The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in LOC region . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the unlawful possession of a hunting knife , in breach of Article CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE GPE found inter alia that the knife was PERSON and could be considered to be a weapon for the purpose of that provision . The court ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand for the alleged offence under LAW on the grounds of his serious criminal record , his unemployment and a risk that he might commit new offences , within the meaning to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . His remand in custody was authorised until DATE . The applicant and his defence counsel were present in court .

The applicant appealed against the detention order , asserting that there were no reasons for holding him in custody . He stated in particular that there was no danger of his committing new offences .

On DATE ORG held the appeal hearing in the presence of the applicant ’s defence counsel . ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence . The court held that ORG had erred in detaining the applicant under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW as he had not been suspected of having committed any offence listed in paragraph CARDINAL of that provision . ORG found no reason to suspect that the applicant might commit any new offence envisaged by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW . However , it ruled that these errors were not of such a nature or degree as to render the applicant ’s detention unlawful . By reference to the fact that the applicant had misled the authorities concerning the question of his address and that he had no permanent place of residence , ORG also held that there was a danger of his absconding , thereby justifying his detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE the Palanga City District Court extended the term of the applicant ’s remand in custody to DATE , emphasising the danger of his absconding , given the applicant ’s contradictions about his place of residence . The applicant and his representatives were present in court .

The applicant appealed , claiming that there was no danger of his absconding that the case - file contained no proper evidence of his guilt , and that the alleged offence alleged was minor . He requested ORG to quash the decision of DATE and to release him . On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant ’s defence counsel , rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated .

On DATE GPE extended the term of the applicant ’s remand in custody to DATE , finding that there was a danger of his absconding , given the applicant ’s contradictions about his place of residence . The applicant and his defence counsel were present in court .

On DATE the Palanga City District Court convicted the applicant of the unlawful possession of a weapon under Article CARDINAL of LAW . He was given a prison sentence of DATE , which was deemed served on account of the time spent in detention on remand . He was released in the courtroom .

The applicant did not appeal against that judgment .

Relevant provisions of LAW ( NORP kodeksas ) :

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides that a person may be punished with a sentence of up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for the unlawful possession , production or sale of weapons specifically made to kill or inflict bodily harm , including hunting knives .

Relevant provisions of LAW ( ORG proceso kodeksas ) :

Article CARDINAL :

“ No one shall be arrested or detained save by virtue of a decision of a court or judge . ”

Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL LAW provide that the accused and their counsel have the right to submit requests and appeal against acts and decisions of an interrogator , investigator , prosecutor or court .

Article CARDINAL :

“ Detention on remand shall be used only … in cases where a statutory penalty of DATE imprisonment is envisaged . … .

The grounds for the detention on remand shall be the reasoned suspicion that the accused will :

( CARDINAL ) abscond from the investigation and trial ;

( CARDINAL ) obstruct the determination of the truth in the case ;

( CARDINAL ) commit new offences … whilst suspected of having committed crimes . ”

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL :

“ … the arrested person shall be brought before a judge within not more than TIME . The judge must hear the person as to the grounds of the arrest . The prosecutor and defence counsel must take part in the inquiry , unless the judge decides otherwise . After having questioned the arrested person , the judge may maintain the arrest order by designating the specific term of detention , or vary or revoke the remand … .

After the case has been transmitted to the court … [ it ] can order , vary or revoke the detention on remand . The court shall extend the detention on remand before its expiry . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( in force from DATE until DATE ) :

“ For the purpose of extending the term of detention on remand a judge … must convene a hearing to which defence counsel , the prosecutor and the detainee , the presence of whom is obligatory , shall be called . The judge decides whether or not to extend the term of detention on remand . … . ”

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL provides for an appeal to a higher court and a hearing against a decision ordering or extending the term of detention both at the stage of pre - trial investigation and trial , in the presence of the detainee and his defence counsel , or only counsel . If the appellate court finds procedural irregularities that do not affect the essence of the detention order , the court must eliminate the defects without quashing the order .

Pursuant to the general provision of LAW , a first instance decision , including remand decisions , was not effective pending the time - limit for an appeal against that decision or during the appeal proceedings . The present LAW ( version in force from DATE ) specifies that all decisions of detention on remand become effective and are executed on the date when they are taken .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken to ORG on suspicion of carrying a gun without the required licence . It was also established that he was being sought for on suspicion of establishing a profit - making criminal organisation .

The following day , CARDINAL DATE the applicant was brought before the GPE public prosecutor . The public prosecutor ordered his release after having taken his statements .

NORP However , on DATE , certain police officers brought the applicant back to ORG . Immediately after that event , his lawyer filed a complaint with the GPE public prosecutor , claiming that the applicant had been forcibly taken by the police officers despite the public prosecutor ’s decision and had been beaten . She indicated that she had been denied entry into the ORG .

The applicant claimed to have been released DATE .

Following his release , the applicant went to a private clinic where he was examined by a doctor who noted that there existed several oedemas and bruises on various parts of the applicant ’s body , caused by blows from a hard object . The doctor specified the places of the said oedemas and bruises as the right frontal area of the face , right cheekbone , left shoulder , left forearm , left leg and left gluteal area . He also maintained that there were cuts in the oral cavity caused by dental pressure . The doctor noted the date of the report as CARDINAL DATE but did not write his name .

On an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint against QUANTITY police officers , alleging that they had inflicted ill - treatment on him .

On DATE ORG submitted an information note to the public prosecutor , stating that the applicant had gone to ORG on DATE of his own will and had stayed there for a brief period of TIME . The note indicated that he had not been officially in custody during that period and had been allowed to see his lawyer . Subsequently , on DATE , ORG further informed the public prosecutor that no record of the applicant ’s meeting with his lawyer had been made .

On DATE the applicant maintained before the GPE public prosecutor that he had been forced to stay at ORG for DATE following his release by the public prosecutor and had been denied access to his lawyer during that period . He reiterated his allegations of ill - treatment , arguing that CARDINAL police officers had put him in a barrel full of cold water and had beaten him the whole day . He also submitted a medical report from a private clinic , which he had obtained following his release .

On DATE , upon a request from the GPE public prosecutor to that effect , ORG issued a final report , indicating the findings of the initial medical report and concluding that those findings would keep the applicant from routine activities for DATE .

The QUANTITY police officers accused by the applicant of ill - treatment gave their statements before the GPE public prosecutor on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . They maintained , inter alia , that they had not ill - treated the applicant in any way and that the applicant had only stayed at ORG for TIME on DATE the alleged events took place .

On DATE the police informed the public prosecutor that the owner of the private clinic , who was a medical doctor , had stated that the initial medical report had not been issued in his clinic and that his name had been fraudulently used on it .

Subsequently , on CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the CARDINAL police officers as he found that there was no evidence except the applicant ’s allegations to prove that they had committed the alleged acts .

Criminal proceedings against the applicant for forging an official document

On DATE , the public prosecutor instigated criminal proceedings against the applicant before ORG of ORG for forging an official document .

During the proceedings , the owner of the clinic stated before the court that he had actually examined the applicant and drafted the medical report in question .

On DATE , upon a request of the court , an expert submitted a report , concluding that the handwriting in the medical report in question did not show the same characteristics as that of the owner of the clinic .

Nevertheless , on DATE ORG submitted another expert report to the court , confirming that the handwriting on the medical report belonged to the owner of the clinic .

Having regard to the latter expert report and the doctor ’s statements , on DATE the court acquitted the applicant of the charge against him .

Criminal proceedings against the police officers

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , this time accusing the QUANTITY police officers of illegal deprivation of liberty and ill - treatment pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ) .

NORP The applicant ’s lawyer gave her statements before the court on DATE . She indicated that the applicant had been dragged by certain police officers following his release by the GPE public prosecutor and that she had not witnessed him being beaten at ORG , where he must have stayed for TIME .

On DATE the owner of the private clinic , where the applicant had obtained the medical report , stated before the court that he had not examined the applicant . At the following hearing on DATE another doctor , GPE , maintained that at the time of the events he had been working at the said clinic . He stated that he was the one who had examined the applicant and drawn up a medical report about his condition .

At a hearing on DATE the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG heard a certain S.Z.A. , the chief officer who had conducted the administrative investigation against the QUANTITY police officers . According to S.Z.A. ’s statements , although there had been CARDINAL conflicting expert reports about the medical report during the proceedings before the CARDINALst Chamber , later on , ORG had conducted another analysis and found out that the handwriting actually corresponded to that of GPE

The applicant joined the criminal proceedings against the officers as a civil party ( müdahil ) on DATE .

On DATE the first - instance court acquitted the police officers of ill - treatment . The court noted that the medical report issued immediately after the impugned events could not be considered valid as GPE , who had admitted to having examined the applicant in the clinic , had not had the work permit to draw up such a report . It maintained moreover that the report issued by ORG , which relied wholly on the initial report , was invalid as well . The court hence concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict the accused police officers of inflicting ill - treatment on the applicant . It sentenced the officers to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for illegal deprivation of liberty and suspended that sentence .

On DATE ORG discontinued the case , finding that it was time - barred pursuant to LAW and ORG of the former LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .

Disciplinary proceedings against the police officers

Meanwhile , following the GPE public prosecutor ’s indictment of the CARDINAL police officers , on DATE the GPE Governorship assigned a chief officer to conduct a disciplinary investigation into the allegations of illegal deprivation of liberty and ill - treatment concerning the officers .

During the disciplinary proceedings , on DATE ORG submitted a new expert report , this time concluding that the handwriting on the medical report issued in respect of the applicant actually belonged to GPE

On DATE ORG of ORG held that in the absence of any valid evidence , there was no ground to take disciplinary measures against the CARDINAL police officers . ORG further struck the case out as the statutory time - limit for the alleged offences had expired .

The former LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) made it a criminal offence to deprive an individual unlawfully of his or her liberty ( LAW generally , LAW servants ) .

The second paragraph of LAW regulated an aggravated sentence for cases where the accused civil servants threatened or inflicted ill - treatment on the individual concerned .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

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

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

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


Remainder inadmissible;Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of P1-3;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant stood for the elections to ORG ( ORG ) of DATE as a candidate of the opposition bloc GPE , a coalition formed for electoral purposes by ORG , with which the applicant was affiliated , together with a number of other opposition parties . He was registered as a candidate by ORG ( “ the ConEC ” ) for the single - mandate ORG no . CARDINAL .

The constituency was divided into QUANTITY electoral precincts , with CARDINAL polling station in each precinct . There were a total of CARDINAL candidates running for election in this constituency . The applicant was the only candidate nominated by PERSON in that constituency .

According to the ConEC protocol drawn up after DATE , CARDINAL of the applicant 's opponents , ORG , a member of ORG , obtained the highest number of votes cast in the constituency . Specifically , according to the ConEC protocol , ORG received CARDINAL votes ( PERCENT ) , the applicant received CARDINAL votes ( PERCENT ) , and a third candidate received CARDINAL votes ( PERCENT ) . The total number of votes cast for each of the remaining candidates was substantially lower .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted identical complaints to the PERSON and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , in which he claimed , inter alia , that :

( i ) the local executive and municipal authorities , as well as heads of statefunded institutions and organisations , interfered in the election process in favour of ORG prior to and during DATE ( in the form of openly campaigning in his favour and coercing voters to vote for him ) ;

( ii ) Z.O. 's supporters ( mostly ORG officials of various sorts ) intimidated voters and otherwise attempted to influence voter choice in polling stations ;

( iii ) in several polling stations , observers were harassed or excluded from the voting area by the police ;

( iv ) some citizens residing in relevant election precincts were unable to exercise their right to vote due to the authorities ' failure to include them in relevant voters lists ; and

( v ) there were instances of multiple voting and ballot - box stuffing in different polling stations .

In support of his claims , the applicant submitted to the ORG originals of CARDINAL affidavits ( akt ) of election observers , audio tapes and other evidence documenting specific instances of irregularities complained of . Some examples of the evidence presented are summarised below .

The TIME audio recording contained interviews with a number of unidentified voters , who stated , inter alia , that prior to DATE directors of governmental institutions and public organisations ( such as public schools and libraries ) located on the territory of the constituency had held staff meetings with the specific purpose of instructing their staff to vote for ORG , threatening them with salary cuts if ORG did not win the election .

NORP In an affidavit signed by them , CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL stated , inter alia , that CARDINAL voters had voted twice , however the chairman of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for this polling station had taken no action when this matter was brought to his attention .

CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL noted , inter alia , that the director of a public school where the polling station was located had openly intervened in the election process and interfered with the functions of the ORG without any objection by ORG members . Also , the same school director instructed a police officer to forcibly exclude one of the observers from the polling station .

Three observers in Polling Station no . CARDINAL noted , inter alia , that a certain named ORG official had actively interfered in the election process by openly campaigning in favour of ORG on the LOC of the polling station , asked voters to vote for him and brought groups of unregistered voters to the polling station to vote for GPE

CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL witnessed one incident of ballot - box stuffing by a ORG member .

An affidavit signed by CARDINAL observers and candidates ' representatives in FAC no . CARDINAL stated that , at TIME , when the vote - counting began , all of the observers had been forced out of the polling station LOC by the police on the instruction of the ORG chairman . In the absence of the observers , CARDINAL false ballots were illegally added into ORG 's total vote count in the polling station . According to a separate affidavit signed by observers from the same polling station , the ORG chairman and representatives of the executive and municipal authorities interfered in the election process and instructed voters to vote for ORG According to another affidavit , there were also several irregularities in the voter lists in this polling station .

CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL noted , inter alia , that commission members had illegally added several additional ballots during the vote - counting .

In their affidavits , observers from ORG . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE documented similar incidents of alleged illegal campaigning in favour of ORG , ballot - box stuffing and other forms of tampering with ballots , and irregularities with voter lists . A number of observers also noted that voting booths in some polling stations were of inadequate standard .

According to the applicant , neither the ConEC nor the ORG replied to his complaints .

According to the ORG , the applicant 's complaint was examined by the ConEC . As it appears from the documents submitted by the ORG , following receipt of the applicant 's complaint , the PERSON demanded explanations from the chairmen and members of the relevant PECs in connection with the applicant 's allegations . In reply , CARDINAL ORG chairmen and members submitted brief handwritten statements ( some of them as short as one or CARDINAL sentences ) , or “ explanatory notes ” ( “ izahat ” ) , all signed on DATE . All these notes stated in general terms that the election process in their respective polling stations had gone smoothly and without any irregularities , undue pressure on voters or any other breaches of the electoral law , and that any allegations by the applicant to the contrary were false .

On DATE the ConEC rejected the applicant 's complaint . Without any elaboration on details of the applicant 's specific allegations , it decided that they were unsubstantiated . At the same time , however , the ConEC confirmed that the condition of the voting booths in FAC no . CARDINAL and “ some other ” ( unidentified ) polling stations had been poor . This finding did not entail any consequences for the official election results in those polling stations or in the constituency as a whole .

On DATE , DATE , the ORG issued its final protocol approving the overall election results in the country ( with the exception of a few electoral constituencies ) and submitted it , together with relevant documents , to ORG for review and approval of the election results . The election results for ORG no . CARDINAL were among those approved by the ORG , confirming ORG as the winner in this constituency .

According to the country - wide results , the ruling ORG again won the majority of seats in the Milli Majlis .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG , asking the court to invalidate the ORG 's final protocol in the part relating to the election results in ORG no . CARDINAL . In addition to restating all of his complaints made previously to the electoral commissions , he also complained of specific instances of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the ORG protocols which served as a basis for compiling the election results in the constituency as a whole . In particular , he noted a significant discrepancy in the ORG protocol for ORG no . CARDINAL , in which certain numbers did not add up correctly . As a result , CARDINAL blank ballots out of CARDINAL blank ballots originally issued to the ORG appeared to be “ missing ” ( the protocol indicated that CARDINAL persons had voted in that polling station , but CARDINAL of the remaining blank ballots were indicated as “ unused ” and formally “ cancelled ” , with no explanation as to what happened to the remaining CARDINAL blank ballots ) . The same was the case with the ORG protocol for ORG no . CARDINAL , where CARDINAL blank ballots were unaccounted for . Similar discrepancies were also allegedly found in PEC protocols for CARDINAL other polling stations . The applicant claimed that these “ missing ” blank ballots had been sneaked out and illegally used for ballot - box stuffing in favour of ORG in various other polling stations .

The applicant argued that , due to all these irregularities , it was not possible to determine the true opinion of the voters in his constituency . He also complained that the ORG had failed to examine his complaint of DATE . In support of his claims , the applicant submitted copies of the same evidence previously submitted to the ORG , including photocopies of the observers ' affidavits and copies of audio material .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claims as unsubstantiated . The court did not consider the photocopies of the affidavits as admissible evidence , noting that in accordance with LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) either the originals or notarised copies of those affidavits should have been submitted . Specifically , most of the reasoning contained in ORG judgment was limited to the following :

“ According to LAW ORG ... , the court shall examine and rely on only the evidence submitted by the parties .

According to Article CARDINAL of the same Code , each party must prove any allegations which it makes in support of its claims and objections .

Based on the material in the case file and the parties ' submissions , [ the applicant 's ] claim against [ the ORG ] ... can not be upheld . The alleged incidents concerning ORG no . CARDINAL , as described in the claim , did not take place . Documents attached to the claim are photocopies and no originals or notarised copies of documents have been submitted . [ As such , ] affidavits attached to the claim can not be admitted as evidence . On the other hand , the alleged omission of a significant number of voters from voting lists has not been proved by the material in the case file .

In such circumstances , the court considers that [ the applicant 's ] claim against [ the ORG ] ... must be dismissed . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal with ORG , reiterating his claims . He also noted that he had submitted the originals of the documentary evidence to the ORG on DATE and argued that ORG had failed to take this fact into account .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on the same grounds as ORG judgment of DATE . As to the originals of the documentary evidence allegedly submitted to the ORG , ORG noted that the applicant had failed to submit any evidence proving that he had ever applied to the ORG with a complaint . The reasoning in ORG decision was as follows :

“ According to Article CARDINAL of the ORG ... , each party must prove any allegations which it makes in support of its claims and objections .

[ The applicant ] has not presented any convincing evidence capable of proving the allegations forming the basis of his claim . The photocopies of affidavits attached to his claim were not admitted as convincing evidence by ORG in a lawful and justified manner , as they had not been notarised .

Moreover , the case materials contain no documents confirming that the applicant had applied to the electoral commissions under the procedure specified in LAW .

Although at the oral hearing the applicant claimed that he had submitted the originals of the affidavits to the ORG , he has not submitted to the court any evidence showing that he had [ actually ] applied to the ORG .

However , according to LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG ... , originals or duly certified copies of evidence should be submitted to courts . The applicant has not complied with this rule .

According to LAW , the court of cassation instance verifies whether the court of appellate instance has correctly applied substantive and procedural law .

The court considers that ORG has correctly applied the relevant law and correctly reached the conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated . There is no ground for quashing the [ ORG ] judgment . ”

On DATE , DATE , ORG confirmed the election results in the majority of the electoral constituencies , including ORG no . CARDINAL .

The following are the relevant provisions of LAW as effective at the material time .

Elections and referenda are organised and carried out by electoral commissions , which are competent to deal with a wide range of issues relating to the electoral process ( LAW ) . There are CARDINAL levels of electoral commissions : ( a ) ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) ; ( b ) constituency electoral commissions ( “ the ConEC ” ) ; and ( c ) precinct ( polling station ) electoral commissions ( “ the PEC ” ) ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Each electoral commission at every level has a chairperson and CARDINAL secretaries who are elected by open voting by members of the relevant electoral commission . The chairperson of each electoral commission at every level must be a representative of the political party holding the majority of parliamentary seats in the Milli Majlis . CARDINAL of the secretaries must be a representative of the political parties holding the minority of parliamentary seats , and the other one a representative of “ independent ” members of parliament who are not formally affiliated with any political party ( hereafter also referred to as “ the non - partisan members of parliament ” ) ( LAW ) .

DATE Meetings of electoral commissions at every level are convened either by the chairperson or by CARDINAL of the relevant commission 's members ( Article CARDINAL ) . A quorum for meetings of any electoral commission is CARDINAL of its members ( Article CARDINAL ) . The qualified majority vote of CARDINAL of the members who are in attendance is required for adoption of decisions of any commission at any level ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

The ORG consists of CARDINAL members who are elected by PERSON . CARDINAL members of the ORG are directly nominated by and represent the political party holding a majority of seats in the Milli Majlis , CARDINAL members are nominated by and represent the non - partisan members of parliament , and CARDINAL members are nominated by and represent all the political parties holding a minority of parliamentary seats . Out of the CARDINAL nominees representing the non - partisan members of parliament , CARDINAL candidates are nominated “ in agreement ” with the “ interested parties ” : CARDINAL of the nominees is agreed by the representatives of the majority party and the other is agreed by the representatives of the minority parties ( LAW .

Each ConEC consists of CARDINAL members who are appointed by the ORG . CARDINAL members of the ConEC are nominated by the ORG members representing the parliamentary majority party , CARDINAL members are nominated by the ORG members representing the parliamentary minority parties , and CARDINAL members are nominated by the ORG members representing the nonpartisan members of parliament . Local branches of the relevant political parties may suggest candidates to ConEC membership for nomination by the ORG members representing the relevant parties . Out of the CARDINAL candidates nominated by the ORG members representing the non - partisan members of parliament , CARDINAL candidates are nominated “ in agreement ” with the “ interested parties ” : CARDINAL of the nominees is agreed with the ORG members representing the parliamentary majority party and the other is agreed with the ORG members representing the parliamentary minority parties ( LAW .

Each ORG consists of CARDINAL members appointed by the relevant ConEC . CARDINAL members of the ORG are nominated by the ConEC members representing the parliamentary majority party , CARDINAL members are nominated by the ConEC members representing the parliamentary minority parties , and CARDINAL members are nominated by the ConEC members representing the nonpartisan members of parliament . Local branches of the relevant political parties may suggest candidates for ORG membership for nomination by the ConEC members representing the relevant parties . As to candidates for ORG membership nominated by the ConEC members representing the nonpartisan members of parliament , these candidates may also be suggested to the relevant ConEC members by voters or voters ' initiative groups . These candidates must be citizens of GPE who permanently reside within the territory of the relevant electoral constituency ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Candidates and other affected persons may complain about decisions or actions ( or omissions to act ) violating electoral rights of candidates or other affected persons , within DATE after publication or receipt of such decisions or occurrence of such actions ( or omissions ) or within DATE after an affected person has become aware of such decisions or actions ( or omissions ) ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Such complaints can be submitted directly to a higher electoral commission ( Article CARDINAL ) . If a complaint is first decided by a lower electoral commission , a higher electoral commission may quash its decision or adopt a new decision on the merits of the complaint or remit the complaint for a new examination ( LAW ) . Decisions or actions ( or omissions to act ) of a ConEC may be appealed to the ORG , and decisions or actions ( or omissions to act ) of the ORG may be appealed to the appellate court ( LAW ) .

ORG If the examination of the complaint reveals a suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed , the relevant prosecuting authority can be informed thereof . The ORG must adopt a reasoned decision in this regard . The relevant prosecution authority must examine this information within a DATE period ( Article CARDINAL ) .

NORP In cases stipulated in LAW , the courts are empowered to quash decisions of the relevant electoral commissions , including decisions concerning voting results and election results ( Article CARDINAL ) .

While examining requests to invalidate the election of a specific candidate , the relevant electoral commission has a right to hear submissions of citizens and officials as well as obtain required documents and materials ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The relevant electoral commission shall adopt a decision on any complaint submitted during the election period and deliver it to the complainant within DATE of receipt of the complaint , except for complaints submitted on DATE or the day after DATE , which shall be examined immediately ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Complaints concerning decisions of electoral commissions shall be examined by courts within DATE ( unless the Electoral Code provides for a shorter period ) . The period for lodging an appeal against a court decision is also DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Persons illegally interfering with the election process and otherwise violating electoral rights of voters and candidates may bear criminal , civil or administrative responsibility under LAW , LAW or LAW ( Article CARDINAL ) .

After the count of votes in a polling station at the end of DATE , the ORG draws up an election protocol ( in CARDINAL original copies ) documenting the results of the voting in the polling station ( Articles CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL copy of the ORG protocol , together with other relevant documents , is then submitted to the relevant ConEC within twentyfour TIME ( Article CARDINAL ) . The ConEC verifies whether each ORG protocol and documents attached to it comply with the law and whether there are any inconsistencies ( LAW ) . After submission of all ORG protocols , the ConEC tabulates , within DATE of DATE , the results from different polling stations and draws up a protocol ( in CARDINAL original copies ) reflecting the aggregate results of the vote in the constituency ( ORG CARDINAL -CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL copy of the ConEC protocol , together with other relevant documents , is then submitted to the ORG within DATE of DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) . The ORG verifies whether the ConEC protocols comply with the law and whether they contain any inconsistencies ( Article CARDINAL ) and draws up its own final protocol reflecting the results of the elections in all constituencies ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The Constitutional Court reviews and approves the results of the elections ( Article CARDINAL ) . For this purpose , the ORG reviews the ConEC protocols , together with other relevant documents , during a period of DATE after DATE , and then submits them to ORG within TIME ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Within DATE of receipt of the above documents , the Constitutional Court reviews , with the assistance of experts , whether they are in accordance with the requirements of LAW . If necessary , this DATE period may be extended ( Article CARDINAL ) .

A civil court examines and relies only on evidence submitted by the parties ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Each party to the civil proceedings must submit evidence proving the facts forming the basis of their claims and objections ( Article CARDINAL ) . In disputes concerning invalidation of acts of the ORG , administrative and other authorities , the burden of proving the facts forming the basis of such acts falls upon the relevant authority ( Article CARDINAL ) . In the event that the examination of the case on the basis of the evidence available in the case file is impossible , the court may request the parties to submit additional evidence ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Written evidence must be submitted to courts either in original or in duly certified copies . If only a part of a document is relevant to the case under examination , a certified extract must be submitted ( Article CARDINAL ) .

LAW ORG sets out rules for examination of applications concerning the protection of electoral rights ( or a right to participate in a referendum ) . According to LAW , such applications shall be submitted directly to the appellate courts in accordance with the procedure established by LAW .

Applications concerning the protection of electoral ( referendum ) rights shall be examined within DATE of receipt of the application , except for applications submitted on DATE or the day after DATE , which shall be examined immediately ( Article CARDINAL ) . The court shall hear the case in the presence of the applicant , a representative of the relevant electoral commission and any other interested parties . Failure by any of these parties to attend the hearing after due notification shall not preclude the court from examining and deciding the case ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The appellate court 's decision can be appealed to the higher court ( the court of cassation ) within DATE . This appeal shall be examined within DATE , or immediately if submitted on DATE or DATE . The decision of the court of cassation is final ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The relevant excerpts from LAW ) ( DATE ) CARDINAL rev ) , adopted by ORG ( “ the GPE Commission ” ) at its CARDINALst and CARDINALnd sessions ( DATE and DATE ) , read as follows :

“ GUIDELINES ON ELECTIONS

Procedural guarantees

Organisation of elections by an impartial body

a. An impartial body must be in charge of applying electoral law .

b. Where there is no longstanding tradition of administrative authorities ' independence from those holding political power , independent , impartial electoral commissions must be set up at all levels , from the national level to polling station level .

c. The central electoral commission must be permanent in nature .

d. It should include :

i. CARDINAL member of the judiciary ;

ii . representatives of parties already in parliament or having scored at least a given percentage of the vote ; these persons must be qualified in electoral matters .

It may include :

iii . a representative of ORG ;

iv . representatives of national minorities .

e. Political parties must be equally represented on electoral commissions or must be able to observe the work of the impartial body . Equality may be construed strictly or on a proportional basis ...

h. It is desirable that electoral commissions take decisions by a qualified majority or by consensus .

An effective system of appeal

a. The appeal body in electoral matters should be either an electoral commission or a court . For elections to ORG , an appeal to ORG may be provided for in first instance . In any case , final appeal to a court must be possible .

b. The procedure must be simple and devoid of formalism , in particular concerning the admissibility of appeals .

d. The appeal body must have authority in particular over such matters as the right to vote – including electoral registers DATE and eligibility , the validity of candidatures , proper observance of election campaign rules and the outcome of the elections .

e. The appeal body must have authority to annul elections where irregularities may have affected the outcome . It must be possible to annul the entire election or merely the results for CARDINAL constituency or CARDINAL polling station . In the event of annulment , a new election must be called in the area concerned .

f. All candidates and all voters registered in the constituency concerned must be entitled to appeal . ...

PERSON for lodging and deciding appeals must be short ( DATE for each at first instance ) .

h. The applicant 's right to a hearing involving both parties must be protected .

i. Where the appeal body is a higher electoral commission , it must be able ex officio to rectify or set aside decisions taken by lower electoral commissions .

EXPLANATORY REPORT

DATE . Only transparency , impartiality and independence from politically motivated manipulation will ensure proper administration of the election process , from the pre - election period to the end of the processing of results .

In states where the administrative authorities have a long - standing tradition of independence from the political authorities , the civil service applies electoral law without being subjected to political pressures . It is therefore both normal and acceptable for elections to be organised by administrative authorities , and supervised by ORG .

NORP However , in states with little experience of organising pluralist elections , there is too great a risk of government 's pushing the administrative authorities to do what it wants . This applies both to central and local government - even when the latter is controlled by the national opposition .

This is why independent , impartial electoral commissions must be set up from the national level to polling station level to ensure that elections are properly conducted , or at least remove serious suspicions of irregularity .

An effective system of appeal

NORP If the electoral law provisions are to be more than just words on a page , failure to comply with the electoral law must be open to challenge before an appeal body . This applies in particular to the election results : individual citizens may challenge them on the grounds of irregularities in the voting procedures . It also applies to decisions taken before the elections , especially in connection with the right to vote , electoral registers and standing for election , the validity of candidatures , compliance with the rules governing the electoral campaign and access to the media or to party funding .

There are CARDINAL possible solutions :

- appeals may be heard by the ordinary courts , a special court or the constitutional court ;

- appeals may be heard by an electoral commission . There is much to be said for this latter system in that the commissions are highly specialised whereas the courts tend to be less experienced with regard to electoral issues . As a precautionary measure , however , it is desirable that there should be some form of judicial supervision in place , making the higher commission the first appeal level and the competent court the second .

Appeal proceedings should be as brief as possible , in any case concerning decisions to be taken before the election . On this point , CARDINAL pitfalls must be avoided : first , that appeal proceedings retard the electoral process , and second , that , due to their lack of suspensive effect , decisions on appeals which could have been taken before , are taken after the elections . In addition , decisions on the results of elections must also not take too long , especially where the political climate is tense . This means both that the time limits for appeals must be very short and that the appeal body must make its ruling as quickly as possible . Time limits must , however , be long enough to make an appeal possible , to guarantee the exercise of rights of defence and a reflected decision . A time limit of DATE at first instance ( both for lodging appeals and making rulings ) seems reasonable for decisions to be taken before the elections . It is , however , permissible to grant a little more time to ORG for their rulings .

The procedure must also be simple , and providing voters with special appeal forms helps to make it so . It is necessary to eliminate formalism , and so avoid decisions of inadmissibility , especially in politically sensitive cases .

Standing in such appeals must be granted as widely as possible . It must be open to every elector in the constituency and to every candidate standing for election there to lodge an appeal . A reasonable quorum may , however , be imposed for appeals by voters on the results of elections .

The appeal procedure should be of a judicial nature , in the sense that the right of the appellants to proceedings in which both parties are heard should be safeguarded .

The powers of appeal bodies are important too . They should have authority to annul elections , if irregularities may have influenced the outcome , i.e. affected the distribution of seats . This is the general principle , but it should be open to adjustment , i.e. annulment should not necessarily affect the whole country or constituency – indeed , it should be possible to annul the results of just CARDINAL polling station . This makes it possible to avoid the CARDINAL extremes – annulling an entire election , although irregularities affect a small area only , and refusing to annul , because the area affected is too small . In zones where the results have been annulled , the elections must be repeated .

Where higher - level commissions are appeal bodies , they should be able to rectify or annul ex officio the decisions of lower electoral commissions . ”

The following are the relevant excerpts from this report , published in GPE , GPE on DATE :

“ III . POLITICAL BACKGROUND

The DATE elections to PERSON of GPE were the third parliamentary elections held in GPE since independence in DATE , but the first conducted after the adoption of the DATE constitutional amendments , which eliminated the proportional list component of parliamentary elections . All CARDINAL members of ORG are now elected in single seat constituencies , in a single round of voting .

The ORG registered CARDINAL political parties and blocs for the DATE elections . ORG ( YAP ) , currently chaired by President PERSON , has held a dominant position in government since DATE . On the opposition side there were CARDINAL main blocs : ' New Politics ' ( YeS ) , formed by ORG , ORG of GPE , ORG for the Sake of GPE , ORG as well as other political parties and NGOs , and ' PERSON ' ( ' Freedom ' ) , which was formed by the parties PERSON , ORG ( APFP ) and ORG ( ORG ) . Another party , which fielded candidates in CARDINAL constituencies , was the opposition ORG of GPE .

V. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION

The election was administered by a CARDINAL - tiered system of election commissions ... There are CARDINAL constituency election commissions and CARDINAL polling station election commissions . All election commissions have a CARDINAL requirement for quorum and for adopting decisions .

The transitional method of composition of election commissions continued to be problematic , as it favored the incumbent authorities and undermined confidence in the independence of the election administration . Election commissions are formed according to a complex formula , and in essence , pro - government parties have a majority in all election commissions sufficient to make all decisions . Moreover , the chairpersons of all election commissions were nominated by the parliamentary majority .

The ORG held regular meetings open to media and observers , and most decisions were published and available on its website . The ORG met most deadlines of LAW regarding technical preparations for the elections . An extensive voter education effort was conducted through the media .

A number of aspects of the ORG 's performance were problematic , however , including processing of complaints and appeals , ensuring the uniform implementation of LAW by ConECs and PECs , and organization of military voting . Observers reported uncertainty and confusion on the interpretation and application of some legal and procedural issues by GPE and PECs .

A number of election commissions operated in a transparent and collegial manner , and a few issued warnings to candidates or officials for violating the law . However , during the pre - election period , commission members nominated by opposition parties in some constituencies claimed that they were in a number of instances not informed of ConEC meetings , denied access to key documents and had little influence on the decision - making process . The OSCE / ODIHR EOM [ Election Observation Mission ] was able to verify some of these claims .

VII . CAMPAIGN

The general campaign environment was characterized by the fact that the ruling ORG party dominated government and most district administrations , including the election commissions .

The campaign was undermined by numerous cases of interference of local executive authorities in the election process , with widespread evidence that such interference either favored candidates associated with the incumbents or disadvantaged opposition candidates . ... [ ORG candidates and campaign staff were harassed during the course of their campaign activities , for example , while meeting with voters , displaying posters or distributing leaflets .

The ORG received a number of reports from citizens , particularly from the regions , regarding heads of schools , hospitals and ORG - owned companies who collected signatures that allegedly obliged staff to vote for selected candidates . The OSCE / ODIHR EOM also received reports of intimidation and coercion of school staff , students and parents to attend campaign events , predominantly in favor of ORG candidates .

The DATE and DATE presidential decrees acknowledged many such issues and provided instructions to state and local executive bodies , with a view to ensuring that the parliamentary elections be conducted in full compliance with LAW . While the decrees addressed some of the shortcomings observed by the FAC / ODIHR EOM , the overall lack of meaningful implementation undermined their objectives .

ORG . COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY

In its DATE Final Report , ORG recommended that the ORG enact clear regulations governing the consideration of complaints and appeals . Similarly , it was recommended that safeguards be instituted to ensure that local executive authorities do not interfere in the electoral process or direct the work of the election commissions . These recommendations were not implemented and this had a significant and detrimental effect on the election complaints process .

The Election Code envisages most complaints being filed with election commissions , but the law also allows complaints to be lodged with the superior election commission , with decisions in all cases to be made within a DATE deadline . In a large number of cases , candidates lodged complaints directly with the ORG , by - passing the respective ConEC even where the ConEC had not yet brought a decision on the respective complaint . This indicated a lack of confidence in the neutrality of the constituency commissions . The ORG formally registered all such complaints , but in the vast majority of cases merely returned them to the relevant ConEC for its decision , even where the PERSON had already made a prior decision .

In many cases , ConECs did not decide complaints within the DATE deadline or issue an interim decision . Although some ConECs did try to adjudicate complaints in a transparent way , a number of ConECs addressed complaints belatedly and superficially . There were cases in which ConECs claimed not to have received complaints , when it was clear they had done so , did not sanction ORG officials who had discriminated against candidates , failed to notify candidates or observers when complaints were discussed or simply ignored complaints . ... In numerous cases , commission chairpersons were clearly biased in favor of ORG or pro - government candidates , and complaints from opposition or independent candidates in these constituencies did not receive impartial adjudication .

Overall , the failure of election commissions , and subsequently in some instances the prosecutors , to address or rectify serious violations by local executive authorities and candidates had a marked and negative impact on the election process . Although some ConECs did issue written warnings to candidates and local executive officials , most violations during the campaign were allowed to take place without effective sanction . This further reduced confidence of candidates in the fairness of the process .

XIII . ELECTION DAY

A. Voting

For the election on DATE , CARDINAL polling stations were established to serve voters across GPE . IEOM observers visited over CARDINAL polling stations throughout the country . Voter turnout as reported by the ORG was MONEY , which is significantly lower than in previous general elections . Most IEOM observer teams reported that polling stations generally opened without delay . However , serious deviations from correct opening procedures , including failure to establish and announce the total amount of ballots and invalidate de - registration cards , took place in a number of polling stations . The opening was assessed as ' bad ' or ' very bad ' in CARDINAL per cent of polling stations visited .

Overall , IEOM observers assessed voting positively in MONEY of polling stations visited , while voting was assessed negatively in a considerable MONEY of polling stations visited , indicating systemic problems and/or irregularities . Voting was conducted in a generally calm atmosphere , although tension was reported at MONEY of polling stations visited . Serious violations of procedures included the presence of unauthorized persons , mainly representatives of local executive authorities , in MONEY of polling stations visited . Some of these persons were observed interfering in the work of the election commission or attempting to influence voter choice . The ORG observed intimidation and attempts to influence voter choices in MONEY of polling stations visited . Other serious problems included cases of ballot box stuffing and inconsistent application of voter card rules , which was observed in CARDINAL of polling stations visited . ORG or family voting remained an issue , as it was observed in CARDINAL per cent of visits . Although relatively few people voted by mobile voting procedures , IEOM observers noted some cases in which more votes were cast than there were applications for ballots .

Inking procedures , in particular the checking of voters ' fingers for ink , were not properly followed in MONEY of polling stations visited , with several PECs not applying the inking procedure at all . ...

Candidate representatives and non - partisan domestic observers were present in nearly all polling stations visited ( CARDINAL per cent ) . However , there were observations of candidate representatives and ORG members being expelled or dismissed from polling stations in some cases . The ORG observed local executive officials and observers of ORG candidates interfering in or directing the process , or otherwise attempting to influence voters .

B. Counting

IEOM observer teams were present at the count in CARDINAL polling stations . The conduct of DATE process deteriorated sharply during the count . IEOM observers assessed the ballot counting process as bad or very bad in CARDINAL per cent of counts observed .

IEOM observers noted a wide range of serious violations during the count , including tampering with results protocols ( MONEY ) , result protocols not completed with ink ( MONEY ) , intimidation of observers ( MONEY ) and unauthorized persons directing the process ( MONEY ) . Key procedures were not followed by CARDINAL of PECs . In some polling stations , the ORG observed attempts by ORG members to inflate the vote for a selected candidate by swapping ballot papers from CARDINAL stack to another . Candidate representatives or opposition - nominated ORG members were expelled from the count in a number of cases . In some cases , the count was interrupted and the process significantly delayed , in breach of the law . In several cases , protocols were not completed in the presence of observers , were left blank , or were not taken directly to the ConEC . The results protocols were not posted as required by law in MONEY of the counts observed . Observers reported that entitled persons received the signed and stamped copies of the protocol in MONEY of the polling stations observed .

C. Tabulation of Results

The tabulation of results at constituency level was , overall , assessed as bad or very bad in MONEY of the CARDINAL ConECs visited . Tabulation procedures were not followed consistently , and the organization of the work was assessed as poor or very poor in CARDINAL per cent of cases observed . Several ConECs accepted empty or only partly completed protocols ( including protocols completed with pencil ) and did not take action against ORG chairs or members completing or changing protocols at the ConEC . ...

On and after DATE , the ORG received and registered CARDINAL complaints but did not address most of these complaints . Complaints that did receive attention were not considered transparently or in accordance with the law .

Although the law requires the ORG to decide on all complaints , the ORG failed to fully meet this legal obligation . ...

The ORG did not inform complainants on consideration of their complaints at the ORG session , and complainants were not granted the right to give explanations or present new evidence . Moreover , the ORG did not conduct a formal investigation or review of complaints at its sessions . Instead an individual commission member , as a rule a member representing the voting majority , investigated the complaint and reported on his or her findings . These reports did not give other ORG members complete information on the complaint . Notwithstanding the large number of complaints , the ORG met infrequently and completed its final protocol without considering all pending complaints . ...

The adjudication of post - election disputes in the courts largely disregarded the legal framework , and fell short of internationally accepted norms . In total , ORG received CARDINAL appeals and complaints in the post - election period . ORG received CARDINAL appeals during the post - election period until DATE . The OSCE / ODIHR EOM observed CARDINAL hearings in ORG and CARDINAL hearings in ORG . In most cases , complaints and appeals were either dismissed without consideration of the merits or rejected as groundless by both ORG and ORG . ... ”


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 2 in respect of death of applicant's son;Violation of Art. 2 in respect of failure to carry out effective investigation;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The facts of the case , particularly concerning events on DATE when PERSON , the applicant ’s son , was shot dead by police officers firing through the door of his apartment during a search operation in PERSON , were disputed by the parties . The Commission , pursuant to former LAW ( a ) of the LAW , conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties .

The Commission heard witnesses in GPE from DATE . These included the applicant ; PERSON , his daughter - in - law and widow of his deceased son ; PERSON , his son ; PERSON , the applicant ’s nephew ; CARDINAL neighbours , PERSON and ORG ; PERSON , the PERSON district gendarme commander , who set up the operation on DATE ; PERSON , leader of the special operations team which opened fire ; PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG and PERSON , members of the team ; PERSON , PERSON police superintendant , and police officers PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who attended the scene of the incident ; PERSON and PERSON , PERSON public prosecutors involved in the investigation ; PERSON , ORG public prosecutor , who attended the autopsy ; PERSON , GPE public prosecutor involved in the criminal trial of the QUANTITY police officers who opened fire ; PERSON , gendarme lieutenant who gave an expert opinion to the court in the criminal trial ; PERSON , a police operations expert who gave an opinion in the trial ; and PERSON , the provincial governor of ORG , who authorised the operation .

The DATE ’s findings of fact are set out in its report of CARDINAL October DATE and summarised below ( Section A ) . The applicant accepts the ORG ’s findings of fact . The Government ’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised below ( Section B ) .

PERSON was a small town , of CARDINAL people , located QUANTITY from ORG in the south - east region of GPE . It was close to the LOC dam which was perceived as a possible target for the ORG ( ORG ) . A company of commandos was stationed there . There was no evidence that ORG activity was particularly prevalent in PERSON itself or that there were any significant security problems .

The applicant , a business - man and an official in the local branch of ORG , was well - known in PERSON and a respected citizen , unsuspected of any illicit activities . His son PERSON was less well - known , running a petrol station for him . There was no evidence prior to the events of DATE that he was suspected of involvement with the ORG .

On DATE , Major Güder , the provincial gendarme commander , received a telephone call from an informant , naming CARDINAL terrorists and indicating the addresses in PERSON where they could be found . Major PERSON informed the provincial governor PERSON at TIME . The governor authorised the search operation proposed by Major PERSON to locate the terrorists and the allocation of personnel from ORG to assist , who were to be chosen by the ORG police chief PERSON .

A meeting was held on TIME , at TIME , at the district gendarme headquarters to plan the search operation , attended by the district governor , Major PERSON the district gendarme commander , the deputy police chief of PERSON ( PERSON ) and possibly a number of other local police officers . The information given at the meeting did not clearly emerge in the evidence before the Commission - the names and code names of the terrorists who had been seen were mentioned and a number of addresses . As a large number of addresses were searched during TIME , the search was wider than the addresses originally mentioned by the informant . The basis on which those addresses were chosen was not established . PERSON had not been named as CARDINAL of the terrorists by the informant and the reason why his apartment was to be searched was not provided in any of the written or oral evidence .

TIME , a special operations team of CARDINAL officers , assigned by the LOC police chief , arrived in PERSON . The acting team leader was PERSON . The team members were briefed by their leader . Their recollection of what they were told varied considerably . It appeared however that they had been given a strong indication that ORG terrorists would be likely to be present at the address . No instructions were given to them about the use of their weapons or the tactics to be used to gain entry to the apartment if there was resistance . No details were given concerning the other people who lived in the Gül apartment block . The ORG found insufficient evidence to support the allegation of the applicant that the special operations team was assigned and instructed for the purpose of carrying out a “ point operation ” , namely , an operation in which it was planned to use lethal force against an identified target in an extra - judicial execution - type raid . The Commission commented that the lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence concerning the planning of the operation hampered its assessment of this aspect of the case .

The house searches had begun before the arrival of the special operations team . A search report indicated that by TIME CARDINAL searches had been carried out . The house of PERSON , the applicant ’s nephew , who lived QUANTITY from the applicant ’s apartment block was searched TIME by local police officers , and proceeded in a polite , unaggressive manner . Nothing was found which supported the information given by the informant earlier in DATE .

Shortly before TIME , the special operations team arrived at the applicant ’s apartment block with the intention of carrying out a search of PERSON flat .

The Gül apartment block had streets on CARDINAL sides and a garden on the fourth . On the ground floor , there were commercial premises ; on the first floor , PERSON and his family lived in a flat on the left - hand side while PERSON and his family lived in a flat on the right - hand side . There were stairs leading up to the first floor from both the left and right corners of the side of the house facing the garden . The applicant occupied the flat on the second floor which was reached by a flight of stairs , which descended onto the balcony outside PERSON apartment . There was a partition separating the balcony into CARDINAL areas in front of the CARDINAL flats respectively . The stairs on each level were open , with railings . The area outside the flat was described as a balcony but there were differing descriptions of its dimensions and , particularly , whether it was a closed or open space . Videotapes provided by the parties did not elucidate the matter as there had been extensive alterations to the building since the events in issue . The videotapes did show that the stairwell to the second floor was located in the area in front of PERSON front door .

The entrance to PERSON flat was an iron door , which was secured by a lock , which was turned by a key , and also by a bolt . The door opened inwards . Outside , on the left of the door , was the kitchen window . Inside , on entering the flat , a hall ran straight ahead QUANTITY to the sitting room . Leading from left of the hallway was the kitchen , then a WC and bathroom . On the right of the corridor , there was a bedroom where the children slept , then a spare bedroom and furthest from the entrance the bedroom where PERSON and his wife slept .

As the search operation at the flat commenced , QUANTITY police officers , ORG , were in position outside the house , in the street where they could see who entered and left the building . CARDINAL of the special operation team ensured the security of the house FAC , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . None of these men were in a position in which they had a view of the first floor of the house . CARDINAL of the special operations officers ( PERSON , the team leader , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG , PERSON ) went up the stairs to the first floor . The positions of these officers were obscure . Their oral and written evidence was in many instances inconsistent . It appeared that PERSON , in position near the door of PERSON flat was not able to see clearly what occurred in front of PERSON ’s flat . PERSON was either on the stairs leading to the second floor or the ground floor and also unable to see what occurred . PERSON claimed that he was watching up the staircase towards a window and did not see anything , as he was behind an iron partition to the right of the door . There was however general agreement that PERSON was on the left side of the door to PERSON ’s flat , while ORG and ORG were nearby , providing him with cover .

Many of the details surrounding what occurred next were in dispute . The ORG found considerable difficulties attaching to the evidence of the CARDINAL special team officers at the door , who alleged that , after PERSON had knocked on the door giving loud warnings to open up , the door had swung abruptly open , PERSON had fired a shot through the door with a pistol and closed the door again . They had then opened fire on the door with a view to forcing it open , accidentally inflicting multiple wounds on PERSON who was behind the door . The Commission found their testimony lacking in reliability and credibility and that it was in some respects incredible . Their account gave an impression of being embroidered to present as exculpatory a picture as possible . On the other hand , it found the evidence of PERSON and PERSON , who were immediate witnesses of events , to be on the whole consistent , credible and convincing . Their accounts were in many respects supported by the testimony of the applicant and the other non - official witnesses .

On the basis of its assessment of the evidence , the ORG found that there was no prolonged knocking on the door or any verbal warning given to those inside the flat . PERSON came to the door in answer to a light knocking . It was highly probable that the officers outside started firing through the door , as PERSON was in the process of opening the lock . It was possible that the click of the key turning sounded like a gun being cocked and that this triggered their reaction . The intensity of the firing destroyed fingers on PERSON ’s right hand and inflicted numerous wounds . As he turned away from the door , a bullet struck him in the back inflicting a fatal injury . He staggered back up the corridor , leaving blood stains against the wall . His wife , PERSON , collided with him in the doorway of the bedroom and he collapsed on a sofa bed in that room . Meanwhile , in the flat next door , PERSON had heard the shooting and after opening his door briefly , he realised that it was the police and came out . He was forced onto the ground with a gun to his head . When the applicant came downstairs , he saw PERSON on the ground held at gunpoint by a security officer . He also saw that the lights were out and switched the mains switch back on . The applicant and PERSON participated in the efforts to open the door by physical force as the lock had jammed under the force of the bullets and PERSON had been unable to open it from the inside . When the door was kicked open , the applicant and PERSON entered the flat to find his injured son at the same time as , or shortly after , police officers entered .

NORP The applicant and other members of the family carried the severely injured PERSON downstairs and carried him to the local health centre in the applicant ’s car . There , he was transferred to an ambulance which took him to LOC hospital . He died however prior to his arrival . His body was taken to the morgue .

Meanwhile , a search was carried out at PERSON ’s flat . An incident report , and numerous statements of police officers , recorded that CARDINAL guns were found in the flat - a PERSON cocked with a bullet in the barrel and a NORP CARDINAL rounder - and that a QUANTITY empty cartridge was found in the corridor near the front door . These documents did not identify which of the signatories in fact witnessed the finding of these objects . The oral testimonies of the officers were confused and contradictory . No one was able to say who had found the NORP CARDINAL rounder as alleged in a wardrobe . While PERSON claimed to have found the PERSON , he was unable to recall whether it was bloodstained or not . There was no evidence that any precautions were taken in handling the guns with a view to preserving any forensic evidence . The finding of the guns was not properly recorded . They were not delivered to the public prosecutor until DATE , DATE . The photograph taken of the guns shows them sitting on a desk , either at the police station or the prosecutor ’s office . ORG did not find it established that the guns were found in the flat as alleged by the officers .

The special operations team returned to ORG after the search . They were not required to hand in their guns for examination or to account for the bullets expended during the operation .

The body of PERSON was examined by a doctor at ORG hospital at TIME in the presence of the ORG public prosecutor PERSON . The report which was drawn up was brief . It did not number the injuries on the body , giving only a general reference to grazes , cuts and erosions . No sketch was made of the location of injuries nor were any photographs taken . His family PERSON the son and PERSON the nephew - described the body as showing numerous bullet injuries , from the waist downwards . There was no full autopsy carried out , nor any X - rays taken . The public prosecutor PERSON considered that this was unnecessary as the cause of death - the bullet injury to the right kidney - was clear . He considered it was evident from the body that there were no bullets or fragments of bullets inside and that it was not necessary to give details of the grazes as these did not contribute to the death . The ORG found the report to be seriously deficient - it failed to describe the extent of PERSON injuries and to provide any useful medical or forensic detail for the purpose of assessing the proportionality of the force used by the security forces , the necessity for which evidence should have been apparent to the public prosecutor in the case of the killing of an individual by police officers .

In addition to the lack of proper recording of the finding of the guns and cartridge at the scene of the incident ( i.e. no photographs , sketch map or record of the officers who found them ) , the procedures at the scene were deficient in a number of other respects . Although the public prosecutor noted CARDINAL bullet holes in the door , CARDINAL cartridges were found . Though the PERSON was tested to see if it had been recently fired , no testing was carried out to establish that it had been fired by PERSON , i.e. by way of fingerprinting or analysis of blood traces . If the gun had been used by PERSON as alleged , there was a high probability that blood traces would have been present ( he was right handed , his right hand was shattered by bullets and blood smears were evident throughout the apartment where he had come into contact with walls and furniture ) . The photograph of the guns showed no visible stains however . Nor were PERSON hands tested for traces of firing . Though it was alleged by prosecutor PERSON that this test was pointless , this assertion did not accord with the practices adopted in other NORP cases examined by the Commission and utilised by police forces in other member GPE . The explanations given variously for not employing these tests ( shortness of time , the desire to avoid upsetting the family ) were not convincing . While the body was buried rapidly , there was nothing to stop the prosecutor delaying the release of the body to the relatives until the necessary tests had been carried out .

Though it was alleged that PERSON had fired a shot at the officers , no steps appeared to have been taken to check for a strike mark outside the flat or to find the bullet . The evidence before the Commission including the videotapes indicated that the staircase to the second floor was at the front of the balcony and potentially in the line of fire depending on the angle . The Commission was not convinced by the explanation that , assuming the bullet was fired into an open space over the balcony or stairway , it was not worth searching the garden for it . The fact that the gathering of forensic evidence was frequently a time - consuming and painstaking task did not relieve the authorities of the responsibility to make efforts to locate and preserve such evidence .

As regarded the gathering of evidence from witnesses , the public prosecutor in PERSON took statements from the applicant , family members and neighbours shortly after the events . They maintained that there had been no warnings given and that PERSON had not fired any gun at the officers . However , no statements were taken from any of the police officers involved until DATE , DATE . No statements were taken from any gendarme officers involved , nor the other persons who might have been involved in the planning of the operation . No enquiries were made of the special operations team department as to the weapons used or number of bullets expended on the operation .

On DATE , the PERSON public prosecutor issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction , which indicated the applicant as complainant , the members of the special operations team as the defendants and the offence as unintentional homicide . It stated that based on intelligence that members of the ORG could be located in certain residences in PERSON , a number of searches were carried out at TIME . At TIME special team officers intended to carry out a search at PERSON house . After giving warning , “ Police . Open the door ” , they fired at the metal door to gain entry . At that moment , PERSON was behind the door . He died from the wounds received . During the search of his house , there was found an illegal QUANTITY mm NORP pistol , a NORP PERSON pistol with its hammer drawn back and a bullet in the barrel , CARDINAL bullets and a cartridge . The applicant , father of the deceased , had lodged a criminal complaint . However , as it appeared that the defendants were special team officers and the offence carried out while they were performing their duties , the public prosecutor decided that he lacked jurisdiction and sent the file to the Provincial Governor for the necessary action .

On DATE , the ORG provincial governor requested the appointment of an inspector to carry out an investigation into the incident on behalf of the provincial administrative council . A police inspector , PERSON , was appointed . He took statements from the applicant and other family members , the neighbours ORG and PERSON , the local police officers involved in the search operations that night and all the members of the special operations team . All the statements , save that of PERSON taken on DATE , were taken from DATE .

On DATE , the inspector issued his report . It concluded that the officers had not fired to kill but had shown lack of care , which could justify charges being brought against them for causing death from lack of care and precautions , and recommended a disciplinary sanction of CARDINAL months’ suspension . However , a decision not to prosecute was endorsed by the provincial administrative council on DATE on the basis that the officers had not intended to kill anyone , that they had only fired after a shot had been fired at them and that they had given a warning . This decision was not communicated to the applicant .

On DATE , DATE , ORG quashed the decision on DATE and ordered the trial of the CARDINAL officers who had fired at the door – PERSON , ORG , ORG .

The CARDINAL officers were tried for causing death by lack of attention and due precaution ( Art . CARDINAL of the ORG ) . They were not represented by a lawyer during the proceedings , which lasted from DATE to CARDINAL DATE before ORG No . CARDINAL . During the trial , the CARDINAL officers appeared . They maintained their written statements , and only ORG made any additional comments . No other witnesses were heard .

On DATE , the court appointed a gendarme lieutenant PERSON as expert . He submitted a report dated DATE . This stated that from the file it was understood that the officers had called out warnings at the house , that the deceased had come out , fired one shot and shut the door again and that the officers fired at the lock to open it . The deceased , in the line of fire , was wounded and died . A subsequent search revealed the gun which had been fired and another , both unlicensed . It was noted that the complainants and other witnesses essentially disputed the statements of the security officers . It concluded that the defendants were members of a special operations team and had received serious and strict security training . During the incident and operation , conducted on the basis of intelligence information , the deceased fired a shot and the defendants were therefore “ preconditioned ” . They were primarily concerned to open the door and also to protect themselves and their colleagues . For those reasons , they fired at the lock . The photographs indicated that the defendants’ firing was concentrated round the lock to break it . Also the deceased ’s firing was intended to attack more than to defend . This indicated that although the defendants showed the care and attention expected from them , the incident occurred . No fault or ill - intention could be attributed to them .

On DATE , the court decided to send the file to ORG for expert lecturers from ORG to be selected to prepare a detailed report on the use of weapons and the intention behind the use of weapons .

On DATE , CARDINAL experts ( Chief Inspectors PERSON and PERSON and PERSON , a research fellow at the police academy ) issued a report . This stated that they had been requested to give their opinion on the fault , if any , of each accused individually based on the court file . It listed as fact that the security forces acting on intelligence about the presence of ORG members surrounded PERSON house at TIME on DATE . The officers knocked on the door , warning , “ Police . Open the door ” . The door was slightly opened from the inside , a gun was fired and the door closed . The officers fired aiming at the lock to enter . The deceased who was behind the door was injured . The opinion of gendarme officer PERSON stated that the QUANTITY hand gun found was set to fire and recently used .

The report analysis stated that it was believed that the security forces opened fire after the deceased fired due to the stress caused by the situation in the south - east and the psychological tension of the operation . It was significant that they did not shoot wildly but concentrated on the lock of the door . The fatal bullets were in the kidney and intestinal area , the same level as the lock , showing further that there was no intention to injure or kill . It concluded that the deceased was injured by chance and that the accused could not be charged with negligent conduct .

None of the experts visited the scene or requested any further information or evidence but based themselves on the statements in the file .

NORP On DATE , the court referring to the expert report of DATE concluded that the defendants were not at fault and acquitted the CARDINAL officers . The Commission noted that there was no indication that in any of the proceedings consideration had been given as to whether the accounts of the family were in any respect accurate or on what basis the version of events given by the security forces was to be preferred . It is not apparent that the applicant was informed of the criminal proceedings or afforded the opportunity to join as a party .

The applicant ’s son PERSON was killed during an armed operation intended to effect the arrest of NORP terrorists . TIME , having been informed that some ORG terrorists were being sheltered in some houses , including the applicant ’s house , security forces arrived at the house at TIME to arrest the terrorists believed to be inside . They knocked on the door and asked the occupants to open the door . The door suddenly opened , a gunshot was heard and the door immediately closed again . Upon this , the officers fired CARDINAL shots towards the lock of the door . After these shots , a woman ’s voice was heard asking for help . When she tried to open the door , she told those outside that the lock had been jammed . Since it was understood that the matter was urgent , the officers told her to move aside and fired directly on the lock . Then they opened the door , carried out a rough search and let in the applicant . The security forces assisted the applicant and his son PERSON in carrying the injured PERSON to a police car , which took him to the local health centre .

CARDINAL guns were later found in PERSON apartment , as well as a QUANTITY cartridge near the door .

The death of PERSON was caused accidentally . The CARDINAL officers who shot at the door were acquitted by the criminal court on the basis that they had not acted negligently .

The principles and procedures relating to liability for acts contrary to the law may be summarised as follows .

Under LAW all forms of homicide ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) and attempted homicide ( Articles CARDINAL and DATE ) constitute criminal offences . It is also an offence for a government employee to subject CARDINAL to torture or ill - treatment ( Article CARDINAL in respect of torture and Article CARDINAL in respect of ill - treatment ) . The authorities’ obligations in respect of conducting a preliminary investigation into acts or omissions capable of constituting such offences that have been brought to their attention are governed by ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW . Offences may be reported to the authorities or the security forces as well as to public prosecutor ’s offices . The complaint may be made in writing or orally . If it is made orally , the authority must make a record of it ( LAW .

If there is evidence to suggest that a death is not due to natural causes , members of the security forces who have been informed of that fact are required to advise the public prosecutor or a criminal court judge ( Article CARDINAL ) . By Article CARDINAL of LAW , any public official who fails to report to the police or a public prosecutor ’s office an offence of which he has become aware in the exercise of his duty is liable to imprisonment .

A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to the suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts in order to decide whether or not there should be a prosecution ( LAW ) .

In the case of alleged terrorist offences , the public prosecutor is deprived of jurisdiction in favour of a separate system of ORG prosecutors and courts established throughout GPE .

If the suspected offender is a civil servant and if the offence was committed during the performance of his duties , the preliminary investigation of the case is governed by LAW on the prosecution of civil servants , which restricts the public prosecutor ’s jurisdiction ratione personae at that stage of the proceedings . In such cases it is for the relevant local administrative council ( for the district or province , depending on the suspect ’s status ) to conduct the preliminary investigation and , consequently , to decide whether to prosecute . Once a decision to prosecute has been taken , it is for the public prosecutor to investigate the case .

An appeal to ORG lies against a decision of the ORG . If a decision not to prosecute is taken , the case is automatically referred to that court .

If the suspect is a member of the armed forces , the applicable law is determined by the nature of the offence . Thus , if it is a “ military offence ” under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , the criminal proceedings are in principle conducted in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL on the establishment of courts martial and their rules of procedure . Where a member of the armed forces has been accused of an ordinary offence , it is normally the provisions of LAW which apply ( see LAW and sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ) .

The Military Criminal Code makes it a military offence for a member of the armed forces to endanger a person ’s life by disobeying an order ( LAW ) . In such cases civilian complainants may lodge their complaints with the authorities referred to in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or with the offender ’s superior .

Under section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on administrative procedure , anyone who sustains damage as a result of an act by the authorities may , within DATE after the alleged act was committed , claim compensation from them . If the claim is rejected in whole or in part or if no reply is received within DATE , the victim may bring administrative proceedings .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ All acts or decisions of the authorities are subject to judicial review ...

The authorities shall be liable to make reparation for all damage caused by their acts or measures . ”

That provision establishes the ORG ’s strict liability , which comes into play if it is shown that in the circumstances of a particular case the ORG has failed in its obligation to maintain public order , ensure public safety or protect people ’s lives or property , without it being necessary to show a tortious act attributable to the authorities . Under these rules , the authorities may therefore be held liable to compensate anyone who has sustained loss as a result of acts committed by unidentified persons .

DATE of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , the last sentence of which was inspired by the provision mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , provides :

“ No criminal , financial or legal liability may be asserted against … the governor of a state of emergency region or by provincial governors in that region in respect of decisions taken , or acts performed , by them in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by this legislative decree , and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to that end . This is without prejudice to the rights of individuals to claim reparation from the ORG for damage which they have been caused without justification . ”

Under LAW , anyone who suffers damage as a result of an illegal or tortious act may bring an action for damages ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) and non - pecuniary loss ( Article CARDINAL ) . The civil courts are not bound by either the findings or the verdict of the criminal court on the issue of the defendant ’s guilt ( Article CARDINAL ) .

However , under LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG employees , anyone who has sustained loss as a result of an act done in the performance of duties governed by public law may , in principle , only bring an action against the authority by whom the civil servant concerned is employed and not directly against the civil servant ( see LAW ) . That is not , however , an absolute rule . When an act is found to be illegal or tortious and , consequently , is no longer an “ administrative act ” or deed , the civil courts may allow a claim for damages to be made against the official concerned , without prejudice to the victim ’s right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the official ’s employer ( LAW ) .


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

The applicants , Mr Petrus Josephus Christiaan PERSON and PERSON PERSON are brothers and live in PERSON . They are NORP nationals , retired farmers and were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

Since DATE the applicants’ family has owned a farmhouse with pertaining agricultural land , including a plot of QUANTITY situated along the LOC road ( hereinafter “ the plot ” ) and used as a meadow for dairy cattle . After the death of their father in DATE , the applicants inherited and continued jointly to exploit the farm . For reasons of health and age , the applicants ceased their farming activities on DATE .

Under the DATE LAW ( GPE aanwijzende de bestemming in hoofdzaken ) of the then ORG and PERSON municipality ( subsequently incorporated into the GPE municipality ) , the plot was designated for the construction of hotels and country houses .

DATE the municipal council ( gemeenteraad ) adopted a preliminary planning decision in preparation for a ( new ) zoning plan ( voorbereidingsbesluit bestemmingsplan ) for an area comprising the plot . In accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG ( Wet op de Ruimtelijke Ordening ) , these preliminary planning decisions were laid open for public inspection , notice being given through ORG ) and the local press . Each of these preliminary planning decisions prohibited any construction activities without a prior permit issued by the municipal executive ( burgemeester en wethouders ) and adjourned the issuance of a building permit by the municipal executive pending the validity of the preliminary planning decision .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG ( gedeputeerde staten ) had adopted a local area development plan ( streekplan ) for the area of south GPE . The area in which the plot is situated was classified as a “ rural area with a highly valued landscape and/or cultural historical background ” . In a subsequent local area development plan , adopted by ORG on DATE , the plot was classified as a “ rural area with the interwoven categories agriculture CARDINAL , nature CARDINAL , landscape CARDINAL , and recreation and tourism CARDINAL ” . Both plans were duly laid open for public inspection .

On DATE , the ORG adopted the new zoning plan “ PERSON ” , which was preservation - oriented . The plot was designated for “ residential purposes to be further defined in accordance with CARDINAL of ORG ” . By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG withheld their approval of this part of the zoning plan , finding that new residential buildings on the plot would affect the landscape in an irreparable manner . The municipal authorities as well as other appellants , including the applicants , unsuccessfully challenged this decision in administrative appeal proceedings in which the final decision was handed down by ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Margraten municipal council adopted a revised version of the “ PERSON ” zoning plan in which the plot was designated as an “ agricultural area with natural and landscape values ” . On DATE ORG approved the revised zoning plan . The applicants’ appeal against this approval was dismissed by ORG on DATE . No further appeal lay against this decision .

On DATE the applicants filed a claim under section CARDINAL of ORG with the GPE municipal authorities for compensation for damage in consequence of the revised zoning plan , affecting land owned by them , the burden of which they could not reasonably be expected to bear alone . The applicants estimated this damage at MONEY .

This claim and the applicants’ subsequent objection were rejected by the ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The ORG appeal against this last decision was dismissed by ORG ( rechtbank ) on DATE .

A further appeal lodged by the applicants was rejected on DATE by ORG , which found it established that the applicants had not availed themselves of the possibility to build on the plot as rendered feasible under the DATE zoning plan . It accepted that the applicants had incurred damage as a consequence of the new zoning plan , but it had to be determined whether this damage was to be borne , either partly or in full , by the applicants , by determining whether they could be regarded as having accepted the risk that the possibility to build on the plot would disappear . It accordingly had to be examined whether there had been any indication of such a disadvantageous change in the plot ’s designation and whether – considered from the position of a rationally thinking and acting owner – the applicants should have given serious consideration to that prospect . After having noted the developments since DATE as regards the classification and destination of the plot , the ORG agreed with the municipal authorities and ORG that the applicants , or their legal predecessors , should be regarded as having accepted the risk that the possibility to build on the plot would disappear and , consequently , that the damage did not justify compensation under section CARDINAL of ORG .

In so far as the applicants relied on LAW No . CARDINAL , the ORG held :

“ ... the new zoning regulation does not deprive the appellants of their property ; they retain the right to dispose of it freely albeit within the defined planning framework . In so far as the limitations contained in the zoning plan as to the use of the plot are to be seen as an interference with the right to undisturbed enjoyment of property , LAW No . CARDINAL leaves unimpeded the application of laws that can be regarded as necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest . ... the zoning plan in force in the area concerned constitutes such a control . It further does not follow from LAW No . CARDINAL that the control of the use of property as a result of limitations laid down in the zoning plan should be compensated for if LAW offers no basis for this . In the instant case there has therefore been no violation of LAW . ”