Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures)

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

Until DATE the applicants lived and worked as farmers in the villages of Kuşkonar and ORG , which were located close to each other in a mountainous area within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Şırnak , in south - east GPE .

The events which took place on DATE are disputed by the parties . Thus , the parties’ submissions will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) . The Government ’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D ( paragraphs DATE ) .

NORP In DATE ORG activity in the area where the applicants’ villages were located was at its peak and frequent armed clashes were taking place between ORG members and the NORP security forces . A number of the surrounding villages whose residents had refused to become village guards were evacuated by the security forces who suspected that those villagers had been providing logistical support to the ORG . Villages whose residents had become village guards , on the other hand , were being subjected to armed attacks by members of the ORG . The applicants and other residents of their CARDINAL villages had refused to become village guards and the security forces believed that the ORG was being assisted by them .

The military considered that , so long as the villages in the area continued to exist , their fight against the ORG would not be successful , and carried out a big military operation in order to evacuate the villages forcibly . During the operation almost all the villages in the area were either bombed or set on fire by the soldiers and their residents were forced to flee . The circumstances surrounding the destruction of CARDINAL such village in that particular region were examined by ORG in its judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . According to a report prepared by ORG , CARDINAL villages had been evacuated in east and south - east GPE DATE andCARDINAL .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE most male residents of the applicants’ CARDINAL villages were working in the fields outside the villages . As the weather was sunny , most of the children were playing outside . The women and the elderly were either in their homes or sitting on the terraces outside their houses . When they first heard aircraft flying nearby at TIME they did not get scared because military planes and helicopters often flew in the area for reconnaissance and bombing missions against the ORG on the mountains . Such missions had never caused any damage to the villagers or to their villages . Furthermore , there were no ORG members in the village at the time .

DATE , however , military planes and a helicopter circled the applicants’ CARDINAL villages and then started to bomb them . The bombs dropped from the planes were very large ; some villagers described them “ as big as a table ” . Subsequently , machine gun fire was opened from the helicopter . Some of the people were hit directly and some were trapped under the rubble of the houses that were destroyed in the bombing . Those who survived tried to take cover . The men working in the nearby fields ran to the village and tried to rescue people from underneath the rubble .

As a result , CARDINAL people in LOC and CARDINAL people in GPE village lost their lives . Most of those who were killed were children , women or elderly . CARDINAL of the dead , including CARDINAL babies and a number of older children , were the applicants’ close relatives . In addition , a total of CARDINAL people , including some of the applicants , were injured . Most of the houses and livestock belonging to the applicants were also destroyed in the bombing . The names of those killed and their relationship to the applicants , as well as the names of the applicants who were injured , are set out below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) .

The bombing from the aircraft continued in the surrounding areas . Although the local gendarmerie and local prosecutors became aware of the bombing , they did not go to the applicants’ villages to establish the identities of the deceased and to carry out post - mortem examinations . No national authority offered the villagers any help . Villagers from the nearby GPE village went to the applicants’ villages and helped the surviving villagers to take their injured relatives to hospitals in their tractors .

The surviving residents of NORP village put the remains of their deceased relatives in plastic bags and buried them in a mass grave without any religious ceremony .

As the village of LOC was located close to a main road , the villagers there were able to take the bodies of their relatives to the nearby GPE village and bury them in the cemetery there .

After having buried their dead , all surviving villagers quickly abandoned their villages and what was left of their houses and belongings , and moved to different parts of the country . Some of them stayed behind but settled in the nearby GPE village . The applicants’ CARDINAL villages are still uninhabited .

When the bombing was widely reported in the national and international media and was condemned by human rights organisations , members of the military exerted pressure on the villagers and warned them not to make official complaints to the judicial authorities . Journalists were prevented from entering the hospitals where the injured were being treated , and from speaking to the villagers . Although it would have been impossible for ORG of another ORG to carry out the bombing , and despite the fact that the ORG could obviously not have any fighter jets in its armoury , the then Prime Minister of GPE PERSON declared that “ the military aircraft which bombed the villages did not belong to the State ” .

Subsequently , gendarmes questioned the villagers who had resettled in GPE village . Some of the villagers were so traumatised as a result of the bombings and scared in the presence of the gendarmes that they did not tell the gendarmes that their villages had been bombed by military aircraft , but merely referred to the bombing as the “ incident ” . Some told the gendarmes that “ bombs had fallen on [ their ] village but that [ they ] did not want to make any complaints ” . The headman of GPE , PERSON , however , informed the PERSON prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE that military aircraft had bombed the villages .

Despite the fact that the prosecutors were informed about the incident , and the widespread coverage of the bombings in the media , no investigating authority ever visited the villages or opened any investigations .

Even after they appointed a lawyer in DATE and that lawyer made a number of representations on their behalf , no effective investigatory steps were taken by the national authorities . The investigation file was being repeatedly transferred between prosecutors without any active steps being taken .

In their observations the Government summarised a number of the steps taken by the national authorities ( which are also summarised below ) , and submitted that the applicants’ villages had been under pressure from ORG members and had subsequently been attacked by the ORG because the villagers had refused to help them . There was no evidence to show any State involvement in the incident and the applicants had made their allegations under the influence of their legal representative .

The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties .

According to a report prepared by CARDINAL gendarmes on DATE , it had not been possible for the gendarmes to go to LOC village to investigate the “ explosion ” which had killed CARDINAL and injured CARDINAL persons , because the village had been too far and there had been insufficient gendarmes and vehicles at their disposal .

DATE the fortieth applicant PERSON was questioned by QUANTITY police officers . PERSON stated that there had been an operation and an explosion in his village of ORG during which he was injured .

Also on DATE a large number of injured people were examined at the local hospital in the town of Cizre . Some of the injured persons whose condition was deemed to be critical were referred to ORG . These included the DATE to QUANTITY applicants , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ; the CARDINAL applicant PERSON daughter and the CARDINAL applicant PERSON ’s sister ORG , who was DATE ; the DATE applicant PERSON partner and the CARDINAL applicant PERSON ’s mother PERSON ; the CARDINAL applicant PERSON DATE daughter PERSON ; and the CARDINAL applicant PERSON wife PERSON . The DATE applicant PERSON mother PERSON , who had sustained a leg injury , was also examined by a doctor , who concluded that her condition was not life - threatening . She was also transferred to ORG .

Later that DATE ORG died before she could be transferred to the hospital in GPE , and her body was examined by a doctor at ORG in the presence of the PERSON prosecutor . According to the post - mortem report , ORG skull had been shattered . There were no injuries on her body caused by a firearm or by a sharp object . A villager officially identified ORG body and told the prosecutor present there that , according to the information he had received , ORG village ORG had been bombed by aircraft . The bombing had caused the deaths of many people . The same day the prosecutor instructed the local gendarmerie to investigate ORG death .

On DATE the Şırnak prosecutor forwarded to ORG a cutting from a national newspaper detailing the bombing of LOC by aircraft at TIME on DATE , and asked for an investigation to be carried out .

CARDINAL gendarmes questioned the headman of GPE , PERSON , on DATE . Mr ORG told the gendarmes that he had not been in the village at the time of the incident but had subsequently been informed about it by his fellow villagers . According to the information provided to him , a helicopter and a plane had flown over the village and TIME later explosions had taken place in and outside the village . A total of CARDINAL persons had been killed in his village and a number of people had been injured and taken to hospitals .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicant , PERSON , told CARDINAL gendarmes that at the time of the incident he had been on the outskirts of LOC but had returned to the village immediately after he had heard “ loud explosions ” . On his arrival at the village he had found the body of his wife PERSON and his injured daughter PERSON . Many of his fellow villagers had also been killed . He had taken his injured daughter Zahide to a hospital but she had not survived .

On DATE another statement was taken from GPE headman PERSON , this time by the PERSON prosecutor . PERSON told the prosecutor that the villagers from his village did not support the ORG but took sides with the ORG . DATE the villagers had refused to take part in LANGUAGE celebrations and had subsequently been threatened by the ORG . He had heard that ORG members had been talking about “ punishing ” the villagers . In his statement Mr ORG also added that , according to the information he had received from his fellow villagers , the village had been bombed by aircraft . A total of CARDINAL bombs had been dropped . CARDINAL bomb had hit the village square and another one had hit the school . The remaining CARDINAL bombs had hit houses . CARDINAL villagers had been killed and CARDINAL - CARDINAL persons injured . Although the security forces had been informed about the incident , no one had visited the village . No post - mortem examinations of the deceased had been carried out . The villagers had buried their dead relatives themselves .

On DATE the chief doctor at ORG informed the PERSON prosecutor that CARDINAL persons had been treated at his hospital for injuries caused by explosives .

On DATE the Şırnak prosecutor decided that the bombing of the village of ORG had been carried out by members of the ORG , and forwarded the case file to the prosecutor ’s office at ORG which had jurisdiction to investigate terrorism - related incidents . According to the prosecutor , ORG members had attacked the village with “ mortars and other explosives ” , killing CARDINAL persons and injuring another CARDINAL .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG instructed the gendarmerie and the police to investigate the “ killings perpetrated by members of the NORP ” .

DATE and DATE gendarmes questioned CARDINAL villagers , mostly from LOC . These included the applicants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The villagers told the gendarmes that there had been explosions in their villages which had killed and injured people . In the statements the villagers were also quoted as having stated in identical sentences that they did not know the “ cause or source ” of the explosions .

The prosecutor at ORG observed on DATE that there was no evidence showing ORG involvement , and returned the file to the PERSON prosecutor ’s office . In the prosecutor ’s decision of non - jurisdiction the subject matter of the investigation was stated as “ the killing of a number of persons as a result of a bomb dropped on the village ” .

On DATE CARDINAL of the CARDINAL villagers who had been questioned by gendarmes DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were questioned once more , this time by the Şırnak prosecutor . The villagers said that bombs had “ fallen ” on their village , killing a number of people and injuring a number of others , but that they did not want to make an official complaint .

On DATE the Şırnak prosecutor returned the file to ORG prosecutor , insisting that the bombings in the NORP village had been carried out by members of the ORG .

ORG prosecutor instructed the gendarmerie on DATE to find the ORG members “ responsible for the attacks ” on LOC .

In its letter of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON governor ’s office asked the local gendarmerie whether PERSON , who is the brother of the twelfth applicant PERSON , was alive or dead . On DATE a gendarme captain , who was the commander of the PERSON gendarmerie , sent a reply to the PERSON governor ’s office . The captain stated in his letter that , according to their investigation , Mr Oygur and all members of his family had been killed during “ the aerial bombing ” of Kuşkonar village and buried there .

There are no documents in the ORG ’s possession to detail any of the steps , if any , taken in the investigation DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG sent a letter to the PERSON gendarmerie command , urging for the investigation into “ the armed attacks by the NORP ” on GPE to be continued until the expiry of the prescription period on DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicants , with the assistance of their newly appointed lawyer , filed official complaints with the offices of the Şırnak and ORG prosecutors . They submitted that CARDINAL planes and a helicopter had bombed their villages . The holes made by the bombs were still visible and the bodies of the people who had been killed were in the mass grave . The applicants asked the prosecutors to investigate the bombing of their villages and prosecute those responsible .

The applicants also argued in their petitions that when they were questioned in the aftermath of the bombing they had been so scared that they could not tell the authorities that their villages had been bombed by aircraft . In any event , on account of the wide coverage of the incident in the national and international media , it was public knowledge that the villages had been bombed by military aircraft .

On DATE , on the basis of the documents in the investigation files and the statements taken from the villagers , the chief prosecutor in ORG concluded in a decision of non - jurisdiction that the bombings had been carried out not by ORG members but by planes and helicopters . The chief prosecutor forwarded the ORG petitions to the PERSON prosecutor and requested him to carry out an effective investigation “ so that our country would not encounter problems from the standpoint of ORG and CARDINAL of LAW ” . The prosecutor asked his opposite number in PERSON personally to take a number of investigative steps , such as visiting the villages with a view to establishing how many bombs had been dropped in each village and how many persons had been killed .

The decision reached by the ORG chief prosecutor was widely publicised in the national media and the lawyer representing the applicants was quoted in a newspaper as having stated that this was a “ promising development ” .

On DATE police officers questioned CARDINAL of the applicants , namely PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and another villager , PERSON . PERSON , who had lost his father in the incident , and PERSON , who had lost a number of his relatives , told the police officers that they had not been in the village on DATE .

PERSON , who had lost her husband , told the police officers that she had been living in GPE village at the time and had seen a plane and a helicopter . When she had heard a loud explosion she had hidden in the cellar of her house . When she had come out she had seen that everything in the village had been destroyed and that bodies of villagers were lying around .

PERSON , who had lost his wife and CARDINAL children aged DATE , told the police officers on DATE that he had been hunting outside LOC at the time when he had seen a plane and a helicopter over his village . The plane had then dropped CARDINAL bombs and he had immediately returned to the village . When he had reached the village he had seen that most of the houses had been destroyed and a large number of his fellow villagers had been killed .

On DATE the applicant PERSON was also questioned by the police officers . PERSON told the police officers that he and his wife PERSON had been outside their house in GPE at the time when they had heard the planes flying over the village . They had run towards their cellar but his wife had not made it . When he had come out of the cellar he had seen his wife ’s dismembered body lying by the door . He and his fellow villagers had then buried the dead and left the village . He had never returned to the village since then .

DATE . On DATE the applicant PERSON was heard by a prosecutor . She told the prosecutor that she had been gathering wood outside her village of Kuşkonar at the time of the bombing and had heard planes and subsequently explosions . On her return she had seen that her village had been bombed and her CARDINAL sons , her daughter - in - law Ayşe , and her grandchildren had been killed .

The applicant PERSON was also questioned by a prosecutor , on DATE . He told the prosecutor that he had been in his village of Kuşkonar on DATE of the bombing and seen a helicopter flying overhead at TIME The helicopter had continued to fly around for a period of TIME and then CARDINAL planes had arrived . The planes , which had been flying in formation , had then dropped CARDINAL bombs each over the village . The bombs had been as big as tables . His wife and their DATE daughter , as well as their CARDINAL other children , aged DATE , had all been killed in the bombing . There had been QUANTITY houses in the village and during the bombing QUANTITY of them had been destroyed completely and the remainder had been damaged . After the bombing he and the other villagers had abandoned their village .

On DATE , in a written petition , the applicants urged the prosecutor to expedite the investigation and to pay a visit to their villages in order to examine the scale of the devastation and search for evidence . They stated that the craters caused by the bombs were still clearly visible .

The Şırnak prosecutor joined the CARDINAL separate complaints lodged by the applicants on CARDINAL and DATE , and DATE and DATE he questioned a number of the applicants who were by then living in different parts of the country . The applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON described the bombing of their village of ORG by aircraft , and added that they did not know what type of airplanes they had been . They told the prosecutor that , after the bombing , their houses had become uninhabitable and they had had to leave their village . The applicant PERSON added in his petition of CARDINAL DATE that his wife PERSON had suffered a head injury and continued to suffer complications because of this injury . In his statement of CARDINAL DATE PERSON also informed the prosecutor of the injury to his wife PERSON .

On DATE the Şırnak prosecutor stated in a decision of non - jurisdiction that , in light of the documents in the file , in particular the statements taken from the applicants and the eyewitnesses according to whom the bombings had been carried out by planes and helicopters , military prosecutors had jurisdiction to carry out the investigation . He thus forwarded the case files to the military prosecutor ’s office at the CARDINALnd ORG in ORG .

On DATE the military prosecutor asked ORG in ORG whether any flights had been conducted over the applicants’ CARDINAL villages TIME and TIME on DATE .

On DATE the CARDINALnd ORG in ORG informed the military prosecutor in a letter that “ no planes or helicopters from our ORG conducted flights in the Şırnak region TIME at any other time on DATE ” .

After having received the response from DATE ORG in GPE , the military prosecutor concluded on DATE that there was no evidence to support the ORG allegations that their villages had been bombed by military aircraft . He thus decided that he also lacked jurisdiction to investigate the killings , and returned the case files to the PERSON prosecutor ’s office . In support of his decision the military prosecutor also referred to the statements taken from some of the applicants by the PERSON prosecutor , in which those applicants had stated that they did not know what type of aircraft had bombed their villages ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The military prosecutor also rejected the ORG requests for copies of all the documents from his investigation file to be handed over to their lawyer . When challenged by the ORG lawyer before a military court , the military court agreed with the military prosecutor that the applicants should not be given the entire file . Eventually , the only documents given to the applicants were “ those which supported the military prosecutor ’s decision of non - jurisdiction ” but the disclosure of which to the applicants would not , in the opinion of the military authorities , “ jeopardise the investigation ” .

On DATE the applicants lodged an objection with a military court against the military prosecutor ’s decision of non - jurisdiction , and drew that court ’s attention to the military prosecutor ’s alleged failure to carry out a proper investigation . They argued , in particular , that the military prosecutor had not examined the witness statements but had been content with the response he had received from the CARDINALnd ORG . They also pointed to the possibility that the aircraft could have taken off from other airbases located nearby , such as ORG or Batman .

The applicants also argued that the military prosecutor , by referring to some of the applicants’ inability to identify the aircraft as belonging to the NORP military ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) , had unjustly implied that the bombing could have been carried out by foreign aircraft . The applicants also noted that the military prosecutor ’s implications had been shared by the then Prime Minister of GPE , PERSON . The applicants questioned the logic behind those implications , and argued that explanations were needed as to how a number of aircraft belonging to another State would be able to penetrate NORP airspace , bomb villages , and then leave NORP airspace undetected .

Another military prosecutor , who forwarded to the military court his opinion on the objection lodged by the applicants , noted that the villages had never been visited by any civilian investigating authority to verify the ORG allegations or to search for evidence . The military prosecutor considered that the military investigating authorities could carry out an investigation in the villages before making a decision on the issue of jurisdiction .

On DATE the military court rejected the applicants’ objection and the military prosecutor ’s suggestion to carry out further investigative steps . It held that there was no evidence implicating any personnel “ within the jurisdiction of the CARDINALnd ORG military prosecutor ” in the incident .

The investigation files were then returned to the Şırnak prosecutor ’s office where another statement was taken from the headman of LOC village , PERSON , on DATE . Mr PERSON repeated the contents of his earlier statements . In response to a question from the prosecutor , Mr ORG stated that he had never heard of Provide Comfort ( Çekiç Güç ) , a joint GPE , NORP and NORP military task force deployed to LOC in southern GPE in DATE during the first GPE war . Mr PERSON told the prosecutor that the only military force he had been aware of in the region was the NORP military .

On DATE , in response to a query from the Şırnak prosecutor , the Şırnak gendarmerie informed that prosecutor that “ the flight plans for aircraft movements TIME DATE ” were not in their archives .

The PERSON prosecutor sent a letter to the prosecutor ’s office in GPE on DATE , and stated that the allegations of the villagers concerning an aerial bombardment of their villages showed that the incident , “ even if it was caused by another ORG or by illegal organisations ” , was not an ordinary incident . In the opinion of the PERSON prosecutor the ORG prosecutor had jurisdiction to continue the investigation , and he sent him the case files .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor opened a new investigation file ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and sent a letter to the PERSON prosecutor . In his letter the ORG prosecutor stated that the investigation file only contained ORG post - mortem report and that there were no documents in it to show that the villages had been visited by an investigative body . He asked the Şırnak prosecutor to send him , inter alia , all post - mortem reports , information pertaining to any visits to the applicants’ villages by the investigating authorities , and any evidence collected in the villages by those authorities . When the Şırnak prosecutor continued to fail to respond , the ORG prosecutor sent him reminders on DATE and then on DATE . In his letter of DATE the ORG prosecutor informed the PERSON prosecutor that in response to his request of CARDINAL DATE he had received some information from the gendarmerie but that that information was incomplete . He urged the PERSON prosecutor to collect the required evidence himself and not to leave it to the gendarmerie . On account of the PERSON prosecutor ’s continued failure to cooperate in the investigation the ORG prosecutor sent him another reminder on DATE .

DATE and DATE gendarmes took statements from CARDINAL villagers . CARDINAL of them , who had been living in villages other than LOC and GPE at the time of the incident , stated that they had not witnessed the incident but that they had heard that ORG members had raided the villages on DATE and killed the applicants’ relatives . They also stated that , according to rumours , a lawyer had located the relatives of the deceased villagers DATE , and told them that if they alleged that their villages had been bombed by aircraft , he would seek and obtain compensation for them . In the opinion of these CARDINAL villagers , the applicants were making these allegations in order to taint the reputation of the NORP military forces .

The headman of LOC , PERSON , was among the villagers questioned by the gendarmes . In his statement of DATE he was quoted as having stated that he had not been in the village at the time of the events but that his fellow villagers had informed him that members of the ORG had carried out the attacks . In Mr ORG ’s opinion , the whole thing was a provocation orchestrated by persons with “ legal knowledge ” with the aim of tainting the good name of the ORG .

DATE . In a statement dated DATE another one of the questioned villagers , PERSON , who was employed by the ORG as a village guard , was quoted as having stated that he had been in the LOC village on the date of the incident when ORG members had come to the village and fired rocket - propelled grenades and opened fire on the villagers . In the opinion of this village guard , civilian wings of the ORG had been fabricating the allegations of an aerial bombardment .

In his statement of DATE PERSON , a villager from GPE , was quoted as having stated that he had been in the village on DATE and that CARDINAL aircraft had bombed the village , killing , among others , his mother and nieces .

On DATE the applicant PERSON told the same gendarmes that he had already made statements and that he had nothing to add to those statements .

In the meantime the applicants , with the assistance of their lawyer , submitted a detailed letter to the ORG prosecutor and maintained their complaints and requests for further investigative steps to be taken . They informed the prosecutor , in particular , that the questioning of witnesses by gendarmes and police officers , rather than directly by civilian prosecutors , was not satisfactory because such persons could not be expected to be impartial and independent in an investigation into allegations of killings perpetrated by the military .

In their letter the applicants also challenged the testimonies , summarised in the preceding paragraphs , given to gendarmes by villagers DATE and DATE . The applicants informed the prosecutor that the persons who were putting the blame for the attacks on their villages on the ORG were employed by the ORG as village guards , had personal vendettas with the ORG , and , in any event , had not been in the villages at the time of the events . They gave the prosecutor the names of the persons who had witnessed the bombing of their villages first hand , and asked the prosecutor to question those persons .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , a number of soldiers , acting on a request from the ORG prosecutor , visited the applicants’ CARDINAL villages to search for evidence . According to the reports prepared by the soldiers after their visits , “ as DATE have passed since the incident , and a number of clashes between the security forces and ORG members had taken place in the area , the villages were completely destroyed and there was therefore no evidence left to be collected ” .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor sent letters to ORG in GPE ( GPE ) and ORG in ORG , and asked for details of all flights conducted by them on DATE and the names of the crews . When the CARDINAL military authorities failed to reply , the ORG prosecutor sent them reminders on DATE .

The headman PERSON was questioned again , this time by a prosecutor , on DATE . Mr ORG stated that he had not been in the village at the time of the incident but that his fellow villagers had informed him DATE that the ORG had raided the village . He had then requested the authorities to visit the village but they had not been able to do so for reasons of safety . He had also heard about the lawyer who had convinced the applicants to make the allegations . Mr ORG also told the prosecutor that he “ stood by the contents of his previous statements ” .

DATE . On DATE CARDINAL more villagers were questioned by the prosecutor . They told the prosecutor that they had not been in either of the applicants’ CARDINAL villages on DATE of the incident but had been told subsequently that members of the ORG had attacked the villages .

On DATE the applicant PERSON repeated his version of events to a prosecutor , and maintained that the village had been bombed by aircraft . During the bombing his wife and daughter had been killed .

The PERSON prosecutor sent a letter to ORG on DATE , and asked whether the military could take the necessary safety measures if the judicial authorities were to visit the applicants’ CARDINAL villages . On DATE ORG informed the Şırnak prosecutor that the villages were located in an area frequently used by members of the ORG in the past , that it was thus not safe to visit them , and that the gendarmes would not be able to provide security to any judicial authority .

On DATE the commanding officer of ORG in ORG replied to the ORG prosecutor ’s letters , and stated that “ no records had been found to show that any flights concerning national security had been conducted on DATE from the air bases under their command . ”

After having received a second reminder from the ORG prosecutor , the base commander of ORG also replied on DATE and stated that “ no records had been found to show that any flying activity had taken place at their base on DATE . ”

On DATE the ORG prosecutor sent ORG in ORG a list of the deceased and injured villagers , and asked whether any of them had been treated at the hospital DATE .

On DATE the ORG replied to the ORG prosecutor ’s letter , and informed him that there were no records to show that any of the persons named in his letter had been treated at the hospital DATE .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer sent to the ORG a photocopy of a flight log of a number of fighter jets belonging to ORG , and a copy of the letter accompanying the flight log drawn up by ORG of ORG on DATE . In this letter , addressed to the ORG public prosecutor , the Director of ORG stated that the ORG had no information to show that any military or civilian flights had been carried out over the city of Şırnak on DATE . However , CARDINAL flying missions had been carried out on DATE in question by ORG to locations QUANTITY to the west and north - west of Şırnak .

According to the flight log , CARDINAL F-CARDINAL fighter jets with the call - sign “ NORP CARDINAL ” and armed with CARDINAL ORG bombs , had taken off at TIME on DATE . Their time over their target had been TIME and they had landed at TIME CARDINAL F-CARDINAL fighter jets , with the call - sign “ FAC ” and armed with CARDINAL MKCARDINAL bombs , had taken off at TIME DATE , had been over their target at TIME , and had landed at exactly TIME . According to the entry in the flight log , all aircraft had achieved their missions . The flight log does not mention the names of the air bases where the aircraft had taken off and landed and the targets are referred to as “ A ” and “ B ” .

On DATE the applicants sent a letter to the ORG prosecutor . It appears from the ORG letter that at their request the ORG prosecutor had requested ORG to provide information on the flying activity in the region , and that that ORG had sent the prosecutor the above - mentioned flight log in reply to that request .

In their letter addressed to the prosecutor the applicants submitted that the information in the flight log had confirmed the accuracy of the allegations which they had been bringing to the attention of the investigating authorities since DATE , and they reminded the prosecutor that the military authorities had been denying that they had bombed their villages . The applicants asked the prosecutor to identify the crew of the fighter jets which had bombed their villages , as well as their superiors who had given the orders to bomb the villages , and to question them .

No information has been submitted to the ORG by the parties to show that any steps were taken by the prosecutors further to the ORG requests of DATE .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW which was in force at the time of the events , any person who intentionally killed another was liable to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of from CARDINAL to thirty years . According to section CARDINAL , the death penalty could be imposed in cases of , inter alia , multiple murder .

Common Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , ratified by GPE in DATE , governs non - international armed conflicts . The relevant provisions state :

“ In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of CARDINAL of the High Contracting Parties , each ORG to the conflict shall be bound to apply , as a minimum , the following provisions :

( CARDINAL ) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities ... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely ... To this end the following acts are and shall be prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above - mentioned persons :

( a ) violence to life and person , in particular murder of all kinds , mutilation , cruel treatment and torture ;

( c ) NORP outrages upon personal dignity , in particular humiliating and degrading treatment ;

( CARDINAL ) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for . ”

Relevant paragraphs of ORG ( ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders , GPE , CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , ORG . A / CONF.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/Rev.CARDINAL at CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Governments and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials . In developing such rules and regulations , ORG and law enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force and firearms constantly under review .

Where injury or death is caused by the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials , they shall report the incident promptly to their superiors , in accordance with principle CARDINAL .

Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law .

Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles .

Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self - defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury , to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life , to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority , or to prevent his or her escape , and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives . In any event , intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life .


András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was charged with fraud and forging documents . On DATE ORG found him guilty . On appeal , the Borsod - Abaúj - Zemplén County ORG quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first - instance court on DATE .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG acquitted the applicant on DATE . This judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG found the applicant guilty on DATE . On appeal , ORG reversed this judgment and finally acquitted the applicant on DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

NORP In DATE , the applicant applied for a position as an administrative assistant with ORG , the lowest grade in the non - industrial civil service . He passed a written test but was not invited for interview at that stage . In DATE , the applicant was invited for interview , and was informed on DATE that he was being recommended for appointment “ subject to the satisfactory outcome of various pre - appointment enquiries ” . He was informed on DATE that he had been unsuccessful . No reasons were given .

The applicant believed that the decision not to appoint him must have been taken on grounds of his religious beliefs – he is a NORP and a member of an association known as ORG – and not for any legitimate security ground . A number of his relatives are involved in public service in various capacities , and neither he nor any member of his family had ever been involved in any form of criminal activity . He had some unpleasant encounters with the police , but there was no question of proceedings against him . On CARDINAL occasion , the applicant lodged a complaint about his treatment by the police , which was resolved when the applicant was informed that the officers involved would be “ spoken to ” . According to the applicant , a further incident with the police occurred DATE after he was informed that his job application had been unsuccessful : a police officer at a vehicle checkpoint in GPE referred to the unsuccessful job application .

The applicant made an application , through ORG , to ORG , alleging discrimination contrary to LAW GPE ) Act DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) . ORG affirmed that the refusal had been made on security grounds , and claimed that LAW did not therefore apply .

On DATE , the Secretary of State for GPE issued a certificate under section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , certifying that the refusal of employment to the applicant was an act “ done for the purpose of safeguarding national security and of protecting public safety ” .

NORP The applicant attempted to challenge the Secretary of ORG ’s decision to issue the section CARDINAL certificate by way of an application for judicial review in ORG . Leave to apply for judicial review was granted on DATE .

In the affidavits sworn on behalf of the Secretary of ORG , it was stated that , in accordance with the usual procedure , the security questionnaire completed by the applicant had been forwarded to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , which had provided security information relating to the applicant . This information was such that the assessing officer in the ORG ’s security branch had recommended that the applicant was unsuitable for employment in ORG .

After an unsuccessful application for discovery , the application for judicial review was dismissed by Mr Justice PERSON in ORG on DATE . After referring , inter alia , to the judgment of Mr Justice PERSON of DATE in the case of ORG and Others and PERSON and Others ( judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-IV , p. CARDINAL ) , he considered that :

“ the effect of section DATE ( CARDINAL ) as enacted is to remove entirely from the sphere of ORG legislation acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security and protecting public order or safety . ... [ There ] may be occasions when the Secretary of ORG will choose not to invoke his powers under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and the ORG may investigate whether the act complained of was done for all or any of the purposes specified under LAW ( CARDINAL ) . Where a certificate has been validly issued under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , however , I do not believe that the ORG retains any role in the hearing or adjudication of the complaint . ”

By virtue of ORG ( GPE ) Act DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) , it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on grounds of religious belief or political opinion in relation to employment in GPE , inter alia , by dismissing him or subjecting him to any other detriment .

By virtue of section CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended by LAW ( GPE ) Act DATE ) , a complaint of unlawful discrimination may be presented to ORG , which is established by statute to investigate complaints of unlawful discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended ) provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Fair Employment ( GPE ) Acts shall not apply to an act done for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order .

( CARDINAL ) A certificate signed by , or on behalf of the Secretary of ORG and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose mentioned in sub - section ( CARDINAL ) shall be conclusive evidence that it was done for that purpose .

( CARDINAL ) A document purporting to be a document such as is mentioned in sub - section ( CARDINAL ) shall be received in evidence and , unless the contrary is proved , shall be deemed to be such a certificate . ”

LAW ( as amended by LAW ) provides as follows in section CARDINAL :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Subject to sub - section ( CARDINAL ) below it shall be unlawful for a Minister of the Crown ... and any authority or body listed ... in ... Schedule CARDINAL to LAW ( GPE ) DATE ... to discriminate , or aid , induce or incite another to discriminate , in the discharge of functions relating to GPE against any person or class of persons on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion . ...

( CARDINAL ) This section does not apply to any act or omission which is unlawful by virtue of ORG ( GPE ) Act DATE or would be unlawful but for some exception made by virtue of Part V of that Act . ”

Schedule CARDINAL to LAW ( GPE ) DATE lists the departments and authorities subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner . The list includes ORG and all Government Departments , including ORG and Personnel . However , section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act falls within Part V of that Act . Accordingly , where a section CARDINAL certificate has been issued ( claiming an act was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order ) , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( as amended ) has no effect .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) decided to place the applicant in pre - trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had stolen CARDINAL ORG cars as a member of an organised criminal gang . The applicant appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed his appeal .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was prolonged on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The court relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the severity of the penalty that might be imposed , making it probable that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings and attempt to put pressure on witnesses .

The applicant appealed against all those decisions and applied to be released from detention , but to no avail .

On DATE and DATE ORG further prolonged the applicant ’s detention on remand , giving identical reasons for its decisions as on previous occasions .

As the length of the applicant ’s detention had reached the statutory time - limit of DATE laid down in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ) ORG made several applications to ORG for the applicant ’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term . On DATE and DATE ORG granted the application . The court justified its decisions with reference to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and the complexity of the case , which concerned an organised criminal gang . The court also held that the measure was justified by the severity of the sentence to which the applicant was liable . On both occasions , however , the court decided to prolong the applicant ’s detention for a period shorter than had been requested by the trial court and instructed it to intensify its efforts to finish the trial , given that the most severe preventive measure had been applied to the applicant for a lengthy period .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , reiterating the grounds given previously .

On DATE ORG decided to release the applicant from detention and to place him under the supervision of the police . The court considered that it could not be excluded that the applicant would be sentenced to a prison term amounting to the period he had already spent in detention on remand . The court also found that police supervision would secure the proper course of the proceedings . On DATE the applicant was released from detention .

In DATE the trial court held CARDINAL hearings . On DATE it gave a judgment . The applicant was convicted of membership of an organised criminal gang involved in stealing cars and of having stolen CARDINAL LOC . He was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case .

The proceedings are still pending before the trial court .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre - trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

The applicant lives in a rented flat in a house in ORG .

NORP In DATE a certain PERSON converted an attic above the applicant 's flat into a flat and , without the required permit , moved in . She failed to carry out the necessary soundproofing work and , as a result , the applicant could be heard from her flat and is disturbed by noise coming from the flat above her .

NORP In DATE the applicant instituted administrative proceedings . She sought a demolition order in relation to the unauthorised flat .

On DATE the mayor of ORG gave a decision ordering the compulsory demolition “ of the constituent elements of the flat ” and imposing on the co - owners of the building an obligation to restore the attic to its former condition ( przywrócenie stanu poprzedniego ) .

On an unspecified date the co - owners of the building and PERSON appealed against that decision .

On DATE the ORG ( ORG ) quashed part of the challenged decision in so far as it imposed obligations on the co - owners of the building and upheld the remainder of the decision .

On an unspecified date PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG . She requested that both decisions be declared null and void .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) gave judgment and , for procedural reasons , quashed part of the challenged decision in so far as it had set aside the first - instance decision . The court dismissed the remainder of the complaint , with the result that the coowners of the house became obliged to carry out the demolition and to restore the attic to its previous condition .

The obligations arising from the final judgment of ORG were not performed by the co - owners .

NORP In DATE the administrative enforcement authority , namely the ORG ( Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego ) , sent a reminder to the co - owners to perform their obligations imposed by the final and enforceable decision of the ORG . The reminder remained ineffective .

In DATE another reminder , also ineffective , was sent to the debtors .

On DATE the ORG imposed a fine on the co - owners for non - performance of their obligations ( grzywna w celu przymuszenia ) . The fine was subsequently enforced but , as the co - owners had appealed against the decision imposing the fine and ORG quashed it , the amount paid had to be returned to the debtors .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer complained of the inactivity of the administrative authorities to ORG . He relied on the newly amended section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( ustawa o postępowaniu egzekucyjnym w administracji ) , which allowed creditors to lodge complaints about the excessive length of administrative enforcement proceedings . It appears that the applicant 's lawyer 's complaint remained ineffective .

On DATE , relying on the same ground as previously , the applicant 's lawyer again complained about the excessive length of the administrative enforcement proceedings to ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint , finding that the enforcement proceedings had been carried out properly and without undue delay . ORG mentioned ORG judgment , according to which the “ necessity of enforcing the demolition order can not lead to the carrying out of unlawful activities ” .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer lodged a further complaint about the excessive length of the administrative enforcement proceedings with ORG .

NORP This complaint was not examined within the statutory time - limit . Therefore , on DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal with the Chief Inspector of ORG , complaining that the administrative case had not been examined within the prescribed time - limit .

On DATE the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision ordered ORG to examine the complaint .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision upheld the decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG .

Following the reform of the administrative courts in GPE , the complaint was transferred to ORG ( ORG PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG gave judgment and dismissed the complaint . The court found that the decisions of the administrative authorities at first and second instance dismissing the applicant 's complaint about the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings had been given in accordance with the relevant provisions . It further found that the administrative authorities had conducted the proceedings “ without undue delay ” and that the enforcement could not be performed because PERSON still lived in the flat in question and had refused to leave it . Therefore , the persons responsible for enforcement of the final decision had to institute civil proceedings for termination of the lease agreement with PERSON and the proceedings were still pending , which constituted an objective obstacle to enforcement .

NORP Irrespective of the official complaints about the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings lodged in accordance with ORG , the applicant sent reminders and letters to the administrative authorities , urging them to act ( letters of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) . These letters , however , remained unanswered .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( ustawa o postępowaniu egzekucyjnym w administracji ) provides , in its relevant part , that a complaint about the excessive length of enforcement proceedings may also be lodged by a creditor who is not the administrative authority responsible for conducting the enforcement proceedings .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ( Prawo budowlane ) , as applicable at the material time , provided , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The relevant authority shall order that a building or part of a building be demolished if it is under construction or has been constructed without an appropriate permit or notification thereof , or contrary to the building permit ... ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Stanislav Shevchuk;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against ORG , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by the failure of the defendant to provide the applicant with an apartment , to which he had been entitled according to an agreement between them .

On DATE the court partly found for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias in compensation .

That judgment became final and on DATE ORG instituted enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated in accordance with the DATE Law of GPE “ On Measures to Ensure the Stable Operation of Fuel and ORG ” .

The judgment in the applicant ’s favour remains unenforced .

The PERSON of DATE “ On Measures to Ensure the Stable Operation of Fuel and ORG ” ( ORG заходи , спрямовані на забезпечення сталого функціонування підприємств паливно-енергетичного комплексу ” від CARDINAL червня DATE року ) introduced a new mechanism for payment and amortisation of ORG debts for energy resources . It also introduced a special register of companies involved in debt payment and amortisation under its provisions . A company ’s presence on that register suspends any enforcement proceedings against it ; domestic courts shall also dismiss any request to initiate insolvency or liquidation proceedings against the company . By the most recent amendments to the PERSON , the effect of the debt payment and amortisation program was extended until DATE .

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


CASE OF VLADIMIROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

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

The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . Her husband , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , and her mother , PERSON , born in DATE , are the second and third applicants . All applicants are NORP nationals and live in GPE .

In DATE the applicants purchased from the ORG a CARDINAL - room apartment of QUANTITY in the centre of GPE . Until then , the applicants’ family and CARDINAL other families had been sharing the apartment as tenants . The apartment had become ORG property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in GPE in DATE and the following DATE . The apartment was on the third floor of a QUANTITY building constructed in DATE .

After the adoption of LAW in DATE , the former pre - nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section CARDINAL of that law against the applicants .

By judgment of DATE ORG found that the DATE transaction was null and void on several grounds , including abuse of office , since at the relevant time the second applicant ’s father had been an employee of the municipal real estate service . The applicants appealed .

By judgment of DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment while it modified its reasoning . The court found that the allegation about abuse had remained unproven , the very fact that a relative of the applicants had worked in the municipal real estate service being insufficient .

The court found , however , that a relevant document concerning the DATE transaction had been signed by the deputy to the official in whom the relevant power had been vested . The court considered that as a result the applicants’ title was null and void . The applicants were ordered to vacate the apartment .

The judgment of ORG was recorded in the court ’s register on DATE . From that moment it became possible for the parties to learn about that judgment , if they visited the ORG registry .

The applicants , who had been waiting for ORG judgment since DATE , the date of the last hearing , checked the register on an unspecified date between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On DATE they submitted a petition for review ( cassation ) against ORG judgment .

By decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ORG decided that the cassation appeal had been submitted outside the relevant DATE time limit , which had expired on DATE and refused to renew that time limit . ORG agreed with the applicants that ORG had delivered its judgment DATE after the last hearing in the case and that the applicants had never been informed that the judgment had been ready and recorded . It found , however , that according to the relevant law the twomonth period for the submission of a petition for review ( cassation ) ran from the date on which the impugned judgment had been made available in the court ’s register .

On unspecified dates DATE , it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the ORG , in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers . The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity .

The applicants were evicted in DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicants were granted the tenancy of a CARDINAL - room municipal apartment , which they rented at low regulated price . In order to obtain this tenancy , the applicants were required to declare their financial situation .

In DATE the municipality sold that apartment to the applicants for a regulated price below market value – CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) , the equivalent of QUANTITY . The applicants paid , in addition , the equivalent of QUANTITY in fees .

In DATE the applicants issued proceedings for damages against the ORG under ORG , arguing that the ORG administration had been responsible for the omission that had led to the nullification of their title . In accordance with their practice in similar cases , the courts rejected those claims . The final judgment was delivered by ORG on DATE .

The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , and CARDINAL , DATE .