent in custody . The judge , when advising the Secretary of ORG about the tariff , must and does confine his attention to these matters ... If the Secretary of ORG wishes to fix a tariff for the case DATE in order to replace the views of the judiciary with a view of his own about the length of DATE he must be careful to abide by the same rules ... ”

Lord Hope also commented on the imposition of a tariff on a child offender :

“ A policy which ignores at any stage the child 's development and progress while in custody as a factor relevant to his eventual release date is an unlawful policy . The practice of fixing the penal element as applied to adult mandatory life prisoners , which has no regard to the development and progress of the prisoner during this period , can not be reconciled with the requirement to keep the protection and welfare of the child under review throughout the period while he is in custody . ”

Lord PERSON stated , inter alia :

“ ... if the Secretary of ORG implements a policy of fixing a penal element of the sentence of a mandatory prisoner pursuant to his discretionary power under LAW , he is to this extent exercising a function which is closely analogous to a sentencing function with the effect that , when doing so , he is under a duty to act under the same restraints as a judge will act when exercising the same function . In particular , should he take into account public clamour directed towards the decision in the particular case which he has under consideration , he will be having regard to an irrelevant consideration which will render the exercise of his discretion unlawful . In so holding I wish to draw a distinction in the present context between public concern of a general nature with regard to , for example , the prevalence of certain types of offence , and the need that those who commit such offences should be duly punished ; and public clamour that a particular offender whose case is under consideration should be singled out for severe punishment ... ”

On DATE , the Secretary of ORG announced that , in the light of ORG decision , he would adopt the following policy in respect of fixing the tariff for young offenders convicted of murder and detained during Her Majesty 's pleasure :

“ I shall continue to seek the advice of the trial judge and that of the Lord Chief Justice in deciding what punishment is required in any case of a person convicted under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Children and Young Persons Act DATE . I shall then set an initial tariff with that advice , and the offender 's personal circumstances , in mind ; I shall continue to invite representations on the prisoner 's behalf and give reasons for decisions . Officials in my ORG will receive DATE reports on the progress and development of young people sentenced under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) whose initial tariff has yet to expire . Where there appears to be a case for considering a reduction in tariff , that will be brought to the attention of Ministers . When CARDINAL of the initial tariff period has expired , I , or a Minister acting on my behalf , will consider a report on the prisoner 's progress and development , and invite representations on the question of tariff , with a view to determining whether the tariff period originally set is still appropriate ... ”

The Beijing Rules were adopted by ORG on DATE . These Rules are not binding in international law ; in the Preamble , States are invited , but not required , to adopt them . They provide , as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Age of criminal responsibility

CARDINAL NORP In those legal systems recognising the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles , the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level , bearing in mind the facts of emotional , mental and intellectual maturity .

Commentary

The minimum age of criminal responsibility differs widely owing to history and culture . The modern approach would be to consider whether a child can live up to the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility ; that is , whether a child , by virtue of her or his individual discernment and understanding , can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behaviour . If the age of criminal responsibility is fixed too low or if there is no lower age limit at all , the notion of criminal responsibility would become meaningless . In general , there is a close relationship between the notion of responsibility for delinquent or criminal behaviour and other social rights and responsibilities ( such as marital status , civil majority , etc . ) .

Efforts should therefore be made to agree on a reasonable lowest age limit that is applicable .

Protection of privacy

CARDINAL NORP The juvenile 's privacy shall be respected at all stages in order to avoid harm being caused to her or him by undue publicity or by the process of labelling .

CARDINAL In principle , no information that may lead to the identification of a juvenile offender shall be published .

Guiding principles in adjudication and disposition

CARDINAL NORP The disposition of the competent authorities shall be guided by the following principles :

( a ) NORP The reaction taken shall always be in proportion not only to the circumstances and gravity of the offence but also to the circumstances and the needs of the child as well as to the needs of the society ;

( b ) ORG on the personal liberty of the juvenile shall be imposed only after careful consideration and shall be limited to the possible minimum ;

( d ) The well - being of the juvenile shall be the guiding factor in the consideration of her or his case .

Commentary

Rule CARDINAL ) implies that strictly punitive approaches are not appropriate . Whereas in adult cases , and possibly also in cases of severe offences by juveniles , just desert and retributive sanctions might be considered to have some merit , in juvenile cases such considerations should always be outweighed by the interest of safeguarding the well - being and future of the young person .

This treaty ( hereafter , “ the ORG Convention ” ) , adopted by ORG of ORG on DATE , has binding force under international law on GPE , including all of the member ORG .

Article PERSON ) of the UN Convention states :

“ In all actions concerning children , whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions , courts of law , administrative authorities or legislative bodies , the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration . ”

Article CARDINAL(a ) and ( b ) provides :

“ GPE Parties shall ensure that :

( a ) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without the possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons DATE .

( b ) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily . The arrest , detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time ... ”

Article CARDINAL provides as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . DATE States Parties recognise the right of every child alleged as , accused of , or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child 's sense of dignity and worth , which reinforces the child 's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child 's age and the desirability of promoting the reintegration and the child 's assuming a constructive role in society .

To this end ... the GPE Parties shall , in particular , ensure that :

( b ) Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees :

( vii . ) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings .

DATE States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws , procedures , authorities and institutions , specifically applicable to children alleged as , accused of , or recognised as having infringed the penal law , and , in particular :

( a ) the establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal laws ;

( b ) whenever appropriate and desirable , measures for the dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings , providing that human rights are fully respected .

In its concluding observations in respect of GPE CRC / C/CARDINAL/add.CARDINAL ) dated DATE , ORG set up by ORG to monitor compliance with LAW stated , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . ORG recommends that law reform be pursued to ensure that the system of the administration of juvenile justice is child - oriented ...

More specifically , the ORG recommends that serious consideration be given to raising the age of criminal responsibility throughout the areas of GPE ... ”

The ORG provides in LAW , which broadly corresponds to LAW , that :

“ In the case of juvenile persons , the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age , and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation . ”

The above recommendation , adopted by ORG on DATE , states , inter alia :

“ ORG , under the terms of Article CARDINAL.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe ,

Considering that social reactions to juvenile delinquency should take account of the personality and specific needs of minors , and that the latter need specialised interventions and , where appropriate , specialised treatment , based in particular on the principles embodied in LAW ;

Convinced that the penal system for minors should continue to be characterised by its objective of education and social integration ... ;

Having regard to ORG ( “ LAW ” ) ,

Recommends the governments of member states to review , if necessary , their legislation and practice with a view :

NORP to ensuring that minors are tried more rapidly , avoiding undue delay , so as to ensure effective educational action ;

to avoiding committing minors to adult courts , where juvenile courts exist ;

to reinforcing the legal position of minors throughout the proceedings by recognising inter alia :

the right of juveniles to respect for their private lives ;

The age of criminal responsibility is CARDINAL in GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ; CARDINAL in GPE ; CARDINAL in GPE ; CARDINAL in GPE , GPE , GPE and many NORP countries ; CARDINAL in the NORP countries ; CARDINAL in GPE , GPE and GPE ; and CARDINAL in GPE , GPE and GPE .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . She is represented before the ORG by Mr I. Furmann , a lawyer practising in PERSON , who also assists “ ORG for ORG ” ( hereafter the “ ORG ” ) . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , Deputy ORG - Secretary , ORG .

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

The applicant is of GPE origin , as was her late husband , Mr GPE .

The other person involved in the case , PERSON was born in DATE . In DATE he joined ORG . Following DATE training , he received his firearm in DATE .

On DATE at TIME , accompanied by an accomplice , broke the window of a car parked QUANTITY from FAC in GPE and stole the radio .

That night Sergeant L.T. was on guard in front of the ORG . Having noticed Mr GPE and his accomplice , he left his sentry - box . Seeing a police officer in uniform approach , Mr PERSON handed the car radio to his accomplice and both men started to run .

PERSON ordered them to stop . Mr PERSON and his accomplice looked back but kept running . PERSON drew a gun and started to pursue them from a distance of QUANTITY . During the chase , he saw a shiny object in the hand of CARDINAL of the fugitives . In a nearby street he again ordered them to stop . When they failed to do so , he fired a warning shot . Some time later he again ordered them to stop and fired a second warning shot . After QUANTITY , PERSON lost sight of them . Following a tip - off from an eye - witness ( E. B. ) , PERSON went through the gateway to a house in order to search for them .

The gateway opened up onto a yard which was crossed by a path . To the right of the path , there was a garden ; the entrance door to the building was located to the left of the path . Mr PERSON hid himself by the entrance door ; his accomplice was lying in the garden . The visibility in the yard , which was not lit , was QUANTITY . PERSON crossed the path holding his firearm in his right hand . As PERSON passed by , PERSON , leaning forward , made a sudden move towards him . PERSON stepped aside , turned towards Mr GPE and – holding his firearm at a height of QUANTITY – fired a non - targeted shot at him from a distance of QUANTITY .

The bullet entered the right side of Mr PERSON 's chest between the sixth and seventh rib , in a downward direction . It passed through the liver and exited through the tenth rib , finally lodging itself in the entrance door at a height of QUANTITY .

Mr PERSON collapsed . PERSON got his handcuffs ready , but having noticed that Mr PERSON 's injuries were serious he decided that it was not necessary to use them . At this point the eye - witness PERSON arrived . PERSON asked him to call an ambulance and continued his search for PERSON accomplice .

The ambulance arrived and transported Mr PERSON to ORG at TIME where he underwent surgery . On DATE he died due to circulatory and respiratory failure caused by haemorrhagic shock .

Meanwhile , on DATE at TIME the police inspected the scene of the incident and arrested PERSON accomplice who was still hiding in the grass . Outside the house where the incident took place , they found the CARDINAL spent cartridges from the warning shots ; the spent cartridge from the lethal shot was found in the yard , as was the stolen radio .

On DATE PERSON reported the events to the Head of ORG . He maintained that , during the chase and , again , immediately before firing the lethal shot , he had seen a shiny object in PERSON hand . He had perceived the latter 's sudden move away from the door towards him as an attack , probably with a knife . He further deposed that he had intended to shoot PERSON in his thigh in self - defence .

Subsequently , administrative proceedings were instituted against PERSON with a view to examining the lawfulness of his use of his weapon . The opinion of a forensic weapons expert was also obtained . On DATE the Head of ORG discontinued these proceedings on the ground that “ according to the information obtained , the police officer had used his firearm lawfully and professionally ” . In the decision , it was established that although PERSON shot had been aimed at Mr PERSON 's thigh , Mr PERSON had in fact been hit on the trunk , because he had been in the act of descending the stairs leading from the entrance door .

On DATE the applicant , represented by Mr ORG , lodged a complaint challenging the administrative decision . In reaction to this complaint , ORG suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings initiated against PERSON ( see below ) . Following PERSON acquittal , ORG discontinued the administrative proceedings on DATE . The applicant was informed of this decision .

Subsequent to PERSON death , a second administrative procedure was opened in order to establish the circumstances of the death . On DATE an autopsy was carried out by CARDINAL forensic pathologists . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , having regard to the competent authority 's conclusion that PERSON use of his firearm had been lawful and to the finding that there was no appearance of any medical negligence in the treatment administered to PERSON . The applicant was informed of this decision .

Subsequently , criminal proceedings were instituted against PERSON on a charge of homicide . On DATE Mr PERSON requested ORG of ORG to inform him about the state of these proceedings . On DATE Mr ORG submitted to ORG a power of attorney signed by PERSON mother .

Meanwhile , a reporter and a cameraman from NORP Television who had been working at the scene of the incident on DATE submitted a video and an audiotape recording of a conversation with PERSON accomplice about a knife found lying on the ground nearby . Both men were heard as witnesses on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively .

CARDINAL further witnesses were heard on DATE . CARDINAL of them ( PERSON ) was the eye - witness who had given the tip - off to PERSON and had been asked by PERSON to call an ambulance ; the other ( FAC ) lived in the house where the incident occurred .

On DATE Mr ORG submitted CARDINAL expert opinions which had been prepared at the request of the ORG .

On DATE ORG appointed a forensic medical expert who submitted his opinion on DATE .

On DATE ORG appointed a forensic weapons expert who submitted his opinion on DATE . The opinion was based on an on - site demonstration .

On DATE ORG deposed that it had been called at TIME on TIME of the incident . On DATE and DATE the ambulance driver , the doctor and her assistant were heard as witnesses .

On DATE Mr GPE 's accomplice failed to appear at ORG where he was to be heard as a witness . He was eventually heard on DATE .

On DATE PERSON was questioned by ORG as a suspect .

A further on - site demonstration , attended by PERSON , was held at TIME on DATE in order to check the visibility conditions .

On DATE ORG submitted information on the visibility conditions at the time of the incident .

On DATE Mr ORG again requested information about the proceedings . On DATE he was informed that the investigation had been completed and that the case had been transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG preferred a bill of indictment against PERSON charging him with homicide .

On DATE ORG heard PERSON , a witness ( GPE ) , the ambulance doctor , the cameraman and the forensic weapons expert . Mr PERSON had not been notified in advance of this hearing . On the same day PERSON PERSON sent a letter to the presiding judge requesting that he be notified about the date of the next hearing . In his reply the presiding judge dismissed the request on the ground that PERSON PERSON and his client , Mr PERSON 's mother , could not be regarded as a party to the criminal proceedings in accordance with sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW .

Nevertheless , the judge informed PERSON of the dates of the subsequent hearings .

At TIME on DATE ORG conducted an on - site inspection of the scene of the incident .

The next hearing was held on DATE . The reporter , another journalist , the eye - witness ORG , CARDINAL police officers and PERSON accomplice were heard as witnesses .

Another hearing was held on DATE . On that occasion CARDINAL police officers and the ambulance assistant were heard as witnesses .

At the next hearing on DATE the forensic medical expert and the weapons expert were heard . The parties presented their closing arguments . The public prosecutor proposed that PERSON be acquitted by virtue of section CARDINAL ) of LAW . He argued that the defendant should not be punished because he had been acting lawfully in self - defence even though he had exceeded the necessary force ( elhárítás szükséges mértékének túllépése ) in the circumstances . According to the public prosecutor , PERSON could not have assessed properly the situation with which he was confronted on account of his fear and , given the circumstances , his over - reaction was justified . The public prosecutor however observed that the lawfulness of the use of a firearm in itself did not preclude the commission of a crime and referred to sections CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) of LAW in this connection .

Counsel for the defence pleaded that ORG should be acquitted primarily on the ground of the absence of any danger to society and hence the absence of a crime or , alternatively , by reason of lawful self - defence .

On DATE ORG acquitted PERSON , applying section ORG ) of LAW . The court found it impossible to determine whether Mr GPE had been armed at the time of the incident . In particular , it remained unclear whether Mr GPE or his accomplice had had an object in their hands and , if so , whether that object had been a knife , the stolen radio or an object which the offenders had been using to smash the car window . The court observed that the knife apparently found during the inspection of the scene had been lost and could no longer be located in police storage .

Moreover , the court , relying on the opinions of the weapons expert and the CARDINAL forensic pathologists , considered it proven that Mr GPE had been shot while leaning or moving forward , rather than standing or hiding . Given that it was almost completely dark at the time of the incident , the court accepted that PERSON could not properly decipher Mr PERSON 's intention when the latter moved towards him .

ORG was satisfied that the defendant 's action did not constitute a crime . Under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW , he had been free to use his gun to avert an attack directed against his life or bodily integrity . His action had therefore not been “ materially illegal ” ( materiális jogellenesség ) , that is , dangerous to society . In these circumstances , no criminal act had been committed – a conclusion which allowed the court to dispense with the examination of the question of self - defence , in particular whether it was lawful self - defence or excessive .

The public prosecutor appealed against this judgment , requesting that the defendant be acquitted under section CARDINAL ) of LAW . Subsequently , the public prosecutor withdrew the appeal . Consequently , on DATE ORG judgment became final .

On DATE Mr ORG requested a copy of ORG judgment . On DATE Mr ORG , submitting a power of attorney signed by the applicant on DATE , requested a copy of the case file from ORG . He stated that the case file was needed in order to introduce an application with ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ORG 's request on the ground that the applicant had not been a party to the criminal proceedings . On DATE Mr ORG appealed against this decision . He relied on the LAW and made references to the ORG 's case - law under LAW in criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal holding that there was no connection between the cases referred to and the applicant 's request for a copy of the case file . It was satisfied that the rejection of the request did not hinder the applicant 's exercise of her right to lodge an application with ORG .

( CARDINAL ) Liability for damage caused in the sphere of ORG administration shall be established only if the damage could not have been be prevented by ordinary legal remedies or if the injured party has had recourse to ordinary legal remedies appropriate for preventing the damage .

( CARDINAL ) These rules shall also apply to liability for damage caused in the judicial and prosecution spheres , unless otherwise provided by statute .

( CARDINAL ) Any person who does an act which is necessary in order to prevent an unlawful attack against himself or another person , his own goods , or those of other persons , or against the public interest , or an unlawful attack directly threatening the above , shall not be liable to punishment .

( CARDINAL ) A person shall not be punished either if he exceeds the necessary measure of prevention because he is unable to appreciate it due to fear or justifiable excitement ( menthető felindulás ) .

( CARDINAL ) The punishment may , without limitation , be mitigated if the perpetrator is restricted in appreciating the necessary degree of prevention through fear or justifiable excitement .

( CARDINAL ) A criminal act is an act perpetrated intentionally or DATE if the law also punishes negligent perpetration – by negligence , which is dangerous to society and in respect of which the law imposes punishment .

( CARDINAL ) An act or omission shall be deemed an act of danger to society if it violates or endangers the ORG , the social or economic order of GPE , a person or the rights of citizens .

( CARDINAL ) The actions of the police shall not be such as to cause prejudice which is clearly disproportionate to the legitimate aim of the action .

( CARDINAL ) If there exists several possible and appropriate actions or coercive measures in a given situation , the act or measure chosen should be the CARDINAL which , besides ensuring efficiency , entails the least restriction , injury or damage to the person concerned .

( CARDINAL ) During police actions , in the application of coercive measures , the infliction of injuries or deprivation of life should be avoided as far as possible . ...

A police officer may use his firearm : ...

( k ) in order to avert an attack directed against his own life , bodily integrity or personal freedom .

( CARDINAL ) A victim is a party whose rights or lawful interests have been infringed or endangered by the offence .

( CARDINAL ) The victim :

( a ) may be present at any procedural acts carried out during the investigation , provided that the victim 's presence is permitted by LAW , or during the trial , unless this LAW states otherwise ;

( b ) may have access to documents concerning him / her after the conclusion of the investigation ,

( c ) may , at any stage of the proceedings , file motions or observations , and request information on his / her procedural rights and obligations ,

( d ) may submit questions to be put to those heard at the hearing and may take the floor .

( CARDINAL ) A civil party is a victim who files a civil - law claim for determination in the criminal proceedings .

( CARDINAL ) In the event of the victim 's death , his / her heir may become a civil party . However , the rights set out in section CARDINAL will be applicable only in relation to the proof of the civil - law claim .

( CARDINAL ) If possible , the court shall decide on the merits of the civil - law claim in the judgment or decision terminating the criminal proceedings . If this procedure delays the criminal proceedings significantly , the court may redirect the civil - law claim to other courts .

( CARDINAL ) Copies of documents from the criminal case - files shall be issued to the ... civil party ... and his / her representative at their request .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On an unspecified date , ORG issued a decision on plots of land in the GPE village in the LOC district in GPE registering them as property of the ORG . The decision included the applicant 's plot of land .

On DATE the mayor of GPE village filed an action with ORG and requested the annulment of ORG decision .

On an unspecified date , the applicant filed a similar action with ORG . In his petition he stated that the plot of land in question had been registered in his father 's name in DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to join the cases .

On DATE the First Instance Court held its first hearing and heard the parties .

DATE and DATE the court held CARDINAL hearings . During this period , the court examined the documents furnished by the parties concerning their ownership allegations and ordered on - site visits to be carried out on the plots of lands . However , the court postponed carrying out onsite visits on the plots of lands due to bad weather conditions or the absence of experts . Despite the court 's letters to ORG to secure the presence of the experts , they failed to appear for the on - site visits .

The proceedings before ORG are still pending . The on - site visits to the plots of land have not yet been carried out .

On DATE the mayor of the Dikili village in Hınıs district filed an action with the Hınıs Civil Court of First - instance against the GPE village . The action concerned a dispute over a plot of land .

On DATE the applicant intervened in the action and alleged that his father was the owner of the plot of land in question . The NORP village also intervened in the proceedings .

On DATE the First ORG sent a letter to ORG and requested the determination of the borders of the ORG and ORG villages .

On DATE the court ordered an on - site visit to be carried out on the plot of land . In this connection it sent a letter to ORG FAC and requested the latter to secure the presence of experts for the on - site visit .

DATE and DATE the court held thirtynine hearings . During this period , the court postponed the conduct of on - site visits on account of bad weather conditions or the absence of the experts .

On DATE during the hearing before the court the applicant requested the court to carry out an on - site visit to the plot of land and to secure the presence of the experts .

On DATE the court postponed an on - site visit . It noted that ORG had sent a letter and informed the court that an on - site visit could not be carried out for security reasons in the area .

On DATE the ORG of First Instance issued a decision of non - jurisdiction in respect of the applicant 's action and decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of ORG . The court further decided to strike out the case in respect of the ORG and NORP villages since they had failed to pursue their claim . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . This decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the mayor of NORP village filed an action with ORG against the LOC village and requested the annulment of the decision of ORG in respect of the plots of land ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On an unspecified date , the applicant filed an application to intervene in the action .

On DATE the court accepted the applicant 's request for intervention and decided to join the cases nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

DATE and CARDINAL November CARDINAL the court held fiftynine hearings . During this period it examined the documents submitted by the parties and requested the ORG authorities to submit additional documents concerning the plots of land in question .

On DATE the court ordered an on - site visit to the plots of land . However it postponed the on - site visits due , respectively , to the absence of the experts or bad weather conditions .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with ORG attached to ORG . He complained that the judges at ORG and ORG had failed to display due diligence in handling the proceedings concerning the lands in question .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request .


Anatoly Kovler;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr FAC , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by lawyers of ORG , based in GPE and GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by Mr PERSON GPE , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicants ( a mother , daughter and CARDINAL sons ) are former residents of GPE . Prior to DATE , the family lived in a flat and a house in ORG . They submitted that the first applicant had owned a flat at DATE FAC . The second applicant ( the first applicant ’s daughter ) had been the registered owner of a house situated at CARDINAL ORG . In DATE the first applicant had purchased CARDINAL further houses adjacent to her daughter ’s house ( CARDINAL ORG FAC and FAC ) .

On DATE ORG of PERSON confirmed that the second applicant owned a share of the property situated at CARDINAL ORG . On DATE the court confirmed that the CARDINAL applicants ( and CARDINAL other individuals ) had lived at the said property prior to DATE .

NORP In DATE ORG ( “ ORG ” ) in GPE issued certificates of title to the first and second applicants relating to CARDINAL land plots of the above - mentioned addresses .

NORP In DATE the ORG informed the first applicant by letter that its archives had been destroyed . The register maintained by the ORG contained CARDINAL relevant entries showing that the first applicant owned the properties at FAC , QUANTITY / FAC and DATE FAC . The second applicant owned the house at CARDINAL ORG . No corresponding certificates of title were submitted to the ORG by the applicants .

DATE and in DATE ORG carried out counterterrorist operations in GPE . Fearing hostilities , the applicants moved to GPE on an unspecified date .

The applicants submitted that during the CARDINAL campaigns , missile strikes by the NORP air force in DATE and DATE had resulted in the destruction of their properties and all their possessions . They submitted a complaint about both incidents to the prosecutor ’s office in DATE .

On DATE a prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL refused the ORG request to open a criminal investigation . The applicants were given the option to appeal , commence a civil claim for damages or to seek compensation under Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE .

It appears that the applicants made a further application to the prosecutor ’s office for a criminal investigation to be opened into the complaint relating to the DATE attack ; however , this was dismissed on DATE . The applicants were again given the option to appeal or to commence a civil claim for damages .

The applicants sued the ORG , ORG and ORG , with a view to obtaining compensation for the destruction of their property and possessions as a result of the events of DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE delivered its judgment . It held that under LAW , the ORG was only liable for damage caused by the unlawful conduct of its agents . ORG noted that the military operation in GPE had been authorised by Presidential Decree no . PERSON dated DATE and Government decree no . CARDINAL of DATE . Both decrees had been considered compatible with the LAW by ORG on DATE . The court thus found that no unlawful conduct by a ORG body had taken place which could justify payment of compensation . The court further dismissed the ORG claim that the damage had been caused by a particularly hazardous ORG - owned object , since the applicants had not submitted any conclusive evidence to substantiate their allegations about the manner in which their property had been destroyed .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment .