The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by Mr PERSON , Director in ORG .

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

The applicant is a businessman and a trader . In the course of his trading activities the applicant has built up a considerable fortune by way of increasing the value of companies which he owns and operates . It is the sale of CARDINAL of these companies , ORG ( “ T ” hereinafter ) , and the tax levied on the transaction that has led to this application .

On DATE the applicant sold the shares of T to a company called ORG to be further sold to a party to be later nominated by the buyer . The sales price of the shares was MONEY ( ORG ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The buyer company went into liquidation DATE after the transaction . According to the applicant he in no way contributed to the financing of the transaction and did not own any joint undertakings with the buyer . The Government contended that the transaction had been given a form disguising its real nature as a transfer of assets ( taseyhtiökauppa , skalbolagstransaktion ) . The ORG maintained that the assets of T were transferred to another company also owned by the applicant and the company was allegedly sold at a price significantly exceeding the net amount of the company ’s assets .

In the regular taxation for DATE the applicant was taxed for the capital gains . The tax payable amounted to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) . The applicant paid in full the tax levied on him .

On DATE ORG ( verohallitus , skattestyrelsen ) sent an internal letter titled “ Abuses related to avoir fiscal tax rebates ” to county tax offices ( lääninverovirasto , länsskatteverk ) . In the letter it was held that the amount of tax refunds issued in probable abuse of LAW ( laki yhtiöveron hyvityksestä , lag om gottgörelse för bolagsskatt ; DATE , which entered into force on DATE ) was significant in some regions for DATE . The county tax offices were prompted to select the most significant refund recipients so that possible abuses might be addressed in connection with the dividend recipients’ regular taxation . In an accompanying memorandum it was explained , inter alia , that dividend receiving companies were entitled to an avoir fiscal tax rebate and that if it was a loss - making company it would receive a tax refund . The avoir fiscal system was most commonly exploited in connection with so - called balance sheet company transactions , such a company having no tangible assets but only cash assets and receivables . Attention had to be paid to transactions whereby the company ’s balance sheet and deferred tax liabilities were transferred to a buyer while the company ’s actual business assets were transferred to a new company ( often owned by the vendor ) . The buyer of the balance sheet obtained a tax refund which was paid over to the seller together with the dividends as part of the purchase price . Such transactions could be executed with the intention of not paying any tax .

From DATE , there was a tax inspection concerning the transfer of shares from the applicant ’s company . On DATE , the applicant was sent a preliminary tax inspection report by ORG ( verotoimisto , skattebyrån ) .

On DATE ORG sent an internal memorandum titled “ Transfer of assets arrangements and taxation ” to , inter alia , county tax offices . In an accompanying letter it was explained that the memorandum discussed transfer of assets arrangements involving so - called balance sheet companies and various principles related to the tax treatment of those arrangements . In order to develop the said memorandum further , county tax offices were invited to express their views on the positions taken in the memorandum .

On DATE ORG issued a final report . On the basis of that report , ORG found on DATE that there were no reasons to reassess the taxes paid by the applicant for DATE .

The competent tax agent of GPE ( veroasiamies , skatteombudet ; “ the Agent ” hereinafter ) however considered that the nature of the above - mentioned transaction was not an “ arm ’s length ” sale , but a transaction intended to benefit the applicant in violation of the Revenue ’s right to tax . The Agent appealed on DATE against the decision and recommended to ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden ) that a re - assessment of tax be imposed making the applicant liable for tax for DATE to the extent of the full sales price of ORG CARDINAL on the grounds that the transaction was a disguised means of taking out dividends , i.e. benefit from the company .

On DATE the applicant objected to the requests in written observations maintaining that the transaction was a true arm ’s length transaction . The applicant , inter alia , criticised the Agent ’s arguments insofar as the Agent had claimed that an affidavit made by a managing director of the bank responsible for the financial arrangements for the transactions ( submitted by the applicant previously to ORG ) was unreliable . The applicant also rejected the Agent ’s criticism of a statement by a tax expert also submitted previously by the applicant .

On DATE ORG decided that arrangements violating LAW ( verotuslaki , beskattningslag ) had been undertaken in order for the applicant to be able to transfer the assets of the company to himself with as little tax consequences as possible . It held that the transfer of assets was in fact a disguised means of taking out dividends from company ORG calculated the tax from the entire sales price to cover the amount considered to actually have benefited the seller , i.e. FIM CARDINAL ( MONEY ) , on which a MONEY tax surcharge ( veronkorotus , skatteförhöjning ) was imposed . The tax surcharge totalled QUANTITY . The decision was based on sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( lääninoikeus , länsrätten ) of PERSON demanding quashing of the entire tax decision . The applicant maintained , inter alia , that no such changes had occurred in case law between the report of the tax auditors and the decision of ORG that would have provided the latter with a valid basis for viewing the reassessment of tax issue differently from the tax auditors or ORG . The applicant also emphasised that no discussions took place in connection with the audit about the transaction at issue , and that he had only had an opportunity to provide his response after he received a preliminary report . The applicant further maintained that ORG had reviewed the matter more on the basis of impressions created by the preliminary report than by considering the actual facts of the case and had replaced facts with suppositions . The applicant also claimed that the chairman of ORG was biased . He further maintained that ORG had examined the matter on the basis of the tax authority ’s treatment of abuses related to the avoir fiscal system and maintained that nothing was known about the avoir fiscal system and the opportunities it presented for gaining tax - related advantages in DATE . In that context he referred to the first guidelines on abuses being issued by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG submitted to the court a statement from the Agent , and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted his comments on the statement .

On DATE ORG submitted further documents .

On DATE , the applicant lodged further evidence .

On DATE ORG issued an order prohibiting the enforced collection of the taxes in question until DATE ( later extended during DATE ) . This was as ORG was expected to give judgment in cases concerning the imposition of taxes in cases concerning the circumstances in which share transactions constituted a transfer of assets . ORG issued its decisions in these cases on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal without an oral hearing . It held that there had been no economic business grounds for the transaction at issue , that the measures did not comply with the actual nature and purpose of the matter and in reality the cash assets of the company had been used to pay the purchase price to the applicant . In the circumstances it had to be deemed that the arrangement had been undertaken in order to evade taxes contrary to sections CARDINAL of LAW . It further concluded that the amount of surcharge to be paid was not unreasonable .

On DATE the applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) repeating his earlier requests and arguments and providing further observations on the findings of ORG , in particular alleging that its decision was not consistent with legal precedent .

On DATE , the Agent submitted observations , as did ORG Helsinki on DATE . On the latter date the applicant was requested to submit his comments . Following an extension in the time - limit , the applicant submitted his further observations on DATE . The applicant emphasised , inter alia , that the whole proceedings were based on allegations and suppositions as ORG operated on the basic premise that the matter had from the start involved bad faith although not the least shred of evidence has been produced in support of this presumed bad faith .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

The tax imposed together with the tax surcharge and interest on arrears was in DATE approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( verotuslaki , beskattningslag ; DATE , as in force up to and including DATE ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ) contained the general rule applicable to cases of tax evasion , under which taxes may be reassessed so as to correspond to the real nature of transactions , irrespective of their legal form . Pursuant to subsection CARDINAL , the tax payer must be given an opportunity to comment on each relevant point .

Section CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time , provided for the taxation of assets taken out of a company as veiled dividends ( peitelty osinko , förtäckt dividend ) .

Under LAW ( as in force at the relevant time and up to and including DATE ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ) a tax surcharge was to be imposed , inter alia , where the taxpayer had , knowingly or grossly negligently , given incorrect information in the tax return or otherwise given wrong information or documents , a surcharge of a maximum of MONEY was to be imposed . The tax surcharge was imposed on that income in respect of which defective or incorrect information had been provided . According to the provision there was no discretion as to the imposition of the tax surcharge in the described circumstances ( see Government PERSON ) .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , ( which was amended on DATE ( Act CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and which was for the first time applied to the assessment of taxes levied for DATE and which Act was in force until and including DATE ) provided , inter alia , that where the taxpayer had , knowingly or grossly negligently , given incorrect information in the tax return or otherwise given wrong information or documents , a surcharge of CARDINAL per cent of the additional amount of taxes was to be imposed , if there were no particular reasons against the imposition of the tax surcharge . The amended provision enabled the local tax offices to use their discretion as to whether or not to impose the tax surcharge .

Section CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time , provided that if a taxpayer , due to the fact that he had not given a tax return or he had given a defective , misleading or wrong tax return or other information or document , had not been taxed fully or taxed only in part , the tax which had not been levied for the said reason was to be levied with interest on the arrears and with a tax surcharge . The re - assessment could be conducted within DATE from DATE which followed the termination of the taxation . If possible , the taxpayer was to be given an opportunity to be heard before the reassessment of tax . However , if the hearing of the taxpayer would probably not benefit the decision making , there was no need to give the taxpayer a possibility to be heard . The said section corresponds in substance to section CARDINAL of the existing LAW ( laki verotusmenettelystä , lag om beskattningsförfarande ; DATE , as in force as from DATE ) with the exception of a strict obligation to give the taxpayer a possibility to be heard .

The provisions concerning appeal contained in LAW ( as amended by LAW effective as from DATE ) were in substance the same as in the provisions in the existing LAW .

Under section DATE of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , an appeal against a decision on taxation shall , as a first instance , be made to ORG . Appeal from the ORG lay to ORG and then , with leave to appeal , to ORG .

In the appeals procedure the interests of the ORG or other tax recipients were represented by a tax agent ( ORG , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) : verohallintolaki , lag om skatteförvaltningen DATE as in force at the relevant time ) .

According to the reservation made by GPE in accordance with LAW , as in force at the relevant time , GPE could not guarantee a right to an oral hearing in so far as the NORP laws at the time of the events at issue did not provide such a right . This applied , inter alia , to proceedings which were held before ORG , in accordance with LAW of ORG ( laki lääninoikeuksista , lag om länsrätt ) and proceedings before ORG , in accordance with LAW ) of ORG ( laki korkeimmasta hallinto - oikeudesta , lag om högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) and in which the decision subject to appeal was rendered before DATE . The reservation was withdrawn on CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Art. 5-1-c;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant 's father and PERSON - owned a cottage in GPE . The applicant 's father decided to sell his share of the cottage and authorised the applicant to organise the sale .

On DATE PERSON was murdered . On the same date Mr PERSON , who had carried out certain repair works for the applicant , was arrested by the police and confessed to the murder . He told the police that the applicant had instigated the crime and promised him remuneration for the murder . On DATE the police conducted a search of the applicant 's flat .

The date and time of the applicant 's arrest are disputed between the parties . According to the applicant , she was arrested at TIME on DATE . According to the Government , she was arrested at TIME on DATE , the time indicated in the arrest report drawn up by the investigator and signed by the applicant .

On DATE the Prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District of ORG authorised the applicant 's pre - trial detention . The order stated as follows :

“ [ Taking into account ] the gravity of the crime committed by [ Mrs ] ORG , and also the fact that at the present time there are insufficient grounds for bringing charges against her , the fact that she may abscond from the investigation and fail to appear at court , commit another crime or interfere with the establishment of the truth in the criminal case , [ the investigator ] has decided to choose with regard to [ Mrs ] PERSON ... detention in the GPE SIZO-CARDINAL as a measure of restraint ... ”

On DATE the applicant was charged with incitement to murder .

On DATE the applicant changed her legal counsel .

NORP On DATE the applicant made an application for the measure of restraint to be changed to an undertaking not to leave her place of residence . She submitted that her second son , having been injured in an accident , was in hospital , and her younger daughter of CARDINAL needed to be taken care of .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application as follows :

“ On DATE a measure of restraint was chosen by ORG in respect of [ Mrs ] Savenkova .

[ Mrs ] ORG requests that the measure of restraint be changed as she is not guilty , has CARDINAL children , and her son has been injured in an accident .

The measure of restraint was chosen lawfully and reasonably , and took into consideration the gravity of the charges .

Pursuant to LAW [ RSFSR ] LAW , [ the court ] has decided to dismiss the complaint .

This decision may be appealed against to ORG within DATE . ”

The applicant did not appeal against the decision .

On DATE the acting Prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District of Tambov extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention to DATE , referring to the gravity of charges as grounds .

On DATE the acting Deputy Prosecutor of the Tambov Region extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention to CARDINAL DATE , referring to the gravity of charges and the risk of fleeing justice and obstructing the investigation .

On DATE the acting Deputy Prosecutor of the Tambov Region extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention to DATE , referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of fleeing justice and obstructing the investigation .

On DATE the criminal case file was submitted to ORG for examination on the merits .

On DATE the applicant 's counsel sent a telegram to ORG requesting it to terminate the applicant 's prosecution and release her from custody .

On DATE ORG scheduled the first trial hearing to take place on DATE and held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant , the detention in the FAC SIZO-CARDINAL , “ should remain unchanged ” .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of incitement to murder and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment . PERSON was found guilty of murder and sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined and dismissed an appeal by the applicant . The applicant and PERSON were transferred to correctional facilities to serve their sentences .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General , at the applicant 's request , lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment .

On DATE the ORG of ORG of GPE granted the request for supervisory review , quashed the judgment on the grounds of inadequate legal assistance to PERSON , and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh examination . ORG ordered the applicant and PERSON to remain in custody .

On DATE the case file was transferred to ORG . On an unspecified date the applicant and PERSON were transferred to the FAC SIZO-CARDINAL and remained there awaiting the second trial .

On DATE the ORG conducted a hearing of the criminal case where the applicant allegedly challenged the detention order and requested to be released . She provided a copy of the application , signed by her counsel PERSON . , but claims that the court did not examine it .

According to the applicant , on DATE her lay representative , NORP , lodged another application with ORG for the measure of restraint to be changed to an obligation not to leave her place of residence . According to the Government , this application was lodged on DATE .

On DATE , before the hearing of her case by ORG , the applicant 's counsel PERSON . made an application to the court challenging the applicant 's continued pre - trial detention and requesting that the measure of restraint be changed to an undertaking not to leave her place of residence . The application was examined and dismissed by ORG with reference to the gravity of the charges .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant and PERSON of all charges because of lack of evidence . They were released in the court room . The prosecutor appealed against the acquittal .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted the prosecutor 's appeal , reversed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh first - instance examination .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment . PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . They were taken into custody from the court room .

On appeal , on DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE in substance , but reduced the applicant 's sentence to DATE imprisonment and PERSON 's sentence to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted the applicant 's request for the suspension of her imprisonment and she was released .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR ( PERSON of DATE , “ the old CCrP ” ) . From DATE the old ORG was replaced by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , “ the new CCrP ” ) .

“ Preventive measures ” ( меры пресечения ) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , personal security , bail and detention ( LAW of the old ORG , LAW ) .

LAW of DATE establishes that a judicial decision is required before a defendant can be detained or have his or her detention extended ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Under the old ORG , a decision ordering detention could be taken by a prosecutor or a court ( LAW , CARDINAL and DATE ) .

The new ORG requires a judicial decision by a district or town court on a reasoned request by a prosecutor supported by appropriate evidence ( LAW and DATE ) .

When deciding whether to remand an accused in custody , the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “ sufficient grounds to believe ” that he or she would abscond during the investigation or trial or obstruct the establishment of the truth or reoffend ( LAW CCrP ) . It must also take into account the gravity of the charge , information on the accused 's character , his or her profession , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances ( LAW CCrP , LAW ) .

NORP Before DATE , detention was authorised if the accused was charged with a criminal offence carrying a sentence of DATE imprisonment or if there were “ exceptional circumstances ” in the case ( Article CARDINAL ) . On DATE the old ORG was amended to permit defendants to be remanded in custody if the charge carried a sentence of DATE imprisonment or if they had previously absconded or had no permanent residence in GPE , or if their identity could not be ascertained . The amendments of DATE also repealed the provision that permitted defendants to be remanded in custody on the sole ground of the dangerous nature of the criminal offence they had committed . The new ORG reproduced the amended provisions ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and added that a defendant should not be remanded in custody if a less severe preventive measure was available .

The Codes distinguished CARDINAL types of detention : detention “ pending the investigation ” , that is , while a competent agency – the police or a prosecutor 's office – investigated the case , and detention “ before the court ” ( or “ during the trial ” ) , that is , while the case was being tried in court . Although there was no difference in practice between them ( the detainee was held in the same detention facility ) , the calculation of the time - limits was different .

After arrest the suspect is placed in custody “ pending the investigation ” . The maximum permitted period of detention “ pending the investigation ” is DATE but it can be extended for DATE in “ exceptional circumstances ” . Extensions were authorised by prosecutors of ascending hierarchical levels ( under the old CCrP ) but must now be authorised by judicial decisions taken by courts of ascending levels ( under the new ORG ) . No extension of detention “ pending the investigation ” beyond DATE is possible ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) .

The period of detention “ pending the investigation ” is calculated up to DATE when the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) .

Access to the case file materials is to be granted DATE before the expiry of the authorised detention period ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) . If the defendant needs more time to study the case file , a judge , at the request of a prosecutor , may grant an extension of detention until such time as the file has been read in full and the case sent for trial ( LAW CCrP , LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the new ORG ) . Under the old ORG , such an extension could not be granted for DATE .

Under the old ORG , the trial court had the right to remit the case for an “ additional investigation ” if it established that procedural defects existed that could not be remedied at the trial . In such cases the defendant 's detention was again classified as “ pending the investigation ” and the relevant time - limit continued to apply . If , however , the case was remitted for an additional investigation but the investigators had already used up all the time authorised for detention “ pending the investigation ” , a supervising prosecutor could nevertheless extend the detention period for DATE from the date he received the case . Subsequent extensions could only be granted if the detention “ pending the investigation ” had not exceeded DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) .

From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court , the defendant 's detention is “ before the court ” ( or “ during the trial ” ) .

Before DATE the old ORG set no time - limit for detention “ during the trial ” . On DATE a new LAW was inserted which established that the period of detention “ during the trial ” could not normally exceed DATE from the date the court received the file . However , if there was evidence to show that the defendant 's release might impede a thorough , complete and objective examination of the case , a court could – of its own motion or on at the request of a prosecutor – extend the detention by no longer than DATE . These provisions did not apply to defendants charged with a particularly serious criminal offence .

The new ORG establishes that the term of detention “ during the trial ” is calculated from the date the court receives the file to the date the judgment is given . The period of detention “ during the trial ” may not normally exceed DATE , but if the case concerns serious criminal offences , the trial court may approve CARDINAL or more extensions of no longer than DATE each ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

Under the old CCrP , the detainee or his or her counsel or representative could challenge a detention order issued by a prosecutor , and any subsequent extension order , before a court . The judge was required to review the lawfulness of and justification for a detention or extension order DATE after receipt of the relevant papers . The review had to be conducted in camera in the presence of a prosecutor and the detainee 's counsel or representative . The detainee had to be summoned and a review in his absence was only permissible in exceptional circumstances if the detainee waived his right to be present of his own free will . The judge could either dismiss the challenge or revoke the pre - trial detention and order the detainee 's release ( LAW ) .

An appeal to a higher court lay against the judge 's decision . It had to be examined within the same time - limit as appeals against a judgment on the merits ( Article CARDINAL in fine ) .

Under the new ORG , an appeal may be lodged with a higher court within DATE of a judicial decision ordering or extending detention on remand . The appeal court must decide the appeal within DATE of its receipt ( LAW ) .

Upon receipt of the case file , the judge must determine , in particular , whether the defendant should remain in custody or be released pending trial ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the old ORG , ORG ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the new ORG ) and rule on any application by the defendant for release ( LAW CCrP ) . If the application is refused , a fresh application can be made once the trial has commenced ( LAW CCrP ) .

At any time during the trial the court may order , vary or revoke any preventive measure , including detention ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) . Any such decision must be given in the deliberations room and be signed by all the judges of the bench ( LAW ORG , LAW ) .

An appeal against such a decision lies to the higher court . It must be lodged within DATE and examined within the same time - limit as an appeal against a judgment on the merits ( Article CARDINAL of the old CCrP , LAW of the new CCrP ) .

Under the old ORG , within DATE of receipt of the case file ( if the defendant was in custody ) , the judge was required either : ( CARDINAL ) to fix the trial date ; ( CARDINAL ) to return the case for an additional investigation ; ( CARDINAL ) to stay or discontinue the proceedings ; or ( CARDINAL ) to refer the case to a court with jurisdiction to hear it ( Article CARDINAL ) . The new ORG empowers the judge , within the same time - limit , ( CARDINAL ) to refer the case to a competent court ; ( CARDINAL ) to fix a date for a preliminary hearing ( предварительное слушание ) ; or ( CARDINAL ) to fix a date for trial ( LAW ) . The trial must begin DATE after the judge has fixed the trial date ( LAW CCrP , LAW ) . There are no restrictions on fixing the date of a preliminary hearing .

NORP The duration of the trial is not limited .

Under the old ORG , the appeal court was required to examine an appeal against the first - instance judgment within DATE of its receipt . In exceptional circumstances or in complex cases , or in proceedings before ORG , this time - limit could be extended by DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) . No further extensions were possible .

The new ORG establishes that the appeal court must start the examination of the appeal DATE after its receipt ( Article CARDINAL ) .


CASE OF BUSINESS SUPPORT CENTRE v. BULGARIA

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

On DATE ORG entered into an agreement with ORG to set up a business incubator for small and medium - sized enterprises in the town of PERSON . In the course of implementing the project , the applicant organisation undertook to renovate a property of the Ruse municipal council against being granted the right to use it for the needs of the business incubator for a period of DATE . The renovation was completed on DATE and cost ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) all of which was paid by the applicant organisation .

On DATE , apparently in the course of renovating the municipal property , ORG received a supply from a sole trader ( “ the supplier ” ) . It is unclear whether the transaction was for a supply of goods or services . As both entities were registered under LAW of DATE ( “ the VAT Act ” ) the transaction constituted a taxable supply under LAW .

NORP The total cost of the received supply was BGN CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) , of which ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) was the value of the goods or services and ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) was value - added tax ( “ NORP ” ) . The supplier issued invoice no . CARDINAL to the applicant organisation , which the latter paid in full , including the LOC . The applicant organisation recorded the supply in its accounting records for DATE and filed its ORG return for that period on DATE . The supplier , on the other hand , failed to record the transaction in its accounting records , to file a ORG return and to settle its obligations with the ORG budget .

On DATE the tax authorities initiated an audit of the applicant organisation , covering , in respect of VAT , the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . In the course of the inspection a cross - check of the supplier was conducted in order to ascertain whether it had properly reported and recorded the supply in its accounting records . As a result , its failure to comply with its NORP reporting and payment obligations was discovered ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG of ORG issued the applicant organisation with a tax assessment . In respect of VAT it found that ORG had mistakenly deducted CARDINAL payments it had made to suppliers for input ORG amounting to ORG ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and had failed to charge output GPE , in the amount of BGN CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , on a taxable service it had provided .

NORP In particular , in respect of the transaction under invoice no . CARDINAL the tax authorities refused the applicant organisation the right to deduct the input ORG it had paid , amounting to ORG CARDINAL ( ORG MONEY ) , because the supplier had failed to record the transaction in its accounting records , to file a ORG return and to settle his obligations towards the ORG budget . Thus , they considered that no ORG had been “ charged ” on the supply in question and that the applicant organisation could not therefore deduct the input GPE .

Based on the above conclusions , the tax authorities adjusted the applicant organisation 's input and output GPE for the relevant reporting period . In respect of the supply under invoice no . CARDINAL , this had the effect that the applicant organisation had to pay a second time the input NORP of BGN CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . In addition , it was ordered to pay interest of BGN MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) on that amount .

On DATE the applicant organisation appealed against the tax assessment . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG confirmed in full the findings in the tax assessment in respect of the input GPE BGN CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant organisation appealed to the courts .

On DATE ORG found against the applicant organisation , which appealed further . In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower court 's findings and those of the tax authorities in respect of the input GPE ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . In reaching their decisions , the courts likewise concluded that in so far as the supplier had failed to file GPE returns and to settle his obligations towards the ORG budget , the applicant organisation had no right to deduct the said input ORG .

The relevant provisions of LAW have been summarised in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , provides that an interested party may request the reopening of administrative proceedings in cases where a “ judgment of ORG has found a violation of the Convention ” . ORG has already had occasion to use it to reopen proceedings subsequent to ORG judgments for violations of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention ( решение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на PERSON по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , CARDINAL с-в , and определение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. на PERSON по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG ) .

The relevance of the acquis communautaire and the findings of ORG of ORG in joined cases C CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG and C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG ( C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG ( C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and ORG ( C DATE ) v ORG and in joined Cases C CARDINAL/CARDINAL and LAW , PERSON NORP State ( C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and NORP State v GPE ( C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ( ECR CARDINAL , page I CARDINAL ) have also been summarised in the case of ORG ( § § CARDINAL DATE , cited above ) .


Violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 13;No separate issues under Art. 6 and 8;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award

The applicant was born in PERSON , CARDINAL of the GPE islands , in DATE . GPE is part of GPE . It has its own President , parliament and government and enjoys considerable autonomy .

According to the applicant , in DATE he joined ORG ( “ the CUF ” ) , an opposition party in GPE . He was an active member , attending meetings and contributing money to the party funds . In DATE the applicant was arrested by ORG ( “ the ORG ” , the ruling party ) officers because of his involvement with the CUF . He was detained at GPE police station in GPE for DATE , where he was tortured . He was repeatedly locked in a cell full of water for DATE at a time so he was unable to lie down . He was hung upside down with his feet tied together until he bled through the nose , and he was also subjected to electric shocks .

In DATE the applicant stated that he was released from detention following pressure from CUF leaders on the NORP government . He was admitted to hospital , where a medical officer recorded that the applicant was haemorrhaging severely through the nose as a result of his treatment and had been subjected to harm endangering life .

The applicant stated that his brother had been taken into detention shortly before he was . He had been ill - treated and died in DATE in hospital where he had been taken from prison .

NORP Following his release , the applicant stated that he only contributed funds to the CUF . In DATE the police came looking for him while he was out . The police detained his wife TIME and questioned his friends . He decided to leave his home and GPE , fearing for his safety .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and claimed asylum . DATE a pro forma interview was held with an immigration officer , where the applicant was assisted by an interpreter . According to the form , the purpose of the interview was to enable the immigration officer to take down the initial details of the asylum application . When asked what the basis of his asylum claim was , the applicant was noted as having said : “ Because of the problems in the country and my safety . I have been threatened a lot by the ruling party so I decided to leave the country . ” The applicant stated that he had been a member of the ORG since DATE .

At the full asylum interview held on DATE , the applicant was recorded as stating that he had had no problem in obtaining a passport as he was a businessman , and that he had organised his passage to GPE himself . When asked what the basis for his asylum claim was , he stated that he had been taken away and detained for DATE , from DATE , at GPE police station , where he had been tortured . He had been locked in a room with a very low ceiling , where he could not stand up , and then placed for DATE in a room filled with water up to the chest , where he could not lie down . He was taken out and returned there twice a week . DATE before he was released he was hung upside down and given electric shocks . He had been arrested because he gave money to the CUF . He was told that he had been released because the CUF leaders had approached the authorities in GPE . After his release , he was treated in a private clinic . He produced his ORG card . He had been an ordinary member , doing nothing more than give money . He had not taken part in the demonstration which had been allowed . He mentioned that his brother had been arrested in DATE and died after being in police custody . His brother had been badly beaten and was vomiting blood , so they had released him to hospital on DATE as they knew he was going to die . His uncle had helped him to leave , obtaining an income - tax clearance and an airline ticket . His uncle checked in with the ticket for him and he was able to board the plane .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused asylum , finding the applicant ’s account implausible and noting inconsistencies in his answers . The applicant ’s appeal to a special adjudicator was dismissed on DATE . During the proceedings the applicant had claimed that the NORP authorities intercepted the letters he was sending home , knew that he had claimed asylum , and had summoned his parents to explain

“ about [ their ] son who [ was ] in a foreign country to abuse the government which [ was ] in power ... ”

He provided correspondence from ORG concerning his enquiries about money which had gone missing from a registered letter dated DATE which he had sent to his parents in GPE .

In his decision the special adjudicator noted inconsistencies between the evidence given by the applicant before him and the answers given in his asylum interviews . He placed considerable weight on the fact that the applicant had not mentioned his arrest and torture at his first asylum interview and did not accept the applicant ’s explanation that the interviewing officer told him that it was not necessary to give details at this stage or that he was having difficulties with the interpreter . He also noted that the evidence concerning his brother ’s arrest was contradictory and that no documentary evidence such as a death certificate had been produced . He therefore did not accept that the applicant ’s brother was arrested , tortured or killed . He also observed that the applicant had not provided documentary evidence that the GPE authorities were accusing him of tarnishing GPE ’s good name , and therefore did not accept that it existed . Looking at the evidence as a whole , he concluded that there was no well - founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason established to the required standard .

Leave to appeal to ORG was refused on DATE .

The applicant obtained a copy of his brother ’s death certificate and a medical report which recorded that his brother died on DATE , after being brought to hospital from prison with a history of severe chest pain and general body weakness associated with a fever . He also obtained the summons from the Pemba police headquarters to his parents dated CARDINAL DATE requesting their attendance to explain the applicant ’s unlawful conduct in embarrassing the government and country . He made representations to the Secretary of ORG dated DATE , providing copies and requesting that his letter be considered as a fresh asylum application .

By letter dated DATE the Secretary of ORG expressed the view that the police summons was self - serving and not significant , while the death certificate did not disclose proof that his brother , who died of a fever , had been murdered by the authorities . He had , accordingly , decided not to treat the representations as a fresh application for asylum , but to reconsider the original asylum application on all the evidence available to him . He refused on that basis to reverse his decision .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representatives requested , alternatively , that the new material be referred to the special adjudicator under LAW of LAW DATE . By letter dated DATE the Secretary of ORG informed them that he had decided not to refer the material in question .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant ’s representatives submitted to the Secretary of ORG a medical report about the applicant ’s treatment following detention in GPE , and requested that the new materials be submitted to the special adjudicator under section CARDINAL . They submitted further representations on DATE .

The hospital medical report , dated DATE , from a medical officer recorded that the applicant had suffered a severe nasal haemorrhage , that this was of a “ dangerous harm ” degree and that the injury had been inflicted by hanging upside down .

By letter dated DATE the Secretary of ORG informed the applicant that he had considered the new material , but that this evidence did not cause him to reverse his decision to refuse asylum . He noted that the documents would have been available to the applicant at the time of his appeal hearing but were not produced , which cast doubt on their authenticity . Even if the medical certificate and police summons were authentic , however , he saw no reason why the applicant could not return to live safely and without harassment in mainland GPE . He refused to make a reference under section CARDINAL .

The applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of ORG ’s refusal to refer the new material to the special adjudicator . He submitted an expert opinion confirming that the documents were genuine . The Secretary of ORG submitted that the documents were irrelevant because the applicant could live safely in mainland GPE . He relied on a letter from ORG in GPE dated DATE which stated that in general there was no evidence of politically motivated detentions on the mainland , although there were “ more general human rights problems such as arbitrary detentions and poor penal conditions ” on the mainland .

On DATE the application for leave was rejected by ORG . Mr Justice PERSON stated :

“ The Secretary of ORG ’s decision [ is ] that things have changed and that as matters now stand , whatever was or was not the case in DATE and whatever ought or ought not to have been the outcome of the appeal heard then , the applicant can safely return to his home country , provided he goes to the mainland . Having looked at the letter [ from ORG ] , I can see no arguable grounds for saying that the Secretary of ORG has acted with ORG unreasonableness in concluding that in the light of this new material he has no need to refer the matter to the Special Adjudicator and this application must be refused . ”

The applicant appealed to ORG arguing that the Secretary of ORG ’s refusal was wrong in law and “ ORG unreasonable ” and that , in claiming that the applicant could live safely on the mainland , he was not complying with international obligations by failing to take into account the applicant ’s specific case or documentation .

On DATE ORG refused leave to apply for judicial review . In its judgment it noted that the hospital records showed that his brother had died of fever and did not support the applicant ’s evidence that his brother had been tortured . Even assuming that the medical report on the applicant and the summons by the police to his parents were genuine , there was no evidence to suggest that the conclusion reached by the Secretary of ORG that the applicant could live without harassment on the mainland was wrong .

On DATE the applicant was notified that he would be removed to GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife arrived in GPE and claimed asylum shortly afterwards . It was recorded that she stated in her interview that the police had harassed her due to her husband ’s involvement with the CUF . She had been detained for DATE in DATE and questioned about her husband ’s whereabouts . The police came to her house on DATE , wanting to know if her husband was back in GPE as there was a rumour that GPE had sent back most of the asylum - seekers from GPE . They were angry because he had claimed asylum and tarnished the name of the President . They threatened to arrest her instead .

Asylum applications are determined by the Secretary of ORG , pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of ORG and section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . Where leave to enter is refused by the Secretary of ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , the person may appeal against the refusal to a special adjudicator on the grounds that the removal would be contrary to GPE obligations under LAW ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

An appeal lies from the special adjudicator to ORG ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where in any case :

( a ) an adjudicator has dismissed an appeal , and there has been no further appeal to ORG , or the tribunal has dismissed an appeal made to them ... ; or

( b ) ORG has affirmed the determination of an adjudicator dismissing an appeal ... the Secretary of ORG may at any time refer for consideration under this section any matter relating to the case which was not before the adjudicator or ORG ... ”

Rule CARDINAL of ORG provides that the Secretary of ORG will treat representations as a fresh application if the claim advanced is sufficiently different from the earlier claim . He disregards , in considering whether to treat the representations as a fresh claim , material which is not significant , or is not credible , or was available to the applicant at the time when the previous application was refused or when any appeal was determined .

There have been a number of domestic cases where special adjudicators have rejected “ internal flight ” possibilities for ORG members from GPE . In PERSON v. the Secretary of ORG ( DATE ) , the Government pointed out that the Secretary of ORG ’s counsel had not been present to argue the point . In PERSON the Secretary of ORG ( DATE ) , the asylum claimant was an escaped prisoner from GPE and a target for internal extradition proceedings . In PERSON v. the Secretary of ORG ( DATE ) , the adjudicator found that there was no evidence before him to show that the claimant would be any safer on the mainland than in GPE .

In the case of PERSON v. the Secretary of ORG ( DATE ) , ORG allowed the appeal of a NORP asylum - seeker who had been involved in ORG activities , on the basis that , as he had suffered torture in GPE and a summons had been issued against him in GPE generally , there was a very reasonable prospect that he would be picked up by the police and undergo ill - treatment similar to that previously received in GPE , either at the hands of the GPE authorities or of the police in mainland GPE who also exercised brutality on prisoners in their custody . It therefore rejected the “ internal flight ” option .

Decisions of the ORG Secretary to refuse asylum , to make a deportation order or to detain pending deportation are liable to challenge by way of judicial review and may be quashed by reference to the ordinary principles of LANGUAGE public law .

These principles do not permit the courts to make findings of fact on matters within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of ORG or to substitute their discretion for the minister ’s . The courts may quash his decision only if he has failed to interpret or apply LANGUAGE law correctly , if he has failed to take account of issues which he was required by law to address , or if his decision was so irrational or perverse that no reasonable Secretary of ORG could have made it ( ORG v. ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG Bench Reports CARDINAL ) .

In the recent case of NORP v. Home Secretary , ex parte PERSON ( DATE ) , concerning the Secretary of ORG ’s refusal of asylum to a young male NORP draft evader , Lord Justice PERSON , in ORG judgment , stated as follows :

“ I therefore conclude that the domestic court ’s obligation on an irrationality challenge in an LAW case is to subject the Secretary of ORG ’s decision to rigorous examination and this it does by considering the underlying factual material for itself to see whether it compels a different conclusion to that arrived at by the Secretary of ORG . Only if it does will the challenge succeed .

All that said , however , this is not an area in which the ORG will pay any especial deference to the Secretary of ORG ’s conclusion on the facts . In the first place , the human right involved here DATE the right not to be exposed to a real risk of LAW treatment DATE is both absolute and fundamental : it is not a qualified right requiring a balance to be struck with some competing social need . Secondly , the ORG here is hardly less well placed than the Secretary of ORG himself to evaluate the risk once the relevant material is before it . Thirdly , whilst I would reject the applicant ’s contention that the Secretary of ORG has knowingly misrepresented the evidence or shut his eyes to the true position , we must , I think , recognise at least the possibility that he has ( even if unconsciously ) tended to depreciate the evidence of risk and , throughout the protracted decision - making process , may have tended also to rationalise the further material adduced so as to maintain his pre - existing stance rather than reassess the position with an open mind . In circumstances such as these , what has been called the ‘ discretionary area of judgment’ – the area of judgment within which the ORG should defer to the Secretary of ORG as the person primarily entrusted with the decision on the applicant ’s removal ... DATE is decidedly a narrow one . ”

In DATE ORG released ORG on Human Rights Practices for DATE . It stated :

“ The Government ’s human rights record did not improve and problems persisted . Although the DATE multiparty elections represented an important development , ORG right to change their government in GPE is severely circumscribed . Although new opposition parties were competitive in many DATE races and won in some constituencies , police often harassed and intimidated members and supporters of the opposition . Other human rights problems included police beatings and mistreatment of suspects , which sometimes resulted in death . Soldiers attacked civilians , and police in GPE used torture , including beatings and floggings . Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening . Arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention continued and the inefficient and corrupt judicial system often did not provide expeditious and fair trials ...

Since the DATE election , police in GPE , particularly on PERSON , have regularly detained , arrested and harassed ORG members , and suspected supporters . Despite orders from ORG Inspector General of Police , officers in GPE continue these activities ...

ORG found that pervasive corruption affected the judiciary from clerks to magistrates . Clerks took bribes to decide whether or not to open cases and to hide or misdirect the files of those accused of crimes . Magistrates often accept bribes to determine guilt or innocence , pass sentence , withdraw charges or decide appeals ...

There are reports of prisoners waiting DATE for trial because they could not pay bribes to police and court officials . Authorities acknowledge that some cases have been pending since DATE . ORG initiated efforts DATE to highlight judicial corruption and increased its oversight ...

In DATE since the election , government security forces and ORG gangs harassed and intimidated CUF members on both of the CARDINAL main GPE islands , ORG . Because ORG won all CARDINAL seats on Pemba , NORP living on ORG were regarded as ORG supporters and as a result were harassed . CUF members accused police of detaining CARDINAL of its members ... Safety is not ensured in PERSON , where security forces dispersed gatherings , intimidated and roughed up individuals ... ”

In the Amnesty International Annual Report DATE , it was stated :

“ Prisoners of conscience were among scores of government opponents arrested and briefly detained on the islands of GPE and PERSON . Many were held without charge or trial ; others faced criminal charges and were denied bail . Scores of political prisoners were tortured and ill - treated on the islands ...

Criminal charges such as sedition , vagrancy and involvement in acts of violence , often accompanied by the denial of bail for periods of DATE or more , were also used as a method of intimidating government critics or opponents . ”

NORP In their DATE report , ORG stated :

“ In DATE ] , CARDINAL possible prisoners of conscience on GPE were charged with treason and refused bail . The men , supporters of the CUF , were arrested and initially charged with sedition in DATE , during DATE the ORG won a by - election to ORG . ”

On DATE ORG issued a press release expressing concern that the vice - chairperson of the ORG might be arrested on a fabricated treason charge . In GPE it noted treason carried a mandatory death penalty . On DATE ORG called for the immediate release of CARDINAL leading CUF members or supporters , most of them imprisoned since DATE on fabricated treason charges . It expressed concern about their deteriorating health and a denial of adequate medical treatment .

The DATE ORG report on GPE noted that serious problems remained in that government ’s human rights record .

“ ... the police regularly threaten , mistreat or beat suspected criminals during and after their apprehension and interrogation . Police also use the same means to obtain information about suspects from family members not in custody ... Police in GPE use torture ... Repeated reports from credible sources indicate that the police use torture , including beatings and floggings in GPE , notably on LOC . Both ORG have denied these charges . Police have not yet explained the deaths of CARDINAL detainees in the town of GPE who were electrocuted at DATE ...

Prison conditions remained harsh and life - threatening . Government officials acknowledge that prisons are overcrowded and living conditions are poor . Prisons are authorised to hold CARDINAL persons but the actual prison population is estimated at CARDINAL ... The DATE amount of food allotted to prisoners is insufficient to meet their nutritional needs and even this amount is not always provided ... Earlier the Commissioner of Prisons stated that his department received inadequate funds for medicine and medical supplies . Prison dispensaries only offer limited treatment , and friends and family members of prisoners generally must provide medication or the funds with which to purchase it . Serious diseases , such as dysentery , malaria and cholera are common and result in numerous deaths . Guards continued to beat and abuse prisoners .

... There were no reports of political prisoners on the mainland . At DATE , there were CARDINAL political prisoners in GPE . ”

The report noted that in DATE the police had searched the offices of the CUF party in GPE and removed files . In DATE since the election in DATE , government security forces and ORG gangs harassed and intimidated CUF members on both the main GPE islands of ORG .

The Amnesty International DATE Report for GPE stated that :

“ CARDINAL prisoners of conscience , including CARDINAL arrested during DATE , were facing trial for treason on the island of GPE , an offence that carries the death penalty . Scores of other opposition supporters in GPE were imprisoned for short periods ; some were possible prisoners of conscience . CARDINAL demonstrators arrested on the mainland in the capital GPE were held for DATE and reportedly tortured . Conditions in some prisons were harsh ... ”

The CARDINAL prisoners , ORG members , included DATE arrested in DATE and three arrested in GPE in DATE , and many had reportedly fallen ill due to a denial of access to medical treatment . According to the report , the conditions in some mainland prisons amounted to cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment , which in the case of PERSON led to CARDINAL deaths in DATE .

In its press release of DATE ORG , reporting on the imminent trial of the CARDINAL ORG members , referred to them “ as prisoners of conscience who are imprisoned solely on account of their non - violent opinions and peaceful political activities ” . It described how between the DATE and the DATE elections , numerous ORG supporters had been arrested on trumped - up criminal charges , tortured in custody and imprisoned . On more recent events , it commented :

“ Following lengthy attempts by the Secretary General of the ORG and the ORG Secretary General to settle the political crisis in GPE , an agreement was finally reached between the CCM and ORG in DATE . Far - reaching reforms for democratisation , human rights and fair elections were set out in ORG , but few have yet been implemented . Although the ORG is allowed to operate more freely , the GPE government continues to press ahead with the trial , intent on convictions and death sentences . ”

In the DATE ORG report on GPE , issued on DATE , it was reported , inter alia , that the authorities had been responsible for a number of extrajudicial killings and that several prisoners had died as a result of harsh prison conditions , including inadequate nutrition , medical care and sanitation :

“ ... the police regularly threaten , mistreat or occasionally beat suspected criminals during and after their apprehension and interrogation ... Repeated reports indicate that the police use torture , including beatings and floggings , in GPE , notably on Pemba island . ”

The situation in GPE was less favourable in a number of respects . It was stated that , except in GPE , NORP citizens generally enjoyed the right to discuss political alternatives freely and opposition party members openly criticised the government , although the government had used the provision prohibiting “ abusive language ” against the leadership to detain some opposition figures . Opposition parties had generally been more able to hold rallies , although CUF meetings in GPE had been far more restricted than those of other parties . Police continued to break up meetings attended by persons thought to be opposed to the GPE government . In PERSON the security forces broke up gatherings and intimidated opposition party officials and the government continued to arrest opposition politicians for holding meetings .

“ In DATE since the election , government security forces and ORG gangs harassed and intimidated CUF members on both main GPE islands , PERSON and ORG ... The ORG accused police of detaining CARDINAL of its members including several local leaders ... citizen ’s safety is not assured in PERSON , where security forces dispersed gatherings and intimidated persons ... Almost all international donors have suspended direct assistance to GPE in response to the LOC human rights abuses . Under pressure from the international community , the ruling ORG and the main opposition party , the ORG , signed a political agreement in DATE to make the political process in GPE fairer ; however the provisions of the agreement were not fully implemented by DATE and observers believe that the Government did not act in good faith in the period following the signing of the agreement . ”

In a letter dated DATE ORG in GPE es PERSON commented that there were concerns about the situation in GPE but that on the mainland there had been no evidence of political killings , disappearances or politically motivated arrests . There were more general human rights problems , such as arbitrary detentions and poor penal conditions , which were systemic and not related to political activity .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE PERSON of ORG commented that there was evidence of human rights violations in GPE , including a list of CARDINAL missing persons . Although there was a good human rights record in mainland GPE , it was possible for the GPE government to demand extradition , which had been successful in the case of PERSON , whom a well - informed source reported as having been beheaded .

According to a report dated DATE obtained by the applicant , Professor PERSON , professor of social anthropology at ORG , GPE , an expert on GPE , GPE and GPE , stated that while there was less likelihood of persecution in mainland GPE than on GPE , he observed a deteriorating situation also affecting the mainland . He referred to particular members of the PERSON CCM visiting the mainland and harassing and persecuting CUF dissidents who had taken refuge there . The PERSON CUF leader was living in GPE but only ever moved out of his flat surrounded by ORG party aides able to protect him .