Preliminary objections dismissed;No violation of Art. 2 (in case of extradition to Kazakhstan);Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Kazakhstan);Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-1-f;Violation of Art. 5-2;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Violation of Art. 34;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

The applicant was born on DATE . The applicant claims to be Mr PERSON , a citizen of GPE . He also claims that he has citizenship of GPE . The applicant is currently detained in the NORP pre - trial detention ( “ the Poltava SIZO ” ) of ORG .

On DATE an unidentified person murdered PERSON . PERSON . On DATE ORG of GPE launched a criminal investigation into the murder .

On DATE the applicant was accused in GPE , in his absence , of having committed a crime under LAW ) of LAW of GPE ( murder ) . On DATE an investigator ORG decided that the applicant should be detained .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the MIK ” ) issued an international search warrant for the applicant on suspicion of his having committed aggravated murder , involving capital punishment as a sanction ( LAW ) .

The facts surrounding the applicant 's initial detention may be summarised as follows .

It was agreed by the parties that the applicant had been picked up at TIME on DATE and detained thereafter , although there was no agreement as to where and why the applicant was detained . They provided various documents certifying what happened in the period from TIME on DATE to TIME DATE , which can be summarised as follows .

According to a document entitled “ Record of arrest based on suspicion of involvement in a crime ” ( “ PERSON о задержании по подозрению в совершении преступления ” ; hereafter - the “ detention record ” ) , issued by Major PERSON of ORG of GPE , a police patrol stopped the applicant , described as PERSON , born on DATE , residing at DATE , FAC , GPE , GPE , on DATE at TIME The detention record was dated with the same date and time .

In smaller print , in what appear to be standard blocks of text , the following grounds for arrest ( основания задержания ) are set out :

“ ( ... ) CARDINAL . Person had been arrested at the moment of committing a crime or in flagranto ;

The witnesses of a crime and its victims have identified this person as an offender ;

Traces of crime were found on the suspect or his clothes , with him or in his place of residence ;

[ There is ] other data , giving grounds to suspect the person in committing a crime , if he / she tried to escape or has no permanent place of residence or when the identity of the suspect has not been established . ”

The detention record also set out , again in small print , reasons for the applicant 's arrest ( мотивы задержания ) :

“ To prevent crime .

To prevent a possibility of disappearing from the investigation and the court , ensuring enforcement of a criminal sentence .

To prevent events which would hinder the establishment of objective truth in the criminal case . ”

NORP The detention record then noted , in large print , that the applicant was suspected of involvement in the crime envisaged in LAW of GPE . The detention record was signed by PERSON Tsarruk and stated that the applicant had been “ familiarised ” with the reasons for his detention ( the applicant signed it and marked it stating that he familiarised with it in LANGUAGE language - “ ознакомлен ” ) , and with his rights and duties , as it was provided by LAW On temporary detention of persons suspected in committing of crime ” . It contained no exact date and time when the applicant had been familiarised with the reasons for his detention . After the applicant 's signature , the record stated that the prosecutor had been informed about the applicant 's arrest at TIME on DATE .

NORP In their further observations of CARDINAL DATE the Government contended that after his apprehension at TIME on DATE under LAW DATE “ On the temporary detention of persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the applicant stayed at FAC . In particular , they referred to the aforementioned detention record . The Government also stated that the applicant had been familiarised with the reasons for his detention after TIME on DATE . They did not specify when .

In their further observations of CARDINAL DATE the ORG stated that the applicant was taken to the sobering up facility at TIME on DATE . They referred to a written reply of CARDINAL DATE to a request of ORG dated DATE . In reply the centre 's director informed ORG that the applicant arrived at the facility at TIME on DATE and left it at TIME on DATE . The director also stated that the applicant had been diagnosed with acute alcohol intoxication with perception , psychic and behavioural disorders .

According to the medical card concluded by the sobering up facility ( GPE Narcological Clinical Hospital “ GPE ” of ORG ) , the applicant arrived there at TIME on CARDINAL DATE . The medical card also provided that the applicant 's diagnosis of alcohol intoxication and respective disorders had been established on DATE and that he had stayed in the facility for DATE . The centre 's contemporaneous records note the applicant as having been brought to the centre from GPE street in LOC of GPE by a PERSON PERSON . The card states that the applicant stayed at the sobering up facility from TIME on CARDINAL DATE to QUANTITY a.m. on DATE , that is , for DATE .

On DATE the PERSON , in reply to request of ORG of GPE , confirmed to ORG of the ORG that the applicant was wanted as a murder suspect .

The applicant , through his mother 's submissions to ORG ( PERSON суд міста PERSON ) on DATE , contended that he had been taken directly to the sobering up facility on DATE as he had no identity papers with him , and , in his observations of CARDINAL DATE he stated that the detention record dated TIME on DATE had been prepared only after his identity had been established and the authorities were aware that the applicant was wanted by the law enforcement authorities of GPE .

On DATE the PERSON established that Mr GPE was a citizen of GPE .

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG ” ) of GPE informed ORG that the applicant had been apprehended in GPE and asked whether GPE intended to seek the applicant 's extradition .

After his return to the police station , the applicant made an “ explanatory statement ” to a prosecutor , dated DATE , which was written for him in GPE by the senior assistant of GPE prosecutor . The applicant confirmed its contents in LANGUAGE ( “ записано верно ” ) . After stating that he had not committed any criminal offences , he added without mentioning any exact times , that he had been stopped by police officers on DATE , who took him to the sobering - up facility and after that to the police station , where he remained .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of Kyiv informed ORG of the ORG of GPE of the details as to the applicant 's identity . In particular , it was established that the applicant 's name was PERSON Amir Damirovich Kaboulov and that he was a citizen of GPE only . The information also stated that he committed no crimes on the territory of GPE and did not have refugee status .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor and the head of ORG of the ORG lodged a petition with ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ; ORG районний суд міста PERSON ) seeking a warrant for the applicant 's detention in GPE no . CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE ORG , in the presence of the prosecutor and after having heard the applicant , issued a warrant for the applicant 's detention on the grounds that there was a search warrant in respect of him in GPE and that the NORP authorities were awaiting documents from the NORP authorities for his extradition to GPE . The court found that the applicant had been picked up drunk at GPE street by the police at TIME on DATE . The court noted that the applicant had explained to the police officers at the time of his arrest that he resided in GPE without registration . The court decided to detain the applicant in GPE no . CARDINAL , and also ruled that the applicant 's detention was not to exceed DATE ( that is , until DATE ) . The сourt further decided that the applicant should be detained on the basis of Articles DATE of ORG , as he was to be extradited to GPE . ORG also referred to Articles CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant was informed of the possibility of lodging an appeal .

On DATE the ORG of GPE requested the ORG of GPE to detain the applicant pending extradition .

On DATE the ORG of GPE , by letter , confirmed the search warrant in respect of the applicant and requested his extradition to GPE on the grounds that on DATE the applicant had been charged with non - aggravated murder ( LAW ) of GPE . PERSON . They also stated that criminal proceedings had been pending against the applicant since DATE and he had been on the wanted list since DATE . The ORG of GPE assured the NORP authorities that the applicant would not be prosecuted for criminal offences different from those mentioned in the extradition proceedings without the consent of the NORP authorities .

On DATE the ORG of GPE , again by letter , gave additional assurances confirming that the applicant would not be liable to the death penalty in GPE and that his rights and lawful interests in the course of criminal proceedings would be adequately protected . They mentioned inter alia a moratorium on executions imposed by LAW DATE until full abolition of the death penalty .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's mother and his advocate in the domestic proceedings ( Mr PERSON ) , respectively , appealed against the order of ORG of DATE . They requested that the applicant be released subject to an undertaking not to abscond , until the applicant 's identity had been verified . In particular , they claimed that the applicant was not a citizen of GPE , but a citizen of GPE and that the order referred to a different person . They also requested an extension of the time - limit for lodging an appeal as the applicant had not been informed about the possibility of doing so in good time .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE informed the ORG of GPE that the ORG of GPE agreed to extradite the applicant . The letter mentioned the need to organise the applicant 's transfer to GPE . By a separate letter written on DATE , the Deputy Prosecutor General informed ORG , the SDES and the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE that he approved the applicant 's extradition and his transfer to GPE under guard .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's lawyers ( Mr PERSON and PERSON ) appealed against the failure of the judge of ORG to pursue the appeal proceedings asked for by the applicant 's mother and lawyer on CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE the ORG refused to consider the appeal on the grounds that it had been lodged out of time , and remitted it for a decision on its admissibility to the first - instance court ( Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , sub - paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) , which on DATE rejected the appeals lodged by the applicant 's mother and Mr PERSON as his mother had no standing in the proceedings and the appeal had been lodged out of time , respectively . This ruling was not appealed .

On DATE the applicant 's mother requested the Governor of GPE no . CARDINAL to release the applicant from detention on the grounds that he was detained unlawfully .

On DATE the applicant 's advocate lodged a complaint with the Shevchenkivsky ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ; ORG районний суд міста PERSON ) requesting that the applicant be released from PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL with a view to his further transfer to the competent authorities of GPE which were to hand the applicant over to the law - enforcement authorities of GPE .

On DATE the applicant 's extradition was suspended by the ORG of GPE , following the interim measure indicated to the Government of GPE under LAW on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged complaints with ORG seeking a finding that his detention in PERSON no . CARDINAL was unlawful . On DATE the court refused to accept the applicant 's complaint as it had been lodged with the wrong court , contrary to the requirements as to territorial jurisdiction .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer , PERSON , informed the ORG that the applicant had requested refugee status in GPE and that this request was being examined .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's mother lodged administrative complaints with ORG of Kharkiv ( “ the ORG ” ; PERSON районний суд міста Харкова ) requesting the applicant 's release and a finding that the inactivity of the Governor of ORG no . CARDINAL in examining the applicant 's complaints about his continued detention had been unlawful .

On DATE the court refused to consider the complaint as it had been lodged under LAW . The court suggested that the applicant should re - lodge the complaint under LAW ( detention of a criminal suspect by the investigating body ) as it concerned his detention and the criminal proceedings instituted against him in GPE .

On DATE the ORG ( GPE суд PERSON області ) quashed the ruling of DATE and decided not to examine the applicant 's mother 's complaints as she had no standing in the criminal proceedings against her son .

No appeal on points of law was lodged with ORG against this ruling .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's lawyer in the domestic proceedings ( Ms PERSON ) and the applicant 's mother each lodged a complaint with ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ; ORG районний суд PERSON ) against the ORG of GPE requesting that the applicant 's extradition to GPE be prohibited . They also asked the court to declare the ORG of GPE 's decision to extradite the applicant unlawful . They referred , inter alia , to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW , LAW and various provisions of LAW . A hearing in ORG was scheduled to take place on DATE , but was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE .

DATE . On DATE ORG , in the absence of the representatives of the ORG of GPE , allowed the applicant 's complaints , declared the decision to extradite the applicant to GPE unlawful and prohibited the ORG of GPE from extraditing the applicant .

On DATE the ORG of GPE lodged an appeal with ORG against the aforementioned judgment , requesting that the case be remitted for fresh consideration to the firstinstance court . They mentioned in the appeal that the applicant had been detained in GPE on DATE . On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant lodged counter - arguments against the ORG of GPE 's appeal , referring inter alia to various provisions of the domestic and international law , including LAW ) of LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

On DATE ORG examined the ORG of GPE 's appeal , quashed the decision of ORG of DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration . In particular , it found that ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been adopted in the absence of the ORG of GPE 's representatives , who had not been duly informed of DATE and time of the hearing in the case , as required by LAW .

On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant had failed to comply with the procedure prescribed by law for introducing complaints in criminal proceedings . In particular , the court found that the complaints against the ORG of GPE should be examined in the course of criminal proceedings , in accordance with the procedural rules of LAW ( paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the Code ) and not as administrative complaints under LAW .

On DATE ORG upheld the ruling of DATE , finding it to be lawful . In particular , it referred to resolution no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE and the relevant provisions of LAW ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , stating that as the applicant complained about lawfulness of his detention and his possible extradition , he had to appeal against it to the court in accordance with the rules enshrined in LAW and the relevant provisions of the international treaty , which were applicable to extradition .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law to ORG against the ruling of DATE . The outcome of these proceedings is unknown .

On DATE the applicant lodged complaints with ORG seeking a declaration that his detention in GPE GPE no . CARDINAL was unlawful . He referred to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , and LAW , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention . In particular , he alleged that the time - limit for his detention had expired on DATE ( DATE after DATE , the date of the decision of ORG to detain him ) .

On DATE the court resumed the examination of the applicant 's appeal . The hearing was adjourned until DATE owing to the failure of the applicant 's representative to appear before the court .

On DATE the court decided to adjourn the examination of the applicant 's appeal in order to obtain further evidence from ORG and the ORG of GPE . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE , when the proceedings were again adjourned for the same reason .

On DATE the court adjourned the proceedings pending the examination of the ORG of GPE 's appeal against the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's complaints . In particular , it found that the applicant was detained in PERSON no . CARDINAL not on the basis of the decision of ORG of DATE , but on the basis of the extradition warrant ( санкція ) by ORG and his decision to transfer the applicant under guard ( етапувати та конвоювати ) to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , the court referred to the fact that the extradition had been suspended in view of the proceedings pending before ORG . It therefore found the applicant 's detention to be lawful . It referred inter alia to LAW , Articles DATE of ORG , Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW , as well as LAW , DATE and DATE of the Convention . It also held that the applicant 's name was “ PERSON ” and that he was a citizen of GPE .

On DATE ORG forwarded the case file to ORG with a view to the hearing of the applicant 's appeal which was scheduled for DATE . The outcome of these proceedings is unknown .

The relevant domestic law and practice , including the relevant provisions of LAW , ORG and the Code on Administrative Justice and the relevant extracts from ORG practice , are summarised in the judgment of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE reads as follows :

“ Every person has the right to freedom and personal inviolability .

No one shall be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a substantiated court decision and only on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure established by law .

In the event of an urgent necessity to prevent or stop a crime , bodies authorised by law may hold a person in custody as a temporary preventive measure , the reasonable grounds for which shall be verified by a court within TIME . The detained person shall be released immediately , if he or she has not been provided , within TIME from the moment of detention , with a substantiated court decision in regard to the holding in custody .

Everyone arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention , apprised of his or her rights , and from the moment of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself , or to have the legal assistance of a defender .

Everyone detained has the right to challenge his or her detention in court at any time .

Relatives of an arrested or detained person shall be informed immediately of his or her arrest or detention . ”

The relevant provisions of the Convention are summarised in the judgment of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § ORG , DATE ) . Other relevant extracts from the Convention read as follows :

“ The requesting Contracting Party shall immediately adopt the necessary measures for detention of a person whose extradition is requested , except in circumstances in which the person can not be extradited . ”

Procedural relations with regard to extradition and criminal prosecution

“ Procedural relations with regard to extradition , criminal prosecution , and enforcement of investigative sanctions involving citizens ' rights and necessitating the approval of the prosecutor shall be handled by the prosecutors general ( prosecutors ) of the Contracting Parties . ”

According to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , persons arrested for alcohol intoxication in a public place , unable to walk , posing danger to themselves or others , shall be transferred by police that arrested them to specialised sobering - up facilities or to their home . They shall be held in police stations only if their address is unknown or there is no sobering - up facility in the locality .

According to the section CARDINAL of the Regulation , each instance of detention of a suspect shall be documented . The relevant record shall contain reasons , grounds , motives , exact day and time , DATE and DATE , place where a suspect was arrested , explanations from detained and the time when the record was concluded . The record shall be signed by the suspect and a person who prepared it . The period of detention shall be calculated from the moment the suspect was brought to the relevant investigation body or from the actual moment of apprehension .

According to section CARDINAL of the Regulation , the lawenforcement authorities must inform the prosecutor of any facts related to the detention of a person within TIME of the time he or she was apprehended . The prosecutor must issue a warrant for detention within TIME from receipt of such information , or release the detained .

Section CARDINAL of the Regulation envisaged that a record should be drawn upon person 's apprehension and that this person should be informed of the rights of an apprehended suspect .

DATE . The relevant extracts provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( Article CARDINAL )

The death penalty

In DATE the scope of the application of the death penalty permitted by the constitution was reduced from CARDINAL “ exceptionally grave ” crimes to DATE that of terrorism leading to loss of life . The death penalty also remains a possible punishment for “ exceptionally grave ” crimes committed during times of war . A person sentenced to death in GPE retains the right to petition for clemency . A moratorium on executions , which had been imposed in DATE , remained in force and no death sentences were passed during DATE and DATE . All CARDINAL prisoners on death row had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment .

ORG is concerned that the death penalty could be applied to acts committed outside GPE and ... concern is heightened in view of the documented failure of judges to exclude evidence extracted under torture and the numerous reports of the authorities using national and regional security and the fight against terrorism to target vulnerable groups such as asylum - seekers and groups perceived to be a threat to national and regional stability . ....

Prison conditions

Whereas by all accounts GPE had implemented a successful reform of its penitentiary system ... DATE have reportedly seen a decline in prison conditions , with many of the abusive practices reoccurring more and more often .

DATE saw a number of disturbances in prisons camps throughout the country with large groups of prisoners committing acts of self - mutilation , such as slicing their abdomens , hands and necks , reportedly in protest at deteriorating conditions of detention . The LOC Regional office of the prosecutor opened a criminal case into the abuse of office , and the unlawful use of police equipment , by prison officials in relation to CARDINAL prisoners committing acts of self - mutilation . The prosecutor 's office was quoted by the press as admitting that prison officers had beaten and otherwise ill - treated prisoners . Nevertheless the prison officials were not charged under LAW ) . The prisoners themselves were charged with organizing disturbances in order to disrupt the functioning of the prison , a criminal offence under LAW punishable from one to MONEY imprisonment .

NGOs told ORG that the conditions of detention in prisons had severely deteriorated since DATE and that they were receiving increasing numbers of complaints of torture or ill - treatment from prisoners or from relatives . It was becoming increasingly difficult for prisoners to lodge complaints about torture or other ill - treatment by prison officers , according to these reports , because all correspondence was vetted by the prison administration and complaints could only be forwarded to the local prosecutor 's office with the permission of the prison administrator , in contravention of the rights of prisoners and detainees . NGOs were told that prisoners had to pay the prison administration to see a medical doctor or to get medical treatment , or to send letters or make phone calls to their families , that they were often locked up in punishment cells for extended periods of time for either complaining about cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or for disobeying orders by prison officers . Some methods of punishment meted out to prisoners reportedly included being forced to clean toilets with their bare hands and wash the floor naked . ”

The relevant extracts from the Special Rapporteur 's report provide as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL . Moratorium on the death penalty

In DATE , the ORG proposed a moratorium on the death penalty . By presidential decree the moratorium was extended in DATE and LAW amended to introduce life imprisonment instead of capital punishment . With all human rights organizations , the Special Rapporteur welcomes this development , especially having in mind that CARDINAL persons were executed in DATE ; CARDINAL in DATE and DATE . Since the moratorium , CARDINAL death sentence was registered and ORG commuted it to life imprisonment . ”

The relevant extracts from the Report read as follows :

“ .... Though there has been a moratorium on executions since DATE and life imprisonment has been a viable legal alternative to the death sentence since DATE -- both developments welcomed by the IHF -- this latest ruling signals that obstacles remain in GPE 's journey towards abating the use of the death penalty and , eventually , abolishing it . With the moratorium in place , LOC now goes to death row , joining CARDINAL other inmates and awaiting his death should the political will of the NORP government break and lift the moratorium . ... ”

The relevant extracts from the Report of ORG read as follows :

“ ... ORG was concerned about the allegations of torture and other degrading treatment committed by law enforcement officials . The lack of independence of the [ prosecutors ] , the defence counsel and the judiciary was also raised with concern . The ORG highlighted that allegations of torture are not being considered seriously , as reflected by the fact that investigations are being postponed and judges sometimes refuse to recognise evidence of torture .

Another point of concern related to overcrowding and reduced access to medical care in prisons and detention centres .

... ORG recommended that the crime of torture , as outlined in LAW , be amended in line with the Convention . It urged ORG to ensure a fully independent mechanism of complaints and enable the defence counsel to follow a case from the beginning and to gather evidence ... ”

The relevant extracts from the analysis by ORG on the death penalty ( by means of shooting ) in GPE , dated DATE , read as follows :

“ .... There are currently CARDINAL persons on death row in GPE . Persons subjected to the moratorium are currently detained in pre - trial detention facilities .

... Official statistics provided by ORG indicate that CARDINAL death sentences were passed in the period from DATE to DATE . No death sentences entered into force ( i.e. , all appeals stages exhausted ) in this period . According to unofficial statistics , CARDINAL death sentence has been passed since the moratorium was put in place , but this was subsequently reduced to life imprisonment by ORG .

... Official statistics provided by ORG indicate that no executions were carried out in the period from DATE to DATE .

... All persons sentenced to death have the right to appeal for commutation of the sentence to life imprisonment or DATE imprisonment ( Art . CARDINAL ) of LAW , Art . CARDINAL ) of LAW , and Art . CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . The cases of all persons sentenced to death are considered regardless of whether the sentenced person has submitted an appeal for clemency ( Presidential Decree No . CARDINAL “ On provisions for pardoning procedure by the president of GPE ” , DATE )

... Relatives are not informed in advance of the date of execution , the body is not returned , and the location of the place of burial is not disclosed to the relatives until DATE after the burial has taken place ( Art . CARDINAL , Criminal Executive Code ) . ”

The relevant extracts from ORG of State report read as follows :

“ The Government reported that CARDINAL criminal cases against law enforcement officers for physical abuse were filed during DATE .

... Prison conditions remained harsh and sometimes life threatening . Mistreatment occurred in pre - trial detention facilities and in prisons , and nongovernmental organizations ( NGOs ) and international organizations reported that abuses of prisoners increased after the head of the penitentiary system and approximately onethird of the prison administrators were replaced in DATE . The DATE transfer of supervision of pre - trial detention facilities from ORG to ORG was completed in DATE ; as a result of this transfer , conditions improved , although they remained harsh . The head of the prison system and CARDINAL deputies resigned in DATE following reports of brutal beatings of inmates in certain prisons . Violent crime among prisoners was common . During DATE , the number of prisoners continued to decline significantly . Much of the decrease was associated with the DATE Humanization of Criminal Justice Law , which prescribes punishments other than imprisonment , such as probation , for minor first offences .

The Government reported CARDINAL total violations , including physical force violations , by employees of the penitentiary system during DATE . Some officials were punished for these abuses ; CARDINAL employees received disciplinary punishment , including fines , demotions , and dismissal and another CARDINAL employees were convicted on criminal charges .

In DATE , prison diets and availability of medical supplies have improved . There were CARDINAL tuberculosis GPE and CARDINAL tuberculosis hospitals for prisoners ; CARDINAL prisoners were housed in these GPE . While the incidence of tuberculosis stabilized , HIV / AIDS continued to be a problem . The Government , together with ORG ( ORG ) , continued to implement a project to prevent HIV / AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in penitentiaries . Prisoners were permitted to have visitors , although the number and duration of visits depended on the security level of the prison and the type of sentence being served .

Prisoners were held in close proximity , barracks - style facilities ; however , a government program to build new correctional facilities and rehabilitate existing facilities continued throughout DATE .

Incidents of self - mutilation by inmates to protest prison conditions continued . In general , the Government did not take action in response to self - inflicted injuries by prisoners ... ”

The relevant extracts from the report read as follows :

“ ( ... ) The following human rights problems were reported : an incident of unlawful deprivation of life ; ... detainee and prisoner abuse ; unhealthy prison conditions ; ... lack of an independent judiciary ; ...

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

... The court sentenced PERSON , a former ministry of internal affairs official , to death , though he will remain in prison as long as the death penalty moratorium remains in effect . ....

c. Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman , or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The constitution and law prohibit such practices , but police and prison officials at times tortured , beat , and abused detainees , often to obtain confessions . In its ORG DATE report , the government acknowledged that torture and other illegal methods of investigation were still used by some law enforcement officers . Human rights and international legal observers noted investigative and procurator 's practices that overemphasized a defendant 's confession of guilt over collecting other types of evidence in building a criminal case against a defendant .

... The ombudsman 's office reported CARDINAL citizen complaints during DATE , PERCENT of which were allegations of abuse by law enforcement .

... Prison and Detention Centre Conditions

Though the government implemented prison reforms and granted greater access , prison conditions remained harsh and facilities did not meet international health standards . Mistreatment occurred in police cells , pre - trial detention facilities , and prisons . The government took some steps to address systemic patterns that encouraged prisoner abuse . These included continued operation of and increased access for regional penitentiary oversight commissions , training of prison officials , and seminars for ORG police ; however , no prison officials were prosecuted for abuses during DATE .

The government conducted CARDINAL criminal investigations of penitentiary officials for corruption in DATE . These investigations resulted in CARDINAL convictions and CARDINAL acquittal .

... Although the government made some efforts to upgrade existing facilities and build new ones , buildings at many prisons remained outdated and hygiene conditions were substandard . In DATE the procurator general 's office issued an order closing CARDINAL of the buildings in the GPE pre - trial investigation facility because it did not meet sanitary standards and posed a threat to the health and lives of detainees . On DATE , the procurator general 's office issued a statement criticizing the ORG for failing to address overcrowding , sewage , and poor sanitation in prisons .

During DATE , CARDINAL detainee deaths , including CARDINAL suicides , were reported at pre - trial detention facilities . The government reported CARDINAL deaths in prisons during DATE , including CARDINAL suicides .

Incidents of self - mutilation by inmates to protest prison conditions continued . On DATE , inmates in the Zarechny prison outside of GPE rioted to protest harsh conditions , mistreatment , and confiscation of personal belongings . According to human rights activists , the prison was originally designated to house convicted law enforcement officers . However , prior to the riot , regular criminals were added to the population , leading to increased tension and the tightening of controls . CARDINAL inmates mutilated themselves by cutting their abdomens , and CARDINAL inmates were injured when prison guards restored order . Local NGOs were permitted to visit the facility and interview inmates after the incident . An activist from ORG reported that the prison officials ' response to the riot was generally appropriate . Several officers of the prison administration were disciplined for their failure to deal with the protest action . After the incident , prison officials transferred the regular criminals out of the population to reduce tension and problems . ”

The relevant extracts from ORG of State report read as follows :

“ ( ... ) There were the following human rights problems : ( ... ) detainee and prisoner abuse ; unhealthy prison conditions ; arbitrary arrest and detention ; lack of an independent judiciary ; ( ... ) pervasive corruption , especially in law enforcement and the judicial system ; ( ... )

In contrast with DATE , there were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings . ( ... )

The procurator general 's office ( ORG ) and the human rights ombudsman acknowledged that torture and other illegal methods of investigation were still used by some law enforcement officers . Human rights and international legal observers noted investigative and prosecutorial practices that overemphasized a defendant 's confession of guilt over collecting other types of evidence in building a criminal case against a defendant . Courts generally ignored allegations by defendants that their confessions were obtained by torture or duress .

The ombudsman 's office reported CARDINAL citizen complaints during DATE , CARDINAL of which were allegations of abuse or misconduct by law enforcement .

Prison and ORG

NGOs and international observers reported that prison and detention centre conditions declined during DATE . Observers cited worsening treatment of inmates and detainees , lack of professional training for administrators , and legislative changes on DATE that criminalized prisoner protests and self - mutilation . The legislative changes also transferred operation of the parole system from penitentiary officials to the ORG and implemented forced tuberculosis treatment .

Prison conditions remained harsh and facilities did not meet international health standards , although the government began renovating CARDINAL prisons and CARDINAL detention facilities during DATE as part of a penitentiary development program . Mistreatment occurred in police cells , pre - trial detention facilities , and prisons . The government took steps to address systemic patterns that encouraged prisoner abuse , including continued operation of and increased access for regional penitentiary oversight commissions , training of prison officials , and seminars for ORG police . Authorities did not prosecute any prison officials for abuses during DATE , although they opened CARDINAL investigations for corruption , resulting in CARDINAL convictions by DATE .

During DATE , CARDINAL detainee deaths , including CARDINAL suicides , were reported at pre - trial detention facilities . The government reported CARDINAL suicides in prisons during DATE . Incidents of self - mutilation by inmates to protest prison conditions continued .

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The law does not provide adequately for an independent judiciary . The executive branch limited judicial independence . Procurators enjoyed a quasi - judicial role and were permitted to suspend court decisions . ”

DATE . The LAW of the Republic of Kazakhstan envisages the death penalty , as an exception to the right to life . A Presidential Decree placing a moratorium on executions was introduced on DATE .

The relevant extracts from the LAW of GPE provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to life .

No - CARDINAL shall deprive a person of his / her life . The death penalty shall be established by law as an exceptional punishment for terrorist crimes which have resulted in the loss of human life , and also for especially grave crimes , committed in time of war , with a sentenced person having a right to appeal for pardon . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG , acting on behalf of the ORG , effectuates highest supervision over strict and unified application of the laws , Presidential decrees , and other normative acts of GPE ... ”

DATE of LAW ( Types of punishment ) , provides that persons found guilty of committing criminal offences may be subject to the capital punishment as one of the types of punishment . Under LAW punishment ) envisages that :

“ CARDINAL . Capital punishment , that is a sentence to be shot , is an exceptional form of punishment reserved for especially grave crimes infringing a person 's right to life and for crimes committed in war time or in a combat situation , high treason , crimes against the peace and safety of mankind and especially grave military crimes .

Capital punishment shall not be applied to women , to persons who committed a crime while under DATE or to men who have reached DATE when the sentence is passed by a court .

Should the President of GPE introduce a moratorium on enforcement of the death penalty , the enforcement of a death sentence shall be suspended for the effective period of the moratorium .

A sentence of death shall be implemented not DATE from the time of its entry into force and DATE after the abolition of a death penalty moratorium .

Under the pardon procedure , the death penalty may be replaced with life imprisonment or with deprivation of liberty for a period of DATE in a special - regime correctional facility . Persons sentenced to the death penalty shall , in the event of the abolition of a moratorium , have the right to petition for pardon , irrespective of whether or not they had made such a petition prior to the introduction of the moratorium . ”

The third party stated that the legislation of GPE contained insufficient guarantees to ensure respect for human rights . In particular , it contained no sufficient guarantees for a person not to be ill - treated . In particular , they stated that LAW of GPE provided no punishment for ill - treatment , as it only referred to torture . Furthermore , they stated that in cases of ill - treatment by the law enforcement or prison authorities , these complaints were investigated by the same authorities , who were directly dependent on the executive , thus it created a vicious circle of impunity . Furthermore , under LAW judges were to be appointed by the President of GPE , having no authority to supervise complaints of ill - treatment . Thus , there was no independent body able to investigate complaints in respect of ill - treatment . Furthermore , they referred to the ORG report of DATE , the NORP ORG report of DATE and the LOC ORG report for DATE , which , from their point of view , also proved that legal practices in GPE did not comply with human rights standards .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant lives in GPE ORG and the remaining applicants live in Paralimni . The first applicant is the widow , the second and third applicants are the parents and the fourth and fifth applicants are the sisters of PERSON ( PERSON ) PERSON , a NORP , who died on DATE .

The deceased , PERSON , participated in a demonstration organised by ORG ( ORG ) that took place on DATE at several points of ORG ( ORG ) buffer zone east of GPE , including the area of GPE . The demonstration , details of which are in dispute between the parties , was the subject of a report by ORG in GPE ( ORG ) ( report of DATE ) and by the ORG Secretary General ( report S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) .

The demonstration was organised by the ORG and was aimed at protesting against the NORP occupation of the northern part of GPE . On DATE a group of CARDINAL NORP and other NORP motorcyclists set off from GPE and made their way through LOC to GPE . Tensions arose when the authorities of the “ GPE ” ( “ GPE ” ) announced that in the event the demonstration took place , they would be organising “ counter - rallies ” with the participation of the NORP extremist “ ORG ” group and that they would fire at NORP - Cypriot demonstrators . Throughout the relevant period the Government of GPE and the competent authorities monitored developments and were in constant consultation with the ORG . On DATE , in the morning , following an urgent appeal by the ORG Secretary General , a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the President of the Republic and it was decided to cancel the final part of the rally . Consequently , the President of the Republic made a special plea to the motorcyclists to disperse peacefully .

Notwithstanding that plea , on DATE , a group of motorcyclists and other civilians acting spontaneously proceeded to various points along the ORG buffer zone . In the meantime , the NORP police had taken tight security measures in order to prevent the motorcyclists from entering the buffer zone .

Anastasios GPE was part of the above - mentioned group . He had joined the rally with a friend on his motorbike .

At TIME the motorcyclists , including PERSON , arrived at the PERSON roadblock , where they left their motorcycles and proceeded to cross the ORG ceasefire line on foot , after breaking through the police and ORG cordon . The demonstrators , who were unarmed , entered the buffer zone .

Behind the ceasefire line of the NORP forces , a mob gathered , comprised of NORP - Cypriot and NORP civilians , many of them carrying hunting rifles and air guns , iron bars , wooden sticks , batons , stones and catapults . There were also many NORP soldiers and “ GPE ” policemen armed with automatic and other military weapons . According to the report by ORG , the NORP forces allowed CARDINAL persons in buses to pass through their QUANTITY military zone and assemble there . Some of them belonged to the “ ORG ” organisation .

TIME many stones were thrown on both sides . Shots were fired against the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators , some of whom suffered injuries as a result .

DATE the mob in the occupied area entered the buffer zone . They were armed with long sticks , batons and iron bars . At TIME a group of the NORP mob , together with uniformed policemen , managed to isolate several NORP - Cypriot demonstrators whom they started beating . A group of CARDINAL persons , including CARDINAL uniformed policemen , surrounded PERSON , who had been isolated in the buffer zone and was unarmed . PERSON was thrown to the ground after having being chased . During a period of TIME he was kicked and beaten continuously on every part of his body and his head with metal and wooden batons . There were in total CARDINAL “ GPE ” police officers in the vicinity .

When the ORG police officer PERSON tried to intervene and started pushing some of the attackers away , PERSON was already unconscious with blood coming out of his mouth and nose . Officer Flood was also attacked from behind . According to Officer Flood ’s statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , there had been CARDINAL people surrounding Anastasios Isaak at that moment , including a number of uniformed policemen . When the attackers eventually moved away , Officer Flood tried to trace signs of life . As the officer stood up , one of the attackers threw a large stone at ORG head . This struck PERSON on the right hand side of his head , causing him to jerk . The attacker then ran away .

UNFICYP officer PERSON , who had been helping out another NORP - Cypriot demonstrator QUANTITY away , went to Officer Flood ’s assistance . The CARDINAL ORG officers then dragged ORG ORG body to the area controlled by ORG . NORP - Cypriot demonstrators then took the body and put it in a car . The car was driven towards the guard room of ORG PERSON was transferred to ORG . On the way to hospital PERSON had no pulse and was not breathing , despite the efforts of the medical staff in the ambulance . At the hospital the ORG efforts to revive him continued but to no avail . PERSON was pronounced dead at the hospital . His body was then transferred on DATE to FAC .

On DATE , members of the police , escorted by members of ORG and ORG pathologists PERSON and PERSON , visited the scene of the incident and carried out an examination . During this examination several exhibits were photographed and recorded on video by the police . UNFICYP Sergeant PERSON examined the scene of the incident and detected drops of blood stains on the ground and on a stone . Various objects were found such as glass marbles , metal bars , shotgun cartridges , wooden sticks , blood stains on a rusty metal can and plate fragments , which were all taken as exhibits . Soil stained with blood was also recovered for further examination .

On DATE Professor PERSON , from ORG , arrived in GPE to perform the post - mortem examination . On DATE and before the post mortem , Professor PERSON visited the scene accompanied by State pathologists PERSON and PERSON and members of the police . The team was escorted by members of ORG . During the examination further exhibits were found , such as blood stains , a bloodstained piece of wood and a piece of piping . All the exhibits were photographed and recorded on video by the GPE police .

On DATE a post - mortem examination was performed by Professor PERSON , assisted by CARDINAL State pathologists . Members of the police and ORG were also present . The entire process of the examination was photographed and recorded on video . During the examination various exhibits were taken by Professor PERSON , which were later delivered by the police to him in GPE for further laboratory analysis .

According to the post - mortem examination , the cause of death was multiple blunt trauma to the head . The same conclusion appeared in the preliminary post - mortem report issued by PERSON of UNIFCYP and also in Professor PERSON ’s final report issued on DATE . Furthermore , according to the report issued on DATE by Dr PERSON , Senior Lecturer in ORG ) in ORG , the results of the analysis of the blood and urine samples of PERSON for alcohol and drugs were negative .

The forensic examination carried out by ORG found that the blood on the rusty can , on the stone , in the soil and on the shirt worn by Officer PERSON during the incidents belonged to the same blood group as that of ORG .

The demonstration was organised by NORP as an alleged motorcycle rally and began on CARDINAL DATE in GPE . This rally was actively supported by the NORP - Cypriot authorities and had extensive media coverage . The aim of the rally was to forcibly enter the buffer zone , cross the ceasefire line and enter “ GPE ” territory illegally in order to meet at the most northerly town of GPE at all costs . As a result of the aggressive conduct of the organisers , tensions arose on both sides of the border . The NORP - Cypriot administration did nothing to prevent the rally in spite of appeals by the NORP - NORP side and the ORG Secretary - General . In view of this , the NORP - NORP side announced that it would stop such provocative , hostile and aggressive action at its borders in order to prevent danger to the lives and properties of its citizens .

Upon representations from ORG as to the possibility of such demonstrations having serious consequences , the President of GPE issued a statement on DATE declaring that the demonstrations had been prohibited and appealed to the demonstrators to disperse . Acting upon this , the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators started to disperse peacefully .

Nonetheless , on DATE , NORP - Cypriot demonstrators were involved in violent incidents at various places along the ceasefire lines within the ORG buffer zone . Over a CARDINAL NORP - Cypriot motorcyclists and demonstrators arrived at PERSON escorted by the NORP - Cypriot police . The latter allowed the demonstrators to advance and to enter the ORG buffer zone up to the border with the “ TRNC ” . The ORG personnel were unable to prevent the ORG unauthorised entry into the buffer zone and to keep them under control . The situation then got out of control as NORP - Cypriot demonstrators threw stones and missiles and fired towards the counter - demonstrators . Skirmishes took place between the NORP - Cypriot mob and a group of NORP - Cypriot counter - demonstrators , when the former crossed into the buffer zone and consequently into the NORP - Cypriot - controlled area .

As a result of the clashes both NORP - NORP and NORP - Cypriot demonstrators were injured . PERSON was the leader of the group of NORP Cypriots who had entered the ORG buffer zone and approached the barbed - wire fence at the NORP ceasefire line at PERSON shouting abuse and throwing stones from close range at a line of NORP - NORP policemen on the other side of the fence . One of the stones hit a policeman who was wounded on the temple and fell to the ground , bleeding profusely . It had not been possible for the NORP - NORP police to prevent NORP - NORP groups of civilians from entering the buffer zone to pursue the NORP Cypriots . The NORP - NORP policemen also entered the buffer zone to bring back the NORP Cypriots who had already gone into that area . However , PERSON , who was a strong and well - built man , continued his aggressive attitude against the NORP - Cypriot group , including the police , throwing stones and hitting them with a stick . Skirmishes continued between the NORP - Cypriot and the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators , resulting in the unfortunate death of PERSON , who had become entangled and trapped in spiral barbed - wire barriers that had been put up temporarily by the ORG force and had prevented his escape from that area .

In its report of CARDINAL DATE ORG set out the facts concerning the demonstrations held on DATE . The relevant extracts read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The most serious incident took place in PERSON . On DATE TIME , a peaceful demonstration by CARDINAL NORP Cypriots took place . They entered the ORG buffer zone and requested to deliver a petition to the NORP - Cypriot checkpoint . When the latter refused to receive the petition , the demonstrators left the ORG buffer zone , but remained in the area . At TIME , CARDINAL motorcyclists together with CARDINAL persons in vehicles escorted by PERSON [ GPE police ] arrived at the ORG [ ORG ] ceasefire line checkpoint in GPE . PERSON deployed along the ORG ceasefire line but left the checkpoint unattended , thus enabling the demonstrators to enter the ORG buffer zone unimpeded .

In the meantime , the NORP forces had allowed CARDINAL persons in buses to pass through their QUANTITY deep military zone and to assemble along the TF [ ORG ] ceasefire line , including persons carrying the flag of ORG who had come from GPE .

The situation soon became violent , after NORP - Cypriot demonstrators entered the buffer zone and approached the ORG ceasefire line to provoke the ORG , the ORG [ NORP - Cypriot Police Element ] and demonstrators assembled there with verbal abuse and throwing stones . PERSON was not effective in controlling the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators .

At TIME , ORG allowed the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators to enter the ORG buffer zone armed with bats and iron bars . The NORP - Cypriot demonstrators , joined by ORG , proceeded to pursue the NORP Cypriots and mercilessly beat all those who they were able to catch . At the same time , there was shooting , including by NORP - NORP police , from behind the NORP Forces ceasefire line towards the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators .

During this period , a NORP - Cypriot demonstrator , PERSON , was beaten to death by a number of NORP - Cypriot demonstrators , including QUANTITY NORP - NORP policemen . By TIME the situation began to calm down . In addition to the CARDINAL dead , it was reported that CARDINAL NORP Cypriots and CARDINAL NORP Cypriots were injured . CARDINAL ORG personnel suffered injuries .

The ORG investigation revealed conclusively that the killing of Anastasios Isaak had occurred QUANTITY from the scene shown on television in which CARDINAL NORP Cypriots were being severely beaten by NORP - Cypriot demonstrators while helplessly entangled in barbed wire . CARDINAL ORG had done their best in trying to rescue ORG at considerable personal risk .

The CARDINAL ORG had observed CARDINAL NORP - Cypriot demonstrators being set upon by CARDINAL groups of NORP - Cypriot demonstrators who proceeded to beat them with brutal force . The CARDINAL ORG Police went to the assistance of CARDINAL of ORG and managed to facilitate his escape . When they turned to the second NORP ( PERSON ) , and were finally able to push aside ORG , including CARDINAL NORP - NORP policemen , who were still beating him , it was too late . The location of the killing inside the buffer zone was QUANTITY from the ORG ceasefire line and QUANTITY from the NORP Forces ceasefire line .

A video broadcast on ‘ Euronews’ inter alia clearly shows the killing of PERSON and the intervention of the CARDINAL ORG police . The autopsy , attended by ORG , which was performed TIME of CARDINAL DATE , revealed that ORG died of ‘ multiple blunt trauma to the head’ . ORG has completed the collection of the evidence at the scene of the crime and is in the process of completing its investigation in cooperation with PERSON ... ”

Following the events , ORG took statements from its officers who were on duty at the PERSON checkpoint .

The witness was on duty at ORG checkpoint on DATE TIME In his statement of CARDINAL DATE he reported , inter alia , the following :

“ ... At TIME I observed CARDINAL NORP - NORP protesters enter the buffer zone . They ran towards the NORP - Cypriot side of the buffer zone . They were accompanied by a number of ORG policemen and NORP Military personnel in camouflage uniform . I observed a number of NORP - Cypriot men running from the NORP - Cypriot crowd in the direction of ORG OPCARDINAL . ORG were armed with sticks and large batons . I observed one man being caught and beaten to the ground by the NORP - Cypriot crowd . This man was immediately surrounded and attacked while he was on the ground . I would describe this man as having long black hair tied into a pony tail . He was wearing a black sleeveless jacket and dark trousers . I rushed forward to attempt to assist him . As I went forward I was accompanied by PERSON and PERSON . I heard PERSON shout at a ORG policeman to leave the buffer zone . This policeman was armed with a QUANTITY - long baton and a riot shield . He appeared to hesitate for a moment but then he moved towards the group of people who were attacking the man on the ground . I moved into this group , PERSON was beside me . We pushed a number of people away from the man on the ground . I was struck by the baton of a ORG policeman on my right shoulder . I am unable to describe this policeman except that he was wearing uniform . Eventually we managed to clear a small space around the man on the ground and PERSON managed to get this man on his feet while I pushed the crowd back . I then observed another man being knocked to the ground QUANTITY away . I observed that he was being kicked , punched and struck by a number of people including ORG policemen . PERSON was pushing the first man towards the NORP - Cypriot side of the buffer zone . I ran over to assist the second man . I would describe this man as wearing a white T - shirt and faded blue jeans . As I approached this man I observed that he appeared to be unconscious and there was blood coming from his nose and mouth . I pushed CARDINAL man away from the man on the ground and shouted at the crowd ‘ Stop . You ’ll kill him.’ I was attacked from behind . There were CARDINAL people around the man on the ground at this stage including a number of ORG policemen . I pushed some of these people away and eventually the attackers moved away . I briefly checked the man on the ground for signs of life . I observed no sign of life . I stood up and as I did so I observed a man who was wearing a grey sleeveless T - shirt , he had black hair and was CARDINAL ” in height , I would not be able to identify this man if I saw him again . This man had a large stone , held in both his hands , raised above his head . This man threw the stone at the man on the ground . The stone stuck the man on the ground on the right hand side of his head causing him to jerk . The man who threw the stone immediately turned and ran away . I observed that the crowd of attackers appeared to be returning . I lifted the man on the ground into a sitting position and dragged him a short distance . PERSON came to my assistance and assisted me in dragging the man towards the NORP side of the buffer zone . We had covered a distance of QUANTITY when I was attacked by a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL NORP Cypriots . I was knocked to the ground and the man we were dragging was taken away from us . I moved back a short distance and I observed the injured man [ being ] taken towards the NORP - Cypriot side of the buffer zone ... ”

The witness was on duty at ORG checkpoint on DATE from TIME In her statement of CARDINAL DATE she reported , inter alia , the following :

“ ... At CARDINAL . TIME the people on the NORP side of the ORG [ Ceasefire Line ] began to enter the ORG [ LOC ] in groups of QUANTITY . I saw them charge at civilians who , after running towards ORG , were running towards the ORG [ ORG ceasefire line ] heaving stones and missiles . The people from the NORP side had long sticks and batons and began savagely beating any civilian they could catch . I saw ORG members enter the ORG with uniform and beat the civilians already in the ORG who were from the ORG side . There was no difference between the behaviour of the NORP civilians in the ORG and the ORG there in uniform . They acted like a mob beating severely any person they could catch from the other side who was in the ORG . Again I ran to numerous incidents , however , these were spread over a large area of ground in the buffer zone . It was QUANTITY in depth and QUANTITY in length . The attacks were sporadic again , the groups from the NORP side would return to their ORG and regroup . These attacks were very violent . I was standing QUANTITY from the NORP ceasefire line during these times changing position as the missiles were being aimed at the civilians close to me . Throughout these incidents I could hear shots being fired from ORG , again not continuous but sporadic . This scene continued until TIME . TIME . At TIME I was standing QUANTITY from the NORP ceasefire line in LOC and CARDINAL . QUANTITY from the road that links the NORP Forces checkpoint with ORG check point at GPE . In front of me I saw a group of CARDINAL people chase a person ( civilian ) and begin to beat him with sticks and batons . I ran to his assistance . The group of CARDINAL . CARDINAL were dressed in ORG uniform and civilians from the NORP side . The man beaten was from the ORG side and he was attempting to get away . I saw him being beaten to the ground , he was kicked continuously and beaten savagely on the head and body . I got to him and saw Police Officer Flood to my left . I went over to him and pushed the attackers back . I was also assaulted by the attackers during this , however , the blows from the sticks that hit me on my arms and back , were not intended for ORG personnel . I saw CARDINAL ORG in uniform there and when they desisted on seeing us the rest of the group began to move back . ... I pushed him towards the ORG and he then began running , ... As I turned to stop any more attackers I saw Police Officer Flood attempting to lift a person off the ground . It was a short distance forward towards the ORG [ NORP - Cypriot Ceasefire Line ] I went to his assistance . I looked at the man ’s face and it was my opinion at the time that he was dead . I shouted ( noise level ) at ORG : ‘ Give me CARDINAL of him , we ’ll drag him.’ At this time there were some people with batons in front of us . We dragged him back QUANTITY . QUANTITY towards the ORG ensuring he was not beaten again . CARDINAL . QUANTITY back we were met by some civilians from the ORG side . They verbally abused us and pushed us taking the body from us . Going to ORG we moved away slowly from them after letting go of the body . I would describe this man as follows : - DATE . , heavy built QUANTITY . QUANTITY . He had a stubbly face , he had long black hair and he was wearing jeans and a white t - shirt . He was very pale at the time and there was blood coming from his head , nose and mouth . There were no life signs during this removal . I went back to the scene of more incidents . ...

The times I have written into this statement are approximations . At CARDINAL . pm I went to ORG and viewed a body there . I can identify this body as being the second man whose assistance I went to and carried back QUANTITY in the direction of the ORG . I spoke with ORG . PERSON of ORG who gave me the deceased name as being PERSON from GPE , Paralimni . I also identified this body to my Deputy Commander PERSON as being the man I dragged out of GPE , who was in my opinion dead . ... ”

The witness was on duty at ORG checkpoint on DATE from TIME In his statement he reported , inter alia , the following :

“ ... At TIME I observed a ORG member who was armed with a baton assault a man who was dressed in blue jeans and a white t - shirt . I now know this man to be PERSON . ORG PERSON was near me at this moment . I ran towards the ORG member and called out to him ‘ You are a policeman , ORG . I shouted this at him several times . He then stopped . I was QUANTITY from this policeman , PERSON ran to my right towards the road between OP CARDINAL at the ORG [ NORP - Cypriot ] checkpoint . He was being pursued by a number of TKCYP civilians armed with long sticks and other weapons including metal poles . I ran towards where Anastasios Isaak was when a person whom I presume was a ORG attempted to assault me with a metal pole . I swerved to avoid him . He ran off . I then observed the same ORG member run towards where PERSON was being pursued by other TKCYP civilians . He was being continually hit from behind on the head and on the back by these people with wooden and metal poles . I observed the ORG member also strike PERSON with his baton . I was running towards this mob when I was struck by several missiles on my left hand side . I was then hit from behind with a plastic bottle of water . CARDINAL GKCYP youths then came from my side and knocked me to the ground . They kicked me several times while I was on the ground . I managed to get to my feet . These youths were shouting at me ‘ Why do n’t you save this man , you mother - fucking ORG bastard?’ They repeatedly kicked me and shouted abuse . Then a youth on a CARDINAL wheel yellow motorcycle drove straight at me and struck me on my left - hand side . I was knocked to the ground . He turned his motorcycle and drove at me again . I got to my feet and he drove past me and went towards the GKCYP CFL . I looked towards where FAC was , he was surrounded by TKCYP civilians and the ORG member who I had confronted a short while previously . There were other ORG members and ORG in military uniform . PERSON was being repeatedly hit with batons and sticks by civilians and ORG and ORG . They also kicked him savagely on the ground . I saw ORG PERSON go towards this mob . They began to disperse . I then was again confronted with several GKCYP youths who kicked and pushed me . They screamed abuse at me shouting ‘ why do the ORG not help the PERSON . I then observed PERSON and ORG drag PERSON to safety . A mob then took him from PERSON and ORG . All this time the noise level was intense , missiles were being continually thrown from both sides ... ”

The witness , the deputy commander of ORG ( ORG ) , was on duty at ORG checkpoint on DATE from TIME In his statement he reported , inter alia , the following :

“ ... At TIME I saw a man running along horizontally with the patrol track leading from ORG CARDINAL . As he ran he was hit several times on the head by a group of CARDINAL people who were running after him . He eventually fell to the ground and was kicked and beaten to the ground by the group who included CARDINAL uniformed NORP policeman . I was QUANTITY from this incident as it enfolded . There was continuous shouting and severe noise as both groups chased each other in the ORG . I moved towards the man on the ground in an effort to save his life . I also saw that PERSON was with this group and moved towards the injured man . As this stage PERSON and ORG removed the injured man and he was taken away by his friends . I now know this man to be PERSON , ORG [ date of birth ] CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL , Paralimni . The NORP police moved into the buffer zone and with the assistance of ORG personnel the NORP demonstrators were pushed out of the ORG and on to behind the ORG . At that stage the NORP demonstrators were moving back towards ORG with the assistance of ORG personnel .

I then identified the area where the injured person was attacked and sometime later I was informed that he had died . At TIME accompanied by PERSON and PERSON [ NORP Contingent ] , photographer , I went to ORG where the body of PERSON was lying . I met the State Pathologist , PERSON and ORG . ORG . ORG Headquarters GPE . I directed the photographer PERSON to take photographs of the body , which he did . ... ”

Furthermore , in his statement , PERSON noted that DATE he had visited the scene of the incident at FAC with State pathologists ORG and PERSON PERSON and members of the GPE police squad . He pointed out that at that stage the scene had been preserved and had not been examined or interfered with . He also noted that he had measured the area where the body had been lying – it had been QUANTITY from the NORP ceasefire line , QUANTITY from the track in front of ORG and CARDINAL metres from the wire on the NORP ceasefire line . He stated that on CARDINAL DATE PERSON , a ORG photographer , had examined the scene and had taken samples from the area and that on DATE he had accompanied Dr PERSON , the ORG pathologist and members of the police squad to the scene of the incident . He had then attended the post - mortem examination .

DATE statements were taken by the GPE police at the LOC police station from CARDINAL persons who had been present at the LOC checkpoint during the incidents of CARDINAL DATE . These witnesses were PERSON , PERSON , Panicos Christodoulou Tylliros , PERSON , PERSON , ORG PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ORG ORG , PERSON , and PERSON .

Furthermore , statements were taken from CARDINAL NORP - Cypriot police officers concerning the investigation into the killing of PERSON .

The witness is a photographer who was present at the LOC checkpoint on DATE and had taken photographs of the incident . In his statement of CARDINAL DATE he claimed , inter alia , the following :

“ ... I then withdrew heading southwards towards our side and then saw the NORP from a distance of QUANTITY chasing a NORP wearing jean trousers and a white sweater . I approached within QUANTITY and started to take photos of the incident . I approached within a distance of QUANTITY because the lens I had on my camera at the moment could not take photographs from a long distance . I started taking photographs from the moment they chased him until the moment they stopped beating him and ORG men took him away .

I took CARDINAL photographs and another CARDINAL while he was being taken by the ORG man to the place the NORP Cypriots were .

From what I noticed , and this is shown also in the photographs I took , CARDINAL persons , most of whom wore civilian clothes and many wore the uniform of the pseudo - State , took part in the beating up and murder of the youth , who as I told you in my previous statement , was PERSON . They were armed with clubs , iron bars and water pipes and stones .

At first they chased him and while they were chasing him in a big stride he lost his balance and fell down . In his effort to defend himself he caught a NORP by the leg . The NORP sat on the ground and seized PERSON by the hair , while they were on the ground several hit him with offensive objects they held . Among them there were some ‘ policemen’ with their batons .

At some moment I noticed that one of the NORP in civilian clothes held a stone in his right hand the size of an orange and was on the point of throwing it on the head of PERSON . I did not notice whether the PERSON completed his effort . I was not able to photograph that scene . When PERSON was finally moved by the ORG men and handed to ORG to be transported to the hospital , I left . ... ”

The witness is a police inspector serving in ORG as second in command of ORG On DATE he gave a statement concerning the investigation into the killing of PERSON as follows :

“ As part of my duties I received information from reliable sources according to which the following NORP settlers and NORP Cypriots are among the perpetrators of the murder of PERSON which was committed on CARDINAL , at PERSON :

PERSON , NORP , Identity Card No . CARDINAL

PERSON , NORP settler

PERSON , NORP settler

PERSON , NORP Cypriot

PERSON , NORP settler

PERSON , NORP settler .

The above persons have been identified also from a comparison with photographs , an album of which I handed on CARDINAL , together with a relevant explanatory memorandum , to ORG . ”

An explanatory memorandum was attached to the statement containing additional information and documents about the persons identified .

The witness is a police superintendent and commander of ORG at ORG . On DATE at TIME he visited the scene of the killing of PERSON with a team of men from ORG and ORG . In his statement he noted that he had given instructions on the spot to ORG in charge of ORG ( E ) ORG concerning the investigation of the killing , asking that the scene be photographed and video - recorded . He had also attended the post - mortem examination of the corpse of PERSON at FAC .

NORP In his statement the witness further noted , inter alia , that he had received copies of CARDINAL ORG videotapes ; CARDINAL on DATE from ORG ( ORG ) of GPE and CARDINAL on DATE from ORG of GPE . These contained scenes from the demonstration and the killing of PERSON .

Professor PERSON , from ORG at ORG , carried out a post - mortem examination at ORG on DATE on the body of Anastasios Isaak . In his report dated DATE , in which he summarised his findings , PERSON concluded the following :

“ CARDINAL . The body was that of a well - nourished man with no natural disease that could have contributed to or caused death at the time .

He had suffered multiple blunt impacts to the body , predominantly the head and the trunk .

From the characteristic nature of the injuries , the instruments causing them were most likely cylindrical shaped sticks and/or metal piping .

There were also injuries which had characteristics indicative of them being caused by square metal objects as found at the scene .

The marks on the arms indicated that he had tried to defend himself .

The severity and multiplicity of the injuries to the head indicate that he would have lost consciousness at or within a very short time of the infliction and died soon afterwards .

The injury to the genital area is consistent with a kick or a blow from an object as described above , to that region .

Cause of death

CARDINAL : Multiple Blunt Head Trauma . ”

The applicants provided the ORG with a sketch plan of the scene of the killing of PERSON drawn up by the ORG and a print of an aerial view of the location of the killing .

They also submitted a total of CARDINAL photographs that had been taken by Mr GPE , a photographer , on DATE during the events in PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Photographs numbered CARDINAL to CARDINAL depict the incident concerning PERSON in chronological order .

In photograph CARDINAL PERSON is seen falling to the ground while civilian demonstrators are approaching him with batons and/or sticks .

Photographs CARDINAL show PERSON on the ground being beaten with batons , kicked on the head and other parts of his body , his hair being pulled and his head being banged on the ground . The photographs show “ NORP ” policemen and members of the NORP and/or PERSON police / military in camouflage uniform standing behind the NORP ceasefire line .

In photograph CARDINAL ORG officers can be seen helping a demonstrator lying on the ground , just a few metres from where Anastasios Isaak is being beaten . The photograph shows that CARDINAL uniformed “ GPE ” policemen and a NORP or NORP - NORP police / military officer in camouflage uniform were present in the vicinity .

In photograph CARDINAL the above - mentioned police / military officer in camouflage uniform can be seen joining the civilian demonstrators that are beating PERSON and appears to be passing his metal baton over to one of them .

In photograph CARDINAL this civilian is holding the baton high up over PERSON while the officer in camouflage uniform is standing next to him . The photograph shows CARDINAL uniformed police officers in the vicinity , CARDINAL of whom , with a baton , is making his way through the civilians surrounding FAC .

In photograph CARDINAL the officer in camouflage uniform appears to have taken his baton back , whereas the police officer is beating PERSON with his baton .

Photograph CARDINAL shows the above - mentioned police officer beating PERSON with his baton and the officer in camouflage uniform holding his baton over PERSON . In photograph CARDINAL the officer in camouflage uniform , the above - mentioned police - officer and a second police officer are beating PERSON with their batons . In photograph CARDINAL they are joined by a third police officer . In both photographs CARDINAL these CARDINAL officers are seen beating PERSON with their batons together with the civilian demonstrators . Another CARDINAL officers can be seen in the vicinity .

In photograph CARDINAL the officer in camouflage uniform can be seen leaning over PERSON with his baton .

In photographs CARDINAL to CARDINAL a civilian demonstrator in front of the officers is seen kicking PERSON on the head .

In photographs CARDINAL and CARDINAL a ORG officer can be seen intervening . This officer can also be seen in photographs CARDINAL to DATE in which he is trying to make his way to PERSON . Photograph CARDINAL shows the ORG officer taking hold of the arm of the officer in camouflage uniform holding the baton .

Photographs DATE and CARDINAL show CARDINAL ORG officers dragging the body of PERSON .

Photographs DATE and CARDINAL show NORP - Cypriot demonstrators taking the body away .

The applicants submitted a videotape received from ORG covering the incident . This video recording contains , inter alia , scenes from the incidents at ORG and part of the beating of PERSON by civilian demonstrators , the “ GPE ” police and the NORP or NORP - NORP police / military officer in camouflage uniform . Furthermore , the recording shows a ORG officer intervening with the aid of CARDINAL policemen , CARDINAL of whom is holding a riot shield , pushing back the crowd around FAC . The crowd then disperses . While the ORG officer is standing over PERSON , QUANTITY civilians approach . CARDINAL is seen throwing a stone towards PERSON head and CARDINAL of them a stone / rock at his mid to lower body .

The Government provided a copy of the above report pertaining to ORG in GPE . This included a map showing the deployment of ORG in DATE and ORG lines of ORG and ORG .

In his report on ORG in GPE for the period from DATE to DATE , the ORG Secretary - General stated , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . ... Tension arose in DATE in anticipation of a demonstration organised by ORG . First announced in DATE , it was to take the form of a symbolic motorcycle ride , undertaken by NORP and persons from other countries , originating in GPE and ending in GPE on DATE . This meant that the demonstrators intended to cross the ORG buffer zone as well as the NORP forces ceasefire line , a course of action which was bound to cause the utmost provocation . During the period leading up to the demonstration , the media on both sides publicised a large number of increasingly acerbic statements by the demonstration ’s organisers and by NORP - Cypriot political leaders , as well as counter statements by the NORP - NORP side .

During this period , ORG was in frequent contact with the government authorities , including ORG , urging them to prevent any violation of the ceasefire lines or of the ORG buffer zone . On DATE of the demonstration , I appealed publicly to ORG to take effective measures in exercise of its responsibilities to prevent any unauthorised entry into the ORG buffer zone .

On TIME , however , the demonstrators proceeded from the stadium in GPE , where they had assembled , to points east of GPE . GPE police were on hand , but remained largely passive . In the meantime , a major counterdemonstration had begun in north GPE , including a significant number of members of the ‘ Grey Wolves’ , an ultranationalist NORP organisation , who had arrived from GPE .

The NORP - Cypriot demonstrators entered into the ORG buffer zone at several points , approached the ceasefire line of the NORP forces , and clashed with NORP troops and NORP - NORP police as well as with NORP - Cypriot counterdemonstrators . The most serious clash occurred near GPE , where a large group of NORP Cypriots were allowed to cross the ORG ceasefire line . In the meantime , the NORP forces allowed counter - demonstrators and NORP - NORP police to cross a restricted military area and to enter the ORG buffer zone . They proceeded to beat the NORP Cypriots with batons and iron bars , killing CARDINAL civilian . ... ”


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Mihai Poalelungi

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , was a stateless person who had been born in DATE and until his death on DATE lived in PERSON . The applicant is represented before the ORG by PERSON and PERSON A. PERSON , lawyers practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr V. Grosu .

On DATE the Registrar was informed of the applicant ’s death . On DATE the applicant ’s son , PERSON , informed the PERSON that he wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them , retaining the applicant ’s lawyers as his representatives . For practical reasons , Mr PERSON will continue to be referred to in this decision as “ the applicant ” , although PERSON is now to be regarded as having this status ( see the PERSON v. GPE CARDINAL DATE , § CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL-C ) .

NORP The applicant was accused of consuming narcotic drugs while serving a sentence . On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings against him and ordered his immediate release .

After leaving the court building the applicant was arrested again by the police . The reason was that he had been found walking in the street without documents and had no permanent abode or means of support . The applicant then gave personal details , including his permanent address in PERSON , to a police officer . He indicated that he did not have any identity documents , which were all still with the prison administration .

The applicant was placed in a centre for homeless people ( “ the Centre ” ) . His lawyers complained that he had been detained unlawfully .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers made a complaint of unlawful detention to ORG . The court postponed CARDINAL hearings ( on DATE and DATE ) at the request of the applicant ’s lawyers , who had asked for documents concerning the reasons for the applicant ’s arrest from the prosecution .

On DATE the applicant signed an authority form for his lawyers to represent him before the ORG .

On DATE it became clear that he was no longer at the FAC . A criminal investigation was opened against CARDINAL officers , who were accused of taking the applicant out of the LOC during TIME of DATE to a place on the outskirts of PERSON , from where he had fled . At the same time , the applicant was declared a wanted person .

On DATE , ORG found that the applicant ’s arrest and detention had been unlawful since none of the legal grounds cited by the prosecution applied . The court relied expressly on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . That decision was final .

On DATE the applicant was expelled from GPE at the border with GPE , even though his extradition to GPE had been refused by the ORG on DATE . On DATE he was arrested when crossing the border with GPE .

Following his arrest the applicant was placed in the detention facility of ORG of ORG ( “ the DSO ” ) . On DATE his lawyers complained to ORG that the PERSON administration had refused to allow him to receive any food or clothes . They noted that he was suffering from hepatitis and required a special diet and that there was a risk of deterioration of his state of health . They asked for their client to be transferred to prison no . CARDINAL so that he could obtain appropriate medical treatment .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers complained to ORG , noting the risk to his state of health in the inhuman conditions of detention of the GPE detention facility . On DATE the applicant was transferred to prison no . CARDINAL in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers asked the authorities at prison no . CARDINAL to inform them of the reasons for placing their client in a solitary cell . On DATE they were informed that upon his arrival the applicant had been placed in solitary confinement for DATE , in order for him to undergo examinations aimed at establishing the state of his health and for medical treatment to be prescribed if found to be necessary . On DATE the applicant was transferred to an ordinary cell .

In TIME of DATE CARDINAL detainees who shared the cell with the applicant alerted the prison guards that he was not showing any signs of life . Thereafter the prison doctor pronounced the applicant dead .

DATE and DATE a medical expert examined the applicant ’s body . He found that the cause of death had been cardiac - pulmonary deficiency which had been caused by ischemic cardiopathy and pulmonary fibrocavital tuberculosis . The medical expert also found marks on the cadaver ’s back which were interpreted as light injuries caused while the applicant was alive . He was also found to have been under the influence of a minor degree of alcohol intoxication at the time of his death .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers informed the ORG of their client ’s death .

On DATE a ORG Office prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation in the absence of any evidence that a crime had been committed . The prosecutor referred to the statements made by the applicant ’s cellmates and the head of the detention block in which he had died . He also cited the findings of the medical and toxicology experts and relied on video recordings , which showed that nobody had entered or left the cell during TIME . He noted the presence of marks on the cadaver ’s back , without making any comment in that respect .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers asked ORG to revoke the decision of DATE . They mentioned , inter alia , that important questions had not been answered during the preliminary investigation , such as whether their client ’s life could have been saved had he been correctly diagnosed and treated in prison no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG replied that the decision of DATE had been taken correctly .

The applicant ’s lawyers challenged the decisions of DATE and DATE before ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the complaint , on the ground that it had not established that any breaches of fundamental rights had occurred . One of the applicant ’s lawyers was present at the hearing . That decision was final .

On DATE the applicant ’s son expressed his wish to continue with the case lodged by his father and raised in essence a complaint under LAW concerning the incompletely established circumstances of his father ’s death .


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

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

ORG The applicant was born in GPE . Soon after his birth , his parents divorced and his father moved to GPE and remarried . His mother remained in GPE . The applicant moved to GPE in DATE , when he was DATE , to join his father , stepmother and CARDINAL brothers . His father died there in DATE .

When he was DATE , the applicant began abusing drugs . In DATE , he was convicted of burglary and theft and sentenced to DATE detention in a Young Offender Institution . DATE he was convicted of CARDINAL counts of theft , failing to surrender to custody , another count of theft , a further CARDINAL counts of failing to surrender to custody , failing to surrender to bail and possession of a controlled class A drug . He was given a fine on each occasion . On DATE he was convicted of burglary and theft and failing to surrender to custody and sentenced to a community order of DATE . On DATE , he was convicted of theft and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The trial judge described him as a “ persistent thief and burglar ” .

On DATE , the Secretary of ORG gave the applicant notice of intention to make a deportation order . On DATE , after considering representations from the applicant , the Secretary of ORG decided to make a deportation order . In the Secretary of ORG 's opinion the applicant had not provided any details of legitimate employment he had held in GPE . He had spent his youth and DATE in GPE and so it would not be unreasonable to expect him to readjust to life there . The deportation would therefore be compatible with LAW .

The applicant appealed to the then ORG . His appeal was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE . The ORG accepted that the applicant had indefinite leave to remain in GPE and that he had lived for a substantial period of time in the country and had family there . However , these factors were outweighed by other factors . The applicant had no employment record . He had a substantial number of convictions and had already been given a number of opportunities to mend his ways . He had stolen to fund a substantial drug habit ( he had been using GBP CARDINAL worth of heroin and crack cocaine per day ) but was now in good health . He had given evidence in NORP and therefore , as a relatively young man , in good health and speaking the language , there was no reason why he could not return to GPE and take up work there . His mother had remained there and it was likely that there were other members of his extended family to whom he could turn for support . The ORG doubted that the applicant , as an adult , could be said enjoy family life in GPE with his stepmother or his brother , with whom he intended to live upon release from prison . It had no doubt that he had established private life in GPE but did not consider that , given that the applicant had been in and out of prison and abusing drugs for DATE , the deportation would have consequences of such gravity as to engage LAW . The ORG concluded that , even if it were wrong in respect of a lack of an interference with the applicant 's private or family life , any interference would be proportionate to the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder or crime .

The applicant sought reconsideration of the ORG 's determination . This application was refused by a Senior Immigration Judge on DATE . A further such application was refused by ORG on DATE . In each case , it was found that the application amounted to no more than a disagreement with the ORG 's findings .

On DATE , the applicant lodged an application with this ORG and sought interim measures under LAW to prevent his removal to GPE . The following day , he was informed that this request fell outside the scope of Rule CARDINAL . He was duly deported to GPE on DATE . He has since indicated that he wishes to continue his application from GPE .

Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the Immigration Act DATE provide for the making of Immigration Rules by the Secretary of ORG . Section CARDINAL ) of the same LAW ( as amended by ORG ) provides that a person who is not a NORP citizen shall be liable to deportation from GPE if the Secretary of ORG deems his deportation to be conducive to the public good .

Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act DATE provide for a right of appeal against a decision to deport , inter alia , on the grounds that the decision is incompatible with the LAW and that it was not in accordance with ORG .

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides that , in determining any question that arises in connection with a Convention right , courts and tribunals must take into account any case - law from this ORG so far as , in the opinion of the court or tribunal , it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen .

The version of paragraph CARDINAL of ORG , which was in force prior to DATE , provided as follows :

( i ) age ;

( ii ) length of residence in GPE ;

( iii ) strength of connections with GPE ;

( iv ) personal history , including character , conduct and employment record ;

( v ) domestic circumstances ;

( vi ) previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted ;

( vii ) compassionate circumstances ;

( viii ) any representations received on the person 's behalf . ”

The amended version of paragraph CARDINAL , in force since DATE , provides as follows :

“ Subject to paragraph CARDINAL , while each case will be considered on its merits , where a person is liable to deportation the presumption shall be that the public interest requires deportation . The Secretary of ORG will consider all relevant factors in considering whether the presumption is outweighed in any particular case , although it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the public interest in deportation will be outweighed in a case where it would not be contrary to LAW and the LAW relating to LAW to deport . The aim is an exercise of the power of deportation which is consistent and fair as between CARDINAL person and another , although CARDINAL case will rarely be identical with another in all material respects ... ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of ORG , referred to in both versions of paragraph CARDINAL , provides as follows :

“ A deportation order will not be made against any person if his removal in pursuance of the order would be contrary to GPE obligations under LAW relating to ORG [ LAW ] . ”

The Rules relating to the revocation of a deportation order are contained in CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL ( as amended ) , supplemented by LAW Instructions ( “ IDIs ” ) . There is no specific period after which revocation will be appropriate although ORG to LAW of the IDIs gives broad guidelines on the length of time deportation orders should remain in force after removal . Cases which will normally be appropriate for revocation DATE after deportation include those of overstayers and persons who failed to observe a condition attached to their leave , persons who obtained leave by deception , and family members deported under LAW ) of LAW DATE . With regard to criminal conviction cases , the normal course of action will be to grant an application for revocation where the decision to deport was founded on a criminal conviction which is now “ spent ” under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act DATE . Paragraph CARDINAL of the Rules , however , indicates that in the case of an applicant with a serious criminal record continued exclusion for a long term of years will normally be the proper course . This is expanded on in GPE A to LAW of the IDIs , which indicates that revocation would not normally be appropriate until DATE after departure for those convicted of serious offences such as violence against the person , sexual offences , burglary , robbery or theft , and other offences such as forgery and drug trafficking .