Preliminary objection dismissed;Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in GPE no . CARDINAL Prison ( “ the prison ” ) .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the wardens conducted a routine cell inspection and body searches of life prisoners . Following such an inspection in the applicant 's cell an incident took place , the parties ' accounts of which differ .

According to the applicant , he requested warden PERSON to clean up the mess left behind after the search , after which the latter handcuffed him , took him out into the corridor and repeatedly threw him against the walls until the applicant pushed him away in self - defence . At that point another warden , PERSON , joined in the applicant 's beating . Both wardens continued kicking and punching him even after he had been knocked on to the floor . Later the applicant was conveyed to the operational unit , where he was beaten again by wardens whose identities and number he was not able to establish . The applicant was left on the floor for TIME , examined superficially by CARDINAL medical assistants who found his condition to be satisfactory , and then taken back to his cell . Although he had a fever and was suffering from pain in the chest which severely constrained his movements , the applicant felt discouraged from seeking any medical assistance by what he perceived to be indifference and mockery on the part of the prison 's medical staff .

As submitted by the Government with reference to the information provided by the prison administration , the applicant resisted being body - searched by warden PERSON , using obscene language and attempting to hit the latter with his head . Although warned that force might be used against him if he resisted further , the applicant tried to kick officer PERSON , who , in his turn , knocked him down using a martial art technique ( sambo ) . The applicant was then convoyed to the prison 's operational unit where he was held until he had calmed down .

On DATE warden PERSON completed a “ Form regarding application to a prisoner ( detainee ) of handcuffs , straitjacket or other special measures ” , in which he reported to the prison governor that he had used a sambo technique against the applicant caused by the latter 's “ physical resistance ” . CARDINAL other wardens certified the form as accurate . The prison surgeon , in his turn , issued a report on the applicant 's examination “ following the usage of a sambo technique ” , in which he noted that the applicant 's condition was satisfactory with no pathology of the internal organs discovered , while the applicant himself had not raised any complaints .

According to the ORG 's submissions based on the domestic investigation materials , on DATE the applicant was X - rayed with no bone fractures discovered . The applicant denied having been X - rayed before DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the prison governor disciplined the applicant for the incident of DATE by way of a written reprimand .

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prison 's medical unit of pain in the left part of his chest which worsened with a deep inhalation or sharp movement .

On DATE the head of the prison 's medical unit , a therapist , a surgeon and a radiographer examined the applicant and diagnosed him with “ osteochondrosis ” .

On DATE the applicant 's mother complained to the prosecution authorities that prison wardens had used unjustified force against her son .

On DATE the investigator of ORG with ORG ( “ ORG Office ” ) examined wardens PERSON and PERSON , whose description of the events of DATE was identical to that summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above .

On DATE the investigator issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings against warden P. as there had been nothing criminal in his actions . It was based on a finding that force had been used against the applicant on the grounds and in the manner envisaged by LAW . The investigator also took into account the fact that the applicant had been examined by a doctor immediately after the incident , with no complaints received from him and no injuries discovered . It was further mentioned in the decision that the applicant had refused , with reference to LAW ( absolving a person from any responsibility for refusing to testify or to explain anything about himself ) to give any explanation as regards his disobedience of the legitimate orders of the prison administration on DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of ORG quashed the above decision as not based on comprehensive investigation . Specifically , the investigator had wrongly dispensed with questioning the applicant 's cellmate . He should also have identified and heard other prisoners who might have witnessed the incident . Lastly , no forensic medical examination of the applicant had been undertaken with a view to establishing the nature and gravity of his injuries .

On DATE the investigator examined ORG , the inmate with whom the applicant shared a cell from DATE , who stated that he knew the applicant as a calm and even - tempered person . A. described the events of DATE as follows . Warden P. and his colleague conducted a search in the cell , which they left in a mess . The applicant made a remark to PERSON , who advised him to officially complain to the prison administration if he wished to . The applicant , in his turn , addressed some obscene language to PERSON , who then unlocked the cell and took the applicant out into the corridor . A. submitted that he had seen P. kicking the applicant once and punching him twice . After that the door to the cell was closed and he heard the sound of blows . The applicant returned TIME with the left part of his back bruised and his left ear injured .

On DATE warden T. , as well as another prison staff member , gave written statements concordant with those of P.

From DATE ORG examined the applicant and studied his medical documentation at the investigator 's instruction with a view to clarifying : whether there were any injuries on the applicant 's body and what their origin was ; as well as the date , the nature and the gravity of the injuries , should any be discovered . In the course of that examination the applicant was X - rayed on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . According to him , that was his first X - ray since the incident of DATE . The experts discovered ( in addition to some changes in the applicant 's lungs characteristic of chronic tuberculosis ) that he had a closed blunt chest injury and fractures of CARDINAL ribs estimated to be of medium gravity and DATE . The possible date of the fractures was established on the basis of the appearance of the broken bones ' edges on the X - ray film , which were only to a slight extent covered by callus ( a connective tissue emerging on a bone at the site of a fracture and transforming into normal bone in DATE ) . The fractures had resulted from blows with blunt objects . As regards the X - ray film of DATE , which was among the applicant 's medical documents , CARDINAL radiographers participating in the examination concluded that it was impossible to identify it as belonging to the applicant , given that it was of low quality and did not mention his name .

On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal persecution of warden PERSON and the prison doctors ( against whom the applicant and/or his mother had apparently also made complaints ) having found that the elements of the crime had not been set out . In addition to the reasons given for the refusal on CARDINAL September CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the investigator referred to the medical report of DATE , according to which the applicant 's injuries could not have dated back as far as to DATE . While noting the statement given by the applicant 's cellmate PERSON ( summarised in paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the investigator decided to treat it with scepticismprison administration ” .

On DATE ORG directed the prison governor to investigate the circumstances in which the applicant could have sustained the rib fractures which had been discovered during his medical examination in DATE .

In the course of the investigation subsequently undertaken the prison governor took written statements from CARDINAL wardens who had been on duty at various times during DATE and DATE . All of them stated that the applicant had never complained about anything and that there had been no fights or other incidents during their shifts .

On DATE the prison administration issued a report about the applicant 's refusal to give any explanation regarding the injuries supposedly sustained by him DATE before DATE .

On DATE the head of the prison medical unit issued a report , according to which the applicant had not addressed any complaint to the medical unit regarding his injuries .

In DATE ( the date is illegible on the available copy ) the prison governor issued a report finding no grounds to initiate criminal investigations into the infliction of the rib fractures on the applicant . He noted that the applicant had neither complained about those injuries nor explained their origin .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE , finding that additional investigation was required . It noted that the investigation had failed to duly examine all the concerned staff of the prison . Neither had it clarified whether any force had been applied to the applicant when he was being convoyed from his cell to the operational unit and later in the operational unit . The applicant 's cellmate PERSON had not been duly examined as regards the applicant 's beating supposedly witnessed by him . While the medical examination established that the applicant had had CARDINAL ribs broken , the circumstances in which he had sustained those injuries remained unknown . Furthermore , it had not been established whether the applicant had in fact been X - rayed on DATE and whether that had been duly reflected in the documentation of the prison 's medical unit . Lastly , the decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings concerned only warden PERSON , while the applicant alleged that he had been beaten up by several wardens .

On DATE wardens P. and PERSON gave additional written statements . According to ORG , he had not participated in the applicant 's convoying to the operational unit on DATE and was therefore not aware whether any force had been applied to the applicant at that stage . As submitted by PERSON , he had been among the wardens who had convoyed the applicant . He stated that he could give an assurance however that no force had been used .

On DATE the investigator examined the scene of the incident of DATE .

According to his report , also dated DATE , the applicant 's cellmate at the material time , A. , “ unequivocally refused to give any explanations ” .

On DATE the investigator questioned another inmate , O. , who had been sharing the cell with the applicant DATE and DATE . He contended to have noticed bruises on the applicant 's face and on the left side of his torso as soon as he had been transferred to that cell . The applicant had told him that he had been beaten by wardens P. and CARDINAL on DATE . O. further submitted that he had not had any conflict with the applicant , and that during the period when they had been sharing the cell the applicant had not had any fights with anybody and had not fallen . CARDINAL other inmates who were held later in the same cell with the applicant refused to make any statements .

On DATE another medical report was issued with a view to clarifying , at the prosecutor 's request , whether the applicant could have sustained the fractures of his CARDINAL ribs as a result of a fall or of being punched or kicked . The expert replied that the injuries could have been inflicted by punches , kicks or by other blunt objects , while he excluded any accidental fall as a plausible reason .

On DATE ORG issued a new decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings against wardens PERSON and PERSON , as well as against the staff of the prison 's medical unit , for lack of corpus delicti in their actions . In addition to the findings of the previous similar decisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , the investigator mentioned the medical report of DATE ( DATE ) and the statements of inmate O. , without comment . Having repeatedly referred to the doctors ' finding of CARDINAL DATE , the investigator concluded that it should be interpreted as refuting the applicant 's allegation about his ill - treatment on DATE . He further noted that the applicant had had unfriendly relations with warden PERSON and therefore his allegations against the latter had to be taken with criticism .

The Government submitted to the ORG a copy of a letter of ORG addressed to the applicant 's mother and dated DATE , by which it informed her about the aforementioned decision , as well as that it was possible to challenge it with ORG within DATE of receiving its copy ( which would be sent to her if requested ) . The applicant and his mother denied ever having received that letter .

Following the communication of the application to the Government , Mr GPE , the applicant 's lawyer representing him in the proceedings before the Court , requested a private expert , PERSON Professor of the ORG of ORG , Ph.D. in medicine ( кандидат медичних наук ) and a forensic medical expert of the highest - qualified category according to the existing appraisal system ) for an advisory opinion with a view to clarifying , in particular : what could have been the object , which had caused the fractures of the applicant 's ribs ; the probable date of the fractures ; explanation of the absence of any visible injuries on the applicant 's body during his examination by the prison 's doctors ; what illnesses the applicant was suffering from ; and whether his tuberculosis and lengthy stay in prison could have delayed the fractures ' healing process .

On DATE the expert issued the requested advisory opinion , which was based on the applicant 's medical documentation and contained the following findings : The fractures in issue could have been inflicted by a foot in a shoe or by another object with a short protrusion . Having regard to the statements given by the applicant 's cellmates A. and ORG , the applicant 's consistent complaints of pain in the left part of his chest and the nature of those complaints , as well as the poor quality of the applicant 's X - ray film of DATE , it was not ruled out that the applicant could have sustained the fractures on DATE . As to the medical report of CARDINAL DATE , according to which those fractures could not have been inflicted DATE before the last X - ray ( CARDINAL and DATE ) , that conclusion was based on an assumption that a regular recovery process was being analysed , while the coalescence in the applicant 's case could well have been retarded by his chronic tuberculosis ( from which he was suffering , as was obvious from his X - rays ) , as well as by the fact that the prison conditions were not the most favourable for a quick recovery . In other words , the expert found it possible that while indeed under the normal circumstances the callus on the edges of the broken ribs had the appearance of being DATE , in the applicant 's case it could have in fact been older ( DATE ) . Lastly , as regards the fact that the prison doctors who had examined the applicant shortly after the incident of DATE had not seen any visible injuries on his body , the expert noted that it could have been explained by the “ depth ” of the haematomas , which could have become apparent with a delay .

In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis .

In DATE he considered himself to have fully recovered , attributing that to his faith . From then on he refused all treatment , for religious reasons , and complained to various authorities that his diagnosis was false . The doctors however considered that the applicant remained ill .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered the applicant to be treated forcibly for tuberculosis , which was apparently undertaken .

NORP As discovered by a routine check in DATE and confirmed by control X - raying in DATE and DATE , the disease reappeared . The applicant however again refused from any treatment for religious reasons .

On DATE a commission of ORG examined him and confirmed infiltrative tuberculosis of both lungs .

On DATE the applicant was transferred for specialised treatment to Kherson no . CARDINAL Prison , where he stayed till DATE , when his condition was found satisfactory .

According to his submissions to the ORG , he had contracted tuberculosis anew at some point because of being forced to share cells ( or wards ) with inmates who were ill .

The applicant has been serving his sentence of life - term imprisonment in GPE no . CARDINAL Prison since DATE , with exception of the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The cells in which the applicant was held fell short of meeting basic hygienic standards being dirty , damp and poorly ventilated . The situation deteriorated even more after the prison authorities had stopped providing prisoners with chlorine powder in DATE . The applicant had to whitewash and paint his cell at his own expense once in an attempt to improve its sanitary condition .

The medical wing of the prison , which was situated on the ground floor and where the applicant was placed occasionally , was often flooded with sewage and its walls were covered in mould . While staying there , he had to share a ward with another inmate suffering from tuberculosis , while he considered himself to have recovered from that disease . The ward lacked proper ventilation . The medical staff were not well qualified and lacked compassion . No medical assistance was provided when it was required , but was imposed on prisoners who did not need it .

The nutrition was insufficient and inadequate , while the prices of food in the prison shop were unreasonably high and the administration either refused to accept parcels of food for the applicant from his mother or kept them for themselves . There was a practice of adding bromine to food , adversely affecting the prisoners ' cerebral cortex and sexual potency . While being treated for tuberculosis the applicant did not receive the required diet .

The cells for life prisoners underwent cosmetic repairs on the DATE basis . Prisoners of this category are never involved in any repairing of the cells , which is the job of other prisoners assigned to the maintenance service of the prison . Life prisoners are transferred to a different cell twice DATE . The cells in which they are held measure QUANTITY and QUANTITY . They have natural ventilation and double window frames with ventilation panes . An assigned staff member disinfects once a week the cells of life prisoners who are under follow - up medical monitoring after recovery from tuberculosis . The prison does not have any shortages of disinfection materials , and the chlorine powder is never issued to prisoners .

The prison medical unit is staffed with highly - qualified doctors and assistants of various areas of specialisation . Namely , its staff includes : the chief of the medical unit , a therapist , a tuberculotherapist , a dermatovenerologist , a radiologist , a dentist , CARDINAL medical assistants ( фельдшери ) , a clinic laboratory assistant , an X - ray examination assistant , a pharmacist , and a disinfector . Some of the personnel are assigned qualification categories meaning that they have extensive work experience and positive theoretical and practical competence appraisals reaffirmed on a regular basis . Thus , the dermatovenerologist has the first qualification category , for which DATE experience is required ; the dentist and the clinic laboratory assistant have the highest qualification category assignable after DATE experience ; while the X - ray examination assistant and the pharmacist have the second qualification category ( DATE experience ) . The medical assistants are occasionally seconded to the GPE ambulance station with a view to improving their skills . Pursuant to the accreditation certificate issued by ORG on DATE , the medical unit has the right to carry out medical practice in the following areas : therapy , surgery , psychiatry , dermatovenereology , dentistry , radiology , phthisiology , and clinical laboratory diagnostics . The unit is fully equipped in compliance with applicable standards . Its premises , which are wet - cleaned and disinfected on a DATE basis , are of satisfactory sanitary condition . The applicant never shared a cell or ward with prisoners with an active form of tuberculosis .

NORP The food for prisoners is subjected to regular and strict control . A staff member of the medical unit and the deputy prison governor taste each meal after the cooking and certify its quality in a special logbook , that being a precondition for its distribution to prisoners . The food undergoes laboratory verification as regards its nutritional value and chemical composition twice a year . During the whole period of the applicant 's stay in the prison there was not a single case of any deterioration of prisoners ' health caused by inadequate quality of food . Prisoners with tuberculosis follow a special diet in the framework of the recurrence prevention programme twice a year . Thus , during the period from DATE to CARDINAL May , from DATE to DATE , and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant received dietetic nutrition according to his medical condition and in compliance with the applicable regulations . The prices of food in the prison shop are within the limits set by ORG . In any event , the applicant never had any money on his prison account and never bought anything there .

The prison administration returned to the applicant 's mother the parcel of food she had sent , which was received on DATE , as it had been sent DATE following the previous one , while the applicant had only been entitled to CARDINAL parcels per year at that time .

On DATE the applicant 's mother complained about the conditions of his detention and insufficient nutrition to the prison governor , who , in his turn , had a conversation with the applicant . According to the prison governor , the applicant did not complain about anything .

According to the applicant , the prison administration reviewed all his incoming and outgoing correspondence and did not dispatch any of his complaints to the authorities . It also delayed or reported lost some of his correspondence with his mother .

In DATE the applicant 's mother complained to ORG of , inter alia , a failure of the prison authorities to dispatch the applicant 's letters to various authorities .

On DATE ORG of the ORG found her allegation unsubstantiated , referring to a number of letters successfully sent by the applicant to the prosecution and other authorities in DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's mother complained to the ORG , on his behalf , about his alleged ill - treatment , health problems , conditions of detention , and alleged interferences of the prison administration with his correspondence .

On DATE the ORG received the application form signed by the applicant 's mother . Enclosed to it there was a standard authority form distributed earlier by ORG , which had been completed by the applicant 's mother and signed both by her and the applicant and by which the latter authorised her to represent him in the proceedings before ORG . It did not state the date it had been issued .

On DATE the ORG received a letter from the applicant , in which he referred to the number of his case file and reiterated the earlier submitted complaints . It was sent by his mother and contained additional notes written by her in the margins .

In DATE the applicant 's lawyer submitted to the ORG , inter alia , a copy of an informally worded letter of authority dated CARDINAL DATE , in which the applicant stated that he fully trusted his mother to represent his interests before any domestic or international authority , including ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the Code on Enforcement of Sentences ( DATE ) sets out rules governing the use of force in prisons . Prison officers are entitled to use force with a view to putting an end to physical resistance , violence , outrage ( буйство ) and opposition to lawful orders of the prison administration , or with a view to preventing prisoners from inflicting harm on themselves or on those around them . The use of force should be preceded by a warning if the circumstances so allow . If the use of force can not be avoided , it should not exceed the level necessary for fulfilment by the officers of their duties , should be carried out so as to inflict as little injury as possible and should be followed by immediate medical assistance if necessary . Any use of force must be immediately reported to the prison governor .

The above rules are reiterated in paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( DATE ) . LAW of the ORG further specifies that prison officers are entitled to use force , including martial art techniques with a view to putting an end to wrongdoing by prisoners and overcoming their resistance to lawful orders of the administration when other means prove ineffective for the officers to be able to carry out their duties . The choice of a special measure to be used and its time and intensity depend on the circumstances , the nature of the wrongdoing and the personal characteristics of the perpetrator .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( DATE ) are summarised in PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .

Pursuant to LAW , prisoners suffering from contagious diseases who have not completed their medical treatment and refuse from it should be treated forcefully . A decision to that regard shall be taken by a court following a respective application from the prison administration .

Before it was amended on DATE , Article CARDINAL of the Code on Enforcement of Sentences allowed life prisoners to receive CARDINAL parcels ( packages ) per year . After the aforementioned date that restriction was lifted .

The relevant extracts from the ORG to ORG on the visit to GPE carried out by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) from DATE to DATE [ ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ] read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In its report on the DATE visit ... , the ORG stated that the treatment of prisoners serving life sentences was a major source of concern to ORG , and it made a whole series of recommendations with a view to improving their situation .

The delegation 's on - the - spot observations in DATE in FAC no . CARDINAL ... confirmed that certain improvements have been made to material conditions and some aspects of the regime .

Material conditions of detention for these prisoners in FAC . CARDINAL ... were acceptable . The cells were clean , properly lit and ventilated , equipped with beds with full bedding , a table , a stool and toilets that were partitioned off . The cells measured CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL m² . They had all been originally designed for CARDINAL prisoners , although sometimes they accommodated CARDINAL .

The ORG would stress that cells measuring CARDINAL to CARDINAL m² should , as a rule , be reserved for CARDINAL prisoner ( except in exceptional circumstances , where it is inadvisable to leave a prisoner alone ) . Cells measuring CARDINAL ORG could be considered acceptable for CARDINAL people , provided the prisoners are able to spend a reasonable part of DATE outside their cell . ...

The DATE visit confirmed that life - sentenced prisoners may now receive CARDINAL large parcels weighing QUANTITY DATE and CARDINAL small packets weighing QUANTITY each a year ; they may also buy supplies at the prison shop . It emerged , however , that the amount they could receive was much smaller than that which sentenced persons in the colonies could receive . In addition , for many of them , access to supplies from the prison shop was only theoretical since , because of lack of work , they did not earn any money . ...

In Prison No . CARDINAL , the delegation observed the practice of frequently moving life - sentenced prisoners ... to different cells . Life - sentenced prisoners changed cells within the section DATE and changed floors DATE ....

The ORG has already dealt with this issue in ... its report on the DATE visit , in which , while acknowledging that operational considerations might exceptionally require such measures , the ORG stressed that it was desirable to avoid , as far as possible , the needless uprooting of prisoners . The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities review the policy of frequently moving prisoners to different cells in Prison No . CARDINAL and , if necessary , in GPE 's other penitentiary establishments , in the light of these considerations . ...

Prison No . CARDINAL in GPE was built in DATE . With a capacity of CARDINAL places , it was accommodating CARDINAL prisoners at the time of the visit . ...

... material conditions varied . Many of the cells visited , although modestly equipped , were properly maintained and clean . Others , however , had been damaged by damp and were dirtier , with toilets in relatively poor condition , rusty beds and very modest bedding infested with cockroaches and other vermin . ...

The prison administration made real efforts to provide those prisoners who needed them with basic essentials ( hygiene and cleaning products and , if necessary , extra clothing / shoes ) . ...

In the establishments visited , the delegation received numerous complaints about restrictions on the number of parcels . The ORG notes that LAW of the LAW on the Execution of Sentences provides for different entitlements in terms of the number of parcels per year , depending on the type of regime . ...

The ORG can understand that in certain penitentiary establishments there may be logistical , as well as security - related reasons for imposing a restriction on the number of parcels which can be received . However , this implies that the penitentiary administration is in a position to respond adequately to prisoners ' fundamental needs ( food , clothing , medication , etc . ) . The fact is that this is not yet the case , since economic problems are preventing it from meeting prisoners ' basic needs . In the circumstances , the grounds for the restrictions should be reviewed . Indeed , some countries faced with a similar situation have granted prisoners the right to receive an unlimited number of parcels .

The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities review the provisions of LAW and of the law governing detention on remand in respect of the entitlement to receive parcels , in the light of the above remarks . ...

A number of improvements had been made to the material conditions of detention and some aspects of the regime applicable to life - sentenced prisoners . While welcoming this progress , the ORG stressed the need to give a high priority to the introduction of a proper prison management policy for these prisoners . ...

With regard to material conditions of detention , the ORG recommended that in Prison No . CARDINAL the necessary repairs be carried out to building No . CARDINAL so that the material conditions equalled those in building No . CARDINAL , reserved for women and minors , in all respects . ...

With regard to health care , the ORG welcomed the progress that had been made in combating tuberculosis , in terms of a decrease in the number of prisoners suffering from tuberculosis and the fall in the number of deaths due to the disease . Substantial efforts had also been made to ensure that penitentiary establishments were provided with sufficient quantities of appropriate medication for the treatment of the disease . Progress was , however , slower with regard to the standard of food for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis , because of the limited resources of the prison administration . The ORG recommended sparing no effort in ensuring that the measures adopted to combat tuberculosis were fully implemented and giving a high priority to the implementation of the nutritional programme for prisoners suffering from the disease . ... ”


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He has currently no fixed domicile . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The applicant is the father of a daughter born in DATE . The parents , who had lived in GPE , separated in DATE . On DATE the ORG ( Tribunal de Première Instance ) decreed the parents ' divorce and transferred sole parental authority on the mother , who is a NORP national . With regard to contacts , that court ruled that the applicant should have extensive visiting rights which , in the absence of a more favourable agreement reached between the parties , should be exercised every second DATE TIME and QUANTITY

On DATE the applicant , who was at the time residing in GPE , instituted contact proceedings before ORG ( Amtsgericht ) in GPE , where mother and daughter were residing . He requested to be granted contact rights during DATE from DATE QUANTITY until the following DATE p. QUANTITY The mother requested a suspension of contact rights .

The applicant last saw his daughter on DATE following a court hearing .

On DATE ORG , having heard both parents and the child in person , modified the contact regulations contained in the divorce decree and granted the applicant visiting rights on DATE on DATE from CARDINAL p. CARDINAL to TIME and on DATE from QUANTITY to CARDINAL p. CARDINAL It further ruled that contacts should take place in the presence of a person the child confided in .

ORG considered that the contact regulations had to be modified in the child 's best interests . There was no reason completely to suspend contact rights . The court considered , however , that unaccompanied contacts would jeopardise the child 's welfare . While ORG did not consider that there was a risk of the applicant 's abducting the child , as the applicant would not want to risk criminal prosecution in GPE , the child 's considerable fears necessitated the presence of a trusted person . When personally heard by the court , the child had described her father as being evil and expressed the wish not to be left alone with him . The court further noted that the child had seen the applicant only twice within DATE . Accordingly , she had to be given sufficient time to get to know her father before unaccompanied visits could be envisaged . ORG considered that there were clear indications that the mother had influenced the child against her father . However , once the child 's fears existed , they could not be ignored without jeopardising the child 's welfare .

The court further noted that it was not possible to make more precise provisions as to the person who should accompany the visits , as the mother intended to move to GPE and it was not possible to determine which person would be available . It followed that the choice of person had to be left to the parties or to a later court decision . ORG finally considered that it had not been necessary to hear expert opinion by a children 's psychologist , as the child had expressed her fears during the hearing and there was no need for further examination .

The applicant lodged an appeal complaining , in particular , about the imposition of accompanied visits . He alleged that the persons proposed by the mother had been hostile towards him . He further complained that the granted contact time was too short .

On DATE the ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) scheduled a hearing for DATE and ordered the parties to appear in person .

At the beginning of the hearing the mother 's representative submitted a message alleging that mother and child had been unable to appear before that court because of delays of their flights from the GPE . The applicant contested these submissions .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal . The court noted that mother and child had moved to GPE in DATE , but returned to GPE in DATE . DATE they stayed in GPE . Since DATE they were staying on the GPE . ORG considered that the child 's place of residence remained in GPE , as the mother , who appeared to be staying in a hotel , had not established a fixed place of residence on the GPE .

ORG considered that the limitation of the contacts and the presence of a third person had been and remained necessary in order to safeguard the child 's welfare . ORG confirmed that it was necessary to rebuild a relationship of trust between father and child before unaccompanied visits could be envisaged . The court further noted that the applicant , who had in the meantime given up his NORP place of residence , had declared during the hearing that he was constantly travelling and currently could not make up his mind to establish a new place of residence . The court considered that such person could not be entrusted with unaccompanied contacts to a DATE child nor with contacts extending over DATE because the danger of his abducting the child was unacceptably high .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on the ground that his submissions had not been sufficiently taken into account ( Anhörungsrüge ) , which was rejected on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint and filed a request for an interim order .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that the child 's mother was currently of unknown residence .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant 's complaint and his joint request for an interim order for adjudication . This decision was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .

According to LAW , a child is entitled to have contact with its parents ; each parent is obliged to have contact with , and is entitled to such contact with , the child .

Pursuant to subsection CARDINAL , each parent is obliged to refrain from any actions which could disturb the relationship of the other parent with the child .

The family courts can restrict or suspend a parent 's rights of contact if such a measure is necessary for the child 's welfare . A decision restricting or suspending that right for a lengthy period or permanently may only be taken if otherwise the child 's welfare would be jeopardised ( LAW ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect)

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant on allegations of wilfully inflicting intermediate bodily harm on a former colleague of his at a construction site . On DATE he was charged and ordered to pay bail . On DATE he appealed to ORG , asking for a reduction of the bail . On an unspecified date that office granted the request , but its decision was not notified to the applicant . As he was unaware of it , he did not pay the bail . Accordingly , on DATE an order was made for him to be placed in pretrial detention . He was not notified of that order either .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE , following a visit by a police officer to his home DATE , the applicant appeared at the first district police department in GPE . At TIME he was formally taken into custody . DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a request for his release with ORG . On DATE that court made an order to that effect and the applicant was set free on DATE .

According to the applicant ’s allegations , some time after being taken into custody the applicant was taken to a room on the fourth floor of the police department , where he saw a uniformed and a plain clothes police officer . Shortly after that the investigator in charge of his case , PERSON , came in and asked him to sign certain papers relating to his pretrial detention and the criminal charges against him . The applicant refused , whereupon she started shouting at him . The applicant still refused to sign , as in the papers it was stated that he did not wish to give evidence , which was not the case . He said that the offence alleged against him was not an arrestable one . After a verbal exchange the uniformed police officer started kicking the applicant on the left tibia and beneath the right knee . The plain clothes officer punched him in the face and the chest and slapped him on the face . In the same time PERSON insisted that the applicant sign the papers presented to him , which he eventually did .

After that another uniformed police officer entered the room and , together with the one already present , took the applicant out . They cuffed both of his hands to a pipe running at head level along the corridor . He spent TIME in this position .

At TIME the applicant was taken to the cell block , situated on the top floor of the police department . He was put in a cell with CARDINAL other detainees , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr E.

On TIME , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant requested to contact his mother or a lawyer , or to be interviewed by the investigator . However , nothing ensued . As the applicant was persisting in his requests , on CARDINAL DATE the guards apparently became annoyed with him .

According to the applicant ’s allegations , on TIME CARDINAL DATE he was let out of his cell together with PERSON to go to the toilet . On the way back , in the corridor , he waited for PERSON to move away from him and closer to the cell , and broke the glass of one of the corridor ’s windows . Hearing the noise , PERSON PERSON turned to see what was happening . The applicant made him a sign to move away , and PERSON went back to the cell . Then the applicant took a piece of broken glass and cut himself on the forearms , allegedly in protest against the way in which he was being treated in custody . Thereupon CARDINAL of the guards , sergeant ORG , came out of the PERSON room , holding CARDINAL truncheons . He hit the applicant on the forearms to make him drop the piece of glass . Then he kicked him into the toilet and started hitting his waist with the truncheons . After that he threw him to the ground and started kicking him . The applicant lost consciousness . Sergeant R.V. poured water over him to restore him to consciousness , pulled him upright and made him strip naked . Then he poured more water on the applicant to clean him . He put him back in the cell naked and handcuffed him lying on the floor , with his hands secured behind his back . The applicant spent TIME like this . At TIME chief sergeant PERSON arrived and ordered that the handcuffs be secured in front of the applicant ’s body , and that he be dressed and covered with a blanket .

On TIME , some time before TIME , the applicant banged his head against the cell wall several times , allegedly to protest against his treatment . Thereupon sergeant PERSON dragged him out of the cell and hit his thighs with a truncheon . As a result of his being dragged along the floor the applicant ’s back was grazed .

DATE the investigator in charge of the applicant ’s case , Ms T. , was informed of the incident and ordered that the applicant ’s handcuffs be removed and that he be examined by the inhouse doctor . As the applicant was unable to move alone , one of his cellmates , Mr T.T. , helped him go there . The doctor , first lieutenant PERSON , found that the applicant was uncommunicative and somnolent . Later the applicant was taken to a hospital operated by ORG , where he was examined by doctor PERSON After that he was taken back to the detention facility , where he remained until DATE .

On DATE , DATE following his release , the applicant made colour photographs of his body . They showed a number of bruises .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG of ORG . The doctor noted the following marks on his body : ( i ) a grazing scar measuring CARDINAL to QUANTITY on the right upper part of the forehead , near the hair , accompanied by a very slightly pronounced yellowishviolet haematoma ; ( ii ) a palerose scar of a healing wound , QUANTITY long , in the middle of the lower part of the chin ; ( iii ) CARDINAL oval yellowishviolet haematomas with diameters from QUANTITY on the chest ; ( iv ) an area measuring QUANTITY covering the lower left third of the thorax , the flank and the buttocks , where one could observe a number of obliquely positioned stripshaped haematomas , almost parallel to one another , higher in the back and lower in the front ; this area was almost diffusely swollen and filled with blood , but there existed distinct haematomas consisting of CARDINAL dark strips around one light strip , each being CARDINAL to QUANTITY wide and QUANTITY long ; ( v ) a number of yellowishviolet haematomas with various shapes and sizes ( some stripshaped , others oval ) on the right shoulder and the lateralback surface of both forearms ; ( vi ) a multitude of palerose stripshaped scars on the internal side of the right forearm , along its length , and CARDINAL such scars on the left forearm ; some of those on the right CARDINAL were crossed by transversal scars ; the longitudinal ones , which were QUANTITY wide , ran from the elbow to the wrist joint ; ( vii ) spotted yellowishviolet haematomas on the highest third of the right forearm ; ( vii ) a haematoma measuring QUANTITY on the lateral surface of the upper part of the left thigh ; ( ix ) a similar haematoma , measuring QUANTITY , on the front surface of the right thigh ; ( x ) a haematoma measuring QUANTITY on the back surface of the right thigh ; ( xi ) a number of yellowishviolet haematomas on both knees and on the front surface of both legs beneath the knee , almost diffusely from the knees to the ankles . The doctor was of the opinion that the injuries to the applicant ’s body were consistent with the blows described by him . In his view , these injuries amounted to intermediate bodily harm within the meaning of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and were the result of a number of blows made with considerable strength and causing pain for prolonged periods of time .

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to ORG and requested the opening of criminal proceedings against the officers who had allegedly illtreated him . After conducting a preliminary inquiry , during which it gathered certain documents but carried out no interviews , in a decision of DATE a prosecutor of that office rejected the applicant ’s request . He stated that at the time of his arrest the applicant had not had any “ healthrelated complaints ” . The prosecutor further found that when the guards had tried to take away the piece of glass which the applicant had used to cut his veins , he had waved it towards them and his cellmates , which had compelled the use of force and handcuffs . He also briefly described the banging of the applicant ’s head against the cell wall , but did not refer to any of the allegations of beating with truncheons and kicking , and did not mention the applicant ’s injuries . He stated that the PERSON actions had been in line with the applicable legal provisions and therefore did not amount to a criminal offence .

The applicant appealed to ORG . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the deputy head of that office dismissed the appeal . He stated that the inquiry conducted pursuant to the applicant ’s allegations had been “ especially thorough and comprehensive ” . The applicant had broken a window and had tried to cut his veins . When the guards had intervened , he had put up strong resistance , including reaching out with a piece of glass , which had driven the guards to forcibly handcuff him . Later on he had banged his head against the cell wall . All of this led to the conclusion that no criminal offence had been committed by the guards .

The applicant appealed to ORG . In a decision of DATE a prosecutor of that office dismissed the appeal . He described the CARDINAL DATE incident in some detail and noted that the guards had denied beating the applicant or using force against him beyond what had been necessary to restrain him and take the piece of glass away from him . As regards the CARDINAL DATE incident , he did not make any mention of beating following the applicant ’s banging his head against the cell wall . He also described the applicant ’s injuries , as noted in DATE medical certificate , but said that they could have been the result of GPE subduing his resistance and placing him on the ground . The injuries could have also been caused by the applicant ’s cellmates . There was furthermore no indication that he had been medically examined on being taken into custody , whereas the medical certificate presented by him did not specify the time when the injuries had been sustained . The decision was sent to the applicant on DATE .

The applicant later lodged a criminal complaint with ORG . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed the complaint , holding that the facts alleged by the applicant amounted to a publicly prosecutable offence , which made it impossible to institute private criminal proceedings pursuant to them .

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to ORG . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the director of the pre - trial detention facilities directorate of ORG advised him that an internal inquiry had been carried out . It had found that in using force against the applicant the custodial staff had acted adequately and had not exceeded their powers . If the applicant disagreed with this conclusion , it remained open to him to issue proceedings under the DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . A second complaint by the applicant resulted in a letter dated DATE by the same director , in which he stated that a second check had confirmed that the guards had not used excessive force . It invited the applicant to name the guards who had allegedly illtreated him .

Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG wrote to the applicant , apparently in reply to a complaint . It stated that there was no indication that the applicant had ever been taken to ORG in GPE .

On DATE the applicant wrote again to ORG , requesting an investigation of the incident . On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG replied that sergeant PERSON had denied hitting the applicant and had stated that he had used force only to the extent necessary to restrain him . There was no indication that the applicant had been subjected to degrading treatment . This was also confirmed by the decision of the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor ’s Office . If the applicant disagreed with this conclusion , it remained open to him to bring an action under the DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In reply to further complaints by the applicant , the Deputy Minister of Justice advised him in a letter of DATE that the matter fell within the competence of the military prosecution authorities .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW make it an offence to cause minor , intermediate or grievous bodily harm to another . LAW that LAW provides that if the harm is caused by police officers in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties the offence is aggravated . The offence is publicly prosecutable ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Code of Criminal Procedure , as in force at the relevant time , provided that proceedings concerning publicly prosecutable offences could be opened only by a prosecutor or an investigator . They had to open an investigation whenever they received information , supported by sufficient evidence , that an offence might have been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code ) . If the information given to the prosecuting authorities was not supported by evidence , they had to order a preliminary inquiry to determine whether the opening of a criminal investigation was warranted ( LAW , as in force at the material time ) .

The offences allegedly committed by police officers were tried by military courts ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) . Where a case would fall within the jurisdiction of the military courts , the preliminary investigation was handled by military investigators and prosecutors .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW originally called the DATE ORG to Citizens Act ( ORG за отговорността на държавата за вреди , причинени на граждани DATE “ the ORG ” ) , renamed on DATE the DATE State and ORG ( ORG за отговорността на държавата и общините за вреди ) , as in force at the material time , provided that the ORG was liable for damage suffered by individuals as a result of the unlawful acts of civil servants committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties . The ORG ’s liability is strict , that is , no fault is required to be established on the part of the civil servants in the commission of these acts ( section CARDINAL in fine of the Act ) .


Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Split .

On DATE the Split police lodged a request for minor - offences proceedings to be instituted against the applicant in ORG ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG found that on DATE at TIME the applicant had had QUANTITY of heroin on her , which amounted to a minor offence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG . She was fined CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) of the same LAW . This decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u ORG ) lodged an indictment with ORG ( PERSON ) accusing the applicant of possession of heroin . The police report was included in the case file .

On DATE ORG , in criminal proceedings against the applicant , found the applicant guilty of possessing CARDINAL,CARDINAL grams of heroin on DATE at TIME and fined her HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The previous fine was to be included in this one . The applicant was also ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK CARDINAL .

The applicant ’s conviction was upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE but a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment was applied with a DATE probation period .

The applicant ’s subsequent constitutional complaint , alleging a violation of the ne bis in idem principle , was dismissed by ORG on DATE on the ground that the NORP legal system did not exclude the possibility of punishing the same person twice for the same offence when the same act is prescribed both as a minor offence and a criminal offence .

The relevant part of ORG o suzbijanju zloupotrebe opojnih droga , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) reads :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The growing of plants from which narcotics may be produced and the production , possession and trafficking in narcotics , plants and parts of the plants from which narcotics may be produced is banned , as is the production , possession and trafficking in substances which may be used for the production of narcotics , save for [ such possession , production and trafficking ] under the conditions prescribed by this LAW for medical , nutritional , veterinarian or educational purposes or for the purposes of scientific research .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A legal entity shall be fined between HRK CARDINAL and HRK CARDINAL for the minor offences of :

possession of narcotics ...

( CARDINAL ) For the minor offence under subsection ( CARDINAL ) point CARDINAL ... of this section a person shall be fined MONEY . ”

NORP The relevant part of LAW ( PERSON , ORG nos . TIME , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL ) reads :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Whoever unlawfully possesses substances which are prescribed as narcotics shall be fined or sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year .


Violation of Art. 9;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .

Since DATE the applicant has been serving an DATE prison sentence imposed by ORG following his conviction for rape .

He was previously held in FAC . On several occasions he requested to be served meat - free meals on account of his religious dietary requirements . He submitted that he was a NORP and that he adhered strictly to the Mahayana NORP dietary rules which required refraining from eating meat .

On DATE the prison dermatologist recommended that the applicant be placed on a meat - free diet in view of his health problems . For DATE he was granted a “ no pork ” diet ( ORG diet ) that included very little meat and was also applied to CARDINAL NORP detained in FAC .

On DATE a doctor who examined the applicant considered that there were no medical grounds to continue granting the ORG diet to the applicant . Consequently , the diet was discontinued . The applicant objected and threatened to go on a hunger strike .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to institute criminal proceedings against the employees of FAC . The applicant claimed that despite having requested on several occasions to be provided with a meat - free diet , he was receiving meals containing meat products . Since he could not eat meat for religious reasons he depended on food parcels from his family . He was forced to accept the meals and then throw them away . The refusal to accept them would have been regarded as a decision to start a hunger strike and would have entailed disciplinary punishment . On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant 's allegations .

On DATE GPE in GPE sent a letter to the prison authorities supporting the applicant 's request for a meat - free diet . They submitted that the Mahayana NORP had a serious moral problem when they were forced to eat meat . According to the rules , a Mahayana NORP should avoid eating meat to cultivate compassion for all living beings . They further asked the authorities simply to eliminate meat products from the applicant 's meals .

On DATE the applicant requested the Director of Goleniów Prison to be served meat - free meals in view of his religious dietary requirements . He noted that the ORG diet contained meat products and therefore it did not satisfy his needs . The applicant 's request was refused on DATE . That decision did not contain any reasons .

On DATE and DATE the applicant asked ORG to institute criminal proceedings against the prison guards . He alleged that there had been an interference with his religious convictions , in particular as the guards had referred to LOC in GPE as “ a sect ” . They had also thrown religious publications belonging to the applicant into a toilet . On DATE , after receiving a family visit , he was ordered to undergo a body search . The applicant took off his clothes except for his underwear , whereupon the prison guard allegedly touched his private parts . He was further ordered to squat and other prison guards ridiculed him .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the persons concerned . It considered that the applicant 's allegations were unfounded . The applicant was entitled to exchange correspondence with GPE in GPE and he could also telephone them . In addition , he was entitled to a diet that roughly corresponded to his religious requirements . However , the prosecutor stressed that as the applicant was kept in a single cell , there were no witnesses to the alleged ill - treatment by the prison officers and it was impossible to establish whether the events described by the applicant had actually taken place .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's interlocutory appeal against the decision of DATE . The court held that the applicant , when refusing to accept meals containing meat , had referred to his alleged vegetarianism . The court considered that there was no information in the prison files showing that the applicant was a NORP , and in addition for DATE he had agreed to the ORG diet even though it was not a completely meat - free diet .

On DATE in reply to the applicant 's further complaints , ORG informed the applicant that the only special diet available in FAC was the “ ORG ” diet . That diet , with the exception of pork , consisted of various meat products , namely beef and poultry , as well as fish . A meat - free diet was not available in that prison .

On DATE the ORG , in reply to yet another complaint from the applicant , again confirmed that the only special diet which took into account religious beliefs was the ORG diet . In addition , he explained :

“ A convict has a right to change religion while serving a prison sentence and to profit from freedom of religion if he / she feels like that . However , this does not mean that the prison authorities are obliged to provide an individual with special food in order to meet the specific requirements of his faith . The question of food related to religion or cultural background should not lead convicts to manipulate the prison authorities in order to secure personal advantages . ”

On DATE GPE in GPE again sent a letter to the Director of Goleniów Prison asking him to provide the applicant with a meat - free diet .

NORP In a complaint lodged with ORG on DATE the applicant argued that the diet he had been granted in PERSON did not take into account his religious beliefs .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint . The court held that the applicant had been granted a special diet since DATE . It further noted that given the technical conditions in the prison kitchen , the transporting of meals and understaffing in the kitchen , it was not possible to provide each prisoner individually with food in conformity with his or her religious dietary requirements . The court also confirmed that meals without pork were prepared .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC . On DATE he applied to be served meat - free meals in view of his religious dietary requirements . The applicant 's request was refused on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE in reply to the applicant 's complaint , the ORG informed him that the prison authorities had not been obliged to prepare special meals taking into consideration different dietary requirements . In addition , since the applicant was the only NORP in this prison , it would have put too much strain on the prison authorities .

NORP The situation of prisoners and persons detained on remand is governed by LAW DATE .

Under LAW , prisoners should receive meals taking into consideration their employment , age and where possible religious and cultural beliefs . On the basis of that Article the Minister of ORG issued the LAW of DATE on the rules to be followed by the relevant authorities when determining DATE meals and different diets to be allowed to persons detained in prisons ( ORG w sprawie okreslenia wartosci dziennej normy wyzywienia oraz rodzaju diet wydawanych osobom osadzonym w zakladach karnych I aresztach sledczych ) . The ordinance refers to QUANTITY types of special diet – a “ light diet ” ( dieta lekkostrawna ) and a “ diet for diabetics ” ( dieta cukrzycowa ) .

DATE the Civil Code contains a non - exhaustive list of socalled “ personal rights ” ( prawa osobiste ) . This provision states :

“ The personal rights of an individual , such as , in particular , health , liberty , honour , freedom of conscience , name or pseudonym , image , secrecy of correspondence , inviolability of the home , scientific or artistic work , [ as well as ] inventions and improvements , shall be protected by the civil law regardless of the protection laid down in other legal provisions . ”

Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Civil Code provides :

“ A person whose personal rights are at risk [ of infringement ] by a third party may seek an injunction , unless the activity [ complained of ] is not unlawful . In the event of infringement [ the person concerned ] may also require the party who caused the infringement to take the necessary steps to remove the consequences of the infringement ... In compliance with the principles of this LAW [ the person concerned ] may also seek pecuniary compensation or may ask the court to award an adequate sum for the benefit of a specific public interest . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , applicable in the event that a person suffers a bodily injury or a health disorder as a result of an unlawful act or omission of a ORG agent , reads as follows :

“ ... The court may award to the injured person an adequate sum in pecuniary compensation for the damage suffered . ”

Under LAW , a person whose personal rights have been infringed may seek compensation . That provision , in its relevant part , reads :

“ The court may grant an adequate sum as pecuniary compensation for non - material damage ( krzywda ) suffered to anyone whose personal rights have been infringed . Alternatively , the person concerned , regardless of whether he or she seeks any other relief that may be necessary for removing the consequences of the infringement sustained , may ask the court to award an adequate sum for the benefit of a specific public interest . ”

A Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on ORG ( Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) ( “ FAC ” ) , adopted on DATE , sets out the following standards in respect of diet in prison that may be relevant in the context of the present case .

“ CARDINAL . Prisoners shall be provided with a nutritious diet that takes into account their age , health , physical condition , religion , culture and the nature of their work .

The requirements of a nutritious diet , including its minimum energy and protein content , shall be prescribed in national law .

Food shall be prepared and served hygienically .

There shall be CARDINAL meals a day with reasonable intervals between them .

Clean drinking water shall be available to prisoners at all times .

The medical practitioner or a qualified nurse shall order a change in diet for a particular prisoner when it is needed on medical grounds . “


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

The applicant was the owner of a company , Can Ticaret . In DATE the applicant bought carpets from a company called ORG ve FAC ( ORG : hereinafter “ ORG ” . ) .

On DATE , and in furtherance of this transaction , the applicant received for signature CARDINAL promissory notes ( bono ) which were to be paid DATE and DATE . According to the applicant , the promissory notes had been prepared for the applicant 's signature by PERSON who allegedly worked for ORG at the material time . Having stamped and signed them , the applicant sent the promissory notes to ORG . The promissory notes met the legal requirements of LAW .

It subsequently transpired that the applicant 's cousin , GPE , was named as the debtor on the promissory notes . However , the applicant maintains that he only stamped and signed the promissory notes when he received them and did not add any names to them . In the applicant 's opinion , his cousin 's name must have been added by PERSON

On an unknown date ORG applied to ORG ( icra müdürlüğü ) to have the promissory notes enforced against the applicant 's cousin , GPE

On DATE GPE applied to the public prosecutor 's office in the PERSON district requesting that criminal proceedings be brought against the applicant . The applicant was subsequently charged with forgery under LAW .

On DATE , the PERSON public prosecutor issued a decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction ( yetkisizlik kararı ) and sent the case file to the public prosecutor 's office in LOC .

On DATE the NORP public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG charging the applicant with forgery under LAW .

During the criminal proceedings against the applicant ORG issued a summons requiring PERSON to give evidence . In the applicant 's submission , ORG had fraudulently added GPE 's signature to the promissory notes .

On DATE Ş.C. withdrew his accusation against the applicant . However , the prosecution proceeded with the charges against the applicant .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to inform it whether PERSON had been employed by the firm at the time of the offence .

On DATE ORG informed the court that no one of that name had ever worked for the company .

On DATE the court abandoned the proposal to hear PERSON referring to the response given by ORG and observing that PERSON could not be found . Furthermore , the court did not find it necessary to request ORG to carry out an analysis as to whether the applicant 's handwriting matched the manner in which the name of GPE was written on the promissory notes .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of forgery under LAW and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG judgment on the ground that PERSON was not heard before the court and that a comparative analysis of his handwriting and the handwriting on the promissory notes had not been carried out .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal and upheld the judgment of ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG requesting that his case be re - opened .

On DATE this request was dismissed .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE this very last appeal of the applicant was dismissed by ORG .

On DATE the applicant started serving his prison sentence .

On DATE he was released from prison on probation .

LAW provides :

“ A civil servant who prepares a partially or completely forged document or distorts an authentic document shall be imprisoned for DATE if damage arises out of this forgery ... ”

LAW CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ A person who is not a civil servant and who forges an official document by way of the methods specified in LAW shall be imprisoned for DATE ... ”

LAW provides :

“ ... Admission of evidence can be rejected under the following circumstances :

c ) If the fact to which the evidence is relevant does not have any effect on the decision ... ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The application concerns a real estate in GPE which is located in GPE . The estate had been owned DATE by PERSON , an NORP citizen who , after having married a NORP national , temporarily lost her NORP citizenship until DATE . PERSON was succeeded in DATE by Mr PERSON , an NORP bishop who died in DATE and who was succeeded on his part by PERSON , who was also an NORP citizen . The applicant inherited upon PERSON death in DATE .

After the foundation of GPE ( GDR ) , foreign assets were in general put under public administration , and the ORG powers of disposal were considerably restricted . As a consequence , the GPE went into bilateral negotiations with GPE ( among them GPE ) over financial and property issues . In DATE , the GPE concluded several Lump Sum Agreements ( Globalentschädigungsabkommen ) . A Lump Sum Agreement with GPE was concluded on CARDINAL DATE according to which the parties agreed that the GPE would pay to GPE a certain lump sum in order to settle property claims of GPE as well as of NORP citizens and legal persons . The last rate of the lump sum was paid in DATE by GPE ( ORG ) as the legal successor of the GPE . The lump sum was distributed by ORG ( Bundesverteilungskommission ) in ORG on the basis of NORP law , in particular the so - called LAW ( Verteilungsgesetz DDR ) .

In DATE , Mr PERSON applied to ORG for consideration of the PERSON estate , which had been put under GPE administration in DATE , in the negotiations for the Lump Sum Agreement . Mr PERSON was informed by ORG on CARDINAL occasions in DATE and DATE that the PERSON estate was part of the negotiations to ORG .

In DATE , PERSON ( who had inherited from Mr PERSON and whom the applicant succeeded in DATE ) applied to ORG for compensation from the lump sum . Her application was dismissed on DATE . ORG found that Mr PERSON and PERSON fulfilled the conditions of NORP nationality under LAW . However , PERSON , who had been the owner of the PERSON estate when it was put under GPE administration in DATE , did not have NORP citizenship on DATE , CARDINAL of the relevant dates . The Commission reasoned that NORP nationality of PERSON as the injured person was a necessary requirement under the said legislation .

The applicant , who pursued the application after PERSON death in DATE , filed a constitutional complaint with ORG ) against the decision of ORG . ORG dismissed the application on DATE . It observed inter alia that there should be congruency between the Lump Sum Agreement and the national legislation governing the distribution . In its view , LAW met that requirement .

On DATE , upon application by ORG ( GPE PERSON Vermögensfragen ) , the real estate in GPE was allocated to the ORG in accordance with LAW ( b ) LAW ( Vermögenszuordnungsgesetz ) by order of ORG ) . LAW ( b ) LAW provides that assets for which compensation was provided for in bilateral treaties between the GPE and third states should be allocated to the ORG . The provision refers to LAW ( b ) of ORG , hereinafter the “ LAW ” ) , which excludes restitution for property losses which are covered by bilateral treaties between the GPE and third states .

The applicant who had been participating in the allocation process subsequently brought an action for annulment of the allocation order .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim and refused to grant leave to appeal on points of law . Referring to the established case law of ORG , it found that , since the purpose of LAW CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW was to avoid that GPE had to pay double compensation where damages imputable to the GPE had already been compensated . Accordingly , the only prerequisite for of LAW CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW was the asset in question had been covered by LAW . As it was based on the payment of a lump sum , it did not matter whether the individual had actually received compensation , a matter which was anyway within the sphere of ORG to the agreement with the GPE . ORG to the lump sum agreement with the GPE had protected the interests of their nationals on the international level and the international agreement , once full payment was made , finally solved all property issues covered by that agreement . ORG , having regard to the material before it , established that the PERSON estate had been covered by LAW between GPE and the GPE . In this respect , the court noted that , in the appendix to the ORG , the NORP delegation had registered the estate as a subject matter during the negotiations . It further found that the estate had been validly included , with the consent of its then owner . In this respect , ORG referred to ORG which interpreted the relevant provisions of LAW to the effect that it applied to individuals of NORP citizenship on DATE and on DATE , the date of signature , but did not require that the owner at the time when the estate was placed under public administration held NORP citizenship on DATE . The refusal of compensation from the lump sum was a matter of NORP law and the legal opinion of ORG could not be decisive for the allocation of the assets under NORP law .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s motion against ORG refusal to grant leave to appeal on points of law . ORG , referring to its earlier case law , confirmed that LAW ( b ) of LAW merely required that the asset in question was covered by LAW . The actual compensation on an individual basis , which in any event was subject to the domestic law of the third ORG which had received and distributed the lump sum , was not required . The purpose of LAW CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW was to avoid double compensation of financial and property losses which were attributable to the GPE but which had already been compensated by the payment of a lump sum to a third ORG . ORG took note of the fact that the applicant had neither been compensated by ORG nor had he received any restitution by GPE . However , ORG stressed that the NORP side had paid a lump sum to the NORP government for all assets which were covered by the Agreement ( including the estate in GPE ) in order to compensate individuals who had suffered material losses . The NORP side however had no influence on whether these individuals participated in the distribution of the lump sum . The applicability of an exclusion clause such as Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW could not depend on whether or not ORG had in fact made payments to all individuals whose claims had been taken into account when calculating the lump sum . It could therefore not be regarded as unfair if NORP law would deny restitution to such individuals .

On DATE , ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint , finding that the impugned decisions did not violate the applicant ’s right to property as guaranteed by LAW ) .

According to its ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the Lump Sum Agreement covers property and financial claims of GPE as well as of NORP citizens and legal persons with regard to property which was under GPE administration . LAW provides that “ NORP nationals ” within the meaning of DATE are those who had NORP citizenship on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE of the signing of the Agreement , i.e. on CARDINAL DATE . LAW provides that , if the property claimant died before LANGUAGE DATE and held NORP citizenship upon his or her death , the successor is entitled under the condition that he or she held NORP citizenship on DATE .

According to LAW , all property and financial issues covered by the Agreement were to be settled exhaustively and definitely with the payment of the lump sum .

LAW is the domestic law which corresponds to LAW . According to LAW , the term “ NORP nationals ” was defined as persons who had NORP citizenship both on DATE and on the date of the signing of the Agreement , i.e. on CARDINAL DATE . If the owner died before CARDINAL DATE and held NORP citizenship upon his or her death , the successor is entitled under the condition that he or she held NORP citizenship on DATE .

ORG , also known as LAW , entered into force on DATE and was a part of LAW . Under the terms of the LAW , LAW was to continue to subsist in the reunified GPE after the reunification of the two GPE on DATE . The aim of the LAW was to resolve disputes over property in the territory of the GPE in a way that was socially acceptable , in order to achieve permanent legal order in GPE . LAW CARDINAL ( b ) of the LAW holds :

“ This Act shall , subject to its provisions on competences and procedure , not apply to : ( ... ) ( b ) property claims which were covered by bilateral treaties between GPE and third states ( ... ) ” .

The first sentence of LAW ( b ) LAW provides :

“ Any assets which were subject to the agreements referred to in LAW ( b ) of ORG , shall be ( ... ) allocated to ORG once the payments provided for in the agreements have been made . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant is a lawyer . The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

In DATE the applicant published CARDINAL articles in the regional newspaper “ Day by PERSON . PERSON – NORP - Volgograd”(“День за днем. PERSON - Сталинград - GPE ” ) . Both articles inquired into the circumstances of granting a new flat to PERSON , a judge of ORG and chairperson of ORG .

The first article , under the headline “ Legitimised Judge ” ( “ Судья в законе ” ) , appeared in the issue of DATE . The second article , entitled “ Voluntary Retirement of a Judge ” ( “ GPE отставка судьи ” ) , was printed in the issue of DATE .

The publications alleged that Judge PERSON had taken advantage of her position in order to obtain a CARDINAL - room flat for her family of CARDINAL and that she had given her old flat to her adult daughter instead of surrendering it back to the council as required by law . The second article suggested that Judge PERSON had applied for her resignation fearing an inquiry into her deeds .

Judge PERSON sued the applicant for defamation . She submitted that the applicant ’s assertions about her having unlawfully obtained a better housing were of a libellous nature . She considered defamatory the following extract from the first article :

“ The PERSON on the Status of Judges in GPE is applied selectively in LOC and its application is related not only to the high status of judges , but also to their office ... thus it may be understood that the equality of all [ citizens ] before law and courts ends where we talk about judges themselves . Hence the rule is ‘ the law is like a rudder , it goes where you bend it’ . ”

Judge PERSON also regarded the following passages from the second article as defamatory :

“ ... on having received a new flat , [ Judge PERSON ] should have surrendered the one she had occupied in the past . However , the ‘ surrendering’ only happened through privatisation [ of the old flat ] and its subsequent sale . In this way Judge PERSON dramatically ‘ improved her living DATE now she has got a new flat of a bigger surface and money for the old one . ”

“ Judge PERSON was forced to retire because of other circumstances ... A visit of a high - ranking official from ORG of GPE who came to investigate the complaints of Judge PERSON . [ concerning the termination of his powers ] has helped PERSON , the chairperson of the judges’ qualification panel for LOC , to make a decision on her retirement . ”

On DATE ORG ( GPE судей PERSON области ) sent a letter to the President of ORG , of which the applicant was a member , requesting that the applicant ’s bar membership be annulled . The letter referred to the applicant as an unethical lawyer who had published articles of “ clearly libellous nature ” and who attempted to exercise “ illicit and immoral ” influence on Judge PERSON to have her action withdrawn . The letter contained the following passage :

“ Realising the well - founded character of the action lodged and attempting to avoid a public declaration on the unlawfulness of his acts by a court decision , [ the applicant ] resorts to impermissible means , which violate the generally recognised moral standards , seeking to have [ Judge PERSON ] withdraw her claim in the court . ”

On DATE the Presiding Committee of the Volgograd Bar passed a decision to annul the applicant ’s membership because of “ unethical performance of his duties ” . The decision referred to disciplinary sanctions that had been imposed on the applicant in the past .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . The applicant did not appeal against the judgment .

On DATE the ORG of Volgograd granted the defamation action . The court found that the applicant had not produced any evidence in support of his assertions that Judge PERSON had unlawfully refused to surrender her old flat or that her retirement had been somehow connected with the inquiry by a high - ranking official . The court also held that the headline of the first article “ Legitimised Judge ” was also damaging to Judge PERSON ’s reputation :

“ The court considers that a mass reader knows from the press , television , literature and essays , as well as from one ’s personal experience , that the term ‘ legitimised ORG [ вор в законе ] refers to a person with a long criminal record who enjoys respect and authority in the criminal milieu . The headline ‘ ORG Judge’ stylistically clearly alludes to the term ‘ legitimised ORG and semantically it is implied here that the ‘ ORG is a criminal . On this ground the court holds that the headline of the article damages honour , dignity and professional reputation of Judge PERSON because the [ applicant ] failed to produce any evidence of a breach of any laws by the plaintiff . ”

The court held the applicant liable for MONEY ( “ RUR ” , approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

The applicant lodged a statement of appeal in which he contested the reasons of the judgment of DATE . A copy of the statement has not been made available to the ORG .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a CARDINAL - judge formation , upheld the judgment of DATE .

LAW guarantees freedom of thought and expression , together with freedom of the mass media .

Article CARDINAL provides that an individual may apply to a court with a request for the rectification of “ statements ” ( “ сведения ” ) that are damaging to his or her honour , dignity or professional reputation if the person who disseminated such statements does not prove their truthfulness . The aggrieved person may also claim compensation for losses and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the dissemination of such statements .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE CARDINAL police officers from the FAC police ( милиция метро ) at LOC railway station in GPE , GPE NORP , arrested the applicant and another person , NORP , on suspicion of burglary . They took them to the FAC police station for questioning and urged the applicant to confess . The applicant refused and asked to be provided with a lawyer . Angry about this request , the policemen punched the applicant in the upper body and the head .

Later , the policemen took the applicant to a special FAC police station for further questioning . According to the applicant , as soon as the interrogation had begun , the policemen beat him to make him sign a confession they had prepared . The applicant refused to sign . Angry about this refusal , the policemen cuffed the applicant ’s hands behind his back , dropped him on the floor , and applied electric shocks to his neck , kidney and liver areas and private parts . They kicked the applicant in the stomach , put him in a chair , and beat his head with a document file until he fainted . TIME the policemen told the applicant that they would hand him over to officers from the PERSON district police station because the burglary had been committed in that district .

NORP The officers from the PERSON district police station questioned the applicant and placed him in a temporary detention unit . DATE , the applicant was transferred to remand prison ORG .

On the applicant ’s admission to the prison , the doctor on duty observed injuries on his body . He sent the applicant to a first - aid point to record the injuries .

On DATE the staff at the first - aid point recorded the following injuries sustained by the applicant :

“ Bruises on the soft tissue of the left auricle , right forefinger and right elbow joint and an abrasion on the left shin . ”

The applicant explained that the injuries were caused by the ill - treatment he had received from the policemen .

NORP On DATE the prison administration asked the public prosecutor of LOC to investigate the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment . The prosecutor referred the request to the FAC public prosecutor ( прокурор GPE метрополитена ) because it was FAC police officers who had allegedly ill - treated the applicant .

The applicant ’s criminal case was submitted for trial in LOC . At the trial , the court questioned as a witness PERSON , the policeman who had arrested the applicant , who stated that he had not used physical coercion against him . The applicant recognised PERSON as the man who had beaten him . The court asked the FAC public prosecutor about the results of the inquiry ( прокурорская проверка ) into the alleged ill - treatment . On DATE ORG of the GPE police informed the court that the applicant could have been injured when being transported to the remand prison .

On DATE the court convicted the applicant and NORP of burglary and sentenced them to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The court found the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment unsubstantiated , stating :

“ The use of physical coercion [ against the applicant and NORP ] by the policemen has not been corroborated by the results of the inquiry conducted . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

On DATE the FAC public prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators on the ground that there was no indication that a crime had been committed . On DATE the applicant asked the GPE public prosecutor to quash the decision of DATE .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE rendered by the FAC public prosecutor and referred the case back for further investigation .

On DATE the FAC public prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings against the policemen for the second time .

On DATE a GPE deputy public prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE , finding that it was superficial . He noted , in particular , that no medical examination had been carried out to establish the method by which the injuries had been inflicted and their gravity and , furthermore , that NORP and NORP , persons who had been detained simultaneously with the applicant and had sustained similar injuries , had not been questioned . He referred the case back for further investigation .

On DATE the deputy FAC public prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen for the third time on the ground that there was no indication that a crime had been committed . In the decision it was noted that the policemen L. , PERSON and NORP , who had arrested the applicant , had stated that they had not used physical coercion against him . CARDINAL other policemen , PERSON , PERSON who had been on duty at the police station on CARDINAL and DATE , were also questioned . PERSON stated that during his shift the applicant had not been brought to the police station . PERSON and PERSON submitted that on DATE at TIME persons had been brought to the police station ; however , no physical force had been used against them and no procedural steps had been taken DATE . O. and NORP , the persons who had been detained simultaneously with the applicant , could not be questioned because they did not reside in GPE any more . As regards the injuries noted in the medical report of DATE , it was impossible to determine when and in what circumstances they had been inflicted .

NORP DATE , criminal proceedings in GPE were governed by LAW RSFSR ( the old ORG ) . Under LAW ORG , a refusal to open criminal proceedings could be appealed against to a prosecutor or a court . Under LAW , a refusal by the prosecutor could be appealed against to a higher prosecutor .

On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( the new ORG ) . LAW ORG provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court .


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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , the THKP - C ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant was detained on remand .

On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG against the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants . ORG accused the applicant , inter alia , of membership of an illegal armed organisation , namely the THKP / C , whose object was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a NORP - Leninist regime . He further charged the applicant with having been involved in a number of crimes such as armed robbery of public and private properties , and opening fire on several individuals .

The prosecution sought the death penalty under LAW .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE in respect of additional criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant before the GPE , GPE and FAC ( ağır ceza mahkemesi ) , the courts issued decisions of nonjurisdiction on the ground that the incidents fell within the jurisdiction of ORG . The cases were joined to the case - file before ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the İstanbul Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of the THKP / C and his involvement in the alleged crimes . It sentenced the applicant to death penalty under LAW .

As the applicant ’s sentence exceeded CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , his case was automatically referred to ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first instance court failed to establish the applicant ’s involvement in some of the alleged crimes . It referred the case to the İstanbul Martial Law Court .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service and placed him under judicial guardianship . The applicant appealed .

Following promulgation of the Law of DATE , which abolished the jurisdiction of ORG , ORG ( Yargıtay ) acquired jurisdiction over the case and on DATE the case file was transmitted to it .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

“ Whosoever shall attempt to alter or amend in whole or in part LAW or to effect a coup ORG formed under LAW or to prevent it by force from carrying out its functions shall be liable to the death penalty . ”