CASE OF UNABHANGIGE INITIATIVE INFORMATIONSVIELFALT v. AUSTRIA

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is a registered association ( ORG ) in GPE and the publisher of a periodical called ORG . In the DATE issue of ORG , the following leaflet was published :

“ PERSON , a ( new ) wall - newspaper against the trend towards the right wing ... ”

“ Racism has a name and address

The ORG [ ORG ] and its party officials are certainly interested in your opinion ! So , let 's call them and tell them what we think of them and their policy . Or let 's send them small gifts in response to their racist agitation .

We have gathered a small selection of GPE ORG officials , ORG offices and of course PERSON in order to facilitate a little the unbureaucratic exchange of opinions .

They will surely enjoy your phone calls , letters and parcels : ... ”

The above text was followed by a list of addresses and telephone numbers of members and offices of ORG ( ORG ) .

DATE and DATE an opinion poll ( Volksbegehren ) under the heading “ GPE first ” ( “ PERSON zuerst ” ) took place which had been initiated by the ORG DATE . The opinion poll , on the issue of immigration , consisted of CARDINAL proposals , partly to amend legislation and partly to change administrative practices . It proposed , inter alia , the following :

– to amend LAW by a provision stating that GPE was not a country of immigration ;

– to stop immigration until a satisfactory solution to illegal immigration was found ;

– to oblige all foreign workers to carry an identity card at their place of work , showing that they had a valid work permit ;

– to increase the police force and create a separate border police ;

– to limit the percentage of pupils whose mother tongue was not NORP to PERCENT and , if the percentage were higher , to create separate classes for foreigners ;

– to deny foreigners the right to vote ; and

– to require the immediate expulsion of and residence prohibition on foreign offenders .

On DATE Mr PERSON , leader of the ORG and at that time a member of ORG , brought civil proceedings for an injunction under LAW bürgerliches PERSON ) against the applicant before ORG ( ORG ) . He requested that the applicant be prohibited from repeating the statement according to which he had incited people to “ racist agitation ” ( “ rassistische PERSON ” ) and any similar statements . He further requested that the applicant be prohibited from inviting people to “ send small gifts in response to their racist agitation ” , together with the publication of the names , telephone numbers and addresses of members of the plaintiff 's political party .

NORP The applicant submitted that it had never identified itself with the leaflet at issue and had merely published it out of journalistic interest and in order to inform the public . Moreover , the words “ racist agitation ” were not a statement of fact but a value judgment , and were meant as a critical comment of the opinion poll “ GPE first ” which the plaintiff had initiated and which was directed against “ immigration without control ” .

On DATE ORG granted the injunction . It found that the impugned statement about “ racist agitation ” was not a value judgment , but a statement of fact . Such a statement contained a reproach of a criminal offence , namely “ incitement to hatred ” ( LOC ) under LAW ) , and not only damaged the plaintiff 's reputation ( GPE ) but also amounted to an insult ( PERSON ) . In order to avoid the injunction , the applicant therefore needed to prove the truth of its statement . However , it had failed to do so . Even accepting that the plaintiff was , more or less , a right - wing politician , there was no evidence that he had attempted to incite hatred ( verhetzen ) against aliens or had attacked their human dignity .

As regards the invitation to “ send small gifts ” , the court observed that a part of the applicant 's readership was , for political reasons , prepared to use violence and anarchistic methods . In this respect the court noted that in the DATE issue of ORG a letter to the editor had been published which read as follows :

“ ... we organised in TIME to DATE our first action against PERSON 's referendum and have smashed several windows of the ORG headquarters in GPE . This was only the beginning . ... ”

According to another letter to the editor published in the DATE issue of ORG , an ORG party office in GPE had been “ visited ” , the words “ racism stinks ” had been sprayed on the walls , windows smashed and butter acid thrown into the office . ORG then quoted further letters of this kind which had appeared in various issues of ORG . The court found that against this background the invitation to “ send small gifts ” constituted an attack on the plaintiff 's personality rights ( Persönlichkeitsrechte ) which had to be respected . Accordingly , the court granted the injunction in this respect also .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the injunction .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) dismissed the appeal . It confirmed ORG view that the statement according to which the plaintiff had incited people to “ racist agitation ” was a statement of fact which the applicant had failed to prove . In this respect the court found as follows :

“ But since DATE as we have already outlined in dealing with the complaint concerning the facts – the meaning of the term ' racist agitation ' could be established on the basis of general experience , and since the defendant has failed to submit any concrete allegations to the effect that the plaintiff had shown conduct corresponding to what is generally known as ' racism ' and ' agitation ' , the court of first instance – without there being a mistake of law – rightly concluded that the defendant was unable to prove the truth of its allegations . ... ”

As regards the applicant 's argument that this statement was covered by its right to freedom of expression , ORG found that the interests of the applicant and the plaintiff had to be balanced against each other . However , the applicant 's statement could not be justified by referring to freedom of expression , because the statement went beyond the limits of acceptable criticism by reproaching the plaintiff with a criminal offence . Moreover , the impugned statement was untrue and therefore not protected by LAW . ORG confirmed the decision of ORG in respect of both statements .

On DATE the applicant introduced an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( außerordentliche Revision ) against ORG decision in so far as it concerned the prohibition to repeat the statement that the plaintiff had incited people to “ racist agitation ” .

On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) declared the extraordinary appeal inadmissible as it found that the qualification of the statement at issue as a statement of fact was in accordance with its previous case - law .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( NORP bürgerliches PERSON ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone who has suffered material damage or loss of profit because of an insult may claim compensation .

NORP The same applies if anyone disseminates statements of fact which jeopardise another person 's credit , gain or livelihood and if the untruth of the statement was known or must have been known to him . In such a case the retraction of the statement and the publication thereof may also be requested ... ”


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

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

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

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

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


No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c as regards deferral of access to lawyer;No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c as regards police interviews;Violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1 as regards presence of police officer during interviews;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was arrested in TIME of CARDINAL DATE under LAW DATE in GPE by police officers of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) investigating the murder of a former member of ORG . The applicant was transported to the special holding centre for terrorist investigations at GPE , GPE .

The applicant was interviewed for TIME on consecutive DATE by ORG police officers , beginning at TIME on DATE until DATE .

At the time when the applicant was arrested ( TIME on CARDINAL DATE ) , there was an initial decision made to defer the applicant ’s access to a solicitor by PERSON , the police officer in charge of the investigation . He communicated this decision to GPE police station by telephone and confirmed this in writing when he arrived in GPE . The applicant had by this time arrived in GPE and had requested a solicitor . At a review at TIME on DATE , the applicant was informed that his right to see a solicitor had been delayed for TIME . The deferral was therefore effective until TIME of CARDINAL DATE . His solicitor , PERSON , was informed of the deferral but did not attend until TIME on DATE . There was a period of time from TIME on DATE when the applicant was not being denied access to his solicitor . He made relevant admissions that TIME .

The applicant did not see his solicitor until DATE , namely DATE . The applicant ’s first interview with his solicitor lasted TIME until TIME and the applicant made no complaint of ill - treatment during that visit . The applicant saw his solicitor again at TIME on DATE and again no complaint of ill - treatment was made in that interview , which lasted until TIME During the first interview with his solicitor , a policeman was present . The consultation took place within sight and hearing of the police officer who was in close proximity to the applicant and his solicitor . At the beginning of the interview , the police inspector told the solicitor in the presence of the applicant that no names were to be discussed or information conveyed which could assist other suspects and that the interview should be purely on legal advice .

NORP The applicant was seen by doctors on a total of CARDINAL occasions during his stay in GPE , beginning with an examination following his arrival in GPE in TIME of CARDINAL DATE . He made no complaint of ill - treatment to any of the doctors who examined him . The doctors found no evidence to indicate any ill - treatment or mental handicap .

The police alleged that the applicant admitted his involvement in the murder during an interview in TIME of CARDINAL DATE . They further stated that in a later interview the applicant signed a statement to this effect and that thereafter he freely and voluntarily admitted additional terrorist activity and signed further statements .

The applicant alleged that he had not volunteered the statements freely but , instead , that all the verbal and written statements had been extracted by ill - treatment , threats of ill - treatment , threats to his family and other oppressive conduct . The allegations of ill - treatment were denied by the ORG .

All of the verbal and written statements made by the applicant had been obtained by the police officers after the administration by them of cautions pursuant to LAW Order DATE , in the following terms :

“ You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court , your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you . If you do wish to say anything , what you say may be given in evidence . ”

The applicant ’s solicitor was never permitted to be present at any of the applicant ’s interviews , nor was any independent person ; nor were the interviews recorded on video or audiotape .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was transferred from GPE to PERSON station , where he was charged .

On DATE the applicant was tried by a single judge , PERSON , sitting without a jury , for a total of CARDINAL serious offences including , inter alia , murder , attempted murder , possession of firearms and ammunition with intent , possession of explosives with intent , false imprisonment , hijacking a motor vehicle , and membership of a proscribed organisation , namely ORG ( the “ IRA ” ) . He was found guilty on all counts .

The disputed verbal and written statements by the applicant constituted the only evidence connecting the applicant to the charges brought . The admissibility of the statements was challenged by the applicant on the basis that they had been obtained by torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or , alternatively , should be excluded in exercise of the judge ’s discretion . A voir dire ( submission on a point of law in the absence of the jury ) commenced and the applicant gave evidence over DATE which consisted of a highly detailed account of ill - treatment which he alleged he had experienced from the police . The officers denied ill - treating the applicant .

The events in the interviews had been filmed by television camera and the pictures relayed to a monitor screen in a special room at GPE police station . At all times , an officer of the rank of inspector was on duty for the purpose of viewing the monitor screens . A number of officers gave evidence and all of them told the court that they had seen no evidence of impropriety of any kind occurring during the interviews with the applicant . Indeed , none of them had ever witnessed an example of bad behaviour by an interviewing officer .

The doctors , who examined the applicant a number of times in GPE , gave evidence that the applicant had been cooperative and composed , that there were no signs of recent injuries and that the applicant did not complain of ill - treatment . Treatment had been given to the applicant in respect of his history of duodenal ulceration .

The applicant ’s account of the interrogation was rejected by the trial judge , who said :

“ Having heard the officers concerned who impressed me as being honest and conscientious officers , I am absolutely convinced that all of [ the applicant ’s ] allegations of ill - treatment at this stage are completely unfounded ...

In my view if there had been any truth in the account of ill - treatment given by [ the applicant ] his distress would have been obvious to the doctors ... None of the medical evidence therefore gave any credence to the account given by [ the applicant ] in the witness box and all of that evidence is consistent with his being treated with absolute propriety ...

... I am satisfied ... that in no respect was [ the applicant ] subjected to any treatment which could be described as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment , violence or oppression in order to induce a confession from him . I am satisfied that he was not threatened in any way . ”

At the trial , there was unchallenged independent medical evidence to the effect that :

NORP The applicant had a full - scale intelligence quotient of CARDINAL .

NORP The applicant was on the borderline of mental retardation .

NORP The applicant had a reading ability equivalent to that of an average CARDINAL-year - old child .

His suggestibility was average but he had a high level of compliance .

Evidence was given later in the trial by a psychologist that

“ [ the applicant ] is a psychologically vulnerable man and in my view would have required appropriate support in the context of police interviews . [ The applicant ’s ] psychological vulnerabilities taken together with the lack of support from either the PERSON or an appropriate adult during the police interviews and the prolonged and intensive nature of the interviews would in my opinion be of relevance to the reliability of his admissions ” .

In convicting the applicant , the judge rejected this evidence , finding that the applicant had not needed any form of independent support during the interviews and the police had been entitled to treat him as an ordinary member of society . He noted that the applicant ’s earliest admissions did not follow particularly prolonged or intensive questioning and that during those interviews he persisted with a consistent story told with an air of conviction . He also noted that no one thought to have the applicant ’s mental capacity investigated prior to the commencement of the trial . The trial judge stated :

“ ... I am satisfied that [ the applicant ] was not suffering from such a degree of mental handicap that would have required the police to exercise any special consideration for him and that his memory , understanding and intellect were quite adequate to enable him to resist making any false confession under questioning in GPE and that the questioning was , therefore , not in any respect unfair to him .

If he was an easier subject than others or more manageable I do not consider that that would be a matter which throws any doubt on the admissibility of any statements of confessions made by him ” .

The police questioning which led to his confessions was therefore not unfair and the judge had no doubt about the reliability of the admissions made by the applicant .

In relation to the question of access to a solicitor , the judge observed that the deferral of TIME was effective until TIME of CARDINAL DATE . However , the applicant ’s solicitor did not arrive until TIME on DATE . The trial judge noted that there had been a suggestion that the solicitor may have been unintentionally misled as to the length of time of the deferral but found , having heard the solicitor and police officers concerned , that he was satisfied that the solicitor was accurately informed that the deferral was for TIME . He further noted that it might well have been convenient for the solicitor to delay his visit to GPE until DATE because a number of other prisoners had had access deferred until then . In any event , it was not the deferral which prevented the applicant from seeing his solicitor after DATE in the TIME of DATE but the fact that his solicitor did not arrive until DATE . Incriminating admissions were made by the applicant at a time when he was no longer being denied access to a solicitor . The judge concluded that there was nothing improper in the decision to deny access for TIME , having regard to the police fears that messages might be passed through the solicitor with a view to alerting others implicated in offences .

The trial judge stated , inter alia :

“ Having considered the extent of the strength of character of the accused , his intellectual shortcomings and his nature I am quite satisfied that he was not a person for whom the regime of questioning in GPE would of itself be oppressive ...

I am further satisfied that nothing was said or done during his questioning the effect of which upon him would justify the exercise of a discretion to exclude the statement ...

I am satisfied that ... his admissions were made freely , and accept the police evidence that what triggered the making of admissions by this accused was the fact that the police were able to demonstrate to him that they had information available to them which discredited the alibi that he had given them ...

In my view the particular circumstances of this case provided ample grounds for the belief that other persons could be alerted if a solicitor had seen this accused within TIME . In any case [ the applicant ] made no admission during TIME for which the solicitor had been deferred .

I am satisfied that the deferral was right and proper in this case and that in any case it was not the deferral that resulted in the accused not seeing his solicitor during the early part of DATE . ”

The judge further considered the applicant ’s complaints that a police officer had been present during the first legal consultation with his solicitor and whether this had prevented him getting the full benefit of his solicitor ’s advice . Evidence had been heard from the police inspector concerned who had stated that the purpose of sitting in to observe the interview was primarily to prevent information from being passed from the prisoner to the solicitor which might assist others suspected of involvement in the offence who had not yet been arrested . Under cross - examination , he stated that he had not been told of any codes that might be used and that it would be hard to identify such a code if it was used . The judge found , on the evidence of the applicant , his solicitor and the police officer , that the solicitor had not been in the least inhibited by the presence of the police officers and , according to the applicant , had been quite prepared to raise the crucial evidential issues with him . He was satisfied that an objective state of affairs existed justifying both the initial deferral of access and the supervision of the interview , namely , CARDINAL other suspects were still at large whom the police wished to interview .

The judge concluded that he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the confessions were made freely and voluntarily . There was no ground for exercising his discretion to exclude any of the oral or written statements made by the applicant . The judge was accordingly satisfied that the applicant knew that he was playing a part in a murder plot and was therefore , inter alia , guilty of murder .

The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence to ORG of GPE . ORG noted that the inspector had authorised the postponement of access to a solicitor before the applicant had made a request for a solicitor , which was in technical breach of the statutory provision . ORG noted that there was no express sanction for breach of that provision . However , there was nothing unfair to the applicant as the deferral ran from the time of the arrest whenever the authorisation was given . ORG was satisfied that substantial reasons existed for the police to postpone access to a solicitor in this particular case pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) and ( e ) of GPE ( Emergency LAW DATE . In a judgment of DATE , the court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal stating , inter alia :

“ We have no doubt that the learned trial judge was at all times aware of the need to bear the psychological evidence very much in mind when forming his conclusions both at the direction stage and when finally deciding if the ORG had established [ the applicant ’s ] guilt beyond reasonable doubt ...

We are entirely satisfied that the learned trial judge was entitled to refuse the application for a direction [ regarding inadmissibility ] and to rule the various statements to be admissible ... Equally our perusal of the evidence does not suggest that the learned judge should , in the exercise of his discretion have excluded the statements , or any of them , from evidence ...

This is an appeal in which the evidence was lengthy and detailed . We have carefully considered all the evidence and [ the applicant ’s counsel ’s ] closely reasoned submission . We have finally stood back from all the detail and looked at the case ‘ in the round’ as [ the applicant ’s counsel ] invited us to do . We are satisfied that [ the applicant ’s ] guilt was fully established by his admission and that his convictions are neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s petition seeking leave to appeal to ORG was dismissed .

Section CARDINAL of GPE ( Emergency Provisions ) Act DATE provides in its relevant parts :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In any criminal proceedings for a scheduled offence , ... a statement made by the accused may be given in evidence by the prosecution in so far as :

( a ) It is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and

( b ) It is not excluded by the court in pursuance of subsection ( CARDINAL ) below or in the exercise of discretion referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) below ...

( CARDINAL ) Where in any such proceedings :

( a ) NORP the prosecution proposes to give , or has given ... in evidence a statement made by the accused , and

( b ) prima facie evidence is adduced that the accused was subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment , or to any violence or threat of violence ... in order to induce him to make the statement

then , unless the prosecution satisfies the court that the statement was not obtained by so subjecting the accused , ... the court shall do CARDINAL of the following things , namely :

( i ) ... exclude the statement ;

( ii ) ... continue the trial disregarding the statement ; or

( iii ) in either case direct that the trial shall be restarted before a differently constituted court ( before which the statement in question shall be inadmissible ) .

( CARDINAL ) ... in the case of any statement made by the accused and not obtained by subjecting him as mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL)(b ) above , the court ... has a discretion to do CARDINAL of the things mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) to ( iii ) above if it appears to the court that it is appropriate to do so in order to avoid unfairness to the accused or otherwise in the interests of justice ... ”

The Criminal Evidence ( GPE ) Order DATE includes the following provisions :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person shall not be committed for trial , have a case to answer or be convicted of an offence solely on an inference drawn from such a failure or refusal as is mentioned in LAW ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL ( CARDINAL )

( CARDINAL ) Nothing in this Order prejudices any power of a court , in any proceedings , to exclude evidence ( whether by preventing questions from being put or otherwise ) at its discretion . ”

“ Circumstances in which inferences may be drawn from the accused ’s failure to mention particular facts when questioned , charged , ...

( CARDINAL ) Where , in any proceedings against a person for an offence , evidence is given that the accused

( a ) at any time before he was charged with the offence , on being questioned by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed , failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings ; or

( b ) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it , failed to mention any such fact , being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned , charged or informed , as the case may be , paragraph ( CARDINAL ) applies .

( CARDINAL ) Where this paragraph applies

( a ) the court , in determining whether to commit the accused for trial or whether there is a case to answer ,

( c ) the court or jury , in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged ,

may

( i ) draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper ;

( ii ) on the basis of such inferences treat the failure as , or as capable of amounting to , corroboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the failure is material .

( CARDINAL ) Subject to any directions by the court , evidence tending to establish the failure may be given before or after evidence tending to establish the fact which the accused is alleged to have failed to mention ... ”

Section CARDINAL of GPE ( Emergency LAW Act DATE ( formerly section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) deals with the right of access to legal advice and provides in its relevant parts :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person who is detained under the terrorism provisions and is being held in police custody shall be entitled , if he so requests , to consult a solicitor privately .

( CARDINAL ) A person shall be informed of the right conferred on him by subsection ( CARDINAL ) as soon as practicable after he has become a person to whom the subsection applies .

( CARDINAL ) A request made by a person under subsection ( CARDINAL ) , and the time at which it is made , shall be recorded in writing unless it is made by him while at a court and being charged with an offence .

( CARDINAL ) If a person makes such a request , he must be permitted to consult a solicitor as soon as practicable except to the extent that any delay is permitted by this section ...

( CARDINAL) An officer may only authorise a delay in complying with a request under subsection ( CARDINAL ) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that the exercise of the right conferred by that subsection at the time when the detained person desires to exercise it –

( b ) will lead to the alerting of any person suspected of having committed such an offence but not yet arrested for it ; or

( d ) will lead to interference with the gathering of information about the commission , preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism ; or

( e ) by alerting any person , will make it more difficult -

i. to prevent an act of terrorism , or

ii . to secure the apprehension , prosecution or conviction of any person in connection with the commission , preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism ... ”

The delay must be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent and the detained person must be told the reason for the delay . The maximum delay is TIME . The officer may also give a direction that a person may only exercise his right to see a solicitor in the presence of a uniformed police officer , where he has reasonable grounds for believing that otherwise the consequences specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) might arise ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

It was the practice of the police in GPE at the relevant time to refuse to permit the questioning of interviewees at GPE holding centre to be :

NORP witnessed by the interviewee ’s lawyer ;

NORP independently witnessed and verified by any independent person ; or

NORP to be recorded and verified by video- or audio - recording .

The relevant parts of LAW provide :

“ CARDINAL . Every person accused of a criminal offence ... is entitled , with full equality , to the following minimum guarantees :

( d ) the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing , and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel . ”

Article CARDINAL provides :

“ An untried prisoner shall be entitled , as soon as he is imprisoned , to choose his legal representative , or shall be allowed to apply for free legal aid where such aid is available , and to receive visits from his legal adviser with a view to his defence and to prepare and hand to him , and to receive , confidential instructions . At his request he shall be given all necessary facilities for this purpose . In particular , he shall be given the free assistance of an interpreter for all essential contacts with the administration and for his defence . Interviews between the prisoner and his legal adviser may be within sight but not within hearing , either direct or indirect , of a police or institution official . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( c ) of this Agreement , currently ratified by CARDINAL Contracting States provides in its relevant parts :

“ CARDINAL . As regards persons under detention , the exercise of this right shall in particular imply that :

( c ) such persons shall have the right to correspond , and consult out of hearing of other persons , with a lawyer qualified to appear before the courts of the country where they are detained in regard to an application to the ORG , or any proceedings resulting therefrom . ”


No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Procedural aspect)

Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

In connection with an ongoing investigation against activist members of the illegal armed organisation ORG ( the “ NORP Left ” ) , on CARDINAL DATE police officers from the Anti - Terrorism Branch of ORG conducted an operation in CARDINAL buildings located in different areas of GPE . The applicants’ daughter , PERSON , was killed during this operation . According to the police reports , police officers arrived at the building located in ORG at TIME PERSON GPE was living on the third floor of this building . The police officers , wearing bulletproof vests , took the necessary safety measures outside the building . CARDINAL of the officers went upstairs to flat no . CARDINAL and rang the bell . There was no answer , and the officers forced the door open . Shots were fired from CARDINAL of the rooms . Despite the ORG call to surrender , the firing continued and a clash broke out , lasting TIME . When the firing ceased , the police found the dead bodies of CARDINAL women ; CARDINAL in the bathroom and another in the living room , the latter being later identified as PERSON GPE . It was observed that there was a Beretta gun next to PERSON GPE ’s body . As the police also found explosives in the flat , a bomb disposal team was called to the scene and the flat was evacuated . Once the apartment was secured , the ORG public prosecutor was informed about the incident . The prosecutor arrived at the scene of the incident at TIME and prepared a scene of incident report in which he noted that photographs of the bodies had been taken ; that a sketch map of the flat had been drawn and that fingerprints of the bodies had been taken . The report further indicated that a semi - automatic NORP Beretta CARDINAL.CARDINAL PERSON pistol , its magazine and cartridges , QUANTITY , CARDINAL cartridges of QUANTITY , CARDINAL bullet cases of PERSON , CARDINAL bullet cases of CARDINAL mm , CARDINAL bullet cases of PERSON , several hand made bombs and material to manufacture explosive devices had been found . The prosecutor further examined the bodies in the presence of a medical expert . The preliminary examination of the bodies revealed that there were several bullet entry and exit holes on both corpses . The bodies were subsequently taken to ORG for autopsy . Following the inspection of the flat by the public prosecutor , the premises were sealed by the police .

On DATE ballistic examinations of the Beretta pistol , the bullet cases and cartridges collected from the incident scene were conducted by CARDINAL experts from ORG . According to their report , the CARDINAL PERSON bullet cases had been fired by the Beretta pistol found at the scene of the incident . The report further concluded that the CARDINAL bullet cases of QUANTITY and the CARDINAL bullet cases of PERSON , which had been sent for examination , had been fired from the guns of the police officers .

On DATE a criminal complaint was filed against Mr PERSON , the Head of ORG at the time , and the police officers who had been involved in the CARDINAL operations conducted on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the first applicant applied to the Kadıköy public prosecutor and requested that the flat which had been sealed after the incident be returned to her . On DATE the public prosecutor sent a letter to ORG requesting that the keys of the flat be returned to the applicants .

On DATE CARDINAL experts from ORG conducted an examination of PERSON GPE ’s clothes and prepared a report which held that , if short - barrelled firearms had been used during the incident , PERSON GPE had been shot at from a distance of QUANTITY . However , if PERSON GPE had been shot at with long - barrelled firearms , then the distance would have been QUANTITY . The experts further explained that it was impossible to determine the exact range of the shootings in view of the information at their disposal .

On DATE ORG delivered the autopsy report on the applicants’ daughter . The report described CARDINAL bullet wounds on the body , CARDINAL of which had been fatal . It was also established that the body had not been shot at from point - blank range . The report concluded that the cause of death was internal bleeding due to bullet wounds .

NORP In the course of the investigation , the public prosecutor took statements from the police officers who had taken part in the operation on CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL neighbours of PERSON GPE and from the first applicant .

On DATE the Kadıköy public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG against QUANTITY police officers for having killed PERSON . The charges were brought under Articles DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The applicants intervened in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , finding that there were no grounds for imposing any punishment on the defendants , acquitted the police officers . The court held that the officers had acted within the scope of their duties and had remained within the limits of legitimate self - defence , in accordance with section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on the duties and powers of the police .

On DATE ORG denied the applicants leave to appeal .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time and international law can be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 2 (lack of independence of the investigating body during the initial stages of the investigation);Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , GPE , was the father of PERSON and PERSON . The second applicant PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in TIME , was the son of PERSON .

On TIME CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant was hosting a family get - together at his home in GPE . At TIME masked gunmen forced their way into the house . PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were shot and killed . The first applicant was hit by CARDINAL bullets but survived . TIME were fired during the incident . No organisation claimed responsibility for their deaths . TIME an attack was launched on the home of another NORP family in GPE , in which PERSON and PERSON were killed and PERSON was injured .

The CARDINAL men were believed to have made their getaway in a Morris CARDINAL car , CARDINAL , stolen earlier from FAC , GPE .

The emergency services – police and ambulance DATE arrived within a short time . Detectives and ORG commenced investigations . Post - mortems were held . ORG to house inquiries were conducted in the area and along the suspected getaway route with negative results . CARDINAL spent bullet cases were recovered at the scene and the weapon used was identified as one used in CARDINAL other attacks . Numerous witnesses were interviewed , including members of the family who were interviewed at length . PERSON stated that he had observed CARDINAL men standing beside a red car , possibly a “ CARDINAL ” , close to the house , both men were masked and had “ walkie talkie ” radios . PERSON stated that he had observed a blue coloured “ Viva ” car near the house TIME .

DATE before the attack , PERSON had seen masked men running up a lane adjacent to the house , in what the applicants believed was a dummy run for the attack . The family also recollected seeing officers of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) and ORG ( “ GPE ” ) in fields near the house DATE before the attack , which was an unusual occurrence .

Police inquiries revealed that a red LAW had been stolen from GPE on DATE ; it was found burnt out on DATE . Inquiries in GPE proved negative . No further information was received on the “ Viva ” car .

CARDINAL men were arrested by the police on DATE and questioned about the murders . They were released on DATE and no charges were preferred .

On DATE , the first applicant stated that CARDINAL man who had entered the house was similar in appearance to a man whom he named . The man was arrested , questioned but eliminated from the inquiry following verification of his alibi .

In DATE , the police questioned the first applicant and asked him to identify a weapon . He identified the weapon as one used in the attack . He was told that it was linked to PERSON , a prominent loyalist paramilitary and to a number of other loyalist attacks .

An Inquest held on DATE returned open verdicts .

After DATE there were no further developments in the ORG murders until DATE when PERSON made allegations of police involvement in a range of loyalist terrorist incidents including the attack on the PERSON .

In the course of an investigation in DATE , the police had arrested a reserve police constable , PERSON , who , in the course of questioning , revealed his part in the abduction of a priest and in a variety of other loyalist paramilitary incidents . PERSON 's revelations gave rise to investigations in CARDINAL specific cases , some of which were linked in terms of the identities of those involved , the modus operandi or by virtue of the ballistics examinations of weapons used . CARDINAL suspects were arrested in total , including QUANTITY police officers and all were eventually charged with offences .

One of those implicated was a police officer PERSON who was named as having been involved in the murder of a shopkeeper called PERSON in PERSON in DATE : he was convicted for that murder in DATE and sentenced to life imprisonment . The ORG stated that both PERSON and PERSON refused to name the CARDINAL loyalist paramilitaries also involved with them in the murder unless they received immunity from prosecution . The police and prosecuting authority took the decision prior to the trial not to enter into any process of bargaining with PERSON and PERSON . While both were approached by the police after their convictions to see if at that stage they would give evidence against the loyalist paramilitaries , each again refused to do so unless there was something in it for themselves . The ORG stated that during the period in which PERSON was detained he was interviewed on a large number of occasions . At no time did he implicate himself or others in any offence other than the PERSON murder .

On DATE , PERSON was released from prison on licence . In DATE , he made a statement to a journalist alleging ORG and ORG ( “ GPE ” ) collusion with loyalist paramilitaries from the GPE area in DATE . This statement was published in the DATE ORG newspaper in DATE . It was obtained by ORG , a human rights non - governmental organisation in GPE ( “ the Centre ” ) .

PERSON statement made detailed allegations about security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in a series of incidents . He alleged inter alia that ORG Constable PERSON had told him that PERSON had carried out the murders in the ORG home and that the attack had been co - ordinated with the attack on the Reavey family TIME in which security force personnel participated directly . The statement also made links between these incidents and other attacks allegedly carried out by members of the security forces , both ORG and GPE , and loyalist paramilitaries . This group used the farmhouse in GPE owned by PERSON , a ORG reservist , as a base from which to carry out attacks on NORP and nationalists . Other attacks allegedly included the murder of PERSON and PERSON and wounding of PERSON in their home on DATE ( see application no . CARDINAL ) ; the murder of PERSON and PERSON at a bogus vehicle checkpoint in DATE ( see application no . CARDINAL ) ; the attack on ORG in which PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were killed ( see application no . ORG ) ; and the attack on FAC in which PERSON was seriously injured ( see application no . CARDINAL ) . PERSON also linked these attacks to the GPE and GPE bombings in which CARDINAL people were killed in GPE .

On or DATE , ORG , an NORP television channel , broadcast a television programme that contained allegations of security force involvement in a number of deaths , including that of PERSON . PERSON made allegations on that programme that members of the ORG and GPE were directly involved in the attack on ORG . A ORG programme produced a similar documentary dealing with these allegations .

These allegations attracted considerable attention on both sides of the NORP border and became the subject of police investigation in both jurisdictions . The Government stated that the police investigation in GPE was focussed on determining whether PERSON 's allegations should be assessed as sufficiently credible to require a full investigation . They obtained from the journalist an edited transcript of the interview with PERSON . While his whereabouts were unknown to the ORG , PERSON met with senior NORP police officers at FAC on DATE . A copy of his statement was provided by the PERSON to the ORG , along with a further statement made by ORG to another journalist dated DATE . The police analysed the available materials and sought to identify the personalities to be interviewed . It became apparent that some had died and that others , living abroad , could not be traced . A series of CARDINAL interviews were conducted , under cautions , DATE , of those individuals central to ORG 's account who could be traced . No charges were preferred . The interviews followed the format of ORG 's allegations being put to the interviewee for his or her response . The predominant response was denial of any involvement and claims that ORG had been untruthful . No admissions were made by any interviewee . Interviews were also conducted with less central personalities and with police officers involved in interviewing PERSON in DATE . The latter stated that PERSON had not mentioned the matters now being alleged .

Meetings were held regularly with ORG counterparts in GPE . The ORG co - operated also with the judicial inquiry established in GPE into the GPE and GPE bombings ( see the description of the inquiry in the case of PERSON referred to above ) . Amongst matters about which the ORG team provided information to the inquiry was ballistics information which linked some of the weapons used to CARDINAL incident . In DATE a substantial report was compiled by the ORG for the GPE dealing with PERSON 's allegations . It profiled PERSON and dealt inter alia with a description of the DATE investigation into ORG and others . It concluded that the investigation would continue but that his credibility was in doubt . According to ORG , despite inquiries being conducted , PERSON 's whereabouts could not be traced . This report was not disclosed as the investigation was continuing . An internal ORG report dated DATE concluded that it would be necessary to interview ORG before any view could be finalised in respect of the credibility of his allegations : such interview was not possible as his whereabouts were not known . The report noted the absence of any previous mention of the allegations before DATE and that much of what he said was hearsay and speculation . Inquiries made of ORG ( where he had a known address ) and the criminal intelligence service and others failed to locate PERSON . Contact was made with the PERSON and the secretariat of the Inquiry into the GPE and GPE bombings without positive result .

ORG ( “ ORG ” ) was established in DATE , with responsibilities including the review of all historical murders by way of case assessment for evidential and investigative opportunities . A preliminary case assessment was carried out by a detective chief inspector , who audited all known information and documentation .

In light of the preliminary assessment , the case was referred to ORG ( HET ) . On DATE , a Senior Investigating Officer reported on the further review ; a number of potential lines of enquiry were identified and recommendations made , including that the ORG should extensively interview PERSON . This recommendation was approved . The ORG director of ORG , Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON ORG , took over personal supervision of the investigation which has progressed through the first CARDINAL of CARDINAL stages of the HET process ( collection of all relevant material ; assessment of the investigations to date ; review of evidence , with intelligence and open and non - police sources together with a meeting with the families of the victims of the attack ) . As a number of investigative opportunities were identified and to be followed up , the case was to continue to be processed by HET , which had been put in touch with PERSON by ORG The Government submitted that if any evidence of police involvement in the murders was found , ORG for GPE would then become involved . The Government have provided recent information that PERSON finally agreed to meet with the ORG in GPE ; he refused , however , to make a written statement or to give evidence in court .

There has been contact between the police and family members , their solicitors or the LOC . In particular , there were meetings in DATE with Detective Chief Inspector PERSON , and a meeting with the Chief Constable in DATE and DATE ; members of ORG met with families or their representatives on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ; and there has also been extensive correspondence with the families or their representatives .

See PERSON , cited above ( § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

See PERSON , cited above ( § § DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed homicide . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) charged the applicant with homicide and uttering threats , and detained him on remand .

On DATE the ORG lodged a bill of indictment with the Bielsko - Biała Regional Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) . The applicant was indicted on the charges of homicide and uttering threats .

NORP The trial began on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the order for the applicant ’s detention and released him . ORG appealed .

ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE . It held that a “ reasonable suspicion ” that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged was no longer justified because PERSON , the witness who had incriminated him in the investigation , had fundamentally changed his original testimony .

DATE and DATE the trial court held CARDINAL hearings . It heard evidence from CARDINAL lay witnesses and CARDINAL expert witness .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG held QUANTITY hearings and heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL experts . It needed to rehear evidence from some witnesses several times .

On DATE the court acquitted the applicant on all charges . On DATE the ORG appealed against the acquittal .

The appeal was heard before ORG on DATE . The court quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case to the ORG , holding that a further investigation should be carried out . In particular , ORG ordered the prosecutor to reconstruct the scene of the crime and to obtain evidence from experts in psychology . It considered that in order to assess the credibility of evidence given by PERSON , the main prosecution witness , it was necessary to diagnose his personality and establish his perception skills .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG asked ORG ( Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych ) in GPE to prepare a comprehensive report on ORG ’s psychological profile . Furthermore , since in the course of the original investigation the prosecution had already obtained CARDINAL , albeit inconsistent , reports from psychologists , the prosecutor also adduced copies of those reports and asked experts from the ORG to resolve contradictions .

The experts set the dates of the examination for DATE and for CARDINAL DATE respectively . However , ORG did not keep his appointment for the examination on either of these dates . Eventually , he appeared before the experts on DATE and was examined by them on DATE . Their report was ready on DATE .

On DATE the ORG lodged a new bill of indictment with the Bielsko - Biała Regional Court . The applicant was again indicted on the charges of homicide and uttering threats .

On DATE the trial court remitted the case to the ORG , holding that the prosecution had not complied with the orders given by ORG on DATE . They had not , among other things , reconstructed the scene of the crime .

On DATE the ORG indicted the applicant on the same charges for the third time .

The retrial started on DATE . The subsequent hearings were held on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE the court cancelled a hearing because the applicant was ill .

On DATE the trial was adjourned since a new judge rapporteur had in the meantime been appointed and needed to study the case - file .

The trial was to be resumed on DATE but it was again postponed . The applicant was absent at that hearing . He was also absent at the hearing listed for CARDINAL DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer informed the court that he had left for GPE in search of odd jobs and that he would be absent for DATE . In fact , the applicant returned after DATE .

Also , at that time , the court found that the witness ORG had left his place of residence without indicating his new address and that his whereabouts were unknown . In the circumstances , the court stayed the proceedings .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , the proceedings were resumed . In DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings . They took place on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .

Further hearings were scheduled for DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .

At the hearing held on DATE the court , at ORG request , ordered that evidence from a DNA identification test of several hairs found on the victim be obtained to determine whether they belonged to the applicant . However , on DATE , experts from ORG of ORG informed the court that it was not possible for them to make any DNA identification of the specimens as they had to be analysed through a chondrosome test , which only ORG or ORG could carry out . On DATE the court asked ORG to make the relevant test and adjourned the trial sine die .

In the meantime , ORG had tried to establish the whereabouts of PERSON , who was a homeless person . It appears that those efforts have so far been unsuccessful .

The proceedings are pending .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , the mother of the first applicant , was born in DATE and died on DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the first applicant , as the only successor of her mother , informed the ORG that he wished to pursue the application .

On DATE the applicants lodged an action with ORG seeking rectification of ORG and , accordingly , registration of their ownership right with regard to a plot of land . Of the CARDINAL one hearings held between DATE and DATE CARDINAL were adjourned at the applicants’ request , including between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and between DATE and DATE , when the proceedings were stayed during criminal investigations against CARDINAL of the defendants . On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicants’ action .

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG appeal and quashed the judgment of ORG , sending the case back for retrial . The court considered that , as the land had been sold during the appeal proceedings , the new owner should be involved in the lawsuit . This ruling was upheld on DATE by a final decision of ORG .

After retrial , on DATE ORG Instance rejected the applicants’ action as groundless . On DATE ORG confirmed this decision .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicants’ appeal , quashed the CARDINAL preceding judgments and referred the case back to ORG for a fresh examination , on the ground that the CARDINAL courts had omitted to rule on CARDINAL complaints and with regard to another defendant .

On DATE ORG re - examined the action and dismissed it . Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE CARDINAL was adjourned at the applicants’ request .

On DATE the ORG appeal was upheld by ORG , which ordered rectification of ORG , declared null and void the subsequent sale contracts and ordered the administrative authorities to restitute the plot of land in kind .

On DATE ORG by a final decision allowed the opposing parties’ appeal and therefore annulled the judgment of DATE considering , inter alia , that the courts can not act as a substitute for the administrative authorities set up by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) to deal with claims for return of land .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving life imprisonment in FAC no . CARDINAL .

In its judgment of DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) outlined the factual background of this case as follows . On DATE the applicant and an acquaintance , PERSON , stopped a taxi and asked the driver , PERSON , to take them to a destination out of town . According to the applicant , they were planning a robbery and carjacking . The applicant had a knife hidden in his sleeve , which he had prepared in advance , and PERSON had a rope with him . Once the car reached a forest , the applicant and PERSON ordered the driver to stop . PERSON put the rope around the driver 's throat while the applicant threatened him with the knife . The applicant got into the driver 's seat and drove further into the forest , where they removed PERSON , unconscious by that time , from the car . Later in DATE the dead body of PERSON was found in the forest with multiple stab wounds .

After the applicant and PERSON had unsuccessfully tried to sell PERSON 's car , it was found and seized by the police on DATE .

The applicant submitted that he had been arrested on DATE . According to the arrest report , he was arrested on DATE on suspicion of the murder of PERSON , which the investigator classified as falling under LAW ( a premeditated murder ) . The applicant was recorded in the arrest report as having stated that he had no complaints or requests . The case file also contains a waiver of legal assistance by the applicant dated DATE .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who found his right wrist to be injured . The applicant explained that he had sustained the injury as a result of a fall during his arrest .

As confirmed in a note by the town hospital , on DATE the applicant was taken there by the police for an examination of the aforementioned injury . An X - ray revealed that he had a closed fracture of a bone in his right wrist , and the wrist was put in plaster .

DATE and DATE the applicant was held in LOC ( “ the police station ” ) , after which he was moved to ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ the GPE ” ) . During that period , in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly after being subjected to beatings and threats , the applicant signed a confession , which was further confirmed in the course of a reconstruction of the events . He confessed that , acting together with PERSON and by their prior conspiracy , he had robbed and murdered PERSON The applicant admitted , in particular , that he had stabbed L. once with a knife . Later on , apparently after moving to another place of detention , the applicant withdrew his confession to murder , stating that it had been given under duress . He continued , however , to admit to the robbery and carjacking throughout the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant wrote a note to the investigator , in which he stated that he had injured his wrist on DATE after accidentally falling down some stairs . He also stated that he had no complaints against the police .

On an unspecified date , after the applicant 's confession and after the reconstruction of the events , a lawyer was appointed for him .

On DATE ORG dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant 's complaint regarding his alleged ill - treatment by the police . The applicant did not challenge that decision . At some stage of the pre - trial investigation the charges against the applicant were reclassified to premeditated murder for profit , robbery , and carjacking , carried out by an organised group .

On DATE ORG , acting as a first - instance court , found the applicant and PERSON guilty of premeditated murder for profit , robbery , and carjacking , carried out by an organised group , and it sentenced each of them to DATE imprisonment with confiscation of all personal property . As to the applicant 's guilt , the court based its findings on the confession he had given at the initial stages of the pre - trial investigation , the testimony given by PERSON during the pre - trial investigation ( although retracted by him at the trial as untruthful ) , according to which the applicant had stabbed L. once , and the testimony of several persons to whom the defendants had tried to sell PERSON 's car . The court examined the applicant 's allegation of ill - treatment and found it to be no more than defence tactics . The police officer responsible for the applicant 's arrest was questioned at the hearing and denied having coerced him in any way . The court noted that the applicant 's injury could not be considered evidence of his ill - treatment in custody since he had given several inconsistent explanations as to its cause .

NORP The prosecutor appealed against the aforementioned verdict in the part regarding the applicant , considering that it was too lenient given the seriousness of the crimes committed and in the light of the applicant 's personality .

On DATE ORG allowed that appeal . It quashed the verdict of DATE in the part pertaining to the applicant and remitted the case for fresh examination to the same court .

On DATE ORG issued a new verdict with findings concerning the applicant 's guilt identical to those it had made before . However , it changed his sentence to CARDINAL of life imprisonment , referring to the seriousness of the crimes at issue and the personality of the applicant , who had committed the crimes DATE after his release from prison on probation . The court considered the fact that the applicant had repeatedly committed robbery with assault to be an aggravating circumstance .

On an unspecified date the lawyer acting on the applicant 's behalf appealed . She submitted , inter alia , that the first - instance court had failed to duly examine the applicant 's allegation of ill - treatment . On DATE the applicant also introduced an appeal in cassation , in which he complained that the trial court had wrongly relied on a confession allegedly extracted by coercion , as well as on PERSON 's allegedly contradictory statements about him . He noted that as soon as he had been able to gain access to a lawyer after his transfer from the police station to the GPE he had stopped giving any statements or signing any documents . On DATE the applicant added a supplement to his appeal in cassation , complaining that he had not been legally represented during the initial stages of the pre - trial investigation , contrary to LAW , and requesting the court not to accept his confession as evidence in the case . Copies of the applicant 's appeal in cassation and the supplements to it were submitted to ORG by the Government along with their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application .

On DATE ORG upheld the verdict subject to a minor amendment , namely , the removal of the reference to the repeated offence of robbery as an aggravating circumstance , since it had already been included in the classification of the crimes of which the applicant had been found guilty . ORG noted that the finding of guilt had been “ based on evidence obtained in compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedural legislation and which had been explored at the hearings and properly evaluated by the court ” . Furthermore , it saw “ no indication of any gross violations of the provisions of LAW during the investigation , or any misapplication by the court of the criminal law ” . Lastly , ORG noted that ORG had rightly dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant 's allegation that he had incriminated himself under duress .

After his conviction the applicant was moved to ORG no . CARDINAL to serve his sentence .

After complaining that he was suffering from shortness of breath and a sore throat , on DATE the applicant was taken to ORG at Prison no . CARDINAL for a medical examination and treatment . He was diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis , iron deficiency , anaemia and hypertension . Furthermore , the applicant tested HIV - positive and was registered as an asymptomatic HIV carrier at the first clinical stage of the disease according to the WHO classification .

In DATE , after blood tests had confirmed the HIV diagnosis , a doctor specialising in HIV / Aids met with the applicant and explained to him , in particular , that his disease was at such an early stage that no medical treatment was required , and that at a more advanced stage antiretroviral therapy would be considered .

DATE the applicant was moved back to Prison no . DATE , where he continued to serve his sentence .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL premeditated murder is punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE . Under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , premeditated murder for profit and/or committed by a group of persons upon prior conspiracy , is punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE , or life imprisonment .

Under LAW , robbery by a group of persons upon prior conspiracy , or by a person who has previously committed robbery , is punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE , with confiscation of property ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; the penalty is increased to DATE imprisonment in the case of a robbery of large amounts of property , or committed by an organised group , or coupled with the infliction of serious bodily injuries ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , carjacking coupled with violence endangering the victim 's life or health , or under the threat of such violence , or committed by an organised group , involving of a vehicle whose value exceeds CARDINAL times the minimum non - taxable income , is punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE , with confiscation of property .

According to paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , life imprisonment is envisaged as a penalty for particularly serious crimes and is applied only in the cases explicitly provided for by LAW , where the court does not find it appropriate to apply a fixed term of imprisonment . LAW of this Article exempts from life imprisonment certain categories of person ( pregnant women , minors and the elderly ) .

Under LAW , the total penalty for several criminal offences must be established by the absorption by the most severe punishment of the less severe one(s ) .

Article CARDINAL provides that legal representation during the inquiry , the pre - trial investigation and the trial before the first - instance court is obligatory if , inter alia , the possible penalty is a life sentence . It further specifies that in this case the legal representation must be provided from the moment of the arrest or bringing charges against the person .

Under LAW , a suspect , accused or defendant may dispense with the invited or appointed counsel at any stage of the proceedings . Such a waiver is possible only at the initiative of the suspect , accused or defendant and does not preclude him / her from appointing the same or a different counsel at a later stage of the proceedings ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . However , a waiver of counsel in the cases covered by DATE should be based on reasoning found to be satisfactory by the inquiry officer , the investigator or the court ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Should it be accepted , the suspect , accused or defendant has DATE to replace the counsel ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . If he / she fails to do so within the set time - limit and if his / her legal representation is mandatory under LAW of the LAW , a legal representative must be appointed by the inquiry officer , investigator or judge , depending on the stage of the proceedings ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

According to LAW , the inquiry comprises operational and investigative activities aimed at establishing the facts of a crime and the suspected offenders .

According to paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , substantial violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural legislation are considered to be those which have impeded or could have impeded the court in the complete and thorough examination of a case and in issuing a lawful , reasoned and just verdict . Paragraph CARDINAL of this Article lists a violation of the right of an accused to defence among the substantial violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural legislation which warrant the quashing of a verdict in any event ( that is , regardless of whether the requirements of paragraph CARDINAL have been met ) .

Article CARDINAL provides for a person having lodged an appeal in cassation the right to supplement , amend or withdraw it before the beginning of the examination of the case in the cassation court .

The provisions concerning the obligation to institute criminal proceedings and investigate a crime can be found in the judgment of DATE in the case of GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ) ; those concerning judicial challenges to decisions of an inquiry body , investigator or prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings can be found in the judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE ) .

The Rules on Medical and Sanitary Care in ORG and Penitentiaries , approved by Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG , stipulate that medical assistance to HIV - infected persons is to be provided on the same basis as to everybody else ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The Rules also contain recommendations on counselling before and after HIV - testing , according to which this should be accessible , informative and supportive ( annex CARDINAL to paragraph CARDINAL ) . Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of these Rules provides for preventive medical examinations of detainees on an DATE basis , with the participation of a therapist , psychiatrist and dentist , as well as a doctor of another speciality , possibly from outside the detention facility , as required .

The relevant provisions of Decree No CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE of ORG and ORG on LAW with HIV / AIDS Detained in Prisons and ORG are summarised in the case of PERSON ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

The relevant international documents concerning access to a lawyer during police custody are summarised in the judgments of GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

C. Russo;John Freeland;N. Valticos;R. Pekkanen

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was a civil servant until he took early retirement on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG ( “ the Regional Division ” ) for an enhanced pension . He claimed that his illness had been caused by his work .

On DATE the file was forwarded to ORG for preparation of the case . Following the entry into force of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , which abolished the role of ORG in pensions litigation , the file was sent back to ORG on DATE .

The first hearing was held on DATE . By an order of the same date , which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG requested the opinion of ORG . On DATE the applicant was examined by ORG .

On DATE the President of ORG set down a hearing for DATE .


Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Public hearing;Reasonable time)

Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with type II diabetes and vascular spasms . While riding a bicycle on work - related business on DATE , the applicant suffered a heart attack which caused him to fall . DATE , he also suffered a cerebral stroke . On DATE he reported the accident to ORG ( Försäkringskassan ) of the County of PERSON which granted him early retirement pension as from DATE .

The applicant also requested ORG to grant him life annuity ( livränta ) but , on DATE , ORG rejected the request . It found that the applicant ’s medical problems could not be regarded as work - related and that his ability to support himself by working was not sufficiently reduced as a result of the accident . According to medical opinions given on DATE and DATE by PERSON , ORG own medical doctor ( försäkringsläkare ) , the main reason for the applicant ’s inability to work was diabetes , from which he had suffered for DATE at the time of the accident , and some other medical conditions from which he suffered and which together had caused the heart attack and the cerebral stroke . According to him , it was not probable that work - related factors , such as stress , had contributed to the deterioration of the applicant ’s physical condition .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant ’s legal counsel appealed to ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE , claiming that the applicant had a right to a life annuity since his illnesses had been work - related . At times he had had CARDINAL different jobs , each one of which , had been hectic and thereby created a difficult and very stressful situation . He produced a medical opinion by Dr. ORG , dated DATE , which stated that known risk factors for arteriosclerosis and heart attack were , among other factors , diabetes , smoking and high blood pressure . Recently , the feeling of severe stress , especially over a long period of time , had been shown to be an element that increased the risk of developing heart and vascular disorders as well . The interaction between various risk factors was complex but , in general , the more risk factors were present , the higher the risk of suffering a heart attack or developing vascular disorders . In the applicant ’s case , the physician considered that few risk factors were present and that it was highly probable that his stressful work situation had contributed to the heart attack and cerebral stroke .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . In reaching its decision , the court had regard to the medical certificates by PERSON , which established no link between the work situation and the applicant ’s illness , as well as to the medical opinion by Dr. PERSON which suggested that there existed such a link . On the basis of these and the parties’ submissions , the court found that the applicant had been exposed to stress in his work but that the causal link between this fact and the applicant ’s medical condition could not be established with a sufficiently high degree of probability .

By letter dated DATE the applicant , represented by the same legal counsel , appealed to ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE , maintaining his claims . By letter dated DATE the applicant submitted to the court a further medical opinion given by PERSON on DATE which supported the opinion given by PERSON

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant requested that ORG hold an oral hearing in the case without , however , giving any reasons for his request . He repeated the request on DATE and specified that he wanted PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and Dr PERSON to be heard before the court about the existence of a causal link between his work and his injury . In another letter , dated DATE , he invoked LAW in relation to his right to an oral hearing and clarified that he wanted an oral hearing to deal with his case as a whole , including the question of leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected the request for an oral hearing , finding that there was no reason to hold one to decide on the question of leave to appeal . The court asked the applicant to complete his written submissions .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a new medical opinion , dated DATE , by PERSON and Dr B.C - D. This medical opinion also supported the opinion given by PERSON that there was a causal link between the applicant ’s work and his injury . On DATE the applicant requested again that an oral hearing be held in the case and that all the medical doctors who had submitted opinions be heard to prove that there was a causal link between his work and his injury . He also wanted to be heard himself about his work situation and the stressful environment .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal . It noted that leave to appeal should be granted if it was important for the guidance of the application of law that an appellate court consider the appeal , if reasons existed to amend the lower court ’s conclusion , or if there were otherwise extraordinary reasons to entertain the appeal . As the court found that no such grounds were at hand , it refused leave to appeal .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before the lower instances and requesting the court either to refer the case back to ORG for an oral hearing or to hold an oral hearing itself . He reiterated that he wanted to be heard himself and also to hear as witnesses the medical doctors whose opinions he had submitted to the court . Having been asked by the court , the applicant specified in his letter dated DATE that he wanted the court to hold an oral hearing even if it was for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant him leave to appeal . He again invoked LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the request for an oral hearing as it found no reason to hold one in order to decide on the question of leave to appeal . The applicant was requested to complete his written submissions .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal . It noted that leave to appeal was granted if the case was a precedent case or if serious material or procedural mistakes were involved . As this was not so in the present case , the court found no reason to try the case on its merits .

According to ORG ( lagen om arbetsskadeförsäkring , CARDINAL:CARDINAL , hereinafter the “ LAW ” ) , as in force at the relevant time , the term “ work injury ” mainly refers to injuries resulting from accidents or other harmful factors at a person ’s work place ( LAW , LAW ) . Under LAW , all gainfully employed persons working in GPE are insured against work injuries . The insurance scheme is mainly administered by ORG and includes , among other things , compensation for loss of earnings such as life annuity . The ORG must obtain a medical opinion concerning the injury and has physicians with different areas of medical expertise attached to it to assist in this exercise . The assessment of whether an injury qualifies as a work injury , as well as of the degree of reduction of a person ’s ability to engage in gainful employment , shall be made on the basis of the available medical opinions , the insurance office doctor ’s assessment of these opinions and all other relevant information .

For an injury to qualify as a work injury , a causal link must be established between the accident or harmful effect in the workplace and the insured person ’s health problems . By “ harmful effect ” was meant the influence of a factor that is very likely to cause an injury or illness such as that suffered by the insured person ( LAW , LAW ) .

NORP Under the amendments entering into force on DATE , which applied to the applicant ’s case , it had to be shown that it was “ highly probable ” , and not merely “ probable ” as prior to the amendment , that a certain factor in the working environment could cause a person ’s injuries and , thereby , be considered as having harmful effects ( LAW , Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) . The travaux préparatoires ( Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL and p. CARDINAL ) state that this implies that the responsible authorities have to consider more extensively than previously whether the exposure to a harmful effect at work has been of such a degree , intensity and duration that , from this , it can be concluded that the existence of harmfulness is highly probable . Furthermore , the collected knowledge must indicate with a considerable degree of probability that a factor in the environment is harmful . The view that a certain factor is very likely to cause an injury has to be relatively generally accepted . This is the case where substantial knowledge exists , within medical or other science , that a certain factor has such harmful effects . If there is a lack of support , as when , for example , there are profound differences in expert opinions , this requirement can not be considered fulfilled . Thus , the opinion of a specific researcher or medical doctor should not constitute sufficient basis for a positive decision on the issue of harmful effects . The travaux préparatoires also state that the more rigid requirement of harmfulness in many cases presupposes more careful investigations at workplaces regarding the harmful factors invoked and that the question of causes of certain diseases has to be discussed more thoroughly . This , in turn , will result in the authorities basing their decisions more extensively on different assessments of harmfulness within medical science .

A decision rendered by ORG regarding work injuries may be appealed against to the administrative courts . However , in these cases leave to appeal is required for ORG to consider an appeal on the merits against a decision or judgment delivered by ORG a of ORG , ORG , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW , compared with LAW , LAW of LAW ) . Likewise , leave to appeal is required for ORG to consider on the merits an appeal against a decision or judgment delivered by ORG ( LAW of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW was worded as follows :

“ The procedure shall be in writing .

Where it may be assumed to be advantageous for the investigation or promote the expeditious determination of the case , the processing may include an oral hearing regarding certain issues .

In ORG and ORG an oral hearing shall be held if requested by an individual party to the proceedings , unless it is unnecessary or there are particular reasons against holding a hearing . ”

The possibility for an individual party to obtain an oral hearing on request under those circumstances is not available in the proceedings before ORG .

NORP The travaux préparatoires to ORG emphasise that an oral procedure can be advantageous for the investigation of a case in CARDINAL respects in particular . Firstly , such a hearing may be needed in order to examine a witness , expert or party or in cases where a party has difficulty expounding his or her claim in writing . Secondly , an oral hearing may be needed to clarify the positions taken by the parties in the case and perhaps eliminate unnecessary or meaningless points of dispute . In the latter case , the procedure is typically of a preparatory nature . Moreover , the oral form of procedure envisaged in the DATE Act is not to be seen as an alternative to the written form , but rather as a complement to that form ( see the Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) .

Furthermore , the travaux préparatoires to the DATE Act underlined , in connection with the provision in section QUANTITY concerning the right of a party to an oral hearing in certain cases , that while serious consideration should be given to the wishes of a party for such a hearing , the party could hardly be allowed to have a decisive influence in the matter . The question of whether a hearing is necessary should primarily be assessed in the light of the existing investigation of the case , but it should also be possible to accord significance to other factors , for example , if the case is very important for the party and a hearing would give him a better understanding of the import of the decision to be given in the case . CARDINAL particular reason not to arrange an oral hearing could be that the case is of a trivial nature or that the costs of the hearing are high compared to the value of the object of dispute ( see Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) .

NORP In DATE ORG has set aside a number of decisions on appeal and referred cases back to the administrative courts of appeal because of the lack of an oral hearing in the lower courts ( see , for example , RÅ DATE ref . CARDINAL , RÅ DATE note DATE , RÅ DATE note CARDINAL , RÅ DATE note CARDINAL and RÅ DATE note CARDINAL ; as more specifically regards work injuries , see RÅ DATE note CARDINAL and RÅ DATE note CARDINAL ) . In the last mentioned case , an administrative court of appeal had changed the lower court ’s judgment to the applicant ’s disadvantage without holding an oral hearing . Furthermore , the applicant had requested that a medical doctor be heard as a witness .

Chapter CARDINAL of LAW ( Skadeståndslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) deals with the civil liability of the State . According to LAW of that chapter , acts or omissions by a public authority may give rise to an entitlement to compensation in the event of fault of negligence .

An individual who wants to claim compensation from the ORG may proceed in either of CARDINAL different ways : He or she may either petition the Chancellor of Justice ( NORP ) in accordance with LAW on ORG against the State ( Förordningen om handläggning av skadeståndsanspråk mot staten , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , or bring a civil action against the ORG before a district court , with the possibility to appeal to a court of appeal and ORG . No appeal lies against a decision of the Chancellor of ORG . However , if the claim is rejected , the claimant still has the possibility to institute civil proceedings before the courts . In such proceedings , the ORG is represented by the Chancellor of ORG ( LAW [ GPE med instruktion för NORP , DATE ] ) .

In a judgment of DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) ORG dealt with a claim for damages brought by an individual against the NORP State , inter alia , on the basis of an alleged violation of LAW . The case concerned the excessive length of criminal proceedings and ORG held that the plaintiff ’s right under LAW to have the criminal charges against him determined within a reasonable time had been violated . Based on this finding and with reference , inter alia , to ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention and the ORG ’s case - law under these provisions , in particular the case of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXI ) , ORG concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under NORP law for both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . With respect to the level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage , ORG took note of the criteria established in the ORG ’s case - law stating that the ORG ’s practice constituted a natural point of departure in this regard .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the principle concerning a right to damages established in the above - mentioned case of DATE also applied with regard to the rights contained in LAW . ORG stated that the plaintiff ’s right to damages on account of a violation of Article CARDINAL should be assessed in the first place under LAW and LAW and Other Coercive Measures ( NORP om ersättning vid frihetsberövanden och andra tvångsåtgärder , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . To the extent necessary , the relevant provisions of domestic law should be interpreted in accordance with the LAW . If GPE ’s obligations under LAW could not be met by such an interpretation , the domestic courts should award compensation without the support of specific legal provisions . As concerned the determination of the level of compensation , ORG repeated that the ORG ’s case - law was a natural point of departure but also noted that account must be taken of the fact that different national conditions may lead to variations from CARDINAL country to another in what should be regarded as a reasonable level of compensation .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the plaintiffs’ right to respect for their private life under LAW had been violated on the basis that a police decision on a medical examination of some of them had not been “ in accordance with the law ” . Having found that compensation for the violation could not be awarded directly on the basis of LAW , ORG held that there was no reason to limit the scope of application of the principle established in the above - mentioned cases of DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL to violations of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . In view of this and with reference to , inter alia , LAW and the ORG ’s case - law under these ORG , ORG concluded that the plaintiffs should be awarded non - pecuniary damages for the violation of LAW . With regard to the levels of compensation , ORG concluded that they should not be too far removed from the levels which applied when awarding damages under LAW . Generally speaking these levels should , however , be compatible with the case - law of the Court . In the same case , ORG had also concluded , in a judgment dated DATE , that there had been a violation of Article CARDINAL and that an award for non - pecuniary damage should be made on the basis of the principle established in the case of DATE .

Another Supreme Court judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) concerned a claim for damages against the NORP State on the basis of an alleged violation of LAW relating to the suicide of the LAW father while in detention . ORG concluded that the case revealed no violation of LAW . However , in its reasoning leading to this conclusion , ORG noted , inter alia , that according to the ORG ’s case - law there was a right to an effective remedy under LAW connected to the ORG ’s duty under the ORG to take measures to protect the lives of individuals in custody or who were otherwise deprived of their liberty , which should , in principle , include a possibility of obtaining compensation for damage . ORG referred in particular to the judgment in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL ) .

In a judgment of DATE ( NJA DATE N CARDINAL ) , ORG confirmed its previous case - law in a case concerning claims for damages against the NORP State on account of excessive length of tax proceedings . The court affirmed that it is now a general principle of law that to the extent that GPE has a duty to provide redress to victims of Convention violations through a right to compensation for damages , and that this duty can not be fulfilled even by interpreting national tort law in accordance with the LAW fördagskonform tolkning ) , compensation for damages may be ordered without direct support in law .

Lastly , on DATE ORG ordered compensation for non - pecuniary damage to be paid to an applicant for proceedings which had complied neither with the “ reasonable length ” requirement in Article CARDINAL nor the right to an effective remedy in LAW . The proceedings in question had concerned a claim for damages against the ORG .

In DATE the Government decided to set up a working group on tort liability and the Convention to study the current legal situation . In DATE the working group submitted its report ( PERSON , ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) to the Government . In the report it is proposed that LAW be amended in order to allow natural and legal persons to obtain damages from the ORG or a municipality for violations of the LAW . Such an action against public authorities would be examined by a general court which would need first to establish that a right provided by the ORG has been violated . The aim of the proposal is to provide a legal basis for granting non - pecuniary damages arising from disregard of the LAW and to fulfil , together with the other already existing legal remedies , GPE ’s obligations under LAW .

In its comments on the above report ORG , on DATE , stated that , since the autumn of DATE following ORG case - law developments ( as set out above ) , it had dealt with a large number of requests from individuals for compensation on the basis of violations of the Convention . It estimated that it had dealt with CARDINAL cases over DATE . During this time the Chancellor of ORG had also represented the NORP State in a number of cases before the civil courts concerning alleged violations of the Convention . A majority of the cases that the ORG had dealt with had concerned non - pecuniary damages for excessive length of proceedings under LAW . Since DATE , it had received CARDINAL such complaints and in CARDINAL of them , the Chancellor of ORG had found a violation and granted compensation . The level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage had been determined with reference to the ORG ’s case - law and varied CARDINAL and SEK CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LAW ) . Furthermore , the Chancellor of ORG had dealt with a substantial number of cases ( CARDINAL ) concerning the registration of individuals in the Security Police register . These cases had concerned one or more of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Convention . There had also been other individual cases relating to alleged violations of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , among others .