Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13

Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested at his home by masked and armed police officers , who allegedly tortured him until he confessed to several crimes of theft and robbery .

The applicant lodged a complaint of ill - treatment by the police and asked the prosecutor 's office to investigate . On DATE his complaint was dismissed as unfounded by the PERSON chief of police . The applicant challenged that decision before the prosecutor 's office . On DATE a prosecutor from the PERSON prosecutor 's office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers , finding that there was no evidence of the applicant 's ill - treatment or of any other unlawful act . The applicant challenged that decision before the investigating judge , who decided to forward it to the trial court for examination as part of the criminal proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was convicted by ORG . That conviction was upheld by ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG allowed an extraordinary appeal ( recurs PERSON anulare ) by the applicant , but only in respect of reducing his sentence in accordance with a new law that was more favourable to him .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON no . CARDINAL . DATE and DATE he was treated at the GPE prison hospital . He was then transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL , where he served the rest of his sentence .

The applicant made a number of complaints to the authorities that the conditions of his detention were inhuman . He received numerous replies from ORG , ORG and ORG . Many of these replies noted that he had been found to be “ healthy for all practical purposes ” and not in need of medical assistance . Some of the letters also noted that , due to insufficient funding of the prison system , detainees were not provided with bed linen , and food was available in less than the minimum prescribed quantities . In a letter of CARDINAL August DATE ORG informed the applicant that it was aware that cell no . CARDINAL in which he was detained was overcrowded and that not all its inmates had a bed and bed linen . The prison authorities were asked to remedy the situation . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed a group of CARDINAL detainees , including the applicant , that medical assistance was available when needed and that only minor repairs could be made to the cells , due to lack of funds ; the Ministry was aware of the problems in ensuring the proper functioning of the prison system , and was taking all necessary measures to improve the situation . The Minister added that no detainees suffering from tuberculosis were being held in the nearby cell CARDINALA. In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis .

In a letter to the ORG dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained that the cells in the prison were overcrowded , damp and full of parasitic insects . He also complained of a lack of legal information in the prison . This letter was forwarded to ORG of ORG . In its reply of DATE the ORG acknowledged that the prison lacked legal information , and confirmed that after DATE the applicant had been treated for piodermia and scabies . It also noted that the applicant was detained in a cell with QUANTITY beds and QUANTITY detainees .

NORP In response to a complaint by the applicant on DATE , on DATE ORG informed the applicant that under the applicable rules all detainees were provided with the minimum acceptable quantities of food . However , due to lack of funding , such items as meat , fish or dairy products were provided “ within the limits of available funds ” . Moreover , products such as eggs , butter and milk would be included on the menu in the near future .

On the basis of a doctor 's prescription , increased quantities of food could be provided to detainees who were ill . On DATE the applicant made another complaint that the rules on food to be served were being violated and asking for a transfer to the prison hospital because of his worsening state of health . It appears that he was not transferred to the hospital .

According to the documents submitted by the ORG , the applicant was treated on a regular basis by various doctors when the need arose , as well as on a preventive basis . On DATE and DATE he refused to have X - ray examinations . When he did have such an examination , on DATE , he was diagnosed with tuberculosis and admitted to ORG . He received ORG treatment there until DATE , when he was released DATE subject to a DATE period of supervision – after full recovery from his illness .

The relevant provisions of domestic law have been set out in PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE .

The Government submitted a list of laws , regulations , Ministerial orders and other acts or bills yet to be enacted aimed at improving various aspects of prison conditions and the medical treatment of detainees .

The Government annexed to their observations copies of judgments in the cases of PERSON v. ORG and ORG ; PERSON v. ORG and ORG ; PERSON v. the ORG ; and GPE v. ORG , ORG and ORG , all cases in which the applicants had been awarded compensation for ill - treatment and/or inhuman conditions of detention .

The relevant parts of the ORG report concerning the visit to GPE DATE read as follows ( unofficial translation ) :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG delegation again heard repeated complaints from persons charged with and convicted of administrative offences concerning the refusal of permission for them to receive visits or have contact with the outside world in EDPs .

The ORG reiterates ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit ) that , where persons awaiting trial are concerned , if it is necessary in the interests of the investigation to place restrictions on visits for some of them , the restrictions should be strictly limited in time and applied for the shortest period possible . In no circumstances should visits to a detained person by family and friends be prohibited for a prolonged period . If there is thought to be an ongoing risk of collusion , it is better to allow visits under strict supervision . ...

The situation in the majority of penitentiaries visited , in view of the economic situation in the country , remained difficult and the delegation encountered a number of problems already identified during its visits in DATE and DATE in terms of physical conditions and detention regimes .

Added to this is the problem of overcrowding , which remains serious . In fact , even though the penitentiaries visited were not operating at their full capacity – as is the case of Prison no . CARDINAL in which the number of detainees was appreciably smaller than during the last visit of the Committee – they continued to be extremely congested . In fact , the receiving capacity was still based on a very unsatisfactory QUANTITY per detainee ; in practice , this was often even less .

The follow - up visit to Prison no.CARDINAL in PERSON revealed an unsatisfactory situation . The progress noted was in fact minimal , limited to some running repairs . The ventilation system had been repaired primarily thanks to the financial support of civil society ( especially NGOs ) , and the creation of places for DATE recreation had been made possible only as a result of contributions by the detainees and their families .

The repair , renovation and maintenance of cells are entirely the responsibility of detainees themselves and of their families , who also pay for the necessary materials . They must also obtain their own sheets and blankets , the institution being able to give them only used mattresses .

In sum , the conditions in the great majority of cells in FAC and the transit cells continue to be very poor indeed . ...

Finally , despite the drastic reduction in overcrowding , the rate of occupancy of cells is still very high , not to say intolerable .

Except in the Lipcani Re - education ORG , where the efforts made in this respect are to be highlighted , the quantity and quality of detainees ' food everywhere is a source of grave concern . The delegation was inundated with complaints regarding the absence of meat and dairy products . The findings of the delegation , regarding both the stocks of food and the menus , confirm the credibility of these complaints . Its findings also confirmed that in certain places ( in Prison no . CARDINAL , ... ) , the food served was repulsive and virtually inedible ( for instance , insects and vermin were present ) . This is not surprising given the general state of the kitchens and their modest equipment .

The NORP authorities have always claimed financial difficulties in ensuring the adequate feeding of detainees . However , the ORG insists that this is a fundamental requirement of life which must be ensured by the ORG to persons in its charge and that nothing can exonerate it from such responsibility . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . In DATE , the Director of ORG of ORG provided the delegation with detailed information on measures already taken or planned with a view to reforming the NORP prison system and implementing the ORG 's recommendations . CARDINAL particularly welcome outcome of these measures is the reduction of the country 's prisoner population . At the time of the DATE visit , the total number of prisoners stood at CARDINAL ( including CARDINAL on remand ) , compared to CARDINAL in DATE . This positive trend can be attributed to legislative changes in DATE , including the entry into force of a new LAW in DATE and the adoption of amendments to LAW and LAW . As a result , there has been an increase in the number of conditional early releases , as well as a wider use of alternatives to imprisonment and a more selective application of remand custody by the courts .

Further , the implementation of the “ Concept for reforming the penitentiary system in the period DATE ” has been supported by an increase in the budgetary allocation ( from MONEY in DATE , to MONEY in DATE ) , as well as by a growing input of foreign aid . This has enabled , inter alia , the amelioration of the food provided to prisoners , an improvement of health care , and the carrying out of refurbishment works at several penitentiary establishments ( e.g. No . CARDINAL in GPE , No . CARDINAL in ORG and No . CARDINAL in ORG ) .

Last but not least , there has been an important shift in mentality through improved staff recruitment and training procedures . The delegation was informed that the directors of many penitentiary establishments had been changed in DATE , following a competition and a probation period . Further , new training programmes for staff had been developed , placing particular emphasis on human rights issues ( see also paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The ORG can only welcome the above - mentioned measures taken the NORP authorities . Nevertheless , the information gathered by the ORG 's delegation during the DATE visit shows that much remains to be done . In particular , overcrowding continues to be a problem ; despite the fact that all establishments visited were operating well under their official capacities , there was on average only CARDINAL m² of living space per prisoner , rather than the standard of CARDINAL m² provided for in GPE legislation .

The ORG is convinced that the only viable way to control overcrowding and achieve the standard of CARDINAL m² of living space per prisoner is to adopt policies designed to limit or modulate the number of persons sent to prison . In this connection , the ORG must stress the need for a strategy covering both admission to and release from prison to ensure that imprisonment really is the ultimate remedy . This implies , in the first place , an emphasis on non - custodial measures in the period before the imposition of a sentence and , in the second place , the adoption of measures which facilitate the reintegration into society of persons who have been deprived of their liberty .

The ORG trusts that the NORP authorities will continue their efforts to combat prison overcrowding and in so doing , will be guided by Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation , as well as ORG Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL on conditional release ( parole ) . ”


MANOUSSOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND GERMANY

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is serving a prison sentence in the PERSON prison ( NORP Republic ) . The Government of GPE were represented by Mr PERSON , their Agent , succeeded by Mr PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant was apprehended by the NORP police . He was heard in the presence of an interpreter and accused of forging public documents and of the attempted forgery of bank notes . Several other persons were accused in the same context on the basis of information submitted by ORG and by NORP authorities . According to that information , the applicant and CARDINAL other persons had forged ORG with a view to distributing them abroad , in particular in GPE . They were linked to an organised criminal group in GPE . In addition , the accused had fabricated NORP identity cards . The applicant refused to have a lawyer assigned to him ex officio and stated that his brother and girl - friend should appoint a lawyer to represent him .

On DATE the police investigator requested that the applicant be remanded in custody . On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG appointed Mr TIME to represent the applicant ex officio .

On DATE a judge of the GPE ORG heard the applicant in the presence of an interpreter . The judge remanded the applicant in custody . The decision stated that all the accused , but for one , were foreigners and that the actions imputed to them had been committed in several countries . The judge concluded that the accused could abscond and jeopardise the investigation .

According to ORG , on DATE a lawyer , PERSON , accepted to represent the applicant upon the request of the latter ’s girl - friend .

This is contested by the applicant who alleges that Mr PERSON was appointed by his girl - friend on DATE . According to the applicant , PERSON was only able to visit him DATE after he had been appointed .

On DATE ORG in GPE dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against the remand decision .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was heard in the presence of his lawyer and an interpreter .

On DATE the Prague ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s detention was extended until DATE . The court noted that the case was complex , that the NORP authorities had been asked for legal assistance and that the damage which the accused had allegedly caused amounted to CARDINAL ORG . Several expert opinions were necesssary with a view to establishing the relevant facts .

On DATE the applicant was heard in the presence of his lawyer .

On DATE the head physician in GPE - Pankrác prison submitted a certificate according to which the applicant ’s state of health was good despite the fact that he had staged several hunger strikes . The doctor expressed the view that the applicant was fit to face the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the Prague ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand to CARDINAL DATE . The court noted that the length of the proceedings was due to the complex character of the case , the need to obtain further expert opinions , the wide range of acts imputed to the accused and the fact that the alleged crimes had been committed in several GPE .

On DATE the applicant appointed PERSON to represent him in the proceedings . On CARDINAL November CARDINAL PERSON informed the police that she would no longer represent the applicant .

On DATE several documents of a religious nature were taken away from the applicant on the ground that the volume of documents which he had in his cell was excessive .

On DATE the GPE ORG appointed Mr PERSON to represent the applicant ex officio .

On DATE the applicant was examined . On DATE he filed a request for release .

On DATE the GPE ORG extended the detention of the applicant and of his co - accused to DATE . The decision stated that a considerable time was still required to study the case - file and prepare the indictment . In the court ’s view , there was a risk that the accused could abscond , jeopardise the investigation or , possibly , commit further offences .

On DATE the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other persons for the forgery of notes and public documents in the context of organised crime .

A hearing before ORG was held on DATE . The applicant , who was represented by his lawyer , complained that he had not been provided with a translation of the indictment into NORP . The court decided to allow the applicant more time to prepare his defence and adjourned the case until DATE . ORG further dismissed the applicant ’s request for release .

On DATE ORG of GPE requested assistance from the NORP authorities .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to appoint a different lawyer to represent him in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against ORG refusal to release him . On DATE ORG extended the detention of the applicant and his co - accused to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested that a different lawyer be appointed to represent him ex officio . On DATE the applicant filed a “ criminal complaint ” with ORG in which he alleged that the police investigator , the public prosecutor as well as the judges dealing with his case had violated his rights .

On DATE ORG appointed a different lawyer , PERSON I.P. , to represent the applicant ex officio . On DATE the applicant asked ORG to assign a NORP lawyer to him .

On DATE the applicant informed Mr. PERSON that he could not accept his assistance as he wished to be represented by a different lawyer . On DATE the NORP authorities informed the NORP authorities that criminal proceedings had been brought against the applicant in GPE .

ORG proceeded with the case on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . The applicant requested that a different lawyer be assigned to him . He also challenged the ORG judges . The case was adjourned .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint about the ORG judges’ lack of impartiality . It further refused to appoint a different lawyer to represent the applicant ex officio and noted that the applicant was free to appoint a lawyer of his own choice .

A hearing before ORG was held on DATE . The applicant requested that further evidence be taken . The case was adjourned .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of forgery on several counts as a member of a criminal association and sentenced him to TIME years’ imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the applicant requested that Mr I.P. should no longer represent him ex officio . On CARDINAL and DATE Mr GPE requested that he be released from the obligation to represent the applicant as no confidence existed between him and his client .

On DATE ORG allowed the request and appointed a different lawyer , PERSON , to represent the applicant ex officio .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand to DATE .

On DATE the presiding judge of ORG put a note in the case - file according to which the applicant had corresponded with CARDINAL of his co - accused without authorisation . On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his correspondence was monitored .

On DATE the applicant stated that he no longer wished to be represented by Mr PERSON He complained that the lawyer ’s visits were sporadic , that he had not responded to the applicant ’s letters and that he also acted , in different cases , as an official interpreter for ORG . The applicant therefore expressed doubts about the lawyer ’s impartiality . In his letter the applicant further stated that CARDINAL of his previous lawyers had declared that the ORG had not paid his fees for DATE . He requested that a lawyer practising in PERSON be assigned to him .

On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant complained to ORG that all the lawyers who had been assigned to him had failed to represent him in an appropriate manner . On DATE the applicant also informed ORG that he was on a hunger strike .

On DATE Mr PERSON informed ORG that he had studied the case - file , that he had contacted the applicant , translated the first instance judgment into NORP and given it to the accused . At the lawyer ’s request , the applicant ’s relatives paid the costs of the translation .

A hearing before ORG was held on DATE . The applicant , who was on hunger strike , collapsed when he was about to be brought to the court room . The High Court therefore decided to deal with the charges against the applicant separately .

On DATE another hearing was held before ORG . The applicant was represented by PERSON and he was also assisted by an interpreter . Representatives of the media were present . A report established by the prison medical service indicated that the applicant was able to take part in the hearing .

ORG quashed the first instance judgment and convicted the applicant , as a member of an organised group , of the forgery of notes and public documents . The High Court established that the applicant and several other persons had forged ORG and NORP identity cards . ORG did not share ORG view that the applicant had committed the offences as a member of a criminal association . The applicant was sentenced to TIME years’ imprisonment in a high security prison , and to expulsion from GPE .

At the hearing the applicant stated that he had not been provided with due legal assistance and that he had not been able to prepare his defence . He also complained that he could not question several witnesses who had been heard by NORP authorities and whose statements had been read out at the hearing before the first instance court .

ORG found that ORG had established all relevant facts and that its reasoning was relevant and sufficient . It noted that the witnesses heard by NORP authorities had been invited to the hearing at first instance , but had failed to appear . The fact that their statements were read out by the court after they had failed to appear at the hearing was not contrary to the relevant provisions of LAW . In addition , the statements of those witnesses were corroborated by the statements of other witnesses and the applicant ’s co - accused , as well as by comprehensive documentary evidence including expert opinions . ORG further noted that the lawyers representing the applicant had changed CARDINAL times due to the applicant ’s objections . The applicant ’s presumption that he was free to choose the lawyer who should be appointed to represent him ex officio was erroneous .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the High Court judges had been biased . ORG rejected the complaint as being both unsubstantiated and lodged out of time .

According to the applicant , there was an interference with his correspondence whilst he was detained on remand . For example , in a letter of DATE addressed to ORG , the applicant complained that a letter sent to a NORP lawyer had been opened . In another letter of DATE and addressed to a NORP law firm , the applicant alleged that his correspondence had been delayed DATE and DATE due to the fact that it had been monitored . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE and addressed to ORG in GPE , the applicant alleged that his correspondence addressed to various foreign diplomatic representations had been monitored .

The Government contend that the applicant ’s allegations are unsubstantiated and affirm , with reference to the relevant law , that the correspondence between the applicant and his lawyers had neither been monitored nor delayed .

While he was detained on remand , the applicant was placed in an CARDINAL m² cell with CARDINAL other persons in which there was no hot water . He was allowed to take a shower once a week and could not practice sport . On several occasions he was not allowed to meet with persons from outside the prison .

On DATE , while he was serving the prison term , ORG allowed the applicant ’s request that an interpreter be assigned to him so that he could study the criminal file concerning his case .

In letters of DATE and DATE the applicant asked ORG to provide him with information about the provisions of LAW .

On DATE the vice - president of ORG informed the applicant that ORG could not entertain his submissions as they were not a formal request for proceedings to be instituted . The applicant was further advised that he had to be represented by a lawyer if he wished to file a constitutional appeal .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him . He claimed that ORG had refused to grant his request for several witnesses to be heard and that his conviction had been arbitrary . The applicant further complained that ORG had refused to provide him with a translation of the first instance judgment and that the lawyer appointed to represent him ex officio , Mr. PERSON , was willing to translate it only if the applicant paid him DEM CARDINAL . The letter stated that Mr PERSON had expressed the view , on DATE , that the applicant had no chance of succeeding before ORG . The applicant concluded that he had no confidence in that lawyer .

On DATE the applicant sent another letter to ORG in which he complained that ORG had refused , on DATE , to appoint a lawyer of his own choice to represent him ex officio . He also complained that he had not enough time to prepare his defence in the appellate proceedings .

As the complaints did not satisfy certain formal requirements , a ORG judge requested the applicant , on DATE , to rectify the shortcomings and , in particular , to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings within DATE . The applicant was advised that he could appoint a lawyer of his own choice or ask ORG to assign a lawyer to him if he did not trust his representative from the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to assign a lawyer to him .

On DATE and on DATE the applicant was informed that Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , had been assigned to represent him in the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that PERSON , the lawyer appointed ex officio , had failed to represent him in an appropriate manner . The applicant alleged that the lawyer disregarded his interests and that he had failed to take appropriate action to defend the applicant effectively . In particular , the applicant maintained that the lawyer deliberately disregarded the fact that the constitutional complaints had to be filed urgently with a view to protecting his defence rights in the on - going criminal proceedings .

In a letter of DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his defence in the criminal proceedings had been impaired by the NORP secret services and that he had no confidence in ORG or the lawyers by whom he had been represented ex officio . He asked ORG to provide him with a reliable lawyer and to prevent ORG from holding the hearing scheduled for DATE .

In a letter addressed to ORG in GPE on DATE the applicant pointed out , inter alia , that Mr PERSON had informed him that a constitutional complaint about the criminal proceedings could only be filed after the delivery of the final decision .

On DATE Mr PERSON informed the applicant , after consultation with the presiding judge of ORG and the representatives of ORG , that his assignment had been unlawful . The lawyer explained that Mr PERSON was the applicant ’s legal representative appointed ex officio and that the relevant regulations excluded that a second lawyer be assigned by ORG in such a case . The letter stated that ORG had not had at its disposal all the relevant information . The applicant was advised to seek assistance from Mr PERSON

In a letter of DATE ORG confirmed the revocation of PERSON PERSON ’s assignment .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s constitutional appeal on the ground that the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer , as required by the relevant law , despite the fact that he had been requested to do so within DATE on DATE . The decision stated that the applicant had challenged ORG judgment of DATE and the conduct of the proceedings before the appellate court without having specified the relevant facts or the rights allegedly violated .

On DATE the head of ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint of DATE about PERSON PERSON as being unsubstantiated .

On DATE the applicant started serving his prison sentence in the GPE - Pankrác prison . On DATE he was transported to the prison in GPE . On DATE he was transferred to the PERSON prison for medically prescribed dietetic reasons . On DATE the applicant was taken to the prison in PERSON . On DATE he was brought to the prison in PERSON .

Most of the relevant facts which occurred while the applicant served his sentence are disputed between the parties .

According to the applicant , a letter sent by ORG on DATE and handed to him on DATE had been opened and subsequently closed . The applicant further submits that another letter sent to him by ORG on DATE was transmitted to him opened on DATE . The envelope of a letter from ORG which was dispatched on DATE was handed to the applicant damaged . It was closed with yellow tape and the applicant was infomed that it had reached the NORP post office damaged . Another letter from ORG dated DATE was handed to the applicant on DATE . The envelope was taped and bore a post stamp indicating that it had arrived damaged . According to the applicant , a letter from ORG sent on DATE was handed to him opened .

The Government deny the applicant ’s allegations that his correspondence with the ORG was monitored , and maintain that the applicant did not complain of the above facts to the prison administration .

The applicant ’s other correspondence has been monitored . The letters which he wished to send out were returned to him on several occasions with the explanation that the stamps on them were either insufficient or damaged . This resulted in several days’ delay in sending out the applicant ’s correspondence .

On DATE the applicant received a letter from ORG . He refused to accept it from the prison officer as it had been opened and monitored .

The applicant was not allowed to photocopy documents . He alleges that he was refused carbon paper on several occasions and that he was only allowed to use a typewriter sporadically .

The Government contend that the applicant could use his typewriter in the PERSON prison and that he had always been allowed to buy carbon paper if he had enough money in his account .

In DATE , while he was detained in the GPE prison , the applicant was not allowed to send an urgent telegram to ORG in which he wished to complain about the violation of his human rights .

On DATE , when he was informed about his transfer to another prison , the applicant was distressed . He was not allowed to send a telegram to ORG which read “ S.O.S. , I get psychologically tortured , please alert GPE ” . The applicant was told that the telegram could not be sent as his account had been blocked due to his transfer to another prison .

In DATE and on DATE the applicant was not allowed to telephone ORG or a NORP lawyer with a view to resolving the problem of his legal representation in the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the PERSON prison administration , which had been requested by ORG to comment on the applicant ’s various allegations , asked the applicant to specify his complaints against GPE as his submissions had been of a general character . Reference was made to LAW on Dealing with Complaints , Submissions and Petitions of DATE ( “ the Regulations ” ) . The applicant refused to comment as the prison administration was not a party to the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the applicant sent a telegram to the ORG reading “ ORG torture ” .

On DATE the PERSON prison administration invited the applicant to specify his complaints to the ORG on the ground that his submissions were unclear and that the Agent of the Government had asked the administration to submit comments on the applicant ’s complaints . According to the record which was drawn up pursuant to section CARDINAL of Regulation no . CARDINAL , the applicant stated that he disaproved of the conditions in the prison , that his right to have visits was restricted , that he was not allowed to make photocopies or to have telephone conversations in LANGUAGE with ORG . The applicant also stated that he feared that money which his relatives would send him could be used for paying his debts without his consent .

On DATE the applicant was allowed to make a TIME telephone call to ORG . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant informed the ORG that the prison administration had recorded the conversation and that the recording had been handed over to the public prosecutor . The applicant further informed the ORG that the prison officers had read a letter from PERSON , a NORP national assisting the applicant in the proceedings before the ORG . The prison administration explained to the applicant that Mr GPE had not been duly appointed as the applicant ’s representative and that the covering envelope did not indicate that the correspondence was exempted from control due to its special nature .

On DATE , on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE the applicant was not allowed to send telegrams in which he wished to inform the ORG about disciplinary sanctions imposed on him . Subsequently , the applicant was able to submit the relevant information to the ORG by ordinary mail .

On several occasions the applicant ’s documents and belongings were searched and returned to him disordered .

The applicant submits that the conditions in which he has served his prison term have been inhuman and degrading . In particular , he maintains that the prisons have been overcrowded , that he was placed in cells without an electric power socket or hot water , that he has only been allowed to have a walk for TIME a day and that he has not been provided with vegetarian food .

The applicant suffered from eczema on his hands . On DATE the prison doctor refused to administer an ointment with corticoids to him , explaning that such treatment was subject to a supplementary payment . The doctor arranged for the applicant ’s examination by a dermatologist on DATE . According to the applicant , the latter refused to treat him as he considered that the applicant was not suffering from any disease .

The applicant further submits that he has not been provided with adequate health care as he has no sickness insurance in GPE .

The Government contest the applicant ’s allegations and submit that all prisoners are provided with adequate health care , the cost of which is born , when a prisoner is indigent , by the prison administration . They also refer to the conclusions of a medical commission according to which there were no shortcomings in the health care offered to the applicant .

The prison authorities refused to provide the applicant with a taperecorder and other facilities which he requested so that he could study foreign languages .

In accordance with the prison regulations , the money which the applicant had on his prison account was used , to the extent that it exceeded the statutory minimum reserved to cover a prisoner ’s basic needs , to pay the applicant ’s debts relating to the criminal proceedings and the enforcement of the prison sentence .

The applicant claims that his right to contact persons outside the prison and to receive visitors was unduly limited .

This is contested by the Government who maintain , with reference to a letter from ORG dated DATE , that the applicant ’s requests for visits by his legal representative , members of his family and other persons close to him had always been granted .

On DATE Mr GPE , a NORP national assisting the applicant in the proceedings before the ORG , informed the ORG that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman treatment as a reprisal for his complaints to the ORG . The letter indicated that on DATE the applicant had had to undress in a cold room and was searched by several prison officers . Subsequently the applicant was disciplined by confinement in a special cell for DATE where the conditions were inhuman . After filing a written complaint about this with the prison director , he was disciplined with a further CARDINAL days’ confinement in the special cell . During this period , the authorities searched and removed the applicant ’s belongings .

The Government contest these allegations . They maintain , with reference to the relevant prison documents and statements by the prison officers , that the applicant was disciplined on DATE by being placed in a closed prison wing for DATE except when participating in the collective activities organised within the prison . The disciplinary sanction was imposed as the applicant had been late for breakfast on DATE .

The applicant wrote a remark on the disciplinary form , explaining that he had not known that he could not go to the dining room after the expiry of the breakfast period . The form , which the applicant refused to sign , indicates that he did not file a complaint against the decision within the statutory DATE time - limit . The sanction was enforced from DATE . On DATE the prison administration deleted it from the applicant ’s prison record in view of his subsequent good behaviour .

Following the ORG ’s decision to communicate this part of the application to the respondent Government , the applicant was asked on DATE to explain his complaints to ORG . Reference was made to Regulation no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The prison administration drew up a record of the ensuing meeting which was signed by the applicant , according to which the applicant denied the aforementioned allegations by PERSON and stated that he was no longer in contact with him . The applicant also stated that his complaints were sufficiently clear and specific and that he would make no further comments on them to the prison administration .

The Government deny that any documents were taken away from the applicant by the prison administration in the context of the disciplinary sanction imposed on him . They refer to written statements by CARDINAL prisoners indicating that the applicant had left his documents with them before he was placed in the closed wing and that he had recuperated them afterwards . The documents were neither read nor removed by anybody , and the applicant never made any remarks about this to the prisoners concerned .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was disciplined with CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in the closed wing for repeatedly disobeying a prison officer who had asked him to move to a different cell . The applicant filed a complaint which was dismissed by the prison administration on DATE .

The applicant was placed in the closed wing on CARDINAL DATE at TIME According to him , he was distressed and collapsed when he was put in the cell which was insalubrious . The prison officers failed to call a doctor .

These allegations are denied by the Government . They refer to a record drawn up by the the prison officer who had placed the applicant in the closed wing on CARDINAL DATE , according to which the applicant had refused to co - operate in drafting a list of his belongings which were to be stored separately . The prison officer checked on the applicant several times during TIME and the applicant had not complained of any pains , or shown any signs of illness . The officer categorically denied the applicant ’s allegation that he had lost consciousness .

On DATE the applicant repeatedly refused to participate in the elaboration of a list of his belongings which was to be drawn up , in accordance with the regulations , in the context of his placement in the closed wing . CARDINAL prison officers therefore drew up and signed such a list indicating where the applicant ’s items had been placed . The applicant refused to sign it .

On DATE the applicant asked the prison officers to send a telegram to the ORG which read : “ ORG ! Torture ! Punished again ! ” . The request was dismissed with the explanation that the applicant ’s means did not suffice for paying the postage . As the telegram indicated that the applicant had been tortured , the prison administration handed the case over to the police . The applicant refused to co - operate with the latter , alleging that they were a part of the system against which he complained . Subsequently an investigation was carried out by the competent public prosecutor which did not disclose any violation of the applicant ’s rights .

On DATE a disciplinary sanction of DATE in the closed wing was imposed on the applicant for failure to co - operate in preparing the list of his belongings . The applicant did not file a complaint .

On DATE the applicant was hospitalised in the prison ward as he had health problems .

According to a record of DATE , the applicant ’s belongings were sealed in the presence of CARDINAL prison officers and placed in storage until their withdrawal by the applicant . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the ORG that his documents had been returned to him in disorder .

On DATE the prison authorities asked the applicant to provide more detailed information about the object of his complaints with reference to Regulation no . DATE . According to the record which was signed by him , the applicant stated that he would not comment on his complaints to the ORG as they were directed against GPE . The applicant concluded that it was for ORG to submit their reply to the ORG .

In a letter delivered on DATE the applicant informed the ORG that , on DATE , the prison officers had checked his belongings and that he had subsequently been taken to the closed wing where he was kept for TIME . According to the applicant , he was not provided with toilet paper , soap or a tooth brush . The applicant states that his files and documents were “ devastated ” and can not be used anymore .

On DATE the NORP authorities informed the NORP State Attorney ’s ORG that several persons including the applicant were suspected of offences and asked the NORP authorities for assistance .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor informed the applicant that the NORP authorities could not provide him with legal assistance in respect of the criminal proceedings against him in GPE . The letter further stated that the prosecutor would decide whether or not he would issue an international arrest warrant against the applicant and request his extradition to GPE after the delivery of the final decision by the NORP courts .

Subsequently , the NORP authorities requested that the applicant be extradited to GPE . In a letter of DATE the applicant ’s father was informed that the NORP Minister of Justice had agreed to the applicant being extradited to GPE after serving his prison sentence .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his prosecution in GPE would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem .

Following the applicant ’s accusation of fraud and other offences , ORG appointed a lawyer on DATE to represent the applicant ex officio in the proceedings in GPE .

Article CARDINAL provides that the ratified and promulgated international treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms , by which GPE is bound , shall be applicable as directly binding regulations having priority over the law .

According to LAW , fundamental human rights and freedoms are guaranteed to everybody irrespective of sex , race , colour of skin , language , faith , religion , political or other conviction , ethnic or social origin , membership of a national or ethnic minority , property , birth , or other status .

According to LAW , personal liberty is guaranteed . Nobody shall be persecuted or deprived of their liberty save for reasons and in a manner prescribed by law .

LAW and CARDINAL provides inter alia that everybody is entitled to the protection of his or her human dignity or personal integrity , and against unauthorised interference with private or family life .

According to LAW , nobody may violate the confidentiality of correspondence or other papers and records , whether privately kept or sent by post or in another manner , except in cases and in a manner specified by law .

DATE guarantees inter alia to everybody the right to the protection of his or her health .

Article CARDINAL provides that everybody can claim his or her rights in a prescribed manner before an independent and impartial tribunal or , in certain cases , before another organ .

According to LAW , everybody is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time , in his or her presence , and to comment upon all the evidence submitted .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) provides that a constitutional appeal may be introduced by any natural person who claims to be the victim of a breach of the fundamental rights or freedoms recognised in a constitutional law or an international treaty ( LAW ) by a legitimate decision taken in proceedings to which he or she was a party , and being a measure or interference by ‘ a public authority’ . According to paragraph CARDINAL , a constitutional appeal shall be submitted within DATE . If the law affords a remedy for the protection of rights , this period starts to run on DATE when the final effective decision becomes enforceable or , if no such remedy exists , on DATE on which the impugned events occurred .

According to section GPE ) , a constitutional appeal is inadmissible if the person concerned failed to exhaust all the procedural remedies available in law for the protection of his or her rights .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the appellant must be represented by an advocate , a commercial lawyer or a notary to the extent provided for in the relevant special law .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a constitutional appeal shall be submitted in writing to ORG . The appeal shall include the following information : the person who is making the appeal , the matter to which it relates , and its object . The appeal must be signed and dated . Furthermore , it shall include a true description of the crucial facts , indicate the evidence which the appellant will introduce , and specify the claim . The appeal shall contain the other elements required by LAW . According to paragraph CARDINAL , the appeal shall be submitted in a sufficient number of copies so that ORG as well as each party to the appeal may have a copy .

According to section DATE , in its judgment the Constitutional Court shall hold that it allows the constitutional appeal in its entirety , dismisses it in its entirety , or partially allows and partially dismisses it . If the court allows the constitutional appeal , it shall inter alia declare in its judgment which of the constitutionally guaranteed rights or freedoms or which provision of a constitutional act or an international treaty were violated , and what act by a public authority perpetrated the violation . If it allows the constitutional appeal of a natural person , the court shall annul the contested decision of the public authority , or , if a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right or freedom has been violated as a result of an action by a public authority other than a decision , the court shall order the authority to discontinue the violation and order it , to the extent possible , to restore the situation to that which existed prior to the violation .

Article CARDINAL provides that a lawyer is obliged to provide legal assistance to the accused person , to use effectively all lawful means of defence and , in particular , take care that all relevant facts be established which prove the accused person ’s innocence or attenuate his or her culpability .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , correspondence between a prisoner and inter alia a lawyer appointed to represent him or her , public authorities of GPE or an international organisation which is competent to examine submissions concerning the protection of human rights on the basis of an international treaty by which GPE is bound , shall not be subjected to any control . Such correspondence shall be sent to the addressee and delivered to the prisoner without delay .

Section CARDINAL provides that a prisoner shall be allowed , in justified cases , to use a telephone with a view to contacting a close person . When it is in the interests of his or her rehabilitation or for other serious reasons , the prisoner may also be allowed to contact other persons by telephone . The costs of such calls are to be born by the prisoner and the prison administration is authorised to control the contents of the conversation .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , a prisoner who has failed to pay inter alia the costs and expenses relating to the criminal proceedings against him or her , or damage caused to the prison administration in the course of the enforcement of the prison sentence , may only use his or her money deposited with the prison for buying basic hygienic items , for paying such debts or judicial and administrative fees , or for the cost of health care .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that a prisoner has a right to file complaints and requests to the competent authorities in order to enforce the rights and interests protected by law .

Pursuant to ORG ) , a prisoner is entitled to assistance by a lawyer . The latter shall be allowed to correspond with the prisoner , within the limits of his authority , and to talk to him or her in the absence of another person .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a convicted person is obliged to pay the costs of the enforcement of his or her prison term . If need be , the prison administration may use the prisoner ’s money deposited in the prison for this purpose .

According to section DATE , the medical expenses in respect of an uninsured prisoner are to be met by the prison service .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provide that a prisoner has a right to submit complaints and requests to national authorities or such international authorities and organisations which are considered , on the NORP and world level , to be part of the process of gathering and examining information concerning violations of human rights including ORG .

Pursuant to section DATE ) , an advocate is obliged to defend the justified interests of his or her client and to respect the latter ’s instructions unless they are contrary to the law or the rules of the legal profession . In such a case , the advocate shall advise the client accordingly .

Under Section PERSON ) , an advocate shall act honourably and in good faith . He or she shall consistently use all lawful means available which , according to his or her belief , may be to the client ’s benefit .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that everyone has the right to legal representation . Those who can not find legal representation may ask ORG to appoint an attorney .

According to section CARDINAL , ORG may decide that the remuneration of the lawyer ’s fees shall be reduced or waived if it assigns a lawyer to a person who could not find legal services and his or her social and financial situation justifies such a decision .

Government Regulations on Dealing with Complaints , Submissions and Petitions ( Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL )

Section CARDINAL ) provides that all complaints shall be examined thoroughly and without delay .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL , a written record shall be drawn up of the oral examination of a complaint . It shall comprise the names of all persons present , a summary of the conversation and its outcome , and also indicate that the persons present were acquainted with the record . It shall be signed by the persons involved who may , if need be , indicate in writing that they disagree with the contents and state the reasons therefor .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

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

In DATE the applicant sat a competition for admission to the civil service . Following his success in the competition , ORG ( “ the General Directorate ” ) ( PERSON ve PERSON ) conducted a pre - employment background investigation . It found that the applicant had not mentioned his criminal record in his application form .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant was not eligible for appointment to a vacant post on account of the negative findings in the preemployment investigation . In particular , in DATE the applicant had been convicted of issuing threats against CARDINAL of his teachers and had been sentenced to DATE and DATE imprisonment , which had then been converted into a fine .

On DATE the applicant brought an action in ORG requesting the annulment of ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment holding that the applicant was suitable for employment .

On DATE ORG dismissed ORG request for rectification of its decision .

On DATE ORG abided by ORG decision . It found that the applicant had fulfilled all the requirements of the vacant post in question as prescribed under PERSON no . CARDINAL . It therefore ruled that the applicant was eligible to become a civil servant .

On DATE ORG appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the request for rectification of the decision .

On an unspecified date , the applicant brought a new action in ORG against ORG requesting compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage which he allegedly had suffered as a result of the decision dated DATE .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant a certain amount of compensation for pecuniary damage but rejected his request for non - pecuniary damage . The court further decided that legal costs should be shared by the parties , given that it partially acceded to the applicant 's claims for compensation .

On DATE ORG appealed ORG judgment , arguing that the applicant had not suffered any damage and that therefore the legal costs should be borne by him .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , holding that ORG ruling was in conformity with law and procedure .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE . He lives currently in NORP ( GPE ) .

He is represented before the ORG by PERSON . PERSON , PERSON and Mrs. PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE . On DATE he applied for political asylum . In support of his request he submitted that he had lived in ORG , an enclave separated from the rest of GPE by a strip of territory of GPE , where he had engaged in activities in favour of the organisation ORG do Enclave de Cabinda , ORG ( PERSON ) . He was charged with propaganda and mobilisation and with the co - ordination between the population and the various offices of the PERSON . During the presidential elections in DATE he organised a demonstration in GPE persuading people not to participate at the elections . He was arrested and taken into detention in LOC where he was held for DATE , during which time he was , he contended , beaten and tortured . On DATE he managed to escape through the assistance of his uncle . On DATE he arrived in GPE . On DATE he took a plane to GPE and subsequently arrived in GPE . He asserted that he could not return to his country without risking his life .

On DATE ORG für die ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s request and invited him to leave the NORP territory within DATE . ORG did not consider that the evidence he adduced in support of fear of persecution to be reliable and doubted the credibility of his asylum claim .

On DATE the applicant filed an action against the refusal of asylum and his envisaged expulsion with ORG ( Verwaltungsgericht ) . He claimed that if returned to GPE he had a well - founded fear of persecution , not only because of his political engagement in GPE , but also because of his political activities in GPE where he collaborated closely with the organisation of the PERSON and the Forças Armadas de Cabinda , ORG ) . In the proceedings before ORG he was represented by counsel .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action . The court pointed out that information provided in particular by ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE could not confirm the applicant ’s submissions that a demonstration had taken place in GPE in DATE and that he had been detained in prison in ORG . The court further observed that the situation complained of was limited to ORG , but members of the PERSON were present in Cabinda and could move freely . There was no indication that NORP citizens who had requested political asylum abroad were subjected to political persecution upon their return to GPE . According to information of ORG , the known political activities of NORP citizens abroad , in particular in GPE , would be unlikely to attract the interest of NORP authorities unless they were to include acts of violence against GPE . The applicant had assured that he had not taken part in any military action against the NORP army . There was therefore no reasonable likelihood that the applicant would be persecuted if he were to return to GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Oberverwaltungsgericht ) of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal ( PERSON ) on the ground that the applicant ’s submissions were not sufficiently substantiated .

On DATE the applicant renewed his request to be granted asylum ( PERSON ) . He referred to his previous statements and added that on DATE he had been elected president and co - ordinator of the NORP fraction of the FLEC- FAC which had CARDINAL members . According to him , it must be assumed that members of the NORP embassy knew of his political engagement and that , in the event of his return to GPE , he would be persecuted . Further , according to a report of ORG of DATE , the situation in ORG had deteriorated . Unarmed civilians were deliberately tortured or killed during army raids by NORP troops on their villages following PERSON attacks in the vicinity . There was no investigation into the reports of beating and other abuses or to prosecute those responsible .

On DATE ORG refused to conduct new asylum proceedings . It took the view that the applicant ’s submissions gave no ground for a more favourable decision . There was no indication that the applicant would be exposed to political persecution for his political activities in GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with the ORG claiming to be to granted political asylum .

On DATE the applicant applied for an interim injunction ( einstweilige Anordnung ) requesting to stay his expulsion pending the administrative court proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed this request . The court observed that pursuant to the relevant legal provisions , a further set of asylum proceedings was only admissible if there were reasons to reopen the proceedings and the refugee had been prevented , through no fault of his own , from submitting these reasons in the first set of proceedings . Moreover , the change of circumstances had to be presented in a conclusive manner . In the applicant 's case , his new submissions did not constitute relevant circumstances for a more favourable decision . It further confirmed the view that , in any event , the applicant ’s purely political activities in GPE were not likely to attract the interest of the NORP authorities and that there were no solid reasons to believe that on his return to GPE he might suffer political persecution .

The applicant filed a constitutional complaint against this decision .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) declined to accept the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for adjudication .

In DATE the applicant had requested to be transferred to GPE . Pending this request the NORP authorities granted the applicant a provisional residence permit ( PERSON ) . On DATE the applicant was informed that his referral request had been dismissed and that the expulsion order would be implemented as soon as a travel document would be available .


Preliminary objection dismissed (victim);Violation of Art. 6-1;No separate issue under Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Bjelovar .

On DATE the applicant 's summer house in PERSON was blown up by unknown perpetrators .

On DATE the applicant together with his wife brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking damages . They relied on section CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the LAW to LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) entered into force . It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) entered into force .

Pursuant to the DATE LAW , on CARDINAL DATE ORG resumed the proceedings . On DATE it declared the applicant 's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) . It appears that the proceedings are currently pending before that court .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant , represented by an attorney , lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings under section CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE ORG accepted the applicant 's complaint . Relying on the ORG 's case law ( GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ) , it found violations of the applicant 's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court . It ordered ORG to give a decision in the applicant 's case within DATE and awarded him compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) provided as follows :

“ Liability for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another 's property , when it results from acts of violence or terrorist acts or from public demonstrations or manifestations , lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty , according to the laws in force , to prevent such loss . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o izmjeni PERSON o obveznim odnosima , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL – “ the DATE LAW ) reads as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL of LAW ( the Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) shall be repealed . ”

“ Proceedings for damages instituted under LAW shall be stayed .

The proceedings referred to in sub - section CARDINAL of this section shall be resumed after the enactment of special legislation governing liability for damage resulting from terrorist acts . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) provides :

“ Proceedings shall be stayed :

( CARDINAL ) where another statute so prescribes . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obnovi , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that the ORG shall grant , under certain conditions , reconstruction assistance to owners of property ( flats and family houses only ) which has been damaged during the war . The request is to be submitted to the competent ministry .

The Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL – “ the DATE LAW ” ) provides , inter alia , that the ORG is to compensate only damage resulting from bodily injuries , impairment of health or death . All compensation for damage to property is to be sought under LAW . LAW provides that all proceedings stayed pursuant to LAW are to be resumed .

DATE ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) reads as follows :

“ In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

The relevant part of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE – “ LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been exhausted if the competent court fails to decide a claim concerning the applicant 's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

( CARDINAL ) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this section is upheld , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the competent court must decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date a request for payment is lodged . ”

Section CARDINAL provides that , in proceedings before ORG , each participant shall pay its own costs unless the court decides otherwise . The term “ costs of proceedings ” does not include the court fees since no such fees are payable in the proceedings before ORG . Under the case - law of ORG the issue of the recovery of the costs of proceedings is to be decided by that court if a participant makes a request to that end . For example , in case no . U - III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG denied the complainant 's request for recovery of costs since the constitutional complaint had been dismissed .

The DATE Tariff for Attorneys ' Fees ( GPE o nagradama i naknadi troškova za rad odvjetnika , ORG nos . QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time ( i.e. when the applicant lodged his constitutional complaint ) , provided that the fee for drafting a constitutional complaint amounted to HRK CARDINAL .

According to the DATE Tariff for Attorneys ' Fees ( GPE o nagradama i naknadi troškova za rad odvjetnika , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , the fee for drafting a constitutional complaint amounts to HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .


NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and was resident in GPE . He was an adviser to the NORP Minister for ORG with the rank of secretary of state and the imam of ORG in GPE ( GPE ) .

He is currently detained in GPE . Before the ORG he was represented by PERSON , a former judge of ORG and lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG , and , subsequently , PERSON PERSON , PERSON .

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

A NORP citizen on an undercover mission for the GPE investigation and prosecution authorities in GPE convinced the applicant that he could put him in touch with a person abroad who was willing to make a major financial donation ( the purpose of which is a matter of dispute ) . Thereupon , the applicant decided to travel to GPE .

On DATE the GPE authorities requested legal assistance ( PERSON ) from the NORP authorities in the criminal investigations into the applicant ’s activities . On DATE the GPE am ORG authorised the interception and recording of conversations in the hotel rooms in GPE in which the applicant was expected to stay .

The applicant travelled to GPE in DATE with his secretary . On DATE they were arrested in GPE by NORP police officers under an arrest warrant that had been issued on DATE by ORG for LOC of GPE supported by a motion dated DATE of ORG for the applicant to be taken into custody pending extradition . The GPE prosecution authorities charged the applicant with providing money , weapons and communications equipment to terrorist groups , in particular ORG and ORG , and with recruiting new members for these groups DATE and the date of his arrest .

On DATE the GPE am ORG ordered the applicant ’s provisional detention after hearing his representations . Pursuant to an order of the GPE am ORG dated DATE , the applicant was remanded in provisional custody pending extradition .

On DATE ORG transmitted a formal request to ORG for the applicant ’s extradition for criminal prosecution . The request was based on the extradition treaty between GPE and GPE of DATE read in conjunction with the supplementary treaty of CARDINAL DATE ( see below at paragraphs DATE ) . Enclosed with the request were the arrest warrant of CARDINAL DATE and a written affidavit by the Deputy GPE Attorney of LOC of GPE in which the latter expounded the state of the investigations in GPE .

On DATE , upon an application made by the public prosecutor ’s office , the GPE am ORG ordered the applicant ’s remand in formal custody pending extradition ( förmliche PERSON ) . It gave the GPE authorities until DATE to furnish additional particulars of the offences the applicant was charged with . Thereupon , additional extradition documents were submitted to that court , including an affidavit by an ORG investigator setting out the specific offences with which the applicant was charged under the GPE criminal law . It emerged from these documents that the GPE authorities had learned of the suspected offences from a NORP national who had also incited the applicant to meet another informant in GPE who allegedly wanted to donate money for the “ Jihad ” .

At a hearing before the GPE am ORG on DATE the applicant refused to consent to his extradition .

On DATE the GPE am ORG confirmed its order of formal detention pending extradition . Having received additional documents from the GPE authorities , it noted that the applicant was now charged with membership of CARDINAL terrorist associations , ORG and the extremist branch of the ORG . These activities corresponded to offences under NORP criminal law .

NORP In CARDINAL notes verbales ORG informed ORG that it considered that the applicant had been abducted from GPE to GPE contrary to public international law and to the prohibition in LAW on the extradition of its own citizens . It requested the federal government to repatriate the applicant to GPE .

In a note verbal of CARDINAL DATE ORG gave an assurance ( LOC ) to the NORP authorities that the applicant would not be prosecuted by a military tribunal pursuant to ORG of DATE ( see below at paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) or by any other extraordinary court .

On DATE the GPE am ORG declared the applicant ’s extradition admissible and ordered his further remand in custody , invoking the risk that he might abscond if released . It found that the offences which the applicant was charged with in GPE were punishable and extraditable , under the law of both GPE and GPE . There were no rules of domestic or public international law that required the discontinuance of the proceedings on account of the fact that the applicant had been incited to travel to GPE by an informant . Moreover , there was nothing to warrant the conclusion that the applicant might be subjected to unfair criminal proceedings or torture in GPE . The assurance given by GPE on CARDINAL DATE clearly stated that criminal proceedings for the offences listed in the extradition request would be instituted against the applicant in the ordinary criminal courts .

On DATE the applicant complained to the GPE am ORG of a violation of his right to be heard in court and applied for a new decision on the validity of the extradition request and a stay of execution . On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint as the reasons given by the applicant disclosed no new circumstances justifying a different decision on the validity of the extradition request .

On DATE the GPE am ORG dismissed a further application by the applicant for a fresh decision on the validity of the extradition request . It found that the evidence supporting the charges had exclusively been taken from the extradition documents submitted by the GPE authorities , which had been sent to the applicant ’s lawyers for inspection prior to the decision on the validity of the extradition request . Concerns that the applicant might be at risk of torture if extradited had been allayed by the assurance given by the GPE authorities , which was binding under public international law . It had to be assumed that the applicant would be brought before an ordinary criminal court in GPE . Worrying reports about inhuman treatment of prisoners suspected of terrorism concerned almost without exception prisoners in LOC ( GPE ) and GPE ( GPE ) and in some third countries . It could not be concluded from existing press reports on the treatment of these prisoners that ordinary criminal proceedings in GPE would not meet the minimum standards of due process of law or would infringe the prohibition on torture . Moreover , no other circumstances were known that would give cause for further inquiry into the facts .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with ORG against the decisions of the GPE am ORG of DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . He argued , in particular , that his surveillance by the ORG in GPE and his abduction from that country to GPE had been in breach of GPE ’s territorial sovereignty and therefore of public international law and that , accordingly , his detention pending extradition had no legal basis . He also claimed that he would be placed in preventive detention in GPE indefinitely without access to a court or a lawyer . He further alleged that , if he was extradited , the NORP authorities would expose him to interrogation methods that were contrary to LAW .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) of ORG unanimously rejected the complaint as ill - founded and therefore refused to grant an interim injunction staying the applicant ’s extradition .

The Federal Constitutional Court found that the GPE am ORG decision had not infringed LAW . The applicant ’s extradition was not in breach of public international law . There was no general rule of public international law , at any rate not in cases such as the present one , to prevent a person being lured by trickery from his ORG of origin to a ORG to which a request was then made for his extradition ( “ the requested ORG ” ) in order to circumvent a ban on extradition that was valid in his ORG of origin . Examining the ORG practice on this question , ORG held as follows :

“ The examination of ORG practice shows that the general rule of international law that is alleged by the complainant does not exist . The ORG case - law is heterogeneous as regards the question whether the fact that a prosecuted person has been lured out of his or her ORG of origin becomes an obstacle precluding extradition in the requested ORG of residence . The majority of decisions do not even regard the circumstances which preceded the arrest as an obstacle precluding criminal prosecution in the ORG of the forum .

In this context , it need not be decided whether a national obstacle precluding criminal proceedings or extradition results from customary international law if the prosecuted person has been taken from his or her ORG of origin to the ORG of the forum or to the requested ORG by the use of force . Admittedly , more recent ORG practice , in particular as a consequence of dealing with the ORG decision in the ORG case ( ORG , DATE . CARDINAL [ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) indicates that the principle male captus , bene detentus is rejected at any rate if the ORG got hold of the prosecuted person by committing serious human rights violations , and if the ORG whose territorial sovereignty was violated protested against such procedure ( see ORG for the Former GPE , Prosecutor v. PERSON , Decision of DATE - IT-CARDINAL - CARDINAL-ARCARDINAL , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL et seq . with reference to the decision of ORG , GPE v. Toscanino , CARDINAL ORG , Second Series CARDINAL [ DATE ] ; see also PERSON , PERSON völkerrechtliche PERSON ihre Rechtsfolgen , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . , at p. CARDINAL , with further references ) .

The facts of the present case , however , differ from these cases in important details as the applicant ’s decision to leave GPE was voluntary . According to his secretary ’s statement , the applicant himself suggested GPE as the venue for a meeting that was supposed to serve fundraising activities on account of the favourable visa regulations for NORP citizens in GPE and in view of the good traffic connections . Admittedly , the applicant was deceived by trickery so that the motives for which he travelled to GPE were based on deception . However , he was not subjected to direct force aimed at bending his will , he was not threatened with the use of force , and the trickery did not facilitate his subsequent forceful abduction . The acts of deception were not performed by or are attributable to the NORP authorities . Finally , there are no indications that would permit the assumption that the NORP authorities cooperated with the GPE criminal prosecution and investigation authorities in a collusive manner in order to induce the applicant to travel specifically to GPE . ”

ORG examined a number of decisions of national and international courts and concluded that it could not be ascertained that a practice had been established under international law with respect to facts such as those in the present case which would have meant that the extradition was ostensibly in breach of customary international law . The fact that ORG had refused the extradition of a NORP citizen to GPE because the prosecuted person had been lured to GPE by the NORP authorities , infringing NORP sovereignty ( ORG , judgment of DATE , PERSON DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) could not be regarded as proof of the existence of a practice creating customary international law . ORG notably found :

“ When assessing the existing judicial decisions it has to be borne in mind that doubts already exist as to the preconditions that must obtain before the luring of a suspect out of his or her ORG of residence by means of DATE as opposed to the use of force – can be regarded as an act that is contrary to international law at all ... To the extent that in the case of the use of trickery the suspect ’s decision to travel overseas is also motivated by his or her own interests and to the extent that the possibility remains for him or her to decide not to leave , the suspect will not , as a general rule , be the subject of State coercion .

Admittedly , the boundary between luring someone out of a ORG by means of trickery and breaking someone ’s will by the use of force can be fluid in borderline cases , for instance if someone is deluded into believing something that has the effect of irresistible coercion on the person affected . Such circumstances , however , do not exist here . Instead , the complainant travelled to the federal territory on the basis of an independent decision in order to pursue his own specific interests there .

Moreover , recent ORG practice also takes into account the seriousness of the crime with which the person is charged , which means that , in this respect , it takes proportionality into consideration . The protection of high - ranking legal interests , which has been intensified at the international level in DATE , can lend itself to justifying the violation of a ORG ’s personal sovereignty that may result from the use of trickery ( see ORG for the Former GPE , Prosecutor v. PERSON , loc . cit . , number CARDINAL ) . To the extent that the fight against the most serious crimes – such as supporting the international drugs trade or terrorism – is concerned , luring someone out of a ORG ’s territorial sovereignty by means of trickery is not , at any rate to the extent that would be required under existing ORG practice , regarded as an obstacle precluding criminal prosecution . No different rules can apply to the existence of an obstacle precluding extradition . ”

As to the applicant ’s complaints about the interrogation methods in GPE ORG continued :

“ The applicant ’s rights under ... LAW ... have not been violated . ORG declared the extradition request valid in accordance with the constitutional requirements . This also applies to the extent that the applicant had applied for a further investigation into the facts of the case as regards the methods of interrogation used in GPE , which are allegedly contrary to the due process of law . ORG rejected this submission , citing a lack of indications to this effect in the United States’ practice . This reasoning is constitutionally unobjectionable .

On the one hand , it is consistent with ORG recent case - law , which provides that in mutual assistance concerning extradition , especially if rendered on the basis of international - law treaties , the requesting ORG is , in principle , to be shown trust as concerns its compliance with the principles of due process of law and of the protection of human rights . This principle can claim validity as long as it is not shaken by evidence to the contrary ( Decision of the Second Chamber of DATE BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL - Extradition to GPE ) . Such evidence did not exist at the time of ORG decision .

On the other hand , decisive weight must be given to the fact that GPE precluded the possible application of ORG DATE by their assurance of CARDINAL DATE . Thus , GPE have assumed an obligation , which is binding under international law , not to bring the applicant before an extraordinary court after his extradition , apply the procedural law laid down in the LAW DATE or place the complainant in an internment camp . There is no indication that GPE will not comply with the assurance if the applicant is extradited .

It is also relevant that the relations of mutual judicial assistance that exist between GPE and GPE on the basis of international law treaties have been reinforced still further by the signing of ORG on DATE . This circumstance confirms the assumption that , in principle , GPE will comply with their obligations vis - à - vis GPE ( the ORG ’s decision of DATE cited above ) . Moreover , it can be assumed that ORG itself will observe the further proceedings in GPE through its diplomatic missions . ”

ORG decision was published and sent to the applicant by fax on DATE .

On DATE , DATE the federal government authorised the applicant ’s extradition .

On DATE , DATE the applicant and his secretary were extradited to GPE on board a ORG aircraft .

In a note dated CARDINAL DATE the Head of ORG informed the GPE am ORG that the federal government had authorised the extradition of the applicant and his secretary on DATE . The authorisation had been given on condition that they were not sentenced to death or committed to stand trial before a military tribunal ( thus excluding their detention in LOC ) . They had been extradited on DATE . The Head of ORG noted that the NORP authorities had not been notified of any decision taken by ORG concerning the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant was brought before a judge of the GPE / ORG . He was reportedly subsequently held in a prison in GPE .

On DATE the GPE ORG for LOC of GPE opened the applicant ’s trial on charges of providing material support to ORG and ORG . Both ORG in GPE and ORG sent observers to attend the ORG hearings .

According to several press reports , the GPE District judge sentenced the applicant on DATE to DATE years’ imprisonment , the statutory maximum sentence , for conspiracy to support ORG and ORG , for having provided material support to ORG and for having attempted to provide material support to ORG .

Extradition between GPE and the GPE is governed by LAW between GPE and GPE DATE ( which entered into force on CARDINAL DATE ) , as added to and amended by the supplementary treaty of CARDINAL DATE ( which entered into force on DATE ) .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the LAW , the Contracting Parties agree to extradite to each other persons found in the territory of CARDINAL of the Contracting Parties who have been charged with an offence or are wanted for the enforcement of a judicially pronounced penalty or detention order for an offence .

Articles CARDINAL provides that extradition will be granted in respect of certain extraditable , non - political offences either for the prosecution of these offences or the enforcement of a penalty or detention order .

The Requesting State is required to inform the Requested State on demand of the result of the criminal proceedings against the extradited person and to send a copy of the final and binding decision to that ORG ( Article CARDINAL ) .

When the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the Requesting State and the laws of the Requested State do not permit such punishment for that offence , extradition may be refused unless the Requesting ORG furnishes such assurances as the Requested State considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be imposed or , if imposed , will not be executed ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that an extradited person is not to be tried by an extraordinary court in the territory of the Requesting State and that extradition may not be granted for the enforcement of a penalty imposed , or detention ordered , by an extraordinary court .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of FAC ( ORG ) , a person may be taken into detention pending extradition upon receipt of an extradition request if there is a risk that he or she might otherwise evade the extradition proceedings or extradition or if , on the basis of specific facts , there are strong grounds for believing that he or she would obstruct the process of establishing the truth in the proceedings in the foreign ORG or in the extradition proceedings . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG lays down that section CARDINAL ) shall not apply if the request for extradition appears to be invalid from the outset .

Pursuant to LAW , the general rules of international law form an integral part of federal law . They take precedence over statute law and directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of NORP territory .

On DATE the President of GPE signed a military order on ORG , and ORG in the War Against Terrorism ” ( GPE ORG of DATE , PERSON . CARDINAL No . CARDINAL , pp . MONEY et seq . ) .

The GPE President ’s Military Order applies to non - citizens of the GPE with respect to whom there is reason to believe that they are members of ORG or have aided and abetted acts of international terrorism ( section CARDINAL of the Order ) . Any individual subject to the Order shall be detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defence outside or within GPE ( section CARDINAL of the Order ) . They shall , when tried , be tried by military commission for any and all offences triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed , and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law , including life imprisonment or death ( section CARDINAL of the Order ) . Military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offences committed by such persons , who shall not be privileged to seek any remedy in any court of GPE , any court of any foreign nation , or any international tribunal ( section CARDINAL of the Order ) .

In its DATE Report DATE on the GPE , covering events from DATE , ORG stated :

“ Background

The GPE - led international military action in GPE , launched following DATE attacks , continued into DATE . CARDINAL were detained in the context of the conflict , with frequent transfers of prisoners between the GPE , NORP and GPE authorities . ...

Detentions outside the GPE

During DATE , starting in DATE , the GPE transferred CARDINAL foreign nationals to the GPE naval base in LOC , GPE , where they were held without charge or trial or access to the courts , lawyers or relatives . Although most were arrested during the armed conflict in GPE , the GPE refused to grant them prisoner of war status under LAW or to afford them other rights under international human rights law . ...

The conditions of the detainees’ transfer to and detention in LOC gave cause for serious concern . ...

A number of suspected members of GPE reported to have been taken into GPE custody continued to be held in undisclosed locations . The GPE government failed to provide clarification on the whereabouts and legal status of those detained , or to provide them with their rights under international law , including the right to inform their families of their place of detention and the right of access to outside representatives . An unknown number of detainees originally in GPE custody were allegedly transferred to third countries , a situation which raised concern that the suspects might face torture during interrogation .

CARDINAL GPE nationals continued to be held in incommunicado detention without charge or trial as ‘ enemy combatants’ in military custody in the GPE at DATE . ... ”

NORP In its DATE Annual Report on GPE , which covered events from DATE , ORG noted :

“ Background

CARDINAL of people were detained in the context of the GPE - led war against GPE and subsequent occupation of GPE by ORG Others were held in GPE bases in GPE , GPE and elsewhere as part of the ongoing ‘ war against ORG . ...

Detentions outside the GPE

CARDINAL of detainees from CARDINAL countries remained in legal limbo in the GPE naval base in LOC . ... None of the detainees were charged , tried , or given access to lawyers , relatives or the courts . ...

During DATE , concern continued to grow about the psychological impact on the detainees of the indefinite and isolating detention regime in ORG . ORG ( ICRC ) , the only international non - governmental organization with access to the detainees , took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the lack of legal process and spoke of the deterioration in mental health that the organization had witnessed among large numbers of the detainees . ...

The GPE air base in GPE , GPE , continued to be used as a detention facility . There , too , detainees were denied any sort of legal process . The ICRC did not have access to all those held there . During DATE , allegations were made that detainees had been tortured or ill - treated in GPE . ...

There were continuing concerns about the possible transfer of prisoners to countries where it was feared they might face torture during interrogation .

Military commissions

On DATE , the ORG announced that President PERSON had selected CARDINAL foreign detainees to be subject to the provisions of ORG he signed in DATE . The LAW provides for non - GPE nationals suspected of involvement in ‘ international ORG to be held indefinitely without trial or to be tried by military commissions . ... ”

In company with numerous other newspapers , ORG reported on interrogation methods applied to terrorist suspects following the attacks of DATE DATE . For instance , in its article ‘ GPE Decries Abuse but ORG – ‘ Stress and Duress’ Tactics Used on Terrorism Suspects Held in ORG Facilities’ dated DATE , it reported on the use of methods known as “ stress and duress ” techniques at the GPE airbase in GPE ( GPE ) and in other secret detention centres outside GPE territory . The techniques reportedly used comprised methods such as beating , holding suspects in painful positions and sleep deprivation . Furthermore , some suspects were handed over to foreign intelligence services known for using brutal means with a list of questions the agency wanted answered .

In its article ‘ ORG . Memo Says Torture ‘ May Be Justified ’’ of CARDINAL June CARDINAL , ORG reported on a memorandum written by ORG dated DATE on standards of conduct for interrogations of suspected ORG members whom the ORG had apprehended outside GPE . Another memorandum dated DATE from ORG , which was to elaborate new interrogation guidelines for detainees at LOC , incorporated much of ORG memorandum .