The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE , the applicant was convicted of murder , a premeditated offence described by the trial judge as “ brutal and savage ” . The applicant had a number of previous convictions including assault , actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm . He was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment . The pre - trial medical report found that his traits fitted into the definition of psychopathic disorder and that he thus had a serious personality disorder . In view of his age , then CARDINAL , it was not considered that the applicant require , or would benefit from , any medical treatment . The trial judge advised the Home Secretary that “ the applicant is and will be for a long time dangerous , if at large ” and recommended a tariff ( the minimum period of detention needed to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence ) of DATE , having regard inter alia to his history of violence , the premeditated , if random , nature of the murder , the brutal character of the murder and the applicant ’s lack of remorse . The ORG Secretary accepted the recommendation and fixed the tariff to expire on DATE .

Whilst in prison , the applicant received CARDINAL adverse adjudications including CARDINAL assault of a prison officer , CARDINAL assaults on other prisoners , CARDINAL instances of abusive conduct and CARDINAL drug offences .

The release review procedure commenced DATE before the expiry of the applicant ’s tariff . ORG decided against any move to open conditions for release preparation and recommended a review in DATE . By letter dated DATE , the Secretary of ORG informed the applicant that ORG had not recommended his release for the following reasons :

“ ... Until [ the applicant ] changes his attitude to his offending behaviour he will remain as a high risk to the public . The ORG is concerned by his continued lack of remorse for any of the victims of his violent offences and by the fact that at present he has made no positive effort to understand the causes and consequences of his violent offending . Consequently there has been no progress in his doing so . The ORG notes that he now admits that his personality and his attitudes are problem areas and that he has shown his willingness to address these . In particular he needs to do work on violence and anger control and his attitudes to women , so as to reduce the risk of his re - offending . ... ”

The next ORG review was set to begin in DATE .

On DATE , ORG reviewed the applicant ’s case and recommended that the applicant was “ clearly unsuitable ” for release or move to open prison . By letter dated DATE , the applicant was informed by the Home Secretary of the reasons :

“ ... [ the applicant ’s ] index offence , past criminal record taken in conjunction with his current attitude to offending , lack of empathy , refusal to participate in relevant offending behaviour courses and a recent positive mandatory drug test makes him clearly unsuitable for release or open conditions . Unless [ the applicant ] participates in and successfully completes the relevant courses to understand the causes and consequences of his offending and shows sustained improvement in his attitude and behaviour , he can not be considered as an acceptable risk for the progressive move to open conditions . [ The applicant ’s ] co - operation with Psychologist and Psychiatrist is essential in terms of assessing his future risk . The extensive range of work required to reduce his risk will take time , hence his next review should be scheduled for DATE . ”

On DATE , ORG conducted its third review of the applicant ’s case . It again concluded that the applicant was not ready for release or move to open conditions , recommending that he remain in closed conditions and that his case be reviewed DATE . By letter dated DATE , the Home Secretary accepted the recommendation :

“ Until relatively recently [ the applicant ] has refused to participate in any offending behaviour programmes . However reports prepared in DATE indicated that he was willing to attend anger management , an R & R course and courses in relationships and personal development but he has not yet participated in such courses and subsequently refused to be interviewed by the prison psychologist . Throughout his sentence [ the applicant ] has demonstrated no remorse for the index and previous offences , and the panel therefore considers his risk is not yet low enough for open conditions . ”

The next review was set for DATE .

On DATE , ORG met to review the applicant ’s progress in sentence planning targets over DATE and to agree targets for DATE . It noted that the applicant had indicated a willingness to participate in an anger management course but had not embarked on one because no such course was then being offered at his prison . It also stated that he had also indicated a willingness to participate in a Reasoning and Rehabilitation course but was still awaiting assessment for entry onto the course . It also further noted that in DATE he had completed courses in assertiveness and decision making , relationships and money management . Prison and probation officers both reported good behaviour and the ORG stated that during the last reporting period , there had been no displays of any of the risk factors earlier identified as obstacles to the release of the applicant .

The Government stated that the ORG ’s report was not wholly accurate . In DATE , the applicant had in fact attended classes in CARDINAL elements of “ ORG ” course , including elements of improving assertiveness and decision - making and healthy living . He did not attend any classes in relationships . Meanwhile , they explained that in DATE , the applicant ’s prison offered the Reasoning and Rehabilitation course for the first time . The applicant did not apply . The course ran again in DATE but the prisoners who had previously applied unsuccessfully were given priority . The applicant was referred by his personal prison officer for the course in DATE but rejected the opportunity , stating at the assessment interview that he had no interest in , or need for , such a course . When he was nonetheless allocated a place on the course , he missed the first session due to a family visit and then , according to the Government , failed to respond to repeated invitations to start the course on DATE . The applicant stated that he could not attend this course due to illness but that he started this course in DATE .

In DATE , the prison psychologist explained to the applicant that he was no longer considered suitable to attend the anger management course as he did not meet the assessment criteria ( namely , recent angry or aggressive behaviour ) . The applicant states that this course nonetheless remains on his sentence plan .

The legislation which governed sentencing and release on licence at the time when the applicant was sentenced was LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . The provisions of this LAW were subsequently replaced by ORG from DATE .

At the relevant time , the DATE Act provided in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) :

“ If recommended to do so by the [ ORG , the Secretary of ORG may , after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice together with the trial judge if available , release on licence a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner . ”

In determining the principles of fairness that apply to the procedures governing the review of mandatory life sentences , the NORP courts have recognised that the mandatory sentence is , like the discretionary sentence , composed of both a punitive period ( “ the tariff ” ) and a security period . As regards the latter , detention is linked to the assessment of the prisoner ’s risk to the public following the expiry of the tariff ( see , for example , NORP v. ORG , ex parte Bradley ( ORG ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL ; NORP v. ORG ex parte ORG ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL AER CARDINAL ) .

Once the tariff period has expired , periodic reviews are conducted by ORG to determine whether the prisoner meets the criteria for a recommendation of release on life licence to be made to the Secretary of ORG . According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act , the final decision on release rests with the Secretary of ORG . If release is not recommended , ORG sets the date for the next review . It is open to the Secretary of ORG to bring forward the date of the next review where a prisoner shows unexpectedly rapid progress . However , a prisoner can not himself apply for a review during the interval set by ORG .

Section CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides :

“ It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

DATE “ Ekspres Sudecki ” , a local newspaper , published letters of certain PERSON and PERSON The authors accused the applicant , at the time the Deputy Mayor of GPE , of fraud and called him a “ liar ” .

On DATE the applicant brought a private prosecution on charges of libel against ORG and GPE to ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) .

The trial began on CARDINAL DATE . The court adjourned the hearing due to the absence of CARDINAL of the defendants .

Further hearings were listed for CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , but most of them were adjourned because of the parties ' or their lawyers ' absence .

On DATE the ORG adjourned the trial because the defendants had failed to appear .

The next hearing , set down for DATE , was cancelled because of the absence of the lay judge .

Further hearings , scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE were adjourned because of the absence of the defendants , their counsel , a witness and the applicant . The court decided to impose a fine on CARDINAL of the witnesses who had failed to appear .

At the hearing on DATE the defendants ' counsel informed the court that he would not represent them any longer .

On DATE the trial was adjourned because the defendants had failed to appear . The court ordered that both defendants be subjected to police supervision in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings .

On DATE the court lifted police supervision in respect of M.W.

A hearing set down for DATE was adjourned since the defendants and a witness had failed to appear before the court . The court ordered that ORG be detained on remand to ensure his presence at hearings .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because ORG , the applicant and witnesses had failed to appear .

On DATE PERSON challenged the impartiality of all the judges sitting in ORG . The challenge was dismissed as unfounded by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

At a hearing on DATE ORG decided to re - hear evidence due to the change of the composition of the court . It also lifted ORG 's detention and ordered that he be subjected to police supervision .

Hearings scheduled for CARDINAL DATE and DATE were adjourned because of ORG 's and his counsel 's absence .

On DATE the court held a hearing .

The next hearing , which was to be held on DATE , was adjourned because ORG had failed to appear . The court ordered that he be brought to the court by the police for the next hearing .

At the hearing on DATE PERSON 's counsel asked the court to allow him time to inspect new documentary evidence and to adjourn the trial .

NORP The proceedings were subsequently stayed because the applicant 's lawyer was ill .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because of the absence of PERSON , his lawyer and witnesses .

The court resumed the proceedings at a hearing on DATE . It also imposed a fine on CARDINAL of the witnesses who had failed to appear .

On DATE the court held that the conduct of ORG made it impossible for it to try the case and decided to sever the charges against him . On DATE PERSON 's counsel refused to represent him any longer .

A hearing set down for DATE was adjourned because a witness had not appeared .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was cancelled due to the judge 's absence .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON as charged and ordered that he publish an official apology to the applicant in a local newspaper . It also conditionally discontinued the proceedings against ORG

Both defendants appealed against that judgment .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against both defendants , as the statutory period of limitation for imposing a sentence had expired .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .

The case was again remitted on DATE .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings because ORG had absconded and a warrant to search for him by a “ wanted notice ” had been issued .

Hearings set down for DATE and DATE were adjourned due to the defendants ' absence .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the same grounds as before .

The ORG upheld that decision on DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code CARDINAL ( which is no longer in force and was repealed and replaced by the so - called “ New Criminal Code ” ) , as applicable at the material time , reads as follows :

“ § CARDINAL . Anyone who imputes to another person , a group of persons or an institution such behaviour or characteristics , which may debase them in the public opinion or expose to loss of the trust necessary for a certain position , occupation or a type of activity , shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding DATE , a restriction of liberty or a fine .

§ CARDINAL . Anyone who raises or makes public untrue allegation about behaviour or characteristics of another person , a group of persons or institutions in order to debase them in the public opinion or expose to loss of the trust necessary for a certain position , occupation or a type of activity , shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding DATE .

§ CARDINAL . The prosecution takes place under a private bill of indictment . ”

At the material time the rules governing detention on remand were contained in Part VI of LAW of DATE ( repealed and replaced by the so - called “ LAW ” of DATE ) entitled “ Coercive measures ” ( NORP przymusu ) . Under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL a court , in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings , could subject an accused to police supervision . LAW ( CARDINAL ) provided that detention on remand could be imposed if there was a reasonable risk that an accused would abscond or go into hiding . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL stated that a fine could be imposed on a witness who failed to appear before a court when summoned . Under § CARDINAL of that provision , a court could also order that such person be brought to a court by the police .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 13+5 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security)

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

The applicants are :

CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON Manayeva , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) Mr ORG , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL) Mr PERSON , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON Salmanovna Bantayeva , born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , and

CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE .

The applicants are NORP nationals who live in the village of LOC , in the ORG district of GPE .

The applicants are relatives . The first applicant is the mother of PERSON PERSON ( also known as ORG ) , born in DATE , and Mr PERSON , born in DATE . PERSON is married to the second applicant ; they are the parents of DATE and the eleventh applicants . PERSON is married to the third applicant ; they are the parents of DATE applicants . The first applicant has CARDINAL other children , PERSON and Mr PERSON , who are not applicants in this case .

Prior to DATE PERSON and PERSON participated in illegal armed groups . In DATE they quitted paramilitary activities and voluntarily handed their arms over to ORG of ORG ( ORG ) . On DATE PERSON and PERSON were provided with individual statements to this effect by ORG of LOC ( the Gudermes FSB ) together with the military commander of the security zone of LOC ( комендант зоны безопасности ) .

At the material time NORP federal forces checkpoints were located on roads leading to and from the village of GPE .

According to the first applicant , DATE prior to DATE , that is , in DATE , she , her son PERSON and their neighbour were in a ORG lorry driving from their village to the village of ORG in the ORG district of GPE . On the road between ORG and ORG their lorry was stopped by NORP military servicemen in an ORG ( armoured personnel carrier ) . They checked the identity papers of PERSON and his neighbour . The servicemen had a list against which they checked PERSON name . After that they told the first applicant that they would take her son away with them . They put PERSON into the ORG and took him to a military unit stationed near ORG . The applicant ’s other son , PERSON , went to the military unit on DATE to find out the reasons for his brother ’s detention . TIME of the same day PERSON was released .

On TIME PERSON and his children were sleeping in CARDINAL part of the house at FAC , in the village of GPE . PERSON brother , PERSON , was sleeping in another part of the house . PERSON wife was not at home TIME as she was visiting her relatives in another village .

TIME a group of masked men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns broke into the house . The men did not introduce themselves ; they spoke NORP without an accent . The fourth applicant thought they were NORP servicemen .

The servicemen pointed their guns at the family members and lined them up along the wall . When the fourth applicant started to cry , CARDINAL of them ordered her in NORP to keep silent .

The servicemen searched the house and took the family ’s TV set , PERSON identity papers and the documents for his car . After that they took PERSON outside , put him into a UAZ vehicle parked next to the house and drove away to an unknown destination .

NORP Immediately after PERSON apprehension ORG rushed to see their mother in the house of his brother PERSON . The latter ’s house was located just a few minutes’ walk from PERSON house . On his way there he met his sister PERSON who told him that their brother PERSON had also been abducted by armed men .

On TIME the first applicant , PERSON , PERSON and his children were sleeping in PERSON house at CARDINAL FAC ( also spelled FAC ) , in the village of GPE . The house was located QUANTITY from the local military commander ’s office .

TIME on DATE a group of around CARDINAL men broke into the house . They wore masks and camouflage uniforms with no insignia and were armed with machine guns . They spoke both NORP and NORP . The applicants thought they were NORP military servicemen . A group of CARDINAL servicemen waited outside , next to the grey and khaki - coloured ORG vehicles parked in the yard .

The servicemen tied up PERSON and the eighth applicant and put them in CARDINAL of the rooms . Then they searched the house , ripping upholstery , turning furniture upside down and demanding gold and money from PERSON . From the window of their room PERSON saw the intruders taking some items of their family property and putting them in one of the ORG vehicles . When PERSON saw from the window one of the intruders taking a TV set into the UAZ vehicle , she started screaming that their house was being robbed . The serviceman with the TV set heard this and put the TV set back in the house .

The servicemen took a number of items of the family ’s property , including a video camera , as well as PERSON identity papers , marriage certificate , documents for his car and the family photograph albums . After that they took PERSON into the yard . Without letting him put on clothing or shoes , the servicemen put PERSON in CARDINAL of the ORG vehicles and drove away towards ORG .

NORP The applicants’ neighbour PERSON testified that TIME on DATE she had seen military ORG cars and a grey UAZ car ( “ таблетка ” ) pulling over by PERSON house . CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks went into the yard . PERSON thought these men belonged to the NORP military . Having spent TIME in the applicants’ house , the servicemen left . Then PERSON saw the first applicant and her daughter stepping outside the house ; the QUANTITY women told her that the servicemen had taken PERSON and PERSON away . PERSON went into the applicants’ house and saw that everything there had been turned upside down .

Shortly after PERSON abduction and the meeting with his sister GPE on the way , PERSON came over to his mother ’s house and told her that NORP servicemen had also taken PERSON away .

The first applicant and PERSON immediately went to LOC military commander ’s office ( the district military commander ’s office ) and requested information about their relatives from a duty officer who refused to identify himself . The officer replied that he knew nothing about the PERSON brothers and that he would not bother his superiors in DATE .

In TIME of DATE the first applicant reported her sons’ disappearance to the LOC department of the interior ( LOC ) . Later on the same day the police visited the houses of the PERSON brothers and collected witness statements .

The applicants have had no news of PERSON and PERSON since DATE .

NORP In support of their statements , the applicants submitted the following documents : witness statement of the first applicant , provided on DATE ; witness statement of the fourth applicant , provided on DATE ; witness statement of the eighth applicant , provided on DATE ; witness statement of the first applicant ’s daughter PERSON Madina Bantayeva , provided on DATE ; witness statement of the first applicant ’s neighbour PERSON , provided on DATE ; witness statement of the applicants’ relative PERSON , provided on DATE ; hand - drawn map of the first applicant ’s house ; copies of statements no . CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL issued by ORG and the military commander of the LOC in respect of PERSON and PERSON accordingly , confirming that they had surrendered their weapons and quitted their participation in illegal armed groups , both documents dated DATE .

The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the abduction of PERSON and PERSON . According to their submission , “ during TIME DATE , unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks , armed with automatic weapons , abducted PERSON from his house at CARDINAL FAC and PERSON from his house at LOC in the village of LOC in the ORG district of GPE ” .

The Government further submitted that the applicants had not been consistent in their description of the facts as , according to the first applicant , the abductors spoke NORP and NORP , whereas the eighth applicant had stated that they spoke only NORP . According to the ORG , communication in NORP was not typical for representatives of NORP federal forces .

Since DATE the first applicant has repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies . She has been supported in her efforts by the SRJI NGO . In her letters to the authorities the first applicant referred to her sons’ detention and asked for assistance and details of the investigation . Mostly these enquiries have remained unanswered , or purely formal replies have been given in which her requests have been forwarded to various ORG offices . The applicants submitted some of the letters to the authorities and their replies to the ORG . These documents are summarised below .

On DATE the first applicant requested the head of the NORP administration , the GPE prosecutor and the GPE military prosecutor to assist her in the search for her sons . In her letter she stated that her sons had been abducted by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms who had arrived in CARDINAL ORG vehicles . She also pointed out that her sons had quitted their participation in illegal armed groups in DATE and that since then they had been law - abiding citizens .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to ORG , the GPE prosecutor ’s office , the military prosecutor of ORG ( the military prosecutor of the ORG ) and the Chief Federal Inspector of ORG in GPE requesting assistance in the search for her sons . In her letters she stated that her sons had been abducted by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms who had arrived in CARDINAL ORG vehicles . She also pointed out that her sons had quitted their participation in illegal armed groups in DATE and since then they had been law - abiding citizens . The applicant requested to be informed whether the authorities had brought any charges against her sons and what had been the reasons for their arrest .

On DATE the first applicant requested the district prosecutor ’s office to institute an investigation into her sons’ disappearance and provide her with information about its progress .

On DATE the SRJI wrote on behalf of the first applicant to the district prosecutor ’s office . They stated that the applicant ’s CARDINAL sons had been taken away by representatives of federal forces in camouflage uniforms who had arrived in CARDINAL ORG cars . The PERSON requested to be informed whether an investigation into the PERSON ORG disappearance had been instituted and , if so , which investigative measures had been taken to solve the crime . They also requested that the first applicant be granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office replied to the SRJI stating that the investigation into the ORG kidnapping had been instituted on DATE and that it had been suspended on an unspecified date for failure to identify the culprits . They further noted that victim status in the criminal proceedings had already been granted to PERSON .

On DATE the PERSON requested the district prosecutor ’s office to be informed about progress in the investigation , to have the criminal proceedings resumed and to be provided with information about the measures taken to solve the crime . No response was given to this request .

The applicants were not informed about any further progress in the criminal investigation .

On DATE operational search officer A. of the Gudermes ROVD carried out a crime scene examination in the houses of the abducted PERSON brothers . It does not appear that any evidence was collected from the crime scene .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of PERSON and PERSON under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was assigned number CARDINAL .

On DATE the first applicant ’s son Mr PERSON was granted victim status in the criminal case . On DATE he was questioned by the investigators and testified that PERSON children had told him that at TIME on DATE their father had been abducted by unknown masked men . The abductors had also taken away a number of items of their property and documents . The witness had decided to inform his other brother PERSON about PERSON ’s abduction . On the way to his house he had met his sister GPE who had told him that PERSON had also been abducted by unidentified armed men who had arrived at their house in UAZ cars . PERSON abductors had also taken away documents and a number of items of property from the applicants’ house , including a video camera .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative Mr A.Sh . who testified that he did not have any information about the reasons for the abduction of PERSON and PERSON ; he also stated that he was aware that in the past the brothers had participated in illegal armed groups .

On DATE the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the deputy GPE prosecutor overruled the decision of DATE and the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the first applicant ’s daughter , PERSON , was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and testified that on DATE she had arrived at her mother ’s house . Her mother was living with her brother PERSON and his family . At TIME on DATE a group of unidentified armed men in masks had arrived at their house in CARDINAL ORG cars , which they had parked in the yard . The men entered the house , turned everything upside down , slashed the furniture ’s upholstery , bound her hands with adhesive tape and put her with the first applicant in CARDINAL of the rooms . PERSON had not witnessed the abduction , but the eighth applicant had told her that the abductors had demanded money and gold . PERSON stated that she had seen from the window the abductors taking away their property . When she had started screaming that their house was being robbed by the intruders , CARDINAL of them had returned the TV set to the house .

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the ORG district acting prosecutor overruled the decision of DATE and the investigation was resumed . The applicants were informed about this decision .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigators questioned the eighth and fourth applicants as well as PERSON neighbour , PERSON The eighth applicant testified that on an unspecified date in DATE he had woken up and had seen a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms in the house . They had demanded money and gold ; having spent TIME in the house , they had left with his father PERSON . They had also taken away some of their family ’s valuables . The fourth applicant testified that on an unspecified date in DATE she had woken up and had seen a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms . They had demanded money and gold ; having spent TIME in the house , they had left with her father PERSON . They had also taken away their family ’s TV set . PERSON testified that QUANTITY on DATE she had seen from her window CARDINAL ORG cars next to the Bantayevs’ house . A group of CARDINAL men in masks and camouflage uniforms had got out of the cars , entered PERSON house and had left TIME .

On DATE , i.e. on CARDINAL DATE , the investigators refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the unlawful entry into the home and the theft of documents from the houses of PERSON and PERSON due to the expiration of the statutory time - limits , but the district prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation into the theft from the houses of PERSON and PERSON on TIME of their abduction under LAW ( aggravated robbery ) . The criminal case file was assigned number DATE . The investigators also granted PERSON the status of civil plaintiff in criminal case no . CARDINAL . On DATE PERSON was granted the same status in the criminal proceedings .

On an unspecified date the investigators requested information from LOC about the passage of military vehicles through the checkpoints in the village of GPE on TIME of the abduction of the PERSON brothers . According to the response from the ORG , no passage of military vehicles had been registered that night .

According to the Government , the investigators also requested information from various law enforcement agencies in GPE concerning the disappearance of the PERSON brothers . ORG of ORG in GPE ( временная оперативная группировка МВД РФ в Чечне ) , ORG and LOC of ORG ( ORG оперативное управление ORG PERSON ) and other agencies submitted that they had no information concerning the whereabouts of the PERSON brothers . Law enforcement agencies in GPE informed the investigators that their agents had not detained PERSON and PERSON and had not carried out any investigation in respect of them . The brothers had not been detained on administrative or criminal charges . No special operations had been carried out in respect of the disappeared men .

The investigation in the criminal case failed to establish the whereabouts of PERSON and PERSON . However , it found no evidence to support the involvement of servicemen of federal forces in the abduction of the ORG relatives .

The Government further submitted that the investigation into the abduction of the PERSON brothers had been suspended and resumed on several occasions , and so far it had failed to identify the perpetrators . The applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation .

Despite specific requests by ORG did not disclose any documents from criminal case no . CARDINAL . The ORG stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

For a summary of relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


Preliminary objection dismissed (exhaustion) - Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE ORG and Highways expropriated land ( plot no . CARDINAL ) and a building which the applicant coowned . The applicant received an amount determined by a committee of experts at the time of the expropriation .

On DATE the applicant filed an action for additional compensation with ORG . On DATE the first - instance court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court 's decision . This judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the first - instance court awarded the applicant additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court 's decision , running from DATE . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

On DATE the administration paid the applicant TRL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) covering the additional compensation , interest , costs and expenses .

The relevant domestic law and practice are outlined in the Aka v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

On DATE the first applicant lodged a claim , seeking that the paternity of the defendant be established in respect of the second applicant . The applicants also claimed child support . On DATE ORG dismissed their claims . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' appeal . The applicants requested the Minister of Justice to lodge on their behalf an extraordinary appeal against the judgment . On DATE the Minister of ORG lodged such an appeal with ORG , maintaining that the lower courts had committed serious errors of substantive law .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgments and ordered the case to be reconsidered .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicants ' claims . On DATE , as a result of the applicants ' appeal , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered the case to be reconsidered .

On DATE the defendant informed ORG that he refused to undergo the DNA tests . Notwithstanding his refusal , CARDINAL other dates ( DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) were fixed for the purpose of these tests . The defendant did not report for the tests on any of these dates .

On DATE the next hearing was held . The court fixed for the defendant a DATE time - limit in which he was to take a final decision as to the DNA tests . In a letter of DATE the defendant informed the court about his refusal to undergo them , submitting that the first applicant had on many occasions lied in the course of proceedings . He referred to the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE in which it had been stated that the applicant had submitted inaccurate information as to her last menstruation before the pregnancy .

On DATE the next hearing was held . During the hearing held on DATE the court heard another witness and asked the defendant again whether he would undergo the DNA tests . He refused .

On DATE and DATE further hearings were held . The court questioned CARDINAL witness and an expert who had been appointed earlier . The court again asked whether the defendant would agree to undergo the DNA tests and again he refused to do so . On DATE he challenged one of the lay judges sitting on the court panel .

On DATE another hearing was held . The defendant again refused to undergo the DNA tests and the court heard another witness . At the subsequent hearing , which was held on DATE , the court questioned the applicant and the defendant . At the hearing held on DATE the defendant was absent . On DATE the court decided to close the hearing and adjourned the delivery of the judgment until DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed again the applicant 's claims . The court considered that the applicant 's testimony contained contradictory information . It further noted that she had tried not to reveal to the court certain facts established in the course of the proceedings and relevant to the ruling in the case , such as the fact of spending a night in CARDINAL room in the hotel “ N ” with another man during the period of possible conception . The defendant 's testimony , on the other hand , was quite consistent .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment with ORG .

The first hearing in the appellate proceedings was held before that court on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the judgment , considering that her testimony was contradictory and that she had induced witnesses to give false testimony .

On DATE the Minister of ORG again lodged an extraordinary appeal , considering that there had been serious errors of fact and law , in particular in that the court 's conclusions as to the facts were incompatible with the evidence before it . It was argued that the defendant 's repeated refusals to undergo the DNA tests should be assessed in a more critical manner in view of the fact that he was a physician and knew the value of such evidence in paternity proceedings .

As a result of the Minister 's appeal , the contested judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE and the case was remitted to ORG for reconsideration .

The first hearing in the proceedings took place on DATE before ORG . The court ordered the defendant to take his final decision as regards the DNA tests within DATE . On DATE the next hearing was held . The witnesses summoned for that date failed to attend . The defendant was also absent due to his professional obligations . At the hearing held on DATE , the defendant was again absent . The applicant lodged a motion to have her claims secured by way of an interlocutory decision .

A next hearing took place on DATE as the court encountered certain problems with locating and summoning witnesses called by the parties . The defendant again refused to undergo the DNA tests .

A next hearing was to take place on DATE , but it was adjourned as the parties were absent . The court decided to request ORG to hear CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE another hearing was held . On DATE ORG questioned one of the witnesses summoned by ORG . The other witness did not comply with the summons both on DATE and later on DATE , when ORG imposed a fine of CARDINAL ORG on that witness . He was ultimately heard on DATE .

The defendant failed to attend CARDINAL hearings before ORG , held on DATE . On DATE ORG decided to secure the applicant 's claims . The delay in deciding the motion of the applicant of DATE resulted from the defendant 's failure to provide the court with the certificates concerning his financial situation . On DATE the defendant lodged an appeal against this decision .

On DATE the second applicant informed ORG that she wished to join the proceedings as a plaintiff alongside her mother . Unexpectedly , on DATE the defendant informed the court that he agreed to undergo the DNA tests . On DATE the court decided to allow the DNA tests evidence and on DATE the court dismissed the defendant 's appeal against the decision of DATE , by which the applicants ' maintenance claims had been secured . ORG

The DNA tests were made on DATE in ORG of ORG in GPE . The results of the tests gave MONEY certainty that the defendant was the father of the second applicant . The opinion was sent to ORG on DATE .

At the hearing held on DATE , the applicants ' counsel proposed a friendly settlement . The hearing was adjourned until DATE . The hearing which was to be held on that date was adjourned as the presiding judge had fallen ill . At the hearing held on DATE the parties negotiated the terms of the friendly settlement .

On DATE the court gave a decision in which it established the paternity of the defendant and discontinued the proceedings regarding the child support due to a friendly settlement concluded between the parties in this respect .

Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , as applicable at the material time , provided that an extraordinary appeal could be lodged against any final judicial decision with ORG by the Minister of Justice - the Prosecutor General , the President of ORG and the ORG . An extraordinary appeal could be lodged on the ground that the decision was in flagrant breach of the law . A party to the proceedings could file a request to have such an appeal lodged with these authorities on his or her behalf . ORG , having examined the extraordinary appeal at a public hearing , could dismiss it if no grounds for allowing it had been established . If the extraordinary appeal was allowed , ORG could set the decision under appeal aside and rule on the merits of the case , or reject the claim and discontinue the proceedings .

The case - law of ORG establishes a principle according to which the court should critically assess , in the light of all evidence available in the case , the refusal of the alleged father to undergo the biological tests , relevant for the establishing of paternity .


CASE OF VALERIU AND NICOLAE ROSCA v. MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect)

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

The applicants , Mr PERSON ( V.R. ) and Mr PERSON ( GPE ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .

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

On DATE I.C. complained to the NORP police that he had been abducted and robbed by unidentified assailants .

On DATE both applicants were arrested by officers from FAC in GPE . According to the applicants , no reasons were given for their arrest , during which they both were beaten by the arresting officers .

The applicants claim that at the police station they again received blows and kicks over a period of TIME . They were later taken to ORG in PERSON , where they were pressured to confess to crimes they had not committed . Following their refusal , they were each beaten , then handcuffed on the floor , where they received truncheon blows to the soles of their feet and electric shocks .

As a result of the ill - treatment , ORG wrote a self - incriminatory statement , but did not sign it , as a form of protest . The applicants were subsequently moved back to FAC , where the investigator offered them documents to sign under threat of further ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicants were taken to FAC . As was later explained by the NORP police officers , this was necessary in order to verify the applicants ' possible involvement in the crime against NORP described above . On DATE the ORG delegation visited the police station . N.R. informed the ORG about ill - treatment at FAC and ORG .

NORP The applicants state that after the departure of the ORG delegation , they were taken to an office and ill - treated for TIME on end , with truncheon blows to the soles of their feet and to their heads , in order to make them confess to crimes they had not committed .

On DATE the ORG delegation returned to ORG and saw GPE , who had complained of ill - treatment DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL officers from ORG visited GPE , who repeated his complaints of ill - treatment at FAC , ORG , and FAC . Both applicants were then taken to LOC and later to ORG .

The applicants claim that as a result of their ill - treatment they partly lost their hearing and have frequent headaches and pain .

The applicants complained of ill - treatment in all CARDINAL establishments in which they had been detained , but the prosecution refused to initiate criminal investigations in respect of all but CARDINAL of the complaints , that relating to ill - treatment at FAC . None of the police officers was suspended and some allegedly put pressure on the applicants and their families to withdraw their complaints .

On DATE a police inspector , Colonel PERSON , submitted a report to the Minister of ORG , describing the visit of the ORG to ORG and the findings made on DATE , namely that the conditions of detention and medical care there were inadequate and that a person detained there , identified as Mr PERSON , had been found to have suffered serious bodily harm . PERSON proposed that the person concerned be transferred as a matter of urgency to a secure location and offered access to a lawyer and that a report be drawn up in compliance with the recommendations .

On DATE the applicants were taken , in the absence of their lawyers , to a doctor to determine the degree of damage to their health . The doctor found injuries to various parts of their bodies , including haematomas ranging from QUANTITY to QUANTITY , which were characterised by the doctor as “ slight injuries ” .

Also on DATE TIME reported to the Minister of ORG on “ the results of examining information regarding the torture of detainees at [ FAC ] ” . The report stated that the applicants had complained to the ORG of ill - treatment by officers from FAC . The preliminary investigation established the names of CARDINAL police officers who had dealt with the applicants ' case there and those of another QUANTITY officers involved in the case at FAC in GPE . On questioning , all the officers had denied ill - treating the applicants . Since medical reports showed slight injuries to both applicants and since the inconsistencies between the various pieces of evidence could only be explained after a full investigation , PERSON recommended the initiation of criminal proceedings against all QUANTITY police officers and investigators involved .

On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG asked ORG to initiate a criminal investigation into the case .

NORP In a report to the Minister of ORG on an unknown date , the commanding officer at ORG denied any ill - treatment of the applicants . He mentioned that they had made no request for access to a lawyer .

On DATE ORG initiated a criminal investigation into the applicants ' alleged ill - treatment . On DATE another investigation was initiated into the alleged negligence of the commanding officer at FAC . The cases were later joined . On DATE the investigation into the applicants ' ill - treatment on DATE in FAC was discontinued for lack of evidence . In response to the applicants ' complaint , on DATE ORG reiterated the decision of DATE . It appears that the applicants did not challenge either decision in court .

On DATE a further medical report was issued after a fresh examination of GPE The expert was asked whether the injuries which ORG had sustained could have been caused by falling , or hitting objects in the cell . The report did not exclude this as an alternative explanation for the injuries .

On DATE the prosecution submitted the case against the police officers from GPE police station for examination by the trial court .

A certificate issued on DATE by the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL in PERSON , where ORG was detained , confirmed that ORG was being treated for the consequences of brain damage and asthenic - depressive syndrome and mentioned an injury he had allegedly received to his head in DATE .

On DATE ORG acquitted CARDINAL officers accused of abuse of power for unlawfully beating the applicants . The court noted the ORG report , which stated that the delegates had examined the applicants and “ found certain bodily injuries ” . However , it found that it could not rely on the ORG report because , under procedural rules , only medical reports by specialist doctors could serve as a basis for a criminal conviction . Since the ORG report had not been made during the criminal investigation but was annexed to the file by the victims , it could not be relied on . The same could be said of the reports by ORG see above ) . The court did not comment on the medical reports dated DATE .

CARDINAL of the officers were convicted of negligence for failing properly to register ORG 's complaint in DATE and attempting to solve the alleged offence beyond the ambit of a proper criminal investigation . The applicants ' claims for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of ill - treatment were rejected as unfounded .

In his appeal of DATE PERSON complained , inter alia , of the court 's failure to convict the officers of torture . He also pointed out that both he and ORG had identified the police officers at an identity parade as the persons who had tortured them and that none of the officers could explain the origin of the injuries they had sustained while in detention . He referred to the statements of several fellow detainees in FAC who confirmed that they had seen ORG being taken in good health out of the cell only to return later with clear signs of ill - treatment . These witnesses denied seeing anybody in the cell hurt themselves . PERSON referred to the absence , in the criminal file against both applicants , of any reference to the applicants ' participation in procedural steps at FAC . This confirmed , in his view , that they had not been taken to that station for any lawful purpose . He finally referred to the civil action lodged by him and GPE within the criminal proceedings . He questioned the application of the amnesty law to accused persons who had not compensated the victims of their crime , a state of affairs which he submitted was contrary to the law . ORG lodged a similar appeal . In the prosecutor 's appeal it was mentioned that each applicant had been offered photographs of the entire staff of ORG for identification purposes and both had identified the police officers who had ill - treated them .

On DATE the ORG partly quashed the judgment given at first instance . It acquitted the CARDINAL officers who had been convicted of negligence by the lower court , finding that it had not been their duty to register ORG 's complaint . The court upheld the remainder of the lower court 's judgment , finding in particular that it had been right to reject the applicants ' complaint of ill - treatment . It considered that the statements made by the applicants were untrue because the description of their injuries in the medical reports did not coincide with their own description of the manner in which they had sustained the injuries and because “ they could use their statements as a means of defence in the criminal proceedings in which they were accused of serious crimes ” . Moreover , the ORG report and other related documents did not prove that the applicants had been ill - treated specifically by the officers accused in the case and thus could not be used as a basis for a conviction .

The applicants ' lawyer lodged an appeal on points of law , relying on the various documents in the file and seeking the conviction of the accused for exceeding their authority through ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicants ' appeal on points of law , but allowed an appeal by the prosecutor , in which the latter sought the conviction of the CARDINAL accused . It ordered the rehearing of the case by ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the district court 's judgment in so far as it had acquitted the CARDINAL officers of ill - treatment . It adopted a new judgment convicting all QUANTITY officers of manifest abuse of authority ( LAW see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . Each officer was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and disqualification from working in a law - enforcement agency for DATE . The court also decided to suspend the enforcement of the judgment , with DATE probation , finding that the officers were relatively young , had families , had not been previously convicted and were viewed positively in society .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . It found that the material in the file , including the ORG report , the witness statements and the medical reports proved beyond doubt that the CARDINAL officers had ill - treated the applicants .

The applicants submitted copies of newspaper interviews with members of the GPE branch of ORG and the President of ORG asserting that ill - treatment was routinely used in certain law - enforcement agencies , especially the police and investigators , in order to obtain self - incriminating statements and the conviction of innocent persons .

In a letter to the ORG dated DATE , the applicants submitted that they had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions both in ORG situated at no . CARDINAL GPE and , from DATE , in Prison no . CARDINAL in PERSON ( also known as Prison no . CARDINAL ) . In respect of the latter place of detention , they referred , in particular , to severe overcrowding ( CARDINAL prisoners in a QUANTITY . m cell and up to QUANTITY prisoners detained for TIME in closed CARDINAL sq . m. boxes in courthouses while awaiting court hearings , without food , water or access to a toilet ) ; thick cigarette smoke and strong odours from the open - plan toilet , coupled with a lack of ventilation ; a lack of fresh water during most of DATE ; very limited access to daylight owing to the thick netting on the window ; damp ; inedible food ; and inadequate medical assistance .

The applicants also alleged that their correspondence had been censored and their contact with the outside world severely limited while they were in the detention centre at no . CARDINAL GPE St. in GPE .

The relevant provisions of LAW , applicable at the relevant time , read as follows :

“ The court shall pass sentence in strict compliance with the provisions of the General Part of the present Code and within the limits of the LAW in the Special Part of the present Code which lays down the penalty for the offence committed . In passing sentence , the court shall rely on its legal consciousness and shall take into account the nature and degree of social danger caused by the offence , the defendant '

“ When passing sentence the following shall be considered mitigating circumstances :

the fact that the offender averted the harmful effects of the crime , provided voluntary compensation for the harm or remedied the damage ;

the offence resulted from a combination of difficulties of a personal or family order ;

the offence was committed under threat or coercion , or as a result of economic or work - related difficulties or other forms of dependence ;

the offence was committed under the influence of a strong emotional reaction provoked by an unlawful act on the part of the victim ;

the offence was committed in order to fend off a socially dangerous attack , even if the limits of legitimate defence were exceeded ;

the offence was committed by a minor ;

the offence was committed by a pregnant woman ;

sincere repentance or voluntary surrender ;

active contribution to the solving of the crime .

In passing sentence the court may also consider other circumstances to be mitigating circumstances . ”

“ In passing sentence , the following shall be considered aggravating circumstances :

the offender has previous convictions .

Depending on the nature of the previous offence [ or offences ] , the court shall have the power not to consider it an aggravating circumstance ;

the offence was committed by an organised group ;

the offence was committed for financial or other base motives ;

the offence was committed on account of [ the victim 's ] national identity , or racial hatred or contempt ;

the offence had serious consequences ;

the offence was committed against a minor , or an elderly or vulnerable person ;

the offence was committed by a person responsible for protecting public order ;

the instigation of minors to commit or involvement of minors in the commission of an offence ;

the offence involved particular cruelty or the debasement of the victim ;

the offence was committed during a natural disaster ;

the offence caused a generalised danger ;

the offence was committed through the abuse of another person 's financial , work - related or other position of dependence ;

the offence was committed under the influence of alcohol . The court shall have the power not to consider this an aggravating circumstance , depending on the nature of the offence ;

the offence was committed by a person who had been released pending trial under a personal guarantee during the period of the guarantee or within DATE after its expiry . ”

The probation period shall be for DATE . ... ”

“ Actions which intentionally cause pain or severe physical or moral suffering to a person , especially with the aim of obtaining from that person or from a third party information or confessions , punishing an act which that person or a third party has committed or is suspected of having committed , or intimidating or putting pressure on such a person or on a third party , or for any other reason based on a form of discrimination , regardless of the ground , when such pain or suffering is caused by an agent of a public authority or by any other person acting in an official capacity or is , expressly or implicitly provoked or condoned by such an agent , with the exception of pain or suffering which results exclusively from lawful sanctions and is inherent in such sanctions or is caused thereby ,

shall be punished with deprivation of liberty for a period of DATE . ”

“ Abuse of authority or ultra vires acts , that is , acts by a public official which manifestly exceed the limits of the rights and powers given by law , shall , if they cause substantial damage to a public interest or to the rights and lawful interests of natural and legal persons ,

be punished with either deprivation of liberty for a period of DATE , or a fine of CARDINAL times the minimum salary , or with removal from office , in all cases accompanied by disqualification from occupying certain functions or engaging in certain activities for a period of DATE .

Abuse of authority or ultra vires acts , accompanied by acts of violence or the use of a weapon or by acts of torture and which harm the victim 's personal dignity ,

shall be punished with deprivation of liberty for a period of DATE , and disqualification from occupying certain functions or engaging in certain activities for a period of DATE . ”

The Code of Ethics and Deontology for the Police was adopted on DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL , in force since DATE ) . According to that Code , it is prohibited to ill - treat and to tolerate or encourage ill - treatment and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment “ regardless of the circumstances ” .

The relevant provisions of Law no . DATE ( DATE ) on compensation for damage caused by the illegal acts of the criminal investigation organs , prosecution and courts have been set out in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

NORP In the case of PERSON v. ORG ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) ORG found that a person could claim damages on the basis of PERSON no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) only if he or she had been fully acquitted on all the charges against him or her . Since PERSON PERSON had been found guilty in respect of CARDINAL of the charges brought against him , he could not claim any damages .

The relevant parts of the ORG report concerning its visit to GPE from DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Particular attention should be paid to the case of a detained person met at Ialoveni EDP . During the first interview , this man did not exhibit any lesions or marks . When he was seen at a further interview DATE , a medical examination by CARDINAL of the delegation 's doctors revealed in the left temple area , a QUANTITY long wound covered with crusts , and in the left kidney region a QUANTITY bluish red haematoma . Both soles of the feet were very painful on palpation and hard , especially in the heel area . These lesions and signs are consistent with his allegations that in TIME of DATE , after the delegation 's departure , he had been struck several times on the head with a piece of hard rubber by police officers in an ORG office , and that after being forced to kneel on a chair with his wrists handcuffed in front of him , he had been beaten on the soles of his feet and the left kidney region during questioning .

Since the person expressed fears that he would suffer further ill - treatment after the delegation 's departure , the latter asked ORG liaison officer for immediate steps to be taken to secure his protection and for an inquiry to be undertaken into the treatment of persons in custody in this ORG . The individual concerned was transferred to the ORG of the capital and received a forensic medical examination in the presence of his lawyer . The internal investigation carried out during the visit by ORG also showed that another person held in the same ORG had made allegations of physical ill - treatment before the persons in charge of the investigation . This person also underwent a forensic medical examination . By letter dated DATE , the NORP authorities have indicated that legal proceedings have been initiated by ORG under Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( abuse of power / abuse of office ) . An investigation has been opened and the file will shortly be transferred to court .

The ORG has taken note of this information with interest and would like to be informed in due course of the decision of the court .

As indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above , in response to the deterioration in the situation , the delegation invoked Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of the Convention to request the GPE authorities to carry out , without further delay , a thorough and independent inquiry into the methods used by operational police units throughout the country during the questioning of detained persons . In their letter dated DATE , the NORP authorities simply indicate that ' ORG declares that it is not aware of concrete cases of recourse to inhuman methods of interrogation of persons detained by the police ' and recalls the procedures in force in case of complaints of ill - treatment . Such a position is , in the view of the ORG , clearly untenable , considering all the information gathered during the DATE visit .

With reference to LAW , the ORG urges the NORP authorities to carry out without delay the aforementioned investigation and to inform the ORG , within DATE of transmission of the report on the DATE visit , of the results thereof . ”

The relevant parts of the response submitted on DATE by ORG to the DATE ORG report read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG would like to be informed of the court 's decision , following the prosecutor 's request , concerning the case mentioned in the relevant paragraph .

We inform you that the criminal case ( mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Report ) , based on LAW of authority or ultra vires acts ' is still at an investigatory stage .

The ORG would like comments from the NORP authorities concerning the development of modern methods of investigation .

In this respect , regretfully , no progress has been achieved .

The ORG would like to obtain information on the progress achieved in drafting a Code of Deontology for the police .

To our great regret , no progress was achieved in this respect . ”

The Manual on ORG and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( LAW ) was submitted to the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights on DATE . The “ GPE Principles ” subsequently received the support of ORG through resolutions of ORG Human Rights and ORG . It is the first set of guidelines to have been produced for the investigation of torture . The LAW contains full practical instructions for assessing persons who claim to have been the victims of torture or ill - treatment , for investigating suspected cases of torture and for reporting the investigation 's findings to the relevant authorities .

The principles applicable to the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are to be found in LAW of the Manual , the relevant parts of which read as follows :

“ The purposes of effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment ( hereafter referred to as torture or other ill - treatment ) include the following : clarification of the facts and establishment and acknowledgment of individual and ORG responsibility for victims and their families , identification of measures needed to prevent recurrence and facilitation of prosecution or , as appropriate , disciplinary sanctions for those indicated by the investigation as being responsible and demonstration of the need for full reparation and redress from the ORG , including fair and adequate financial compensation and provision of the means for medical care and rehabilitation .

States shall ensure that complaints and reports of torture or ill - treatment shall be promptly and effectively investigated . Even in the absence of an express complaint , an investigation should be undertaken if there are other indications that torture or ill - treatment might have occurred . The investigators , who shall be independent of the suspected perpetrators and the agency they serve , shall be competent and impartial . They shall have access to , or be empowered to commission , investigations by impartial medical or other experts . ...

The investigative authority shall have the power and obligation to obtain all the information necessary to the inquiry . ... Those potentially implicated in torture or ill - treatment shall be removed from any position of control or power , whether direct or indirect , over complainants , witnesses and their families , as well as those conducting the investigation .

Alleged victims of torture or ill - treatment and their legal representatives shall be informed of , and have access to , any hearing as well as to all information relevant to the investigation and shall be entitled to present other evidence .

A written report , made within a reasonable time , shall include the scope of the inquiry , procedures and methods used to evaluate evidence as well as conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on applicable law . On completion , this report shall be made public . It shall also describe in detail specific events that were found to have occurred and the evidence upon which such findings were based , and list the names of witnesses who testified with the exception of those whose identities have been withheld for their own protection . The ORG shall , within a reasonable period of time , reply to the report of the investigation , and , as appropriate , indicate steps to be taken in response .

Medical experts involved in the investigation of torture or ill - treatment should behave at all times in conformity with the highest ethical standards and in particular shall obtain informed consent before any examination is undertaken . The examination must follow established standards of medical practice . In particular , examinations shall be conducted in private under the control of the medical expert and outside the presence of security agents and other government officials .

The medical expert should promptly prepare an accurate written report . This report should include at least the following :

( a ) The name of the subject and the name and affiliation of those present at the examination ; the exact time and date , location , nature and address of the institution ( including , where appropriate , the room ) where the examination is being conducted ( e.g. detention centre , clinic , house ) ; and the circumstances of the subject at the time of the examination ( e.g. nature of any restraints on arrival or during the examination , presence of security forces during the examination , demeanour of those accompanying the prisoner , threatening statements to the examiner ) and any other relevant factors ;

( b ) A detailed record of the subject 's story as given during the interview , including alleged methods of torture or ill - treatment , the time when torture or ill - treatment is alleged to have occurred and all complaints of physical and psychological symptoms ;

( c ) A record of all physical and psychological findings on clinical examination , including appropriate diagnostic tests and , where possible , colour photographs of all injuries ;

( d ) An interpretation as to the probable relationship of the physical and psychological findings to possible torture or ill - treatment . A recommendation for any necessary medical and psychological treatment and further examination should be given ;

( e ) NORP The report should clearly identify those carrying out the examination and should be signed .


Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

In DATE ORG ( PERSON PERSON ) expropriated CARDINAL plots of land belonging to the applicants . A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place .

On DATE the applicants brought CARDINAL separate actions for compensation before ORG of First - instance .

NORP In order to assess the real value of the land , the court ordered on - site inspections and expert reports . Primarily , the experts worked on the classification of the plots since the value of urbanised land ( arsa ) was higher than rural land ( arazi ) . In this context , the experts observed that the plots were not reserved for habitation under any urban plan ( imar planı ) of the GPE or ORG ; they were not situated within residential areas ; and there was no annotation in the land registry that these plots were to be used for tourism purposes . Instead , the plots were classified as “ fields ” in ORG . As a result of the on - site inspections and their findings , the experts decided that the plots should be classified as rural land . They therefore calculated the value of the plots on that basis .

In their written submissions the applicants contested the expert reports . They submitted an expert report dated DATE which concluded that the land in question should have been considered urbanised .

After taking into consideration CARDINAL expert reports for each case , ORG of First - instance rejected the ORG objections in respect of the nature of the land .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the court issued CARDINAL decisions and awarded the applicants the below - mentioned amounts :

On DATE ORG upheld these decisions .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG requests for rectification .

CARDINAL sets of enforcement proceedings were initiated before ORG .

At the end of the enforcement proceedings , the amounts indicated below were paid to the applicants by ORG on the dates mentioned :

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Aka v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI , pp . DATE , § § DATE ) .


The applicant , Mr Cesário PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is currently being held in FAC in GPE .

He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested . He was suspected of having used several stolen cheques after signing them with signatures corresponding to those of the rightful bearers , thus making himself guilty of handling stolen goods , fraud and forgery .

Those facts led to several sets of criminal proceedings being initiated against the applicant , of which the following form a first group :

( a ) case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment delivered by ORG on DATE ;

( b ) case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment delivered by ORG on DATE ( pre - trial detention of the applicant was ordered in that set of proceedings ) ;

( c ) case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment delivered by ORG on DATE ;

( d ) case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment delivered by ORG on DATE ; and

( e ) case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment delivered by ORG on DATE .

A second group comprises the sets of proceedings mentioned below , which took place as follows .

Case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in ORG ( Vara Criminal ) of ORG

Following several complaints made from DATE , the applicant was questioned on DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor made his submissions ( acusação ) against the applicant to the investigating judge .

On DATE the applicant applied for an order to expedite the proceedings ( aceleração processual ) , in accordance with ORG and CARDINAL of LAW .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Vice - Attorney - General refused the application on the ground that the file had already been transmitted to ORG .

On DATE the applicant had applied a second time for an order to expedite the proceedings . In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG returned the application to him , inviting him to lodge it under LAW . The applicant did not do so .

On DATE the file was transmitted to ORG . On DATE the judge sitting in ORG fixed the date of the hearing for DATE . He further decided that the applicant ’s pre - trial detention should continue in the event of his release in connection with other proceedings .

The hearing was held on DATE . On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentences in other proceedings .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG ( Supremo Tribunal de Justiça ) , but that court dismissed the appeal in a judgment of DATE .

Case no . CARDINAL in ORG of ORG

Following a complaint filed on DATE , the applicant was questioned on DATE .

The police report relating to the investigations carried out was filed on DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor made his submissions against the applicant to the investigating judge .

The file was transmitted on an unspecified date to ORG . On DATE the judge sitting in ORG fixed the date of the hearing for DATE .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

Case no . CARDINAL in FAC

Following a complaint made on DATE , the public prosecutor decided on DATE to question the applicant . This was done on DATE .

The hearing was held on DATE , and on DATE the court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a DATE prison term .

Case no . CARDINAL in ORG of ORG

Following a complaint made on DATE , the applicant was questioned on DATE .

The hearing did not take place on that date on account of the absence of CARDINAL of the witnesses . After being adjourned to CARDINAL DATE , the hearing took place on DATE .

In a judgment of DATE the court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , to be served concurrently with sentences imposed in other proceedings .

It is that sentence that the applicant is currently serving .

Case no . CARDINAL in ORG of ORG

On DATE the public prosecutor decided to have an expert graphological report drawn up . The expert report was filed on DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor made his submissions against the applicant and another person to the investigating judge .

The first hearing , set for DATE , was adjourned sine die because the applicant ’s co - accused was absent . The second hearing , set for DATE , was adjourned sine die for the same reason .

In a judgment of DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , the court closed the case as the limitation period had expired .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Portuguese New Code of Criminal Procedure , which entered into force on DATE , made provision for interlocutory proceedings to expedite criminal proceedings . The preamble of the LAW states , in particular , that the requirement of a speedy criminal trial is currently , thanks to the influence of ORG , a true fundamental right . The ORG in question provide :

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . When the time - limits provided for by law for any step in the proceedings are exceeded , the public prosecutor , the accused , the private prosecutor ( assistente ) or the civil parties may make an application for an order to expedite the proceedings .

That application shall be considered by :

( a ) the Attorney - General , when the proceedings are in the hands of the Attorney - General ’s Department ;

( b ) ORG , when the proceedings are taking place in a court or before a judge .

No judge who has intervened in the proceedings in any capacity may participate in the decision . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . An application for an order to expedite criminal proceedings must be addressed to the President of ORG or to the Attorney - General , as the case may be , and filed with the court or the institution dealing with the proceedings .

The judge or the public prosecutor shall prepare the case file on the basis of the material available and relevant to the decision and shall send it within DATE to ORG or to the Attorney - General .

The Attorney - General shall make a decision within DATE .

When the decision is to be taken by ORG , the file shall be submitted , after distribution , at the first ordinary or extraordinary sitting ...

The decision shall be taken without any other formalities . It may take the form of :

( a ) a dismissal of the application as unfounded or because the delays complained of are justified ;

( b ) a request for further information ... ;

( c ) an order for an investigation to be carried out within DATE into the delays complained of ... ;

( d ) a proposal to implement or cease to implement disciplinary measures or measures to manage , organise or rationalise the methods required by the situation .

The decision shall be communicated immediately to the court or institution dealing with the proceedings . It shall likewise be communicated to the bodies invested with the power to discipline those responsible for any delays found to have occurred . ”

The time - limits to which LAW refers are , as a general rule , DATE for inquiries conducted while the accused is in custody and DATE for those where the accused remains at liberty ( Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) . The judicial investigation must not exceed DATE where the accused is detained and DATE where the accused is not ( Article CARDINAL ) . Lastly , the case must come on for trial within DATE of the date on which the file is received by the court with jurisdiction to give a judgment ( Article CARDINAL ) .

According to information supplied by the Government and not disputed by the applicant , the Attorney - General received CARDINAL applications for an order to expedite proceedings in DATE , of which CARDINAL ( that is , PERCENT ) were granted . In DATE there were CARDINAL applications , of which CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) were granted . In DATE there were CARDINAL applications , of which CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) were granted . In DATE there were CARDINAL applications , of which CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) were granted . Lastly , from DATE to DATE , CARDINAL applications were filed , of which CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) were granted .

As for ORG , DATE and DATE , it received CARDINAL applications for an order to expedite proceedings , of which CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) were granted .

It is the Vice - Attorney - General who , using delegated powers , decides on the applications addressed to the Attorney - General and it is the plenary meeting of ORG , convened DATE , which decides on those filed with that body .

The Government have given examples of decisions on applications for orders to expedite proceedings . The following are the operative provisions of some of them ( translation ) .

Attorney - General

Decision of DATE

“ orders the closing of the investigation within a maximum of DATE , which may be extended only on an exceptional basis on prior application by the investigating prosecutor , with notice to his or her immediate superior ” .

Decision of DATE

“ orders the closing of the investigation within a maximum of DATE , which may be extended only on an exceptional basis and on prior application by the investigating prosecutor , with notice given to his or her immediate superior ” .

Decision of DATE

“ orders , having taken into account its complexity , the closing of the investigation within a maximum of DATE , a time - limit which may be extended only on an exceptional basis and on prior application by the investigating prosecutor , with notice to his or her immediate superior ” .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Slovenská Nová Ves .

On DATE the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from a job and withdrawal of a part of his pay by the employer .

On DATE the Bratislava I ORG invited the applicant to pay the court fee . On DATE the defendant foundation submitted comments on the applicant ’s action .

As the parties did not attend the hearing scheduled for DATE , the court adjourned the case until DATE . Subsequently the applicant appeared before the court and he requested that an interim measure be issued .

On DATE the GPE I ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the interim measure on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate his request .

On DATE the court invited the applicant to specify the amount which he claimed . The applicant replied on DATE .

On DATE the case was adjourned as the parties were absent .

On DATE the court asked the defendant for information about the applicant ’s pay . The mail was returned to the court as being undeliverable .

On DATE the case was again adjourned , due to the absence of the defendant . The post had returned the summons to ORG . As the post had informed the court that the defendant foundation had moved , on DATE the court asked CARDINAL authorities for information about the new seat of the defendant . On DATE the court was informed of the defendant ’s new address .

The case was adjourned on DATE and on DATE as a representative of the defendant foundation had not appeared . The summons had been returned to the court . The representative of the defendant appeared before ORG on DATE . He informed the court of his and the foundation ’s new address . The applicant did not appear at that hearing . The court informed the representative of the defendant that a fine would be imposed on him if he failed to appear at the next hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

Hearings were held on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE in the presence of both parties . On DATE the case had to be adjourned as the defendant was absent .

The applicant and a witness were unable to attend the hearing held on DATE . On DATE the defendant challenged ORG judge dealing with the case . On DATE ORG dismissed the request .

The defendant failed to appear before ORG on DATE . As the mail sent by the court to both the defendant foundation and its representative could not be delivered , the court made inquiries with a view to establishing the defendant ’s address . The CARDINAL authorities concerned submitted their replies on DATE , on DATE and on DATE .

ORG sent letters to the representative of the defendant foundation in DATE and in DATE . All CARDINAL letters were returned with the indication that the addressee was not at the address indicated in the letters .

On DATE the central register informed ORG that the representative of the defendant foundation had registered his permanent stay at the address where the court had tried to reach him earlier and which ORG had indicated to the court on DATE .

On DATE the court asked GPE for a copy of the registration file of the defendant foundation . In a letter dated DATE which arrived at ORG on DATE the above administrative authority informed the court that the foundation had not requested a change in registration of the address of its seat . The letter stated that the representative had informed ORG , on DATE , that the defendant foundation was in liquidation .

On DATE ORG asked GPE ORG for the registration file of the defendant foundation . The file was submitted to it on DATE . The letter stated that the administrative authority had already sent to the court the requested documents on DATE .

On DATE the court appointed a guardian to represent the defendant foundation in the proceedings as it had been impossible to establish the new address of its seat .

In a letter dated DATE the representative of the defendant foundation informed the court that he would not submit the requested information and documents as he considered that the applicant ’s right to claim the sum in issue had lapsed . A new address of the defendant foundation was indicated in the header of the letter .

The case was adjourned on DATE due to the absence of the parties . Both the applicant and his representative had excused their absence . The court imposed a fine of CARDINAL NORP korunas on the representative of the defendant foundation for his failure to appear . On DATE the case was again adjourned because of the absence of the defendant .

On DATE the Bratislava I ORG decided , in the absence of the defendant ’s representative , that the applicant ’s dismissal had been unlawful as the relevant notice had not been in conformity with the statutory requirements . It ordered the defendant to pay CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) to the applicant in compensation for loss of salary . It discontinued the proceedings in respect of the remainder of the applicant ’s action as the applicant had withdrawn the corresponding claims . The judgment was served on the representative of the defendant on DATE . The liquidator of the defendant filed an appeal on CARDINAL DATE indicating that the defendant foundation had ceased to exist by CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the defendant was invited to eliminate shortcomings in the appeal within DATE . The letter was returned as undeliverable on DATE . A further request was delivered to the representative of the defendant on DATE . He submitted no reply . On DATE the file was submitted to the court of appeal .

On DATE ORG adjourned the case because of the defendant ’s absence . On DATE the court received information , at its request , concerning the status of the defendant foundation .

On DATE ORG set a DATE time - limit for submission of the reasons for the defendant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG discontinued the appeal proceedings on the ground that the defendant had failed , despite several warnings , to submit reasons for the appeal . The decision on the applicant ’s action became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the Bratislava ORG that the sum which his former employer owed him should be enforced by selling his former employer ’s movable property .

On CARDINAL DATE the Bratislava ORG decided to stop paying a social allowance to the applicant with effect from DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the administrative decisions before the Bratislava I ORG . He also filed a request for an interim measure to be issued .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for an interim measure . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this decision .

On DATE the Bratislava I ORG found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the applicant ’s action concerning the above administrative decisions . The case was transmitted to ORG .

On DATE ORG found that GPE had violated the applicant ’s right to a hearing without undue delay in the proceedings concerning his action of DATE . ORG noted that ORG had started considering the action DATE after it had been lodged , and that no procedural steps had been taken as the case fell within the jurisdiction of a different court .

On DATE the ORG quashed the administrative decisions challenged by the applicant .

On DATE the Bratislava I ORG granted the advance payment of the allowance in issue to the applicant for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s former wife filed an action claiming that she had the exclusive right to use a flat in which she and the applicant had lived .

Several procedural decisions were given in the case and the Bratislava I ORG , to which the merits of the case fell to be examined , held a number of hearings . In the course of the proceedings the applicant filed a counter - claim .

NORP The applicant sought an injunction giving him the right to use the flat . The request for an injunction was dismissed by a final decision which was given by ORG on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed both parties’ claims . It held that the applicant and his former wife no longer lived in the flat . The applicant had waived his right to use the flat in that he had stopped living in a common household with his former wife in DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment which became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint about inactivity of ORG as regards his above request for an injunction . ORG referred to the ordinary courts’ findings in the proceedings concerning the use of the flat in issue . It held , inter alia , that the applicant had sought an injunction giving him the right to use a flat which , as it had been established , he had left in DATE and in respect of which he had no legal title .

On DATE the applicant claimed distribution of his and his former wife ’s marital property .

The merits of the case have been examined by the Bratislava II ORG which held a number of hearings and took extensive evidence . The proceedings are pending .

On DATE the applicant claimed damages before the Bratislava I ORG . The applicant alleged that the defendant had not repaired his car properly and claimed SKK CARDINAL in compensation . The case was transferred to the Bratislava V ORG . That court held several hearings in DATE . On DATE the court ordered an expert to submit an opinion . The opinion was submitted on DATE .

The court scheduled CARDINAL hearings DATE and DATE . On the latter date the Bratislava V ORG ordered the defendant to pay the sum claimed to the applicant with default interest . The defendant refused receipt of mail and ORG decision was served on him only on DATE .

On DATE the applicant sought the enforcement of the sum in question .

DATE . On DATE the Bratislava V ORG authorised an executions officer to enforce the sum . On DATE the executions officer issued a notification of the execution . It was served on the applicant on DATE and on the debtor on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE and on DATE the executions officer issued CARDINAL execution orders with a view to obtaining the sum owed by the defendant through the sale of his movable property and the withdrawal of a part of his income . On DATE the executions officer , with the assistance of the police , established an inventory of the movable property of the debtor . The movables were not taken away as their value was low and since the debtor ’s wife had promised to pay the sum in issue . Subsequently the executions officer unsuccessfully attempted to contact the debtor and his wife .

In a statement of CARDINAL DATE the executions officer explained that it had not been shown that the debtor owned any property or that he had any income . For that reason the judgment had not been executed .

The execution proceedings are pending .

The relevant provisions of the LAW as well as the practice of ORG are described in detail in , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE or PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .