Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 3 (detention conditions);Violation of Art. 6-1(length);Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE , the applicant was placed in police custody for DATE under the accusation of having murdered his partner . On DATE , the prosecutor attached to ORG ordered the applicant 's remand in custody .

On DATE , the prosecutor attached to ORG committed the applicant for trial for aggravated murder , under LAW ( a ) of LAW .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , in the presence of the applicant and ORG , his chosen defence counsel , ORG heard evidence from witnesses . On DATE the applicant also gave evidence . On CARDINAL DATE ORG heard evidence from the prosecutor , the civil party and ORG It then allowed the applicant to address the court last .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It based its judgment on the witness testimonies , the applicant 's declarations and behaviour and the medical reports concerning the death of the victim . On DATE the sentence was confirmed , upon the applicant 's appeal , by ORG which heard evidence from the applicant and GPE , his defence counsel .

The applicant appealed in cassation before ORG alleging that he had not committed the murder and that , therefore , the evidence had been wrongly interpreted by the courts .

The applicant was sent to ORG from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL April to DATE and again from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . He underwent several surgical interventions there . In DATE he was diagnosed with a perianal tumour but refused further surgery .

Due to a severe problem with his eyes , the doctors who examined the applicant recommended his release .

During the proceedings before ORG , the applicant 's health was in constant decline . Therefore , he was absent from most of the hearings held in the case , but allegedly requested repeatedly that the proceedings be suspended because of his illness .

It appears from the non - definitive decisions that the applicant was represented either by a court - appointed counsel or by a lawyer of his choice for most of the hearings .

On DATE , after having examined the applicant and having noted , in particular , that he had lost QUANTITY in DATE , the prison doctors recommended that the applicant undergo an expert examination by ORG . On DATE , the same doctors recommended the applicant 's release .

He was hospitalised again DATE and DATE . In DATE , he was transferred under escort to the ORG public ORG in GPE where he underwent a colostomy . He claims that he was handcuffed to the bed .

On DATE , the doctors recommended his release from custody due to his severe medical condition .

On DATE , ORG concluded that the applicant had to follow a DATE course of treatment , which would prevent him from participating in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG suspended the trial due to the applicant 's health condition , as revealed by ORG report adduced in the case . It also ordered the applicant 's release , which took place on DATE .

ORG requested periodically the experts ' opinion on the applicant 's condition in order to assess if the reasons for the suspension of the proceedings were still valid .

After his release , the applicant continued to be treated for his illness . On DATE the ORG certified that another sixmonth course of treatment was necessary and that during that time the applicant could not participate in the proceedings .

On DATE the court held a hearing and noted that the medical report had not yet been submitted . It set its next hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that the applicant was fit to participate in the trial .

On DATE the court took note of the medical report but noted some informalities and sent it back to ORG . It set its next hearing for DATE .

On DATE , in the presence of the applicant 's chosen counsel , ORG noted that neither the prosecutor nor the lower courts had ordered the applicant 's psychiatric evaluation , required by law for any person prosecuted for aggravated murder .

Therefore , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the previous decisions adopted in the case and sent the case back to ORG , ordering the applicant 's psychiatric evaluation .

On DATE the file was sent to ORG , which held the first hearing on DATE , and then several more , the applicant being absent due to his health problems . He was , however , represented in the proceedings mainly by ORG , a lawyer of his choice .

Evidence in the file showed that on DATE he had been released from hospital .

On DATE ORG referred the case back to the prosecutor to order the psychiatric evaluation .

NORP The prosecutor 's appeal against this judgment was allowed by ORG in a final decision of DATE which instructed ORG to order the applicant 's evaluation itself , as decided by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the case was restored to ORG list of cases .

Some QUANTITY hearings took place before ORG , the case being repeatedly postponed due to the absence of the expert reports or for erroneous summoning of the parties . It appears that the applicant did not attend any of these hearings but was represented at most of them by ORG , his defence counsel .

On DATE the applicant was hospitalised for another operation .

On DATE ORG estimated that the applicant required a DATE course of medical treatment that could not be administered in prison . However , on DATE , upon ORG request , it concluded that the applicant was fit to participate in the trial .

On DATE the applicant appeared before the medical commission for his psychiatric examination .

On DATE the psychiatric expert report was adduced in the case . It confirmed that the applicant had been mentally competent for legal purposes at the time of the victim 's murder . ORG heard evidence from the applicant 's lawyer and the prosecutor on DATE and pronounced its judgment on DATE . Due to the applicant 's repeated absence on account of his medical condition , ORG could not hear evidence from him in person .

The court re - examined the evidence already in the file and based its decision on the corroboration of witness testimonies gathered by the investigators and the courts , the expert reports concerning the victim 's death and the applicant 's behaviour towards his partner , towards his former wives ( witnesses in the case ) and during the criminal investigations and court proceedings – including the assessment of the answers he gave during a polygraph test that he had agreed to take on DATE and in the course of which he had not been assisted by a lawyer – and the psychiatric evaluation of the applicant . ORG found him guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant , through his lawyer , lodged an appeal against this judgment challenging the interpretation of facts and law by ORG . He claimed his innocence and alternatively asked the court to reduce his sentence . His appeal was rejected as out of time in a decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG .

However , on DATE ORG , upon the applicant 's request , quashed the decision and referred the case back to ORG for a re - examination of the appeal . It considered that the applicant had respected the time limits for lodging his appeal .

The applicant did not attend any of the CARDINAL hearings held before ORG . ORG , his chosen representative , attended one of these hearings . The court noted that both the applicant and his lawyer alleged that their health had prevented them from attending the hearings . However , ORG found that the applicant was not hospitalised at that time and that his lawyer had failed to designate a substitute , although the court had requested him to do so , in compliance with the law .

NORP On DATE ORG designated of its own motion a representative for the applicant . The same day it examined and rejected the appeal , the applicant not being present at the hearing . It found that the evidence confirmed the applicant'imposed by ORG was justified . The courtappointed counsel pleaded for the applicant 's innocence and alternatively asked the court to lower the sentence imposed .

The applicant appealed in cassation against this decision with ORG , challenging , as before , the interpretation of facts and law by the courts . The applicant did not attend any of the CARDINAL hearings on the merits held in the case . At the first hearing , his personal assistant appeared ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , informed ORG applicant 's poor health and asked for a postponement to allow the applicant to appoint a representative . The court postponed the case and appointed a lawyer for the applicant . Before the next hearing , GPE , the applicant 's defence council who had represented him in the appeal above , made a written request for another postponement on the ground that he did not have time to study the whole file . In the presence of the court - appointed counsel and of the prosecutor , the court allowed the request . However , ORG failed to appear at the last hearing of CARDINAL DATE . The courtappointed counsel participated on behalf of the applicant . In a final decision rendered on DATE , after reassessing the evidence adduced in the case , ORG upheld the sentence .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a commission of doctors from the Commission for the protection of handicapped persons . They established that his condition amounted to a severe functional deficiency which entitled him to a personal assistant .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for the postponement of the execution of the sentence for medical reasons . Later on he reformulated it , asking for the suspension of the sentence .

On DATE the applicant was referred to ORG for an opinion on whether he was fit to serve the sentence .

ORG doctors re - examined the applicant and concluded that the stage of his illness permitted the continuation of his imprisonment and that his medical treatment could be continued in prison hospitals :

“ The pathology ... is severe , with unpredictable evolution , possibly towards a fatal prognosis which can happen regardless of whether [ the applicant ] is in prison or released . ”

The doctors submitted their report on DATE .

Based on this evidence , the applicant 's request for suspension was rejected on DATE by ORG . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . The applicant did not appeal on points of law and thus this latter decision became final .

On DATE ORG started a new expert examination of the applicant in order to assess the possibility of interrupting the execution of his sentence . However , on DATE the applicant refused to continue with this examination , as he considered that it would not benefit him .

On DATE the applicant was imprisoned in order to serve the remainder of the sentence . He claimed that he had been placed in a cell with CARDINAL beds arranged at CARDINAL levels and with badly damaged mattresses , with CARDINAL detainees in each bed , CARDINAL toilets and no shower or warm water in the room . Due to his medical condition ( as he had an artificial anus , he was unable to control his bowel movements ) he asked to be transferred to a single - bed cell , but his request was rejected on the ground that no such cells existed in that penitentiary , except those for solitary confinement .

According to the applicant , he repeatedly requested to be examined by a doctor , but to no avail . He claimed that his medicine had not been provided by the authorities for lack of funds , and his family had had to send it to him .

The Government sent the applicant 's medical file along with a letter from ORG dated DATE which detailed the medical care that the applicant received in prison .

It appears that from DATE he was hospitalised in ORG where he was examined by the penitentiary doctors . He underwent laboratory tests and an oncological evaluation in public hospitals .

Subsequently he was examined periodically by the penitentiary doctors and often sent for specialist check - ups .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was hospitalised again in ORG . Laboratory analyses were performed and he was also sent to the public hospital for more detailed examinations .

He was hospitalised again in PERSON from DATE . On DATE the doctors performed an abdominal ultrasound scan and recommended check - ups DATE .

On DATE the applicant received from his family CARDINAL tubes of PERSON .

His medical surveillance continued throughout DATE , DATE and DATE . He underwent ophthalmologic check - ups , was seen by specialist doctors at least every other month , and received through the penitentiary pharmacies the prescribed medicines every month .

On DATE the applicant informed the authorities that he refused to be examined in ORG , bearing in mind his criminal complaint of ill treatment against the penitentiary doctors ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

He was hospitalised again in PERSON from DATE .

It appears that the applicant received medicine from the penitentiary pharmacies as prescribed by the doctors that had examined him .

Between the periods of hospitalisation , the applicant was detained in the penitentiaries in NORP and PERSON .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the penitentiary doctors that had operated on him while in detention . He accused them of intentional harm and malpractice during the surgical intervention . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the complaint as out of time . The applicant appealed against this decision . In his letter to ORG , he invoked the fact that he was “ transported to and kept in ORG under escort ” . The criminal complaint was re - examined and dismissed again , on CARDINAL DATE , by ORG . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the ORG 's decision , on the grounds that the accusation against the penitentiary doctors was unfounded and that , in any case , due to the time lapse between the operations and the lodging of the criminal complaint , responsibility for any of the alleged crimes was time - barred .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under the ORG 's Ordinance no . CARDINAL . He considered that his right to information , to the protection of his health and to a healthy environment had been infringed in prison . Furthermore he claimed that the prison conditions had amounted to torture . Accordingly , he argued that despite his severe medical condition the prison authorities had refused to put him in a cell by himself . He also claimed lack of access to his medical and criminal files .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his action . It considered that the quality of medical care did not fall under the ordinance invoked ; the applicant should have lodged an action in civil responsibility against the doctors . In any case , the evidence showed that the applicant had been given adequate medical care , seen by various doctors and examined and afforded the aftercare that had been prescribed .

The court dismissed as unfounded the applicant 's allegation of lack of access to his medical file . It noted that the said file had been adduced in the case , both the applicant and his representative having thus had access to it .

Lastly , ORG recalled that the Ordinance did not impose an obligation on the prison authorities to ensure access for the applicant to his criminal file . It recalled that the applicant had the right to designate a representative to study it .

The applicant 's appeal was also dismissed by ORG , in a final decision of DATE . ORG noted that the Penitentiary had refused to move the applicant to an individual cell on the ground that he would be soon transferred to a new section , to a room that would be better suited to his medical requirements . It appears that the court estimated that the applicant 's allegations concerning the negative influence on his health of the conditions of his detention were unfounded . The court also recalled that it was for the prison authorities to provide his personal assistant .

In a letter of DATE ORG persons informed the applicant that as long as he was imprisoned he was not entitled to any special allowance for his own needs or for hiring a personal assistant , since it was for the penitentiary to provide care for him .

DATE . To date , the applicant is still in prison . It seems that he has not been transferred to an individual cell .

The relevant provision of LAW on the psychiatric evaluation of a person charged with a criminal offence reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The psychiatric evaluation is mandatory in cases of aggravated murder ... ”

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that informalities in the trial such as the courts not hearing evidence from the accused in person , constitute an infringement of the rights to defence which shall lead to declaring the decision taken null and void . The relevant provisions of domestic law and practice are described in detail in the case of GPE and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The relevant part of law no . CARDINAL on the organization and exercise of lawyers ' practice reads :

“ The lawyer shall study the case thoroughly ... , shall attend every court hearing ... ”

The relevant part of the statutes of the lawyers ' practice reads :

“ ( CARDINAL ) When the lawyer is prevented from fulfilling his professional duties , he shall provide a substitute ... ”

Extract from the CARDINALth ORG of ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( ORG ) ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL )

“ CARDINAL . In a number of countries visited by the ORG , particularly in central and eastern LOC , inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a DATE basis , such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities . The ORG has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when , as is frequently the case , the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions . No doubt , various factors - including those of a cultural nature - can make it preferable in certain countries to provide multi - occupancy accommodation for prisoners rather than individual cells . However , there is little to be said in favour of - and a lot to be said against - arrangements under which CARDINAL of prisoners live and sleep together in the same dormitory . ”

The ORG standards ( “ Substantive ” sections of the ORG 's DATE General Reports )

“ CARDINAL . The ORG would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding , poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet / washing facilities in the same establishment . The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners ...

[ Prisoners unsuited for continued detention ]

Typical examples of this kind of prisoner are those who are the subject of a shortterm fatal prognosis , who are suffering from a serious disease which can not be properly treated in prison conditions , who are severely handicapped or of advanced age . The continued detention of such persons in a prison environment can create an intolerable situation . In cases of this type , it lies with the prison doctor to draw up a report for the responsible authority , with a view to suitable alternative arrangements being made . ”

The ORG visited GPE in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . All but its most recent visit report have since been made public .

Overcrowding of prisons and lack of reasonable hygiene facilities were constantly stressed by the ORG .

DATE . Recommendation no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison reads :

“ C. Persons unsuited to continued detention : serious physical handicap , advanced age , short term fatal prognosis

Prisoners with serious physical handicaps and those of advanced age should be accommodated in such a way as to allow as normal a life as possible and should not be segregated from the general prison population . Structural alterations should be effected to assist the wheelchair - bound and handicapped on lines similar to those in the outside environment .

The decision as to when patients subject to short term fatal prognosis should be transferred to outside hospital units should be taken on medical grounds . While awaiting such transfer , these patients should receive optimum nursing care during the terminal phase of their illness within the prison health care centre . In such cases provision should be made for periodic respite care in an outside hospice . The possibility of a pardon for medical reasons or early release should be examined . ”


Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, six month period);Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 8;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The last CARDINAL applicants live respectively in GPE and in the village of GPE , PERSON .

At the material time the first CARDINAL applicants and Mr PERSON , who is not a party to the proceedings before the ORG , owned property at CARDINALa Dostoevsky Street in the town of ORG , GPE . The third applicant was the first applicant ’s relative and had been living in the house with her family with the latter ’s permission since DATE .

The first CARDINAL applicants submitted a certificate dated CARDINAL DATE confirming that they and Mr PERSON inherited in equal shares the real estate situated at DATE NORP Street from their deceased relative . The certificate also indicated that the property comprised a brick house with a usable surface area of QUANTITY , a summer kitchen , an awning and other outhouses situated on a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . The certificate was signed and stamped by a notary public .

In DATE ORG commenced a counter - terrorism operation in GPE .

On DATE the federal military air forces attacked the town of ORG . The bombing killed CARDINAL people and wounded CARDINAL as well as destroying QUANTITY houses , including the one at FAC , and damaging CARDINAL . According to the third applicant , her belongings were destroyed with the house .

In the applicants’ submission , after the attack an unexploded bomb was found at CARDINAL FAC .

It appears that on DATE a video record of the site of the incident was made by local residents .

On DATE ORG ( aдминистрация г. PERSON ) drew up an evaluation report ( дефектный акт ) describing in detail the damage inflicted on the house at FAC as a result of the attack .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG issued the first applicant with a certificate confirming that the house at FAC belonging to him had been partly destroyed as a result of the bomb strike on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued the second applicant with a certificate confirming that the house at DATE FAC had been partly destroyed as a result of warfare in GPE and that it was presently unfit for human habitation .

After the attack the applicants sought the opening of an investigation into the events of DATE . It was mostly the first applicant who , in his own name and on behalf of the other applicants , applied , both in person and in writing , to various public bodies .

DATE the first applicant received a number of similar letters from ORG of ORG ( NORP штаб Военно-воздушных сил ) , the acting commander - in - chief of ORG ( временно исполняющий обязанности PERSON силами ) and ORG of ORG штаб PERSON ) , stating that ORG had never flown in the vicinity of ORG or launched any bomb strikes in DATE or later . The letters added that air strikes were only aimed at targets which had been pre - selected and identified as military and were situated at a distance of DATE to QUANTITY kilometres from inhabited areas , and that the accuracy of military aircraft precluded any possibility of accidental hits on civilian buildings . As regards the first applicant ’s complaint about an unexploded bomb found by the residents , he was invited to apply to “ a competent body of ORG ” in the vicinity of his home .

During the same period the first applicant also received responses from ORG , the commander of ORG ( начальник ракетных войск и артиллерии ) and the commander of ORG ( командующий войсками Северо-Кавказского военного округа ) , who denied any involvement by their personnel in the alleged attack of DATE on ORG .

On DATE an acting head of the ORG of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the first applicant that the aircraft of FAC and ORG ( LOC Военно-воздушных сил и противоракетной обороны ) had not attacked ORG or launched an air strike on the house at FAC , since they had not possessed any information regarding any military objects in the said area which would warrant such a strike . The letter also stated that the information allegedly received by the first applicant from the military prosecutor ’s office , to the effect that on DATE CARDINAL SUCARDINAL military aeroplanes had launched an air strike on ORG , was inaccurate .

On DATE ORG NORP President in ORG ( ORG представителя QUANTITY РФ в Южном федеральном округе ) informed the first applicant that there had been no warfare on the territory of ORG in DATE , that illegal armed formations had no military aircraft or bombs and missiles in their arsenal and that in DATE no incursion by foreign military aircraft into the airspace of GPE had been detected .

In a letter of DATE the commander - in - chief of ORG also informed the first applicant that , according to a register of combat air missions ( журнал учетa боевых вылетов ) and a tactical map ( карта ведения боевых действий ) , on DATE aircraft of ORG had not carried out any bomb strikes at a distance of QUANTITY from the south - eastern outskirts of ORG .

It appears that on DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL decided to dispense with criminal proceedings in connection with the events of DATE , stating that there was no evidence of involvement by federal military personnel in the imputed offence , and that the alleged casualties and damage could have been inflicted by fighters of illegal armed groups .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( прокуратура Чеченской PERSON DATE “ the NORP prosecutor ’s office ” ) instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the aerial attack of DATE on ORG and the killing of residents and destruction of property , under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( e ) ( killing of CARDINAL or more persons committed in a socially dangerous manner ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( aggravated deliberate destruction of CARDINAL ’s property ) of LAW . The case file was given the number CARDINAL and sent to the prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( прокуратура Урус-Мартановского района – “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) .

DATE and DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended and resumed on CARDINAL occasions ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) .

On DATE the first applicant was acknowledged as a victim and a civil claimant in criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office referred the file in case no . CARDINAL to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE ( военная прокуратура DATE ) for further investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The latter sent the case file to the NORP prosecutor ’s office on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the investigation was resumed and then stayed on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

By a decision of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( военная прокуратура Северо-Кавказского военного округа – “ the circuit military prosecutor ’s office ” ) refused the first applicant ’s request to have criminal proceedings instituted against senior officers from ORG of ORG and ORG of ORG who had allegedly provided him with false information concerning the attack of DATE . The decision referred to the statements of a number of officers who had claimed that the first applicant ’s allegations relating to the bombing of ORG had been thoroughly investigated on several occasions and had proved to be unsubstantiated . In particular , CARDINAL of the officers stated that he had personally examined the register of combat air missions ( журнал учет боевых вылетов ) and tactical map ( карта ведения боевых действий ) for the relevant period and ascertained that there had been no air strikes on the town of ORG on DATE . However , at TIME on that date high - explosive QUANTITY aerial bombs had been launched on a group of fighters located QUANTITY from the south - eastern outskirts of ORG . The decision concluded that it had since been established that the officers had provided the first applicant with full and true information and that there were no constituent elements of a crime as regards their actions .

On DATE the circuit military prosecutor ’s office quashed the decision taken by the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL on DATE . The circuit military prosecutor ’s office stated , in particular , that the decision of DATE had been based on explanations by the Head of the ORG of the ORG “ LOC ” , Colonel PERSON , and an extract from the register of combat air missions , indicating coordinates which had been attacked by a pair of SU-CARDINAL planes on DATE and which had been situated QUANTITY from ORG . The decision of DATE went on to say that an inquiry carried out in connection with the first applicant ’s complaint against senior high - ranking officers from ORG of ORG and ORG of ORG had established that no air strikes on the town of ORG had been planned or carried out on DATE , and that the closest area attacked by a pair of federal planes on that date had been located QUANTITY from ORG , in an area where members of illegal armed formations had been stationed . The decision concluded that in view of discrepancies in the information obtained , the inquiry could not be said to have been complete , and that therefore the decision of DATE should be set aside .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the proceedings in case no . CARDINAL . Thereafter in the period between DATE and DATE the investigation was stayed and resumed CARDINAL times ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . During that period , on DATE and DATE respectively , the district prosecutor ’s office granted victim status to the second and third applicants and declared them civil claimants in criminal case no . DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that a number of investigative actions in criminal case no . DATE had been taken , and in particular the scene of the incident had been inspected , fragments of bombs had been seized , new expert examinations had been ordered , and the military commander of GPE ( военный комендант Чеченской PERSON ) had been requested to take steps aimed at disposing of unexploded air bombs found in the residential district of ORG . The letter further stated that on DATE the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE had been stayed , and on DATE the case file had been transmitted to the NORP prosecutor ’s office . At present the investigation was being carried out by the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG .

On DATE the investigation into the attack of DATE had been terminated with reference to the absence of constituent elements of a crime in the actions of high - ranking military officers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . According to the applicants , it was only the first applicant who had been informed of this decision , and none of the applicants had been furnished with a copy .

It appears that the first applicant then unsuccessfully applied to prosecutors at various levels in an attempt to obtain a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

In a letter of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed the first applicant that the criminal proceedings in connection with the bomb strike of DATE had been discontinued on CARDINAL DATE and that a letter informing him of that decision had been sent to him on the same date .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed the first applicant that the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings in connection with the attack of DATE had been lawful and well - founded , as it had been established during the investigation that the federal aircraft had bombed fortified command points , bases and ammunition depots of the illegal armed groups rather than any residential areas of ORG . The letter also stated that the first applicant was entitled to make a claim for compensation for his destroyed property .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG about the refusal of the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG to furnish him with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , which prevented him from appealing against that decision in court . It is unclear whether this complaint was examined .

On DATE ORG ( Главная военная прокуратура ) transmitted the first applicant ’s complaints about the prosecutors to the military prosecutor of ORG for examination .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG stated that the file of the criminal case opened in connection with the attack by federal aircraft on ORG on DATE had been classified as secret , and therefore the first applicant ’s request to provide him with the case - file materials could not be granted . It also transpired from the letter that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued , that the first applicant was entitled to institute civil proceedings , and that the case file could be submitted to a court upon the latter ’s order .

NORP In CARDINAL letters of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed the first applicant , in reply to his complaints of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , that criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the aerial attack on ORG on DATE had been discontinued on DATE in the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in the attack , and that the criminal case file was classified as secret .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG replied to the first applicant ’s complaint of CARDINAL DATE , stating that the preliminary investigation in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL had established that in DATE the town of ORG had been occupied by NORP extremists , amounting to CARDINAL persons , who had based their headquarters in the town , had fortified it and had not been prepared to surrender , and that in such circumstances the federal command had taken a decision to carry out pinpoint bomb strikes against the bases of illegal fighters in ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG confirmed , in reply to the first applicant ’s complaint of DATE , that the criminal proceedings concerning the attack of DATE on ORG had been terminated . The letter also stated that the case - file materials had been classified as secret .

On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant issued civil proceedings against the Government of GPE , ORG and ORG and a number of prosecutors in ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) . He sought damages in connection with the allegedly improper handling of his complaints by prosecutors as well as pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage for his destroyed property .

On DATE ORG replied to a query of ORG , having confirmed that as a result of the air strike on DATE CARDINAL residents of ORG had been killed and several wounded , and that it held evaluation reports in respect of the destroyed and damaged houses .

In a letter of DATE ORG again stated in reply to another query from ORG , that an air strike of DATE had resulted in CARDINAL residents being killed and several wounded , as well as damage to CARDINAL of houses , including the one at DATE FAC . This latter house was unfit for human habitation , and its poor state of repair had been reflected in an evaluation report previously submitted to ORG .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office furnished ORG with a report on the results of the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL . The document stated that on DATE an unidentified aircraft had launched a strike on ORG , with the result that CARDINAL residents had died , CARDINAL were wounded , CARDINAL private houses were destroyed , including that of the first applicant , and CARDINAL houses were damaged . In this connection , on DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office had instituted criminal proceedings in case no . DATE and the first applicant had been declared a victim and civil claimant in this case . The events of DATE had been confirmed by CARDINAL witnesses listed in the report and other witnesses , reports of the inspection of the crime scene and forensic examination as well as other evidence , such as fragments of exploded bombs seized from the first applicant ’s house and a video record of the site of the incident , dated DATE . Finally , the report stated that , as the illegal armed groups had no aircraft , on CARDINAL occasions the criminal case had been sent for further investigation to the military prosecutor ’s office , which , however , had returned it on various grounds , thus protracting the investigation and making it difficult to identify the pilots involved in the attack of DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG delivered its judgment , holding that the public bodies had properly examined the first applicant ’s complaints and given him timely responses , and therefore had not infringed his rights , including the right to receive information . As to the first applicant ’s claims regarding compensation for the destroyed property , the court held that they could not be granted , as “ the federal armed forces had conducted a military operation in GPE by virtue of presidential and governmental decrees that had not been found unlawful ” . The court further stated that the destruction of the first applicant ’s house could not be imputed to the defendants , since the military actions had been carried out not only by the federal troops but by the illegal armed groups as well , and that no causal link had been established between the GPE actions and the damage sustained by the claimant . The first applicant ’s claims for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage could not be granted either , as he had not submitted any evidence that the GPE actions had caused him any physical , mental or emotional suffering , and had not indicated the amount of the compensation sought . In view of the above , the court concluded that there were no grounds to grant the first applicant ’s claims .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment on appeal , relying largely on ORG reasoning .

In DATE , following communication to them of the present application , the Government produced a copy of the investigation file in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( initially no . CARDINAL ) opened in respect of the attack of DATE on ORG . The materials produced ran to CARDINAL pages and seemed to represent a copy of the major part of , if not entire , case file . These documents , in so far as relevant , can be summarised as follows .

By a decision of DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the first applicant ’s complaint concerning a bomb strike on DATE of ORG on DATE , resulting in CARDINAL persons being killed , QUANTITY wounded , with QUANTITY houses being destroyed and CARDINAL damaged . The proceedings were brought under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( aggravated murder ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , and the case was transferred to the district prosecutor ’s office for investigation . A letter of the same date informed the first applicant of the decision to institute criminal proceedings but did not indicate the date of that decision .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office drew the attention of the district prosecutor ’s office to “ unprecedented procrastination ” of the investigation in case no . DATE . The letter stated , in particular , that for DATE the investigator in charge had not performed any investigative action and had not questioned victims or witnesses . It instructed the district prosecutor ’s office to revive ic and video devices , and to establish and interview eyewitnesses of the events in question .

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigator in charge sought the competent prosecutor ’s authorisation for an extension of the term of the preliminary investigation . The relevant decision listed the findings made by the investigation up to that time . It referred , in particular , to statements of a number of residents of DATE that had come under attack on DATE who , being eyewitnesses to the incident , insisted that the military planes had been flying at a low altitude and that the pilots could therefore have clearly seen that they were targeting a residential DATE . The decision further referred to the ORG statements to the effect that no illegal fighters had ever lived in DATE and that property occupied by the rebel fighters had been located on the outskirts of ORG and by that time had already been hit by federal bombers , and that therefore there had been no reason to bomb a residential quarter inhabited by civilians . The decision went on to note that during the inspection of the scene of the incident large metal fragments of aerial bombs had been found and that , in addition , unexploded bombs were still lying in the courtyards of a number of properties . The decision stated that the evidence obtained proved the involvement of the federal air forces in the attack of DATE , this finding being confirmed by eyewitness statements , photographs and video records , evaluation reports attesting to the inflicted damage and a report on the inspection of the scene of the incident .

In a letter of DATE ( the exact date is illegible ) the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE returned the case file to the NORP prosecutor ’s office stating that a number of formal requirements had not been complied with . The latter referred the case file to the district prosecutor ’s office on DATE ordering it to remedy the defects .

A decision of DATE by the district prosecutor ’s office ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings . It stated that all possible investigative measures had been performed but it had not been possible to establish who was responsible .

In a decision of DATE a supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded and premature . It ordered that the investigation be resumed , that eyewitnesses to the attack be questioned , that the results of medical forensic examinations and ballistic tests be included in the case file and that the first applicant be granted victim status in connection with pecuniary losses that he had incurred as a result of the attack .

In a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office ordered a suspension of the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL , stating that all investigative measures indicated in the supervising prosecutor ’s decision of DATE had been carried out , but it had not been possible to establish who was responsible .

In a letter of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office replied to the first applicant that his request for certified copies of decisions instituting criminal proceedings in case no . DATE and extending the term of the preliminary investigation “ had no basis in law ” and therefore could not be granted . The letter also indicated that the term of the preliminary investigation into the said criminal case had been extended until DATE and that on DATE it had been sent to a military prosecutor ’s office , which had returned it on DATE because of procedural defects . The letter went on to say that ballistic tests had been ordered in the case on DATE ; however , those tests had not yet been carried out . It then noted that on DATE the investigation had been suspended , then resumed on DATE and again stayed on DATE . The letter also assured the first applicant that his requests in the present case would be recorded in the case file and taken into consideration during further investigation .

In a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office ordered that the case file be transferred to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL for further investigation . The decision stated that it had been established that the destruction of houses and other property and the deaths and injuries of residents of ORG on DATE had been due to an aerial strike by aircraft of the federal armed forces . This fact had been confirmed by witnesses and victims and by the inspection of the site of the incident , where fragments of aerial bombs and missiles had been found . The involvement of federal military personnel in that attack was obvious , since the illegal armed formations had no aircraft , and the case file therefore had to be transferred to the military prosecutor for further investigation , in order to identify the military unit and military personnel which had committed the offence in question .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL transmitted the case file to the NORP prosecutor ’s office . The letter stated that the district prosecutor ’s office ’s conclusion that on DATE ORG had come under a bomb strike was based on contradictory witness statements and had no objective confirmation . The letter pointed out , in particular , that whilst some of the witnesses had stated that they had seen planes that had allegedly carried out the strike , some other witnesses had indicated that they had not been able to see planes as on DATE in question it had been cloudy and misty . Moreover , according to the letter , there were also discrepancies in witness statements concerning the overall number of planes that had allegedly participated in the attack and their colour . The letter went on to note that the origin of the ammunition fragments seized from CARDINAL of the properties , that had allegedly come under the attack on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had not been established and it had not been ascertained how it had been possible that those fragments could still be found DATE after the attack . At the end , the letter stated that at the same time the command of ORG and ORG had reported that on DATE the federal aircraft had not carried out any strikes on ORG .

By a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the investigation .

A decision of DATE ordered that criminal proceedings be suspended owing to the failure to establish the alleged perpetrators and that the case file be transferred to the military prosecutor ’s office . The decision was similar to that of DATE . It stated , in particular , that the involvement of the federal aircraft in the attack had been established by eyewitness statements and the results of ballistics tests , which had confirmed that fragments found at the scene of the incident had been those of artillery shells and aerial bombs . It also stated that an unexploded aerial bomb had remained on the ground near the house at CARDINAL NORP Street since the attack of DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office returned case no . CARDINAL to the district prosecutor ’s office for further investigation . The letter stated that upon the study of the case - file materials it had been established that the investigation had been vitiated by flagrant violations of procedural law with the result that the military prosecutor ’s office had refused to take over the case . The letter then listed in detail the procedural breaches that had occurred during the inspection of the scene of the incident and the seizure and examination of ammunition fragments found there and stated that as a result of those breaches the seized splinters could not be admitted in evidence . The letter further noted that to date those who had suffered pecuniary damage had not been declared civil claimants and that contradictions in eyewitness statements had not yet been resolved . The letter also stated that although the case had repeatedly been returned to the district prosecutor ’s office because of all those shortcomings , they had not been remedied .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the criminal proceedings .

A decision of DATE ordered that the investigation be stayed . The decision stated briefly that all possible investigative measures had been taken but that it had not been possible to establish the alleged perpetrators .

By a decision of DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the investigation . The decision stated that , as requested by the first applicant , it was necessary to question as witnesses a number of high - ranking military officers who had participated in the counter - terrorism operation in GPE .

A decision of DATE ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings . It stated that after the reopening of the investigation on DATE , the investigating authorities had sent a request to interview a number of high - ranking officers , carried out an expert examination of the first applicant ’s orchard lost during the attack in question and granted victim status to the second applicant . Therefore , according to the decision , all possible investigative actions had been taken .

A decision of DATE set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded , stating that the instructions of the NORP prosecutor ’s office to remedy the procedural breaches had not been complied with . In particular , there had been breaches of procedural law in the seizure of ammunition fragments , which were therefore inadmissible evidence . Moreover , a number of persons who had suffered losses as a result of the incident had not been declared civil claimants in the case . Also , the contradictions in eyewitnesses’ descriptions of the attack had not been resolved . The decision thus ordered that the proceedings be resumed .

DATE . A decision of CARDINAL DATE ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings . It listed investigative measures taken in DATE , including the seizure of splinters , ordering their expert examination , granted the status of civil claimant to the victims and concluded that all the investigative actions that had been possible in the absence of those responsible had been carried out .

A decision of DATE ordered that the investigation be resumed , stating that a number of investigative actions should be carried out in the case . In a letter of DATE ( the exact date is unclear ) , the first applicant was informed of the recent developments in the case .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL were adjourned owing to the failure to establish the alleged perpetrators .

By a decision of DATE a prosecutor of the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG ordered that the investigation be resumed . It can be ascertained that at this stage the case was assigned the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG informed the district prosecutor ’s office of this decision and invited it to notify those declared victims of the reopening of the case . In another letter of DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG apprised the first applicant of its decision to resume the investigation .

In a decision of DATE the investigator in charge sought the authorisation of a competent prosecutor to extend the term of the preliminary investigation until DATE . The decision stated that a large number of investigative actions had to be taken . In particular , it was necessary to question high - ranking officers in command of the counter - terrorism operation in GPE ; to identify and interview an officer in charge of the operation in GPE on DATE , an officer in command of the pilots who had carried out bomb strikes on ORG on the date in question and the pilots themselves ; to examine and , if necessary , seize relevant military documents , including a register of combat air missions and tactical maps ; to examine the materials of enquiries carried out by the military authorities in connection with the first applicant ’s complaints about the attack ; to conduct expert examinations ; and to perform other necessary investigative actions .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE terminated the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - DATE . It stated , in particular , that pursuant to Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , the NORP authorities had launched a counter - terrorism operation in LOC for the disarmament and liquidation of illegal armed groups and restoration of constitutional order .

NORP The decision went on to say that the operation had been carried out by the federal armed forces and that in DATE the ORG “ LOC ” had been formed under the command of General Major PERSON . In the same period ORG had been created under the command of General PERSON In DATE the federal forces had commenced the counter - terrorism operation in GPE .

DATE . According to the decision , the authorities , via the mass - media and leaflets , had ordered the illegal fighters to stop their criminal activity and lay down arms . The authorities had warned the local population of the possible use of aircraft and artillery in case of organised resistance by the illegal armed groups to the federal forces . In response , the rebel fighters had offered fierce armed resistance and had organised fortified defence in local settlements , prohibiting the residents from leaving their houses and using them as human shields .

The decision further stated that in DATE the town of ORG had been occupied by NORP extremists – Wahhabis – amounting to CARDINAL persons , who had based their headquarters in the town and had significantly fortified it . In particular , they had located their command points in the central part of the town , in school no . CARDINAL and the building of the town administration and had kept captives and local residents detained for refusal to collaborate with them in the basements of those buildings . The illegal fighters had also had a number of radio relays and television re - transmitters in the town which they had actively used for detecting movements of the federal forces . On the outskirts the rebel fighters had located their bases and a centre for subversive training .

The decision referred , in particular , to witness interviews of Mr LOC . and PERSON . , intelligence officers , who had carried out reconnaissance in ORG in the relevant period . They both stated that the town had been occupied by the ORG , who had significantly fortified it and prepared for long - term defence . According to them , the depth of defence extended to DATE from the outskirts towards the town centre ; the fighters had dug trenches and dugouts , filled pits with oil to be able to explode them on the approach of the federal forces , and organised numerous firing posts in residential buildings . Mr CARDINAL . also stated that the majority of the local residents had left the town , and that an insignificant number of residents remaining in ORG had been forcibly kept by the extremists who had used them as human shields . The decision also referred to statements of ORG . , a resident of ORG , who pointed out , in particular , that at the material time CARDINAL of the civilian residents had left the town because of persecutions by illegal fighters , who had detained , robbed , killed and used as human shields those residents who had shown resistance to them .

The decision also stated that in DATE the illegal armed groups had led active military actions against the federal forces , using surface - to - air missile systems and large - calibre firearms against the federal aircraft . In particular , the extremists had attacked the federal aircraft from the roofs of high - rise buildings in ORG with the result that a number of planes and helicopters had been shot down and the pilots either killed or captured . Such incidents had taken place on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . Also , according to intelligence data , a new group of CARDINAL fighters had arrived at ORG for reinforcement around DATE .

In those circumstances , on DATE General Major PERSON . had issued order no . DATE , which in paragraph CARDINAL prescribed that aircraft resources be assigned for tactical support to LOC and that illegal GPE bases , ammunition depots and other important targets outside the reach of the federal artillery fire be destroyed by pinpoint aerial strikes .

On DATE , pursuant to that order , CARDINAL military SU-CARDINAL M planes , each laden with CARDINAL high - explosive fragmentation aerial bombs of calibre QUANTITY , had carried out strikes on concentrations of illegal fighters QUANTITY to the east of ORG at TIME and TIME At the same time they had carried out strikes on the ORG bases in ORG , including those situated in school no . CARDINAL and the building of the town administration . The planes had also bombed rectangle no . DATE on the eastern outskirts of ORG where residential buildings prepared for long - term defence were situated . The residential DATE comprising NORP , Mayakovskiy and Pervomayskaya Streets had fallen within rectangular no . DATE .

The decision further quoted the conclusions of the operative and tactical experts’ examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to the effect that the decision had been well - founded and timely and that the relevant military authorities had taken measures to minimise casualties among civilian residents of ORG . It then concluded that there had been no elements of criminal offences punishable under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW in the actions of General Major PERSON . and General PERSON and that therefore the criminal proceedings against them should be discontinued .

In a request of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instructed ORG to establish and interview the victims of the attack of DATE , relatives of those deceased ; to grant them victim status and the status of civil claimant in the case ; to inspect carefully the scene of the incident ; to take photographs and to make a video record of the site , and , if possible , to seize exhibits , including fragments of bombs , to carry out ballistics tests and to perform other necessary investigative actions .

In a letter of the same date the district prosecutor ’s office requested the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL to send them material of an inquiry into the first applicant ’s complaint concerning the attack of DATE .

In letters of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office reminded ORG and the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL of its requests of DATE , stating that to date they had not been complied with .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the first applicant requested that victim status be granted to a number of persons , including himself and the third applicant , in connection with the destruction of the property at FAC , as a result of the federal aerial attack of DATE .

Reports of CARDINAL and DATE on the inspection of the scene of the incident described in detail the state of the houses that had come under the aerial attack of DATE . In particular , the report of DATE attested to the damage inflicted on “ the property belonging to [ the first applicant ] ” and mentioned a bomb crater on the plot of land on which the property was situated . The same report also indicated that during the inspection metal shrapnel resembling fragments of an artillery shell had been found and seized . Photographs taken during the inspection of the scene of the incident were enclosed with the reports . They represented a number of damaged properties , including that of the first applicant , and shrapnel found on the plot of land of the first applicant ’s property .

By CARDINAL similar decisions of DATE the investigator in charge ordered the seizure of metal fragments resembling pieces of an aerial bomb or artillery shell from the first applicant ’s property and from that of another resident of DATE that had come under the attack of DATE .

A decision of DATE ordered an expert ’s examination of metal fragments found at the scene of the incident with a view to establishing their origin . It does not appear that any expert ’s examination was carried out pursuant to that decision , as on DATE the investigator in charge ordered another expert ’s examination of the fragments . An expert ’s report of DATE confirmed that the fragments in question were pieces of artillery shells , aerial bombs and ammunition , the origin of which had not been possible to establish .

Reports of DATE attested to the seizure and examination of a videotape , with a record of the results of the attack of DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the investigator in charge requested a competent prosecutor in GPE , where the first applicant lived at that time , to interview the first applicant in connection with the events of DATE and to declare him a victim and civil claimant . On DATE the investigator re - sent his request to the same prosecutor , stating that there was no indication that the previous request had been complied with .

By a decision of DATE the first applicant was declared a victim in criminal case no . DATE . He was apprised of this decision on DATE .

By a decision of DATE the investigator in charge ordered an expert ’s examination of the applicant ’s orchard , which , according to him , had been lost as a result of the bombing of DATE , with a view to establishing the degree of damage incurred .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office declared the second applicant a victim and a civil claimant in the case . In a request of the same date the district prosecutor ’s office instructed a competent prosecutor at the second applicant ’s current place of residence in GPE to interview her in connection with the incident of DATE . The second applicant was apprised of this request in a letter of DATE .

In another request of the same date the district prosecutor ’s office instructed the military prosecutor ’s office of ORG to interview as witnesses a number of high - ranking military officers about the circumstances of the attack of DATE . In a letter of the same date the district prosecutor ’s office informed the applicants of that decision as well as of the decision to carry an expert ’s examination of the orchard .

In a letter of DATE the NORP prosecutor ’s office informed the district prosecutor ’s office of the second applicant ’s complaint , lodged on behalf of the third applicant , about the failure of the district prosecutor ’s office to grant victim status to the third applicant despite the first applicant ’s request to that end submitted previously . The letter thus invited the district prosecutor ’s office to resume the investigation in case no . DATE and to take the requested decision .

Decisions of CARDINAL and DATE granted victim status and the status of civil claimant , respectively , to the third applicant , who was notified thereof on the same dates .

A decision of CARDINAL DATE ordered the seizure of pieces of shrapnel from the first applicant ’s property in ORG . CARDINAL reports of the same date described the seized splinters .

A decision of DATE ordered that the splinters seized on CARDINAL DATE be included in the case file as evidence . A report of the same date described the results of the examination of those splinters by the investigator in charge .

A decision of DATE ordered an expert ’s examination of the pieces of shrapnel seized on DATE with a view to establishing their origin .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor ’s office requested ORG to establish a competent commission to assess damage inflicted on the individual houses during the attack of DATE and to draw up evaluation reports .

In another letter of the same date the district prosecutor ’s office informed the military commander ’s office of ORG ( военный комендант Урус-Мартановского района ) that after the bomb strike of DATE CARDINAL unexploded bombs remained lying on the plots of land of CARDINAL private properties and invited the military commander ’s office to take measures to dispose of those bombs . A similar letter was sent to the military commander ’s office of GPE on DATE .

According to a report of DATE , on the date in question the register of the combat air missions of the federal forces in GPE for the period between CARDINAL and DATE and the tactical map for the period CARDINAL and DATE were examined by the investigating authorities . The report then described in detail the entries made in those documents as regards the air combat missions on DATE . It also indicated that , according to those documents , ORG had not been attacked by the federal aircraft on the date in question , and that the only targets hit DATE had been located at distances of CARDINAL and QUANTITY from the town .

ORG . A report of DATE gave the results of the examination of the register of military actions of the aircraft of ORG ( журнал боевых действий авиации ORG ) for the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . According to the report , on DATE CARDINAL entries had been made in the register ; they concerned CARDINAL attacks by federal military helicopters against illegal fighters who had been located QUANTITY from ORG . There was no other information regarding the events of DATE in the register .

As can be ascertained from a report of CARDINAL DATE , which is barely legible , on DATE the investigating authorities examined the register of military actions of ORG comprising the period DATE and DATE . It appears that in the register there were no entries to the effect that any aerial strikes had been carried out on ORG on DATE .

NORP In letters of CARDINAL May and DATE the investigator in charge requested the relevant military units to provide information on the identity of the pilots who had carried out strikes at a distance of QUANTITY from ORG on DATE .

NORP In letters of DATE the investigator in charge requested various competent authorities to provide information as to whether the residents of ORG listed in that letter had been involved in the activities of illegal armed groups . The list of names included those killed during the attack of CARDINAL DATE as well as those who had been granted victim status in connection with that incident . On DATE ORG replied that CARDINAL persons included in the list had participated in the activities of the illegal armed groups .

In CARDINAL letters of DATE the acting commander of military unit no . DATE an air - force unit that had participated in military operations in the vicinity of ORG in the relevant DATE stated in reply to the military prosecutor of ORG that it was not possible to submit their unit ’s tasking schedule ( плановая таблица ) for DATE as it had been destroyed in DATE , given that pursuant to a relevant order of ORG its storage time had been DATE . The letters went on to say that in the relevant period no register of orders received and given had been maintained , no register of combat air missions had been maintained , no register of military actions had been maintained and no tactical map had been maintained . The letters also stated that the means of objective control – testorograms and photographs – for DATE had been unavailable as they had been destroyed DATE after DATE , as prescribed in a relevant order of ORG , and no tape - recordings were available as they had only been kept for DATE . Lastly , the letters indicated that the register of the commander ’s military orders and the map for the commander ’s orders for military actions had been sent to PERSON - on - Don in DATE .

An expert ’s report of DATE stated that the metal fragments seized on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were pieces of industrially manufactured metal objects that had been destroyed by explosion of a contact charge and that some of them might be fragments of ammunition .

A report of DATE on the examination of a video - recording of the process of excavation and destruction of unexploded aerial bombs that had remained after the attack of DATE stated that it had been established that they had been highly explosive bombs of calibre DATE kg .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the commander of military unit no . DATE , which at the relevant time was participating in military actions in the vicinity of ORG , stated that all the documents relating to operations in DATE , and , namely , a register of orders given and received , a register of combat air missions , a register of military actions , combat orders , ORG reports on their missions and a tactical map , had been destroyed on DATE as they had lost their practical value and had had no historical or scientific value .

An expert ’s report of DATE assessed the damage inflicted on the orchard on the first applicant ’s real estate . The report stated that of CARDINAL fruit trees CARDINAL trees had remained undamaged and then described in detail the ruined orchard . The report further indicated that the pecuniary losses incurred as a result of the devastation amounted to MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

By a decision of DATE the investigator in charge ordered an operative and tactical experts’ examination with a view to establishing whether there had been any shortcomings in the organisation and execution of a bomb strike in the vicinity of ORG on DATE on the part of the commander of the ORG “ LOC ” , General Major PERSON . , and the commander of ORG , General PERSON

A report of CARDINAL DATE gave the results of the operative and tactical experts’ examination . The experts stated that General - Major PERSON . ’s decision to carry out bomb strikes on DATE on fortified points and bases of illegal armed groups and on their radio and electronic facilities had been well - founded and timely , as at that time the town of ORG had been occupied by illegal fighters , amounting to CARDINAL persons , who had fortified it and had not been prepared to surrender and who had been reinforced with a new group of CARDINAL illegal fighters a day before the attack . According to the experts , any other methods of action by federal forces , such as a ground attack , storming or forcing out , would have led to unjustified losses among them . The experts also stated that , when organising the bomb strike in question the command of the ORG “ LOC ” had taken certain measures with a view to minimising civilian casualties . In particular , according to the report , the military authorities had opted for pinpoint strikes , which had resulted in CARDINAL people being killed and CARDINAL wounded , CARDINAL of the latter belonging to illegal armed groups . On the other hand , considerable losses had been caused to the illegal fighters who , as a result , had subsequently , on CARDINAL and DATE , surrendered the town without fighting with the result that there had been no casualties among the federal armed forces . The report thus concluded that the actions of General Major PERSON . and General PERSON had complied with all relevant instructions and regulations , including ORG , that the decision to carry out a strike on DATE had been reasonable and that the federal aircraft had been used in ORG on DATE pursuant to competent ORG decisions and taking into account the existing situation and intelligence data .

The case file contains written explanations given on DATE by PERSON the Head of ORG West ” – to the prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL . According to them , during the period of CARDINAL DATE the ORG “ LOC ” had been entrusted with a mission to force out illegal armed groups from the town of ORG . In PERSON submission , in order to avoid casualties among civilian residents of ORG , the federal command had repeatedly applied to them with a request for the ORG to discontinue their resistance and leave the town and had warned the residents that otherwise the ORG would be destroyed by artillery fire and aerial attacks . Therefore , according to PERSON , the civilians residing in ORG had been warned ; however , given that the illegal fighters had not surrendered , pinpoint bomb strikes had been aimed at their bases . In PERSON submission , bomb strikes had been carried out by the military aircraft on the basis of information obtained by the latter ’s intelligence service . PERSON also noted that in DATE the federal forces had blocked ORG for further “ sweeping - up ” operations . During a witness interview of DATE PERSON stated that he could not give any explanations regarding the events of DATE , as he did not remember anything . He also stated as regards his written explanations of DATE that the signatures on that document were his , but that he did not remember that he himself had stated what was written there . He added that at present he was unable to comment on those explanations , given that DATE had elapsed since the date when they had been given .

NORP In their explanations of CARDINAL a number of eyewitnesses – residents of DATE that came under the attack – described the attack of DATE , stating that on the date in question , approximately TIME , CARDINAL NORP military planes had arrived and that CARDINAL of them had carried out strikes outside the territory of ORG , whereas the other had bombed DATE in which the eyewitnesses lived . CARDINAL of them also stated that the residents of ORG had not been warned about any bomb strikes .

During witness interviews in the period from DATE to CARDINAL October CARDINAL CARDINAL residents of DATE that had come under the attack of DATE described the events in question .

In explanations of CARDINAL DATE , Mr Z. – a senior officer of military unit no . DATE stated that , according to that unit ’s tactical map , the town of ORG had not come under aerial attack in the period DATE , and that on DATE at TIME high - explosive QUANTITY aerial bombs had been launched against a group of fighters located QUANTITY from the south - eastern outskirts of ORG . As regards the information in the register of combat air missions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON stated that the coordinates mentioned there had been situated from DATE to QUANTITY from ORG . During a witness interview of CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON confirmed that he had been seconded to GPE at the material time but stated that from DATE to DATE he had been on leave outside the territory of GPE , and therefore he had never participated in the planning and organisation of the aerial attack of DATE . He added that he could not be a witness in the case concerning that incident , as he had been serving in a military unit other than that which had participated in that attack .

According to a relevant transcript of a witness interview , the first applicant was questioned on DATE .

In a witness interview of DATE PERSON , at the material time a First Deputy Head of ORG of ORG , stated that , as far as he knew , during the counter - terrorism operation in GPE no bomb or missile strikes , or any other aerial attacks had been planned or carried out on inhabited settlements . According to PERSON , such strikes had been carried out only on pre - selected targets relating to the activities of illegal armed groups .

NORP In his witness interview of DATE PERSON . , at the relevant time the Deputy Commander - in - Chief of ORG , stated that he had not given any orders to carry out a bomb strike on the town of ORG on DATE , and that he was unaware of any bombing of ORG by federal aircraft .

During a witness interview of the same date PERSON . , a Deputy Head of ORG and ORG , made similar statements .

In a witness interview of DATE the second applicant described the possessions that she had lost during the attack of DATE .

In a witness interview of DATE PERSON , a high - ranking military officer who at the material time had been seconded to GPE , stated that he knew nothing of a bomb strike on ORG on DATE and was therefore unable to provide any relevant information in that respect . He was also unable to give any explanation as regards his reply of DATE to the first applicant ’s complaint concerning the attack of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In a witness interview of the same date PERSON , a high - ranking officer who at the relevant time had been seconded to GPE , stated that he knew nothing about the attack of DATE on ORG as in that period he had been in charge of operations in another area of GPE . He was unable to provide any information other than that indicated in his reply to the first applicant dated DATE to the effect that the federal air forces had never bombed ORG .

During questioning on DATE PERSON , at the material time the Commander of ORG in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stated that he did not remember the events of DATE , as much time had elapsed since them , and that all the actions of the federal air forces for that period had been recorded in the register of combat air missions and tactical map .

During questioning on DATE PERSON , a high - ranking military officer seconded to GPE at the material time , made similar statements .

On DATE the investigating authorities questioned a number of officers of the federal air forces who had taken part in military operations in the vicinity of ORG at the relevant time . CARDINAL pilots , ORG . and PERSON . , who in the relevant period had been seconded to GPE and served in military unit no . DATE , stated that in DATE they had received an order from their commander , Colonel DATE , to carry out strikes in pre - selected rectangles on targets representing illegal armed groups on the northern and north - western outskirts of ORG . According to the pilots , when carrying out the strikes they had used missiles rather than aerial bombs given that the targets had been located very close to the town . The pilots stated that they had not used aerial bombs during their combat mission and had not carried out any strikes on residential quarters of ORG . They also insisted that any technical errors during the strikes , deviation from pre - selected targets and accidental striking had not been possible .

In his witness interview of DATE Mr Iv . , who in the relevant period had been seconded to GPE as an officer of ORG , stated that he had participated in deactivation of unexploded bombs that had remained , inter alia , in FAC in GPE after the attack of DATE . He confirmed that on CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL unexploded aerial bombs had been excavated and then taken away and destroyed .

During questioning on CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL pilots , ORG . , ORG . , NORP and PERSON . , who at the material time had been seconded to GPE and served in military unit DATE , stated that they had performed a flight in a group of CARDINAL planes on DATE to the southern mountainous area of GPE . According to Mr Pog . , the planes had been laden with aerial bombs of calibre QUANTITY . The pilots also stated that the results of the bombing had been recorded by means of objective control devices – video recorders and photographic cameras – and after the flight had been given to a commanding officer . The pilots insisted that they had been instructed to launch bombs in an area situated at a distance of QUANTITY from any inhabited settlement and that they had never carried out any strikes on ORG . They also stated that they had never heard of any such incidents , as in that case an internal investigation should have been carried out and those responsible should have been punished .

The case file also contains witness statements of PERSON , a pilot of a federal plane that had been shot down by rebel fighters on DATE with the result that the other pilot of that plane had died and PERSON had been captured by fighters . PERSON stated that on the date in question they had been given orders to search for another federal plane that had been shot down by extremists DATE , and then described the incident of DATE .

The case file contains an evaluation report ( дефектный акт ) drawn up by ORG on DATE in respect of the first applicant ’s property . It listed in detail the damage inflicted thereon .

An extract from the register of combat air missions signed by Mr PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) indicated that on DATE , CARDINAL and TIME , a pair of SU-CARDINAL planes had carried out a bomb strike in a rectangle with coordinates [ X ] and [ Y ] , that a truck with illegal fighters had been destroyed in a rectangle with coordinates [ XCARDINAL ] and [ YCARDINAL ] , and that a car with illegal fighters had also been destroyed .

A telegram of CARDINAL DATE sent by a commanding officer of military unit DATE stated that in DATE the targets selected for aerial strikes included illegal GPE bases , their fortified points , their ammunition depots , and the like , that during the relevant period the residential quarter in which the applicants lived had not been selected as a target , that on DATE no pilots had been given an order to carry out a bomb strike on DATE , and that no such strike had taken place on the date in question .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that the decision of an investigator or prosecutor to dispense with or terminate criminal proceedings , and other decisions and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede ORG access to justice , may be appealed against to a district court , which is empowered to examine the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions .

Article CARDINAL provides that a ORG agency or a ORG official will be liable towards a citizen for damage caused by their unlawful actions or failure to act . Compensation for such damage will be awarded at the expense of the federal or regional treasury .

The Federal Law on Suppression of Terrorism of DATE ( Федеральный закон от CARDINAL июля DATE г. № CARDINAL « О борьбе с терроризмом DATE “ the Suppression of Terrorism Act ” ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided as follows :

“ For the purposes of the present ORG the following basic concepts shall be applied :

... ‘ suppression of ORG shall refer to activities aimed at the prevention , detection , suppression and minimisation of consequences of terrorist activities ;

‘ counter - terrorism operation’ shall refer to special activities aimed at the prevention of terrorist acts , ensuring the security of individuals , neutralising terrorists and minimising the consequences of terrorist acts ;

‘ zone of a counter - terrorism operation’ shall refer to an individual terrain or water surface , means of transport , building , structure or LOC with adjacent territory where a counter - terrorism operation is conducted ; ... ”

“ On the basis of the legislation and within the limits established by it , damage may be caused to the life , health and property of terrorists , as well as to other legally protected interests , in the course of a counter - terrorism operation . However , servicemen , experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism shall be exempted from liability for such damage , in accordance with the legislation of GPE . ”

In Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG established that residents of GPE who had lost their housing and/or other possessions during the hostilities in the Republic and who , no later than DATE , had left permanently for another region , were entitled to compensation .

Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE established the right of all permanent residents of GPE who had lost their housing and any possessions therein after DATE to receive compensation in the amount of RUB CARDINAL for the housing and RUB CARDINAL for the other possessions .

On DATE ORG of GPE delivered a judgment in civil proceedings brought by a Mr Dunayev , who claimed that the block of flats in which he had lived had collapsed during heavy shelling of ORG by the federal armed forces in DATE and sought compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in that connection . While acknowledging the fact that Mr PERSON ’s property , including his apartment in the block of flats , had been destroyed as a result of an attack in DATE , the court noted , inter alia , that under Articles CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW Civil Code , the ORG was liable for damage caused only by unlawful actions on the part of its agents . It further held that the military operation in GPE had been launched by virtue of relevant presidential and governmental decrees , which had been found to be constitutional by ORG and were still in force . Accordingly , the court concluded that the actions of the federal armed forces in GPE had been lawful and dismissed PERSON ORG ’s claim for compensation ( see ORG v. GPE , no . GPE , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed a claim against ORG brought by PERSON , who stated that his house and other property had been destroyed during massive air strikes and artillery shelling of ORG by the federal armed forces in DATE and DATE and sought compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in that connection . The court acknowledged the fact that Mr GPE ’s private house and other belongings had been destroyed as a result of the hostilities in DATE . It held , however , that under LAW , the ORG was liable for damage caused only by unlawful actions on the part of its agents . It noted that the military operation in GPE had been launched by virtue of relevant presidential and governmental decrees , which had been found to be constitutional by ORG , except for CARDINAL provisions of the relevant governmental decree . In that connection the court noted that the CARDINAL provisions had never been applied to Mr GPE , and therefore no unlawful actions on the part of ORG bodies had ever taken place to warrant compensation for damage inflicted on his property . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal ( see GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

By a default judgment of DATE ORG dismissed a claim brought by PERSON against a number of federal ministries in so far as she alleged that the block of flats in which she had lived had been destroyed by a missile during an attack by the federal armed forces on ORG in DATE and sought compensation for the destroyed flat and belongings that had been in it . She also sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court noted , inter alia , that under LAW , the ORG was liable for damage caused only by unlawful actions on the part of its agents . It further found that the actions of the NORP federal troops in GPE had been lawful , as the military operation in GPE had been launched under relevant presidential and governmental decrees , which had been found to be constitutional by ORG . The court concluded that there were no grounds to grant Ms ORG ’s claim for pecuniary damage and that her claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage could not be granted either , in the absence of any fault or unlawful actions on the part of the defendants . The judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . He is currently detained in LOC in GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE before the ORG .

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

The applicant was suspected of having murdered his father on DATE . In particular , it was found that the applicant ’s father had died from CARDINAL wounds inflicted with a sharp object . The applicant was arrested and questioned by an investigator on DATE . During the interrogation the applicant wrote a confession whereby he stated that he had killed his father while under the influence of alcohol .

The interrogation record of DATE includes a typed description of the applicant ’s procedural rights , including “ the right to be represented by a lawyer from the moment of the arrest ” . The record also contains the applicant ’s statement that he “ so far does not need a defence counsel ” , confirmed by his signature .

On DATE the applicant was again questioned . During the questioning he confirmed his written confession of CARDINAL DATE that he had killed his father . After the interrogation the applicant ’s detention was authorised by a prosecutor on suspicion of his having committed aggravated murder .

The investigating authorities requested the ORG to designate an official defence counsel to represent the applicant during the inquiry of CARDINAL DATE , in accordance with the relevant procedural requirements . The respondent Government state that an official counsel , ORG , indeed represented the applicant during the interrogation . They have submitted a copy of an order by the ORG dated DATE whereby ORG had been nominated to represent the applicant at the interrogation on that DATE . The detention order of CARDINAL DATE also contains the applicant ’s signature together with the signature of ORG , confirming that they had access to the detention order .

The applicant states that ORG was “ possibly ” designated to represent him at the interrogation of CARDINAL DATE . He denies however that ORG in fact appeared at the interrogation .

On DATE the applicant employed privately a representative who thereafter acted in the proceedings on his behalf . On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated murder .

On DATE a jury of ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) on the basis of various testimonies by witnesses and experts , and the applicant ’s own explanations at the stage of the pre - trial investigation . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

In establishing the applicant ’s guilt , the court took account of the applicant ’s self - incriminating statements made at the interrogations of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . The court noted that on the date of the arrest , when submitting his written confession , the applicant had waived the right to be represented by a defence counsel . It further held that the domestic criminal procedure did not require obligatory legal representation of the applicant at the initial stage of the proceedings .

The court rejected the applicant ’s subsequent pleadings at the trial that he had acted in self - defence . The court also established that the applicant had committed the crime while being drunk .

The applicant ’s appeal against the first instance judgment was rejected by ORG on DATE . In dismissing the applicant ’s pleadings that he had acted in self - defence , ORG took notice inter alia of the fact that during the interrogations of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had not made such allegations .

LAW CARDINAL of the LAW states that an arrested person has the right to assistance of a lawyer from the moment of the arrest .

Pursuant to Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW , a suspect , from the moment of his arrest , has the right to be represented by a defence counsel , if necessary to be paid by the authorities .