CASE OF SHAMAYEV AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

Government's preliminary objections dismissed;No violation of Art. 2 as regards one applicant;No violation of Art. 3 by Georgia as regards 5 extradited applicants;Incompatibility ratione personae of the complaints under Art. 2 and 3 concerning the extradition of 5 applicants to Russia;Not necessary to examine Art. 2 and 3 regarding the extradition of 2 applicants to Russia;Violation of Art. 3 in the event of the extradition of one applicant;No violation of Art. 2 by Georgia as regards 5 extradited applicants;Violation of Art. 3 by Georgia as regards the treatment inflicted on 11 applicants;No violation of Art. 5-1 as regards detention in Georgia;Violation of Art. 5-2 by Georgia as regards all the applicants;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3;Violation of Art. 5-4 by Georgia as regards all the applicants;Violation of Art. 13+2 and 13+3 by Georgia as regards 5 applicants;Not necessary to examine complaint of one applicant under Art. 2-1 and P4-4;Failure by Georgia to discharge its obligations under Art. 34 as regards 4 applicants;Failure by Russia to discharge its obligations under Art. 34 as regards 7 applicants;Failure by Russia to discharge its obligation to furnish necessary facilities under Art. 38;No jurisdiction to examine certain complaints;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings;Reimbursement of costs incurred before the Court

The applicants , Mr PERSON - Vakhab Shamayev , Mr GPE ( or PERSON ) PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON ( or PERSON ) PERSON ( or PERSON ) , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , ORG , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON alias PERSON alias PERSON and PERSON ( or PERSON ) PERSON alias PERSON ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , are CARDINAL NORP and NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL ... , DATE , DATE ( or DATE ) and DATE respectively .

As to the non - extradited applicants , PERSON has been free since his acquittal on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; PERSON was released following a judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr Kushtanashvili were released on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The identity of those CARDINAL applicants has been established by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . After disappearing in GPE on CARDINAL or DATE , PERSON and Mr PERSON were arrested by the NORP authorities on DATE . They are apparently detained at present in the ORG pre - trial detention centre ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Having been unable to hear them in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . above ) , the ORG will refer to them by the surnames communicated by their representatives when lodging the application .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and established by ORG during its fact - finding visit to GPE , may be summarised as follows .

DATE the applicants crossed the NORP border near the PERSON checkpoint ( GPE ) . Some of them were injured and were carrying sub - machine guns and grenades . Having asked the NORP border guards for help , they apparently handed over their weapons voluntarily . An identity check was carried out . As a result , the names of the individuals claiming to be ORG , GPE ( or PERSON ) PERSON , PERSON , ORG ( or PERSON ) PERSON ( or PERSON ) , PERSON ( or ORG , PERSON ) , PERSON , ORG ( PERSON ) PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( or PERSON ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON ( or PERSON ) PERSON ( or PERSON ) and PERSON were recorded . Only the first CARDINAL applicants would appear to have been in possession of NORP passports .

The applicants were immediately transferred by helicopter to GPE ; they were initially placed in a civilian hospital , where those who were injured were operated on . On DATE Mr PERSON ( PERSON ) , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON ( NORP ) , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and PERSON ( PERSON ) were charged with importing weapons in breach of the customs regulations ( LAW ) , illegally carrying , handling and transporting weapons ( LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code ) and crossing the border illegally ( LAW ) . On DATE , further to an application by ORG investigating body , the Vake - Saburtalo Court of First Instance , in GPE , ordered that they be placed in pre - trial detention for DATE . According to the orders of CARDINAL and DATE , Mr ORG was arrested on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL other applicants on DATE .

On DATE , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( ORG ) , PERSON ( PERSON ) and Mr PERSON were placed under investigation on the same charges . On DATE the ORG of First Instance ordered that they be placed in pre - trial detention for DATE . It appears from those orders that PERSON ( ORG ) and PERSON ( PERSON ) were arrested on DATE , Mr PERSON on DATE and the CARDINAL other applicants on DATE .

On the basis of those orders , on CARDINAL and DATE the applicants were transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL , with the exception of Mr PERSON , who was placed in the central prison infirmary . On an unspecified later date Mr PERSON was also hospitalised ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the detention orders , all the applicants have NORP nationality .

On DATE the pre - trial detention orders in respect of Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were extended for DATE by ORG . On DATE the same court also extended by DATE the pre - trial detention orders in respect of PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr Magomadov and Mr PERSON .

On DATE Mr PERSON , Procurator - General of GPE , travelled to GPE and met his NORP counterpart . He handed over the extradition request for the applicants . As the latter had been placed under investigation in GPE and the documents submitted in support of the extradition request were considered inadequate in the light of NORP legislation and international law , Mr PERSON , the NORP Procurator - General , declined verbally to extradite the applicants ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) . At the same meeting the NORP Procurator - ORG asked its NORP counterpart to submit the relevant documents in support of the extradition request , together with assurances as to the treatment the applicants would receive in the event of extradition and confirmation that their rights would be respected .

It appears from the file that the NORP Procurator - General transmitted those demands on the same date in writing . He informed his NORP counterpart that on DATE criminal proceedings had been instituted in GPE against all of the applicants , that CARDINAL were being held in pre - trial detention and that the CARDINAL others would soon be brought before a court for a ruling on their detention . He noted that the extradition request did not contain information on the identity , nationality and home addresses of the persons concerned or documents or the statutory provisions concerning the offences with which they were charged in GPE or duly certified detention orders . The NORP Procurator - General concluded that , in view of those circumstances , “ he [ was ] unable to examine the extradition request in respect of those individuals ” .

On DATE and DATE the NORP authorities sent their NORP counterparts the required documents , namely :

( i ) the investigation orders in respect of each of the applicants , issued by the decentralised service of the federal Procurator - General 's Office in GPE , dated DATE ;

( ii ) the international search warrant in respect of the applicants , issued by the NORP authorities on DATE ;

( iii ) certified copies of the provisional detention orders in respect of each of the applicants , issued on DATE under LAW by ORG ( PERSON ) on an application by the investigator responsible for the case ;

( iv ) extracts from the case file of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in GPE , setting out the charges against them ;

( v ) photographs ;

( vi ) copies of passports , with photographs ;

( vii ) copies of Form no . CARDINAL ;

( viii ) other information on the applicants ' nationality and identity .

ORG submitted to the ORG only copies of the documents listed under items ( i ) , ( ii ) and ( iii ) . The documents listed in item ( iv ) had apparently been classified as “ confidential ” by the NORP authorities in the interest of the proper administration of justice .

According to the orders of CARDINAL DATE , which were submitted to ORG by ORG , the applicants were under investigation in GPE for causing bodily harm to employees of the police and security forces ( a crime punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty – see LAW , paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; organising illegal armed groups and participation in such groups , with aggravating circumstances ( punishable by a sentence of DATE imprisonment under LAW of LAW ) ; gunrunning with aggravating circumstances ( punishable by DATE imprisonment under LAW of LAW ) ; and illegal crossing of GPE border in DATE , with aggravating circumstances ( punishable by DATE imprisonment under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ) . ( The same documents , submitted by ORG , are dated DATE with regard to Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . )

As LAW prohibits the extradition of an individual to a country in which the crime with which he or she is charged is punishable by the death penalty ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the NORP Procurator - ORG asked the NORP authorities to guarantee that that penalty would not be imposed on the applicants .

DATE . In his letter of CARDINAL DATE , Mr PERSON , NORP Acting Procurator - General , informed his NORP counterpart that an investigation had been opened in GPE after an attack on NORP army units by illegal armed groups in a border area on DATE . Having learned that CARDINAL individuals who illegally crossed the border shortly after this attack had been arrested in GPE , and having questioned CARDINAL witnesses , the NORP authorities had placed those individuals under investigation . Given that the individuals concerned had been armed when they crossed the border , and having regard to other evidence , the NORP authorities believed that they were the perpetrators of the above attack . Mr PERSON pointed out that the NORP authorities had stated that they would be prepared to extradite the applicants if the NORP side submitted the necessary documents . Since all of those documents had been handed over on DATE , the NORP authorities repeated their request for extradition of the individuals concerned on the basis of LAW , concluded under the auspices of ORG ( CIS – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON provided assurances that , given the moratorium on the death penalty in force in GPE since DATE , the individuals concerned would not be sentenced to death . At the same time , he asked that the case file in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in GPE be sent to the NORP authorities , who would take responsibility for the subsequent proceedings .

On DATE Mr PERSON , NORP Deputy Procurator - General , informed the NORP authorities that a moratorium on the death penalty was in force in GPE and that , pursuant to a judgment of ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , no one could be sentenced to death by any court in a subject of ORG .

On DATE the charges against the applicants in GPE were redefined and extended . The applicants were also placed under investigation for terrorism . The texts of the relevant orders , issued separately in respect of each applicant , are identical , as were those of QUANTITY DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In his letter of DATE , PERSON informed his NORP counterpart that the applicants had also been placed under investigation for terrorism and banditry with aggravating circumstances , crimes which were punishable by DATE imprisonment ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . He gave assurances that the NORP ORG Office “ [ promised ] the NORP authorities that , in accordance with the rules of international law , these individuals [ would enjoy ] all the defence rights provided by law , including the right to assistance by a lawyer , [ and would ] not be subjected to torture or to treatment or punishment that was cruel , inhuman or contrary to human dignity ” . In addition , he pointed out that “ since DATE , a moratorium on the death penalty [ had ] been in force and that , consequently , the individuals who were to be extradited [ would ] not risk being sentenced to death ” . As in the letter of CARDINAL DATE , the CARDINAL applicants are cited by name , without exception .

After examining the documents submitted by the NORP authorities , information from ORG and evidence gathered at the time of arrest , the NORP Procurator - ORG identified , firstly , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( the names are spelt as they were written in the extradition orders ) . In view of the seriousness of the charges brought against them in GPE , the NORP Deputy Procurator - General signed the extradition orders on DATE . On DATE Mr PERSON , Director of ORG at ORG , wrote to ORG at ORG in order to organise the execution of the orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The CARDINAL applicants were due to be transferred from prison to the airport at TIME on DATE .

NORP However , on TIME of DATE , PERSON , a lawyer for several of the applicants before the domestic courts , appeared on television claiming that he had obtained alarming information from a confidential source to the effect that the extradition of certain applicants was imminent ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The following morning the applicants ' lawyers , relatives and friends , and representatives of the NORP minority in GPE , blocked off the area around the prison and held a demonstration .

At TIME on DATE the CARDINAL applicants were handed over to representatives of ORG ( ORG ) inside the perimeter of FAC . The applicants ' representatives have submitted footage of certain scenes of the extradition , broadcast on the LOC channel on TIME of DATE . CARDINAL individuals are seen being hauled onto an aeroplane by NORP special troops , who yank the prisoners ' chins up in a harsh manner for the cameras . Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON are identifiable from the photographs in the ORG 's possession ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Mr ORG is not seen at any point . PERSON has an injury to the neck and red marks around his jaw . Mr PERSON is injured in the left eye . However , it is impossible to assess the extent of their injuries from the recording , which also shows the applicants ' arrival in GPE . The extradited men , wearing blindfolds , are shown being removed from the plane by uniformed masked men , one on each side of the prisoners , who are being held bent double with their arms crossed behind their backs and their heads pointing downwards .

The recording ends with the following words , spoken by a NORP journalist : “ ... Unless the NORP authorities provide rapid proof that they have not handed over innocent unidentified individuals to GPE , it will be quite obvious that this extradition is a gift to PERSON on the eve of the Summit of the member PERSON [ of ORG ] ” ( held in PERSON on DATE ) .

DATE . On DATE Mr PERSON informed ORG at the ORG that the NORP authorities had provided their NORP counterparts with all the necessary guarantees concerning the applicants ' treatment in the event of extradition . In his words , “ CARDINAL of the CARDINAL NORP terrorists having been handed over , the NORP side [ was ] unnecessarily delaying the extradition of the others , on the sole ground that their identity had to be established ” .

In his letter of DATE , the NORP Deputy Procurator - General thanked the NORP authorities “ for granting the request to extradite CARDINAL terrorists ” . He claimed that the applicants had been examined by doctors on their arrival in GPE , “ their health [ had been ] found to be satisfactory ” , lawyers had been “ assigned ” , the investigation was being conducted “ in strict conformity with the requirements of the legislation on NORP criminal procedure ” and that “ documents [ existed ] proving that they [ had ] NORP nationality ” . He repeated the assurance , “ provided to the NORP authorities on numerous occasions ” , that , “ in accordance with the requirements of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention and of Protocol No . CARDINAL , these persons [ would ] not be sentenced to the death penalty and [ would ] not be subjected to torture or to inhuman , cruel or degrading treatment ” . Furthermore , measures to identify the non - extradited applicants from photographs had made it possible to identify them as the perpetrators of the attack against the NORP army on DATE in the GPE district ( GPE ) . Promising that “ other comprehensive identification procedures [ would be ] conducted after their extradition ” , the NORP Deputy Procurator - General repeated the request for extradition of the applicants still held in GPE , in accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Minsk Convention .

On DATE the NORP ORG again sent the NORP authorities the judicial investigation orders in respect of Mr PERSON ( named as PERSON ) , PERSON and PERSON , and sought their extradition . ( The lawyers point out that by this date the CARDINAL individuals in question had already denied that those surnames , originally given to the NORP authorities , were theirs . )

In his reply of DATE , the NORP Procurator - General indicated that the names which appeared in the provisional detention orders issued by the NORP court against the CARDINAL applicants held in GPE were not their real surnames and that the applicants had to be identified before their extradition could be agreed . He explained that “ in contrast to the names of the CARDINAL individuals extradited on DATE ” , there were “ serious doubts ” as to the names of the CARDINAL prisoners wanted by the NORP authorities and that the seventh and eighth prisoners referred to by the surnames PERSON and PERSON were in fact named PERSON and PERSON . They had been born in GPE , not GPE . The Procurator - General regretted that “ the NORP authorities [ were ] insisting on the extradition of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , when they knew full well that PERSON was not PERSON and PERSON was not PERSON ” . In his opinion , this also raised doubts concerning the veracity of the information provided by the NORP authorities with regard to the CARDINAL other applicants .

On DATE Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON contacted the President of GPE and the Speaker of the NORP parliament . They asked not to be extradited to GPE , claiming that they were “ absolutely certain that they would be subjected to torture and to inhuman treatment by the NORP military and other authorities , and that they would be shot without being brought before any court ” .

In a statement of DATE ORG of the “ GPE of GPE ” declared that on DATE Mr PERSON , an extradited applicant , had died as a result of the ill - treatment inflicted on him . On DATE ORG informed the ORG that this information was false and claimed that all the extradited applicants , including PERSON , were safe and sound , were in good health and were being held in good conditions in a GPE in the GPE region . On DATE the ORG asked ORG to send it the exact address of this establishment so that it could correspond with the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicants ' representatives have misgivings about the credibility of ORG response . They refer to a certain PERSON , an individual of NORP origin who was detained at ORG until DATE , who subsequently seemed to have disappeared . According to the NORP authorities , he was released . According to Mr PERSON 's mother , who went to meet him on DATE he was due to be released , her son did not leave the prison . The lawyers believe that he could have been “ informally ” handed over to the NORP authorities in order to “ replace ” the deceased applicant . They drew the ORG 's attention to the ill - treatment allegedly inflicted on PERSON prior to his extradition ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , having concluded that Mr PERSON , PERSON ORG and PERSON were named PERSON , PERSON and Elikhadjiev PERSON respectively and that they were NORP citizens , the NORP Procurator - ORG agreed to their extradition to GPE . The extradition order expressly stated that it was to be served on the applicants and that it was to be explained to them that an appeal lay before the courts .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( GPE ) . Their lawyers pointed out that the extradition request had not been drawn up using their clients ' real names and that it included photographs of them taken by the NORP authorities during their detention in FAC no . CARDINAL . They complained that the detention orders in respect of their clients , issued on DATE by ORG ( ORG ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , contained no reference to a maximum length of detention and that the applicants ' defence rights had been totally breached in the proceedings which had resulted in those orders . In view of these shortcomings , they sought a refusal of the impugned extradition request . Further , basing their argument on GPE 's failure to ratify Protocol No . CARDINAL to ORG , they concluded that the NORP assurances were scarcely sufficient for the purposes of LAW . They considered that , in order to be satisfactory , these assurances ought to have come from the President of GPE .

On DATE this appeal was dismissed . On DATE ORG overturned that decision and remitted the case .

On DATE the court to which the case had been remitted held that the extradition of PERSON and PERSON was legal . For the first time , it was stated before that court that on DATE and DATE ( DATE according to ORG – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had been granted refugee status in NORP territory . The Acting Minister for Refugees stated before the court that that status had been granted under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Having established that Mr PERSON had never been deprived of his refugee status in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law , the court concluded that it was impossible to extradite him to GPE . With regard to PERSON , the court noted that , by a decision of DATE , ORG had withdrawn his refugee status , on the basis of a letter from ORG dated DATE and a report from ORG .

Basing its decision on an expert report and on explanations provided by the representatives of ORG , the court ruled that it was established that the extradition request from the NORP authorities had been accompanied by photographs of the applicants taken on DATE by the NORP authorities , while those individuals were imprisoned in FAC no . CARDINAL . According to the court , communication of the photographs to the NORP authorities had been justified since it had been necessary in order to identify the persons concerned .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision in so far as it concerned the impossibility of extraditing PERSON . It ordered that Mr PERSON 's extradition be suspended pending completion of the administrative proceedings instigated by him against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to withdraw his refugee status . As to PERSON , ORG noted that his photograph , taken by the NORP authorities , had been sent to the NORP authorities for the purpose of identifying him , but that this had been unsuccessful . Furthermore , the defence submitted a copy of a NORP passport indicating that PERSON was not in fact named either PERSON or PERSON , but PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . At the request of the NORP Procurator - ORG , the NORP authorities had apparently checked the authenticity of this copy and had replied on DATE that such a passport had never been issued . Given those circumstances , ORG considered that PERSON identity had not been established and decided to suspend his extradition ; it sent this part of the case back to PERSON Office for further investigation .

Mr PERSON and Mr Magomadov were tried by ORG for illegally crossing the border and were acquitted on DATE on the ground that there was no corpus delicti in their actions . In particular , it was established that both of the applicants had been injured and had been obliged to cross the NORP border in circumstances of “ dire necessity ” in which they were obliged to evade a confrontation with the NORP armed forces and the siege in which they had been trapped since DATE . ORG found that they had been forced to commit the offence because they had no other option and that “ they had naturally considered that what was transgressed [ national security , the border , etc . ] was less important than what was preserved , namely their own lives ” . It was noted that the investigating authorities had not questioned the border guards involved and had prosecuted the CARDINAL applicants solely on the basis of their own statements . ORG had examined the border guards , who had stated that , at the point where the applicants had crossed into GPE , the border was not marked , even by a flag , and that as such it was unidentifiable and delimited in an approximate manner by the CARDINAL GPE concerned . They confirmed that , at the material time , the areas adjoining the border , and the border itself , were being shelled by the NORP army and that the applicants had offered no resistance whatsoever in handing over their weapons and had requested asylum in GPE .

This judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE ; however , PERSON and Mr Magomadov could not be released , since they had been placed in pre - trial detention on DATE in connection with the criminal case arising from acts of violence against ORG employees during TIME ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .

On DATE , on the same grounds as in the case of Mr PERSON and Mr Magomadov , ORG acquitted Mr PERSON of illegally crossing the border . In particular , it established that Mr PERSON had CARDINAL gunshot wounds on his left forearm when he entered GPE . He had met PERSON and PERSON , who were also escaping from NORP shelling , in the forest . All CARDINAL had sought refuge in the cabin of a NORP shepherd named PERSON . Another group of NORP had also taken shelter there . Having learned from the shepherd that they were already in NORP territory , the escapees had sent their host to request help from the NORP border guards . They had voluntarily handed over their weapons and requested asylum in GPE . Those elements had been confirmed to ORG by the border guards in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The court also established that Mr PERSON 's arrest had been brought to the attention of the NORP authorities by ORG . After his arrest , Mr PERSON had corrected the name of his father CARDINAL times before it was finally ascertained that he was the son of a certain PERSON . In line with those changes , the NORP authorities had also amended the documents supporting their extradition request in respect of this applicant . The court considered that “ the documents submitted by the NORP prosecution service and included in the case file seemed to have been drawn up in a contrived manner with a view to securing the extradition of the individual concerned ” . They did not suggest that this individual “ had been known to the NORP law - enforcement agencies ... prior to his arrest in GPE ” .

The acquittal was upheld on appeal on DATE . However , Mr PERSON could not be released because he had been placed under investigation in the criminal proceedings arising from acts of violence against ORG employees ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .

On DATE Mr PERSON and PERSON , NORP citizens , were acquitted on charges of carrying , handling and transporting weapons illegally . The other aspect of the case ( illegally crossing the border and infringing customs regulations ) was remitted for additional investigation . Their pre - trial detention was commuted to judicial supervision and they were immediately released . On DATE Mr PERSON was rearrested in the light of the decision of CARDINAL DATE ordering that he be placed in pre - trial detention in connection with the case concerning acts of violence against ORG employees ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .

On DATE Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON PERSON were also acquitted by ORG of crossing the border illegally . On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case for further consideration .

At TIME on DATE , in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON PERSON , investigator , drew up a damage assessment report of cell no . CARDINAL , where CARDINAL applicants had been detained before being removed TIME previously ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Damage was observed : in particular , the furniture had been taken apart and the walls had been damaged . On DATE proceedings were instituted . On DATE PERSON Office submitted a number of objects for analysis , with a view to determining whether they had been part of the furnishings in cell no . DATE . The expert report , dated DATE , identified the following objects : stick - shaped pieces of metal and metal discs , removed by hand from the window - bars and the bunk beds in cell no . CARDINAL ; the foot of the cell ventilator ; pieces of brick removed from the cell walls and placed inside a pair of jeans , the legs of which had been knotted ; a sharpened spoon embedded in a plastic cigarette lighter to make a knife ; a soup spoon , sharpened along CARDINAL side ; and other objects which had been part of the cell and its furnishings .

On DATE and DATE and DATE the non - extradited applicants , with the exception of PERSON , were charged with premeditated resistance by a group of prisoners involving the use of force against ORG employees , and with refusing to obey lawful orders from prison warders with the intention of prejudicing the proper functioning of the prison . On DATE and DATE the indictments , together with translations into NORP , were served on the applicants .

On CARDINAL May CARDINAL Mr PERSON , Mr Magomadov , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were convicted at first instance and were each sentenced to DATE imprisonment . According to the judgment , the prisoners in cell no . CARDINAL had seen on television that “ certain NORP ” were to be extradited but , not knowing which of them were affected by that measure , they had opposed the prison wardens who tried to remove them from the cell . They were armed with metal objects which had been removed from the bed - frames and plumbing and with projectiles made from pieces of brick wrapped in sheets and clothing . They had caused injury to prison wardens and members of the special forces . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . On DATE , ruling on an appeal on points of law by the applicants , ORG quashed the appeal judgment and sentenced the applicants to DATE and DATE imprisonment . The period spent in detention since their arrest was counted as part of this sentence . Mr PERSON was released on CARDINAL DATE , PERSON and Mr PERSON on DATE and PERSON PERSON on DATE .

On DATE , in the same case , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were convicted at first instance and given a DATE prison sentence . As the length of time spent in pre - trial detention was deducted from this sentence , those CARDINAL individuals were released immediately . On DATE ORG overturned that judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

Following their release on DATE , PERSON and PERSON PERSON moved in with a relative in GPE ; they were joined by PERSON . On DATE they left the house for an appointment at ORG , but disappeared before ever arriving there . On DATE the NORP media , citing a NORP agency report , announced that the missing men were being held in a NORP prison in the town of ORG , on suspicion of having crossed the NORP border illegally . On DATE PERSON informed ORG and stated that she was anxious about the health of PERSON , who apparently needed an operation on his jaw . She explained that , following their release , the CARDINAL applicants had not left their residence unless accompanied by their representatives . As the latter had assured them that they had nothing to fear in GPE , PERSON and Mr PERSON had dared to venture out alone for the first time on DATE in question .

On DATE ORG claimed that an investigation by ORG had ascertained that the CARDINAL applicants had disappeared on DATE at TIME They had subsequently been arrested by the NORP authorities near the village of GPE ) for crossing the border illegally . On DATE the NORP Government alleged that the CARDINAL applicants had been arrested in GPE on DATE by ORG on the ground that they were on the list of wanted persons . At the time of his arrest , PERSON had been carrying a false passport in the name of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , under the names of PERSON and PERSON , had been placed under investigation and imprisoned in FAC , pursuant to a decision by ORG ( PERSON ) . Transferred on DATE to a GPE in town A , they had been returned to ORG on DATE for the purposes of the investigation .

On DATE ORG submitted photographs of these applicants , of their cells and of the GPE in town A ( shower room , medical unit and kitchen ) . PERSON and Mr PERSON were apparently detained separately ; each was held in a cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m , equipped with a window , toilet facilities and a radio connection . The cells contained CARDINAL prisoners , the number they had been designed for . According to PERSON “ prisoner card ” , he had been placed under strict surveillance . The applicants had never complained about their conditions of detention . The photographs showed them face on and from the side , and had been taken in CARDINAL different rooms which did not appear to be the same as the cells shown in the above - mentioned photographs .

According to medical certificates dated DATE , Mr PERSON was in good health and had no recent injuries . Mr PERSON was suffering from a broken lower jaw , complicated by osteomyelitis . In DATE he had received a shrapnel injury to the chin and had had an operation on his jaw in DATE . He had broken the same bone again in DATE . On DATE he had undergone an X - ray examination in GPE and on DATE he had been examined by a stomatologist , who recommended in - patient surgical treatment .

ORG . Mr PERSON was heard by the ORG in GPE and spoke of his distress caused by the disappearance of his CARDINAL companions . He speculated that they may have been secretly extradited in exchange for certain political concessions obtained by the NORP President during his first official visit to GPE after his election in DATE .

It appears from documents submitted by ORG on DATE that on DATE the GPE procurator 's office opened an investigation into the kidnapping of PERSON and PERSON PERSON . ORG offered no explanation on this subject .

On DATE and DATE PERSON submitted copies of the judgments delivered by ORG on DATE and DATE respectively in the cases of Mr PERSON ( Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON ) and PERSON ( Mr PERSON ) . She claimed to have obtained them with the help of individuals close to the applicants . In the judgments PERSON is referred to as Elikhadjiev PERSON and Mr PERSON as PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first was cited as having been born in DATE in ORG and the second in DATE in the village of ORG in GPE . During the trial PERSON alleged that he had been arrested on DATE , not at the NORP border , but on GPE 's FAC . He had then been transferred to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

According to the judgments , PERSON and Mr PERSON were part of an armed group formed in LOC ( GPE ) by a certain PERSON for the purpose of exterminating members of the federal armed forces in GPE and local residents who cooperated with those troops . In DATE they had allegedly crossed illegally into the PERSON region in GPE , with CARDINAL members of the armed group in question . On DATE , surrounded by NORP border guards , the group had opened fire and attacked the guards . CARDINAL NORP soldiers had been killed and several others injured . Given the lack of evidence of their direct participation in that attack , PERSON and Mr PERSON were acquitted on the charge of terrorism and of the offences set out in LAW and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . They were also acquitted of the offences listed in LAW and LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the ground that there was no corpus delicti in their actions . PERSON and Mr PERSON were convicted of participation in an illegal armed group , crossing the border illegally and of carrying , transporting and handling weapons illegally ; they were sentenced to DATE and DATE imprisonment respectively , to be served in a closed prison . PERSON was also convicted of using a false passport in the name of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In imposing those sentences , ORG stated that it took account of the applicants ' ages and the fact that they had no criminal record . Mr PERSON 's health ( serious deformation of the lower jaw ) was also taken into consideration . An appeal to ORG of GPE lay against those judgments .

According to ORG , Mr GPE , Mr ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were brought before ORG for trial “ in DATE ” . Mr PERSON was allegedly brought before the same court on DATE . On DATE ORG informed the ORG orally in GPE that , on DATE , ORG had delivered judgment against the first CARDINAL applicants . The prosecution had called for sentences of DATE imprisonment for Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON and DATE imprisonment for Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . The court had sentenced Mr GPE and Mr PERSON to DATE and DATE imprisonment respectively , to be served in an ordinary prison , and had sentenced Mr PERSON to DATE imprisonment in a closed prison and PERSON PERSON to DATE and DATE imprisonment in an ordinary prison . Mr PERSON had been released immediately because he had already been in detention for this length of time . Mr PERSON had requested the assistance of an interpreter and submitted a number of procedural requests , with the result that his case had been severed from that of the others and the investigation in his regard was still ongoing .

ORG submitted that they were unable to provide the ORG with a copy of the judgment of DATE . They claimed that , under LAW adopted by ORG in accordance with ORG recommendations , only the convicted person could obtain a copy of the judgment concerning his or her case . The Government expressed their willingness to cooperate with the ORG , but regretted that , on this occasion , such cooperation was impossible on account of ORG recommendations . They advised the ORG that if it wished to obtain the document in question it should write to the NORP court concerned . The ORG learned from a letter of DATE from ORG that an appeal had been lodged against the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In their submissions of DATE , the ORG gave the ORG to understand that the appeal court had quashed the judgment in question in its entirety ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG submitted to the ORG in GPE photographs of the GPE in town B and of the CARDINAL extradited applicants ' cells , taken on DATE ( Mr PERSON , the fifth applicant , had been released on DATE ) . These photographs show a spacious and well - equipped kitchen and laundry and a shower room . The applicants ' cells are large and well lit , and each has a large window . They contain long tables and benches . The toilets are open , but separated by a low wall from the rest of the room . There are sinks with soap and toothpaste , brooms and water tanks in each cell , and heating pipes under the windows . Radio sets can be seen in certain cells . The package from the ORG also contained a video cassette . This recording shows the CARDINAL cells as described above . On the basis of the photographs of the applicants in the ORG 's possession ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it is possible to identify Mr Shamayev in cell no . CARDINAL and to recognise PERSON in cell no . CARDINAL . On the other hand , it is very difficult , if not impossible , to spot Mr PERSON in cell no . CARDINAL , given the backlighting and the absence of any close - ups . According to the off - camera voice commenting on the pictures , PERSON had refused to be filmed . Nonetheless , a recording was made of his cell ( no . DATE ) in which the prisoners ' faces can not be made out but their silhouettes can be seen from a distance . In each cell the number of beds is equal to or greater than the number of prisoners present during the filming .

Mr Khamzad(t ) PERSON ( PERSON ) , alias PERSON ORG , stated that his real name was GPE Movlievich PERSON , that he was of NORP origin and that he had been born on DATE in the village of Samachki , in GPE .

Mr GPE ( GPE ) PERSON stated that he was called PERSON , that he was a NORP citizen who belonged to the ORG ethnic group and that he had been born in the village of PERSON , in the GPE region of GPE .

Mr PERSON stated that his real name was PERSON , that he was a NORP national of NORP origin , and that he had been born on DATE in the village of PERSON , in GPE .

Mr Adlan ( PERSON ) PERSON stated that he was in fact named PERSON , that he had been born on DATE in GPE in GPE , and that he was of NORP origin .

Mr PERSON stated that his real name was PERSON , that he was of NORP origin and that he had been born on DATE .

Mr PERSON stated that he was in fact PERSON , son of Parola , that he was a NORP citizen of PERSON origin , and that he had been born on DATE in the village of GPE , in the GPE region of GPE .

With the exception of PERSON , who was detained in the prison infirmary ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , those applicants confirmed that they had known the extradited applicants in prison and had been held with them in the same cell . The photographs of the applicants , submitted by ORG DATE , were shown to them for identification . The names on the photographs had previously been covered over by ORG .

Each of the applicants ( except for PERSON ) recognised himself in the relevant photograph submitted by ORG . Mr PERSON ( formerly PERSON ) was identified by the other applicants as Ruslan ( CARDINAL times ) and PERSON ( once ) .

With regard to the CARDINAL missing applicants , namely , PERSON ( PERSON ) PERSON alias PERSON , and Mr PERSON alias PERSON alias PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the first was identified as PERSON ( once ) , PERSON ( once ) , PERSON ( twice ) and PERSON ( once ) . The second was named as ORG ( twice ) , PERSON ( twice ) , PERSON ( once ) and PERSON ( once ) .

With regard to the extradited applicants , CARDINAL applicants identified PERSON and CARDINAL applicant identified PERSON - Vakhab Shamayev in the photograph submitted by ORG as that of Mr PERSON - Vakhab Shamayev . The photograph of Mr PERSON was identified as PERSON ( CARDINAL times ) , PERSON ( once ) and PERSON ( once ) . CARDINAL applicants identified PERSON and CARDINAL applicants identified PERSON in the photograph submitted as that of PERSON PERSON . PERSON ( PERSON ) PERSON ( PERSON ) was identified as PERSON ( twice ) and PERSON ( CARDINAL times ) . On the other hand , all CARDINAL applicants identified the person in the photograph submitted by ORG as PERSON ( PERSON ) PERSON as a certain PERSON .

By virtue of the authorities to act submitted on DATE , the CARDINAL non - extradited applicants were represented before the ORG by Ms GPE and PERSON . On the basis of the authorities to act dated DATE , those applicants , with the exception of Mr PERSON , were also represented by PERSON .

During the proceedings in GPE , at which only PERSON and PERSON were present , CARDINAL applicants confirmed that , with the assistance of PERSON and PERSON , they had lodged an application with the ORG against GPE and GPE in order to challenge their extradition and have it stayed . They stated that they wished to pursue their application and continue to be represented by the same lawyers in the proceedings that would ensue before ORG ( or , in some cases , by the lawyers then present in the room ) . As he had only a very basic knowledge of NORP , PERSON , the sixth applicant who was heard , had difficulty in understanding the questions put by the ORG . However , he maintained that he was complaining about his arrest under the NORP name of PERSON , as he was merely a simple NORP shepherd . Mr PERSON confirmed that he had applied to the ORG , that the lawyers present in the room were his representatives and that he wished to pursue his complaint .

Five of the applicants who appeared were heard by the ORG in NORP with interpretation into LANGUAGE , one of the ORG 's CARDINAL official languages . Having stated that he was unable to read NORP , PERSON PERSON , the sixth applicant , took the oath in NORP ; he also expressed himself in that language .

During DATE before DATE , CARDINAL applicants had found themselves detained in the same cell ( no . CARDINAL ) in FAC no . CARDINAL . A total of CARDINAL prisoners had been held in the cell . Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , the twelfth and thirteenth applicants , had been in the prison infirmary at the time .

The applicants had had a television set in their cell . Although rumours had been circulating for a while about their possible extradition to GPE , it was only on DATE that they learned from the TIME news bulletin on Rustavi-CARDINAL that the extradition of CARDINAL of their number was imminent ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No names having been given , they were unaware of who exactly would be affected by that operation . They had received no prior information or official notification on this matter . The applicants understood that the information gleaned from the television was accurate when , CARDINAL , prison wardens arrived and asked them to leave the cell so that it could be disinfected ( or searched , according to PERSON ) . The applicants categorically refused to comply , with the result that the prison governor named CARDINAL individuals and asked them to leave the cell . In response , the applicants asked that nothing be done until daybreak and that their lawyers be summoned ; this request was refused . CARDINAL hooded members from ORG special forces then entered the cell and removed the applicants one by one . They used truncheons and applied electric shocks . The applicants were beaten as they lay on the floor in the corridor . The CARDINAL applicants affected by the extradition order were immediately removed and the others were placed in solitary confinement . Around TIME Mr PERSON , the fifth applicant against whom an extradition order had been issued , was transferred directly from the prison infirmary .

All of the applicants heard claimed that they had put up only verbal resistance to leaving the cell . They complained that they had been beaten , insulted and “ treated like animals ” by the special troops . Following this incident , Mr PERSON had CARDINAL fractured ribs and an eye injury , the scar from which was still visible . Mr PERSON sustained injuries from truncheon blows . Mr PERSON sustained extensive bruising . Mr ORG had a broken tooth , a laceration to the ear , an injury to the frontal bone and extensive bruising on his back and legs . Mr PERSON had extensive bruising on his body and other injuries ( to the shoulder and cheek ) and had suffered an inflammation of the left kidney , injuries which he himself described as “ trivial ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . All of the prisoners were injured more or less seriously . In particular , the applicants referred to broken ribs and a fractured shoulder in some cases , and blood - splattered heads in others . According to Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON , the applicants who were to be extradited were given the most severe beatings . Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON had heard that Mr PERSON had died as a result of his injuries . According to Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON must have had a broken spine , since he was no longer able to walk and was dragged along the corridor by CARDINAL members of the special troops . He also appeared to have an eye turned inside out . According to PERSON , the photograph of PERSON allegedly taken by the NORP authorities after his arrest could have been a copy of an old photograph .

Once placed in solitary confinement , the non - extradited applicants were examined by a doctor , who listed each prisoner 's injuries in writing . He merely measured the extent of their bruises with a ruler and did not provide treatment . The applicants did not subsequently receive any other medical care .

None of the applicants confirmed that he had been informed by a member of ORG that extradition proceedings were pending against him . They all claimed to have received visits from numerous persons while in prison ( officially assigned lawyers , investigators and prosecutors ) , whose names they did not remember . They remembered having met once , in the absence of their lawyers , a man and a young woman ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) who asked them to sign documents drawn up in NORP ( in NORP , according to Mr PERSON ) , which they refused to do .

With the exception of Mr PERSON and PERSON , the applicants all claimed that they had entered GPE in search of refuge from the armed combat in GPE . They denied having been armed when they crossed the border . They had not been arrested at the border , but had voluntarily given themselves up to the NORP border guards , from whom they had sought assistance . The latter had tended to their wounds before calling for a helicopter to transport them to GPE .

The applicants confirmed that they had all supplied false names to the NORP authorities . With the exception of Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , they had acted in this way to avoid extradition to GPE and to prevent family members and friends who were still in GPE from being endangered should they ( the applicants ) fall into the hands of the NORP authorities . Mr PERSON alleged that he was weary of DATE of war in GPE and that , if it would put him out of danger , he “ [ would ] willingly change not only his name , but also his appearance ” . He was convinced that he had escaped extradition on account of his false identity .

Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON indicated that their officially assigned lawyers ( including PERSON , according to PERSON ) and an investigator from ORG had advised the applicants to say that they were armed when they crossed the border , since this would ensure that they were kept in GPE pending trial . The applicants had followed this advice .

The applicants all denied categorically that they had put up any resistance to ORG employees during TIME .

Mr PERSON stated that he was opposed to his extradition to GPE on the ground that “ no distinction is made there between peaceful civilians , terrorists and fighters ” . When speaking with the representatives of the prosecution service who visited them in prison , he and his fellow prisoners had always expressed their wish not to be extradited to GPE and their fear of being subjected to ill - treatment in that country . They had asked to be tried in GPE . They had had no access to the extradition papers . According to Mr PERSON ( and also Mr PERSON ) , the officially assigned lawyers , the investigator and the representatives of the prosecutor 's office had asked the applicants to tell them their real names so that they could help them avoid extradition . Those who had complied had been extradited immediately .

Prior to his arrest , in DATE , Mr PERSON had , he claimed , attempted unsuccessfully to obtain refugee status in GPE .

Mr PERSON claimed that he was NORP ( of PERSON origin ) and was a shepherd in the area bordering GPE . When the region was being shelled by the NORP armed forces in DATE , he had met CARDINAL injured NORP who were fleeing . He had descended the mountain slopes on the border with them and taken them to a shepherds ' hut . He himself had sustained a head injury that night . He repeatedly claimed not to have clear memories of the events in question on account of this injury .

Mr PERSON explained that , since he had no money , he had given the NORP authorities and doctors a false NORP name in order to pass for a fugitive and thus receive free medical care . He did not believe that his NORP nationality represented an obstacle to extradition and considered that he was still in danger on account of his NORP origins . In a letter sent to ORG on DATE , he alleged that , during TIME , the applicants had asked to see their lawyers before leaving the cell as requested . The prison governor had replied that “ neither lawyer nor investigator ” would turn up and that “ [ they should ] leave the cell voluntarily before [ he used ] force ” . In the same letter PERSON PERSON also claimed that Mr PERSON had received a violent blow to the head and that CARDINAL of his eyes had practically come out of its socket . He had seen him for the last time when a member of the special troops “ was dragging him along the corridor like a corpse ” .

Mr PERSON stated that , shortly after his arrest , “ extradition started to be mentioned ” . The applicant , who was afraid of being tortured in GPE , had signed papers , the content of which he could not remember , in the hope of being tried in GPE and avoiding extradition . In certain cases the applicants had allegedly been threatened with extradition if they refused to sign . After DATE he had written to the NORP President asking him not to authorise his extradition ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He admitted that he was still afraid of extradition and that he lived in a state of uncertainty . At the initial stage of the proceedings before the ORG , this applicant claimed that he could not return to GPE on account of the “ genocide of the NORP people ” being perpetrated “ by GPE throughout the country ” .

Mr PERSON did not recognise the explanatory statement of CARDINAL DATE which , according to PERSON , he had refused to sign ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

Mr Magomadov claimed that he did not know on which side of the border he had been injured , since the border line was not marked in the area in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . After being knocked out by a shell wound to the head , he had been carried by his comrades . A NORP general had arrived by helicopter and had introduced himself as commandant of the border troops . He had promised the applicants that he would report the facts to the NORP President in person and that they would be given refugee status . The general had previously given orders to the effect that the applicants were to receive hospital treatment .

During the meeting with a man and young woman from ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the applicants had been asked to sign documents without being informed of their contents . All of the non - extradited applicants had met those individuals , but in small groups . Mr Magomadov himself had been brought before the CARDINAL members of the prosecution service in the company of GPE ( PERSON alias PERSON ) and PERSON ( PERSON alias PERSON ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Mr Magomadov claimed that he still feared extradition .

Mr PERSON claimed that he had held refugee status in GPE since DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and had been granted this status in the Akhmeta region , which bordered GPE . He had then left legally for GPE , travelling via GPE ( GPE ) , in the hope of bringing his family to GPE . Once in GPE , he had begun looking for a family member who had been missing for DATE , and had arrived in the GPE . There , he had witnessed armed combat between the NORP federal army and the NORP fighters , who had been surrounded on DATE . GPE had been the only way out . He had received a shrapnel wound to the leg but had nonetheless walked as far as the NORP border , which he had crossed on DATE . He had requested asylum from the NORP soldiers who arrived on the scene by helicopter . He had been hospitalised and operated on in GPE , then transferred to a prison infirmary DATE .

Mr PERSON stated that in DATE he had been wounded while watching his flock in pastureland near the border . He did not know whether he had been wounded by NORP , NORP or NORP . After being taken to GPE , he was treated in the prison infirmary , where he was detained for DATE . He was informed that he had been arrested because he was carrying weapons . He claimed that he had not been imprisoned “ with a weapon , but with a quilted jacket and shepherd 's boots ” .

Mr PERSON confirmed that he had been in the same infirmary ward as Mr PERSON , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL extradited applicants . He did not mention a television set or other information source that would have enabled Mr PERSON to learn , as the other extradited applicants had , that he was likely to be handed over to the NORP authorities in the very near future . At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON had been taken away , after getting up and following the members of the hospital staff without a word . Masked men were waiting for him in the hospital courtyard . During their stay in the infirmary , Mr PERSON had frequently asked PERSON to cut out his tongue , arguing that this would help him to endure questioning more easily if he were extradited . PERSON had firmly refused to do so .

Mr PERSON claimed that he had not assumed a false name of his own volition . Having been taken to hospital in a serious condition , he learned on recovering consciousness that he was being referred to as PERSON PERSON . At first he had been happy to receive free medical treatment on the strength of this name , but had then rapidly challenged this identity in the infirmary and subsequently before a judge .

The ORG heard Mr PERSON , in - house inspector at FAC no . CARDINAL ( who was on duty on TIME ) , PERSON , employee of ORG ( who was also on duty that night ) , PERSON , chief inspector of ORG service responsible for transporting foreign nationals , and Mr PERSON , employee of ORG , and head of security at Prison no . CARDINAL .

Those individuals all said that they had not been officially informed of the applicants ' imminent extradition and that they had learned later , on TIME DATE , that CARDINAL NORP prisoners were to be extradited . Mr GPE and PERSON alleged that , as they had been on duty , they were unable to watch television to keep themselves informed . According to PERSON , only the prison governor , his deputies and the head of the prison secretariat ( special division ) had been informed of the applicants ' imminent transfer . He had learned from the media that CARDINAL NORP prisoners were to be extradited , but none of the prison staff had been told their names .

The above - mentioned persons confirmed that CARDINAL or CARDINAL NORP prisoners were held in the same cell . According to Mr PERSON , the decision to keep these prisoners together had been based on their religious convictions , so that they would not be hindered in carrying out their daily rites .

At TIME on DATE , the above - mentioned prison staff were informed that a loud noise was coming from cell no . CARDINAL . Mr PERSON instructed a warden to find out what was happening . The latter looked through the peephole in the cell door and saw that the prisoners were dismantling beds and shouting in a foreign language . According to Mr PERSON , after a certain period the warden was no longer able to observe what was going on , as the prisoners had covered over the peephole from the inside . Mr PERSON submitted a written report on the situation to the prison governor , who was still in his office . At the latter 's request , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , accompanied by other members of staff and the deputy governor , went to the cell to see what was happening . The deputy governor ordered that the cell be opened . According to PERSON , they hoped to talk to the applicants . When the door was opened , they found the cell in chaos , heard shouts and saw that bits of metal and bricks were being thrown in their direction . PERSON shouted an order to close the door quickly . He asked that it be left closed until such time as he had reported the situation to his superiors in ORG . PERSON , who did not understand the reason for such violence , believed that a riot was about to begin and increased the number of wardens on the floor in question .

Returning to the prison 's administrative wing , PERSON saw that the director of ORG was already there , together with CARDINAL other people . He was then officially informed that CARDINAL prisoners were to be removed with a view to their extradition . A vehicle was apparently ready in a neighbouring courtyard and the airport authorities had been informed . Accompanied by the director of ORG , the prison governor and their deputies , the wardens again gathered in front of the cell . The prison governor entered first , with CARDINAL sealed files under his arm , CARDINAL for each of the prisoners affected by the extradition order . The others followed him into the cell . According to PERSON , the prisoners were standing on their beds and throwing bowls , plates and other objects at them . The governor informed them that an internal measure was to be implemented in the cell and that the prisoners were to leave it . According to PERSON , the governor mentioned the need to search the room . The prisoners categorically refused to obey and launched a direct attack .

NORP The wardens heard by the ORG confirmed that all the applicants were armed with pieces of metal which had been removed from the beds , metal grills which they had removed from the windows and trousers filled with bricks and tied at the end of the legs , which were being used as projectiles .

In this connection Mr PERSON explained that Prison no . CARDINAL was housed in a building that had been constructed in DATE , and that the walls were so eroded that bricks could be pulled out by hand . PERSON also stated that the walls were in a state of disrepair and that bricks could be removed using one 's bare hands . Having subsequently participated in drawing up the damage assessment report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , Mr PERSON noted that the cell walls had been damaged and that the metal bed - frames were in several pieces . The water pipe above the sink had apparently been pulled out of the wall .

NORP Since the prison governor 's arrival in the cell had led to an open attack , masked members of the special troops , who had previously been posted in the staircase , entered the premises at the governor 's request . Mr PERSON and PERSON considered that the use of special troops had been necessary in view of the scale of the resistance put up by the prisoners . They both agreed that hand - to - hand combat had taken place between the prisoners and members of the special troops . According to Mr GPE , the special troops , who had been placed at the prison administration 's disposal in case of necessity , usually carried a truncheon each and could hardly enter the prison armed in any other way .

According to PERSON , the applicants had heard rumours about the extradition order from the television . PERSON supposed that they could have kept mobile phones illegally in their cell or could have listened to the radio . In addition , certain neighbouring cells contained television sets and their occupants could have passed on the news to the applicants without difficulty .

Mr PERSON alleged that , on entering the cell behind the prison governor , he had been injured on the elbow and knee by “ projectiles ” fabricated on the spot by the prisoners ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He nonetheless returned to his office , where the non - extradited prisoners had been taken for a check - up . Mr PERSON observed that all of the applicants were covered in dust , but no one was bleeding . He stated that if Mr Magomadov had had a lacerated ear he would have noticed it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As he himself had not noted any injury and the applicants had not asked for medical assistance , PERSON had not been required to call a doctor at that point . Since the prisoners who were to be extradited had been led away immediately , he had not seen them again in his office and therefore had not seen Mr PERSON .

At the end of his shift , on coming across demonstrators outside the prison , PERSON learned that prisoners had been extradited . Given his position , he had been surprised that the authorities had not informed him so that , as was customary , he could inform the prisoners concerned on DATE prior to their extradition . He explained to the ORG that , under normal circumstances , a written , signed and stamped notification was sent to him by the head of the prison secretariat which managed the prisoners ' personal files ; PERSON role was to check the documents for which he was responsible and to inform the individual concerned of the time of departure , so that he or she would have time to prepare . This procedure had not been followed in the instant case .

Mr GPE claimed that he had been wounded in the foot by a piece of metal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that his wound had bled and that he had immediately gone to the prison administration 's LOC for treatment . Although his wound was not serious , it had required treatment for DATE .

Mr PERSON stated that , on arriving at the prison , he had learned that the prisoners were refusing to leave their cell , but that no one had explained to him why they were refusing to do so or why they had to be moved . Having followed the prison governor into the cell , he had been injured on the hand ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and had immediately gone downstairs to the infirmary . Other wardens had also been injured and the prison doctor had provided medical treatment .

According to PERSON , CARDINAL prisoners , armed with pieces of metal , climbed to the top of the bunk beds when the prison governor entered the cell . CARDINAL of them took aim at Mr PERSON several times , but failed to hit him . A member of the special troops then pushed Mr PERSON out of the way for his own safety . The most violent prisoners had been the CARDINAL individuals whose sealed files the governor had brandished ; CARDINAL other prisoners had attempted unsuccessfully to calm them down .

Mr PERSON considered it likely that , like the ORG employees , the prisoners could have been injured , given the hand - to - hand fighting that had taken place in the cell .

Mr PERSON explained that the special troops were based not far from Prison no . CARDINAL , which they could reach in TIME if they ran . On TIME in question he and CARDINAL of his colleagues had been instructed to defuse the situation in cell no . DATE . Unaware of the reason for the disorder , the group had been positioned in staircases near the cell , from where noise and shouting in a foreign language could be heard . The prison governor had entered the cell , but had returned TIME and asked the troops to intervene . They had complied and had performed their task “ after encountering limited resistance ” . The prisoners had been armed with pieces of metal and missile - like objects made from trousers containing a solid mass . Mr PERSON stated that he and his colleagues had indeed been wearing masks , in line with the regulations . On the other hand , they had not worn special vests or any other protective equipment . Armed only with rubber truncheons , they had not carried electric batons or other weapons . They had made the prisoners lie down in the corridor and had handed them over to the prison wardens before leaving the building . Mr PERSON had learned from the television that the applicants had been removed from the cell in order to be extradited .

Mr PERSON claimed that he had sustained a small injury ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He denied the allegation that he and his colleagues had beaten the applicants mercilessly and insulted them .

The ORG questioned Mr PERSON and PERSON , trainee prosecutors at FAC at the relevant time , Mr P. Mskhiladze , director of international relations at FAC , and Mr PERSON , former NORP Procurator - General .

Mr PERSON explained that , under the supervision of Mr PERSON , his superior , he had been responsible for various tasks in connection with the disputed extraditions . In particular , PERSON had asked him to visit the applicants in prison , to inform them that the issue of their extradition was being examined by ORG and to request explanations concerning their nationality . He had carried out this visit on DATE with his fellow trainee , PERSON , and without the lawyers being present , since “ it was not official questioning , but a request for information ” . On that date they met CARDINAL applicants .

Mr PERSON had first spoken with PERSON in NORP in a separate room . The latter had provided information orally , but had refused to sign the corresponding document that would provide formal confirmation of his remarks ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On being returned to the room where the other prisoners were being held , PERSON had said something to them in NORP . The prisoners then collectively refused to “ provide the required explanations and sign the relevant document ” , on the ground that they were not assisted by a lawyer and a NORP interpreter .

The document that Mr PERSON had refused to sign was an explanatory statement intended for the Procurator - General . It contained the applicant 's assertions to the effect that he was NORP and had been born in PERSON in DATE ; had arrived in GPE on DATE and been arrested by the NORP authorities ; had been held for DATE in ORG investigation prison then transferred to Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE ; and had been informed at the time of his arrest that he had been arrested for crossing the border illegally . The following sentence can be read at the bottom of this piece of paper : “ The prisoner refused to sign this document and requested the assistance of a lawyer . ” The document had been drawn up by Mr PERSON , trainee prosecutor . According to the TIME of the meeting , signed only by PERSON and PERSON , they had unsuccessfully attempted “ to obtain an explanatory statement from the applicant in connection with his extradition ” .

Following this refusal to communicate , PERSON postponed the discussion in order to seek the assistance of an interpreter . Mr PERSON , his superior , arranged with ORG team of investigators ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that , following an interview scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , PERSON would be able to meet the applicants . PERSON thus received an assurance that lawyers and a LANGUAGE - speaking interpreter would be present at the meeting .

On DATE , accompanied by his colleague PERSON , PERSON went to the prison . He met PERSON , an interpreter hired by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and explained to him that , “ on account of an ongoing extradition procedure , [ he wished ] to receive information from the NORP prisoners that would enable their nationality to be established ” . The interpreter had translated these remarks , but , since he did not speak NORP , PERSON had been unable to assess the accuracy of the interpretation . In response , the applicants reiterated their refusal to provide information and to sign the corresponding documents , which had been drawn up in NORP . Nonetheless , the documents were read out to them .

As the applicants ' representatives had indicated that Mr PERSON 's name did not appear on either of the CARDINAL “ visitors ' logs ( citizens , lawyers and investigators ) for Prison no . CARDINAL ” covering the periods of DATE to DATE and DATE to DATE respectively , PERSON explained that on DATE and DATE his name had not been entered in those logs but in the prison 's “ register of access to the investigation room ” . Since prosecutors DATE unlike visitors , lawyers and investigators – had no need of a pass and could enter the prison on the strength of their professional badge alone , he did not believe that his name could have been entered in the visitors ' log mentioned by the lawyers . By the same token , his name did not appear in the “ register of requests to bring a prisoner [ from his or her cell ] ” because , on the CARDINAL dates in question , he had joined the applicants in the investigation room , to which they had been conducted at the request of ORG investigators ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Mr PERSON explained that ORG , which was responsible for executing extradition orders , had been informed immediately of the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On the same date PERSON had personally informed the applicants ' domestic lawyers by telephone and , furthermore , had served the written extradition orders on them . PERSON seemed to remember going to the lawyers ' offices for that purpose .

NORP According to PERSON , at the material time neither the NORP Code of Criminal Procedure nor any regulatory measure governed the procedure to be followed in lodging an appeal against an extradition order . LAW CARDINAL of the above - mentioned LAW alluded to it only vaguely ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This loophole had been remedied by ORG case - law in the PERSON case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Mr PERSON stated that , given the lawyers ' criticism that neither they nor their clients had been informed of the extradition proceedings and orders , he had contacted Mr PERSON in DATE and had asked him to certify by affidavit that he had indeed gone to the prison on DATE and informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings against them . PERSON produced the affidavit in question before the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

PERSON confirmed that she had been responsible for the extradition case in question within FAC . On DATE , together with PERSON , she had met CARDINAL of the applicants in the investigation room of GPE 's Prison no . CARDINAL . Given those CARDINAL individuals ' refusal to cooperate , she and her colleague had decided against asking that the other applicants be brought to them , as originally planned . PERSON and PERSON wished to obtain information about the applicants ' dates and places of birth , and their nationalities . They informed the applicants that they were working on the question of their extradition for ORG and that they were not investigators . The applicants had initially pretended not to speak NORP but had subsequently stated in that language that they did not wish to return to GPE and that some of them had NORP nationality . This conversation took place without a lawyer or an interpreter .

With regard to the fact that her name did not appear in the prison 's visitors ' log , PERSON claimed not to know the procedure for access to the prison , since she had visited it for the first and last time on DATE .

Mr Mskhiladze , who was Mr PERSON 's and PERSON hierarchical superior , explained that the NORP Procurator - ORG had not been satisfied with the documents submitted by the NORP authorities in support of the extradition request concerning the applicants ; those documents had been handed over during Mr PERSON 's visit to GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . Confirming the facts set out in paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above , PERSON emphasised that the NORP authorities had asked their NORP counterparts for firm assurances concerning the treatment that would await the applicants in the event of extradition . He pointed out that those had not been general assurances , but individual guarantees in respect of each applicant , cited by name in the relevant letters . Given that the assurances had come from the NORP ORG and that the Office had the role of prosecutor during criminal trials in GPE , the NORP authorities had every reason to believe that the death penalty would not be sought in respect of the applicants . They had also taken into account that a moratorium on the death penalty had been in force in GPE since DATE and that the imposition of such a sanction had been prohibited by ORG judgment of DATE . Beset by “ certain doubts ” , the NORP authorities had required the same type of assurance with regard to inhuman or degrading treatment . It was only after it had obtained satisfactory assurances in that respect that the NORP Procurator - ORG had begun examining the extradition request .

Without denying that ORG had sent the NORP authorities photographs of the applicants which had been taken in GPE , PERSON firmly denied that the NORP side had used those photographs in their extradition request or in support of that request . The NORP authorities had indeed submitted the photographs of the applicants which were included with the copies of Form no . CARDINAL ( see the footnote on page CARDINAL above ) . According to PERSON , this was explained by the fact that , at the request of ORG investigation team responsible for examining the illegal border crossing , PERSON Office had submitted a request for assistance in that criminal case to the NORP authorities , in accordance with LAW . The request , accompanied by the applicants ' photographs and fingerprints , was intended to identify the persons concerned and had been drawn up at DATE . Given that the extradition request , supported by photographs of the applicants and other documents , had been submitted on DATE , PERSON did not believe that the CARDINAL sets of photographs could be the same .

As to the identification of the extradited applicants , PERSON explained that the NORP investigation orders contained their real names and that the applicants themselves had never contested this . They had also been identified by means of identification procedures in GPE , photographs , identity documents and copies of Form no . CARDINAL , submitted by the NORP authorities . In addition , according to ORG , those individuals did not possess , and had never possessed , NORP nationality . ORG had also indicated that they were not on the refugee list . Thus , the extradition orders of DATE had not resulted from a hasty procedure . For DATE , ORG had meticulously examined the documents showing that the applicants were accused of serious crimes in GPE , were NORP nationals and were protected by firm assurances from the NORP authorities .

Mr Mskhiladze considered that the extradition proceedings had been transparent . At his request , trainee prosecutors who were supervised by him had informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings and had obtained information about their nationality . In addition , the applicants had also been kept informed by the media . PERSON stated that the extradited applicants ' lawyers had consequently been able to rely on Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and to apply to a court at any stage of the proceedings , especially as such an application would have had a suspensive effect on execution of the extradition orders . However , PERSON accepted that he was unaware of instances in which LAW had been used prior to the PERSON case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He pointed out that , following ORG judgment in that case , CARDINAL applicants had been able to challenge the extradition orders issued against them ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

With regard to the issue of access to the extradition files , Mr PERSON explained that the applicants ' lawyers had asked to inspect the files , but that this had been refused on the ground that the employees of ORG responsible for the case needed to be able to study these files themselves . In any event , according to PERSON , the lawyers would have been able to consult the files only if they had decided to apply to a court against the extradition proceedings .

Mr PERSON stated that at TIME on DATE he had personally handed over a copy of the extradition orders DATE issued that day at TIME – to the relevant individual in ORG , with a view to their execution . He had also informed PERSON and PERSON PERSON , the applicants ' lawyers , of the orders by telephone ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) . As he was unable to contact PERSON , he had asked the latter 's colleagues to inform him . He had then sent the lawyers a letter containing a copy of the orders . PERSON submitted to the ORG a copy of this letter of notification , which also informed the lawyers that they were entitled to apply to a court on behalf of their clients . As he was unable to send the letter by fax on account of electricity problems – a regular occurrence in GPE – Mr PERSON instructed PERSON PERSON to leave the letter at the lawyers ' offices ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Since the lawyers were absent , PERSON handed over the envelope to an office employee . The copy of the letter submitted by Mr PERSON has an almost entirely illegible and faded signature , preceded by the words “ I confirm receipt on DATE ” .

Mr Mskhiladze categorically dismissed the above - named lawyers ' argument that the extradition had taken place in secret . He considered that , since no execution date was indicated on the extradition orders , the lawyers had had sufficient time to apply to a court DATE .

As to Mr PERSON 's allegedly alarming condition , PERSON did not rule out the possibility that he had been injured during the incident between the prisoners and special troops and that the journalists had not wished to film him at the airport . In any event , ORG representatives had visited each applicant at the airport . NORP television had subsequently shown Mr PERSON being admitted to prison .

Mr Mskhiladze dismissed PERSON argument that the applicants ' detention had been directly linked to the fact of Mr PERSON 's lodging of an extradition request against them .

Mr PERSON said that on DATE Mr PERSON had visited GPE with his deputy , several employees of the NORP ORG and special guards . The main purpose of his visit had been to discuss the alarming situation prevailing in LOC , a NORP valley which bordered GPE . On that occasion he submitted the request for extradition of the applicants and certain supporting documents . Mr PERSON had initially refused this request for the reasons set out in DATE above . Mr PERSON had not contested that decision , but did however ask that the proceedings be expedited .

According to PERSON , the extradition proceedings were conducted with maximum transparency , given that they were covered by the media and ORG organised regular press conferences on the subject . During the proceedings , firm assurances were obtained from the NORP authorities that the death penalty would not be applied and that the extradited individuals would not be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and would receive legal assistance . In addition , account had been taken of the fact that a moratorium on capital punishment had been in force in GPE since DATE and that the imposition of that penalty was hardly possible since ORG judgment of DATE . As a Procurator - General himself , PERSON PERSON had had no reason to doubt the credibility of guarantees provided by a member ORG of ORG .

Having concluded that the material in his possession enabled him to consent to the extradition of CARDINAL applicants , he had contacted his NORP counterpart , asking him to supervise personally the investigation proceedings in GPE and to ensure that those individuals ' procedural rights were fully respected . He had even telephoned PERSON , NORP Deputy Prosecutor - General responsible for the LOC area , who had given verbal guarantees and reassured him by referring to the assurances already provided in writing .

Once it had been decided to extradite the CARDINAL applicants , execution of this measure depended only on the arrival of an aeroplane from GPE . PERSON had instructed PERSON to inform the applicants ' lawyers of the decision immediately . Once informed , the latter could have challenged the extradition before the courts . However , PERSON noted that LAW contained CARDINAL provision on this subject , which was worded in general terms , did not set out either the procedure or the time - limits for lodging an appeal and did not identify the relevant court . He conceded that , given this deficiency in the legislation and the total lack of precedent , the fact that no appeal had been made was not entirely imputable to the lawyers . DATE ( DATE in which ORG came into force in respect of GPE ) and DATE , there had been no instance in GPE of a judicial appeal against an extradition order . Mr PERSON stressed the need to reform NORP legislation in this area .

NORP In view of the rumours concerning Mr PERSON 's death , PERSON PERSON had telephoned his NORP colleagues ; Mr Fridinskiy had assured him that the prisoner in question was alive and in good health . He had subsequently called Mr Fridinskiy on a regular basis ; the latter had kept him abreast of progress in the proceedings and had gone so far as to provide very detailed information . This had led Mr PERSON to conclude that Mr Fridinskiy was following the case closely and monitoring the applicants ' situation , as he had promised . In conclusion , PERSON maintained that , had the NORP authorities wished to subject the applicants to arbitrary extradition , they would have handed them over on DATE to Mr PERSON , who had been accompanied by a special unit for that very purpose ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Mr PERSON , an employee of ORG , had led a team of investigators in the proceedings against the applicants for crossing the border illegally . He had personally dealt with the cases of PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr Magomadov , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . Of those , only Mr PERSON had been in possession of a NORP passport ; this document stated that he was named PERSON , was a NORP national and had been born on CARDINAL DATE . The identity of the other applicants listed above had initially been established on the basis of their own statements . Subsequently , a request for assistance in criminal matters was sent to the NORP authorities through ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The “ reports on identification by a third party using photographs ” , the statements by the applicants ' neighbours and close family , as well as other documents provided by the NORP authorities , had made it possible to establish that PERSON was PERSON , that PERSON was called PERSON , that PERSON PERSON was called PERSON , that PERSON PERSON was PERSON and that PERSON PERSON was named PERSON .

With regard to the secrecy surrounding their real identity , the applicants told the investigator they were afraid that their relatives and friends left behind in GPE would be persecuted . They had confessed to being armed when they crossed the NORP border and had cooperated during the investigation . They had not explicitly referred to their fear , but had stated on several occasions that they did not wish to be extradited to GPE .

NORP The investigation had been conducted in NORP with assistance from Mr PERSON , an interpreter hired from time to time under contract . The applicants all spoke LANGUAGE very well and , with the exception of the investigation interviews , had spoken with the investigator in that language .

Mr PERSON explained that CARDINAL day he had been in the investigation room in Prison no . CARDINAL with the interpreter and the lawyers for the applicants for whose cases he was responsible . The other investigators from his team were working with other applicants in neighbouring rooms . The interpreter was helping each of the investigators in turn . On leaving the room , he had met PERSON , accompanied by a colleague , who had explained to him that a request to extradite the applicants was being examined by ORG and that he needed to obtain information about their nationality . Mr PERSON had replied that it was not his task to instruct the interpreter or the lawyers to assist the prosecutor in that task . He had advised him to make arrangements directly with them .

Mr PERSON confirmed that , unlike investigators , prosecutors did not require a pass and could enter prisons with their badges .

Mr PERSON , a student of international law , confirmed that he had been hired as an interpreter by ORG investigation team . He stated that he had met PERSON at Prison no . CARDINAL on CARDINAL occasion , namely DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , while he was in an investigation room with CARDINAL or CARDINAL NORP prisoners , PERSON , accompanied by a female colleague , had informed him that he represented the Procurator - ORG . He had explained to him in NORP that this was an extradition case and that he required information about the nationality of the prisoners in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON had also asked him where he had learned to speak NORP and NORP so well . Considering that their conversation so far had been introductory , Mr PERSON had asked the prosecutor what specifically he wanted interpreted for the prisoners . Mr PERSON had then asked him if the applicants were willing to provide the information necessary to establish their nationality . The interpreter had translated this question into NORP . The prisoners had replied that they refused to provide any information on that subject . PERSON had left immediately on hearing the interpretation of that reply .

NORP The lawyers had not been present during this discussion and the prosecutor had not held any individual meetings with the applicants . Mr PERSON had merely asked Mr PERSON to put the above question to the prisoners and had left the room following their refusal to answer . He had not handed over any documents . Mr PERSON had provided Mr PERSON with a strictly CARDINAL - off service on the date in question , CARDINAL that was not governed by any contractual or friendly relationship .

During the investigation , the applicants referred to extradition proceedings several times among themselves , in NORP ; according to PERSON PERSON , the very expression made them afraid . Those discussions had always been marked by doubts and suppositions . At a meeting prior to CARDINAL DATE , PERSON had asked the applicants about their wishes and whether they needed to see a doctor . The applicants had replied that the only thing they wished was not to be extradited . They explained that they watched television in their cell and had heard rumours that they might be extradited to GPE .

As regards the affidavit of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , Mr PERSON explained that following their meeting on DATE , PERSON had visited him at home and asked him to swear before a notary that he had met the applicants in PERSON presence and that they had refused to take part in discussions . Mr PERSON apparently needed this statement on account of problems with his superiors .

In the affidavit in question , entitled “ Statement for the Deputy Minister of ORG ” and handwritten by PERSON , he stated :

“ On DATE , at FAC no . CARDINAL , I assisted investigators from ORG as an interpreter in the case of PERSON , Mr PERSON and other individuals ( CARDINAL persons in total ) . Once the investigators ' work was complete , Mr PERSON , trainee prosecutor at ORG in ORG , arrived to question the same NORP prisoners . He first informed them that the question of their extradition was being examined by ORG and then asked them to provide the necessary explanations in order to establish their nationality . The NORP prisoners refused , after which PERSON drew up a report and submitted it to them for signature . The prisoners refused to sign this document . The prosecutor and the prisoners communicated through me . ”

Mr PERSON explained to the ORG that PERSON had dictated this text to him in the notary 's presence . He had been wrong not to pay attention to the sentence about extradition , which had been slipped into the text . PERSON had told him that he was merely required to confirm his presence in the prison on DATE , together with the applicants ' refusal to provide information ; Mr PERSON had concentrated on those CARDINAL points and had neglected the rest of the text , unaware that this would be of importance .

In conclusion , Mr PERSON stressed that PERSON had not , with his assistance , informed the applicants of the extradition proceedings on CARDINAL DATE .

Mr PERSON went through the reports which he had submitted on DATE after examining PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , applicants , Mr PERSON , a member of the special troops , and Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , prison wardens . He explained that , on the instruction of ORG , he had also taken into account the observations of the doctor in Prison no . CARDINAL when preparing these reports .

It appeared from the reports in question that Mr PERSON was injured on the right side of his body , had numerous bruises on his back and shoulders , measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY , CARDINAL x QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY respectively , CARDINAL bruises on the face ( around the nose and lips ) and a bruise on the right knee . Mr PERSON had CARDINAL bruises on his forehead , measuring QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY respectively , a bruise of QUANTITY on the cheek , a bruise measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY around the jaw and a bruise of QUANTITY on the right shoulder . Mr Magomadov had a bruise of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the forehead , another measuring QUANTITY on the cheek , a bruise that covered all of CARDINAL ear , a bruise of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the right temple , bruising around the wrist joints , a bruise of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the left side and a bruise of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the left knee ( see the applicants ' statements in paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The injuries sustained by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ORG resulted from blows inflicted by hard blunt objects and dated from DATE . They were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to their health .

Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had not made any complaints and had presented no signs of blows or violence .

Mr PERSON had a broad haematoma around the right eye and CARDINAL bruises to the forehead , each of which measured QUANTITY ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . These injuries resulted from blows inflicted by hard blunt objects and were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to his health .

Mr PERSON had a wound of QUANTITY on the right shoulder and CARDINAL wounds , measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY , around the left wrist . Those injuries resulted from blows inflicted by a sharp object , dated from DATE and were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to his health . Mr PERSON apparently suffered pain when walking . He had CARDINAL bruises , measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY , on the left ankle , which was also swollen . The joint on Mr PERSON 's left knee was swollen and he had a bruise measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY . Mr GPE had a bruise measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the left ankle and a bruise of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the left testicle . Mr ORG had a bruise measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the right side of the chest and another , measuring QUANTITY , on the right ankle . Mr PERSON had a bruise of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the right hand and another measuring QUANTITY on the left foot . Those injuries resulted from blows inflicted using hard blunt objects and dated from DATE . They were classified as light injuries which were not damaging to their health .

Mr PERSON submitted to the ORG a medical certificate and a statement that he had undergone an operation on the left knee in DATE on account of rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament .

At the ORG 's request , ORG made available to it in GPE the applicants ' prisoner files . The medical information set out below was obtained from this source .

It appears from the medical certificate of DATE , drawn up by the doctor in ORG investigation prison that PERSON PERSON was in good health but was suffering from swollen legs . The entry in his medical records on DATE mentions numerous bruises , the size of which varied between CARDINAL x QUANTITY and QUANTITY , as well as a fracture to the left shoulder . No mention is made of any medical treatment administered to the applicant on DATE . The next entry , on DATE , states that the prison doctor treated PERSON for pain in the pelvis area . According to the entry for DATE , the applicant was treated by a surgeon .

According to medical certificates dated DATE , Mr PERSON had dressings on the left shoulder and right tibia , injured areas which had required surgical intervention on DATE . PERSON showed a deformation of the left side of the lower jaw , together with a scar from an operation dating from DATE previously . His legs were also swollen and painful . Mr PERSON also had a deformation of the lower jaw and swelling of the tibias , which was making it difficult for him to walk . It appears from Mr PERSON 's file that he received medical treatment from DATE for the injury to his jaw and that on DATE he was placed in the prison infirmary , as the diagnosis showed a total deformation of the chin bone .

It appears that on DATE , at ORG request , PERSON was transferred from a civilian hospital to the prison infirmary .

According to a diagnosis drawn up for ORG on DATE by the civilian hospital in connection with Mr ORG 's transfer to the prison infirmary , he had an infected wound on the right side of the neck ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and presented numerous grazes on his body . It was recommended that the wound be disinfected and the dressing changed daily or DATE . According to the entry in his medical records on DATE , treatment had been given for the swelling .

NORP The entry in Mr PERSON 's medical records on DATE confirmed the presence of the injuries observed by the medical expert ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . No mention is made of any treatment administered to the applicant on that date . On the other hand , according to the entry on DATE , he had received “ symptomatic treatment ” and been issued with analgesics .

As they were unable to appear before the ORG in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE Mr Arabidze , PERSON and PERSON informed the ORG in writing that they had never received a letter from PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They claimed to have learned of it for the first time in DATE , once ORG had sent it to the applicants ' representatives .

NORP As director of the law firm to which the letter in question had allegedly been delivered , Mr PERSON stated that the signature on the document did not belong to any of his colleagues . He noted that the letter bore no registration number , although his firm 's practice was to assign a number to each package as soon as it arrived . In his opinion , the document had been fabricated , and was being used by the Government to blame the lawyers for not lodging an appeal against their clients ' extradition . The CARDINAL other lawyers also failed to recognise the signature confirming receipt of the letter .

Mr PERSON explained that , on the TIME of DATE , a friend who worked at ORG ( whose name is not disclosed , at the lawyer 's request ) informed him confidentially that the extradition of “ certain NORP ” was being prepared . He then contacted the NORP representative in GPE and went with him to ORG . They attempted unsuccessfully to obtain information . PERSON , a prosecutor , informed them by telephone that he was unaware of any such developments and asked them not to call again . PERSON , also a prosecutor , told them that she could say nothing over the telephone .

Those attempts having been unsuccessful , PERSON went to the Rustavi-CARDINAL television channel , in order to state publicly that the secret extradition of NORP prisoners was being planned ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At TIME DATE , he went to the prison to try to meet his clients , but the prison doors were closed and the telephones had been disconnected . At that stage he did not know which of his clients were affected or whether the extradition had already taken place .

The video recording of the TIME news bulletin broadcast on Rustavi-CARDINAL on DATE and made available to the ORG by ORG did indeed contain an interview with PERSON . The lawyer stated that , according to a reliable source , the extradition of several NORP prisoners , arrested DATE on the NORP border , was planned for DATE . He claimed that he did not know those prisoners ' names , that the telephones at FAC had been disconnected and that the entire proceedings were taking place in secret . However , he did not believe that the individuals with NORP nationality would be extradited .

On DATE the investigator responsible for “ particularly important ” cases issued an order in respect of each of the applicants concerning the “ establishment of the defendant 's identity ” . The orders in question , which were all identically worded , noted that “ documents , particularly passports , were received during the investigation ” which proved that the defendants in question were PERSON , born on CARDINAL DATE in the village of ORG ) ; PERSON , born on DATE in the village of ORG ( Urus - Martan district ) ; PERSON , born on DATE in the village of ORG ) ; PERSON , born on DATE in the village of ORG ( ORG district ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . “ This information was also confirmed by the defendants themselves , and by other material from the case file . ” ORG did not submit the equivalent document concerning Mr GPE , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL extradited applicants . He was referred to in all the documents as PERSON .

On DATE ORG submitted to the ORG the names of the lawyers who were representing the extradited applicants before the NORP courts . Following repeated requests from the ORG , they also sent their addresses on DATE . On DATE , claiming that the lawyers enjoyed unlimited access to their clients , the Government provided details of the dates and number of meetings between them .

The case file shows that , on DATE , Mr PERSON refused the assistance of PERSON , who had been assigned to him on DATE , and asked that “ any other lawyer ” be appointed . This handwritten request by Mr ORG is included in the case file . On the same date PERSON was assigned to his case by virtue of a mission order issued by the head of the GPE legal consultancy office . From CARDINAL DATE Mr ORG was assisted by another lawyer , Mr PERSON , a member of ORG .

NORP On DATE the heads of the legal consultancy offices in ORG and ORG assigned PERSON and PERSON to represent Mr Khadjiev and Mr PERSON respectively during the preliminary investigation . On DATE Mr PERSON asked that , in view of Ms PERSON 's long absence , “ any other lawyer be assigned to him ” . On the same date the head of the Minvody legal consultancy office assigned Ms GPE to represent him .

On DATE PERSON was assigned to represent Mr PERSON during the investigation . On DATE Mr PERSON refused his assistance and asked that “ any other lawyer ” be appointed . On CARDINAL and DATE Mr PERSON 's relatives chose Mr PERSON ( a member of ORG from the ORG law firm ) and PERSON ( from Isk , an association of lawyers in the PERSON district , GPE region ) to defend his interests . Only Mr PERSON 's authority to act , approved by the director of ORG , is included in the case file .

On DATE the head of the legal consultancy office in ORG assigned Mr PERSON to represent Mr PERSON before ORG . Another authority to act was drawn up on DATE in the name of PERSON . Since DATE Mr ORG has been assisted by Mr Timichev , a member of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Until DATE Mr Khadjiev , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were represented before the NORP courts by PERSON ; Mr PERSON was represented by Mr PERSON ; and Mr PERSON by Mr Chkhatarashvili . Those lawyers were remunerated by the leadership of the NORP - Kist community in GPE ( under contracts for legal assistance dated CARDINAL and DATE ) .

NORP The lawyers stated that , at TIME on DATE , they rushed to the prison to see their clients , but were refused entry . “ Not knowing how to apply to the ORG ” , they asked their colleagues , PERSON and Ms PERSON , to lodge an application on behalf of their clients . Those lawyers were also denied access to the prisoners and could not therefore arrange to have authorities to act drawn up in their names . In extremely urgent circumstances , and in agreement with the leadership of the NORP - Kist community , PERSON , PERSON and Mr Chkhatarashvili prepared documents ( included in the case file ) delegating authority to their CARDINAL colleagues , who immediately applied to the ORG .

On DATE PERSON and PERSON faxed the powers of attorney authorising them to represent the extradited applicants before ORG . Those documents , which referred to GPE as the respondent ORG , had been signed by the applicants ' family members and friends living in GPE .

NORP The lawyers explained that on DATE they had contacted the NORP consulate in GPE in order to obtain visas so that they could visit their extradited clients . They were informed orally that , in order to obtain a visa , they would have to produce a written invitation from the prison establishment in question . On DATE they asked ORG at the ORG for assistance . He explained that he would not reply without some indication from the ORG . The lawyers then asked the ORG to intervene on their behalf with the NORP authorities so that visas would be issued .

On DATE ORG alleged that Ms GPE and PERSON could not claim to be the representatives of the extradited applicants with regard to the part of the application against GPE , as the authorities to act referred only to GPE as the respondent ORG . In addition , under NORP legislation a foreign lawyer could not defend an individual in GPE , either during the preparatory investigation or before the courts . However , “ if they were to contact the NORP ORG Office ” , the lawyers “ [ could ] in principle visit the extradited applicants ” . “ Those alleged representatives ... who [ supported ] international terrorists in GPE [ were ] not considered by the NORP authorities as the applicants ' representatives before the ORG and [ would ] not be contacted by them in that capacity . ”

On DATE the ORG decided to ask ORG , in application of Rule CARDINAL ( of ORG ) , to allow PERSON and PERSON unhindered access to the extradited applicants with a view to preparing the hearing on admissibility ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . On DATE PERSON asked ORG , by virtue of this decision by the ORG , to help her obtain a visa for GPE and authorisation to visit the applicants in prison . In a reply dated DATE , ORG reminded her , through the ORG , that ORG did not consider her as the extradited applicants ' representative . He stated that the NORP lawyers could ask the trial court before which the applicants would be brought to authorise their admission as defence counsel , but that the Government themselves could take no action in this regard .

On DATE the ORG again invited ORG to comply with the interim measure indicated on DATE . On DATE the ORG repeated the grounds for their refusal as set out in the above - mentioned letter of DATE .

At the hearing on admissibility ORG submitted a graphology report of CARDINAL DATE by the forensic analysis centre at ORG . The expert who had prepared the report claimed that the authorities to act in respect of Mr Shamayev , Mr PERSON and PERSON ORG , submitted to the ORG by PERSON and Ms PERSON , had not been signed by those applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the case of Mr PERSON , it had not been possible to ascertain whether the signature was indeed his , and it had been impossible to decide the question with regard to Mr PERSON , since the analysed specimen had been very short and incomplete .

NORP In reply , PERSON pointed out that those applicants had been extradited before their lawyers could obtain authorisation to visit them . After their arrival in GPE , she had attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with them . She had then appealed to their relatives and friends , and it was the latter 's signatures which appeared on the authorities to act .

On DATE ORG informed Mr Molochkov , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraphs DATE above ) that their clients had attempted to lodge an application with ORG on DATE . They were asked to make contact with the applicants so that they could confirm or deny their intention to apply to the ORG . On DATE the Representative of GPE replied to the ORG , stating that the lawyers “ objected to the ORG 's attempts to contact them ” . Indeed , PERSON and PERSON never sent a reply . Mr PERSON and PERSON replied only in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Consequently , and in accordance with the authorisation granted by the President of the Section ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the ORG sent identical letters ( by registered mail requiring acknowledgment of receipt ) , accompanied by application forms , directly to the extradited applicants at the address of the pre - trial detention centre in town A. On DATE the ORG received the CARDINAL acknowledgments of receipt , signed on DATE by the head of the prison secretariat . In DATE ORG produced a statement , delivered on an undetermined date by the head of the prison administration of the pre - trial detention centre in question , stating that no letters from the ORG to the extradited applicants had arrived at that establishment . Following the ORG 's communication of the above - mentioned acknowledgments of receipt , ORG provided other explanations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Mr GPE , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON never replied to the ORG to confirm or deny their intention of applying to the ORG as expressed on DATE .

On DATE the ORG received an application form from Mr PERSON , duly completed and dated DATE , which named both GPE and GPE as the respondent GPE . It had been posted on DATE by the administration of the pre - trial detention centre in town B ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Mr Khadjiev provided an authority to act made out in the name of PERSON , a lawyer . Although the relevant box on this document referred only to GPE as the respondent ORG , the form contained complaints against both GPE and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE those documents were sent to the ORG and to PERSON and PERSON . PERSON was asked to provide certain additional information , particularly with regard to his client 's application to the Court on the evening of his extradition and his representation before the ORG by the NORP lawyers . He was also asked to specify who would represent his client before the ORG with regard to the part of the application concerning GPE .

To date , no reply has been received by ORG from Mr Kotov .

Mr PERSON , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL extradited applicants , did not return the application form sent to him by ORG DATE . On the other hand , on DATE he lodged a separate application with the ORG , referring only to GPE ( ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ) . Represented by Mr Timichev ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , he complained of the impossibility of being tried by a competent court in GPE and about the conduct of the NORP lawyer who had been assigned to him after his illegal extradition to that country . Having initially made no reference to any application in connection with his extradition , it was not until DATE that Mr ORG confirmed that he had submitted such a complaint to the ORG and asked that case no . CARDINAL be joined to the present application . In a letter of DATE , sent to the ORG in connection with application no . CARDINAL , he confirmed that he had learned from his lawyer and the media that ORG were denying that he had applied to the ORG from GPE , with PERSON assistance , in order to complain about his illegal extradition . He stated that he endorsed all the steps taken by that lawyer , even if it had not always been possible to take his instructions .

On DATE ORG explained the misunderstanding over the receipt by the extradited applicants of letters from the ORG . They alleged that the letters had been delivered to the applicants in person , and had been left with them rather than being included in their prisoner files . The absence of any record in those files lay behind the statement made by the head of the prison administration to the effect that the prison had never received the correspondence in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Government submitted reports on the administrative inquires subsequently conducted into this matter in the pre - trial detention centre and handwritten letters from Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , dated DATE .

NORP In those letters Mr PERSON stated that he had received the ORG 's correspondence but had not replied in person . However , he did not rule out the possibility that his lawyer had sent a complaint to ORG on his behalf . Mr PERSON confirmed that he had received the ORG 's correspondence at DATE and that he had handed it over to his lawyers for them to reply . He also stated that he had sent a complaint to ORG from GPE with the help of a lawyer . Mr PERSON stated that , while in GPE , he had sent a complaint to the ORG with the assistance of a lawyer . On DATE he had received the ORG 's letter in the pre - trial detention centre in GPE . Mr PERSON alleged that he had sent a complaint to the ORG from GPE , with the help of a lawyer . He had subsequently received a letter from ORG in GPE , but had lost it during a change of cell . No letter was submitted from PERSON . However , the ORG submitted an explanation from an employee in the PERSON administration for the PERSON region , stating that PERSON , who had been questioned on DATE , had confirmed that he had received a letter from ORG at DATE . Unlike the other applicants , Mr ORG had not written an explanatory letter since he did not speak NORP well and did not write in that language .

On DATE Mr Molochkov and PERSON replied to the ORG 's letter of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They alleged that Mr GPE , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , their former clients , had never complained of a violation of their rights and had never expressed a wish to apply to the ORG . Having received no instructions from them , they had been unable to contact the ORG on their own initiative . They had always had adequate time and facilities to prepare their clients ' defence and opportunities to meet them without prison wardens being present .

On DATE ORG produced photographs of CARDINAL of the extradited applicants , taken in their respective cells in the pre - trial detention centre in town B , and a photograph of PERSON ORG , dated DATE , who was then detained in a pre - trial detention centre in town A ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Unlike the other applicants , PERSON appears in CARDINAL photograph and is shown from a distance in a general shot of his cell . Apart from the observation that the conditions of detention seemed to be better in the first GPE mentioned above , the photographs of the cells included with this submission gave rise to no particular comments from the ORG .

On DATE ORG alleged that Mr ORG 's submission of a complaint to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) marked a turning point in the instant case and was a breakthrough in the procedural impasse . They had no doubt that Mr Khadjiev had indeed applied to the ORG on this occasion and claimed that there was consequently no further point in considering the alleged communications which had previously been sent by him to the ORG or those sent on behalf of the CARDINAL other extradited individuals . ORG stated that they recognised the authority to act given by PERSON to Mr Kotov in his application against GPE . They requested that this application be subject to the “ ordinary procedure ” and be communicated to them , and that all of the previous proceedings in the instant case be annulled . In their opinion , this would put an end to “ non - procedural activities in this case ” . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the ORG reminded the Government that Mr ORG 's complaints had been communicated to the respondent ORG prior to consideration of their admissibility and that they did not require any fresh communication measure .

With regard to its attempts to question the CARDINAL extradited applicants and the CARDINAL applicants who disappeared in GPE and are now detained in GPE , the ORG refers to paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . above .

According to the medical department of ORG , the applicants presented no injuries on DATE .

On DATE , in conditions of strict confidentiality , ORG produced medical certificates drawn up on DATE , DATE after their extradition . According to the prison doctor , the applicants had made “ no complaints about their state of health and were , in general , in good condition ” . On DATE the Government submitted new medical certificates , dated DATE and signed by a cardiologist , a neurologist , a generalist and a surgeon . On DATE they submitted further medical certificates , drawn up on DATE . The most recent medical certificates , submitted on DATE , were dated DATE and were drawn up by doctors from the civilian hospital in town B , in the PERSON region .

According to the medical certificates dated DATE and DATE , Mr PERSON had complained of a dryness of the throat and a dry cough . His condition was described as “ objectively satisfactory ” . Monitoring by the medical service was recommended . According to the medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE , Mr PERSON had made no complaint concerning his state of health and did not present any physical injury . He had a cataract on the left eye and a fracture of the nose bone was noted in DATE . A psychiatric examination on DATE found that he was in good psychological health . X - rays taken on DATE and DATE showed no chest pathology . At no point during his detention had Mr PERSON requested medical assistance . According to a medical certificate dated DATE , the generalist found evidence of dystonia .

On DATE it was noted that PERSON had been ill for DATE . He complained of hot flushes , a cough and shivering . The doctor observed increased vesicular murmurs in the lungs , an acute viral respiratory infection complicated by tracheobronchitis , and possible pneumonia of the right side . His state was described as “ objectively satisfactory ” . Treatment in the medical unit was considered necessary .

The medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE mentions old traces of a fracture of the nose bone , an appendectomy in DATE , and a gunshot wound to the right hip dating from DATE . A psychiatric examination on CARDINAL DATE found that he was in good psychological health . X - rays of DATE and DATE showed no chest pathology . Mr PERSON requested medical treatment on DATE ( for an acute viral respiratory infection ) and DATE ( for acute laryngitis ) . He had made no other requests for medical assistance . According to the medical certificate of DATE , the generalist found evidence of dystonia and cephalalgia .

According to the medical certificates dated DATE and DATE , Mr PERSON complained of general weakness , acute pain in the hips , dryness of the throat and mouth , and a dry cough . DATE he had suffered an acute viral respiratory infection . Normal vesicular murmurs in the lungs and chronic cholecystitis ( inflammation of the gall - bladder ) in remission were observed . His condition was described as “ objectively satisfactory ” . According to the medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE , Mr ORG made no complaint about his state of health . His medical records revealed bruising to the left shoulder . A psychiatric examination on CARDINAL DATE found him to be in good psychological health . X - rays dated DATE and DATE showed no chest pathology . Mr ORG had not asked for medical assistance at any point during his detention . According to the medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE , the generalist found hypotonic dyskinesia of the digestive tract .

According to the medical certificates dated DATE and DATE , Mr PERSON had made no complaint about his state of health . His condition was described as “ objectively satisfactory ” . The medical certificate dated CARDINAL DATE mentions pale pink bruising on the chest , a gunshot wound to the left shoulder dating from DATE and a traumatism on the coccyx dating from DATE . A psychiatric examination on CARDINAL DATE found him to be in good psychological health . X - rays taken on DATE and DATE showed no chest pathology . On DATE Mr PERSON was examined by a doctor following an episode of hypertension and post - traumatic neuritis of the left shoulder . He received medical treatment on DATE and DATE .

According to the medical certificates dated DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , Mr PERSON had made no complaints about his health . His condition was described as “ objectively satisfactory ” . Mr PERSON had not asked for medical assistance at any point during his detention . On DATE the generalist found no evidence of any pathology .

“ It is forbidden to extradite a citizen of GPE to a foreign State except in those cases prescribed by international treaty . An appeal against any extradition decision lies to the courts . ”

“ CARDINAL . Anyone arrested or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty shall be brought before a competent court within TIME . If the court fails to rule on the detention or other custodial measure within TIME following the hearing , the individual concerned must be immediately released .

An arrested or detained person must be informed at the time of arrest or detention of his or her rights and the grounds for the deprivation of liberty . ”

“ Everyone has the right to apply to a court for protection of his or her rights and freedoms . ”

“ No one may be detained without an order of a judge or other judicial decision ... ”

“ The length of detention during the preparatory investigation shall not exceed DATE ; this period shall run from the date of the suspect 's arrest or the defendant 's placement in detention . The date on which the prosecutor refers the case to a court shall be taken as the end of that detention period . ”

This Article also provides for the possibility of extension of the detention period by the competent court , but such detention may not under any circumstances exceed DATE ( which is also the period provided for by the LAW ) .

“ A judicial remedy is available in respect of an action or decision by an inquiry officer , investigating body , investigator or prosecutor which the individual concerned considers unfounded or unlawful , in the case of ( a ) an order to discontinue the case , taken by the investigating body , investigator or prosecutor ; ( b ) a finding of no case to answer , reached by the investigating body , investigator or prosecutor . ”

“ CARDINAL . By virtue of an international agreement on mutual judicial assistance , a foreign ORG may request the extradition of CARDINAL of its citizens who is in NORP territory if that individual is suspected of having committed a crime in his or her own country , or if he or she has been convicted of a crime by a court of that country or if he or she has committed a crime against his or her country in NORP territory .

The extradition request must comply with the requirements laid down in the corresponding international agreement and must emanate from a competent body .

NORP If the NORP Procurator - General considers the extradition request to be lawful and well - founded , he or she shall give instructions for its execution and may , where appropriate , request the assistance of ORG .

NORP ... If the person whose extradition is requested has been placed under investigation on suspicion of having committed a crime in NORP territory , his or her extradition may be postponed until such time as judgment is delivered , the sentence has been served or he or she is released for another lawful reason .

In the cases provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , ORG may , at the request of the competent bodies of the foreign ORG , decide to hand over the latter 's citizen on a temporary basis . If an individual extradited in such a way is given a sentence heavier than or equivalent to that which remained to be served in GPE , he or she shall serve the sentence in his or her own country and shall not be returned to GPE . ”

“ An alien shall not be extradited if he or she has been granted political asylum in GPE . ”

“ CARDINAL . The arrest [ and ] detention ... of an individual whose extradition is requested shall only be possible if the request is accompanied by a warrant ( order , instruction ) duly certified by a competent public body and refers to procedural measures restricting his or her rights and freedoms ... guaranteed under LAW .

NORP The entity from which the extradition request emanated shall be immediately informed of the execution of the measures mentioned in the preceding paragraph .

A foreign national who has been detained in accordance with an extradition request may be detained for a maximum duration of DATE , unless a fresh judicial warrant ( order ) for extension of the detention is produced .

An individual against whom extradition proceedings have been brought shall be entitled to apply to a court for protection of his or her rights . ”

The ORG contains no provisions concerning the right of an individual who is subject to extradition proceedings to have access to material from the extradition file .

Under LAW , it is prohibited , unless otherwise provided in an international treaty , to extradite a NORP national or a stateless person who is permanently resident in GPE with a view to subjecting him or her to criminal proceedings or the enforcement of a sentence in another country . Equally , it is forbidden to extradite an individual to a country in which the crime with which he or she is charged is subject to the death penalty .

A refugee is a person who is not of NORP nationality or origin and who has been obliged to leave the country of which he or she is a national on account of persecution based on race , religion , ethnic origin , membership of a social group or political opinions , and who can not or does not wish to receive the protection of that country ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Individuals who have been granted refugee status must register DATE with ORG CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . A refugee may not be returned to his or her country of origin so long as the circumstances described in section CARDINAL persist ( section CARDINAL ) ) . The individual will lose his or her refugee status should those circumstances cease to exist . The decision to suspend or withdraw refugee status is taken by ORG CARDINAL ) .

In its judgment of DATE in the PERSON case , LAW of ORG held :

“ ... in accordance with LAW , everyone has the right to apply to a court for protection of his or her rights and freedoms . LAW CARDINAL of LAW states that a person against whom extradition proceedings have been brought is entitled to defend his or her rights through the courts . Yet LAW does not prescribe the procedure to be followed when examining such a request ... Nonetheless , this shortcoming in the legislation can not prevent the individual from exercising his or her rights as enshrined in the LAW and LAW The Bench considers that Mr PERSON 's request must be examined on the basis of an interpretation by analogy with LAW , which states that an action or decision of the inquiry officer , investigator or prosecutor may be challenged before the courts if the individual concerned considers it to be unfounded or unlawful . Given that the decision to extradite Mr PERSON was taken by ORG , his application must be examined by ORG in GPE , which has territorial jurisdiction . ”

“ The internationally recognised principles and rules of international law and the international treaties to which GPE is a party are an integral part of its legal system . Where such international treaties provide for rules different from those in the domestic legislation , the rules of the international treaty shall prevail . ”

“ Until such time as it is abolished , capital punishment may be provided for by federal law as an exceptional sentence imposed in the event of particularly serious crimes against human life , and the defendant must have the right to have his or her case examined in a court by a jury . ”

“ An attack on the lives of employees of the police or security forces and their close relatives , either for the purpose of obstructing their lawful activities to ensure public order and security or in order to exact revenge for such activities , shall be punishable by a prison term ranging from DATE , the death penalty or life imprisonment . ”

In accordance with an amendment of DATE , the last sentence of this Article now reads :

“ ... shall be punishable by a prison term ranging from DATE , life imprisonment or the death penalty . ”

The Presidential Decree of DATE on the gradual elimination of the death penalty as a result of GPE 's membership of ORG

“ In accordance with ORG and in the light of LAW of GPE concerning the provisional nature of the imposition of the death penalty as an exceptional punishment in the event of particularly serious crimes against human life , I hereby order :

( CARDINAL ) the Government of GPE to prepare within DATE a draft federal law on GPE accession to LAW No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE to LAW DATE , with a view to its submission to ORG ) ;

( CARDINAL ) the Chambers of ORG of GPE to expedite the enactment of LAW of GPE , LAW and the LAW on LAW ; ... to consider , when examining the draft Criminal Code , the question of reducing the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed . ”

The relevant provisions of ORG judgment of DATE

“ CARDINAL . From the entry into force of this judgment and until such time as assize courts are introduced throughout the territory of the Federation , the death penalty may not be imposed either by an assize court or by a bench composed of CARDINAL professional judges or of a single judge and CARDINAL lay assessors . ”

The Federal Law on ORG , dated DATE

“ ... The prosecutors of the federal subjects of the NORP Federation shall be subordinate to and report to the Procurator - General of GPE , who shall be entitled to remove them from their posts . ”

“ The Procurator - General shall manage the prosecution service of GPE and shall issue orders , indications , instructions and provisions concerning the organisation of the prosecution service 's activities which shall be binding on all employees of the prosecution service 's bodies and establishments . ”

( LAW by the prosecution service of compliance with the law by the administrative authorities of the entities and establishments responsible for the application of sentences ... and by the authorities responsible for LOC used for police custody and detention )

“ The supervision shall concern

( a ) the lawfulness of the incarceration of detainees in places of police custody and pre - trial detention , in corrective labour establishments and other bodies and establishments responsible for the application of sentences and of compulsory measures that have been decided by the courts ;

( b ) NORP observance of the rights and obligations of persons held in police custody , detainees , convicted prisoners and persons subject to compulsory measures , and compliance with the rules and conditions of their detention as set out in the legislation of GPE ... ”

“ In the context of his or her duty to supervise compliance with the law , the prosecutor may

( i ) visit the entities and establishments referred to in section CARDINAL above at any time ;

( ii ) question those detained in police custody , detainees , convicted prisoners and persons subject to compulsory measures ; ...

( iii ) require that the authorities create conditions such as to guarantee the rights of individuals in police custody , detainees , convicted prisoners and persons subject to compulsory measures ; supervise the conformity with the law of measures ... taken by the establishments referred to in section CARDINAL above ; demand explanations from public employees ; prepare objections [ protests ] and opinions ; commence a prosecution or initiate proceedings for administrative offences ... ”

“ The prosecutor 's orders or requests with regard to the rules and conditions of detention of persons held in police custody , detainees , convicted prisoners and persons subject to compulsory measures ... , prescribed by law , shall be binding on the authorities ... ”

“ When conducting a criminal prosecution before a court , individual prosecutors take part in the proceedings on behalf of the public prosecution service . ”

The Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ ORG ” ) , in force since DATE

“ The internationally recognised principles and rules of international law and the international treaties to which GPE is a party are an integral part of GPE legislation governing criminal procedure . Where such international treaties provide for rules different from those set out in the present Code , the rules contained in the international treaty shall prevail . ”

“ Irrespective of the locality in which an offence was committed , proceedings with regard to a criminal case shall be conducted in the territory of GPE in accordance with the present Code , unless otherwise provided by an international treaty to which GPE is a party . ”

“ CARDINAL . Criminal cases shall be examined by a court composed of a bench or of a single judge .

NORP In courts of first instance , criminal cases shall be examined by the following compositions :

( b ) At the defendant 's request , the judge of a federal court and a jury of CARDINAL persons shall examine cases concerning the crimes set out in LAW . ... ”

The crimes set out in LAW of the ORG are , inter alia , those punishable under LAW , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

“ CARDINAL . Pre - trial detention shall be imposed by a judicial decision on an individual who has been placed under investigation or a defendant accused of committing a crime punishable by DATE imprisonment , where another less severe preventive measure can not be applied .

Pre - trial detention may be imposed in the absence of a defendant only if an international search warrant has been issued against him or her . ”

“ Detention pending the investigation shall not exceed DATE . ”

This initial period may subsequently be extended in certain circumstances by a court or judicial officer , in particular on account of the complexity of the case ; however , the overall length of detention may not in any circumstances exceed DATE .

“ Copies of the judgment shall be issued to the convicted or acquitted individual , his or her counsel and the public prosecution service within DATE of its delivery . Within the same time - limit , the civil party , the plaintiff or the defendant in civil proceedings , together with their counsel , may also obtain copies of the judgment , subject to the submission to the court of a written request to that effect . ”

The Federal Law of DATE amending the PERSON on the entry into force of the new ORG

“ ... LAW ( b ) of LAW Procedure shall come into force on DATE in the regions of ... PERSON and PERSON ... ; ... on DATE in GPE . ”

The second date will mark the completion of the introduction of assize courts in GPE .

GPE and GPE are parties to LAW DATE on ORG , Family and Criminal Matters ( “ the GPE Convention ” ) and to LAW .

“ The Contracting Parties undertake , subject to the conditions set out in the present Convention and at the request of CARDINAL of the Parties , to hand over to each other persons found in their territory for the purpose of criminal prosecution or the enforcement of a judgment delivered against them .

Extradition for the purpose of criminal prosecution shall take place if the act or omission in question is an offence under the law of the requesting ORG and that of the requested ORG , and if it is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment superior to DATE or by a more severe punishment .

Extradition for the purpose of the enforcement of a judgment shall take place if the individual whose extradition is requested has been sentenced to a prison term of DATE or to a more severe punishment for having committed an act or omission that is an offence under the law of the requesting ORG and the requested ORG . ”

“ Relations concerning questions of extradition and criminal prosecution shall be carried out through the intermediary of ORG ( prosecutors ) of the Contracting Parties .

Relations concerning the completion of different proceedings or other acts requiring the approval ( ' sanction ' ) of a prosecutor or a court shall be carried out through the intermediary of the prosecution services ' bodies , in accordance with the arrangements decided by ORG ( prosecutors ) of the Contracting Parties . ”

LAW punishment

“ If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the law of the requesting ORG , and if in respect of such offence the death - penalty is not provided for by the law of the requested ORG or is not normally carried out , extradition may be refused unless the requesting ORG gives such assurance as the requested ORG considers sufficient that the death - penalty will not be carried out . ”

LAW and DATE Relations between this Convention and bilateral agreements

“ CARDINAL . This Convention shall , in respect of those countries to which it applies , supersede the provisions of any bilateral treaties , conventions or agreements governing extradition between any CARDINAL Contracting Parties .

The Contracting Parties may conclude between themselves bilateral or multilateral agreements only in order to supplement the provisions of this LAW or to facilitate the application of the principles contained therein . ”

When depositing the instrument of ratification on DATE , GPE made the following reservation :

“ GPE declares that it will not allow the extradition of any person in connection with offences punishable by the death penalty under the requesting ORG 's legislation . ”

Council of Europe

ORG notes that the ORG shares fully its understanding and interpretation of commitments entered into ... and intends :

( ii ) to sign within DATE and ratify within DATE from the time of accession LAW No . CARDINAL to ORG on the abolition of the death penalty in time of peace , and to put into place a moratorium on executions with effect from DATE of accession ;

With regard to the human rights situation in GPE , the ORG remains distressed by the number of killings of politically active individuals , by repeated disappearances and the ineffectiveness of the authorities in investigating them , as well as by the widespread allegations and indications of brutality and violence against the civilian population in the republic .

The NORP authorities seem unable to stop grave human rights violations in GPE . ... [ T]he ORG can only conclude that the prosecuting bodies are either unwilling or unable to find and bring to justice the guilty parties . The ORG deplores the climate of impunity which consequently reigns in GPE and which makes normal life in the republic impossible .

The mandate of ORG in LOC 's ORG to GPE has not been renewed by ORG . ORG for ORG ( CPT ) has complained about GPE lack of co - operation with it . GPE has yet to authorise the publication of its reports and the recommendations of ORG for Human Rights are implemented with long delays , if at all . ORG , set up to deal with individual violations of human rights , can not hope to cope effectively with systematic human rights abuses on the NORP scale via individual complaints . Lamentably , no member ORG or group of member GPE has yet found the courage to lodge an interstate complaint with the ORG .

The dramatic human rights situation in GPE described in the texts adopted by the ORG in DATE has unfortunately not improved significantly since then . The number of ' special operations ' or ' sweeps ' by security forces has in fact significantly decreased , in particular since DATE . However , arbitrary detentions , often followed by the ' disappearance ' , torture or severe beatings of detainees and the theft or destruction of property at the hands of security forces ( NORP and federal ) but also of certain rebel groups , are still occurring on a massive scale , especially as seen against the background of the small population of GPE and the losses already suffered in DATE . ...

The ORG is outraged that serious crimes have been committed against applicants to ORG and their family members , which have not yet been elucidated . Such acts are totally unacceptable as they may deter applications to the ORG , which is the centrepiece of the human rights protection mechanism established by LAW .

“ ... [ T]he information gathered by the ORG 's delegation in the course of its DATE and DATE visits indicated that a considerable number of persons deprived of their liberty in GPE since the outset of the conflict had been physically ill - treated by members of the NORP armed forces or law enforcement agencies . ...

... [ I]n the course of the ORG 's most recent visit to GPE , in DATE , numerous credible and consistent allegations were once again received of severe ill - treatment by federal forces ; in a number of cases , those allegations were supported by medical evidence . The ORG 's delegation found a palpable climate of fear ; many people who had been ill - treated and others who knew about such offences were reluctant to file complaints to the authorities . There was the fear of reprisals at local level and a general sentiment that , in any event , justice would not be done . ...

... According to the information gathered during the DATE visit , there were clear indications on some of the bodies that the deaths were the result of summary executions ; further , certain of the bodies had been identified by relatives as those of persons who had disappeared following their detention by NORP forces . ...

In their reply forwarded on DATE , the NORP authorities indicate that they are not willing to provide the information requested or to engage in a discussion with the ORG on the matters indicated above ; they assert that such matters do not fall within the ORG 's purview under LAW or Punishment . Such an approach is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the international treaty establishing the ORG and can only be qualified as a failure to cooperate with the ORG . ”

NORP On DATE , the ORG issued a public statement concerning GPE . ...

Subsequently , some steps forward have been made . ...

[ However , ] in the course of the ORG 's visits to GPE in DATE and , most recently , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , a considerable number of persons interviewed independently at different places alleged that they had been severely ill - treated whilst detained by law enforcement agencies . The allegations were detailed and consistent , and concerned methods such as very severe beating , the infliction of electric shocks , and asphyxiation using a plastic bag or gas mask . In many cases , these allegations were supported by medical evidence . Some persons examined by the delegation 's doctors displayed physical marks or conditions which were fully consistent with their allegations . ...

Human Rights Watch

The reports entitled “ GPE / GPE – Swept under : Torture , forced disappearances , and extrajudicial killings during sweep operations in GPE ” ( vol . CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ( D ) , DATE ) , “ Confessions at any cost : Police torture in GPE ” ( DATE ) and “ Welcome to Hell – Arbitrary detention , torture , and extortion in GPE ” ( DATE ) describe acts of torture , especially medical torture , against NORP prisoners and arbitrary executions . Other prisoners have disappeared without trace . Thus , an entire people was allegedly exposed to a serious threat of extermination . In addition to those observations , the reports contain about QUANTITY interviews with NORP who had been held in CARDINAL “ detention centres ” across GPE and the neighbouring GPE regions and had survived torture , rape and ill - treatment . They had been released as a result of bribes paid to NORP soldiers . The reports describe different forms of torture carried out in those centres . The report “ Welcome to Hell ” presents evidence of the acts of torture and ill - treatment experienced by NORP prisoners in pre - trial detention centres in the PERSON region . The methods regularly used in those LOC include the “ live corridor ” ( the prisoners are beaten as they go through a corridor ) , the “ beating of kneeling and bent - over prisoners ” and “ beating of naked prisoners with clubs , carried out in shower rooms ” . All the NORP former prisoners who gave evidence to ORG used false names and were described using pseudonyms , which were cited in quotation marks .

ORG and the NORP ORG

According to an ORG published in DATE , the CARDINAL prisons in which the extradited applicants were initially placed and in which they are currently detained are “ filtration camps ” . ORG has listed various forms of torture practised in those camps in the context of the conflict which is raging throughout GPE . “ Testimonies ... confirm that detainees ( both men and women ) are raped , tortured with electric shocks and tear gas and beaten with hammers and clubs . Other forms of torture consist in sawing the victim 's teeth or striking him or her until the eardrums burst . ”

The NORP ORG confirmed this information and submitted extracts from the administrative order under which filtration centres had been temporarily opened in the CARDINAL establishments in which the applicants were and are detained , the purpose being to check the prisoners ' identities and to establish their role in the armed conflict against the army and the armed forces of ORG ( information published by the NORP association Memorial ) .

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture ( E / CN.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; E / CN.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/Add.CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL )

The majority of cases brought to ORG attention concerned individuals detained by the NORP forces in GPE . The acts of torture and ill - treatment reported were , inter alia , the following : imprisonment in a dark cell ; blows to the entire body from a hammer or rifle butt ; a deep knife wound to the leg ; setting of dogs on detainees ; forcing the victim to remain in a kneeling position for TIME ; electric shocks ; punching ; torture consisting of flaying and scalping ; broken limbs ; severed fingertips or nose ; firing at the victim at point - blank range ; packing prisoners for DATE in unheated parked vehicles ; deprivation of nourishment ; access to toilets denied ; rape or threat of rape against female prisoners ; stab wounds to the entire body ; eyes torn out ; burns to the legs and arms .

Report of DATE by ORG

PERSON Persecution of Applicants to ORG

... As the NORP judicial system fails to address the crimes committed in GPE , there remains the possibility of applying to ORG ) ... At the same time , many applicants have been threatened , harassed , detained , or even forcibly disappeared and killed . Some of the cases , notably that of Lipkhan Bazaeva who is both an activist and an applicant , have already been mentioned . There was a sharp rise in cases of persecution of applicants in DATE and DATE . This pattern can be explained partly by the fact that there is a growing number of applicants . But even when this is taken into account , the number of attacks appears to have grown disproportionately to the number of applicants – a fact which suggests that persecution of applicants is an emerging trend .

Some of the organisations that represent applicants from GPE before the ECtHR , namely GPE , ORG , and GPE Justice Initiative , have reported other incidents aimed at some of their clients . In letters to the ECtHR they CARDINAL cases , with a total of CARDINAL counts of abuse , in which different applicants have been persecuted in connection with their search for justice .

All in all , the cases of persecution of ECtHR applicants include both verbal and written threats , sometimes against other family members . In CARDINAL case an applicant lost his job . In CARDINAL cases soldiers illegally searched an applicant 's house . CARDINAL of the applicants was robbed . In CARDINAL cases , applicants were beaten . In CARDINAL case , the applicant went into hiding . In CARDINAL cases the applicants are considering withdrawing their applications to the courts . CARDINAL formally withdrew their applications . Most of the threats and beatings were reported in DATE and DATE . Federal forces are believed to be involved in all of these cases . The organisations representing the applicants claim that notifications about incidents from the ECtHR to the NORP authorities have had a positive effect in some cases , easing the pressure on individual applicants and their families .

The report describes the circumstances in which several applicants , including PERSON ( killed , application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( persecuted , application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and ORG ( persecuted , application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , were subjected to violence .

F. Persecution of Foreign Human Rights Defenders

ORG OSCE ) established an office in GPE , GPE in DATE , but GPE refused to extend the mandate of ORG when it expired at DATE . While there have been few foreigners inside GPE , some international and humanitarian organisations have maintained offices in GPE . However , a number of the foreign representatives left ORG after the DATE attacks . The international presence in LOC is becoming increasingly diluted , resulting in the near - absence of witnesses and help from the outside .