Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Liberty of person;Security of person);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant was born in DATE . She was a resident of the village of GPE ( also known as GPE ) in LOC , and currently lives in GPE , GPE .

The applicant and her husband , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , lived in the village of GPE in LOC . They have CARDINAL children . The applicant is a bookkeeper and her husband was a welder by profession . He served in the NORP army and became a commander of a tank platoon . From DATE he worked in construction as a bricklayer , and as a mechanic . In DATE Mr PERSON underwent CARDINAL surgical operations , on his bowels and for appendicitis , and was in need of another one , on his spine , but could not afford it .

NORP In DATE ORG launched a counter - terrorist operation in GPE .

In DATE the applicant and her family went to PERSON , where they stayed in the village of PERSON . Mr PERSON parents remained in LOC in their house at TIME .

On DATE the applicant 's husband returned to PERSON to visit his parents and stayed at their house , as he had regularly done before . The applicant and their children remained in PERSON , and therefore she did not witness the events relating to her husband 's arrest .

On DATE the NORP military conducted a special ( “ sweeping ” ) operation involving several armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) and military helicopters in the village of LOC .

On DATE Mr PERSON went to visit his parents ' neighbours , the PERSON , at CARDINAL FAC . Together with the owner of the house , they were taking a steam bath in the PERSON ' bathhouse , a small building located in the courtyard of the house .

Mr PERSON 's father was in his house at CARDINAL FAC , when at TIME he saw CARDINAL or CARDINAL heavily armed soldiers in the street . He was standing at the open gates of his house and asked them if they wanted to check inside . In reply they ordered him to get inside and fired in front of his feet . He obeyed and noticed that the soldiers then proceeded to the PERSON ' house down the street , where his son was . Mr PERSON father described the events as follows :

“ Having entered my house , I began watching through the window into the street . CARDINAL APCs drove up to the same house where my son was bathing ... About CARDINAL more people came out of the APCs ; CARDINAL of them stayed in the street and the rest went into the courtyard . There were CARDINAL people . TIME they came out quickly , and I saw CARDINAL civilians , that is , the owner of the house , Mr PERSON , who was dressed , and my son , who was CARDINAL - naked , being shoved into the ORG .

In the hands of a senior [ serviceman ] I noticed CARDINAL or CARDINAL passports . I recognised the dark blue cover of my son 's passport among them .

When they drove off , I immediately ran to the house where my son had been , and there I saw the broken door to the bathhouse and my son 's clothes – his jumper , shirt , trousers and shoes . The owner of the house was n't there ; things were strewn all over the place , on the floor . ”

The applicant submitted several statements by neighbours who confirmed that CARDINAL armed soldiers who had arrived in CARDINAL APCs had burst into the PERSON ' house and detained the owner and Mr PERSON , who had been taken naked from the bathhouse . CARDINAL of the neighbours stated that she had seen a man running away from the federal soldiers who had entered the PERSON ' house and the soldiers pursuing the man and then detaining CARDINAL men in the house . The witnesses also testified that they had heard shooting while the men were being detained .

According to the Government , on DATE the federal forces conducted a special operation in LOC . During that operation a group of unidentified armed men arrived at the PERSON ' house at CARDINAL FAC , put the applicant 's husband and CARDINAL other persons into APCs and took them away in an unknown direction .

NORP In total CARDINAL men , aged DATE , were detained and taken away in PERSON on DATE . The severely mutilated body of CARDINAL of them was found DATE , whilst all the others have remained missing ever since .

On DATE the ORG news agency , referring to information from the NORP ITAR - TASS news agency , reported :

“ NORP forces said ... they had wiped out a rebel unit led by warlord PERSON , CARDINAL of the most ruthless gangs fighting in GPE . ... CARDINAL rebels were killed and CARDINAL arrested in the operation , in which the NORP forces surrounded the village of GPE where the PERSON rebels were holed up . ... The unit was wiped out ... after DATE of fighting and PERSON , DATE , fled . ”

The bulletin of ORG of ORG ) in GPE reported that at DATE “ during an operation in the vicinity of PERSON special forces [ had ] severely mauled the ' PERSON fighters ' and [ that ] a large group of ' brothers - in - arms ' of the murderer [ had been ] detained and active members of the gang [ had been ] liquidated . ”

On DATE relatives of the detained men went to the office of the local military commander , who told them that the soldiers under his command had not taken part in the “ sweeping - up ” operation and that he had no information about the detainees . According to the applicant , the local military commander had taken no part in the planning or conduct of the operation , and it had been most likely that he himself had been detained by the federal military who had come to conduct it . Soon after the events the military commander had been transferred away from PERSON .

On DATE the applicant , who was then in PERSON , learnt of her husband 's detention and immediately went to GPE to search for him .

She coordinated her efforts with the relatives of the other men who had disappeared . On numerous occasions , both in person and in writing , she applied to the prosecutors at various levels , ORG , the administrative authorities in GPE , GPE the NORP President for Rights and Freedoms in GPE , and to media and public figures . In her letters the applicant stated the facts of Mr PERSON 's detention and asked for assistance and for details of the investigation .

The applicant was given hardly any substantive information from official bodies about the investigation into Mr PERSON disappearance . On several occasions she and the relatives of the other detainees received copies of letters stating that their requests had been forwarded to different prosecutors ' services .

On DATE the applicant went to the office of the mayor of PERSON and met with the deputy mayor , Mr PERSON . According to the applicant , this official , who had claimed that he was an officer of ORG ( ORG ) , had been aware of the circumstances of her husband 's detention , as , having heard her husband 's name , he had allegedly cried out that , indeed , that man had been “ the one with a can of beer in a bathhouse ” . The applicant submitted that the deputy mayor had stated that criminal proceedings had been instituted in connection with the organisation of an illegal armed group and that her husband had been arrested in the context of those proceedings . He had also referred to a certain investigator who had been in charge of the investigation in the proceedings , but refused to disclose the investigator 's name . The deputy mayor had further told the applicant that the detainees were being held at GPE , the main NORP military base in GPE . He had allegedly assured her that her husband and CARDINAL others would be released once the mayor of PERSON came back after DATE .

Thereafter the applicant went to PERSON and met her father - in - law , who , with other relatives of the missing persons , had hired a bus and travelled around visiting various officials in an attempt to find out about the detainees .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was in PERSON during another “ sweeping - up ” operation . The soldiers told the women in the village that there was a corpse in the river , and one of the women recognised a body which had no head and one leg as that of her son , Mr PERSON , who had been detained on DATE . She identified him by the clothes he had been wearing on DATE of his arrest . He was buried DATE , without a medical or forensic examination . The applicant submitted that the body had had several stab and gunshot wounds .

After DATE a number of relatives of those detained on DATE wrote to ORG . They referred to the discovery of Mr PERSON body , asked for news of their missing family members and requested that an investigation of the arrests be carried out .

Later in DATE the relatives liaised with a person whom the applicant identified as a “ middleman from GPE ” , the main federal military base in GPE , and offered to pay money for the release of the detained men . He was assisted by CARDINAL other persons , whom the applicant also called “ middlemen ” .

According to the applicant , the middleman from GPE confirmed that the persons detained on DATE were being held at the military base and suggested that the relatives should collect MONEY ( ORG ) per detainee to have them released . According to the applicant , during the negotiations the relatives had also paid MONEY per day to the middleman , who had allegedly given the money to the guards of the detainees . Some time later he had said to the applicant and other relatives that he had been unable to arrange for their family members ' release . DATE the relatives had offered ORG CARDINAL per person to the same men and DATE CARDINAL of the middlemen had brought news that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON would soon be released .

At DATE the applicant and other relatives finally received confirmation from CARDINAL of the middlemen , hired a bus and went to a pre - arranged location . According to the applicant , in view of the fact that rumours of the deal had been circulating , the prosecutor of GPE and CARDINAL investigators had come to the same place and the deal had been called off on account of this “ publicity ” . The “ middleman from GPE ” had been arrested , but had been released DATE and had refused to be involved in the negotiations any further , having stated that the detainees had , in any event , been transferred to another place . CARDINAL of the other middlemen had allegedly been killed DATE when his car had been shot at on a road .

On DATE ORG instituted a criminal investigation into the disappearance of QUANTITY persons in GPE , including the applicant 's husband , under LAW ( d ) and ( f ) of LAW ( unlawful deprivation of liberty of CARDINAL or more persons committed with the use of arms ) . The case file was registered as no . DATE .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL in GPE stated in reply to a request from ORG that no special operations had been conducted by the forces of ORG or ORG on DATE , and that the persons listed in the request had not been detained .

On DATE ORG requested the nationwide ORG channel to provide it with a copy of the news programme of DATE , which had reported on the operation of CARDINAL DATE in PERSON .

On DATE the relatives of the detainees again wrote to ORG . They referred to the news programmes that had announced that a special operation had taken place in LOC at DATE and that General PERSON had been promoted and decorated for its success . They also enquired about the latest developments in the investigation .

On DATE ORG of GPE replied to a request from the Special Envoy of the NORP President for Rights and Freedoms in GPE concerning the ten persons detained in LOC . The letter stated that a criminal investigation had been opened by ORG and that all measures were being taken to identify those responsible and to locate the whereabouts of the kidnapped persons .

On DATE the head of the Alkhan - Kala administration , PERSON , wrote to the head of the UGA . She stated that on CARDINAL and DATE there had been a special ( “ sweeping - up ” ) operation in the village , as a result of which several houses had been blown up and a number of men had been detained and taken away . She listed the numbers of the CARDINAL APCs that had participated in the operation . She further stated that DATE after the detention the body of CARDINAL of the detainees had been discovered in the river , while the others had disappeared . She asked for assistance in finding the detainees . PERSON was killed in her house on DATE by unidentified gunmen

On DATE ORG replied to one of the relatives of the missing men that the investigation was being supervised by its department in ORG .

In DATE the CARDINALth Interim Report by the Secretary General of ORG on the situation in GPE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) stated that “ in the case of the disappearance of CARDINAL citizens of the village of GPE during the mop - up operation from DATE , the head of the local administration had requested from the military prosecutor information about the stage of the investigations , without success ” . According to the applicant , there was a mistake in the dates of the operation given in the report .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of a letter from ORG of GPE addressed to ORG , in which the latter was instructed to conduct an additional investigation in criminal case no . DATE , opened in relation to the unlawful detention of several residents of PERSON . A criminal case file containing CARDINAL pages was listed as an attachment .

On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG of GPE in which she restated in detail the circumstances of her husband 's arrest . She asked for a criminal case to be opened in relation to Mr PERSON disappearance and for information as to his whereabouts .

NORP In a decision of DATE ORG of Grozny established as a legal fact that the applicant 's husband had been missing since DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE replied to the applicant that a criminal case had been opened and was being investigated by ORG . The letter contained no further details .

On DATE the applicant was informed in a letter from the Government of GPE that following her complaint ORG of the ORG had been instructed to take all measures necessary to establish Mr PERSON 's whereabouts .

On DATE the applicant contacted ORG of the ORG , asking for help to locate her husband . She referred to the statements of the deputy mayor of ORG , Mr PERSON , to the effect that he was an ORG officer and was aware of the criminal case in connection with her husband 's detention .

On DATE ORG of the ORG replied to the applicant that it had no information about the CARDINAL missing persons and that Mr PERSON was not CARDINAL of its officers .

On DATE the Special Representative of the NORP President for Rights and Freedoms in GPE requested information on the applicant 's behalf about the investigation from ORG .

In DATE ORG issued a report entitled “ Last Seen ... : Continued ' Disappearances ' in GPE ” . It contained an account of the detention and disappearance of several men from PERSON and referred to the absence of any results from an allegedly pending investigation .

On DATE the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE were suspended on the ground that it was impossible to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE ORG issued the applicant with a certificate in which she was described as a victim in criminal case no . DATE , opened in connection with her husband 's disappearance on DATE . According to the applicant , no formal decision granting her victim status had been taken .

DATE . On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , ORG , ORG , the LOC military commander 's office and ORG in GPE . She stated that her husband had been taken away during a “ sweeping - up ” operation on DATE and that the criminal proceedings instituted in that connection had been suspended on CARDINAL occasions . The applicant also requested the public bodies concerned to assist her in her continued search for her husband .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant that on DATE ORG had instituted criminal proceedings in connection with “ the unlawful detention by servicemen of the federal forces ” of a number of residents of PERSON , including Mr PERSON , “ during a special operation ” . The letter further stated that the investigating authorities had been unable to establish which ORG agencies had participated in the detention of the villagers and that the investigation had therefore been adjourned on DATE ; however , on DATE it had been resumed and at present measures were being taken to find the missing persons and to identify those responsible . The letter then invited the applicant to apply to ORG for explanations concerning the investigation .

On DATE the applicant applied in writing to ORG of GPE asking to be granted victim status .

On DATE the PERSON requested ORG on the applicant 's behalf to provide information concerning the results of the investigation following its reopening on DATE . It also requested that the applicant be sent a copy of a decision declaring her to be a victim . In the absence of a reply , the request was sent again on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On an unspecified date the investigation into the disappearance of Mr PERSON and several other residents of PERSON was suspended ; it was resumed on DATE .

On DATE ORG referred the applicant 's query to ORG , informed her of the latest decision to resume the investigation and stated that the search for the men detained on DATE and those involved in that offence was currently under way .

On DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant and the PERSON , on her behalf , requested ORG to grant the applicant victim status and to update her on the results of the investigation .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG notified the applicant that the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE had been resumed on DATE and that the investigation was being carried out by ORG . The letter also stated that on DATE victim status had been granted to the applicant 's father - in - law , that she herself had never requested to be declared a victim in the case and that she should apply to the same prosecutor 's office so that a decision on granting victim status could be taken .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to grant her victim status in criminal case no . DATE . In reply , the prosecutor 's office stated in a letter of DATE that she should report in person to ORG so that she could be declared a victim , and that the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE had been adjourned on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators , but that the search for her husband was in progress .

According to the applicant , throughout the investigation she had received CARDINAL summons from ORG , dated CARDINAL and DATE , although she had repeatedly visited the prosecutor 's office on her own initiative . She submitted that during her visits she had unsuccessfully requested to be granted victim status .

In DATE , upon receipt of the letter of DATE , the applicant had visited ORG and requested to be declared a victim . She had allegedly been told that the investigator in charge was absent and that no other person had the power to take such a decision . The applicant had visited ORG again in DATE and talked to the investigator in charge . The latter had allegedly refused to grant her victim status , referring to the fact that the criminal case concerning her husband 's disappearance had been transferred to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL in GPE . The investigator had allegedly refused to inform the applicant of the date of the transfer or to issue her with any document attesting to her visit .

NORP In DATE or DATE the applicant went to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . DATE . According to the applicant , officials from that prosecutor 's office had at first refused to talk to her or let her in . Some time later the applicant had been allowed to enter the premises of the military prosecutor 's office and had managed to talk to Colonel PERSON , an assistant prosecutor from the military prosecutor 's office attached to the ORG . According to the applicant , Colonel PERSON had expressed surprise that she had not yet been recognised as a victim in case no . DATE and had stated that it was now DATE , whereas the criminal proceedings had been instituted in DATE , and it was therefore highly unlikely that she would now be granted victim status or that the investigating authorities would be able to identify those involved in Mr PERSON abduction , given that the term of those persons ' military service in GPE had expired long ago and they had left for their permanent place of service . Then Colonel PERSON , at the applicant 's request , wrote on a piece of paper that the case file had been received by the military prosecutor 's office of the ORG on DATE . The applicant furnished the ORG with a copy of that statement .

The applicant had also submitted a written request to the registry of the prosecutor 's office to be granted victim status and to be updated on the results of the investigation . She stated that she had been told that a reply would be sent to her place of work , but she had not received any letters to date . During their conversation Colonel PERSON had stated that the applicant should have been grateful that she had met him at the prosecutor 's office , because no other official would have given her any explanations , and because he would help her out of the LOC . He had also stated that she had been lucky to enter the premises of the military prosecutor 's office but would also need luck to get out , and that next time it would be better if she refrained from coming to GPE . Colonel PERSON then ordered another officer to accompany the applicant out of the territory of GPE and to report back to him afterwards .

The applicant stated that she was afraid to visit the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL ever again , even though she had not received any letters from it informing her of the investigation .

The Government submitted the following information concerning the progress of the investigation .

On DATE the investigation was again suspended since it had been impossible to find those responsible for the offence . It was subsequently resumed on DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE took up the case . On DATE the investigator ordered the seizure of certain documents from the archives of the ORG , ORG , ORG and of unspecified other documents which related to the special operation conducted in LOC between CARDINAL and DATE and to the persons detained .

On DATE the investigator instructed the GPE city military prosecutor and the military prosecutor of PERSON garrison to seize the documents . The prosecutors were also instructed to question former serviceman PERSON ( the Government submitted neither his full name nor why his statements could be relevant ) and servicemen of military unit no . CARDINAL about their participation in the special operation .

On DATE the investigating authorities watched the tape submitted by the ORG TV channel with their report of DATE . The report provided no new information about the special operation in PERSON .

DATE . On DATE and DATE the investigator instructed ORG of the ORG , ORG and ORG of the LOC to question the servicemen of military unit no . DATE .

On DATE ORG of the Vladikavkazsky Garrison questioned U. ( the Government submitted neither his full name nor exact position held ) . U. stated that the division he had been in charge of had sealed off LOC and had remained outside its limits . He had no information about any detention of the village 's residents .

On DATE ORG of the Kamyshinskiy Garrison questioned PERSON , who provided no relevant information ( the ORG submitted neither their full names nor anything about their identity ) .

On DATE ORG questioned PERSON , a resident of PERSON , whose son had been detained on DATE along with the other QUANTITY persons . He submitted that he had received information that his son had been held in a correctional facility . However , on investigation by the authorities the information proved to be incorrect .

On DATE the investigation was suspended because of the failure to identify any person to be charged with the offence .

The applicant submitted that on CARDINAL DATE she had sent identical applications to the President and the Prime Minister of GPE asking for assistance in establishing her husband 's whereabouts . On DATE she was informed that her application to the President had been forwarded to the military prosecutor of the ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL sent a response to the applicant . The response stated that criminal case no . DATE , on unlawful deprivation of her husband 's liberty by unidentified armed men , had been opened on DATE . Should it be established that servicemen had been involved in the crime , the applicant would be notified immediately . The applicant was further advised to address all queries concerning the investigation to ORG .

According to the Government , on DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and resumed the investigation .

DATE . It is not clear whether the applicant was eventually granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .

When the application was communicated to the respondent Government the ORG requested it to submit a copy of the entire investigation file no . DATE . However , despite the specific request from ORG did not submit any documents from the file in case no . DATE , having quoted the reply from ORG to the effect that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW of LAW since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the ORG declared the application admissible and reiterated its request for a copy of the investigation file no . DATE . The ORG also requested information on the progress of the investigation after DATE .

In response , the ORG submitted an update of the investigation but no documents from the investigation file . They reiterated that disclosure of the documents would violate LAW since the file contained information related to military operations as well as personal data of participants in the criminal proceedings .

The applicant submitted the following witness statements concerning the events of DATE : witness statement by Mr PERSON father concerning the arrest of his son on DATE , the relevant part of which is quoted in paragraph CARDINAL above . Also provided were witness statements by PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON , who resided at FAC in GPE and were neighbours of Mr PERSON and PERSON , and witness statements by PERSON . , PERSON Kh . and PERSON . , residents of FAC in GPE .

According to Mr PERSON 's statement , a “ sweeping - up ” operation was conducted in the village on that date . The operation involved CARDINAL helicopters and CARDINAL APCs . He could hear shooting DATE and several houses were blown up by the federal forces . When the shooting came closer to their street , everybody tried to hide in their basements . Mr PERSON mother hid in the same basement as Mr PERSON . She said that her son was taking a bath and did not know about the “ sweeping - up ” operation . When she ( apparently with the mother of Mr PERSON ) tried to approach their sons , the servicemen fired at their feet and ordered them to leave , so they had to return to the basement . When the servicemen left , those who were hiding went to the bathhouse , but neither Mr PERSON nor Mr ORG were there , only their clothes were left . Then their relatives and neighbours went to the local military commander 's office , where they were told that PERSON and PERSON had been taken to GPE and that after enquiries they would be back DATE .

According to PERSON statement , TIME on DATE she saw CARDINAL APCs going down their street . They stopped at the PERSON ' gate . Through the fence , behind which she was hiding with her sister , she saw CARDINAL servicemen getting out of the APCs . Her sister then saw CARDINAL men being shoved into the ORG . After the servicemen had left , it appeared that they had taken with them Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and another villager who escaped later .

According to PERSON statement , a “ sweeping - up ” operation was conducted in the village on DATE . When CARDINAL APCs appeared in their street and started shooting , all the women and children ran to hide in their basements . She did not head to the basement because her baby was in her house . Instead , she hid behind a fence . Through the fence she saw CARDINAL armed servicemen breaking into her neighbours ' house and smashing everything inside . Then they threw Mr PERSON and PERSON out of the bathhouse and , kicking them , shoved them into the ORG . Other men were also taken by the servicemen during the operation .

According to PERSON . , PERSON Kh . and PERSON . , after Mr PERSON had arrived at LOC on DATE to visit his parents he had been apprehended by federal servicemen during a special operation on CARDINAL DATE along with several other villagers and the reasons for the apprehension had not been stated . The statements were verified by the Head of ORG on DATE .

The applicant submitted copies of her applications to various ORG authorities and of their responses referred to in the Facts section above .

The applicant submitted copies of the media reports referred to in paragraphs CARDINAL above . She also submitted reports concerning the situation in GPE at the relevant period by the Secretary General of ORG , FAC and ORG .

The Government enclosed a number of letters from various courts in GPE , stating that the applicant had never lodged any complaints about the allegedly unlawful detention of her husband or challenged in court any actions or omissions of the investigating or other law - enforcing authorities .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR ( NORP Federative Socialist Republic ) . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the new Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the rule that data from the preliminary investigation can not be disclosed . Part CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of the participants in the criminal proceedings without their permission .

Article CARDINAL of LAW guarantees to everybody judicial protection of their rights and freedoms . It further provides that decisions and actions ( or inaction ) of bodies of ORG authority and local self - government , public associations and officials may be appealed against to a court .

The Law on Complaints to Courts against Actions and Decisions Violating the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens ( as revised by LAW of DATE ) provides that any citizen has the right to lodge a complaint with a court when he or she considers that his or her rights have been infringed by an unlawful action or decision of a ORG agency , local self - government body or an institution , enterprise or association , non - governmental organisation or official or ORG employee . ORG may be lodged either directly with a court or with a higher ORG agency , which must review the complaint within DATE . If the complaint is rejected by the latter or there has been no response on its part , the person concerned has the right to bring the matter before a court .

NORP Under LAW of the Law on Operational Search Activities , an individual who considers that his rights and freedoms have been violated by the bodies carrying out the operational search activities can complain of those actions to a higher body carrying out the operational search activities , a prosecutor or a court .


The applicant , Mr Modesto Sequeira , is a NORP national born in DATE . He is currently being held at FAC ( GPE ) .

The applicant served a prison sentence in GPE DATE for drug trafficking . He returned to GPE on completion of his sentence but was placed in pre - trial detention in connection with other proceedings in DATE .

During his detention in FAC , he met PERSON , who was allegedly linked to drug - trafficking circles . A. informed the applicant that he could supply him with transport , especially boats , should he decide to organise a drug - trafficking operation .

Following his release in DATE , the applicant travelled to GPE , GPE and GPE , countries in which he claims to have had business dealings ( property sales and meat exports ) .

The applicant returned to GPE in DATE . He then resumed contact with A. , who had been released in the meantime .

According to the facts established by ORG in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see below ) , subsequent events were as follows .

In DATE the applicant asked PERSON to find a boat so that he could import a substantial quantity of cocaine from GPE . The applicant and PERSON travelled to GPE DATE in order to finalise the details of the cocaine shipment .

PERSON contacted ORG , the owner of a boat , with a view to arranging for the drugs to be transported to GPE . It emerges from the case file that C. had already collaborated on several occasions with the criminal - investigation department in drug - trafficking cases . He persuaded PERSON to collaborate with the police too . The applicant was unaware of this . The criminal - investigation department and the public prosecutor 's office were informed .

A. introduced ORG to the applicant in DATE . The latter paid PERSON an unspecified sum of money as remuneration for his services .

At DATE C. 's boat , on which A. and an undercover member of the criminal - investigation department were also present , took delivery of a consignment of drugs from another boat off the coast of GPE . C. then sailed the boat to the NORP port of PERSON , where the drugs were unloaded and stored in a warehouse .

On DATE transported the drugs by car to a farm in ORG that the applicant had purchased in the meantime . The drugs were unloaded and stored in the farm . After A. 's departure , the criminal - investigation department , which had been monitoring the entire operation , arrested the applicant and seized QUANTITY of cocaine .

Unlike A. and C. , who were not prosecuted , the applicant was accused of drug trafficking and criminal association .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of the offences and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court established the facts of the case primarily on the basis of statements by A. and C. and the members of the criminal - investigation department who had taken part in the operation . All of these witnesses appeared at the trial . The court also based its decision on documents found in the applicant 's possession , containing several names and telephone numbers and a list of sums of money . With regard to the applicant 's allegations that he had been the subject of incitement , the court emphasised that A. and C. had not acted as agents provocateurs but as undercover agents . According to the court , their activities had been confined to informing the criminal - investigation department of the operation 's progress and they had never incited the applicant to commit an offence that would not otherwise have been committed .

The applicant appealed against this judgment to ORG . In a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant 's submission concerning PERSON 's and C. 's conduct . Referring to PERSON v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-IV , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) , ORG emphasised that A. and C. had acted as undercover agents and not as agents provocateurs , and that the evidence in issue was therefore admissible . It did however quash the applicant 's conviction on the charge of criminal association and reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant appealed on points of law . In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the submission concerning PERSON 's and C. 's conduct . Like the lower courts , ORG held that they had acted as undercover agents and not as agents provocateursnotably the undercover agents ' intervention , warranted a reduction of the applicant 's sentence to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant then requested clarification ( aclaração ) of this judgment in respect of the distinction between undercover agents and agents provocateurs . However , ORG , in a judgment of DATE , dismissed this request , holding that there was nothing to be clarified .

The prevention of drug trafficking is governed by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE .

Article CARDINAL of this legislative decree provides that a criminal investigation agent or a third party acting under the supervision of the criminal - investigation department who , in the course of preliminary inquiries and without revealing his identity , accepts an offer for or transports narcotics or other psychotropic substances shall not be liable to prosecution in respect of such conduct . These persons ' actions require authorisation from the relevant judicial body , to which they must report .

LAW states :

“ CARDINAL . Evidence obtained through torture , the use of force or any kind of physical or psychological duress shall be invalid and inadmissible .

Evidence obtained by any of the following means shall be deemed to have been obtained by physical or psychological duress even where the victim has consented thereto :

( a ) ill - treatment , assault , any other method , hypnosis , cruelty or deceit that vitiates free will or freedom of choice ;

Where evidence is obtained by means that constitute a serious criminal offence under LAW , it may be used only for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible for obtaining it in that way . ”

PERSON , cited above , contains the following description of the current NORP case - law and legal theory in this matter ( p. CARDINAL , § § DATE :

“ Subject to certain conditions , ORG accepts the use of ' infiltrators ' in the fight against drug trafficking ( judgments of DATE , ORG no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; DATE , Col . PERSON . ( ORG ) , CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , Col . PERSON . ( ORG ) , CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ... ; ... DATE , Col . PERSON . ( ORG ) , CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; DATE , Col . PERSON . ( ORG ) , DATE , p. CARDINAL ; and DATE , Col . PERSON . ( ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .

Legal writers in GPE ( and in other NORP countries ) draw a distinction , under the generic term of ' infiltrators ' , between an ' undercover agent ' and an ' agent provocateur ' . The former is someone who confines himself to gathering information , whereas the latter is someone who actually incites people to commit a criminal offence . In GPE , under the law in force at the material time , legal experts regarded evidence obtained by ' undercover agents ' as admissible , but were more reserved about evidence obtained by ' agents provocateurs ' ( see , for example , PERSON , ORG as proibições de prova em processo pènal , ORG , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . , and PERSON , ORG . PERSON . PERSON , ORG , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . , and , more recently , ' ORG , ORG , ORG , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . ”

Following PERSON , several judgments by ORG and decisions by courts of appeal and courts of first instance established that evidence obtained through the actions of an agent provocateur was inadmissible under LAW ( a ) of LAW .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He has been recognised as falling within Category I disabled status ( the gravest CARDINAL ) on account of his service during the Second World War .

The applicant was an operative who dealt with the consequences of the GPE disaster . From DATE he was on a special priority list of persons to be allocated an apartment by the ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG to provide the applicant with an apartment in accordance with the requirements of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Chernobyl Victims ' Status and Social Security Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This decision became final . Enforcement proceedings were commenced on DATE .

According to the Government , in DATE the bailiff requested from ORG replacement of the in - kind award conferred by the decision of DATE with an equivalent amount of money . On DATE the court dismissed that request . The court 's reasoning is unknown , as neither the party furnished a copy of that decision . ORG appealed and the proceedings are apparently still pending before ORG .

Although the debtor was fined several times by the bailiffs , the decision of CARDINAL DATE has not been enforced . On several occasions , in their replies to the relevant applicant 's complaints , the ORG authorities gave explanations based on a lack of funds in the budget to purchase or construct new apartments and the lack of available apartments . The enforcement proceedings are still pending .

According to the applicant , he lives in a rented house in poor living conditions ( for example , without water supply ) . The local press described the house as “ old ” and “ ramshackle ” .

The general provisions of domestic legislation on enforcement of judicial decisions are set out in the judgment of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW of LAW the bailiff is entitled to request proprio motu the relevant court to change the means of enforcement of a court decision if there are circumstances which preclude its enforcement by the means specified in that decision .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Chernobyl Victims ' Status and Social Security Act ( adopted on CARDINAL DATE ) provides , inter alia , that the entitled persons must be housed within DATE of the date of their relevant application . Construction of houses shall be funded from the ORG budget .


The applicant , OOO Torgovyi Dom “ Politeks ” , is a limited - liability company registered in GPE . It is represented before the ORG by PERSON D. Lyzlov . The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. GPE , ORG at ORG .

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

The applicant is a trading company . It owned a consignment of goods ( imported electric tools ) . Unspecified third persons made groundless claims to the goods . Since there was no evidence to prove these claims in a court , the third persons incited the police to seize the goods under the guise of a sham criminal investigation .

On DATE PERSON was accompanying the goods . He was stopped by a police patrol and taken to a police station . In the course of an interrogation , the police discovered that the applicant company was storing the goods in a warehouse in PERSON . They went there and sealed the warehouse up . The police did not draw up any documents concerning the seizure and the applicant company 's representatives were not allowed to visit the warehouse .

On DATE the police loaded the goods into trucks and removed them from the warehouse . The police did not explain their actions , and the goods have been missing ever since . Later , the goods were spotted on sale in GPE markets .

On DATE the police started a criminal investigation against PERSON on charges of fraud and forgery of documents .

On DATE PERSON filed an administrative complaint on behalf of the applicant company with ORG of GPE . He maintained that the police had unlawfully seized the goods , that the goods had been plundered , and that the criminal charges against him had been unfounded .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . The court found that the police had lawfully seized the goods because they needed to investigate the allegation of a third person , PERSON , who had claimed that the goods belonged to him and not to the applicant company . The police had lawfully formalised the storage of the goods and appointed warehouse staff responsible for the goods ' safety .

The court limited the scope of its review to the administrative aspects of the complaint having referred to LAW which secures to everyone judicial protection against public officials ' acts . The court therefore abstained from looking into the merits of the charges against Mr. Lyzlov and from verifying the safety of the goods .

On appeal , this decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

Later , the criminal investigation against PERSON was stopped .

A third person , PERSON , applied to the police alleging that goods belonging to his company were unlawfully retained by PERSON in a warehouse of the applicant company .

On DATE the police sealed up the applicant company 's warehouse in PERSON . The police found that PERSON did not work for the applicant company and had no documents confirming his rights on the goods .

On DATE a public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against PERSON on charges of fraud and forgery of documents . In the course of the investigation it was established that the goods had been imported in DATE by a third company . The company asked PERSON to customs clear the goods and to store them in its warehouse . However , PERSON breached this agreement . As he considered that the third company owed him money , he hid the goods in a warehouse of the applicant company and requested the third company to pay a ransom for it . The investigating authorities found no evidence that the goods belonged to Mr Lyzlov . Nevertheless , since PERSON actions did not disclose a crime , the proceedings against him were stopped on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON complaint about the police and the institution of the criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant worked as a professor of philosophy at ORG ( GPE fakultet GPE u GPE - hereinafter the “ Faculty ” ) .

On DATE the ORG ( hereinafter : the “ PERSON ) , relying on section ORG ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , suspended the applicant from work ( stavljen na čekanje ) for DATE on the minimum salary on the grounds that his job had become redundant . The applicant appealed against that decision to the PERSON but his appeal was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the PERSON , relying on section PERSON ) of LAW , issued a decision to terminate the applicant ’s employment .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) contesting the PERSON ’s decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and seeking payment of his full salary . The case file was assigned number Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . This subsequently changed a number of times and the case bore numbers Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , GPE and PERSON .

On DATE ORG declared the Faculty ’s decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE null and void and ordered that the applicant ’s salary for the period claimed be paid to him on the ground that the Faculty ’s decisions had been based on its lack of money for salaries which was not a lawful reason for suspending the applicant ’s employment .

The Faculty appealed against the above - mentioned judgment to ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) , and on DATE that court quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to ORG for re - examination , on the grounds that all the relevant facts had not been established .

On DATE ORG declared the Faculty ’s decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE null and void on the same grounds as before ordering it to pay the salary claimed by the applicant .

Following an appeal by ORG , on DATE ORG again quashed the first - instance judgment of ORG and ordered a re - examination on the ground that the first - instance court had misinterpreted the relevant law .

The applicant complained to ORG on DATE that ORG had treated him differently from other parties in similar cases .

On DATE ORG again declared the Faculty ’s decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE null and void and ordered that salary claimed by the applicant be paid to him , stating that there had been no legal ground on which to suspend the applicant .

Following a further appeal by ORG , on DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered a re - examination , reiterating its previous reasoning that ORG had failed to establish all the relevant facts .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action , on the ground that the Faculty ’s decision to suspend the applicant ’s employment had been lawful .

The applicant appealed against the above judgment , and on DATE a panel of judges at ORG , including Judge PERSON , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld ORG judgment of DATE . In its decision the court referred , in passim , to the parallel civil proceedings the applicant had instituted against the PERSON ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE terminating his employment ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . That part of ORG judgment reads as follows :

“ The case file shows that in case no . Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ pending before ORG ] a judgment was adopted whereby the plaintiff ’s action challenging the defendant ’s decision of DATE to permanently terminate the plaintiff ’s employment with the defendant was dismissed . ”

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

In this appeal the applicant , inter alia , challenged Judge PERSON on grounds of bias . The applicant explained that in the parallel civil proceedings ( case no . Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , Judge PERSON had sat as the president of the panel of the first - instance court . In those proceedings Judge PERSON had delivered the judgment against the applicant , to which ORG had referred in its judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE ) . However , Judge PERSON ’s judgment in those proceedings had later been quashed and the case remitted to ORG for re - examination , after which that judge had on the resumption of proceedings , expressed a hostile attitude towards the applicant ’s representative on several occasions and had eventually issued the decision to stay those proceedings pending the outcome of the case no . Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraphs DATE ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . The relevant part of ORG judgment reads as follows :

“ The appellant considers that there was a serious breach of procedure in that the judge who had sat as the first - instance judge in proceedings between the same parties before ORG no . Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , had also sat in the panel which handed down the second - instance judgment .

... there is no serious breach of procedure raised by the plaintiff because , under LAW subsection CARDINAL of LAW , a judge is disqualified from sitting in a case only if he or she had previously participated in the same proceedings before a lower court , whereas the plaintiff in his appeal on points of law refers to a judge of the second - instance court who did not sit as the first - instance judge in the case at issue but in another case before a lower court . ”

NORP The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE , in which he complained , inter alia , of the lack of impartiality of Judge PERSON

On DATE the Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible . It found that even though the applicant had correctly relied on the relevant Articles of the LAW , he had not substantiated his complaint by any constitutional law arguments but had merely repeated those arguments raised in the proceedings before the ordinary courts . Therefore , ORG was unable to examine the merits of his constitutional complaint . Its decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG , asking that the PERSON ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE be declared null and void and that all the money he had claimed be paid to him . The case file was assigned number Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . This subsequently changed and the case bore numbers Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

Judge PERSON presided over the panel of ORG in this case .

On DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s claim and ordered that his salary be paid on the ground that the applicant should not have been made redundant from work because of the Faculty ’s lack of financial means .

Following an appeal by ORG DATE , ORG on DATE quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered a re - examination of the case on the ground that all the relevant facts had not yet been established .

On DATE a panel of ORG , presided over by Judge PERSON , dismissed the applicant ’s action on the ground that the impugned decision had been based on the relevant law .

The applicant lodged an appeal and on DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered a re - examination , on the ground that all the relevant facts had not been established .

On CARDINAL DATE Judge PERSON , acting as the president of the panel of ORG , ordered that those proceedings be stayed until the adoption of a final decision in the case no . Pr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , since the outcome of those proceedings was crucial to the case .

The applicant lodged an appeal , complaining , inter alia , that Judge PERSON had expressed a hostile attitude towards his representative and his complaint .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded .

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

“ A judge ... shall be disqualified from exercising his functions :

if he or she himself or herself is a party ... ;

if , in the same case , he or she participated in the proceedings before a lower court or other authority ;

if other circumstances exist which cast doubt on his or her impartiality . ”

Under section DATE of LAW , the grounds enumerated in section CARDINAL subsections CARDINAL - CARDINAL are considered absolute grounds for the judge concerned to be automatically disqualified from sitting in the case . Subsection CARDINAL concerns situations in which a judge is obliged to inform the president of his court of any circumstances which might cast doubt on his or her impartiality . The president of the court must then , in view of the circumstances of the given case , make a decision regarding the possible disqualification of the judge .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o radnim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL , PERSON ( corrigendum ) , DATE , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , which was in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) An employer may make an employee temporarily redundant if during a period of DATE it can not provide him or her with the job he or she has been assigned to .

( CARDINAL ) In the circumstances referred to in subsection CARDINAL of this section , the employer may temporarily , but for a maximum period of DATE :

- suspend the employee ’s employment , during which period he or she has the right to a salary established by a collective agreement , ... , or the minimum salary ;

“ ( CARDINAL ) The employer may make an employee permanently redundant if for DATE it can not provide him or her with the job he or she has been assigned to . ”


Georgieva;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants , Mr PERSON , PERSON Krumova Georgieva , PERSON Miroslavova Hristova and PERSON PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They are the members of CARDINAL family .

The applicants were represented by Mr PERSON and Ms GPE GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

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

On DATE Mr H.Ts . bought a car in GPE on behalf of ORG , who financed the purchase . After obtaining NORP export license plates for the vehicle and an export transportation permit on DATE Mr H.Ts . drove the car to GPE . Both of the aforesaid documents indicated ORG as the owner of the vehicle .

It is unclear when PERSON . and the car entered GPE .

On DATE the car was stolen from a parking lot in GPE .

On DATE Mr H.Ts . reported the car as stolen and a preliminary investigation was opened on DATE against an unknown perpetrator . It was suspended on DATE as the identity of the perpetrator could not be established .

In the meantime , on DATE the police in the town of GPE found the car abandoned in a local parking lot . It had NORP license plates which were found to have been stolen from another vehicle . The authorities did not check the car 's engine and chassis numbers in the database of stolen vehicles and thus did not make the connection that it was the same car that had been stolen in GPE on DATE .

The vehicle remained with the LOC police for over a year . On DATE the LOC police asked ORG what to do with it . As a result , the car was delivered to ORG on DATE in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

On an unspecified date ORG declared the vehicle ORG property as a result of it having been abandoned . Also on an unspecified date it entered the vehicle in a public auction run by ORG .

PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) participated in the public auction of DATE and purchased the car . On DATE he entered into a sale and purchase agreement for the vehicle with ORG . He paid CARDINAL old NORP levs ( MONEY ) to ORG on DATE and obtained the car registration documents from the PERSON district public prosecutor 's office on DATE .

On an unspecified date Mr LOC . informed the public prosecutor 's office that the first applicant was driving his car and sought its assistance to retrieve it . As proof of ownership he presented the authorities with the transportation permit and the NORP car purchase agreement .

In response , on DATE the GPE district public prosecutor 's office reopened the preliminary investigation into the theft of the car , ordered that it be seized from its current registered owner , the first applicant , and be held as material evidence at the police station .

On DATE the PERSON traffic police seized the car from the first applicant , who filed a complaint on DATE with the GPE district public prosecutor 's office .

In spite of the aforesaid complaint of the first applicant , on DATE the GPE district public prosecutor 's office concluded that there was no dispute in respect of the ownership of the vehicle and ordered that it be returned to Mr H.Ts , whom it considered to be the owner of the vehicle on the basis of the NORP car purchase agreement and the transportation permit . On an unspecified date the first applicant appealed against this decision to the higher standing public prosecutor 's office .

The car was handed over to Mr LOC . on an unspecified date .

In a decision of DATE the GPE regional public prosecutor 's office quashed as unlawful the decision of DATE of the GPE district public prosecutor 's office . It found that in view of the first applicant 's complaint of DATE a dispute in respect of the ownership of the vehicle had clearly arisen which precluded the possibility to hand over the vehicle to Mr GPE . The GPE regional public prosecutor 's office therefore ordered that the car be seized from Mr PERSON . and that it be held for safekeeping by the police . It also invited the first applicant to initiate civil proceedings in respect of his ownership claim to the vehicle . Both the first applicant and Mr LOC . appealed against this decision .

Separately , the first applicant complained on DATE to ORG about the seizure of the car and the actions of the public prosecutor 's office . In its reply of DATE ORG informed the first applicant that they could not act on his complaint and stated that it considered the actions of ORG to have been lawful .

In a decision of DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE of the GPE regional public prosecutor 's office . It considered that Mr PERSON . was the “ unquestionable initial owner ” of the vehicle and that the police had erroneously handed the car over to the customs authorities . Thus , it found that the “ owner of the car ” , Mr LOC . , had been wrongly denied possession of it and that it should be returned to him while the other claimant – the first applicant DATE should prove his ownership rights in court . Accordingly , ORG ordered that the car be handed over , once again , to Mr LOC . , who was to undertake not to sell it until the preliminary investigation had been concluded .

On an unspecified date the car was entrusted to Mr LOC . for safekeeping .

In response to a separate request from the first applicant that the evidence in the preliminary investigation – the vehicle DATE be handed over to him , on DATE ORG ruled a second time on the decision of the GPE regional public prosecutor 's office of DATE . It dismissed the first applicant 's request , but found that there was a clear dispute over the ownership of the vehicle and ordered that in accordance with LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) the car remain with the authorities until the property dispute had been resolved in the civil courts , where the CARDINAL parties needed to make their respective claims . ORG also criticized the actions of the LOC police and the customs office for having sold the vehicle to the first applicant instead of promptly returning it to its “ owner ” – Mr H.Ts .

In a further decision of DATE ORG ruled on an appeal filed by the first applicant in the context of the preliminary investigation into the theft of the car . It dismissed it and upheld the decision to hand over the vehicle to Mr LOC . as it considered him to be the “ initial owner ” of the vehicle because he had purchased and imported it from GPE . It further noted that as the first applicant also laid claim to the car , he should prove his case in court , which was the only competent body that could adjudicate on the matter .

On an unspecified date the first applicant complained to ORG about the contradictory decisions of his ORG and DATE .

In a decision of DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE and quashed the CARDINAL from DATE because the latter had been issued in response to an appeal on which ORG had already ruled . Nevertheless , he also reasoned that Mr H.Ts . had been the right person to return the car to as it had been stolen from him . ORG further noted that the first applicant should initiate proceedings in the civil courts in respect of the ownership of the car .

On an unspecified date the first applicant complained once again to ORG about the seizure of the car . In its reply dated DATE ORG informed him that it could not act on his complaint because the customs authorities had acted within their competences by taking charge of the vehicle under section CARDINAL of LAW and then selling it at a public auction to him .

In response to a further appeal by the first applicant in the context of the preliminary investigation into the theft of the car , on CARDINAL DATE the supreme cassation public prosecutor 's office instructed the GPE city public prosecutor 's office to take immediate action to continue the investigation , which had stalled in DATE . It also ordered the latter to investigate the first applicant 's allegations that Mr LOC . had presented forged ownership documents in respect of the vehicle .

In a decision of DATE the supreme cassation public prosecutor 's office ruled on a further appeal by the first applicant . This time it found in his favour and revoked the decision of ORG of DATE , which had found the seizure of the car and its handing over to Mr H.Ts to have been lawful . The supreme cassation public prosecutor 's office also found that it had been unlawful to hand over the vehicle to the latter because he was clearly not , and never had been , the owner , because both the NORP car purchase agreement and the transportation permit identified him as being only the transporter , while PERSON was indicated as being the vehicle 's owner in both of those documents . However , as ORG had never filed a complaint that her car had been stolen it was considered necessary that she be questioned . Therefore , the supreme cassation public prosecutor 's office ordered that the car be seized and noted that when a dispute of ownership arises the individuals involved should refer the matter for resolution by the civil courts .

A police order was issued on DATE to seize the car but the police were unable to find Mr LOC . or the vehicle . Therefore , on DATE the car was declared stolen .

On DATE ORG informed the GPE public prosecutor 's office that it had been unable to find the car or PERSON LOC .

The first applicant continued petitioning the authorities to find the car .

In letters of DATE and DATE the supreme cassation public prosecutor 's office informed him that the authorities were continuing their search for the car .

On DATE the Chief of ORG in GPE informed the first applicant that they were continuing their search .

On DATE the first applicant filed a further petition with the supreme cassation public prosecutor 's office . In a reply dated DATE the latter informed him that it had been unlawful to hand over the car to Mr H.Ts . as he was not its owner . However , it considered that the owner was PERSON It also considered that the public prosecutor 's office carried no liability for the failure of the LOC police to check the vehicle 's chassis and engine numbers and noted that it “ had not sold [ the first applicant ] anything ” and had not received any of the money he had paid for the vehicle . The supreme cassation public prosecutor 's office also noted that it was not the body which could rule on who held title to the car and expressed reservations in respect of a possible property dispute with ORG

Thereafter , the authorities continued looking for the car and Mr H.Ts . , but without any apparent success .

LAW of DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) required all persons to immediately inform the customs authorities if they found a vehicle belonging to a foreign national who had left the country . If the vehicle was not claimed within DATE it was considered abandoned and became ORG property ( section CARDINAL ) .

Abandoned vehicles held by the customs authorities were to be sold within DATE of becoming ORG property ( section CARDINAL of the Regulation for Implementing LAW ) .

LAW was replaced in DATE by a new act of the same name .

Section CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided that a buyer who acted in good faith in purchasing movable property against consideration from a non - owner obtained clear title to the said property . However , the former owner of stolen or lost movable property had the right to claim it from a buyer acting in good faith within DATE of the date of the theft or loss . This possibility did not exist if the buyer had purchased the property from a ORG or municipal enterprise .

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( “ the Code ” ) have been summarised in the case of GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The relevant provisions of the ORG and ORG of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) and LAW , as well as the pertinent practice of the domestic courts during the relevant period have been summarised in the case of ORG ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

As part of their submissions , the applicants presented copies of the judgments in a case brought by an individual under LAW ORG which was appealed all the way to ORG ( решение от DATE г. на ORG по гр. д. № NORP г. , GPE г.о. ) . In that case the public prosecutor 's office had seized a car purchased by the claimant from a third party as it had previously been stolen from another individual . In reaching their decisions the domestic courts noted the restrictive interpretation of the ORG in respect of the liability of the ORG under LAW . As the case related to decisions and actions of the investigation and prosecution authorities , it thus fell to be examined only under the said section , which , however , did not provide for liability in such instances . Therefore , the domestic courts rejected the action , but in doing so they also noted that the claimant had failed to appeal against the decisions of the investigation and prosecution authorities and had not initiated a property dispute .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

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

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to ORG ( Landesversicherungsanstalt ) , the applicant and her husband , born in DATE , declared that for the purposes of entitlement to a widow ’s or a widower ’s pension the statutory rules still in force should continue to apply in future ( see below , “ Relevant domestic law ” ) .

On DATE , following her husband ’s death , the applicant applied with ORG for the payment of a survivor ’s pension .

On DATE ORG issued a decision granting the applicant a survivor ’s pension as from DATE . The ORG , referring to the relevant provision of ORG , further stated that in case that the person concerned had other earned income or income in lieu of earned income , the payment of the survivor ’s pension was not suspended during DATE after the spouse ’s death . During DATE , the survivor ’s pension was reduced by a specific percentage in relation to a dynamic exonerated amount .

On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative complaint ( Widerspruch ) with ORG , which was dismissed on DATE .

By submissions dated DATE , the applicant , represented by counsel , instituted proceedings with ORG , challenging the above decisions issued by ORG . She maintained in particular that the underlying legislation , especially the age - limit for opting out of the new system , was unconstitutional , i.e. in breach of the right to property . In this respect , the applicant noted that , according to information provided by ORG , a constitutional complaint concerning the above issue was pending before ORG . She suggested that the proceedings before ORG be suspended to await the outcome of the said constitutional complaint proceedings . With her action , the applicant also objected to the calculation of the pension in question .

On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings pursuant to LAW - see below , Relevant domestic law ) .

On DATE ORG reassessed the applicant ’s survivor ’s pension . Taking her other income into account , the ORG suspended the DATE payment of DEM CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

By submissions of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant filed an action with ORG against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . She again suggested that the proceedings be suspended pending constitutional complaint proceedings in a similar case . The second set of proceedings was , thereupon , also suspended .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to resume the suspended proceedings . She noted that in the meantime ORG had not taken any decisions concerning the legal provision at issue in her case . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the proceedings had been resumed .

On DATE ORG inquired with ORG about the state of the constitutional complaint proceedings concerning certain aspects of the reform of the rules governing a survivor ’s pension . On DATE ORG informed ORG that CARDINAL proceedings had terminated in DATE and that it envisaged rendering a decision in CARDINAL further cases in DATE .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing . Following discussion , the parties agreed to a further suspension of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to resume the proceedings . She submitted that , having regard to the length of the proceedings before ORG and considering her age , she could no longer be expected to wait . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the proceedings had been resumed . On DATE ORG inquired again with ORG about the state of proceedings before it .

On DATE ORG dismissed CARDINAL constitutional complaints . It found that the rules introduced by ORG , in so far as they provided for a suspension of the payment of the survivor ’s pension in case of other earned income or income in lieu of earned income , were compatible with LAW ) .

On DATE ORG forwarded ORG decision to the applicant ’s counsel and requested him for comments . After a reminder , the applicant ’s counsel asked for an extension of the time limit . After a further reminder , the applicant ’s counsel informed ORG on DATE that he was no longer representing the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ actions . It found in particular that in DATE ORG had declared the age - limit of DATE compatible with LAW . It held that ORG decisions of DATE had no impact on its decision , as they did not concern the issues raised in the applicant ’s action .

NORP Before DATE men and women had to meet different conditions for entitlement to a widow ’s or a widower ’s pension , respectively . While a widow was generally entitled to a widow ’s pension , a widower could only obtain payment of a widower ’s pension if his late wife had mainly provided for the family ’s maintenance . In DATE ORG had held that , having regard to changes in the role of women in marriage and family and the labour market , the existing rules fixing different conditions for entitlement to a widow ’s or a widower ’s pension had to be replaced by legislation avoiding discrimination .

On DATE the Survivor ’s Pension and Educational Periods Act ( Hinterbliebenenrenten- PERSON ) of DATE , amending the relevant provisions of LAW ( ORG ) , ORG ( PERSON ) and LAW ) , entered into force . LAW , applying to workers , and LAW , applying to employees , together with the reform legislation , namely the Workers’ Pension ( Reform ) Act ( Arbeiterrentenversicherungs - Neuregelungsgesetz ) and LAW ( PERSON ) , formed the basis of the general old age insurance system ( gesetzliche GPE PERSON ) . A widow is entitled to a survivor ’s pension after the death of her insured husband , and a widower is entitled to a survivor ’s pension after the death of his insured wife . Moreover , pursuant to the new legislation , a survivor ’s earned income or income in lieu of earned income is taken into account . According to the explanatory report , the latter rule was justified on account of the maintenance function of a survivor ’s pension ( PERCENT of the spouses’ last income ) . The reform only concerned pension cases having occurred as from DATE . Furthermore , for a transitional period until DATE , spouses could opt for the old regime if they had been married before DATE and if they were both DATE at that time . Subsequent reform legislation , including a uniform pension regime for workers and employees , did not affect the substance of the above legislation concerning a survivor ’s pension .

According to LAW , a court suspends proceedings upon the request of the parties if such a suspension appears reasonable on account of settlement negotiations or for other important reasons .


The applicants , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals and live in PERSON . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in ORG .

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

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON , the first applicant ’s husband and the brother of PERSON and PERSON , was taken into custody by gendarme officers .

On DATE PERSON corpse was found in the vicinity of the neighbouring GPE along with the corpse of PERSON , an inhabitant of PERSON . Both of the bodies bore firearm injuries .

On an unspecified date , PERSON and PERSON , son of PERSON , lodged petitions with the NORP public prosecutor requesting an investigation into the death of PERSON .

On DATE the NORP public prosecutor issued a decision of non jurisdiction ratione loci and transferred the investigation file to ORG who forwarded it to ORG office in GPE .

On DATE ORG attached to ORG in GPE also issued a decision of nonjurisdiction ratione materiae . The case - file was then sent to ORG office attached to ORG .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the public prosecutor ’s office in GPE and requested information concerning the investigation into her husband ’s death . She did not receive any response to her petition .

On DATE PERSON lodged a further petition with ORG and requested compensation for the damage she had suffered on account of her husband ’s death . She also requested that an investigation be initiated into PERSON death .

In a letter of DATE ORG at ORG asked ORG to provide information DATE on the progress made in the investigation concerning the death of PERSON .

Until DATE the applicants all lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where they owned houses , livestock and land .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated the GPE and destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants then moved to ORG where they currently live .

On DATE the mayors of some villages of the NORP district , including the mayor of GPE , PERSON , petitioned the Governor ’s office in GPE , ORG , the Governor ’s office in the state of emergency region , FAC ) Presidency , the Prime Minister ’s office and the Presidency of the ORG on behalf of the inhabitants of the GPE villages . They requested the aforementioned authorities to allow the inhabitants to return to their villages . They also requested aid for food and compensation for the damage they had suffered .

On DATE the mayors of the villages of GPE lodged further petitions with the offices of the President , Prime Minister and GPE and requested permission on behalf of the villagers to return to their villages .

They received no response to their petitions .

On unspecified dates , the applicants lodged further petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

PERSON disappeared for an unknown reason around DATE .

On DATE PERSON applied to ORG office and claimed that his brother had been taken away by soldiers who had been carrying out operations in the vicinity of their village . He stated that they could not obtain any information from the military authorities about the whereabouts of his brother and that they were worried about his life . He therefore asked for an investigation to be carried out into the disappearance of his brother .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with ORG office complaining that his brother PERSON and his son PERSON had been taken away DATE in the course of an operation carried out by the security forces . He therefore asked for an investigation to be conducted in order to find out the whereabouts of his relatives .

On DATE PERSON body was found in the vicinity of the neighbouring village . A post - mortem examination was carried out on the body of the deceased under the supervision of the NORP Public prosecutor and in the presence of PERSON .

On DATE Ali PERSON was questioned by Public Prosecutor no . CARDINAL in relation to the death of his brother . PERSON alleged that his brother had been found dead in a field in PERSON village subsequent to his removal from his village by the security forces . He asked ORG to bring those responsible for the death of his brother to justice .

On DATE prosecuting authorities took statements from ORG and PERSON who are respectively the son and wife of the deceased . PERSON stated that security forces conducting operations in GPE had taken him with them to a hamlet attached to his village . In the hamlet he had met PERSON who was the then muhtar ( mayor ) of PERSON village . The soldiers had brought his father , PERSON Yıldız , to the hamlet an hour after their arrival . PERSON had then been separated from his father and the muhtar and had been released in GPE . DATE after this incident his father and the muhtar had been found dead in GPE .

PERSON stated that her husband and son had been taken away by soldiers on DATE and that while her son had been released DATE , her husband had been found dead along with ORG in GPE . She claimed that her husband and PERSON had been killed by the soldiers .

On DATE prosecuting authorities heard evidence from PERSON . PERSON , who was the muhtar of GPE village at the relevant time , stated that he had seen PERSON been taken away by soldiers . He had then inquired into the reason for detention of PERSON at FAC and had been told by the authorities that he would guide the soldiers coming from outside the region . However , the corpses of PERSON and PERSON had been found by PERSON .

Meanwhile , prosecuting authorities took statements from PERSON who is the father of PERSON . He alleged that his son and PERSON had been taken away and killed by soldiers .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction ratione loci and sent the investigation file to ORG office .

On DATE statements were taken from PERSON , who is the uncle of ORG . He stated that some of the villagers had described to him the area where the bodies had been found .

On DATE ORG authorities took statements from PERSON , the father of PERSON whose corpse was found together with PERSON . PERSON stated that he did not know the killer(s ) of his son and described the area where he found the bodies of the deceased persons .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of nonjurisdiction ratione loci and sent the investigation file to ORG office .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of nonjurisdiction ratione materiae and sent the case - file to ORG office at ORG ( Elazığ CARDINAL . ORG ) .

On DATE Public Prosecutor no . CARDINAL attached to the ORG office took statements from ORG . The latter stated that his son PERSON , who was the muhtar of GPE village , had been taken away by the soldiers . When he inquired into the arrest of his son , the authorities at FAC had told him that there was an investigation in relation to his son . On DATE PERSON found the bodies of his son and PERSON QUANTITY away from FAC . Efo Kavut asked ORG to initiate criminal proceedings against the soldiers that were responsible for the killing of his son .

On DATE Public Prosecutor no . CARDINAL took statements from PERSON , who worked as a non - commissioned officer at ORG DATE , in relation to the killing of PERSON . Mr PERSON stated that neither PERSON nor PERSON had been detained by their gendarmerie troops . However , he noted that these CARDINAL persons had accompanied a troop as guides in the course of their operations in the region . He did not know the name or commanding officer of the troop in question . He further claimed that he had had no information concerning the death of these QUANTITY persons .

On DATE Public Prosecutor no . DATE questioned Abdulvahip Sarı , who worked as an officer at ORG at the relevant time . Mr PERSON stated that PERSON and PERSON had not been detained at ORG . He had no information concerning the arrest and detention of these persons or the troops operating in the region .

On DATE ORG attached to ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction ratione loci and sent the investigation file to ORG office at the ORG of ORG .

In a letter of DATE the Deputy Military Prosecutor at the ORG of ORG asked ORG to report the names of the troops which had conducted operations in the region at the relevant time . He also requested that the names of persons , if any , who had assisted the troops as guides be reported to him . He further asked whether any complaint had been lodged concerning the killing of the persons and , if so , whether any investigation had been carried out into such allegations .

On DATE Military Public Prosecutor in ORG took statements from ORG in relation to the death of his son and PERSON . Mr ORG reiterated his allegations that his son could have been killed by the soldiers who had conducted operations in the region .

On DATE the Military Public prosecutor also took statements from PERSON , the wife of PERSON . She alleged that her husband had been taken away by soldiers and that therefore he must have been killed by them . She however stated that she did not know the names or ranks of the soldiers .

Finally , on DATE , ORG attached to ORG in GPE issued a decision of nonjurisdiction ratione materiae considering that the offence in question fell within the jurisdiction of the state security courts which were competent in terrorist or organised crimes . ORG noted that , despite the allegations that PERSON could have been taken away or killed by the security forces conducting operations in the region , there was no eye - witness and that the overall evidence given by the witnesses consisted of hearsay . He therefore considered that it was impossible to hold the security forces responsible for the killing of PERSON on the basis of hearsay evidence . In light of the evidence contained in the investigation file , ORG concluded that PERSON had been killed by members of the terrorist organisations . A copy of the investigation file was then sent to the Chief Public ORG offices at the ORG and ORG .

In a report dated DATE ORG stated that the investigation into the death of PERSON was still pending in order to identify the culprits .

The official records indicated that the inhabitants of the villages of GPE had evacuated their places of living on account of intense terrorist activities in the region and threats issued by the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) terrorist organisation against the villagers . The security forces had not destroyed any property or forced the applicants to leave their village . Furthermore , the applicants had not filed any complaint with the authorities concerning the alleged destruction of their property and their forced eviction from ORG . Thus no investigation had been carried out into these allegations which had only been submitted to ORG .

Currently there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and renewing their activities in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgments of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALII ( extracts ) ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in GPE . He is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in GPE of GPE .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery . The report of his arrest was drawn up TIME . He was issued with a copy of the report only in DATE .

An investigator informed the applicant of his statutory defence rights . The applicant countersigned a record indicating that he had voluntarily refused legal assistance and decided to answer the investigator 's questions . On DATE he was confronted with the victim , the co - defendant and a witness .

On DATE a prosecutor authorised the remand of the applicant in custody , without the latter being present .

NORP In DATE and DATE an investigator ordered CARDINAL expert examinations . According to the applicant , he was notified of these examinations in DATE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment in a high - security colony . The ORG based its judgment on statements by the victim , several eyewitnesses , expert reports and other material evidence . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction , but remitted the decision concerning the colony type for re - examination . On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant should serve his sentence in a high - security colony .

From DATE the applicant was detained in facilities nos . GPE and IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

According to certificates issued on DATE by the acting facility director , and produced by the ORG , the applicant was kept in CARDINAL cells . From DATE he was detained in cell no . CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY . From DATE to DATE he was kept in a QUANTITY . m cell , no . CARDINAL . According to the Government , the information on the number of inmates in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL was not available as the documents had been destroyed . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant remained in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . DATE and DATE that cell housed CARDINAL detainees . The Government , relying on the certificates of DATE , further submitted that at all times the applicant had had an individual bunk and bedding . However , the facility was not able to produce the applicant 's record confirming the latter submission as it had been sent to another detention facility in GPE .

The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements . He , however , alleged that he had shared cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL detainees . That cell had CARDINAL bunks . Cell no . CARDINAL accommodated CARDINAL inmates . Given the lack of beds , inmates slept in shifts .

The Government , relying on the information provided by the office of ORG , submitted that all cells were disinfected on a “ regular basis ” . Inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week . The applicant was provided with bedding . The cells were ventilated naturally through the windows . Each cell also had a ventilating shaft . The Government further argued that the temperature in the cells had been “ normal ” . Additional window - frames with glass were inserted in DATE . The cells were equipped with lamps which functioned DATE and TIME .

The applicant disagreed with the ORG 's description and submitted that the sanitary conditions had been unsatisfactory . The cells were infected with bed - bugs and lice but the administration did not provide any insecticides . Windows were not glazed and were covered with thick metal bars that blocked access to natural light and fresh air . It was extremely cold in DATE and in DATE it was hot , stuffy and excessively damp inside . Inmates had an TIME - long walk DATE . On admission to the facility the applicant was provided with bedding which was dirty and smelt badly . The bedding was seized when he was transferred to a hospital in DATE . When he returned , he was not provided with bedding at all . No toiletries were distributed .

According to the applicant , from DATE he was kept in detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . He was detained in CARDINAL different cells , which were severely overcrowded . At all times the number of detainees was greater than that of the available bunks . The general conditions of his detention in that facility were similar to those in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , save for CARDINAL aspect . In DATE detainees were afforded a TIME walk at TIME because it was extremely hot and many inmates had suffered heart attacks .

The Government did not comment on this .

According to a certificate of the head of correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE , in DATE the applicant was diagnosed with viral hepatitis of type B and on DATE he was admitted to an isolation ward in the facility hospital . The Government submitted that he had undergone treatment until DATE and had been transferred back to a cell after his full recovery . The Government gave a detailed description of the treatment the applicant had been provided with , including the type of medicine , dose and frequency . They also furnished a copy of the applicant 's medical record and medical certificates . The Government further noted that the applicant had never complained to the facility administration or any other authority that medical assistance was lacking or was of poor quality .

The applicant argued that in DATE he had been transferred to the facility hospital because he had contracted hepatitis . He was placed on a drip CARDINAL or CARDINAL times during his treatment and provided with medication that did not help . Dietetic food was not provided and he refused to eat the hospital food because it was too greasy . He unsuccessfully complained to the head of the hospital about inadequate medical assistance . The latter encouraged him to ask his relatives to bring the necessary medicines because the hospital did not have them . According to the applicant , he was released from the hospital although he did not fully recover . On a number of occasions he complained to a doctor in facility no . GPE about a pain in his liver . The doctor allegedly told him that the facility did not have the necessary medicines and that he should ask relatives to buy them .

Section CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) provides that detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health according to standards established by ORG of GPE . Section CARDINAL provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have QUANTITY of personal space in his or her cell .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) visited GPE from DATE . The section of its ORG to ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) dealing with the conditions of detention in remand establishments and the complaints procedure read as follows :

It should be stressed at the outset that the ORG was pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great concern for the NORP penitentiary system : overcrowding .

When the ORG first visited GPE in DATE , overcrowding was identified as the most important and urgent challenge facing the prison system . At DATE visit , the delegation was informed that the remand prison population had decreased by CARDINAL since DATE . An example of that trend was GPE No CARDINAL in GPE , which had registered a PERCENT decrease in the remand prison population over DATE .

The ORG welcomes the measures taken in DATE by the NORP authorities to address the problem of overcrowding , including instructions issued by ORG , aimed at a more selective use of the preventive measure of remand in custody . Nevertheless , the information gathered by the ORG 's delegation shows that much remains to be done . In particular , overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are underdeveloped . In this respect , the ORG reiterates the recommendations made in its previous reports ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ; paragraphs CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ; paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

As during previous visits , many prisoners expressed scepticism about the operation of the complaints procedure . In particular , the view was expressed that it was not possible to complain in a confidential manner to an outside authority . In fact , all complaints , regardless of the addressee , were registered by staff in a special book which also contained references to the nature of the complaint . At Colony No CARDINAL , the supervising prosecutor indicated that , during his inspections , he was usually accompanied by senior staff members and prisoners would normally not request to meet him in private “ because they know that all complaints usually pass through the colony 's administration ” .

In the light of the above , the ORG reiterates its recommendation that the NORP authorities review the application of complaints procedures , with a view to ensuring that they are operating effectively . If necessary , the existing arrangements should be modified in order to guarantee that prisoners can make complaints to outside bodies on a truly confidential basis . ”