CASE OF SHAKHGIRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) Ms PERSON GPE , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) Ms PERSON ( Magomadova ) , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE .

The applicants are NORP nationals and residents of the village of NORP , in the NORP district of GPE . The sixth applicant currently resides outside GPE .

The facts of the case are mostly not in dispute between the parties . They may be summarised as follows .

The applicants submitted that in TIME of DATE TIME persons had been detained in their village by a group of servicemen wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and moving around in a LOC military truck , ORG all - terrain military vehicles and armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) with obscured number plates . Among the CARDINAL persons there were CARDINAL relatives of the applicants : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

The first applicant is the mother of ORG , born in DATE . She lives with her family in NORP - Aul at DATE Lenina Street . In DATE PERSON was DATE and attended school . He was described by the school head teacher and the head of the village administration as a good student and a well - mannered young man . The first applicant is married and has CARDINAL other children , who were then aged DATE .

On TIME the first applicant and her family were at home sleeping . At TIME an ORG smashed the gates of their house and entered the courtyard . It was followed by a UAZ vehicle . Servicemen in uniforms and masks , armed with automatic weapons , surrounded the house and entered . The military did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations . They did not ask for the inhabitants ' identity documents . The first applicant and her CARDINAL younger children were locked in CARDINAL room . The servicemen threatened to shoot if they tried to go outside .

The first applicant 's husband and her elder son , PERSON , were ordered to go outside into the courtyard . ORG , who was wearing a long - sleeved T - shirt , trousers and socks , was escorted by the soldiers into the ORG . He was not allowed to put on his boots . The first applicant submitted that her husband had been drunk on TIME , and the servicemen seated him on the ground in the courtyard and asked where his machine gun was . He said that he had no weapons .

The first applicant submitted that a neighbour had tried to find out what had been happening and wanted to enter their courtyard , but the servicemen had hit her and told her to stay away .

During the search the soldiers seized some items from the house , including the goods the first applicant traded in the market and those stored at her house by other traders TIME , because her house was close to the market .

The second and third applicants are the wife and mother of PERSON , born in DATE . The applicants ' family live in NORP - Aul in their own house at CARDINAL FAC . The second applicant has CARDINAL minor children , who in DATE were aged DATE , from her marriage to PERSON . PERSON worked in PERSON at the local branch of ORG as a mechanic . The administration of NORP - Aul described him as a good member of the community who had worked hard to support his large family and who had no connections with illegal armed groups .

In DATE the applicants were carrying out construction work on the house , and some windows on the second floor were not glazed .

On TIME , PERSON and the children were at home sleeping . At TIME TIME a group of CARDINAL masked men in camouflage forcibly entered the house . They arrived in a LOC truck , whose number plates the applicants could not distinguish in the darkness . The servicemen were armed with machine guns and spoke NORP , largely using swearwords . They were hostile and aggressive . The military did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations .

The second applicant submitted that CARDINAL or CARDINAL men had entered the house through the windows of the second floor and had spread out around the rooms . In addition , CARDINAL servicemen had kept guard in the courtyard . Once in the house , the servicemen ordered the second applicant to turn on the light , but she replied that the village was without electricity on TIME . They ordered her to go and get matches , which she did . The servicemen searched the room where the applicant and her daughter had been sleeping and asked the applicant if there were any men in the house . The applicant replied that her husband was the only man in the house , and the soldiers told her to fetch him . The second applicant went into the room where her husband and her sons had been sleeping and told PERSON that there were armed men looking for him . He put on a shirt and trousers and came out of the room .

The soldiers put him against the wall and asked him his name . He gave his full name and the soldiers immediately led him away . They gave no explanations and asked no further questions . CARDINAL of the servicemen asked for PERSON passport and the second applicant went to fetch it from his jacket . When she returned to the corridor the soldiers had already taken her husband away . Other servicemen took his passport .

The second applicant realised that her husband had been taken away barefoot and tried to follow them out of the house , but the soldiers shouted at her to close the door and remain inside .

The second applicant saw her husband being put into the LOC truck , which then left in the direction of ORG .

The third applicant submitted that the armed men had entered the room where she and her DATE granddaughter had been sleeping and put a machine gun to the head of her granddaughter , who had hidden under the blanket out of fear . The third applicant shouted “ Do n't shoot , it 's a child ! ” and the armed man put the gun away . She was shocked by the night raid , she could not understand what was happening and then through the window she saw her son being led away by CARDINAL men armed with machine guns .

The fourth applicant is the sister of PERSON , born in DATE . The PERSON family live in their own house at FAC . Their house has CARDINAL separate entrances . CARDINAL part of the house is occupied by the fourth applicant , her CARDINAL children , who in DATE were aged DATE , and her mother . The fourth applicant is a widow ; her husband died in DATE . The other part of the house is occupied by the family of the fourth applicant 's brother PERSON , his wife and CARDINAL children , aged QUANTITY and DATE at that time . In DATE PERSON wife was pregnant with a third baby , who was born in DATE .

At TIME on DATE a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms with black armbands forcibly entered the courtyard of the Umarovs ' house . The servicemen were armed with machine guns and spoke LANGUAGE . They were hostile and aggressive , shouting and shooting in the air . The military did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations .

They arrived in CARDINAL ORG vehicles , climbed over the fence , opened the gates from inside and entered the courtyard . The fourth applicant 's mother woke up and alerted the fourth applicant . Together they dressed up and went out into the courtyard , where there were several servicemen standing by the door which led to PERSON part of the house . Upon the soldiers ' orders , the fourth applicant 's mother knocked on the door and called her son , saying that there were soldiers looking for him . When he opened the door , the servicemen dragged him out and put him into the UAZ vehicle . They did not ask for his identity documents and did not allow him to put on his shoes ; he was taken away in a T - shirt and training trousers , barefoot . The servicemen then searched the house .

The fourth applicant tried to intervene but the soldiers told her that her brother would be taken to a “ filtration point ” .

The fifth and sixth applicants are the wife and sister of PERSON Ayubovich PERSON , born in DATE . Shortly before the events of DATE the head of the village administration recommended PERSON for work as a security guard and described him as a good man who had no connection with illegal or extremist groups and had not otherwise discredited himself . Similar recommendation letters were issued to him by the imam of the village mosque in NORP - Aul and the local policeman .

The PERSON family live in their own house at CARDINAL FAC . In TIME of DATE a group of servicemen arrived at their house in an ORG and CARDINAL ORG vehicles . They were armed and wearing camouflage uniforms and masks . They forcibly entered the PERSON family house and ordered all the men to come out . The women said that there was CARDINAL man in the house , and the soldiers went into the room where PERSON was sleeping . They raised him from his bed and took him out into the street ; he was not permitted to get dressed . When the relatives asked where he was being taken , the servicemen said that they could put questions to the NORP military commander 's office and that PERSON would be “ checked through a computer ” and then released .

Then the servicemen searched the house , without producing any documents to justify their actions . According to the applicants , they “ turned the whole house upside down ” , checked the documents and took away some valuables .

The applicants submitted that CARDINAL other men had been detained in NORP on the same night : PERSON . , GPE , GPE . and GPE . ( the latter two are spelled in official documents as ORG . and ORG . ) . DATE , on DATE , GPE . and GPE . were released . According to the applicants , they said that they had been detained in a cellar but could give no other details of their detention because they had been taken around blindfolded .

The Government in their observations did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants . They stated that it had been established that on DATE , at TIME , unidentified persons armed with automatic weapons and wearing camouflage uniforms had kidnapped in NORP - Aul and taken in an unknown direction PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , GPE , GPE . ( M.Dzh . ) , PERSON . ( ORG . ) and PERSON . The last - mentioned person had sustained a firearm wound . PERSON . and GPE . had been released later .

NORP Immediately after the detention of their family members the applicants and other relatives started to look for them . On DATE the first applicant wrote a letter to ORG about the detention of her son and CARDINAL other men by armed men in an ORG . She also complained about the taking of property and money from her house .

On the applicants ' behalf letters enquiring about the fate of their relatives were forwarded by a member of ORG , PERSON , and by the NGO “ Civic Assistance ” to ORG and to ORG . On DATE ORG Office informed Civic Assistance that on DATE ( sic ) ORG had opened a criminal investigation into the kidnapping of Mr PERSON and others under LAW , and that at present the investigation had been adjourned for failure to identify the culprits .

On DATE CARDINAL men from NORP - Aul went looking for their missing fellow villagers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON No complaint was brought in relation to the disappearance of PERSON

The sixth applicant is the wife of PERSON , born in DATE ( she is also the sister of PERSON , who was detained on DATE ) . PERSON was a graduate of ORG and a teacher in a local sports school . He had CARDINAL minor children , who in DATE were aged DATE , from his marriage to the sixth applicant .

The seventh applicant is the sister of PERSON , born in DATE . PERSON was a sub - lieutenant in the police force and served in the ORG district department of the interior ( ROVD ) .

The applicants submitted that PERSON as a policeman had obtained information that the detained men might be held in GPE , the main NORP military base in GPE . On DATE the CARDINAL men left in TIME in GPE PERSON utility vehicle and went to GPE in order to meet a man named “ PERSON ” who had allegedly worked for ORG ( ORG ) and who could help them to find the persons detained on DATE . Later on DATE they met the head of the village administration of ORG , PERSON . , in a café by the roadside . Mr Ts . later recounted to the applicants that the QUANTITY men had told him that they had not found “ PERSON ” in GPE and had headed to his house in the village of ORG , but that they would return to GPE by TIME on DATE because they had arranged for a meeting there . The seventh applicant later talked to the women who had served in the café , who confirmed that the CARDINAL men had eaten there , that they had said that they were in a hurry and that they were going to GPE .

The applicants submitted that on DATE a military helicopter had been downed above GPE . They submitted a number of press and human rights groups ' reports , according to which DATE the military , in response to the attack , had detained a large number of people on the road , had blown up CARDINAL buildings from where the rocket could have been fired and had shelled the village of Prigorodnoye near the airport .

Later the applicants learned from unnamed local residents that their CARDINAL relatives could have been detained on DATE at a roadblock in FAC in GPE . According to this information , a group of servicemen had arrived at the roadblock in an ORG and a GAZ vehicle and had taken CARDINAL men and a PERSON vehicle away . The applicants did not submit any additional information on this matter .

The Government in their observations did not challenge the principal facts as presented by the applicants . They stated that it had been established that on DATE PERSON had left home in his own PERSON vehicle in an unknown direction , accompanied by his friends PERSON and PERSON They had never returned . ORG also stated that the applicants had never informed any ORG bodies of the fact that their relatives had been detained in FAC .

According to the applicants , on DATE CARDINAL male bodies were discovered by the local residents in the forest near the village of GPE , in the ORG district , near the road to ORG . The bodies were delivered to the mosque of ORG . On DATE several relatives of the persons missing since DATE travelled there and identified them as the CARDINAL men who had been detained in NORP - Aul : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and FAC The body of the sixth person detained on TIME , PERSON . , has never been found and he is still considered missing . On DATE the CARDINAL bodies were brought to NORP - Aul and buried .

According to the ORG , the CARDINAL bodies had been found in the forest in the vicinity of GPE village , in the ORG district . They also stated that , according to the information from the prosecutor 's office , the relatives had identified CARDINAL bodies – those of the applicants ' relatives DATE while the relatives of LOC had not identified the fifth body as his .

Among the documents submitted by the Government ( see below ) DATE decision of ORG to adjourn the investigation contained the following description :

“ On DATE at TIME in the forest , QUANTITY away from the village of PERSON , PERSON district , towards the village of GPE , PERSON district , QUANTITY to the south from the Darbanmakhi – Vinogradnoye road , CARDINAL male bodies were discovered with the heads bound with fragments of cloth , the hands tied and firearm wounds . They were later identified by their relatives as having been kidnapped in NORP on DATE : GPE . GPE , A.B. Magomadov , GPE . PERSON , PERSON and [ FAC ] . ”

It appears that the applicants did not see the bodies before they were buried , nor did they submit them for an autopsy . It also appears that they did not take any photographs before the burial . However , it appears that the bodies were photographed and submitted for a forensic report in ORG and that a local medical worker in NORP - Aul inspected the bodies before the burial .

Ali Magomadov 's sister PERSON submitted an account of how she identified her brother 's body :

“ My brother was killed by unimaginable acts of torture . His whole body was covered with strange pink spots , the upper part of the body was darker in colour as if the blood had rushed to it . Maybe he was tortured by electricity or suspended upside down . His hands were tied together behind his back , the neck was also covered with something . Maybe there was a mark there . The feet up to the ankles and hands were as if they had been put into hot water , skin peeled off like after a blister . He was wearing the same clothes and barefoot . The nose was broken , the face was covered with blood mixed with dirt . Everything was too unexpected , the signs of torture were too horrible , we were all in shock ... ”

The first applicant submitted that the bodies of the CARDINAL men had borne numerous firearm wounds , bones had been broken , and skin on the fingers had been chipping off .

On DATE the NORP - Aul outpatient medical service issued a medical certificate of death in respect of PERSON . The date and place of death were recorded as DATE , ORG district . The certificate indicated that a doctor had examined the body and concluded that death had occurred as a result of murder through strangulation and numerous blows .

DATE . On DATE the same medical service issued a certificate of death in respect of ORG . The date and place of death were recorded as DATE , GPE . The cause of death was recorded as a firearm wound to the head – an act of murder .

On DATE ORG forwarded the first applicant 's letter to ORG and informed her that the investigation into the “ kidnapping ” of her son was under way .

On DATE the ORG district civil registration office issued a death certificate for FAC . The date and place of death were recorded as DATE , PERSON .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in criminal investigation no . DATE , opened into the kidnapping and subsequent murder of her son and other men .

On DATE Mr PERSON , a member of ORG , again wrote to ORG and asked him to ensure that additional investigative steps were taken in order to find out who was responsible for the kidnapping and murder of PERSON and other villagers . He noted that the arrest and detention had been carried out by a military group and that it should be relatively easy to establish who had been responsible for the mission in question .

On DATE ORG issued the second applicant with a note confirming that the death of her husband on DATE was being investigated by that office . The certificate was issued for submission to PERSON employer , the ORG branch of ORG .

On DATE the ORG district civil registration office issued a death certificate for ORG . The date and place of death were recorded as DATE , PERSON , ORG district .

On DATE ORG replied to Mr PERSON 's enquiry about the investigation into the abduction and murder of PERSON . The letter stated that on DATE ORG had opened criminal investigation file no . DATE under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ( kidnapping ) . After the discovery of PERSON body on DATE , ORG had opened criminal investigation no . CARDINAL under Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ( murder with aggravating circumstances ) . On DATE the CARDINAL sets of proceedings had been joined as file no . DATE at ORG . The letter further stated that ORG had examined the investigation file . In order to solve the crime , requests for information had been forwarded to various military and security services in GPE and in LOC . The investigation obtained information that PERSON PERSON had been a follower and a supporter of the “ NORP ” movement , and had actively promoted its teachings . The letter also explained that the previous letter of DATE from ORG , which had referred to the adjourned criminal investigation into Mr PERSON 's abduction , had in fact concerned his detention on DATE during a special operation . After a check Mr PERSON and others had returned home . On DATE criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL had been opened into his kidnapping but had later been adjourned for failure to identify the culprits . On DATE Mr PERSON forwarded his correspondence with the prosecutor 's office to PERSON family .

On DATE the relatives of the CARDINAL men from NORP - Aul wrote to ORG and ORG . They asked for details of the criminal investigation and requested to be granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG district civil registration office issued a death certificate for PERSON . The date and place of death were recorded as DATE , NORP - Aul .

On DATE the applicants wrote to ORG and ORG asking to be informed of the progress in the investigation concerning the abduction and murder of CARDINAL men from NORP - Aul . They noted that they were not aware of the criminal investigation file number or whether there had been any progress in the proceedings . They also asked to be granted victim status in the proceedings . As no reply was received to that letter , they sent it again in DATE .

On DATE the ORG , acting upon the applicants ' behalf , asked ORG and ORG for an update on the criminal investigation into the abduction and murder of CARDINAL men from NORP - Aul and asked them to grant the relatives victim status .

On DATE ORG forwarded the “ collective letter from the villagers of NORP - Aul ” to ORG .

On DATE the investigator of ORG ordered the adjournment of investigation no . DATE for failure to identify the culprits . According to the relevant document , the investigation had been adjourned on DATE , reopened on DATE and adjourned on DATE . In the same document the Grozny ROVD was instructed to continue to take steps to identify the culprits .

On DATE the PERSON , acting on the applicants ' behalf , asked ORG to inform it about the progress made and to allow the relatives access to criminal investigation file no . DATE .

On DATE and on DATE the relatives of the missing men were informed by the ORG inter - district department of the investigation committee that on DATE the investigation of criminal case no . DATE had been adjourned .

The sixth and seventh applicants started to look for their missing relatives , PERSON and PERSON , immediately after their disappearance on DATE .

On an unspecified date the head of the village administration of NORP , the village imam and the chairman of the committee of elders signed requests to the authorities asking for the release of the CARDINAL men who had been illegally detained on DATE in FAC in GPE .

The seventh applicant submitted that on DATE she and the head of the village administration , PERSON . , had gone to the head of the PERSON and asked him if he was aware that PERSON , CARDINAL of his servicemen , had disappeared after a trip to GPE . The seventh applicant submitted that the head of the department had assured her that he was aware of that fact and that a large number of people had been detained after the downing of the helicopter . He allegedly told her that ORG ( ORG ) had been checking the detainees and that they would all be released after DATE .

DATE . After DATE the applicants continued to look for their relatives . The seventh applicant submitted that she had talked to a man who had allegedly worked at the FAC military base and who had initially agreed to help them find out the fate of their relatives . He assured her that he had seen the name of her husband and CARDINAL other men in the lists of detainees . However , DATE the same man allegedly told her that the lists had been destroyed and that he could not help them .

On DATE the seventh applicant wrote a formal complaint to ORG about the disappearance of her brother on DATE . She stressed that her brother had been a member of the police force and that , according to rumours , he had been detained at the GPE military base .

On DATE the ORG opened a criminal investigation under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW . The decision to open the criminal investigation stated that on DATE PERSON had left home in a PERSON vehicle and disappeared . The facts of the case , including Mr NORP 's membership of the police force , gave rise to a suspicion that he had been killed . The disappearance of Mr Yunusov was confirmed by his family members and a report of CARDINAL DATE by the head of the PERSON .

On DATE ORG informed the seventh applicant that on DATE the ORG had opened criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL into the disappearance of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON The investigation established that on DATE at TIME the CARDINAL men had been seen in the PERSON café on the road near FAC . They had been heading to PERSON in order to find missing fellow villagers . After that they had not been seen again . The investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance was continuing .

On DATE PERSON sister was granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE the PERSON wrote to ORG on behalf of the sixth and seventh applicants and asked it for an update in criminal case no . DATE .

According to the applicants , on DATE CARDINAL male bodies were discovered in GPE , QUANTITY away from the fence of the military base . The Government stated that the bodies had been found near the village of PERSON in the PERSON district . The decision of ORG Office of DATE to transfer the investigation contained the following description :

“ On DATE at TIME in the village of GPE , at the bottom of a quarry , QUANTITY from the location of the VV [ ORG ] of ORG and QUANTITY from the location of the VOGO and P [ Temporary Operative Alignment of Bodies and Services ] of ORG , CARDINAL unidentified male bodies with signs of violent death were discovered . ”

The bodies were inspected by a policeman of the Grozny ROVD and by a military prosecutor , who authorised the Grozny ROVD to take the bodies away for identification and burial . The bodies were taken to the mosque of the village of ORG and the local policeman informed the policeman in NORP and the relatives of the missing persons . On DATE the policeman from ORG and PERSON brother identified his body by the clothes he had been wearing . The relatives of ORG and PERSON also identified them by their clothes . It appears that the bodies had been in an advanced stage of decomposition . No documents were found on them .

DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL bodies were taken to PERSON and buried . The applicants did not have a chance to look at them . It appears that upon the discovery of the bodies a report was drawn up , and photographs were taken of them and of the objects collected from them , but the applicants do not have copies of those reports . The applicants did not submit the bodies for an autopsy or a medical examination before burial . They referred to unnamed witness statements which indicated that the QUANTITY bodies had numerous firearm wounds to the head and chest , that there were pieces of rope and that the right legs of the QUANTITY bodies had been missing as if they had been tied together and blown up by an explosive charge .

The seventh applicant submitted that DATE the head of the administration of ORG , GPE . , and the local policeman who had first identified the bodies had been killed .

On DATE ORG opened criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL following the discovery of CARDINAL unidentified male bodies with signs of violent death . On DATE this investigation was joined to criminal investigation no . DATE , following the identification of the corpses .

On DATE ORG informed the PERSON and the seventh applicant that the criminal case had been pending with that office since DATE as file no . DATE and that the “ interested parties ” could access the documents within the file by visiting the LOC of that office .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL based in GPE replied to the family of PERSON that there were no reasons to suspect the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction and killing of their relative and CARDINAL other men . The criminal investigation into the abduction and murder was pending before ORG .

On DATE an investigator of ORG adjourned the investigation of criminal case no . DATE for failure to identify the persons responsible for the crime .

On DATE the PERSON , acting on the applicants ' behalf , asked ORG and ORG to inform it , and/or the relatives of the missing and killed men from NORP - Aul , about the status of the investigation . They also asked the prosecutor 's office to allow the relatives access to the case file . In its letter the PERSON reminded the prosecutor 's office of its obligations under LAW and the LAW to inform the victims of progress in the investigation .

The applicants submitted they had not been informed of the progress of the proceedings and that they had no effective access to the investigation file .

In DATE the applicants ' representatives informed the ORG that the sixth applicant , the wife of PERSON and sister of PERSON , had moved outside GPE following several instances of harassment of her family in DATE by masked men in camouflage uniforms . She and CARDINAL of her minor children had suffered from psychological trauma and required medical assistance , as attested by medical documents .

In their observations the Government did not dispute the information concerning the investigation of the deaths of ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON as submitted by the applicants . Relying on information obtained from ORG , they referred to a number of other procedural steps taken by the investigation which had not been mentioned by the applicants . However , despite specific requests from ORG , the Government did not submit copies of most of the documents to which they referred ( see below ) .

As regards the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicants ' CARDINAL relatives on DATE , the ORG stated that on DATE ORG had opened investigation file no . DATE upon an application by PERSON mother and by the head of the NORP - Aul administration . The investigation had initially been opened to investigate the charges of kidnapping committed by a group , but was later altered to include the charges of kidnapping of several persons , committed with the use of violence , destruction of property , robbery and armed robbery .

The Government submitted that on DATE the head of military unit no . CARDINAL had informed the investigation that the servicemen of that unit had not taken part in any military operations in NORP - Aul and that no military vehicles of the NORP military commander 's office had been used for these purposes .

In DATE ORG received applications from PERSON mother about the kidnapping of her son , as well as the theft of money , an audio player and documents for a car . They also received an application from the head of the NORP branch of ORG about the kidnapping of its employee Mr ORG .

NORP Immediately after the finding of CARDINAL bodies , on DATE ORG opened criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL in respect of the aggravated murder of several persons . According to the Government , the investigators had examined the site where the bodies had been discovered , carried out forensic examinations , produced ballistic expert reports and questioned the person who had found the bodies , as well as the head of the village administration of GPE . On DATE the forensic expert reports were produced for the CARDINAL bodies . They concluded that the deaths could have been caused by gunfire wounds to the heads . CARDINAL bullet found together with the bodies had been submitted for a ballistic report , which concluded on DATE that it had been fired from a NORP - made TIME or ORG pistol .

On DATE the CARDINAL criminal cases were joined as file no . DATE .

The investigators questioned a number of applicants and other relatives of the victims . The first applicant was questioned and granted victim status on DATE . She gave statements relating to the kidnapping of her son , PERSON , and the subsequent finding of his body in the ORG district . She had identified the body of her son in the village cemetery on DATE . On DATE the investigation questioned ORG father , who explained that on DATE a group of armed men had taken away his son and his friend , FAC , from their house . On DATE he had identified both his son and FAC among the CARDINAL bodies brought to the village cemetery .

On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , PERSON wife , who was granted victim status on DATE . She explained that during the night she had heard noise in the courtyard and had seen CARDINAL armed men wearing masks . They had asked if there were any men in the house and had driven her husband away in a LOC truck . She specified that the “ military ” had spoken unaccented NORP between themselves . Later her husband 's body had been discovered . It had been identified by her husband 's sister .

Also on DATE the investigators questioned PERSON mother and wife and granted victim status to the latter . Both women stated that at TIME on DATE CARDINAL men armed with automatic weapons and wearing camouflage uniforms , using CARDINAL ORG vehicles , had entered their house and taken away PERSON . She was again questioned on DATE . The fourth applicant , PERSON sister , was questioned on DATE . She confirmed the statements about her brother 's abduction . On DATE ORG brother testified that on DATE he had identified his brother 's body in the village cemetery . The body had haematomas and abrasions , but he had not noticed any firearm wounds .

Umalat PERSON 's mother was questioned on DATE and on DATE . During her first interview she stated that her son had been detained by a group of CARDINAL armed men wearing camouflage uniforms , who had placed him in an ORG and had also searched the house . They had also taken away family property and some documents . She had also noted a UAZ vehicle in the street . On DATE she was granted the status of victim in the proceedings . Later , PERSON body had been discovered in the ORG district . His mother had identified him and described a wound to the back of the head and an abrasion on the left side of the face .

According to the Government , on DATE the investigators questioned a son of GPE . , who stated that on that night his father had been taken away by unknown armed men , who had first checked their documents . PERSON . 's wife gave similar statements on DATE . They also specified that they saw NORP trucks and UAZ cars in the street . The same men had taken the family 's VAZ-CARDINAL car and an audio player . On DATE M.Zh . 's wife was granted victim status . On an unspecified date GPE . was also questioned and granted victim status . He stated that on that date a group of CARDINAL armed men had entered their courtyard , checked their documents and ordered them to lie on the ground in the courtyard . Then he had been blindfolded and placed in a car , together with some other fellow villagers , including his neighbour PERSON . He , PERSON and CARDINAL other persons from their village had been kept in a former bath house for DATE . Then everyone except for himself and PERSON . had been taken away and he and PERSON . had been released and had returned home . Later he had learnt that other persons who had been kidnapped had been found dead . On DATE . brought a civil claim , in the same proceedings , relating to the theft of his property .

A.Zh . was questioned on DATE and granted victim status . He was again questioned on DATE . He stated that in the evening of DATE he had been coming home and had been stopped in the street by unknown armed persons . He had been taken to an unknown location , where he had stayed for DATE . He had not been ill - treated .

According to the ORG , the investigators also questioned relatives and neighbours of GPE . , who had also been kidnapped on DATE and whose whereabouts had not been established . Some of the witnesses referred to the ORG vehicles used by the perpetrators . His relatives explained that a large group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had entered their house , asked if they had any weapons , beaten up CARDINAL brothers from the PERSON . family and when CARDINAL of them , PERSON . , had tried to escape , had shot at him and wounded him . He had been dragged into the ORG vehicle and driven away . The same men , who had spoken NORP and NORP among themselves , had taken MONEY from their house . His mother had been granted victim status on DATE .

Furthermore , the ORG stated that the identity and place of residence of the eighth person kidnapped on DATE , FAC , could not be established . No one had applied to the law - enforcement authorities in relation to his kidnapping and his relatives could not be identified .

Among the documents submitted by the ORG , CARDINAL witness statement made in DATE by a neighbour of the GPE , GPE , contained the following information :

“ At TIME on DATE I was at home and heard noise in the street . I looked outside and saw men running around wearing camouflage uniforms . I did n't go out , because we are afraid of the military . In the morning I learnt that during TIME masked men in military camouflage uniforms had come to the LOC ' house . They came in CARDINAL ORG and CARDINAL ORG cars . The military broke the gates with the ORG and entered into the courtyard . They did not let anyone enter . There were CARDINAL of them , all armed with automatic weapons . They took away [ CARDINAL men ] from our village . They collected them from all over PERSON . ... The men in camouflage uniforms carried out their operation in TIME , i.e. they broke the gates , took the men and left . They spoke NORP among themselves . I did not note the numbers on the cars and vehicles . ... ”

From the documents submitted by the Government and from their observations , it follows that in DATE , within the same set of criminal proceedings , the investigators questioned and granted victim status to other persons whose property had been damaged on DATE . On DATE ORG granted victim status and the status of civil claimant to PERSON . on the following grounds :

“ It has been established that on DATE at TIME in the village of NORP - Aul in the NORP district , in the course of a special operation being carried out in the said village , the servicemen fired at the house situated at CARDINAL FAC , the property of PERSON . As a result of opening fire , a stallion belonging to PERSON . was killed in the barn . ”

On DATE the same investigating authority granted victim status and the status of civil claimant to PERSON on the following grounds :

“ On DATE at CARDINAL TIME unknown persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks , armed with automatic weapons , committed arson in a room in the house and exploded a hand grenade in another room of the house situated at CARDINAL FAC , by which pecuniary damage in the amount of MONEY and non - pecuniary damage was caused to PERSON

As indicated in the documents submitted by the Government , the same investigation also dealt with the kidnapping and murder on DATE in NORP - Aul of PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE , committed by “ unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms ” .

It further appears that a number of applicants , their relatives and neighbours were additionally questioned in DATE and gave statements confirming the above descriptions of the kidnappings , the theft of property and the subsequent discovery of the bodies .

ORG . The Government submitted that on DATE criminal investigation file no . DATE had been opened by ORG . The murder investigation under LAW had been opened on the basis of a complaint by PERSON sister concerning the disappearance of her brother .

The investigation established that on DATE PERSON and his CARDINAL friends PERSON and PERSON had left ORG in GPE 's PERSON vehicle .

Among the documents submitted by the ORG , on DATE a waitress from a roadside café testified that on DATE she had served lunch to CARDINAL men , CARDINAL of them GPE . They had talked about a special operation in NORP - Aul and PERSON and were in a hurry . They had then left in the direction of the village of PERSON . On DATE an employee of a petrol station located at the same place testified that GPE had bought gasoline for his PERSON vehicle there .

NORP In DATE ORG of the Interior carried out an internal investigation into the disappearance of its staff member PERSON . It did not establish his whereabouts and the PERSON concluded that PERSON disappearance could be linked to the latter 's professional service .

On DATE CARDINAL male bodies with signs of violent death were found near the village of PERSON of the LOC . On DATE ORG opened criminal investigation file no . DATE in respect of aggravated murder ( paragraph two of Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . Later the CARDINAL bodies had been identified as those missing from DATE .

On DATE the CARDINAL criminal cases were joined as file no . DATE .

On DATE ORG obtained the report of the examination of the site where the CARDINAL bodies had been found , compiled by the servicemen of military unit no . DATE ( the GPE military base ) . The report stated that the bodies had been found in a quarry near the village of GPE with signs of advanced decomposition . The body no . CARDINAL had the left leg missing from the knee joint down , and bodies nos . CARDINAL had the right feet missing .

Forensic reports found that the CARDINAL bodies had perforating wounds to the head , chest and neck , which could have caused the deaths . It is unclear if any other injuries were mentioned . The Government did not submit copies of these reports and did not specify whether they had established the time of the deaths .

According to the Government , at some point the investigators questioned PERSON brother , who confirmed that his brother had been missing since DATE . He also stated that DATE after that the frame of his brother 's vehicle had been found in a forest . On CARDINAL DATE the witness had learnt of the discovery of CARDINAL unidentified bodies . He and a brother of PERSON had identified the bodies of their relatives , as well as the body of PERSON All CARDINAL bodies had parts of their legs missing below the knee .

At some point the investigation questioned PERSON mother , who stated that the CARDINAL men had been involved in the search of those kidnapped on DATE . PERSON had told her that on DATE they had arranged a meeting with a man named “ PERSON ” in GPE , who could help in obtaining the release of her son and other detainees . On DATE she learnt that a helicopter had been downed above GPE , following which all transport movement had been restricted . She had managed to return home , while her son - in - law PERSON had not returned . DATE his body , together with the bodies of PERSON and PERSON , had been found near GPE with signs of violent death .

According to the Government , other relatives of the CARDINAL missing men were questioned and granted victim status on unspecified dates . They gave similar statements and testified that they had no information about their relatives ' deaths . PERSON sister was granted victim status on DATE . His mother was also questioned and granted victim status on an unspecified date . PERSON brother and PERSON mother were also questioned and granted victim status at some point .

The Government stated that the sixth and seventh applicants , the sisters of PERSON and PERSON respectively , had not been granted victim status in the proceedings because they had never applied to the law - enforcement bodies with such requests . The ORG also noted that the victims had been informed about the progress of the investigation and that they had never requested to be informed of the results of the forensic expert reports .

On DATE the head of the NORP - Aul administration confirmed the information from the relatives concerning the disappearance of CARDINAL men on DATE and the subsequent discovery of their bodies . The ORG submitted a copy of his witness statement .

In addition , the investigation questioned CARDINAL other persons . The Government did not provide any other information in relation to these witnesses .

The Government also submitted that the investigation had not been made aware of the relatives ' allegations to the ORG that the CARDINAL men had been detained in the vicinity of FAC on DATE . The investigators would take steps in order to check this information .

In relation to both investigation files , the ORG submitted that they had failed to identify the persons who had committed the crimes . The investigating authorities sent requests for information to the competent ORG agencies in DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE and DATE . The investigation found no evidence to support the involvement of the “ special branches of the power structures ” ( специальных подразделений силовых структур ) in the crimes . The law - enforcement authorities of GPE had never arrested or detained the applicants ' relatives on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in respect of them . ORG and the ORG had no information about the involvement of the kidnapped men with illegal armed groups or any other serious crimes . The investigation also found out that no special operations had been carried out in respect of the applicants ' relatives and that no military vehicles had been assigned by the military commander 's office for that purpose .

In their submissions the ORG stated that the investigation in both cases carried out by ORG had been adjourned and reopened on numerous occasions , owing to the fact that the perpetrators of the crimes could not be identified . The progress of both cases was monitored by ORG . The persons who had victim status in the proceedings had been regularly informed of their progress .

As indicated in the documents submitted by the ORG , DATE and DATE the investigation in case no . DATE concerning the murder of ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON was adjourned CARDINAL times , and every time the investigation was later reopened by prosecutors . The investigation in case no . DATE concerning the murders of PERSON and PERSON was adjourned and reopened CARDINAL times DATE and DATE .

NORP Despite specific requests by ORG , the Government failed to disclose most of the material in criminal files nos . DATE and DATE , providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status , as well as of the relatives ' applications to the district prosecutor 's office and notifications to the relatives about the adjournment and reopening of the proceedings . They also submitted CARDINAL witness statements , as indicated above . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the ORG stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

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


The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE . He resides in GPE .

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

The applicant was arrested on DATE and charged with rape allegedly committed DATE . On DATE he was given a statutory hearing before ORG ( PERSON ) during which the applicant was represented by counsel ( N ) . Following this hearing the court decided to remand the applicant in custody for DATE .

On DATE the applicant was released by ORG whereas the charge against him was upheld .

During the period from the arrest until DATE the police investigated the case . The police interrogated the applicant and interviewed the victim and various witnesses . Furthermore , the police carried out technical examinations at the scene of the crime and collected various technical declarations concerning a number of effects connected with the crime . Examinations were also carried out of the applicant ’s and victim ’s bodies to ascertain traces , if any , deriving from the crime .

An indictment was drawn up on DATE and the case was set down for trial by ORG on DATE . However , the police did not succeed in serving the indictment on the applicant and it appears from the court records of the court session on DATE that the court had been notified by telephone that the applicant was hospitalised in GPE . The case was therefore adjourned pending another summons .

The case was then set down for trial on DATE . However , the police did not succeed in serving the indictment on the applicant , informing him of the time of the trial . Despite various investigations carried out by the police it was not possible for the police to establish the applicant ’s whereabouts . It appears from the court records of the session on CARDINAL DATE before ORG that the judge decided to adjourn the case pending determination of the applicant ’s residence .

Concurrently another case against the applicant was pending , in which he was charged with , and wanted in connection with , a large number of offences against property committed together with others . On DATE ORG had ordered the applicant , among others , to be remanded in custody as there was a strong suspicion that he had committed offences against property . The applicant was not present at the hearing , and the public prosecutor stated that the suspects , among them the applicant , were probably to be found in GPE . In its decision the court emphasised , inter alia , the lack of ties with GPE of the suspects , including the applicant , and the contradictory statements made by the suspects . It appears from the decision of the court that the suspects were to be brought before the court within TIME from being brought to GPE . The warrant for the arrest which was issued did not , however , concern the rape offence against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was apprehended at the border crossing at GPE / Oder in GPE . He was arrested on the ground of an expected NORP request for extradition . On the same date , ORG in GPE ( GPE ) notified ORG in GPE ( GPE ) thereof , and thus the NORP authorities received notice of the apprehension .

A new warrant of arrest was issued on DATE . It appears from this that the applicant was to be taken into custody and brought before the court within TIME from being brought to GPE . Also this warrant related to the offences against property only and did not concern the rape offence .

On DATE the GPE police requested ORG to make a request for extradition of the applicant for prosecution in GPE . In that connection , the police stated that he was provisionally charged with theft , forgery , assisting in forgery and rape .

On DATE ORG submitted their request for extradition to ORG . It appears from the letter submitted to the NORP authorities that the applicant was provisionally charged with theft , forgery , assisting in forgery and rape .

On DATE the NORP authorities requested further information for their processing of the extradition case , including the rape case .

On DATE ORG replied , giving an account of the case , including the rape offence . ORG requested that the extradition also include the rape offence although the warrant of arrest of DATE from ORG did not include this offence . In that connection ORG stated that the applicant had been provisionally charged with rape and held in custody on the basis of that charge . ORG stated further that under NORP law extradition for prosecution for several offences could be effected although a warrant of arrest concerned only one of the offences charged . Moreover , ORG maintained that Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG was to be construed accordingly .

On DATE the ORG granted the request for extradition in so far as it concerned the offences against property , but not in so far as it concerned the rape offence , as the NORP authorities found that the conditions of LAW were not satisfied in respect of this offence .

During the period from the apprehension in GPE on DATE until DATE the applicant was detained in GPE with a view to extradition for prosecution in GPE . While he was detained in GPE the respondent Government submit that the applicant had contact with his defence counsel in the rape case , ORG According to a letter from counsel , the applicant had expressed a desire for extradition to GPE as quickly as possible so that he could appear in the criminal case . The applicant denies that he had any contact with N during his imprisonment in GPE .

The applicant was extradited to GPE on DATE for prosecution of the offences against property . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE by ORG , he was found guilty thereof and sentenced to imprisonment for DATE and DATE .

On DATE the GPE police requested ORG to suspend the rape case until it could be resumed pursuant to LAW ( b ) of LAW . The police stated that the reason for this was that the NORP authorities had refused extradition for prosecution of the rape offence . The police consequently requested a provisional conclusion of the case by the court and an award of fees to counsel .

On DATE ORG adjourned the case . The court awarded a fee of ORG to the assigned counsel , N , who had previously been awarded a fee of ORG on DATE . These amounts were to be provisionally covered by the ORG .

The applicant was released on parole on DATE with a DATE probation period as concerns a residual sentence of DATE . There were no special conditions for the release on parole preventing the applicant from leaving the country immediately .

On DATE the NORP police resumed the rape case and recommended ORG for Copenhagen to drop it on the ground of insufficient evidence . The police maintained that DATE had passed since the time of the offence , and that it was presumed that the statements which would be made during a trial would hardly be able to form a basis for conviction .

However , on DATE ORG for Copenhagen decided that prosecution in the case should proceed due to the nature of the offence .

Thus , on DATE the case was again forwarded to ORG . The GPE police requested that the case be set down for trial quickly . The case was set down for trial on DATE .

The indictment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s case was heard by ORG . The court decided to appoint a new defence counsel , PERSON , to the applicant . During the trial the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses were heard . In addition to other documentary evidence a report prepared by ORG ( Retspatologisk Institut ) was read out in court . Following an evaluation of the available evidence the applicant was found guilty of the charge brought against him . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . It appears from the judgment that the applicant was ordered to pay costs , including a fee of ORG to the appointed counsel , J. It further appears from the judgment that the fees of ORG CARDINAL plus VAT and DKK CARDINAL plus VAT awarded to the previously assigned counsel , N , and provisionally covered by the ORG , were to be finally covered by the applicant .

The applicant appealed against the conviction , claiming acquittal , and by notice of appeal of CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor counter - appealed the sentence , claiming a more severe sentence .

On DATE ORG of Eastern Denmark ( PERSON ) received an extract of the case from the public prosecutor , and on DATE ORG notified the public prosecutor and the defence counsel that the trial had been set down for DATE .

On DATE the case was tried by ORG . During the proceedings the applicant was heard as CARDINAL of the witnesses from the ORG proceedings . The statement of the fourth witness was read out in the court . Furthermore , an additional witness was heard . On the basis thereof ORG , which pronounced judgment immediately following the trial , upheld the judgment of ORG . The applicant was ordered to pay the costs before ORG .

On DATE the applicant petitioned ORG for leave to appeal to ORG ( Højesteret ) .

The opinion of the public prosecution on this petition was presented to the applicant on DATE .

By letters of DATE and DATE the applicant submitted his supplementary comments on the matter .

On DATE ORG rejected the request for leave to appeal .


Preliminary objection dismissed (application not properly submitted by the applicant but rather by a lawyer who claimed to be associated with the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights);Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

From DATE the applicant was employed by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , a ORG service . In DATE the ORG adopted new by - laws , which were approved by ORG . Under these by - laws , the ORG was registered as an independent legal person with the rights of a ORG company and governed by the ORG companies . It was created within the organs of local public administration and on the basis of municipal property but was financed exclusively from the income it generated from selling a variety of services to the local administration and to the population .

On DATE ORG decided to merge several bureaux , including ORG , into CARDINAL service at the County level . ORG thus became the legal successor of ORG in which the applicant had worked . Before this merger , ORG decided to reduce the number of personnel employed and as a result the applicant was made redundant by an order of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE he acknowledged the dismissal notice in writing , as requested by law . In accordance with the relevant labour legislation , he requested redundancy payments ( namely redundancy compensation worth DATE average salary , his average DATE salary during DATE when he would be looking for a new job , payment for unused leave for DATE and payment of his salary for DATE and part of DATE ) .

The employer refused to pay because it had set aside no money for redundancy payments . According to a certificate issued by the GPE employment office on DATE , the applicant had been unemployed from CARDINAL DATE to the date of the issue of the certificate .

The applicant initiated court proceedings , claiming redundancy payments , namely DATE salary on dismissal , the continuing payment of his salary for DATE when he would be looking for another job and monetary compensation for untaken leave . On DATE ORG partly accepted his claims . He appealed and ORG quashed that judgment , ordering a full re - hearing of the case .

On DATE ORG rejected all his claims as unfounded .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . It found , among other things , that the applicant had missed the DATE deadline for making his claim against ORG , since the decision to reorganise the bureau had been published in DATE and the complaint had been lodged in DATE .

Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had missed the above - mentioned time - limit , on DATE ORG examined the substance of his appeal and upheld the judgment of ORG . The court reasoned that no compensation was due because ORG , in which the applicant had worked , was self - financed ; it had not set aside any resources for compensation but had distributed all the money obtained from its activity to its employees , after paying taxes . Since it had been an independent legal person , its legal successor , ORG , could not be held liable for any outstanding debts . The court also found that the applicant had not offered any new services after DATE and thus could not claim his salary for DATE . He had been warned in DATE of impending dismissal and instructed to complete all outstanding work by DATE . Finally , the court found that he had not registered with the ORG employment office as unemployed and could therefore not claim redundancy compensation .

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE , in force until DATE , read as follows .

“ Article CARDINAL . NORP Sphere of application of labour legislation .

The labour legislation regulates work relations of employees employed in enterprises , institutions and organisations on the territory of GPE , regardless of the type of property and form of management ...

Article CARDINAL . Nullity of contract clauses making the conditions of employees worse .

ORG clauses making the conditions of employees worse than those provided for by law are null and void .

Article CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Indemnities and compensation for employees made redundant .

Employees made redundant by enterprises , institutions and organisations because of a reduction of the number of personnel or status of personnel :

CARDINAL ) NORP shall be paid a redundancy indemnity worth DATE average salary ;

CARDINAL ) NORP shall continue to receive the average salary during the period needed to find a new job , but for no longer than DATE from the date of redundancy , taking into account the payment of the redundancy indemnity ;

CARDINAL ) NORP exceptionally , shall continue to receive the average salary during DATE from DATE of redundancy , based on a decision of the employment office , subject to the employee 's timely request to that authority ( within DATE of redundancy ) and if not offered a job in the meantime .

LAW Prohibition of granting of monetary compensation in lieu of untaken leave

It is prohibited to grant monetary compensation in lieu of untaken leave , save in the case of dismissal of an employee who has not used his or her leave DATE ” .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( in force until DATE ) read as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL . Scope of appeal proceedings .

The court which examines the appeal shall verify whether the first - instance court 's judgment is lawful and well - grounded , on the basis of the information in its possession , as well as any new written evidence submitted to the court .

The court may re - evaluate the evidence in its possession and examine any new evidence submitted by the parties in accordance with the present Code .

The court shall deal with each ground of appeal invoked . ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (incompatibility ratione personae, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

The applicants owned a plot of land situated in GPE , near GPE . In DATE the applicants were informed by the local authorities that , pursuant to a local zoning plan , their land was to be expropriated as a construction of dwelling buildings was planned in its place .

The applicants requested ORG to be compensated by another plot of land . Their son also filed a request asking that a plot of land be allocated to him . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicants that their request could not be granted . On DATE the applicants ' son was informed that his request to be allocated a plot of land within the PERSON community was viewed favourably by ORG ( PERSON ) but could only be processed after the expropriation of his parents ' plot . In DATE the expropriation procedure commenced . In their letters the local authorities confirmed that after the expropriation of the applicants ' land an allocation of a plot of land within the PERSON community to the applicants ' son would become possible .

Eventually the applicants ' land was not expropriated but the applicants consented to a contract of sale . On DATE they transferred ownership of their land to ORG represented by ORG . They received the amount .

Following the sale they repeatedly inquired about the allocation of building land within the municipality but no steps were taken in order for the allocation to become effective and no decision as to the allocation was given .

NORP In DATE the applicants ' son was informed by ORG that the allocation of plots of land within the community had been conducted in violation of the law and in disregard of the principles of transparency . Therefore , the entire process was to be reviewed .

On DATE the applicants instituted proceedings against ORG represented by ORG . They requested ORG “ to oblige ORG to allot a plot of land to their son , as promised ” . ORG transferred the matter to ORG which rejected the claim finding that only the administrative authorities had jurisdiction in matters concerning expropriations and granting replacement plots . ORG upheld that decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter of complaint to ORG . On an unspecified date ORG transferred the letter to ORG . That court recognised that the applicants ' action should be interpreted as an action to revoke the contract of sale with ORG of DATE as they had consented to it on the mistaken belief that ORG would allocate a comparable plot of land to their son . On DATE ORG decided that , in view of fact that the value of the claim amounted to ORG ( old ) CARDINAL , a district court should examine the matter . The case was transferred to ORG . Subsequently , the applicants extended their claim and , on DATE , ORG transferred the case to ORG . On DATE the case was transferred back to ORG and that court examined the case . On DATE the first instance judgment was delivered . The court allowed the applicants ' claim finding that they had indeed acted on the assumption that the sale of their property had been the condition for the allocation of a new plot of land to their son and that that assumption had been prompted and maintained by ORG .

ORG , represented by ORG , filed an appeal . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for reconsideration . ORG - instance court and that although the applicants had indeed acted upon the promise that the applicants ' son would be allocated a plot of land , no time limit had been set for that . Therefore , the trial court was instructed , in particular , to examine whether the applicants ' son could still be allocated a plot of land .

Having reconsidered the case , on CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' action . It found that the transfer of the applicants ' plot of land to the ORG had been inevitable since it had been planned for expropriation . Thus , the applicants could not validly claim that they had relied on the promises that their son would be allocated another plot of land and that they had therefore been unduly induced to sign the contract .

The applicants appealed .

On an unspecified date the applicants tried to obtain free legal aid in the proceedings . By a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicants that it was not competent to grant legal aid and that such a request should be addressed to a court . On DATE the applicants sent a letter to the President of ORG in GPE requesting free legal aid in the proceedings . On CARDINAL DATE the court granted free legal aid to the applicants and on DATE it addressed ORG to appoint an advocate for the applicants . Following this decision , on DATE ORG appointed advocate ORG as the applicants ' ex officio attorney . Apparently , advocate ORG could not represent the applicants . On CARDINAL Nobember CARDINAL ORG informed the court that she did not wish to represent them . ORG accepted this argument and discharged ORG from the representation of the applicants . On DATE , ORG appointed advocate G.P - R. to represent the applicants . On DATE G.P .- R. sent a letter to ORG requesting the Bar to discharge her of her duties .

On DATE the applicants wrote a letter to the President of ORG in which they complained that despite the court 's decision granting them legal aid none of the attorneys appointed so far expressed any interest in their case . In response , the President of ORG instructed the applicants that they should address ORG directly . At the same time , the President also undertook to draw attention of ORG to the applicants ' problem . On DATE the applicants wrote to the President of ORG . They stated that their case was about to be examined by the secondinstance court for the second time and that they were at a significant disadvantage in comparison with the defendants , ORG , which was represented by a lawyer .

On DATE ORG appointed advocate PERSON to represent the applicants . He met with the applicants in DATE and represented them at the hearing held before the appellate court on DATE . On that date ORG issued a judgment dismissing the applicants ' appeal . The applicants were informed by that court that a cassation appeal could be filed .

After the hearing the lawyer instructed the applicants to take steps in order to have the judgment with its written grounds served on them .

On DATE the applicants themselves requested the court to serve on them the judgment with its written grounds .

On DATE the applicants were duly served with a copy of the judgment together with its written grounds .

In a letter to the court of CARDINAL DATE the applicants complained about certain errors in the judgment . Subsequently , the court corrected certain clerical errors in the written grounds of the judgment and sent it to the applicants by registered post . The applicants did not collect it from the post office .

On DATE the applicants sent a registered letter to advocate ORG asking him to indicate when he could be available for consultation or to call them back . There was no reply to this letter .

On DATE the applicants wrote to ORG asking for assistance . They complained that since the date of the hearing before the appellate court they could not reach advocate GPE

On DATE the applicants wrote to the President of ORG stating that they could not reach their ex officio lawyer and asking for instructions . In response , the applicants were informed that the President of the Court did not have any supervisory powers in respect of ex officio attorneys and that they should contact ORG . The President of ORG also stated that he had obliged the President of ORG at that court to draw the attention of ORG to the problem submitted by the applicants .

On DATE the applicants sent a letter to ORG , complaining about the lawyer 's failure to contact them and asking for assistance in their case .

On DATE the applicants sent another registered letter to ORG asking for urgent contact in view of the impossibility to reach him . They stated that they had unsuccessfully tried to get in touch with him for DATE as his cellular phone had been changed and the fixed phone did not reply .

On DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was sent to the lawyer 's office by registered post . It was served on GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicants and the lawyer met at his office . They were informed during this meeting that there were no grounds for filing a cassation appeal in their case .

By a letter of DATE the applicants informed the President of ORG of the meeting held on DATE . They submitted that ORG had given them the judgment , had informed them that there were no grounds on which he could lodge a further appeal against it and suggested that they sign a declaration that they wished to give up pursuing the case .

On DATE they sent a further letter to ORG , in which they complained that the legal aid lawyer had met with them “ DATE after the termination of the proceedings ” and informed them that he saw no grounds to pursue the case any further .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG informed the applicants that ORG had responded to the charges brought against him in the applicants ' complaint lodged on DATE . According to his explanations , there were no grounds for lodging a cassation appeal in the applicants ' case and the applicants had been informed thereof . The Secretary informed the applicants that if an ex officio attorney had found no grounds on which to lodge a cassation appeal , ORG would not appoint another lawyer to do so .

DATE LAW , insofar as relevant , reads :

“ Everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case , without undue delay , before a competent , impartial and independent court . ... ”

“ By means of a statute , associations may be created within a profession in which the public repose confidence , and such professional associations shall concern themselves with the proper practice of such professions in accordance with , and for the purpose of protecting , public interest . ”

Pursuant to LAW , a court should give all necessary procedural instructions to a party acting without a lawyer and , in particular should indicate the consequences of that party 's acts or failures to act .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party to the proceedings may ask the court competent to deal with the case to grant him or her an exemption from court fees provided that he submits a declaration to the effect that the fees required would entail a substantial reduction in his and his family 's standard of living .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the Code , persons exempted from the court fees may request that legal aid be granted to them . The court will then request the relevant ORG or ORG to assign an advocate or a legal adviser to the claimant 's case .

At the material time a party to civil proceedings could lodge a cassation appeal with ORG against a final judicial decision of a secondinstance court which terminated the proceedings .

Under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure a cassation appeal had to be lodged with the court that had given the relevant decision within DATE from the date on which the decision with its written grounds was served on the party concerned . Cassation appeals which were not lodged by an advocate or a legal adviser would be rejected .

Article CARDINAL of the Code as applicable at that time listed the grounds on which a cassation appeal could be lodged . It read as follows :

“ The cassation appeal may be based on the following grounds :

CARDINAL ) a breach of substantive law by its erroneous interpretation or wrongful application ;

CARDINAL ) a breach of procedural provisions , if that defect could significantly affect the outcome of the case . ”

Article CARDINAL specified the requirements of a cassation appeal . It read in its relevant part :

“ § CARDINAL . A cassation appeal should include :

CARDINAL ) an indication of the decision under appeal together with information as to whether the appeal is lodged against this decision in its entirety or in part only ;

CARDINAL ) NORP an indication of the grounds for the cassation appeal ;

CARDINAL ) NORP arguments showing that its examination would be justified ;

CARDINAL ) a motion to have the decision under appeal quashed or amended , specifying also the scope of the motion . ”

Article CARDINAL read as follows :

“ A second - instance court rejects in a hearing held in camera a cassation appeal lodged after a prescribed time - limit or which is inadmissible on other grounds ( ... ) . ”

The reasons justifying the examination of a cassation appeal by ORG could be inferred a contrario from Article CARDINAL of LAW which , as applicable at that time , read , in its relevant part :

“ CARDINAL . ORG may refuse to entertain the cassation appeal , if :

i ) there is no appearance of any significant legal issue in the case ,

ii ) there is no need for the interpretation of provisions raising serious doubts or causing discrepancies in the courts ' case law ,

iii ) the appeal is manifestly ill - founded .

Paragraph CARDINAL shall not apply if the judicial decision challenged manifestly breached the law or where the proceedings are invalid in law . ”

In its judgment of DATE ORG examined a number of constitutional complaints in which the complainants argued essentially about certain provisions of LAW , also insofar as they regulated the conditions that cassation appeals had to comply with .

The ORG observed , inter alia , that certain terms describing the conditions which cassation appeals had to meet under Article CARDINAL et seq . of the LAW ( “ important legal issue ” , “ provisions raising serious doubts or causing discrepancies in the courts ' case law ” , “ arguments showing that examination of the cassation appeal would be justified ” ) were drafted in the broadest terms . It noted that the judicial practice regarding their application had given rise to serious interpretational difficulties and discrepancies in the caselaw of the NORP courts .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , as amended , reads , insofar as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The Bar is established to provide legal assistance , co - operate in protecting a person 's rights and freedoms as well as to formulate and apply the law .

The Bar is organized as a self - governing association .

An advocate whilst executing his / her professional duties is accountable only to the law . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ The general tasks of the professional ORG are as follows :

CARDINAL ) creation of conditions for the statutory performance of the Bar 's tasks ,

CARDINAL ) representation of the LOC and protection of its rights ,

CARDINAL ) supervision over the observance of the rules regulating the practice of the profession ,

CARDINAL ) development of professional skills and training of advocates ,

CARDINAL ) determination and promotion of professional ethics and ensuring their observance ,

CARDINAL ) management ( ... ) of the Bar 's assets . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads :

“ CARDINAL . An advocate may only refuse to provide legal assistance for important reasons of which he must notify the interested party . Any doubts as to whether to provide legal assistance or refuse to do so shall be resolved by the local ORG , and in situations where time is of the essence , by the PERSON of that ORG .

In cases where legal assistance is granted on the basis legal regulations concerning legal aid , only the entity appointing the advocate to represent the client may decide to relieve him or her from providing legal assistance . ”

Under LAW of the LAW , an advocate shall provide legal aid services in the jurisdiction of a court where he or she has its office .

Lawyers are bound to act in accordance with rules of professional and ethical conduct enacted by ORG . They may be held accountable for professional misconduct or a breach of ethical principles in the proceedings before the bar disciplinary court .

Under LAW adopted by ORG on DATE , when an advocate , either privately hired by the client or appointed under legal aid scheme , considers that submission of an appeal in a case offers no reasonable prospect of success and the client disagrees with his or her view , the lawyer shall give notice of termination of the power of attorney terminate the representation , or notify the refusal to the body which appointed him or her .

In DATE ORG issued a resolution in reply to a legal question whether a legal aid lawyer could refuse to lodge a cassation appeal . It replied to the question in the positive .

The court observed that issues involved in the legal aid concerned not only proper administration of justice , but also touched on human rights , and a right of access to a court in particular . Nevertheless , there was no comprehensive and coherent regulation of legal aid available under NORP law .

The mere fact that it was necessary for a cassation appeal to be lodged by a qualified representative was not open to criticism . However , a certain conceptual confusion was to be noted in the provisions governing legal aid as a whole , mostly because the legislator had failed to harmonise the relevant provisions of civil and criminal procedure . In particular , the scope of legal aid lawyers ' obligations when legal representation was mandatory was not directly addressed by provisions of civil procedure . This was so partly because the essential body of law concerning civil procedure had been enacted in DATE , while the provisions on mandatory legal representation for the purposes of the cassation appeal had been introduced in DATE , when this new kind of appeal had been created .

As a result , the scope of legal aid lawyers ' obligations to provide a party to the proceedings with “ legal aid ” in civil proceedings was unclear . In particular , the provisions on the lawyers ' legal aid obligations in connection with cassation proceedings before ORG lacked clarity . The court noted that the judicial practice regarding the application of relevant provisions had given rise to serious difficulties of interpretation and discrepancies in the case - law of the NORP courts .

The court observed that the issue of possible conflict between the opinion of a party granted legal aid and a lawyer assigned to represent him or her for the purpose of cassation proceedings had not been directly addressed by the applicable law . It further noted that the notion of legal assistance could not be identified with a simple obligation of a lawyer to act in accordance with the client 's wishes . The role of a legal aid lawyer had rather to be understood as obliging him or her to provide legal advice to the party , including as to the prospects of success offered by a cassation appeal against a given judgment .

The constitutional role of ORG , the highest judicial authority , was also an argument in favour of a conclusion that a legal aid lawyer was not compelled by the will of the party to have a cassation appeal lodged if such an appeal was bound to fail . In case of a disagreement between the party and the lawyer , it was open to the party to complain to the local Bar under LAW . The Bar could then appoint a new lawyer who could lodge a cassation appeal , requesting at the same time to be granted leave to appeal out of time under LAW . It was true that the practice of ORG was not coherent in that in some cases it had been rejecting such requests and in other it accepted them . However , it did not prevent the parties from having recourse to this course of action .

Pursuant to LAW , a party to the proceedings may ask for retrospective leave to perform a procedural measure outside the prescribed time - limit ; this measure shall be performed simultaneously with lodging the request .

Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure reads , insofar as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . If a legal representative or a person authorised to receive court correspondence on behalf of a party has been appointed in a case , the court correspondence shall be served on these persons . ”

Pursuant to the case - law of ORG , if a party to civil proceedings is represented by a lawyer , the procedural time - limits set by LAW start to run on DATE of the service of judicial decisions on him or her ( III CRN CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; I ORG , CARDINAL ) .

ORG has adopted LAW in ORG .

Its Article CARDINAL provides that a lawyer must serve the interests of justice as well as those whose rights and liberties he or she is trusted to assert and defend and it is his or her duty not only to plead his or her client 's case but also to be his or her adviser .

A lawyer 's function therefore lays on him or her a variety of legal and moral obligations , sometimes appearing to be in conflict with each other , towards the client , the courts and other authorities before whom the lawyer pleads his or her client 's case or acts on his or her behalf ; the legal profession in general and each fellow member of it in particular ; the public for whom the existence of a free and independent profession , bound together by respect for rules made by the profession itself , is an essential means of safeguarding human rights in face of the power of the state and other interests in society .

DATE . Pursuant to Article CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the Code , a lawyer shall advise and represent his or her client promptly , conscientiously and diligently .

Under Article CARDINAL a lawyer shall not be entitled to exercise his or her right to withdraw from a case in such a way or in such circumstances that the client may be unable to find other legal assistance in time to prejudice being suffered by the client .

This recommendation , insofar as most relevant , reads :

“ CARDINAL . No litigant should be prevented from being assisted by a lawyer . The compulsory recourse of a party to the services of an unnecessary plurality of lawyers for the need of a particular case is to be avoided . Where , having regard to the nature of the matter involved , it would be desirable , in order to facilitate access to justice , for an individual to put his own case before the courts , then representation by a lawyer should not be compulsory . ”

The Recommendation , in its most relevant parts , provides :

“ Recalling that in addition to the right of access to the law and to justice provided for in LAW , the other provisions of the LAW and particularly Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE are equally applicable to the very poor , as are the other legal instruments of ORG such as LAW ;

Considering that this recommendation is intended to improve , especially with regard to the very poor , existing legal advice and legal aid systems , and therefore to complement existing machinery with regard to the other categories of people for which the systems were designed .

Recommends that the governments of member states :

ORG access to the law for the very poor ( “ the right to the protection of the law ” ) by :

b. promoting legal advice services for the very poor ;

Facilitate effective access to the courts for the very poor , especially by the following means :

c. recognising the right to be assisted by an appropriate counsel , as far as possible of one 's choice , who will receive adequate remuneration ;

e. simplifying the procedure for granting legal aid to the very poor , [ ... ] ”

The ORG provides , inter alia :

“ ORG , under the terms of Article CARDINAL.b of the Statue of the Council of Europe , [ ... ]

Underlining the fundamental role that lawyers and professional associations of lawyers also play in ensuring the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms ; [ ... ]

Considering that access to justice may require persons in an economically weak position to obtain the services of lawyers ,

Recommends the governments of member PERSON to take or reinforce , as the case may be , all measures they consider necessary with a view to the implementation of the principles contained in this Recommendation .

All necessary measures should be taken to respect , protect and promote the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer without discrimination and without improper interference from the authorities or the public , in particular in the light of the relevant provisions of LAW .

All necessary measures should be taken to ensure that all persons have effective access to legal services provided by independent lawyers ,

Lawyers should be encouraged to provide legal services to persons in an economically weak position .

Governments of member GPE should , where appropriate to ensure effective access to justice , ensure that effective legal services are available to persons in an economically weak position , in particular to persons deprived of their liberty .

Lawyers ' duties towards their clients should not be affected by the fact that fees are paid wholly or in part from the public funds . ”


CASE OF ŞENOL ULUSLARARASI NAKLİYAT, İHRACAT VE TİCARET LİMİTED ŞİRKETİ v. TURKEY

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant company is a NORP company specialising in international highway transportation .

On DATE at GPE port the NORP police discovered QUANTITY of heroin stashed in a lorry which had been hired by the applicant company for the purpose of transporting walnut logs from GPE to GPE . The driver of the vehicle escaped . As soon as they found out about the incident the applicant company informed ORG and submitted all the documents in their possession concerning the transportation .

On DATE the applicant company ’s licence for international highway transportation was extended until DATE .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) revoked the applicant company ’s licence pursuant to LAW , on account of the incident in GPE .

On DATE the applicant company brought an action before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and requested the annulment of the ORG ’s decision of DATE . It also requested ORG to grant an interim decision to suspend the execution of the ORG ’s decision .

The Ministry submitted written defence arguments , together with a number of supporting documents , to ORG on DATE . ORG forwarded the ORG ’s written defence arguments to the applicant company . The documents attached to the ORG ’s written defence arguments , however , were not forwarded to the applicant company but were placed in the case file of ORG .

On DATE the applicant company submitted observations in response to those of the Ministry . In their observations the lawyers for the applicant company referred to a number of documents which had been appended to the ORG ’s written defence arguments of CARDINAL DATE but which had not been communicated to them .

NORP The applicant company ’s request for the interim measure was refused by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the case . In the proceedings the applicant company had submitted that the drug trafficking had been carried out by the driver of the hired vehicle and that the company could not , therefore , be held responsible for the driver ’s actions . In its decision ORG held , inter alia , that since the impugned transportation had been undertaken by the applicant company under its licence , it was responsible for the transportation and therefore the ORG had acted lawfully when revoking the licence .

An appeal lodged by the applicant company on CARDINAL DATE was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant company ’s request of DATE for a rectification of the decision . That decision was served on the applicant company on DATE .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and before his arrest lived in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

NORP On DATE the applicant was apprehended by police on suspicion of having committed several violent crimes . On the same date he was placed in pre - trial detention by order of the prosecutor .

During the early stages of the proceedings , the applicant lodged several complaints with the prosecutor concerning ill - treatment by the investigators . His complaints were dismissed as illfounded or vexatious . In particular the prosecutor considered that the evidence in the file did not support the applicant ’s claims . The applicant was informed about the prosecutor ’s decisions in letters of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE .

The proceedings were held before ORG . The applicant was represented at all hearings by a court - appointed lawyer . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to PERCENT imprisonment for crimes of aggravated murder , attempted aggravated murder , causing bodily harm , and trespassing .

The judge who delivered the judgment had not heard the applicant and the witnesses at a previous hearing .

Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment . The applicant complained of breaches of his procedural rights by the firstinstance court and about the outcome of the proceedings .

The prosecutor contested the court ’s legal classification of some of the crimes .

ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and decided to re - examine the case on the merits . It did not hear new evidence from the applicant or witnesses .

In a decision of DATE it changed the legal classification of the crimes committed by the applicant . The sentence remained unchanged . The court further dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded without giving any reasons .

Both the applicant and the prosecutor submitted appeals on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . The applicant pleaded his innocence and requested a less severe sentence .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the previous decision . It dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as it considered that the sentence handed down had been appropriate , taking into account his previous criminal activity and his inferior intellect .

The applicant has been incarcerated continuously from CARDINAL DATE , initially in pre - trail detention and subsequently while serving his sentence . He is currently held in FAC .

During his detention , the applicant has been transferred CARDINAL times between the prisons in GPE , GPE , PERSON and GPE . The Government submitted a detailed prison record describing the conditions of the applicant ’s detention to date .

The applicant has been reprimanded on several occasions for breaches of the prison rules ( making or retaining prohibited objects or substances , maintaining an illegal alcohol processing device in the cell , insulting magistrates dealing with his case , violence towards prison personnel or inmates , and destroying prison property ) . The applicant exercised his right to appeal against the reprimands and his complaints were examined on the merits and rejected by the courts or the prosecutor .

NORP The applicant was recorded as “ clinically healthy ” in the prison medical chart drafted upon his arrest .

On DATE he was admitted to ORG for a psychiatric examination . He was diagnosed with a personality disorder and exhibiting antisocial behaviour .

According to the prison medical record , the applicant was admitted on several occasions to prison hospitals , underwent expert examinations , was taken regularly for medical check - ups and received treatment . He was diagnosed with arterial hypertension , gallbladder dyskinesia , a duodenal ulcer and a fungal infection of the nail , type CARDINAL obesity , an old fracture of the collarbone , superior brachial plexus paresis , a urinary infection , and respiratory diseases . According to the prison medical chart , he received treatment for his conditions .

It also appears that on several occasions in DATE the applicant refused to be examined by the prison doctors .

The applicant alleges that his health problems were caused and subsequently aggravated by inhuman detention conditions and lack of adequate medical treatment at the ORG , PERSON and GPE prisons . In DATE and DATE the applicant filed numerous complaints in that connection , with ORG and other authorities . On DATE and DATE ORG replied that , according to his prison medical file , the applicant was receiving adequate medical treatment and therefore his complaints were not supported by evidence .

In DATE the applicant also filed a criminal complaint for illtreatment and abuse against GPE and GPE , doctors at FAC . On DATE ORG of ORG rejected the complaint on the ground that there was no evidence of a crime . It appears from the file that the applicant did not appeal against that decision .

The applicant repeatedly got into fights with other inmates or the prison personnel . Each such incident was reported and investigated and the applicant was taken to the prison infirmary and to prison or civilian hospitals for further examinations and/or treatment . Expert reports were drafted concerning any injuries suffered and DATE needed for recovery . On at least on CARDINAL occasion the prison doctors informed the authorities of such an incident .

The applicant also complained once under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the execution of sentences ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) that he had been the victim of an attack by inmates and guards and the prison doctors had refused to give him medical assistance .

On DATE the judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed that complaint . He found that the applicant had been taken to the infirmary and given assistance and from there had been taken to a civilian hospital for further tests . The prison infirmary had subsequently given him the treatment prescribed by the civilian doctors . Furthermore , the prison doctors had informed the applicant that he could request a further medical examination in a civilian hospital .

On several occasions the applicant requested envelopes and stamps to send letters , as well as photocopies of documents from his prison file . In most of the cases his requests were met by the prison authorities . When such requests were refused , the applicant filed complaints with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences and with the courts under PERSON no . CARDINAL .

His actions were examined on the merits and dismissed , with the exception of a complaint that an envelope addressed to him had been opened by the director of ORG , which led a to a decision of DATE acknowledging a violation of his right to correspondence .

On DATE , while he was incarcerated in FAC , the applicant submitted a formal request to be given an envelope in order to send documents asked for by the ORG . He alleged that this request had been denied with no reasons being given .

The domestic legislation on the execution of sentences , in particular PERSON no . TIME , Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL ( “ Ordinance no . CARDINAL ” ) , and PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the execution of sentences , is described in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .