Mr PERSON , who is a NORP national , lives at ORG ( GPE ) .

On DATE , after a dispute with a neighbour following which the latter died , the applicant was remanded in custody .

In his submissions of CARDINAL DATE , the public prosecutor expressed the view that the applicant had acted voluntarily and consciously . Finding that the facts gave rise to the offences of aggravated homicide and illegal possession of weapons , he called for the applicant 's continued detention and his committal for trial .

On DATE ORG ( tribunal criminal da comarca do GPE ) held that , on account of his mentally disturbed state , the applicant was not criminally responsible and was dangerous . It accordingly ordered that he be detained for a minimum of DATE . It stated as follows : " The established facts in respect of which the accused is charged constitute the offences of intentional homicide and unlawful possession of weapons . However , in the light of the expert report , ... , as confirmed by the medical expert at the hearing , the accused is not criminally responsible [ inimputável ] on account of his mental disorder [ anomalia psiquica ] . In view of the seriousness of the offences and the mental illness from which he is suffering , the court finds that he is a dangerous person who can not be held responsible for his actions and , given the risk of his reoffending , a security measure [ medida de segurança ] must be taken against him . Having regard to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the court finds that the accused PERSON is a dangerous person who can not be held responsible for his actions and orders his detention in a psychiatric asylum . This security measure will remain in force , in accordance with LAW para . CARDINAL of LAW , for DATE . " The applicant maintains that he instructed his lawyer to appeal against this judgment , but no appeal was filed .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the annex for the criminally insane of the PERSON psychiatric hospital .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant 's detention should be deemed to have begun on DATE , when he was first remanded in custody , and that the procedure for the automatic review of that detention should commence on DATE . The same day it assigned a lawyer to act for the applicant as he had not designated one . It appointed another lawyer on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , on the basis of a medical report of CARDINAL DATE and the opinion of the social services of DATE , the first of which concluded that the applicant remained dangerous and the second that he lacked a family structure that might assist his social reintegration , the court extended the detention for DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted an application for conditional discharge . At a date that has not been specified the court dismissed this application on the ground that " the defendant 's discharge may be ordered only on a trial basis and not conditionally " .

On DATE the court made enquiries about the applicant 's state of health and the prospects for his reintegration in society . The medical report drawn up on DATE noted that , although the detainee was no longer dangerous in a hospital environment , there were some signs that he would still be dangerous if released into the outside world . This information was passed on to Mr PERSON officially assigned lawyer , who did not respond .

On DATE the court heard from senior officials of the hospital and decided to extend the detention for a period of DATE to see how the applicant 's state of health evolved .

At the court 's request the psychiatric hospital submitted on DATE a report expressing the view that there had been a general improvement in the applicant 's state of health , that he had ceased to be dangerous and that the conditions now existed for his successful reintegration into society .

Having heard the applicant , his officially appointed lawyer and the public prosecutor , the court decided , on DATE , to order that he be discharged on a trial basis ( libertação a CARDINAL de ensaio ) subject to a number of conditions including a compulsory residence order , the obligation to undergo prescribed medical treatment , a prohibition on the consumption of alcohol and his agreement to submit to supervision by the social reintegration service . The applicant left hospital on DATE and since then has remained at liberty on a trial basis .

The relevant provisions of LAW are as follows :

Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL " Persons suffering from a mental disorder who are incapable at the material time of appreciating the unlawful nature or the consequences of their actions shall not be held criminally responsible for those actions . "

Article CARDINAL " CARDINAL . A person who commits a punishable offence and who is found not to be criminally responsible within the meaning of Article CARDINAL shall be ordered to be detained in an asylum , hospital or secure unit , if there is reason to believe , in view of his mental illness and the nature and seriousness of his offence , that he may commit further serious offences . CARDINAL . Where a person found not to be criminally responsible has committed homicide , grievous bodily harm [ ofensas corporais graves ] or other violent crimes punishable by DATE imprisonment and there is reason to believe that he will commit further similar offences of the same degree of seriousness , he shall be ordered to be detained for a minimum period of DATE . "

As amended by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , paragraph CARDINAL now reads :

" Where the offence committed by a person found not to be criminally responsible is an offence against the person or a crime punishable by DATE imprisonment , he shall be ordered to be detained for DATE , save where his release is not incompatible with the protection of the legal system and public order . "

Article CARDINAL " CARDINAL . Detention shall cease when the court finds that the justification for the detention no longer exists because the detainee is no longer criminally dangerous . CARDINAL . A first detention shall not exceed by DATE the maximum sentence prescribed for the type of offence committed by the person found not to be criminally responsible ... "

The above - mentioned Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL added a third paragraph to this LAW , worded as follows :

" Where the offence committed by the person found not to be criminally responsible is punishable by DATE imprisonment and the danger that he will commit similar offences is so serious that his release is considered inadvisable , his detention may be extended for successive periods of DATE until it has been established that the situation referred to in paragraph CARDINAL exists . "

Article CARDINAL " CARDINAL . The court may at any time hear an application invoking a ground for the cessation of the detention measure . CARDINAL . The court shall , of its own motion , regardless of whether any application has been made , review the detention DATE after it began and DATE after the decision extending it . CARDINAL . These provisions shall apply , in any event , subject to the minimum period of detention stipulated in LAW para . CARDINAL . "

As amended by Decree no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL now provide :

" CARDINAL . The court shall at any time hear an application invoking a ground for the cessation of the detention measure . CARDINAL . The court shall , of its own motion , regardless of whether any application has been made , review the detention DATE after it began or after the decision extending it . "

Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL " On the expiry of the minimum period of detention the person found not to be criminally responsible may be discharged on a trial basis for a minimum period of DATE where there are serious reasons for believing that he will not commit any further illegal acts . "


No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 10;No violation of Art. 13

ORG The applicant , Mr. PERSON , is a NORP citizen born in DATE and a carpenter by profession .

ORG On DATE , he started to work as a temporary replacement in a post of museum technician ( vikarierande museitekniker ) at FAC at GPE in the south of GPE . The museum is adjacent to FAC which is a restricted military security zone .

The applicant maintained before the ORG that the intention was that he should work for DATE in this post , while its ordinary holder was on leave . He alleged that on DATE he was told to leave his work pending the outcome of a personnel control which had to be carried out on him in accordance with ORG personal - kontrollkungörelsen CARDINAL:CARDINAL - see paragraphs DATE below ) . According to the applicant , this control had been requested on DATE .

The Government submitted that the applicant was employed only from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , as evidenced by a notice to this effect , issued on DATE by the Director of the ORG . They further contended that in employing Mr. PERSON the Director had committed CARDINAL mistakes . Firstly , it was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the LAW and the relevant regulations issued thereunder to employ a person before a personnel control had been undertaken and , secondly , the post had not been properly declared vacant .

ORG The necessary steps were taken on CARDINAL DATE . The post was opened for application until DATE . Mr. PERSON did not apply .

ORG It appears that on DATE the Director informed him that the outcome of the personnel control had been unfavourable and that he could therefore not be employed at the ORG .

ORG Following the advice of the Security Chief of FAC , the applicant wrote to the Commander - in - Chief of the ORG ( chefen för marinen ) requesting to be informed of the reasons why he could not be employed at ORG .

In his reply of DATE , the Commander - in - Chief of the ORG stated , inter alia :

" The ORG possesses several storage rooms and historical objects within the area for the security of which the Chief of FAC ( örlogsbaschefen ) is responsible . According to the information received by the Commander - in - Chief of the ORG , the person holding the post in question must have freedom to circulate within areas subject to special restrictions regarding access . The rules on access to these areas must therefore also be applied to the personnel employed at the ORG .

It is for these reasons that the Chief of the Naval Base requested a personnel control .

The control carried out has provided such grounds for the Commander - in - Chief ’s assessment of you from a security point of view that the decision has been taken not to accept you .

However , if your duties at ORG will not necessitate that you have access to the naval installations at FAC , the Commander - in - Chief sees no reason to oppose your employment . The decision whether or not to employ you is taken in a procedure distinct from the present one . "

ORG On DATE , the applicant complained to the Government and requested that the assessment of the Commander - in - Chief of the ORG be cancelled and that he be declared acceptable for the temporary employment at ORG , irrespective of the possibility of being reinstated in that employment . He pointed out in particular that he had left a permanent position in GPE , in LOC , on being told that he was accepted for employment at FAC and that a negative outcome of the personnel control could mean social misery , especially considering that he had a wife and child to support . In his original complaint , and also in a letter of DATE , Mr. PERSON further requested that he be given information about the reasons for his not being accepted at FAC .

The Government requested the opinion of the Supreme Commander of ORG ( överbefälhavaren ) , who in turn consulted the Commander - in - Chief of the ORG .

The Commander - in - Chief of the ORG explained in a letter of DATE that he had received the result of the personnel control from the ORG Commander on DATE together with the following proposal :

" Accepted in accordance with the assessment of the [ Commander - in - Chief of the ORG ] , on condition that ORG does not , through access to the ORG ’s premises or through his work , obtain insight into secret activities . "

The Commander - in - Chief of the ORG added that , according to his information , the Director of the ORG required the person employed in the post in question to have free access to , and freedom to circulate in , FAC and that accordingly , on DATE , he had taken the decision not to accept the applicant .

In his reply to the Government , the Supreme Commander of ORG stated , inter alia :

" However , the employment of Mr. PERSON during this time , DATE , did not involve any access to FAC . The Commander - in - Chief of the ORG has said that he does not oppose such employment . The Director of ORG has , however , affirmed the requirement that Mr. PERSON should have access to FAC .

In view of the above and the fact that , if Mr. PERSON was given access to FAC , he would have access to secret installations and information , the Commander - in - Chief of the ORG decided not to accept the applicant .

When dealing with the present case , the Commander - in - Chief of the ORG has entirely followed existing regulations concerning the assessment of personal qualifications from a security point of view .

Like the Commander - in - Chief of the ORG , the ORG Commander of ORG considers that Mr. PERSON may properly be employed by ORG provided that the holder of the appointment does not require access to FAC . "

The opinion of the Supreme Commander of ORG was accompanied by a secret annex , containing the information on Mr. PERSON released by ORG ( rikspolisstyrelsen ) . This annex was never communicated to the applicant and has not been included in the material submitted to the ORG .

ORG In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant raised new grievances before the ORG . These concerned the decision of ORG not to exercise its powers under LAW of ORG to communicate to him the information released on him ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant requested that the Government should , before taking a decision on his request of CARDINAL DATE , give him the right to be apprised of and to comment upon the information thus released by ORG .

On this matter , the ORG sought the opinion of ORG . In its reply of CARDINAL DATE , ORG proposed that the applicant ’s complaints be dismissed . It added :

" The entering of information in the register of ORG is based mainly on a DATE LAW which is secret . Before information is entered , the question of registration is subject to assessment , at several levels , by civil servants under responsibility to verify compliance with the above - mentioned rules in relation to each item of information . In the event of doubt , the question of registration is decided upon by the Chief of ORG .

Information from the register is handed out in accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG after decision by ORG in plenary meeting . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of ORG who are appointed amongst parliamentarians should be present when decisions are taken in matters of personnel control . In the case of the applicant , all CARDINAL members were present .

Under LAW of ORG , the person whom the information concerns ought to be given the opportunity to submit observations on the matter if special reasons give cause for this . However , ORG did not see any cause to apply this provision in the case of the applicant as no special reasons were found , and also as the registering had been effected in accordance with the secret Royal Decree and disclosure of the information would have revealed part of the contents of that Decree . "

Mr. PERSON replied to this opinion in a letter of CARDINAL DATE to the Government , in which he argued , inter alia , that the ORG should have communicated to him , at least orally and subject to a duty of confidentiality , the information kept on him .

ORG By decision of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG rejected the whole of the applicant ’s complaint . In its operative parts , the decision read :

" The question whether or not a person is suitable for certain employment can only be examined by the Government in the context of a complaint about the appointment to a post . PERSON has lodged no appeal with the Government in respect of appointment . His request that the Government should declare him acceptable for the provisional employment concerned can not therefore be examined .

In the present case , there are no such special circumstances as are mentioned in LAW which would give GPE the right to be acquainted with the information about him released by ORG to the ORG Commander of ORG .

The remainder of ORG ’s petition is a request to be given an extract from , or information about the contents of , a police register .

The Government reject [ this ] request ...

The Government do not examine ORG request for a revised assessment of his person and take no measure in regard to any other part of his petition . "

ORG The applicant maintained before the ORG that he still did not know the content of the secret information recorded on him .

Regarding his personal background , he furnished the following details to the ORG and the ORG . At the relevant time , he had not belonged to any political party DATE . Earlier he had been a member of ORG . He had also been a member of an association publishing a radical review - Fib / Kulturfront . During his military service , in DATE , he had been active in the ORG union and a representative at the ORG union conference in DATE which , according to him , had been infiltrated by the security police . His only criminal conviction stems from his time in military service and consisted of a fine of CARDINAL NORP Crowns for having been late for a military parade . He had also been active in GPE and he had travelled a couple of times in LOC .

The applicant asserted however that , according to unanimous statements by responsible officials , none of the above - mentioned circumstances should have been the cause for the unfavourable outcome of the personnel control .

ORG According to LAW , section CARDINAL , of ORG ( regeringsformen , which forms the main constituent of LAW and is hereafter referred to as " the LAW " ) , " no entry regarding a citizen in a public register may without his consent be founded exclusively on his political opinion " .

ORG The legal basis of the register kept by ORG ( " the secret police - register " ) is to be found in ORG , which was enacted by the ORG under their regulatory powers and which was originally published in ORG ( svensk författningssamling , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . LAW ( as amended by LAW CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) provides :

" For the special police service responsible for the prevention and detection of offences against national security , etc . , ORG within ORG shall keep a police - register . In this register , ORG may enter information necessary for the special police service .

In the police - register referred to in the first paragraph , no entry is allowed merely for the reason that a person , by belonging to an organisation or by other means , has expressed a political opinion . Further provisions concerning the application of this rule shall be laid down by the Government . "

ORG In consequence , the following instructions , published on DATE , were given to ORG by the Government :

" In this country , there exist organisations and groups engaging in political activities which involve the use or the possible use of force or threats of compulsion as means to achieve their political aims .

Some organisations have adopted a programme in which it is said that the organisation shall endeavour to change the social system by violence . It can be assumed , however , that a large part of the membership of such organisations will never take part in the realisation of the goals in the programme . The mere fact of being a member of such an organisation does not therefore constitute a reason for the Security Police to make an entry about a person in its register . An entry may be made , however , if a member or a supporter of such an organisation has acted in a way which justifies the suspicion that he may be prepared to participate in activities which endanger national security or which are aimed at , and may contribute towards , overthrowing the democratic system by force or affecting the status of GPE as an independent ORG .

There also exist organisations and groups which may engage in , or may have engaged in , political subversion in GPE or in other GPE , while using force , threats or compulsion as means for such subversion . Information about members or supporters of such organisations or groups shall be entered in the register of ORG .

Further instructions concerning the application of LAW shall be issued by the ORG following proposals from ORG . If , in the special police service , circumstances appear which may call for amendments to the instructions issued by ORG should submit proposals for such amendments . "

ORG Further instructions , this time secret , were issued by the Government on DATE and again on DATE .

ORG In addition to the circumstances provided for in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , information from the secret police - register appears also to be released by ORG in certain cases of public prosecution and in matters relating to applications for NORP citizenship .

ORG In addition to the above - mentioned provisions regarding the secret police - register , ORG contains provisions as to , inter alia , the posts which are to be security classified , the procedure for handing out information and the use of the information released . The main relevant provisions are summarised below .

ORG According to LAW , personnel control means the obtaining of information from police registers in respect of persons holding or being considered for appointment to posts of importance for national security .

Section CARDINAL ( as amended by LAW ) enumerates certain authorities , including ORG of ORG , entitled to request a personnel control .

Section CARDINAL specifies that a personnel control may only be carried out with regard to certain posts of importance for national security . The posts concerned are divided into CARDINAL security classes ( skyddsklasser ) , depending upon whether or not they are of vital importance for national security . The decision to classify a post in Security Class CARDINAL is taken by the Government , whereas the right to classify a post in Security Class CARDINAL is normally delegated to the authority in question .

ORG According to section DATE , requests for release of information for the purposes of a personnel control are to be made to ORG and the request shall be made only with regard to the person whom it is intended to appoint to the post .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL deal with what information may be handed out to the appointing authority .

If the post in question falls within Security Class CARDINAL , ORG may , under section CARDINAL , release all information on the person concerned contained in the secret police - register or in any other police register . If the post comes within Security Class CARDINAL , the ORG may , by virtue of section CARDINAL ( as amended by LAW ) , only supply a certain specific kind of information on the person concerned , namely

" CARDINAL . his conviction for , or his being suspected of having committed , crimes mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL of the Act of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) laying down special provisions on investigation measures in certain criminal cases ( lag med särskilda bestämmelser om tvångsmedel i vissa brottmål ) or mentioned in LAW , paragraphs CARDINAL or DATE , of LAW " - mainly crimes against public peace , national security or the Government - " or his conviction for , or his being suspected of , an attempt , conspiracy or incitement to commit such crimes ;

his conviction for , or his being suspected of having committed , such other acts as constitute crimes against the security of the ORG , or which are intended and liable to bring about the violent overthrow of the democratic government or to affect the country ’s position as an independent ORG ; or his conviction for , or his being suspected of , an attempt or conspiracy to commit such crimes ;

his being suspected , on the basis of his activities or otherwise , of being ready to participate in such acts as are mentioned in sub - paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL . "

ORG LAW provides that , when deciding whether or not to make information from the register available , the ORG shall be composed of the LAW ( rikspolischefen ) , the Head of ORG and those members of ORG who have been appointed by the Government ; there are CARDINAL such lay members - usually Members or former Members of ORG from different political parties , including the Opposition - and CARDINAL of them must be present when the decision is taken .

Information may be released only if all the participating members of ORG agree on the decision . Where CARDINAL or more of the lay members of ORG oppose release of certain information , the National Police Commissioner may refer the matter to the Government for decision if he considers that the information should be made available . Such reference to the Government shall also be made if CARDINAL of the lay members so requests .

ORG When a request for a personnel control is received by ORG , the practice is the following . ORG draws up a memorandum on the information contained in the relevant registers and presents this orally to ORG , which , after deliberation , decides whether the information should be handed out in whole or in part . In taking this decision , it considers among other things the nature of the post in question , the degree of reliability of the information and how old the entries are . When a file contains only a few entries , this is a factor which may militate against disclosure . There are no written instructions on disclosure apart from the provisions of the Ordinance and ORG .

ORG At the relevant time , LAW prescribed that before information was released by ORG in cases relating to appointment to posts classified in Security Class CARDINAL , the person concerned should be given an opportunity of presenting his observations in writing or orally , unless there were special reasons to the contrary . In cases of appointment to posts classified in Security Class CARDINAL , the above notification procedure was to be applied only if required on account of special circumstances . However , in no case concerning a Security Class CARDINAL post does the ORG ever seem to have found any special circumstances to be present and , accordingly , such notification was never made - in spite of the fact that various important authorities , including the Chancellor of ORG and ORG , called upon to comment on the legislative proposal which was to become the GPE had recommended the making of at least some form of notification .

This provision was amended as from DATE ( Ordinance CARDINAL ) . At present , before information is released in cases of appointment to posts in all ORG , the person concerned must be given the opportunity of presenting his observations in writing or orally . This rule does not , however , apply if the person would thereby come to know information classified as secret by virtue of any provision in LAW , except for LAW in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , or if the requesting authority , in cases not concerned with appointment to official posts , has been exempted by the Government from the requirement of informing the person concerned of the personnel control ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG At the time of the proceedings in Mr. PERSON ’s case , ORG was , under section DATE , prohibited from adding any comments to the information released to the requesting authority .

ORG Section CARDINAL provided that before an authority initiated a personnel control , it had to inform the person concerned thereof - with one exception not relevant in the present case .

ORG LAW prescribed that it was the requesting authority that should independently assess the importance of the information released from the police register(s ) , having regard to the nature of the activities connected with the post in question , the authority ’s own knowledge of the person concerned and other circumstances .

ORG Over DATE , the Minister of ORG has been actively engaged in the supervision of the security police and the personnel control . He has made a number of investigations of varying depth . The investigations made by the Minister of Justice do not result in any reports . However , the Government stated that the deliberations between the Minister and ORG have led to amendments of both the public and the secret instructions .

ORG The Office of the Chancellor of ORG has a long tradition and is now established in LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW . His functions and powers are set out in LAW by the Chancellor of ORG ( lag DATE om justitiekanslerns tillsyn ) and in the Government ’s Instruction to the Chancellor ( förordning DATE med instruktion för justitiekanslern ) .

The duties of the Chancellor of ORG , as laid down by ORG ( riksdag ) , include supervising the public authorities and their employees in order to ensure that their powers are exercised in accordance with the law and the applicable regulations . In this capacity , he often receives and examines complaints from individuals . He also has to act on the ORG ’s behalf in order to safeguard the rights of the ORG and has to assist the ORG with advice and investigations in legal matters .

The appointment as Chancellor of ORG is made by the ORG and continues until retirement age . According to LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW , the Chancellor is subordinate to the Government . However , section CARDINAL of the same LAW provides : " No public authority , " - including the Government - " nor the ORG , nor the decision - making body of a municipality may determine how an administrative authority " - including the Chancellor of ORG - " shall make its decision in a particular case concerning the exercise of public authority against a private subject or against a municipality , or concerning the application of law . "

The Chancellor of ORG has the right to attend all deliberations held by courts and administrative authorities , although without expressing his opinion . He is also entitled to have access to all files or other documents kept by the authorities .

All public authorities as well as their employees must provide the Chancellor of ORG with such information and reports as he may request ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In his supervisory capacity , he may institute criminal proceedings against public servants or he may report them with a view to disciplinary proceedings .

The Chancellor may , in agreement with ORG , transfer to him cases involving individual complaints , and vice versa . Thus , identical complaints will in practice be considered by either the Chancellor or the ORG , but not by both .

ORG , being a public authority , and its activities , including personnel control , fall under the Chancellor of ORG ’s supervision .

The Chancellor of ORG visits the ORG and its ORG regularly , generally once a year . In addition , visits take place if special reasons so warrant . A complaint from an individual may constitute such a special reason . His visits are always recorded and TIME are drafted in such a way that they may be made public . If secret material has to be recorded , the secret passages in TIME will not be made public . The Government have submitted a copy of TIME of an inspection visit of DATE , from which it appears that the Chancellor of ORG together with CARDINAL officials of the Chancellery inspected the LOC of ORG and discussed , inter alia , questions concerning personnel control . Nothing emerged from the visit which called for special mention .

The Chancellor of ORG has no power to alter a decision by ORG , nor can he interfere with their decision - making in general , although he is free to make statements about actions that he deems to be contrary to law or inappropriate .

Since opinions expressed by the Chancellor in relation to an inspection of the personnel control procedure are not legally binding , it might perhaps be doubted whether they fall within the sphere where the Chancellor is guaranteed independence by virtue of LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In view of NORP legal tradition , it is however inconceivable that the Government would endeavour to use their powers under LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW so as to give the Chancellor instructions as to , for example , the opinion he should give in a matter concerning the application of ORG , or generally to prohibit him from monitoring the activities of ORG ; no such instructions exist and none has ever been given .

ORG The functions and powers of ORG , an institution that dates back to DATE , are laid down in particular in LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW , and in LAW to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen ( lag CARDINAL med instruktion för justitieombudsmännen ) .

The CARDINAL holders of the office of ORG are elected by ORG . Their main task is to supervise the application , within the public administration , of laws and other regulations .

It is the particular duty of an ORG to ensure that courts of law and administrative authorities observe the provisions of the LAW regarding objectivity and impartiality and that the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens are not encroached upon in the processes of public administration .

If , while performing his supervisory duties , an ORG should find cause to raise the question of amending legislation or of any other measure the ORG should take , he may present a statement on the subject to the ORG or the Government .

An Ombudsman exercises supervision either on complaint from individuals or by carrying out inspections and other investigations he deems necessary .

The examination of a matter is concluded by a report in which the ORG states his opinion on whether the measure contravenes the law or is inappropriate in any other respect . The ORG may also make pronouncements aimed at promoting uniform and proper application of the law .

The ORG ’s reports are considered to be expressions of his personal opinion . Whether or not his statements will have any practical effects depends on his ability to convince the decision - maker or authority in question . Those concerned often , but by no means always , abide by the ORG ’s opinion ( see PERSON / PERSON , PERSON , GPE DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

An Ombudsman may institute a criminal prosecution or disciplinary proceedings against an official who has committed an offence by departing from the obligations incumbent upon him in his official duties .

An Ombudsman may be present at the deliberations of a court or an administrative authority and shall have access to the TIME and other documents of any such court or authority . Any court , any administrative authority and any civil servant in central or local government must provide the ORG with such information and reports as he may request . In the performance of his duties , the ORG may request the assistance of any public prosecutor .

ORG It follows from the foregoing that ORG and its activities come under the supervision of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen .

According to information submitted by the registrar of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen , the procedure in cases of individual complaint is the following . When the complaint is lodged , the ORG responsible contacts the ORG or the requesting authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He will then be furnished with oral opportunity to study the relevant documents and files . This information is not entered on any record kept by the ORG , as that would entail problems as to how to preserve the secret character of the information . The ORG arrives at his opinion on the basis of the inquiry described above and of the results of any other investigations undertaken . His report is always drawn up in writing and made accessible to the public . It does not therefore set out any secret information .

Since DATE there have been CARDINAL individual complaints relating to the personnel control system . CARDINAL were complaints of a general nature by notorious complainants . After having investigated the factual circumstances underlying the other CARDINAL complaints , the ORG closed the file in CARDINAL of them only after having expressed specific criticism in respect of certain issues ( reports of DATE in case DATE and of CARDINAL DATE in case DATE ) . The criticism expressed by the ORG in the report of CARDINAL DATE has , according to a recent judgment of ORG ( no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , led ORG of ORG to change a previous practice regarding the application of section CARDINAL of the Ordinance .

ORG on ORG consists of CARDINAL Members of ORG nominated on a proportional basis . Since DATE , it has considered the appropriations for the security branch of the police and , DATE , scrutinised the expenses of the security police , its organisation and activities . A great interest has , according to the Government , been shown in matters concerning ORG and its application and in the question of assessing the influence of the lay members of ORG on the activities of the security police . The ORG normally informs itself by holding hearings with spokesmen of ORG and its ORG and by regular visits . Such visits took place in DATE , the DATE and DATE . In DATE , special discussions took place between the ORG and the parliamentarians on ORG . In DATE , the ORG asked for , and received , a special report . In DATE , ORG held a hearing with the National Police Commissioner and the Head of ORG .

According to the Government , the Principal Secretary to ORG has confirmed that the members of ORG , during their visits , have full access to the registers and that they have also examined the register kept at ORG . The members have also discussed various matters concerning the keeping of the register with the officials responsible for making the entries and putting data before ORG when a personnel control is carried out .

ORG Under LAW ( tryckfrihetsförordningen ) , which is part of LAW , everyone is entitled to have access to a public document unless , within defined areas , such access is limited by law .

At the relevant time , the main provisions concerning these limitations were found in the Act on Restrictions on the Right of Access to Public Documents ( lag om inskränkningar i rätten att utbekomma allmänna handlingar CARDINAL:CARDINAL , " LAW " ) , which was in force until DATE .

Under LAW of LAW ( as amended ) , " details of information entered on such registers as are mentioned in the LAW on ORG ( lag om allmänt kriminalregister CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) or in LAW ( lag om polisregister m.m . CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) may not be handed out in any other cases or manner than those provided for in those Acts " . According to section CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended by LAW , in force until DATE ) :

" Extracts from or information on the contents of police registers shall be given upon request from

the Chancellor of ORG , the Parliamentary Ombudsmen , ORG , ORG , ORG , county administrative courts , ORG or public prosecutors ;

other authorities , if and to the extent that the ORG , for certain types of cases or in a specific case , have given the necessary authorisation ;

an individual , if he needs the extract in order to secure his rights in a foreign country , in order to enter a foreign country or in order to take up residence or domicile or to work there , or in order to have decided questions of employment or contracts related to activities concerned with health - care or with matters of importance from a national security point of view , and the Government by way of special ordinance have authorised that extracts or information be given for such purposes , or , in other cases , if the individual can prove that he depends on obtaining information from the register in order to secure his rights , and the ORG authorise such information to be given to him . "

As of DATE , LAW was replaced by LAW ( sekretesslagen , CARDINAL ) and similar regulations are now to be found in LAW , section CARDINAL , of this Act .

No evidence has been adduced of any special ordinance allowing individuals in the applicant ’s situation to obtain extracts from the police registers .

ORG A decision by an authority other than the ORG or the Government to refuse access to a document is subject to appeal to the courts ( LAW , section CARDINAL , of the Freedom of the Press Act ) .

In several recent cases decided by ORG , individuals have been refused access to information contained in the secret police - register as they had not obtained or sought the previous authorisation by the Government required by the above - cited section CARDINAL of LAW ( Yearbook of ORG : CARDINAL and Ab CARDINAL and DATE : Ab CARDINAL ) .

This is consistent with the events in the present case , in that the Government declared themselves competent to examine Mr. PERSON ’s request to be acquainted with the information about him released by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

However , no appeal - either to the ORG or to the administrative courts - against a decision of the ORG to release information to the requesting authority seems to be available to the individual concerned , since he is not considered to be a party to the release procedure before ORG ( see ORG decision of DATE in case DATE ) .

ORG Even if a certain document is secret , the Government always have a certain discretionary power to release it , and a person who is a party to judicial or administrative proceedings in which the document is of relevance may still be allowed access to it . The basic provisions in this respect were , until DATE , contained in section CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended by LAW ) , which stated :

" Whenever it is found necessary in order to secure public or individual rights , the Government may , without being subject to the restrictions otherwise laid down in this LAW , provide for the release of documents .

If a document which may not be released to everybody can be presumed to be of importance as evidence in a trial or police investigation in a criminal matter , the court which handles the case or which is competent to decide questions relating to the police investigation may order that the document should be released to it or to the officer in charge of the police investigation . The foregoing does not however concern documents referred to in sections DATE , DATE and DATE . If the contents of a document are such that the person who has drawn it up may not , according to LAW , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) , of LAW , be heard as a witness in regard thereto , the document may not be presented in the judicial proceedings or in the course of the police investigation ; neither , unless warranted by special circumstances , may the document be presented in the judicial proceedings or in the course of the police investigation if a professional secret would thereby be disclosed . "

As from DATE , corresponding provisions are to be found in LAW , sections CARDINAL and DATE , of LAW .

ORG The civil liability of the ORG is dealt with in LAW DATE ( skadeståndslagen CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .

According to section CARDINAL , acts of public authorities may give rise to an entitlement to compensation in the event of fault or negligence .

However , under section CARDINAL , an action for damages will not lie in respect of decisions taken by ORG , the ORG , ORG , ORG or ORG . Furthermore , with regard to decisions of lower authorities , such as ORG , section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that such an action will not lie to the extent that the person concerned could have avoided losses by exhausting available remedies .


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

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 . His claim for widows ' benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows ' benefits because 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 benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The applicant 's late wife had not paid sufficient national insurance contributions to qualify her spouse for such benefits .

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


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of CARDINAL counts of kidnapping , deprivation of liberty , extortion and battery , committed in an organised and armed criminal group .

On DATE ORG remanded him in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question . It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given the risk that he might tamper with evidence . The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the offences had been committed in an organised criminal group .

Subsequently , CARDINAL other persons suspected of belonging to the same criminal group were charged in connection with the investigation of the applicant .

The applicant ’s appeal against the detention order , likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent , numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him , were unsuccessful . In his applications and appeals , he argued that the charges against him were based on unreliable evidence . He further relied on his personal circumstances ; in particular the fact that he was unable to complete his university education and continue running his business , and the need to ensure that his parents were cared for . Lastly , the applicant stressed , on several occasions , that he had never made any attempts to disrupt the trial .

In the course of the investigation the applicant ’s detention was prolonged on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . The applicant was charged with kidnapping , deprivation of liberty , extortion and battery committed in an organised criminal group . The bill of indictment contained CARDINAL other persons .

Further decisions extending the applicant ’s detention were taken on DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question , which was supported by evidence from witnesses , and on the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant . They attached importance to the complexity of the case , the significant number of persons involved and the voluminous documentation . They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses justified holding him in custody and that the applicant , if released , could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings . The courts found no special grounds that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure . In its decision of DATE ORG recommended to ORG that hearings should be held more frequently , in order to ensure the speedy progress of the proceedings . Further , in the decisions of DATE and DATE and DATE , ORG stressed the need to terminate the criminal proceedings pending before the first - instance court .

By letters of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s requests to receive visits from friends in detention . It held that the permission to receive visits was limited to the members of the applicant ’s close family only .

On DATE ORG did not allow the applicant to have a book written by PERSON in LANGUAGE delivered to the detention centre .

On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment . The applicant was convicted and sentenced to DATE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) .

By decisions of DATE and DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention . It held that in the light of the first - instance judgment , the reasons for keeping the applicant in detention were still valid .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE ORG lifted the applicant ’s detention and placed him under police supervision . The court held that the applicant ’s presence at home was necessary to ensure the care of his parents in the light of their difficult financial situation and the forthcoming surgery of the applicant ’s father .

The applicant was released on DATE .

It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending before the appellate court .

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

On DATE ORG adopted on the Interim Resolution concerning the judgments of ORG in CARDINAL cases against GPE relating to the excessive length of detention on remand ( “ the DATE Resolution ” ) . Noting that the number of cases in which ORG had found similar violations was constantly increasing . It concluded that the number of the ORG ’s judgments finding GPE in violation of LAW revealed a structural problem . A more detailed rendition of the DATE Resolution can be found in the ORG ’s judgment given in the case of ORG v. GPE ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ; not final ) .

On DATE ORG Commissioner for Human Rights released the Memorandum to the NORP Government concerning , among other issues , the use of the detention measure in GPE , stressing that examples of cases brought to the ORG where pre - trial detention had lasted DATE were not uncommon . The Commissioner urged the NORP authorities to review the application and functioning of pretrial detention in NORP law . A more detailed rendition of the relevant parts of the memorandum can be found in the above mentioned ORG judgment ( see ORG v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .


András Sajó;Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ineta Ziemele;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She ran a business supplying brokerage services .

The applicant was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of conspiracy in forging an important official document ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW as then in force ) . The court found inter alia that the applicant had agreed with ORG , a police officer acting under cover pursuant to a “ criminal conduct simulation model ” , in accordance with LAW , to falsify a number of stamps on ORG ’s passport for a fee of MONEY ( “ LTL ” ; MONEY [ “ ORG ” ] ) . The simulation model , authorised by the Deputy Prosecutor General on the basis of information obtained by the police , had mentioned that the applicant was engaged in forging passports and visas and organising travel to GPE , for specific fees . It therefore authorised ORG , over a period of a year , to obtain such forged documents from the applicant and her accomplices .

ORG held that the applicant had conspired with other people , the co - defendants ORG and ORG , in this matter . The court examined the simulation model and its application in detail and questioned ORG , who had also been questioned by defence counsel . Moreover , the court had taken testimony from the applicant and her co - defendants and admitted the secretly recorded conversations between ORG , GPE and the applicant , the legality of which had not been challenged by her . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and fines in a total of LTL CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal , holding inter alia that the lower court had objectively and thoroughly assessed the case , and that there was no proof that she had been incited to commit the offence .

On DATE the applicant submitted a cassation appeal , claiming inter alia that she had not committed a crime but had been provoked by ORG . She asserted that ORG had taken the initiative in telephoning her CARDINAL times over DATE in DATE and exerting psychological pressure . As a result , the applicant had met him twice , but there was nothing in their conversations ( secretly recorded by ORG ) to prove her criminal involvement . Newspaper articles , however , alleged that she was part of a group of people who forged visas , and had sentenced her before the trial was over .

On DATE ORG declared the cassation appeal by the applicant inadmissible in a decision which included the following passage :

“ Only the factual circumstances established by the courts from the evidence are contested in the cassation appeal . It must be noted that the applicant , while alleging that she did not commit the crime she was sentenced for , does not request that the case be discontinued , but that it be returned for examination to the court of first instance , alleging that the pre - trial investigation was not thorough . Her allegation is merely a declaration as the appeal does not elaborate what specific circumstances were not examined by the court . The cassation appeal in essence is repeating the appeal claim , where it was also stated that the conclusions in the judgment did not correspond to the factual circumstances in the case . The submissions presented in this claim were examined in detail by the court of appellate instance and a reasoned decision was adopted . ”

On DATE the applicant submitted a further cassation appeal on the same grounds . On DATE that appeal was again declared inadmissible by ORG on the same basis as before . In both cassation appeals ORG had heard the prosecution and defence before reaching its decision .

It appears that at some point the applicant ’s prison sentence was amnestied , although she did pay the fines .

The relevant domestic law and practice , as well as the relevant international law , concerning police undercover activities and criminal conduct simulation models , have been summarised in the judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON GPE ( [ ORG ] no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE ) . Of particular note in that judgment is the description of the prosecuting authorities’ power to authorise criminal conduct simulation models , following an application by the police under LAW DATE ( ibid . § CARDINAL ) . The scope of this power has been developed by the case - law of the national courts , especially a ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , in order to prohibit provocation or incitement by the police to commit an offence ( ibid § CARDINAL ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( ORG proceso kodeksas ) read as follows :

“ The judgment or decision in force can be appealed against and examined at the cassation instance , if :

the criminal law has been applied wrongly ( LAW ) ;

there has been a substantive breach of procedural law ( LAW ) ;

there has been a substantive breach of procedural law in the appellate instance : the appeal was not examined ; the instructions given in the decision by the cassation court were not followed , or there have been other breaches of law which the cassation court could recognise materially . ”

“ The substantive breaches of the criminal procedural law are such violations of the requirements of the LAW [ of Criminal Procedure ] which have impugned or restricted the rights of the parties to the case , or have in any other manner precluded the court from examining the case thoroughly , and have interfered with the adoption of a legitimate and well - founded decision .

The judgment shall be annulled if :

the right of the convicted person to have a lawyer has been violated ;

the right to use the language that he understands or the right to have an interpreter has been violated ;

the accused person was not informed of the accusation against him ;

after the pre - trial investigation had been concluded , the accused has not been acquainted with the case , except if the accused has not been acquainted with all the material of the case due to circumstances foreseen in Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ;

the accused has not been handed over to the court ;

the case has been examined by a court which has not had the relevant competence ;

the case has been examined without the accused being present when [ his presence ] is mandatory according to the law ;

the case has been examined by a court with an unlawful composition ;

the parties ... have not been afforded a right to state their case ;

the defendant has not been afforded the right to have the last word ;

when adopting the judgment , the secrecy of the deliberations has been breached ;

there was no protocol of the court hearing . ”

“ The persons listed in article CARDINAL of this code have a right to be acquainted with the cassation appeal and the other materials in the case before the court .

The court of cassation examines the cases at a public hearing , except the cases foreseen in LAW .

On the appointed date , the President of the ORG opens the court hearing and announces which case , whose cassation appeal and against which court decision or judgment , will be examined . Further , the President verifies who appears at the hearing and if the persons named in LAW were informed about the hearing date . The President then announces the composition of the court and asks the persons present if there are any requests for the removal of any judges . Such requests are determined pursuant to the procedure set out in Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of this Code .

At the start of the hearing in a case , a judge on the ORG can point out that the cassation appeal does not raise any grounds for cassation , as set out in Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this Code , and thus the cassation appeal should be left unexamined . The President of the Panel then asks the opinion of the persons present at the hearing . Thereafter , the court leaves the room to deliberate , whereupon [ the court ] can decide to adopt the decision to leave the appeal unexamined and to discontinue the judicial process . Such a decision is announced to the persons present at the hearing .

If at the start of the hearing there were no grounds to leave the appeal unexamined , or if during the deliberations [ the court ] decided to continue with the hearing , the cassation appeal is then examined in essence .

The President of the ORG asks the persons present if there are any requests . The court adopts a decision regarding those requests .

CARDINAL of the judges announces the essence of the case and the content of the judgment or decision and of the cassation appeal .

After this announcement by a judge , the public prosecutor , counsel and the persons convicted or acquitted , their legal representatives , the victim and his representatives have a right to make oral submissions . First to speak is the appellant . After the explanations of the parties to the case , the court gives the floor to the convicted or acquitted person , their counsel or legal representatives .

Having examined the case , the court leaves the room to deliberate . After adopting its decision , the court returns to the hearing room and the President of the ORG or another judge announces the resolution reached and explains the reasons . The reasoned decision is written up and signed by all members of the ORG not DATE after the adoption of the decision .

If , after the case had been examined by the cassation court , the convicted person has to be released from detention , the decision shall be written and signed on DATE .

The protocol shall be written at the court hearing . ”


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

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

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

i. Proceedings against ORG

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant sued a certain ORG in LOC ( okresní soud ) .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s action ordering ORG to pay CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the applicant .

According to the applicant , as ORG had not paid the sum at issue , he requested ORG , in DATE , to execute the judgment . Apparently , the execution proceedings have not yet been terminated .

ii . Proceedings against GPE

In his application form , the applicant submitted that in DATE , he had brought an action for damages against a certain GPE

The Government denied that such an action had been filed .

In his observations in reply , the applicant said that he had filed a criminal complaint against GPE at FAC ( PERSON – město ) which subsequently instituted criminal proceedings against GPE ’s accomplice .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant is a NORP citizen of NORP origin , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON ( GPE ) . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , PERSON .

The applicant served in ORG and in DATE retired from service . His military pension was assessed to PERCENT of his average wage , according to his rank and DATE of service and was paid from ORG . The payments terminated in DATE , following the dissolution of GPE .

CARDINAL separate proceedings took place , in respect of the decrease in the applicant ’s military pension .

Firstly , on DATE , ORG , ORG , assessed the applicant ’s pension , as from DATE , at CARDINAL MONEY of the amount he had received until DATE . The applicant appealed against that decision and , after his appeal was dismissed , instituted administrative proceedings with ORG , which dismissed the applicant ’s claim on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint .

Secondly , the applicant lodged a constitutional claim challenging the constitutionality of the LAW incorporating into NORP law the former federal law regulating the pension insurance for military personnel ( the Yugoslav Military Pensions Act ) enacted in DATE and altered several times in DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG terminated those proceedings due to the enactment of new laws regulating the same matter .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion;Positive obligations) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE . His current whereabouts are unknown .

The applicant was a member of ORG ut - GPE , a radical NORP organisation calling for the overthrow of non - NORP governments and the establishment of an NORP Caliphate . PERSON is classified as a terrorist organisation and banned both in GPE and in GPE .

According to the applicant , he left GPE for GPE in DATE . In DATE he lost his NORP passport , no . ORG , issued in DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of membership of ORG ut - GPE .

On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia with attempting to overthrow the constitutional order , a criminal offence under LAW of GPE . The statement of charges indicated that the applicant , being an active member of ORG ut - GPE , had founded several local sections of that organisation , had involved minors in its activities and had distributed its literature calling for the overthrow of governments in LOC and the entire world and their replacement by an NORP State in the form of a recreated Caliphate . On DATE , the prosecutor for LOC ordered the applicant ’s arrest . The applicant was put on the list of wanted persons .

On DATE ORG of GPE informed ORG of GPE that they had information that the applicant was living in GPE , and requested the NORP authorities to arrest him and extradite him to GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested with a view to his extradition .

On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE amended the charges against the applicant . An additional charge of founding a criminal organisation , a criminal offence under LAW of GPE , was brought against him .

On DATE ORG Office of GPE lodged a formal request for the applicant ’s extradition with ORG of GPE .

On DATE the NORP authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of membership of ORG . He was charged with aiding and abetting terrorism , founding a criminal organisation , and use of forged documents , offences under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW . The extradition proceedings were suspended pending the criminal proceedings in GPE .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction on appeal .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was transported to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . It can be seen from a letter of DATE from the head of the correctional colony that the applicant ’s personal file did not contain any passport or other identity document .

On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE amended the charges against the applicant , adding charges of dissemination of materials damaging to public order , membership of a religious extremist group , and smuggling of extremist materials , criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE .

On DATE the applicant finished serving his prison term and on an unspecified date the extradition proceedings were resumed .

On DATE ORG submitted an updated request for the applicant ’s extradition .

On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the applicant ’s detention pending the resumed extradition proceedings , relying on ORG and CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .

The applicant ’s detention was extended by ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE on the basis of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP. On DATE the applicant ’s detention was extended until DATE . All extension orders were upheld by ORG on appeal .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for refugee status . In particular , he submitted that he was being persecuted in GPE for his religious beliefs and that he feared torture and ill - treatment in GPE in the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG of the ORG declared his application inadmissible , finding that he was not eligible for refugee status . He had been convicted of a serious criminal offence in GPE and was suspected of a similar offence in GPE . He had not submitted any documentary evidence or witness statements confirming that the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated .

The applicant challenged that decision before a deputy head of the ORG . He submitted , in particular , that the decision of DATE had been taken on the basis of a written questionnaire without any interview . He had not been allowed to contact a lawyer before filling the questionnaire in .

On DATE the deputy head of the ORG confirmed the decision of DATE . He found that the NORP authorities had charged the applicant with criminal offences in connection with his membership of ORG ut - GPE . PERSON ut - GPE had been classified as a terrorist organisation by ORG and thus constituted a serious danger for the national security of all GPE . The applicant had earlier been convicted by a NORP court for creating and leading a section of PERSON ut - GPE in GPE . Moreover , he had submitted false information about the date of his arrival in GPE . He had stated in the questionnaire that he had left GPE for GPE in DATE , whereas the documents in the criminal case file showed that he had arrived in GPE in DATE . The applicant had not produced any evidence confirming his allegation that the criminal charges against him were politically motivated .

The applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG of GPE . He reiterated his fears of being subjected to ill - treatment in GPE and his arguments that the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated and that he was in fact being persecuted for his religious beliefs . He further cited extracts from the the ORG judgment of DATE confirming that that court had established that he had lived in GPE since DATE . Finally , he asserted that he had ceased to be a member of PERSON in DATE and no longer participated in that organisation ’s activities .

On DATE the ORG confirmed the decision of DATE . It found that the reasons for the refusal of refugee status advanced by the ORG were convincing and that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegation that he had been persecuted for his religious beliefs . Moreover , the applicant had not applied for refugee status within DATE of crossing the NORP border , as required by NORP law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Given that his close relatives continued to live in GPE , his return there was possible . The court also found it established that the applicant had in fact arrived in GPE in DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it was lawful , well - reasoned and justified .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG , the ORG and ORG informed ORG that the applicant did not hold NORP citizenship and that there were no other obstacles to his extradition to GPE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG Office of GPE gave an assurance that the applicant would not be extradited to a third - party ORG , or prosecuted or punished for any offences committed before extradition which were not mentioned in the extradition request , without GPE ’s consent . It also stated that after serving his sentence he would be free to leave GPE . It further stated that NORP law prohibited any discrimination on grounds of sex , race , ethnic origin , language , religious or other beliefs or social status , as well as torture , violence or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment . ORG Office of GPE gave an undertaking that the relevant provisions of NORP law would be respected in the criminal proceedings against the applicant .

The applicant asked ORG of GPE to refuse the request for his extradition . He submitted , in particular , that he would run a real risk of torture or inhuman treatment if extradited to GPE . Relying on LAW and the ORG ’s case - law ( he referred to PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . DATE , DATE ; GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON GPE , no . MONEY , CARDINAL DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , CARDINAL DATE ) , he argued that members of PERSON were at an increased risk of ill - treatment . Finally , he submitted that he had already been convicted for membership of ORG ut - GPE by a NORP court and had served his sentence , and that his extradition would therefore be in breach of his right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s extradition to GPE . The prosecutor listed the charges against the applicant and found that his actions were punishable under NORP criminal law . An extradition order was granted in respect of the charge of founding a criminal organisation . The prosecutor found that the said offence corresponded to the offence of leadership of a criminal organisation under NORP criminal law . However , the prosecutor rejected as grounds for extradition the charges of attempted overthrow of the constitutional order , dissemination of materials damaging to public order , membership of a religious extremist group , and smuggling of extremist materials because those offences were either time - barred , had not been punishable under NORP criminal law at the time of their alleged commission by the applicant , or had later been decriminalised .

The applicant challenged the extradition order before ORG . He submitted , in particular , that the charges against him were politically motivated , that he would be subjected to a serious risk of torture in GPE , and that he had been already convicted for the same offence by a NORP court . To substantiate the risk of ill - treatment he relied on the case - law of the ORG cited above and on reports by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ ORG ” ) , ORG and ORG according to which the human rights situation in GPE in general , and in NORP detention facilities in particular , was alarming because ill - treatment in order to obtain self - incriminating statements was widespread and members of prohibited religious organisations , such as ORG ut - GPE , were at an increased risk of ill - treatment . The applicant also submitted to the court letters from ORG and ORG in which they expressed their concern about his impending extradition to GPE where , being a member of ORG ut - GPE , he would certainly face a serious risk of torture or inhuman treatment

On DATE ORG upheld the extradition order . It held that the NORP and NORP authorities had followed the extradition procedure set out in the applicable international and domestic law . The applicant was charged with offences punishable under NORP and NORP criminal law and there was no evidence that he was being persecuted for his political opinions . ORG further held that the applicant ’s allegations of a risk of ill - treatment were based on assumptions . The international reports and the case - law of the ORG relied upon by the applicant were irrelevant because they described the general situation in GPE rather than the applicant ’s personal circumstances . It was significant that the competent NORP authorities , such as ORG , had not detected any obstacles to the applicant ’s extradition , that his application for refugee status had been dismissed , and that assurances of humane treatment had been provided by the NORP authorities .

The applicant appealed . He reiterated the arguments he had advanced before ORG and ORG and argued that ORG had disregarded those arguments and the evidence he had adduced of the existence of a serious risk of ill - treatment . He further submitted that the diplomatic assurances that he would not be ill - treated were unreliable as there was no mechanism for monitoring compliance , or accountability for a breach of such assurances .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed his appeal and upheld the decision of DATE , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . In reply to the applicant ’s argument that his extradition would be in breach of his right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence , ORG held that he had been convicted by a NORP court for acts he had committed in his capacity as a member of PERSON ut - GPE DATE in GPE , while his extradition was sought in respect of acts he had committed in the same capacity DATE in GPE .

On DATE , as the date of expiry of the maximum detention period established by domestic law was approaching , the applicant made a written statement that he had no intention of returning to GPE and that if he disappeared it should be understood that he had been abducted and forcibly transferred to GPE . For the same reason of fear of abduction he also requested that his representatives , PERSON and Mr GPE , be present at the moment of his release .

On DATE the prosecutor of GPE ordered the applicant ’s release because the maximum detention period established by domestic law had expired .

The applicant was released on DATE . In accordance with his request , his release took place in the presence of his representatives , Ms Ryabinina and Mr GPE . He was issued with a release certificate bearing his identity photograph . He did not have any other identity documents .

On DATE the applicant took a plane to GPE together with his representatives . He rented a flat in the village of Verbilki in the GPE region . It was agreed between the applicant and PERSON that he should telephone PERSON every day .

On DATE the applicant applied for temporary asylum . It appears that the proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the applicant told his representative Ms Ryabinina that CARDINAL cars were following him everywhere and that he feared abduction . PERSON telephoned the Government ’s Representative to inform him of that conversation .

DATE the applicant stayed at home fearing abduction .

On DATE the applicant telephoned his landlady at CARDINAL p.m. to ask if he could borrow a screwdriver from her . She answered in the affirmative and the applicant said he would come to fetch it in TIME . He never went to get it and has not been seen or heard of since .

Late in TIME of the same day , Ms Ryabinina did not receive her usual DATE call from the applicant , so she attempted to contact him . His mobile phone was switched off . Ms LOC immediately informed the police and the Government ’s Representative of the applicant ’s disappearance . She also attempted unsuccessfully to obtain information about the applicant from the border control authorities .

On DATE the applicant ’s landlady let Ms Ryabinina , Mr GPE and PERSON into the applicant ’s flat . His personal belongings , including his clothes , his copy of the Koran , his prayer mat and his mobile phone charger , as well as documents relating to his case , were found there . The fridge was full of food , the lights were on and some repair tools had been left on the floor . Ms LOC contacted the Government ’s Representative to inform him of these facts .

It can be seen from a document issued on DATE by ORG ( GPE havo yo‛llari ) that the applicant departed FAC for GPE , GPE , on board regular flight no . HY-CARDINAL at TIME on DATE . His ticket was issued on passport no . CL-CARDINAL .

The applicant ’s current whereabouts within GPE remain unknown .

On DATE PERSON lodged a complaint about the applicant ’s disappearance with the GPE police station in LOC of LOC . She was immediately questioned and described the circumstances of the applicant ’s disappearance .

On DATE the police examined the applicant ’s flat and questioned his landlady . The landlady described the applicant ’s telephone call of DATE , his intention to come to her flat to borrow a screwdriver and his eventual failure to appear .

On DATE PERSON complaint was referred to ORG .

On DATE a search file was opened by the local police in respect of the applicant . Several of the applicant ’s neighbours were questioned on DATE in connection with the search . They were unable to provide any information about the applicant . The police established that the last signal had been emitted by the applicant ’s mobile phone at TIME on DATE . The mobile phone had been inactive since . Finally , the police checked nearby hospitals , morgues and detention facilities and circulated the applicant ’s description to the police duty posts at GPE metro stations , train stations and airports . No trace of the applicant was found .

On DATE ORG returned PERSON complaint to ORG of the ORG because the requisite formalities had not been complied with in the referral of DATE .

On DATE ORG of the Interior referred PERSON complaint to ORG for a second time .

On DATE the chief investigator of ORG refused to open criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s disappearance . He made a summary of the statements by PERSON , the applicant ’s landlady and CARDINAL of his neighbours . He then found that there was no evidence of kidnapping or murder . The applicant could have gone into hiding to evade extradition and the criminal proceedings in GPE .

On DATE the head of ORG annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered a further inquiry . He ordered , in particular , that PERSON and other acquaintances of the applicant be questioned , that it be established whether the applicant had bought train or plane tickets , and that a request for information be sent to the NORP authorities to find out whether the applicant was currently in detention in GPE .

On DATE the chief investigator of ORG asked ORG of LOC to check the applicant ’s name in their internal databases in order to establish whether he had recently bought train or plane tickets .

On DATE ORG of LOC replied that the applicant ’s name had been on the federal list of wanted persons since DATE . ORG did not have any information concerning train or plane tickets bought by the applicant .

On DATE PERSON sent to the chief investigator of ORG a written statement describing in detail the circumstances of the applicant ’s disappearance .

On DATE the chief investigator of ORG refused to open criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s disappearance , advancing the same reasons as in the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the head of ORG annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered a further inquiry . He ordered , in particular , that the investigative measures set out in the decision of CARDINAL DATE be carried out .

On DATE the chief investigator of ORG sent a request for information to ORG . He asked them to inform him whether the applicant had recently bought tickets from the company .

On DATE the chief investigator of ORG refused to open criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s disappearance for a third time , for the same reasons as before . He noted that no reply had yet been received to the request for information sent to ORG .

On DATE the head of ORG annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered a further inquiry . He noted that the chief investigator had not still carried out the investigative measures mentioned in the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG opened criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s disappearance .

DATE . On DATE PERSON requested that the applicant be granted the procedural status of victim and that she be recognised as his representative . On DATE Mr GPE submitted a similar request . They received no formal reply to their requests . According to the Government , the investigator replied to them orally that they were not relatives of the applicant and could not therefore claim to be victims .

On DATE PERSON , who had accompanied PERSON and PERSON GPE to the applicant ’s flat on DATE , was questioned . He described the applicant ’s flat as they had found it .

On DATE the investigator collected the applicant ’s belongings from PERSON . He drew up a list of those belongings , which included the applicant ’s clothes and other belongings , such as a prayer mat , books , documents , photographs , a mobile phone charger , a wristwatch , a razor , a nail file and a glasses case .

According to the Government , on DATE the investigator sent requests for assistance to the NORP authorities . He asked for assistance in questioning the applicant ’s relatives and in establishing the applicant ’s whereabouts . The ORG has not been informed of any reply .

On DATE ORG confirmed that a person named PERSON . PERSON had taken a flight to GPE on DATE . The investigator sent a request for further information but has not received any reply to date .

The criminal proceedings are still pending . As confirmed by the Government , PERSON and Mr PERSON were not informed about the progress of the investigation because they did not have any procedural status in the proceedings .

Chapter CARDINAL of LAW ( “ CCrP ” ) of DATE governs the procedure to be followed in the event of extradition .

Upon receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , a prosecutor must decide on the preventive measure in respect of the person whose extradition is sought . The measure must be applied in accordance with established procedure ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . If a request for extradition is accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , a prosecutor may impose house arrest on the individual concerned or place him or her in detention “ without seeking confirmation of the validity of that order from a NORP court ” ( LAW ) .

DATE . An extradition decision made by ORG may be challenged before a court ( LAW ) . In that case the extradition order must not be enforced until a final judgment is delivered ( LAW ) .

A court is to review the lawfulness and validity of a decision to extradite within DATE of receipt of a request for review . The decision must be taken in open court by a panel of CARDINAL judges in the presence of a prosecutor , the person whose extradition is sought , and the latter ’s legal counsel ( LAW ) .

Issues of guilt or innocence are not within the scope of such judicial review , which is limited to an assessment of whether the extradition order was made in accordance with the procedure set out in the applicable international and domestic law ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL lists the conditions under which extradition can not be authorised . Thus , the extradition of the following is to be denied : a NORP citizen or a person who has been granted asylum in GPE ; a person in respect of whom a conviction has become effective or criminal proceedings have been terminated in GPE in connection with the same act for which he or she is being prosecuted in the requesting ORG ; a person in respect of whom criminal proceedings can not be instituted or a conviction can not become effective in view of the expiry of the statute of limitations or under another valid ground in NORP law ; or a person in respect of whom extradition has been blocked by a NORP court in accordance with the legislation and international treaties of GPE . Finally , extradition must be denied if the act that serves as the basis for the extradition request does not constitute a criminal offence under LAW .

In the event that a foreign national whose extradition is being sought is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence for another criminal offence in GPE , his extradition may be postponed until the prosecution is terminated , the penalty is lifted on any valid ground , or the sentence is served ( LAW ) .

In its ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE , the Plenary Session of ORG indicated , with reference to LAW , that extradition was to be refused if there were serious reasons to believe that the person might be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting country . Extradition could also be refused if exceptional circumstances disclosed that it might entail a danger to the person ’s life and health on account of , among other things , his or her age or physical condition . NORP authorities dealing with an extradition case were to examine whether there were reasons to believe that the person concerned might be sentenced to the death penalty , subjected to ill - treatment , or persecuted because of his or her race , religious beliefs , nationality , ethnic or social origin or political opinions . The courts were to assess both the general situation in the requesting country and the personal circumstances of the person whose extradition was sought . They were to take into account the testimony of the person concerned and that of any witnesses , any assurances given by the requesting country , and information about the country provided by ORG , competent ORG institutions and ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment .

Article CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , which was ratified by GPE on DATE , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No Contracting State shall expel or return ( ‘ ORG ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion .

The benefit of the present provision may not , however , be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is , or who , having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime , constitutes a danger to the community of that country . ”

LAW ( Law no . GPE of DATE ) incorporated the definition of the term “ refugee ” contained in LAW , as amended by LAW relating to ORG . The LAW defines a refugee as a person who is not a NORP national and who , owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , ethnic origin , membership of a particular social group , or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country , or who , not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events , is unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to return to it ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

The Act does not apply to anyone believed on reasonable grounds to have committed a crime against peace , a war crime , a crime against humanity , or a serious non - political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a person seeking refugee status ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .

An application for refugee status must be submitted : ( CARDINAL ) to FAC before arrival in GPE ; ( CARDINAL ) to ORG at the time of crossing the NORP border ; ( CARDINAL ) to ORG , the local ORG or the local office of the ORG within a day of an illegal crossing of the NORP border ; or ( CARDINAL ) to the local office of the ORG having territorial jurisdiction over the place of the person ’s lawful residence ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

A person who has applied for refugee status or who has been granted refugee status can not be returned to a ORG where his life or freedom would be imperilled on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group , or political opinion ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

ORG If a person satisfies the criteria established in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , or if he does not satisfy such criteria but can not be expelled or deported from GPE for humanitarian reasons , he may be granted temporary asylum ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A person who has been granted temporary asylum can not be returned against his will to the country of his nationality or to the country of his former habitual residence ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

GPE is a member State of ORG ( ORG ) together with GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . All these GPE signed the DATE Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism , Separatism and Extremism , which requires the member GPE to co - operate in arresting people accused on charges relating to terrorism , separatism or extremism . In the implementation of that LAW with regard to issues concerning extradition and legal assistance in criminal cases , the Parties must cooperate in conformity with the international treaties to which they are parties and the national laws of the Parties ( LAW ) .

On DATE ORG between ORG member GPE in the Fight against Terrorism , Separatism and Extremism was adopted . It provides that GPE are committed to refusing asylum to people who are suspected or accused of offences relating to terrorism , separatism or extremism ( section CARDINAL ) .

For a summary of the recent reports on GPE by the ORG institutions and by NGOs , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE . For relevant reports on the particular situation of persons accused of membership of ORG ut - GPE , see PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

For a summary of ORG texts on the duty to cooperate with the ORG , the right to individual petition , and interim measures , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR DATE .

ORG considered the sixth periodic report of GPE and adopted the following concluding observations on DATE ( CCPR / C / RUS / CO/CARDINAL ) :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is concerned about reports of extraditions and informal transfers by the ORG party to return foreign nationals to countries in which the practice of torture is alleged while relying on diplomatic assurances , notably within the framework of the DATE Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism , Separatism and Extremism ...

The ORG party should ensure that no individual , including persons suspected of terrorism , who are extradited or subjected to informal transfers , whether or not in the context of ORG , is exposed to the danger of torture or cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . Furthermore , the ORG party should recognise that , the more systematic the practice of torture or cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment , the less likely it will be that a real risk of such treatment can be avoided by diplomatic assurances , however stringent any agreed follow - up procedure may be . ORG party should exercise the utmost care in the use of such assurances and adopt clear and transparent procedures allowing review by adequate judicial mechanisms before individuals are deported , as well as effective means to monitor the fate of the affected individuals . ”

In their DATE report “ Return to Torture : Extradition , Forcible Returns and Removals to LOC ” , ORG expressed deep concern about section CARDINAL of ORG between ORG member GPE in the Fight against Terrorism , Separatism and Extremism ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which , in their view , removes the possibility to apply for refugee status ( and thus seek and obtain asylum and protection against persecution ) even where a person is only suspected of an offence relating to terrorism , separatism or extremism . In ORG opinion , this contradicts the DATE LAW relating to ORG . ORG writes as follows [ internal footnotes are omitted ] :

“ In the DATE Declaration of Heads of ORG Member GPE in GPE , GPE , participating states committed to denying asylum to all individuals accused or suspected of ‘ terrorism , extremism or GPE . This is of particular concern to ORG , as it effectively denies access to refugee - determination procedures DATE and consequently the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution – to any individual who is accused or merely suspected of acts of “ terrorism , extremism or separatism ” in CARDINAL of the ORG member states , in a way that is not consistent with LAW . The LAW , like most formal ORG documents and agreements , makes no reference to the international obligations of its member states , including the principle of non - refoulement enshrined in LAW and the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill - treatment .

These agreements that have been concluded within the framework of the ORG have made the extradition of refugees to member states significantly easier as states prioritize these agreements over international human rights and refugee obligations . According to human rights defenders from ORG ( KGS ) or ORG in GPE ‘ there has been a sharp increase in extraditions of refugees to the countries [ of the ORG ] of which they are citizens , since the ORG was set PERSON

Co - operation between the police and security services of ORG member states has similarly increased , especially in the apprehension and detention of individuals wanted on criminal charges in a member state ... ”

For a summary of ORG decisions under LAW on related cases concerning GPE adopted DATE and DATE , see PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

At the CARDINALth meeting of ORG held on DATE , ORG adopted the following decision in the wake of yet another incident involving allegations of the disappearance of an applicant in respect of whom an interim measure had been indicated by ORG ( CM / Del / Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL/HCARDINAL - CARDINALE ):

“ The Deputies ,

Recalling the decisions adopted at their ORG meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) and CARDINAL meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) in the PERSON group of cases against GPE ( see the list below ) ,

NORP noted with grave concern that a further incident involving allegations of kidnapping and illegal transfer of an applicant protected by an interim measure indicated by ORG under Rule DATE has been reported ...

NORP strongly insisted that light be shed on this incident and on the fate of the applicant as quickly as possible ;

NORP consequently insisted again on the pressing need to adopt as of now measures to ensure an immediate and effective protection of the applicants in a similar situation against kidnappings and irregular removals from the national territory ;

recalled in this context the letter sent by the Chairman of ORG to the Minister of ORG of GPE ;

NORP agreed that a draft interim resolution will be considered in the light of progress that would have been made , including the updated action plan submitted by the NORP authorities ; this text will be circulated in the draft revised order of business of their CARDINAL meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) . ”