CASE OF OGNYANOVA AND CHOBAN v. BULGARIA

Violations of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 14;Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

At TIME on DATE Mr GPE died after having fallen DATE from the window of room CARDINAL on the third floor of the police station in the town of PERSON . Numerous injuries were found on his body . The ensuing investigation concluded that he had voluntarily jumped out of the window of the room where he had been brought for questioning , and that all his injuries had been the result of his fall . The applicants contested these conclusions .

At an unknown time on DATE Mr GPE , then aged twentythree , was arrested by the police in the town of GPE . Another person , PERSON , also of GPE ethnic origin , was likewise taken into custody . According to a subsequent statement of PERSON , he had turned himself in , whereas according to a statement of lieutenant ORG , a police officer involved in these events ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he had been arrested . Apparently Mr GPE and Mr PERSON were suspected of numerous thefts and burglaries committed in complicity . The CARDINAL were brought to the PERSON police station either TIME or TIME . The applicants submitted that Mr GPE had been in good health at the time of his arrest . The Government did not contest this assertion .

The events of TIME , as described hereafter , are only known from the statements of lieutenant PERSON and chief sergeant PERSON , the QUANTITY police officers who participated in the events , of PERSON , and partly from the statement of chief sergeant PERSON , an officer guarding the cell block of the police station . Apparently the only eyewitnesses to what happened in room DATE , from whose window Mr GPE fell to the ground , were lieutenant GPE , chief sergeant PERSON and Mr PERSON

Lieutenant I.C. arrived at the PERSON police station at TIME on DATE and first proceeded to question PERSON PERSON about the thefts and burglaries allegedly committed by him and Mr GPE .

NORP The questioning took place in lieutenant GPE ’s office – room CARDINAL on the third floor of the police station – an eastfacing room measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY .. It had CARDINAL twowing windows , overlooking the backyard , with sills QUANTITY above the floor . It seems that the south window was opened . In the middle of the room there were CARDINAL desks , adjacent to each other .

In the back yard , beneath the room ’s windows , QUANTITY south of the CARDINAL which was open , there was a shed for motorcycles , with a QUANTITY high ceiling , covered with an iron sheet roof . Beside the shed there was an inspection tunnel for automobiles , leading to an underground garage . The inspection tunnel had a concrete edge . The room ’s windows stood at QUANTITY above the ground , the distance between the windows and the concrete edge was QUANTITY , and that between the windows and the iron sheet roof QUANTITY

After questioning PERSON , lieutenant PERSON sent him back to the cell block on the first floor , and brought Mr GPE up for questioning . During the questioning Mr GPE was seated in a chair behind the south desk in room CARDINAL . Lieutenant I.C. was sitting opposite him , behind the north desk . Throughout the questioning Mr GPE was handcuffed . It is not clear whether his hands were secured behind his back or in front of him .

According to the statements made later by lieutenant PERSON , sergeant PERSON and PERSON , during the questioning the lieutenant established discrepancies between the versions of PERSON and Mr D.O about their participation in the alleged thefts . At that point , at TIME , the lieutenant called sergeant PERSON and ordered him to bring PERSON up from the cell block in order to be able to confront the CARDINAL . PERSON took Mr PERSON and brought him in front of room CARDINAL . PERSON and PERSON PERSON stood a little south of the room ’s door , so that PERSON and PERSON GPE could not establish eye contact . Lieutenant PERSON started questioning PERSON and PERSON , to compare their answers . Apparently their versions differed and an argument erupted between the CARDINAL , as they were accusing each other of being the mastermind of the alleged thefts .

Then PERSON indicated with his head to lieutenant PERSON that he wanted to tell him something without Mr PERSON hearing it . The lieutenant stood up from his chair , approached the halfopen door and stood at the doorsill . At that moment Mr GPE , still handcuffed , bolted from his chair , made towards the open window and climbed on the window sill by stepping on a chair placed under the window . Chief sergeant PERSON shouted : “ This one is going to run ” . Lieutenant GPE turned around and saw PERSON GPE in the window frame , one leg out in the air and the other leg inside the room . The lieutenant shouted : “ Do n’t jump ! ” , but Mr PERSON threw his other leg out of the window and jumped . The lieutenant rushed towards the window .

There are inconsistencies in the lieutenant ’s statements as to whether he saw Mr GPE falling , or only saw him after he had already hit the ground . In his report dated DATE the lieutenant stated that he had only seen Mr GPE ’s body supine on the ground . However , when questioned about the incident on DATE , the lieutenant maintained that when he had rushed to the window , he had been able to see Mr GPE ’s fall , and had seen his body hit the iron sheet roof of the shed beneath the window before rolling off and onto the ground . When questioned for a second time on DATE , the lieutenant stated that he could not recall exactly the phases of Mr GPE ’s fall and could not tell whether PERSON GPE had first hit the roof of the motorcycle shed , as he did not remember whether he had gone to the window immediately . He explained that his memories had faded because the events had taken place a long time before and had unfolded very quickly ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) .

There are also inconsistencies in Mr PERSON ’s statements as to whether he saw PERSON GPE ’s fall at all . When first questioned about the incident on DATE , he stated that he had not directly seen Mr GPE jump . During his second questioning on DATE Mr PERSON maintained that he had seen Mr GPE standing up with his handcuffs on , moving towards the window and jumping . However , he did not state that he had seen Mr GPE ’s fall , but had only seen him supine on the ground .

Chief sergeant PERSON rushed down the stairs to the back yard , where he found Mr GPE lying unconscious , CARDINAL on his back , CARDINAL on his right side , on an iron grill in front of the garage . His handcuffs had broken , he was bleeding and breathing heavily . Chief sergeant PERSON poured water on him to try to revive him . An ambulance was called shortly afterwards and Mr GPE was taken to the regional hospital in PERSON , where he died at TIME ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Having been notified about the incident at TIME , investigator PERSON of ORG in PERSON inspected the scene of the incident . Starting at TIME , he first inspected the back yard of the police station , where Mr GPE had fallen to the ground , and then room CARDINAL . TIME of the inspection state that the site of the incident had “ not been preserved – the injured person having been removed ” . TIME describe the ground beneath the windows of room CARDINAL as covered partly with an iron grill , the remainder being a concrete surface . CARDINAL bloodstains are noted : CARDINAL on the iron grill , and CARDINAL under it . The bloodstain under the grill measured CARDINAL to QUANTITY . During the inspection of room CARDINAL a chair was found just beside the window and a piece of plaster QUANTITY long was found under the window frame .

DATE , while Mr GPE was still alive but in a coma , colonel PERSON , prosecutor at ORG , ordered that he be examined by PERSON , medical doctor at the forensic medicine ward of the PERSON regional hospital .

At TIME on DATE PERSON examined Mr GPE in the presence of PERSON , a neurosurgeon from the PERSON regional hospital . He found that Mr PERSON was in a coma and could not communicate . He recorded that the “ onduty police officer ” had told him that Mr GPE had jumped from the window of a room on the third floor of the police station , that he had fallen on an iron sheet roof , and then on the ground in front of the underground garage of the station , on an iron grill .

He noted the following injuries on Mr GPE ’s body :

“ The lids of the right eye are suffused and are bluish - violet in colour . An abrasion with underlying surface , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , was found in the area of the right cheekbone . An arch - shaped wound with uneven and suffused edges QUANTITY long , was found on the outer edge of the right eye . CARDINAL slit - shaped parallel violet suffusions , QUANTITY wide and QUANTITY long , are visible on the back of the right shoulder . The distance between them is QUANTITY . At the middle of the thorax one can observe a slanted elongated violet suffusion , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . A similar suffusion , measuring QUANTITY , was found on the left buttock . The right upper limb is immobilised with a plaster dressing . CARDINAL oval abrasions with underlying surface , the biggest measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , were found on the lateral side of the right knee . The skin on the lateral side of the right sole is suffused and bluish - violet in colour . A spotted suffusion , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , was found on the inner side of the left sole . An underlying abrasion , measuring QUANTITY , is visible on the lateral side of the right calf . A superficial slit - shaped wound with uneven edges and length QUANTITY was found on the left parietal - temporal area . ”

Dr PERSON concluded that the injuries described could have been sustained in a twostage fall .

NORP The laboratory tests detected no traces of alcohol in Mr GPE ’s blood or urine .

Mr GPE died at TIME .

On DATE , DATE , PERSON performed an autopsy on PERSON GPE ’s dead body . The doctor described his findings in detail in his report . He noted the following :

“ ORG [ : ]

... The eyelids are closed . The lids of the right eye are suffused and bluish - violet in colour . An arch - shaped wound with uneven and suffused edges , QUANTITY long , is visible in the outer eye angle of the right eye , on the orbital edge . An abraded spot at the level of the skin , covered with reddish scab , CARDINAL by QUANTITY , is visible in the area of the right cheekbone . ... A slit - shaped wound with uneven and suffused edges , QUANTITY long , is visible in the parietal - occipital - temporal area . Small tissue bridges are visible at the bottom of the wound . ... An oblique bluish suffusion , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , is visible on the frontal part [ of the thorax ] , in the middle part , in the projection of the sternum . CARDINAL strip - shaped bluish - violet blood suffusions , parallel to one another , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , at a distance of QUANTITY between them , are visible on the back surface of the right shoulder . ... A bluish - violet suffusion , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , was found on the left buttock . ... The right armpit bone is broken in DATE with suffusions in the musculature . A wound with an irregular shape and even edges , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , is visible in this area , on the lateral surface . The bone fragments are at its bottom . CARDINAL strip - shaped grazed areas covered with whitish scab at the level of the skin , each measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , and a distance between them of QUANTITY , were found in the area of the right wrist . CARDINAL abraded areas covered with reddish scab at the level of the skin , the biggest one measuring QUANTITY in diameter , were found on the lateral side of the right knee . A similar grazed area , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , was found on the lateral surface of the right calf . The skin on the lateral part of the right sole is suffused and bluish . A similar suffusion , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , was found on the internal surface of the left sole .

Deep skin incisions were made on the back of the corpse , and thereupon suffusions of the soft tissues and the musculature of the right part of the back , in the area of the right shoulder - blade , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , vertically oriented , were found . ... A suffusion of the tissues was found in the musculature and the subcutaneous layer of the left buttock , in the projection of the above - described suffusion .

ORG [ : ] Head . The soft cranial membranes have suffusions on the right frontal - temporal area , on the left parietal - occipital - temporal area , below the above described lacerated - contusion wound . ... A linear fracture was found at the base of the skull , beginning from the right frontal - temporal area , passing on the roof of the right orbit , and ending in the area of the sella turcica . ... The soft meninges are suffused in the temporal parts . ... Rounded violet suffusions , with diameter of not more than QUANTITY , were found at the base of the brain , in the area of the right frontal parts .

... The first , seventh , and eighth ribs on the right side are broken on the posterior sub - arm line with a suffusion in the intercostal musculature . The fractures are wide open inward . ”

In the concluding part of the report PERSON summarised the injuries on PERSON PERSON ’s body as follows :

“ Combined cranial - cerebral and thoracic trauma following DATE from a substantial height . Fracture of the base of the skull . Cerebral contusion , cerebral oedema , with wedging of the cerebellar tonsils . Suffusion of the meninges . Fracture of ribs on the right side . Lacerated - contusion wounds on the head and the face . Suffusions of the cranial membranes , the face , the thorax , and the limbs . Abrasions on the face and the limbs . Open fracture of the right armpit bone . Suffusion of the buttocks . Lack of alcohol in the blood and the urine . ”

Dr PERSON concluded that the death had been caused by a cranialcerebral trauma , consisting of a fracture of the skull , a contusion and a brain oedema .

Addressing the question of the manner in which the injuries had been caused , Dr PERSON stated :

“ The described traumatic injuries were caused by the impact of the body against solid blunt objects and could be sustained in a CARDINAL - stage fall from a substantial height . The inspection and the autopsy revealed head and body traumatic injuries : head – on the right frontal - temporal area [ and ] on the left parietal - occipital - temporal area ; body – front and back , more pronounced on the right side ; limbs – right upper limb , lateral surface of the right leg and internal surface of the left sole . The fall on the roof of the shed produced the injuries on the right side of the forehead and the face and the front of the body . The second stage of DATE from the roof of the shed to the ground in front of the underground garage – resulted in the injuries on the back of the body , the left parietal - occipital - temporal area of the head and lower limbs . The CARDINAL chafings of the right wrist suggest sustained contact with handcuffs . The right armpit bone was broken during the first stage of the fall if the hands were handcuffed in front , and during the second stage if the hands were handcuffed on the back . ”

Dr PERSON finished his autopsy report with the following findings :

“ All traumatic injuries were sustained while [ Mr PERSON was alive ] , is indicated by from the suffusions in the areas of the broken bones . These injuries were sustained at the same time and it is possible that they occurred at the time stated in the preliminary data .

The inspection of the body and the autopsy did not reveal traumatic injuries which can not be explained by DATE from a substantial height .

At the time of his death [ Mr ] PERSON was not under the influence of alcohol , but the expertise can not confirm the same for the moment of the fall , because the alcohol test sample was taken TIME after the incident . ”

On DATE Mr PERSON was questioned about the incident . He stated , inter alia , that he had not directly seen Mr GPE jump .

An investigation was opened on DATE by ORG .

The military investigator in charge of the case , Mr ORG , collected the written reports of lieutenant PERSON , chief sergeant PERSON and sergeant PERSON , but did not question the officers . He started working on the case on DATE , when he questioned Mr PERSON The latter stated , inter alia , that he had not been mistreated and that Mr GPE body did not indicate any bodily assault at the time of his questioning in the morning of DATE . He also maintained that he had seen Mr GPE standing up with his handcuffs on , moving towards the window and jumping . However , he did not state that he had seen Mr GPE ’s fall , but had only seen him lying on the ground .

On DATE ORG transferred the case to the competent district prosecutor ’s office , in view of the amendments to LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) of DATE whereby offences allegedly committed by police officers came under the jurisdiction of the general courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , on DATE the case was sent back to ORG pursuant to special instructions by ORG of DATE . On DATE ORG remitted the case file to captain ORG , a military investigator in PERSON , for further action .

Lieutenant I.C. was questioned on DATE by the military investigator , captain ORG He stated , inter alia , that when he had rushed to the window , he had been able to see Mr GPE ’s fall and had seen his body hit the iron sheet roof of the shed situated beneath the window before hitting the ground ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE investigator ORG recommended that the investigation be discontinued , citing the lack of evidence for a criminal offence . He found that the medical expert report had established that all of Mr GPE ’s injuries had been sustained during his twostage fall from the window . This finding coincided with lieutenant ORG statement that he had seen Mr GPE ’s body first hit the roof of the shed beneath the window and then fall on the ground in front of the underground garage . The investigator concluded that Mr GPE had jumped out of the window of his own will , and that this had not been provoked by the conduct of lieutenant GPE or another police officer .

On DATE colonel GPE , prosecutor at ORG , discontinued the proceedings and sent the case file to ORG for further action . He reasoned that Mr PERSON had suddenly jumped from the window of room CARDINAL during questioning , in the presence of lieutenant GPE and Mr PERSON He had fallen on the ground and had immediately been taken to a hospital , where he had died despite the efforts to revive him . As could been seen from the medical expert report , the Mr GPE ’s death had been caused by a combined cranial - cerebral and thoracic trauma , a fracture of the base of the skull , a cerebral contusion , a suffusion of the meninges , lacerated - contusion wounds on the head and the face , and suffusions of the limbs . There was no indication that lieutenant PERSON had contributed in any way to Mr GPE ’s death .

On DATE ORG sent the case back to ORG , stating that there was nothing for them to do since the proceedings were discontinued .

During DATE the case file was shuttled between various prosecutor ’s offices . On DATE the first applicant , who was apparently unaware of the latest developments , complained to ORG about the delay in the investigation and stated that she had not been informed of the investigation findings .

In view of the amendments to the ORG of DATE whereby the military courts , investigators and prosecutors were restored jurisdiction over offences allegedly committed by police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on CARDINAL DATE ORG in GPE sent the case for review by ORG with instructions to communicate its ruling to Mr GPE ’s heirs .

In a decision of DATE colonel GPE , prosecutor at FAC , once again discontinued the investigation for lack of evidence of a criminal offence . He reasoned , without much detail , that Mr PERSON had jumped from the open window . He had been immediately transported to a hospital , where he had died because of a cranialcerebral trauma . It had not been established that lieutenant GPE or another police officer had abused his office , had brought about PERSON PERSON ’s suicide , or had failed to discharge his or her duties . It appears that a copy of the decision was sent to Mr GPE ’s father .

Apparently the applicants were not informed about these developments , although they had requested to be kept abreast of the progress of the investigation on several occasions .

A copy of the prosecutor ’s decision was obtained by the applicants’ lawyer on DATE . On DATE he filed an appeal against it with ORG in GPE , arguing that the investigation was not comprehensive , that a number of investigative steps had not been undertaken and that various facts had not been clarified .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE prosecutor PERSON of the investigative department of ORG in GPE found that the investigation had not been full and comprehensive . It had not been established at what time on DATE Mr GPE had been arrested , who had ordered that he remain in detention after the end of the workday , or whether there had been an order for his police detention for a period of twentyfour TIME . If such an order existed , it was not clear who had issued it and on what legal grounds . The legality of the police ORG actions had to be assessed also from the point of view of LAW ( “ the LAW ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Another fact which had not been clarified were the circumstances of Mr GPE ’s detention leading up to the incident on DATE . Also , it was unclear how many objects Mr GPE ’s body had hit during the fall and what was the number of impacts . No inspection had been carried out of the roof of the motorcycle shed . It was apparent from the photographs that it was not deformed although the doctor ’s report had stated that on his way down Mr PERSON had first hit the roof and only then the iron grill on the ground . The doctor ’s report had also stated that the body had sustained CARDINAL blows during DATE and that all injuries could have been caused by CARDINAL consecutive blows . Finally , not all persons who could have clarified the facts had been questioned , including chief sergeant PERSON , chief sergeant PERSON , and others who had been in the back yard and the garage of the police station and might have witnessed DATE .

Accordingly , the prosecutor quashed the decision to discontinue the investigation and ordered to :

( i ) gather all documents in the PERSON police station relating to PERSON PERSON ’s arrest and detention on DATE ;

( ii ) inspect the site of the incident with a view to establishing the exact material of which the metal sheet roof was made and whether there were any deformations on it ; also , establish what the distance between the window and the ground was and whether the bloodstain found on the iron grill was situated directly beneath the window ;

( iii ) perform a dummy test to determine the exact spot where PERSON PERSON ’s body had hit the ground ;

( iv ) question other possible witnesses ; also , take new statements from PERSON PERSON about the circumstances of his and Mr GPE ’s detention and stay in the police station , the possible use of physical violence against them , as well as all other circumstances possibly relevant to the case ;

( v ) prepare a CARDINAL - expert forensic report to establish the cause of death and whether there were injuries on Mr GPE ’s body which had not been caused by the fall form the window .

Following the remittal of the case , on DATE an investigator inspected the iron sheet roof of the motorcycle penthouse situated beneath room CARDINAL , and performed a dummy test .

During the inspection it was found that the iron sheet roof had MONEY of bending or deformation .

A humansize leather dummy was thrown twice out of the window of room CARDINAL . The first time the dummy was dropped perpendicularly and fell directly on the ground in front of the garage , without touching the iron sheet roof of the penthouse . The second time it was thrown at an angle south of the window and hit the iron sheet roof , then the concrete edge beneath the roof , and then fell on the ground . When the dummy hit the iron sheet roof during the second throwing , the roof gave .

On DATE investigator ORG questioned chief sergeant PERSON who stated , inter alia , that he had not seen Mr GPE ’s fall in its entirety , and had no recollection of how many hits he had heard during the fall .

On DATE investigator ORG questioned chief sergeant PERSON

Following the dummy test , CARDINAL medical experts were appointed to reexamine the conclusions about the circumstances in which Mr GPE ’s injuries had been sustained . More specifically , they were requested to establish what was the cause of Mr GPE ’s death and whether some of the injuries found on his body could have been the result of factors other than the fall from the window of room CARDINAL . PERSON , the medical doctor who had examined Mr PERSON on DATE and had performed an autopsy on his dead body , was CARDINAL of the experts . The others were PERSON and PERSON T.T. , medical doctors from the forensic medicine and ethics faculty of the university of PERSON .

On DATE the CARDINAL experts delivered their report based solely on documents contained in the investigation case file .

The experts confirmed the previous findings about the cause of death , namely that it was the result of a cranial and brain trauma , consisting of a fracture of the base of the skull , contusion and oedema of the brain , with a wedging of the cerebellum and paralysis of the vital brain centres . Although insubstantial , the amount of blood that had entered the respiratory system , also contributed to the fatal outcome , the experts opined .

As to the cause of the injuries , the experts concluded that :

“ such injuries may be sustained in DATE that involves multiple blunt impacts . Such a fall [ occurs ] the body hits several hard surfaces at different heights , as indicated by the dummy test . Such information was gathered during the dummy test . When thrown at a right angle , the dummy hit the iron sheet roof situated under the window adjacent to the one from which [ Mr ] GPE fell . ... It is possible that [ Mr ] GPE ran tangentially against the edge of the iron sheet roof and that his body rolled off leaving no indentations on the roof . It [ was ] also possible that [ Mr ] GPE , regardless of whether his body came in contact with the iron sheet roof , hit the concrete edge on which the roof was built . This edge is visible on the photographs and is situated at QUANTITY from the wall of the shed . The final stage of DATE was hitting the ground in front of the garage , where the grill is located . It [ was ] possible that the suffusions on the back surface of the right shoulder could have resulted from an impact against the grill . The lacerated - contusion wound on the head , in case it was turned left , as well as the fracture of the right armpit and the suffusion on the buttocks , occurred during this final stage of DATE . The other injuries were caused earlier during DATE . The CARDINAL abrasions on the right wrist are consistent with handcuff marks .

The hit which caused the cranial fracture and the brain contusion [ was ] sustained in the right frontal part of the head , where the laceratedcontusion wound , the abrasion and the suffusion [ were ] detected . This was a heavy impact that occurred during an earlier stage of the fall , most probably against the abovementioned concrete edge .

All injuries were sustained at the same time . No injuries were found which can not be explained with a fall from a substantial height and one that involved multiple hard impacts . [ There were no injuries ] from sharp weapons , firearms , or electricity . No defensive injuries were found on the body or the limbs .

On DATE lieutenant NORP was questioned by captain PERSON , the military investigator who was initially in charge of the investigation . The applicants’ lawyer was also present . The lieutenant stated that he could not recall exactly the mechanism of PERSON GPE ’s fall and could not tell whether Mr PERSON had first hit the roof of the motorcycle shed , as he did not remember whether he had gone to the window immediately . He explained that his memory of the events had faded because they had taken place a long time before and had unfolded very quickly .

Mr PERSON was not requestioned . The PERSON police tried to locate him but found that his whereabouts after DATE when he was released and apparently not prosecuted any further for the alleged thefts – were unknown . There were some indications that he was living on the territory of the NORP municipality , in CARDINAL of the mountain villages there , but his exact address was unknown , as he had not communicated it to the address register of his previous domicile , the municipality of ORG . His mother ’s whereabouts were also unknown , his grandfather and uncle had died , and there were no other relatives in ORG who could provide information about him . The applicants’ lawyer requested that the investigation remain pending until PERSON PERSON was located and questioned .

Also , no documents were gathered about Mr GPE ’s arrest and detention on CARDINAL and DATE . In a letter of DATE the head of the PERSON police station informed the investigation authorities that up until DATE the persons detained for TIME had simply been registered and no orders for their arrest had been issued , and that the registers for DATE had not been preserved .

On DATE investigator ORG recommended that the investigation be discontinued . He stated that the instructions of ORG had been complied with in the course of the additional investigation . The register of the detained persons in the PERSON police station was no longer available , nor were the police fill - in forms for detention . It was therefore impossible to establish who had brought PERSON GPE to the police station . Also , an additional inspection of the death scene had been carried out , revealing that Mr GPE ’s body had not hit the iron sheet roof , which was not deformed , but the edge beneath it , and then the ground . This was apparent from the medical expert report . Certain witnesses had been re - questioned . The re - questioning of Mr PERSON had been impossible , as he could not be tracked down . As indicated by the medical expert report , Mr GPE ’s death had been caused by a cranialcerebral trauma , consisting of a fracture of the skull base , contusion and oedema of the brain with a wedging of the cerebellum and a paralysis of the vital brain centres . Such injuries could be the result of a twostage fall , when the body had encountered obstacles at various heights before hitting the ground . No injuries which could not be explained with such a fall had been found , nor injuries resulting from sharp weapons , firearms , or electricity . There was thus no evidence of a criminal offence by a member of the PERSON police .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE captain ORG , prosecutor at ORG , discontinued the investigation . He reasoned that all instructions contained in the decision of DATE of ORG in GPE had been complied with . The dummy test , the additional medical expert report and the newly questioned witnesses had all confirmed the circumstances underlying the first discontinuation of the investigation . There were no injuries on Mr GPE ’s body which could not be explained by a twostage fall from a substantial height . The dummy test had determined that Mr GPE had first hit the concrete edge under the iron sheet roof and had then fallen on the ground . A copy of the decision was sent to the first applicant with instructions that she could appeal against it .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG lawyer requested information about the progress of the investigation . He was informed that it had been discontinued , but was not given a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He managed to obtain a copy only on DATE , and immediately appealed it before ORG in GPE . He argued that PERSON had not been questioned and that the conclusions about the details of Mr PERSON ’s fall from the window were inconsistent .

On DATE colonel GPE , prosecutor at ORG in GPE , dismissed the appeal , reasoning , inter alia , that Mr PERSON had jumped in an attempt to leave the LOC of the police , that no officers were responsible for this act , and that the investigation had been objective and comprehensive .

NORP The applicants’ lawyer then filed an appeal with ORG .

On DATE prosecutor PERSON , head of the investigative department of ORG in GPE , to whom the appeal was apparently referred , upheld the decision to discontinue the investigation . He reasoned that there were no indications that Mr PERSON ’s “ attempt to flee ” had been prompted by maltreatment by the police officers who had questioned him . According to the medical expert report , all his injuries had been caused by the fall . There was no indication that any offence had been committed by a police officer , that could be connected with Mr GPE ’s death . A copy of his decision was sent to the applicants’ lawyer on DATE .

By LAW , murder is punishable by DATE imprisonment . LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG provides that if a murder is committed by a police officer in the course of , or in connection with the performance of his or her duties , it is punishable by DATE to twenty years’ imprisonment , or life , with or without parole .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG makes it an offence to aid or incite suicide , if the person concerned does subsequently commit suicide or makes an attempt to do so . By paragraph CARDINAL of that Article , it is an offence to drive another to suicide or attempted suicide through cruel treatment or systematic humiliation , if this other person is financially or otherwise dependent on the offender , on condition that the offender contemplated that eventuality . Paragraph CARDINAL of that Article makes it an offence to act contrary to the previous paragraph even if the offender does so out of negligence .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG make it an offence to inflict a light , intermediate or severe bodily injury on another . LAW ORG provides that if the injury is inflicted by a police officer in the course of or in connection with the performance of his or her duties , the offence is aggravated .

DATE . By LAW , as in force at the material time , it was an offence for an official , when acting in the course of , or in connection with the performance of his or her duties , to illegally coerce an accused , a witness or an expert with a view to obtaining a confession , a statement or an opinion .

All of the above offences are publicly prosecutable ( LAW ORG , as in force at the material time ) .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , as in force at the material time , provided that proceedings concerning publicly prosecutable offences could only be initiated by a prosecutor or an investigator . The prosecutor or the investigator had to open an investigation whenever he or she received information , supported by sufficient evidence , that an offence might have been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ) . If the information given to the prosecuting authorities was not supported by evidence , the prosecutor had to order a preliminary inquiry in order to determine whether the opening of a criminal investigation was warranted ( LAW ORG , as in force at the material time ) . A prosecutor could discontinue an investigation when , inter alia , there was no evidence of an offence , or the alleged act did not constitute an offence ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) . At the material time his or her decision was subject to appeal to a higher prosecutor ( LAW ORG , as in force at the relevant time ) . In DATE the ORG was amended to provide for judicial review of a prosecutor ’s decision to discontinue an investigation .

At the material time the offences allegedly committed by police officers were tried by military courts ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , as in force at the relevant time ) . In DATE this text was amended to provide that the military courts no longer had jurisdiction over such offences ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , as amended in DATE ) . A new amendment in DATE reverted to the old regime ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , as amended in DATE and in force until DATE ) . Where a case would fall within the jurisdiction of the military courts , the preliminary investigation is handled by military investigators and prosecutors .

A person may be arrested and placed in detention in the context of pending criminal proceedings , if charges have been brought against him or her ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL taken in conjunction with LAW ORG ) .

A person could also be arrested by order of an investigator and detained for DATE if he or she was suspected of having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment , but there was not enough evidence to bring charges . The circumstances in which this could occur were limited and included the cases where ( i ) he or she had been caught during or immediately after the commission of the alleged offence , ( ii ) he or she had been named by an eyewitness , ( iii ) overt traces of the alleged offence were found on the person ’s body or clothes or in his or her place of abode , or ( iv ) the person tried to flee or his or her identity could not be established and there was enough information that he or she might have committed an offence ( LAW ORG , as in force at the material time ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE , in force at the relevant time , provided that the police could also arrest a person if ( i ) his or her identity could not be ascertained , ( ii ) he or she behaved violently or in breach of public order , ( iii ) he or she refused , without just cause , to appear after having been duly summoned , ( iv ) he or she knowingly impeded the police from carrying out its duties , ( v ) he or she carried or used unlicensed firearms , cold weapons , or other dangerous devices . In all these cases the police had to immediately carry out the necessary checks . After that , but in no case TIME after the person ’s arrest , he or she had to be released , if no order for his or her detention was made . Only when the person ’s identity could not be ascertained that deadline was extended to twentyfour TIME ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ) .

The “ Manual on ORG , Arbitrary and LAW ” ( ORG . E / ST / CSDHA/.CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) , published by ORG in DATE , includes a Model Autopsy Protocol aimed at providing authoritative guidelines for the conduct of autopsies by public prosecutors and medical personnel . In its introduction , it is noted that a systematic and comprehensive examination and report were required to prevent the omission or loss of important details :

“ It is of the utmost importance that an autopsy performed following a controversial death be thorough in scope . The documentation and recording of those findings should be equally thorough so as to permit meaningful use of the autopsy results ... It is important to have as few omissions or discrepancies as possible , as proponents of different interpretations of a case may take advantage of any perceived shortcomings in the investigation . An autopsy performed in a controversial death should meet certain minimum criteria if the autopsy report is to be proffered as meaningful or conclusive by the prosector , the autopsy ’s sponsoring agency or governmental unit , or anyone else attempting to make use of such an autopsy ’s findings or conclusions . ”

DATE . In a number of reports ORG against Racism and Intolerance at ORG has expressed concern about racially motivated police violence , particularly against GPE . Certain other bodies and non - governmental organisations have also reported in DATE numerous incidents of alleged racial violence against GPE in GPE , including by law enforcement agents . A detailed account of these reports may be found in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ... ) .


Violation of Article 6+6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-a - Information on nature and cause of accusation;Prompt information;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Preparation of defence;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Same conditions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

On TIME the applicant , who was unemployed at the time , went to ORG to look for new job offers . A considerable number of people , mainly women of GPE origin , had already gathered there and were waiting to enter ORG . The applicant , also of GPE origin , lined up at the back of the queue that had formed in front of the building .

At TIME part of the group of persons burst into ORG . A police officer , who was there to enforce public order , managed to force them back outside . As the police officer was walking out of the building he was pushed by several women , who did not include the applicant . CARDINAL of those women indicated to the police officer that the applicant , still at the back of the queue , had pushed them .

NORP The police officer approached the applicant and requested to see her identity documents . She refused and after a short , impolite verbal exchange the police officer instructed her to accompany him to the police station so as to perform an identity check . The applicant did not comply and the police officer tried to handcuff her . In accordance with the statements later given by CARDINAL police officers before ORG , the applicant then slapped the police officer in the face and threw herself to the ground screaming . Another police officer then came over and assisted the first police officer in removing the applicant from the queue and escorted her to the police station . The time was TIME

At the police station , the applicant was placed in a cell . She was not allowed to use a phone to contact a next of kin or an attorney .

TIME , the applicant was taken out of the cell and placed in a police car together with the QUANTITY police officers who had arrested her . They were all taken to ORG where they arrived at TIME

Shortly before the start of the hearing the applicant was requested to sign an assessment of an act of minor hooliganism ( акт за констатиране на дребно хулиганство : the “ assessment ” ) . The applicant alleged , which the Government challenged , that she did not have time to review the document . She signed the document without making any reservations . The applicant further alleged , which the Government did not expressly dispute , that she was not given a copy of the signed assessment .

NORP The hearing began at TIME The applicant represented herself before ORG . She was charged with the administrative offence of minor hooliganism .

The hearing started with the assessment being read out in court . It was claimed that the applicant ( CARDINAL ) had created a disturbance in front ORG by pushing the other women in the queue ; ( CARDINAL ) had acted disruptively in response to the police officer 's instructions and had resisted arrest ; and ( CARDINAL ) had slapped CARDINAL of the police officer 's in the face . When the applicant was asked whether she was aware of the assessment she responded as follows :

“ I am aware of it , actually I am not aware of the assessment of [ an act of minor hooliganism ] . Now that you read it out though , I understand what all of this is about , but it is not true , I have witnesses . ”

The court proceeded to question the applicant , the QUANTITY police officers who arrested her and an official from ORG .

The applicant refuted the accusations against her . She claimed that the police officers had dragged her to the police station and had kicked her repeatedly before placing her in a cell . She also claimed that she had never hit the police officer , but that he had injured himself on a tree during the arrest . On several occasions during the hearing the applicant claimed that she could summon witnesses who would corroborate her version of events . She also stated that she was unable to call witnesses for the hearing as she was not aware where the police officers were taking her when they placed her in the police car to take her to court .

Both police officers testified that the applicant had acted disruptively and had hit CARDINAL of them .

The official from ORG testified that she had seen the applicant lifting her hand , but had not seen her actually slap the police officer .

The hearing ended at TIME

After a short session in camera for deliberations , the ORG delivered its verdict . It found the applicant guilty of minor hooliganism and imposed an administrative sanction of DATE detention at the GPE police station effective as of TIME on DATE . The court fully credited the testimonies of the police officers and the official from ORG while it refused to accept that of the applicant , because she had made the statements in “ the context of her defence ” . The judgment was not subject to appeal and entered into force immediately .

The applicant was then taken back to the GPE police station where she served her sentence .

The Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism ( the “ Decree ” ) was adopted in DATE . It envisages an expedited procedure for bringing to court minor offences of hooliganism which are punishable with an administrative sanction of DATE detention at a police station or a fine of CARDINAL NORP levs ( CARDINAL QUANTITY : section CARDINAL ) . It is unclear whether ORG , which sets out general principles of procedure , is applicable to the proceedings under LAW ( see CARDINAL contradictory decisions on that issue : PERSON решение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL . X. DATE г. по н. д. № CARDINAL г. на ORG and GPE № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , I отд. на ВАС ) .

The expedited procedure under the ORG provides that an “ assessment of an act of minor hooliganism ” ( акт за констатиране на дребно хулиганство ) is prepared by the police or competent municipal authorities . The document is then presented to the accused for signature who has the right to make any reservations he or she deems fit ( section CARDINAL ) .

NORP If judicial proceedings are to be initiated against the accused , the assessment , together with the colleted data , is to be filed with ORG immediately , or at the latest within TIME ( section CARDINAL ) . In turn , a ORG judge , sitting alone , holds a hearing in the presence of the accused and examines the case within a further TIME ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Witnesses are summoned at the discretion of the judge and the accused have the right to be represented by legal counsel ( section CARDINAL ) .

The resulting judgment of ORG judge is not subject to appeal and is to be executed immediately ( section CARDINAL ) . Prior to the amendments of DATE to ORG it was possible to file a petition for review of the judgments adopted under LAW by following the procedure envisaged in the said act ( PERSON решение № DATE от CARDINAL г. , ORG № CARDINAL г. , ORG ) . Following the amendments of DATE that was no longer possible . Similarly it was not possible to file a cassation appeal under the above mentioned act ( Определение № DATE от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , I отд. на ВАС ) .

A judgment against an individual under the Decree is not considered a criminal conviction and is not entered into his criminal record .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested under suspicion of fraud and remanded in custody until DATE . His detention was not extended as it was already covered by the arrest warrant issued in another proceeding ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG examined the facts of the case , heard evidence – notably expert reports and witness testimony DATE proposed by the parties , including the applicant .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of fraud ( înşelăciune ) and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment ; it also noted that the applicant was remanded in custody in connection with another investigation ( the proceeding described below at paragraphs DATE ) and maintained his continued detention .

NORP On appeal , on DATE ORG reduced the sentence to DATE imprisonment .

Deciding on the appeal on points of law , in a final decision of DATE ORG reduced the sentence to DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested under suspicion of having falsified documents .

On DATE the prosecutor attached to ORG indicted the applicant on several accounts of fraud and forgery .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of fraud .

On DATE ORG modified the sentence on appeal , and on DATE ORG quashed both previous decisions and sent the case back to the first - instance court . ORG considered that the lower courts had made errors in their judgments and had examined superficially the facts and evidence .

ORG held some thirty hearings in the case , at steady intervals of DATE . CARDINAL hearings were postponed because defence counsel was absent or asked for more time to prepare the defence . The other hearings were mainly postponed because of errors in the summonsing procedure or absence of the civil parties .

On DATE the applicant was again convicted by ORG and sentenced to DATE , DATE and DATE imprisonment . The court noted that he had already served the sentence and ordered his release .

On DATE , he was released from detention .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal . ORG held CARDINAL hearings , at steady intervals of DATE ; the defence requested CARDINAL postponements .

The decision on appeal was adopted on DATE ; the court upheld the first instance judgment .

On DATE ORG and Justice adopted the final decision in the case , upholding the previous decisions .

In DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other persons founded company A. On DATE the applicant bought the shares from the other individuals and became the sole owner of the company .

While the criminal proceedings described above were pending against the applicant , company ORG 's creditors initiated the insolvency proceedings against it . It appears that the applicant empowered PERSON to represent the company in some of the litigation with the creditors .

ORG represented the company in the insolvency proceedings as well . He hired counsel and on several occasions objected to the measures taken by the liquidators .

On DATE ORG allowed the creditor 's request and started the insolvency proceedings . The company 's representative was present at the hearing . He did not appeal against the interlocutory judgment rendered by the court at that date .

On DATE ORG took account of the liquidator 's final report on the distribution of the sums obtained from the sale of the company 's assets . It ordered that the company be dissolved and that notice of dissolution be entered in ORG ( PERSON ) . It then closed the proceedings . No objections were raised .

By the same judgment of DATE ORG decided to examine separately the action in tort lodged by CARDINAL of the creditors against the applicant and another individual . The applicant participated in the proceedings and on DATE he lodged a defence .

On DATE the action was rejected by ORG as inadmissible . In a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request for the annulment of the DATE decision ( contestaţie în anulare ) . The court noted that the applicant lost the right to administer the company 's assets when the insolvency proceedings started , and therefore he no longer had standing in the proceedings .

In a final decision of DATE ORG declared the appeal lodged by the applicant null and void , as the latter failed to submit the reasons for appeal within the time - limit set by law .


CASE OF PEDERSEN AND BAADSGAARD v. DENMARK

No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 10

The applicants ( the second of whom died in DATE ) were at the relevant time employed by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL national TV stations in GPE , ORG . They produced CARDINAL television programmes which were broadcast on CARDINAL DATE at TIME and DATE at TIME respectively . The programmes were called “ Convicted of Murder ” ( dømt for mord ) and “ The Blind Eye of the Police ” ( NORP blinde øje ) respectively and dealt with a murder trial in which ORG ) had convicted a person , henceforth called X , on CARDINAL DATE of murdering his wife . PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . ORG ( Højesteret ) upheld the sentence in DATE . Subsequent to X 's release on probation , he requested ORG ( PERSON ) , on DATE , to reopen the case .

At the outset of both programmes it was stated that they had been produced on to the following premise :

“ In the programme we shall provide evidence by way of a series of specific examples that there was no legal basis for ORG 's conviction and that by imposing its sentence , ORG set aside CARDINAL of the fundamental tenets of the law in GPE , namely that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt .

We shall show that a scandalously bad police investigation , in which the question of guilt had been prejudged right from the start , and which ignored significant witnesses and concentrated on dubious ones , led to X being sentenced to DATE imprisonment for the murder of his wife .

The programme will show that X could not have committed the crime of which he was convicted on CARDINAL DATE ” .

At an early stage in the first programme , “ Convicted of Murder ” , there is the following comment :

“ In the case against X , police inquiries involved about CARDINAL people . CARDINAL pages of reports were written DATE and CARDINAL witnesses appeared before ORG .

We will try to establish what actually happened on DATE of the murder , DATE . We shall critically review the police 's investigations and evaluate the witnesses ' statements regarding the time of X 's wife 's disappearance . ”

As part of the preparation of this first programme , the applicants had invited the police in the district of GPE , who were responsible for the investigation of the murder case , to take part in the programme . As certain conditions for giving interview were not complied with , inter alia that the questions be send in writing in advance , by letter of DATE the Chief of Police informed the applicants that the police could not participate in the programme .

In the introduction to the second programme , “ ORG of the Police ” , there is the following comment :

“ It was the police in the district of GPE who were responsible at that time for the investigations which led to the conviction of X. Did the police assume right from the start that X was the killer and did they therefore fail to investigate all the leads in the case , as otherwise required by the law ?

We have investigated whether there is substance in GPE 's serious allegations against the police in the district of GPE . ”

Shortly afterwards in the programme the second applicant is interviewing a taxi driver . She explains to the applicant that DATE after the disappearance of PERSON 's wife , she was interviewed by QUANTITY police officers and that during this interview she mentioned CARDINAL observations she had made on DATE ; she had seen a ORG taxi ( which was later shown to have no relevance to the murder ) , but before that she had seen X and his son at TIME . She had driven behind them for QUANTITY . The reason why she could remember the date and time so exactly was because she had had to attend her grandmother 's funeral on that date at TIME

The following comment is then made :

Commentator : So in DATE , shortly after PERSON 's wife disappears and PERSON is in prison , ORG is in possession of the taxi driver 's statement in which she reports that shortly after DATE she drives behind X and his son for QUANTITY ... So X and his son were in GPE [ residential area ] twice , and the police knew it in DATE .

The interview went on :

“ Second applicant : What did the police officers say about the information you provided ?

Taxi driver : Well , CARDINAL of them said that it could n't be true that PERSON 's son was in the car , but in fact I am PERCENT certain it was him because I also know the son because I have driven him to day - care .

Second applicant : Why did he say that to you ?

Taxi driver : Well , he just said that it could n't be true that the son was there .

Second applicant : That it could n't be true that you saw what you saw .

Taxi driver : No , that is , he did n't say that I had n't seen X , it just could n't be true that the son was with him .

Second applicant : These were the CARDINAL police officers who questioned the taxi driver in DATE and it was they who wrote the police report .

We showed the taxi driver her statement from DATE , which she had never seen before .

Taxi driver : It 's missing the bit DATE there was only ... about the ORG , there was nothing about the rest , unless you have another one .

Second applicant : There is only this one .

Taxi driver : But it obviously can not have been important .

Second applicant : What do you think about that ?

Taxi driver : Well it says , I do n't know , well I think when you make a statement , it should be written down in any case , otherwise I ca n't see any point in it , and especially not in a murder case .

Commentator : So the taxi driver claims that already in DATE she had told CARDINAL police officers that she had seen X and his son . Not a word of this is mentioned in this report .

Second applicant : Why are you so sure that you told the police this , which at that time was DATE .

Taxi driver : Well I am PERCENT sure of it and also , my husband sat beside me in the living room as a witness so ... , so that is why I am PERCENT certain that I told them .

Second applicant : And he was there throughout the entire interview ?

Taxi driver : Yes , he was .

Second applicant : Not just part of the interview ?

Taxi driver : No , he was there all the time .

Commentator : It was not until DATE , DATE , that the taxi driver heard of the matter again , shortly after the “ Convicted of Murder ” programme had been shown ; even though the taxi driver 's report had been filed as a so called TIME , she was ' phoned by a Chief Inspector of ORG ( PERSON ) who had been asked by ORG to do a couple of further interviews .

Taxi driver : The Chief Inspector of ORG called me and asked whether I knew if any of my colleagues knew anything they had not reported , or whether I had happened to think of something , and I then told him on the ' phone what I said the first time about the ORG and that I had driven behind X and his son up to FAC , and then he said that if he found out about anything which , otherwise ... or if there was anything , then he would ... then he would get in touch with me again , which he did n't do , not until a while afterwards when he called me and asked whether I would come for another interview .

Second applicant : When you told the Chief Inspector of ORG in your telephone call that you followed X and his son was in the car , what did he say about that ?

Taxi driver : Well , he did n't say anything .

Second applicant : He did not say that you had never reported this ?

Taxi driver : No , he did n't . ”

Then the second applicant has a short interview with ORG 's new counsel :

“ Second applicant : Have you any comment on the explanation the taxi driver has given now ?

X 's new counsel : I have no comment to make at this time .

Second applicant : Why not ?

X 's new counsel : I have agreed with the public prosecutor , and the President of ORG , that statements to the press in this matter will in future only be issued by ORG .

Commentator : Even though ORG 's new counsel does not wish to speak about the case , we know from other sources that it was he who , in DATE , asked for the taxi driver to be interviewed again . So in DATE she was interviewed at GPE police station in the presence of ORG , which is clearly at odds with what ORG previously stated in public , namely that the GPE police would not get the opportunity to be involved in the new inquiries . ”

The interview with the taxi driver goes on :

“ Second applicant : And what happened at the interview ?

Taxi driver : What happened was that I was shown into the Chief Inspector of ORG and ORG was there too .

Second applicant : Was there any explanation given about why he was present ?

Taxi driver : No .

Second applicant : So what did you say in this interview ?

Taxi driver : I gave the same explanations as I had done the first time when I was interviewed at home .

Second applicant : DATE , that is .

Taxi driver : Yes .

Second applicant : And that was ?

Taxi driver : Well , that I had driven behind X and his son up to Ryets Street .

Second applicant : What did they say about that ?

Taxi driver : They did n't say anything .

Second applicant : The report , which was made in DATE , did you see it ?

Taxi driver : No .

Second applicant : Was it there in the room ?

Taxi driver : There was a report there when I was being interviewed , but I was n't allowed to see it .

Second applicant : Did you expressly ask whether you could see the old report ?

Taxi driver : I asked whether I could see it but the Chief Inspector of ORG said I could n't ... ”

After the interview with the taxi driver the commentator asks :

“ Now we are left with all the questions : why did the vital part of the taxi driver 's explanation disappear DATE and who in the police or public prosecutor 's office should carry the responsibility for this ?

Was it the CARDINAL police officers who failed to write a report about it ?

Hardly , sources in the police tell us , they would not dare .

Was it [ the named Chief Superintendent ] who decided that the report should not be included in the case ? Or did he and the Chief Inspector of ORG conceal the witness 's statement from the defence , the judges and the jury ? ... ”

Pictures of the QUANTITY police officers , the named Chief Superintendent and the Chief Inspector of ORG were shown on the screen simultaneously parallel with the above questions . The questions went on :

“ Why did the Chief Inspector of ORG phone the taxi driver shortly after the TV - programme ' Convicted of Murder ' ? After all , the police had taken the view that the taxi driver had no importance as a witness and had filed her statement amongst the O - reports .

Why did the Chief Inspector of ORG not call her in for an interview when she repeated her original explanation on the telephone ?

Why was the taxi driver interviewed at the GPE police station in the presence of ORG , which was completely at odds with ORG public statement ?

On DATE [ a named ] Chief Constable stated to [ a regional DATE ] : ' all the information connected to the case has been submitted to the defendants , the prosecution and the judges ' Did the Chief Constable know about the taxi driver 's statement , when he made this statement ? Did ORG know already in DATE that there was a statement from a witness confirming that twice X had been in GPE , and that X 's son had been with him both times ? Neither of them have wished to make any statement at all about the case . ”

In the meantime , at the request of ORG 's new counsel , the taxi driver was interviewed by the police again on DATE . She stated that on CARDINAL DATE she had attended her grandmother 's funeral at TIME and that on her way to the funeral around TIME she had driven behind X and his son . She arrived at the funeral at TIME She also explained that she had told the police about this when first interviewed in DATE . Later on DATE the police made an enquiry which revealed that the funeral of the taxi driver 's grandmother had indeed taken place on DATE , but at TIME

Thereafter , the police held CARDINAL interviews with the taxi driver during which she changed her explanation , inter alia , as follows .

On DATE she maintained having seen X shortly after TIME but agreed that the funeral had taken place at TIME On her way to the funeral she realised she had forgotten a wreath . Thus , she had had to return to her home and had consequently arrived at the funeral just before TIME

On DATE she stated that she was not sure about the date or the time when she had seen X and his son . Moreover , she was uncertain whether , shortly after the murder , she had told the police about having seen X. In addition , she explained that during the shooting of her interview , which took place on DATE , the applicant PERSON had suggested that she say something like “ where is the other report ” when he was to show her the report of DATE .

On DATE she initially stated that she would exclude having seen X and his son on CARDINAL DATE . She had never before connected this episode to the funeral . She also admitted having made up the story about the forgotten wreath , but had wanted “ things to fit ” . Later during the interview she maintained having seen X and his son on DATE , but at TIME

On DATE ORG reported the applicants and the TV station to the police for defamation . It appears , however , that the prosecution 's decision as to whether or not to charge the applicants was adjourned pending the decision whether to reopen GPE 's case .

This was decided in the affirmative by ORG on DATE after CARDINAL hearings and the examination of CARDINAL witnesses , including the taxi driver . CARDINAL judges ( out of CARDINAL ) in GPE found that new testimonial evidence had been produced on which X might have been acquitted , had it been available at the trial . CARDINAL other judges found that no new testimonial evidence had been produced on which X might have been acquitted , had it been available at the trial . The fifth judge agreed with the latter , but found that in other respects special circumstances existed which made it overwhelmingly likely that the available evidence had not been judged correctly . Accordingly , the court granted a retrial .

In the meantime , following the television programmes , an inquiry had commenced into the police investigation of ORG 's case . It appeared that the Police in Frederikshavn had not complied with section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of ORG ( Retsplejeloven ) , which was introduced on DATE and which provides that a witness shall be given the opportunity to read his or her statement . Consequently , on DATE the Prosecutor General ( PERSON ) stated in a letter to ORG , that it was unfortunate and open to criticism that the police in GPE had not implemented the above provision as part of their usual routine and informed the Ministry that he had made an agreement with ORG that he would produce a wider set of guidelines concerning the questioning of witnesses , which could be integrated into ORG educational material .

X 's retrial ended with his acquittal on DATE .

On DATE the applicants became aware of the fact that they had been reported to the police . On their request , however , they were informed that no decision had yet been taken as to possible charges against them .

On DATE the Chief Constable in GPE informed the applicants that they were charged with defamation against ORG . On DATE the applicants were questioned by the police in GPE .

A request of CARDINAL DATE from the prosecution to seize the applicants ' research material was examined at a hearing in ORG Retten i Gladsaxe ) on DATE during which the applicants ' counsel , claiming that the case concerned a political offence , requested that a jury in the High Court - instead of ORG - try the case . Both requests were refused by ORG ( retten i GPE ) on CARDINAL DATE . In DATE the prosecution appealed against the decision on seizure and the applicants appealed against the decision on venue . At the request of CARDINAL of the applicants ' counsel , an oral hearing was scheduled to take place in ORG of Eastern Denmark ( PERSON ) on DATE . However , on DATE counsel challenged one of the judges in the ORG alleging disqualification and requested an oral hearing on the issue . ORG decided on DATE to refuse an oral hearing and on DATE that the judge in question was not disqualified . It appears that counsel requested leave to appeal against this decision to ORG ( Højesteret ) , but to no avail . As to the appeal against non - seizure and the question of venue , hearings were held in the High Court on DATE and DATE , and by a decision of DATE ORG upheld ORG decisions . The applicants ' request for leave to appeal to ORG was refused on DATE .

On DATE the prosecution submitted an indictment to ORG , and a preliminary hearing was held on DATE during which it was agreed that the case would be tried DATE in DATE . However , as counsel for CARDINAL of the parties was ill the final hearings were re - scheduled to take place on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG of Gladsaxe delivered a CARDINAL page judgment finding that the questions put in the TV programme concerning the named Chief Superintendent amounted to defamatory allegations , which should be declared null and void . However , the court refrained from sentencing the applicants as it found that the applicants had reason to believe that the allegations were true . Also , the applicants were acquitted of a compensation claim raised by the widow of the named Chief Superintendent , as he had deceased before the trial . The judgment was appealed against by the applicants immediately and by the prosecution on DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor sent a notice of appeal to ORG , and on DATE he invited counsel for the applicants and the attorney for the widow of ORG to a meeting concerning the proceedings . Counsel for one of the parties stated that he was unable to attend before DATE , and accordingly the meeting was held on DATE . ORG received the TIME of the meeting from which it appeared that counsel for CARDINAL of the parties was unable to attend the trial before DATE , and that he preferred the hearings to take place in DATE . On DATE ORG scheduled the hearings for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment convicting the applicants of violating the personal honour of ORG by making and spreading allegations of an act likely to disparage him in the esteem of his fellow citizens , under LAW , subsection CARDINAL of LAW . The allegations were declared null and void . The applicants were each sentenced to DATE - fines of MONEY ( DKK ) ( or in the alternative DATE imprisonment ) and ordered to pay compensation to the estate of the deceased Chief Superintendent of DKK CARDINAL .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicants sought leave from the Leave to Appeal Board ( Procesbevillingsnævnet ) to appeal to ORG . Before deciding , the ORG requested an opinion from the prosecuting authorities , namely the Chief of ORG , ORG and ORG . On DATE their joint opinion was submitted opposing leave to appeal . However , in the meantime it appears that a lawyer representing the TV station , ORG , contacted ORG , proposing that the public prosecution assist in bringing the case before ORG as , according to the TV station , ORG judgment was incompatible with LAW ( PERSON ) . Consequently , the public prosecutors initiated a renewed round of consultation on this question , and their joint opinion was forwarded to ORG . Having heard the applicants ' counsel on the prosecution 's submissions , on DATE ORG granted the applicants leave to appeal to ORG .

The Prosecutor General submitted a notice of appeal and the case file to ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .

As counsel wanted to engage yet another counsel , on DATE they asked ORG whether costs in this respect would be considered legal costs . Moreover , they stated that their pleadings could not be submitted until DATE . On DATE ORG decided on the question of costs , and on DATE scheduled the trial for CARDINAL and DATE .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG judgment was upheld , though the compensation payable to the estate was increased to DKK CARDINAL . The majority of CARDINAL judges held :

“ In the programme ' The Blind Eye of the Police ' the applicants not only repeated a statement by the taxi driver that she had already explained to the police during their inquiries in DATE that shortly after TIME on DATE she had driven behind X for QUANTITY , but also , in accordance with the common premise for the programmes ' Convicted of Murder ' and ' The Blind Eye of the Police ' , took a stand on the truth of the taxi driver 's statement and presented the matters in such a way that viewers , even before the final sequence of questions , were given the impression that it was a fact that the taxi driver had given the explanation as she alleged to have done in DATE and that the police were therefore in possession of this explanation in DATE . This impression was strengthened by the first of the concluding questions : ' ... why did the vital part of the taxi driver 's explanation disappear and who , in the police or public prosecutor 's office , should carry the responsibility for this ? ' . In connection with the scenes about the QUANTITY police officers they pose CARDINAL questions in the commentator 's narrative , to which the indictment relates ; irrespective of the kind of question , viewers undoubtedly received a clear impression that a report had been made about the taxi driver 's statement that she had seen X at the relevant time on DATE ; that this report had subsequently been suppressed ; and that such suppression had been decided upon either by the named Chief Superintendent alone or by him and the Chief Inspector of ORG jointly . The subsequent questions in the commentator 's narrative do not weaken this impression , and neither does the question as to whether the Chief Constable or ORG were aware of the taxi driver 's statement . On this basis we find that in the programme ' ORG of the Police ' the applicants made allegations against ORG which were intended to discredit him in the eyes of his peers , as described in LAW , subsection CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) . We find further that it must have been clear to the applicants that they were , by way of their presentation , making such allegations .

The applicants have not endeavoured to provide any justification but have claimed that there is no cause of action by virtue of LAW , subsection CARDINAL of LAW – that a party who in good faith justifiably makes an allegation which is clearly in the general public interest or in the interest of other parties ...

As laid down in the PERSON v. GPE judgment ( DATE ) there is a very extensive right to public criticism of the police . As in that decision there is , however , a difference between passing on and making allegations , just as there is a difference between criticism being directed at the police as such and at individual named officers in the police force . Even though being in the public eye is a natural part of a police officer 's duties , consideration should also be given to his good name and reputation .

As stated , the CARDINAL applicants did not limit themselves in the programme to referring to the taxi driver 's statement or to making value judgments on this basis about the quality of the police 's investigations and ORG leadership thereof . Neither did the applicants limit themselves to making allegations against the police as such for having suppressed the taxi driver 's explanation , but made an allegation against the named Chief Superintendent for having committed a criminal offence by way of suppressing a vital fact .

When the applicants were producing the programme , they knew that an application had been made to ORG for the case against X to be reopened and that as part of ORG proceedings in dealing with the said application , the taxi driver had been interviewed by the police on DATE at the request of ORG 's defence as part of the proceedings to reopen the case . In consequence of the ongoing proceedings for reopening the case , the applicants could not count on ORG and the QUANTITY police officers , who had interviewed the taxi driver in DATE , being prepared to participate in the programme and hence possibly anticipate proceedings in ORG . Making the allegations can not accordingly be justified by lack of police participation in the programme .

The applicants ' intentions , in the programme , of undertaking a critical assessment of the police 's investigation were proper as part of the role of the media in acting as a public watchdog , but this does not apply to every charge . The applicants had no basis for making such a serious charge against a named police officer and the applicants ' opportunities for satisfying the purposes of the programme in no way required the questions upon which the charges are based to be included .

On this basis , and even though the exemptions provided in LAW must be narrowly interpreted , and even though LAW protects not only the content of utterances but also the manner in which they are made , we concur that the charges made are not excluded by LAW , subsection CARDINAL of LAW . Indeed , as a result of the seriousness of the charges , we concur that there is no basis for charges to be dropped in accordance with LAW , subsection CARDINAL of LAW . We agree further that there are no grounds for an acquittal under LAW .

We also concur with the findings on defamation .

We agree with ORG that the fact that the charges were made in a television programme on the national TV station ' PERSON radio ' and hence could be expected to get DATE as indeed they did – widespread publicity , must be regarded as an aggravating factor , as described in LAW , subsection CARDINAL . Considering that it is DATE since the programme was shown , we do not find , however , that there are sufficient grounds for increasing the sentence .

For the reasons given by ORG we find that the applicants must pay damages in compensation in damages to the heir of ORG . In this , it should be noted that it can not be regarded as essential that the nature of the claim for damages in compensation was not stated in the writ of CARDINAL DATE since ORG claim for financial compensation could not relate to anything other than damages in compensation . Due to the seriousness of the allegation and the manner of its presentation , we find that the compensation should be increased to DKK CARDINAL . ”

NORP The minority of CARDINAL judges who wanted to acquit the applicants held , inter alia :

“ We agree that the statements covered by the indictment , irrespective of their having been phrased as questions , have to be regarded as indictable under LAW , subsection CARDINAL of LAW and that the applicants had the requisite intentions .

As stated by the majority , the question of culpability must be decided in accordance with LAW , subsection CARDINAL , taken together with LAW , subsection CARDINAL , interpreted in the light of LAW and ORG Human Right 's restrictive interpretation of the exemptions under LAW .

In reaching a decision , consideration must be given to the basis on which the applicants made their allegations , their formulation and the circumstances under which the allegations were made , as well as the applicants ' intentions in the programme .

... We find that the applicants had cause to suppose that the taxi driver 's statement that she had seen X on DATE shortly past TIME was true . We further find ... that the applicants had reason to assume that the taxi driver , when interviewed in DATE , had told the CARDINAL police officers of having seen X ... We accordingly attach weight to the fact that it is natural for such an observation to be reported to the police ; that it is also apparent from her explanation in the police report of DATE that she had already told the police about her observations in DATE ; and that her explanation about the reaction of the police to her information that X 's son had been in the car strengthened the likelihood of her having reported the observation at the interview in DATE .

... It is apparent from the TV programme that the applicants were aware that the Frederikshavn police had not at that time complied with the requirement to offer a person interviewed an opportunity to see the records of his or her statements . The applicants may accordingly have had some grounds for supposing that the report of DATE did not contain the taxi driver 's full statement or that there was another report thereon ...

We consider that the applicants , in putting the questions covered by the indictment , did not exceed the limits of freedom of expression which a case , such as the present one , relating to serious matters of considerable public interest , should be available to the media . We also attach some weight to the fact that the programme was instrumental in ORG decision to hear witnesses and we attach some weight to X 's subsequent acquittal .

Overall , we accordingly find that [ the allegations ] are not punishable by virtue of LAW , subsection CARDINAL of LAW ...

[ We agree that ] the allegation should be declared null and void since its veracity has not been proved .. ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows at the relevant time :

Article CARDINAL

If a person , while carrying out a public office or function , has been guilty of false accusation , an offence relating to evidence .. or breach of trust , the penalty prescribed for the particular offence may be increased by not CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL

Any person who gives false evidence before a public authority with the intention that an innocent person shall thereby be charged with , convicted of , or subject to a legal consequence of , a punishable act , shall be liable to mitigated detention ( hæfte ) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding DATE .

Similar punishment shall apply to any person who destroys , distorts or removes evidence or furnishes false evidence with the intention that any person shall thereby be charged with , or convicted of , a criminal act ...

Article CARDINAL

Any person who violates the personal honour of another by offensive words or conduct or by making or spreading allegations of an act likely to disparage him in the esteem of his fellow citizens shall be liable to a fine or to mitigated detention .

CARDINAL ...

When imposing the sentence it shall be considered an aggravating circumstance if the insult was made in printed documents or in any other way likely to give it wider circulation , or in such places or at such times as greatly to aggravate the offensive character of the act .

Article CARDINAL

If an allegation has been maliciously made or disseminated , or if the author has no reasonable ground to regard it as true , he shall be guilty of defamation and liable to mitigated detention or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding DATE . If the allegation has not been made or disseminated publicly , the punishment may , in mitigating circumstances , be reduced to a fine .

Article CARDINAL

An allegation shall not be punishable if its truth has been established or if the author of the allegation has in good faith been under an obligation to speak or has acted in lawful protection of an obvious public interest or of the personal interest of himself or of others .

The punishment may be remitted where evidence is produced which justifies the grounds for regarding the allegations as true .

Article CARDINAL

The penalty prescribed in LAW may be remitted if the act has been provoked by improper behaviour on the part of the injured person or if he is guilty of retaliation .


Preliminary objections rejected (State responsibility, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Not necessary to examine Art. 10;Violation of Art. 11;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant is a NORP national of NORP origin who was born in DATE and is a paediatrician residing in GPE , north of the “ green line ” .

In addition to being a critic of the NORP - Cypriot authorities and of the NORP military presence in the northern part of GPE , which he defines as “ occupation ” , the applicant is the “ NORP - Cypriot coordinator ” of the Movement for an ORG , an unregistered association of NORP and NORP Cypriots founded in DATE in GPE . The movement has a NORP - Cypriot coordinating committee in the northern part of the island and a NORP - Cypriot coordinating committee in the southern part . The purpose of the ORG is to develop close relations between the CARDINAL communities . To that end , it organises bi - communal meetings of a political , cultural , medical or social character .

The applicant is normally unable to obtain a permit from the NORP and NORP - Cypriot authorities to visit the “ buffer - zone ” or the southern part of the island in order to participate in various bi - communal meetings . Thus , DATE and DATE , the date of the ORG 's admissibility decision , CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests for such permits were granted . Further , DATE and DATE CARDINAL more permits were refused , CARDINAL of which , however , was granted later on . The requests that were turned down concerned , inter alia , a ORG ( ORG in GPE ) Spring Fair at FAC in DATE , a bi - communal medical seminar organised by the ORG ( ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ) in DATE , a meeting of the coordinating committee for ORG for an ORG at FAC in DATE as well as CARDINAL meetings for the reorganisation of this committee in DATE , a seminar on cardiology organised by the ORG in DATE , a general meeting of ORG in DATE and a number of receptions organised by the NORP embassy in GPE . Moreover , in DATE the above - mentioned authorities refused to allow NORP Cypriots to attend a meeting organised by the applicant in the northern part of the island .

The applicant claimed that ORG of the “ GPE ” ( the “ LOC ” ) had adopted a decision prohibiting him from contacting NORP . Reference to this decision was allegedly made in a letter dated DATE by the Health Minister of the “ NORP ” to the applicant , which reads as follows :

“ According to the information our ORG has received , you were informed by ORG orally and this has been a decision of the government and we have nothing to add in our capacity as the Ministry . ”

On DATE the applicant wrote to the Prime Minister of the “ NORP ” requesting to be informed of the content of ORG decision referred to in the above - mentioned letter , but received no reply .

On DATE he sent a letter of protest to the Foreign Minister of GPE , which has also remained unanswered .

On DATE ORG of ORG and Defence of the “ NORP ” informed the applicant that “ the permission requested by [ his ] letter of DATE was refused for security reasons , in the public interest and because [ he had ] made propaganda against the State ” .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister of the “ NORP ” , asking whether the previous decision of ORG was still in force since he was not allowed to visit the buffer - zone or cross over into GPE . He received no answer and on DATE he sent a reminder , which also remained unanswered . However , the applicant claimed that , in an article published in a newspaper on DATE , the former Deputy Prime Minister ( to whom he had sent the above - mentioned letters ) had stated that when he had held this position he had requested an explanation by the Prime Minister as well as the President of the “ NORP ” in relation to the refusal of permits , but had not received an answer .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE - on - Don , a town in GPE .

In CARDINAL the applicant stood trial for bribery but was acquitted . The applicant spent this time in pretrial custody .

On DATE the Rostov ORG awarded the applicant against ORG MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of pecuniary damage inflicted by the trial . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on DATE .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG awarded the applicant against ORG CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage sustained in pretrial custody . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on DATE .

On DATE the ORG of Rostov - on - Don adjusted the award of DATE for the cost of living and awarded a further RUB CARDINAL .

Under section CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , ORG must enforce a judgment within DATE .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , Ms. ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , Mr. Răzvan - Horaţiu Radu from ORG .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant initiated administrative proceedings against GPE ( PERSON ) requesting her appointment on the position of LANGUAGE and NORP teacher , the annulment of the appointment decision of a third person for the aforementioned position and damages .

On DATE , ORG partially allowed the applicant ’s claim , ruling that she was to be appointed on the teaching position and that the defendant was to pay her damages of CARDINAL NORP old lei ( ROL - the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) per day , until the actual appointment .

By a judgement of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed the appeals on points of law of both parties and submitted the case for re - adjudication to ORG .

Upon rehearing of the case , by a judgement of DATE , PERSON partially allowed the applicant ’s claim , ruling that she was to be appointed on the teaching position and that she was to receive court fees of ROL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of around EUR CARDINAL ) . PERSON dismissed the applicant ’s claim for damages .

On DATE , ORG upheld PERSON judgement as regards the applicant ’s appointment and fixed the amount of the court fees at CARDINAL NORP new lei ( PERSON - the equivalent of around ORG CARDINAL ) .

On DATE , upon the request of the applicant a bailiff summoned the defendant to comply with the above judgement . At an unspecified date , the bailiff informed PERSON of the existent garnishment proceedings .

On DATE , the applicant was appointed as a teacher and on DATE she signed the employment agreement .

On DATE , ORG paid the applicant an amount of ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) , representing court fees and enforcement expenses .

The relevant domestic law is described in NORP and PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . GPE , DATE ) and LANGUAGE v. GPE ( no . MONEY , DATE ) .