The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE .

The applicant , who has a sociology degree , is a journalist and broadcaster . He has written for many national newspapers and magazines and has made a number of appearances on radio and television .

In DATE an article was published in ORG magazine in which the applicant suggested that the athlete PERSON used banned performance - enhancing drugs . The article stated , inter alia :

“ On the basis of circumstantial evidence many believe , but can not prove that ORG has been taking performance - enhancing drugs ... If he has been outwitting the testers for DATE , it is extremely unlikely that ORG will be caught in DATE left before his likely retirement from competitive sprinting . Nevertheless , there is no bloody hypodermic needle , and no direct evidence that points the finger at FAC ...

Certainly DATE between injuring himself in GPE and winning in GPE would have allowed ORG to recover from a slight hamstring injury and , without fear of a random test , put in DATE intensive training , boosted by banned drugs , and perhaps human growth hormone , that would give him the explosiveness and power to run TIME into a headwind . We do n't know . ...

ORG a number of other possible effects of these performance - enhancing drugs . His remarkable physique , in regard to both its bulk and definition , is consistent with the use of anabolic steroids . ... Similar considerations apply to speed ( sic ) with which he put on weight . In the early part of his career , he was a beanpole sprinter but DATE he put on QUANTITY in bodyweight to come in at the QUANTITY powerhouse that he has stayed at since . Steroids have other side - effects ... CARDINAL of the commonest are grandiosity , fixated delusions and a persecution complex . PERSON genuinely seems to think that running QUANTITY faster than anyone else is rather more than an exciting , even unique spectacle , but some kind of monumental contribution to human culture . ...

Human growth hormone ... costs £ MONEY for a DATE 's supply . ORG is a steroid that is even more expensive ... Christie is rich . He also shows most of the physical , behavioural and psychological features of an athlete that regularly uses steroids . This conclusion is reinforced generally by the performances that he continues to turn in at an age when psychologically he should be in decline and specifically by his uncanny quick recovery from his injury at GPE . ...

Aside from all the non - testing criteria that provide circumstantial evidence to suggest that ORG may be a regular user , the final clinching CARDINAL is ORG own character and attitude to competition . He is a win - at - all - cost athlete and his determination to succeed may lead people to believe that he would not deprive himself of an advantage enjoyed by some of his rivals , thereby denying himself his only chance of fame and fortune . ”

In DATE Mr Christie commenced an action in the High Court for defamation against the applicant , the magazine 's editor and the publishing company . The editor and publishing company were represented by a solicitor - advocate specialising in defamation and media litigation , Mr PERSON . Mr Price had advised the publishing company prior to publication about the legality of the article in question . A separate action was launched by Mr Christie against the printers and various distributors of the magazine .

During the greater part of the proceedings the applicant represented himself because he could not afford to pay legal fees and because , under Schedule CARDINAL , Part II , of LAW DATE , legal aid was not available for defamation actions . His defence was that the allegations made in the article were true in substance and in fact .

In a newspaper article among the papers submitted by the applicant to the ORG , it was reported that the applicant had , in DATE , successfully defended himself in criminal proceedings concerning a charge of assaulting a neighbour .

On DATE there was a directions hearing at which Mr Price ( on behalf of the editor and publishing company ) , the applicant and counsel for PERSON made representations . An order was made requiring , inter alia , that the plaintiff and the defendants should exchange statements of witnesses of fact by DATE , and could each call CARDINAL expert witnesses ( a physiologist , a pharmacologist , a psychologist and an athletics coach ) , but only if the substance of each expert 's evidence was disclosed in a report to be exchanged by DATE . These time - limits were subsequently extended by consent to some time in DATE and DATE respectively .

The applicant wished to rely on the evidence of an athlete , PERSON , who had allegedly told the applicant that Mr Christie had introduced him to performance - enhancing drugs . In respect of Mr Walusimbi the applicant served the following document dated DATE , which purported to be a statement of the nature of the evidence intended to be adduced under LAW ( RSC ) , LAW , Rule CARDINALA(CARDINAL ) ( see below ) :

“ The second defendant has issued a subpoena on PERSON ... He intends to adduce evidence from him concerning :

( a ) his masked appearance on the ORG [ television ] programme ' Drug Olympics ' ... in which he admitted taking performance - enhancing drugs ;

( b ) his training relationship with PERSON ;

( c ) his trips abroad with PERSON to various ORG , in particular one in GPE , ' ORG ;

( d ) his knowledge of PERSON own use of performance - enhancing drugs . ”

One of the expert witnesses whom the applicant wished to call was an osteopath called PERSON . PERSON had been involved in sports medicine for over DATE and had treated PERSON . He allegedly told the applicant that as a result of his experience he was able to tell by the look and feel of an athlete 's body whether that athlete had taken performance - enhancing drugs , and that he was certain that Mr Christie had been a regular user . However , because of his previous association with PERSON Christie , PERSON did not wish to give a statement . The applicant did not , therefore , serve any form of report in respect of PERSON expert evidence as required by the order for directions . Instead , in DATE , he served the following document , which he mistakenly believed to be acceptable under the ORG , LAW , Rule CARDINALA(CARDINAL ) in place of an expert 's report :

“ PERSON is a professional physiotherapist and went to the DATE Barcelona Olympic Games as team physiotherapist for the athletics squad . He is conversant with the effects of steroids on the body and talks about ' steroid feel ' and the particular look of a body that has been built up using anabolic - androgenic steroids . He is an expert on how the body responds to these drugs when supplemented by power lifting . He understands the effects of ageing on the performance of ' fast - twitch ' muscle . He has massaged the Plaintiff in the early part of his career .

A subpoena has been taken out for PERSON . ”

The trial was listed to start on DATE . By this time , the applicant was the sole defendant in the proceedings because the editor had been killed in a traffic accident in DATE and the publishing company had become insolvent . On DATE the applicant instructed Mr Price , who had had no involvement in the case since the death of the editor , to represent him as his solicitor - advocate . Mr Price had previously given advice to the editor and the publishing company both prior to , and following , publication of the article and had drafted a defence to Mr ORG action on the limited information then available .

Mr Christie applied to prevent Mr Price from acting on the grounds that he had previously been responsible for the decision to publish the article concerned , having given legal advice to the editor , and that the legality of that decision was itself now at issue . As a result , PERSON argued that Mr Price had a conflict of interest . Mr ORG application was granted by the trial judge , Mr Justice PERSON , in ORG on DATE , but his decision was reversed by ORG DATE . The applicant was represented by PERSON at both hearings .

DATE before the trial Mr ORG solicitors indicated that they intended to make an application to the trial judge seeking to prevent the applicant from calling a number of witnesses , including PERSON and PERSON Walusimbi . Mr Price had , since being instructed by the applicant , made efforts to secure full statements from those witnesses . Following the indication received from Mr ORG solicitors , Mr PERSON agreed to make a signed statement , in which he described , inter alia , the effects of steroids and the high level of usage amongst athletes , and stated that “ it would be almost impossible to succeed at the highest levels in the QUANTITY [ event ] without the use of banned performance - enhancing drugs ” . This statement was served on Mr ORG solicitors at TIME on DATE , TIME before the trial was due to commence .

On DATE and DATE Mr Justice PERSON heard preliminary submissions from Mr Price on behalf of the applicant and counsel for PERSON Christie as to the admissibility of the evidence of the witnesses concerned . On DATE , in relation to the admissibility of the expert evidence of PERSON and a Professor PERSON on behalf of the applicant , he ruled as follows :

“ The rules [ on disclosure of evidence ] are designed to avoid an ambush . ... They are not to beat inefficient litigants . There is provision for the Judge in exercise of his duty to give leave for evidence to be called . Mr Price at the forefront of his argument says the obligation was on the Plaintiff to ensure that the PERSON was not taken by surprise . That is a misunderstanding of the rules of the ORG . The rules provide that if the party wants to call an expert he should provide the substance of the expert 's report . Mr Price contends that PERSON expert statement leads to CARDINAL conclusion ; having observed the Plaintiff and massaged his body , everybody should understand what Mr PERSON was going to say . I think there is another way of reading the evidence . The Plaintiff might have concluded that it was useless evidence . This is compounded by the fact that PERSON statement deals with the ability to observe the effect of anabolic steroids but nowhere does he say that about the Plaintiff . The nearest he gets is at paragraph CARDINAL where he says that PERCENT of athletes use steroids systematically . That statement adds nothing to the defence as pleaded .

There is no obligation on a party to draw the attention of the other party to the defect in its witness statements . At trial the admissibility of statements is often dealt with . There is criticism of the Plaintiff on this point but it is false . The obligation is on the party to make sure that it complies with Orders . It has not been suggested that the Defendant was unable to obtain written statements . The fact that he has statements suggests quite the contrary . The Defendant was a litigant in person but Mr Price acted for a period of time and Mr PERSON is not inexperienced . He has very much in mind what is involved . It may be said that Mr Price did not have full conduct but he has had since DATE . A review would have revealed that the statements did not comply with the Orders made . ... That I have discretion is clear . The exercise of that discretion is to ensure a fair disposal . ... ”

The judge continued that he had to balance the prejudice that would be suffered by the applicant if the evidence were excluded against that which would be suffered by Mr Christie if PERSON testimony were admitted . It would be unfair to allow PERSON to give evidence at trial without giving Mr PERSON time to call counter - evidence , but to order an adjournment for this purpose would itself be prejudicial to Mr Christie because the applicant did not have sufficient means to provide an indemnity for the extra costs which would be incurred as a result . The judge concluded : “ If there is more prejudice to the Defendant than the Plaintiff he is the person who is responsible . The fault lies with him . I will not allow Mr PERSON 's evidence . ” He also refused the applicant leave to adduce that part of Professor PERSON 's evidence which dealt with the efficacy of drug testing and the ease with which the ban on drug taking could be evaded on the basis that these issues were not pleaded by the applicant and an amendment to the pleading should not be allowed .

On DATE the judge refused to grant the applicant 's request for leave to admit PERSON evidence , on the ground that it would be unfair to PERSON to be faced with wide allegations about his drug taking , the details of which he would not know until PERSON took the stand .

The applicant appealed against these rulings to ORG . He was again represented by PERSON at the appeal hearing , which took place on DATE . Lord Justice May , delivering the judgment of the court , commented , as had the trial judge , that the interests of the applicant were “ identical ” to those of his previous co - defendants , the editor and the publishing company . He went on :

“ I deal with PERSON statement first . The gist statement served in DATE relating to PERSON contained very little detail of the substance of the evidence that he might give . It refers only to PERSON experience and qualifications as a physiotherapist and then says baldly that he massaged the plaintiff during the early part of his career . The witness statement now served gives a more detailed account of his experience and names some of the sportspeople , including the plaintiff , whom he has treated . It refers to the benefit and effect of anabolic steroids for athletes , particularly in the QUANTITY event . It states that in Mr PERSON 's experience a large proportion of professional athletes use steroids . It says that from his experience Mr PERSON is generally able to tell by looking whether an athlete is taking steroids and that he can also tell this if he manipulates their muscles . ...

Mr Price accepts that the gist statement did not put forward any affirmative version of what PERSON might say , but he submits that it could be inferred that PERSON would give the evidence that the look and feel of the plaintiff 's body indicates use of banned drugs . I do not accept this submission . This gist statement is not even inferentially a statement of the evidence intended to be adduced such as is referred to in LAW , Rule CARDINALA(CARDINAL ) . ...

Matters which Mr Price would have us infer are intended to be said by PERSON are neither pleaded nor the subject of any previously served witness statement or expert 's report and I see no reason why the plaintiff should have anticipated the sudden arrival of this material at the very last moment .

Mr Price says that there is a strong public interest in allowing all relevant and probative evidence to be adduced lest there may be a verdict which is contrary to the truth . ... The judge took this important submission into account and so do I. The fact is that there are competing public interests , CARDINAL of which is that parties to litigation should not turn up at the very last moment with unheralded evidence which puts another party at a disadvantage , and another of which is that the general administration of justice demands , for reasons which have been articulated frequently by this court , that fixed trial dates should not be abandoned at the last moment other than in quite exceptional circumstances . ...

It seems to me that the case for exercising the judge 's discretion in relation to Mr Moule as he did is clear and overwhelming . PERSON evidence was not heralded in the gist statement . The statement was served at the latest possible moment before the start of the trial . Without an adjournment of the trial ( which the judge rightly regarded as out of the question and which would in any event have prejudiced the plaintiff ) the plaintiff would be prejudiced by not being able properly to deal with the evidence . Any prejudice to the defendant was his own fault .

The judge had to make a balancing judgment , which in my view he did upon proper and unassailable principles . Accordingly , I would not disturb the judge 's finding in relation to PERSON evidence . ”

In relation to Mr Walusimbi 's evidence , he said :

“ A gist statement was served in relation to Mr Walusimbi and referred to what he had said in a ORG programme . A transcript of the programme was provided on discovery . The [ applicant ] now wants to call Mr Walusimbi to say that the use of performance - enhancing drugs by athletes is widespread and that there are means of evading tests . Before the judge , he wanted to call Mr Walusimbi to give first - hand evidence that the plaintiff had taken drugs . This was neither pleaded nor included in the ORG material . The judge rightly excluded it and there is no application for leave to appeal against that part of the decision . The judge held that the general evidence added little or nothing to the issue of widespread drug taking . I agree , not least since I would permit Professor PERSON 's evidence to be adduced and this deals with the same topic . Further general evidence about widespread drug use by athletes does not go to establish that the plaintiff has taken drugs or that he is reasonably suspected of having done so . This again was very late evidence tendered in breach of court orders and the rules , and I consider that the judge exercised his discretion correctly to exclude it . ”

NORP The main trial commenced on DATE , DATE . The applicant represented himself as his funds were exhausted . On DATE the jury found , by a majority of CARDINAL , that the article complained of bore the meaning that

“ Mr Christie is a cheat who regularly used banned performance - enhancing drugs to improve his success in athletic competition . ”

It found also that the applicant had not proved that the article as so interpreted was substantially true .

Although Mr Christie did not seek damages , the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the action and was made subject to an injunction

“ ... restraining the [ applicant ] whether by himself , his servants , agents or otherwise howsoever from further publishing or causing the publication of the allegation ( express or by implication ) that the plaintiff is a cheat who has regularly used performance - enhancing drugs to improve his success in athletic competition or any words to the same or similar effect ... ”

Following the verdict , the distributors and printers involved in the separate action reached a settlement with Mr Christie which required the payment of damages to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Under LANGUAGE law the object of a libel action is to vindicate the plaintiff 's reputation and to make reparation for the injury done by the wrongful publication of defamatory statements concerning him or her . A defence of justification applies where the defamatory statement is substantially true . The burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of the statement on the balance of probabilities .

NORP Throughout the relevant time , the allocation of civil legal aid in GPE was governed by LAW DATE . Under Schedule CARDINAL , Part II , paragraph CARDINAL , of that Act , “ proceedings wholly or partly in respect of defamation ” were excepted from the scope of the civil legal - aid scheme .

At the relevant time , civil procedure before ORG was governed by LAW ( RSC ) . Under RSC Order DATE , Rule CARDINAL :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The powers of the ORG under this rule shall be exercised for the purpose of disposing fairly and expeditiously of the cause or matter before it , and saving costs ...

( CARDINAL ) At the summons for directions in an action commenced by writ the ORG shall direct every party to serve on the other parties , within DATE ( or such other period as the ORG may specify ) of the hearing of the summons and on such terms as the ORG may specify , written statements of the oral evidence which the party intends to adduce on any issues of fact to be decided at the trial . ...

( CARDINAL ) Statements served under this rule shall –

( a ) be dated and , except for good reason ( which should be specified by letter accompanying the statement ) , be signed by the intended witness and shall include a statement by him that the contents are true to the best of his knowledge and belief ;

( CARDINAL ) Where a party is unable to obtain a written statement from an intended witness in accordance with paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , the ORG may direct the party wishing to adduce that witness 's evidence to provide the other party with the name of the witness and ( unless the ORG otherwise orders ) a statement of the nature of the evidence intended to be adduced . ...

( CARDINAL ) Subject to paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , where the party serving the statement does call such a witness at the trial –

( b ) the party may not without the consent of the other parties or the leave of the ORG adduce evidence from that witness the substance of which is not included in the statement served ...

( CARDINAL ) Where a party fails to comply with a direction for the exchange of witness statements he shall not be entitled to adduce evidence to which the direction related without the leave of the ORG . ... ”

Statements served under Rule CARDINALA(CARDINAL ) are commonly referred to as “ gist ” statements .

According to the ORG , LAW , Rule CARDINAL :

“ ( CARDINAL ) ... in respect of expert oral evidence , then , unless the ORG considers that there are special reasons for not doing so , it shall direct that the substance of the evidence be disclosed in the form of a written report or reports to such other parties and within such period as the court may specify . ”

As in Rule CARDINAL ) in respect of witness statements ( see above ) , the court may , pursuant to a general power set out at ORG , LAW CARDINAL , grant leave to allow expert evidence to be adduced late when the order for directions has not been complied with by either party .

In ORG v. PERSON ( ( DATE ) CARDINAL US CARDINAL ) , ORG of GPE ruled that a ORG could not , under DATE to LAW , award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proved “ actual malice ” . This was shown where the statement concerned had been made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false . In delivering the judgment of the court , PERSON Justice PERSON commented :

“ ORG of the defence of truth , with the burden of proving it on the defendant , does not mean that only false speech will be deterred . Even courts accepting this defence as an adequate safeguard have recognised the difficulties of adducing legal proof that the alleged libel was true in all its factual particulars . ... Under such a rule , would - be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism , even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true , because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so . They tend to make only statements which ' steer far wider of the unlawful zone ' . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of introduction of the application he was detained in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and third persons for attempted swindling . At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested . He was placed in the temporary detention facility of LOC of GPE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the trial court ” ) remanded the applicant in custody . He was transferred to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE ( “ the remand prison ” ) . The court held that the applicant was charged with a serious crime , had a disposition to commit crimes and could continue to pursue criminal activities if at liberty . The ruling was not appealed against .

On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE granted a request by the investigator to extend the applicant 's detention until DATE , holding that investigative measures could not be taken prior to that date . The ruling was not appealed against .

On DATE ORG of GPE prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE .

On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE .

On DATE the bill of indictment was drawn up and the case file was transferred to the trial court .

On DATE the trial court scheduled a hearing for DATE . The issue of the application of a preventive measure to the applicant was not decided upon pursuant to LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

At the preliminary hearing of DATE the trial court , relying on LAW ORG , returned the case to the prosecutor because certain procedural rules had not been complied with . In particular , some pages of the case file had been wrongly numbered and the accused had not been provided with the opportunity to study some documents . The trial court further noted that no application to vary the preventive measure had been lodged . The trial court found that the measure applied was lawful and appropriate in view of the gravity of the charges and the information about the accused , and ordered that it should remain unchanged . The trial court observed that the decision could be appealed against to GPE within DATE from the date of its delivery . The applicant and his counsel PERSON were present at the hearing .

The ruling of DATE was not appealed against and became final on DATE . On DATE the case file was transmitted to the prosecutor .

On DATE the prosecutor returned the case to the investigator for additional investigative measures . Having obtained the endorsement of GPE , the investigator requested a court to extend the applicant 's custodial detention for DATE until DATE so that the aggregate term of his detention amounted to DATE and DATE . He argued that the extension sought would allow him to take the requisite investigative measures and to comply with the trial court 's instructions .

On DATE the Kuybyshevskiy ORG of GPE , relying on LAW ORG , granted the investigator 's request to extend the applicant 's detention for “ DATE , DATE in total , that is , until CARDINAL DATE ” . The applicant and his counsel PERSON were present at the hearing . His counsel PERSON objected , stating that the applicant had a permanent place of residence , had no intention of absconding DATE on the contrary , he had actively cooperated with the investigation – and that his state of health had worsened . The court held that the investigator 's request should be granted and that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure in respect of the applicant since the circumstances that had constituted the grounds for its application had not changed . The applicant was charged with a serious offence and had no permanent job and no assets . Furthermore , he was suspected of having committed a further offence similar to the one he had been charged with . Therefore , if released , he might abscond , hinder the criminal prosecution and engage in further criminal activity . Moreover , certain investigative measures had to be conducted before the case was sent for trial . The court also found that the arguments put forward by the applicant 's counsel concerning the applicant 's personality and his state of health were not sufficient grounds for refusing the investigator 's request . In particular , no medical documents had been provided to prove that placement in a remand prison was damaging to the applicant 's health .

The applicant appealed against the ruling of DATE , claiming that LAW ORG did not provide for the possibility of extending a period of detention pending additional investigation .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested ORG of GPE to declare that the prosecutor had not received the case file from the trial court as required by the ruling of DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE held a hearing on the complaint , during which the applicant was advised that the case file had already been sent to the prosecutor . The applicant then brought another complaint about the prosecutor 's actions CARDINAL , claiming that the latter had failed to take the requisite measures to ensure the applicant 's release from custody . The court dismissed the complaint , stating that the prosecutor 's actions were lawful , and observed that the ruling could be appealed against to GPE within DATE from the date of its delivery .

It follows from the parties ' submissions that the applicant did not appeal against the ruling of DATE .

On DATE the Kuybyshevskiy ORG of GPE granted a request lodged by GPE to extend the applicant 's detention for DATE to CARDINAL DATE so that the aggregate term of his detention amounted to DATE and DATE . The applicant and his counsel PERSON objected on the grounds that the court had no evidence of the applicant 's intention either to abscond or to engage in further criminal activity . The court dismissed the objections and ordered the extension of the applicant 's detention on the same grounds as those given in the ruling of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant 's counsel PERSON was a legal - aid lawyer appointed by the court . At the beginning of the hearing the applicant applied to the court to have counsel replaced because he wished to be assisted by his own counsel , PERSON , who had not been notified of the hearing . The court found that counsel PERSON had been notified by telephone of the hearing that had initially been scheduled for CARDINAL DATE . However , she had neither appeared nor provided any documents justifying her failure to do so . The hearing had then been postponed to CARDINAL DATE and counsel PERSON had been notified accordingly . However , she had said that she could not attend the hearing because she was involved in other proceedings . Nevertheless , she had failed to provide any supporting documents . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the final bill of indictment was drawn up .

On CARDINAL DATE the case was sent to the trial court .

On DATE the trial court received the case file .

On DATE the trial court scheduled a hearing for DATE . It also ordered that the preventive measure imposed on the applicant was to remain unchanged .

On DATE GPE dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the ruling of DATE . The appeal court held that when a case was returned to the prosecutor , new time - limits for the investigation were to be fixed and a decision concerning a preventive measure was to be taken accordingly . It also upheld the first - instance court 's findings that , if released , the applicant might abscond and engage in further criminal activity .

On DATE GPE dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the trial court 's ruling of DATE . The appeal court upheld the first - instance court 's conclusion that , if released , the applicant might abscond , engage in further criminal activity and hinder the prosecution . It also found that counsel PERSON had been duly notified of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . However , she had not appeared and had failed to provide appropriate justification .

On DATE GPE dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the ruling of DATE .

On DATE the trial court sentenced the applicant to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant 's sentence became final .

On DATE GPE dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the decision of ORG of GPE of DATE concerning his complaint about the prosecutor 's inaction . It held , in particular , that the prosecutor had requested authorisation of the applicant 's detention for a period including DATE that had preceded the court 's ruling , that is , DATE . It rejected the applicant 's argument that his detention during that period had been unlawful , for the reason that “ there was a judicial decision extending the detention for the period from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE ” . No reference as to which judicial decision had authorised that period was given .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C. He underwent treatment DATE and DATE and was subsequently diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C.

On DATE , on his admission to remand prison IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the applicant was diagnosed as HIV - positive on the basis of a routine blood test .

According to the applicant , his state of health had been deteriorating since DATE . He had shown symptoms of immunodeficiency and there had been bad bouts of his chronic illnesses . The applicant had applied to the medical unit of the remand prison for treatment to boost his immune system . In reply , he had been advised to take aspirin , papaverine and analgesics . After the applicant had stated that this treatment would obviously be insufficient , he had been threatened with confinement in a solitary cell .

On DATE the applicant was placed in solitary cell no . CARDINAL in wing CARDINAL with restricted access . The wing was designed for the detention of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to solitary cell no . CARDINAL in wing CARDINAL with restricted access . According to the applicant , the cell was the equivalent of a disciplinary cell . However , he had neither requested to be placed in solitary confinement , nor had there been any grounds for such placement since he had not broken prison rules . The cell was in the basement where there was no central heating , and the DATE temperature there was CARDINAL - CARDINALoC.

On account of the conditions of detention in the solitary cell the applicant 's health had deteriorated further . He had been put on a special diet which included a supplementary DATE portion of margarine and sugar . Despite his regular requests , he had never been provided with either antiviral treatment or treatment stimulating liver function and had been offered only febrifuges and analgesics . Medical staff of the remand prison had stated that they had no medicines for HIV - positive prisoners because of lack of funding .

The applicant requested to be placed in a hospital in DATE and DATE . However , he was refused admission to the hospital at remand prison IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the grounds that there were too many ORG patients and not enough places . He was likewise refused admission to the hospital of ORG , because the hospital only treated convicted prisoners and did not have the status of a remand prison .

NORP The applicant lodged numerous complaints concerning his inadequate medical assistance . However , he did not receive any formal replies to his complaints or a formal refusal to place him in a hospital . The replies he received were given in the course of private conversations . Nor was he provided with any documents confirming that his complaints had been forwarded to the appropriate authorities . According to the applicant , the officials of the remand prison had forwarded only his correspondence relating to his criminal case and had not provided his counsel B. with the medical documents contained in his personal file .

While detained in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant was on several occasions examined by specialist doctors and general practitioners .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical commission composed of a general practitioner , a surgeon , a psychiatrist and a dermatologist . He made no complaints concerning his state of health .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent a chest PERSON . No pathological condition was discovered .

On DATE a blood test carried out on the applicant indicated that he was HIV - positive .

On DATE the applicant underwent a complex medical checkup at ORG of GPE and was diagnosed with stage CARDINALБ HIV infection .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an infectiousdisease specialist . He was also registered as HIV - positive with the IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL infirmary and was prescribed a special diet .

DATE and DATE the applicant was treated by a dermatologist for an acute skin disease ( parasitical dermatitis ) and was cured .

DATE the applicant did not request to be admitted to hospital .

DATE . On DATE the applicant underwent a routine check - up with a general practitioner . He made no complaints concerning his state of health .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent chest Xrays , which did not detect any pathological condition .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was examined by a general practitioner and was found to be in a satisfactory state of health . He did not make any complaints .

On DATE a general practitioner examined the applicant and found no medical data to confirm that the HIV infection had progressed .

On DATE and DATE and on DATE the applicant underwent chest X - rays , which did not reveal any pathological condition .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was examined by a general practitioner . A general blood test carried out on DATE showed no pathological changes in the blood .

The applicant 's HIV infection had not been clinically manifested . The applicant did not require antiretroviral therapy .

According to a certificate issued by the authorities of the remand prison on DATE , the applicant 's state of health had not deteriorated since DATE , he had not lost any weight and his lymph glands had not been dilated .

While in ORG , the applicant was detained in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY ; each of the remaining CARDINAL cells measured QUANTITY .

The Government could not submit information on the number of inmates who had shared cells with the applicant owing to the fact that the registration logs had been destroyed .

Every cell in which the applicant was kept was equipped with a lavatory pan , a flush tank and a sink , which were separated from the sleeping area by a curtain . There was running hot and cold water supplied by the city water system in each cell .

The applicant and other inmates washed themselves and had their bedding changed once DATE .

Every cell in which the applicant was kept had access to daylight through windows ; they were also equipped with lamps . All cells had both natural and mandatory ventilation systems . The cells were equipped with tables , benches and necessary utensils . The windows were glazed and had air ducts . The cells had a central heating system connected to the remand prison 's boiler house . The average temperature in the cells was between CARDINALoC ( in DATE ) and CARDINAL ( in DATE ) .

The applicant was at all times provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding .

While in the remand prison , the applicant was fed CARDINAL times a day . From DATE he received a special diet . The food available to the applicant was in compliance with the relevant standards and regulations .

The applicant was allowed to have a DATE TIME walk during which he could perform physical exercises .

The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfected .

On DATE the applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL , where he was kept in solitary confinement to secure his safety . The cell was heated by the remand prison 's boiler house .

According to a certificate of microclimate measurement provided by the ORG , on DATE , when the outside temperature wasCARDINALoC , the level of humidity in cell no . CARDINAL amounted to PERCENT ( PERCENT being normal ) , the temperature in the cell was ORG ( CARDINALoC to CARDINALoC being normal ) and the level of lighting was CARDINAL lx ( CARDINAL lx being normal ) .

DATE . According to a certificate of DATE issued by the remand prison authorities , microclimate measurements in the remand prison cells were taken once DATE ; the average temperature in the cells was CARDINALoC in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE .

According to a certificate on the sanitary conditions in cell no . CARDINAL , on DATE the cell was in a satisfactory condition . It was equipped with a sink and a lavatory pan ; the sanitary installations were in order . There was hot and cold running water , natural ventilation , central heating , natural light and one light bulb . The cell measured QUANTITY ( width ) by QUANTITY ( length ) by QUANTITY ( height ) . The cell was designed to accommodate CARDINAL persons . There was a window measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY . The cell had been renovated in DATE .

The applicant did not lodge any complaints concerning the conditions of his detention with the remand prison authorities or with prosecutors ' offices .

The applicant submitted written statements by Mr DATE and Mr GPE

Mr DATE , who had been sentenced to life imprisonment , was kept in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of wing CARDINAL of the remand prison on various occasions DATE and DATE . In his submission , wing CARDINAL was reserved for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment at first instance pending the examination of their cases on appeal . The conditions of detention in all the cells were nearly identical . There were no chairs or desks in the cells . The beds were made of concrete . The cells were in a deplorable state . The humidity was high . There was no hot water or heating . The temperature in the cells in DATE was as low as outside . There was no mandatory ventilation . Lavatory pans were not separated from the rest of the cells . All inmates in wing CARDINAL were kept in solitary confinement . Access to the wing was limited . Paramedics occasionally visited the wing but claimed that they had no medication . At some point in DATE Mr TIME had a glimpse inside cell no . CARDINAL and saw that it was no different from the cells in which he had been kept , save for the fact that there was an iron bed , not a concrete one . He also repeatedly heard the applicant asking paramedics for medication .

Mr GPE was sentenced to life imprisonment . He was kept in cell no . CARDINAL of wing CARDINAL of the remand prison . In his submission , all the cells in the wing were nearly identical . There was no furniture in the cells . The temperature in the cells in DATE was TIME There was no hot water . The cells were very humid so that the walls were covered with mould . The lavatory pans were not secluded . The food was of poor quality . Medical personnel rarely visited the wing and did not have effective medication . Mr GPE had overheard the applicant 's numerous complaints to the remand prison authorities concerning his state of health . Initially the applicant had been placed in cell no . CARDINAL and in DATE he had been transferred to cell no . CARDINAL .

After arrest the suspect is placed in custody “ pending investigation ” . The period of detention “ pending investigation ” can not exceed DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) but may be extended DATE by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level further to a request lodged by a prosecutor ( or an investigator or inquirer with a prosecutor 's prior approval ) ( LAW ) . Further extensions up to DATE may be granted on an investigator 's request approved by a prosecutor of GPE only if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences ( LAW ) . The period of detention “ pending investigation ” is calculated up to the date on which the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court ( LAW ) .

From the time the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court , the defendant 's detention is “ pending trial ” . The period of detention “ pending trial ” is calculated up to the date on which the judgment is given . It may not normally exceed DATE , but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences , the trial court may approve CARDINAL or more extensions of no longer than DATE each ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

DATE . The trial judge can return the case to the prosecutor for defects impeding the trial to be remedied , for instance if the judge has identified serious deficiencies in the bill of indictment or a copy of it was not served on the accused . The judge must require the prosecutor to comply within DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and must also decide on a preventive measure in respect of the accused ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . By Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , Article CARDINAL was amended to the effect that , if appropriate , the judge should extend the term of detention with due regard to the time - limits in LAW .

HIV - positive persons have the right to receive all types of medical assistance required by clinical data . They enjoy all the rights guaranteed by laws of GPE on public health protection ( section CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE adopted Ruling no . CARDINAL on a complaint lodged by a group of individuals concerning the de facto extension of detention after the transfer of a case file to a trial court by the prosecution . In part CARDINAL of the ruling ORG held :

“ The second part of LAW provides that ... detention is permitted only on the basis of a court order ... Consequently , if the term of detention , as defined in the court order , expires , the court must decide on the extension of the detention , otherwise the accused person must be released ...

These rules are common to all stages of criminal proceedings , and also cover the transition from CARDINAL stage to another . ... The transition of the case to another stage does not automatically put an end to a preventive measure applied at previous stages . ”

ORG of GPE , by its Decree No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , adopted ORG to HIV - positive Persons ( “ the Standards ” ) , which were recommended for use in ORG - owned and municipal health - care institutions .

According to the Standards , adult HIV - positive persons suffering from the disease in stages CARDINAL , CARDINALБ , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINALА , CARDINAL and CARDINAL require CDCARDINAL testing as a diagnostic measure once every twelve months .

The CARDINALth ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) prepared by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) concerning transmissible diseases reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The spread of transmissible diseases and , in particular , of tuberculosis , hepatitis and HIV / AIDS has become a major public health concern in a number of NORP countries ...

... [ T]he act of depriving a person of his liberty always entails a duty of care ...

The use of up - to - date methods for screening , the regular supply of medication ... constitute essential elements of an effective strategy ... to provide appropriate care to the prisoners concerned .

... [ T]he prisoners concerned should not be segregated from the rest of the prison population unless this is strictly necessary on medical or other grounds . In this connection , the ORG wishes to stress in particular that there is no medical justification for the segregation of prisoners solely on the grounds that they are HIV - positive . ”

The relevant parts of the Appendix to Recommendation no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The isolation of a patient with an infectious condition is only justified if such a measure would also be taken outside the prison environment for the same medical reasons .

No form of segregation should be envisaged in respect of persons who are HIV antibody positive , subject to the provisions contained in paragraph CARDINAL .

Those who become seriously ill with Aids - related illnesses should be treated within the prison health care department , without necessarily resorting to total isolation . Patients , who need to be protected from the infectious illnesses transmitted by other patients , should be isolated only if such a measure is necessary for their own sake to prevent them acquiring intercurrent infections ... ”

The DATE Guidelines on HIV infection and AIDS in prisons issued by ORG ) read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP Since segregation , isolation and restrictions on occupational activities , sports and recreation are not considered useful or relevant in the case of HIV - infected people in the community , the same attitude should be adopted towards HIV - infected prisoners . Decisions on isolation for health conditions should be taken by medical staff only , and on the same grounds as for the general public , in accordance with public health standards and regulations . Prisoners ' rights should not be restricted further than is absolutely necessary on medical grounds , and as provided for by public health standards and regulations ...

Isolation for limited periods may be required on medical grounds for ORG prisoners suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis in an infectious stage . Protective isolation may also be required for prisoners with immunodepression related to AIDS , but should be carried out only with a prisoner 's informed consent . Decisions on the need to isolate or segregate prisoners ( including those infected with HIV ) should only be taken on medical grounds and only by health personnel , and should not be influenced by the prison administration ...

Information regarding HIV status may only be disclosed to prison managers if the health personnel consider ... that this is warranted to ensure the safety and wellbeing of prisoners and staff ... ”

The ORG published on DATE a document entitled “ Rapid Advice : ORG in Adults and Adolescents ” . The recommendations concerning the commencement of administering treatment are as follows . It is strongly recommended to start antiretroviral treatment in all patients with HIV who have a CDCARDINAL count of CARDINAL cells per mmCARDINAL irrespective of clinical symptoms . CDCARDINAL testing is required to identify if HIV - positive patients with WHO clinical stage CARDINAL or CARDINAL disease need to start antiretroviral treatment . Furthermore , it is strongly recommended to start antiretroviral treatment in all patients with HIV with WHO clinical stage CARDINAL or CARDINAL irrespective of CDCARDINAL count .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , their Agent .

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

The applicant has thus far submitted CARDINAL applications under LAW ( see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE with further references ) .

On DATE the applicant brought an action ( case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) against a private company before ORG súd ) . He argued that he had title to some forest land , which was being occupied by the defendant company , and that the latter had arbitrarily terminated a lease of that land they had previously concluded . Accordingly , the applicant sought a ruling declaring the defendant company ’s termination of the lease null and void .

DATE and DATE the applicant requested an exemption from court fees , which was examined and dismissed at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . The question of court fees was subsequently examined again at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction in connection with various procedural applications made by the applicant .

Meanwhile , the applicant was asked to provide further and more detailed particulars of the claim and to support his claim with evidence , particularly in so far as he appeared to be seeking financial compensation in respect of unpaid rent . In response , the applicant specified that his claim amounted to the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) .

In a letter of DATE , in response to a request by ORG of DATE , the applicant submitted an apology for his “ mediocre activity in [ the ] dispute , including [ his ] having missed timelimits because [ at the given time ] [ he ] was also dealing with other , far more serious matters ” .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings were listed , but the applicant excused himself from them on various grounds .

A hearing took place on DATE . On DATE , ORG dismissed the action . It found that the applicant had not been the owner of the property at the time the lease was concluded and that the defendant company had therefore been entitled to terminate the lease .

On DATE the ORG ( Krajský súd ) quashed the first - instance judgment following an appeal by the applicant , and remitted the matter to ORG for re - examination . It found that ORG had failed to identify the property in question and to establish whether the lease had been validly concluded .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , on the grounds that the applicant had failed to comply with its request of CARDINAL DATE to formulate his claim properly . However , following an appeal by the applicant , that decision was quashed by ORG on DATE , and the case was remitted to ORG for a determination on the merits .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL further hearings were listed , but the applicant excused himself from them on various grounds .

The hearing scheduled for DATE took place despite the applicant ’s absence . On DATE , ORG dismissed the action , finding , inter alia , that the property in question had not been described properly , which meant that the lease was void ab initio .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment following an appeal by the applicant . The merits of the case were thereby resolved by a final and binding decision .

The applicant brought CARDINAL complaints under LAW , challenging the length of the proceedings in his case . In both complaints , he contested exclusively the part of the proceedings which took place before FAC .

His first complaint was lodged on DATE , but was declared inadmissible on DATE . ORG ( Ústavný súd ) concluded that he had not complied with the admissibility requirement of exhaustion of ordinary remedies . In particular , he could not be regarded as having properly asserted his complaint concerning the length of proceedings before the President of ORG prior to resorting to ORG . In that connection , ORG observed that , as a claimant , the applicant was involved in a considerable amount of litigation before ORG . His vaguely formulated complaints to the President of ORG about the length of “ all of his proceedings ” before that court , which did not identify any specific set of proceedings , could not therefore be regarded as being in compliance with the statutory exhaustion requirement .

The second complaint was lodged on DATE , but was declared inadmissible on DATE .

While ORG noted that the applicant had still not properly asserted his complaint before the President of ORG , it nevertheless proceeded to examine it in substance by reviewing the course of the proceedings , paying particular attention to the part before ORG , as contested by the applicant .

ORG observed that in DATE following the bringing of the action until the applicant ’s appeal was transferred to ORG for determination , ORG had dealt with the case in a continuous and uninterrupted manner . His appeal had been pending before ORG for DATE and DATE , following which the case had been transferred to ORG for a new determination . It was at this stage that ORG established that there had been a delay of DATE on the part of ORG . However , the case was thereafter pending again before ORG for DATE , and no further delays attributable to ORG could be established .

As for the applicant , he was found to have contributed to the length of the proceedings by having filed incomplete particulars of claim without supporting documentary evidence , and by having to be assisted by ORG in correcting the shortcomings of his submissions .

In sum , in view of all the circumstances , the delays on the part of ORG were not sufficiently serious to constitute a situation that was contrary to the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time . Thus , his complaint was in any event manifestly ill - founded .

The relevant domestic law and practice are summarised in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of GPE and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Vote);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

David Thór Björgvinsson;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Lucius Caflisch;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

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

In a judgment deposited with the court 's registry on DATE , ORG made a winding - up order in respect of the applicant 's company , a beverage company , and also declared the applicant personally bankrupt .

On DATE the trustee in bankruptcy filed a report .

On DATE the bankruptcy judge ( “ the judge ” ) checked the statement of liabilities of the bankrupt estate and on DATE declared it judicially established ( esecutivo ) .

On CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE respectively the companies ORG , ORG instituted proceedings contesting the statement of liabilities .

At a hearing held on DATE , the judge ordered the striking out of the action brought by the company ORG as being out of time .

On DATE the trustee in bankruptcy requested the creditors ' committee to give its opinion on the possible sale of CARDINAL lorries in very poor condition which were listed in the statement of assets .

On DATE the ORG in bankruptcy requested the judge to declare the lorries unfit for sale ( illiquidabili ) so that the proceedings could be terminated .

On DATE the ORG in bankruptcy filed the revenue and expenditure account , which the judge approved on DATE .

By a decision deposited with the registry on DATE , the judge terminated the bankruptcy proceedings for lack of any further assets to distribute .

The decision was posted in ORG on DATE . It became final on DATE .

LAW ( Royal Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ) provides , inter alia :

“ An appeal shall lie against the decisions of the bankruptcy judge ... to the district court within DATE of their adoption , and may be lodged by the trustee in bankruptcy , the bankrupt , the creditors ' committee or any other person with an interest .

The district court shall deliberate in private and give a reasoned decision .

The appeal shall not have suspensive effect in relation to the impugned decision . ”

“ An appeal shall lie against measures taken by the ORG in bankruptcy . Such appeals may be lodged by the bankrupt , or any other person with an interest , with the bankruptcy judge , who shall give a reasoned decision .

An appeal against that decision may be lodged within DATE with the district court . That court shall give a reasoned decision after hearing evidence from the trustee in bankruptcy and the appellant . ”

“ The bankruptcy order shall divest the bankrupt of the rights to administer or to deal with assets that were in existence at the date of the said order . ... ”

“ Correspondence addressed to the bankrupt shall be passed to the ORG in bankruptcy , who shall be empowered to retain correspondence concerning property interests . The bankrupt may consult the correspondence . The ORG in bankruptcy shall keep the content of correspondence not relating to such interests confidential . ”

“ The bankrupt may not leave his place of residence without the authorisation of the bankruptcy judge and must report to that judge , the ORG in bankruptcy or the creditors ' committee each time he is duly summoned , except where he is unable to appear on legitimate grounds and the judge gives him leave to send a representative .

If the bankrupt fails to comply with a summons , the judge may order that he be brought by the police . ”

“ A public register of the names of bankrupts shall be held at the registry of each district court . Names shall be deleted from the register by order of the district court . A bankrupt shall be subject to the restrictions laid down by law until such time as his name is deleted from the register . ”

“ The bankruptcy proceedings shall be terminated by means of a reasoned decision of the court ...

An appeal against that decision may be lodged with the court of appeal within DATE of its being posted in the court ... ”

“ Rehabilitation may be granted to bankrupts who

have paid in full the debts included in the bankruptcy , including interest and expenses ;

have complied with the terms of the composition with creditors if the court considers them eligible for such a measure , taking into account the causes and circumstances of the bankruptcy , the terms of the composition and the percentage agreed . Rehabilitation may not be granted in cases where the percentage agreed for unsecured creditors is below PERCENT ... ;

have shown proof of effective and consistent good conduct for DATE following the end of the bankruptcy proceedings . ”

LAW ( a ) of Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , provides essentially for the suspension of the bankrupt 's electoral rights for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings and , in any event , for a period not exceeding DATE from the date of the bankruptcy order .

Legislative Decree ( decreto legislativo ) no . CARDINAL of DATE on the reform of LAW provides , inter alia , as follows :

“ LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE is hereby replaced by the following :

' LAW ( correspondence addressed to bankrupts ) : Entrepreneurs who are declared bankrupt and the directors or liquidators of companies or corporations which are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings shall be required to hand over to the trustee in bankruptcy all correspondence , and in particular electronic correspondence , concerning property interests [ rapporti ] included in the bankruptcy . ' ”

' DATE ( obligations of bankrupts ) : Entrepreneurs who are declared bankrupt and the directors or liquidators of companies or corporations which are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings shall be required to inform the trustee in bankruptcy of any change of residence or address .

Where information or clarification is needed for the conduct of the proceedings , the above - mentioned individuals must report in person to the bankruptcy judge , the trustee in bankruptcy or the creditors ' committee .

If they are unable to do so , the judge may give leave to the entrepreneur or the legal representative of the company or corporation which is the subject of the bankruptcy proceedings to send a representative . ' ”

“ LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE is hereby repealed . ”

“ The following provisions are hereby repealed :

( a ) LAW ( a ) ... of Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ;

According to legal commentators , the institution of bankruptcy has its origins in DATE ) , an era when merchants ( in the broad sense , encompassing traders , entrepreneurs and bankers ) formed the nucleus of a new social class . In this context , in which the public interest coincided at times with the interests of the merchant class , bankruptcy was designed to impose stringent measures on insolvent merchants . Hence , bankruptcy was subject to criminal penalties ( such as banishment , arrest and , in some cases , torture or death ) or civil penalties such as the entry of the bankrupt 's name in a register , forcing bankrupts to wear distinguishing marks ( such as a green beret ) , loss of citizenship , and other restrictions ( see PERSON , FAC , il fallimento , PERSON , DATE , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON and PERSON , Manuale di diritto fallimentare , ORG , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ; and PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .


No violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 5;Not necessary to examine Art. 6;No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 14;No violation of P1-1

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Until DATE she lived in LOC , attached to LOC in the province of ORG . She left and has never returned to the village after the events alleged below .

The facts surrounding the destruction of the applicant 's house and property are in dispute between the parties .

Before the alleged incident , the village of GPE had been subjected to attacks by the security forces , who had forced the villagers to become village guards .

On DATE ORG members attacked and burned a bus on the ORG , QUANTITY from LOC .

On DATE at TIME security forces , led by ORG Commander PERSON , entered the village and surrounded it with armoured military vehicles and unmarked cars . Thereafter , soldiers using GCARDINAL weapons and other fire arms opened fire on the village and destroyed some of the houses with mortar shells . This attack lasted TIME .

At TIME masked men with white oil drums began burning the houses in the village . The applicant 's house and possessions were also burned during the incident . All the villagers were gathered in the village square and beaten by the soldiers . PERSON , the applicant 's brother - in - law , was killed during the incident .

After the incident , the applicant left DATE and moved to GPE and subsequently to GPE . On DATE she filed a complaint with the GPE public prosecutor for the attention of the ORG public prosecutor 's office . She alleged that on DATE security forces had raided the village of GPE and burned down her house and belongings .

While she was living in GPE , on DATE the applicant 's house was raided by the police . As a result of the intimidation to which she was subjected in GPE , the applicant had to move to GPE .

The Government submitted in the first place that the village of GPE had been under constant threat from ORG members , who forced the villagers to provide them with food and supplies . Young villagers were also forced to join the ORG . However , the villagers resisted the pressures brought to bear on them .

In their observations , the Government disputed the facts as submitted by the applicant . They stated that no military operation had been conducted in the village of DATE . In this connection , they maintained that on DATE , at TIME , a bus and a truck had been attacked and burned by the ORG on the ORG , QUANTITY from LOC . After this attack , ORG members escaped and entered the applicant 's village . The terrorists raided the village , killed PERSON , and burned down some of the houses . This attack lasted until TIME of the following day .

On TIME , an on - site investigation was conducted in the village by the non - commissioned gendarme officer , PERSON . In his incident report , PERSON noted that the houses of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and the harvest of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG had been burned by the ORG . The report further noted that PERSON had been shot dead by members of this illegal group . The security forces found CARDINAL cartridge and CARDINAL empty cartridges , CARDINAL of which were near PERSON body . The non - commissioned officer further drew a sketch of the houses which had been burned down DATE . The Government emphasised that the applicant 's house was not among the houses which had been burned down on DATE .

Further to this incident , the ORG public prosecutor commenced an investigation into the destruction of the CARDINAL houses and the killing of PERSON . On DATE the ORG public prosecutor delivered a decision of non - jurisdiction and transferred the file to ORG . On DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who used to reside in LOC before DATE , gave statements to the gendarme . They said that they had left the village in DATE due to pressure from the terrorist organisation . The proceedings are still pending before ORG as the perpetrators of the crime remain unknown .

When the applicant filed a complaint concerning the destruction of her house and possessions by the security forces on DATE , the authorities undertook a further investigation into her allegations . On DATE the ORG public prosecutor declared that he was not competent for reasons of jurisdiction and transferred the file to the ORG public prosecutor 's office at ORG . On DATE ORG declined jurisdiction and sent the file back to the ORG public prosecutor . On DATE the ORG public prosecutor delivered another non - jurisdiction decision and transmitted the case file to the ORG office , pursuant to the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

Upon receipt of the file , ORG immediately commenced an investigation and appointed Mr PERSON , a gendarme officer , to investigate the allegations against the security forces .

Mr PERSON took CARDINAL statements from CARDINAL different persons , namely PERSON ( mayor of LOC ) , PERSON ( mayor of the GPE village ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( gendarme officers ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( villagers from GPE ) . The applicant 's statement was also taken by the police . In her statement she mainly reiterated her complaint lodged with the public prosecutor .

On DATE the investigator conducted an on - site inspection in GPE together with the village mayor . The village mayor informed him that the applicant had already left the village when her house was burned by the ORG in DATE . In his report , the investigator indicated that there were no signs of mortar or gunfire on the remains of the houses . He concluded that the houses had been burned down by the ORG to punish the villagers for abandoning the village in DATE . Some of the houses were further damaged on account of bad weather .

NORP The investigator inquired from the relevant military commanders whether a military operation had been conducted in LOC on DATE . On DATE the ORG Commander informed the ORG that no military operation had been conducted in the village on DATE . However , he indicated that a bus had been burned near LOC on DATE . He further maintained that as the accused gendarme commander , PERSON , had retired from the military , his address could not be established and it was therefore impossible to take his statement . ORG and ORG further stated , on DATE respectively , that they had not been involved in an operation in LOC on DATE .

In the light of the evidence before him , the investigator concluded that the applicant 's house had not been burned down by the security forces as alleged , but by the ORG after the villagers had evacuated the village in DATE . In a report dated DATE , he advised ORG to discontinue the proceedings against the security forces . On DATE the Governor of ORG approved the conclusion of the investigator and ordered that the procedure against the security forces be terminated .

The Government finally submitted that the applicant 's husband owned CARDINAL plots of land totalling QUANTITY in LOC . They further contended that the applicant had only one cow , which she had sold to PERSON , a villager from a neighbouring village , before she left GPE .

In her petition , the applicant complained of the killing of her brother - in - law , PERSON , and the destruction of her house and possessions by the security forces .

According to the copies of the title deeds , submitted to the ORG , the applicant 's husband , PERSON , owns CARDINAL plots of land in the village of GPE .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor delivered a non - jurisdiction decision and sent the case file on the killing of PERSON and the burning of QUANTITY houses in the village of GPE to the office of the chief public prosecutor attached to ORG . In the decision , it was stated that on TIME DATE unidentified ORG terrorists had attacked the GPE , killed PERSON and burned down the houses and harvest of ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor took a decision not to prosecute and transferred the case file to the office of the public prosecutor attached to ORG , as the complaint fell within the jurisdiction of that court , pursuant to ORG . CARDINAL and ORG .

On DATE ORG public prosecutor remitted the case to the ORG public prosecutor on the ground that he lacked jurisdiction to examine this complaint .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor delivered a non - jurisdiction decision and sent the file to the ORG office pursuant to the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants .

On DATE a gendarme officer , PERSON , was appointed as investigator by ORG .

In his statement the witness explained that he had lived in LOC until DATE and had been the village mayor for DATE . According to the witness , ORG members had been coming to Düzcealan to spread propaganda and ask for food , clothes and shelter . They also tried to persuade the young villagers to join the ORG . The witness recalled that the terrorists had conducted a raid in GPE on TIME , killed PERSON and burned down the houses and harvest of the villagers . He emphasised , however , that the applicant 's house had not been burned down on DATE . It was burned down by the terrorists after the villagers had abandoned the village . The villagers left GPE of their own free will . The security forces never forced the villagers to abandon their homes . The village was therefore empty when PERSON house was burned down .

In his statements the witness reiterated that he had been the mayor of the GPE village , a neighbouring village of GPE . He recalled that following the incidents that took place on DATE , he heard that PERSON from LOC had been killed and that the houses of PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and the harvest of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG had been burned down by the terrorists . Due to ORG pressure , the villagers decided to evacuate the village in DATE . Before leaving , they sold their animals in neighbouring villages . The applicant 's husband sold his cow to PERSON from the GPE village . When the villagers left , ORG members burned down the remaining houses , including the applicant 's . The witness concluded that PERSON house was burned down in DATE by the ORG after the village had already been evacuated .

The witness is a gendarme officer , who used to live in LOC until DATE . After his family left DATE , the witness never returned to the village and stated that he had no knowledge of the alleged incidents .

The witness was the gendarmerie commander in PERSON attached to ORG in the NORP province DATE . The Düzcealan village was among the CARDINAL villages in the region that were attached to his command . He stated that he did not remember the exact date of the incident . On DATE of the incident , terrorists attacked a bus on the ORG , which is QUANTITY from LOC . The terrorists burned the bus and tried to escape through LOC , setting fire to CARDINAL or CARDINAL places in the village . DATE , at TIME , the witness went to the scene of the incident with a security team , and drafted a sketch of the bus and of the houses . PERSON was the ORG Commander at the time of the events . He was informed about the events via wireless . The villagers in GPE abandoned their village of their own free will due to pressure from the terrorists .

In a letter dated DATE , ORG indicated that their ORG had not been involved in any operation in LOC on DATE .

The Tatvan Security Directorate concluded that their ORG had not been involved in an operation in LOC on DATE .

In this letter , the ORG Commander informed the PERSON Governor that no military operation had been conducted in LOC on DATE .

In a letter dated DATE the ORG Commander informed the LOC Commander that on DATE a bus had been burned by the ORG . He indicated that there were no military records indicating that a possible military operation had been conducted in the village of Düzcealan on the same date .

On DATE the investigator PERSON conducted an on - site visit to the village of Düzcealan together with the mayor of PERSON . In his report , he concluded that there were CARDINAL households in the village and that the village had been completely evacuated . The houses , which were made of concrete , had been badly damaged or were in ruin due to disuse and the effect of bad weather . There were no signs of a mortar attack .

Referring to the statements of the villagers , gendarme officers , the relevant military reports and documents , the investigator concluded that the LOC found that the village was in fact raided by the NORP on TIME . However , it was clear from the testimonies of the villagers that the applicant 's house was not destroyed DATE . From the evidence before him , the investigator found that the applicant had in fact stayed in the village until DATE , when the villagers evacuated GPE to escape the pressure from ORG members . The applicant sold her cow to a certain PERSON from the GPE and moved out before her house was burned down by the ORG . When the village was evacuated , they burned down all the houses . There was no pressure from the security forces to evacuate the village .

Referring to the investigation report prepared by gendarme officer PERSON , the Head of ORG recommended the Governor to discontinue the proceedings against the security forces .

On DATE the Bitlis Governor decided that the proceedings against the security forces should be dismissed .

In his statement , the witness explained that he had been living in NORP hamlet of LOC until DATE . He stated that the village of GPE and its hamlets had been evacuated by the villagers of their own free will as they wanted to escape from the pressure exerted on them by the ORG . After the village was evacuated , the ORG burned down all the houses .

In the sketch , drafted by the gendarme officer PERSON , the locations of the QUANTITY houses which had been burned down on DATE were indicated .

In the report , prepared by gendarme officer PERSON , it was noted that on DATE , at TIME , a bus with the registration number CARDINAL JYL CARDINAL was burned by ORG terrorists . The terrorists then escaped to the NORP village and burned down the houses of PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and the harvest of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG . They also killed PERSON .

In this report , it was noted that a bus had been burned on DATE . This was followed by the killing of PERSON and the burning down of some houses in LOC . It was , however , established that no military records existed indicating that a military operation had been conducted in GPE on DATE . The Commander further noted that as PERSON , the accused gendarme commander , had retired from military forces , his address could not be established , with the result that no statement could be taken from him .

In his statement , the witness deposed that he used to reside in NORP hamlet attached to LOC . He explained that all the villagers evacuated the village and the hamlet in DATE due to the activities of the ORG . ORG members had been asking the villagers to supply them with food , clothes and weapons . They also wanted to persuade the children to go to the mountains . According to the witness , the security forces never forced the villagers to abandon the village . The villagers left of their own motion due to ORG pressure . The houses were burned down subsequently by ORG members after the village had been evacuated .

The witness used to live in LOC until DATE . He recalled that , on TIME , ORG members raided the village , burning down the houses of PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and the harvest of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG . PERSON , a villager , was also killed by ORG members . The ORG pressurised the villagers and demanded logistic support . In order to escape this intimidation , the witness left the village in DATE , together with all the villagers of GPE . He explained that PERSON had also lived in the village until DATE . He recalled that , before leaving , she had sold her cow to PERSON from the GPE village .

In her statement , dated DATE , the applicant mainly reiterated the complaints she had made to the public prosecutor .

The witness used to reside in the village of GPE . Following the burning of a bus on the Tatvan - Van highway , a clash broke out between the security forces and ORG terrorists . The terrorists entered LOC . They killed PERSON , burned down the houses of PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and the harvest of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG . The witness stated that his crops were burned down by ORG members .

The witness , who used to live in LOC , stated that on DATE at TIME a bus had been burned by the ORG on the ORG . Subsequently a clash broke out between the security forces and ORG members . The ORG members escaped to the village of Düzcealan . When they arrived in the village , they burned and destroyed his house and harvest . The houses of LOC , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and the harvest of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG were also destroyed . Moreover , they killed PERSON .

A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych;Paul Lemmens

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

At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested in an apartment rented by his acquaintance and alleged accomplice NORP , and taken to a police station . At the police station he was allegedly handcuffed , beaten and according to the applicant , had his nose broken .

On DATE between TIME and TIME the applicant was questioned . He admitted to having robbed an apartment .

Criminal proceedings for robbery were instituted against the applicant ; it is unclear whether this was done before or after his arrest . It was noted that on DATE at TIME the applicant , together with some other individuals , had threatened PERSON with a knife and taken MONEY ( ORG ) from her .

The Government submitted that the applicant was in fact arrested on DATE .

On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention on the grounds that he was accused of committing a serious crime and could abscond or hinder the investigation if at liberty .

On DATE the same court extended the term of the applicant ’s detention until DATE since “ there were no grounds for the applicant ’s release and his detention was necessary for carrying out further investigations ( expert examinations etc . ) ” .

DATE and DATE the criminal case against the applicant was presented to the court for consideration but referred back for further investigation on CARDINAL subsequent occasions ( DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and DATE and DATE ) . On the first occasion ( DATE ) the court decided that the applicant ’s case could not be considered separately from the cases of ORG . ( another alleged accomplice of the applicant ) and NORP , and that further investigative measures such as a reconstruction of events and confrontations between the accused and the witnesses should be carried out . On each occasion the court also decided that the applicant should remain in pre - trial detention .

On DATE and DATE the ORG denied the applicant ’s requests for release . The court held , without elaborating further , that the applicant was accused of committing a serious crime and , if released , could “ continue his criminal activity ” , abscond or hinder the investigation .

On CARDINAL DATE the same court again referred the case back for further investigation . On DATE ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first - instance court . The court also decided that the applicant should remain in pre - trial detention .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s request to have PERSON as his legal representative on the basis that he did not hold an advocate ’s licence . The decision was not subject to appeal .

On DATE ORG , upon a request by the prosecutor , ordered a forensic psychological and psychiatric examination of the applicant . In her request the prosecutor stated that the applicant had behaved aggressively and improperly . The court noted that on numerous occasions the applicant had actively interrupted a court hearing , giving instructions as to who should be cross - examined and what evidence should be considered . When his requests were rejected , he began to shout and swear . The applicant was removed from a courtroom on CARDINAL occasions .

In order to carry out a forensic examination the applicant was allegedly detained in a special ward of a psychiatric hospital . According to an expert report dated DATE , the applicant had no mental illnesses either at the time of the report or when the crime was allegedly committed .

On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE years’ imprisonment for robbery committed together with other persons . The criminal cases against each defendant were considered separately . The applicant was represented by his mother and by a lawyer , ORG . In court the applicant denied committing the offence and refused to answer any questions . The court referred to his statements , given at the investigation stage of the proceedings , in which he had made a partial confession . In particular , on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant had stated that at the material time he had been working in a flower shop run by PERSON . , who also worked in the shop , had told him that PERSON ( NORP ’s acquaintance ) had been keeping a lot of money at home and that he proposed to rob her . On DATE the applicant followed PERSON ’s son home from school . When PERSON opened the door to let her son in , the applicant threatened her with a knife and took CARDINAL from her . At that time another witness , T. , was also in the apartment . On leaving , the applicant lost a balaclava he was wearing . He joined ORG . , who was waiting for him in a car , and they split the money . PERSON . gave him USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL and told him that NORP should be given CARDINAL .

Some of the statements were given in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer , ORG . They were further confirmed by confrontations held between the applicant , NORP and other witnesses .

NORP In court PERSON ’s statements were read out . T. , A. ( a woman who saw a man running out of ORG house and losing his balaclava ) , PERSON , and PERSON . ’s wife were all cross - examined as witnesses . PERSON said that she could not recall the man ’s face but described his clothes and other features such as age and height . PERSON gave evidence that at TIME on DATE the police arrived at the apartment she rented with NORP The applicant and NORP left together with some police officers . At TIME the police officers returned and seized the applicant ’s bag in which there was the sum of USD MONEY . Kr . ’s wife told the court that her husband PERSON . was missing and that she did not know of his whereabouts .

NORP The court also noted that the applicant had complained of ill - treatment by the police . In particular , the applicant stated that his initial statements had been given under duress and that he had changed them as soon as there was no longer a threat to his life and health . Referring to a decision by the prosecutor of DATE and subsequent court judgments ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) , the court found the applicant ’s complaints unsubstantiated . The court also noted that the applicant had been provided with appropriate medical assistance whilst in detention .

Lastly , the court indicated that on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the criminal case had been referred back by the court for further investigation for non - compliance with the court ’s instructions of DATE , in particular , the failure to institute criminal proceedings against NORP and PERSON . , who was currently missing . On DATE D. had signed an undertaking not to abscond as she was pregnant . The criminal case against NORP was under investigation .

On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG upheld the applicant ’s sentence .

On DATE the applicant was released on probation .

According to the applicant , during the period DATE and DATE ( DATE according to ORG ) he complained that police officers had subjected him to physical and psychological abuse and had misappropriated his gold ring , mobile telephone and clothes .

On DATE ORG ( прокуратура PERSON району в м. Києві ) , having considered a complaint by the applicant forwarded to it by the court , refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . Police officers P.A. and ORG were questioned . They denied any ill - treatment of the applicant .

On DATE ORG , in the applicant ’s presence , overturned that decision and referred the case back for further examination . In court , the applicant did not complain of having been ill - treated but said that police officers had stolen his belongings ( clothes , mobile telephone and a ring ) . The court noted that it should be established at what point the applicant ’s belongings had been seized and under which circumstances .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers .

On DATE that decision was overturned by ORG ( прокуратура PERSON ) which referred the case back for further examination . It was noted that the instructions of ORG of DATE had not been complied with .

On CARDINAL occasions DATE the prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers but these refusals were set aside by a senior prosecutor .

On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings . The applicant stated that the police officers “ had resorted to violence ” and had misappropriated his mobile phone and a revolver . The police officers gave evidence that neither they nor the other police officers had subjected the applicant to ill - treatment . It was noted that there was no medical evidence to suggest that the applicant had sustained any injuries .

On DATE the Dniprovskiy District Prosecutor ’s Office reversed its decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office again rejected complaints by the applicant . It was established that there was no medical evidence in support of his allegations .

The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG . He complained that there had been no legal right for the police to seize his personal belongings . He also stated that he had been “ beaten , tortured and subjected to physical and psychological abuse ” without giving any further details .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE was upheld by ORG . The court held that the applicant ’s complaints had been properly examined and were unsubstantiated . On DATE the ORG upheld the decision of DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal on points of law since copies of court judgments submitted by the applicant had not been properly certified .

The applicant submitted to this ORG CARDINAL undated photographs as part of his evidence . On the first and third photos his nose appears to be straight ; on the second one it is bent . The applicant also submitted a medical certificate stating that in DATE he had been diagnosed with posttraumatic nasal deformation which impeded his breathing . On DATE the applicant had his nasal bones repositioned .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in the GPE no . CARDINAL . Upon his arrival the applicant was examined by a doctor , to whom he did not mention anything about any injuries .

The applicant stated that he had been detained in a cold and damp cell infested by cockroaches . The bedding was dirty and torn , and the toilets and sink were filthy . The applicant submitted photos on which it could be seen that the cell was dirty and that there were dark brown stains on the ceiling and walls .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to the head of the GPE medical ward that the applicant was suffering from headaches and a pain in his right kidney , both of which needed treatment . She also alleged that on DATE the applicant had been “ tortured and beaten by police officers ” .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a urologist . He was diagnosed with chronic pyelonephritis and crystalluria , and was recommended outpatient treatment .

In DATE the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to ORG .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that he had been detained in a cell measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other people . The cell had a toilet which was separated from the main living area by a QUANTITY - high partition . The cell was disinfected once DATE . The bedding was in a reasonable condition . Insulation had been added to the windows and the cell ( no . CARDINAL ) had been refurbished .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a general practitioner . It was concluded that his state of health was satisfactory .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a cardiologist and an ophthalmologist . No pathological conditions were discovered . On DATE he was examined by a urologist in ORG no . CARDINAL . It was concluded that the applicant did not need any specialist treatment .

On DATE , following complaints by the applicant , ORG concluded that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention met the current legal requirements . The applicant was detained together with CARDINAL other people in cell no . DATE , which measured QUANTITY . The applicant was permitted to shower once DATE . In DATE there was a disinfection and clean - up of rodent - infested areas . It was noted that the maximum capacity of the GPE was QUANTITY persons ; however , on DATE there were CARDINAL detainees . The applicant received the requisite medical assistance .

In a letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that he had been detained in cell no . CARDINAL together with CARDINAL other detainees . The cell measured QUANTITY .

On DATE the applicant , following a letter from the ORG , asked the head of the GPE to provide him with copies of documents from his case file and copies of his medical records .

According to the Government , on DATE the ORG sent a copy of the applicant ’s medical records to his mother . The Government also submitted a copy of a statement written by the applicant dated DATE on which he confirmed having received “ copies of medical documents ( CARDINAL pages ) ” .

DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , ORG . , complained to the PERSON administration that the applicant had lost QUANTITY in weight in a DATE period and had severe stomach pains . He requested that the applicant be diagnosed and given appropriate medical treatment . It is unclear whether that complaint was ever addressed .

The applicant lodged numerous unsuccessful complaints challenging the decision to institute criminal proceedings against him and requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted against various authorities .

By letter of DATE the applicant submitted to the ORG that police officers and prosecutors had contacted him requesting that he appear as a witness in the criminal proceedings against ORG . and NORP The applicant also alleged that police officers had threatened to institute new criminal proceedings against him if he did not withdraw his application to the ORG .

A visit to GPE by a delegation of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) took place from DATE , during which the delegation inspected the Kyiv GPE .

The relevant parts of the ORG report read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... With an official capacity of CARDINAL places , on DATE the establishment was holding CARDINAL inmates ...

The vast majority of the cells holding male prisoners were seriously overcrowded ( for example , CARDINAL prisoners in a cell measuring CARDINAL ORG and containing CARDINAL beds ; CARDINAL prisoners in a cell measuring CARDINAL ORG and containing CARDINAL beds ) . ...

Because of the human mass , ventilation was almost non - existent and the cells were very hot and stuffy . The level of hygiene was also highly unsatisfactory : in some cells the delegation saw cockroaches , and prisoners also referred to the presence of mice and rats . The in - cell sanitary installations ( a partitioned toilet and sink ) were generally in a decrepit state and were clearly not sufficient for the numbers of inmates held in the larger cells .

The negative consequences of the deplorable material conditions described above were compounded by the fact that some prisoners had spent lengthy periods of time at the GPE .... In the ORG ’s view , the combination of negative factors to which a large number of prisoners were subjected at the GPE ( overcrowding , appalling material conditions and levels of hygiene , and practically non - existent activity programmes ) could easily be described as inhuman and degrading treatment .

In the light of the above remarks , the ORG recommends that at the GPE :

- strenuous efforts be made to decrease the overcrowding and to distribute prisoners more evenly amongst the available accommodation , the objective being to offer a minimum of CARDINAL m² of living space per prisoner ;

- measures be taken to ensure , as a matter of priority , access to natural light and adequate ventilation in prisoner accommodation ;

- efforts be made to renovate the prisoner accommodation and ensure an adequate level of hygiene ;

- prisoners be guaranteed access to adequate quantities of essential personal hygiene products and cleaning products for their cells ... ”