Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON Tomašić , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr NORP Rotar , an advocate practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the Act on Compensation for , and ORG of , Property Taken under the NORP communist regime ( ORG o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za TIME jugoslavenske komunističke vladavine – “ the LAW ” ) entered into force . It enabled the former owners of confiscated or nationalised property , or their heirs in the first line of succession ( direct descendants or a spouse ) , to obtain under certain conditions either restitution of or compensation for property appropriated during the communist regime . They were required to submit their requests within DATE from the LAW ’s entry into force . Requests submitted after that date were to be declared inadmissible .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , nationalised flats in respect of which third persons had acquired specially protected tenancies ( stanarsko pravo ) were not to be restored to their former owners . The tenants had a right to purchase such flats from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions set out in the Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to Occupier ) Act ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) . At the same time , the former owners were entitled to financial compensation in respect of the flats .

On the other hand , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , confiscated flats were to be awarded to their former owners . Under section CARDINAL of ORG ( Zakon o ORG za naknadu oduzete imovine ) , the tenant had the right to purchase a confiscated flat only if no request for its restitution had been submitted or if such request had been dismissed in a final decision .

The applicants were holders of the specially protected tenancy of a flat in GPE , measuring QUANTITY . The flat is located in the same building , which on DATE was confiscated from its owner GPE by the communist authorities .

On DATE the applicants made a request to GPE to purchase their flat , under the Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to LAW .

On DATE the applicants asked ORG of GPE ( Grad GPE , PERSON ured za imovinskopravne poslove ) whether a request for restitution of the building in which their flat was located had been submitted . In their letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG replied that no such request had been submitted .

On DATE GPE , as the provider of the flat , concluded a contract of sale with the applicants whereby it sold them the flat in respect of which they had a specially protected tenancy for CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . Shortly afterwards the applicants were recorded as the owners of the flat in the land register .

Meanwhile , on DATE PERSON and PERSON and PERSON , the heirs of the former owner GPE , ( “ the heirs of GPE or “ GPE ’s heirs ” ) instituted administrative proceedings before ORG of GPE by submitting a request for restitution of GPE ’s confiscated property , including the above - mentioned building .

On DATE the ORG delivered a partial decision awarding ownership of all business premises in the building at issue to the heirs of GPE

On DATE the ORG delivered another partial decision awarding ownership of all flats in the building , except the applicants’ flat and CARDINAL other , to GPE ’s heirs .

On DATE the ORG delivered the last partial decision whereby it awarded ownership of the CARDINAL remaining flats , including the applicants’ flat , to the heirs of GPE and declared that the applicants had acquired the status of protected lessees ( zaštićeni najmoprimci ) under LAW of LAW . The applicants appealed .

It appears that the proceedings are currently pending before ORG ( ORG pravosuđa ) , as the second - instance administrative authority .

On DATE the heirs of GPE brought a civil action against the applicants and GPE in ORG ( PERSON ) . They asked the court to declare the above contract of sale null and void as being contrary to peremptory rules . They argued that under LAW , confiscated flats were not to be sold to their tenants but awarded to their former owners . Only if the former owner ’s request for restitution had been dismissed or declared inadmissible were the tenants allowed to purchase such flats . They plaintiffs explained that on DATE they had submitted a request for restitution of the entire building in which the flat in question was located with ORG of GPE , and that this request had not been dismissed or declared inadmissible by the time the impugned contract of sale had been concluded . On the contrary , on DATE and DATE that ORG had adopted decisions awarding them ownership of the building with all the flats and business premises in it . Therefore , GPE had not been allowed to sell the flat while the request for its restitution was pending . The applicants replied that it was the same ORG which in its letter of CARDINAL DATE had informed them that no request for restitution had been lodged in respect of their flat . They had therefore acted in good faith when they had concluded the contract of sale and should not suffer the consequences of the mistake made by the authorities .

On DATE the court declared the impugned contract of sale null and void ab initio , endorsing the arguments adduced by the plaintiffs . In doing so it noted the applicants’ main argument that they had been misinformed by the authorities , but did not expressly address that argument . It confined itself to stating that the contract was in breach of peremptory rules and therefore null and void from its inception . The applicants appealed .

On DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) dismissed an appeal by the applicants and upheld the first - instance judgment endorsing the reasons given therein . It added that ORG had obviously made a clerical error when on CARDINAL DATE it had informed the applicants that no request for restitution had been submitted as regards the building in which their flat was located . However , since it had been established beyond doubt that the plaintiffs had indeed submitted such a request , GPE had breached peremptory rules when later on it sold the flat to the applicants .

The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging violations of their constitutional rights to property and equality before the law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG constitutional complaint and served its decision on their representative on CARDINAL DATE . It agreed with the findings of the lower courts and added that the letter of ORG of CARDINAL DATE could not be considered a certificate or an extract from the official records , that is , a public document in respect of which it could have been presumed that the information it contained was correct . It explained that this was so because the offices for property affairs had not been keeping records on requests submitted under LAW .

The Act on Compensation for , and Restitution of , Property Taken During ORG ( Zakon o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za TIME jugoslavenske komunističke vladavine , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , PERSON ( amendments ) and DATE ( corrigendum ) DATE “ the DATE LAW ” ) , which entered into force on DATE , enables the former owners of confiscated or nationalised property , or their heirs in the first line of succession ( direct descendants and a spouse ) , to seek under certain conditions either restitution of or compensation for appropriated property . The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

I. BASIC PROVISIONS

( CARDINAL ) Restitution of property appropriated from former owners within the meaning of this LAW shall , in principle , take the form of payment of compensation in money or securities ( stocks or shares , or bonds ) , or , exceptionally , restitution in kind .

( CARDINAL ) Ownership of confiscated property shall be awarded to its former owner in accordance with this LAW , and if this is impracticable ... the former owner shall have the right to compensation in the form of money or securities . ”

IV . SUBJECT OF RESTITUTION

( a ) RESTITUTION OF APPROPRIATED FLATS

“ ( CARDINAL ) Unless they were appropriated by means of confiscation , the ownership of flats ... let under specially protected tenancies shall not be restored to their former owners .

( CARDINAL ) The former owner shall have the right to compensation and the tenant [ i.e. the holder of a specially protected tenancy ] shall have the right to purchase the flat . ”

( b ) RESTITUTION OF CONFISCATED FLATS

“ Ownership of a flat appropriated [ by means of confiscation ] shall be awarded to its former owner . ”

“ Where the flat is awarded to its former owner , the tenants [ i.e. the holders of a specially protected tenancy of the flat ] shall acquire the status of [ protected ] lessees under the provisions of [ the Lease of Flats Act ] . ”

“ In the case of further disposal in rem of the flat , the lessee shall have the right of pre - emption . ”

VI . NORP EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTITUTION IN KIND OF NATIONALISED , CONFISCATED OR OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED PROPERTY

“ Unless otherwise provided by this LAW , ownership and possession of property of which third persons have acquired ownership on the basis of a valid legal title , or of property which has been handed over into their possession on the basis of a valid legal title for acquiring ownership , shall not be returned to the former owner . ”

ORG ( Zakon o ORG za naknadu oduzete imovine , ORG nos . CARDINAL , FAC and CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows in so far as relevant :

“ The tenants ( lessees ) of confiscated flats in respect of which no requests for restitution were submitted within the time - limit prescribed by [ LAW ] , or such requests were dismissed by a final decision , shall acquire the right to purchase their flats under the provisions of that LAW . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , and ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL with subsequent amendments DATE “ the DATE LAW ” ) provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A contract that is contrary to the LAW , peremptory rules or morals shall be null and void unless the purpose of the breached rule indicates some other sanction or the law in a particular case provides otherwise .

( CARDINAL ) If the conclusion of a contract is prohibited only to CARDINAL party , the contract shall remain valid , unless the law in a particular case provides otherwise , and the party that has breached the statutory prohibition shall bear the relevant consequences . ”

“ Where a contract is null and void , each contracting party is bound to return to the other everything it has received on the basis of such a contract . If that is not possible , or if the nature of the obligation performed renders restitution impracticable , an appropriate [ amount of ] monetary compensation shall be given , according to the prices at the moment a court decision is passed , unless the law provides otherwise . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A contract that is null and void shall not become valid if the cause of nullity subsequently disappears .

( CARDINAL ) However , if a prohibition was of minor importance , and the contract has been performed , the issue of nullity may not be raised . ”

“ A contracting party responsible for the conclusion of a contract that is null and void shall be liable in damages to the other contracting party for the damage sustained on account of the nullity of the contract , if the latter did not know or , according to the circumstances , should not have known of the existence of the cause of nullity . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court shall examine the issue of nullity of its own motion [ ex officio ] and any interested party may raise it .

( CARDINAL ) A state attorney shall also have the right to plead nullity . ”

“ The right to plead nullity shall not lapse . ”

On DATE the new LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and TIME “ the DATE LAW ” ) entered into force . Its sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL to CARDINAL contain the same provisions as sections CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the DATE LAW .

The other relevant domestic law and practice are set out in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 10;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant worked as a journalist for the NORP DATE newspaper “ Özgür Gündem ” .

On DATE “ PERSON ” published an article with the title “ CARDINAL New Books by ORG ” , written by the applicant . On DATE , the copies of the newspaper were confiscated by an order of ORG .

In the impugned article , the applicant reviewed CARDINAL books written by CARDINAL different authors who discussed problems related to GPE 's southeastern region . The first book reviewed in the article , “ Tasfiyeciliğin Tasfiyesi ” ( “ Liquidation of Liquidators ” ) , was written by PERSON , the leader of the ORG .

NORP Under this heading the author expressed his views in the following terms :

“ Combating ' liquidation ' ( tasfiye ) is of paramount importance for every revolutionary movement . There is hardly any great movement in which ' liquidation ' ( tasfiye ) does not exist . PERSON , the General Secretary of the ORG , examined the characteristics of the liquidators and the destructive damage they caused in the struggle . He reveals his determination on this issue by declaring : ' I will not hesitate even if I have to sacrifice the whole party in order to liquidate CARDINAL of them ' .

In this connection , a further success of the ORG is its never ceasing firm struggle against ' liquidation ' ( tasfiye ) . The ORG has revealed facts that almost no other revolutionary movement managed to do . This discipline and determination of the ORG may give an idea about its prospective system and the characteristics of its creators .

The ORG has , in this sense , diagnosed at the right time the ' liquidation ' ( tasfiye ) tendencies which would lead the revolution to defeat , took measures against possible damage , organised the struggle to save the revolution 's origins and thus has carried the revolution further to victory . These issues are explicitly taken up and evaluated in the book . ' ORG ( Tasfiyeciliğin Tasfiyesi ) is not a theoretical work , nor a book written after examination of the relevant literature . On the contrary , it is a book that collects in chronological order the evaluations on the problem of ' liquidation ' ( tasfiye ) , encountered in practice during a long and hard struggle . The book is in this respect a documentary , including information and instructive lessons not only for ORG for GPE but also for all class or national liberation movements in the world . ”

NORP The titles of the other books reviewed in the same article are “ History of Colonisation ” and “ From DATE , the national problem and GPE and “ The Cease - fire declared by the ORG and its Effects ” . Under the last article , the applicant stated :

“ ... [ the ] Cease fire , which was declared on DATE by the ORG did not reach its goal , on the contrary , [ it ] continued the dirty war in GPE . In fact , the guerrillas blocked the ORG - Bitlis highway on DATE killed CARDINAL soldiers and the cease fire , which had not been responded to , ended . ”

On DATE , the public prosecutor at ORG charged the applicant with disseminating propaganda about an illegal separatist terrorist organisation . The charges in the indictment were brought under LAW ( Law no . ORG ) .

NORP The public prosecutor based his indictment on the following sentences from the applicant 's article :

“ ... In this connection , a further success of the ORG is its never ceasing firm struggle against liquidation . The ORG has revealed facts that almost no other revolutionary movement managed to do . This discipline and determination of the ORG may give an idea about its prospective system and the characteristics of its creators .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the offence under LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and to a fine of MONEY ( GPE ) .

In its reasoning the court pointed out the following passage in the article :

“ ... In this connection , a further success of the ORG is its never ceasing firm struggle against liquidation ... The ORG has , in this sense , diagnosed at the right time the liquidation tendencies which would lead the revolution to defeat , took measures against possible damage , organised the struggle to save the revolution 's origins and thus has carried the revolution further to victory ... ”

The court , taking into consideration the above - mentioned remarks of the author and the impugned article as a whole , held that the applicant had disseminated propaganda about the ORG while reviewing books written by the leader and leading members of the ORG .

On DATE , ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

Following the judgment of ORG the applicant disappeared in order to avoid imprisonment . He was apprehended on DATE and taken into custody . On DATE the applicant was released from custody . On DATE ORG suspended the execution of his sentence pursuant to Law no . CARDINAL .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments and decision : PERSON v. GPE , nos . ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE , PERSON v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE .

By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in the official journal on DATE , ORG have been abolished .


On DATE T. , a DATE boy , described to S. , a psychologist , that he had experienced improper touching while in DATE care and referred to the applicant in this connection . The interview was recorded on videotape in ORG .

DATE the alleged offence was reported to the police . On DATE , T. was interviewed again by S. , on that occasion in the course of the pre - trial investigation which had been opened . That interview was also recorded on videotape .

The applicant was questioned on CARDINAL and DATE . He was not aware of the existence of the above recordings .

On DATE S. submitted a written opinion on the credibility of ORG 's statements .

In his closing argument on an unspecified date the applicant contested the alleged improper touching . He noted that the videotape , which he had become aware of following the submission by QUANTITY of the above - mentioned written opinion , and the opinion itself , were indirect evidence , which in the light of the LAW had to be treated with extreme care . He questioned whether the questions put to the boy had not been leading in nature . He also submitted that the boy would have to be heard in court , should charges be brought . He did not request an additional investigation .

The applicant was charged with having indecently touched the boy when working at DATE nursery which the boy attended . The alleged offence had taken place repeatedly over a period of DATE beginning in DATE .

The video recording was played back in ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) and the court heard evidence from the applicant , ORG 's mother and PERSON , the psychologist who had interviewed the boy . PERSON , a doctor in psychology specialising in criminology and forensic psychology , who had not interviewed the boy herself , was also heard as a witness . Several other witnesses , including the applicant 's colleagues and the parents of other children in day care , gave testimony . None of the witnesses made any observations on the alleged acts . The parents gave evidence only on the perceived changes in their children 's personality . The psychologist testified only about the reliability of ORG 's statements .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of sexual abuse and sentenced him to a suspended term of DATE imprisonment . It reasoned :

S. has interviewed ORG and the interviews have been recorded on videotape . The videotape has been played back in ORG where witnesses DATE have also seen it . PERSON have been heard as witnesses and [ the applicant ] has had an opportunity to put questions to them . The fact that [ the applicant ] had no opportunity to put questions to T. , for example during the pre - trial investigation , does not mean that the above - mentioned evidence could not be taken into account . At the time of the pre - trial investigation ORG was DATE and he had his seventh birthday in DATE . Thus , he could not be heard before the court . Even though [ the applicant ] has had no opportunity to put questions directly to ORG , the rights of the defence can not be considered to have been jeopardised . In the light of the evidence submitted to it , ORG has no doubt that [ the applicant ] is guilty [ ... ] .

The applicant , the prosecution and the complainant appealed , arguing that the lower court had based his conviction on ORG 's testimony as given to his mother and also later recorded on videotape . He requested the appellate court to hold that this indirect evidence could not be used in evidence . He also repeated his view that leading questions may have been put to the boy . He stated that his right to examine witnesses had been violated as he had not had an opportunity to put questions to T.

On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , having held an oral hearing , upheld the conviction but increased the sentence to DATE imprisonment with immediate effect . It found that the technical quality of the videotape , which had been played back in the court , was poor as regards its image and sound reproduction and that the contents of ORG 's statements could not be reliably assessed merely on the basis of that recording . The recording however showed that PERSON had carried out the interview without any preconceived idea of its outcome . The statements of CARDINAL of the applicant 's colleagues showed that it would have been possible for the applicant to have acted as described in the indictment without anyone noticing . The statements of ORG 's mother and other day care children 's parents showed that there had been changes in their children 's behaviour after they had been in contact with the applicant . The court did not mention the applicant 's argument that he had not been able to put questions to T.

The applicant sought leave to appeal , arguing that he had not been afforded an opportunity to put questions to T. The indirect evidence should therefore have been rejected .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

The Decree on Criminal Investigations and Coercive Measures ( asetus esitutkinnasta ja pakkokeinoista , förordning om förundersökning och tvångsmedel ; Act no . DATE ) provides that when questioned during a pre - trial investigation the child must be treated with due respect having regard to his or her age and level of development . Where possible , the interview should be carried out by a police officer acquainted with that task . If need be , a doctor or an expert must be consulted before the interview ( LAW ) .

LAW ( esitutkintalaki , förundersökningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that questioning and other investigation measures requested by a party must be carried out , if that party shows that there is a possibility that these measures could have an effect on the case , provided that the expenses so incurred are not disproportionate to the nature of the case ( section CARDINAL ) . The competence to decide on investigation measures requested by a party lies with the head of investigation during the pre - trial investigation and with the public prosecutor after the case has been transferred to him or her ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . A pre - trial investigation has to be carried out in such a manner that no one is placed under suspicion without due cause and no one is unnecessarily subjected to harm or inconvenience . Nor must the rights of those concerned be infringed more than is necessary for the achievement of the purpose of the investigation ( section CARDINAL) .

NORP The investigator may permit a party and his counsel to be present during the questioning of another party or witness , provided this does not hinder the investigation of the offence ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . A party and his or her counsel may , with the permission of the investigator , put questions to the person being questioned in order to clear up the case . The investigator may decide that the questions are to be put through him or her . Also , the prosecutor may put questions to the person being questioned . A party and his or her counsel have the right to request the investigator to ask the person being questioned about matters necessary for the clearing up of the case at other times also ( section CARDINAL ) .

NORP Before the closing of the criminal investigation , the parties must be afforded the opportunity to present to the criminal investigation authority their statement on the material gathered during the investigation , if this is conducive to hastening or facilitating the hearing of the case in court . The statement is to be appended to the investigation record ( section CARDINAL ) .

The Code of Judicial Procedure ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) lays down the applicable rules on receiving testimony .

A witness must give testimony orally before the court and must not refer to a written testimony . Oral evidence given during a pre - trial investigation may be read out when the witness in question is heard by the court only if he or she retracts in court an earlier statement or states that he or she is unable or unwilling to testify before the court ( chapter DATE , Article CARDINAL ; Act no . DATE ) .

If a person called as a witness is DATE , is mentally ill or mentally retarded , or his or her mental capacities have otherwise been impaired , the court shall , taking into consideration the circumstances , assess whether or not he or she may be heard as a witness ( LAW , LAW ) . Although the hearing of evidence from children falls within the court 's discretion , there has been a long - standing practice not to hear evidence in court from children under the age of ten .

At the time of the proceedings in question , there were no legal provisions concerning the use as evidence of a video recording of a statement given by a child during the pre - trial investigation . There was however a practice to admit such recordings as evidence .

The Code of Judicial Procedure was amended with effect from DATE to the following effect . A statement in a pre - trial investigation record or another document may as a rule not be admitted as evidence in court . The court may exceptionally admit as evidence such a statement , if the witness in question can not be questioned before the court ( chapter DATE , LAW ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The Code of Judicial Procedure was again amended with effect from CARDINAL DATE to the effect that the testimony of a person DATE , or a mentally disturbed person , recorded on audio or videotape during a pre - trial investigation may be used as evidence if the accused has been provided with an opportunity to have questions put to the person giving the testimony ( LAW , Article CARDINAL ) ; Act no . CARDINAL ) . According to the explanatory report to the relevant Government PERSON ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , this new provision places emphasis on both the idea that giving testimony before the court may be detrimental to inter alia a child and on the importance of respecting the rights of the defence .

Chapter DATE , Article CARDINAL ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of LAW reads with effect from DATE as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person who has not attained DATE or whose mental capacities have been impaired , may be heard as a witness or for the purpose of obtaining evidence if the court finds it appropriate and :

( i ) if the hearing in person is of significant relevance for the establishment of the facts of the case ; and

( ii ) the hearing is not likely to cause such suffering or other harm to the person to be heard as could be detrimental to the person concerned or his or her development .

( CARDINAL ) Where necessary , the court shall designate a support person for the person to be heard , pursuant to the provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL ) .

( CARDINAL ) The person to be heard shall be questioned by the court , unless the court finds particular reason to entrust the questioning to the parties in accordance with the provisions of LAW . The parties shall be provided with an opportunity to put questions to the person to be heard through the intermediary of the court or , if the court finds it appropriate , directly to the person concerned . Where necessary , the hearing may take place on LOC other than the court room . ”

In DATE , LAW was supplemented with a new section LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) that entered into force on DATE and reads as follows :

“ The questioning of a victim or a witness must be recorded on videotape , or by using other comparable audio - visual means of recording , if there is an intention to use the statement given in the interview as evidence in court proceedings , and where it is not possible to hear the victim or the witness in person , due to his or her young age or mental disturbance , without causing likely harm to him or her . The special requirements set by the level of maturity of the questioned person for the methods used , for the number of participating persons , and for other conditions , must be taken into account in the questioning . The person in charge of the criminal investigation may decide that authorities other than the investigators may , under the supervision of the investigator , put the questions to the person being interviewed . The suspect must be provided with an opportunity to put questions to the questioned person . On the request of the suspect , he or she may also put the questions through a legal counsel or other representative . However , the investigator may order that the questions be put through his or her intermediary . ”


Preliminary objections dismissed (six month period, ratione temporis);Violation of Art. 2;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; GPE ) , in the LOC . The applicant is the mother of PERSON , who died after having received serious bodily injury in private LOC .

During TIME CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE a group of several persons were present inside the director 's room of the “ Kardinal ” bar ( hereafter “ the PERSON bar ” ) when PERSON , who was in the room , received serious head injuries from which he fainted . He died in TIME of DATE . PERSON also lost his golden jewellery as a result of an incident which occurred inside the room . CARDINAL other men , NORP and PERSON , were also in the director 's room .

According to the applicant , the events had taken place in the presence of a number of identifiable witnesses and an officer of the local police department S - v . The witnesses included PERSON 's former girlfriend ORG , NORP 's former fiancé PERSON , and PERSON 's friends PERSON and PERSON

On DATE ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) transferred the file on the investigation into PERSON 's death to ORG of ORG ( “ the Police Department ” ) . It contained in particular CARDINAL cigarette butts , CARDINAL fragments of wallpaper with stains resembling blood , a bedcover , a tablecloth and a disassembled pneumatic rifle . It also stated that relevant photos were available from the forensic expert .

On DATE an expert from ORG of ORG found that PERSON 's death had occurred TIME after he had sustained the injuries , including concussion , bruises below both eyelids and on the chin , a broken nose , bruises and bleeding of the upper lip , numerous facial scratches on the right side of the forehead , subdural haematoma and brain contusion . He stated that PERSON 's death had resulted from multiple injuries ( CARDINAL blows to the right side of the forehead , the cheekbone , the bridge of the nose , the chin , the left cheek and the left parietal part of the head ) and that he had suffered knees injuries and internal bleeding , apparently from a broken nose , which had caused him difficulties in respiration .

On DATE the investigator of ORG initiated a criminal investigation into PERSON 's death .

On DATE he instituted criminal proceedings into allegations of theft of jewellery from E. The CARDINAL investigation files were joined under no . DATE ( hereafter “ case no . DATE ” ) .

In a resolution of DATE the investigator decided that NORP should be detained as a suspect in connection with the premeditated infliction of bodily injuries to PERSON He stated that the investigation had established that PERSON had been beaten in the director 's room following a prior conspiracy between NORP and PERSON , and that NORP had had personal motives ( a hostile personal attitude to PERSON ) to commit the crime .

On DATE the investigator indicted NORP and PERSON for inflicting bodily injuries leading to death , and issued a nationwide search warrant in respect of them as they absconded . Consequently , the investigation was suspended on DATE .

On DATE ORG informed its NORP counterpart that PERSON had been arrested in GPE , but released DATE , the NORP authorities having failed to ask his extradition in time . The nationwide search for PERSON was resumed .

On DATE NORP was arrested in GPE . He was extradited to GPE on DATE where he was kept in detention .

On DATE the senior investigator of ORG resumed the investigation into case no . CARDINAL . He stated that NORP had inflicted multiple injuries on PERSON with premeditation , which had led to his death . He ordered NORP 's detention in view of the gravity of the offence . NORP 's detention was subsequently extended until DATE .

On DATE NORP was indicted for inflicting serious bodily injuries on PERSON contested his guilt , stating that he had seen that PERSON had been beaten , having a bruise under his eye . He also said that he had left the town and gone to GPE for DATE without informing his relatives .

On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) about the events of the evening of DATE . She did not know whether NORP and PERSON were involved in the death of E.

On DATE NORP was released from custody as he was not deemed a danger to society . On DATE he signed an obligation not to abscond .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor of ORG requested to complete the investigation by DATE . He mentioned that the acts of which the CARDINAL suspects were accused were not classified correctly under criminal law and that the facts of the case had not been established with sufficient precision .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against NORP owing to the lack of evidence . The decision referred to statements by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and those by PERSON stated , inter alia , that together with PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had carried unconscious PERSON out of the bar .

NORP The applicant was informed of this decision on DATE .

On DATE ORG charged NORP with failure to report a crime against PERSON was heard and delivered his version of the events . The investigation was terminated on DATE in view of the statute of limitations .

On DATE the preliminary investigation in respect of S. on suspicion of his involvement in inflicting serious bodily injuries on PERSON was suspended as his whereabouts were not known .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the residential restriction imposed on NORP by recognisance not to abscond ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was lawful as the offence against PERSON had been committed with negligence . However , it found that there was enough evidence to conclude that serious bodily injuries had been inflicted on her son which had led to his death .

On DATE she was informed that the criminal proceedings in respect of NORP had been terminated owing to the lack of evidence corroborating his involvement in a crime and to the statute of limitations in respect of his failure to report the crime . As to the proceedings against S. , they were suspended as his whereabouts were not known . Similar information was provided to her next day by ORG .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor from ORG quashed the resolution of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the ground that it had not taken into account all the relevant evidence confirming the suspicion against NORP that was available in the case file . A reference was also made to inconsistencies in the evidence received from certain witnesses .

On DATE the same supervising prosecutor quashed the resolution of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered to continue the investigation . The case was remitted to ORG . On DATE the supervising prosecutor advised the investigators to newly interview the persons who had witnessed the incident and whose statements were inconsistent , to identify any other witnesses and to establish some factual details .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the resolution of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and re - opened the investigation into the suspicion of NORP 's involvement in robbery as the period for calculating the statute of limitations should have begun to run from DATE , DATE after his arrest in GPE .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the investigator was receiving information clarifying the events of TIME CARDINAL - CARDINAL June CARDINAL .

On DATE S. was extradited to GPE where he was subsequently detained on suspicion of being involved in inflicting serious injuries on PERSON , leading to his death .

From DATE the investigators questioned PERSON and some other witnesses who brought further clarifications into the incident in the bar K. Furthermore , they undertook a number of other procedural steps in order to complete the investigation . However , they could not question K - va who had resided in GPE . On DATE S. was released on a recognisance not to abscond . The resolution stated that it was PERSON who had inflicted serious lethal injuries on PERSON and that he had initially left his place of residence in DATE as he was afraid of persecution by GPE

On DATE the investigator of ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON for the offence of inflicting serious bodily injuries due to the lack of evidence . PERSON was immediately charged with failure to report a crime committed by PERSON interviewed on DATE , he pleaded guilty .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against NORP into suspicion of his involvement in causing lethal injury to E. were terminated owing to the lack of evidence . On DATE , the criminal proceedings against S. on suspicion of his involvement in failure to report a crime were also terminated in view of an amnesty . Proceedings against V.B. for his involvement in inflicting bodily injuries on PERSON were also discontinued because PERSON died . Later on DATE , the investigator issued a separate procedural resolution terminating proceedings in case no . DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the aforesaid resolutions finding them unlawful and remitted the case to ORG for additional investigation referring , in particular , to procedural deficiencies in the investigation and stating that there was no investigation into the circumstances of the robbery against E.

NORP In DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the failure of the authorities to investigate the circumstances of her son 's death . On DATE ORG refused to give her access to the criminal case file .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of the Crimea again quashed as unlawful the resolutions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . He instructed ORG to undergo complementary investigation including forensic medical examination and additional hearing of certain witnesses , including the police officer PERSON .

On the same date he quashed resolution of DATE , stating that it did not comply with the law in failing to give instructions for further investigation and applying sanctions to those responsible for delays in investigating the case , including ORG , to which the case was nevertheless remitted for further investigation .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the investigation did not comply with the requirements of the national law as to the need to establish facts of the case fully , thoroughly and objectively . It also stated that the unlawful decisions had been quashed earlier and the case remitted with detailed instructions to ORG for further investigation . The applicant was also informed of possible measures that would be applied if the investigation again failed to comply with previous investigative instructions .

On DATE ORG of the Interior , following instructions by ORG Office and ORG , instructed ORG in respect of further investigation into the case . Consequently , DATE and DATE the investigator ordered a forensic examination which was conducted from DATE , and questioned CARDINAL witnesses . The forensic examination confirmed multiple injuries on PERSON 's body and the cause of his death ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigator drew up CARDINAL resolutions terminating criminal investigation into suspicion of NORP 's and NORP involvement into infliction of serious bodily injury to PERSON and his robbery , as there was no corroborating evidence to prove their guilt .

NORP On DATE he remitted criminal case no . CARDINAL to ORG in order to decide whether NORP and PERSON should be exempted from criminal liability as the new LAW which had entered into force on DATE did not provide for liability for such an offence as failure to report a crime .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG and ORG that the resolutions of DATE were unlawful .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal investigation into the robbery allegations , as defined by LAW , against NORP and PERSON , owing to the change in the legislative situation . It remitted the case to the prosecution for further investigation insofar as it concerned charges under the provisions of LAW , i.e. infliction of serious bodily injury and armed robbery . This ruling was not subject to appeal .

Subsequently , the senior investigator of ORG issued an undated information note in criminal case no . CARDINAL stating that owing to the lengthy period of time that had passed from the commission of the crime , some evidence had been lost and could no longer be recovered .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG referred the applicant 's complaints of the alleged unlawfulness and unreasonable length of the investigation to ORG .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG had remitted these complaints to ORG for review .

On DATE the latter quashed the resolution of DATE that terminated the criminal proceedings in the case no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered additional investigation into the case . On DATE he assumed responsibility over the investigation .

On DATE the investigation regarding involvement of GPE in death of PERSON , after several investigative measures , including questioning of the police officer PERSON , was again terminated , PERSON having died in DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant 's complaints against the resolution of DATE on the charges against S. , having been lodged outside the procedural time - limits . It also found that the resolution had been quashed on DATE and the investigation into LOC 's suspected involvement in a crime had been remitted to the prosecutor for additional investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the resolution of DATE and remitted the case to ORG finding that the investigators had failed to comply with the investigative instructions given by ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In particular , contradictory evidence given by PERSON and NORP had never been verified , and they had not been confronted with the witnesses . Moreover , certain witnesses had not been questioned on important matters relating to the identification of people who had been on the spot at the relevant time , including GPE

On DATE ORG remitted the investigation to ORG fixing a deadline until DATE for informing him of the investigation results .

On DATE ORG sent a copy of the forensic medical examination of GPE 's body to ORG .

On DATE the senior investigator of ORG ordered a further forensic examination the result of which , obtained on DATE , were to some extent imprecise .

On DATE case no . CARDINAL was remitted to ORG for examination of the applicant 's complaints against the resolutions of DATE , closing the investigation against NORP and NORP

On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the resolution of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the applicant 's complaints regarding NORP for a rehearing by another judge . It found , in particular , that the applicant and her lawyer had not been informed of the time of the hearing , that the new judge hearing the case had not familiarised himself with the case file , that the applicant had lodged her complaints in time , contrary to the findings of ORG , and that there had been serious infringements of the criminal procedural law .

On DATE ORG found that the investigation had not complied with the prosecutors ' instructions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It further referred to a number of procedural inaccuracies in the investigation . The court also quashed the resolution of DATE and remitted the case to ORG who had to identify and question the persons who had been present during the events in the bar and to identify additional witnesses in the case .

In a resolution of DATE the senior investigator of ORG terminated the investigation in case no . CARDINAL finding , in particular , that there was not enough evidence to conclude that PERSON had been involved in PERSON 's death , and no evidence of NORP 's and NORP involvement in the murder and the robbery had been found either . He had questioned several witnesses and conducted confrontations between them and the suspects . Moreover , the proceedings on the alleged failure to report a crime had been discontinued on DATE by ORG . Anyhow , as the main suspect had died , criminal proceedings could no longer be pursued .

While the Deputy Prosecutor of ORG found the above resolution well - founded on DATE , ORG quashed it as unfounded on DATE stating , in particular , that there was no evidence to suggest that PERSON was guilty of inflicting bodily injuries on PERSON Accordingly , case no . DATE was again remitted to ORG for additional investigation .

On DATE and DATE respectively , the applicant informed the ORG that no measures had been taken to continue the investigation into the circumstances of her son 's death .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant , a bailiff by profession . He was charged with bribery , abuse of power and forgery , on the basis of criminal complaints lodged by ORG ( hereinafter “ the complainants ” ) , CARDINAL individuals he had assisted as a bailiff in enforcement proceedings . M.M. alleged that the applicant had requested money from her in exchange for him asking a judge to assist with the enforcement of a title deed , while PERSON stated that the applicant had requested a certain amount of money from him to assist with the enforcement of a judgment .

On DATE an operation was set up in respect of the applicant . The police gave M.M. a tape recorder and money which was marked with a fluorescent substance . She and her cousin met the applicant in a bar . According to the report of the operation , PERSON had wanted to hand the money to the applicant , but he had made a signal to her to put it into his briefcase . Her cousin had not been there when this had happened . After the envelope containing the money had been placed in the applicant ’s briefcase , the police had appeared . The report of the operation stated that there had been no fluorescent substance found on the applicant ’s hands , but that money had been found in the briefcase .

The applicant was held in pre - trial detention from DATE until DATE , when he was released following a court order dismissing a request by a prosecutor to keep him in custody .

On DATE the prosecutor attached to ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) issued an indictment against the applicant for bribery and abuse of power . The charges against him were based on statements of the complainants and other witnesses , and the report of the operation .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of all charges after hearing evidence from the witnesses , the complainants and the applicant .

NORP In reaching its decision , the court noted that the only prosecution evidence available was the statements of the complainants and other witnesses , some of whom were the ORG relatives , who could only state what they had been told by them . Moreover , none of the witnesses actually saw the money being given to the applicant . Secondly , the court noted that no mention was made in any of the evidence submitted to it of the tape recorder that had been used during the police operation . It held , therefore , that none of the evidence was conclusive proof as to the applicant ’s guilt .

The prosecutor appealed . In a hearing held on DATE before ORG , the prosecutor sought conviction of the applicant , while the applicant ’s lawyer asked for the appeal to be dismissed . The applicant did not give evidence before the court , but he was given the opportunity to address the court at the end of the hearing and declared that he was innocent . No witnesses were heard and no additional evidence was adduced at that stage of the proceedings . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer submitted written observations .

In a decision of DATE , ORG overturned the acquittal and found the applicant guilty of both charges , sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment suspended . It concluded that the witness statements were proof that the applicant had committed the offences alleged .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , claiming , inter alia , that the appellate court had failed to hear the witnesses directly regarding the statements on which it had relied and had failed to take into account other evidence in his defence ; that the prosecution had withheld the taperecording of the operation from the case file even though the applicant had asked for it to be assessed by the courts and the prosecutor had authorised the recording himself ; and that none of the evidence adduced was conclusive proof that he had committed the offences alleged .

A hearing was held on DATE before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . The applicant did not attend the hearing , but his lawyer was present . No witnesses were heard and no new evidence was adduced during the hearing . On DATE , the court concluded the proceedings and set a date for the public delivery of its final decision .

At the following hearing on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law with final effect . It concluded that ORG had assessed the evidence correctly and that the applicant ’s submissions were not corroborated by any of the other evidence adduced . It emphasised that besides the statements of the complainants , ORG had also relied on statements of witnesses who knew that PERSON had attempted to secure money to pay the applicant . It also considered the fact that no fluorescent substance had been found on the applicant ’s hands to be irrelevant , given that he had requested the money which was found in his briefcase . No reference was made to the applicant ’s submissions regarding the tape recorder or to the appellate court ’s failure to hear the complainants and the witnesses directly .

The relevant provisions of LAW concerning the authority of the appellate courts , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court deciding the appeal shall examine the contested decision on the basis of the case file and any new written documents adduced to it .

( CARDINAL ) In deciding the appeal , the court may make a new assessment of the evidence in the case file and may order any new evidence that it deems to be necessary ... ”

“ In deciding the appeal , the court shall decide to :

( CARDINAL ) uphold the appeal and :

( a ) quash the decision of the first - instance court , deliver a new decision and proceed in accordance with LAW . to its judgment on the merits ... ”

The relevant provisions of LAW concerning the authority of courts ruling on appeals on points of law , as in force at the material time , as well as amendments introduced in DATE , are described in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . In particular , article DATE of the Code , as in force at the material time , provided for ORG , when allowing an appeal on points of law , to refer the case to a lower court if it was necessary to hear evidence in the case .


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

On DATE the pension fund of the applicant ’s employer granted the applicant a full temporary disability pension as from DATE until DATE . Thereafter the period of full pension was prolonged several times .

On DATE the pension fund reviewed its previous decision and changed the applicant ’s pension into a partial CARDINAL for an indefinite period beginning on DATE . The pension fund reasoned its decision by observing that , according to the documents submitted to the pension fund , the applicant ’s capability to work could no longer be considered reduced to such an extent as entitling him to a full disability pension . It was also noted that the applicant could be expected to work at least part - time .

The applicant appealed to ORG , which on DATE rejected the appeal . The decision was reasoned as follows :

“ An employee is entitled to a full disability pension provided that his or her ability to work has continuously been reduced by CARDINAL for a minimum of DATE and that this reduction has been caused by an illness , a defect or an injury . The employee ’s remaining ability to earn income by carrying out work that would be available to him or her and that he or she could reasonably be expected to perform must be taken into account when assessing the reduction in the employee ’s ability to work . Furthermore , the employee ’s education , previous activities , age , living conditions and other comparable factors must be taken into consideration .

According to the statements on [ the applicant ’s ] state of health , [ the applicant ] suffers from depression that has become more difficult during DATE . However , [ the applicant ’s ] symptoms must be considered as mild . Therefore , ORG finds [ the applicant ] still partly capable of working as from DATE . ”

The applicant appealed to ORG . He referred , inter alia , to several medical statements according to which he was for the time being incapable of working because of his mental illness . On DATE , ORG rejected the appeal reasoning the decision as follows :

“ [ ORG refers to ] the reasons given in ORG decision . The new material filed while the case was pending [ before ORG ] does not change the evaluation of [ the applicant ’s ] disability . ”

NORP The pension fund decided later , on DATE , to reject the applicant ’s renewed application for a full disability pension instead of partial CARDINAL . ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant further appealed to ORG which , on DATE , found that the applicant ’s capability of working had been reduced at least by PERCENT on account of his illness as from DATE , and ordered the pension fund to grant the applicant a full disability pension as from DATE .

According to the Employee ’s Pensions Act ( työntekijäin eläkelaki , lag om pension för arbetstagare ; CARDINAL ) and LAW ( työntekijäin eläkelaki , förordning om pension för arbetstagare ) a party who is not satisfied with a decision of a pension fund concerning private sector employment pensions may appeal against such a decision to ORG .

The ORG applies written procedure . A case file concerning disability pension contains a written doctor ’s opinion prepared in accordance with LAW of LAW . Such a medical opinion shall provide information on symptoms , medical examination results and any other factors affecting the health of the patient . The doctor will also give his or her own opinion on the patient ’s capability to work and on his or her possibilities to rehabilitate . ORG decision may be appealed against to ORG .

According to LAW ( laki vakuutusoikeudesta , lag om försäkringsdomstolen ) , as in force at the relevant time , the provisions concerning proceedings in ordinary courts were , mutatis mutandis , applied to those in ORG . The said provisions can be found in LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) . The relevant provisions concerning the statement of reasons for a decision were included in LAW , LAW ( ORG ) , according to which a judgment shall clearly indicate those main reasons and legal provisions on which the decision is based .

The provisions in LAW of LAW were amended in DATE ( Act PERSON ) . The new provisions were not applicable to the applicant ’s case .

Section CARDINAL of the Insurance Court Act has later been amended so as to make the provisions of the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters ( hallintolainkäyttölaki , förvaltningsprocesslag ) applicable in cases which have become pending before ORG on DATE or later .

A decision of ORG may not be appealed against . According to Section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG may annul a final decision , if it is based on incorrect or deficient evidence or is manifestly against the law .

In accordance with LAW , the members of ORG include a doctor in cases where medical assessment is necessary .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses - financial award (global)

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

On DATE the NORP ORG of Lugansk ordered ORG Zavod ” to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL in salary arrears and other payments .

On DATE the GPE ORG instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment .

In DATE the applicant lodged with the GPE ORG of Lugansk a complaint alleging the unlawfulness of ORG inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment in his favour . On DATE the court found against the applicant , finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs . The applicant did not appeal in cassation against that decision .

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against ORG seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment . On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s claim as being unsubstantiated .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , ORG and ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

In CARDINAL instalments of CARDINAL and DATE the amount of the judgment debt was transferred to the Bailiffs’ deposit account . On the same dates the applicant was invited to provide ORG with his bank account details in order that they transfer the amount of the award .

The applicant informed ORG that he did not wish to take the money before the ORG decided on his application .

NORP The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of Romashov v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Preliminary objections allowed (alleged ill-treatment, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3 (conditions of detention);Violation of Art. 3 (lack of appropriate medical assistance);Violation of Art. 3 (conditions of transportation);Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible (alleged ill-treatment);Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in LOC .

NORP In DATE the applicant , who at that time was on probation after receiving a sentence for burglary , was arrested and placed in police custody ( затриманий ) on suspicion of another count of burglary . The date of his arrest is in dispute between the parties . The applicant contended that this occurred on DATE , whereas according to the Government he was apprehended on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police , in the course of which he admitted that he had participated in the burglary of a house belonging to the sister of his alleged accomplice , PERSON .

On DATE the Balaklavsky ORG of Sevastopol ( ORG районний суд PERSON , hereafter “ the FAC ” ) extended the term of the applicant 's police custody up to a maximum of DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to be placed in pre - trial detention on the grounds that the offence he was suspected of had been committed while he was on probation in connection with a prior suspended sentence and that if at large the applicant would abscond and thereby obstruct justice .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant was committed for trial before ORG . In the trial proceedings , he was represented by his mother PERSON , and he retracted the confession statements he had given during his detention in police custody , claiming that these had been given under duress .

During a hearing on DATE the applicant informed the trial court that he felt unwell and thus could not participate in the hearing . The presiding judge called an ambulance to assess the applicant 's medical condition .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged . It rejected the applicant 's argument that his confession statements had been given under duress and found that a certificate issued by ORG , according to which the applicant had been treated in that hospital on DATE for bruises on his legs , could not be regarded as conclusive evidence of police brutality , as the applicant himself had failed to give any explanation before the court as to how he had come by those injuries .

On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant , ORG ( PERSON суд PERSON , hereafter “ the Court of Appeal ” ) quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination . The court indicated , inter alia , that the first - instance court had addressed the issue of the applicant 's alleged ill - treatment in police custody , although he had never complained before the court that he had suffered any ill - treatment by the police . Without giving any reasons , ORG also ordered that the applicant should remain in detention .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of burglary and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . It based this conviction on the confession statements given by the applicant and PERSON . during the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , the victim 's oral evidence in court , and statements given by CARDINAL other witnesses in the course of the pretrial investigation . It rejected as unfounded the applicant 's allegation that he had been ill - treated by the police .

The applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE , asking for a reduction of his sentence . On DATE ORG granted the applicant 's appeal and reduced his sentence to DATE , DATE and DATE imprisonment . The applicant did not appeal in cassation .

According to the applicant , after his arrest on DATE he was taken to the Balaklavsky ORG of Sevastopol ( ORG м. FAC , hereafter “ the Police Department ” ) . There he was allegedly subjected to ill - treatment by the police officers , who coerced him into confessing to burglary , with which he was subsequently charged .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG No . CARDINAL ( PERSON міська лікарня № CARDINAL ) . According to the certificate issued by this hospital on DATE the applicant had bruises on his left thigh and buttocks .

After having received the required assistance in ORG No . CARDINAL , the applicant was taken to ORG ( Севастопольський міський ізолятор тимчасового тримання , hereafter “ the Sevastopol ITT ” ) .

According to the entry in the Sevastopol ITT register the applicant did not have any visible injuries on his admission and did not complain of any illtreatment .

During the trial proceedings before ORG in DATE , the trial court ordered ORG of Sevastopol ( PERSON FAC , hereafter “ the ORG ” ) to carry out criminal inquires into the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment . On an unspecified date before DATE ORG decided that there was no prima facie case of ill - treatment and refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant 's complaints .

As indicated above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , on DATE , the applicant was transferred from ORG to ORG . On DATE he was admitted to the Simferopol Pre - Trial Detention Centre no . CARDINAL ( NORP слідчий ізолятор DATE , hereafter “ the GPE ” ) . However , since the police , prosecution and judicial authorities involved in his criminal case were based in LOC the applicant was transferred DATE from GPE to ORG , where he stayed for DATE . From DATE the applicant remained in ORG as , according to a letter of DATE from the Deputy Head of ORG в м. Севастополі ) , the GPE refused to admit inmates of ORG who were suffering from tuberculosis .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG ( PERSON міська інфекційна лікарня , hereafter “ the Infectious Diseases Hospital ” ) .

Therefore , DATE and DATE the applicant spent a total of DATE in ORG .

According to the applicant , during his stay in ORG he was held in small cells which were constantly overcrowded . In support of this claim , the applicant relied on a letter from the head of ORG , issued on DATE and addressed to a third person . In that letter it was stated that CARDINAL inmates were being held in the Sevastopol ORG instead of its capacity of CARDINAL .

The applicant stated that he had been held in cell no . CARDINAL for most of the time and for short periods in cells FAC . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

Cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY and had been occupied by CARDINAL inmates . There were CARDINAL double bunks for CARDINAL inmates . Cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , both of QUANTITY , the applicant shared with CARDINAL fellow inmates . They were equipped with CARDINAL double bunk and wooden planking on the floor , which was also used by the inmates for sleeping .

Owing to the lack of bunks , the inmates had to take turns to sleep . The cells were situated in the basement and were thus deprived of daylight . They were dimly lit by electric lamps fixed into the ceiling , which were never switched off , contributing further to the lack of sleep . Moreover , the air in these overcrowded basement cells could be supplied only though the ventilation system , which was often out of order .

The applicant 's cell was infested with cockroaches and ants , and no attempt was made to exterminate them . The inmates in the Sevastopol ORG cells were furthermore exposed to infectious diseases like tuberculosis , which the applicant contracted whilst being detained there .

The applicant further claimed that the food supplied in ORG was meagre and of poor quality and was supplemented with food sent by his mother .

The Government submitted that whilst in ORG the applicant shared cells measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other detainees . The Government maintained that the cells were equipped with wooden planking , ventilation , water supply and sewerage systems . The applicant was provided with hot meals CARDINAL times a day and the opportunity to wash at least once DATE . There were windows , which allowed daylight and fresh air in . In general , the conditions of the applicant 's detention corresponded to the relevant hygiene and sanitation standards .

As indicated above , the applicant was transported to and from ORG DATE .

The distance between LOC and PERSON is QUANTITY . The transportation ( етап ) started at TIME and , according to the Government , ended at TIME on DATE . The applicant submitted that it usually took TIME for him to reach the destination . The applicant was informed beforehand about the journey , and , according to the Government , fed before it started . The applicant submitted that not once was he provided with breakfast before the transportation .

The applicant and the other inmates were transported in police vans to and from the railway stations . These journeys usually lasted TIME . The Government indicated that the vans ' design capacity of CARDINAL persons was never exceeded . The applicant argued that normally the vans carried CARDINAL persons in a stuffy and dimly lit compartment of QUANTITY .

When in a train the applicant was held in carriages of special design with a capacity of ORG persons . According to the Government , the number of persons in a carriage never exceeded CARDINAL . The applicant alleged that it was always CARDINAL . According to the applicant 's account , during this part of the journey he was not provided with food or water .

The applicant 's health started to deteriorate in DATE . However , as confirmed in the above - mentioned letter of DATE by the Head of ORG , the Sevastopol ORG staff did not include a doctor and the “ acting paramedic ” ( виконуючий обов'язки фельдшера ) was not medically trained or qualified . As a result , the applicant received no medical assistance from ORG .

According to a letter of DATE by the Governor of the PERSON , the applicant had undergone treatment for bronchitis in the medical unit of the Simferopol SIZO DATE . CARDINAL GPE examinations carried out on CARDINAL and DATE did not reveal any pathological changes in his heart or lungs . This letter further stated that on DATE the applicant 's blood was tested for HIV antibodies . On DATE the NORP anti - ORG diagnosed the applicant as HIV positive . The applicant alleged that neither he nor his mother had been informed of this diagnosis .

On DATE , while he was in ORG , an ambulance was called for the applicant . The doctor found the applicant to be suffering from “ fever of unknown origin ” and administered him a dose of a painkiller , which had a short - term effect . According to the applicant the ambulance doctor stated that the applicant required an examination in a specialist hospital .

On DATE the applicant complained about further deterioration of his health . An ambulance was called , whose doctor found the applicant to be suffering from an “ acute respiratory virus infection ” .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG . According to the applicant , during this examination he was diagnosed as suffering from tuberculosis of the lymph nodes and hospitalisation was recommended , which was refused by the administration of ORG , because it could not afford to detach CARDINAL officers to guard him in a hospital . The Government stated that the doctors did not find it necessary to hospitalise the applicant , but that they took samples of his blood for HIV testing and prescribed him vitamins .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for further examinations . He was diagnosed as suffering from tuberculosis and prescribed anti - tuberculosis treatment . The Government submitted that on that occasion the doctors did not recommend his hospitalisation either . The Government further stated that during this examination it was established for the first time that the applicant was HIV positive . The applicant alleged that it was the first time he had been informed about this condition ; whereas the prison authorities had been aware of it long before this date .

In a letter of DATE the head doctor ORG informed the applicant 's mother that a commission of doctors from this hospital diagnosed the applicant as being HIV positive and suffering from tuberculosis and recommended his urgent hospitalisation .

On that same date the applicant 's mother lodged a complaint with ORG , stating that the administration of ORG had unlawfully refused to hospitalise her son , whose health condition was extremely grave . She stated in particular that since DATE the applicant 's body temperature had remained at around CARDINAL CCARDINAL , and that he could hardly eat or move without help . The outcome of this complaint is unknown .

On DATE , pursuant to the ORG 's request made under LAW , the applicant was transferred to ORG ( ORG ) .

According to a letter from the head doctor of ORG dated DATE the applicant was registered at the LOC as an HIV patient in DATE and received the appropriate treatment .

The relevant provisions of LAW and LAW can be found in the judgment of DATE in the case of Dvoynykh v. GPE ( no . MONEY , § § DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL of the PERSON provides :

“ Within DATE of notification , a decision of the body of inquiry , investigator or a prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings can be appealed against by an interested party or their representative to the district ( town ) court within whose area of jurisdiction the authority which took the decision falls ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code , in so far as relevant , provides :

“ An appeal against the decision of the body of inquiry , investigator or prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings shall be examined [ by a court ] in a single - judge formation within DATE of being lodged .

The judge shall request the materials , on the basis of which the decision not to institute criminal proceedings was made , examines them , and informs the prosecutor and the appellant of the date on which the hearing of the appeal is listed .

Having examined the case , the judge ... may take CARDINAL of the following decisions :

CARDINAL ) NORP to set aside the decision not to institute criminal proceedings and to remit the case for further preliminary inquiries ...

CARDINAL ) NORP to dismiss the complaint ... ”

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that persons suffering from tuberculosis detained in pre - trial detention centres ( SIZOs ) receive appropriate treatment in the medical units of these detention centres . Prisoners detained in penitentiary establishments should be treated in specialist prison hospitals .

Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the PERSON provides that persons detained with HIV / Aids should be provided with obligatory outpatient monitoring , treatment for opportunistic infections ( infections that can affect people with a weak immune system ) and antiretroviral treatment .

In accordance with paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of this Decree , antiretroviral treatment should be prescribed by the prison infectious disease doctors who have undergone the relevant training or by doctors from local anti - Aids establishments . The antiretroviral monitoring of the persons detained in pre - trial detention centres is being carried out by the local anti - Aids establishments .

Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the PERSON provides that immediately upon the admission of a person with HIV / Aids to a pre - trial detention centre , the head of the medical unit of that facility should provide him or her with antiretroviral drugs from the local antiAids establishment .

In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of the Decree , when a person with HIV / Aids is being transferred from CARDINAL penitentiary establishment to another it should be ensured that the relevant medical documents accompany him or her to the new establishment .

This Report states the following :

“ It should be acknowledged that the police authorities do not follow the demands of [ the ORG ] expressed during their visit in DATE in respect of immediate cessation of the unlawful and long - term holding of arrested and detained persons in police custody ...

In the majority of the ITTs the rights of the detainees are not respected . ... The requirements of LAW in respect of the obligation of the authorities to provide detainees suffering from tuberculosis with treatment in specialist medical establishments are not being met . Many people suffering from this disease are being held in ITTs for long periods without any medical assistance . In total , of CARDINAL persons suffering from tuberculosis held in the ORG only CARDINAL were treated in the specialist establishments of ORG . This not only violates the rights of the detainees , but also contributes to the further dissemination of this disease .

The conditions under which arrested and detained persons in the ITTs of GPE are held ... may be equated to inhuman or degrading treatment . Detainees are being held in basements or in premises where there are not even the most basic conditions for long - term occupation .

Police officers systematically infringe the law in respect of the maximum DATE detention of arrested , detained and convicted persons in ITTs . In ORG , in breach of the law , there were CARDINAL persons who had been held DATE , CARDINAL who had been held for DATE , CARDINAL for DATE and CARDINAL for DATE , including CARDINAL convicted persons .

The relevant extract from the report reads as follows :

Under LAW of the ORG - trial LAW and LAW , persons remanded in custody should be held in the centres for pre - trial detention [ SIZOs ] . Only in exceptional cases should these persons be held in establishments such as ORG . It is also to be noted that the law clearly defines the time - limits for holding persons in the ITTs , that is DATE , and in cases where the ORG is situated far from the relevant GPE or there are no suitable roads available , DATE . In breach of the above laws , the governors of many SIZOs unreasonably refuse to admit detainees transferred from the ITTs . This attitude on the part of governors of SIZOs has led to inhuman , dreadful and unbearable conditions of detention in the ITTs and their overcrowding ( almost twice their capacity ) in GPE , ... and the cities of ... PERSON . In particular , in GPE an inmate is admitted to GPE only in exchange for CARDINAL inmate being transferred to the ORG .

The relevant extracts from section ORG of the report “ The observance of prisoners ' rights in GPE ” read as follows :

“ ... ORG is in charge of CARDINAL temporary holding facilities ( ORG – izolyator tymchasovoho trymannya ) , where they may be held for a maximum of DATE ( DATE in exceptional circumstances ) before being moved to a pre - trial detention centre ( GPE – an acronym for slidchy izolyator ) . However there are instances when this time period is exceeded . Each day in GPE CARDINAL people who have been detained are held in ORG , with a capacity for CARDINAL places . According to information from ORG , CARDINAL ORG are in need of repair .

The greatest number of cases involving ill - treatment while in custody occur specifically during the time that individuals detained are held in police institutions . The conditions in such institutions are , furthermore , excessively harsh . This is connected to a large degree with poor financing , however , funding has recently been allocated to provide for detainees held in ORG . “ FAC ” sent formal requests for information to CARDINAL regional departments of ORG ( ORG ) with questions about the conditions in which prisoners were held in ORG . Information from the responses received is presented in LAW : “ Conditions in which prisoners are held in temporary holding facilities ” .

According to figures from the departments , in DATE from CARDINAL to DATE UH was allocated for each individual while being held in an ORG ...

... CARDINAL of the problems with police custody is the fact that detained individuals suffering from tuberculosis can not be sent to GPE . As noted in ORG , on the basis of a number of normative legal acts of ORG for the Execution of Sentences , individuals suffering from infectious diseases ( including tuberculosis ) can not be transferred to pre - trial detention centres ( GPE ) from the temporary holding facilities ( ORG ) under the competence of ORG . According to some reports , CARDINAL arrested people were not admitted to GPE during DATE . TB - infected people were thus held in detention in the ORG , which are not fit for holding such persons , beyond the legally established maximum term of arrest ( DATE ) . This not only violates the rights of the arrested but also promotes the spread of diseases in the ORG . According to ORG , CARDINAL people are held DATE in ORG after the maximum time - limit established by law , including CARDINAL people ill with GPE . The situation has not improved even after an Instruction ( No . CARDINAL of DATE ) was issued by ORG whereby ORG for the Execution of Sentences was ordered to ensure admission of those arrested who are ill with GPE . According to the comments of the NORP authorities , there are plans to solve this problem by delegating the treatment of persons in detention on remand to special establishments of ORG which will be guarded by ORG units . This requires changes to the relevant legislation ...

... CARDINAL of the activities of FAC is the overseeing the conditions in which individuals detained by the police are being held .

A check made by LAW in DATE of a temporary holding facility ( ORG ) in the city of GPE found that the cells were still without windows . Many ORG have semi - basement dark concrete cells , without fresh air , drinking water , or plumbing , posing a risk to people 's health and reminiscent of DATE . They furthermore constantly hold DATE or even twice as many people as they have capacity for , and it is possible to breathe there only through forced ventilation .

The Human Rights Ombudsperson found that the rights of citizens regarding TIME detention in holding rooms were infringed , and that in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL district police departments people detained were not given anything to eat , despite several submissions from FAC , on the basis of which ORG and the Government allocated funding . Such conditions are also a form of torture , yet due to the continuing large numbers of detentions and arrests , people are placed in the rooms set aside for those detained . Each year CARDINAL people pass through these ORG ... ”

III . RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL REPORTS

NORP The visit of the ORG delegation to GPE took place from DATE , in the course of which the delegation inspected CARDINAL centres for temporary detention ( police - run detention facilities designated for a short stay of detained suspects ) , including ORG .

The relevant parts of the ORG report read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The majority of ITTs visited were overcrowded . For example , in GPE , CARDINAL persons were being held in cells of CARDINAL m² and in several cells there were more persons than beds .

In all the ITTs visited , access to natural light was obstructed by dense metal netting on the windows or jalousies and the artificial lighting was , in general , insufficient . Reading of any kind was a strain on the eyes . The ventilation was inadequate and the air in the cells visited heavy . The lack of ventilation was exacerbated by the fact that the cells tended to be fetid , detainees being provided with neither products for cleaning their cells nor the possibility of washing themselves other than in a basin of cold water ..... Further , the sanitary facilities in nearly all the ITTs visited left something to be desired . A notable exception was PERSON , where the delegation noted the cells were clean and the detainees possessed basic hygiene products .

In several ITTs there was an insufficient quantity of mattresses and blankets for all the detainees , while the cleanliness of those available was questionable . Further , with CARDINAL or CARDINAL exceptions , the ITTs visited did not possess outdoor exercise facilities . Nor was there any provision for activities ; in many ITTs , detainees were not even permitted newspapers .

In most ORG , the single daily meal was supplemented by food parcels from relatives . Those without relatives shared the food of others . Given the fact that the ORG are unable financially to provide sufficient food to detainees , food parcels should not be subject to undue restrictions .

In the light of the unacceptable conditions referred to above , the ORG was all the more concerned to learn that a significant number of detainees were being held in ITTs for periods much longer than DATE legal limit .

Health - care issues have been a matter of concern to the ORG since its first visit ; no improvements were observed during the DATE visit . To begin with , the ORG 's delegation noted that in several ITTs ( ORG , Lytne ) there was no feldsher at all to maintain the health - care service . Further , the ORG must insist on the importance of all detainees receiving a thorough medical examination upon being admitted to an ORG ; this is still not the norm at present . Further , the feldsher should take a proactive stance in dealing with health - care issues arising within an ORG ; the cramped living space under which detainees are held and the lack of general hygiene constitute an environment conducive to the spread of diseases , in particular tuberculosis . ”

In its ORG to ORG on the visit to GPE carried out from DATE to DATE the ORG stated as follows ( original emphasise ) :

“ CARDINAL . The legal framework governing deprivation of liberty by the ORG has already been described in previous ORG visit reports . The ORG , it will be recalled , can , on its own authority , hold a person suspected of a criminal offence for TIME .

However , by law of DATE , LAW was brought into line with LAW . Now , within TIME of detention , the investigating bodies are required , if they wish to have a suspect remanded in custody , to bring the suspect before a judge ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) . The judge can order that the suspect be remanded in custody for DATE , and thereafter grant extensions for a maximum total period of DATE .

A person remanded in custody is in principle transferred to a pre - trial prison ( GPE ) . The person may nevertheless be detained in an ORG for a maximum period of DATE if the transfer to the GPE can not be effected owing to the distance or the absence of appropriate means of communication .

In their reply to the report on the DATE visit ( document ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) , the NORP authorities claimed that , thanks to the intervention of judges , overcrowding in police establishments had been substantially reduced . Unfortunately , the visit carried out at DATE demonstrated the contrary . With the sole exception of ORG , all the other establishments of this kind were overcrowded . It emerged that , in the various regions visited , the judges favoured an approach whereby suspects were remanded in custody , as was generally requested by the investigating bodies and prosecutors .

The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities raise the awareness of the investigating bodies and prosecutors / judges of the new legislation and encourage them to make extensive use of their power to apply non - custodial preventive measures to persons suspected of a criminal offence ( cf . also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Moreover , in DATE , in examining the relevant records , the ORG 's delegation again found cases of remand prisoners being held in ITTs for considerably longer than DATE permitted ( for example , DATE at the ORG of ORG of ORG ) . ”

The relevant extracts from the Report of the ORG on a visit to GPE from DATE read as follows ( original emphasise ) :

“ CARDINAL . During its visit to the Kyiv ORG of ORG of GPE , the delegation also had the opportunity to examine a prison van . This vehicle contained CARDINAL compartments with benches . The artificial lighting was very poor and the ventilation was non - existent . In addition , CARDINAL of the compartments was extremely small ( CARDINAL m² ) . According to the staff in charge of the vehicle , this type of van was used only for short journeys within the city . However , the delegation heard allegations from prisoners that vehicles of this kind were sometimes used for longer journeys .

The ORG would like to receive a copy of any regulations which might exist concerning the characteristics of vehicles used for transporting prisoners . In addition , it recommends that the NORP authorities check the lighting and ventilation in prison vans , and cease placing prisoners in compartments as small as CARDINAL.CARDINAL GPE . ”

The DATE Report also contains the findings of the ORG concerning the conditions in which detainees were being transferred from CARDINAL place of detention to another ( original emphasise ) :

“ CARDINAL . Concerning road transport of prisoners , the delegation inspected CARDINAL ORG vans in GPE . Each vehicle had collective compartments and an individual compartment . The individual compartments were as small as CARDINAL m² ; in paragraph CARDINAL of the report on its DATE visit , the ORG has already recommended that the practice of placing prisoners in compartments of this size cease . Conditions in the vehicle were also similar in other respects to those described in the aforementioned paragraph of the report on the DATE visit ( poor artificial lighting , inadequate ventilation ) .

Concerning rail transport , the delegation examined the facilities in CARDINAL of the special carriages used for transporting prisoners . It had compartments measuring CARDINAL and CARDINAL m² , with folding benches . The authorised capacity in the smaller compartments was CARDINAL persons for journeys lasting not TIME , and CARDINAL persons for longer journeys . In the larger CARDINAL ORG compartments , CARDINAL persons could be accommodated for short distances and CARDINAL for long distances . The compartments had some access to natural light ; however , ventilation was poor . The toilets for prisoners were in a disgusting state , clogged with excrement , despite the fact that prisoners were due to board TIME for a long journey .

There were no arrangements to provide prisoners with food , even over long distances ; as for drinking water , only a small container was provided to supply the prisoners throughout the journey .

The manner in which prisoners are transported , particularly by train , is unacceptable , having regard , inter alia , to the material conditions and possible duration of travel .

The ORG recommends that conditions of prisoners ' transport in GPE be reviewed in the light of the foregoing remarks . As an immediate measure , it recommends that the NORP authorities take steps to :

- significantly reduce the maximum number of prisoners per compartment in a railway carriage : CARDINAL m² compartments should never CARDINAL persons , and CARDINAL m² compartments never CARDINAL persons ;

- ensure that during rail transport , prisoners are supplied with drinking water and that for long journeys , the necessary arrangements are made for them to be properly fed ;

- no longer use CARDINAL m² compartments in vans for transporting prisoners . ”

In its ORG to ORG on the visit to GPE carried out from DATE to DATE the ORG stated as follows ( original emphasise ) :

“ CARDINAL . In its report on the DATE visit ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , the ORG made a number of recommendations concerning the transport of prisoners by road and rail . The matter was raised again in DATE with the NORP authorities , who stated that a working group had been set up to transfer responsibility for escorting prisoners from ORG to ORG . In the light of the critical findings again made by the delegation which carried out DATE visit , concerning transport vans , the ORG recommends that the NORP authorities give a high priority to resolving the issue of the conditions under which prisoners are transported , with due regard to the recommendations in paragraph CARDINAL of its report on the DATE visit . ”

As regards the situation in the Sevastopol ITT , ORG stated in a briefing on GPE for ORG that took place on DATE :

“ According to ORG , GPE has an estimated tuberculosis ( GPE ) case rate of CARDINAL cases per year per CARDINAL people which is the eighth highest in LOC and LOC . In a country with a very high rate of GPE , overcrowding and poor conditions in pre - trial detention have led to a high rate of infection among detainees . In DATE ORG reported to ORG that there were CARDINAL TB infected detainees in ORG in the LOC . These people are detained for the full period of their pre - trial detention in the ORG , in violation of LAW , because of a long - standing practice that the nearest GPE in PERSON will not accept detainees infected with GPE . In DATE , CARDINAL TB infected detainees were held in a cell designed for CARDINAL people . They are provided with drugs , but reportedly they do not receive special food or the vitamins needed to counteract the effects of the drugs . ”

In a report “ LOC and LOC . Summary of ORG Concerns in the Region . DATE ” AI stated the following :

“ At a meeting with AI delegates in DATE the National Human Rights Ombudsperson PERSON stated that torture was still widespread . The main problems were lack of immediate access to a lawyer and conditions in pre - trial detention centres ( GPE ) and temporary holding facilities ( ORG ) . The problem was aggravated by a very high number of arrests and a failure to use alternative methods such as bonds and bail . PERSON also stated that conditions in ORG were particularly poor and have led to a very high rate of infection with tuberculosis ( GPE ) among the detainees . Cells are overcrowded and detainees are forced to share bunks or sleep in shifts , food is inadequate and until DATE when PERSON discovered a possible site for an exercise yard , there was no possibility to take exercise .

ORG has repeatedly expressed concern about the spread of GPE in prisons and places of detention in GPE , and in their report on conditions in DATE expressed concern that no improvements could be observed . PERSON was arrested in DATE on suspicion of drug dealing and held in ORG . He was not ill with TB at the time , but by DATE had been diagnosed with GPE . He was not informed and found out only by chance in DATE when his health worsened . He did not receive any treatment until DATE when through the efforts of his family and ORG he was hospitalized and received treatment . On DATE he was returned to the ORG . AI is concerned that he has been held since DATE in pre - trial detention in the ORG when domestic law stipulates that detainees may be held in such facilities for a maximum of TIME , and that conditions in FAC constituted cruel and inhuman treatment . ”

Relevant international reports and other materials concerning the treatment of tuberculosis in NORP penitentiary establishments can be found in the judgment of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE , ( no . GPE , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .