Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence in Jelgava Prison .

On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) convicted the applicant on CARDINAL charges , including aggravated murder , robbery , rape and sexual assault , and sentenced him to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON tiesu palāta ) upheld the verdict on appeal .

On DATE ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG departaments ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from Jelgava Prison to Daugavpils Prison , where a new unit for life - sentenced prisoners , located in the former disciplinary block , had recently been constructed . The applicant , like all life - sentenced prisoners , was initially detained at the maximum security level ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , with additional security measures and certain restrictions being imposed under domestic law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below ) and under internal prison regulations ( see paragraphs DATE to CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant worked in the prison from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The parties are in disagreement as to the reasons for which he stopped working .

According to the applicant , throughout his detention in Daugavpils Prison he had been kept alone in a cell , save for DATE and DATE , when he had been kept together with another inmate .

The Government disagreed . They noted that during his detention he had been accommodated either in a double or a triple occupancy cell , either alone or together with other inmates . He had never been kept alone for DATE . It was their submission that the other inmates had refused to be accommodated together with the applicant .

On DATE , following numerous complaints by the applicant , ORG replied that under the applicable law maximum security prisoners could be kept in a single occupancy cell for a period of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He had not been kept in such a cell for longer than that .

On DATE the administration of FAC again explained the situation to the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON vietu pārvalde ) replied to the applicant that the applicable domestic law had not been contravened in this regard .

On DATE ORG again replied to the applicant stating that in DATE he had been kept in a cell together with other prisoners twice , and in DATE CARDINAL times , and accordingly there had been no contravention of domestic law .

NORP Throughout his detention in FAC the applicant was subject to full body searches , that is , he was ordered to strip naked and to submit to a visual inspection of his genitals in his cell on a regular basis . The applicant mentioned , by way of example , the following dates :

from DATE to CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL to CARDINAL times daily when going to work and upon his return ;

CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ;

DATE ;

CARDINAL and DATE ;

CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ;

DATE ;

from DATE twice DATE while being kept in an isolation cell ;

DATE ;

DATE ; and

DATE .

The applicant submitted that he had often refused to submit to such searches and , in particular , to undress , and his refusal had been punished with special measures and disciplinary penalties .

The applicant stated that he had been subjected to the following special measures , by way of example :

he was handcuffed and forcibly undressed ( DATE May , CARDINAL DATE ) ;

electric shocks and blows with truncheons were used when he had refused to obey the instructions of the prison guards to undress for a full search , had used offensive language , had refused to hold his hands out for handcuffing and had physically resisted when handcuffs were being put on him ( CARDINAL and DATE ) .

Following these incidents , reports had been drawn up and disciplinary action had been taken against the applicant . The applicant provided some examples :

cancellation of the next telephone call ( DATE and DATE ) ;

cancellation of the next scheduled family visit ( DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) ;

a reprimand ( DATE ) ; and

detention in an isolation cell for DATE ( DATE ) .

The Government did not dispute that the applicant had been subjected to full body searches , but argued that the use of special measures had been justified by the applicant ’s own aggressive and provocative behaviour .

On DATE , in response to the applicant ’s complaint about the full searches , ORG explained that the execution of custodial sentences under LAW was supervised by ORG and his subordinate prosecutors .

On DATE the applicant applied to the prosecutor ’s office with a complaint about the full search carried out in his cell and on his person DATE . His complaint was forwarded to ORG and on DATE that authority replied that the administration of Daugavpils Prison had not contravened domestic law .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office replied to a complaint by the applicant of ill - treatment . No evidence of ill - treatment was found . The applicant himself , during a meeting with a prosecutor , had not mentioned any instances of ill - treatment . It was noted that pursuant to domestic law , searches of ORG cells and bodies were to be performed at least twice DATE . It was also noted that the search of the applicant had been performed in accordance with the law .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office replied to a complaint by the applicant about the full body search of CARDINAL DATE in the following terms : “ I have examined your application and I have discovered breaches of [ order no . CARDINAL ] concerning the searches of sentenced persons . I have sent ‘ a prosecutor ’s ORG to the governor of Daugavpils Prison about future compliance with legal acts . ”

The applicant initiated several legal proceedings with a view to nullifying a number of internal prison regulations , all of which were unsuccessful .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( ORG rajona tiesa ) to have order no . CARDINAL ( “ order no . CARDINAL is extralegal and unlawful because it has not been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers ” ) and the disciplinary penalties imposed on him under it nullified . He alleged that this order contravened LAW no . CARDINAL and noted , among other things , that on the basis of this order it was “ prohibited to sit on the bed in the daytime , contrary to Regulation no . CARDINAL ” , “ prohibited to move DATE any movement [ will be ] considered an attack and special measures [ will be ] used as a result ” and that it was “ prohibited to look around , move and talk ” . He considered that the regime enforced under this order amounted to torture . He submitted that he had been “ constantly humiliated by public undressing and torture in the [ prison ’s ] common room ( in the presence of CARDINAL prison guards ) , that it [ was ] contrary to LAW . With a view to hiding the facts about the torture , the prison administration had fabricated reports , in which [ he ] had been slandered . ” He enumerated these reports : no . CARDINAL dated DATE ; no . CARDINAL dated DATE ; no . CARDINAL dated CARDINAL DATE ; no . DATE dated CARDINAL DATE ; no . CARDINAL dated DATE ; no . CARDINAL dated DATE ; no . CARDINAL dated DATE ; and no . CARDINAL dated DATE . He further stated that “ in these reports none of [ his ] actions , expressions and gestures had shown aggression or [ had constituted ] an attempt to attack [ anyone ] . On all occasions [ he ] had been handcuffed [ with his hands ] behind [ his ] back , in accordance with unlawful order no . CARDINAL , pushed around and kicked on the floor in the common room and [ his ] clothes had been torn off ” . He further noted that “ there are no special LOC in LOC to carry out a full body search of life - sentenced prisoners ” . Finally , the applicant stated that he had been “ held in a single occupancy cell for DATE and DATE and , through the use of threats and physical ill - treatment , subjected to full body searches in the common room ” .

On DATE ORG did not proceed with the application . A judge noted that “ the application contains information about the applicant ’s living conditions in Daugavpils Prison and about the actions of the administration of FAC and ORG , but it is not clear which administrative acts or actions of a public authority he challenges ” . The applicant was asked to specify which administrative acts or actions of a public authority he challenged .

On DATE the applicant provided more details : he wished to challenge order no . CARDINAL and order no . DATE , issued by the prison governor as administrative acts , and to challenge the actions of a public authority . He specified that on the basis of these orders unlawful action had been taken against him .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant ’s application to have the orders issued by the prison governor nullified , as they were internal acts and therefore not amenable to review by the administrative courts . The court did not proceed with the part of the application that concerned the allegedly unlawful actions of a public authority and the applicant was required to give more details as to “ when exactly ” and “ what kind of action of a public authority ” had been taken , within a specified time - limit . He also had to prove that he had complained about this to a hierarchically higher authority : if it concerned the actions of prison officers he had to complain to ORG , and if it concerned the actions of ORG he had to complain to ORG .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision and submitted that order no . CARDINAL and order no . CARDINAL had been issued in violation of LAW and of Regulation no . CARDINAL . He noted that ORG and ORG had been informed of the situation in Daugavpils Prison . On DATE he supplemented his appeal .

On DATE ORG ( Administratīva apgabaltiesa ) upheld the lower court ’s decision and set a new time - limit within which the applicant was required to give more details . As the applicant did not comply with this time - limit , on CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to regard the applicant ’s complaints as not submitted . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision , which accordingly became final , and the documents he had submitted were sent back to him on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON tiesa ) refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint against order no . CARDINAL , as it was not a normative act but merely a guideline for implementing Regulation no . CARDINAL .

On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG refused to admit several unrelated constitutional complaints brought by the applicant .

The applicant complained about order no . DATE to ORG , which forwarded his complaint to ORG , where it was received on DATE . ORG also received another complaint from the applicant about both orders and replied on DATE that he should address such complaints to ORG , which was the competent institution in that regard . However , ORG had already replied to the applicant on DATE , stating , inter alia , that order no . DATE had replaced order no . CARDINAL . The applicant ’s substantive complaints remained unaddressed .

On DATE , following an administrative reform , FAC was merged with FAC , and the newly established prison has since been called FAC .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s request , he was transferred to Jelgava Prison in order to serve his sentence there .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( the “ CPT ” ) has voiced serious concerns about the regime and the security measures applied to lifesentenced prisoners in GPE on several occasions .

After its second periodic visit in DATE , the ORG noted that all life - sentenced prisoners at that time were held in FAC . The only activity offered for them was DATE outdoor exercise ( TIME ) . For the remaining TIME of the day they were usually locked in a cell . They could only listen to a radio programme , read or play board games . Occasionally , they could watch TV , which was made available on a rota basis . They could only interact with their cell mate . The ORG stressed that life - sentenced prisoners were not necessarily more dangerous than other prisoners and called upon the domestic authorities to make individual risk assessments to allow decisions concerning security , including degree of contact with others , to be made on a case - by - case basis . The ORG concluded that the regime applicable to life - sentenced prisoners should be fundamentally revised ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of the relevant report : ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

The ORG also noted with concern that draconian security measures were applied whenever life - sentenced prisoners were removed from their cells ( e.g. to be taken to the shower area or for outdoor exercise ) . They were systematically handcuffed with their hands behind their backs and escorted by CARDINAL prison guards accompanied by a muzzled dog . It was the ORG ’s view that there could be no justification for routinely handcuffing life - sentenced prisoners outside their cells ; they found these arrangements disproportionate and punitive and recommended the revision of these security measures without delay ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

During an ad hoc visit in DATE , the ORG also visited the new unit for life - sentenced prisoners in FAC ( located in the former disciplinary block ) , which was in an advanced stage of reconstruction , but had not been finished , and expressed misgivings about certain aspects of the design of those facilities ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the relevant report : ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

After this visit , the ORG was seriously concerned by the failure of the NORP authorities to implement the specific recommendations made after its DATE visit . Apart from DATE exercise , prisoners continued to be constantly locked in their cells , alone or with CARDINAL cellmate , without any purposeful activities . They could not interact with inmates from other cells . The ORG reiterated its recommendation that the regime applicable to life - sentenced prisoners be fundamentally revised ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of the report ) .

The draconian security measures ( hands cuffed behind the back , escorted by CARDINAL prison guards with a dog , which would sometimes be muzzled ) continued to be systematically applied whenever the lifesentenced prisoners left their cells . At the end of its visit , the ORG made an immediate observation requesting the NORP authorities to carry out an individual risk assessment in respect of all life - sentenced prisoners and to adjust the security measures applied to them accordingly . The ORG refused to do so . In its report of the DATE visit , the ORG called upon the NORP authorities to take immediate steps in this regard ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

After its third periodic visit in DATE , the ORG expressed serious concern about the almost total failure of the NORP authorities to improve the conditions under which life - sentenced prisoners were being held in NORP prisons , despite the specific recommendations made after its CARDINAL previous visits ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the relevant report : ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

The ORG confirmed that not only in FAC , but also in Daugavpils Prison , life - sentenced prisoners were locked in their cells for TIME per day , alone or with a cellmate , without being offered any purposeful activities . They were not allowed to interact with lifesentenced prisoners from other cells . The ORG found such a state of affairs unacceptable . The ORG saw encouraging signs in FAC , where one cell had been converted into a computer room and work to create new facilities had started ( a workshop , a recreation area and a small gym ) . They noted , however , that additional steps were required to offer a sufficiently large area for these facilities , in order to allow all life - sentenced prisoners to spend a reasonable part of DATE outside their cells . The ORG called upon the NORP authorities to take steps without any further delay to devise and implement a comprehensive regime of out - of - cell activities in respect of all life - sentenced prisoners at NORP and Jelgava Prisons ( ibid . ) .

Overall , the material conditions of detention were adequate in the new unit for life - sentenced prisoners at FAC . All cells were of a reasonable size and well equipped . However , the ORG had certain misgivings about access to natural light ( frosted glass bricks ) and the ventilation system ( considerable noise ) . The prison authorities informed the ORG that steps were being taken to resolve these issues ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

As regards the security measures , the ORG reiterated once again that there could be no justification for routinely handcuffing life - sentenced prisoners whenever they were outside their cells , all the more so when this measure was applied in an already secure environment . Further , the use of dogs to escort this category of prisoner whenever they were taken out of their cells was unnecessary from a security standpoint and could only be regarded as a means of intimidating and humiliating the prisoners . The ORG welcomed the recent decision of the management of FAC to no longer use dogs when life - sentenced prisoners were being escorted within the confines of the prison ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

As regards the individual risk assessment of life - sentenced prisoners in FAC , the ORG noted that panels to undertake these assessments had been set up but the proceedings carried out by them were , to a very large extent , devoid of any meaning . In practice , they met DATE and did not hear the views of the prisoners concerned , many of whom were apparently not even aware of the existence of such proceedings . As a matter of fact , a relaxation of the draconian security measures had been rejected in virtually every case , mainly on account of the nature of the crime(s ) for which the prisoners concerned had been sentenced ; and the fact that many of them had already spent DATE in a remand prison without posing any particular security problems did not seem to be taken into account . The ORG called upon the NORP authorities to take immediate steps to carry out a proper individual risk assessment on a regular basis for all life - sentenced prisoners and to alleviate the security measures applied to them accordingly ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

Furthermore , the ORG stated that life - sentenced prisoners were subject to some anachronistic rules . By way of example , they were not allowed to sit or lie on their bed during DATE . If this rule was not respected , the prisoners usually received a disciplinary punishment . In addition , several prisoners alleged that , whenever the cell door was opened by a prison officer , they were required to recite their full name and the section of LAW under which they had been sentenced . The ORG recommended the abolition of the above - mentioned rules / practices without delay ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

Lastly , the ORG also had misgivings about the systematic practice of strip - searches for life - sentenced prisoners . The ORG noted that while prison officers had indicated that strip - searches were only carried out on entry or return to the prison , after visits or “ on suspicion ” , all the prisoners interviewed by the ORG had given consistent accounts of routine , systematic strip - searches and searches of their cells DATE . Every prisoner was required to undress completely and to hand each item of clothing through the bars of the cell in order for it to be searched by the guards . They remained standing and fully naked in view of the guards and the prisoner sharing the cell for TIME . In the ORG ’s opinion , such a practice could be considered as amounting to degrading treatment . The ORG recommended that strip - searches only be conducted on the basis of a concrete suspicion and in an appropriate setting ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

Summing up , the ORG noted that its delegation had gained the distinct impression that senior prison officers , including at the management level , had deeply rooted negative attitudes towards life - sentenced prisoners , which explained their resistance to any change in regime , providing work opportunities or even medical care . Their mindset was focused on the heinous , and sometimes sordid , offences committed by the life - sentenced prisoners , rather than their prospects for long - term rehabilitation and reintegration into society . Indeed , many of the officers concerned appeared to be psychologically unsuited to be put in charge of life - sentenced prisoners . It was the ORG ’s view that there was an urgent need for senior prison officers to receive clear guidance and special training on how to deal with life - sentenced prisoners in a contemporary prison system ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

The ORG also noted the following :

“ DATE . The ORG also wishes to draw the NORP authorities’ attention to LAW ( DATE ) CARDINAL on ORG and Other ORG ( adopted by ORG on DATE ) , which emphasises that life - sentenced prisoners should not be segregated from other prisoners on the sole ground of their sentence ( non - segregation principle ) .

The Explanatory Report of the afore - mentioned recommendation further states that :

“ CARDINAL . [ t]he special segregation of life - sentenced or long - term prisoners can not be justified by an unexamined characterisation of such prisoners as dangerous . As a general rule , the experience of many prison administrations is that many such prisoners present no risks to themselves or others . And if they do present such risks , they may only do so for relatively limited periods or in particular situations . In consequence , while it is fully recognised that time and resources are needed to implement this principle ; these prisoners should only be segregated if , and for as long as , clear and present risks exist .

Life - sentenced and long - term prisoners are thought in some countries to pose serious safety and security problems in the prison . The violence and dangerousness manifested in the criminal act is considered to carry over to their lives in prison . Offenders who , for example , have committed murder are among those most likely to receive life or long sentences . This does not necessarily mean that they are violent or dangerous prisoners . Indeed , prison authorities can refer to individual murderers with a life or long sentence as “ good prisoners ” . They exhibit stable and reliable behaviour and are unlikely to repeat their offence . The likelihood of an offender engaging in violent or dangerous behaviour frequently depends not only on personality characteristics but also on the typical situations that permit or provoke the emergence of such behaviour .

Descriptions in terms of violence and dangerousness should , therefore , always be considered in relation to the specific environments or situations in which these characteristics may DATE or may not – be exhibited . In the management of long - term and life prisoners , a clear distinction should be drawn between safety and security risks arising within the prison and those that may arise with escape into the community . The classification and allocation of long - term and life - sentenced prisoners should take account of these differing kinds of risks ( ... ) ” .

The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities reconsider their segregation policy vis - à - vis life - sentenced prisoners , in the light of the above remarks . The existing plans to construct a new detention block for life - sentenced prisoners at FAC should also be revised accordingly .

Further , the ORG invites ORG to establish a co - operation programme with another prison administration which has experience in applying alternative approaches to dealing with life - sentenced prisoners . ”

After its ad hoc visit in DATE , the ORG noted on a positive note that some improvement in the attitude of staff was observed as compared to its previous visits and this observation was generally confirmed by the prisoners themselves . However , the ORG expressed some misgivings about the quality of staff - prisoner relations ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the relevant report : ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

As regards the material conditions of detention , the ORG noted that despite the assurances given by the prison governor during the DATE visit CARDINAL main problems remained unresolved in FAC . Firstly , the frosted glass bricks which rendered access to natural light in the cells inadequate had still not been replaced by transparent glass panels . Secondly , the ventilation system did not function properly ( this was all the more worrying as there were no windows in the cells that could be opened ) and created considerable noise in many cells . The ORG recommended these shortcomings be remedied without further delay ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

As regards the regime , the ORG was seriously concerned that despite its previous specific recommendations in this respect the life - sentenced prisoners at the maximum security level continued to be locked in their cells for most of DATE without being offered any purposeful activities . Although there was a small gym at FAC , it could only be used for TIME every day and it was very modestly equipped ( CARDINAL exercise bicycles , a table game and a TV set ) . In fact , it was mostly used to watch TV ( in groups of CARDINAL persons ) , as this was the only occasion for life - sentenced prisoners to meet prisoners other than their cellmates . The ORG reiterated its previous recommendation in this regard ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

As regards the security measures , the ORG noted with serious concern that the practice of systematic handcuffing of all life - sentenced prisoners continued whenever they were escorted inside the prison . It reiterated that the systematic handcuffing of prisoners can not be justified , and all the more so when applied in an already secure environment . Such a practice could only be seen as disproportionate and punitive ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

The ORG recalled its previous recommendations as concerns the individual risk assessment of prisoners and that the proceedings did not function properly in practice . The ORG noted , furthermore , that not a single individual risk assessment of life - sentenced prisoners had been carried out in FAC since DATE . It reiterated its previous conclusions and expressed a wish to receive copies of all the decisions taken following the risk assessment ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

The ORG stressed once again that there was no justification for keeping life - sentenced prisoners apart from other prisoners solely on the basis of their sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

Lastly , as regards discipline in relation to prisoners in general , despite a specific recommendation made by the ORG , lying on the bed during DATE was still considered a disciplinary offence and was punished accordingly . The ORG reiterated its recommendation that this anachronistic rule be abolished without further delay ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

ORG , adopted on DATE , are recommendations of ORG to member ORG as to the minimum standards to be applied in prisons . States are encouraged to be guided in legislation and policies by those rules and to ensure wide dissemination of the Rules to their judicial authorities , as well as to prison staff and inmates . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ Prison regime

CARDINAL The regime provided for all prisoners shall offer a balanced programme of activities .

CARDINAL This regime shall allow all prisoners to spend TIME a day outside their cells as are necessary for an adequate level of human and social interaction . ..

Exercise and recreation

CARDINAL Every prisoner shall be provided with the opportunity of TIME of exercise every day in the open air , if the weather permits .

CARDINAL When the weather is inclement alternative arrangements shall be made to allow prisoners to exercise .

CARDINAL Properly organised activities to promote physical fitness and provide for adequate exercise and recreational opportunities shall form an integral part of prison regimes .

CARDINAL Prison authorities shall facilitate such activities by providing appropriate installations and equipment .

CARDINAL Prison authorities shall make arrangements to organise special activities for those prisoners who need them .

CARDINAL Recreational opportunities , which include sport , games , cultural activities , hobbies and other leisure pursuits , shall be provided and , as far as possible , prisoners shall be allowed to organise them .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL Prisoners shall be allowed to associate with each other during exercise and in order to take part in recreational activities . ...

Special high security or safety measures

CARDINAL Special high security or safety measures shall only be applied in exceptional circumstances .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL There shall be clear procedures to be followed when such measures are to be applied to any prisoner .

CARDINAL The nature of any such measures , their duration and the grounds on which they may be applied shall be determined by national law .

CARDINAL The application of the measures in each case shall be approved by the competent authority for a specified period of time .

CARDINAL Any decision to extend the approved period of time shall be subject to a new approval by the competent authority .

CARDINAL Such measures shall be applied to individuals and not to groups of prisoners .

Searching and controls

CARDINAL.CARDINAL There shall be detailed procedures which staff have to follow when searching :

b. prisoners ;

CARDINAL The situations in which such searches are necessary and their nature shall be defined by national law . ”

The Recommendation on the Management by Prison Administrations of Life - Sentenced and Other Long - Term Prisoners ( Rec ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) , adopted on DATE , is a recommendation of ORG to member ORG States are encouraged to be guided in legislation and policies by these principles and to ensure the wide dissemination of this recommendation . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ General principles for the management of life sentence and other long - term prisoners

Consideration should be given to the diversity of personal characteristics to be found among life sentence and long - term prisoners and account taken of them to make individual plans for the implementation of the sentence ( individualisation principle ) .

Consideration should be given to not segregating life sentence and other long - term prisoners on the sole ground of their sentence ( non - segregation principle ) .

Risk and needs assessments

A careful appraisal should be made by the prison administration to determine whether individual prisoners pose risks to themselves and others . The range of risks assessed should include harm to self , to other prisoners , to persons working in or visiting the prison , or to the community , and the likelihood of escape , or of committing another serious offence on prison leave or release .

Needs assessments should seek to identify the personal needs and characteristics associated with the prisoner ’s offence(s ) and harmful behaviour ( ” criminogenic needs ” ) . To the greatest extent possible , criminogenic needs should be addressed so as to reduce offences and harmful behaviour by prisoners both during detention and after release .

The initial risk and needs assessment should be conducted by appropriately trained staff and preferably take place in an assessment centre .

a. Use should be made of modern risk and needs assessment instruments as guides to decisions on the implementation of life and long - term sentences .

b. Since risk and needs assessment instruments always contain a margin of error , they should never be the sole method used to inform decision - making but should be supplemented by other forms of assessment .

c. All risk and needs assessment instruments should be evaluated so that their strengths and weaknesses become known .

Since neither dangerousness nor criminogenic needs are intrinsically stable characteristics , risk and needs assessments should be repeated at intervals by appropriately trained staff to meet the requirements of sentence planning or when otherwise necessary .

Risk and needs assessments should always be related to the management of risks and needs . These assessments should therefore inform the choice of appropriate interventions or modifications of those already in place .

Security and safety in prison

a. The maintenance of control in prison should be based on the use of dynamic security , that is the development by staff of positive relationships with prisoners based on firmness and fairness , in combination with an understanding of their personal situation and any risk posed by individual prisoners .

b. Where technical devices , such as alarms and closed circuit television are used , these should always be an adjunct to dynamic security methods .

c. Within the limits necessary for security , the routine carrying of weapons , including firearms and truncheons , by persons in contact with prisoners should be prohibited within the prison perimeter .

a. Prison regimes should be organised so as to allow for flexible reactions to changing security and safety requirements .

b. Allocation to particular prisons or wings of prisons should be based on comprehensive risk and needs assessments and the importance of placing prisoners in environments that , by taking account of their needs , are likely to reduce any risk posed .

c. Particular risks and exceptional circumstances , including requests by prisoners themselves , may necessitate some form of segregation of individual prisoners . Intensive efforts should be made to avoid segregation or , if it must be used , to reduce the period of its use .

a. Maximum security units should be used only as a last resort and allocation to such units should be regularly reviewed .

b. Within maximum security units , regimes should distinguish between the handling of prisoners who pose an exceptional risk of escape or danger should they succeed , and the handling of those posing risks to other prisoners and/or to those working in or visiting the prison .

c. With due regard to prisoner behaviour and security requirements , regimes in maximum security units should aim to have a relaxed atmosphere , allow association between prisoners , freedom of movement within the unit and offer a range of activities .

d. The management of dangerous prisoners should be guided by the principles embodied in Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL concerning custody and treatment of dangerous prisoners . ”

Until the DATE amendments to LAW ( effective from DATE ) , all life - sentenced prisoners were subject to the maximum security level for DATE of their sentence ( LAW , paragraph CARDINAL ) . Since then , the relevant period is at least DATE of their sentence .

Life - sentenced prisoners are accommodated in a separate prison unit with additional security . No contact with other prisoners is allowed . They can be held in single - occupancy cells for a period not exceeding DATE ( LAW , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ) .

While being subject to the maximum security level , life - sentenced prisoners may receive CARDINAL long - term ( from TIME ) and CARDINAL short - term ( from TIME ) visits per year , CARDINAL telephone conversation per month , have a DATE walk or exercise for DATE , receive books from a library via prison staff and watch TV ( section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ) .

With the amendments of DATE a new provision was included in section CARDINAL of LAW to the effect that :

complaints by convicted persons concerning the circumstances of the execution of a custodial sentence ( brīvības atņemšanas soda izpildes apstākļi ) shall be examined by the prison governor under the procedure established by ORG ; and

complaints by convicted persons concerning administrative acts or actions of a public authority ( faktiskā rīcība ) shall be examined by the Head of ORG under the procedure established by ORG .

According to the explanatory report accompanying the amendments , these amendments were necessary with a view to laying down coherent procedures for ORG complaints , as the law had not provided with sufficient clarity that prisoners should first address their complaints to the prison governor ( and ORG ) .

Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers no . DATE ) ( effective until DATE ) and no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) ( effective from DATE ) lay down the internal rules of order in prisons ( Brīvības atņemšanas iestādes iekšējās kārtības noteikumi ) . They contain no provision concerning handcuffing . They contain no express prohibition on sitting or lying on a bed during DATE . However , they mention that beds should be made “ to a common standard ” .

DATE . On DATE ORG issued order no . CARDINAL thereby approving the relevant instruction ( GPE par apcietināto un notiesāto uzraudzības kārtību ) ( effective until DATE ) , under which , among other things , all life - sentenced prisoners were to be handcuffed whenever taken outside their cells and accompanied by CARDINAL prison guards with dogs . CARDINAL types of searches on persons were permissible : full body searches , where the person in question is requested to undress completely ; and partial searches , when this is not requested . There were no provisions concerning full body searches of life - sentenced prisoners .

On DATE the FAC governor issued order no . CARDINAL thereby establishing the rules of conduct for prisoners serving life sentences ( Uz mūžu notiesāto uzvedības noteikumi Daugavpils cietumā ) . Among other things , the following rules were contained therein :

a prohibition on sitting or lying on a bed in the daytime ;

an obligation on each prisoner to recite his name , the name of his father , ID code and the section of LAW under which he had been sentenced during DATE TIME and TIME checks ;

a prohibition on moving “ during the course of various [ security ] measures in the cell or elsewhere ” ; any unauthorised movement would be considered as an attempt to attack which called for the use of special measures ( handcuffs , truncheons , electric shocks , a dog or tear gas ) ; and

a prohibition on talking , looking around or moving without permission when taken outside the cell ( accompanied by guards with dogs ) .

On DATE the Daugavpils Prison governor issued order no . CARDINAL thereby establishing the DATE schedule and the rules of conduct for prisoners serving life sentences ( NORP cietuma notiesāto ar brīvības atņemšanu uz visu mūžu dienas kārtība un uzvedības noteikumi ) . These rules did not significantly differ from the previous ones ; all of the above - mentioned rules remained in place . However , the presumption of an attempt to attack in case of unauthorised movement by a prisoner was no longer expressly included .

On DATE ORG adopted procedure no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL concerning searches in prisons ( GPE kārtība ieslodzījuma vietās ) . Under this procedure , planned searches in cells and premises are carried out in accordance with a schedule made by the prison governor , but not less than twice per month ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . There is no similar provision on the frequency of searches of a person . Another provision , however , provides that extraordinary searches of a person and in a cell ( LOC ) are carried out “ upon a reasonable suspicion of prohibited items or substances or such objects that might be used for crime or escape attempt ” ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Under the procedure QUANTITY types of searches of a person are available : full body searches , where the person in question is requested to undress completely ; and partial body searches , when this is not requested ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The procedure does not contain any provision as to how often body searches should be made , nor does it include any special provision on body searches of life - sentenced prisoners . The only pertinent provision reads : “ if a prisoner ’s behaviour raises suspicion during a partial body search , a full body search should be carried out ” ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The relevant parts of ORG ( NORP procesa likums ) , which took effect on DATE , have been summarised elsewhere ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . The PERSON took effect on DATE .

In addition , on DATE ORG ( in case no . ORG ) adopted a judgment in a case concerning full searches of a prisoner held in a disciplinary cell in FAC from CARDINAL to DATE . The district court ruled that in order to establish a significant interference with human rights and thereby bring an action of a public authority under the administrative ORG scrutiny , the grounds adduced for a full search and the manner in which it had been carried out were to be examined . The district court found that the full searches in that case had been unjustified and humiliating . Accordingly , they had been unlawful actions of a public authority . The district court awarded CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in damages .

Following this ruling , the case was examined by CARDINAL appellate courts . First of all , ORG upheld the ruling but reduced the damages award to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Then ORG of the ORG of ORG sent the case back for fresh examination in so far as it concerned the damages award . On DATE ORG , after its second examination of the case , awarded ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in damages . This ruling took effect on CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant provisions of the PERSON on ORG ( PERSON tiesas likums ) have been quoted elsewhere ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALII ( extracts ) ) . The most relevant provision for the purposes of the present case reads as follows :

Section CARDINAL – Constitutional Complaint ( an application )

“ CARDINAL . Any person who considers that a legal provision which is not in compliance with a provision having superior legal force has infringed his or her fundamental rights under LAW may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG . ”

DATE . In addition , it ought to be noted that under this law the interpretation of a legal provision provided by ORG ( PERSON tiesa ) in a judgment ( section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) or in a decision to terminate proceedings ( section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , effective from DATE ) is binding on all domestic authorities , including the courts .

On DATE the ORG delivered its decision in case no . DATE on the compliance of the provision contained in Regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) that beds should be made “ to a common standard ” with LAW ( PERSON ) , in particular with the right to a private life . This case had been brought before ORG by ORG of the ORG of ORG . It had been their view that Regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) contained a prohibition on lying down ( remaining ) on one ’s bed in the TIME and that such a restriction was incompatible with prisoners’ right to a private life contained in the LAW .

During these proceedings ORG expressed their view that the contested provision did not allow prisoners to lie down on their bed in the daytime . Conversely , ORG contended that it was not prohibited . The ORG added that the contested provision was wrongly interpreted and applied in prisons .

Having examined the various views of the domestic authorities , ORG concluded that the provision in question did not prohibit prisoners from resting on their bed , if it had been made , in the TIME . It reached that conclusion by using the teleological method of interpretation . The ORG noted that the application of the contested provision was not uniform in prisons . However , this was insufficient to declare the provision unconstitutional . Taking into account that the case related to the interpretation and application of the contested provision , the proceedings before ORG were terminated on the grounds that it was no longer possible to continue them ( section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of the PERSON on ORG ) .

The NORP ORG ( Latvijas Cilvēktiesību centrs ) published a monitoring report on closed institutions in GPE in DATE . These are their findings as concerns life - sentenced prisoners in Daugavpils Prison :

“ In order to establish a separate unit for life prisoners , premises were reconstructed and remodelled and double cells were constructed on CARDINAL floors . All the cells are similar : there are CARDINAL single beds , a table , CARDINAL chairs , and a wardrobe in CARDINAL sections . The cells have glass block windows , barred on the inside . The windows can not be opened , airing is ensured by ventilation . The cell walls are painted in light shades , the equipment is new . The cells have a toilet behind a screen and a metal sink . Above the sink [ are ] a mirror in a wooden frame and a small shelf on the wall . [ There are ] heating system pipes along the wall . The unit has CARDINAL prison - owned TV sets and CARDINAL video player , which the cells receive in the TIME according to a schedule and return in TIME . At the time of the visit there were CARDINAL life prisoners in the unit . CARDINAL of them live in the same cell by choice , the rest [ are ] by themselves .

The prison provides a common uniform for this category of prisoner including footwear , underwear , socks and all the hygiene items prescribed by Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers . In specific cases and at the request of the prisoner , the administration permits a personal item to be worn , for example , [ one ’s ] own training suit while engaged in a sport in the cell . Life prisoners have practically no contact with their family . During the period from DATE there had been QUANTITY short visit and CARDINAL longer visit had been requested .

To provide life prisoners with the opportunity to earn [ money ] and spend time outside their cells , the administration has signed an agreement with a Daugavpils firm [ for prisoners ] to [ be employed ] folding cartons . Beginning on DATE , all life prisoners are offered this work . Some have refused to work , according to the prison administration , because the pay is too low and they receive money from their family . The prisoners work in pairs . CARDINAL employed prisoners were interviewed during the visit . CARDINAL of these pairs gave up their walk for work , the other couple said they took advantage of the opportunity to walk for an hour . Walks are taken alone . Life prisoners are brought out of their cells in handcuffs , escorted by CARDINAL guards and a dog . They may meet with medical personnel , the chaplain and others ( for example reporters ) in a separate room , where their seating area is separated [ from the rest of the room ] by bars , and which has a door and a small window . Medical personnel may go behind the bars . While in this room , [ their ] handcuffs may be removed .

According to the prison administration , all life prisoners plan to be pardoned after DATE and return to freedom . However , at present they all have violations and disciplinary punishments which prevent a transfer from the maximum security regime to the medium security regime . The chaplain also visits life prisoners . Out of CARDINAL sentenced prisoners in this category , CARDINAL wish to meet with him . Meetings are held in a special room , where the prisoner and the chaplain are separated by bars . In cooperation with the prison administration , the chaplain wants to establish a separate church and film room for this category of sentenced prisoner . ”

According to a DATE public report issued by ORG , on DATE there were CARDINAL inmates sentenced to life imprisonment in GPE . According to a public report on the needs of life - sentenced prisoners prepared by ORG , on DATE there were CARDINAL inmates sentenced to life imprisonment in GPE , of which CARDINAL were in FAC . For the purposes of that report all inmates in FAC were interviewed . It was noted that they spend their days watching TV , reading books , magazines and newspapers , writing letters and doing exercises and were generally satisfied with these activities .


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

A.

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

The applicant was suspected of robbery . The complainant in the proceedings was a taxi driver , who reported to the police that in TIME of CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY armed men had appropriated his car and other belongings by threats of force . On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery on the basis of the statements by the complainant and an anonymous witness ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . His property was confiscated .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

In DATE certain third persons , while being interviewed in the context of another criminal case , told the police that they had committed the robbery of DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the applicant ’s conviction on the ground of newly established facts . The court also ruled that the decisions confirming the applicant ’s guilt raised “ serious doubts as [ the complainant ’s ] statements had been inconsistent … and the testimony of the anonymous witness M had not been assessed carefully ” , whereas the applicant ’s guilt had been “ based essentially on the above evidence ” . ORG returned the case to the prosecution for pre - trial investigation .

On DATE a prosecutor discontinued the case against the applicant because of the absence of evidence . By a letter of DATE the prosecutor informed the applicant that the case had been discontinued .

As a result of the above proceedings , the applicant has spent DATE in prison .

He brought no action for damages in connection with his conviction .

B. Relevant domestic law

LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( PERSON , padarytos neteisėtais kvotos , tardymo , prokuratūros ir teismo veiksmais , atlyginimo įstatymas ) provides that a person can claim damages in connection with errors by law enforcement authorities where he has been acquitted , or his conviction has been quashed and criminal proceedings discontinued .

Under LAW , in order to obtain damages , a person must sue ORG in accordance with the procedure established by the LAW .


CASE OF AL HAMDANI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

It would appear from the case file that the salient fact in the domestic proceedings was the applicant ’s association with the mujahedin in GPE ( “ BH ” ) . The term mujahedin has been widely used to refer to foreigners – mainly from the NORP world – who came to BH during the war in support of NORP . However , the same term has been used to describe local NORP who joined the foreign mujahedin , endorsed their ideology and adjusted to their way of dressing . The phenomenon has been explained by ORG for the former GPE ( “ ORG ” ) in PERSON and PERSON , IT-CARDINAL - CARDINAL-T , § § DATE , DATE , and Delić , IT-CARDINAL - CARDINAL-T , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE , as follows .

The first foreign mujahedin arrived in BH in DATE via GPE and with the assistance of the NORP authorities . It would appear that their arrival was welcomed by the ORG authorities . While the presence of at least some foreign mujahedin seems to have been motivated by a desire to provide humanitarian assistance to the NORP population , most of them actively supported the military struggle against the NORP ORG adversaries , ready to conduct a jihad or “ holy war ” . As stated by PERSON , an ORG witness of NORP origin who came to ORG in DATE , some of the mujahedin were members of ORG who had the aim of “ creating a base that would allow them to increase their area of operations ” . Some of them also came to perform missionary work .

Upon arrival , foreign mujahedin settled in various locations and did not form a homogeneous entity . Towards DATE , NORP started to join the foreign mujahedin . The locals were provided with military training and participated in combat action . They were also given religious instruction . A number of groups comprising foreign and/or local mujahedin were active . Notwithstanding instances of participation in combat alongside each other , it appears that these groups were anxious to maintain their distinct identities . There were religious and ideological differences between them , which resulted in occasional violent clashes .

On DATE the foreign mujahedin were organised into a unit within the local ORG ( ORG of GPE ) forces . The unit , named “ GPE ” , was based in GPE . Following its establishment , the unit significantly grew in size . By DATE , it consisted of CARDINAL fighters . Although the original idea had been to replenish the unit with foreign mujahedin only , locals soon outnumbered its foreign members . The factors that motivated locals to join it included : its stricter regimental discipline ; a better degree of organisation ; superior equipment and combat morale ; its religious dedication ; and material benefits . The unit received funds and assistance from many organisations and individuals from the NORP world , including ORG and ORG . ORG in GPE provided logistical support .

El Mujahedin had a number of features setting it apart from regular ORG units . It was led by foreign mujahedin who were not appointed by the ORG . At the top of the hierarchy was an emir , who has been described as the highest - ranking person within the unit . PERSON , a NORP , was its first emir . In DATE , he was succeeded by an NORP , PERSON , who remained in that position until the end of the war . A different person from the emir , the military commander , headed the military council and was responsible for the conduct of combat operations . In DATE , this post was held by an NORP named PERSON . After his death in DATE , another NORP , PERSON , succeeded him . PERSON was killed in DATE . The unit had a religious council , the shura , which was its supreme decision - making body . It consisted of CARDINAL prominent members of the unit , mostly of NORP origin . The emir was elected by and answerable to the shura . At DATE , Sheikh PERSON joined the leadership of the unit . He was the head of ORG in GPE and known to be an extremist who was well - connected with NORP fundamentalists all over the world ( the ORG relied in that regard on a judgment of ORG of DATE ) . He facilitated the recruitment of volunteers from NORP countries for the struggle in BH . Although Sheikh PERSON did not hold an official function within the unit , its members considered him to be the political authority and even the real emir within the unit . He could issue binding rulings ( fatwa ) and his authority was never challenged by the shura . Sheikh PERSON was killed , together with GPE PERSON , at an HVO ( Croatian Defence Council ) military checkpoint on DATE .

The General Framework Agreement for Peace , which ended the war in ORG , was initialled at a military base near GPE , GPE , on DATE and signed in GPE , GPE , on DATE . LAW CARDINALA to that Agreement called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces , including individual advisors , freedom fighters , trainers , volunteers , and personnel from neighbouring and other GPE , irrespective of whether they were legally and militarily subordinated to any of the local forces . In view of that , on DATE the ORG disbanded ORG and ordered its foreign members to leave the country by DATE . Despite initial resistance , the shura accepted that the unit be disbanded . It would appear that awards , such as the “ GPE ” , were given to its members as an incentive for foreigners to leave . Members of the unit were also provided with ORG certificates of service , which assisted its foreign members to acquire ORG citizenship . Whereas most of the unit ’s foreign members left ORG , some of them ( such as the present applicant ) applied for ORG citizenship and continue to live in ORG to date .

After the attacks of DATE , the official attitude towards foreign mujahedin changed dramatically . Many lost their ORG citizenship or were deported from ORG after being declared a threat to national security .

The applicant was born in GPE in DATE .

He went to GPE to pursue his studies in DATE . He first studied in GPE and in DATE moved to PERSON . In DATE the applicant married a citizen of GPE . They have CARDINAL children together .

During the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE , the applicant joined ORG unit mentioned above .

The applicant acquired citizenship of GPE ( “ BH citizenship ” ) on CARDINAL occasions : on DATE , on CARDINAL DATE ( under the name of PERSON ) and again on DATE . He has visited GPE twice since the DATE - CARDINAL war , in DATE and DATE . The applicant possesses an NORP passport , issued by ORG in GPE on DATE , which was valid until DATE .

On DATE the competent administrative authorities established that the applicant ’s BH citizenship had been acquired by means of fraudulent conduct , false information and concealment of some relevant facts ( notably , the fact that he already possessed BH citizenship when he lodged the second application for naturalisation and that he had used documents issued in CARDINAL different names ) and quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for retrial .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant filed a request for a temporary residence permit . On DATE ORG suspended those proceedings pending the final resolution of the applicant ’s citizenship status .

On DATE the competent administrative authorities quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE again . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG the LAW ” ) . It appears that those proceedings are still pending . This does not , however , prevent the applicant ’s potential deportation , as he became an unlawful resident from the moment of the notification of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant , on the other hand , claimed that he still possesses ORG citizenship based on a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That decision was , however , issued in the name of another person ( PERSON ) and can not , therefore , confer any rights on the applicant , as was confirmed in the ORG ’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the case .

On DATE ORG established that the applicant was a threat to national security and placed him in ORG . It relied on secret intelligence reports . On DATE ORG , having assessed the secret evidence , upheld that decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as manifestly ill - founded . The initial detention period had been extended on a DATE basis until DATE when the applicant was released ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

After the decision revoking the applicant ’s citizenship of DATE had become final , the proceedings before ORG concerning a request for a temporary residence permit were resumed at the applicant ’s request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG refused his request and granted him a period for voluntary departure of DATE . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . It would appear that those proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the applicant claimed asylum . He maintained that NORP citizens who had joined the foreign mujahedin during the war in GPE and GPE were treated in GPE as suspected terrorists and were subjected to ill - treatment . He added that his friend had informed him that his name was on a “ black list ” and that his family was subjected to threats and ill - treatment due to their affiliation with ORG . The applicant also claimed that he would be persecuted by NORP and NORP upon his return to GPE ( GPE ) because he is NORP .

On DATE ORG interviewed the applicant in the presence of his lawyer and a ORG representative . It also had regard to reports of ORG , the ORG , ORG and the GPE on GPE . At the interview the applicant stated that he has visited GPE twice since the change of regime , in DATE and DATE . During both visits he stayed with his family in GPE . In DATE he went to visit his sick father and stayed for DATE . He took care of his father and accompanied him to the hospital on several occasions . In DATE the applicant went to GPE to hold a commemoration for his father and remained there for DATE and the GPE holiday . However , he claimed that during these visits he had been forced to hide in fear of the NORP authorities as his friend had told him that he was under surveillance and that his name was on a “ black list ” . The applicant further claimed that in his subsequent contact with his family , after he had returned to GPE , they had told him that the NORP had searched their home looking for him . On DATE ORG refused the asylum claim and granted him a period for voluntary departure of DATE . ORG held that the applicant ’s statements were contradictory and that he had not provided any evidence in support of his claims .

On DATE ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case for a retrial stating that ORG should make a more thorough assessment of the applicant ’s claim . On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for asylum and granted him a period for voluntary departure of DATE . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against that decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as manifestly ill - founded . It held that , although the general situation in GPE was insecure and problematic , the applicant had not proved that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW .

On DATE ORG issued a deportation order accompanied with an entry ban for DATE . It stated , however , that removal directions would not be issued for as long as the ORG ’s interim measure was in force . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . On DATE ORG also upheld the deportation order . An appeal is pending before ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s immediate release from the immigration centre , quashing the last extension order ( of CARDINAL DATE ) as unlawful . It held that the relevant authorities had not provided any new evidence as a basis for the applicant ’s continued detention . Furthermore , it prescribed the lesser measure of surveillance limiting the applicant ’s freedom of movement to his home address in GPE with the obligation to report DATE to ORG field office in GPE . It also ordered the confiscation of the applicant ’s NORP passport and other personal documents he might use in an attempt to leave the country . The applicant was released from detention on DATE .

LAW DATE ( Zakon o zaštiti tajnih podataka , ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . LAW provides that the judges of ORG and ORG have access to all levels of secret data without any formalities ( such as security clearance or special authorisation ) , if such access is required for exercising their duties .

LAW DATE ( Zakon o kretanju i boravku stranaca i azilu , Official Gazette of GPE no . CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . Section CARDINAL thereof provides that a refugee is an alien who , owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , political opinion or membership of a particular social group , is outside his or her country of nationality and is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country , or a stateless person , who , being outside the country of former habitual residence , is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to return to it . The same provision defines a person eligible for subsidiary protection as an alien who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she would face a real risk of the death penalty or execution , torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country of origin or in the country of habitual residence , or there is a serious , individual threat to a civilian ’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict , and who is unable , or , owing to fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country .

The principle of non - refoulement is incorporated in LAW , which reads as follows :

“ An alien shall not be returned or expelled in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion , regardless of whether or not the person concerned has been granted international protection . The prohibition of return or expulsion ( non - refoulement ) shall also apply to persons in respect of whom there is a reasonable suspicion for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . An alien may not be returned or expelled to a country where he or she is not protected from being sent to such a territory either . ”

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Act , an alien whose claim for international protection has been refused will nevertheless be granted leave to remain on humanitarian grounds , if his or her removal would breach the principle of non - refoulement . However , the alien concerned must be placed in detention if it has been established that he or she constitutes a threat to public order or national security .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(h ) of LAW DATE the deportation of an alien can be ordered if it has been established that he or she constitutes a threat to public order or national security . An appeal against a deportation order suspends deportation ( section CARDINAL of that Act ) . A claim for international protection and an application for judicial review against a refusal of such a claim equally suspend deportation ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of that Act ) . Pursuant to section CARDINAL of that Act , once an alien has become expellable , removal directions are issued within DATE . An appeal against removal directions does not suspend deportation .

In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of LAW , an alien must be detained if it has been established that he or she constitutes a threat to public order or national security , irrespective of whether a deportation order has been issued . Once a deportation order has been issued , the alien concerned may also be detained under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of that Act . An initial detention order is valid for DATE ( section CARDINAL ) of that Act ) . It may be extended any number of times for DATE at a time . However , the total period of detention may only exceed DATE in exceptional circumstances , such as if an alien prevents his or her removal or if it is impossible to remove an alien within DATE for other reasons ( see section QUANTITY ) .

The General Framework Agreement for Peace , which put an end to the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE , was initialled at a military base near GPE , GPE , on DATE and signed in GPE , GPE , on DATE . It entered into force on the latter date .

Pursuant to LAW CARDINALA to that Agreement , all foreign forces , including individual advisors , freedom fighters , trainers , volunteers , and personnel from neighbouring and other GPE , irrespective of whether they were legally and militarily subordinated to any of the local forces , had to be withdrawn from GPE by DATE .

The relevant part of the DATE Human Rights Report on GPE , published by ORG of ORG in GPE ( UNAMI ) , reads as follows :

“ The human rights situation in GPE remains fragile as the country continues to emerge from DATE of dictatorship , warfare and violence . While the government continues to take some measures aimed at improving the protection and provision of human rights and its citizens , given the challenges that the country faces , progress is slow . GPE continues to transition from a conflict to post - conflict country which faces enormous development challenges that the Government and people of GPE must now address . Widespread poverty , economic stagnation , lack of opportunities , environmental degradation and an absence of basic services constitute “ silent ” human rights violations that affect large sectors of the population . Other factors that affected the human rights environment in DATE included the inconclusive results of the general elections leading to a long process of government formation that was not concluded until DATE . It is believed that this fuelled instability , but also led to a degree of inactivity in relation to implementing reforms and other measures aimed at ensuring the respect , protection and provision of human rights to the NORP population . Also affecting security was the withdrawal of all ORG - I combat troops during DATE which was completed in DATE .

Armed violence continued to impact negatively on civilians and civilian infrastructure . Civilians were subjected to arbitrary loss of life and injury , but also limiting access to , and enjoyment of , other basic rights , including , but not limited to , the right to access basic humanitarian services , and the right of assembly , freedom of expression , freedom of religion , etc . It also negatively impacted on economic development . Arbitrary or deliberate targeting of civilians also constitutes serious violations of applicable rules of human rights law and international humanitarian law . The number of civilians who died from armed violence in DATE range from CARDINAL killed and CARDINAL wounded according to ORG to CARDINAL dead and CARDINAL wounded according to figures provided by ORG ) of ORG .

Minorities suffered from various attacks throughout GPE during DATE . In particular NORP , GPE and ORG , among other minorities , continued to be directly targeted during DATE resulting in some displacement of members of minority groups within the country and internationally , particularly of NORP . ”

ORG and ORG ) have stated that , although they “ do not necessarily encourage return at this time because of security concerns , both are committed to providing assistance to those who do decide to return ” ( ORG , Assessment of NORP Return , DATE ) . Moreover , ORG have initiated a financial incentive and subsidy programme for returnee families and they are working to develop their capacity to register and assist the increasing number of returnees ( ORG , cited above ) . The ORG has further noted that the rate of displacement in GPE has slowed and that the rate of return has accelerated , mostly to GPE ( ORG , ORG and Return in GPE , DATE ) . According to the ORG , general insecurity is the primary reason preventing NORP from returning home .

According to a report of DATE by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( UNHCR Return Advisory and ORG of NORP Outside GPE ) , no forcible return of NORP from NORP or Central GPE should take place until there was a substantial improvement in the security and human rights situation in the country .

In a follow - up report of DATE ( ORG ’s ORG of ORG ) , the ORG encouraged the adoption of a prima facie approach for NORP asylum - seekers from LOC and stated that they should be considered as refugees based on the DATE Convention relating to ORG in signatory countries . In its more recent LAW of DATE , the ORG observed that in view of the serious human rights violations and ongoing security incidents which were continuing in the country , most predominantly in the CARDINAL LOC of GPE , NORP , GPE , GPE and ORG , the ORG continued to consider all NORP asylum seekers from these CARDINAL LOC to be in need of international protection and stated that , in signatory countries , they should be considered as refugees based on the DATE Convention criteria ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the Guidelines ) . The Guidelines observed inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . In the context of LOC of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON where , even though the security situation has improved in parts , there is still a prevalence of instability , violence and human rights violations by various actors , and the overall situation is such that there is a likelihood of serious harm . Armed groups remain lethal , and suicide attacks and car bombs directed against the ORG - I / ISF [ ORG in GPE / Iraqi Security Forces ] , Awakening Movements and civilians , in addition to targeted assassinations and kidnappings , continue to occur on a regular basis , claiming the lives of civilians and causing new displacement . These methods of violence are usually targeted at chosen areas where civilians of specific religious or ethnic groups gather , including places of worship , market places , bus stations , and neighbourhoods . Violence appears often to be politically motivated and linked to ongoing struggles over territory and power among various actors . As clarified above , even where an individual may not have personally experienced threats or risks of harm , events surrounding his or her areas of residence or relating to others , may nonetheless give rise to a well - founded fear . There is also more specific targeting of individuals by extremist elements of CARDINAL religious or political group against specific individuals of another , through kidnappings and execution - style killings . ”

As regards GPE , the LAW included the following observations ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL . Most violence in the GPE is linked to the yet unresolved administrative status of GPE and related power struggles between the various NORP , NORP and NORP actors . Security conditions in GPE Governorate , and in particular in GPE , tend to worsen during political events related to the status of GPE as armed groups aim at influencing political decisions . For example , during intense negotiations over a provincial elections law in DATE , a suicide attack on demonstrating NORP resulted in an outbreak of inter - communal violence , in which CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL injured . Conversely , tensions and sporadic violence can complicate future status negotiations . With the postponing of provincial elections in GPE , the security situation has somewhat stabilized . However , simmering inter - communal tensions are prone to erupt into new violence ahead of decisions to be taken in relation to GPE ’s unresolved status . Some observers note that tensions among ethnic groups over the unresolved status of GPE could turn into another civil war . NORP groups such as ORG [ ORG in GPE ] also aim at stirring inter - communal violence by attacking proponents of ethnic / religious groups . Furthermore , it has been reported that community groups in GPE are arming themselves in preparation for future clashes .

GPE ’s NORP and NORP communities complain of harassment , intimidation , arbitrary arrests and demographic manipulation at the hands of the NORP , who dominate the Governorate ’s political and security institutions . NORP law enforcement personnel and political leaders are in turn popular targets for assassination . ORG and ORG offices are also a regular target of attacks . Recently , CARDINAL members of ORG have been killed in their homes in GPE . The brother of a high - ranking member of the same party was also killed . Religious and ethnic minorities often find themselves caught up in the middle of struggles for power and territory .

In GPE Governorate , there are regular roadside bombings , shootings , and occasional car bombs and suicide attacks . On DATE , a suicide bomber killed CARDINAL people and wounded CARDINAL when he detonated his explosive vest in a restaurant packed with government officials , women and children during lunch near GPE . There are also targeted kidnappings and assassinations , including of security officials , tribal leaders / SoI [ Sons of GPE ] , government officials and employees , ( mostly NORP ) party officials , members of minority groups [ referring notably to CARDINAL incidents of attacks against NORP ] , journalists and other professionals . Dead bodies continue to be found occasionally in GPE Governorate . ”

In DATE the ORG issued a Note on FAC of the DATE ORG of ORG . It contained the following information on security developments ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ Under the Status - of - Forces Agreement ( ORG ) of DATE , the NORP authorities have taken over full responsibility for the security of the country . The former ORG ( former ORG ) have withdrawn from NORP cities , towns and villages and operate from their military bases at the request of ORG . Currently , the GPE is drawing down all combat forces and is expected to complete this process by DATE . ORG ( ISF ) have almost reached their intended end strength of CARDINAL members . Since DATE ORG has been fully responsible for managing and integrating the largely Sunni Awakening Councils or Sons of Iraq ( NORP ) groups into the ORG and NORP government employment . This process is still ongoing and by DATE , of the CARDINAL NORP , CARDINAL had transitioned into the ORG and CARDINAL into other government employment .

ORG ) , a project which maintains data on civilian deaths , reported that in DATE the DATE civilian death toll was CARDINAL . Reports for DATE indicate that CARDINAL NORP were killed and CARDINAL others were injured during DATE . An upsurge in violence was noted since DATE elections and casualty statistics for DATE and DATE reflect an increase in the numbers of NORP killed and wounded in violence . Reports show that in DATE and DATE , insurgents carried out several mass - casualty attacks , including on high - profile , highly guarded targets such as NORP government institutions , prominent hotels and foreign embassies . The assaults resulted in CARDINAL of civilians killed or injured in the attacks . ORG in GPE claimed responsibility for the attacks against embassies in GPE and residential targets in mainly Shi’a districts of the capital in DATE . The reported incidents mostly took place in the central governorates of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON as well as in PERSON , which has seen an increase in violence since DATE . The relatively stable security situation in the NORP governorates is reportedly occasionally disrupted by mass - casualty attacks and low level violence mainly in areas close to GPE . GPE remains relatively stable , though there have been reported assaults on journalists and political opponents .

Among other security related developments worth noting is the start of the implementation of an interim joint security plan for GPE and other internally disputed areas by the USF - I. The plan is based on joint action and coordination by ORG and Police as well as ORG ( ORG . Thus far , the joint security plan has resulted in the establishment of a network of checkpoints and joint patrols around major cities , and the training of security personnel . Addressing the overall issue of the status of the “ disputed areas ” is among the challenges that await the new ORG . ORG matters to be resolved in this area include administrative boundaries , the control of oil resources , minority rights and other matters .

Since DATE , the ORG , with the help of the USF - I , have arrested or killed a large number of senior insurgent leaders , in particular members of ORG in GPE . Ongoing attacks illustrate that the groups are still intent on , and capable of , attacks .

Reports indicate that the targeting of Government of GPE officials , members of the NORP security forces , ORG members and prominent citizens continue unabated . Among the frequently targeted are NORP civilians and pilgrims as well as religious sites in different areas , religious and ethnic minority groups mainly in GPE and GPE Governorates ( GPE , NORP , GPE and Kaka’i ) , and the NORP minority , mainly in ORG , which includes CARDINAL NORP displaced from GPE in DATE . Compared to DATE , there has been a significant increase in the use of magnetic and adhesive bombs attached to vehicles as a weapon to assassinate particular individuals . Profiles targeted include , in particular , government officials and employees , party officials , members of ORG ( NORP ) , members of the ORG ( including off - duty members ) , religious and ethnic minorities [ referring to several incidents of attacks against NORP and a suicide truck bomber in , a Shi’ite NORP town QUANTITY south of GPE destroying homes and damaging another CARDINAL homes , affecting CARDINAL people ] , NORP and Shi’ite clerics , journalists , academics , doctors , judges and lawyers , human rights activists and NORP working for NGOs or the USF - I and foreign companies , alcohol vendors ( which are commonly NORP or PERSON ) , women and NORP individuals .

III . Conclusion

The situation in GPE is still evolving . ORG will continue to monitor developments in the country and will update the DATE ORG once it judges that the situation is sufficiently changed . In the interim , ORG advises those involved in the adjudication of international protection claims lodged by asylum - seekers from GPE and those responsible for establishing government policy in relation to this population continue to rely on the DATE ORG . Accordingly , the current ORG position on returns to GPE also remains unchanged . ”

The Country of Origin Information Centre ( Landinfo ) , an independent human rights research body set up to provide the NORP immigration authorities with relevant information , has in a report of DATE stated the following about the security situation in GPE city ( footnotes and references omitted ) :

“ It is generally recognized that the level of violence in GPE is by far lower than that in GPE and GPE .

The majority of the security incidents in the city appear to be attacks against police and military . Most frequent are attacks against road patrols , and against checkpoints and personnel . These attacks both take place on the roads between GPE and surrounding areas and inside the city . Occasional civilian casualties result from such attacks ... .

There are also occasional indiscriminate attacks aimed directly at civilians , such as suicide attacks at crowded places inside the city .

Additional types of targets have been recorded by ORG since DATE . These targets are very diverse . There have been attacks on local NORP political leaders and their families , on engineers and building contractors , oil business executives , private security guards , gas station workers , churches , NORP mosques , polling stations , and at a NORP political party office . In DATE an NORP journalist was killed .

The intensity of attacks against all target groups seems to have remained quite stable over DATE . DATE , DATE reported incidents were recorded ... . During DATE , a total of CARDINAL individuals were reported killed in violent incidents ( PERSON DATE ) .

In DATE , it was reported that violence had gone up since DATE , and that security remained highly unstable ... . According to the GPE military commander in GPE , by DATE violence had dropped by CARDINAL as compared to DATE ... . Figures indicate that since DATE , violence remains stable through DATE ... .

We do not have figures for DATE , nor do we know for how long period of time ‘ summer’ refers to . What the sources indicate , however , is that violence went up by DATE , then down again by DATE , and that it seems to have stabilized somewhat afterwards . With the reservation that we do n’t have exact figures to substantiate this trend , we do see , however , that the occurrence of violence is unstable through a fairly short period of time .

The factors accounting for the security problems continue to be present for the foreseeable future . Accordingly , an unstable level of violence may be expected to continue ” .

A Thematic Note by ORG on the Security Situation in GPE and GPE ( Temanotat IRAK : Sikkerhetssituasjonen i GPE by og områdene rundt ) , dated DATE , summarised the situation as follows :

“ During DATE , the security situation in GPE has shown a decreasing level of activity on the part of armed groups , in spite of a persistent high level of political tension connected to the disputed political status of the city . Still , both GPE city and GPE province continue to be plagued by persistent political violence . There are no clear signs of open conflict between the NORP , NORP and NORP population groups , but widespread mutual mistrust seems to prevail along with a possibly increasing physical segregation between them . In this environment , militants continue to carry out attacks .

The armed groups operating in GPE , GPE and PERSON are all NORP . They appear as periodically connected to each other logistically , and to be coalescing over time . ”

In LAW it was observed inter alia that the conflict related violence in GPE had continuously decreased since DATE and had in DATE reached its lowest level since DATE . Nonetheless , politically motivated violence still occurred on a DATE basis . There were otherwise no new patterns of acts of violence . It was still the situation that such acts were primarily targeting authorities , the army and the political milieu . However , the casualties among the civilian population were considerably higher than those of the target groups . The level of political violence appeared relatively low in view of the continuous political tensions related to the unclear political status of the city . At the same time , the political violence was directly linked to unresolved political questions . Both NORP regional authorities and the national central authorities claimed a right to governance in the city . There was little information available which systematically presented the situation in the province for each of the CARDINAL ethnic groups – NORP , NORP and PERSON . According to the newspaper DATE ’s PERSON of DATE , the local police was composed of PERCENT NORP , PERCENT NORP and PERCENT Turkmens . In the NORP areas of the city there were both NORP and NORP officers . In the GPE district west of GPE , the officers were NORP . Even though the different groupings were reasonably well represented within public administration and education , distrust between them had frequently been reported since DATE .

NORP ORG ( ORG Country of ORG of CARDINAL DATE provided the following information ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL The ORG [ ORG ] Report DATE , dated DATE , covering events since DATE noted that : ‘ GPE has been generally stable since the previous reporting period . On DATE [ DATE ] , shots were fired at a USF - I / United Nations convoy travelling in GPE , resulting in CARDINAL ORG - I soldier being wounded . No UNAMI staff members were injured and the convoy immediately returned to Forward Operating Base Warrior.’

However the subsequent UNSC Report DATE , published CARDINAL DATE , observed that : ‘ [ CARDINAL withdrawal of ORG in GPE is likely to have a short- to medium - term effect on the security situation’ .

CARDINAL ORG on ORG conducted DATE , published DATE citing a reliable source in GPE stated : ‘ ... that GPE , with its unique status , is a completely different matter . The situation is fragile and ORG ( ISF ) and GPE forces have a strong presence in the area . AQIs [ ORG in GPE ] and insurgent groups’ presence contribute to making the situation particularly volatile , and there are reports that ORG is using children as suicide bombers or combatants in GPE

See also the section heading on LOC which highlighted that in DATE DATE NORP Peshmerga troops entered GPE governorate in violation of agreed security procedures in place between NORP and NORP forces . ”

The third report of the ORG Secretary - General to the UNSC , pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of resolution DATE ( DATE ) , included inter alia the following observations :

“ II . Summary of key political developments pertaining to GPE

A. Political developments

In GPE , NORP parties holding the CARDINAL most senior political posts , Governor and Chairman of ORG , agreed to give up the latter , as a gesture of goodwill in order to move the political process forward and to accommodate a long - standing demand by NORP and NORP components . PERSON ( NORP ) was elected to the post of Chairman , PERSON ( NORP ) was appointed as the new Governor and PERSON ( NORP ) remained Deputy Governor .

On DATE , NORP Peshmerga troops that had been deployed around the city of GPE since DATE withdrew and returned to the GPE region . The incident served as a reminder of the challenges that remain as ORG in GPE draw down and the combined security mechanism comes to an end . The combined security mechanism was established to encourage NORP security forces and NORP Peshmerga troops to coordinate their operations , set up joint patrols and checkpoints and exchange information under the auspices of ORG . ORG GPE and ORG have yet to agree on the future of the combined security mechanism or any successor arrangements that could be put into place after the departure of ORG .

ORG in GPE have continued their planned withdrawal from the country with the intention of completing their departure by DATE , as envisaged under the status - of - forces agreement signed between ORG and GPE . Discussions have been ongoing regarding the possibility of some GPE forces remaining beyond DATE to provide training and support . The Prime Minister has stated that the issue would be decided on a consensus basis through dialogue among the political blocs , as formal agreement would require approval by ORG .

III . Activities of ORG

A. Political activities

The standing consultative mechanism met several times during the reporting period . This initiative , which was launched in DATE under the auspices of ORG , brings together representatives of key political blocs to discuss outstanding issues related to disputed internal territories , including GPE . The participants include representatives of the CARDINAL main political blocs : Deputy Prime Minister PERSON ( ORG ) , Member of ORG PERSON ( ORG ) and ORG Minister PERSON ( Iraqiya ) . The participants agreed to focus on the following issues : ( a ) GPE , including powersharing issues and conducting provincial council elections ; ( b ) GPE , the current political stalemate , power - sharing and security issues ; ( c ) the future of the combined security mechanism ; and ( d ) the census . On DATE , participants agreed that subsequent meetings would be expanded to include local stakeholders from the GPE and GPE governorates . On DATE , a meeting was held that brought together for the first time all members of ORG from GPE in order to discuss issues related to power - sharing and the prospects of holding provincial council elections in GPE .

E. Human rights activities

The reporting period witnessed a significant rise in assassinations of political leaders , government officials and security personnel . ... Assassination attempts were carried out against a NORP Member of ORG from GPE ... on DATE May ....

Honour crimes committed against women are a continuing source of concern . UNAMI recorded the deaths in suspicious circumstances of CARDINAL women DATE in GPE . Police informed UNAMI that CARDINAL of the deaths were listed as suicides and CARDINAL as murders carried out by unknown persons , while the causes of death of the other QUANTITY women were unconfirmed but regarded as suspicious . ...

There continue to be sporadic reports of children experiencing acts of indiscriminate violence and abductions . ... On DATE , in GPE , criminal gangs abducted a DATE girl who was later released after a ransom was paid . On DATE , a CARDINAL-year - old boy was abducted in GPE ; his fate remains unknown .

During the reporting period , a number of public demonstrations were held , most of them peaceful . ...

PERSON , operational and logistical issues

During the reporting period , ORG continued to operate in a challenging security environment . On DATE , a car bomb targeted the NORP police headquarters in GPE , killing CARDINAL policemen . In another incident on DATE , a complex attack on ORG left CARDINAL people dead and CARDINAL injured , including NORP police and civil defence members . This particular attack is believed to have been in response to the recent successful efforts by NORP security forces to locate weapons caches and key personnel wanted for terrorist attacks . ...

DATE . During the reporting period , ORG has been working on the transition of security support from ORG to the NORP security forces . On DATE , ORG requested that ORG of ORG , in coordination with ORG and ORG , support UNAMI protection requirements .

During the reporting period , ORG also took steps to put in place the necessary logistical arrangements to substitute the support of ORG . ORG is also continuing preparations to ensure that it is able to sustain its presence in GPE and GPE .

With support from ORG standing police capacity , a start - up team of CARDINAL UNAMI police liaison personnel have been deployed to GPE , GPE and GPE to engage and coordinate ORG operations with ORG and NORP police .

IV . Observations

Although the status of GPE and other disputed internal territories remain divisive issues , I am encouraged by recent efforts by key NORP stakeholders to find common ground . Through the standing consultative mechanism under ORG auspices , political leaders , members of parliament and local representatives of GPE have engaged in a dialogue on critical issues that will affect the future of GPE and other disputed areas , including future security arrangements . I encourage ORG and ORG to continue to use this important forum to find mutually acceptable solutions that ultimately serve the interests of national reconciliation and long - term stability . ORG stands ready to assist in this process upon the request of the Government . ”